I move—

Agreed to.

At an earlier stage of this Bill, the hon. Minister stated that the terms of this Bill had been agreed to by the Judiciary. I have attempted to calculate and to compare whether in all cases Judges will be better off as a result of the alteration. I have had a query, which is supposed to have emanated from one Judge who said that Judges in certain categories would be less well-off under the new provisions. I must say as I calculate the position that is not correct, but I would be glad to have the hon. Minister’s confirmation.

I know of no case where a Judge will be worse off under this Bill. Candidly as I know the position as to when Judges were appointed and how long they have served on the Bench, I know of no case where a Judge would be worse off. But should such a position arise I will see to it that they are in fact not worse off as a result of the provisions of this Bill. I have, however, gone into the position of Judges who retire next year and the year thereafter, and as I have calculated the position in terms of this Bill they will in fact be much better off than under the old arrangement.

In Section 3 of the old Act provision is made for the calculation of pensions in terms of so many years completed service or “a portion of such a year”. This Bill makes no mention of a portion of a year, and I wonder whether the hon. Minister can tell us why this change has been made?

I have not got the exact information here, because this point has not been brought to my notice, but in any case the provision is such that it would not make any difference, even though the wording is different.

After the great pains to which the hon. Minister went to explain the Bill to me, for which I thank him, and the very good publicity that I got in the Burger, there is still one question I have not been able to get clarity on.

What about the Coloured people?

No, not yet about the Coloureds. I hope one day there will be Coloured Judges.

The Minister must understand that I have the highest regard and esteem for the Judges of South Africa, and nothing that I say should detract from that. But I feel worried about one particular gentleman who was appointed to a commission when he was quite a young man and who is now delving in pages, probably now yellow with age, seeing the years rolling on and on, and he will soon reach the stage where he might go on pension …

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

I want to know whether that particular gentleman will possibly be pensioned before he finishes his work, or whether the Minister intends to make special provision for that gentleman?

Clause put and agreed to.

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

The hon. the Minister has indicated that persons who already have a firearm which can discharge a tear-gas shell will not be required, if they have a licence for the firearm, to have another licence in terms of this Bill. I appreciate the Minister’s desire not to burden these people further, and I appreciate that if the Minister was the person who had to determine each individual case the position would be easy, but as the law stands at present a person—and there are many, I understand—who has a licence for a firearm which at the same time can shoot tear-gas shells will, as the clause reads here, have to have a permit in terms of Clause 2 of this Bill, and not in terms of any section of any other law.

That is covered by Section 25 of the Arms and Ammunition Act.

Yes, but this being a later Act, it seems to me that there is likely to be confusion, not in the mind of the Minister or of his Department, but in regard to the application of this new law in the various magisterial districts. I wonder whether the Minister can indicate whether he will make it clear, say in a circular, to those magistrates’ courts that it is not necessary to have a further permit. Because as it stands, it seems that it is necessary to have it.

As I indicated here in the second reading, the position of tear-gas pistols is covered by Section 25 of the Arms and Ammunition Act. According to that Act, a weapon can be declared a dangerous weapon, and then it must be licensed, and tear-gas pistols have been so declared in terms of Section 25, and I am told by the law advisers that the position is fully covered. But to make assurance doubly sure, I will take up the hon. member’s suggestion and make it clear to the authorities concerned that that is the position.

I hope the Minister has not misunderstood me. I do not mean a tear-gas pistol. I mean an ordinary pistol which normally fires ordinary cartridges but which can also be used to fire a tear-gas shell. There is an hon. member here who has such a pistol.

Yes, the shells are covered, too, by Section 25.

That pistol has already been licensed but as the clause stands now the owner is also required to register it in terms of this clause because it can fire a tear-gas shell.

I am aware of that position, and I am told that that is also covered by Section 25, but I will make that clear, too.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

I move—

The Bill before the House deals with four important matters, namely, accidents to members of the Permanent Force of the South African Defence Force and the Police Force; Bantu claims for compensation, industrial diseases and the farming community. I propose to deal with them in that order.

By virtue of the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, members of the Permanent and Police Forces are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act if they are injured on duty in peacetime while engaged in their ordinary work, but if they are injured on duty in time of war in which the Republic is engaged, they are provided for under the War Pensions Act.

There are however occasions on which these men could be injured while they are performing work which is not connected with either their ordinary peacetime duties or a war, and here I have in mind the question of internal emergencies such as listed in Section 13 (1) of the Defence Act, 1957, e.g. the prevention or suppression of internal disorder.

I think hon. members will agree that, especially in the times we are living in, this is a serious deficiency in our legislation, and that it is only fair and equitable that when men risk their lives for the protection of their fellow men and the safety of our country, they should be entitled to compensation for injuries sustained while performing such duties. The proposed amendment will put that right.

I now come to the question of injuries to Bantu workmen. In terms of the Act any injured workman, other than a Bantu, must lodge a claim for compensation and his employer must report the accident direct to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

In the case of Bantu workmen, the employer must in terms of Section 51 also report the accident to the Commissioner but in addition he is obliged in terms of Section 83 to submit a report to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner in his area, or if there is not one, to the nearest magistrate. These officers are then required to submit all the papers to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in Pretoria, with the result that they have to keep records of all accidents involving Bantu.

The effect of the proposed amendment is that accidents to Bantu workmen will, as in the case of all other workmen, in future be dealt with by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner on receipt of reports from their employers in terms of Section 51 of the Act.

This procedure will not only relieve magistrates and Bantu Affairs Commissioners of a considerable amount of routine work, but will be conducive to speeding up the settlement of claims. It will also ensure that fewer amounts of compensation will in future be listed as unclaimed.

The only duties which would be left to the district officers, would be the rendering of assistance to a Bantu workman or his dependants or the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in connection with the settlement of any claim for compensation or medical aid resulting from an accident to such a workman.

According to Section 83 (3) of the existing Act, a Bantu workman is not required to give formal notice of an accident nor to lodge a claim for compensation, as is the case with other workmen. But since in Clause 5 of the Bill it is proposed to replace Section 83 with entirely new provisions, it is necessary to re-state the position, namely that Sections 50 and 54, which provide for a formal notification of an accident and a claim for compensation, do not apply as far as Bantu workmen are concerned—hence sub-section (2) in Clause 5 of the Bill.

Coming now to Clause 6 of the Bill, hon. members will note that in terms of Section 89 of the Act, a workman cannot claim compensation in respect of any scheduled industrial disease contracted by him if the disease is not manifested within 24 months after he was last employed in the occupation responsible for the disease. The only exception to this rule is lung fibrosis caused by mineral dust.

Since the Act was passed in 1941 certain other industrial diseases have been added to the Second Schedule to the Act. Some of these are “Manganese Poisoning”, “primary epitheliomatous cancer of the skin”, “silicosis or asbestos of the lungs”, etc. It is a fact that it could take longer than 24 months for these additional diseases to reach a diagnosable stage.

The proposed amendment is intended to obviate any possible injustice to a workman who would have a genuine claim under the Act but for the present arbitrary restriction of time.

And now, Mr. Speaker. I wish to deal with the provisions of the Bill relating to farmers.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act does not apply to persons employed in agriculture, except in respect of accidents connected with the use of machinery. This means that a farmer is obliged to pay assessments to the Accident Fund only in respect of those of his workmen who work with machinery, and that such workmen will receive compensation in respect of any injury sustained while working with such machinery.

No other farm hands are entitled to compensation or medical aid under the Act unless the farmer has entered into a special arrangement with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to regard all his employees as “workmen” as defined in the Act. But in the absence of such an agreement, employees not working with machinery, have no claim for compensation, however serious an accident might be.

The proposed amendment is designed to do away with the option that farmers have at the present time and will oblige them to include all their employees in their annual wage returns.

This will ensure that any farm hand, irrespective of his particular occupation, will be entitled to compensation should he meet with an accident in the course of his employment.

The agricultural class of employers has given rise to considerable anxiety as the annual claim costs have exceeded the revenue for some time resulting in a net loss of approximately one million three hundred thousand rand (R1,300,000) as at the end of December, 1960.

The position had become serious and in order to prevent the agricultural class from continuing to be a burden on other industries, there was no alternative but to increase the assessment tariffs.

The rate was accordingly increased to R1.50 per cent on wages as from the beginning of 1961, but in spite thereof, the agricultural class still showed an overall deficit of one million and ninety-two thousand rand (R1,092,000) at the end of that year.

Hon. members will be interested to know that the tariff for the Iron and Steel Industry, where the accident risk is obviously very much higher than in farming operations, is exactly the same as for farming, namely R1.50 per cent. Yet the Iron and Steel Industry has for many years shown substantial surpluses.

The reason for that is that employers in the iron and steel industry are required to pay assessments on the wages paid to all their employees including office personnel.

Mr. Speaker, I am therefore of the opinion that there is only one solution to the problem and that is the one proposed in the Bill, namely, that all farmers must register with the Accident Fund and pay assessments in respect of all their employees and not only those who handle machinery as at the present time.

At the beginning of 1961 when the tariffs were increased, special steps were also taken to induce farmers to comply with the Act by registering.

At that time only 31,000 farmers out of a total of some 110,000 in the Republic and South West Africa, had registered with the Fund. The intensive campaigns which were undertaken, resulted in some 23,000 new registrations, bringing the total to 54,000. But this is less than 50 per cent of the potential figure and some 56,000 farmers have still to register as employers.

The large number of unregistered farmers is a most important factor in the financial losses suffered by the Fund, and I should like to explain why.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act is a remedial Act aimed at providing compensation and medical services to any workman who meets with an injury in the course of his employment. It would not be in the spirit of the Act to deny a workman such benefits on the grounds that his employer had failed to register. The Act, in fact, makes acceptance of such claims a duty on the Commissioner. The Accident Fund must then bear the cost of such accidents even though the employer has contributed nothing to the Fund.

Section 73 of the Act entitles the Commissioner to recover the cost of such an accident from the employer concerned as a penalty for failing to register. This is actually done in many cases but where the claim cost is high, the imposition of the full penalty is impracticable since few farmers can stand the impact on their financial resources.

The heavy claims which are the very ones which cause the deficiency in the revenue of this class, have invariably to be reduced in order to save the farmer from bankruptcy.

I might mention that the cost of a fatal case may easily run into R10,000 and claims of R3,000 to R4,000 are quite common. It would accordingly have to be a very substantial farmer who can meet such a claim.

As I have already stated the Act makes provision for farmers to cover all their employees, and, as a matter of fact, roughly 60 per cent of the registered farmers have entered into an arrangement with the Commissioner to cover all their workmen against accidents.

Such an arrangement holds distinct advantages for farmers because, whereas a farmer is ordinarily exposed to the danger of being sued for damages arising out of an accident to an employee who is not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Section 7 of the Act prohibits an employee who is covered by the Act, from taking civil action for damages.

Furthermore, there is every indication that if all registered farmers avail themselves of the voluntary cover for all their employees at the current tariff of R1.50 per cent, they will build up sufficient funds to meet their own accident requirements.

And there seems to be little doubt that as the number of farmers who register, increases, the overall spread will become greater with a very strong possibility of a reduction in rates. As it happens, I have been informed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner that the 30,000 farmers who have entered into an arrangement to cover all their employees, will in the near future enjoy a reduction in tariff, while there is every indication that should the other farmers continue as at present, they will face ever-increasing rates.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the Bill before the House which relate to farmers, were drafted after protracted negotiations between the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and the South African Agricultural Union and at its Congress in October 1963, the Union officially resolved to accept the principle of compulsory registration of all farm workers.

Large numbers of accidents occur annually in all sectors of agriculture and there is no justification for granting compensation to a minority of employees who suffer injury and excluding the majority.

The enforcement of registration of farmers is also rendered very difficult by the present wording of the Act as it has to be established in each case that the farmer has, in fact, persons in his employ who come into contact with machinery. If farmers have to cover all their employees then every farmer will have to register.

Organized agriculture has for many years been urging a tougher attitude towards unregistered farmers and there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction among farmers since the rates had to be increased in 1961. The present partial compulsory cover also makes it difficult to adjudicate whether certain claims for compensation are acceptable or not.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that the simplest, most practicable and soundest way of saving the situation, is by means of the proposals contained in the Bill and I now move that it be read a second time.

The official Opposition will support this Bill at the second reading. As the Bill provides for certain improvements and extends the scope of the Act in certain respects, the main discussion, if there is going to be any discussion at any length, can more fittingly take place in the Committee Stage when the various aspects which the Minister has dealt with could, I think, be dealt with more advantageously. But there are one or two remarks which I think are fitting at the second reading, and the first is in connection with the introduction of the amendment which will include all agricultural workers under the definition of “worker”, and it would seem, because of the considerable number of farmers who for the purposes of this Act will become “employers”, it will be necessary for their benefit for very wide publicity to be given to the provision of the amending Bill and in particular in regard to the provision of medical aid. The Minister will realize that in terms of the Act an employer (and I am reading now from Chapter VIII. Section 75)—

I have been told—and I think it is correct—that there are many employers who are covered in terms of this Act to-day who are not aware of the provision which I just read out relating to the provision of first-aid facilities, and it would appear to me that this is one of the aspects which the Minister will have to consider very carefully now that he is including all agricultural workers, because the wide umbrella which is now being erected over the farming community in respect of workmen’s compensation will mean that there will be a considerable number of members of the farming community who will now become “employers” and that will mean that all the other provisions of the Act will apply to them as well. It is not just a mere question of becoming contributors. There are other obligations laid upon an employer in terms of the Act, obligations which are not widely known to the farming community as such. There are some 103,000 farmers who fall into this category, so I do feel that one of the first steps which the Minister will have to take will be to issue some type of explanatory memorandum or to arrange for talks over the radio to make it quite clear to the farming community as such that in terms of the provisions of this amending Bill, certain obligations are now laid upon them as a result of their classification as employers in terms of the Act. The Minister has indicated that as a result of this amendment the rate of contribution is likely to be reduced, and I think at this stage it may be possible for the Minister to indicate what that will actually mean. He indicated that there had been an increase in the rate of contributions because of the losses incurred through accidents as far as the farming community is concerned. The contribution has been increased to R1.50 per annum per R100 of wages paid. But what does the Minister have in mind when he speaks about a possible reduction? Is this matter still under consideration? I think it is important that the farming community should know at this stage what their liabilities are going to be in respect of the tariff rate.

Then I come to another point which is tied up with this. Is it the intention of the Minister by way of regulation to have a differential tariff rate in respect of the farming community? The present rate applies to farm workers who are occupied with machinery, but there are obviously going to be considerable numbers who will come under the Act now who are not going to be in contact with machinery at all. Is there any suggestion that there should be a lower rate of contribution in respect of those workers employed by farmers? There is nothing in the Act as far as I can see which prohibits that, but we will have to get some indication from the Minister as to what his intentions are in that regard so that we can have a full appreciation of what this provision means as far as the farming community is concerned.

The other provisions of the Act deal with industrial diseases and there will be another speaker on this side who will deal more specifically with that group, but I think the proposed amendment does take us a step forward because there are many workers who have had this difficulty that they have contracted an industrial disease and have only discovered it years afterwards when, in terms of the Act, they have not been able to establish their claim. I think therefore that the amendment is a step in the right direction. The provision which is now being made in regard to internal disorder is also a step in the right direction. We hope that this provision will never be used, but nevertheless provision has to be made for internal disorder. I do think that this Bill as proposed, in all its aspects, will bring about a greater sense of security for everybody concerned. But I think there is one comment that I should make at this stage, and that is to indicate to the Government that all these measures which are coming forward dealing with the labour position would appear to me to make it essential that the Government should at an early stage take into review the desirability of bringing all workers, irrespective of their colour, under the control of the Department of Labour. As you know, Sir, many of the legislative measures dealing with Bantu workers are under the control of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and when it comes to workers there are a great number of measures which deal in part with the interests of our workers but are under the control of the Minister of Labour.

Order! The hon. member must not go too far into that matter.

Under this Bill we are bringing all agricultural workers under the control of the Minister of Labour, and we are taking away from the Department of Bantu Administration the responsibility which that Department had in the past in respect of the implementation of this Act. That is why I raise this issue with the Minister. If it is found more advantageous to everyone concerned that the destiny of the workers in this country should fall under the control of the Minister of Labour, then I think this tendency should be accelerated, and I would suggest to the Minister that he should put his foot on the accelerator in that regard. Sir, we are going to support the second reading of this Bill.

As the hon. the Minister has already said he has had discussions with the S.A. Agricultural Union, which is the central body representing the farmers of South Africa, and that the S.A. Agricultural Union heartily agrees with him. But the Minister is also aware of the fact that the S.A. Agricultural Union feels that all the farmers cannot be treated on the same basis. You have the crop farmers who work mainly with machinery or who use machinery to a great extent and then you have stock farmers who practically have no machinery on their farms or very little and where the risk of accidents happening is very small. I want to tell the Minister at this stage that I do not think it will be reasonable to treat all the farmers on the same basis. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give serious consideration to the suggestion of the S.A. Agricultural Union that there should be various tariffs for the various categories of farmers. The tariff will then go up as the risk becomes greater. I can assure the hon. the Minister that we farmers who have entered into that agreement with the Commissioner that we shall register all our labourers and that we shall pay the fixed premiums in respect of all our labourers welcome this Bill because the premiums we have had to pay have ultimately become almost unbearable. I personally wrote to the Commissioner and told him that the tariff had now become so high that I would have to cancel my agreement unless something was done to bring in all the farmers under the scheme so that the premiums could be lowered in that way. I informed him that, unless such an arrangement was made, I would in future only register those of my labourers who worked with machinery. Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair and human that we pass this legislation to-day. The Bantu of South Africa have in the past played an extremely important role in agriculture. Just think back to the years before we mechanized. Had we not had the Bantu in agriculture to assist the Whites, we would not have made the progress which we did indeed make in the agricultural industry. To-day we have mechanization and there is practically not a single Bantu worker—man, woman and child—on a crop farm who is not at some time or other during the day liable to have an accident as a result of the fact that we have mechanized our farms. Although the Bantu child does not operate the tractor, the tractor carries the Bantu child on the trailer to where the Bantu father works. The child may fall off and be injured; he can even be killed or he can be injured to such an extent that he will suffer from the accident for the rest of his days. That is why I think it is only right that we as White people, as the guardians of the Bantu, should pilot this important legislation through the House. It is only fair towards the Bantu and on the other hand it also affords protection to the White farmer because there are many farmers who are sometimes inclined to try to save a little here and there. The fact that a farmer follows a short-sighted policy and neglects to register his Bantu worker and to insure him against accidents can result, as the hon. the Minister has rightly pointed out, in the ultimate financial ruination of that farmer because of claims for enormous amounts being instituted against him. If we all registered our workers and paid our premiums, there would be a possibility, as the Minister also envisages, of the premiums being reduced.

There are a few small practical problems which worry the farmers as far as this Workmen’s Compensation Act is concerned. The financial year of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner ends on 31 December. As you know, Sir, the farmers are honest people; there are no dishonest farmers and we should like the Minister to change the regulations in such a way that there will not be a suggestion of dishonesty on the part of the farmer when he submits his returns. As an honest farmer I believe in forwarding my premium of R1.50 per R100 to the Commissioner in terms of the wage account I submit to the Receiver of Revenue. I think that is the most honest way of doing it. If I have fraudulently shown more wages than I have actually paid I naturally have to pay more to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in the way of premium. But my problem is this: My tax year ends at the end of February; those of other farmers end at the end of June. Because the financial year of the Commissioner begins on 1 January the farmers have to submit their returns at the end of December and I can assure you, Sir, that it is very difficult for the farmer to calculate how many labourers he will employ during the ensuing year and what their wages will be. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the financial year of the Commissioner cannot start on 1 March in respect of farmers who have to pay their income tax at the end of February and on 1 July in the case of those farmers who have to pay their income tax at the end of June. It is very difficult for us to submit a return at the end of December because in that case we simply have to guess how much we shall be paying out in the form of wages. I want to be quite honest with the Minister: When the Commissioner tells me to estimate how many labourers I shall have in my employ from 1 January to 31 December, I shall simply give him the number I had in my employ during the preceding tax year and the wages which I paid during the previous tax year and that is not being quite honest; it worries me because the Commissioner can tell me that it is not an accurate return although it may in the long run amount to the same thing. If the Minister does not see his way clear to alter the financial year of the Commissioner’s I trust the Minister will make this concession that I as farmer, when I make my estimate, will be allowed to submit the previous years’ figures to the Commissioner.

There is another matter in respect of which I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. As you know, Sir, all people are not alike: there are people who are careless: there are people who do not care one iota whether their servants are going to have an accident or whether they are not going to have an accident. On the other hand there are farmers who always keep a watchful eye over all their Bantu labourers. Although they are Bantu they are human beings. It worries me as a farmer when a Bantu gets injured on my farm when he sows maize. The farmer who is worth his salt tries to organize his work in such a way that the possibility of accidents is reduced to the minimum. You will get one farmer on whose farm accidents often happen; then you get another farmer on whose farm accidents seldom happen. The reason for that is simply the difference in the personality of those two farmers. In other words, the one is more careful and although all his employees are Bantu he regards them as the main assets on his farm. As I have said the other farmer does not care one iota what happens to his employees. The Bantu are worth very much to us as farmers and just as a farmer should be careful and see to it that his implements, his tractors, etc. are not unnecessarily damaged, he should be equally careful to see to it that his Bantu workers are not injured, because without that Bantu worker you can have the best tractor in the world but it will not go, because a baboon cannot drive it; you have to have a Bantu to drive it for you. I consequently see to it that my Bantu workers are not unnecessarily injured. I also see to it that the Native who drives the mealie planter does not have his fingers cut off by the cogwheels because if he does I am without his services for a few days. But there is another important aspect and that is that I as a careful farmer will submit fewer claims to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. The expenditure as a result of accidents on my farm will consequently be much lower than the expenditure that has to be incurred on the farm of the farmer who does not care one iota whether his labourers get injured or not. I therefore want to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter as well, namely, that when I as a farmer have paid my premium for 12 months and have made no claims, I shall be entitled to a no claim bonus. I see the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is laughing, but surely that is the principle which operates in the case of motor insurance. If you do not claim the company’s obligation is reduced and the company can then afford to allow you a no claim bonus on your premium for the ensuing year. I think that by doing that we shall encourage the careless and negligent farmer to be more careful. I trust therefore that the hon. the Minister will give this matter his serious consideration.

I want to conclude by saying thank you very much to the Minister. We farmers appreciate the interest that he takes and we appreciate the fact that he has introduced this legislation because we believe it will be of great benefit to both farmer and labourer.

We on this side of the House support this Bill and particularly the clause which now includes the farming community. We are quite sure that the vast majority of the farming community will welcome this Bill, and I am sure that the vast majority of those who up to now have not registered will have no objection to joining.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) made a point which I want to support and that is that the Commissioner will have to bring the provisions of this measure specially to the notice of all farmers. The new obligations which will now fall upon them are very important and many of them will not know what those obligations are, and I think a very special effort will have to be made to bring their new obligations to their notice. I also feel that farm labourers should be classified into two categories. There are those who work with machinery and who are more prone to accidents than those who work with picks and shovels who seldom have accidents. It should not be difficult to have two tariffs, one for the former and one for the latter. It may not be very easy to put them into different categories but it should be possible to do so, and I think it is right that they should be classified differently.

Sir, with these few words I would like to support this measure and I am sure that the whole farming community will welcome it.

I am not so optimistic as to think that all farmers will welcome this legislation with open arms. I have a few doubts about it. Those who thought they could benefit by compulsory assurance under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and who were forced to do so under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941, as amended, have already registered and insured their employees under that Act and they are making their contributions. As the hon. the Minister has rightly said there are still approximately 56,000 farmers who have not registered and who still have to make their contributions. I think that the majority of those 56,000 farmers who have not yet registered will be found to be small farmers who do not use a great deal of machinery on their farms. I therefore expect some opposition or a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of those persons who were not registered previously and who will now be obliged to register. The reason for that dissatisfaction is that some people may think that more farmers will now fall under the scope of this Act for the sake of the farmer who has a great deal of machinery on his farm or who has a fair number of employees who work with that machinery, whose work is more dangerous than that of the farmer with less machinery and who consequently has to make greater contributions from time to time. It may be argued that what is envisaged here is to lessen the burden of the farmer with a great amount of machinery and there may be some truth in that statement. I just want to point out, as the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has already done, that in actual fact many farmers would be obliged to register under the Act to-day and to insure their employees had they been aware of the provisions of the Act. The law demands that any person who works with machinery must be insured. When a tractor, for example, is pulling a plough and somebody works with that plough and gets injured some people may perhaps argue that it does not fall under the definition of machinery. Take the case of a person who works with a windmill or the case of the person who rides on a trailer. Farming having been mechanized to the extent to which it has. I think there are few farmers to-day who do not have some kind or other of machinery on their farms with which their employees come into contact. I believe it is in the interests of the people, although it is by way of legislation, to force them to insure not only to safeguard themselves but to safeguard their employees.

I referred a moment ago to the high administrative costs. I just want to show you, Sir, what the position has been since 1941. After 1941, after the passing of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the farmer who had insured all his employees had to contribute only 50c per R100 wages in terms of an agreement he had entered into with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. That was the position till 1960 when the fund was so depleted and the deficits so high that there was an immediate increase of 300 per cent. In other words, a contribution was demanded not only from those who had insured those of their employees who came into contact with machinery, but also from those who had entered into an agreement to insure all their employees. They had to make a contribution of R1.50 per R100 wages, an immediate increase of 300 per cent in the contributions the employer had to make. But those who had only insured those of their employees who came into contact with machinery enjoyed this concession that they could only insure those employees for the period of the year during which they came into contact with machinery. In other words, if employees worked with machinery for four months of the year, for example, but did other work on the farm for the remaining eight months, it was only necessary for the employer to pay one-third of that R1.50 per R100 wages; or if the period was six months he had to pay half. That concession has also been withdrawn with the result that that increase was not only a 300 per cent increase. I think of those people who had insured for six months and who had to contribute for the whole 12 months; in their case it was a 600 per cent increase.

There was a further increase during the past year. It may sound laughable when I mention it, Sir, but it made a difference in the case of those persons with employees. Not that I want to suggest that the amount that had previously to be added to the wages for rations and housing was sufficient—as a matter of fact, I doubt whether it is enough to-day—but in any case. Mr. Speaker, it meant an increase in the contribution of the farmer. Previously the farmer had to add R2 per month for housing and R2 per month for rations to the wages when he drew up his wage bill for the year. That amount has now been increased to R3 for housing and R3 for rations. It does not sound a great amount but it is already R2 per month per employee. Taken over a period of 12 months and in respect of 20 or 30 employees, the amount on which the contributions have to be made will be considerable. I simply mention that to show that fairly large increases have come into operation from time to time.

A new category of farmer is now to come under the scope of this Act. I think the person who uses a great deal of machinery on his farm feels very much more assured when his employees are insured so that in the event of an accident—as you know, Mr. Speaker, farming is a dangerous occupation—the dependants of his employees will at least be covered. I do feel, however, that there are those who, unless the contributions can be reduced, will be hard hit. Somebody referred to potato growers. There are other types of farming which are even less dangerous. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) said he hoped the Minister would divide farming into two categories when a determination was made. I want to go further; I want to ask for more than two categories. It can even be divided into three or four categories—those who have no machinery on their farms; those who only grow vegetables, for example, and have no dangerous animals on their farms which can injure the workers …

What dangerous animals?

If the hon. member comes to my farm I shall show him a few. There are ostriches, bulls, and even Nationalists as far as the hon. member is concerned. I trust the hon. the Minister will divide agriculture in more categories so that the burden will be placed on those who really engage in dangerous work and that those who engage in less dangerous work will be less hard hit. I think that will give greater satisfaction in the agricultural industry. The great difficulty with accident insurance is that the one man always thinks he has to make contributions for the sake of the other man, that it is the other man who really benefits or who, because of his negligence, places his employees in danger. That is why I heartily support the hon. member for Bethlehem in what he has said. I myself said that last year when we discussed the Vote of the hon. the Minister. I know it was also discussed recently by the South African Agricultural Union and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. We are asking that a system be devised whereby those who take the necessary precautionary measures and who do not make any claims during the years would be encouraged. I think that if motor insurance companies can devise such a no claim bonus scheme beneficially, it ought to be easy in this case as well, without too much administrative costs, to come forward with such a scheme. It will be an encouragement to farmers not to expose their workers to danger unnecessarily so that it becomes necessary to claim. I trust the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to do that.

I want to point out that this accident insurance is a mutual insurance scheme. The hon. the Minister has, for example, been asked by how much he intended reducing the contributions of the employers. I accept that the hon. the Minister cannot tell us that at the moment. I accept that this legislation will first have to be in operation for a considerable time so that we can see how many more farmers will be brought under the scope of the Act and what their contributions will be. I believe it will have to be determined what the contributions will have to be in the various classes of accident insurance before it will be possible to make any changes. I do trust, however, that the hon. the Minister will consider the few matters we have brought to his notice, namely, a varying scheme that will lay down different tariffs for various categories with the possibility of a no claim bonus, and see if he can bring about that relief.

I also think that everybody welcomes the amendment to the effect that members of the Defence Force and the Police will now fall within the ambit of the Act. I take it that the contributions will be paid by the Department of Defence and the Department of Justice. I take it that they will constitute a completely separate sub-class under the Act. As I said a moment ago in this case too each one will be afraid that he is making a contribution that will benefit another section of the society.

I just want to refer to one other statement made by the hon. member for Bethlehem. He said he thought the best way of collecting the contributions would be to take the wage returns as submitted by the farmer in his income tax returns. I hope the hon. the Minister will not accept that advice of the hon. member for Bethlehem.

I did not say he “must”.

I am not suggesting that that will be the only honest return the Minister will get from the farmers, but if the Minister were to do that what about those who pay their employees much more than the amount they are obliged to pay? Any amount the employee receives over R120 per month is not shown in the wage sheet. I do not know what the position is in Bethlehem but in Somerset East and vicinity I do not think there are many White employees who are paid less than R120 per month. The amount that you pay in excess of R120 will not be shown, therefore. An adjustment will therefore have to be made. There is also the case of those who receive over R3,120 per annum who do not fall within the ambit of this law. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bethlehem is impracticable, also for the reasons he himself advanced, namely that our financial years do not all close on the same date. I want to plead with the Minister to put that aside for the moment until such time as he is convinced that the farmers do not contribute what they should. As I know the farmers, however, they are honest as far as this matter is concerned. There is this penalty clause, of course, that in respect of the difference between the amount the employer shows as having paid in wages and the larger amount he has actually paid, he can be assessed threefold as far as the contribution he has to pay to the Commissioner is concerned. I hope that in spite of the fact that difficulties may be encountered and in spite of the fact that the farmers may to some extent be dissatisfied, this legislation which we are passing here to-day will be to the benefit of the farmers; they will know that they will not be faced with heavy claims and that it will also be to the benefit of employees who run the risk of accidents. All the workers will now be sure that they will be compensated for any accident that may happen to them.

Most of my remarks will be confined to Clause 6 of this Bill which deals specifically with industrial diseases. My hon. friend from Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) said this was a step forward. The hon. the Minister said that it was a removal of an arbitrary restriction entirely. Firstly I should like to agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that it is a step forward, although it is a very small step. It is merely the removal of a gross injustice from which the working man has suffered. This is characteristic, Sir, of all industrial health legislation under the Department of Labour. I am not referring to accidents. I am referring to health as such. The Department is ill-fitted to look after, and not very interested in the health of the individual worker. I do not wish to imply that health conditions in factories in general are not attended to. Up to a point they try to introduce preventive measures and they see to amenities but there, more or less, their interest ceases. The actual care of the actual worker and of the workers en masse in regard to their occupational health is left to chance. Nowhere can this be seen more plainly that in the list of diseases which is scheduled by the hon. the Minister’s Department namely: “Cancer—due to smoke” and “chimney sweeper’s cancer.” I do not think that such a case of cancer has ever been recorded in South Africa. I do not think such a case of cancer has been recorded in the civilized world over the past 20 to 30 years. It was a disease which was prevalent some 100 years ago and it was soon discovered that it was limited to chimney sweeps and that if they bathed properly the disease would disappear. There are not many chimney sweeps in this country, Sir, and I am sure that most of them have a bath available. I should say that chimney sweeper’s cancer went out more or less as the same time as plumbers were taught to wash their hands and so avoid lead poisoning. There are other industrial diseases, however, creeping into the picture. New types of industry are being developed and this Ministry is not very interested nor does it have the staff to face up to these problems. I think it is hardly to be expected that a Department concerned mostly with labour should be interested in occupational health from the truly health point of view. That is where I quarrel with the Act, Sir. I believe that occupational health should come under the care of people who are interested in the undesirable effects which the industry concerned may have on the health of the workers. In this country we are faced with the problem that until illness occurs no notice is taken of it. Unfortunately an illness, even an industrial illness, does not wear a label. It often takes quite a time to recognize the fact that it is the industry concerned which is causing the illness. I want to know whether we must wait until we have grave epidemics of industrial disease before the Department takes any interest. We know, of course, that the greatest industrial disease in the country, pneumoconiosis in miners, threatened the industry at one time, and does still threaten it to some extent, and because it threatened the industry the Department concerned—not this department—took a great interest in it. Not only does it take a great interest in that disease in that it looks after the individual miner but it takes a great interest in the conditions under which that miner works. It takes a great interest in the health of the persons who enter the industry. Very much the same condition is beginning to develop more and more in the environment of other workers. I have here a list of cases which have been picked up in a city more or less haphazardly because the doctor concerned was interested in the matter. I am sure the Minister must know of some of these cases. The doctor concerned came across some of these cases purely by accident. I may say in passing that the reason why pneumoconiosis is the disease I have picked on is because it is the easiest disease to detect as an industrial disease. It shows up under X-ray so any doctor looking for tuberculosis tends to pick up this condition in a worker. In the manufacture of Vim there were many cases of pneumoconiosis. When this was pointed out to the manufacturers they took steps to prevent further cases if possible. That is not statutory; they do it in order to protect their workers. I want to read from this report of the doctor to whom I have referred—

At this stage I want to break off to refer to the well-appreciated hazard of mesothelioma developing in asbestos workers and I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what he is doing about it because there are cases. It was as long ago as 1950 that Dr. Sleggs of Kimberley pointed out that in every case of mesothelioma that he had discovered the disease had taken many years to develop since the patient had had contact with asbestos. In other words, it has taken all these years from 1959 to 1964 before this man will be acknowledged, as he will be now, we hope. Then the report goes on—

Then there is the case of sclerosis in a tinsmith, which is just the one. What I want to point out and the conclusion I want to draw is this that for every one man who is brought to the notice of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner there are probably 30 or 40 who suffer from a disease to a minor degree who receive no compensation and no attention. But I am less interested in the compensation than I am in the health of these men and the prevention of the illness. There are other hazards. There is the hazard from chemicals. There is a hazard to those who work with plastics; there is the radiation hazard, the hazard of the X-rays which are used. All these require a great amount of thought and attention on the part of the person who is looking after the workmen. Much to my regret I have to look to the Minister of Labour instead of to the Minister of Health. The outlook of the Minister of Labour cannot be any other than to look after the interests of labour. His outlook is therefore not the true outlook of the person who is in charge of the health of the country and the health of the working man. For every man that is picked up and compensated there are 30 or 40 as I have said. Not only are they not compensated, Sir, but they receive no medical assistance. If a man injures his hand or his head or any other part of his body in an accident in a factory, not only does he receive suitable compensation but he receives medical attention. There is no argument about his receiving that medical attention. But the man who is sick—he may himself not even realize what is behind his illness—the man who works for a time in a factory and after about five or ten years develops asthma or asthmatic symptoms and thinks to himself “this climate does not suit me, I must move to a higher or a lower altitude or a more moist or a drier climate”, does not realize that it is the neglect on the part of this hon. Minister that has caused him to become ill. He should see that the working man is protected in every way.

I do not expect the hon. the Minister’s Department to issue a blanket law to cover all these conditions. I think each industry will have to be examined for its own problems, but examined it should be; there is no question about it. Just as the mining industry has had to face up to the problem of the dust so must various other industries face up to the problem of chemicals, fumes, etc., to which they are exposing their workers. The only person who can attend to this is the hon. the Minister of Labour. I maintain that he should have a medical committee which can investigate, with other industrial scientists and chemists, what the particular hazard is in any particular industry and deal with that hazard. In reply to a question of mine the hon. the Minister replied last Friday that he did not have the power summarily to close down factories. I think it is time that he took such power because the labourer looks to him for protection. The care of all the working men in the country is entrusted to the Minister. Unless he deals with this question of industrial health as he should he is not carrying out his duty. The problem is not a new one in the world generally nor is it completely neglected in this country. The Anglo-American Corporation has gone so far as to introduce a course in occupational health. It is a long course. It entails some 18 months of instruction and it takes up 600 hours of theoretical instruction and 250 hours of practical instruction. The practical instruction includes visits to various factories especially those associated with chemical products, explosives, chromium, ceramics, tar, radiation, oils, etc. There are many others. I am not saying that this course should be followed by the hon. the Minister, because I do not suppose that Anglo-American do it in quite the same manner as would the State or a University Department but this should prove to the Minister that there is a wide interest in this matter. The Federal Council of the South African Medical Association in September of 1962, passed the following resolution—

A congress in July, 1963, attended by 104 delegates talking on industrial health, which included such distinguished men as Dr. Ohrenstein, the Chief Medical Officer from Iscor, the head of the Department of Preventive Medicine at the University of the Witwatersrand, passed this resolution—

I want to try and make the hon. Minister appreciate that the outlook of his Department should be such as to deal with what is happening to the individual, quite apart from accidents. Accidents are easy to see and easy, or perhaps not easy, to deal with. But illness which is brought on by the very work that the man is doing should not be overlooked by the hon. Minister’s Department and he should create a department to look after these people. Will the hon. Minister tell me in his reply to the debate, how these men who are taken ill are going to be compensated, how the doctors treating them are going to be paid. It is quite easy to pay a doctor who takes off a finger or something of that nature, but at what stage do you accept that a man is ill as a result of his work, and how is that doctor to be paid and when the man has recovered—temporarily recovered because in some of these cases the illness will leave a permanent mark on the man’s life, and every time he goes off sick, will he be regarded as a malingerer or as a man who is sick of an industrial disease? The whole problem of industrial health from the illness point of view must be carefully looked into. It was only two years ago that I drew the hon. Minister’s attention to the case of a zinc factory working in Germiston in which the workers working with boiling zinc were splashed and burned. Some doctors advised that the tank where they were working should be protected by a guard-rail. The factory found that the guard-rail slowed down the work and made the Bantu clumsy. What was the end? It was most interesting to find in the Medical Journal report that the guard-rail was then removed and the Bantu were punished if they allowed themselves to be burnt. That is the general outlook of that Minister’s Department as regards industrial health.

I do not want to detract from the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Central) about the health conditions of industrial workers but I think it was very unfair of the hon. member to have said what he did say, namely, that the Minister of Labour was “ill-fitted and not interested”. I shall not argue about whether the Minister’s Department is perhaps “ill-fitted”. If that is the case there is a possibility that things can be improved. But to say that “the Minister is not interested” is far-fetched. I do not think there is one person, no matter who he is, who will not be interested in the welfare of any worker in the Republic, irrespective of his race or colour. The hon. member also said that “the Minister will only look after industry and labour and not after health”. I think even that statement is not worthy of him, because the hon. member spoke about the health of the workers in the Republic and every responsible person in this House is concerned about the conditions under which the workers in the Republic work. The matters raised by the hon. member are definitely matters that should enjoy the attention of the Department of Labour, but we also want to state unequivocally that the Department of Labour has made tremendous progress in tackling all the various aspects raised by the hon. member this afternoon, and we want to tell the Department that we are thankful and appreciate what has been done; we appreciate the tremendous steps that have been taken to protect the health of the workers in the various factories and industries. When we look back we have reason to be proud of what has already been achieved; we can be proud of the way in which the hygienic conditions under which the workers work to-day have been improved. Where we know of certain defects we want to plead with the Minister to-day to have those defects remedied.

We are all grateful for Clause 6 in terms of which the period laid down in the past as far as industrial diseases were concerned, has now been done away with, so that that industrial disease which takes a longer time to manifest itself will now be covered to the benefit of the worker. We should very much like to do even much more for the worker but all these things cost money, and while we dare not consider money when it comes to the health of our workers, we must none the less work within a certain limit to obtain these various benefits for the workers from time to time. We know that the health of the worker is very dear to the hon. member for Durban (Central) and we join him in pleading that attention should be given to certain conditions which are not properly under control as yet. We trust that there will shortly be an improvement. Those of us who represent workers’ constituencies know how terribly people ultimately suffer from such diseases. There was no provision in the past that the minute the disease was detected in his lungs or in his system it should be attended to and eventually the worker was the one to suffer and nobody wanted to assume responsibility for it. We are grateful for the concession which is made in this Bill and we are convinced that there will ultimately be more concessions.

I shall not venture into the field of farming matters to-day. All I want to say to the farming community is that we who are engaged in industry to-day would have had many a sleepless night had it not been for the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Workmen’s Compensation Act is there to protect you in case there should be an accident in your factory or workshop. Then you know that your employee who has been injured is immediately protected under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. If hon. members perhaps think that it is being applied unjustly, that they are perhaps asked to pay too much, I just want to tell them that the employers will ultimately reap the benefits.

I want to have a talk to the hon. the Minister of Labour this afternoon in connection with another group of workers. We are to-day extending the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to the Police Force and our Defence Force should they at some time or other be called upon to quell local riots and I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), namely, that we pray that that would never happen in our country. But seeing that we must consider the possibility that something like that may happen there is one group of workers who, I feel, perform very essential services and who are excluded from the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I think of those people who will not get any assistance should they be injured in assisting to quell riots. I refer in particular to the police reserve force, members of the commandos and those people who may be called upon at some time or other to perform essential services, such as standing guard at water works, electrical installations and bus sheds. The police reserve force can be called upon. They joined to perform essential services and if there are riots they are called upon to do their duty; the same applies to members of the commandos and all those people who may be called up by local authorities or certain concerns to protect and to stand guard at important and essential works. Those people carry a double burden. To whom can they look if they are injured during such riots? Surely he is a person who takes a very great responsibility upon himself. He places his own family in an unenviable position. If there is rioting and such a person gets injured who must pay his costs? Has he not also done his country an essential service? Did he not help to quell the riots? But nowhere is provision made for his protection as far as his costs are concerned should he get injured. Who will be responsible for his hospital costs? Who will be responsible for his loss of earnings? Will it be the owner of the factory where he works? Say, for instance, it is a one-man show who cannot afford it! That is why I want to plead that those people who are prepared to be called upon to give their services in the interests of our country should also be considered. Provision must be made for them so that they can also derive the benefits which the Workmen’s Compensation Act offers. They are excluded at the moment. There is no encouragement for that type of person to join the police reserve force or the commandos or anywhere else where they will be called upon to perform essential services. They are afraid to do so because they will not be compensated should they get injured. Last year and years ago local authorities had to call upon their officials to guard certain essential works, such as water works, electrical installations and bus sheds. Those local authorities had to take out additional insurance policies so that in the event of those people getting into difficulty and getting injured there would, in any case, have been insurance money to compensate them. But that type of person is definitely not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Labour to bring those people under the Workmen’s Compensation Act as quickly as possible so that they too will get the benefits which the Police Force and members of the Defence Force get to-day. If we do that it would be an encouragement to those people and a greater proportion of our workers would derive those benefits. It would give great satisfaction.

It is always a matter of great regret to me personally, and I am sure to the other representatives of the Coloured people in this House, that when amendments are made to an Act, such as this, the hon. the Minister does not find it necessary to change the whole basis on which compensation is being paid. Compensation is being paid in all cases on the earnings of the individuals. We know what that means for a Coloured person. It does not matter what injury the Coloured man suffers, it does not matter if he loses an arm or an eye or becomes totally incapacitated, he is almost ruined because of the low salary which he earns, because there is such great disparity between the wage of a White man and a Coloured man, based solely on the question of skin and not service.

That is not true.

I would like the hon. member to prove to me, except in the case of carpenters, that there is no great disparity between the wages paid to the Coloured people and the White people only because of the difference in skin.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

The basis should be: So much for an arm, so much for an eye, irrespective of who the person is who suffers such a loss. Equal compensation, whether he is a White person or a Coloured person.

It has nothing to do with this Bill.

Yes, and I regret that it has got nothing to do with the Bill, but I want to leave this particular thought with the hon. Minister to amend the Act when he comes to amend it again. He should right a wrong which has been perpetuated in this country far too long.

Let us come to the Bill. The hon. Minister has indicated that people who are engaged in farming will now fall under the Act. As I read the original Act and the definition in the Act, that would include (if the amendment is passed) the Coloured people who are engaged in the picking of fruit and who work on farms, whom the Minister up to now has regarded as casual labour. The hon. Minister will know that I have approached the Department on behalf of those people, the hundreds or thousands of Coloured people engaged in the fruit-farming industry. Will they all be covered?

Yes.

I am very glad to hear that, because as the hon. Minister knows they are not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act.

You mean the seasonal workers?

The Minister calls them “seasonal workers”—I do not call them that. But will these people be covered by the Act?

Yes.

I am glad to hear that and I am sure it will be welcomed by this group who are excluded from the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister: Will this mean that when a Bantu worker is injured, his employer will have to make a report? That is how it appears to me after reading the memorandum. I think it also means that if the employer fails to do his duty and does not report the matter, the Bantu worker will not be prejudiced in some form or other. The claim will not have lapsed? I cannot find anything in the Act in that regard, but this could be very detrimental to the Bantu workers if that were the case. I would like the hon. Minister to tell me whether such a Bantu worker will be prejudiced if it can be proved that his employer failed to do so.

He will not be prejudiced. I said so in my speech.

I did not hear the Minister say so, but I am very glad to have his assurance.

The Minister is including the police now, and here again the Minister should bear in mind that the Coloured policeman has to do the same dangerous work as the White man.

He is included.

Yes, but he gets paid very much less.

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

Will the hon. Minister promise me that he will amend the Act?

I cannot do so.

But this is not the end of this legislation.

Yes, it is.

It still will go to the Senate.

Yes, but everything is contained in this Bill.

I would like the hon. Minister to give me an undertaking that he will…

I cannot do so in terms of our procedure.

I do not know why the Minister says he cannot. I cannot see any reason why a Coloured man who is going to risk his life as a member of the Police Force under conditions described by the hon. Minister should, if he is injured in such a way that he is disabled, should receive so much less than a White member of the Police Force. His whole family may be ruined, because in nine cases out of ten he is the main wage-earner of the family.

He is covered by the Act.

Only on the basis of his wages.

That must be so.

But the hon. the Minister could say that a policeman, whether he is Coloured or White, will receive so much in compensation irrespective of race, creed or colour. The Minister must not blame me for trying to do my best for the people I represent here, the hundreds of Coloured policemen who will be required to risk their lives and who may be injured

They get full compensation.

Full compensation based on the amount of their wages.

It can only be based on that.

I say it is unfair because they earn very much less than the White policemen do and they run the same risk. I ask the hon. Minister to try and bring in some amendment with regard to the police so that there shall be no difference in compensation paid to a policeman who is injured. I know it falls on deaf ears. The hon. members are not concerned.

You are very ignorant.

You should have stuck to the pulpit. Why does not the hon. member stick to the Bible? If he does, he will assist me.

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

I will make the charge again and again that hon. members opposite are not at all concerned about the Coloured people in this country. Otherwise they would support my plea that if a Coloured policeman is injured, in terms of this amendment, he should be compensated fully, and not on the basis of his wages. Will the hon. Minister give me the promise that he will try to do something so that a Coloured policeman who is injured in riots or during internal disturbances will receive compensation equal to any White policeman? I will not take it any further.

I was surprised at the hon. member who has just sat down. It is not the first time he has surprised me. But he is always to the left of the Government and this time he was even to the left of the Bill under discussion. He is also going upstream but unfortunately he does not swim with his mouth open. The previous speaker tried to suggest that compensation was paid on the basis of colour. That is nonsense because if members of the various racial groups are on the same salary scale, compensation is paid according to the salary scale, irrespective of colour. The basis is the basic salary the person receives, irrespective of colour. As I said at the beginning, the hon. member is completely to the left of the Government and he has once again made an attempt to jeopardize the co-operation and good relationship which is being built up between White and Coloured by trying to make out a case where he really has no case.

I want to return to the basis on which people in agriculture have to pay their premiums under this Bill. It is quite clear that there are certain categories in agriculture where the danger of accidents happening is much greater than in others. As it is, farmers have availed themselves of the opportunity of insuring their employees who work with dangerous implements, such as tractors, for example, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act against accidents. That matter has been dealt with fully but I wish to emphasize that where the risk factor is great I think it is fair and just that the question be considered and that there should be a difference between the premiums payable in respect of the agricultural worker who does dangerous work and the one who does not. We admit that there is a great deficit in the fund in respect of agricultural employees, but there is a certain group of farmers who really cannot carry a heavier burden although it affords them the protection which we all admit this Act gives. Every tiny straw that is added will eventually break the camel’s back. We must approach the matter realistically and look at it as it is, namely, that a large number of our farmers should not be saddled with a heavy burden. That is why I seriously want to plead with the hon. the Minister that when he draws up the regulations in respect of the amounts that have to be paid to try to give effect to this suggestion.

Another small matter I want to touch upon arises from the remarks made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) and that is in connection with protection and cover for a certain section of our Defence Force, namely, the Mobile Watch. We find that many of them do not even enjoy the privilege of being covered under ordinary private life insurance. Those men come forward voluntarily to be trained and to equip themselves to protect the country. I think it is generally recognized that the Mobile Watch is of great value to the country in times of disturbances. I want to associate myself with those who said they hoped their services would not be required but in the meantime they are being trained for that task; they are dealing with dangerous machinery, vehicles and even weapons. I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister to include that category under the Act, because unlike other members of the Defence Force and the Police they cannot be covered in any other way against accidents. The members of the Mobile Watch can lose limbs and become completely incapacitated for any service and yet there is no provision for compensation for them. I trust the Minister will bring this group of people within the ambit of the law.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the House for its reception of this Bill. I will deal briefly with the points raised by hon. members.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) raised the question of publicity. Now that the farmers are to be brought within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he suggests that some publicity should be given to the farmers because there are some penal sections in the Act which they may breach unwittingly. I can tell the hon. member that the Commissioner will give full publicity to the amendments, not only to the farmers but to the others as well, but particularly to the farmers. Then the hon. member asked whether I would indicate what reduction there would be in rates. I think the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) dealt with that on the lines on which I was going to deal with it, namely, that the fixing of the rate is of course a matter for the actuaries and the Commissioner. Consultations will take place with organized farmers and obviously, if there are surpluses, as we hope there will be, the rates will be reduced. But I am quite unable to say at this stage what reduction, if any, there will be in the rates. The hon. member will appreciate that in the light of the experience gained by the Commissioner after the farmers come within the purview of this Act, he will be able to decide what reduction there should be. I think it seems obvious to all of us that the wider the contributions are, the more prospect there is of a reduction in the rates.

In other words, the present rates will remain.

Yes, in the meantime. The hon. member raised the question as to whether all workers should not come under the control of the Department of Labour. I am afraid I cannot debate this matter because it does not come within the purview of this Bill, even if I am ready to do so, which I am not. I am not competent, in terms of the Bill before the House, to discuss that matter.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) raised several questions of interest, the most important of which is whether there will be differential rates for the different categories. Several hon. members raised that point, including the hon. member for Somerset East. I can tell the House that there will be different categories and different rates. As soon as this Bill becomes law the Commissioner will have consultations with organized farmers and their unions, and they will fix a basis for different categories of workers. It is obvious that some work is more dangerous than other work, and there may even be regional differences. I can give the House the assurance that that question will be fully considered, and I have no doubt that there must be different rates for different categories of work.

Will that investigation be extended to include workers in the cities so that office and factory workers will have different rates?

At the moment I am only dealing with farmers. The question which the hon. member raises is already taken into consideration in the present set-up, under existing legislation.

Then the hon. member for Bethlehem raised a question as to whether there should not be a different financial year in regard to this assessment of rates. The hon. member for Somerset East also replied to that. The effect of the reply is this, that first of all the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner’s financial year runs from January to December, and he has from time to time given very careful consideration to this question of altering the financial year to coincide with the tax year, but he has found it quite impracticable to change the system. The reason is that it would entail changing the Commissioner’s entire record system. Any hon. member who has been to Compensation House in Pretoria will have seen that there are hundreds of thousands of records which have to be kept. Each claim is allocated a specific number preceded by the year in which the accident occurs. Of course this makes it easy for reference and identification, and assists very greatly in the accounting process which takes place. I think hon. members will agree that the greatest difficulty will be experienced by the Commissioner if claim numbers refer to accidents which occur in the same year but during different financial years. That would be quite impracticable and confusing.

Then the hon. member also raised the question of the no-claim bonus, and quite rightly suggested that if a farmer had no claim it should be recognized, and it could be an incentive for a person to take greater care, probably. Well, I am advised that there is an established principle that employers in any particular class where the accident costs are low qualify for a no-claim bonus, and such bonuses are in fact paid to many employers every three years. So the principle is recognized. I have already referred to the hon. member for Somerset East. He obviously has a very good conception of the Act. He dealt with points raised in the course of the debate, and there is nothing that I can really add. The other questions raised by the hon. member for Bethlehem have already been dealt with by the hon. member for Somerset East.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) raised some very interesting questions in regard to industrial diseases. I will refer his contribution to this debate to the Commissioner, but I want to remind him that any additions to the list of scheduled diseases must be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 94 of the Act, which, as the hon. member probably knows, lays down that after investigation by the Commissioner he may recommend to the Minister the addition to or the deletion from the relevant schedule to the Act of any diseases or occupations, and after his recommendation the State President may by proclamation amend the schedule in accordance with any such recommendation which the Minister may receive from the Commissioner. A notice of the intention to publish such proclamation must be published for any objections to be lodged. So hon. members will realize that I am unable obviously to deal with the technical matters raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central). It is a matter for the Commissioner who investigates any suggestions or claims and then he puts his experts on to it. If he thinks that any disease should be added to the schedule or deleted, he reports to the Minister, and the Minister can proceed with the proclamation. I think the hon. member also said that where a man contracts an industrial disease, he is not fairly compensated for mental anxiety. Well, the hon. member knows that in determining what the damages are, account is always taken of pain and suffering, and I take it that includes any mental anxiety which would cause pain and suffering. That the particular workmen whom he has in mind would be amply compensated for any mental anxiety they may have is clear, but of course it would obviously be a very difficult thing to prove. Still, there is such a thing as pain and suffering and he may be able to establish his claim.

The hon. member for Brakpan raised the question of members of commandos and police reservists, whom he said are not covered by this Bill. I think I should just deal in some detail with this point because it is quite an important one. I want to show the hon. member and the House that members of commandos are covered in the existing law. Let me take the definition of a workman. Hon. members will see that in the Bill before them in Clause 3 (1) it says: “Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), ‘workman’ in this Act means any person who has entered into or works under a contract of service.” Then hon. members will see, further on, on page 5 of the Bill, that the following persons shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as workmen. These persons are excluded. They are, firstly, persons in military service or undergoing training within the meaning of the Defence Act who are not members of the Permanent Force of the South African Defence Force. Now this sub-paragraph refers to sections of the Defence Force such as the Active Citizen Force, the commandos and gymnasiums. Persons belonging to these categories are not workmen in the ordinary sense as of course they did not enter into a contract of employment with an employer as contemplated by the Act. They are accordingly excluded from the Act but—and this is the important thing—by virtue of Sections 145 and 146 of the Defence Act they are covered by the War Pensions Act of 1942 in respect of injuries which they may sustain whilst on duty, whether in peace-time or in war-time, and this is the position also under the Act as it stands at present. So that members of the commando are not included in the Workmen’s Compensation Act or in this Bill, but they are covered by the War Pensions Act, whether they are injured in peace-time or in war-time.

Then the next class excluded are members of the Permanent Force of the South African Defence Force while on service in defence of the Republic, as we find in Section 1 of the said Act. And, thirdly, there are the members of the South African Police Force while employed in terms of Section 7 of the Police Act on service which is service in the defence of the Republic. Those categories refer to members of the Permanent Force and the Police Force who are injured while on war-time service. Such persons are also covered by the War Pensions Act, and as in the past, they will continue to be excluded from the Workmen’s Compensation Act. But now the hon. member raises the question of persons in the Police Reserve. It is true that they are not mentioned in this Bill and they are not covered by the provisions I have just quoted, but for the information of the hon. member and of the House, that position has been taken care of. In regard to the Reserve Police Force, I find that a special force order was issued by the South African Police on 12 June 1963, and this is what it says in paragraph (2)—

In other words, the police reservist is covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act as it exists now. That deals with the police reservist who is called up for remunerative service. But paragraph 6 of this order says—

So my reply to the hon. member is that the police reservists are fully covered.

Sir, I find it difficult to reply to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), because any reply I may give will be outside the purview of the Bill. It is no use my thinking of introducing any amendments such as he suggests, namely, that there should be a levelling up of wages in order that there may be a levelling up of the compensation paid to Whites and to Coloureds. I cannot do it. There is nothing in the Bill which relates to wages. So I do not think I need take the matter any further, however sympathetic one may feel, but let me tell the hon. member this …

The hon. the Minister should not go too far now.

I am only replying to a question. The hon. member for Boland put a question to which I think I must reply, and the reply is very short.

Yes, but will it be in order?

Yes.

May I point out that I think the question will be in order because you allowed it to be put, Sir.

The hon. member said we must take the case of a Coloured policeman who is killed in the course of his duty, and he gets much less compensation than a White policeman. Of course, that applies to any Coloured workman who does dangerous work with machinery or in excavations or building work. Therefore my reply is that I am sorry, but I cannot consider the matter.

The poor Coloured man is always worse off.

The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rall) raised certain questions which I have replied to already, the question of differential rates and different categories and dangerous work and the question of the Commandos. I have replied to all of those questions. Sir, I must say that I have every hope that as far as the farmers are concerned, when they all come under this Act in future, they will probably be able to look forward with some optimism to a reduction in their rates.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, last year I obtained approval in the Estimates for raising the dam wall of the Kopjes Dam in the Renoster River in the Free State. A White Paper was also tabled in which the details of the work which the Department intended doing there were fully set out. The entire control of the water contained in that dam, the distribution of the water amongst the various settlers, rested with the Kopjes Settlement Management Board, and that board gained control in terms of a special Act, Act No. 38 of 1935, over the water in this dam, the maintenance of all the works, and the distribution of the water in the area under their control. Most of that land was State land which was transferred gratis to the Kopjes Management Board. But now we want to raise the dam wall because in recent years a great need has arisen for the provision of more water for the settlers under that scheme. The reason for it is that the dam was built as long ago as 1911, and since then and right up to the present silting has taken place and the capacity of the dam has diminished to such an extent that the dam can no longer fulfil its object. Not only do we now want to raise the dam wall, but we want to improve the whole construction of the dam. The State will have to incur considerable expenditure there. We also want to do it in such a way that should we at a later stage want to raise the wall in order to put even more land under irrigation, we want to be able to do so. For that reason it is now necessary for the State to undertake this work and build it as a State water scheme, and that the State should have control over it, and that the State should exercise control not only over the maintenance of this principal work, but also over the improvement of the canals and their maintenance, so that we can provide the farmers and settlers concerned with the maximum amount of water at minimum cost. We must therefore introduce this Bill, which in the first instance aims at transferring to the State, at no cost, everything belonging to the Management Board of the Kopjes Settlement. Of course compensation will have to be paid for property which was not originally obtained from the State and which they may have purchased. But the principle is that the Management Board will now hand over control to the State. They will hand over to the State that State water scheme, and further all the land which was originally handed over to the board when the board was given control by the State will now be given back to the State at no cost.

This Bill is a hybrid Bill and notices have been issued, in terms of the Standing Orders, to all interested parties under that scheme to ascertain from them whether or not they are in favour of the transfer of this scheme to the State. The overwhelming majority of the interested parties under that scheme, which to-day is still under the control of the Kopjes Irrigation Board, have expressed their approval of the transfer of the scheme to the State. I take it that the small minority who either expressed no opinion or who objected to the transfer possibly did not realize that it was also in their interest that this transfer be made, and I hope that this Bill, which is a hybrid Bill, and in regard to which we have acted in terms of the Standing Orders, and which will also, if necessary, be sent to a Select Committee after the second reading, will receive the support of both sides of the House.

We on this side of the House support this measure. We have no objection to it. We think it is in the interest of everybody and therefore we support it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill is intended to amend the statutes of the Rand Water Board to bring it more into line with present-day needs and with the statutes of other large utility undertakings such as Escom.

Firstly, I just want to sketch the present position under the existing Rand Water Board constitution. The Vaal River is the main artery of the heart of South Africa. Water is indispensable for success and progress; it is indispensable for humans and animals, but here it is particularly indispensable for the existence of millions of people. The water of the Vaal River supplies a large complex of people and activities in an area which stretches from beyond Kinross all along the course of the Vaal River to Sasol-burg and northwards to Pretoria. It is the most densely populated area in South Africa, a part of the country in which almost a fifth of the total population lives. The gold mines of the Rand have to be supplied with water from the Vaal River; there are the great workshops of the Railways and several of the largest industries in the country, and five of the largest electric power stations in the country. One can therefore imagine that any break in this water supply can have serious results not only for the places in the neighbourhood and for the mines and industries there, but that any lengthy interruption will be a disaster to South Africa as a whole. Therefore sound control over the distribution of this water is of vital importance not only to the Rand but to the whole of South Africa. The provision of water for this important area of South Africa is undertaken by the Rand Water Board. That is an organization which to a large extent is controlled by private interests, mainly by the Chamber of Mines. In other words, private interests can to a large extent decide to-day who may get water, where development may take place, how much is paid for water, and to what extent there can be discrimination between the one and the other. That is a tremendous responsibility to any private undertaking. It is almost indefensible to give any person or any private body such tremendous responsibility. Let me say very clearly that I am not suggesting for a moment that those powers have ever been abused. I want to say that we appreciate the efficient way in which the water has been distributed in the past, but this is nevertheless something which is indefensible in principle.

The Rand Water Board was established in 1903 in the first place to supply water to the mines and the municipalities. Originally it was just intended for the district of the Witwatersrand, and originally therefore the water was only distributed to Johannesburg, Germiston and the mines in that vicinity. But later Benoni, Roodepoort and Springs were added. In the course of time more areas were steadily included, such as Brakpan, Randfontein, Nigel, Vereeniging and Pretoria, areas which really lie outside the borders of this area. In recent years water was supplied even to the Eastern Transvaal, to mines and towns as fas distant as Kinross and even beyond it. The total area supplied by the Rand Water Board in 1963 comprised 5,127 square miles, and for all practical purposes almost all that water comes out of the Vaal River.

In 1914 the Rand Water Board was given the right to build a dam in the Vaal River, which is still known to-day as the Barrage, and at the same time it was given the right to take 20,000,000 gallons a day from it. In 1934 the State built the Vaal Dam and gave the Rand Water Board the right to take an additional 60,000,000 gallons from that dam. Later, by law, still more water was made available to it, viz. 195,000,000 gallons over and above the original amount. In 1957 a further 72,000,000 gallons was allowed, so that in 1963 the net amount of water allowed to the Rand Water Board was approximately 250,000,000 gallons a day, which represents 42 per cent of potential of the Vaal Dam. In other words, if one takes into consideration that a large proportion of that water from the very nature of the matter will not be conserved, one can say that in fact the position has developed that the Rand Water Board practically has a monopoly over the water of the Vaal River for use in that great and important complex. In all these years—and again I say it with appreciation—the Rand Water Board has built up a splendid organization and a very efficient one, and as far as I know it has never exceeded its powers. But the Rand Water Board to-day controls the progress of towns and health committees, of ore milling mines and non-ore milling mines, of Government and provincial institutions, of utility corporations and industries and of large numbers of private persons. Today the prosperity of that whole area of South Africa, and therefore the prosperity of the whole of South Africa, is dependent on the Rand Water Board. I say again that it is difficult to justify such tremendous power being left in the hands of private interests; that this tremendous responsibility should be borne by private interests, a responsibility which must be a very uncomfortable one for them. I think hon. members will agree that it will be much more satisfactory if the State, which is responsible for our individual existence and our progress, should have eventual control over such an institution. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that if something were to go wrong with the water supply of the Rand, millions of people would suffer damage and that tens or even hundreds of thousands might perhaps be ruined.

The Rand Water Board is at present being controlled by 34 persons appointed by various bodies. The Railways which uses 2.2 per cent of the water appoints one member; the Johannesburg City Council which uses 31.2 per cent of the water appoints five members; Pretoria, which uses 12.1 per cent of the water, appoints only one member. The ten Rand town councils who together use 18.6 per cent of the water each appoint one member, and the Chamber of Mines, which uses only 22.3 per cent of the water, about one-fifth, appoints 16 members. The State, which is the owner of the water, and which built the Vaal Dam, is entitled to one member. Every time a new town council appoints a representative on the Rand Water Board, it means that the Chamber of Mines automatically gets a new member. We see, therefore, that at best this situation is a very arbitrary one. But that is not all. The votes of the members on that board do not go according to the principle of one man, one vote; it is not based on the very democratic system we have here where each one of us can vote and where nobody’s vote counts more than the vote of another member. The vote of each of those city councils counts more or less as the vote of another city council, because every one of those city councils and every one of those bodies has a vote which depends on the municipal valuation of that city.

Let me now give a few examples, Johannesburg, which has a valuation of R1,075,102,027, has an equal number of votes for each of its five members, but each of the other city councils have votes according to their own valuations. Let me give a few examples of the Rand municipalities. According to its valuation, Germiston has 104,897,842 votes and Springs 71,442,834. But now one finds this peculiarity, that where certain municipalities now have a vote according to their valuations, other municipalities do not have a vote according to their valuation, but according to the valuation of other municipalities. Let me take Pretoria, for example. Pretoria does not have a vote according to its valuation. No, Pretoria has a vote equal to one-tenth of the votes of all the other municipalities. In other words, Pretoria cannot use even half its valuation as a vote. Its vote depends on the valuations of other municipalities. Pretoria will receive more votes to the extent that the other municipalities become more flourishing. Its vote is therefore dependent on the prosperity of other municipalities. The Railway Administration does not have a vote according to its valuation. No, the Railways has a vote equal to one-tenth of the valuation of all municipalities, this time including Pretoria. In other words, it has a vote greater than Pretoria itself has, despite the fact that Pretoria uses six times as much water as the Railways.

Then I come to the Chamber of Mines. The Chamber of Mines has as many votes as all the other municipalities together, although those municipalities use three times as much water as the mines. The mines use just about as much water as the Johannesburg Municipality, but the latter has five members, whereas the Chamber of Mines has 16. As I have said, all the municipalities together use about three times as much water as the mines, but they never have more members than the Chamber of Mines. Now we come to what is most peculiar of all, and that is the position of the State.

The State is the owner of all the water. It is the owner of the Vaal Dam, but it has only one representative on the board, the chairman. The chairman, for the rest, does not have an ordinary vote but has only a deciding vote in the case of a deadlock. In other words, in practice the State has no vote. Originally there was perhaps a good reason for this system, but it does not fit in with modern circumstances. This constitution was drafted about 60 years ago. At that time it may have been a good thing—I do not want to express an opinion—but it does not suit modern times. I want to express my thanks to the Chamber of Mines for the 100 per cent co-operation I received from them right from the beginning. They themselves felt that the system was not suitable for these modern times, and they heartily co-operated to amend the Act.

In the first place, I want to repeat here what I also said to the Chamber of Mines, namely, that it is not our object to interfere in the internal affairs of the Rand Water Board. The State would no more interfere there than in the internal workings of Escom. The object is only that the State should have control for strategic and other purposes. The State must be able to determine the broad policy which will ensure the development and safety of this country. What is being done here to-day affects the welfare of the country as a whole.

In regard to the constitution of a board, there are various principles I wish to formulate here to-day, and the first is that the best boards of great industrial undertakings have always been small, like those of Iscor, Escom and Sasol. That is the first principle. It is not in the best interests of the country to have a board consisting of 34 persons. But now I want to come to the second principle, and that is the principle of impartiality. When appointing or nominating the boards of directors of various bodies, one of two principles applies. The first is the principle of partiality, whereby each looks after his own interest as far as possible, everyone takes what he can get, and other persons must fend for themselves. Hon. members will agree with me that this is not the ideal system, to say the least of it. If we want to apply this principle to the Rand Water Board, we will get the position that everybody affected will want to be represented. One cannot then exclude a few of the larger municipalities on the Rand and the Chamber of Mines. If one wants to apply this selfish policy, one must give representation to every interested body; then one must give representation to all the various municipalities and the large undertakings which are large consumers of water; then one must give representation to Iscor, Sasol and Escom and to each of the other large industries like African Explosives and African Metals and K.A.P. and Union Steel and numerous others, and one must also give representation to numbers of big farmers who get water from the Rand Water Board. One can understand that such a system would be impossible.

The second choice we have would be to adopt the principle of impartiality and to have a board of impartial people who would cater for the interests of everybody, rich or poor, whether it be a municipality or a mining company or an industrial undertaking—a board which would look after the interests of everybody as well as the interests of the whole area, in order to ensure that the large city councils are not benefited at the expense of the small ones. Sir, that is the principle we have always accepted in South Africa in appointing the boards of our large bodies. That is the principle which was also accepted in my negotiations with the Chamber of Mines and the representatives of the city councils. I want to take this opportunity of thanking them for their goodwill and assistance in embodying this splendid principle in this Bill. We have agreed that the new Rand Water Board will consist of nine members. The State will appoint all of them in terms of the law. For the first ten years, however, there will be a gentlemen’s agreement between the State, the Chamber of Mines and the municipalities in terms of which the Chamber of Mines will be able to appoint two members, and the municipalities will be able to propose persons, two of whom may be appointed. It has not yet been determined how these members will be proposed. After this period of ten years the Chamber of Mines will have the right again to approach the Government for a further term for its members if it feels that to be necessary. The Government will then decide the point in its discretion. The remaining five members are appointed by the State, and that consequently gives the State the necessary majority on the board.

There is a second aspect which is affected, the finances of the Water Board. We do not want to interfere with the internal operations of the Rand Water Board, but the board itself felt that the following amendments should be made as the result of the new constitution of the board. These amendments have also between us been agreed upon. The revenue of the Rand Water Board is obtained through the sale of water at various tariffs or, as it is described in the Act, according to various taxes. In fact, that is the price of water. The various prices charged depend on various considerations. In the first place, there is the uniform tax per 1,000 gallons which is calculated according to the actual operating costs connected with the provision of the water. In that is included maintenance costs, operating costs, the costs of improvements, depreciation, the cost of renewals, losses on investments and the reserve funds. Then there is a special tax for Table I loans. This special tax is described in the Act as “fixed charges”. The fixed charges comprise the interest and redemption which has to be paid on loans every half-year. In terms of this, there is again an arbitrary schedule of payments. Five per cent of these costs must be paid by the Railways, 50 per cent by the municipalities and 45 per cent by the mines. Now there is this peculiarity, that half of the 45 per cent which has to be paid by the mines is paid by every mine according to the quantity of the water it has used, and the other half is paid according to the quantity of ore milled by each mine.

There is also a fixed charge for interest and redemption for Table II loans. That is paid every six months, and is paid by the municipalities, the Railways and the mines according to the quantity of water consumed. Then there is also a special rate for loans and fixed costs. Here the Rand Water Board can decide between the fixed percentage of 5 per cent, 50 per cent and 45 per cent, or according to the quantity of water it has sold, or a little of the one and a little of the other. The advantage of this system is that it leaves the Rand Water Board free to a great extent to decide what water tariffs each one has to pay. As the result, one gets roughly the following three groups. According to the 1962-3 data, it works out that the founders, the so-called constituting bodies to-day, pay 9.26c per 1,000 gallons; the other local authorities pay 10.25c per 1,000 gallons, and the other consumers 12.75c per 1,000 gallons. Now I want to say immediately that one should not be in too great a hurry and say that this is a very unjust system, because one has to bear in mind that the old founders built up capital by way of redemption and interest they paid over the years, until to-day a capital of over £27,600,000 has already been paid off. In other words, it is those bodies which have paid off that capital sum over all these years, that capital from which all the interested parties are deriving benefit to-day. If one thinks of it, Sir, it is only right that these original founders should enjoy a slight advantage over the new consumers. Perhaps you will be interested to know that had no capital been accumulated by the old founders, it would have meant the consumers to-day having to pay approximately 3d. more per 1,000 gallons. I must say to the credit of these old founders, and particularly the Chamber of Mines, that they were fair in their actions and that the percentage of benefits they claimed for themselves over all these years constitutes only a fraction of that 3d. per 1,000 gallons. At the same time I want to remind you, Sir, that where we are now changing this system it is no more than just that the rights of these founder bodies which will in future no longer have a direct say must be safeguarded to some extent in this new Bill. The old founders are satisfied to receive a slight rebate and, as I have already said, the Act has been amended accordingly. These amendments are in the interests of the whole country. The amendments were considered by the Rand Water Board for more than a year at various meetings and they eventually unanimously approved of them. All the members of all the municipalities who were present there unanimously approved these amendments. Thereafter we wrote to each of those members, before the Bill was introduced here, to ascertain whether those bodies were in favour of it, against it, or neutral. Twelve of those municipalities and the Chamber of Mines expressed themselves as being in favour of it, or neutral. But peculiarly enough, the City Council of Johannesburg suddenly raised an objection to this Bill. This is a hybrid Bill. All the conditions required have been complied with and I therefore move.

Sir, we on this side of the House will not raise any objection to the second reading of this Bill. In view of the importance of water in this country and in view of the large number of individuals who are supplied by the Rand Water Board, we are pleased to think that it is now to fall under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister himself. We are sure that he will safeguard the purity of the water etc. We may make some recommendations during the Committee Stage but for the moment accept the Bill.

Now that we have this amending Bill before us we can ask ourselves three questions: Firstly, will the Act as amended be more in the public interest than the Act as it stands? Secondly, will this amended Act bring about greater co-ordination and function more smoothly and, thirdly, will it bring about the better utilization of water and also give more protection to our water supplies? I think one can answer in the affirmative to all three of these questions. As the hon. the Minister has explained here, at the moment we have in the Rand Water Board an unwieldy body consisting of 34 members—a body which is virtually an anachronism. As you have heard, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that a city council like Pretoria only has one-tenth of the voting strength of all the other city councils combined. Even if Pretoria were to expand into a city as large as Johannesburg it would still only have one-tenth of the voting strength of all the other city councils combined. It will also be noticed that 12 of those 34 members form a quorum. If one consults the attendance register one comes to the conclusion that the various members of the Rand Water Board do not always evince sufficient interest in the matter by attending the meetings of the Board. We find that some of the members attend as few as two or three meetings out of 13 while the meetings of the finance committee, which is actually an executive committee, are very well attended. This indicates that a large body of 34 members cannot function as smoothly as a smaller body can, and, as the hon. the Minister is now proposing, as smoothly as the statutory body which will now be set up. As the position is to-day, the existing finance committee has become virtually an oligarchy—it is controlled by only a few persons.

As the hon. the Minister has said, we must remember that water is a national asset and the body which controls it or controls its distribution must co-operate very closely with the State. The manner of distribution of that water must fit in with the policy of the State. We all know that water is not plentiful in South Africa. That is why it is necessary for us to have good co-ordination between the various departments and the various bodies controlling our water supplies. Hon. members may perhaps know that the Department of Water Affairs usually determines the area to be supplied with water and that it is actually the Department of Health which then proclaims that area. We sometimes find that technical difficulties arise even between those two Departments and the existing Water Board. I had some experience of this in my constituency recently. Difficulties do arise that can easily be ironed out by this statutory body.

The Rand Water Board is a private body. It is under no obligation to the public; it is not really imbued with the profit motive but the motive in establishing it was not to serve the public really. The various members who attend the meetings only look after the interests of the bodies they represent. There is no general advancement of the national interest. This new body will be objective as far as this matter is concerned; it will undoubtedly be impartial. Another point that I want to raise in this connection is that the Rand Water Board as now constituted as a private body has no particular status. Its status will be greatly enhanced by this legislation. It will function on the same basis as Escom, Iscor, Foscor and Sasol. It will be given a public status, as I have said. The public function and the duty of the new Rand Water Board that is being proposed here, is, I think, very well set out in Clause 30 (2) which reads as follows—

It therefore has to ensure not only that every area, every town, every region, every city is given its rightful share of water but also that each shoulders its due share of responsibility. It must function in the general interest.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister very heartily indeed on the way in which he has dealt with this whole matter. He has been interested in this matter since 1961. Since that time he has been trying in a tactful way to obtain harmonious co-operation and agreement between the various bodies who are members of the Rand Water Board. The State could just as well have acted dictatorially, or autocratically, but the hon. the Minister did not act in that way. He has brought the matter to where it is to-day by means of consultation and we are pleased to learn that the Opposition are in agreement with the general arrangement.

We want to associate ourselves with the hon. the Minister in thanking the Rand Water Board for the work which it has done so faithfully over the course of the years; we must thank the officials who have done their work so faithfully and conscientiously. On behalf of the Pretoria complex—I do not have the authority to speak on behalf of the City Council of Pretoria—and particularly on behalf of Pretoria East where we experienced the difficulty to which I referred just now, namely that the water supply area was approved of but that the water could not be supplied—I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this Bill. The people of Pretoria support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make use of this opportunity as the representative of one of the Reef cities which up to the present has not been represented on the Rand Water Board to welcome this Bill. There are a few additional aspects that I also want to mention. In the first place I want to make use of this opportunity to pay tribute to the pioneers who established the Rand Water Board, including in particular the Chamber of Mines and its members which for many years played an extremely important commercial role in this organization and in the development of Southern Transvaal as a whole. They have laid an extremely important foundation in the form of the development upon which the whole of the industrial upsurge in that large area has been built. I think that we will all agree that because, in the first place, we transferred the control over water consumption to the State about ten years ago by means of our Water Act, the time has now come when an authority which indirectly represents the State and the whole community would take over the functions that have been performed up to the present by what has virtually amounted to group representation through the medium of the old Rand Water Board. Furthermore, we have reached the stage where all the facets of life in our country must be co-ordinated more and more. We must make plans in this connection. It is of course vitally important that in regard to water which is such a decisive factor that can in certain respects make the existence or non-existence of our society possible, there has to be intimate liaison with the State so that in the planning of our future development we will have the closest co-operation between the authorities controlling water supplies and the authorities responsible for other spheres of planning. That is why I believe, as the hon. the Minister has said that the time is now ripe for a reorganization of the Water Board.

There are two specific matters that I want to mention. The first is this: The powers of the Water Board are in certain respects being defined and reassessed in this legislation. I do not know whether I will be within the rules, Mr. Speaker, in putting this one point to the hon. the Minister under the principle of the definition of the powers of the Water Board but doubts have been expressed as to whether the Rand Water Board does indeed have control over the water behind its weir at the. Barrage. With a view on the one hand to the agitation that has been set in motion on the question of the safe use of water by sportsmen, perhaps also from the point of view of the prevention of the contamination of the water, I feel that this is an opportunity when the powers of the Water Board could have been clearly defined in this legislation. Perhaps it is not too late to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he make provision in the Other Place for a clear definition of the powers of the Water Board which will ensure beyond all doubt that it also has control over the surface water at the Barrage, not only for sporting purposes but also as far as the consumption of the water is concerned.

The other matter that I want to raise is in regard to the use of the water of the Rand Water Board by agricultural small-holders. In terms of Clause 30, to which the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) referred, provision is made for the supply of water to new consumers. If the cost of conveying that water to those new consumers is higher than the estimated normal tariff of the Rand Water Board, they may be charged an additional water levy which will make it possible to recover the additional capital expenses within the normal redemption period. This provision is excellent as far as the development of new towns and new extensions is concerned. In these cases we may perhaps find the position that the developer of the township or perhaps the local authority may apply for water to be supplied to a specific area. That township developer will take the necessary steps to pay the extra amount either in cash or otherwise by way of a higher tariff. But it is also important that the water of the Rand Water Board should be made available on a large scale to the existing small-holders in the whole of the Southern Transvaal. I am thinking now more particularly of the Witwatersrand area, which embraces my constituency, but this applies just as much to the Vereeniging/Vanderbijlpark, and even the Pretoria area. The question is simply whether the Peri-Urban Health Board and other authorities will be able to take adequate action in all cases to make use of the facilities set out under Clause 30. We have found in regard to the old existing agricultural small-holdings that only one or two people have wanted the water to be laid on. It would perhaps have been practicable if the whole community could have been brought into the water scheme and if the additional expenses could have been more or less equally apportioned amongst all the small-holdings that could then have been served. But the machinery does not always exist to enable a large number of small-holders to express their common opinion in regard to specific matters. In this connection I want to refer again to the report of the commission investigating small-holdings which was published in 1958 and which perhaps does not always receive the attention that it ought to receive. I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to how important it is that piped water should be supplied to these smallholdings by the Rand Water Board. At the time the commission stated as follows (translation)—

Then they referred to the evidence of the Peri-Urban Health Board of the Transvaal and they had this to say (translation)—

This is extremely important [translation]—

The commission went further and analysed practical cases—this was in the Pretoria area—to ascertain whether this was actually possible. The example used was the farm Kameeldrif, district Pretoria, where a sub-division of the land into small-holdings of 2½ morgen each would have made possible the distribution of water from the resources of the Rand Water Board. In pursuance of this example the commission drew the following conclusion (translation)—

The Rand Water Board is an adequate source of water supply of this nature. We also have the finding of the commission which very pertinently rejects the question of the supply of water to these agricultural smallholdings by way of boreholes. Here is a resume of the report in a scientific bulletin of the Department of Agriculture which has the following to say in connection with those small-holdings—

And so there appears to be no doubt that it is one of the tasks of the Rand Water Board to supply water to the large number of agricultural small-holdings around Pretoria and on the Witwatersrand.

I just want to mention one final aspect in connection with this matter. Not only is the supply of bore-hole water unreliable but we find on the Witwatersrand that because of the run-off of waste water used for industrial purposes, many boreholes on the agricultural small-holdings become polluted because this poisonous industrial waste water seeps into the boreholes. The use of boreholes as a potential source of water is diminishing in many areas and the people there have to look to a public body such as this to supply them with water.

As I said at the start, I believe that this Bill and the provisions of Clause 30 in particular make it more possible and probable that the Rand Water Board will supply these agricultural small-holdings on a larger scale and I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister do his best to have the necessary co-ordinating bodies established or, if necessary, to have the co-ordinating machinery set up at a later stage to enable the agricultural small-holders already there to make use of the facilities set out under Clause 10 as a co-ordinated group because the individual isolated owners will not be able to make use of those facilities.

There is not much I can add to what I have already said or which I think I need reply to. I just want to thank the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) for the few valuable ideas he expressed, which I will certainly consider seriously. In regard to his plea that the State should be responsible for the organization of the widespread inhabitants of the platteland in regard to the provision of water, it seems to me that the initiative should really go out from those people themselves and from the plot-owners; in other words, that it should in the first place be the task of the rural inhabitant to ensure that this organization is established to deal with the distribution of its water. Because the Rand Water Board is not a body which distributes water on a small scale. It does not distribute the water in every town. The Rand Water Board distributes the water amongst the large consumers which then, in turn, supply it to the public in smaller quantities.

I may then just repeat that I am particularly appreciative of all that the Rand Water Board has done over all these years, and especially its founders, the municipalities and the Chamber of Mines, not only for the large role they have played in the establishment of this important body which has also played such an important role in the development of the Rand, but also for the fair and reasonable manner in which over all these years they have exercised their powers to ensure that the water has been fairly distributed, and for their always having divided the costs among the consumers in such a fair manner.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Before dealing with the most important principles contained in this Bill, I just want to deal briefly with the background and the history of special education in so far as it affects the Bantu, and to indicate the reasons why it is now necessary to introduce this Bill.

With the passing of the Bantu Education Act, 1953, all education for the Bantu, except higher education, was transferred to the Department of Bantu Education (formerly Native Affairs). The definition of “higher education” inter alia, included also special education and consequently that education was not included when Bantu education was transferred at that time. Special education for all racial groups at that time fell under the Department of Education. Arts and Science, whilst the various provinces made provision for certain definite groups of handicapped children.

Special education was administered in terms of the Special Education Act, 1948 (Act No. 9 of 1948), and the Department of Education, Arts and Science was mainly responsible for the education of the following categories of handicapped children—

1. (a) deaf children,
2. (b) blind children,
3. (c) epileptic children, and
4. (d) any group of handicapped children for which the Provincial Administration concerned could not make provision (the definition of “handicapped child” also includes physically handicapped, mentally handicapped and deviate children).

As the result of this arrangement we find that the position developed in such a way that the Department of Education, Arts and Science provided for the education of deaf, blind, epileptic and physically handicapped children, whereas the provinces concentrated on the education of mentally handicapped children and the less serious cases of deviate children.

Because the Bantu Education Act took away from the various provinces all control over the education of the Bantu in those provinces, it therefore followed that my Department also had to take over that portion of special education which rested with the provinces, or in other words, the education of the mentally handicapped and deviate Bantu children.

In regard to the education and rehabilitation of deviate Bantu children, the various provinces did not concern themselves with the matter because the implementation of the provisions of the Children’s Act in so far as the Bantu are affected was entrusted to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and therefore that Department had to provide for it.

Before the taking over of Bantu education by the State, the provinces, however, had not made any provision for mentally handicapped Bantu children, but confined themselves simply to the provision of the necessary school facilities for Whites. Soon after the transfer my Department started working in that direction. A Psychological Services Section was instituted, and as the result of that a start could be made with the institution of special classes for mentally handicapped students at ordinary Bantu schools.

We therefore find that the position in regard to the special education of the Bantu just after the coming into operation of the Bantu Education Act was as follows—

1. (a) The education of deaf, blind, epileptic and physically handicapped children fell under the Department of Education, Arts and Science in terms of the Special Education Act;
2. (b) in terms of the Children’s Act, deviate children fell under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development; and
3. (c) the provision of education for mentally handicapped children fell under the Department of Bantu Education in terms of the Bantu Education Act.

The position, however, was later changed again. In 1960 the Special Education Act was amended in such a way that the State President could by proclamation entrust the implementation of the provisions of this Act to any Minister, or to one Minister in regard to certain matters or particular races, and to another Minister in regard to other matters or races.

By Proclamation No. R. 23 of 13 January 1961 the implementation of the provisions of the Special Education Act, in so far as the Bantu are concerned, was entrusted to me with a few exceptions. This proclamation therefore had the effect that the provisions of the Act, in so far as they related to special schools for Bantu children, were implemented by me as Minister of Bantu Education from 1 January 1961 and that the special Bantu schools which already existed at that date were taken away from the Department of Education, Arts and Science as from 1 March 1961. That is how it came about that the Department of Bantu Education has been in the position for the past three years of partially administering the existing Special Education Act and gaining experience in regard to this type of education.

However, it soon became apparent that the Act does not comply in every respect with the requirements of Bantu education. Not only does it contain a whole number of provisions which are really dead provisions in so far as Bantu education is concerned, because in practice they cannot be applied, but it also contains provisions which are in conflict with certain accepted principles and policy in Bantu education. Furthermore, there are also defects which hamper the uniform administration of Bantu education as a whole. Later, when I explain certain principles in the Bill, I will go into these various aspects more thoroughly.

I now want to pass on to deal with the Bill itself. At this stage, however, I just want to confine myself to the most important clauses and principles contained in it. Before I go further, however, I should like to give hon. members opposite the assurance and to emphasize that this legislation is not something completely new and that it does not contain provisions which are aimed at disrupting the whole organization of special education for the Bantu as it exists at present and the basis on which it is administered in order to introduce a new and strange pattern. That is not the case at all, on the contrary, the broad principles contained in the existing Act have been re-embodied in this Bill. Certain necessary amendments and additions had to be made so as to comply with the requirements of Bantu education and to bring it more into line with the general pattern of Bantu education. In addition, existing provisions such as those which deal with the powers of the provinces and which do not relate to special Bantu schools as such, as well as certain provisions which at this stage cannot be applied to the Bantu, e.g. compulsory school attendance and the certification of deviate children by a competent official, have of course also been omitted for obvious reasons.

In the first place, I want to draw attention to the definition of “handicapped child” as contained in Clause 1. i.e. those children affected by this Bill. Hon. members will note that in the definition, provision is made for special education for deaf, blind, epileptic and physically handicapped children, but not for mentally handicapped or deviate children, as is the case in the existing Act. As I have already indicated, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development caters for the deviate cases in terms of the Children’s Act. That Department is to a large extent equipped to meet these needs, and we have decided that this arrangement should continue. Not only does it prevent disjointed assistance being given by the two Departments, but it also has the advantage that the problem of rehabilitation, care, training and employment of deviates will as a whole be catered for by one controlling Department. For mentally handicapped children provision is made, as I have already said, in terms of the Bantu Education Act. Therefore, making provision in this Bill also for these two categories of deviate children would amount to duplication.

The second point I want to mention is the type of school which can be established or approved of in terms of this Bill. As in the past, there will be three types of schools, viz. State schools, State-supported schools and private schools. State schools are those schools established by the Department itself and wholly maintained from State funds. State-supported schools are schools the establishment of which has been approved of and which receive a subsidy and/or loans from the Department, while private schools are those schools the establishment of which has been approved of, but which do not yet receive a subsidy and have to function at their own expense. Perhaps I may just mention for the information of hon. members that on 1 March 1961 my Department took over four State-supported schools and that there are at the moment ten subsidized special schools.

Furthermore, we now make provision for the control and management of special schools to be handed over to Bantu authorities or other Bantu bodies. The Bantu, however, are at this stage not able yet to control institutions of this nature on their own, and therefore it is obvious that active White guidance is still essential in the meantime. It would, however, be unwise not to work in that direction at this stage. The deviate Bantu child is in the first place a member of the Bantu community and his education must be planned to prepare him as far as possible to be a member of his own community. That can only be done if the policy applied fits into the broad framework of Government policy which was evolved for Bantu education. The Bantu community will be assisted and encouraged increasingly to play a greater role in this type of education until eventually they will also bear the same responsibility for this as they do for ordinary education. I want to emphasize here that it is not the intention to apply this principle over-hastily. I am of the opinion, and so is the Government, that here we have another sphere where the churches in particular can do good work, as they have already done in the past. There is not the slightest intention of eliminating them in regard to this work. This is only an enabling provision to enable us to transfer schools of this nature to the Bantu when the time arrives and when the Bantu insist on the transfer of schools of this nature.

In the existing Act provision is made for the certification of deviate children by a competent official and for their compulsory attendance at special schools. In view of the fact that there is not yet compulsory school attendance for normal Bantu children, it is simply provided in the Bill that the admission of students to special schools is subject to the approval of the Secretary; in other words, the admission of students will take place on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by briefly dealing with a few clauses in the Bill, viz. Clauses 23, 24 and 26, which do not really have anything to do with special education as such, but which amend certain other Acts. Clause 23 amends the Bantu Education Act, while Clause 26 amends the Vocational Education Act. The reasons for these two amendments are the same, and therefore I will deal with them both together.

Before the Central Government took over Bantu education, the various provinces established, controlled and maintained various institutions where vocational education (as defined in Section 1 of the Vocational Education Act, 1955) was offered exclusively to Bantu persons, and with the taking over of Bantu education in terms of the Bantu Education Act, 1953, these vocational schools were also taken over by the Department of Bantu Education.

Section 1 of the Bantu Education Act defines education as “education other than higher education” in terms of the provisions of Section 17 of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945 (Act No. 38 of 1945). Higher education in terms of the provisions of the aforementioned Section 17 is, in terms of Section 84 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1961, not education in regard to which a province can pass ordinances. Vocational education is not expressly mentioned in Section 17 and vocational education for the Bantu was not declared to be higher education in terms of Section 17 either. Consequently until the passing of the Bantu Education Act the provinces had the right to establish and maintain institutions where vocational education was offered exclusively to Bantu persons. Section 2 of the Bantu Education Act therefore also transferred the control of vocational education for the Bantu to the Central Government (in this case the Department of Bantu Education).

Section 17 of Act 38 of 1945 was later replaced by Section 34 of the Vocational Education Act of 1955, and in terms of the new Section 17 vocational education, generally speaking, is now also “higher education”. Because the Bantu Education Act did not transfer the control of any “higher education” to the Central Government, the question arose as to whether the Department of Bantu Education could still exercise control over vocational education for the Bantu in terms of the last-mentioned Act. If it is accepted that this is not the case, but that control over vocational education since the replacement of Section 17 must be controlled in terms of the Vocational Education Act, 1955, it would amount to all vocational schools for Bantu persons having to be transferred to the Department of Education, Arts and Science, because that Department was solely responsible for the administration of the Vocational Education Act. In the last-mentioned Act, however, there is no provision in respect of existing schools or vocational education for the Bantu, which are controlled in terms of the Bantu Education Act, and in respect of the staff employed at such schools. It is therefore improbable that it was ever intended to have such a state of affairs, and consequently it must be accepted that vocational education for the Bantu must still be arranged in terms of the Bantu Education Act.

The Vocational Education Act was amended in 1958 (Section 7 of Act 25 of 1958) in order to provide that the State President could by proclamation entrust the administration to the provisions of that Act to more than one Minister. Proclamation No. R.91 of 1961 was issued thereafter, in terms of which certain powers in connection with vocational education for the Bantu was entrusted to me as Minister of Bantu Education as from 1 April 1961.

However, the powers granted to me in terms of Proclamation No. R.91 were never used because the institutions and schools where vocational education was exclusively given to the Bantu were, since the transfer in January 1954, controlled by the Bantu Education Act, and were already linked up with the general pattern of Bantu education.

In order to obviate confusion, particularly when considering the steps already taken in terms of the Vocational Education Act, the amendments contained in Clauses 23 and 26 are envisaged.

The object of Clause 24 is to exempt from registration in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941, Bantu school boards and managers of Bantu schools who in terms of Section 10bis of the Bantu Education Act operate as employers in Bantu education. In terms of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the almost 4,000 school boards and managers of schools who employ approximately 25,000 teachers are compelled to register themselves as employers with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, and to submit annual wage returns and to pay the amounts levied.

In the case of an employer who is not exempted from the payment of levies to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, the Fund is responsible for any indemnification and medical expenses due to an injured workman, whether or not the employer concerned is registered with the fund and has paid the contributions. The costs of a compensatable injury can amount to thousands of rands, and where an employer has neglected to register and/or to pay the contributions, the Commissioner can impose a fine equal to the costs of the accident. The Commissioner is of the opinion that it will be almost an impossible task to get this large number of school boards and managers of schools to register and to submit annual wage returns and to pay the levies imposed.

The levies payable by school boards and managers, and which also qualify for purposes of subsidy, amount to approximately R25,000 per annum. If the teachers concerned can, for purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, be regarded as employees of the Government, registration is not necessary, because the Government is exempted from the payment of levies to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. In such a case the Government (in this case the Department of Bantu Education) must accept sole responsibility for any compensatable accident.

The Treasury and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner are in favour of such an arrangement, and it is also more advantageous and more economic for the State and for my Department to pay the annual levies amounting to R25,000 to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund by way of subsidy.

The first compensatable accident occurred in the beginning of April 1962 and therefore the clause concerned is made retrospective from 1 April 1962.

This Bill is a corollary of the Bantu Education Act of 11 years ago, and as the hon. the Minister has explained in his historical survey, it has taken 11 years for us to reach this stage. There is a very good reason for it, namely, that the work in these special schools is of a very specialized nature. It is unlike the work in the ordinary primary schools or in secondary education. We have to have people who are devoted and who have been specially trained for this work. We had the example of our White schools, and now of our Coloured schools, and it is very difficult to say, when we discuss these special schools, whether the work should come under the Minister of Bantu Education or the Minister of Social Welfare. Hon. members will remember that when a similar Bill was introduced for Coloured education it came under the Department of Social Welfare; it comes between the two. Therefore I think it is always advisable in any country to entrust this work as far as possible to religious bodies, to people who are devoted to the work. I do not think it is possible in the ordinary way for a Government Department to train teachers in this work. More important than the actual training is their devotion to their task. We speak of education as not being a job or even a profession, but as a vocation, as a calling. Any teacher who undertakes this work, or the religious bodies that organize this work, do it because they have a calling. It is a religious calling.

Now I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the religious bodies who are at present doing this work in South Africa have been consulted in the drafting of this Bill and whether they are satisfied with the contents of the Bill. I think it is important to consider them. I know the Government subsidizes these bodies.

So much for the general approach to the Bill, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions simply to gain clarity. Firstly, financially, will the funds for these schools come out of the Bantu Education Fund?

No.

I am very glad to hear that, because, as I said, it is really part of social welfare and I am very glad to hear the Minister give us that assurance. It is special work.

There is a special Vote for it.

I am very pleased also to see in the Bill that provision is made for subsidizing those schools conducted by religious bodies. I have just a few words to say about two clauses. One is Clause 12, and I make an appeal under Clause 12, as I did when a similar Bill was introduced some time ago.

In Clause 12 we say this—

I should like to make this appeal, that we do not impose any tuition fees. This is charitable work and I think it is our duty to see that the education of these children should be free. I urged in a similar case when a matter of this kind was discussed, that if it is necessary to transport these children to school from their homes, we should do that too. We know how in a family where there are four or five strong and healthy children, and one child who has to go to these special schools, that that child is of more concern to the mother than all the other children together. I think we should meet these people and not speak about fees. We should not ask the parents to pay any fees; it should be free. I am not speaking of boarding fees but tuition fees. That is the appeal I make to the House, that we should provide this education free, and that any necessary apparatus should also be provided free. We are dealing with blind, deaf and epileptic children. [Interjection.] I am speaking of Clause 12 (1) (a) and not (b).

Then there is one other clause I should like to pass a few remarks about, Clause 19, which reads—

I do not think the Minister should take up a very strong attitude in prescribing what the qualifications should be in the State-aided schools. I can understand this in his own Bantu schools, but not in the State-aided schools. There are other details in regard to certain clauses of the Bill which I will not discuss now. My colleagues will discuss them in Committee. We are all anxious to have a good Bill. It is church work, religious work, and we all have these children in mind.

Mr. Speaker, when the Bantu Education Act was before this House, we had; tremendous opposition from the opposite side of the House, but tonight we find them adopting a very sympathetic attitude and that they have hardly any fault to find with this Bill. The few little matters mentioned here by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) are matters to which we can devote attention in the Committee Stage. The step which the Government is now taking is a very great step forward. We are reaching a very important milestone here, because although the Minister said in his introductory speech that this Bill really contains nothing which in any important way curtails the existing law, he still gave an indication of how necessary it is for this legislation to be passed. Therefore we can say that this Bill is being welcomed, as the hon. the Minister explained to us and as the hon. member for Kensington also said, because in the first place it is nothing more than a logical consequence of the process of development of Bantu education. It follows logically on the previous legislation already adopted. But we further welcome this Bill because it is one which the Minister is introducing after mature consideration. We heard from him very clearly that for the last three years, since the administration of Bantu education was entrusted to him by way of proclamation, he and his Department have had the opportunity of acquiring a sound knowledge of Bantu education, and this Bill we have before us to-day is the fruit of that.

The existing Act did not cater in all respects for the requirements of Bantu education. In fact, this Bill means that all dead provisions which have no relation to Bantu education are being removed from the existing Act, and that anomalies are being removed; anything which is in conflict with certain accepted principles in Bantu education is being removed from the existing Act. Furthermore, defects which hampered the uniform administration of Bantu education as a whole are being removed from the existing Act. It is for those reasons that this legislation is essential. We must remember, as the hon. the Minister told us, that the Department of Education, Arts and Science will probably introduce legislation next year, or the following year, to consolidate all their education Acts, but it will chiefly concern the Whites, and therefore it is essential that there should be a separate Act dealing with Bantu education. I say that this Bill is very important. If we look at the underlying principles of the Bill, we find that the physically handicapped Bantu child is now being given proper consideration. In the past that never happened; it began three years ago, and now it is taking place to an increasing extent. The Bantu, just like any other people, also have their deviate group, and in the definition a handicapped child is described as one who suffers from blindness, deafness or epilepsy or from some or other physical defect. In every population group—and therefore also in the Bantu group—there is a certain percentage of children who are handicapped. It is a pity that we have no statistics to indicate precisely what the percentage is, but it must be fairly high. I speak subject to correction, but I think that in those schools approximately 800 of those children are already being catered for, in schools already administered by the Department. Those handicapped children must receive special education. They derive no benefit from ordinary education. The definition describes a “handicapped child” as one who deviates to such an extent from the majority of children that he—

1. (a) cannot derive sufficient benefit from the instruction normally provided in the ordinary course of education, or
2. (b) requires special education to facilitate his adaptation to the community; or
3. (c) should not attend an ordinary class in an ordinary school because such attendance may be harmful to himself or to other pupils in that class or school.

Therefore we can understand the need for special schools for these unfortunate children, and the task of those schools should be to help that child, despite his limitations, to develop to the fullest possible extent so that he can be of the maximum use to himself and to the community in spite of his handicap. That is a task which can only be tackled by specialized teachers, and therefore we say that this Bill is a very important milestone in education. This measure makes is possible for such schools to be administered properly and for the needs of these children to be provided for.

But a further very important principle we find in this legislation is that it recognizes that the Bantu has his own characteristic approach to problems. The hon. the Minister told us in his introductory speech that since the Bantu Education Act was passed a special psychological section was established to do research and to investigate the manner in which the Bantu child approaches his problems. As the result of the work of this section, extremely important psychological data have become available. We have known for a long time that no psychological test which has been standardised for the White child can be applied to the Bantu child in the hope that it will yield good results, because that test does not take into consideration the peculiar approach to a problem which is typical of the Bantu. We now find that as the result of psychological research, as the result of what has been achieved by this psychological section, we are better able to understand the psychology of the Bantu child and we know more about how that child can be helped. We know that when one deals with children who are physically handicapped, the blind, the deaf and the epileptic, one finds certain deviations of personality which must necessarily result from those handicaps. We know how to teach the White child to cope with those deviations which result from that physical defect. But we base our hopes on that psychological section which is already in operation in Bantu education to advise us how to help the Bantu child so that he will also be able in a worthy way, to surmount his particular psychological deviation resulting from his physical deviation and so that he can become a much better citizen of the State, and also of the Bantu State.

Another very important principle in this Bill is also that the Bantu parent will play a much greater role in this splendid educational project. We find that in two places. We find it, e.g., in Clause 13, where there are advisory committees which are constituted in such a way that under the guidance of expert Whites the Bantu will be trained to an increasing extent to administer those special schools. In Clause 8 provision is made for management boards and for eventual full control by the Bantu. In other words, this Bill opens the way for the Bantu community, when eventually it becomes mature enough to take over this special education, to learn how to manage those schools so that the unfortunate Bantu child will reap the maximum benefit.

There is a further very important principle, namely that the initiative of organizations, religious societies, etc., to which the hon. member for Kensington referred, is not being curtailed. The Bantu are given a chance to fulfil themselves in regard to their religious and other organizations. Sir, it will be a sorry day if eventually we leave all education in the hands of the State alone. I think many of the most splendid ideas and new projects which arose came about as the result of private initiative. When one thinks, for example, of what is being done for deaf White children in this country by the undertaking at Worcester which was established by a church, or of what is being done for epileptic children at Kuils River, again a project which originated from a church, one finds, as far as methods of education and such things are concerned, that one makes much more progress if one does not restrict private initiative. That is just what this Bill seeks to avoid. We are told that it applies not only to State schools, but also State-supported schools and special schools. For the last three years the Minister has made use of them. He did not restrict them. Therefore we need not fear that he will try to suppress them in any way. It opens the way, when eventually we have an exclusively Bantu community under exclusively Bantu management, to stimulating private initiative there, too, so that they can continue to do pioneering work in all these different directions.

In these circumstances, Sir, we feel that this Bill makes a very important contribution. Moreover, Clause 12 is absolutely essential to make the Bantu parent feel that he also has a duty towards his child. If the Bantu parent, just like the White parent, feels that he wants to make a contribution towards the education of his child and the development of that child, he is given the opportunity to do so. Clause 12 (2), however, provides that where the parent cannot do so the Minister may exempt him from that obligation. Therefore we say that this is a laudable piece of legislation. I think that everyone who has the welfare of the Bantu child at heart and who has a feeling of pity for the physically handicapped Bantu child will be glad of this forward step. We give this Bill our blessing.

It appears to me as though the Opposition are not taking very much interest in this debate and that is why I want to say a few words on their behalf. I only have a few minutes at my disposal so I want to be brief. I just want to refer to the wonderful progress that has been made since the Department of Bantu Education took over Bantu education. I do not know whether it is generally known but in 1961, when the Department of Bantu Education took over, there were only four institutions of this nature, State-aided institutions, with an enrolment of about 300 pupils who were mostly blind and deaf pupils. That is the sum total of the institutions that came into being from 1928 to 1961—four schools in 33 years. Since 1961, six schools have been added to this number so that to-day we have 10 schools with a total enrolment of 837. Two of these schools will now probably be taken over by the Transkeian Government. We will then have eight schools with about 600 pupils, most of whom will be deaf and blind. This progress has been made chiefly as a result of the interest shown by the D.R. Church in this matter. I want to say here that of these 10 schools, six are D.R. Church schools and four are Roman Catholic schools. The hon. the Minister had a tremendous task in that he had to make provision for the Bantu child from the kindergarten up to the university stage; he had to make provision for the children of 10,000,000 people within the borders of the Republic and increasing and serious attention also had to be given to vocational training. We could not have resented the fact if the hon. the Minister had been inclined to neglect this sort of education to a certain extent. But on the contrary, great progress has been made. I just want to tell hon. members that under the guidance of the D.R. Church and in the light of the success that has been achieved with the deaf and the blind at Worcester, we can be almost sure that the Bantu will be given every chance and that a considerable degree of success will be achieved there. I want to point out further that the percentage of literate Bantu is to-day between 45 per cent and 50 per cent. There are 1,750,000 children at school, nearly 15 per cent of the population, and the hon. the Minister is slowly but surely moving towards his goal of having 20 percent of the whole population at school. The fact that in those circumstances he can still find time to devote to these unfortunate children is an act of love, mercy and humanity.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.