Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will oppose the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the House, for reasons which I will present to the House. We consider it unnecessary, and we believe it will be inappropriate, bearing in mind the normal function of a Select Committee.

Dealing first with the question of whether or not it is appropriate, this House has appointed Select Committees and the Government has appointed commissions from time to time when allegations of a specific nature have been made by hon. members of this House against Ministers in charge of departments and portfolios. When one looks at the precedents in the past, one notices that such allegations have normally been specific allegations of corruption against a Minister, either in his personal capacity, or because he is the Minister responsible for the department concerned. They related to action outside this House, not to the action of a speech made inside the House by the Minister concerned.

It is not appropriate, therefore, if there is merely a dispute between members on the interpretation or the effect of a speech, that a Select Committee of the House should be appointed. I want to refer to the latest two precedents. Firstly, there was the Select Committee appointed in 1972 to investigate allegations made by the hon. member for Simonstown about the fishing industry. There he was quite specific. He said that certain information had come to him which was at variance with the information given by the Minister, and he said—

This was a suggestion that there was somebody outside this House, on his own or acting in collusion with the Minister to falsify information which had been presented to the House, for the particular purpose of discrediting a theory of Dr. Lochner. The Select Committee, when it considered this further, proceeded along these lines—

Mr. A. H. du Plessis was then the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, and he was responsible for the relevant portfolio. Indeed, he responded by calling himself for a Select Committee of the House on that occasion, by saying (Hansard, Vol. 37, col. 1641)—

Mr. Speaker, the question of an accusation which involves integrity, deliberate falsification of figures, or collusion with somebody else, becomes a material factor.

In the Other Place, in 1975, a Senate Select Committee was set up, this time to consider a statement made by the hon. Senator Crook. The hon. Senator had made an allegation in very specific terms to the effect that certain Ministers had been involved in corruption.

Mr. Speaker, a precedent has therefore been established. Where there are accusations, not accusations with regard to something said during a debate in the House, or to the presentation of an argument here, but an accusation of deliberate falsification of figures in collusion with somebody else, or of corruption, it is a precedent for a Select Committee to be appointed. I want to make it quite clear that in this particular instance there has been no suggestion of corruption or of collusion between the hon. the Minister and somebody else outside this House. There has also not been any suggestion of a deliberate falsification of figures. [Interjections.] What has been said, is that in presenting a case which had two sides—a plus and a minus side—the hon. the Minister, in a particular debate, emphasized the plus side and ignored the minus side … [Interjections] … and in doing so he presented the case in an unjustifiably favourable way for the Government, and also, in doing so, grossly misled the public. This is the gravamen of the charge against the hon. the Minister. For this reason we do not believe it is appropriate for a Select Committee to be appointed for this purpose.

Secondly, the appointment of a Select Committee is not appropriate, because the facts are not in dispute. The facts are part of the record of this House. The facts relate to the statement made by the hon. the Minister in the House on 14 February. They are not in dispute and they have never been disputed by any hon. member on this side of the House. The hon. the Minister relies heavily on what he said in the House on 7 February in introducing the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill. On that occasion the hon. the Minister gave a balanced picture of the South African economy. He related it both to the inflow of capital and to the outflow of capital, and he produced a net figure. The hon. the Minister then said that there had in fact been a serious down-turn. He also said (Hansard, 1977, col. 884)—

This is the picture which he painted on 7 February. However, when giving his reply to the Second Reading debate on 14 February, the hon. the Minister completely changed the tenor of the speech he had made, and specifically ignored the question of the outflow of foreign capital. On that occasion he said this (Hansard, 1977, col. 1400)—

The hon. the Minister is now dealing with foreign capital and the lack of it. He then goes on to say (Hansard, 1977, col. 1401)—

So, on 14 February the hon. the Minister at no stage pointed to the outflow of capital which he had referred to on 7 February. All he dealt with was the inflow. Because this matter is before us and as there has been no complete record of the charges made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I believe it is appropriate that the statement made by the hon. member should be read to this House. The statement is, after all, the trigger for this motion. The statement was made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North on 15 February, on the day after the hon. the Minister made a statement in this House in reply to the Second Reading debate of the Part Appropriation Bill. The hon. member specifically referred to that statement. He said—

The hon. member’s conclusion was—

That is the accusation made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North which the hon. the Minister now wishes to have referred to a Select Committee.

The hon. the Minister himself conceded, when he replied to the Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill that he only selected the figure relating to the inflow of private capital. When the hon. the Minister was attacking the hon. member for Johannesburg North for his statement he said (Hansard, February 14, col. 1648)—

So, the hon. the Minister himself said that he had deliberately singled out the long-term private inflow because it was a good indicator of investor confidence. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order for the hon. member to argue the facts of the matter now?

Order! I shall allow the hon. member for Sea Point, as the first speaker on the Opposition side, as well as the first speaker on the Government side, to consider wider aspects of the matter, but after that I shall not allow this to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I want to argue the case against the acceptance of this motion. All the facts and figures given by the Minister are acceptable to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. However, the argument relates not to the facts and the figures, but to the presentation of those figures to the public and to this House on 14 February in reply to the Second Reading debate of the Part Appropriation Bill. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said in that debate (Hansard, February 14, col. 1400)—that he would like to come to the question of foreign capital, and in his Third Reading speech he explained why he only dealt with one aspect of it, the inflow and not the outflow, by saying (col. 1648)—

He then went on to concede that it was only in his original speech on 7 February that he had referred in any way to the outflow of private capital at the same time. The question is not about the facts, but whether the hon. the Minister’s selection and presentation of those facts grossly misled the public. All the evidence points to it, if one looks at the media, the Press and the interpretation by the Press and the public of the hon. the Minister’s speech on 14 February. There is then no doubt whatsoever that the Press and the public were grossly misled. It was interpreted as being a net situation whereas the R635 million referred to by the hon. the Minister, was in fact not a net situation. In fact there was a net outflow of R71 million during the same period.

The nature of the charge is not one of corruption, but one of presentation. The facts are before the House and are not at issue between the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. the Minister. But the selection of facts in the presentation on that day did grossly mislead the public, as the hon. member said in his statement.

For these reasons we believe it is inappropriate and unnecessaty to have a Select Committee. Furthermore, in terms of the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the House we do not believe that the terms of reference which he seeks for this Committee, reflect the gravamen of the charges made by the hon. member against the hon. the Minister. He has interpreted words and has redefined the charges, not in terms of the statement I read out in the House, but in terms which perhaps might suit him. The terms of reference for the proposed Select Committee do not reflect the gravamen of the charge made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North against the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Johannesburg North made it quite clear by his statement on 15 February that he was referring to the statement the hon. the Minister made on 14 February. He was not, as this motion seems to suggest, referring generally to the debate. If one looks at the media, the radio and the Press, one concludes that there was nobody who correlated what the Minister said forcefully in this House on 14 February, with explanations which he gave in the House on 7 February.

Who is now guilty of selective presentation?

First of all, if there is, in fact, a charge to be investigated, it should be the charge the hon. member for Johannesburg North made against the hon. the Minister with regard to a statement made in the House on 14 February. Secondly, the hon. member did not say—as the motion suggests—that the hon. the Minister misled the public regarding the inflow of foreign capital. He in fact said that the figures the hon. the Minister gave with regard to the inflow, were correct, but because he only presented the inflow and not the outflow situation, it resulted in misleading the public. We are not criticizing the figures, but a grossly unbalanced presentation of the question of foreign capital, in that the hon. the Minister presented the inflow situation to the exclusion of the outflow situation. As far as the public, the Press and the radio are concerned, the net effect of this was that it was seen to be a net inflow situation, whereas that was not reflecte in the figures.

Therefore we will oppose this motion, but to see to it that at least the record is correct, I want to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed dealing with a matter of the utmost gravity here tonight. In the course of a debate in Parliament in which he participated, the hon. member for Johannesburg North made a statement to the Press outside Parliament on the following day from which I quote the following—

He concludes his statement as follows—

Having accused the hon. the Minister of misleading the public, the hon. member for Johannesburg North goes on to say—

In other words, the hon. member insinuates in his statement that the only figure of importance has been deleted by the Minister. He said himself that that was the important figure which had to serve as the criterion with which to substantiate or disprove the allegation of the hon. the Minister. What did the hon. the Minister say? I quote what the hon. the Minister said in his speech (Hansard, col. 884)—

In his statement the hon. member for Johannesburg North says: “The only figure of importance is the sum of the total capital movement both in and out of the Republic”, and then he names that figure, whereas the hon. the Minister provided it in his second reading speech.

Sir, the way in which the hon. member for Johannesburg North tried to mislead the public in his Press statement as to what the hon. the Minister did not say, whereas he did say it, is a case of being misleading, if ever I saw one.

To me this is a very serious matter, because a Minister of State, namely the hon. the Minister of Finance of the Republic of South Africa, is being accused of having misled the country, of having carefully selected facts and withheld others and by so doing, giving people the wrong impression, the wrong image and therefore misleading them as regards the actual position of the capital within our country.

Who is the man who is bringing this charge against the hon. the Minister? It is a member of the House of Assembly and a prominent member of the PRP. He is not just an ordinary member; he is also executive director of the Anglo American Corporation, one of the biggest and most important financial institutions in the country. He is an important man in financial and economic circles, and what is more, the things which the hon. member for Johannesburg North says, enjoy publicity due to the important position he occupies in the financial world. The hon. member’s opinion also enjoys publicity abroad. If one looks at the immense publicity coverage which the hon. member’s statement has had, one becomes concerned about South Africa and about confidence in South Africa. Apart from that statement the hon. member made another statement in The Sunday Tribune of 20 February. In it he says the following—

Once again the hon. member is alleging that the hon. the Minister of Finance misled the country completely by creating the impression that R635 million entered the country, whereas in fact, R71 million left the country. This is the contrast in the accusation made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. When the credibility of a Minister of Finance is at stake, the credibility of the Cabinet is at stake too, because he is a member of the Cabinet, of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. This man now stands accused, in the eyes of the public within South Africa and also in the eyes of the outside world, of having been guilty of grossly misleading the people. The position of the hon. the Minister of Finance may never be called into question, nor may his person, his integrity or his credibility, not so much for the sake of the person concerned, but for the sake of our country, South Africa. In the difficult times in which we are living, and in view of the problems we are experiencing in obtaining capital from abroad, as well as the difficult political circumstances around South Africa, it is vitally important that an image of confidence in South Africa be created. South Africa’s image must be such that the world will believe in it, because we need foreign capital.

If a person of the standing of the hon. member for Johannesburg North makes two statements to the Press in which he says that the Minister of Finance of this country is guilty of “grossly misleading” the public— because this is the crux of the matter: “Grossly misleading” the public—it is a very serious matter which can do South Africa a great deal of harm. I could compare it with something like economic terrorism and I could compare it with economic disloyalty towards South Africa. In fact one could compare it with sabotage of South Africa.

I consider this matter in a very serious light and for the sake of South Africa and the integrity of the hon. the Minister and of the Government, I believe that this matter should be submitted a Select Committee. The hon. member for Sea Point will not get away from the fact that the outside world has been given the impression that the Minister misled the country, no matter how much he argues the point. It is the crux of the matter: “The Minister misled the country.” It is now our task and duty as Parliament to determine whether the hon. member is right and whether the hon. the Minister of Finance is a person who misleads the country. If he misleads the country, it will have serious repercussions for the hon. the Minister himself. However, it is not for him and for me to debate here whether the hon. the Minister is guilty of this. It is a matter for a Select Committee to gather the facts, to have all the facts before them and then to say whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North is correct in his accusation of the hon. the Minister. The decision of a body with the status of a Select Committee of Parliament will find acceptance with the country outside and the hon. member for Sea Point and myself will not solve this matter by arguing about the facts of the matter here. I think that the facts of the accusation speak for themselves.

For interest’s sake, I just want to quote what a man like Mr. Madeley said in this House (Hansard, 3 March 1937, col. 2673)—

He went on and said the following, which is very important—

I now want to quote what was said by General Smuts (Hansard, 1937, Vol. 29 col. 4168)—

I repeat “by way of inquiry through a Select Committee”. I also want to quote briefly what was said by P. S. van der Merwe in his doctoral thesis “Die rol van die Kabinet en die twee Huise van die Parlement.”—

He indicates that Mr. Justice Pirow also spoke strongly in favour of a Select Committee. He says—

P. S. van der Merwe goes on to say—

He goes on to say—

The point is that the impression has been created, both in the country and abroad, that we in South Africa have a Minister of Finance who misleads the people. That allegation is a reflection on the character of the Minister of Finance. It gives the impression that he is a man who misleads the people by carefully selecting certain facts and withholding others in order to create a wrong impression of South Africa’s position. This shakes confidence in us, both here and abroad. I therefore want to lend my strongest support to the motion that a Select Committee be appointed to get to the heart of this matter. If the accusation by the hon. member for Johannesburg North is true, why are they afraid of a Select Committee? Why do they now object to a Select Committee? If his allegations are true, if the hon. member believes the allegations he made concerning the hon. the Minister, he should welcome a Select Committee. If he is not afraid and if he is a man of honour—and I challenge him to prove it—then surely he will subject himself to an objective inquiry by a Select Committee of this Parliament. [Interjections.] If one member makes allegations concerning another, and the accused asks for the protection of this House, the accuser must not run away. He must be prepared to subject the validity and truth of his accusations to a test. Surely that is only fair. Therefore I want to say once again that I support this motion. I feel it is in the interests of South Africa, and in the personal interests of a member of this Parliament and a Minister of the Cabinet, for a Select Committee to be appointed in order to get to the heart of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the House and I have been here for approximately 29 years, and I think he will agree with me that this is only the first or second time that we have had a case of this nature referred to a Select Committee. I am not saying that it is irregular. I am not suggesting that at all, but I am just pointing out that it has been done only once before in our time, and that was in 1949 when a matter arose involving Frankie Waring and Boltman. It is therefore unusual these days to have a request of this nature before a Select Committee to inquire into statements attacking the integrity of a member, statements made outside this House. Normally the ordinary processes of law are relied on to take the action to court, if necessary. I may be wrong, but I understand that the British Parliament has in fact accepted that, where the territory of a Minister is attacked outside the House, he should appeal to the courts for protection and not to a Select Committee. Be that as it may, there are precedents for this. The hon. member for Lydenburg made reference to speeches made in this House many, many years ago, but as I have said, this is something that has not happened lately in this House.

What is the dispute here? The facts are not in dispute. Nobody apparently disputes—I say that after listening to the hon. member for Sea Point—that the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech referred to the outflow of capital but did not apparently refer to that in his reply to the debate. The allegation now is that the hon. member for Johannesburg North was referring, in the Press interview, to the speech made by the hon. the Minister in reply to the debate.

Do not sit on the fence.

Are you wooing them?

So, Sir, there are no facts in dispute. What is in dispute, apparently, is the conclusions drawn by the public from the statements made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

The hon. the Leader of the House in his motion wishes to confine the investigation of the Select Committee to the statement made with regard to the inflow of foreign capital. The hon. member for Sea Point, on the other hand, wishes to confine the investigation to the speech made by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate. That is the issue we have before us today. This party is not affected in this dispute, except that we must protect the integrity of a member of this House.

Which one?

We feel that the terms of reference are too narrow in this case. Kilpin makes it quite clear in his book that a Select Committee, as he says, “is the servant of the House and cannot go beyond what the House has ordered it to do. The proceedings of every Select Committee are restricted to the order of reference by the House.” The motion of the hon. the Leader of the House reads—

The issue then lies in the words: “regarding the inflow of foreign capital”. The Minister objects to the statement made by the hon. member because he said that in the Second Reading he dealt with the outflow of capital as well.

We say that the Select Committee must not be limited in its investigation by the narrow terms of reference of the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House or by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point which confines the issue only to the reply given by the hon. the Minister to the House. In order to make the investigation as broad as it should be in the circumstances, bearing in mind the fact that two speeches were made by the hon. the Minister and bearing in mind, too, the fact that the public in gaining their information must be influenced by neither the one speech nor the other so that a fair interpretation may be arrived at, we move as a further amendment—

If this amendment is accepted, the motion will read as follows—

I submit that if our amendment is accepted the Select Committee will be able to inquire into the whole question, and it will be fairer to both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary for this House to confine itself to the essence of the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House. The essence of this motion is that another hon. member of Parliament has been charged with having supposedly grossly misled this House. The test to be applied in this particular connection, is whether the behaviour of which the hon. the Minister of Finance is being accused, is of such a nature that this House should censure him and whether he acted in this House in such a way that this House is to express its disapproval of this action and whether this action represents action of such a nature that, according to the general, normal standards and norms, it makes him unfit to be a member of Parliament and unfit to be a member of the Government. In view of this, the essential thing we have to consider is what the real accusation is which the hon. member for Johannesburg North has made against the hon. the Minister. It is that in the first instance he was guilty of grossly misleading the public and that he did this in a specific forum, and what is more, that he did this while occupying a particular responsible position in this House and in the Government. Before we can really consider rationally the merits of the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House, we first have to be clear ourselves as to what is implied by an accusation of misleading the public and secondly, what is implicit in an accusation of grossly misleading the public. It is my submission to you, Sir, that we should look up the ordinary meaning of the word “mislead”. I want to say at once that the hon. member for Griqualand East has made an error of reasoning. The issue here is not a conclusion or an inference drawn by the hon. the Minister; the issue is a misrepresentation of the facts, which is quite different to what he is arguing about. What is the meaning of the word “mislead”? I find the following definition in the Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal: “Op ’n verkeerde spoor bring, ’n verkeerde voorstelling opwek; of bedrieg.” Then we can look at the definition of the same word in the Verklarende Afrikaanse Woordeboek. According to this dictionary the word means “bedrieg, verkeerd uitlê”. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the first place this means that the hon. the Minister was guilty of deception. This is according to the definition. However, the word “mislead” not only has a pejorative connotation—it contains an element of deliberate untruth—but by using that word, the hon. member goes further. He qualifies it and accuses the hon. the Minister of “grossly misleading” the public. In ordinary English the word “mislead” means to lie to someone unscrupulously, and on top of that to do so intentionally. I want to allege that if an accusation of this nature is made against any hon. member in the House, but especially against someone in a sensitive post, like that of the hon. the Minister of Finance, it is an accusation which obliges the House to investigate its correctness. If this is not done, I am of the opinion that the prestige of hon. members of this House, as well as their integrity, will be called into question. It will not only be hon. members who are called into question, but even this hon. House. Then we will reach the stage at which we will realize that hon. members in this House, under the protection of privilege, can make allegations which will cause harm not only to people, but also to South Africa’s institutions and the people within those institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that it would be a dangerous tendency if this House were to allow the integrity of hon. members of this House to be called into question, and if their integrity could be impugned in this way. In this way even the institution in which these hon. members work will be harmed.

However, let us now take note of the evasion of the actual problem, as contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point. By means of suppression the hon. member wants the work of a Select Committee to be restricted. Why does he want to limit the activities of the Committee? He wants to do so because he does not want the essence of the complaint investigated. What facts gave rise to the motion now being considered by the House? As far as I am concerned, the facts which gave rise to the inquiry, are certain factual statements by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Those factual statements took place on two occasions, both during the Second Reading debate on the part appropriation. The first case was on 7 February and the second on 14 February.

Seen in the right context, and in reply to a debate, the hon. the Minister of Finance naturally emphasized those facets which were raised during the discussion on 14 February. This is the point at issue.

However, what does the hon. member for Sea Point do? What he does, is typical of his party’s behaviour, not only here, but in the outside world too. That is, to be silent about what does not suit them, and to emphasize what does. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I shall prove this. What was the information available to the hon. member for Johannesburg North when he made his statement on 15 February? What information was available to him concerning the matter at hand? The information available to him was the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance in which he not only referred to the inflow of capital, but also mentioned his concern at the outflow of capital. This speech was at the disposal of the hon. member. Indeed, the hon. member found the figures which he used in his statement on 15 February in the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.]

He therefore had at his disposal the information included in that speech as well as the information included in the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Finance on 14 February. Anyone who is motivated to get at the truth, anyone who is not ashamed of the truth, would have been able to establish from those relevant sources that the hon. the Minister of Finance had made a factual statement about the inflow and outflow of capital. However, what happened? With this information available, a statement is issued, and the statement is not limited, as the hon. member for Sea Point wants to argue …

I read the statement.

Of course the hon. member read it as it suited him.

I read the whole statement.

This statement is not limited to what the hon. the Minister of Finance said or failed to say on the 14th. I challenge the hon. member to deny this. The hon. member knows that this is so. After all, the hon. member for Johannesburg North did not accuse the hon. the Minister of misleading the House and the country on 14 February. The effort made by the hon. member for Sea Point is a transparent manoeuvre to get out of trouble, because there is not a single reference to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance on 14 February in the hon. member’s statement. [Interjections.]

But the hon. member’s statement was only made on the 15th.

Senator Horwood spoke on 7 and 14 February, i.e. his Second Reading speech and in reply to the debate. The question of the inflow and outflow of capital was under discussion in the debate. The only reason why the hon. member for Sea Point refers to the 14th in his amendment, is that he wants to give a one-sided picture and a limited term of reference to the Select Committee which will therefore not be in accordance with the aim behind the appointment of a Select Committee, but will only serve the purposes of the PRP. [Interjections.] Allow me to say that this is not the issue. The issue is whether it is appropriate and necessary for a Select Committee to investigate the matter. Then I want to allege that the only relevant point of inquiry is whether a Minister of the Government and an hon. member of Parliament was guilty of “grossly misleading” the public—“bedrieg” (deceive) according to the Verklarende Woordeboek—during the debate which took place from 7 to 14 February.

If the Select Committee finds that the facts support the accusations of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, the hon. the Minister stands condemned in both capacities: As Minister of the Government and as a member of Parliament. With all due respect, Sir, I want to say that this House also stands condemned if it allows something like this to happen. On the other hand, if the testimony proves the contrary, another question must necessarily be posed, namely: What does this House do with an hon. member who behaves like this? The behaviour of two people is at issue. I am not performing the function of the Select Committee like the hon. member for Sea Point—and you gave him permission, Mr. Speaker. I am arguing that should this House decide that members of the House can act in a deceitful way, this institution, the finest and greatest institution of the democratic system, will be weakened to the point where it would be difficult to uphold the truth. An element of protection for the members of this House is implicit in this motion of the hon. the Leader of the House, and with this I want to conclude. Protection of this democratic institution is implicit in the motion. It is important that the highest authority will pass judgment by means of the machinery which it has established to pass judgment on the behaviour of members. In this motion the conduct of the hon. member for Johannesburg North is also at issue. The Select Committee will have to avail itself of the occasion to pass judgment not only on the hon. the Minister, but on the hon. member for Johannesburg North as well.

I think it will be good for South Africa, for this institution and its members, if this House passes judgment against a new code of behaviour which is being introduced here by people who want to serve not South Africa, but their own petty objectives, objectives which cannot be reconciled with the interests of the country and of this House. I support the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House and I want to maintain that no one who values this institution, no one who values the accepted norms and standards which must be upheld in institutions of this nature, and no one who values membership of this House, can vote against the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the arguments and speeches of the hon. members on that side of the House. I have listened to the speech of the hon. member for Lydenburg. Its shallowness, its transparency and its weaknesses are made manifest by the argument itself. On the one hand that hon. member says that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is a director of one of the biggest corporations in the South African economy and on the other hand he says that the hon. member is trying to sabotage the economy of South Africa. No reasonable man can even listen to such a weak argument.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: I did not say the hon. member for Johannesburg North was sabotaging the economy of South Africa. The hon. member for Durban North is accusing me of having done that.

Does the hon. member for Durban North accept the explanation and the assurance of the hon. member for Lydenburg?

I accept his explanation, Sir, but at the very least, he compared it to sabotage of South Africa. Is that an acceptable argument? The same hon. member says that we are frightened by a Select Committee. Did the hon. member listen to our amendment? Our amendment asks for a Select Committee, so that argument also has no relevance. The hon. member for Lydenburg says that where we should really look for the answer is in a speech made by the hon. the Minister a week before. Is the defence really that we must look at something the Minister said a week before, a month before or a year before?

In the same debate.

Does the hon. member for Lydenburg say that the hon. the Minister did mislead the public on the 14th, but that if one looks at the speech he made on the 7th, he did not mislead the public? If the hon. member for Lydenburg is not saying that, what is the relevance of the speech the hon. the Minister made on the 7th?

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs analysed at great length what he said was a very strong attack on the integrity of the hon. the Minister of Finance. If this is a very strong attack on the integrity of a Minister of the Republic of South Africa, the hon. the Minister must go to the courts to see if that is so.

Mr. Speaker, in view of your earlier ruling, I should like to deal with only one more point, i.e. whether the suggested terms of reference are relevant to the question raised by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The terms of reference as set out in the motion—I am cutting it short to get to the essence of it—states that the Select Committee shall investigate the allegation that the Minister of Finance had grossly misled the public regarding the inflow of foreign capital. The statement of the hon. member for Johannesburg North does not deal with inflow of capital at all. On the contrary, it dealt with the outflow of capital. He made the simple point that the outflow had been omitted by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The statement never in any way put in issue the question of inflow and yet this is what the Select Committee has to investigate. The Select Committee will therefore now sit to investigate a matter which is not at issue. It will investigate a matter which is common cause between the parties. It will be apparent just how ridiculous the position is if it is considered that if the hon. the Minister of Finance misled the public, then so did the hon. member for Johannesburg North, because they agree on the question of the inflow.

There is no disputed fact and there are no facts which a Select Committee will be able to assess. As the hon. member for Sea Point has, in fact, pointed out, the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Third Reading speech accepted the facts alleged by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. There are no disputed facts which the Select Committee can assess; there is in fact only one version. The Select Committee is therefore left with the doubtful duty of having to assess opinions and impressions. What is the issue that the Select Committee is going to decide? Is it going to decide possible inferences or is it going to decide opinions or impressions? Must it call expert evidence on public opinion and on public impressions? I suggest that this is not a proper function for a Select Committee and that it is unnecessary and inappropriate, as the hon. member for Sea Point has said. I submit that if a Select Committee should sit, it should sit and should act within the terms of reference that are contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to put the standpoint of my colleagues and myself in these benches very clearly. A motion and two amendments are before the House, and as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we should like to see the amendment moved by the hon. member for Griqualand West accepted. However, if it is not accepted, we shall support the motion as printed on the Order Paper.

In the motion before the House, it is alleged that the hon. member for Johannesburg North made a specific accusation against the hon. the Minister of Finance, namely that he supposedly grossly misled the public of South Africa on a specific occasion and in a specific way. The normal person thinks of the word “mislead”, let alone “grossly mislead”, as a word which definitely indicates that there was a degree of deceit in the conduct of the person guilty of misleading. The question occurs to me as to who the people are who supposedly acted in this way? On the one hand there is the hon. the Minister of Finance of the Republic of South Africa, a man who has to serve South Africa, not only on the local level, but overseas in particular as well, and someone who has to rely a great deal on his credibility, his integrity, his status and prestige not only in South Africa, but in the outside world too. An accusation is being made against him—and I am not concerned with the facts of the matter now—by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, a man who is not without prestige in financial circles.

If the hon. the Minister really misled the people of South Africa, and this is proved, then it becomes an extremely serious matter. Then I tell myself that I cannot believe that a Minister of Finance who is found guilty by a Select Committee of misleading—let alone grossly misleading—the public, cannot retain his post. He will have no option but to resign as Minister of Finance. On the other hand we have the hon. member for Johannesburg North. If it were to be proved that he was wrong, then I want to put it to the hon. member that he would probably suffer less harm than would South Africa.

How can the facts be ascertained? It is very clear to me as an ordinary member of Parliament that the only way in which this House can do this, is to appoint a Select Committee, because a Select Committee is the most objective instrument which I know of in this House. I know of no instrument more objective than a Select Committee. It may be alleged that people might not act objectively, but I have already served on several Select Committees and have seen how hon. members are quick to forego party divisions in the interests of South Africa. I therefore accept that when someone serves on a Select Committee to investigate the integrity and credibility of two hon. members of Parliament, he will not allow himself to be influenced by party political considerations.

I want to add something in passing. Even if my hon. friends on my right should be in the minority in the Select Committee—even though this is perhaps wrong politically speaking—they can still present a minority report, a report which will be available to South Africa and to the world. They have nothing to fear. I believe that the truth will come to light, and the truth must come to light in the interests of South Africa and of this hon. House, the parliamentary institution. I think that the time has passed when we as hon. members of this House can fling at each other accusations of misleading the public, whether here or outside. I do not think that this ought to be done. Therefore I believe that this Select Committee must be appointed. I honestly believe that the committee will act in the best interests of South Africa and in the best interests of the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Griqualand East was quite right when he said that a scene of this nature does not often occur in this House. I think that there are specific reasons for this, and I am sure that the hon. member will agree with me. The House has the means whereby to rectify any injustice committed here. One of those means is that when it comes to the attention of an hon. member that he has done another hon. member an injustice, he usually rises on a point of explanation and either asks to be forgiven or makes a statement in the House. In other words, means are available which are often used and by means of which hon. members rectify their mutual relations. In this way the honour of this House is also upheld, in the sense that hon. members do not only use these means for the sake of their mutual relations, but also for their relation to the House. This is how the honour of this House is upheld. The hon. member and I have been here for a long time already. Therefore we both remember the case when an accusation was made against an hon. member and, without much discussion, this House undertook the necessary investigation because the House places a high premium on the honour of its members, for the sake of the institution itself of course. I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment that the outflow of capital also be included in the terms of reference. Let us therefore get that out of the way. We do not want any confusion. The issue is therefore the in and outflow of capital.

However, this is not the issue in this debate now. This motion seeks to provide this House with a method by which to determine whether one of the most eminent members of this Parliament, namely the Minister of Finance of this country, acted in a way not in accord with the demands which public life and this institution, Parliament, make on him. It is interesting to take note of the events. However, I do not want to discuss the merits of the matter, which the Select Committee must discuss, here in the House. This is not relevant now.

After all, the Select Committee has to present a report. But it is still interesting to note that the hon. Senator Horwood made specific statements in his Second Reading speech and that the hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke at some time between that speech and his reply to the Second Reading debate. In other words, the hon. member for Johannesburg North had the opportunity to deal with the incorrect statements which the hon. the Minister supposedly made, in that debate. He referred to one in passing—he did not deal with it. Then the hon. member for Johannesburg North issued a Press report on the 15th. He did so outside the House. What did he say? He said—

That is untrue.

He says it is grossly misleading. He went on to say—

His conclusion in his Press statement is—

What does he say? Firstly, he says that the Minister of Finance is being grossly misleading. Secondly, he says that the Minister did not furnish all the facts. Thirdly, he says that the Minister did the country the gravest disservice by acting in this way. In other words, it is a calculated allegation by the hon. member for Johannesburg North that the Minister of Finance is not to be trusted, because if he can mislead the country and this House on an important matter like this, he is not to be trusted with the finances of South Africa, because after all, this man is at the head of the Treasury in the country.

Therefore, my point is that we are discussing the question here this afternoon of whether there is a matter to be investigated. I maintain that there is a case for a thorough investigation for the sake of the honour of the Minister of Finance, who requested that it be investigated. Let me say here in public that this is his request, with the approval of all his colleagues. He wants it investigated. I consulted him on the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand East and the hon. the Minister of Finance agreed to accept his amendment. Therefore, it is the wish of the hon. the Minister of Finance to have the position cleared up for the sake of his own honour and for the sake of the position he occupies.

On 7 February the Minister of Finance dealt with the question of the capital inflow and outflow. The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke on 10 February, three days later …

Nonsense. It was the 15 th.

… without making the accusations which are included in the Press statement. [Interjections.] Sir, I am not dealing with the hon. member for Johannesburg North now. He will get his chance when this matter is investigated. He must not quarrel with me now. I did not make the statement. The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke on 10 February without making the accusations contained in the Press statement.

Because they had not been made until three days later.

I have nothing to do with the hon. member for Johannesburg North now; he can put his case elsewhere. Before the Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill, on 14 February, the hon. member for Johannesburg North issued a press statement. On 16 February on my instructions the Chief Whip of this side of the House, informed the PRP that we would appreciate it if the hon. member for Johannesburg North would be present the following day since the hon. the Minister of Finance was going to deal with the accusation against him. This was on 16 February. On 17 February, when the hon. the Minister of Finance wanted to deal with the matter, the hon. member was not here. There was sufficient opportunity for him to return to this House, where his first duty lies, for a serious matter like this. The hon. the Minister of Finance dealt with his accusations on 17 February and even went further and requested the hon. member for Johannesburg North— this is reported in Hansard—to rectify the matter. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs also discussed the matter in the same debate and referred to the behaviour of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. What happened? The hon. member for Johannesburg North did not avail himself of the opportunity to rectify the matter. On 20 February the hon. member issued a further statement. This was after he was requested to rectify the matter here, after he had received a message that it would be dealt with here and that he should please be present.

He never received that message.

I saw that our Whip conveyed the message to the representative of that party. On 20 February the hon. member for Johannesburg North issued another statement to a Sunday newspaper. This statement reads as follows—

Therefore he aggravated the matter. This was after a message had been sent to him to the effect that the matter would be dealt with here, after a message was sent to him to give him the opportunity of rectifying the matter. But he issued another statement. Nor is this all. On 28 February, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill, the Minister of Finance raised the question once again. The hon. member for Johannesburg North was present then. He sat there; I saw him. Or it must have been some other apparition. On that occasion the hon. the Minister asked the hon. member whether he would not avail himself of the opportunity to rectify the matter. The hon. member did not do so. This morning we read in the newspapers that, after this motion was announced yesterday, the hon. member has now gained some friends. I shall just read the last paragraph because I think it has a bearing on what we are discussing here. The newspaper report reads as follows—

In other words, he himself admits that it is a charge against the Minister. What is the charge? That the Minister deceived this House and the country. I say that if the hon. member for Johannesburg North wants to maintain the honour of this House and his own honour, he must stand up himself and ask for an investigation. Then he will be submitting to the judgment of his colleagues, as more than one member of this House has done in the past. This is the purpose of this motion. I therefore cannot agree that this inquiry be narrowed down to what the hon. member for Sea Point wants.

I should like to identify it.

Oh no, man! You cannot identify anything!

No, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to accept an amendment like the one moved by the hon. member for Griqualand East, because it is relevant. However, I want to conclude with what the hon. the Minister of Finance said here in the presence of the hon. member for Johannesburg North: (Hansard, 28 February.)—

Mr. Speaker, the other methods which this House has at its disposal, viz. apologizing when an hon. member feels that he has done someone an injustice, or explaining, or making a statement here before the House, are methods of which the hon. member for Johannesburg North did not make use. Therefore there is only one way in which the hon. the Minister of Finance can regain his honour, and that is by requesting the motion which I have introduced here today.

Question put: That the words “during the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, 1977, had grossly misled the public regarding the inflow” stand part of the main Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. C. W. Eglin and S. A. Pitman and Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. T. G. Hughes agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. C. W. Eglin and S. A. Pitman and Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert) appeared on one side,

Main Question, as amended, agreed to, viz: That a Select Committee consisting of eleven members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker be appointed to investigate and report upon the allegation made by Mr. G. H. Waddell, M.P., to the effect that the Minister of Finance during the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, 1977, had grossly misled the public regarding the inflow and outflow of capital, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the definition of “agricultural remedy” in clause 1, which is the definitions clause. The hon. the Deputy Minister will recollect that I raised certain problems which I had and questions which I wished to put to him yesterday afternoon. I now want to ask him whether he is in a position to give me the answers to those questions. Firstly, there is the matter concerning the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973 (Act No. 15 of 1973), together with the draft regulations which, as far as I know, are the only regulations which have been published, and secondly, there is my question regarding the matter of the holding of a licence.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to furnish a reply to the hon. member for Berea. It has been arranged with the Department of Health for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to confine its controlling function in terms of Act No. 36 of 1947 to those remedies which are used solely for agricultural purposes. The so-called grey remedies which are used for human and other purposes will henceforth be controlled in terms of the legislation of the Department of Health. The intention is to adjust the draft regulations, to which the hon. member referred, accordingly.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I must crave your indulgence, because this is a little complicated. I want to return to the situation which I attempted to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday during the Second Reading debate, namely the question of the registration of a fertilizer, farm feed, agricultural remedy or stock remedy. At the moment the situation is that if a person wishes to have a stock remedy registered, he submits it for analysis and he submits a treatise on what he intends to use it for. After the remedy has been tested, it is then registered. The person who holds that registration then proceeds to manufacture and market that particular commodity. We here have an amendment which implies that when the registration of a commodity as a fertilizer, feed or remedy is considered, the suitability of the establishment where that commodity is going to be processed shall at the same time be considered. If we look at clause 5, we find that if, for whatever reason, the establishment is no longer used for the manufacture of such commodity, the registration of that commodity shall lapse. If we look further at clause 4, we again find that if, for any reason whatsoever, the establishment where that commodity is processed or manufactured is closed by the department, the registration of that commodity shall lapse. What is happening here, is that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in an attempt to control the establishment where the commodity is processed, has in effect provided for one registration which covers both the commodity and the premises where it is processed. This is what I asked him yesterday. Before I put my question to the Deputy Minister, I want to explain our attitude to the House. We believe that the commodity must be registered. It must be tested and found accurate and safe and then it must be registered.

The conditions under which the registration is allowed must be very strictly adhered to. We also believe that the establishment where the commodity is manufactured should also be registered and controlled, because the method of the manufacture or the processing of the commodity concerned is most important, and therefore we believe that it should be controlled. We do not, however, believe that these two things should be interdependent. I want to put the following case to the hon. the Minister, as an example. A scientist establishes a stock remedy for worms and decides that he is going to use the factory of ABC in Cape Town to process that particular remedy. It is then manufactured here in the factory of ABC in Cape Town. Then, for whatever reason, he decides that he does not want the remedy to be processed by ABC of Cape Town any longer but that he is now going to use the factory of XYZ in Johannesburg. Immediately he does that he loses the registration of his particular farm remedy. The registration is only on the basis of the constituent units, the safety, the efficacy and whether it is in the public interest that it should be granted and those conditions are laid out in this particular clause. Therefore I believe it is not essential that one should tie the registration of that particular remedy to the particular premises where it is manufactured. We agree that the premises must be licensed and controlled, because we cannot afford to have the situation which the hon. the Deputy Minister sketched for us in his reply to the Second Reading yesterday. I do not, however, believe that the registration of a product must be tied to the premises, because the implication is that if the scientist decides to get XYZ to manufacture his commodity, he has to go right through the whole rigmarole of getting the particular stock remedy, the worm syrup, reregistered. It will mean a waste of his time and a waste of the department’s time. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister now has the message of what I am trying to say to him. I do not think that we can, at this stage, effect an amendment which will bring the Bill into line. The only amendment which would be competent at this stage would be to delete the reference to an establishment in this clause.

That is the reason why we have not moved an amendment to this clause, but I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, because he has the power, to have another look at this clause, and to discuss it with his law advisers. I shall be happy to discuss it with him outside this Chamber. When he takes the Bill to the Other Place, he may then be able to bring in a suitable amendment which will provide for the registration of the establishment where the remedy shall be produced, but at the same time not tie it so that the registration of the commodity concerned is tied to the approval of the premises.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I tried to give the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South a precise explanation of this matter, but somehow we are apparently not exactly on the same wavelength. After all, this legislation does not authorize the registration of factories, which is an aspect which, in point of fact, has nothing to do with agriculture. However, we must know where the establishment is. Surely it is only practical for the registrar to know where he is to send his officials for an investigation. The two registrations are not one, because in the case of an application being made in respect of a remedy, the applicant may even apply to have the remedy manufactured at different places. Yesterday I explained to the hon. member that we were not experiencing any problems with our big firms in this connection, but that it was with regard to the small firms that the problems arose. I should very much like to co-operate with the hon. member if he has a valid point, but at the moment I cannot give way in this regard. I am prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. member at some later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the stricter control to be exercised in terms of clause 3. Last year I referred to the inefficacy with regard to stock remedies and now I am pleased that my request in this regard is being complied with. As far as clause 3 is concerned, I think we should have conducted a somewhat more comprehensive investigation into the remedies used as dosing remedies for livestock.

Having regard to the prices charged for these remedies and to the exorbitant profits made on these remedies, we must ensure that control is exercised in this regard. Today 45 different dosing remedies for livestock are available, and 20 litres of these remedies cost up to R160. For this reason I am of the opinion that prohibitive prices are being charged for these remedies and that this is something which calls for investigation. If it cannot happen to have these remedies defined, I should like to put a request to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services pay attention to this matter. The definition of the remedy not only contributes to its effectiveness, but also facilitates its administration. These remedies fall into three categories or spectrums. About 12 to 14 dosing remedies fall under the first spectrum. If, for example one were to administer a dosing remedy in the first spectrum incorrectly, not only the remedy, but also the medication is ineffective. If, for example, one were to administer three dosing remedies in the first spectrum incorrectly, the parasite for which one administers the remedy would build up a resistance and the dosing remedies would be ineffective in any event. For that reason it is absolutely essential for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to inform farmers as to what remedies in the different spectrums they are to administer. If this cannot be done, this information can be printed on the label.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just touched on a matter in respect of which he will have the support of every farmer in the land, because he has complained about prohibitive prices. I also support him, but the only problem is that the Ministry of Agriculture administers no Act in terms of which the prices can be controlled. For that reason I wonder whether it would not be better if the matter were to be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

The hon. member also said there should be clarity as to the ingredients of the remedies to be administered for a specific purpose. In this regard, too, I think he has made out a very good case. However, we are providing in the legislation for such a restriction to be imposed, so that the farmer may at least have clarity as to the active substance in the remedy upon reading the label. Even if such information were to be given in the form of a formula, our farmers are sufficiently well-informed to determine the active element of the remedy intended for accommodating the problem in cases where a series of alternative remedies is to be used for combating a pest or a plague. I think the hon. member advanced a very valid argument, because the matter raised here by him is a subject which is near to the hearts of our farmers.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I find that the gremlins have got into the printing of this particular clause. In the time that I have been here, this is the first time that I have come across anything quite as bad as this in the way of a misprint. I refer to the following words in the beginning of the new subsection (e) on page 10, “that any incorrect or misleading advertisement is”.

After a bit of research I found, when looking at the Afrikaans version of the Bill, that those words were totally out of context and that they should be replaced by the words “that it is contrary to the public interest that”, so that the proposed new section 4(e) should read—

I accordingly move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the acuteness of the hon. member. We noticed the mistake ourselves, but unfortunately we were unable to change it. Therefore I accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that this question of the public interest has come up again and that it has been put in its correct place in the English version of this Bill. I did raise the question of public interest yesterday, but I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister again whether it is not possible for him to consider making similar provisions in this Bill, before it goes to the Other Place or when it is before the Other Place, to provide for a norm indicating what “public interest” is, pointing out the need for what I yesterday termed “the quality, the safety and the efficacy of the product”. I mentioned yesterday that provision was made for such a norm in the old Medicines and Related Drugs Control Act. There is a particular clause containing such a provision. When one is dealing with public interest, it is very difficult, in a Bill of this nature, merely to use the term “public interest” without any basis for what that term should mean being included in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Albany in his request that the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider this particular aspect. The hon. member and I have quoted examples to which the hon. the Deputy Minister can refer in the Medicines and Related Drugs Control Act, Act No. 101 of 1965, and in the Health Bill which will come before this House later this session. I do not want to take up the time of the House with that now, however. When the Medicines and Related Drugs Control Act was enacted in 1965, I believe that this particular aspect of the public interest was something that generated a great deal of discussion behind the scenes. The late Dr. Radford, the former member for Durban Central, was absolutely adamant that if the Act was to be acceptable to this side of the House, the interpretation of “public interest” would have to be defined. Here, I believe, we have a very similar Bill before us, and under those circumstances I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to comply with the wishes expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Albany.

Mr. Chairman, clause 9 provides some protection in this respect. However, I want to agree that it would possibly be a good thing if we could get more clarity about this. For that reason I undertake that we shall go into this matter. If hon. members agree, we shall apply our minds to the matter in conjunction with the law advisers, so as to prevent them from saying at some later stage that such provision had been made in the Act. If necessary, I am prepared to rectify the matter in the Other Place. I hope the hon. member will accept this.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance that he will investigate the matter further.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a proposed new section 6 which provides for the first time in this legislation for an appeal board to be established by the hon. the Minister. The situation will be that, when an appeal is lodged with the Minister against a decision by a registrar or against any other provision contained in this legislation, the Minister will appoint an ad hoc appeal board to consider that appeal. He will appoint a board which will comprise of three persons. In terms of subsection (2) of the proposed new section 6, one person shall be designated as chairman on account of his knowledge of law and the hon. the Minister shall appoint two persons who, in his opinion, command sufficient knowledge regarding the matters which will probably be in issue when the appeal is considered. During the Committee Stage of the Livestock Improvement Bill we argued over a similar provision and moved an amendment to the effect that the chairman should be a magistrate, a judge, a retired magistrate or a retired judge. At that stage we made the point that, if one looks at the powers that are given to the chairman, one sees that, firstly, he shall determine the procedure at the hearing of an appeal— incidentally, I must mention here as an aside that the situation could arise that there would be a different procedure at each appeal board hearing if there should be a different chairman every time—and, furthermore, that the chairman shall administer the oath to any person who gives evidence, that he will have the power to call any person present at the hearing of the appeal as a witness, that he will have the power to interrogate him and to require of him to produce any documents in his possession or custody or under his control, and that he can summon any person to appear before the board at a time and a place to be specified by him. From what I have said, it is clear that the chairman must not only have a knowledge of the law—we acknowledge that he should have such knowledge because it is essential that he should know how to read this law together with the others—but that he should also have a knowledge of procedure in court. He must also have a knowledge of the Criminal Procedure Act and of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. There are various other factors, outside of the legal provisions of this particular legislation, of which the chairman must be aware.

During the debate on the Livestock Improvement Bill, the hon. the Minister, in reply to our amendment that the chairman should be a magistrate or a judge, said that the chairman was required to have a knowledge of the particular subject of the appeal. I want to cross swords with him this afternoon and say that, as this Bill is drafted, the only knowledge which the chairman is required to have is a knowledge of law. He must have a knowledge of law. There is no necessity for him to have any knowledge of the particular subject which is the cause of the appeal. What he does need, however, is a knowledge of the practice of the law, the application of the law and of the practical effects of what he does. This is especially so in the light of clauses 16 and 18 which provide that failure to answer a question put by the chairman, failure to answer a summons to appear, failure to produce a document and various other things constitute offences for which there are penalties. If I remember correctly, the maximum penalty is R500. For that reason I would urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider this particular provision in this clause and to provide that the person who is to be designated as chairman, should not be designated as such on account of his knowledge of law, but should be somebody who not only has a knowledge of law, but also has a knowledge of the procedure involved and of the implications of the powers that are given to him in this particular Bill.

Sir, not for one moment do I wish to denigrate the officials of the hon. the Minister’s department in respect of their legal knowledge. He indicated during a former debate that it was his intention to use them because he felt that, with their knowledge of law, they were sufficiently qualified. Not for one moment do I want to denigrate them. I pay tribute to them. In fact, I believe that the series of Bills we have had this session are a tribute to the hon. Minister’s department and particularly to the legal section in this department, to the officials who have been concerned with these Bills and to the officials with whom I have had personal contact.

I have found them to be tremendously able people, but I do not believe they hold the qualifications to hold this job. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

We really feel that such a person would be better fitted to hold the position of chairman of this appeal board.

Mr. Chairman, it is usually the provisions concerning the people who should act as members of an appeal board that lead to the greatest deal of discussion when it comes to the Committee Stage of this type of legislation. We on this side of the House have looked at the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and we think that unfortunately the hon. member has made its scope too narrow for us to be able to accept it, for the simple reason that the hon. member wants to have a magistrate, a judge or a retired magistrate or a retired judge as chairman. If the provisions remain as they are in the Bill, it will always be possible to seek and appoint such a person. Then he will still have someone with knowledge of the law. For that reason we think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South’s amendment is aimed at restricting the hon. the Minister in his choice of whom to appoint to such a post. Although most of us have great respect for a magistrate or a retired magistrate or a judge or a retired judge, we must remember that in this type of committee one does not only deal with the legal side of the matter; one needs people who understand the matter under discussion, who have a knowledge of the practical side of farming and who understand the problems that face the farmer when he deals with stock remedies and that type of thing. I do not think it would be completely out of place to look for a man who, for example, is an advocate or a magistrate and who also has an interest in farming, like the hon. member for Welkom. Perhaps a man like this would be very valuable when one has to appoint this kind of board of appeal and it would be better if one were not restricted to someone who is or has been a member of the Bench.

Finally, so many burdens are placed upon the magistrates and even upon the retired people, because they often have other tasks to perform. I think that if the amendment is accepted, such a person may have to be searched for and the Minister will probably have to go out of his way to find such a person. However, if he only has to look for someone with knowledge of the law, it will certainly be very much easier to find a chairman for a board of appeal of this nature. For that reason, although we do not want to detract in any way from the hon. member’s good intentions in seeking to obtain such a person, I think that it is out of place in this legislation and that one should rather leave the Minister free to look for the right person to serve on this board of appeal.

Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in the hon. member for Newton Park. I should like to tell the hon. member why. I have always regarded him as a man who looks after the interests of the farmer and the stock of this country with great sincerity and now he is suggesting something which in my opinion is inferior as far as this particular Act is concerned in comparison with another Act. I therefore want fully to support my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, in his amendment. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Newton Park to the fact that in 1965—I think I have a good memory on this—he was present and he raised no objection; in fact he actually supported Act. No. 101 of 1965 when, in connection with medicines for humans, he thought it was necessary. I want to quote the actual wording of the section of the Act which the hon. member agreed to, and which he agreed to subsequently when the Act was amended.

Which Act was that?

Act 101 of 1965. It used to be the Drugs Control Act. It is now the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, and I believe that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has based his amendment and his argument on the principle embodied in this Act. Section 10 is a very short section. It says—

1. (a) one shall be a retired judge or an advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa, who shall be the chairman of the board;
2. (b) one shall be a medical practitioner who has a speciality in medicine entered in the appropriate register contemplated in section 19 of the Medical Act; and
3. (c) one shall be a pharmacologist.

Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, I believe that the drafters of this particular legislation have shown a great deal of thought and have been very conscientious in ensuring that every provision is made as effective as possible. I believe that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is perfectly just in his request that the chairman should be a magistrate or a judge, or a retired magistrate or a retired judge. If I put this to the hon. the Deputy Minister … He has suggested that there are members of his staff who are …

But the Minister can still appoint them.

Yes, but let us specify. Just as the hon. member for Newton Park supported it in 1965, I hope he will support us now. I suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has ample scope, in the other two appointments, to appoint the very officials from his department for whom he so justly has a high regard. Therefore, I urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. member for Newton Park had to face a very important decision today. I can also guess that the reporter of Die Burger peeped over his shoulder today to see where he made his cross. Of course all of us know that his voting today was preceded by quite a lot of publicity. However, I am surprised that the hon. member is displaying so much ignorance in this House today. He says with a perfectly pious face: “We on this side of the House supported this legislation,” but he does not even read the clause. It is clearly stated there that the chairman shall be someone with a knowledge of law. It states further—

1. (b) two persons who in the opinion of the Minister command sufficient knowledge regarding the matters which will probably be in issue when the appeal is considered.

It is therefore not necessary for the chairman to have any specified knowledge. If he is a magistrate or a retired magistrate or a judge, surely he is someone with the necessary knowledge of law. He also has two assessors, if we can call them that, who can assist him with the necessary expert knowledge. Of course the hon. member for Newton Park is completely confused as a result of the important decision he had to take this morning. Now he says that he has considered this legislation, but in the meantime he has not even looked at clause 6(b). This is what he is now suggesting. He wants us to have a man who is throughly acquainted with the matter.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister must please accept …

It is unnecessary to plead!

… the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. In that way he will ensure that we have a good board of appeal, a board of appeal in which people will have confidence. I believe there are quite a few retired magistrates who would readily declare themselves available for such a position. Such a magistrate would, in any case, have two assessors to assist him, two assessors with the necessary expert knowledge. For that reason I fully support the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Mr. Chairman, I think the basic intention of this clause, where it says that the chairman of such a committee should have a knowledge of law—I want the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to listen to this, please—is to get someone who would be able to pass a proper judgment on cases. I think that anybody with a knowledge of law should be capable of passing judgment after having considered both sides of a case. I think that is the idea behind the provision. Various examples have been quoted, but I want to refer the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to another matter. When the commission investigated the Marketing Act, we had the same situation. The hon. member will remember that when we were considering where appeals with regard to restricting registration should be lodged, the recommendation of the commission was similar, i.e. that they should be referred to an independent body of which the chairman should be a person with a knowledge of law. If my memory is not playing me false, I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South agreed with this recommendation. I think it is exactly the same thing that is intended in this clause, and consequently I do not think that this is an unfair provision in the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I understand what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is trying to do, but the truth of the matter is that the hon. member for Newton Park is quite correct by pointing out that it is making it too narrow to say that it must be a judge or an ex-judge or exmagistrate. [Interjections.] As in many cases of arbitration, you might want to get an advocate or a SC to sit as one of the people

You are not allowed to tout.

Sir, it is being suggested that I am touting. I am going to get a Select Committee against this lot. [Interjections.] I suppose the hon. the Minister will obviously try to get people who have been in practice and have experienced the practice of the law like ex-magistrates, but he may have difficulty in getting ex-judges …

Old Kowie is always around.

Yes, I can recommend some ex-judges. [Interjections.] One other point is, with great respect to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South; it is not correct to say that the person in clause 16 is the judicial officer who will put into effect the penalties. That is quite incorrect. The penalties must be put into effect in a court of law. It has got nothing to do with this …

You did not listen; that is not what I said.

I think that it should be left as it is—“a person qualified in law”. I am sure everybody will be happy with that.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Pinetown is so confused as a result of the election fever that he does not really know what the Bill is about. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that the hon. member for Newton Park has not read the Bill and that he supports the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. The hon. member for Pinetown says he supports the amendment because it says in (2)(b)—

It is therefore not necessary to have a lawyer there, and for this reason we must get a magistrate. I do not understand the hon. member.

You do not understand Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

The hon. members are so confused and will probably be more confused tomorrow after the election.

Order! The hon. member should not anticipate the outcome of the election in Durbanville. [Interjections.]

We support the clause as it stands in the Bill. We think the clause is much better as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, when I glanced across to the opposite side towards the end of the discussion of this clause, I felt impelled at one stage to cry: “Peace! peace!” Surely the matter is not as serious as all that. I have already referred to that this afternoon, but for the sake of clarity I should like to repeat that it is in the first place a judicial matter—in other words, our department will approach the Department of Justice to appoint the chairman of the appeal board, because they are partly their officials. We cannot oblige the Department of Justice to make a judge, an ex-judge, a magistrate or an ex-magistrate available. This would lead to many delays, especially if we consider that there will sometimes be really trivial matters that will have to be investigated, matters which may never even lead to a dispute. There are matters that honestly do not require the services of an expert. For that reason I think we should leave it as it stands. In my opinion the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is not as serious as all that. A while ago I accepted his amendment even before he had finished motivating it. This provision is well thought out and I definitely think that we can settle this matter in peace. He will just have to accept it as it stands.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, this clause seeks to afford the farmer protection. It reads very well as it stands, but as I have already said, I have a problem with the following—

1. (a) the purpose of such administration;

At first glance this seems quite in order, but I also know that we are going to have problems with this in practice. We are now making use of the services of contractors who make use of aerial spraying in order to spray fields. These contractors often have to act on very short notice, because weather conditions allow them a certain hour and time only. For example, it happens that the wind may be right in the morning and that I will therefore not cause my neighbour’s lupins to die when I want to spray my wheat. If I telephone the contractor and tell him to be at my place within an hour before the wind changes, there is no time for him to give me written notice of the purpose, etc. of all this. What is in fact necessary, is that we should change it as I proposed in the amendments printed in my name non the Order Paper and which I now move—

1. (1) On page 16, in line 58, to omit “in writing”;
2. (2) on page 18, after line 5, to add:

1. (2) The notification referred to in subsection (1) may be furnished verbally provided it is confirmed in writing within three days after the administration concerned.

It is true that we must be given notice before the administration of the remedy, but it does not necessarily have to be written notice. I think it is essential for the practicability of this clause that we should change it in this way.

The whole object of this Bill is to tighten up the control over what are potentially dangerous or harmful substances, and over the use of pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and all these other frightening preparations which are used for various purposes in the agricultural sector. The object of this particular clause is to tighten up on precisely that, the indiscriminate or the negligent use of these products and the use of these not at recommended dosages or at recommended rates. These steps are taken precisely because of the side-effects on humans, animals and on vegetation which arise out of the misuse of these particular products. It is for that very reason that the hon. the Minister, in his wisdom, together with his law advisers, repealed the existing section 10 of the Act and introduced this section in its place. What is the object here? The object is that a person who, for gain, does anything along these lines, must first furnish certain particulars before he administers any fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural remedies or stock remedies, and it is stated specifically that he must do so in writing. I believe it is essential that it should be done in writing both for the protection of the farmer and of the contractor. It appears that the hon. member for Malmesbury agrees with me, but what he is now asking for is that there should be a three-day period and that the person who does the contracting can do the work if, verbally, the required warnings regarding the purpose, the name, the number and the precautions that should be taken before, during and after such administration, are given. Within three days he will then be compelled to confirm this in writing. The hon. member says that this is for the protection of the farmer. He also mentions the qusestion of crop spraying. At the particular moment this is rather a bad example, because at this moment a man in lying desperately ill in the Transvaal because of the effects of an accident which he has had with crop spraying disinfectants and pesticides. He is ill because of the effect the pesticide had on him when it spilled over him when he crashed his aircraft. The hon. member says that crop spraying is done at short notice because of climatic conditions and I agree with him, but I believe that the arrangements are made a long time before that. Surely, there is an arrangement with the firm concerned that when the weather conditions are right they will spray a particular pesticide over a particular land. That is the stage when all these particulars can be given.

The whole object of the particular clause is to tighten up on the control and now the hon. member for Malmesbury asks that we should relax one of the most important provisions. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister must provide in the regulations that the name, the number, the purposes and the precautions should be placed on the container—if it is possible—of the particular commodity. If it is not possible to place it on the container, he must compel the manufacturer to have that printed on a pamphlet which will be issued with a particular commodity when it is sold. In the case of crop spraying the contractor should be compelled to produce the pamphlet in which all the requirements of this Clause are set out, to the farmer concerned. I believe it is perfectly reasonable of the hon. the Minister to expect this of the manufacturer, contractor or dealer—whoever will be handling these particular commodities. If we look at the regulations clause, clause 20, we find that the hon. the Minister has the power by regulation to compel the manufacturer or the distributor to publish a pamphlet in which these particular details will be given. For that reason I believe that it is not right that the hon. member should put forward this amendment at this stage, because I do not think it will be in the best interests of the farmer or of the public. I believe it is worth while placing a slightly larger onus on the manufacturer or the distributor in the interests of what this Bill sets out to achieve.

Mr. Chairman, I conceded right at the outset that this clause is there to protect the farmer, but I want to mention a single example to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in order to show how impossible it becomes in practice. There is a crop spraying company which operates from Malmesbury, and this company serves the Clanwilliam and Calvinia areas. One fine afternoon, someone may be strolling in his orchard or wheat fields and see that there is a pest or plague which has to be combated immediately. He telephones the company in Malmesbury. Must he now sit and wait for three days until the caterpillars have destroyed everything, or must he even wait for four days or however long the post takes before he receives a written notice concerning the requirements which must be complied with? After all, this is totally impractical. We do not want a relaxation; indeed, during the Second Reading yesterday I said that I should like to see the control over contractors being tightened up. I should also like to see additional control measures being applied to the contractors. I said this yesterday during my Second Reading speech. However, due to purely practical considerations, we must change this measure in this way, otherwise it is not going to work in practice. One cannot expect a contractor to provide a service if he cannot comply with the legal obligations which rest on him.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Malmesbury to the fact that from a practical point of view, I do not believe that his amendment will work satisfactorily. The example which I wish to quote him is that in 1954 the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act was amended to provide for a sixth schedule relating to potentially harmful drugs. One of the conditions that was laid down at the time was that the medical practitioner had the right to order a prescription over the telephone from a chemist and druggist—it had to be the chemist and druggist in person, who today is the pharmacist—but it further provided that within seven days he had to submit his verbal instructions in writing in respect of the prescription he gave over the telephone. That went on for 20 years and I can tell hon. members that it was observed more in the breach. When the Act was amended in 1974 the sixth schedule was done away with and the potentially harmful drugs were grouped and classified into more schedules. Today there are nine schedules and the only schedule where it is possible for the medical practitioner to issue his instructions within seven days in writing after having given a verbal instruction to a pharmacist to supply medicine, is schedule 4. The provision today in respect of the other schedules—and they deal with tranquillizers, hypnotics and other dangerous drugs—is that there shall be a written prescription only.

I believe that that provision had to be made as a result of the experience gained in 20 years’ time because it was found practically that it did not work. The telephonic instruction was given, but I would say that the number of times it was followed up with a written prescription, as the law demanded, within seven days, was probably only 1% of the cases. If it is felt in those circumstances that it is necessary to provide some written evidence of treatment in terms of this clause, I believe that it will be unwise to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Malmesbury, although I believe it was put forward in good faith, because experience has shown that it does not work in practice.

Mr. Chairman, I must unfortunately disagree with the hon. member for Malmesbury. I have often sprayed our wheat with aircraft and the practical procedure that we follow is that we go to our co-operative, the Natal Agricultural Co-operative, of which the hon. member for Vryheid is a director. He has, in fact, such a great influence that the telegraphic address is “Natkoop”! We wanted to spray our land on a co-operative basis and in most cases the co-operative would arrange an aircraft for a group of farmers. In those cases one had to go in beforehand to sign the form requisitioning the aircraft and the particular chemical that was required. It so happened that we also had to wait for the correct moment when the aphids or whatever it was, were on the wheat. When we knew what it was we signed the form and immediately made arrangements. I do not see that this clause is going to complicate the position at all. On the contrary, it would simply give legal effect to what virtually pertains anyway. Furthermore, when one is spraying crops one has to have people to indicate the path the aircraft must take. Those people must move across about 60 yards or 60 metres every time the aircraft makes an approach. In Natal we make use, in many cases, of young maids to do the said marking. They are told they have to wear protective clothing and goggles.

However, most of the farmers and the maids cannot be bothered to do this, but highly toxic substances are used in the spraying. I therefore believe that if we have this kind of legislation, the employees of the farmers would be protected and it would ensure that the relevant chemicals are administered properly. I feel that if one is going to have a strict Bill such as this one—and we need a strict Bill in view of the ecological affect of chemicals—the provision we have in clause 11 to amend section 10 of the existing Act is a most important provision. I would therefore support the hon. the Minister if he opposes the hon. member for Malmesbury’s proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to explain the matter. This specific clause concerns the protection of the farmer. As the clause reads at the moment, it will afford protection, but it is going to cause the farmer a great deal of inconvenience. I am always pleased when people protect those who are perhaps being unjustly ill-treated, but if we leave this clause as it is, it may happen—and it will happen, too, if there should be a test case—that the contractors simply will not take action unless the farmer has been informed in terms of this provision. All the amendment of the hon. member for Malmesbury seeks to do, is to replace this provision—namely, that the farmer has to be informed in writing beforehand—with a practical measure, namely that the farmer can be informed per telephone and that the written notice must be sent to him within three days thereafter.

Perhaps it will be too late after three days.

But, after all, there will be no prosecution if the farmer does not make a complaint. Who else would complain?

The neighbour.

But why would it be too late then? The contractor still has to give written notice of his action. The fact is simply that the present method does not work in practice, and for that reason we are effecting this amendment that the farmer must receive written notice within three days. I therefore have no choice but to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Malmesbury. I hope that my explanation is acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s decision. Perhaps he could reconsider it. I wonder whether he would explain to us whether, in terms of clause 20(c)(g), he is not able to clear up the hon. member for Malmesbury’s problem in relation to clause 11. His right to make regulations and, in particular, to insist that certain information be supplied on labels could, if applied, do away with some of the objections of the hon. member for Malmesbury. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could let us know what his view is of the relationship between clause 20 and clause 11 because I believe that that would make the Act more consequential than it will be with this amendment.

Amendment (1) agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

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

1. (1) On page 18, in lines 54 and 55, to omit “reason to believe” and to substitute “reasonable grounds for believing”;
2. (2) on page 20, in lines 3 and 4, to omit “reason to believe” and to substitute “reasonable grounds for believing”;
3. (3) on page 20, in line 15, to omit all the words after the second “remedy” up to and including “ingredient” in line 23;
4. (4) on page 20, in lines 24 to 27, to omit paragraph (d).

These amendments were foreshadowed in the Second Reading. They really boil down to two amendments. The first one is, in effect, that there should be reasonable grounds before the registrar takes certain steps. The second amendment is, in effect, that he should not be able to demand an explanation on pain of twelve months’ imprisonment.

The hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday made the point that my party is always the party that comes with this rule-of-law stuff and philosophical stuff “wat niks met boere te doen het nie”, and so on. Let me just make the point that I am asking for the status quo to be maintained. The present Act provides for “reasonable grounds”. I am asking that we should not move away from that situation but that we should keep to “reasonable grounds”. I am not suggesting some startling rule-of-law procedure. I am saying that, for the sake of the farmer and for the sake of the fertilizer business, we should just leave it as it is because there has been no need shown to move away from the wording “reasonable grounds”.

In the second set of amendments I am again asking for the status quo to be maintained. At the moment the Registrar has all the powers he needs, except that he does not have the power to demand explanations from people who are suspected of anything and, if they do not want to give an answer, to put them in gaol. He does not have that power and I suggest that it is not a good power to introduce. The hon. the Minister must understand that I am not saying that one cannot question a man. Of course it would be advisable to ask him: “What is in this bag, and what is in that bag? What are you putting in there?” It is perfectly permissible to ask him this sort of question. The point is that nowhere else in our law is it made a crime simply to fail to answer a question.

I shall accept the hon. member’s amendment. However, I cannot accept his first amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is quite with me. With respect, Sir, I can understand his rejecting my third and fourth amendments because they cover a different point. However, my first and second amendments have the same effect and I think that they should go together. Otherwise this tends to make nonsense of the amendments. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider accepting at least the first and second amendments, if he objects to the third and fourth amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the second amendment, but in connection with amendment No. 1 the hon. member must first give me a chance to take another look at the matter. There are material difficulties here. In accepting amendment No. 2 we ensure that one’s cheque book cannot be looked at, but I am not sure that if we accept No. 1, this will also be correct. I am pleased that the hon. member shakes his head and that he accepts it as such.

Mr. Chairman, I become more confused as the debate proceeds. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is in the same position as I am, but to me it is a bit inexplicable that the hon. the Deputy Minister has accepted the second amendment of the hon. member for Durban North but not the first amendment. I should like to draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to section 15 of the present Act. As the hon. member for Durban North has pointed out, these words are there now. Subsection (1)(a) reads as follows—

The words which the hon. member for Durban North wishes to introduce are exactly the same as those in the Act at present and I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister should have another look at the first and second amendments, which I believe are perfectly reasonable and which we will support. When we come to amendments 3 and 4 which the hon. member for Durban North has moved, I am afraid the story is otherwise. Unfortunately we cannot support the hon. member for Durban North on this matter. I have said repeatedly that we are busy with a Bill which has been drawn up to place teeth in the legislation to control substances which are classed as hazardous substances for the benefit and protection, not only of the farmers, but of the public as a whole. We believe that to accept the amendments which have been moved by the hon. member for Durban North would water down the effect of the Bill. Drastic as these provisions may be when looked at purely from a legalistic or juristic point of view, we believe they are justified under certain circumstances. I want to remind the hon. member for Durban North of the fact that before he came to this House, members of his party in this House approved these sorts of provisions under other legislation. I have here the Hazardous Substances Act, No. 15 of 1973, which was passed only a few years ago. Section 9(1 )(h) of this Act reads—

In this instance an offence is also created in connection with hazardous substances which affect people. Now we are dealing with hazardous substances which affect animals and plants as well as people. All of a sudden the PRP wishes to oppose it, but in 1973 …

There was no such party in 1973.

In 1973 the Progressive Party supported this in the person of the hon. member for Houghton.

They were not reformed then.

Then again in 1972 the hon. member for Houghton, on behalf of the Progressive Party, supported the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act. Section 11(1)(e) of that Act lays down that an inspector may “demand from any owner …”, which are exactly the same words. I believe that where you are dealing with substances of this nature under these circumstances, it is right that those powers should be given. However, I want to warn the Government that they must not believe that they can bring these sort of Draconian powers into other legislation when we are not dealing with dangerous substances such as these.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban North—I am referring to Nos. 3 and 4—I really do not understand. We therefore cannot support them. It is amazing to hear that the hon. member is speaking on behalf of the farmer when this provision is here particularly to protect the farmer. When one looks at what he proposes to omit, clause 14(c) from line 15 to line 24, and the whole of clause 14(d), and then at what he proposes not to omit, viz. clause 14(e), which provides that the inspector may—

etc., one cannot quite understand the line of reasoning. One may not demand, because it is not in the interests of the farmer. One may not demand a book from anyone; one may not demand him to give answers to questions, but one may well seize … I am surprised that the hon. member does not propose that clause 14(e) should be omitted as well. I cannot see the reasoning for these two amendments, Mr. Chairman, and we are of the belief that they are not necessary for the good working of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the hon. member for Albany misunderstands me completely. I do not want the legislation to have no teeth. It must a have teeth; one must be able to seize exhibits and search premises and so on. The simple point I make, is that it must not be upon the accused person to make a case against himself. One cannot have that. It is a principle of our law that the State must prove its case against an accused, not that he must be required to prove a case against himself.

I just want to make one other point. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised something about some cosmetic Bill, or something like that. I was not here when the hon. member for Houghton was concerned about that Bill, nor when the Hazardous Substances Bill was under consideration. I do not know whether, in those two Bills, there was provision for sentences of imprisonment for refusal to answer questions. That is the real point at issue here.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the first amendment of the hon. member for Durban North is not acceptable to me, because it deals with something else. It is not the same thing. It is true that it is the same word, but it is definitely not the same matter—

This is the first amendment. The second one reads—

This deals with two completely different things. I can accept the second amendment—say for example it concerns a cheque book—but I cannot accept the entering of premises, etc., for that very reason.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) agreed to.

Amendments (3) and (4) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to address you at length. All I want to say is that this is the clause which actually provides for a man to be sent to gaol. In other words, as clause 14 now stands, one can demand an explanation. One has that power.

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to simply say: “Well, we have that power, but do not send him to gaol.” Therefore I ask him to accept my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, for the same reasons we on this side cannot accept the amendment either.

Amendments negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to address you at length here, but this is a clause where the State is protected against its own wrongdoings. If a State official negligently causes damages to a farmer or any other person or feed person or any place that he goes on to the State is not liable. This is a dangerous trend for the State to be excluded from being liable for compensation for its own wrongdoing. One must not forget that anybody who is harmed still has to prove his case in court. He has got to prove to the court that the official of the State behaved in a negligent way. I very strongly suggest that this is not the sort of clause which we should pass lightly. In any event, if anything is done bona fide the State will not be liable in court to compensate. This clause as it stands excludes negligence and I do not think that the State should be protected when its officials have been negligent. I do not think the individual should have his right to compensation taken away, unless it is a matter of State security, or something like that. This is a case of taking the right of the individual to go to court away. That is the sort of right that I submit should not be taken away in South Africa, unless a very urgent need exists. I move the amendment standing in my name …

It is not necessary to move the amendment, the hon. member need merely vote against the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if the hon. member for Durban North feels strongly on the matter because I do not think the hon. member has reason to be concerned that it is going to affect our administration of justice. Let me motivate this. A person may suffer harm due to the implementation of an act without this being intended. Surely he will accept this. Therefore it is essential for an act to contain an indemnity like this in order to prevent unjustified claims against the State, the Minister and the officials. It is logical, customary and important. Indemnity of this type already exists in various existing laws and causes no problems in the implementation of those laws. Surely this is what experience has taught us. The limit on liability only covers actions carried out in good faith in terms of this Bill. It does not afford any protection to the State where actions are carried out in a wanton, reckless, negligent or careless way. A case like this is still punishable.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I had just started to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill which is before the House. I said then, which I now repeat, that we in these benches will support this Bill. We believe this Bill ought to be supported very strongly, and I shall try to motivate that in a moment.

There are four major points, as the hon. the Minister himself has made clear to this House. Again I want to say—as I said last night—that the hon. the Minister is to be commended for the very clear way in which he set out the underlying motivation and the principles of this particular Bill. I particularly liked the way in which he sought to identify those four major areas and then linked the various clauses to that. It seems to me a much better way of presenting a Bill at Second Reading.

I also very briefly mentioned—time was running out at that time and I should like to repeat it—that we should like to express also our appreciation to the Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for the work which he and his staff, together with the hon. the Minister and his department as a whole, have done in bringing this legislation to the House. I hope that the House will pass this Bill as quickly as possible, because we already have had some considerable delay. We were not able to pass this legislation during the last parliamentary session. We have therefore agreed to support all stages of this Bill.

In regard to the raising of the income ceiling, I want to say that it simply makes good sense to do this, and when one bears in mind the great number of people involved under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, I believe that one begins to appreciate just how significant and far-reaching this piece of legislation is. Last evening I quoted certain statistics from the report of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for the year ended 29 February 1976 and I simply want to repeat the figures. The number of accidents, for instance, which took place in industry in South Africa during the year 1975, amounted to R355 615.

Therefore, this is taken very seriously indeed in industry today and it may well be that the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that, although this is so, we need to take this even more seriously than we have perhaps done until now. When one compares the statistics of accidents in industry in this country with those in other countries, we compare relatively favourably, particularly bearing in mind that we have a large number of people working in industry who are unskilled or semi-skilled. Nevertheless, I am convinced that industrialists, employers as a whole and we in this House ought to be mindful of the vast number of accidents which still take place and of the cost this means to the country. For example, in this report we are told that in terms of the number of accidents which took place during 1972, the number of man days, i.e. working days, that were lost as a result of these accidents, totalled no less than 30 191 054. This figure does not only include actual loss, but also potential loss. That is reasonable, because we have to think not only in terms of the actual loss, but in terms of the potential loss as well. It is a very serious problem, because in the case of a depressed economy, in a time of recession and in a time when we are trying to move away from inflation and when we are stressing the need for productivity, when we have an opportunity to look at a Bill dealing with workmen’s compensation, we ought to be concerned on the one hand with the protection of the workers—this legislation does give that protection, and indeed, increases that protection—and on the other hand, with the number of man days that are lost every year as a result of these accidents.

The major thrust of this Bill, over and above the raising of the income ceiling, is the very significant move towards the granting of the same benefits to all population groups. I think we have almost passed over this too lightly until now. It seems to me as if the hon. the Minister and his department have looked at the particular Act and have said— and I mean this quite sincerely: “We have pledged to move away from discrimination; therefore we should look at workers in terms of the accidents they incur, the compensation they have been receiving as a result of the accidents, and all workers should be placed on an equal basis in this regard.” We have criticized the hon. the Minister, his department and hon. members on that side of the House for discriminatory legislation.

Therefore it seems reasonable that where the hon. the Minister specifically moves away from discrimination and moves in the direction of looking at workers as workers, we should congratulate the hon. the Minister for doing so. We hope that this is indicative of what is going to be part and parcel of further amendments to existing legislation, because if we begin to look at the legislation in this particular kind of way, I think we are taking a very significant step in this country. If one could believe that the Industrial Conciliation Act itself would come under the same scrutiny …

What Act are you talking about?

I am talking about the piece of legislation which is now before the House and if that hon. member does not understand what is happening, obviously he is nowhere near the understanding of the hon. the Minister himself. It is a great pity that we have to have this kind of interjection holding this House and the country back from moving towards an enlightened approach to industry and workmen’s compensation as a whole. In this regard there are two specific areas, one of which relates to benefits in the form of pensions rather than simply a lump sum being paid to a worker or to his or her dependants. This has obvious advantages, because it is quite easy for a person who receives a lump sum to squander it. Particularly in the case of people who have very little means of protecting themselves against exploitation by others, it is very important that this kind of step should be taken. Therefore we strongly support this movement.

I should like to say a word about burial costs. The hon. member for Pretoria East yesterday mentioned in his speech that he hoped very much that the hon. the Minister would not simply think in terms of a specific amount which was paid, but that it should be looked at in terms of the actual expenses incurred, lest people fall into the temptation of having all sorts of additional things in terms of burial and burial services. When one talks about the majority of workers in South Africa, the Blacks, one will find that the burial service has, because it is important and meaningful to everyone, a specific meaning for many Black people in this country. It has very strong links, religious and otherwise, and therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will disregard the advice of the hon. member for Pretoria East and will simply proceed along the lines that the Bill indicates.

There is no need for me to dwell upon the administrative clauses in the Bill which is before us. These are straightforward and consequential. They also assist in the better working of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is true that there are other factors involving workmen’s compensation which will need to be looked at in future, but that should not in any way detract from the praise for this particular piece of legislation. However, I would just like to mention one factor. A tragic event took place in Cape Town recently and I think now of the loss of the lives of 13 young newspaper-vendors. One then realizes that there are still people who fall outside this coverage and protection. I would hope that the hon. the Minister and his department, and in particular the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, would take note of this and will try to make sure that adequate coverage is given to all workers within the framework of the income ceiling which is referred to in clause 1. This is very important when one bears in mind the kind of accidents which are taking place where people are doing a job of work.

With these few remarks we support the Second Reading of this Bill and hope that the Bill will become law with the minimum of delay.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the hon. member for Pinelands in expressing appreciation for the clear and comprehensive Second Reading speech which the hon. the Minister made before the House on the subject of this Bill. This is a very important Bill which affects the workers of South Africa, and one appreciates the great care taken by the hon. the Minister in introducing it.

The value of money changes, of course, and for this reason one can expect a Bill such as this one to be adjusted from time to time to bring the monetary values into line with the remuneration which people receive. What I also find gratifying, however, is that the hon. the Minister’s department does not content itself with an upward trend as far as the monetary values are concerned—although this is to be welcomed, of course—but that the department also tries to keep abreast of the times as far as the administration of the legislation is concerned, and that we find very obvious attempts at modernization in this Bill.

Since the Bill was introduced by the hon. the Minister, it has been widely discussed on both sides of the House, and it merely remains for me to join the hon. members in saying that I am pleased that the legislation is before the House and that we give our full support to the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. members who took part in the debate for their contributions, as well as for the positive suggestions which were made and for the support they gave to the legislation. Indeed, I think this is the way it ought to be, because this Bill is intended to benefit our people and to meet the greater demands of the times in which we live. I want to agree with the hon. member who has just sat down that when it becomes necessary in the future, we shall have to look at the Act again. I expect hon. members always to participate in debates with the same amount of interest when the needs of all our people in South Africa are involved.

I just want to make a few remarks about hon. members’ speeches. The hon. member for Pretoria East asked me to ensure that the increase in the burial costs did not lead to abuse. Of course, an amount of R250 will not be paid out automatically. It will only be paid upon submission of proper accounts, and provision is made only for such costs as may be taken into account. Therefore the hon. member need not be afraid. People will not be allowed to include all kinds of additional costs. I do not want to give any examples of such costs at this stage. There are many examples of what could happen. The intention of the legislation is not to provide compensation for such additional costs. The Act will accordingly be administered in such a way as to preclude any abuse of this concession. I know that many people will wonder how this will be done. There will be strict control. The fact that we are effecting a substantial increase in the amount does not mean that everyone will necessarily receive the increased amount.

The hon. member for South Coast enquired why the increased compensation could not be given retrospective effect in order to improve the position of other and present pensioners. The hon. member must remember, however, that the expenses are covered from a fund which derives from one source, i.e. the employers. The employees make no contribution. In addition, of course, there are certain sectors, such as the local authorities, the provinces, the State itself and the Railways, which are exempted from this. Then there are bodies for which special provision is made by means of their own arrangements with companies. Furthermore, as I have said, there is the payment which is made by the employer himself from time to time. For these reasons, it is not so easy to give retrospective effect to a law of this kind.

The hon. member for South Coast made a remark about the payment of the medical accounts and compensation. He requested that delays be eliminated. However, delays are not always caused by the commissioner. Delays are caused by the person who has to supply the necessary information and to submit his accounts. I know of one case, for example, which has been mentioned to me. There was a conference in Natal which was attended by the commissioner, but some people were unaware of his presence.

On that occasion, the same kind of remark was made by the audience, and thereupon a medical practitioner who happened to be present told the audience that if there were delays, those delays occurred because the doctors did not send out the necessary accounts in time and because the persons concerned did not do all that was required to bring the information to the attention of the commissioner. In any event, there are not many great delays. I have tried to find out about this. If there are delays, however, they are not the fault of the commissioner.

The hon. member for Pinelands mentioned another matter. He referred to the number of accidents in South Africa. I want to agree with him that if one looks at the number of accidents which take place in this country, one may consider it a great achievement on the part of this young industrial country, South Africa, to have such a small number of accidents, compared to other industrial countries, especially since we are still engaged in a process of in-service training of large numbers of people who have little knowledge of industry and who in spite of this are constantly being absorbed into our industries.

The legislation does not really provide for this, but I want to refer to the question of the accident rate. We are fortunate in South Africa in that the public and the department take an interest in encouraging industrial enterprises to reduce the accident rate. In this connection I think, for example, of Nosa, an organization which has this end in view. This organization has done a great deal and has even encouraged State departments to take part in a competition for reducing the number of accidents. In this way an organization such as this one has achieved a great deal by means of its own activities. I do not know where my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry, is at the moment, but I know that when I was Minister of Forestry, I was very proud of the fact that the department which had the best record in South Africa was a State department, and here I am referring to a dangerous industry such as the saw-mill industry operated by the Department of Forestry. By this I am trying to say that both the State and the private sector participate in the attempt to keep the accident rate as low as possible.

As regards the hon. member’s reference to the closing of the gap between the various race groups as far as these benefits are concerned, I want to point out to him that this is nothing new. Only the exceptions, i.e. the burial costs as well as pensions for Black people, are now being brought into line, but as far as all the other benefits are concerned, the various race groups have been on an equal footing for a very long time. The legislation accordingly provides that there will be equal benefits for all. Even as far as the process of negotiation is concerned, the principle adopted by the industrial councils in the private sector is that no account is taken of race or colour, but that all are dealt with on an equal basis.

The reason why this adjustment has become urgently necessary is obvious. The cost of the necessities of life has risen equally for all people in South Africa, White and Black. For this reason it is a natural thing which is taking place. The Black people have in fact been adopting the standpoint of late that where they used to be satisfied with a lump sum, they, too, want a pension now. All we are doing here is to meet a need which is naturally felt by them. In other words, it is a very practical thing and there are no political considerations attached to it. This Bill gives expression to a very natural and human reaction. Personally, I really consider it to be a step forward that we have been able to make these adjustments on this occasion and at this point in time.

Hon. members have pointed out that the Bill has been drafted in a very lucid way. We did indeed strive for clarity in drafting it. Of course, there are a great many figures which have to be quoted when such a measure is introduced. The important point is that this Bill is intended to bring the very complicated situation of workmen’s compensation in South Africa up to date.

Finally, I want to thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we supported this Bill in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage and we support it now again in the Third Reading. I certainly do not wish to delay the House, other than to respond briefly to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate. As regards the approach to burial assistance and to pension opportunities—pensions are to be paid rather than a globular amount—the hon. the Minister himself, in introducing the Bill, emphasized that this was now putting members of all groups on an equal footing. I was not suggesting for a moment that this was politically motivated. I suggested that the motivation was a human one, since workers are workers. I said I welcomed this approach to workers. I want to stress again that I hope very much that whenever we in this House look at a piece of legislation, whether it has to do with workmen’s compensation or anything else relating to the workers of this country, we will approach it in that way. That is the only point I wish to make and I hope this is the attitude we shall adopt in future. Therefore we support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we also have pleasure in supporting the Third Reading. I think the hon. the Minister misunderstood me when I said there was a delay with medical accounts. I said this was one of the complaints in the past. However I do not think this pertains any more. I fully realize that a lot of these delays have been caused either through an employer or a medical practitioner; they may even have been caused by the man himself in not submitting his forms in time, but I think that these amendments and the changes that have been made, will help to facilitate the entire working of this Act. For that very reason we support the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is aimed primarily at establishing a new basis of calculation of contributions and benefits in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and to limit the State’s contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. As hon. members will recall, this measure was introduced last year, but stood over. I also tabled an explanatory memorandum at the time.

Before dealing with the amendments I just want to make a few comments. At present the Act provides that all persons whose earnings exceed R6 760 per annum are excluded from the purview of the Act. Bantu earning less than R546 per annum are also so excluded— i.e. Bantu who earn R10,50 per week. The present maximum wage limit of R6 760 per annum came into operation on 1 October 1975. As hon. members will note, a great deal of preliminary work went into the determination of this amount.

I should now like to furnish further particulars of the envisaged amendments. From time to time the Unemployment Insurance Board, on which representatives of both employers as well as employees have representation, devotes its attention to amendments, and it appointed a special sub-committee to consider to consider certain proposals. The chief proposals are as follows: Firstly, a new basis of calculation of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund by employers and employees on a percentage basis; and secondly, a new basis of payment of benefits and allowances on a percentage basis to employees who, inter alia, become unemployed or fall ill.

I shall now deal with the first proposal, i.e. the one contained in clause 2(a) of the Bill, which refers to the new basis of calculation of contributions to the fund on a percentage basis by employers and employees. Section 29(1) of the Act provides that every employer, in respect of every employee in his employ, and every such employee, shall contribute to the fund in accordance with the wage group in which he falls.

At present the Act makes provision for 14 wage groups, and in the applicable wage group an employee and an employer contribute a certain amount each week. Therefore, if all the numbers are multiplied by 14, one can imagine what an enormous total this comprises. As far as employees are concerned, the contributions vary from 1 cent per week in group 1 to 14 cents in group 14, while the contributions by employers vary from 1 cent to 8 cents per week. The present average contributions by employees on the wage group basis amount to 0,3% of their earnings, while those of employers in regard to their employees amount to an average of 0,2%. The calculation of contributions on a wage group basis results in an excessive amount of administrative work and keeping of records, not only for employers but also for the department. In addition numerous incorrectly completed forms have to be returned to employers every month. I can assure this House that the number of such forms is a formidable one, and that it entails a great deal of administrative work.

The Unemployment Insurance Board recommended unanimously that wage groups be done away with and that contributions be calculated on a percentage of earnings. The board has recommended that employees’ contributions be calculated at 0,5% of their earnings, while employers’ contributions in respect of workers in their employ be calculated at 0,3% of the earnings of such workers. The calculation of contributions on a percentage of earnings will therefore facilitate the task of the employers considerably, particularly in view of the number of workers who are already contributing to the fund. At the end of 1976 were almost 3 million contributors, who were divided into 14 different wage groups. At present an employer has to make a contribution in accordance with the wage group in which such a contributor falls in respect of each contributor employed by him. If an employer therefore has a hundred workers in his employ who are divided into different wage groups, the amounts payable have to be filled in on the relevant form under the various groups. As has already been mentioned, numerous incorrectly completed forms have to be returned every month. In terms of the proposed amendment the wage groups are being done away with and the employer will calculate the amount due at 0,8% of the earnings of those persons who are compulsory contributors—i.e. his share of 0,3% and the contributors’ share of 0,5%.

The amendments contained in clause 1, 7, 8 and 10, arise from the preceding amendments in regard to the calculation of contributions on a percentage of earnings and are of a consequential nature. Consequently I shall not elucidate them any further.

Clause 2(b) deals with the limitation of the State’s contribution and in fact arises from representations received from the Treasury. I shall deal with this matter at a subsequent stage in my speech.

I come now to clause 2(c) of the Bill. To a certain extent this amendment also arises from clause 2(a), but I should like to elucidate it further. Section 29(3) of the Act provides that an employer shall pay all the contributions due to the fund in respect of himself and the contributors in his employ. Section 29(4) of the Act provides, however, that an employer may deduct the contributions which he has to pay on behalf of the contributors from their earnings week by week. In the case of workers who are paid weekly, one week’s contributions will be deducted and in the case of workers who are paid monthly, five weeks’ contributions. In terms of the percentage scheme it is now being provided that contributions may be deducted from a contributor’s earnings weekly or monthly, which will greatly facilitate the employer’s task.

The amendment contained in clause 2(d) of the Bill is necessitated by the amendments contained in clause 2(a) and 2(c), and I should like to explain them further. In terms of the group scheme the contribution of a contributor is reduced pro rata depending on the number of days he has worked per week—i.e. in the event of his employment commencing or terminating in any week. Section 29(5) of the Act is now being deleted since contributions will be calculated on a percentage of the actual earnings of a contributor regardless of the number of days which such contributor has worked during any week or month.

As far as clause 2(e) of the Bill is concerned, this, too, is necessitated by the amendments contained in clause 2(a). Section 29(6)(b) of the Act provides that if a contributor is entitled to at least one day’s earnings in respect of a week-—in other words if he is absent for a portion of that week— contributions are payable at the full rate for that week. In terms of the percentage scheme contributions will be calculated on the actual earnings of a contributor regardless of the number of days worked during any week.

I come now to the second recommendation of the Unemployment Insurance Board, viz. the one contained in clause 3 of the Bill relating to the calculation of benefits on a percentage basis.

Section 36 of the Act provides for the payment of benefits to an unemployed contributor in accordance with the wage group in which he was last employed. In this way benefits vary from R2,45 in group 2 to R20,30 in group 14. Apart from a rearrangement of groups and the addition of group 12 in 1961 and groups 13 and 14 in 1971, benefits in general were last increased in 1957. The standpoint has always been that as workers’ salaries increase, they automatically move up to higher groups and consequently receive improved benefits.

The average benefits at present amount to approximately 42% of an employee’s earnings. However, the present wage group system appears to be extremely unbalanced, particularly as far as the higher groups—i.e. groups 12, 13 and 14—are concerned. An employee in group 12 earning R1 795 per annum, receives the same benefits as an employee earning R2 600 per annum. As far as group 13 is concerned, an employee earning R2 601 per annum receives the same benefit as a person earning R3 406, while an employee in group 14 who earns R3 407 recives the same as a person earning R6 760. After considering the matter the Unemployment Insurance Board therefore recommended that the benefits be calculated on the basis of 45% of that employee’s earnings so that a situation such as the one explained above could be eliminated.

Some employees, i.e. those in the lower groups, will, however, receive fewer benefits than at present, but the Board pointed out that the numbers are minimal, particularly in view of the fact that wages are constantly increasing. Those who receive fewer benefits are for the most part unskilled and part-time workers. These contributors are usually employed in groups 1 to 3 and the maximum wage notch for group 3 is R546 per year or R10,50 per week. I just want to add that as the wage rates rise, it will soon be almost impossible to find people who are still in the lower wage groups. Consequently it has academic value only, and no practical value.

Owing to constant wage increases there are relatively few persons who are at present receiving these wages. Even the minimum prescribed wages of unskilled workers are at present considerably higher than the said amount. Those still remaining in the lowest groups are exceptions and it is not possible to make provision for exceptions. Any attempt to make special provision will start a chain reaction which will make the entire percentage scheme unpractical and impracticable. During recent years the number of workers in groups 1, 2 and 3 has also diminished considerably because of wage increases. During 1976 there were approximately 11 000 workers in group 1—I think this number is considerably lower today—while the numbers in groups 2 and 3 were approximately 7 000 and 19 000 respectively. The total number of contributors during 1976 was approximately 3 million. However, I shall point out to hon. members a few examples where benefits will be less favourable. A contributor in group 1 earning R4,50 per week receives R2,45 per week in terms of the present group scheme if he qualifies for benefits, and R2,02 per week under the percentage scheme. If he earns R7,50 per week in group 2, his present benefits are R3,50 per week and will be R3,37 per week under the percentage scheme. If we make a quick calculation, therefore, it is a question of R0,13. This group, too, is dwindling rapidly and will in future disappear. When he earns R10,00 per week and becomes unemployed, he receives R4,55 per week at present and in terms of the percentage scheme will receive R4,50 per week; in other words, there is a difference of R0,05. This group, too, will become smaller. The benefits in terms of the present wage group system and the envisaged percentage scheme do not, therefore, differ considerably.

One advantage of the calculation of benefits on a percentage scheme is that it will save a considerable amount of work and time. In addition, it will strengthen the fund financially. It is clear that a fund which has been financially strengthened will also be able to make better payments in future.

The amendments contained in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill are consequential amendments and arise from clause 3 which deals with the calculation of benefits on a percentage basis.

I shall now deal with clause 6 of the Bill because it is linked up with the payment of benefits when workers become unemployed. Section 41 of the Act prescribes the conditions for the payment of benefits when workers become unemployed. In terms of section 41(1) a contributor shall, inter alia, not be entitled to benefits if he refuses to accept or apply for suitable work, of which he has been notified.

Section 41(2) defines “suitable work” for the purposes of this section contributors are classified into three categories, namely those who earn R546 per annum—i.e., the workers at present in groups 1, 2 and 3. This is followed by those earning more than R546, but not more than R858 per annum—i.e. the workers at present falling into groups 4 and 5. Lastly there are those who earn more than R858 but not more than R6 760 per annum—i.e. the workers at present falling into groups 6 to 14.

Owing to the envisaged change-over to the percentage scheme and the fact that the abovementioned dispensation was introduced a long time ago and wages have since increased considerably, provision is being made in the amendment for only two categories—i.e. for persons earning up to R780 per annum, and for those earning more than that amount.

Clause 9 arises in part from clauses 2(a) and (3), which deal with the calculation of contributions and benefits on a percentage basis. As I have already explained, the group system is being done away with. In addition the amendment is aimed at giving a clearer description of the manner of calculation of a contributor’s earnings on an annual, monthly or weekly basis. Provision is also being made to round off the calculation of contributions, benefits and other amounts when fractions of a cent are involved.

I should now like to deal with the amendment in terms of which the State’s contribution is being limited, i.e. clause 2(b) of the Bill. In terms of section 29(2) of the Act the State has to make a contribution equal to 25% of the total amount paid by employers and employees in contributions to the fund.

When the amendments under the percentage scheme were referred to the Treasury, it was not in favour of the considerable increase which this would entail for the Government and it requested that the matter be reconsidered. The Unemployment Insurance Board was then reconvened on 15 October 1975 and informed of the Treasury’s standpoint.

The board was in no way opposed to the fact that the State’s contribution remained unchanged at 25% and that the contribution was being limited to R7 million per annum, but, recommended that the position be reviewed as soon as the full effect of the percentage scheme was known.

The employers pointed out, however, that the amendment would be inflationary and ought to be postponed for 6 months. The employees were opposed to such a step, however, and pointed out that the envisaged percentage scheme had been proposed by the employers, that unemployment was not excluded, and that workers would then have the short end of the stick. In their opinion the percentage scheme is an improvement on the group system and most unemployed workers will receive higher benefits in the event of unemployment. I just want to emphasize— this is very important—that the unemployed workers will in fact receive improved benefits.

I should like to point out that a postponement of the amendment for six months, as suggested by the employers at that stage, would not have had any appreciable effect since it would not have been possible in any event to put the statutory amendments into operation before early in 1977 owing to the numerous forms and regulations which would first have had to be amended. I want to emphasize that the envisaged amendments will strengthen the fund and that this is imperative at this juncture. At present the annual revenue of the fund from contributions of employers and employees is still inadequate to cover all the expenditure from the fund and the interest on investments will still have to be utilized in order to meet the needs.

It is estimated that the revenue of the fund from the envisaged percentage scheme will amount to approximately R38 million for the 1977-’78 financial year and to approximately R44 million for the 1978-’79 financial year, as against R29 million and R33 million, respectively, under the present wage group system—i.e. an increase of R9 and R11 million, respectively, for the two financial years.

In conclusion I shall deal with clause 11 which concerns the date of commencement of the measure. In terms of the said clause all the provisions come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. The amendments effected by clauses 1, 3 and 9, will not apply with reference to applications for the payment of ordinary unemployment benefits, illness allowances, maternity benefits or payments to dependants of deceased contributors received prior to the date of commencement of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, these are in the main the envisaged amendments and I trust that they will meet with the approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, although we on this side of the House are supporting the Amendment Bill, we are certainly not completely happy about certain aspects which will be raised and probed in the Committee Stage. We trust the hon. the Minister will then be able to resolve our doubts and fears in this regard. We realize that there are many practical difficulties in administering a law of this type, mainly because of human frailty, ignorance and dishonesty. We know of the great difficulties encountered by Blacks in particular because of the problems they have. We are told, for instance, that they have great difficulty in getting their payments once they are receiving unemployment pay, because they have to go to the Bantu Board Administration Offices, often at great expense and great distance— resulting in that they do not really get what is due to them. We hoped that this problem had been taken care of. Similarly they have problems allied to influx control. We are told that unemployed Bantu are afraid to register with the fund for benefits, because they fear that they will be victimized and that they will be endorsed out of the area in which they live if it is discovered that they are unemployed. Even if they do register and their card is stamped to the effect that they have not found employment, they will also be endorsed out of the area if they are stopped and this endorsement is seen on the card. This may be incorrect, but it is nevertheless the belief among a lot of the Black workers and it does lead to a lot of hardship. I do not quite know how the hon. the Minister intends to help in this respect.

As far as the Bill is concerned, I want to say first of all that we regret that the maximum admissibility to the scheme or the ceiling has not been raised. The hon. the Minister said that it had been left at the 1975 figure of R6 760 per annum and we feel that this figure is not realistic. Why could it not have been brought up to the figure which has now been set for the previous Bill, the workmen’s compensation scheme, namely R9 600 per annum? We also welcome the new basis for assessing contributions, namely the scrapping of the group system. I think everybody who has been an employer in industry will realize what a headache the group system was. The hon. the Minister rightly pointed out that this system led to delays and this was certainly the case where I was employed and in my businesses. One has to sort out the different groups each month and do the necessary subtractions and additions and work out the sum that one has to send to the commissioner. This always occasioned hours and hours of work. This flat percentage rate will certainly make things a great deal easier. We think that the amendment providing that where a man is off work one day a week it should not alter his stoppage, is also a good idea as it saves a lot of bookwork as well. We realize of course that the contribution of the employee to the fund is now higher than that of the employer. The employee is now contributing 0,5% whereas the employer is contributing 0,3%. We wonder whether this is perhaps to compensate the employer for acting as the department’s bookkeeper and paymaster. We realize that the demands on the fund are very heavy, and we have not had much joy from the hon. the Minister in this respect. The hon. the Minister said that a lot of thought had been given to the subsidy which has been paid to the fund previously. The Treasury contributed a subsidy of 25% to the fund. This has now been limited to R7 million. The hon. the Minister made this sound as if it was an increase. However, this is not an increase, because the hon. the Minister himself admitted that the drawings or the pay-outs by the fund are growing each year, and here he is virtually cutting back on the subsidy. We realize, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister realizes, that the reserves of the fund are not inexhaustible, and yet he now takes steps to limit his contribution, and I wonder why this is. The figures released by the department regarding the number of unemployed persons are, of course, as we all realize, unrealistic. It is said that there is about …

Just repeat that again.

The figures in regard to the number of unemployed released by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner are not realistic. After all, they can only go by the number of previous contributors and the number of contributors that are not now paying would give one the figure of the number of unemployed. The drop in contributors …

Man, he should see to it that he has a certificate!

Yes, but there are many who do not go and claim it.

†There are a great many of the Blacks who are not claiming their benefits, and how does one know who is no longer a contributor? One does not get that information from the employer’s sheet. One does not check every name. One only knows, at the end of the year, that the employer has paid for so many fewer workmen. This is not the way to find out how many people are unemployed. I am certain that the figure of a quarter million, which we have been given, is not a realistic one. It is said that there are 22 000 Whites unemployed and 103 000 Bantu. That makes a total of about 125 000 …

That has nothing to do with the Bill at all.

Of course it has. It is a question of the payment of unemployment benefits being limited. The larger the number of unemployed, the larger will be the payments the fund will have to make, and here the Government is cutting back on its subsidy. With the reserves it has, the fund is now said to stand at R208 million. I think this is correct. The hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. I have calculated that the average unemployment paid is R20 per week. With the present number of unemployed, such payments to the fund can only keep the fund going for 1½ years. Then the fund will be bankrupt, except for payments that are coming in from contributors. This is a serious situation, and we doubt if the unemployment figure is anywhere near correct. I do not think there are only a quarter million people unemployed in South Africa. We have been told that the number is far greater. The figure of one million unemployed has been mentioned, and it is said that the figure will increase to two million. How is the fund going to cope with such numbers?

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why the payment of the Treasury has been limited to R7 million instead of 25%. Is this a saving by the Treasury, because it is certainly not to the fund’s benefit.

We have no objections to the principle that contributions should be fully payable for normal working hours, even if a workman is absent for a day or two. I have said before that we have no objection to this. I do not quite understand, however, why the stoppage should only be for a portion of the week if a person starts a job at a certain time during the week. Why could this not be for the full week as well?

We also welcome the new way of calculating the benefits, i.e. on the basis of 45% of the weekly rate. I think this is of great benefit to most of the workmen. I realize that the lowly paid workers, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, will lose a few cents a week but he is quite correct that there are very few people today employed in industry under R10 per week, so I do not think this provision will affect that many people while being of very great benefit to others. It will also be of benefit of the fund.

In closing, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister about the explanatory booklet. It is said that the contributors to this fund are no longer being issued with the explanatory booklet. It is apparently being sent to the employers but not to the employees, and employees have great difficulty in knowing what they are entitled to. Here we have a Hobson’s choice. I do not see that we will achieve anything by opposing any portion of this Bill but, as I have said, we are certainly not enthusiastic about it. We will, however, give the Bill our support.

Mr. Speaker, one is grateful that the official Opposition supports the extremely important Bill before us in part, by the “yes, but” method. However, the hon. member mentioned a few things in relation to this legislation which troubled him. It worries him, for example, that Bantu are unable to obtain their unemployment payments because they are not registered. If a Black works in a certain area and is not registered there, the authorities are not to blame for his not enjoying the benefits of this fund, because, in the first place, it is his duty to ensure that he is properly registered and that he has complied with the influx control legislation. If all of them did this, no Bantu employee would experience any problems in enjoying the benefits of this fund.

Secondly, the hon. member referred to the maximum amount in respect of which these benefits are offered. At the moment this if R6 760. This maximum could perhaps be raised, but I think that we should at least take into account that it was increased as recently as October 1975 to the amount which I have already mentioned. Moreover, it is in fact the function of the Unemployment Insurance Board to introduce recommendations in this regard from time to time. I therefore believe that that board will make recommendations to the Minister in the future in regard to raising this maximum.

What is the difficulty at the moment?

The hon. member wants to imply here that nothing is ever done about this maximum. I want to emphasize that since this legislation was consolidated in 1966, the maximum amount has been increased on three occasions.

The hon. member also referred to the number of unemployed persons. The number of unemployed persons has absolutely nothing to do with the amendments which are being proposed here. As the hon. the Minister said, the Bill we have before us at present, was proposed and recommended by the Unemployment Insurance Board, which represents the contributors to this fund, including the employers. I think it is very important for us to take cognizance of the fact that the members of this board represent almost 3 million contributors and approximately 99 000 employers who also contribute to this fund.

It is also important to note that the amendments before us do not affect the principles or the objectives of the Act. They merely bring about certain improvements for the contributors to this fund. One is very grateful indeed that these amendments are being effected at a time such as this, when our economic prosperity is perhaps not what it was in previous years. The hon. member referred to the fact that the balance of this fund was R208 million on 31 December, and we are grateful that we could come forward at this very stage with improved benefits for the contributors to this fund.

What I find very important about the unemployment insurance legislation, is that we must not view these benefits as an encouragement or an enticement to people not to work. When the Unemployment Insurance Act was placed on the Statute Book, it was intended expressly for the man who wanted to work and not for the man who did not want to work—not for the loafer, if I may put it that way. It is meant to assure the man who wants to work, but, owing to unemployment, has no job, of a portion of the remuneration which he has lost. That is the aim of the legislation. No matter how eager one is to see better benefits created, I think we must pay particular attention to guarding against encouraging people not to work but simply to rely on unemployment insurance instead. This would result in the situation prevailing in other countries, where people live on the dole. This is not the intention of this Bill, because then we would be moving in the direction of a socialist state.

There are other extremely important benefits in this Bill. Previously, the contributors to the fund were categorized into 14 groups, but now everybody will contribute only 0,5% of his earnings, whilst the employers will contribute 0,3%. As the hon. the Minister said, this tremendously simplifies the administrative work of every employer in the country. Just imagine how many employees there are in a major undertaking such as Iscor or Sasol who earn less than R6 760 per year and who previously had to be divided into different groups, after which the earnings of those employees in a particular week had to be calculated every time so that their contributions to the fund could be determined. Now the employer will be able to divide the employees into two classes, viz. those earning less than R6 760 per year and those earning more than that. Then he will be able to contribute to the fund 0,8% of an employee’s earnings, 0,5% of which may then be recovered from the employer again. I welcome the fact—in fact, I think everyone does—that these tremendous improvements are being introduced under the existing Act in order to do away with that red tape, not only for the Department of Labour, but also for employers. This will do away with a tremendous number of statements that have to be sent backwards and forwards every month. I do think we ought to consider a few examples, because certain anomalies are going to be done away with by way of the new legislation. Just as the hon. the Minister referred to various groups, so I want to refer to group 14. Group 14 varies from an income of R3 406 per year to one of R6 760: Now it used to be the case that the contribution of that employee was the same, whether the employee earned R3 406 or R6 760. Now, of course, this will be done on a much more gradual basis, because persons earning R6 000 per year and R3 600 per year, respectively, will each contribute 0,5% of their respective salaries, which will have the effect that those contributors who used to contribute the same amount to the fund in the past will in future contribute to the fund on a much simpler and more equitable basis, according to their earnings. However, these people will also be able to enjoy the benefits now, and I think that it is only right that they should at least enjoy these benefits on a percentage basis, whereas this has not been the case up to now. Let me take the case of the employee who earns R3 600 per year as an example. The benefits he would have received from the fund amount to R20,30 per week, or, on a monthly basis, R88. Since this new legislation now provides that they will no longer be classified into groups and compensated accordingly, he will now receive 45% of his earnings; in other words, whereas in the past a person received R88 on an income of R3 600 per year, he will in future receive R135. A worker in the same category who earned R6 000 per year, also received R88 per month in compensation on the basis of the rates applied in the past but will in future receive R225, which means that the compensation he will receive in future will be a just percentage of his earnings.

It is unfortunate that the workers in categories 1 and 2, totalling approximately 18 000 or 19 000 workers, will not derive benefits from their increased earnings, but will receive less compensation in the future than they did in the past. I think that whenever we are evening out and rationalizing anything, we should expect that not everyone will profit by such moves, but that, unfortunately, there will always be those who will be adversely affected. However, if one considers that after these amendments only 0,6% of all contributors will not be better off than they are under the present Act, then great progress has indeed been made in doing justice to everyone.

It is perhaps important, particularly in the times we are living in, in these times of rising unemployment, that we should take a look at this fund. I find it impossible to share the pessimism of the hon. member for South Coast, who says that we will exhaust this fund within the next year or two. I cannot share his sentiment at all, because I cannot foresee it. It is not necessary to be as pessimistic as that hon. member by thinking that we will drain away R208 million in the next few years. On 30 December 1975 the fund stood at R196 million, and at present it stands at R208 million. I think it is important also to look at the benefits which are enjoyed under this legislation. If we take the normal benefits of unemployment insurance, we find that there were 94 000 applicants during the past year, 1976, who enjoyed benefits amounting to R10 million, as against 62 000 during the previous year and an amount of R6,3 million. There was, therefore, a slight increase in the amount tapped from the fund, and one can expect that during the present year larger amounts will probably have to come from this fund. I think we should just note, though, that these benefits are not only paid out when the worker finds himself in a state of unemployment. As a result of amendments effected to the Act, medical benefits were paid out to 37 700 workers during the past year. More than 42 000 people received maternity benefits. The number of relatives who received death benefits, amount to 7 300. In other words, the total amount paid out in benefits during the past year was R29 million, as against R23 million during the previous year. Consequently I cannot share the pessimism of the hon. member for South Coast at all. I fail to understand how this fund could all of a sudden be exhausted in the future. The hon. member claims that the Government now wants to cuts its contribution, and that by as much as 25%. This has never been the case. The highest it has ever been was last year, and then it was R6,1 million. Consequently, no cuts are being made. Provision is being made for a maximum amount of R7 million.

Mr. Speaker, the workers of South Africa are particularly grateful that this day has arrived, and it gives me great pleasure to lend my whole-hearted support to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill. Before I move on to the Bill itself, I must say that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has made some very sweeping and, I believe, some very simplistic statements here today in his anger with the hon. member for South Coast.

I am not angry with the hon. member.

He dismisses some of the points which that hon. member has made, something which I do not quite understand. He talks very sweepingly, for example, about the fact that if Black workers are not registered and are not in receipt of their benefits, it is through their own fault. This is far too simplistic. The fact of the matter is that, as the industrial market operates today, Black workers, particularly those who come from distances and are legally employed in an area, have grave difficulty in receiving the benefits accruing to them when they are unemployed. If a Black worker, for example, is unemployed, he has to return immediately to his homeland or to the area from which he has come, unless he is permitted to stay in that specific area, in terms of the Act. Of course, a great number have to return. Then they have to continually come back again to find out whether the benefits are coming their way and whether there are other jobs available. So, they are caught in two worlds. This is what happens so often to many hundreds and thousands of industrial workers in South Africa. They are living in two worlds. Therefore, I believe we must be much more sympathetic and we should try to streamline the administration, even more than it is now, in order that those workers who deserve the benefits which are available to them, should get this without being impeded.

One of the other reasons why a lot of workers are not receiving the benefits, is not merely through a fault of the Government or of the unemployment insurance, but simply because a great number of employers are not providing the UIF cards when workers are given employment. We know that the law states that they should do this. Very often they only complete the card at the time when the man or woman becomes unemployed. The hon. the Minister, therefore, should make sure that those employers who do not give sufficient care to their employees, and who fail to complete the cards if their employee becomes …

When will you be dealing with the Bill?

All right, let me refer to illness benefits, for example. If an employee falls ill, very often he cannot get the benefits which he would normally obtain, simply because no card has been completed until such time as he becomes unemployed. Therefore I say that there are a number of ways in which the administration of the unemployment fund can and should be streamlined. I concede immediately that this must be seen against a very difficult background. The fact that there are hundreds and thousands of people moving from place to place in South Africa, because of the great numbers of people moving from a rural background into a situation where they are totally unfamiliar with the industrial background, does cause considerable problems. However, that does not mean that we must overlook them.

Secondly, the hon. member for South Coast referred to unemployment. The hon. member was immediately attacked by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who said that it had nothing to do with the Bill. However, the fact of the matter is that the Unemployment Insurance Fund Act, No. 30 of 1966, has a direct bearing on unemployment. It exists to care for people who are unemployed. No one can get away from the fact that we are in a situation where unemployment is escalating.

That has nothing to do with the amendment now before the House.

That is beside the point. We are busy with the Second Reading of a Bill and it is permissible to speak in these terms. The Bill does not exist in vacuo. The Bill exists against the background of escalating unemployment in South Africa. That is the fact of the matter when you look at the number of applications for unemployment money. The report of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the year ended 31 December 1975 states that only 146 073 applications for the various types of benefits provided for in the Act were approved, compared with a figure of a bit more than 125 000 during 1974. To me this indicates two things.

Firstly, the number of people who are unemployed and therefore require the benefits of unemployment insurance, is going up. Secondly, a great number of people who are unemployed obviously are either not covered by unemployment insurance or are not applying or receiving the benefits which they should receive. I think that one cannot simply approach this whole question of unemployment insurance in an amending Bill just lightly without regard to the times in which we live. This has a direct bearing on clause 2(b), on which the Minister deliberately put emphasis. To the hon. the Minister himself it is obviously clear that this clause is a very important part of this particular Bill. The clause relates to the State subsidy and it is true—the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is absolutely right—that this amount remains at 25%, but not exceeding an amount of R7 million in any one year. However, if one looks at the figures quoted by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, it is quite clear why this limitation has been placed. I am not sure if I understood the figures correctly, but on page 23 of the hon. the Minister’s speech he informed the House that in the 1977-’78 financial year the total income of the fund would be R38 million. That means that it is increasing every year. For example, in 1978-’79 this amount will increase to R44 million. I assume that the amounts quoted by the hon. the Minister refer to the amounts paid by employers and employees without the State subsidy. If that is true and you take 25% of that, it means that the percentage of the State subsidy in comparison with the total amount paid, is going to decline. Therefore it is very important to link the State subsidy with the present situation of rising unemployment, otherwise this fund is not going to receive the kind of subsidy in relation to what it is receiving now.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned, I was mentioning that we in these benches will support the Second Reading of the Bill before the House, and I was referring to two major problems concerning unemployment insurance. The first was in respect of the difficulties some contributors have had in receiving the benefits due to them. I gave some of the reasons for that. There is one thing I want to underline. I hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will be very severe on those employers who simply do not fulfil the requirements of the law regarding those employees who ought to be registered and receive the benefits due to them. I know the department is looking into this, but I mention it again, because I know it is so important.

I also mentioned that we cannot talk about the Unemployment Insurance Fund without being aware that unemployment is rising in South Africa. It is difficult to conceive the number of people who have applied for benefits arising from this fund against the background of the various figures concerning unemployment which are now being speculated about. One can only assume, firstly, that there obviously are a great number of people who are unemployed who are not covered by this fund and, secondly, that there are a number of unemployed people who are simply not claiming from the fund. This does not form part of the Amendment Bill, but I remind the House that there are a great number of people who are excluded from the unemployment insurance. In a sentence I want to remind the House that agricultural workers, casual or seasonal workers, foreign Africans, domestic servants in private households, African miners living in compounds and of course obviously those who are earning R10,50 or less, are in fact excluded. While I appreciate the arguments made by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech regarding those earning R10,50 or less, and the increase in wages and salaries, those who earn R10,50 or less are very much in the minority.

In keeping with the argument we had in the previous Bill, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to have in this Bill the designation relating to Bantu workers who earn this amount. We should simply talk in terms of workers. This seems to me a much more reasonable approach, because if you earn R10,50 or less, irrespective of who you are, you do not qualify for this. It seems to me a much more reasonable approach than to actually designate people in those terms.

To come back to the Bill itself, I want to refer to a couple of items, the first being clause 2, which contains the new formula which is being introduced. We in these benches believe that this is a great improvement. I have talked to a number of employers and employing bodies, as well as trade-unions, and they all believe this is a definite improvement on the previous system. In terms of administration particularly this is a great improvement, both from the employers’ and the department’s point of view. We have no objection to that.

When we come to clause 2(b), which refers to the State subsidy, I want to repeat the argument I made very briefly immediately before the adjournment, relating to the addition of the wording “but not exceeding the amount of R7 million in any financial year”. One can only assume that the reason for this pegging of the State subsidy to the Unemployment Insurance Fund arises out of the fact that contributions are increasing and that indeed claims are increasing. Therefore the hon. the Minister and his department deem it wise to limit the amount payable in any specific year, because if one takes the straight 25% on the projected figures the hon. the Minister gave us in his Second Reading speech, that amount would of course exceed R7 million. I should very much like to hear a little more from the hon. the Minister as to the motivation behind this change, because I think it is a very important one, specifically bearing in mind that according to the figures in the official report for the end of 1975 the State’s contribution amounted to R5 145 506 and, obviously, that amount has grown during 1976 and will grow even higher in 1977.

The State is now limiting the growth. Is this wise, bearing in mind that unemployment is on the increase? Is it wise to peg this amount to an amount not exceeding R7 million? Would it not be wiser for Parliament merely to consider this on its merits against the background of the situation facing the economy and industry in South Africa for each given year? In other words, one is asking for the figure of 25% to be retained, but one is pegging the amount at R7 million. I should like to hear a little more argument advanced as to why this limit was introduced.

The provisions in clause 3 are greatly to be welcomed. I am grateful for the hon. the Minister’s explanation regarding the lower income groups, but I want to point out that although it is true that initially those groups earning less income are not going to suffer drastically, they are certainly not going to gain any advantage in the case of the groups outlined in the Bill. There is, however, no question whatsoever that the discrimination—it is perhaps too strong a word—against employees in the higher brackets is now being done away with and I think that this is a great improvement. Previously those employees earning the higher rates were actually penalized in comparison with those who were earning lower rates. This provision has been altered and a great improvement has been made for those who are earning higher incomes. It is true that the lower groups do suffer, although only slightly and, as the hon. the Minister himself explained, that will be put right as the person moves from the lower to higher earning rates. It is also true that the minority of workers are to be found in those groups. We believe, therefore, that although initially there will be this difference, it is a sensible move.

The only other comment I want to make on the Bill itself—and I am mindful that this is not reflected in the amendment Bill, but is part of the original Act—is in regard to clause 6. I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister that unemployed persons must accept work—this is part of the Act— including work in agriculture or work as a domestic servant provided that they are physically capable of doing the work. I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister the anomaly which does exist under the present system, in the hope that he and his department will investigate the matter when they consider further improvements to the Act, which I am quite sure they will continue to do. One may take the example of a young man who enters the service of a factory as an unskilled worker, say at the beginning of 1977. In the middle of the year, after six months service, he loses his employment because of redundancy. They become unemployed, but when they apply for benefits they are told that they have to accept employment, including that of domestic servants or as agricultural workers. The anomaly is that if they accede to that they immediately accept work which is not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Fund; in other words, they are moving quite specifically to their disadvantage. They are moving out as an industrial worker which was covered by the Act. They are eligible for benefits, but they are now told that they have to work and accordingly accept work as an agricultural or domestic worker because there is no alternative. Both these categories are, however, not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe that this is something that the hon. the Minister needs to look at with some care because I do not think that this is really fair.

The last couple of points I want to make is that if one is to look at the Unemployment Insurance Fund in relation to the actual situation facing the industry and the economy today, then one must reiterate the question that I put to the hon. the Minister earlier this year, and that is whether it is the responsibility of those involved with unemployment insurance to apply their minds to possible ways and means of meeting the unemployment situation. If not, could they not provide a real service to the country in doing just that. It would seem that they are the people who know the situation intimately because they know the problems and they know the needs. One would therefore expect that they would have the expertise and the information to make specific recommendations to the hon. the Minister, to this House and to the country. Finally, I want to take this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister whether this Act, as amended, will cover the Transkei as well. I am not clear on that point, and I therefore simply ask for information.

With these comments we reiterate that we support the Second Reading of the Bill, and furthermore, will support it in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, South Africa has been very fortunate in the sense that for a number of years, we have been in a position in which unemployment did not really pose any ominous problem to the country. Admittedly, we did have unemployment, but never to the extent that one could say that it constituted a threat. This does not mean, however, that one was unsympathetic towards those people who were unemployed. The point I want to make, however, is that the problem was not of such a serious magnitude that one needed to be deeply concerned about it. We are now living in another era, and recently, this problem has escalated to a serious degree. Since this Bill is before the House, it is perhaps necessary to understand the point which has already been made here, namely that there are thousands of people in South Africa who are not covered by unemployment insurance. Sometimes, a man who is looking for a job comes to one, and one then asks him what his position is and where he comes from. One is then faced with the disconcerting fact that this man has held a job in the past which offered him no insurance. I think that this is a mistake and that the matter will have to be gone into again and again. The workers of South Africa will simply have to be encouraged, motivated, to make use of the insurance which has been made available to them.

I want to say at once that, on behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the Bill, but I also want to say that this does not mean that I do not have any misgivings in regard to certain aspects. I have just been discussing those people who are not covered by this Bill. It is particularly interesting to think that the politician, in these times of great political uncertainty, is not covered either. I wonder whether one could not perhaps introduce an amendment which would cover the politician’s interests? In the times we are living in, the unemployment problem is escalating and it is a serious matter for all of us. At such times, it worries me that the State should limit its contribution to R7 million at this particular stage. I do not doubt for one moment that we all understand the State’s motives, but, to a certain extent, the State must also accept responsibility for the unemployed persons in our country and I do not think that the State could have done better than to have made a gesture which showed that it, too, was prepared to make its contribution—a question of 25%—under the abnormal circumstances prevailing in South Africa. I am sorry that that limitation was imposed. I understand the hon. the Minister’s reasons but I really hope that this will be the last time that this House is asked to exempt the State, as it were, from its legal obligations—very old obligations which go back to 1941—at the very time when the State, too, ought to be showing its willingness to do something for the unemployed in South Africa.

There is yet another matter which troubles me. I must say at once, however, that I find it extremely interesting, and a very good thing, that the hon. the Minister has said that the wage group system is being done away with. I consider this to be a wonderful change when I think of all the red tape and unnecessary work which will be eliminated. We have been discussing this legislation in this hon. House for years now, but only now, for the first time, like a wonderful revelation, is this new idea emerging and are we realizing for the first time that we can eliminate a great deal of work. Truly, one is never too old to learn, not even in this hon. House. I think we must welcome this idea from all quarters. However, as I have said, what worries me is that there are two groups. There is group 1, the lower income group, with just over R10, 15 per week. The second group is a little higher. If one calculates the benefits which these people receive, however, one discovers—and the hon. the Minister was so correct in pointing this out—that it is in fact the poorest of the poor who, under this new system of percentage benefits, stand to lose perhaps 21 cents per week, 20 cents per week, 15 cents per week or 13 cents per week. Hon. members in the House may now ask: But what are 21 cents per week or 20 cents per week? To a hungry person, 20 cents is a lot of money. I simply cannot understand how the department, with all its insight and ability, was unable to devise some system which would provide for the poorest of the poor first, and after that for the higher income groups. I do not know how to do it because I am no accountant, but I know that we are dealing here with a group of people to whom 20 cents or 10 cents are a large sum, and I am sorry to hear that it is these particular people who will lose money under this new dispensation.

The other matter in respect of which I want to support the hon. member for Pinelands, relates to the new basis on which employment will be found for the unemployed. Under the present system, attention will no longer be paid to what a person did in the past. It will be a question of the wage group in which one fell, and employment will be found for one according to this. I feel strongly, however, that since the State bears part of the responsibility for finding employment for a person the State must ensure that that person is employed in a place where he will, in fact, be covered by unemployment insurance. I should not like to see a situation arising in which the State, as a result of the implementation of its machinery, makes itself instrumental in encouraging people to find employment for themselves which they know will not afford them the cover of this insurance fund. I think that the State ought to pay particular attention to this matter.

A few weaknesses have been mentioned, but I still think that the benefits implicit in the Bill outweigh the disadvantages. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, that although I have referred to the disadvantages, I can say with great pleasure, on behalf of my hon. colleagues, that we welcome this Bill and that we have no doubt that the majority of the workers in South Africa who fall under the fund, will also welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, much has already been said about the Bill and I do not think there is too much I can add. However, I do have a number of questions that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I do feel I should take this opportunity to support the Bill because I believe it has made a number of major contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I want to agree with what my old friend, the hon. member for Maitland, said about the efficiency with which this legislation can now be administered as a result of some of the provisions the Minister has introduced in this Bill. I do believe that this is going to cut down the amount of work tremendously. We should like to see the Government do more in this regard in this time of inflation. Most of all, I think we should welcome the increased benefits which will now accrue to those people who are on the higher levels of income. One of the major weaknesses of this fund in the past has been that people, who were earning higher salaries, up to about R6 760 per annum, received a benefit of only about R20 per week when they found themselves unemployed. The legislation before us increases that benefit to approximately R58 and I think that that is a major advance in this connection. I know of people—I shall be referring to one of them shortly—who will appreciate this very much indeed.

One point which I wish to raise yet again—it has been raised before by my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast—concerns the fund itself. I am concerned about the position of the fund at the present time and about its future. I know that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said that we were being rather pessimistic, but I do believe that, despite what some hon. Minister on that side may say, the recession we are experiencing is going to worsen before it gets better. I think that the figures show that unemployment in South Africa is growing. In December 1975 the unemployment among Whites, Indians and Coloureds, who benefit from this fund, was in the region of 17 500. The hon. the Minister must correct me if I am wrong. A year later the figure climbed to about 22 500. I should like to know where the figure stood at the end of January or February this year. Has there been much of an increase? However, I believe the Bantu unemployment gives us more reason for concern. I think that the figure for Bantu unemployment as at the end of December was approximately 104 000.

There is a point I wish to put to the hon. the Minister in this connection. This fund is now going to pay out vastly increased benefits at the upper levels. We are entering a period in which I believe that, regrettably, there is going to be increased unemployment and we find in clause 2 that the Bill will limit the Government’s contribution to R7 million. The applicable limit has been raised on a number of occasions in the past. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not the fund is going to be able to cope with the set of circumstances which appear to be developing in South Africa at the present time. I appreciate that actuaries work out the contributions and also the benefits but, in the light of the present circumstances, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what, in his opinion, would be the level of unemployment which could destroy this fund within 12 months. This is something I should like to know. I am not being pessimistic, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark suggested the hon. member for South Coast was. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: If we reach a level of unemployment of about 4% and this level of unemployment is sustained for a period of 12 months, how much would we have in the fund at the end of this period? I would like to know whether it could sustain a level of unemployment of 5% or 6%. I would just like to know these things to satisfy my own curiosity, because if this fund should be depleted in a very short time, then I believe that we will be in a very serious position.

I say this because when looking at these new contributions, I personally do not believe that they are extremely high or excessive. For argument’s sake, a person earning R6 760 a year would pay a monthly contribution of R4,50, which is an increase of R3,50 on what it was previously. I do not believe that this is an excessive amount of insurance to pay when one thinks of the disaster that one would have to face should one be unemployed and not have other resources.

There is one other point I want to put to the hon. the Minister, namely, why it is not possible to raise the limit to a level which is far higher than that which is presently set, i.e. R6 760 per annum. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to include all employees, regardless of how much they earn. After all, this is an insurance policy. People are paying premiums for it and they should receive certain benefits. I say this because at the present time there are many people who are earning more than this who are finding themselves unemployed. This present recession is hitting not only the working class, or the artisan class; it is also hitting the white-collar class of people and many of them are finding themselves in serious trouble. In this respect I would like to quote from a letter which I received at the end of last year from a person whom I know, a man who is in his thirties and who has managed a factory. He was at that level of employment, and managed large numbers of staff. He says that because of the circumstances caused by this recession, in his particular form of employment, he finds himself unemployed and has been unemployed for some months now. Furthermore he says, and I quote—

Has he left?

He has not left, fortunately. I received a letter recently from him and he has not left. He goes on to say in this letter which I received last year—

I would like to put this to that hon. member on the other side who asked that impertinent question, because this is a man who is unemployed in this country. If hon. members on that side of the House do not have any respect for the unemployed in this country, they do not deserve to be the Government of this country. I quote further—

And this is what this Bill is all about—

Such as that hon. member over there—

I did not intend reading the next paragraph, but in order to inform that hon. member on the other side of the attitude that this person has, I quote what he says further—

I did not intend reading that last paragraph, but I have done so because of what that hon. member said earlier. The question I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is this: Why is it not possible for his department or this fund to raise the limit to include all sorts of people, even, let us say, company executives? I believe that this type of insurance can only be carried or administered by the State. I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said earlier, namely that this fund is for those people who will work, and not for those who do not want to work. After all, we on this side of the House most definitely believe in the free enterprise system and we certainly do not go along with the social welfare concept of things. Therefore we are not talking about social welfare. We are talking about insurance which, I believe, people who are employed would like to takeout. For instance, a man earning R12 000 a year, would be quite prepared, I am sure, to pay R5 per month in order to obtain the coverage for 45% of his salary, should he find himself unemployed. I am also quite sure that this employer would be prepared to consider it at R3 per month. The advantage of this suggestion is that, I am sure, these contributions would swell the resources of this particular fund; it would increase the strength of this fund, and most of all, it would cover all our people, including those in the white-collar areas of activity.

These are the questions which I would like to put to the hon. the Minister, and I sincerely hope that he would be able to reply in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the hon. members who participated in this debate. In the first place, I want to thank them for supporting this Bill in principle. Furthermore, I thank them for the positive contributions which came from both sides of the House. I want to add that I discovered that hon. members made use of this opportunity to ask a considerable number of questions. I do not blame them for doing so. When one reads the Bill, it seems to create an opportunity to speak on a wide range of matters and to ask a lot of questions in regard to unemployment insurance in general.

However, I think that hon. members will agree with me when I say that there could be a very fruitful discussion when the Labour Vote comes up for discussion. When that opportunity presents itself, we will be able to discuss many of these matters to good advantage. Now, of course, I must try to confine myself as far as possible to the Bill under discussion, and the principles it contains. I want to give hon. members the assurance that I have taken cognizance of the many questions they asked, although I want to point out, with all due respect to them, that many of the matters they referred to, no matter how interesting they may have been, are not relevant to this debate. However, I invite hon. members to raise those questions again at a later stage, when we come back to these matters—I shall create the opportunity for this myself, when my Vote is under discussion. I shall attempt to reply to them then.

In the main, Mr. Speaker, there are two matters to which I want to refer. The two matters which, in my opinion are in need of attention, were raised by hon. members on both sides of the House. The one matter deals with the question of the State’s contribution to the fund. As the Bill indicates, the State’s contribution will in future amount to R7 million per year. Hon. members now want to know, however, why a limit is being imposed and why the amount cannot be greater. I want to point out to them, however, that in the first place, this Bill is not merely the brainchild of the Minister and his department, but is in actual fact—and this concerns the Bill in the form in which it has been drafted—the responsibility of an Unemployment Insurance Board. This is the first point I want to make.

In the second place, hon. members will note that when the Unemployment Insurance Fund was originally established, the State’s contribution was 50%. This was subsequently reduced to 25%. Why did the State initially make a large contribution? It was because this type of fund, which accumulates and grows stronger—grows stronger as time goes by and as more people contribute to it—is always supported by the State initially, so that it may accumulate a convenient nest egg. For that reason, what was true then, is no longer true today and it is also true that the fund generates itself by way of contributions which are constantly accumulating. For that reason the need for the State to make a large contribution to the fund grows smaller. I think that it is part of our philosophy, a part of our general point of departure, that the State has a responsibility and must make a contribution, but that that responsibility must not be taken too far. As far as this particular matter is concerned, it is not only my standpoint, but the standpoint of this House as well, and all hon. members are involved in it after all. However, if circumstances were to necessitate it, this House could effect changes. Under such circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Fund, too, could address itself to this House and say: “We think that under the circumstances, some changes ought to be effected.”

This is the type of legislation which ought to enjoy the constant attention of Parliament, and when changes are necessary, they can be effected. This was the standpoint of the Treasury as well. Hon. members will understand that even the State does not always know where to draw the line in respect of such an important matter as a growing fund, a fund to which the State makes a certain percentage contribution. It is then that the State must decide whether the fund is strong enough on its own, or whether it is necessary to continue to make the same contribution, on the part of the State, as in the past. In this matter, I am completely satisfied that no injustice is being done. To tell the truth, the fund will grow considerably in years to come. I want to concede one thing, however. Suppose conditions in South Africa were to change to such an extent that unemployment got out of hand and assumed proportions which far exceeded our own expectations and our own hope for the future. Then I may return to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who asked me what the percentage of unemployment would have to be before the fund was in danger of being depleted. I must tell the hon. member at once that one has to be careful when one is discussing unemployment.

Figures such as 500 000, 1 million, 2 million, or whatever, do not represent contributors. When we talk about contributors, we mean people who put money into the fund and who take money from it. Consequently, an unemployment figure of 4% to 5% would already be a dangerous figure for us. It must be remembered that people who do not work, are not necessarily unemployed in terms of the Act, according to our conception of unemployment. For what is an unemployed person? An unemployed person is someone who offers his services when no one wants to buy them. A man who does not work, is not always unemployed in terms of the definition. Consequently, if one wants to talk about 4% to 5% unemployment, things would have to go extremely badly for South Africa before we reached this stage. I want to say in all honesty that I hope this will not happen. We have the time to consider it, however. We have an Unemployment Insurance Board which serves as watchdog and adviser, and I have confidence in the board. Although I can understand the sentiments behind the hon. member’s question, I want to tell the hon. members that I am satisfied that no mistake is being made, because the whole aspect, even the point which the hon. members made, has been discussed in detail by that specific board. We can return to this next year, after the Bill has been in operation for six months or a year. Parliament can always rectify something if it thinks the circumstances require it. As far as I am concerned, I must say that I have an open mind and I shall be the first to say that we ought to improve on something if we feel that it is wrong. If we can reach an agreement on this basis, I think we may be satisfied.

There is also the question of the people who, it is alleged—I hear this every day— make contributions and then have difficulty in obtaining compensation from the fund. However, the question is one of who is entitled to compensation. It is a man who works somewhere and who, for his part, according to the formula, has made his contribution to the fund. That man will be able to claim something back from the fund if he cannot find a job one day. A great responsibility rests with the employer to ensure that the people who work for him are registered, and will not experience problems at a later stage. I think this point was made by the hon. member. I want to say at once that we hear about those things, and action can be taken against them. I can give the assurance that we take strong action, and if hon. members want to tell me that the action the department takes is not strong enough, we may discuss it and decide to take even stronger action. I agree that if there are employees who do not play their part and who cause the employer to land in difficulty, that man ought to be consulted and, wherever possible, this is, in fact, done. The method employed in catching employers, is to make inquiries about the previous employer of an employee who comes and asks for money because he is unemployed. One then discovers that the employer had been negligent in some respects and one can charge him with it. The department is there to investigate this type of thing and it does so to the best of its ability.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked me whether the legislation would apply to Transkei. The legislation will not apply to Transkei because Transkei will make its own legislation in future. Hon. members know, however, that the position is such that we are always available to give them all the necessary advice and assistance in this regard. I do not think the hon. member mentioned anything else that I ought to discuss. He mentioned quite a few things that I do not feel I need reply to this evening.

The hon. member for Maitland, too, stated a standpoint with which I am sympathetic. I think I mentioned this in my speech. If one works out a formula for 3 million people, according to which the people are being given a great deal, one is sorry that there are 6 000, 10 000 or 15 000 people in categories 1, 2 and 3, but I want to say that this gap is closing rapidly. To tell the truth, I think the number is dwindling by the month. It is difficult to be without money. My father always said: “Threepence is not much money, but the day you do not have it, you will find out how much it is worth.” This is true. One must draw the line somewhere, however. I believe that the economy is absorbing the workers and raising the wage limits to such an extent that this will not really present a practical problem.

The question has already been asked as to whether our statistics are correct and whether we can say exactly how many unemployed persons we have in South Africa. It is the responsibility of the Department of Labour to keep statistics in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians up to date, to the best of its ability. The Department of Bantu Administration, on its part, also tries to keep the figures up to date.

In fact, special attempts have recently been made in this regard to assist the State and other bodies in determining the unemployment figure. The Department of Bantu Administration has instructed the Department of Statistics, with the co-operation of my department, to be more efficient in keeping up to date with these statistics in future. The hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to confirm that instructions have been given with this in view. I think that once we have received the results of the department’s efforts in this regard, we shall be in a better position to judge exactly how many people are unemployed. This is not the occasion to make a speech on this, but I just want to say that we have to be very careful when we discuss unemployment in South Africa. I do not think that everyone participating in the discussion has the same concept of unemployment. This is a very difficult matter. I should prefer to argue it out a little on some occasion. One can see that what I say is true, by noting that everyone who tries to determine a figure, has a different point of departure. Consequently, one finds that the figures which are quoted, vary from something like 500 000 to 2 million. Not even the experts who are involved in this, can differ by 400% over what the actual figure is. In any event, this is not the time to argue about it. What pleases me, is that on this occasion, we were still able to succeed, under the present circumstances, in effecting these improvements. One feels that the workers deserve it and I think it is a definite step forward. Moreover, I am satisfied and pleased that the gap which existed, particularly in the higher group 14—where a man who earned approximately R3 000 and another man who earned approximately R6 000, received the same benefits, which was not right—has narrowed. I am also pleased that the House has discussed it in this spirit this evening. As far as unemployment insurance is concerned, there will always be excellent opportunities for further improvements if we can discuss matters across the floor of the House. I shall always be prepared to listen, so that as time goes by, we will be able to improve this legislation even further.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we shall not be voting against the Third Reading of the Bill, but we trust that there will be no delay by the hon. the Minister in implementing the Bill. We accept his assurance that the matters which are worrying us will be discussed under his Vote. There are still matters that are worrying us, for example, the question of migratory labour which the hon. the Minister has just discussed. How are we going to treat migratory labourers who are contributors to this fund? How are they going to be paid? There are lots of questions that are worrying us, but I am sure that we shall be able to resolve them and discuss them under the hon. the Minister’s Vote. We are living in a changing world and by the time the hon. the Minister’s Vote comes before the House, the employment and industrial position in South Africa could have changed radically. We could, for example, find that changes to this very Bill are already necessary. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for treating us as courteously as he did and for explaining matters so fully.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Third Reading of the Bill, but I should like to make a few comments relating to the reply of the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading of the Bill. One accepts with gratitude the knowledge that there is a renewed effort to establish the rate of unemployment in South Africa. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, we know full well what the figures are relating to White, Coloured and Indian unemployment, but there has always been speculation and rumour in regard to these figures, which has been very detrimental to the country. We are grateful for the assurance that a new instrument, new methods, are going to be found whereby we shall know far more clearly what the state of unemployment is. I agree that figures of between 500 000 and 2 million are quite ridiculous. It means that people start projecting, which is always a very bad situation. I should like to mention two matters in this regard. I accept the fact that some items we raised during the Second Reading really belong to the Vote of the hon. the Minister and we shall wait patiently to hear from the hon. the Minister regarding those matters.

I again want to stress that where people are unemployed they are compelled, in terms of the Act, to accept employment which falls outside the Unemployment Insurance Fund, for example domestic service or agricultural work. This seems to be an anomaly which needs to be investigated. I hope the hon. the Minister and his department will give some attention to this matter, because it seems to me to be quite wrong to take a person who has been covered by the insurance and then draft him into employment over which he has no control and no insurance at all. It will mean that he is set back and somehow I do not think that is fair. I am quite sure that a lot of people who would normally accept such work hesitate to do so, because there is no coverage whatsoever.

Another matter I mentioned, was that if one is going to be positive in the accumulation of statistics so that one knows what the rate of unemployment is, one should also go on the offensive and begin to devise ways and means to tackle the unemployment problem. I hope that the hon. the Minister and his department, particularly those who are directly concerned with the Unemployment Insurance Fund and who know the demands that are made upon the fund, will give their minds, against the background of their skill and experience to the question of coping with unemployment and making a contribution. I believe they could make a very valid contribution in this regard.

The reason why I raised the whole question of pegging the amount of the State subsidy to an amount not exceeding R7 million, is the timing. One must bear in mind that the Bill was originally introduced into the House eight or nine months ago, and a great deal has happened in South Africa since that time. One wonders whether with the new information one has of rising unemployment, this pegging would have taken place. I fully appreciate that the State must not always be depended upon to be the first to contribute. It must, of course, give more initially to get the fund on its feet and then allow the employers and the employees to keep the fund going without any assistance at all. However, I do not think we have reached that point and one wonders about the timing. I accept the assurance given by the hon. the Minister that this will be looked at with great care, and I hope that this will be done constantly, because I think we are in a very risky situation as a result of the down-turn of the economy and the subsequent unemployment. With these few remarks I want to indicate that we support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill comprises for the most part amendments to the Military Pensions Act of 1976.

Hon. members will recall that the Military Pensions Act of 1976 ushered in a new era last year as regards the payment of pensions and gratuities to certain persons who had sustained a disability as a result of military service. On that occasion I pointed out, too, that improvements to the Act as it appeared before the House at that stage were in fact possible and that it was possible that amendments would be introduced in the House in the near future. Since then, further discussions have been held with, inter alia, the S.A. Legion, and clauses 1 to 11 inclusive of this Bill are amendments seeking to eliminate certain deficiencies experienced. I wish to elucidate the various clauses briefly.

The present definition of “parent” is perhaps susceptible to the interpretation that the lawful parent of a member of the Defence Force does not necessarily have to be dependent on him to be classified as a parent. However, the contrary is true. From the outset the intention was that such parent should have to be largely dependent on the deceased member for his or her maintenance. Clause 1 now puts the matter beyond question.

Apart from the pension and gratuity which may be paid to certain persons, in the case, for example, of the person who has to appear before a medical board to determine the degree of his pensionable disability, certain allowances are payable to compensate him for expenditure incurred in respect of the travelling and accommodation expenses he incurs in order to appear before such a board. Clause 2 amends the existing provision to provide for payments of this nature as well from funds voted by Parliament, and also gives authority to pay funeral expenses.

As hon. members will recall, the amount of the pension payable to the widow of a deceased member is supplemented by an amount equal to half of the annual pension which was or would have been payable to her husband immediately before his death. The amount of the annual pension payable to a member is however determined with regard to his percentage pensionable disability, viz. the degree of disability caused by military service. In the case of a soldier being killed in action, half of the amount by which the pension of the widow of such a member must be supplemented is at present calculated on the presumption that her husband’s pensionable disability was 100%. However, an anomaly then arose. However, in the case of a member already in respect of a pension who died at a later stage as a result of his pensionable disability, the percentage of his pensionable disability is at present left unchanged at the percentage disability at which his pension was calculated before his death. The amount by which the pension payable to the two widows concerned is supplemented can therefore differ considerably, notwithstanding the fact that both their spouses died as a result of a disability caused by military service. There appears to be no justification for this anomaly—and the S.A. Legion also insisted on this point—and the obvious step to take was to set the degree of disability of the member who died as a result of his pensionable disability at 100% for pension purposes. Clause 3 of the Bill gives effect to this.

Due to the repeal, inter alia, of the War Pensions Act of 1967 it was found that widows of ex-servicemen who died before the date on which the Military Pensions Act of 1976 came into effect, and who had not submitted their application for compensation before the date mentioned, did not qualify in terms of the new dispensation for the payment of a benefit. Clause 4 seeks to reopen to these widows the door that was closed to them.

†May I just mention, in passing, that we have thus far only had two such cases, but we have to provide also for those people who, through loss of memory and no fault of their own, have not applied and should be allowed to apply.

*I now come to the following point. A pension is only payable with effect from the beginning of the month following the date on which a member’s period of military service expired or in which the member died. As a result of this provision, when a member, is discharged from his national service at the beginning of the month, for example, he can receive no compensation for the period up to the end of the month. The same applies in the case of a widow of a member who died while performing military service, for example. This provision is not in accordance with the spirit of the Act in question, and clause 5 now rectifies the matter so that a benefit is payable with effect from the beginning of the month in question.

Certain deficiencies which came to light in the practical implementation of the Act are rectified by clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Provision is made, inter alia, for the fact that a “volunteer” of previous wars may undergo medical treatment, that the period in which an appeal may be lodged, may be extended in certain cases, how to dispose of the pension moneys of a pensioner who leaves no dependants on his death, and that regulations may be promulgated relating to the payment of certain allowances to persons who have to undergo medical or psychological examination or who have to undergo training. Those, then, are the amendments to the Military Pensions Act of 1976.

As hon. members of the House will note, this Bill is known as the omnibus Act. However there is a special reason for this, a reason which I shall deal with later.

Clause 12 relates to the Government Service Pension Act of 1973. Where moneys are payable to the Government or an administration by a member of the Government Service Pension Fund on the date of his retirement or discharge, or where the Government or an administration has to pay moneys in respect of such a person, the moneys may, in terms of existing provisions, be recovered from the benefits payable to such a member.

However, where for example in recognition of previous periods of service, a member owes certain amounts to the Government Service Pension Fund for the purposes of pensionable service, there is no provision for recovering this debt, too, from such a member’s benefits at the time of his retirement or discharge. Clause 12 seeks to rectify this aspect so that the amounts owing to the fund may be recovered.

The existing pension laws do not provide when the benefits payable in terms of their provisions are to be paid. Everything possible is done to pay these benefits to the person concerned on his last working day or as soon as possible thereafter. But I do want to bring to the attention of the members who come to us with complaints in this connection that due to late submission of the documents prescribed, the determining of outstanding amounts, faulty filling in of forms, inadequate data, documents which are mislaid, etc., a speedy settlement as prescribed is not always possible and sometimes this means that benefits cannot always be paid promptly on the day after retirement.

Consequently clause 13 seeks, on the one hand, to establish certainty where uncertainty prevails at the moment, and, on the other hand, to provide for a reasonable period for payment.

In the past, as hon. members know from experience, it has become necessary from time to time to make provision for the retention of the pension rights of certain persons. I want to tell the House frankly that this clause is the reason for the department’s omnibus legislation coming before the House at this juncture. Clause 14 is such a provision and envisages the retention of the pension rights of certain employees of the Armaments Board, which is to be absorbed by the Armaments Corporation of South Africa and in respect of which legislation was considered by the House earlier in this session, as hon. members will recall.

Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the Bill is self-explanatory. This is merely a brief explanation to hon. members of what this Bill is really about. I thank hon. members in advance for their support.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for a very comprehensive Second Reading speech outlining the various provisions contained in this Bill. I should also like to put his mind at rest by saying at once that we of the official Opposition will certainly support the Bill at Second Reading. Therefore his anticipation was fully justified as far as the support of the official Opposition is concerned.

However, Sir, there are certain aspects to this Bill concerning which we require further information and should like to express certain views. First and foremost, the Bill deals with amendments to the Military Pensions Act of 1976. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that, when that measure was passed by the House last year, it was welcomed by all sides of the House and was indeed a major step forward in making proper and more adequate provision for war disablement pensions. Consequently, it does not come as a surprise that we now have amending legislation before us endeavouring to obviate certain difficulties that have arisen and to rectify certain omissions that might have occurred in the 1976 Act. We welcome the various provisions and amendments that are being placed before the House at this stage. Sir, this is an opportune moment for us to associate ourselves with the tribute the hon. the Deputy Minister has paid to the S.A. Legion which has played a mjaor role in bringing about certain amendments to the original Act and also in bringing these amendments to the House.

The various clauses dealing with amendments to the Military Pensions Act can in the main be looked upon as improvements and, indeed, additional benefits are being granted. If one looks at the provisions, one sees that the definition of “parent” has been widened to include a person who has been dependent mainly upon a member and that certain claims are made for benefits in respect of such persons in terms of this legislation. We know that in this respect certain difficulties do arise, particularly in regard to young men who undergo their training almost immediately after leaving school. To find ways and means of determining whether a person is mainly dependent or not as far as that child is concerned, is a rather difficult matter. We realize that this amendment endeavours to meet that shortcoming. However, there is also the other aspect where at a later stage older parents find that it is likely that their deceased son would have contributed something towards their keep. This is another aspect which requires attention from time to time, where at a later stage the parents find that it is necessary for them to make an application for some form of assistance.

The other aspect of allowances under the provisions of clause 2 is the question of funeral expenses which are to be defrayed in terms of section 3 of the principal Act. If one looks at the principal Act, one will see that in terms of section 23 provision is made for regulations in terms of which certain of these expenses can be defrayed. It would appear that this is a provision which has now become necessary to include under section 3 of the principal Act, and I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he can give an indication, as far as the defrayal of these funeral expenses are concerned, whether there is a minimum amount or maximum ceiling laid down. If one looks at the principal Act, in terms of section 3 provision is made for the various amounts to be paid under the principal Act with regard to pensions, gratuities and other allowances. Funeral expenses are now to be added to this section, and provision is made that different amounts may be paid in respect of different population groups. Here one is inclined to ask what the policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister is with regard to these funeral expenses, whether any set amount has been determined, because as one knows costs have escalated as far as funerals are concerned.

The position of widows and dependants is an important provision. The South African Legion, during the course of last year, made representations which I believe were circulated, not only to the Government, but to the Opposition parties as well, wherein certain doubts were expressed concerning the position of pensioners and widows, particularly where the pensioner had died as a result of his pensionable disability and where the widow would not receive the benefit of 50% of the 100% disablement pension that was awarded in such cases. Consequently, we welcome this provision of the Bill as also the provision as far as medical treatment is concerned in terms of clause 7.

As far as appeals are concerned, a matter which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned during his Second Reading speech, there was previously a three month period and where it is now proposed that this should be a prescribed period, the hon. the Deputy Minister has placed on the Order Paper an amendment which I understand he will move during the Committee Stage. We on this side of the House would like to say that we would welcome that amendment because we believe it is most important—and this is usually done by the S.A. Legion on behalf of members and ex-servicemen—to ensure that all the facts are made available to the medical appeal board or the tribunal. It is often necessary for these people to obtain additional information and additional evidence which they wish to place before the appeal board and before the tribunal so that their case may receive full and due consideration. Consequently we are pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he intends moving an amendment along these lines to facilitate the lodging of appeals where in some cases, for very good reasons, the period of time might exceed three months, as stipulated in the principal Act.

The other aspect with which I would like to deal is the provision in clause 11 for the insertion of a new paragraph dealing with the payment of subsistence, transport and other allowances. We certainly welcome this provision. In terms of the same clause, paragraph (b) there is an addition of another subsection which provides, in relation to the regulations under section 23 of the principal Act, that “different regulations may be made under subsection (1) in respect of different population groups or categories of persons.”

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this stage to indicate that we on this side of the House regard it as being unfortunate and unnecessary to place on our Statute Book legislation of this nature, legislation which differentiates purely on a racial basis. Indeed, when the original legislation was discussed last year, we moved amendments endeavouring to delete certain sections, because we felt that in a piece of legislation of this type, of this nature, we should at all costs try to move away from the question of racial differentiation. So, in terms of the principal Act we already have the clauses whereby different amounts may be paid on the basis of population groups or categories of persons, at least as far as the formulae are concerned. We also know that the principal Act brought about a new situation whereby, by formula, it was determined that amounts would be paid as a benefit in terms of this legislation. We believe that on a sliding scale it would have been possible to obviate the necessity of differentiating on the basis of colour, and merely to have such differentiation on the basis of the degree of disablement and the potential earning capacity of the persons concerned. Similarly, in the existing legislation, as far as the payment of benefits and pensions and gratuities are concerned, we already do have in the principal Act the stipulation of different amounts that may be so paid in respect of different population groups or categories of persons.

In terms of the Bill that is before us, the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to incorporate a different regulation to be made under subsection (1), which deals with the regulations for the various population groups. We believe that it is possible and practical if this could be obviated by means of ensuring that, in terms of the Bill as it now stands, it already has that differentiation. However, the reason why we oppose this additional differentiation as far as the regulations are concerned, is because we believe it is not wise, particularly at this stage when we are endeavouring to move away from discrimination or differentiation on a racial basis. In addition to that, we know that the hon. the Minister of Defence has said on occasions that, as far as the future defence of South Africa is concerned, it is probable and likely and desirable that members of other population groups, apart from the White group, should also be brought into the defence of this country. Consequently, I believe that this legislation, which makes provision for benefits and gratuities and allowances—in other words, for adequate compensation where possible, in terms of the legislation—for those persons who are making a sacrifice for the defence of South Africa, should also ensure a basis of providing that compensation without bringing in the question of difference in population groups and without differentiating on that basis.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill at Second Reading, and we hope it will bring about an improved situation, particularly as far as the Military Pensions Act of 1976 is concerned, so as to obviate some of the difficulties that have arisen with the practical application of the Act which was passed last year.

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to hear that the official Opposition supports this Bill, which is a good Bill. As regards the proposed amendments, as mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo, I just want to point out that what he apparently wants to prevent—with reference to clause 8—is the period for submission of the appeal being made shorter than three months. We cannot share his fear, because the very problem which the department faces in this connection, the problem which the appeal board faces, is that the period of three months which is permitted is too short. That is the factual position and the hon. the Minister is trying to rectify it by means of these amendments. That is why we can also give our wholehearted support to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s proposed amendment, the amendment at present printed on the Order Paper.

As regards the proposed repeal of clause 11(b) on page 8, I fear that I am unable to support the hon. member’s proposal. I do not want to go into the merits of the matter. Other speakers on the Government side will do so. The fact is, however, that the principle involved here, viz. that a distinction is drawn among various population groups, and also among various categories of people, already exists in the Act. This was a feature of various sections of the Act last year, inter alia, section l(2)(a), section 3(2) and also section 8(2). This was debated in full in this House last year. All that is happening now is that the hon. the Minister is also acquiring the right to promulgate regulations with regard to those principles that have already been accepted, as they appear in the Act. We are not dealing with a new principle here, and that is why we find it difficult to understand or support the objection raised by the hon. member.

All indications are that the Military Pensions Act which was placed on the Statute Book last year is working very well. It is a sound act which, for example, in numerous cases of death and injury to national servicemen who have been engaged in defending South Africa, has provided for the financial relief to which they or their next of kin and dependants are entitled. As is the case with any Act it was found that a few hitches cropped up. These hitches do not point to serious deficiencies, but are no less important for that reason.

The main purpose of the Military Pensions Act is to provide for the due care of an injured soldier and, in the event of his death, of his dependants. This is the aim of the Act. Looking at the provisions of the Bill before the House, one can see that it, too, seeks to achieve this aim. I want to refer to just a few of the provisions in order to support my standpoint that the due care of people who have sacrificed their lives for South Africa is the object envisaged. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, the definition of the concept “parent” has now been extended so that it may clearly be stated that “parent” can also include a person who was largely dependant on an injured or deceased soldier.

At present an injured soldier can receive a pension or a gratuity. However, when he has to travel to undergo a medical examination or for the fitting of an artificial limb, he has to do so at his own expense. In terms of the existing Act, an extra allowance to provide for that expenditure cannot be paid to him. This is unfair. The amendment Bill being submitted by the hon. the Deputy Minister now makes it possible for an allowance to be paid in this case in terms of clause 2.

A further example is that the existing Act provides that the pension of the spouse of a soldier killed in action may be supplemented to the extend of 50% of the pension to which her husband would have been entitled. For example, if such a soldier is only 50% disabled and dies a day, a month, two years or 10 years later due to the injury he sustained, the spouse can only receive 50% of what he received. In this instance, irrespective of whether he died as the direct result of an injury he sustained, her pension can be supplemented by only 25% of what he received. This is unfair, because the soldier certainly died due to an injury which he sustained in the same way as his colleague who died immediately. Clause 3 now rectifies this inequity.

The present Act further provides that a pension is paid with effect from the month following the month in which the national serviceman is, for example, discharged from the Defence Force. If, therefore, a soldier is discharged on 2 February, for example, he can only receive a pension from 1 March. This procedure has also been adopted in the case of widows whose spouses have been killed in action. This has given rise to unnecessary hardship for these people. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West also referred to this last year. That is why we are now very pleased that this is being rectified by clause 5. In the case of a national serviceman in a hospital, he will receive the pension from the month in which he is discharged.

There are further amendments, too, and they are for the most part of this nature. They seek to promote the care of the injured and/or the dependants of casualties and to make things easier for these people. Therefore, by means of this Bill the Government is taking a whole series of positive steps in the interests of our people and we really owe the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department a debt of thanks for the measures they are putting into effect and for their thoughtfulness towards our people who are in distress. We wholeheartedly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Bill which is before the House. I shall be very brief. Firstly, I want to say that any measure which improves the situation for the assistance, pensions, allowances or benefits of those who have served their country and have suffered as a direct result thereof, is obviously to be welcomed by—I am sure that it will be-—all the members in the House. I want to stress two particular points contained in the provisions of the Bill. The first is in terms of additional benefits which are contained in clause 2. I believe that this is a definite improvement and I know it will be welcomed by those concerned. This, of course, bears specific reference to allowances and funeral expenses. The provision in clause 7, for medical treatment at the expense of the State, is also an improvement and is to be welcomed. There is no need for me to go into the aspects which have already been raised by the previous two speakers. It is with pleasure that we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great appreciation that we on this side of the House—and, I am sure, all the hon. members in the House—welcome the introduction of this amendment Bill. Looking at this amendment Bill, it is striking that provision is being made here for those people who are defending the Republic of South Africa at a very high cost. It strikes me that we are dealing here with compensation to people who are in distress and who defended the Republic of South Africa in the good days of their lives so that the enemies of the country too, can live safely and peacefully within the Republic. When I think about it, this Bill is really to be welcomed. We have here an amendment Bill which not only provides for those who sustain disabilities due to national service, but also for the dependants they leave behind, those who, in their time of need, are often in great distress. We welcome it in that it provides for that soldier of the Republic of South Africa who, after his death, still leaves dependants. What I find particularly striking about the amendment Bill is the fact that here, too, provision is being made for the training of that person who has lost one or two limbs and would not otherwise be able to make a living. It strikes me, too, that provision is being made for the cure of physical or psychological disabilities and for the training of that person who has in fact lost his place in everyday life.

As regards the remark made by the hon. member for Umbilo, viz. that there is discrimination between the various population groups, I should like to associate myself with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, viz. that what we are dealing with here is in fact a matter of principle. It is a principle that is already contained in the Act and which is only being extended here. When I think about this specific clause, which gives the Minister the right to make regulations in respect of various population groups and categories of people, it is my heart-felt desire that the day should dawn when we should get away, in our legislation, too, from the allegation that is often made, namely that this side of the House discriminates on the basis of colour. This often hinders our relations policy. I should so much like to see us treating the various population groups as if all were inhabitants of this country, in other words, that we should get away from the criterion of colour as is done in the Bill in which people are dealt with honestly and with sincerity in the light of an historic fact which must be recognized and to which not only members on this side of the House, but also hon. members on that side of the House have contributed. I refer to the historic fact that there are various population groups in the country. With these few words I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and other hon. members who have given the legislation their wholehearted support on the basis of the fact that it not only affords greater benefits to our men in military service, but also streamlines recognition of the service they have rendered by way of the aid we give the people in their distress.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues and I have studied the Bill before the House carefully and have come to the conclusion that we can support the Bill. I listened to the comprehensive speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and then to the detailed exposition by the hon. member for Umbilo—as only he can do it—and supported by other hon. members and if I still had any doubt, this evening I am a thousand per cent convinced that we were quite correct to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many hon. members in this House are cricket fans, but I believe Eddie Barlow said that he knew Western Province was going to win their match against Natal because I think a guru came into the dressing room and predicted that Western Province would win the match. I am certainly not a guru, but I have proved to be a prophet when I said that I was looking forward to the support of the Opposition, even that of the hon. member for Rondebosch. Seeing that we belong to different religions …

It was the hon. member for Pinelands.

I am sorry about that …

You are coming right.

Yes, we are both coming right. I want to thank hon. members who took part in the debate very much for their contributions to the debate, particularly the hon. member for Umbilo, who made available to me his comments before he came to this House. The hon. member posed two questions, and because I do not want to refer to the matter again during the Committee Stage, I want to reply to the first question, in regard to funeral costs, by saying that no minimum or maximum is laid down in respect of funeral costs to be paid, but that the tariff is fixed according to prices prescribed by the State Tender Board. It varies from time to time.

The other question was why we inset this in section 3 of the original Act. The hon. member will know that in section 3 of the original Act, we provide for certain other things, but not specially for the question of funeral costs. It is now being done, and I think it is an improvement on the provisions of the old Act. It is being done at the request of the South African Legion. Another point to which I have to reply, is the hon. member’s comment on clause 11 of the Bill—he warned me beforehand and I thank him for doing so—where he gave notice of an amendment as far as the different race groups or different categories of persons are concerned. This amendment will be considered during the Committee Stage. I have already indicated that I shall accept in an amended form, the other amendment which the hon. member for Umbilo has given notice of, but we shall have to discuss this other matter during the Committee Stage and I promise the House that I shall not keep hon. members too long on this question. I think we have proved that the promise my department gave the House last year when the Act was passed has been fulfilled. We now have these improvements and I want to thank the South African Legion and other people—in this regard I am thinking specially of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who brought certain aspects to my notice and other hon. members who brought hardships to my notice. It is only after the relevant aspects are brought to one’s notice that one can improve on any legislation. I have always welcomed it, and I want to repeat the promise which I made last year, viz. that any suggestion to improve the benefits payable to the people serving this country, will receive our serious consideration at all times and under all circumstances. I wish to thank the members who took part in the debate for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 6, in line 55, to omit “the prescribed period” and to substitute “a— period of three months”;
2. (2) on page 6, in line 57, after “concerned” to insert:

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to express our appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister for coming forward with these amendments because they meet the situation in respect of which we ourselves had intended to move an amendment. The amendments moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister are, however, an improvement on the one we contemplated and we therefore have much pleasure in supporting his amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the first portion of this clause, but paragraph (b) is a new provision as far as the regulations are concerned. The clause aims to amend section 23 of the principal Act which stipulates, as far as the regulations are concerned, on what basis these regulations should be framed. In terms of this the hon. the Minister may make regulations concerning the constitution, venue and quorum, the procedure of the medical appeal boards and various other procedural matters such as the appearance of witnesses and so forth. It also deals with two other sections relating to the defrayal of funeral expenses and the payment of certain allowances.

A clause that we have already passed, clause 2, creates the situation whereby the payment of certain gratuities and also the question of the defrayal of funeral expenses is incorporated under section 3 of the principal Act. The payment of gratuities and pensions are provided for in section 3 of the principal Act. Last year, when the House considered the 1976 Act, it passed a section whereby different amounts may be paid in respect of different population groups or categories of persons. Similarly, when dealing with the question of the formula under the principal Act the House also accepted an amendment to section 2(a), which relates to definitions. This provides that different amounts may be determined in respect of different population groups or categories of persons. Last year we opposed both those provisions because we felt that the basis of calculating the benefit to be paid could be done in another manner than purely on a basis of the race and the different population groups. We did not oppose section 8 of the principal Act, because that section dealt with existing pensioners and we felt that the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Government, in its wisdom, should at a later stage have the right to have different increases because the principal Act provided that different increases may be determined in respect of persons belonging to different population groups or categories of persons. We felt that that provision would assist the Government should it wish to narrow the gap between the pensions paid to Whites and those belonging to other racial groups. However, in terms of this clause now before the Committee, provision is to be made for different regulations, in terms of subsection (1), for different population groups or categories of persons. I do not intend to repeat the arguments we used last year, nor am I going to reiterate the few points I mentioned earlier in the Second Reading debate of this Bill, but we do feel that it is not necessary to provide for these different regulations on the basis of a difference in population groups or categories of persons. As far as benefits are concerned, provision is being made for the fact that there shall be different amounts. However, the formula, on which the benefits to be paid are based, determines a certain factor to be taken into account in calculating the amount paid, and this can also be based on different population groups or categories of persons.

Therefore the principle adopted last year has been incorporated in the principal Act. Last year, when the 1976 Act was before the House, no provision was deemed necessary for different regulations based on different population groups or categories of persons. It would appear to us on this side of the House that this is perpetuating a situation which we believe is unnecessary and certainly not desirable because, as I indicated earlier, in this type of legislation the benefits that are paid in terms of war disablement and military pensions to widows and dependants should not be governed by regulations based on difference between population groups. In addition to that, this Act is administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Authority is not delegated to other departments to deal with specific race groups. We have other pension legislation in terms of which other departments, for example the Department of Bantu Affairs, the Department of Coloured Relations or the Department of Indian Affairs, can deal with certain pensions in terms of the various race groups. There is consequently a specific department that concentrates on, and is responsible for, the administration of the pensions for a particular population group. However, I have always understood that this Act is administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and that it is the responsibility of the Minister of that department, and therefore it does not seem desirable to have incorporated, particularly in legislation of this kind, different regulations for different population groups or categories of persons. I consequently move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

paragraph (b).

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member said that he was not going to elaborate on an issue which we discussed fully when the principal Act was passed last year. I think there are some instances when we shall simply have to agree to disagree. However, it is not a question of disagreeing with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member. I indicated last year that the Government had promised to try to narrow the wage gap, amongst other things, and also to narrow the gap between the pensions paid to different race groups. I think it was proved with last year’s legislation, that there was a drastic narrowing of the gap. I think that is generally acknowledged. I think it was Peter Druker who once said: “There is such a lot of time wasted because we do not know the difference between effectiveness and efficiency.” He described this by asking: “What is the sense in doing, with the greatest efficiency, something which should never have been done at all?” So what is the sense in discussing at great length, if I may mention this here, things which we cannot put into practice? Effectiveness means that one has to be practical. Efficiency can mean doing a grand job perfectly, but a grand job which is merely a blueprint.

Sir, although the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Umbilo are in perfect accord with what the Government has set out to do, I think he has to be practical about it too. We do not have the money to do this type of thing. If we do this, if we do not differentiate as has been done since before 1948, we have no right to withhold equal pensions to the different race groups.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear”, and eventually we will have to reach the point where I can say “hear, hear” too, but one must stay within one’s means. This thing cannot be done at the moment. Why should we be good at discussing at great length and with great command of words why a thing should be done when we realize it cannot be done? Sir, however much I regret it, I cannot accept this amendment and I think I have stated fully the reasons why I am unable to accept something, concerning which I agree that it will eventually have to come, but which cannot be done at this stage for the reasons I have previously given.

Mr. Chairman, we should like to make the position of those of us who sit in these benches quite clear. We certainly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo. We appreciate the difficulty expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and we recall that he expressed similar difficulties when this matter was raised last year. He did say then, if my memory serves me, that the Government would certainly be looking at this with great care and would do all in its power to move away from this. I accept that as sincerely meant.

However, I believe that the hon. member for Umbilo is absolutely right in moving this amendment to ensure that we move away from this with the utmost despatch. The hon. member for Umbilo also made a good point when he mentioned that this is a fund that is administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and that the department should do all in its power to have exactly the same perks for all the members who are living and working in, and fighting for South Africa, and indeed suffering for South Africa, and that therefore there should be no distinction made on the grounds of race and colour. Therefore, mindful of the problems raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister, we nevertheless support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo.

Mr. Chairman, the ideal that is set is that we should be able to reach the position at which all differences between population groups are eliminated, at this level certainly. This is the ideal that must be achieved. It is a fine ideal and one hopes that it will be possible to realize it as soon as possible. But, as the hon. the Deputy Minister explained, unfortunately we cannot do so now in practice. If we were to insert in this Bill that which relates to present-day practice, we think that it would be a mistake and we therefore believe that the Bill should be accepted in its present form.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

While social work services for the White population group are primarily the responsibility of my department, these services, as we all know, are nevertheless undertaken in practice by voluntary and church-affiliated welfare organizations acting on their own accord or in accordance with an agreement on a basis of partnership and co-operation. This sound policy which is based on a sound mutual understanding and which has been the practice for decades now, ensures the effective incorporation and supplementation of each other’s services to the best advantage of the entire community.

As in the case of other welfare services, the agreement in regard to the division of social work among the Departments of Social Welfare and Pensions on the one hand and welfare organizations on the other, also applies in the case of the rehabilitation of persons dependent on dependence-producing substances. The application of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1971, was, as far as the rendering of social work services to the courts was concerned, entrusted only to social welfare officers who were officers in the employ of the State.

However, social workers in the employ of welfare organizations have to contend every day with the social evils which form the basis of that Act, and in many cases they are acquainted with the details of a particular case long before the assistance of a social welfare officer is called in.

The agreement between the departments and welfare organizations on the division of work has just been revised and provides that social workers of such organizations will also in future perform the functions which may at present be performed only by social welfare officers in terms of the Act. This will serve to promote continuity and a more rapid disposal of cases.

It is, however, essential that the Act be amended to adapt to changed circumstances. The connotation of the concept “social welfare officer” as defined in Act 41 of 1971, is restrictive and refers only to certain persons in the employ of the State. By substituting “social worker” for this concept, the revised division of work among the State and welfare organizations is made practicable. Consequently it will be possible for a social worker in the employ of a welfare organization to furnish social work reports on alcoholics and drug addicts brought before a magistrate with a view to committal to a rehabilitation centre, and it will also be possible, on the order of a magistrate, to submit persons who had been detained in a rehabilitation centre to the supervision of a social worker in the employ of a welfare organization. The foregoing is the object of clauses 1 and 3.

Section 4(A) of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres, 1971, provides that the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, after consultation with the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters and with the South African Medical Research Council, authorize any person in writing to possess, use, import or export any dependence-producing drug for the purposes of research. On the other hand the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, Act 101 of 1965, authorizes the Secretary for Health, on the recommendation of the Medicines Control Council and subject to specific conditions and requirements, to issue a permit to any person to acquire, possess, or use for scientific research, analytical or educational purposes certain substances declared in terms of Act 41 of 1971 to be dependence-producing drugs.

Now it so happens, Mr. Speaker, that South Africa is a cosignatory of what is known as the “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961”, which is also officially registered through the Department of Health with the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). The said department is at present the only body which authorizes in practice the import and export of narcotic substances into South Africa, while it also submits quarterly and annual reports in this regard to the INCB.

Hon. members will concede that the various laws and the various governing bodies, to which application has to be made for consent to possess the various kinds of dependence-producing drugs, create confusion, may even give rise to conflicts and may lead to duplication, and possibly to malpractices as well. Since the Department of Health, owing to its ties with the INCB, already plays such a major part in the national and international control of narcotic and other substances, and since the Department of Health has the necessary technical knowledge, as well as being equipped for that purpose, it is certainly the appropriate step to centralize, for the sake of effective action, the control of drugs under one Government department, i.e. the Department of Health. I am satisfied that the provision which exists in the present context, in terms of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 1965, is adequate and that section 4A, as is being determined in clause 2, may now be repealed.

With that then, Mr. Speaker, in very serious competition with those hon. members who have been discussing the electoral divisions of Pinelands and Durbanville, I submit this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official Opposition I want to say that we intend supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated the excellent work that has been undertaken by social workers. I believe that this is an appropriate time to pay tribute to our social workers, particularly those in the employ of registered welfare organizations, who are endeavouring, in this very real problem of drug abuse, to lay the emphasis on the rehabilitative rather than on the punitive aspects of this work. I think that in the original Act of 1971, when it was passed through this House, the emphasis seemed, as far as the Press media were concerned, to be concentrated on the punitive aspects. It is important to take into account that our social workers, through the various welfare organizations and through the churches, are endeavouring to bring about a situation in which they can tackle this problem, particularly as far as the rehabilitation of drug addicts is concerned. That is why we are pleased to see that, in terms of the Bill before us, the definition of a “social worker” is now to replace the definition of a “social welfare officer”, as contained in the original Act, which merely restricted a social welfare officer as being a person in the employ of the State. This important step is being taken to grant recognition to social workers in terms of certain sections of the Act, sections dealing mainly with the rehabilitation of drug addicts, but also with the submission of reports and so forth. It also provides for the procedure whereby persons eligible for admission to rehabilitation centres are being brought before a magistrate. Among the various other sections dealing with the definition of a “social worker”, are also that whereby a person is released on licence, and that referring to the reports which are necessary so that the person may receive due rehabilitation. All that is now being provided for by means of the definition of a “social worker”.

The other aspect is the repeal of section 4A of the 1973 amending legislation to the original Act of 1971 which was, as far as this side of the House is concerned, indeed a most welcome step. In this section provision was made for the research to be undertaken as far as these prohibited drugs are concerned. As the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that the research work will continue under the provisions of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act of 1965, it is not necessary for it to be included in the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act. Therefore, we on this side of the House welcome the provisions of this Bill and are prepared to support it at all stages.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey the sincere thanks of this side of the House to the hon. the Deputy Minister for introducing this Bill. As he has just said in his Second Reading speech, this legislation meets a need which has existed for years. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the commendable work which has been done over the years by voluntary welfare organizations. I have said that there has always been a need in this Act because the existing voluntary welfare organizations did not have the opportunity to do follow-up work as part of their task. I am thinking in particular of the commendable work done by associations such as the ACVV in the Cape, the S.A. Vrouefederasie in the Transvaal, the Oranje-vrouevereniging in the Free State and the Natal-vrouevereniging, the charitable services of the Gereformeerde Kerk as well as the wonderful work done by the Hervormde Kerk in this regard. However, I am also thinking of what various English-language organizations have done over the years. According to the existing Act a social worker was able to identify the case, but she was not allowed to do the follow-up work in regard to the alcoholic and the drug addict. For this reason we are extremely grateful for the thoughtful amendments to this Bill which afford those voluntary welfare organizations an opportunity to do this urgent follow-up and rehabilitation work. They are probably better able, I am saying this with all due respect and appreciation, to handle those cases in particular with which they have become acquainted over a very long period, better than any social welfare officer. I want to express our sincere gratitude and express the wish that this amendment Bill will afford voluntary welfare organizations the opportunity to attain new heights in their commendable work.

Mr. Speaker, we will support the Bill before the House, and as it is only a brief amending Bill which simply regularizes what is already taking place—it specifically provides for the work being done by social workers—we will say nothing more, except that we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches associate ourselves with the support for this Bill and also with the tributes that have been paid to the social welfare organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members who took part in the debate sincerely for their contributions. I want to associate myself with the words of thanks expressed to the welfare organizations of South Africa, not only those which work with Whites, but also those that work with other colour groups in this country. I think that we owe a great deal of gratitude to all of those people who for many, many years—this department has been busy for 40 years—have done this work voluntarily. We are dealing with people qualified as welfare workers, but I think that the first and most important qualification that the welfare worker has, is the sincerity at heart of the person who works with people who need help. In the past so many people without any qualifications have done the work in the same exemplary manner. I want to associate myself with the sentiment expressed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that this is the 40th year of the existence of this department as an autonomous department. I am glad that I can come to the House on this occasion with a measure such as this, which once again puts on record the welfare work that has been done over the past decade in the country. I want to refer to the close co-operation that exists between the Government and private enterprise, between the Government and welfare organizations and between the department and different welfare organizations who for many years have been working in this field. Apart from those people who do voluntary work and those who contribute in other ways, I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to those people in the department itself, those who moulded this department into a department of which South Africa can be justly proud. I therefore think it is a sad privilege for me to pay tribute to one of those who passed away recently, a gentleman who worked so hard for what he believed in. I am referring to Dr. Arnold Winckler, Deputy Secretary of my department, who during his time contributed so much to welfare work in this country and who inspired so many others to give their very best, not only to the department, but to all those less privileged people whose cases were brought to his notice. We recollect that Dr. Winckler also contributed by way of publications to our general policy of social welfare. What he has written will for a long time still serve as guide-lines to us in the department. I pay tribute to his memory.

I want to mention that welfare work has—as we all know—in the past always been done in close co-operation between the private sector and the Government and between the department and welfare organizations. I hope this will continue for many, many years, because it is only in this way that proper care can be taken of all those who need our help. I am referring specifically to children, since this is an amendment to the Children’s Act. I do not want to repeat what I said during the Second Reading of the previous Bill and therefore I am merely going to repeat briefly what I said during the Second Reading of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Amendment Bill, i.e. that in the past cases which were brought to the attention of the department could only be handled by officers of the department. Where these cases were brought to the attention of social workers employed by voluntary welfare organizations, they were not allowed to do such work.

We are now putting this on a basis where people to the attention of whom these cases are brought and who will do the following up work, also in the case of child welfare, will be able to do so under supervision of the different welfare organizations and, always, with the full consent and supervision of the Department of Social Welfare. I have no more to add than merely to say that I hope this Bill will also receive the support of all sides and all hon. members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House intend supporting all stages of the Bill. We believe it is a necessary Bill and a constructive piece of legislation. On behalf of this side of the House, I should like to associate ourselves with the tribute the hon. the Deputy Minister paid to the former Deputy Secretary, the late Dr. Winckler, who served the department, the country and the cause of welfare with distinction during his career. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the fact that this happened to be the 40th year of the Department of Social Welfare as an independent department. We should like to congratulate the department on reaching this milestone in its history. It is indeed appropriate that it should be mentioned tonight as one of the original pieces of legislation in so far as child welfare is concerned, was the Children’s Act of 1937. It was a major piece of legislation, which repealed all previous legislation. It was regarded, and it is still being regarded by those associated with child welfare, as the welfare charter as far as child welfare in South Africa is concerned. It is therefore appropriate that in the 40th year after the 1937 Children’s Act was passed we should compliment the Department of Social Welfare on reaching this stage.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that as far as the Bill is concerned, the same principle is applied here, whereby greater recognition is given to the duties of social workers. Indeed, the definition of “social worker”, as contained in clause 1 of the Bill, indicates that it shall be a person registered as a social worker in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1965. The Act of 1965 created a situation whereby a social worker attained the status of a professional person— in other words social work was regarded as a profession. It is interesting to note that many social workers, through their association, have made representations to the Government to see whether it is not possible for them to have their own piece of legislation giving full recognition of their profession. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he replies to the Second Reading debate, could give the House some information as to whether any progress has been made in enabling social workers to have their own Act and their own code of ethics, which will enable them to be recognized as a profession in the true sense of the word.

The other clauses of this Bill deal with the deletion of the words “probation officer”, which are substituted by the words “social worker”. We know that extremely important work is involved here. The social worker has to submit reports to the Commissioner of Child Welfare and others, particularly in regard to children who are found to be in need of care and who are placed in various children’s homes. We know that it is indeed a problem, not only in South Africa, but in all parts of the world where children are often forgotten once they have been dealt with in terms of a court order, having been found in need of care and placed in a children’s home. In South Africa it is necessary that reports be submitted to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions at the end of a two-year period and thereafter at least every 12 months, so as to ascertain whether it is not possible for that child to be returned to the parents or whether it should be dealt with on another basis rather than merely leaving the child in a children’s home. One can appreciate that this is indeed very important child welfare care work and therefore it is with a great deal of pleasure that we see that the hon. the Minister, in recognition of the work that is undertaken by our social workers and those in the employ of various welfare organizations, is giving due recognition to this work and that he is having this placed in legislation by means of the amendment to the Children’s Act that is now before us. We have much pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Children’s Amendment Bill is very similar to the Bill that we have just finished debating in this House and therefore I will not delay the proceedings of the House by repeating arguments which were made then, except to say that we support the amending Bill. I want to take the opportunity of commending the work of the department and I wish to underline the very real importance of co-operation between the Government on the one hand and private enterprise as well as voluntary agencies on the other. This has a very fine relationship which, we hope, will continue.

I also wish to congratulate the department on 40 years of independent work in this country, covering a wide range of fields. It has a very onerous task which is never-ceasing. I wish in particular to commend those who have served the department so well. We wish, in particular, to associate ourselves with the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister concerning Dr. Winckler. We have no hesitation in giving thanks to his memory and his outstanding service. With those words we wish to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches wish to add our support to those who have already given their support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is only one question that I have to reply to after giving my thanks to the hon. members who have given their support to this Bill. The hon. member fór Umbilo asked me a question about the commission of enquiry into the status of social welfare workers. I am glad to report that we may be able to come forward with legislation next year, but it will not be possible to do so this year. We did receive the report of the Auret Commission on the profession, as hon. members will know, but we are also dealing with another voluminous report at the moment. No doubt hon. members are aware of the fact that we are dealing with the revision of the whole Welfare Act, which is a mammoth task. To deal with all this is expecting too much of a department which is being served very well by very able men. We would be asking too much of them if we required them to complete these things in so short a time. I can, however, assure hon. members that everything will be done as quickly as possible. I want to add my thanks to the department and I wish to congratulate them on their many years of service, especially those who are doing welfare work nowadays. We are entering a new era which I hope will be a happy one.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Some time ago, at meetings of the Indian Council, certain members of the Indian Council expressed their concern about the fact that although many Indian boys and girls were completing their training at high schools, a technical college and a university every year, there was a reluctance on the part of these newcomers to the labour market to make their career outside the acknowledged professions or outside commerce.

After further discussions, the Indian Council came to the conclusion that the Indian population could make a much greater contribution to the industrial sphere and that representations should be made to the Government for the establishment of an Indian Industrial Development Corporation similar to the corporations which already exist in respect of other population groups, and that such a corporation should attempt to make Indians play a much more active role in industrial development, for the purpose, firstly, of achieving greater diversification of the activities in which the economically active Indian population has hitherto been involved; secondly, of deliberately promoting and stimulating opportunities for the Indian population to acquire expertise and management skill in the industrial sector; and, thirdly, of enabling the Indian community to make the greatest possible contribution to the national economy.

Arising from this, the Indian Council adopted the following resolution on 25 March 1975—

On 18 June 1976, the following information was conveyed to the Indian Council during its meeting—as quoted from the minutes of the meeting concerned—

†Statistics obtained during the 1970 population census reveal the following percentages of Indians economically active in commerce—

The request of the Indian Council, which is in accordance with Government policy, received the Government’s approval in principle, but it was decided that in view of the progress the Indian population had already made in commerce and service industries—as the figures I have mentioned clearly indicate—the resources of such a corporation should be applied exclusively to the creation of permanent productive assets in secondary industry which would offer opportunities for Indian employment and capital formation.

This was originally acceptable to the Indian Council. The Bill which is now being considered by the House has been drafted in accordance with the principles adopted by Parliament in the Coloured Development Corporation Act, 1962 (Act No. 4 of 1962) and the Industrial Development Act, 1940 (Act No. 22 of 1940). The provisions of the Bill were also discussed with, and accepted by, the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council and provides for the following:

Clause 1:

This clause contains various definitions and provides that the administration of the proposed Act be entrusted to the Minister of Economic Affairs, the reason for this being that the Secretary for Indian Affairs has indicated that the Department of Indian Affairs is not equipped to deal with the type of work which will flow from the administration of the proposed Act. Furthermore it is envisaged that staff of the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa be seconded initially to the Indian Corporation for Industrial Development from 1 April 1977 until 1 April 1980 by which time it is assumed that the Indian Corporation will have reached the status of a fully operative organization managed and staffed by Indians.

Clause 2:

This clause provides for the registration of the corporation as a public corporation in terms of the Companies Act, 1973.

Clause 3:

This clause defines the objects of the corporation, namely, the encouragement and promotion of the establishment of Indian industrial undertakings of a manufacturing nature, excluding commercial or service undertakings, with the objective of creating permanent productive assets which will afford opportunities for long-term employment and capital creation in the industrial sector of the economy.

Clause 4:

This clause defines the powers of the corporation. These powers are required to enable the corporation to manage its affairs on a business footing.

Clause 5:

This clause stipulates the lines along which the corporation should exercise its powers. It prescribes that applications shall be dealt with on their economic merits and that an unduly large proportion of the capital required by an applicant should not be provided by the corporation.

I may mention that it will be impressed upon the corporation’s board of directors to follow a policy that will not duplicate or replace financial facilities available from the banking and commercial sector and hence that it should concentrate on providing the medium-term and long-term capital requirements for the financing of fixed assets and the permanent working capital of Indian industrial undertakings.

Clauses, 6, 7 and 8:

These clauses contain the additional powers required by the corporation with regard to the letting of buildings and the investment of temporary surplus funds, the safeguarding of its investments and the employment, remuneration and discharge of its employees.

Clause 9:

This clause limits the loan funds which may be obtained by the corporation to 50% of the paid-up issued share capital of the corporation plus its reserves at file time loans are negotiated, except if otherwise authorized by the Minister.

Clause 10:

This clause authorizes the Minister of Economic Affairs, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, to issue a guarantee or enter into agreements in order to assist the corporation to raise the necessary loan funds.

Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15:

Clause 11 provides for the appointment of the corporation’s board of directors or alternate directors by the Minister of Economic Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Indian Affairs, and clause 12 determines that members of Parliament or of the Indian Council may not be appointed as directors. Clauses 13, 14 and 15 empower the Minister of Economic Affairs to determine the tenure and conditions of office of directors and the appointment of a managing director, and also absolve the directors, in their personal capacities, of claims for loss or damage in the performance of their duties as directors of the corporation. The provisions of these clauses are more or less similar to those regarding directors of the IDC and CDC in terms of the Acts which established those corporations.

Clause 16:

This clause provides for the initial share capital of the corporation on the following basis—

All the A and B shares in the initial share capital shall be taken up by the Government and the Treasury has been requested to provide funds in the 1977-’78 estimates for this purpose.

Furthermore all IDC interests, amounting to approximately R4 million, relating to Indian industrialists will be transferred to the corporation.

Clause 16 also prohibits the transfer of the A shares to another party save by an Act of Parliament. The B shares may with the approval of the Minister be transferred to Indians only.

Clause 17:

This clause limits the liability of shareholders to the unpaid amounts on any shares held by them.

Clause 18:

This clause determines that the expenses of the corporation shall be defrayed out of the funds of the corporation. Clauses 19, 20, 21 and 22:

These clauses contain the standard provisions regarding public corporations in connection with the utilization of their property exclusively for the promotion of their objects, the payment of dividends to shareholders, the auditing of books and accounts, the obligation to compile annual reports and financial statements and the tabling of these reports in the Senate and the House of Assembly.

Clause 23:

This clause empowers the Minister to make regulations with regard to the proper control and management of the corporation’s affairs.

Clause 24:

This clause determines that the corporation shall not be wound up except under authority of an Act of Parliament.

Clause 25:

This clause prohibits the use of the name of the corporation by any other person except in a case where the use thereof by such other person commenced before the coming into operation of the proposed Bill.

Clause 26 and 27:

These clauses determine that the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973—except section 25(2) dealing with the procedure for the conversion of public companies into private companies—and the Banking Act, 1942 shall not apply to the corporation.

However, in terms of clause 25(2) the Minister may, if he considers it necessary, by notice in the Gazette make any other provision of the Companies Act applicable to the corporation provided it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill under consideration.

Clause 28:

This clause contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I should like to say that the business skill of the Indian entrepreneur and his contribution towards the economic development of South Africa are well known. It is therefore my sincere hope that with their own Industrial Development Corporation to provide the necessary guidance, technical knowledge and medium and long-term finance facilities, industrial development in South Africa can reap further substantial benefits from the expanded participation of the Indian community in the rational exploitation of the numerous opportunities available in this country’s secondary industry for all our population groups.