Mr. Speaker, in connection with the business of the House I should like to announce, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House, that the part appropriation of the Central Government will be introduced on Monday, 16 February. The debate on this measure will commence on the same day. The additional appropriation of the Railways will be introduced on Wednesday 18 February, and the additional appropriation of the Central Government on Thursday, 19 February.

For the remainder of the week the House will continue to deal with items as printed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of what has been a somewhat acrimonious debate on this matter, on this Bill, and I believe that at this stage it is imperative that I state clearly once again the viewpoint of our party. I regret too that having listened to that viewpoint, the hon. the Minister has remained completely intransigent and has refused to follow our advice in this matter.

We believe that this House has not been given sufficient information on which to take a considered decision on what is a very controversial matter. I think that the hon. the Minister must agree that this is a very controversial matter. I think he will agree that there is much to be said for and much to be said against the scheme. It is very controversial indeed. I think that we made a very intelligent suggestion right at the outset when we moved an amendment to the effect that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee of this House that could have taken evidence in regard to this matter. In this way we could have avoided the type of debate that we have had on this matter. I say this, Sir, because this Parliament, when taking decisions affecting the lives of many, many people, should have the opportunity to have the full facts before it. A Select Committee could have heard evidence from both sides, come to its conclusion, and then have come back to this House with its recommendations. Unfortunately, this hon. Minister has rushed this whole piece of legislation through and actually, by means of the amendment he moved at the Committee Stage, has allowed us to give him a blank cheque to build that railway line how and when he pleases. I realize that the amendment was effected in order to provide some latitude for negotiations in connection with matters such as the golf course and so forth. However, in terms of the amendment, the hon. the Minister can build the line where he pleases.

We believe that this decision is premature for a number of reasons. I say this, firstly, because, lacking an answer from the hon. the Minister or from that side of the House, the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission has not given an opinion on this matter. Surely the planning of Natal as a whole is a very important matter. Secondly, Sir, the Natal Provincial Administration has not been able to give its opinion on this matter and I would say, Sir, that the provincial council should have the opportunity to do just that. I should like to stress the fact that we are not either for or against any project but we want to know the facts before we take decisions. There is a great deal to be said for both sides. Of course Natal needs that development. However, as I said yesterday, development that harms the quality of life of the people is development that is not worth having. Of course there is unemployment, Sir, and we need those job opportunities. However, if the brains of South Africa are put to work I am sure we can find alternatives that might not be as unpleasant as this scheme would appear to be.

Here is one Boraine who is willing to work!

In view of all this, Sir, I have to tell that hon. Minister that I greatly regret the manner in which he has brought this legislation before the House. We are going to have to oppose it. However, even if this Bill is passed I want to urge that hon. Minister to pay some attention to public opinion and to pay some attention to matters ecological. I urge him in the future, before undertaking any major project that is going to have a considerable impact on the environment, that he please as a matter of course, as a matter of rule, ensure that an environmental impact assessment is made before the whole matter becomes a fail accompli. We shall then be able to make an intelligent assessment of what we should do. Frequently in other countries where these environmental impact assessments are carried out as a matter of course the environmentalists themselves have been able to come up with alternative suggestions that have been acceptable.

I am pleased that at least we had one small snippet of information from the hon. member for South Coast yesterday and that is that an environmental impact assessment is to be made. However, we have still not heard from the hon. the Minister what action he intends taking if such an environmental impact assessment turns out to be unfavourable. I should like to hear from him on that matter when he replies to this Third Reading debate.

I do not wish to belabour this point any further. I think that our attitude has been clearly defined. I must say that the most regrettable part of this debate was most probably the speech made by the hon. member for Langlaagte who seemed to indicate that many members on that side could not care less about the environment, the ecology of South Africa.

That is absolute nonsense!

I sometimes think that there are certain people on that side of the House who are only interested in lining their pockets. They do not care about our country at all. [Interjections.]

I regret to say that we are unable to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and grateful to see that the hon. member for Orange Grove is apparently no longer on his high horse this morning. I think he realized that he had conjured up spectres unnecessarily here and had been heading in the wrong direction. I think he has now come to his senses to some extent.

In a certain respect a reflection has been cast on the conservation awareness of hon. members on this side. In the first place, I should like to state my standpoint on conservation clearly. I think I can say without fear of contradiction by any hon. member of the Opposition that I personally have done more for conservation in Natal than any hon. member on the Opposition side. I have devoted the best years of my life to soil conservation. There are very few farms in Natal that I have not visited in order to preach soil conservation. There are a number of monuments to conservation on the Natal South Coast. Nor is it only I who say so. It is clear from correspondence that the most beautiful game park in the southern hemisphere is the one that I created. It is adjacent to the Margate golf course and cost a great deal of money. People from overseas who have visited the Kruger National Park and also the Hluhluwe National Park, maintain that they have never seen such a beautiful game park anywhere in the world. There are several species of game in the game reserve that cost me thousands of rands. Of course, I established another game reserve earlier on, too.

I must also point out that the first conviction under the Conservation Act, although it did not lead to a court case, concerned this very region where the limestone quarries are to be worked. In this instance an owner cut down indigenous forests without consulting the soil conservation committee in the matter, and I laid the matter before the court. I instituted the first prosecution in this area under the Soil Conservation Act.

Was his father Rupert’s uncle?

That is quite possible. I appointed an Indian demonstrator in that region because the small farms where the limestone quarries were to be worked, belonged to Indian landowners. There is an Indian school there, too, and the teachers approached me to address the children on conservation. I need not therefore prove my credentials any further as regards conservation, although I have not yet mentioned everything that I have done in respect of conservation.

As far as the golf course is concerned, that is where I learnt to play golf, and therefore, in the nature of the matter, I am very fond of that course. I shall refer to this matter again, but I wish to tell this House something, and what I am now going to say may shock hon. members. The inference that can be drawn from this debate is that hon. members of the Opposition have done nothing but come forward with deliberate distortions in order to make political capital out of this matter.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “deliberate distortions”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

However, I want to quote a report by the Natal Mercury of 11 February in which reference is made to this aspect. The report reads—

Hear, hear!

The report continues—

Order! From what newspaper is the hon. member quoting?

From the Natal Mercury.

Does the report concern the debate conducted in this House?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

That is not permitted by the rules.

I could quote a number of newspaper reports on this issue that are totally untrue, and I ask myself: “Where do they come from?” I have before me an unrevised copy of a speech in the Second Reading Debate in which the hon. member for Orange Grove states, inter alia (Hansard, 9 February)—

Then the hon. member goes on to say—

By way of an interjection the hon. member for Umhlanga had this, among other things, to say about the railway line—

This kind of thing is of course all reflected in the newspapers. I have before me cuttings from three newspapers in which it is alleged that the railway line will run right through the houses and right through the middle of the golf course and will be to the detriment of the Oribi Gorge Nature Reserve. Therefore in this Third Reading debate one asks oneself: What is the effect of the whole development, as envisaged, going to be? The limestone quarry and the factory are not going to be in the Oribi Gorge Nature Reserve. The site is three to four kilometres by road from the Oribi Gorge Nature Reserve.

Rupert Lorimer has never been there.

He says he has been at Baboon Castle. Perhaps they gave it that name because he had been there. [Interjections.] The situation at present is that the Umzimkulu Lime Company has limestone quarries there.

Two small ones.

On the north bank of the river it has limestone quarries and on the south bank, where the envisaged development is to take place, there are also limestone quarries.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of having a very much bigger quarry in operation right in the middle of the Oribi Gorge?

Here again we have the kind of distortion that is committed for the sake of political gain. These limestone quarries are not in the Oribi Gorge.

You know you can see it from there.

They are in the Oribi Gorge Valley, lower down, but they are not in the Oribi Gorge which is known as the Oribi Gorge Nature Reserve.

Are you telling me it will not effect the Oribi Gorge?

It lies at least four kilometres to the east of the Oribi Gorge Nature Reserve. The hon. member for Orange Grove says that the hon. the Minister did not even ask the approval of the Natal Parks Board. He said that the hon. the Minister had not even spoken to them. But what has this to do with the Natal Parks Board? [Interjections.] Here again we have the deliberate distortion—I am sorry, Sir, I withdraw that! I do not know why statements of this kind are made. There is an existing limestone quarry and it is of course going to get bigger.

Much bigger.

In earlier years a start was also made with the construction of a cement factory. Therefore the inland part of the development does not affect any Parks Board area, nor does it affect a nature reserve. It has nothing to do with it.

That is not true. It does affect the nature reserve.

It is going to be built on the smallholdings of Indian land-owners. Does that hon. member say that he is opposed to this development? The Portland Cement Company has offered these people fantastic prices for their smallholdings. Does he begrudge them that money? Employment opportunities are to be created for 1 000 Blacks. Does he want 1 000 or more families to go hungry as a result of that? [Interjections.]

You know perfectly well that is not so.

He says it is not true. [Interjections.] He also maintains that the railway line passes through the Oribi Gorge. However, that is not true. Outside Umtentweni this railway line runs alongside the Umzimkulu River inland to the north west, and then cuts across the river by way of various bridges and runs along the Umzimkulwana River, entering an area which thus far has been absolutely inaccessible. In other words, due to this railway line, a region is going to be opened up which formerly was completely inaccessible. This involves many advantages. Bridges are being built. Due to this railway line, an area which was previously inaccessible is being opened up. Even a baboon with a walking stick could not make his way there.

Lorimer can!

For the sake of my constituency I should be much obliged if the hon. members would admit that this matter, which they want to make into a political football, will bring them no political benefits. There are a few things I want to tell hon. members about the final section of the railway line which runs along the Umtentweni golf course. I do so for the sake of balance and perspective. At one time there was a railway line alongside the golf course at Umtentweni. It was the main railway line. The houses there were built while that railway line still existed. However, the railway line did not run past the north side of the golf course, which is what is envisaged for this development. This development will not cut across the golf course and cut through houses, as the hon. member for Umhlanga said here by way of an interjection. The previous railway line cut across the golf course and there was a bridge across the river. It was a very well-known bridge which was carried away by the great floods in 1959. Both the road and the railway line crossed by that bridge. I have played golf there while the trains were running. It was not an electric train, as envisaged here. It was a steam train. That train did not only run once or twice a day; it ran often, and in spite of that people built their houses in that area. I think these things must be said and rectified so that the matter can be seen in perspective.

I think nevertheless that this House ought to be somewhat shocked at the fact that all these things have been said here and in the newspapers as well, despite not really being true. We must look at the facts. This railway line is going to entail tremendous advantages for us, apart from the fact that it is going to open up the region. The Umzimkulu Lime Company originally conveyed their lime by boats on the river. Later the river became shallower and then they used flat-bottomed boats. Eventually, when the river silted up completely, the company began to make use of road transport, and that is what they are still doing. I understand that more than 350 000 tons of lime are at present being conveyed by road. Do the hon. members of the Opposition want to tell me that they are not in favour of the conservation of fuel to the value of thousands of rands, fuel that we have to import? That is what will happen if the lime is conveyed by rail. This company will convey 562 000 tons of lime by rail during the first year. There is also a possibility that the farmers of Oribi Gorge will be able to transport their sugar cane on that railway line.

I honestly think it is a pity that the hon. member for Orange Grove—the refugee from Yeoville, as someone called him yesterday—conjured up spectres about such an important undertaking. Nor did I expect hon. members of the NRP to come and conjure up spectres here purely for the sake of petty political gain. I can assure hon. members that my bona fides with regard to conservation and what is best for the Natal South Coast is beyond question. It will not be undermined by this kind of debate and by what is said in newspapers. I hope that the newspapers will rectify this matter with reference to what I have just said here.

I also want to add, Sir, that when the investigation by the consulting engineers has been completed and they have found that the alternative route is feasible, that route should be given careful consideration. Because I know the area, I honestly believe that the alternative route, which is 4½ km longer, could become the main route. I feel it is wrong that the railway line should run along the sea. The alternative route runs as far as the Umzimkulu River and then cuts inland. Perhaps the South African Railways could build a bridge there at a later stage and take the railway line further south as far as the Marburg industrial area. I think the S.A. Railways must look at the investigation being carried out by the consulting engineers and consider the possibility of moving the whole station complex. The complex is in Port Shepstone at the moment, right on the coast, and that is the wrong place. The complex could perhaps be transferred to Marburg. If the alternative route cannot be used, then I believe that this project is so important for the Natal South Coast region that all the people in that region will make sacrifices. Where the planned railway line would have passed through a tunnel near a house on the north side of the golf course— it will not cross the golf course itself—the Portland Cement Company gave its engineers instructions to move the tunnel so that it should not be situated near the house. Therefore they are doing their best to accommodate the local objections.

Finally, in this Third Reading debate I wish to say once again that this is a very important project for the South Coast region and that the people there would like to see this project being tackled. The company will do its best to assist the people, and I wish the company every success with the project.

I just wish to point out once again for the information of hon. members that Standing Order No. 130 provides that—

There are two exceptions to this, namely quotations from Hansard, and quotations from newspaper reports on budgets and on Ministers’ budget speeches. Those may be quoted, but quotations from newspaper reports and comment on other debates are not permitted.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to what the hon. member for South Coast has said, I want to say that I view his speech more in sorrow than in anger. There is no sense in getting cross with him, because one must not get cross with people who do not understand things.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I sat very quietly and listened to him and I would thank him if he would now sit very quietly and listen to me. He made much of the fact that I, by way of an interjection, had said “the railway will go through the middle of a house”—not “houses” but “a house”. I see the hon. member for South Coast is checking on that in Hansard.

“Right through the middle of the houses.”

No, I said the railway will go through the middle of the house. The hon. member did not point out that he was quoting from the unrevised Hansard. Perhaps the hon. member does not know it, but there is an old song which goes: “And the railroad ran through the middle of the house.” If it were not for the dignity of this House, I would sing it for him. It is a sweet little song, all about the railroad that ran through the middle of the house. When I made an interjection about the railroad running through the middle of the house, that is what I was referring to. As I say, I feel sorry for the hon. member. I pity him. I pity him because of his ignorance. It is sad to see it.

Sir, we have heard a lot of emotional talk. We have heard that hon. member say “hy staan soos ’n paal” when it comes to environmental conservation. I am not saying that he does not. This party has not accused anybody in the Government benches of not being aware of conservation. However, when that hon. member talks about conservation, he must please be a little humble and remember that a certain man from South Coast started it all in Natal, namely Douglas Mitchell. There is nobody on that side of the House who can stand up and contradict that.

I am not contradicting it.

I am sure the hon. member does not. None of us can try to claim that conservation is something we initiated. I think that conservation is something every South African is aware of. I think conservation is something we are all striving to further. It is not that hon. member’s prime area.

I do not think it is either.

I am sure it is not. I think we are all aware of it. But what we are concerned about and what I should like the hon. the Minister to understand is that our argument with him is not in regard to the conservation of the area; our argument with him in respect of this Bill is in regard to his methodology, the way he went about it. There are people who are concerned; just as the hon. the Minister is, as we are, so the people outside are concerned about their environment. Environment is a big issue today. People are concerned and I am afraid they are not really going to be able to understand why an environmental impact study was not made very much earlier. I am sure the hon. the Minister will concede that had he come to this House with the Bill and with the result of the environmental impact study, with something that could be placed before this House at the same time as the measure was placed before this House so that the public could see that everything had been done, the passage of this Bill would have been that much easier. I am sure he must grant us that point. This is what our opposition is all about. Our opposition is not about the fact that we do not want development on the South Coast. I made that clear yesterday. We do want development. Of course we want jobs for people. Of course we want that. As I have said before, we do want to see the railway line but we want to see the railway line in the right place. The hon. member for South Coast concedes this himself. He was desperately unhappy about the railway line going from Umtentweni. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made that point in his Second Reading speech. We were very unhappy about it. An amendment has now been accepted in terms of which we are going to assume that the railway line is going to be 4½ km longer and that it is not going to go from Umtentweni.

I was not referring to what you said but to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said.

What I am trying to say is that we must take the people into account. The reason for our objection is not in any way the fact that there is going to be a railway line. It is the way that this matter has been handled in this House. That is why we voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and also objected to it in the Committee Stage. Regrettably, and I have to say regrettably, unless the hon. the Minister can satisfy us on this point, we shall have to vote against the Third Reading as well. He can just give us the answer. Why was this Bill introduced in this way? Why was the Natal Provincial Administration not consulted? I do believe that they should have been consulted in this matter because, after all is said and done, they are the Government of the province of Natal. Surely they should have been consulted, but the hon. the Minister has not yet told us whether he did or did not. He will not answer that question. He will also not answer the question about the planning boards. If we could have the answers to those questions it would help us enormously. I hope the hon. the Minister now clearly understands why the NRP opposes this measure.

The hon. member for Orange Grove is harping on conservation and the preservation of our country. The hon. member for South Coast was one of our most highly qualified extension officers with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. He was Director of Soil Conservation for Natal for many years. Conservation is a matter close to his heart. The words of the hon. member for Orange Grove were: “We could not care less what happened to South Africa.”

Get him together with Barnard.

If, then, we were making a mistake, as I said yesterday, then the hon. member for South Coast corrected us by putting a motion in my hand which reads: “Amend this thing so that an alternative may be sought.” I thanked him for that yesterday. Right from the outset the hon. member for Orange Grove tried to make political capital out of this matter. However, when we talk about conservation and preservation, I believe that Natal must be conserved and preserved against the hon. member for Orange Grove, who now, like a migrant bird, is packing up to go and make his nest in Natal. [Interjections.]

Today the hon. member for Umhlanga adopted a different approach, a much calmer approach.

†The hon. member is in favour of development. He is in favour of the development of Natal. How is it possible to develop any province without, for instance, building railway lines to factories. In a case of this nature it is the right thing to introduce a Bill into Parliament which offers alternatives, and to get hon. members to discuss those alternatives—one of those alternatives being the question of whether the Natal Portland Cement Company will be prepared to pay an extra amount of money to extend the proposed railway line by 4,5 km.

*I believe that we have discussed the matter fully. I am no soothsayer, but I foresee today that the present hon. member for South Coast will within a few years … The name of Mr. Douglas Mitchell has been mentioned here. I am still corresponding with him today. I believe that when we talk about conservation in Natal the first man whose name is mentioned is Douglas Mitchell, and the second name mentioned is that of Mias van der Westhuyzen.

Hear, hear!

We recognize that. However, I cannot mention the name of a single hon. member of the Opposition who has applied conservation in Natal. All they have done has been to pollute Natal on a large scale. [Interjections.] In any event, within a few years the present hon. member for South Coast, and the Natal Railway Officials and I, and also the Natal Portland Cement Company, together with the people of that region are going to inaugurate a fine factory which will create employment opportunities, and also a railway line which will pass through region which no one has seen before because it is so inaccessible. It will be a beautiful, electrified railway line, as clean as can be. I am sure that if anyone from a neighbouring constituency is invited and I am allowed to say a few words, I shall quote a few of the things that were said in this House.

The new hon. member for South Coast will be there.

However, I am not a spoilsport. I forgive them for the fact that they made political capital out of this matter. However, I foresee a fine railway line there.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Apart from a few provisions which seek to substitute or amend certain designations appearing in the text of the Act, the amendments which I am now proposing concern the inspection of hazardous substances on import.

Since the Act was passed in 1973 there have been considerable changes in the field of handling of cargo. The change-over to the conveyance of cargo in containers, for instance, required the adaptation of all procedures regarding the inspection of cargo for health purposes.

The success of the system for the conveyance of containerized cargo depends to a large extent on the rate at which containers are removed from the harbour area to container depots or, in certain cases, even to the premises of the importer.

It is therefore no longer possible or feasible to inspect hazardous substances in freight containers in the harbour where they are landed.

A freight container is currently removed unopened from harbours of import if the importer or owner concerned guarantees that he will not alienate or dispose of any hazardous substance in the containers unless and until they have been inspected and cleared for health purposes. Experience, however has proved that the present guarantee is ineffective because no suitable remedy is available to redress any violation of that guarantee. The new section 12(2) provided for by clause 5 of the Bill is intended to rectify this shortcoming in the current procedure. Provision is now being made for a guarantee which is in fact a promise by the importer or owner to pay a predetermined amount of money should he fail to honour his guarantee.

The need for a proper inspection and clearance of all hazardous substances before they reach the general public is self-evident.

Mr. Speaker, although it is Friday the 13th today, I can assure the hon. the Minister that we see no hazardous substances in this Bill, and this side of the House will therefore support it.

We should however like to have one point cleared up. As I read the Bill, it seems that if the Commissioner of Customs and Excise is not satisfied with a substance and he wants it to be examined or inspected, he has the right to allow it to be removed from his control and taken to another place where such inspection can be done. Can the hon. the Minister please tell me under what control this substance is from the time it leaves the harbour, or the place where it is kept, until such time as it arrives at the place of inspection? The proposed section 12(1) provides—

I am concerned about the fact that such substance is also at risk while it is being removed, and I should therefore like to know whether it is under control and cared for during this period. It is not clear to me whether that is the case. Such a substance could be landed in Cape Town and may have to be removed to Johannesburg for inspection. In a recent case a substance was removed but was not properly controlled. There was as a result a leakage of poison, foodstuffs were afterwards loaded in the same carriage and contamination took place. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could clear up this point.

Secondly, I am also not clear on which substances are not allowed to be imported in terms of the Bill, and I should like the hon. the Minister to help me in this regard as well.

We on this side would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister. Indeed, I am very happy to have such a good Minister of Health because he seems to be making excellent laws, and it is certainly a pleasure to work with him. I hope the hon. the Minister will continue introducing Bills of this nature, Bills which, as for instance in this case, tighten up the control over hazardous substances, as it makes the task of controlling dangerous substances easier and is also to the benefit of our people.

I call upon the hon. member for Rustenburg to speak.

No, Mr. Speaker, my constituency is Brits. However, I did attend school in Rustenburg, and Rustenburg is the constituency adjoining mine.

It is a privilege to be able to talk about the measure that is before the House today. From what I can deduce from the remarks by the hon. member for Parktown, he is concerned about the type of substance which is referred to in the legislation. However, I am satisfied that the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973, contains very clear definitions of the substances which are being referred to in this legislation. As a result of the rationalization of the Public Service, certain designations in the legislation had to be deleted or replaced by others, and this is now being done.

For the very reason that we are also dealing here with hazardous substances that are strictly controlled by legislation, it is a good thing to look at what the practical implications of the proposed regulation will be. For various reasons beyond the control of customs officials, an accumulation of goods may sometimes occur in harbours. I emphasize the fact that it is the beyond the control of customs officials that such accumulations may occur. Such accumulations are extremely dangerous. In the first place it is very difficult to exercize control over such substances, because in the event of accumulations it is extremely difficult for the health inspector who has to carry out the inspections to accomplish his task. Secondly, the present regulations that apply to the Customs and Excise Commissioner hamper the speedy distribution of these accumulated hazardous substances. Thirdly, situations may arise at harbours which make the theft of the goods concerned much easier than would have been the case under normal circumstances. It is of course not always goods that are packed in large containers, for instance drums, that are at issue here. Often it is a question of small 1 kg. packages. Reference is also made to basic pharmacological substances that affect the medical profession, and hon. members are most probably aware of the fact that under these circumstances large-scale smuggling of such substances often occurs. The basic substances that the chemical industries use, can disappear or be stolen in a situation like this. Due to the delay in the process of distribution, the degree of efficiency of important pharmaceutical substances can undergo a drastic change, or the substance may even undergo a change in form. Consequently it is essential for this restrictive measure, which hampered the duties of the inspectors, to be removed so that it will be easier to exercize control over the distribution, handling, etc. That is why it is a good thing that provision is now being made for the fact that the abovementioned commissioner, with the permission of the Director-General, can remove the hazardous substances concerned to a safe place, and that they may be kept there until such time as the necessary analyses and tests have been completed, and that this will be at the risk of the importer and not of the Government. Therefore the importer carries the risk until the result of the investigation or analysis, which may possibly have already begun, becomes known and the Director-General has granted permission for the distribution of the substances, or instructed that they should be dealt with according to certain regulations. It is important for the public to know that the onus still rests upon the importer to guarantee a certain sum—this is paid into the State Revenue Fund—in the event of failure to comply with the specific conditions laid down by the legislation. Consequently, if we look at this amendment, we see that various assurances are being given to the public. In the first place there will be better control over the investigation and distribution of hazardous substances. A second assurance that is being given by way of this amendment, is that the unnecessary accumulation of these substances in harbours will be prevented as far as possible. Thirdly the possibility of theft, a possibility that is created by large accumulations of these hazardous substances in harbours, is being eliminated. Fourthly, there are the guarantees that the importers must give to the public and to the authorities in terms of the control measures that are being introduced here.

Sir, what is therefore at issue here is simply better control, better administration and more rapid distribution of these substances so that the importer, the authority and the public may be better served. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and thank him for having introduced this measure to the House.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to what the hon. member for Brits had to say on the amendment before us. As always when it comes to legislation of this nature, he has a contribution to make. We in the NRP will support the Second Reading of the Bill. We regard it as possibly an improvement and a general tightening up. When one is dealing with substances which, as their designation indicates, are potentially dangerous to human life, one must, I believe, have legislation which is as tight as possible and which is enforced as strictly as possible. We will always strongly support any legislation that follows these two guidelines.

There is one point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. This is in regard to clause 3, where we are now being asked to amend the legislation so that a licence can be issued to a person other than a natural person. I do not see any particular problem here, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could indicate in his reply what practical effect this will have on the number of outlets and what he envisages as the condition for the issue of a licence to. I presume, companies; in other words, anybody other than a natural person. I would be particularly interested to know what effect this amendment will have on the number of retail outlets where hazardous substances may be available.

The crux of the matter lies in clause 5. The hon. the Minister has dealt with clause 5 fairly thoroughly in his Second Reading speech. There is, however, one point I should like to raise in regard to this clause. That is that in whatever way the procedure may be changed, the substances that fall within the ambit of this legislation have to be examined and analysed at some stage. We live in a world where chemicals, particularly synthetic chemicals, are proliferating to the extent that there are very few people today who can call themselves experts in the total field of organic substances that fall under the heading “hazardous substances”.

Knowing, as I do, that there is always a shortage of technically trained people in this country, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister what attention has been given, both in the short and in the long term, to ensuring that we will have available sufficiently trained technical staff to undertake the analysis referred to in this amendment. The hon. member for Brits raised the point that it is important that such an analysis should be done quickly and that the substance should be distributed in as orderly and rapid a manner as possible. This is very important because some of the substances are needed in further manufacturing processes. It is important that there should be the staff to analyse these products before they are distributed. All sorts of terrible problems can arise if there is not sufficient staff. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has sufficient staff available for these duties and, if not, what medium and long term steps he intends taking to ensure that the position will be rectified.

Clause 7 contains a minor consequential amendment to section 29 of the Act, which of course deals with the regulations the Minister may make in respect of all forms of distribution, storage and transport of hazardous substances. In this connection I should like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. I know that recently regulations have been made which require the labelling of certain hazardous substances for purposes of longdistance transport. I know that the Bureau of Standards has had a hand in this and that stringent conditions apply, but I believe this is an area which requires even more attention than it has been given to date. One has only to think back to the terrible tragedy in Europe a few years ago when a cargo of an explosive substance exploded near a holiday camp, resulting in scores of dead, to know that the long-distance transport of certain groups of these substances can present not just a minor hazard, but potentially a major problem.

I believe we should be looking at several important aspects in this connection. I believe we should look very carefully at the routes these tankers take and I believe it should be impressed on the people who undertake long-distance transport of hazardous substances that routes should be chosen which are as far away as possible from highly built-up residential areas. We also know from experience that the leakage of a hazardous substance—I am thinking of a particular documented case in America of a large-scale leakage of ammonia gas on a very, very busy freeway—can cause enormous problems. I wonder whether it is possible for consideration to be given to requesting those concerned to undertake the long-distance transport of such substances at times when the highways are not crowded with commuters. I also believe it is important that the hon. the Minister should look at the education of the drivers of the vehicles carrying such substances. It is important that they should know the potential danger of the cargoes they are transporting. We have spoken of the high standard of containers required and I believe that that is also very important.

There is one final point I should like to raise. The plaques carried by road transporters of these chemicals are in a code which is not easily understood by laymen, who do not have available a corresponding list indicating what the particular code means. In the event of an accident and a spillage from such a container, there may be people in the area who would be able to assist in combating the developing problem but who also do not understand what the code means, what chemical is involved, how it can be neutralized, what can be used to wash it away and how the symptoms can be treated of members of the public who may be affected by fumes, contact with the chemical, or anything else. I wonder whether that aspect could not be looked at and whether it would not be possible for there to be, apart from the particular code which I understand is an international code, further instructions in easily understood language to enable laymen in such a situation, which would be one of an emergency, to deal with the situation with the best means at their disposal.

With these few words, and hoping we shall get some replies from the hon. the Minister, we of this party are quite happy to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members who participated in the debate for their contributions. I believe other hon. members who do not belong to that group, will understand that it is a very interesting but also dangerous subject that we are now dealing with. Consequently there will be certain amendments from time to time in future. Hon. members have each mentioned one or two things that trouble them, and in this way this Act has been renewed constantly since its implementation in 1973. There were a number of amendments in 1976 in order to keep up with modern technology. Every day more hazardous substances are developed. Perhaps, as far as the majority of them are concerned, we shall gradually achieve the correct way of dealing with them.

I want to start off by thanking the hon. member for Parktown very much for his kind words and I am very gratified, too, to learn that he is pleased to associate himself with such a good Minister. It is obviously not for me to say anything about that, other than that I might perhaps be inclined to confirm what he says.

†He referred to the question of control while a substance is being moved. The control that exists is not control in the sense that a person like an inspector or a policeman accompanies the container. These containers are sealed and when they are removed from the harbour where they are unloaded they are taken to a certain area that is designated by the Director-General. When they arrive there the inspectors are there to break the seals and to open the containers to ensure that the quantity of hazardous substance in the container corresponds with the quantity stipulated in the documents that accompany the container. Up to now we have not found that people try to avoid the regulations. I think they are all very keen to work with us because they too would like to prevent any danger arising. We therefore have control over the sealing and of the quantity stated in the document. Regulations are laid down—they are not included in the Act but one can be supplied with them—in respect of hazardous substances falling into groups one, two and three. All these substances are actually listed according to how hazardous they are. Those are the substances to which we are referring and there is no ban on the importing of any of those substances. They simply have to be properly labelled, properly sealed and properly transported as laid down in the regulations. What we have had in the past, and the hon. member for Berea also referred to this, is Hazchem, which is short for hazardous chemicals, a system that was introduced to designate in code the type of substance in the container that is being transported. I can understand the hon. member for Berea’s problem, viz. that a layman would perhaps like to know what he should do to neutralize the chemicals if they should spill out of the container. However, I think it is more important if a layman encounters such a problem that he should rather call in the local authority or the fire department, or perhaps even the Police. I do not think that a layman would be capable of dealing with this type of hazardous substance himself. It would be impractical to print on the container everything about the contents and what the antidotes are, whereas if this is done in the form of a code as was suggested internationally after a great deal of experimentation, knowledgable people will be in a position to treat the chemical in the correct way. Whenever any of these hazardous substances becomes exposed the normal procedure is for the Police to take over. They cordon off the area etc. I think it is purely hypothetical to imagine that a layman would be called upon to deal with this particular problem.

With regard to the question of the routing. I should like to say that wherever the conveyance of these containers of hazardous substances takes place the matter is always dealt with very properly in co-operation with the local authority. The local authority with its traffic department etc. is brought into the matter and it can then designate a certain route which the container traffic will have to take at a certain time of the day away from the residential areas etc. As far as the provinces themselves are concerned, one cannot simply transport these substances along the main street of Berea, Durban or wherever it is; this has to be done in a very organized way.

Another important point with regard to this Hazchem system is that apart from designating the type of substance in the form of a code it also identifies the importer and the exporter. Everything is very clearly visible. There can therefore be no problems. Every substance can be identified fairly quickly.

The hon. member for Parktown made some very interesting remarks. He concentrated mainly on the question of control. I should like to thank him for his contribution and for commending us for the improvements we are trying to bring about through this legislation.

*The hon. member for Brits also made a very interesting and well-considered speech. I want to congratulate him on it, but also thank him. I believe he gave a very clear exposition of the objectives of this legislation, even clearer than that in my Second Reading speech. He mentioned, too, that the legislation in question constitutes an improvement on the existing legislation. He mentioned that we were dealing with dangerous substances, and also indicated very precisely what the reasons were for the accumulation of goods which sometimes occurs in harbours. Formerly, substances of this nature would have been unloaded in a certain area in the harbour. Now they are transported in containers, and because we have an entirely new form of transportation, the containers of today are much better suited to their purpose. Those containers are sealed properly. Accordingly these hazardous substances are now no longer shipped loose, as happened so often in the past, but are being transported in sealed containers. This facilitates matters a great deal. Naturally we have had to make certain adjustments.

†The hon. member for Berea raised one or two points in connection with clause 3. Firstly, he referred to the question of somebody other than a “natural person”. The reason for the wording used in the proposed new section 4 is as follows. Certain companies import substances, and in the past they have always had to designate a certain person as the registered person who had to deal with those hazardous substances. As hon. members will know, employees often change their jobs, moving from one company to another. This causes the peculiar problem that such a designated person is often not available when he is most needed. Therefore it was felt that a company itself should now be the registered person to perform that duty. Hence the proposed new wording contained in clause 3. It is simply a question of facilitating administrative procedures. The wording is being changed simply for the sake of legal clarity. This is actually the result of requests received from certain companies that have experienced certain problems in this connection.

I have already answered the question the hon. member put in connection with transport as well as the question relating to Hazchem. The hon. member also asked about staff. During the 18 months that I have been in this position I have received no complaints from importers or agents to the effect that hazardous substances are not being dealt with fast enough. As is the case with any highly technical type of chemical training, I presume that it will happen that from time to time staff shortages will occur. It has, however, not been brought to my notice that there is any marked shortage. Should there be such a shortage at any stage, which might affect the importers or their agents, we will immediately give attention to the matter. To date I have not had any indication from either the private sector or the department that any problem exists in this respect.

I have already dealt with the question of the routes this type of transport should follow and also with the question of the layman. I believe the hon. member made a very interesting suggestion. I will let the department have a look at this. It may perhaps be desirable to affix some notice or warning to containers in transit indicating the hazardous qualities of their contents in order to protect members of the public who may try to interfere with such containers. I presume danger warnings already appear on those containers. What is still necessary, I think, is to indicate on the containers the steps that should be taken in cases of emergency. I shall, however, ask the department to look into the matter again in order to establish what further safety measures can be introduced.

*Mr. Speaker, I believe I have now answered most of the questions put to me.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for his reply to the point I raised during the Second Reading debate in regard to the issuing of licences. I can see the practical problems involved in issuing a licence to a specific person who may change companies. I should, however, like to sound an advance warning and say that if a licence is issued to a specific person in his name, I think there is a general feeling that such a person will be held responsible. Particularly when we are dealing with hazardous substances of this nature, I think that a commitment to responsibility for a particular shipment or substance is important. I should just like to mention the fact that there is some doubt in my mind as to whether the issuing of a licence in the name of a company may not lead to a situation where there will be no specific person who is willing, ready or able to take responsibility for something that may go wrong. It is a well known fact, Sir, that Murphy’s Law states that if something can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible time with the worst possible consequences. I feel that careful consideration should be given to this matter because if the licence is issued in the name of a specific person I think more care will be exercised overall in respect of that shipment than if the licence were issued on an open ticket, as it were.

There is a second point in regard to this whole question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Perhaps he could indicate to me now whether this amendment that we are discussing will in fact increase the number of outlets or whether, as he explained during the Second Reading debate, this is merely a change in regard to the issuing of a licence from a specific person to a company. I should also like to know whether this will mean that licences will now become more freely available to a larger number of outlets.

Mr. Chairman, I have only a small point to raise with the hon. the Minister. I am not so concerned about the definition of “hazardous substances” but I should like to draw his attention to a provision of subsection (3) of clause 5 which states—

I am not completely clear as to why the provision states that the substance should not be imported “in terms of this Act”.

Order! Clause 5 has not yet been put. Clause 3 is now under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the two points raised by the hon. member for Berea, I think that we should give the provisions of this clause an opportunity to be put into practice. I do not feel that there will be any difficulty in issuing the licence in the name of a company instead of that of a specific person. I do not feel that less care will be taken because of this fact in regard to the question of hazardous substances. I am quite sure that unless the company disappears without trace we shall obviously be able to ascertain who the importer is. Moreover, should such a company be untraceable, we shall still be in possession of the hazardous substance. I do not think therefore that this provision will result in fewer precautions being taken simply because the licence has been issued in the name of a company and not that of a specific person.

As far as the question of outlets is concerned, I cannot see that this provision will increase the number of outlets. Moreover, it is not our intention that this should happen. Neither will it increase the availability of licences. I think it is just a matter of ensuring that proper control will be exercised and of facilitating matters administratively as far as companies and the department itself are concerned. I think that answers the hon. member’s questions and I shall deal with the query raised by the hon. member for Parktown in due course.

Mr. Chairman, when I put my question I was looking at this clause and not at clause 3. Should I repeat the question?

Yes.

The question is: What substances are not allowed to be imported in terms of this legislation?

Mr. Chairman, in my reply to the Second Reading debate I indicated that there is no regulation, as far as I know, which prohibits the import of certain substances. However, it categorizes the substances. By categorizing the substances into Group I—which is the most hazardous type—or Group II and III, certain things are required to be done as far as those substances are concerned. I am open to correction but I do not think that we have a list of substances which cannot be imported. One may import any substance if one obtains the right permit and clearance and specifies the purpose for which it will be used, as long as it falls under this legislation and into the groups which we have indicated in the regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a brief point with the hon. the Minister in regard to the proposed new section 12(3)(d) which provides that certain substances—

I think this covers the sort of substance that may not be cleared for some reason or other for use in this country. As I see it, it deals with a substance that may have been condemned for some reason or other. Once the Director-General has specified the manner of disposal or of dealing with the substance, whose responsibility will the actual physical disposal of the substance be? Will it be the original importer? Who will actually see to it that the substance is safely disposed of? In to my experience these things sometimes end up on the municipal tip and this, of course, can create enormous problems. I would like to know the practical implications of the decision of the Director-General in a case such as this as to how the substance will be disposed of and who will be responsible for its safe disposal and any costs incurred in regard thereto.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Berea can rest assured that the Director-General will specify not only the way in which the substance will have to be disposed of but also the place—in the sense of whether it will have to be buried or whatever will have to be done—where it will be disposed of. There is obviously the rare case where people have imported a substance and—as I mentioned just now—have disappeared in the meantime. The Director-General will then obviously take the necessary steps and the department will have to dispose of the substance in a way that he will determine. We hope we will not experience the situation we often see advertised in the newspapers when Persian carpets are advertised for sale because the importers have disappeared. I do not think we will fall into the same category. However, this will still have to be done by the Director-General. Obviously, if something is found to be wrong with a consignment, the Director-General will specify exactly how it has to be disposed of. I am quite sure that the department will see to it that it is disposed of in that way and that it will not end up on the municipal dump.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I appreciate the manner in which he listened to my suggestion that we consider some form of labelling other than the Hazchem international reference on containers of hazardous substances. Let me just amplify what I had in mind, and I think it is very much along the lines of what the hon. the Minister subsequently indicated might be possible. As I understand the hon. the Minister’s reply, it would appear that ambulance, fire and police services have a handbook—or some sort of index—by means of which they can identify the reference on the Hazchem label. I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether I am correct in assuming this, because obviously that is of importance. One always looks to those three groups as being the first line of defence in the case of an accident involving spillage of such substances. I accept that and I am not suggesting that any member of the public should rush in where angels fear to tread, as it were, and try to take over a very hazardous situation. What I am suggesting—and this can happen—is that one might find that the police, ambulance or fire brigade personnel are not available immediately but that, as very often happens in a case such as this, as the hon. the Minister will know, somebody with the knowledge of first-aid, in the case of a medical practitioner, or somebody else who has had experience of these things, can chance to pass by before the first line of defence gets there. Perhaps there could consequently just be brief, simple instructions, in non-technical language that would not require a handbook, to tell one what was in the container. If this were provided, valuable work could be done at a time when it was most needed. I am referring to brief instructions such as “This substance has acidic properties. Keep well clear”, or “Do not pour on water” or something as simple as that, so that well-meaning people at least have a basic guideline in case they perhaps get there before the emergency services arrive on the scene. I am thinking, too, of a substance that might be inhaled or otherwise have rapid and very harmful effects on people. Perhaps the basic antidote could be printed on the outside of the container, as in the case of many hazardous substances, e.g. insecticides. One does not have to have a long screed. I have come across many labels on which, in small letters across the bottom, is printed: “Atropine is antidotal.” If a doctor should chance to come by, he would know immediately what he can use and what he cannot use. So I thank the hon. the Minister for his attention to that and suggest that we take a further look at it. As he says, it is a developing process, and I believe that in the future we shall have to look very carefully at how best we can transport these substances, particularly over long distances.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that we shall look at the practicability of putting additional information on the containers. I am informed that there is, in fact, information on the containers indicating who should be contacted immediately if something goes wrong with the relevant containers and also what should not be done, for example pouring on water or striking a match, etc. I believe such information is, in fact, on the container. There are certain things, however, that one cannot—e.g. for security reasons—print openly on the containers. One must nevertheless look at the practicability of his suggestion that we satisfy ourselves that in a sudden emergency there is no danger to the public if the emergency services cannot get there in time. I think that is the essence of what he said. I shall look at this and inform the hon. member at a later stage of our decision on the practicability of the suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reassure the hon. member for Berea. If he will look at the principal Act of 1973, he will notice that it is very clearly stipulated what substances are to be analysed by the inspectors appointed by the Director and the Commissioner-General of Customs and Excise to ascertain whether they comply with the stipulated standards: and secondly, that the importer has to furnish a guarantee by means of a copy of the clearance certificate that everything is in order as regards the content of the package, whatever it may be. Furthermore, the importer also has to deposit an amount as security for incidental expenses in the event of something being wrong with the contents of the package in question, or its being condemned in terms of the provisions of the Act. The importer will then not only forfeit the content of the package—if it is destroyed in a manner specifically provided for in the Act—but will also forfeit the amount he deposited as a warranty. The onus is specifically placed on the importer to see to it that that substance, in whatever category it may be, cannot create any problems and that it has been imported in terms of the provisions of the Act. The importer also runs the risk of losing the money he has to deposit. In other words, warranties have been embodied in this legislation as far as the Government as well as the public is concerned, with a view to the substance handled, and also warranties in respect of the rapid and effective distribution thereof. I can assure the hon. member that it is very clearly stipulated in the principal Act of 1973 that these assurances are given. With this Bill, we are making it easier in various ways to ensure that there will be no further obstacles preventing the Government from attending to this matter in the best way.

I want to draw hon. members attention to the fact that I have allowed hon. members a wide scope in discussing this clause. This clause changes only the word “Labour” to “Manpower Utilization”. Therefore I am not going to allow any further discussion on this clause.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill has, in substance, two objectives, namely to amend or substitute certain designations appearing in the text of the Act and to improve existing procedures in connection with the inspection of imported foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants. Hon. members no doubt have noticed that these were also the objectives of the Hazardous Substances Amendment Bill.

What I have said about the inspection of imported hazardous substances during the debate on the Second Reading of that Bill, equally applies to inspection of imported foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants. Clause 2(b) of the Bill now before the House, however, needs further elucidation.

The analysis of canned fish and meat products in terms of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act is at present being undertaken by inspectors of the Bureau of Standards. Legally speaking, however, these inspectors have no authority to take any samples for such analysis, because samples may only be taken by inspectors appointed or designated under the Act. Clause 2(b) will rectify this omission.

In conclusion, Sir, I want to refer briefly to the amendment to section 15 of the Act as contained in clause 4 of the Bill. Whenever it is necessary to prescribe details of chemicals and preparations which are listed in the British Pharmacopeia, or descriptions of such chemicals or preparations, or purity, it is customary to prescribe by reference to that Pharmacopeia. The proposed amendment only seeks to bring the Act into line with this custom.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has just mentioned, this Bill, like the previous one, in the first instance just involves a change of name. The same problems I had with the previous Bill also apply here and remain unresolved. We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when we examine this Bill it is very clear that basically it concerns the following aspects: In the first place, it concerns the task, duty and authority of the health inspector to transfer foodstuffs to certain persons. Furthermore it concerns the inspection and control of imported foodstuffs, as well as cosmetics and disinfectants under certain circumstances. What is important is that it concerns the making of new regulations with regard to the disposal of prohibited imported articles. Thirdly, it concerns the prescribing of specific standards with regard to the characteristics or intrinsic quality of the imported foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants. As was the case in the previous legislation, this legislation stipulates that the Director-General may grant the Commissioner for Customs and Excise permission to remove the aforementioned goods to a certain place for examination, with the necessary financial guarantees given by the importer to the State Revenue Fund in the event of certain of those goods being condemned or confiscated. There are very clear stipulations as to how such goods may be condemned or confiscated. This Bill concerns the removal of goods for analysis, and not their distribution. What it concerns is that the results of the analysis must be provided before the health inspector in question at a specific harbour or place of control, the Commissioner for Customs and Excise and eventually the Director-General may grant permission for the distribution of the goods in question.

I should very much like to make a few remarks about the health inspectors at our harbours. I wonder whether this House is aware that for example during the first six months of 1980—i.e. from January to June— foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants to the value of more than R21 million were imported. These goods were shipped by altogether 180 ships which were anchored at 80 quays to unload the goods.

It is the health inspector’s task—this is extremely important—to ensure on behalf of the health service authorities of the harbour and the Department of Health which supervises the execution of that function, that the legal provisions in question are complied with. The health inspectors are appointed in terms of the Act and consequently they have very clear guidelines according to which they have to function.

This is more or less how it works: When a ship is moored, the inspector receives a copy of the clearance certificate to visit the sheds and other complexes at the harbour in question. In this regard one could mention the container complexes and the many stores and sheds in Table Bay Harbour, for example. On the basis of the clearance certificate in his possession the inspector is authorized to visit and examine all those places.

In the course of his visit or investigation the inspector must take note of four aspects in particular because that is his specific function and purpose. In the first place he ought to examine the labelling. When we were discussing the Hazardous Substances Amendment Bill earlier today, the hon. member for Berea specifically pointed out the necessity of taking very careful note of the labelling of such substances. In the second place, it is the inspector’s task to ensure that there are no prohibited substances in the containers. The legal provisions are very clear about this. In the third place, the inspector has to ensure that unsealed containers meet with the prescribed requirements. The inspector must also ensure that as far as the innumerable decaying containers which accumulate in ships or sheds are concerned, the health regulations as prescribed in the Act are complied with. Furthermore the inspector must ensure that seams which open up or rusted tins which have begun to leak are brought to the attention of the bodies and persons in question. A major problem is also created when hessian sacks in which goods are packed are damaged by chemical substances or insects, for then other goods stored in the vicinity of such bags may be infected. One of the greatest problems with which the harbour authorities have to deal is the pollution of stores which have to be stored in bulk and are then, as it were, carelessly dumped in the ships which have to transport such stores. This phenomenon creates tremendous problems for the harbour authorities.

It is of great importance for us to note that the sampling requirements have to be faithfully adhered to with a view to bacteriological analysis. The regulations which have to be implemented in terms of the Act are very strictly complied with by our health inspectors at the harbours. They ensure that bacteriological infection does not occur as a result of the factors which I have just pointed out or as a result of irregularities which may be committed there.

There is another problem we have to deal with there which arises when sterilized equipment has to be used. The hon. members for Parktown and Berea will understand this. When sterilized equipment has to be used to obtain a sample of a substance which has to be analysed, the apparatus necessary to convey the sample from one place to another has to be sterilized as well. One can imagine how difficult it is to have available at every place the necessary equipment which has been sterilized so that this function may be carried out. Consequently I want to express sincere appreciation for these people who, under difficult circumstances and often with limited equipment, or at times even without the necessary equipment, nevertheless perform a very important task at our harbours and other points of entry to the Republic.

To give hon. members some idea of what is involved when we refer to the samples which have to be taken, we need merely ask the question: How many samples can be regarded as a representative sample, when, for example, 100 000 cartons, or 2,5 million tins of fish, are shipped? A certain norm has to be stipulated with regard to where and how samples are taken, what they consist of and what may be regarded as a representative sample. I merely mention these things in an effort to point out the extent of the situation. I am merely using the 2,5 million tins of fish or 100 000 cartons which comprise part of the load of our large container ships as a hypothesis in order to illustrate my arguments.

Now the health inspector, an official of the Government, in the employ of the Department of Health, has to decide where samples are to be taken and how many have to be taken. The government body to which he belongs does afford him guidance. This is very definitely the case. However, that inspector is the man on the spot who has to decide on the where and how many of the operation. Of course, everything is not always in order. When we examine every consignment of these three categories of goods which have to be shipped—i.e. foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants—and we take into account the fact that 160 consignments of such substances were confiscated in terms of the Act in the Durban harbour during the first six months of 1980—and this is important—it is very clear that everything is not always entirely as it should be. But it is also clear from this that our people are indeed doing their job.

Recently a consignment of 8 million fresh hen’s eggs which had been polluted by oil, sea water, refuse and other infectious substances, was condemned and removed. Hon. members will recall that a tremendous fuss was kicked up by certain consumer organizations because those 8 million chicken eggs had been condemned by our health inspectors. I maintain that our health inspectors are, as it were, those people who guard our gates and ensure that inferior or dangerous products do not enter this country, simply to be distributed among the public solely for the sake of short-term benefit. After all, it is important that people should take into account the fact that food poisoning could be caused on a large scale if the existing regulations are not very stringently applied. Health inspectors often have to deal with the negligent and injudicious packaging of products by importers and suppliers, as I have mentioned earlier. The way in which ships’ holds are utilized in our harbours is not always satisfactory either.

While referring to the role which health inspectors play, I also want to refer with sincere gratitude and appreciation to something which, I believe, will to a large extent set the mind of the hon. member for Berea at rest. I know what his problem is. To be specific, I want to point out that the S.A. Bureau of Standards is performing a tremendous task in order to ensure that as far as the health services in South Africa are concerned, standards set are among the highest in the world. The SABS analyses, for example, samples of fish, meat, shellfish and crustacea. Apparently the hon. member for Berea does not know the difference between a shellfish and a crustacean. A shellfish is an NRP member: He creeps into his shell and tries to escape reality. A crustacean, on the other hand, is a PFP member: he is an endangered species. So much, then, for shell fish and crustacea.

Now I should like to refer to a few figures. From 1 August 1970 to 3 June 1980, 8 million kg of fish, shell fish and crustacea, and 111 000 kg of canned meat were examined at our harbours. Of these, i.e. the fish and the meat, 318 kg and 3 815 kg respectively were rejected for sale in South Africa. This gives us an indication of how our people are performing this task and the part which the Bureau of Standards plays in this whole exercise of making South Africa’s health and hygiene services, as regards the importer, too, among the best and safest in the world.

I want to make a final remark in connection with the container set-up as a whole, which we have been dealing with during the past few years. It has brought about an absolutely Copernican turnabout in the whole shipping industry. Previously the waiting period for a consignment of goods from Europe to South Africa, was measured in weeks and months. As a result of the container set-up, however, we may now speak in terms of days as far as the delivery of the goods is concerned. The hon. the Minister said a moment ago that containerization also created problems in a sense because the containers were sealed, the containers were enormous and it was not easy for the health inspector to take a sample from them in order to exercise control. It is virtually impossible to go through all storage places at our harbours with a fine toothcomb for consignments. Here—for this concerns a very cardinal point—we have to depend on the instinct, and, I am tempted to call it, the sixth sense, which these inspectors have developed to know instinctively where and how to look for illegal consignments, or other consignments of which the authorities are unaware, and where to go and look for them. That, then, is the situation as regards the person, the situation, the structure and the way in which the health inspector does his work and the part played by the Bureau of Standards, as well as my positive expression of appreciation on behalf of this House towards these many people—serving men and women— whose task it is to ensure that South Africa has a sound health policy. Basically, this is what is involved. It is probably the best in Africa and is comparable with the best Europe can offer. Therefore it is a great pleasure for me to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, one could truthfully say that a Bill with the title “Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Amendment Bill” is what the bread and butter of South African politics is all about. Such debates in this House very seldom get heated. It is also interesting to see that from all sides of the House Bills like this generally meet with commendation and support from all quarters. I would say that the hon. member for Brits has once again showed that he has an understanding of what we are discussing here and obviously has a great interest in the subject. I shall not follow particularly on his line except to say that he made some interesting points.

It is very important with legislation like this that it be very detailed, very specific and very thorough. The reason I say this is because we live in an age where what we thought impossible a few years ago is in fact happening all around us almost every day now. We live in an age where the possibility of germ warfare against this country cannot be excluded if we view the onslaught and the various forms in which it is waged against us. It is because of this that it is so important that we have this kind of legislation and that we give specific attention to having suitably trained and suitable numbers of inspectors, because one can think of a no more suitable vehicle than this for those to whom nothing is beneath their stooping. One cannot think of a more suitable vehicle than imported foodstuff for the type of warfare which I have referred to, and I do not think I am overstating the case. I think we would be blind and foolish if we did not consider that this is a possibility that we would have to guard against very carefully in the future. There is a distinct possibility that some of the more virulent bacteria or agents could be introduced into a cargo of food destined for this country, not necessarily by the manufacturer or not necessarily even in the country of manufacture, but somewhere along the route. It is because of this that we all applaud and support any measure which will give inspectors the widest possible power and which will also encourage a full complement of officers at all our ports of entry to ensure that the possibility of this sort of thing happening is eliminated to the largest possible extent.

I do not think that one needs to say a great deal more about this particular Bill, because it is similar in essence to the Bill we have just debated. I would, however, like to make one small comment in respect of clause 4. The hon. the Minister referred to it and said that the intention here was to refer to the British Pharmacopoeia. I would say to him that if he were to include in his list and use a publication as authoritative as Martindale’s Extra Pharmacopoeia or the well-known Merck Index, I believe that all three those publications could generally be recognized internationally as authoritative journals. I personally would be pleased to support any suggestion they be so considered, because certainly the Extra Pharmacopoeia contains a wealth of information on substances which do not fall within the terms of reference of the British Pharmacopoeia. I would leave that with the hon. the Minister as a minor suggestion to consider.

With these few words we will be supporting the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the amending Bill before the House. After all, it is the aim of any Government to protect the public against imported substances at all times and also to streamline a law so that it may be easily implemented. This applies not only with respect to substances meant for human consumption, but for substances that are meant for animals too. A striking example of this is a law that was passed in the House years ago, viz. Act 36 of 1947, the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act. That Act has already been amended many times and flowing from it, other laws have been passed which meant a great deal to the country and its people. Even during this session, recommendations have also been made and passed by the House. Laws concerning remedies for human consumption became more effective, and this applies to the legislation that has just been passed too.

As a result of the provisions contained in the amending Bill before us, the implementation of Act 54 of 1972 is being facilitated considerably, because it is indeed the aim of the compilers of laws to make them easy to implement and administer. Which of us would like to see imported remedies for which people are waiting, accumulating in our harbours? In this respect we think for instance of certain ingredients of foodstuffs as well as of cosmetics, for which the fair sex is usually waiting. And which of us would want to annoy the fair sex before the election because some cosmetics are accumulating in the harbours and they cannot obtain them soon enough? There are also disinfectants that are used for destroying germs and bacteria that must not be unnecessarily delayed in our harbours.

In terms of section 107(2) of the Customs and Excise Act, any imported article that does not comply with all the legal provisions, may be received for safe custody. In this respect the legislation has the necessary teeth. Section 14 of the principal Act links up with this provision. As matters stand at present, a tremendous accumulation can occur in the customs packing sheds because at the moment it takes a very long time to analyse a sample. The hon. member for Brits went into this very thoroughly. In that case things will also be speeded up, because the necessary guarantees are given. Most of the harbours in our country are already very busy, and after all it is not the aim of the Government to cause accumulation and delay there. As section 14 of the Principal Act is being amended by this legislation, an inspector may carry out an inspection there and see whether there are perhaps distended cans or rusted articles there and whether every facet of the legislation on our Statute Books is being complied with. Therefore the protection is being retained. If the inspector is satisfied with what he finds there, he may grant permission for the goods to be received. This too is a tremendous concession. If he is not satisfied, he can request a financial guarantee and retain this until the inspection or analysis has been fully completed. If the importer should dispose of the articles in the interim, the amount of the guarantee may be withheld. This provides the necessary guarantee. It also facilitates criminal actions that may be instituted, because according to normal court procedures a claim can be instituted by the person by whom the article is imported.

The whole aim of the amending Bill is to eliminate delays at harbours, and this is to the benefit of the State and the importer. Red tape, which is often the chief enemy of administration, is being eliminated to a large extent, and we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for this. Should the sample indicate that the article concerned is a prohibited article, the legislation retains the power of the existing authorization to deal with the situation and the public is still fully protected. There are few things as important as the health of the country and its people, and that is why we are pleased and grateful that the hon. the Minister, who is very concerned about this matter, has introduced this amending legislation. We are also grateful to the officials who assisted us.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to reply to a few questions and comment on what hon. members have said here. The hon. member for Parktown is a man of few words, and on this piece of legislation he merely echoed what he had said about the previous one. I thank the Opposition, not only for their contributions, but also for their support.

In my view, the hon. member for Brits made an exceptionally good speech. Once again he focused attention on a group of people whose presence is always taken for granted. Usually no one pays much attention to them. I am referring to our health inspectors, particularly to those concerned with the types of substances we are dealing with in this legislation. I am thinking of the importance of the work of the health inspector and of the ways in which he has to see to it that the public is protected. That is of course of paramount importance. The hon. member for Nigel and the hon. member for Berea mentioned that the public had to be protected by a small group of people who had to do their work with dedication and who had to have something substantial—as the hon. member for Nigel expressed it—to be able to do their work properly. The hon. member pointed out that health inspectors had to examine imports worth R21 million conveyed in 180 ships, and in order to carry out these inspections, the inspectors had to call at 80 moorings. By so doing he placed the scope of their work on record here, but I think this will have another effect as well. It would meet with the approval of every hon. member in this House if one were to say that the hon. member for Brits had placed on record the thanks of the Government to this group of people on behalf of the public. It is not an everyday occurrence that our officials are not only praised, but that the task they perform is also set out in detail here in this House. I wish to thank him for the lance he has broken on behalf of these people who are sometimes forgotten. People often think that they need merely see to it that the water is pure and that the sanitation of a town is satisfactory. But these people actually perform a vital task. The hon. member gave an elucidation of the SABS, of the services they render and of their contribution to the health services. I do not think that the activities of this organization can be overemphasized. It is not always that we accord it the necessary recognition. There is hardly any substance of real value, and which is dangerous, that is not tested by them. Looking around one sees the SABS mark everywhere. One has grown accustomed to it already that if one notices a product not bearing the SABS mark, one does not consider it to be good enough. One simply does not feel altogether safe when the SABS mark is absent.

I think the hon. member has made a great contribution with regard to these two groups in particular towards making them realize that the House and the country commend them for the outstanding contribution they are making. I wish to congratulate the hon. member once again on his speech. Not only was his presentation very good, but he also made a thorough study of the subject. In a world where so much is being said every day, one can immediately single out a person who has made a thorough study of the subject he is discussing. Ignorant people immediately give themselves away in any company.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Berea for his contribution. The question of introducing harmful substances is an important one. It is a very interesting aspect that one can quite innocently introduce many types of substances into foodstuffs. Although it is said that “all is fair in love and war”, even if it is undeclared war, one has to ensure that foodstuffs and the various substances we have been dealing with—it could be cosmetics or anything else—should be properly looked into. The need for this type of legislation was clearly explained by the hon. member. As in the past, he has made a valuable contribution to a Second Reading debate. He also mentioned the contribution of the health inspectors as part of our health team. I think it is important that the country should realize not only from what has been said here, but also from what we are trying to tell the public in general, that the base of our health team has been broadened. The health team does not consist only of the doctor, as was the case many years ago, or only of the doctors and nurses, as was the case later. It is today a comprehensive and very well-equipped team in which everybody plays an exceptional part as technology develops. Health inspectors are not people who only see to it that drains are clean and that water is running in the right direction. They also have to see to it that whatever the public consumes is not harmful.

*In my view, the hon. member for Nigel hit the nail on the head at the very outset of his speech when he said that the object of this legislation was to protect the public. That is a brief summary of the object of the amendments we are effecting. The hon. member also said the object of the legislation was to prevent the accumulation of goods at certain places and that it would now be possible to handle goods more rapidly at other places, and not only at the delivery points. The hon. member made a very interesting point there. I also wish to thank him for the fact that he mentioned the contribution which our officials are making. Like our health inspectors, one is often inclined to forget them, whereas, in my department in particular, they have to pay constant attention to possible amendments of the Act since we are dealing with people, with health and ensuring the continued health of those people. In connection with the control of dangerous substances it is imperative that there should be a team of people who are continually looking at the legislation so that we can, if necessary, make the required changes.

Once again I wish to thank all hon. members who made a contribution to this very interesting debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The present provisions with regard to the refund of funds to local authorities, as contained in section 26 of the Act, is involved and clumsy and it complicates the application thereof. In order to solve the problems, the amendment of section 26 is being moved. In terms of this, administrative arrangements for the payment of the subsidies can be made by regulation.

Certain shortcomings arose in the Act with regard to the issuing of regulations aimed at the protection and promotion of human health. In this regard, specific reference is made to the requirements with which graves in cemeteries must comply and to control over the catching of gathering for human consumption of fish, molluscs, crustaceans, plants etc. in polluted water that can endanger health. These provisions speak for themselves.

The aim was also to control the addition of substances to water meant for human consumption with a view to promoting human health. In the opinion of the law advisers, this cannot be done in terms of the present provisions and consequently the changes are being made in clause 7.

The United Municipal Executive made representations to the effect that, with a view to cutting costs, local authorities should also be allowed to cremate the bodies of unclaimed paupers. The provision has been included in clause 11.

In terms of the Act the Minister has certain obligations with regard to complaints that he receives regarding matters in areas that fall under local authorities. In order to provide the Minister with information regarding such matters, it is necessary for departmental officials to ascertain the facts. Section 53 of the Act was aimed at granting such officers the power to enter premises, but it now appears that such powers are limited to areas where the Director-General is the local authority only. In order to rectify the shortcoming, the amendment is being moved in clause 12.

I am of the opinion that the proposed amendments lead to the improvement of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill and I shall raise only a few matters of interest. Clause 3 deals with the paying of subsidies to local authorities. I think the proposed amendment is very good and I think that the payment of subsidies is far better than previously. I should just like to have some assurance from the hon. the Minister with regard to subsidies, because we all know that there are times when these subsidies can be reduced due to economic conditions in the country. I think local authorities will have to plan their budgets for essential services whereas, in the past, as I readit, they could claim their expenses, which the hon. the Minister has now changed to subsidies, because all this would have taken a lot of time. Now they know what they will receive and they can plan accordingly. If, however, economic conditions should deteriorate, these subsidies will not be so easily available, and in this regard I should like the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the subsidies will still be adequate for the need of the local authorities. Let me give an example. We have just read about a very essential TB drug that had to be withdrawn from the health authorities even though these drugs are vital for treatment of patients, but due to economic reasons they can no longer be supplied. Therefore I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that these subsidies will always be adequate and will not be reduced due to economic conditions.

I should now like to deal with clause 4, which deals with the standards and requirements which cemeteries or graves in cemeteries must conform. I think it is very important that the graves in cemetries should also be controlled. I think this is very essential. I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister what is meant by “requirements”. Does this refer to the depth of the grave or how big the tombstone should be? I should just like to have more information about requirements with regard to cemeteries.

Clause 6 relates to section 36 of the principal Act and deals with fish farming in the sea. The proposed section 36A describes a different area, and I think this is very essential to improve the water sources in storage dams, especially for health reasons. It is not only the pollution of the water and of the fish that can cause disease, because we know, for example, in Naples, in Italy, a few years ago, there was a very bad outbreak of cholera as a result of the infestation of black mussels in the sea. I think this is a very important part of the Bill where these provisions are being inserted for controlling of this danger.

Lastly, I read in clause 7 in the proposed paragraph 4(c)—

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister:

When he says “with a view to the promotion of health”, do I perhaps read into this that something is going to be introduced in the future, namely the essential need of adding fluoride to water for health purposes? I would hope that this is what the hon. the Minister intends doing in the future. I do not think I need talk at length today about the advantages and disadvantages of adding fluoride to water, because I think this matter has been debated in this House before. But I can assure hon. members that this is a very important addition or need for the health of our people, especially those parts of our country where people for socio-economic reasons perhaps do not have the knowledge of dental hygiene or the money with which to buy toothpaste, toothbrushes and simple things like these for their dental hygiene. There is no doubt about it that the addition of fluoride to water will make their teeth harder. I hope that the fluoridization of our water will come about in the near future and I hope that this is what the hon. the Minister intends when he adds this provision to the Bill. Our poorer people know very little dental care, except extraction. So I hope this i is what the hon. the Minister plans. Except for that, we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to testify to my appreciation of this legislation, in which progress is being made, inter alia, with regard to the implementation of the necessary duties to promote health, as it is said. Then I want to make a few remarks with regard to the amendments contained in clause 3 and clause 7.

There is little doubt about the fact that local authorities which have already been experiencing problems for a long time as a result of their limited revenue, will welcome this possible subsidy for which provision is being made in clause 3, provided that the obligations which will be imposed upon them in this way will not make greater demands on their own revenue. In the nature of things there are those services which have preference at local authorities, and if the budget does not balance, there may be a tendency for less direct matters, for instance the health of the community, to fall by the wayside here and there. The legal amendment under discussion enables the Minister to reach a decision in advance with regard to aid for health services, when the Minister judges that it is necessary and that the service concerned can be best taken care of by the local authority. By accepting the subsidy, the local authority is also accepting the conditions under which it is granted. This may mean that the local authority might also have to make more of its own funds available than previously, when they were able to recover a certain percentage. However, I accept that, to begin with at least, subsidization will be made available only after specific negotiations, so that the local authority will have the opportunity to review its own position before it commits itself. Therefore the problem of local authorities being held responsible for sums beyond their means for health services that they must provide, should not arise.

In the nature of things, the subsidization of specific services places responsibilities upon the shoulders of the recipient of the subsidy concerned, and it is justified for this very reason. General subsidies to supplement self-generated revenue, for instance in the case of the provincial administrations, give the recipient the discretion to decide on how the funds will be put to use. Whatever the final results flowing from the Browne Commission’s report into the sources of revenue of local authorities may be, this form of subsidy remains essential for specified use. That is why I welcome this amendment, and I believe it is appreciated.

Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 37 of the principal Act. The amendment has a bearing on the—

Then the addition is qualified by mentioning the reason why this occurs. This is—

This defined objective was not excluded previously. Water purification works and the people who manage them, were therefore able to add such substances in the past. However, then the authority or owner concerned would have had to accept the responsibility of deciding whether it was necessary, and then whether to do so or not, according to whether they had decided if it was necessary or not. Now this addition is being prescribed. This means that the owner or authority no longer decides themselves as to the desirability or not of the addition of such substances. The owner or authority is now obliged to add certain substances to the water with a view to the purification thereof or the promotion of health. I assume that with a view to the purification of the water, they will be obliged to add certain substances only in cases where the impurities concerned may be dangerous or hampering for the consumer of the water. However, the decision is now being taken at Government level. The hon. member for Parktown mentioned the possibility of the amendment having a bearing upon the fluoridation of water. To the layman, the arguments about fluoridation that have been in progress for quite some time already, often seem to be the “is”, “is not” type of argument on the face of things, because those who are for and against it are equally convinced of their standpoint. I do not think either of them gives a hearing to the other one’s claims. The Minister and his department are now taking the responsibility upon themselves of acting as arbitrator in this type of argument.

It is a good thing that decisions on health are taken at a highly responsible level. The arbitrator on such questions may never act in an arbitrary manner. Decisions regarding health matters may not be taken on a basis of “give the benefit of the doubt”. This means that there is a tendency to allow a great deal of flexibility in either direction. In addition, the arbitrator runs the risk of playing it unnecessarily safe on the one hand by prescribing the addition of substances to promote health because it may be necessary, but without ascertaining whether it is in fact necessary. Unnecessary expenditure can be made compulsory in this way. On the other hand, it can be played safe by neglecting to have substances added for health purposes because there is doubt as to the use thereof or even because it may be feared that such substances could also contain detrimental components. In my opinion the Minister and his department need not be prompted in this regard, because they realize the responsibility involved here. They have much more knowledge in this regard than most of us who are inclined to adopt an alarmist attitude on health affairs.

Fluoridation has been mentioned as an example here, but the extent of the spread of cholera, which is related to contaminated water, raises another heckling question in this regard, viz. when it becomes necessary or is justified to oblige John Citizen to take measures prescribed for water purification works with regard to his own water resources. It may for instance happen that a large employer who provides water to his employees utilizes water purification works. I am not very sure whether these prescriptions would also be applicable to him in such a case; that is to say if there are such prescriptions.

The question is now whether those who provide themselves or other people with water, with or without purification works, should also be obliged to take the same type of precautions. I am inclined to argue that although this is necessary, it may be a form of regimentation to which free people in a free country should not be subjected. This reminds one of the standpoint that it is better to use milk even if there is some i doubt as to whether it is being hygienically treated rather than not to use milk at all. Water is even more indispensable than milk and I believe that therefore there should be considerable flexibility for the private individual in this regard and that one should not be too regimented.

In the century in which we are living, there are methods to make health requirements known world-wide. These announcements do not always reach everyone, not even most people. Many hear them without listening and others who do listen, do not obey. However, I believe that the public should be given information only and not instructions in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has dealt with the fields of the application of this legislation in so far as he has had experience with it. His comments, certainly in so far as the local authorities are concerned, we find interesting. I shall not follow his particular line of debate this afternoon, but I hope he will forgive me for that.

At the outset I want to point out that of the three health Bills we are discussing today, this one probably has the most far-reaching consequences. There are several changes, some of them very significant changes, intended in the legislation and they cover a very wide field. Because of that there is no single clause that one can say, as it were, embodies the spirit of the Bill. I make this point because I want to say to the hon. the Minister that for two main reasons it is difficult for me at this stage to decide whether our party can support the Bill at Second Reading. There are aspects which we do not find altogether satisfactory. I should like to deal with them first and then come back to some other points in detail.

In the first place, in clause 3 reference is made to the paying of subsidies to local authorities. From this side of the House there is no fight with the intention in this regard, but I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in 1977, when the original Act was passed, provision was made for the payment of moneys to the provincial administrations for the handling of ambulance services, and today we are still in the situation where money for this service has not been found, nor has it been paid. I am now speaking particularly for Natal. The hon. the Minister of Finance must have a say in this. He is the leader of the NP in Natal, and I am surprised that he has not before now, and particularly before this general election, found the money to give to the hon. the Minister of Health so that he can in terms of this Act enable the Natal authorities to carry out the job that they are supposed to have started three years ago. I am very surprised that he has not been able to find the necessary funds, but in view of the fact that he has not been able to find a seat either, it is perhaps not so surprising. [Interjections.] But it is very difficult to vote for clause 3 willy-nilly when on scrutiny one finds a further extension of powers while for three years the Minister has had the power to co-operate with the Minister of Finance to find the funds for the running of the ambulance services in Natal and it has not been finalized yet. The hon. the Minister knows that I have written to him in this connection several times. There have been emergency meetings with various local authorities in Natal who are desperately concerned about the breakdown of ambulance services. Sir, the situation has not merely reached an urgent stage; there are areas of Natal where the ambulance services are actually on the verge of breakdown and certain local authorities have even threatened to withdraw their subsidy.

Your party is governing in Natal.

I know we are, but until the money is voted by Parliament for Natal to carry out its obligations in terms of the Act, it is powerless. It cannot act unilaterally. We will be severely criticized by the hon. the Minister, by the Government, if we act unilaterally. In terms of this Act it is up to the hon. the Minister to find the money and to tell Natal: “There is the money for the ambulance budget; go ahead and sort things out.” And Natal is ready, as the hon. the Minister well knows because he has had discussions with our M.E.C.s. Natal is ready, willing and able to take over those services and can start them tomorrow, but it must know when the money is coming. That is why I am perturbed when I read clause 3 and find that the hon. the Minister is contemplating subsidizing local authorities for services. I accept that these services are needed, that it is vital that these services are provided and that they will have to be paid for. However, it contrasts starkly with the fact that there is a provision in the Act that has not been carried out during the past three years. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister today to tell us, once and for all, why he has not been able to obtain the necessary funds.

The second point on which I am not at all happy and in respect of which this party is considering voting against, is contained in clause 7. The hon. member for Parktown also referred to the inclusion of the words “for the purpose of its purification or with a view to the promotion of health”. One cannot take exception to the purification of water or to the need of adding substances to water to purify it. I think most water purifying processes are well-known and are long established. One has to add chlorine and various other chemicals to ensure that the water is fit for human consumption, and I have no complaint about that. In principle one cannot have an objection to the addition of substances to water with a view to the promotion of health in general. But as this clause is phrased, and particularly as it is very possible that the hon. the Minister has the addition of fluoride to water in mind—a most emotional subject which has already been debated in this House, e.g. I raised it under the hon. the Minister’s Vote in 19 78—I think that this is asking for a blank cheque. Certainly, even if we do not vote against the Second Reading, we shall be voting against that clause, because I believe that if there is any particular substance or group of substances that the hon. the Minister intends adding to our water supplies, with a view to promoting health, at the very least this House should debate such an issue and know what it is that we are going to add to the water supplies. I do not believe that this is the sort of amendment for which we can simply give the hon. the Minister a blank cheque. In all honesty we cannot. I believe he will probably tell us what he has in mind, but as I have indicated we shall vote against this clause when the time comes, because we regard that as a blank cheque. We believe that when the decision is taken to add any substance—whether it be fluoride or anything else—to our water supplies, the issue should be debated in this House where the members who represent the millions of voters around the country can have their say, so that we can see whether it is generally acceptable to the public to have such substances added. If one forces things down the throats of members of the public— in this case through their drinking water— one is asking for trouble. I believe that if one is going to add something, particularly fluoride, one should have a dispassionate debate in which one can put one’s case and learn from all the experience gained overseas, where the indiscriminate addition of fluoride in unmeasured quantities to natural water supplies has given rise to scare stories which terrify the man in the street to such an extent that even the mere mention of fluoride creates a strong reaction. If we are going to consider this—and I would be quite happy to have a reasoned debate on that specific subject in the House under the Vote of the hon. the Minister—I think we must know what criteria are going to apply, what substances we are considering adding and the exact conditions under which, and proportions in which, such chemicals are going to be added to our water.

Regardless of what the hon. the Minister says, however, we cannot support that clause. I notice that the hon. the Minister is looking a little apprehensive, wondering what we are eventually going to do about the Second Reading. When one looks at the intention behind clauses such as clauses 4, 5 and 6, one sees that the hon. the Minister obviously has his heart in the right place, and now that there is a heart surgeon in the House, I suppose the Minister realizes that he has to. We see that the hon. the Minister does have his heart in the right place …

He can transplant it.

… and we know from experience that he is a Minister of good intentions. On that basis, and on the balance of probabilities, although there are those two serious reservations that I mentioned, we are reluctantly going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with the hon. member for Berea said that he was not prepared to accept the so-called blank cheque that the hon. the Minister offered him, but later on he nevertheless intimated that the hon. the Minister’s heart is in the right place.

To indicate that I support the Bill—which I am very pleased to do—I do not want to participate in a discussion of all the clauses. I just want to emphasize a few here and there. The proposed section 37(b)(c) of the principal Act is being amended, and the aim of this is, inter alia, to make our water supply as pure as possible, with a view to promoting health. At the basis of our leading position in the world, when it comes to the prevention of water pollution, is efficient legislation, such as this piece of legislation that is now before us, as well as efficient research and process development. I do not want to say much now about the effect of polluted water on the human system, and everything related to it. There are other speakers who will apparently discuss this. I just want to emphasize that it is a problem that is continually assuming more serious proportions. The same applies when one deals with water, particularly when the necessary trace elements that are supposed to be present in the water, are absent. On the other hand, there may also be too many of these substances present in the water. If we can increase the utilization value of water by means of legislation and implementing the law, we in this House will be carrying out a very great, important task.

We are without doubt one of the forerunners in the sphere of water technology and we can put this knowledge to good use, which is in fact being done. I just want to give attention for a moment to a matter that has been raised on various sides. This is a matter that has been occupying researchers for many years and which has become a controversial issue and will remain one for many years to come. I am referring to the question of the fluoridation of water. I feel we can put it very clearly here that our available knowledge regarding fluoride and everything related to it, indicates that the allegation that this element would be dangerous if the correct quantity were absorbed by the body and that it exposes all forms of life to danger, is devoid of all truth. One can quote many researchers to support this. As I said, it is obvious that the addition of this substance—as in the case of chlorine—must also be carefully controlled in order to guarantee the optimum ratio in the water. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the addition of chlorine to water was a matter of dispute years ago too, and it is ironical that an enteritis epidemic had to break out in 1895 and that it was that very epidemic that was needed to make the authorities decide that it was the right time to begin adding chlorine to water.

The hon. member for Parktown spoke about tooth decay. I want to agree with him and, as in the case of the enteritis epidemic, we must not overlook the fact that medical aid schemes had to pay out R40 million to dentists in 1977. This proves that tooth decay can definitely be checked by adding the correct quantity of fluoride to water. I feel that we have reached the stage where we can say: “To fluoridize or not to fluoridize.” Clause 7(c) of the legislation endorses the necessity of specialized training for persons who are employed at water purification works. We have entered a period in which the emphasis has been placed—hopefully in good time, but definitely quite essentially— on the question of training in all possible spheres of existing professions. Therefore we cannot fail to endorse this idea here and make it known at all times. Training and re-training, specialization and super-specialization then become the order of the day. We are living in a time in which there may in fact be a tendency amongst people to succumb to an undefined cult of “if I perish, I perish”. Nevertheless, the opposite is also true, i.e. that man makes very high demands, that he expects his fellow man to have the right answer at all times, that he wants to be given nothing but the best advice at all times, that he always wants to be assured of the best, most efficient service. If we reduce this to practical terms, specifically to what we are dealing with here, it can also be made applicable to what is important here, viz. the purification of water. Due to the high demands that he makes, the taxpayer also expects only the purest of pure water when he turns on the tap. After all, he knows that it is possible and that it can be done.

In spite of all the aids that we have, all the research that has been done and all the exciting technological developments, the trained operator is still required to fulfil certain functions in this process. At that point too what we want to say here is still being made clear, i.e. that we are looking for nothing but the best. This will also mean that people must be encouraged and, which we want included in the legislation, that they should be well trained and that the necessary training facilities will be available so that the operator can ultimately carry out his work with the necessary skill. This is what we are striving for. This is also what we will achieve. However, hard work and sacrifices lie ahead for certain people on their way to reaching that point. Smaller municipalities can testify to this.

We must have understanding for the situation in smaller municipalities which often do not have the necessary funds to appoint qualified and trained people for a specific purpose, like the one that is under discussion here. Apart from that it would not be strange either, even if they had the necessary funds, if they could not make a case for the appointment of such a qualified person to their management committee because a full working day would not be utilized by that person. Add to that the possibility that, when such a position is advertised, the right man cannot be found and it is logical that what can happen at the smaller municipalities, is in fact happening, viz. that certain officials have to carry out a very important task as a result of circumstances. Nor is it strange then that such a person is often responsible for the fire brigade, the sewerage, the electricity supply, the water purification, etc. We have many of the men that I have just mentioned progressing towards the point where there will be a specialist for every specialist subject. We must raise our hats to them for fulfilling this multiple task entrusted to them with distinction.

In conclusion I want to ask whether we realize what we are dealing with. When we deal with and re-write laws of this nature, we are involved in nothing more than drawing the best out of man and his environment to the benefit of an entire community and entire creation, but then the opportunities must be there and we must give them the opportunities so that we will not be disappointed when all is said and done.

Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate in regard to two main provisions particularly, namely, the question of subsidies paid to local authorities and, secondly, the hon. the Minister’s right, or so-called blank cheque, to treat water in terms of clause 7. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, a member who speaks with great authority and experience in so far as local authorities are concerned. I think the change from the part refund system to the subsidy system is a very important change and is also a very important step in so far as local authorities are concerned.

For many years—and this the hon. member for Koedoespoort as one who has been involved with local authorities will know— the local authority was the agent of the State Health Department to administer the Health Act. For that purpose it appointed medical staff and paramedical staff. In terms of the arrangement that existed in terms of the Health Act a part refund was made with regard to those posts and, if my memory serves me correctly, with regard to many of those posts there was a seven-eighths part refund payable by the State. Local authorities were then always guided by this particular part refund in the sense that when it came to the question of narrowing the gap in paying salaries to non-Whites who filled the same posts and carried out the same duties as the Whites, particularly doctors and nurses, and when there was a different scale laid down for non-White doctors and nurses although they had to have the same qualifications and had to perform the same duties, the local authority was always afraid to close that gap completely because the Central Government would have stepped in and said that they did not like that as a matter of policy and so would deny the local authority that part refund. That was the argument that was always used and that was the reason why local authorities were afraid to close that gap. Now we have the proposed change to the subsidy system of a certain amount. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he already has a formula worked out as to what that subsidy is going to be, on what the formula is based and what local authorities can now expect so far as that subsidy is concerned. Furthermore having been granted that subsidy, are they going to be free agents to determine the salaries to be paid to their medical and paramedical staff and will they now be entitled, without fear—which we hope they will be—to close the gap between the salaries received by Whites, Coloureds and other non-Whites. This is most important and I hope that the hon. the Minister will say during the course of this debate as a matter of policy that he wants to see this gap closed and the disparity eliminated; that the local authorities need not fear and, having been granted a subsidy to pay their staff, they will now be free to close that gap.

The second matter I want to raise is one that the hon. member for Parktown has raised and one which he has brought to the pertinent attention of hon. members, namely, with regard to clause 7 where the proposed paragraph (c) states—

This is, as anyone will understand, wide enough to give the hon. the Minister the power to bring about fluoridation or any kind of treatment. The hon. member for Koedoespoort stated that there are arguments against fluoridation. If we are going to take that decision we want to know from the hon. the Minister today whether in giving him this blank cheque, in giving him this power, he intends to introduce the fluoridation of water. The hon. the Minister will be aware of organizations such as the South African Safe Water Association who have drawn attention to the fact that fluoridation, according to them, promotes certain symptoms such as severe stomach cramps, ulcers, excessive thirst, dizziness, low blood pressure, violent headaches, skin rashes and other irritations.

You are disagreeing with your own spokesman!

Just a moment. They have pointed out that in countries such as Denmark, France, Greece, Holland, Italy, Luxembourg and Norway there is no fluoridation. But the hon. the Minister will know that those arguments have been countered by the S.A. Dental Association who pointed out in 1966 that—

Since the association made this recommendation in 1966 the Government has taken no action in this regard. Why not?

Are you for or against it?

I am for it. Why has the Government not made some positive statement in this regard? I should like to quote the following statement made by a spokesman for the S.A. Dental Association. He says this—

This seems, therefore, to weigh rather heavily in favour of fluoridation. As far as South Africa is concerned, we shall support the S.A. Dental Association and, if the hon. the Minister intends taking any action in this regard, he must tell us whether or not he is going to make use of the power that we are giving him in terms of this legislation. He must tell us whether or not he intends introducing fluoridation in the water of South Africa. This is a matter that has been discussed for many years in this country and I think it is high time that we determined what our actions are going to be in this regard in one way or the other. The hon. the Minister now has an opportunity to tell us.

Mr. Speaker, ever since 1966 the Department of Health has been well known for not simply doing things in a haphazard fashion—and I am now referring to the report from which the hon. member for Hillbrow quoted. That is also why we have had a systematic development throughout the entire process of development of amongst other things—since it is under discussion now—the question of the fluoridation of water. Therefore, I simply want to confirm now what hon. members on this side of the House have known all along. This is that the Department of Health, the hon. the Minister and the entire staff of the department, including the hon. the Minister’s predecessors, have always done nothing but the best when it comes to the health of the people of the Republic of South Africa. However, this has been done in a scientific fashion, a fashion that has also had a sound foundation.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister will furnish hon. members with clear replies to all these questions. With regard to a remark which the hon. member for Berea made, I want to point out that his behaviour was very positive until business was suspended. However, I wonder where he had lunch this afternoon. I noticed that a completely different tone was present in his way of debating when business was resumed after lunch. I did not see him in the main dining room. Therefore I assume that he partook of lunch elsewhere.

To summarize, I should like to refer to two particular clauses in the Bill under discussion. In the first place I want to refer to the tremendous benefits that will emanate from this amendment with regard to the subsidization of local authorities. In this respect I want to associate myself sincerely with what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said. He is a person who has had many years experience of local authorities, particularly in his former capacity as Administrator of the Transvaal. I do not think that the subsidization of local authorities is a matter which need be argued or debated about. I believe that it will be sincerely welcomed on all sides.

The second matter that is at issue is the so-called blank cheque that is being given to the department to add certain substances to water intended for human consumption and other uses. As far as this matter is concerned, we are assured—in fact it is also included in the legislation—that no irresponsible action will be taken. Therefore, hon. members opposite will be able to come back to this House each time with their complaints if a situation arises that gives them cause for concern.

In the final instance I should just like to refer here to a matter which I feel deserves the attention of the House. It has a bearing on dumping in the upper courses of rivers that flow into large storage dams. Sometimes certain chemical substances are dumped in the rivers which eventually reach the producers of agricultural products. I am thinking for instance of the tobacco farmers in my own constituency, who are experiencing considerable problems due to the presence of chlorine in the water. As far as I am concerned, the control of dumping chlorine in rivers is not adequate. In the second place we are faced with situations in which in time certain agricultural products will no longer be able to compete in the open market, as a result of the high chlorine content of the water with which they are irrigated. Furthermore, it also happens that that chlorine makes an appearance in food products, such as wheat. I do not want to go into this any further, except to say that in the measles that we find in that densely populated rural constituency with small farms that have been worked on a highly intensive for the past 50 years, we are starting to see the symptoms and the fever of the same disease that occurs elsewhere in the Republic as a result of the dumping of chemical substances in water, substances that have a detrimental effect. In this regard I refer to a telex that I received from the chairman of one of the biggest co-operatives in the country to bring the question of the pollution of irrigation dams, by chlorine in particular, to the attention of the House.

As far as this is concerned, however, I want to content myself with this because the matter has already been taken up with the Ministers concerned, such as the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism as well as others. I want to assure the public outside that this question will be given very careful attention by the hon. the Ministers and their departments.

I want to conclude. I referred in passing to pollution as a result of the injudicious dumping of waste products in rivers and therefore in sources of water too, but I must also point out that it is now beginning to assume the proportions of a national problem. We must bear in mind that our people are very conservation conscious. I do not think there is any controversy in the House with regard to this matter, as it has in fact been pointed out in another debate earlier today. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious attention to the following request—

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure for me to listen to the hon. member for Brits who always creates the impression in the House of knowing what he is talking about and always encourages us by his behaviour here.

From the debate thus far it is clear that there are two subjects that have grasped the imagination of the debaters, viz. subsidies and blank cheques. The hon. member for Berea has tremendous problems. He definitely has problems with teeth as well as with ambulances. The hon. member for Hillbrow in turn is afraid that a blank cheque will not be used. His representation to the hon. the Minister is to state whether he is going to add fluoride to the water or not.

Speaking of blank cheques, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to provide a generous sum in subsidies to our rural local authorities who are finding it very difficult to carry out some of their services under present circumstances. One of the most important services that a municipality or divisional council provides, is most probably the non-personal health service. It is also true that it is this very service that receives the least publicity and about which the public knows least. As a result, the officials who provide such good service seldom receive the recognition they deserve. I am now referring to the service responsible for the health and hygienic living conditions of the community. I just want to give a short review of this service. It includes the control over the erection of dwellings and the passing of building plans. Health officers have to ensure that health regulations are complied with when new buildings are erected. They must ensure that there is enough window space and that the floor area is large enough to ensure that it will be a healthy, hygienic dwelling. It also includes the maintenance of sewerage systems in order to ensure hygienic conditions in a community and it also includes the treatment of effluent. The removal and dumping of domestic garbage; the provision of clean, healthy water; food and meat inspection; control over premises where food is sold; control over shops, butcheries etc. all fall under this health service. If one takes all these aspects into account, it may sound as if it does not include much, but it is a tremendously diversified task.

In the days when I was a health inspector in a rural town, I had to inspect thousands upon thousands of carcasses of sheep and cattle at 6 o’clock every morning. There are many dairies that must be checked because there is always the danger of epidemics such as enteritis, diphtheria and other contagious diseases breaking out if proper control is not exercised. This important work, of which people in general do not really have any conception because they do not realize what is involved.

If an epidemic strikes an area, the local authority must ensure that patients are isolated and steps must be taken at once to bring the epidemic under control. These are all services that must be provided by local authorities. In our smaller, rural towns, where municipalities and divisional councils cannot manage due to limited revenue, they have consolidated their services. In many cases in the rural areas, divisional councils and municipalities have created a joint health service in order to be able to cover the costs of such a service. I know of one specific case. In my constituency a municipality and divisional council have created a joint health service. The divisional council is responsible for the provision of the service. With the recent amalgamation of divisional councils, the head office of the health service was moved from one town to the other, with the result that one of the towns no longer employs a health inspector at all. Hon. members must realize that all these services which I have mentioned, must still continue in that town. The result is that the town concerned decided to appoint its own health inspector and it has been waiting for applications for the past seven months, because health inspectors are also scarce these days.

However, I understand that it will now be possible for the Department of Health in terms of this legislation to second health inspectors and other essential medical service staff to municipalities, divisional councils or local authorities that do not have staff at their disposal. I think this measure is an excellent one because it will provide for a need that already exists in our rural towns.

I also want to mention the far-sightedness and spirit of enterprise on the part of the hon. the Minister and his department who were able to accomplish these things in spite of the fact that it is not a recommendation of the Browne Committee. We are grateful for the provisions of this legislation with regard to subsidization, and I hope the blank cheque will be used generously to be of great assistance to our rural towns in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss a few matters. I think it may be easiest to deal with the members’ points one after another, as in previous debates. I must say I am quite surprised at the fact that this debate led to such a curious discussion and that we even got round to the ambulance service in Natal. This forces me to say a few things about the ambulance service in Natal. I think it may be important because certain things have been said in the Press by members of the governing provincial executive committee. These are things I cannot really allow to pass, since they were mentioned in this debate by way of comment on subsidies to local authorities.

The hon. member for Parktown asked me to give the assurance that we shall not reduce the subsidies. I think one should take one’s lesson from history. Since 1919, when the principal Act was passed, subsidies have been paid, but no subsidies have ever been reduced. I hope it will never be necessary for me to do so. However, I must act in accordance with the financial means of the country, but I think one can give the assurance—taking into consideration the problems of the various local authorities and other bodies—that they will receive their rightful share of the cake. Of course, I cannot make an unqualified promise, but I can only go by the record, and the record is what really counts. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the amount of subsidy will always be enough for the services that are rendered. That is our aim.

The hon. member spoke about clause 4. He mentioned the fact that the pollution of water caused disease. I think that quite a few things have already been established in this connection, such as the testing of water. There is a whole list of regulations dealing with diseases spread by water, such as cholera, gastric fever and many other diseases. This matter is kept well under control by our field officers and by the regular testing of water. As far as urban water is concerned, we regularly co-operate with various bodies, such as the Department of Water Affairs and the Rand Water Board. In my opinion, very good control is exercised over the water which is made available for human consumption.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked whether we would ever go so far as to require the man in the street to purify his water. I do not think we shall go so far as to require the man in the street to purify his water and to put up a purification plant. However, I think the time has come for the man in the street to make sure that he does at least provide clean, pure water to all the people working for him, even if the water has only flowed over the proverbial seven stones of the Bible and has not come a hundred kilometres down a river with everything that involves. I think this is important. Our agricultural people and other people in the country will henceforth have to accept responsibility, as many are already doing, for at least providing pure water from boreholes for their employees, the kind of water I have been drinking all my life, and I still have all my own teeth, in spite of the fact that the water is not fluoridized. In the area I come from, Providence decided a long time ago that fluoridization is a good thing and saw to it that the water contained fluoride. Elsewhere, where people have too much, perhaps, Providence did not do so, and that is where the dentists make a living!

†The hon. member for Hillbrow made the point about fluoridization that it would benefit that section of our population who does not use toothbrushes. I should like to point out to the hon. member that during my years in private practice I also practised on the border of the Transkei, and the best teeth I have ever seen were those belonging to the Xhosas. Yet 99% of them did not use toothbrushes, nor did they use toothpaste. They cleaned their teeth with ash from the wood burnt the previous evening. Should we go back to putting ash into toothpaste tubes, we would perhaps be on the right track. These people often have better eating habits than we have and they have more sense regarding dental hygiene than we have because we do just about everything possible to stick to the old proverb that says: “One digs one’s grave with one’s teeth”. That is what most of us are doing, certainly in our Western civilization. I think the question of fluoride in the water does not have a rich or poor connotation, or a Black, White, Coloured, Indian or Chinese connotation. Tooth decay is mainly caused by, firstly, our eating habits and, secondly, by possibly too little fluoride in the water.

There is one point I should like to make regarding a matter that the hon. member mentioned briefly. He says that people in our poorer communities only have the benefit of extractions and do not have good enough service for primary care. I think it was in reply to a question a few days ago that I mentioned the number of clinics that have already been taken over by the Department of Health, and the dental faculties for the training of dentists as far as hospitalization is concerned have also been taken over by the Department of Health. A proud record in this respect has been established during the last few years. I think that if one takes it to its logical conclusion and if we can get on with our community health centres at the rate we envisage if we can get enough funds, we will eventually provide primary dental care at every one of these community health centres. We are already training a large number of dental technicians at Garankuwa. I visited the dental school there. They train young men of various ethnic groups in a period of three to four years to do primary dental care work. Thus I have seen wonderful work being done in the national States. They do the work a dentist could do. In fact, they do all the elementary types of work, such as the filling of caries, extractions, etc. We are convinced we must have this type of person trained in larger numbers and not wait 5½ to 6 years for people to become dentists and then orthodontists only to spend their time straightening the odd tooth and operating on the jaw here and there. We need these people, and I want to tell the hon. member—and I am not saying this to placate him—that the department is doing a large amount of work in this connection and that we are very proud of it.

*As far as the hon. member for Koedoespoort is concerned, one could hear at once that his previous experience had helped him in his speech. He spoke of subsidies to local authorities, and he made a very good speech on a subject on which he is obviously ell informed. He also raised the question of the addition of substances and said that this should be carefully evaluated. He made the interesting point that when decisions have to be taken on matters such as these, it should be done at a very high level. This would place the responsibility on the Government —and it is a great responsibility. I think the decisions which would then be taken need not be questioned, because the advice of eminent professional people and academics would be obtained in this connection.

With regard to this subject, the hon. member for Berea—who has left for Durban and has apologized for his absence— suggested that we debate the fluoridization of water in this House. We have already heard divergent views on that subject this afternoon. There was no consensus about it. The hon. member for Hillbrow quoted what the dental people had to say about it. Then there are a lot of do-gooders who do not want it at all, and they advance lengthy arguments as to why it should not be done. Then there is the technical point of the quantity that should be added to the water. There is also a dispute about whether a certain quantity holds any danger or not. With all due respect to my hon. colleagues in this House, I want to say that even if we debated the matter for a whole week, we still could not establish and decide exactly how much fluoride one should add to the water. As I have indicated, there are parts of the country where fluoride is already present in the water. I come from a district where there is a lot of fluoride in the water. If we enacted any statutory provision in this connection, we would also have to find a way of removing some of the fluoride from the water, because there are speculations to the effect that there is too much fluoride in the water at some places. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that I have not taken any firm decision in this connection.

†I have not had the time to apply my mind specifically to this problem. I have read very widely on it. I have read what is being done in other countries. In some countries it has already become compulsory to add fluoride to the water, while in other countries there has been almost a change of Government over the question whether fluoride should be added to the water or not. So the argument will never stop. When a safe and proper evaluation can be made, a decision either way will have to be taken. The people who are in favour of adding fluoride advance wonderful arguments in support of their point of view. At the moment they possibly have the best argument. Those who are against fluoride in their turn advance arguments which are equally good. In the time ahead I think we shall have to apply our minds to it. This clause has not been introduced with any ulterior motive, for instance for enabling me to have fluoride added to the water from next week. The hon. member for Hillbrow might feel bad about that. The matter will be looked at very carefully before it is finalized. We shall have to look at the latest results. In overseas countries where there is no fluoride in the water, one finds that they are starting to favour adding fluoride, whilst in others where they have already added fluoride, there is some doubt whether too much or sufficient is being added. It is therefore not an easy matter on which to reach a decision, but, as with anything, at some stage or another a decision will have to be taken.

*I have already dealt with the question by the hon. member for Koedoespoort about whether we are going to require the man in the street to do so. I do not think we shall require him to do so at this stage. The hon. member himself gave the solution, i.e. that people should be properly informed, and I think we shall go out of our way to provide information from now on. If we are to win in the health stakes in this country, there are two extremely important things we must do: We must provide proper sanitation and proper water for every one of our people, plus of course proper basic housing. When we have provided these three services, we shall not only have solved our health problems, we shall also have obtained a good type of countryman, a person of high calibre, who is able to serve the country properly. Then he will not have any problems in those three respects. He will be living a life of human dignity, and I think that is something we should work for. It is the aim of the department to achieve this.

†The hon. member for Berea said that this Bill was one of the three Bills that we have dealt with in respect of which he wanted to cross swords with me. He then dealt with the question of subsidies to local authorities. He mentioned the question of ambulance services in Natal and said that this has been in the Act for the last three years. I can read the short section from the Health Act of 1977 in terms of which each authority—local, provincial and Government—had all the health services divided amongst them. However, there is a transitional period during which one has to see to it that certain things are carried from one authority to the other with certain guarantees that they will be able to finance it. As far as ambulances are concerned, section 16 of the Act, which deals with the services rendered by the provincial administration, states very clearly indeed—

That is all it says about ambulances. In other words, ambulance services will become the responsibility of the provincial administrations. The Cape has already taken full responsibility for this service. What happened in this case is that the National Health Policy Committee, which consists of myself and the four members of the Executive Committees of the provinces who deal with health, meet regularly. This matter has already been discussed there and 1 April 1981 was chosen as the date on which all the provinces would take over the ambulance services. But all that the Department of Health could guarantee was a particular province’s share of the money we get from the Minister of Finance for indigent patients. That is all the Department of Health pays for. This was done in the case of the Cape when they took over ambulance services a year ago, and one never hears any complaints about the ambulance services in the Cape. Cape Town and the Provincial Administration of the Cape have the best ambulance service in South Africa and it is probably one of the best in the world. It is run very efficiently together with a metro service which we hear about daily. The hon. member for Parktown will tell hon. members that this is so, because he has had personal experience of how they have improved this service. They were satisfied to take the money that we were paying to indigent patients for the use of ambulance services. The problem with Natal is that they say that the money that we want to give them is not adequate. That is not only my headache. They should make more representations to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I received a deputation from them a little while ago and I explained to them that I would make representations to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I also told them that the best way to do it was that this service should be included in the formula. However, they adopted a very funny attitude. The members of that Executive Committee seemed to think that they will be able to simply force it off onto the Government. We shall only pay that part that we pay for indigent patients. We are not there to pay for patients who can pay for themselves. While the province is having a battle with the Durban city council and various other city councils as to who should run this particular service and who should pay for it, I do not think they should try to drag the Government into it and try to make a political issue of it. I say that the first thing they should do is to organize their ambulance services properly. They want to start with a totally comprehensive or all-inclusive ambulance service. But one cannot do that. They must start by crawling first if they want to improve their ambulance services.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Yes, certainly.

The question is in two parts. Firstly, does the hon. the Minister think that the formula for grants-in-aid to the province is adequate in respect of Natal as far as the purchase of, for example, ambulances is concerned and, secondly, will the hon. the Minister tell us to what extent he was involved in the representations to the hon. the Minister of Finance? Did he actually give his total support to the request from the province of Natal in this regard?

We had an interview in this regard some time ago and we discussed this matter on the National Policy Council. I had an interview with the hon. the Minister of Finance on, I think, the 21st of last month at which I gave him all the necessary information. I am not quite sure of the exact date. I did not say that the money that the province of Natal is receiving in order to run its health services is adequate. However, hon. members can draw their own comparisons. I happened to be Administrator of the Cape for a number of years and we had no problems in regard to our ambulance services. We subsidized the local authorities. However, there now seems to be some sort of conflict between the Natal Provincial Administration and the Durban municipality. They all want to hand the ambulance services over to somebody else. It is just like a road that has to be built. Everybody wants the road there but nobody wants it to run over his property.

The same holds good for railway lines.

The point that I want to make is that the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions is only responsible for the indigent patient. We have already offered to pay over the subsidies in this regard to the Natal Provincial Administration to enable them to get on with running their ambulance services. They should get down to forming a partnership with the Durban municipality and the Durban municipality should form a partnership with the province because they certainly have a responsibility to every one of their ratepayers in this connection. They do have a problem. They say that there is a problem in regard to the patients of kwaZulu and the kwaZulu ambulance services. They say that there is an intermingling of these services. However, no problem is insoluble if people are willing to try to solve it. Of course, if there is the desire on the part of certain people to palm this sort of thing off on to someone else and, in this case, on to the Government in the person of the Minister of Health, then there is obviously no wish on the part of those people to solve that problem.

There is another point that I want to make here. If the member of Excom for Hospital Services would stop playing petty politics with health services in Natal and get on with the job I am quite sure that the health services of Natal would be more effective. I want to say that this member had a meeting with me in regard to ambulance services. That was the item on the agenda. During the discussion of this matter I was asked what the policy was in regard to Black and White nurses in various hospitals. I said that the policy now is the same as it was during the time of my predecessor, namely, that it is the policy of this Government to have White nurses for White patients and that the other nurses should nurse the patients from their own groups. I was also asked whether I could assist them with the problem that they had in regard to the shortage of nurses. I told the member of Excom who asked me this question that I could not give him a decision across the table because the matter was not even on the agenda. What did he do? He returned to Natal and when he told his story about the ambulance services he included the question of the nurses as well. He said that he had found the Minister to be indecisive, that he could not arrive at a decision, and so Natal would go it alone. Let me say this: They can go it alone but when it comes to the crunch in regard to the Hospital Services of Natal I shall hand over the ambulance services to them by proclamation and they will just have to get on with the job if they do not want to co-operate. However, if they wish to co-operate we shall cooperate with one another as best we can in exactly the same way as has happened in the other provinces. That is my reply to the hon. member for Berea. Health services has never been a political football but it is very obvious that the Natal Executive Committee—and I am excluding the Administrator —are trying to make a political football of health services. However, there may be a ray of hope. Natal may have a new Executive Committee in a few months’ time and then perhaps we can get on with the job!

The hon. member for Berea also mentioned the question of subsidies. We have never paid subsidies to the province. Let me reiterate this. We pay subsidies to local authorities. We do not subsidize provincial administrations. They receive their money from the Government direct. I merely mention this fact. I do not wish to belabour the point.

The hon. member for Berea also mentioned the question of the fluoridation of water. I do not wish to deal any further with this matter as I have already replied comprehensively to the hon. member for Hillbrow in this regard.

*The hon. member for Rustenburg brought an element of restfulness into the debate, as is appropriate for a person from his constituency. He found it strange that the hon. member for Berea should not want to accept the blank cheque. Surely everyone is glad to accept a blank cheque when it comes his way. The hon. member also said that we would eventually have to take a decision about the addition of fluoride to water. I think he is right. However, I have already dealt with this matter. Of course we shall have to take a decision, but it will have to be a very well-considered decision. We shall have to gather much more information about the subject. An important fact, of course, is that we gradually learn about the results of the addition of fluoride to water. In this way, many questions are answered and we come to know about the problems that have been caused by this in parts of the world where fluoride is already being added to water, on whatever scale. Therefore I think we shall have to investigate this matter very carefully in the future.

The hon. member also referred to the trained operators required for performing all these various functions. I think he was right when he said it was extremely important that we see to it that we have well-trained people to perform all these increasingly important functions. I may just mention in passing that at the moment there are already more than 45 000 substances that cause some degree of either air or water pollution. These are substances which have been produced by our technological development. If we take cognizance of this, we realize that humanity will not be destroyed by the atom bomb or the neutron bomb, but by man himself, especially as a result of technological development and the irresponsible dumping of waste products. Therefore it is important that measures be taken to prevent such substances from being added at will everywhere under certain circumstances. We must also ascertain whether there may not be more compelling reasons why certain substances should perhaps be removed. Then, however, we must have the machinery for performing tasks of this nature.

†I have already replied to the hon. member for Hillbrow and have told him that I could not give him a definite answer, either in the negative or in the affirmative. All I can tell him is that we will be applying our minds, we hope very effectively, to the problem and that we will try to undertake a very thorough investigation before taking a decision. Everything we need is there. It is only a matter of rounding off the investigation and obtaining the latest information from other countries as well.

*The hon. member for Brits referred to the scientific way in which many of these matters were dealt with. I found it interesting that he remarked that the hon. member for Berea had undergone a complete transformation during the lunch hour. When the previous two Bills were being discussed before lunch, he was very calm and helpful. In the debate on this Bill, however, he completely lost his cool, which I do not think was necessary. I believe the hon. member for Brits raised a very interesting matter when he referred to dumping in rivers. In his own constituency, the dumping of chlorine in rivers affects agricultural activities in particular. The cultivation of tobacco and the composition of the plants are seriously affected by this. This has prompted the request which the hon. member has made in the form of a proposal. Because it is actually a nation-wide problem, the hon. member suggested that we consider declaring a national anti-pollution year.

I want to assure the hon. member that I shall see to it that the department, together with other interested parties, such as the Department of Water Affairs, investigate this idea. Of course, the whole process is of a continuous nature. A check must be kept continuously on the dangerous substances that find their way into water. Water has to be tested in order to ascertain whether it does not perhaps contain substances which it should not contain, such as waste products from certain factories. Nevertheless, we shall take cognizance of the hon. member’s suggestion and investigate the possibility of declaring such a year. In this respect, the hon. member also referred to the effect of the National Health Year and said he wondered whether we could not in the same way make people aware of the dangers of pollution inherent in so many things which are simply thrown away haphazardly, no matter where.

The hon. member for Swellendam referred to a variety of services. I do not wish to repeat everything, except for confirming what he said about all the things a local authority has to do and that it has to have trained staff who have to be paid proper salaries on which they can maintain a decent standard of living.

I wish to conclude by mentioning yet another question.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow when he talked of the subsidies payable to local authorities, dragged in the old red herring of equal salaries for all the staff.

It is not a red herring. It is very important.

It is a red herring in this case because of one particular reason: Most local authorities—and I can again quote Cape Town—pay all their medical personnel according to one scale only. They do not pay Black and White different scales. A local authority can use any scale it likes. We subsidize those salaries on a fixed formula, which is based on the scale recommended by the Commission for Administration. We have a fixed scale of subsidies, but nothing that we do prevents the local authority from paying the same salary to all their staff. They can do exactly as they like, except that ceilings are set on the top level of the salaries by the province to prevent one municipality, paying its medical officer twice as much as the next. This is to prevent personnel from chopping and changing their jobs among the various local authorities. So that is done simply for good administration. However, it does not prevent any municipality from paying their people the same salaries. It is the Government’s policy— especially as far as health is concerned—to do away with the salary gap. It is a process which will be completed in a few stages, and two of these stages have already been completed. As I have said, the question of equal salaries was possibly a red herring in this debate as far as subsidies are concerned.

It is a very important herring.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to reply in full to all the members who have spoken. I thank them for their contributions. I was grateful for the opportunity afforded me of putting the record straight as far as my department is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer briefly to what the hon. the Minister had to say when he was winding up his speech at the end of the Second Reading debate and deal with the attitude of the hon. the Minister towards the paying of subsidies to local authorities. We appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said, i.e. that he does not pay subsidies to provincial councils but only to local authorities. However, the hon. the Minister will be aware that the sum of the parts of a province is greater than the whole. Accordingly the Minister himself to the greatest extent determines the amount of money which the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to make available to the local authorities. The hon. the Minister cannot therefore stand up in this House and say that it is off his hands, that he washes his hands of this problem.

When we look at the problem it is clear that there are three major aspects to the problem which the province of Natal and the local authorities suffer in regard to ambulances and nurses. I would like to come back to the hon. the Minister in regard to two specific points, because the attitude of the Government, the attitude of the hon. the Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Finance, has a direct bearing on the degree to which the provinces and local authorities can operate effectively and efficiently.

I first of all want to come to the question of ambulances. We fully understand the technical process of the granting of funds to local authorities. However, the hon. the Minister will, if he has a proper appreciation of the problem we have in Natal, no doubt be able to influence the hon. the Minister of Finance to make more funds available to local authorities and to the province in order to provide an efficient ambulance service. Our problem in Natal is a different one. The circumstances and problems we face there are completely different from those in the Cape. Let me give the hon. the Minister an example. Natal is hedged in by two massive homelands, one independent and the other self-governing and not yet independent. Because the homeland areas have an inadequate medical infrastructure at the moment, there are hundreds of thousands of patients crossing the borders—one an international border and the other a regional border—to come into the Province of Natal for medical aid and assistance, and we welcome this. We would never turn anybody away who required medical assistance. That, however, puts a tremendous strain on the financial and infrastructural resources, within the Province of Natal, available to provide the people with medical services. The proposed new section 26(1) states—

In the light of that, we should like the hon. the Minister to remember that we have a specific problem in Natal. There are hundreds of thousands of patients streaming into Natal from the homeland areas. That is why I asked the hon. the Minister, during the Second Reading debate, whether the formula was adequate, whether it could be applied across the board to all four provinces and whether it could fulfil the needs of those provinces.

That applies to the ambulance service as well. We have vast distances, small populations in the rural areas—I am thinking here particularly of the Whites—and a minimal number of taxpayers in the province of Natal. Therefore we are going to be totally dependent upon the goodwill of the hon. the Minister of Health and the hon. the Minister of Finance.

This brings me to the nursing problem. We certainly have a very real problem in this regard. There are insufficient White trained nurses in the province of Natal to provide an adequate nursing service. What is the alternative? The hon. the Minister says we must not provide a health service to the White population if there is a shortage of nurses. What, however, does one do with one’s patients? Who is going to nurse them if there are no nurses? Let me just refer to Ladysmith. There is a saying in Natal: Do not have an accident outside Ladysmith between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., because there are no nurses. What does one do in case of emergency? These were the questions put to the hon. the Minister by my colleagues in the Executive Committee of Natal. How do we solve the problem if the Government is intransigent in its attitude about members of one race group who are qualified—there is no difference in qualifications—nursing people of another race group, particularly in the case of an emergency. The hon. the Minister has a direct answer to that; so perhaps we can hear what he has to say. These are, however, very real problems, and the hon. the Minister cannot wash his hands of them. He has to face those problems and has to help the Provincial Council of Natal to solve them. That was the nub of the argument of the hon. member for Berea when he spoke to the hon. the Minister. We hope the hon. the Minister’s attitude will be more realistic, particularly in regard to the solving of problems in Natal.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member must realize that the hon. the Minister of Finance makes the funds available to the provincial administrations on a formula basis. The formula is based on the number of patients in the hospitals. At least, that was the original basis. After a five-year period, however, this formula is now being revised. So every patient in a hospital—no matter where he comes from—is already included in the formula for subsidizing the Natal Administration. This is similar to factors involved in other subsidies, e.g. how many children are attending school, how many kilometres of road in a province, etc. The amount received for hospital and health services, which is the problem of the provincial administration, is based on the number of patients in hospitals. It does not matter where the patient comes from.

The problem is that there is insufficient capital for infrastructural development.

I asked the people concerned the other day. They do have capital for infrastructural development. They do, however, have problems with one or two of their hospitals, like the hospital at Phoenix for the Indians and one other hospital that they want to add on to. I have been empowered by the Government to coordinate the whole question of hospital building. It is our policy to stop building these big hospitals. That is something I want to say very clearly in this House today. We cannot continue building big hospitals when we do not have basic health services for our people. Do I have to plead with the Natal Provincial Administration to erect two or three community health centres in the Phoenix area? When I asked them how far they had progressed with the planning of these health centres, they said they were busy planning them. I tried to exert pressure on them, but they want a hospital with one thousand beds, yet cannot tell me how far they have progressed with the basic health services. This country can forget about meeting the economic needs of the future if we have to build hospitals of 1 000 beds. If a hospital with 1 000 beds costs R100 million today, one can be quite sure that next year when the hospital is opened, the expenditure to run that hospital will be between 40% and 50% of the capital cost. If one builds a hospital for R100 million, or one builds a hospital like the Johannesburg Hospital that was built in the Transvaal for R120 million, one can be quite sure that one will have an additional R50 million to R60 million on the provincial budget every year. Just give my department R50 million a year and forget about hospitals with 1 000 beds. Then I will show the hon. member what a health service we can have in this country on the basis of ordinary, good health care. We do not need these big hospitals. That is why we have nursing problems.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. the Minister for some clarity on this. Is the hon. the Minister, in fact, saying that no further capital revenue will be given for the improvement of the facilities at the King Edward VIII hospital in Durban? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said. I said that I am coordinating hospital services. In the case of the Phoenix Hospital I have told the members of the executive that that is a particular case. They told me that there would be 300 000 Asians in that particular area within the next few years. That is something that must be investigated. The first thing they should have there is a community health service. They cannot, however, tell me when they are going to plan these or complete them.

The King Edward VIII Hospital was also mentioned. This question was taken up by the Department which will be co-ordinating and discussing it with the Natal Administration, because this is something they have already been negotiating about for some time, but any new hospitals—and I am not saying that they will not be erected—will first have to get the green light from the Department of Health as the co-ordinating department. We cannot continue in this manner, with every provincial administration, however good the case might be, simply erecting hospitals with 500, 800 or 1 000 beds. We have now passed a national health plan which has been accepted by the Cabinet. The main purpose of this plan will be ordinary basic preventive health services. Community services like the health centres, smaller hospitals and later larger hospitals will then flow from that, until we come to academic hospitals. There is a fixed plan for the future.

Order! The hon. the Minister must not digress too far from the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I shall come back to the Bill. I just want to reply to a question.

†That is what I pointed out with regard to the question of a subsidy.

The last point I want to make is in regard to the question of nurses which the hon. member raised. Natal is already using other ethnic groups in its White hospitals, something of which I am quite aware.

You are not objecting to it?

They said in the newspapers they are going to make their own stand. What I want to point out is that there is no moral basis for using other nurses, be they Black or Asian, to try to fill up the White wards, because we will have the same problem. Neither Natal nor any of the other provinces has an over-abundance of nurses. There is no moral basis for taking nurses from the Black or Asian population groups to nurse Whites if there are not enough White nurses for them.

Mr. Chairman, I should firstly like to ask the hon. the Minister in which area …

Order! Is the hon. member asking a question or is he speaking to the clause?

No, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the clause. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in which areas of South Africa there is fluoride in the water. That is my first question.

Secondly, we appreciate the hon. the Minister’s attitude—which he has made very clear—on fluoridization in general. We share his concern that this is a matter which should be weighed up very carefully before a decision is taken. I should like to know whether, when a decision is taken by the hon. the Minister, he will simply take it in terms of this amendment. Secondly, if he decides not to proceed with fluoridation, will he tell us so as well? Lastly, with reference to the words in the clause “for the purpose of its purification or with a view to the promotion of health”, what does the hon. the Minister intend doing with the new power he is given in terms of that? How does he intend using it?

Mr. Chairman, I made no secret of it that, when a decision is taken on fluoridation, one will be able to use this power to carry on with it. As technology advances, many other substances may be identified which one should add to water to try to make it more fit for human consumption.

The hon. member also asked in what areas there is fluoride in the water. I can mention the North-western Cape, the Orange Free State and South West Africa. The latter is not part of South Africa, but there one finds vast amounts of fluoride in the water. Some of the boreholes there have a very high fluoride content. In the North-western Cape and in South West Africa many people have brownish front teeth. That is due to an excess of fluoride in the water.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the hon. the Minister would have moved that the recommendation of the Select Committee become a resolution of the House, in which event I have no doubt it would have been accepted. As I understand the hon. the Minister’s motion, he appears to have some query with regard to the recommendation made by the Select Committee. Perhaps he would be good enough to enlighten the House on what his particular difficulties are with regard to the recommendation of the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that we would not have a long drawn-out debate on this. The reasons for the motion are that on examining the proposals of the Select Committee it became clear to me that this motion, if it were to be adopted as such, could actually have a snowball effect.

†For the last day or so my department has tried to get enough information for me. To start with there are a very large number of people who have been in a similar position. According to our information it could be as high as 5 000. These people would then start applying for similar condonations, thereby presenting Parliament and the Government, especially my department with a problem that we would have to bridge. The reason for referring this back to the Government is that we would like this matter to be investigated more thoroughly so that more examples could be given.

*I might just point out that at 12 institutions alone, institutions which were taken over from other organizations and incorporated in the department, the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions came across 460 such members. The petition which the applicant submitted in fact concerns the question of condonation as stipulated by the Act, viz. that when she marries, she leaves the ranks of the permanent staff. There are thousands of such cases. What is at issue here is the question whether the person has received the correct advice from an official. It seems to me that the sympathy on the part of the Select Committee is based on their feeling that the official could have given the petitioner incorrect information. This may be the case, but I do not think that the correct advice would have prevented her from marrying, and the moment she has married, the Act stipulates that she leaves the ranks of permanent staff and consequently does not qualify for the condonation which is being recommended here. Accordingly, I think we should go into this matter further and I am asking this House that we refer this to the Government for further consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill contains amendments to seven Acts administered by the Financial Institutions Office, i.e. the Insurance Act, the Stock Exchanges Control Act, the Unit Trusts Control Act, the Participation Bonds Act, the Financial Institutions (Investment of Funds) Act, the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act.

A large part of the Bill—half of its clauses, in fact—deals with amendments to two of these Acts, i.e. the Unit Trusts Control Act and the Participation Bonds Act, with a view to the subsequent consolidation of these Acts, which has now become urgently necessary. None of these amendments affects any principle. They are merely intended to delete those provisions in the Act which relate to situations that no longer exist and to make consequential amendments to other provisions.

The proposed amendments to the Insurance Act will remove a few anomalies in this Act and rectify a shortcoming in the calculation of the solvency margin.

The Insurance Act requires an insurer to hold assets which are sufficient to cover his obligations, but allows him to reduce his obligations with re-insurances which are considered “approved re-insurances” in terms of the Act. The effect of the amendment proposed in clause 1 of the Bill will be that re-insurances effected with the State in terms of the Export Credit Re-insurance Act, 1957, will also be considered “approved re-insurances”.

In connection with clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill I want to say, by way of explanation, that the Insurance Act requires a short-term insurer, over and above the assets that are sufficient to cover his obligations, to hold further assets—the so-called solvency margin—to an amount to be calculated on the basis of his premium income. For the purposes of this calculation, an insurer may, in determining the amount of his premium income, deduct from his premium income that portion of premiums he has ceded to re-insurers under the “approved reinsurances”. In terms of the present wording of the Act, the “approved re-insurances” which may be taken into consideration for this purpose include, in addition to reinsurances placed with local insurers, certain re-insurances placed with foreign insurers, i.e. with regard to obligations under current policies, those re-insurances under which the foreign insurer has deposited cash with the local insurer in order to cover his obligations towards the latter and, in respect of any other obligations, all such re-insurances. The proposed amendments mean that a local insurer will no longer be able, in calculating his solvency margin, to deduct from his premium income any premiums ceded to foreign insurers.

If we bear in mind that the Act is not applicable to foreign insurers, and their solvency consequently cannot be tested, it is reasonable that the solvency margin should apply to that portion of the insurance as well. The proposed measure will place the cover of risks re-insured abroad on a par with risks re-insured in this country. To the extent to which it may be less attractive than in the past to place business overseas, the placing of risks on the domestic market will be promoted and the domestic market will be developed. The amendments are strongly recommended by the statutory advisory committee on short-term insurance.

In clause 4 of the Bill it is proposed that the issuing of receipts for premiums on funeral, industrial and home service policies should only be obligatory in cases where premiums are received by insurers directly from policy holders, and in cases where premiums are received by people sent by insurers to collect the premiums, and not in cases where premiums are paid by way of stop-orders. It is customary for insurers not to issue receipts in the latter case.

The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Stock Exchanges Control Act, 1947, is to extend the powers of inspection of the Registrar of Financial Institutions in terms of this Act to the activities of those who administer or hold in safe custody on behalf of clients any investments in listed securities. The amendment is essential, because administering such investments and keeping them in safe custody amounts to the handling of trust assets and has already been brought within the purview of the Stock Exchanges Control Act. I refer in this connection to clause 5.

The proposed amendments to the Financial Institutions (Investment of Funds) Act, 1964, is necessary in order to remove any doubt which may exist about the application of the provisions of this Act to participation bond schemes.

†The proposed amendments to the Banks and Building Societies Acts remain to be elucidated. In terms of section 14 of the Banks Act a banking institution other than a discount house is required to maintain share capital and unimpaired reserves to an amount not less than 6% of its liabilities to the public including its liabilities under acceptances, while section 17 requires such a banking institution to maintain in respect of its liabilities …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wish to draw your attention to the fact that there is no quorum in the House.

Division bells rung until a quorum is present.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, obviously the hon. member for Umhlanga did not listen to my speech; he counted the number of members present in the House.

Section 17 requires such a banking institution to maintain in respect of its liabilities under acceptances liquid assets to an amount equal to 10% of such liabilities. At present the Act does not require a banking institution to maintain either capital or liquid assets in respect of its contingent liabilities under bills and’ promissory notes endorsed by it.

This situation causes a cost difference between financing by way of bank acceptances on the one hand and by way of other money market instruments endorsed by banks, on the other hand. As a result, the banks’ financing through money market instruments has, of late, greatly shifted from the former to the latter group of instruments, in other words a large portion of banks’ financing business has shifted off the balance sheet.

The Technical Committee on Banks and Building Society Legislation has given consideration to this matter and in collaboration with the banks decided that capital and liquid asset requirements should also be imposed in respect of a bank’s contingent liabilities under bills and promissory notes endorsed by it, albeit more lenient requirements than those in respect of other liabilities. While legally there is a difference between a bank’s liabilities under acceptances and its contingent liabilities under instruments endorsed by it, the bank’s exposure, for practical purposes, is the same. For this reason and in order to obtain a more stabilized-position in the money market, the technical committee has recommended that a capital requirement of 4% and a liquid asset requirement of 5% be imposed in respect of the relative contingent liabilities of banks and that the requirements in respect of liabilities under acceptances be brought on a par.

In terms of the provisions of the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act, the returns, statements and other documents which the public may inspect in the Financial Institutions Office are to be kept indefinitely. In view of storage problems it is suggested that the Acts be amended so that the documents may be destroyed after a stipulated period.

The other suggested amendments to the Building Societies Act are necessitated on the one hand by the rising cost of the societies’ funds and on the other hand by the sharp increases in the prices of fixed property particularly during the past year.

Under the present provisions of the Act a subscription share, which is one of the less expensive kinds of capital of a building society, must be repaid on maturity. This means that a capital sum which was accumulated over a period of not less than three years cannot be retained by the building society once the share has been fully paid up. Societies have, however, devised a means to sidestep this provision and retain these funds for as long as the shareholder agrees, namely by way of the so-called “revolving schemes”. Under such a scheme the shareholder, by taking up the same number of new subscription shares every month over a period of 36 months, builds up a capital amount which can then be maintained at that level without any further contributions by the shareholder. This is achieved by utilizing the proceeds of the shares maturing at the end of each month to pay the monthly instalments on a new batch of shares and on the remaining 35 batches and paying out the balance, which represents the dividends accumulated on the repaid shares over three years to the shareholder.

In this manner the society can, in practice, retain the full capital amount built up over the three years, but the continual process of repaying certain shares and issuing a similar number of new shares at the end of each month entails a cumbersome administrative burden. Societies submitted a request that they be relieved of this administrative burden by an amendment to the Act deleting the provision that subscription shares must be repaid at maturity. The Technical Committee has considered the matter and reached the conclusion that in the light of all the circumstances the request was not unreasonable and should be granted.

As a result of the substantial increases in the prices of fixed property and particularly of houses during the past two years, and the increasing demand on building societies for financing of dwelling units, building societies are experiencing grave difficulties in connection with the granting of advances in view of various limits laid down in the Act. On application by the Association of Building Societies and the recommendation of the Technical Committee, it is proposed that the limits concerned be increased as set out in clauses 27, 29 and 30.

Building societies still have in their mortgage portfolios loans granted many years ago, where, in terms of the mortgage, the interest rate either cannot be increased at all or can be increased by not more than 1% or, in some cases, not more than 2%.

These entrenched rates are substantially below current rates and, whereas building societies work with short-and medium-term funds, the borrowers with entrenched interest rate clauses are being subsidized by the other borrowers who have to pay higher rates to that extent.

In view of the present high interest rates, the building societies feel that the time has arrived and that it is equitable that all borrowers should equally bear the increased cost of the funds they use and accordingly they have requested that provision be made in the Act to enable them to increase the rates of interest on advances irrespective of entrenchments in the bonds. They have also requested that provision be made for immediate application of increased bond rates notwithstanding requirements of notice of such increases in the rules of societies or in mortgage bonds. Provisions to those ends are included in the Bill.

*Mr. Speaker, I may mention that all the financial institutions affected by the provisions have been consulted. I request the support of this House for the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his courtesy in making an advance copy of the explanatory memorandum available to me as an indication of what he was going to say. At the same time, however, I want to express my disappointment at the breaking of a precedent by the department, because it has been the practice that the department makes available to all hon. members copies of explanatory memorandums. I am disappointed at the fact that the precedent has been broken. I do hope, however, that the situation will be remedied next time we deal with one of these measures that have become almost an annual event.

Most of what is contained in this piece of legislation is non-contentious. It is therefore perhaps appropriate to deal with the contentious part first. I specifically want to deal with clause 31 of the Bill. As I have already indicated to the hon. the Deputy Minister, we in these benches oppose the provisions in this clause. The reason for our opposition is very simple. It is suggested here that notwithstanding the fact that there is a provision in a mortgage bond specifying a fixed interest rate, notwithstanding an agreement which a building society entered into with an individual for such fixed rate of interest, or a rate of interest which may only be increased in a certain manner and to a certain extent, authority is now to be granted to the said building society to ignore the contractual rights which the borrower has. In the tradition of South African law, when one enters into an agreement, the legislature does not pass a law enabling one party to break that agreement. That is contrary to the tradition of our law and also contrary to the spirit and concept of free enterprise, the concept of people negotiating an agreement freely and being allowed to implement it. One thing is clear: If a bargain goes against one party, why should that party be able to escape his contractual obligations? Let us take a very simple example, and here I am specifically addressing the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, sitting in front of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Does he agree that two people should be able to conclude a contract, a bargain, on terms which are negotiated and agreed upon, and that then a law should be passed to enable one party to escape the consequences of that contract? If he is going to advocate free enterprise in this House, he must advocate the fact that there has to be sanctity of contract. His job here is to protect the consumer. But what is happening here is that somebody is being empowered to go back on a contract.

There are people who have negotiated mortgage bonds on the basis of a fixed rate of interest, or a rate which could only be increased to a certain extent, people who have arranged their financial affairs accordingly. Now those people are going to find that a building society can say that it does not matter what contract the building society entered into with them, or what it agreed to with them, because the society can now repudiate that contract and increase the interest rate. I wonder whether the building societies would agree to go the other way. If there was a contract based on a fixed rate of interest, and prevailing interest rates were to have dropped, would the building societies have said that because they are such good fellows they would allow the other party to pay less, notwithstanding the fact that the other party is obliged to pay the original interest in terms of the contract entered into between the two of them? It does not work that way. There is a basic principle in our law entrenching the sanctity of contract, and for us to want to pass laws retrospectively encroaching upon the sanctity of contract in South Africa, is something that we in these benches will not go along with, and I hope that my colleagues in the NRP will support us in this. I say this because there is a fundamental principle involved.

The same applies to the other half of this issue. If one has entered into a contract, before one can change the stipulated rate of interest one must give a certain period of notice. Surely when that aspect has been contracted one is obliged to honour it? One does not then pass a law allowing somebody to ignore it so that he can just stick up a notice in the office of a building society and such notice is binding on everyone. We have passed laws in this House for the protection of the consumer. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism only has to think of the Trade Practices Act. He should apply the relevant principles to those colleagues sitting behind him. He must see to it that there are trade practices which are in accordance with the reasonable concept of law and which protect the consumers in South Africa. This provision is the one thing in the Bill which makes one a little upset, the fact that one has a normal, non-contentious financial measure and something of this nature is introduced into it. It is really quite uncalled for, and we will certainly not vote for this clause.

If I may, I should also like to touch upon the provisions relating to the increase in the amount which may be lent in terms of clause 27. I appreciate the increases in property values. I also appreciate the fact that one should make advances available for certain big projects, but inherently a building society which enjoys a certain measure of protection in our law, which gets certain tax concessions, is there to provide money for the housing of the ordinary individual. The moment we go into this category of large bonds, we are really not looking after the people for whom the building society movement was designed. A very interesting statistic became available the other day in response to a question. It has been shown that the people who bear the biggest tax burden in South Africa, the people who make the biggest tax contribution, are the middle classes of South Africa, the people earning from R8 000 to R12 000 per annum. They are the people who need the help of the building societies. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us that, when this money is going to be made available, the message should go out, very loud and clear, to the Association of Building Societies that the large mortgage bonds should really only be made available to build blocks of flats for the middle and lower income groups in South Africa. That is where there is a crying need. I make that appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister because that is where the large mortgage bonds should go and nowhere else. For the luxury-type of accommodation financing facilities can be found elsewhere. The building society movement is fundamentally designed for the lower and middle income groups to help them in regard to housing if they do not qualify for State housing assistance. I for one would be very happy if there was nobody in South Africa so poor that he needed State housing assistance. Unfortunately that is a dream which perhaps cannot be realized.

In regard to the building society movement I should also like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with a matter which, since subscription shares are dealt with here, it is appropriate to refer to, even though it is actually his responsibility in regard to another Bill which will be dealt with. I am referring to the question of tax-free investment levels which have become archaic as a result of inflation. Let us look, for instance, at tax-free shares on a level of R10 000. We all know what R10 000 was worth when tax-free shares were instituted some years ago. Today the value of that money has depreciated. The subscription share levels which were reduced by legislation last year and which are now going down have, to my mind, also become academic. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and through him to the hon. the Minister, that when proposals are made he should also deal with this question of subscription shares and make it clear that these levels, as well as the tax-free levels, could be raised. These proposals could perhaps even be made next week because the election is in the offing and I am sure this will appeal to some of the voters. I am sure that many titbits will be thrown to the voters next week.

If I may, I should also like to deal with the situation regarding short-term insurance. We support the provisions which have been proposed. The only matter that I wish to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that there are many people in South Africa who are concerned about rate-cutting in the short-term insurance industry, as a result of which some of these people feel that solvency margins could be threatened. I think that our insurers in South Africa are stable at the moment, but the kind of rate cutting that has been indulged in is of such a nature that there could be threats to the solvency situation. Therefore they should be very, very carefully watched in South Africa. We had a period when a number of short-term insurers went into liquidation and as a result very substantial losses were suffered by individuals. We are fortunately out of that period and I merely want to issue a word of caution that there is an obligation on the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister to see to it that the public is protected by ensuring that the solvency of short-term insurance business is beyond question and that no doubts can be cast on that. Certainly, rate cutting must not create a situation where that can be endangered.

I turn to the question of re-insurance. I am sometimes concerned about the question of re-insurance in respect of overseas reinsurers, particularly as a result of some of the incidents which have occurred, for example at Lloyds re-insurers and at operations elsewhere. One of the things which I think is fundamental is that not only should we deal with the deposits which overseas re-insurers have to make in South Africa, but that the Office of the Registrar should make detailed inquiries into the standing, status and financial position of any re-insurer who is actively involved in the South African market. We have had experiences on a world-wide basis in regard to the re-insurance market. It is a very difficult market and it is one we have to watch very carefully to ensure that there will be no trouble in regard to it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that one of the effects of this provision is that more local re-insurance will be encouraged. In that one supports him, but I also want to say to him that our place in the international re-insurance markets must not be lost. It is fundamentally important that we maintain our position in the international re-insurance markets, because we have to be in the re-insurance picture on a world-wide basis. We have to watch that very carefully, because it is important to us.

Turning from the solvency margins and the short-term insurance business, I should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we welcome the provisions which deal with the powers of inspection in regard to the so-called share advisers. One of the problems with share advisers is that, if the market is a bull market and the shares go up, one can virtually prick with a pin any share in the list and one will find that it will go up with the market. Therefore, to give share advice in such circumstances is easy and one finds firms giving share advise mushrooming all over the place. We are now, however, experiencing a bear phase in the market as a result of which it is going to be more difficult to give advice on shares. If one looks into the history of what has happened in South Africa, one sees that during a boom phase, a bullish phase, these people have flourished and their solvency has not been in danger, whereas during a bear phase they tended to go broke. Those operating in the grey area, not the reputable ones—and there are reputable ones—may go insolvent when there is a down-trend in the market. There is that danger. I should like to issue a word of caution here. Those people who are leaving their assets with people who are not entities or persons through whom there is a degree of protection in terms of the financial legislation, should think very carefully when deciding whether to leave their assets with them. Now is the time to warn such people, because if there is going to be a down-trend, there is this danger. I think we should advise the public to place their assets with institutions which are under the control of the Registrar, because then there is a degree of safety they would not have otherwise. We have a very fine system in South Africa for protecting institutions and the Registrar’s office is able to look after it. We welcome the powers that the Registrar gets here, but we issue that word of caution in regard to that.

Then I should like to touch on participation bonds, which are dealt with here. I must say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I am sorry that, despite all the amendments to participation bonds, the negotiability of the participation bonds has not been accepted either by the Government or the Registrar’s office. It would create a new market in South Africa in mortgage certificates, a market such as those which exist elsewhere in the world, but for some reason there is a determination not to make these participation bonds negotiable. I must say that I really do not understand why, and I would appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister who, after all, is a new face, new blood and so on in that office, to adopt a new approach to this particular problem. It is not a political problem; it is purely a financial mechanism, and there are similar things in overseas countries which work very well. Therefore, I appeal to him to deal with that.

I now wish to deal with the provisions concerning the question of the capital, reserves and liquid assets which have to be provided in respect of acceptances and in regard to trade bills, promissory notes and matters of that sort. It is a matter for appreciation that the reserves and liquid assets that have to be kept for acceptances are being reduced—and that one supports— but what is happening now is that one is going to have to put up reserves in respect of the endorsement of trade bills, in connection with which there is a very substantial volume of business being transacted. It does seem an unfortunate piece of timing that the cost is now going to be increased, because cost is increased as a result of an increase in the liquid assets that have to be put up; the cost of those facilities is going up just at a time when interest rates are going up, so that there will be additional costs to the trade. This is in fact an inflationary factor at this particular time. I would have imagined that that provision in regard to the provision of liquid assets and in regard to the question of providing capital and reserves in order to cover liability under this, would have been introduced at a time when interest rates were going down or were lower. It seems to me to be a masterpiece of ill-timing to do it at a time when interest rates are going up, when costs are going to go up and when, as a result, one is really going to add to the inflationary cost of some of the business. Therefore, I really think this is not a good time to be doing this.

The whole concept of off-balance-sheet finance is one which holds a high degree of danger both for financial institutions and for businesses, even though it is indulged in all quarters. Therefore to some extent one welcomes a greater degree of control over it, even though, as I say, it is a masterpiece of ill-timing in view of the question of increasing the cost just at this moment of time.

When one analyses all of this and considers that all these Bills are always like the curate’s egg, good in parts and bad in parts, there is little doubt that the good parts of this egg are in the majority, and, even though there is one provision that we feel very strongly about and are against, we shall still support the principle of the Bill and vote for the Second Reading. However, we shall in due course vote against the clause which I have mentioned when it comes to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to the question regarding a quorum raised by the hon. member for Umhlanga. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that at that stage there were only three members of the NRP and four members of the PFP present in the House, and at the moment there are only two members of the NRP in the House.

That is 30% of this party. What percentage of your party was here? [Interjections.]

I thank the hon. member for Yeoville for the support that he and his party are granting to this legislation. There are a few questions that he asked and I have no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to those questions.

This Bill provides for amendments with regard to the Insurance Act, the Stock Exchanges Control Act, the Unit Trusts Control Act, the Participation Bonds Act, the Financial Institutions (Investment of Funds) Act, the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act. In clause 1 the definition of the expression “approved reassurances” is being enlarged upon to include reinsurance in terms of reinsurance contracts entered into in accordance with the provisions of the Export Credit Reinsurance Act, 1957, with the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. The solvency margin that a short term insurer must maintain, is calculated as a percentage of his premium income after certain reinsurances have been deducted. The effect of the amendments in clause 2 and clause 3 will be that certain reinsurances placed with foreign insurers, may no longer be deducted from premium income; secondly, that the reinsurance meant in clause 1, may also be deducted now and thirdly, that the percentage in each case will have to be prescribed by the Minister.

Clause 4 relieves insurers of the obligation to issue receipts for premiums that are paid by way of stop orders. Clause 5 will mean that the activities of those who administer investments in listed securities on behalf of clients, or hold them in safe custody for them, will also be subject to the powers of inspection of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. Here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Yeoville in saying that it is definitely important that this clause is being amended accordingly.

Clauses 6 to 15 refer to the Unit Trusts Control Act. Certain sections of the above-mentioned Act are being deleted or repealed, since the provisions thereof are no longer necessary. Clause 22 amends the definition of “financial institutions” in section 1 of the Financial Institutions (Investment of Funds) Act, 1964, to place it beyond all doubt that, for the purposes of that Act, anyone who controls or administers a participation bond scheme in terms of the Participation Bonds Act, 1964, is a financial institution.

The amendment in clause 23 amounts to the fact that the capital and reserves that a banking institution has to maintain with respect to its liabilities under acceptances, is being decreased from 6% to 4% of the sum of those liabilities, and that an institution will have to maintain capital and reserves to an amount equal to 4% of those liabilities, with regard to its contingent liabilities under promissory notes, bills and any other similar instruments endorsed by it. Clause 24 will mean that the liquid assets that a banking institution must maintain with regard to liabilities under acceptances, be decreased from 10% to 5% of those liabilities, and that in future an institution must also maintain liquid assets with regard to its contingent liabilities under promissory notes, bills and any other similar instruments endorsed by it, and that these should total an amount equal to 5% of those liabilities.

I welcome these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should like to react to what was said by the hon. member for Smithfield with regard to our party’s representation in this House. Since we are dealing with finance, and the hon. member most probably has a reasonably sound grounding in finance and accounting he will realize that 37,5% of the members of the NRP had been present here as against the 15,5% of the NP. [Interjections.] The larger the party, Mr. Speaker, the greater the responsibility of its members to be present here in this House. [Interjections.]

38% of the total Opposition too. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the financial Bill that we are dealing with here today is a most interesting one because, as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, it is rather like the curate’s egg—some parts are very good and some parts are very bad. I think that, although the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech implied that there was simply a process of rationalization involved here—we are looking at about seven Acts here that are in the process of consolidation, of rationalization— and that there had been no fundamental changes in principle, I think this is a slight under-statement of the position. I believe that there are very important changes, perhaps not so much in principle but certainly in practice, that are going to be brought about in terms of this Bill. It is my intention to deal a little later with the portions of this legislation with which we disagree.

I want in the first instance to compliment the hon. the Deputy Minister on certain portions of this legislation that indicate an extremely sound principle of co-operation between financial institutions and the State. I think for the first time in many years it is possible to discern this change in attitude which the Government was supposedly going to have towards private enterprise. I find in certain portions of this legislation that this co-operation with, and greater appreciation for the needs of, financial institutions in South Africa is beginning to be demonstrated by the Government. I believe that this amending Bill indicates how effectively the State and private free enterprise can work together when the Government demonstrates an understanding of the needs of the principles of private free enterprise and the institutions that operate within that structure. I believe that certain specific aspects of the Bill are very good. I do not intend dealing with those portions of the Bill with which we agree, but I shall rather discuss those portions about which we have certain reservations.

It is interesting to note that in terms of the burial or funeral policies, there has up to now been the requirement that receipts have had to be issued for all payments but that now in respect of any payments made by stop order, it is not compulsory for a receipt to be issued. This has been a bone of contention with the undertakings involved in this matter. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of purchasers of this type of insurance do not operate stop order accounts. In fact I think the hon. the Minister will probably be able to tell us that the majority of the owners of funeral policies today are Blacks. They do not operate bank or stop order accounts and so the institutions involved in this will be relieved of a certain amount of administrative work but not a very large percentage of it.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister made the statement—this was also referred to by other hon. members —that certain documentation will now only have to be retained for a reduced period of time in order to avoid a storage problem. I find this quite interesting. With the modern technology available of microfilm and microfiche systems, one is absolutely amazed that the reason advanced for a reduction in the period of time during which institutions have to retain records is the lack of storage space. I find this quite interesting. I have no complaint in regard to the reduction of the period of time in some cases from 10 years to five years. Obviously these institutions know which records they must keep and which it is not necessary to keep. They have not objected to this reduction in the time period; in fact, they have asked for it. However, it is interesting to note that the motivation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister is that there is a storage problem and therefore the time period for the retention of certain documents has to be reduced. I find this very difficult to accept, Sir, as a full motivating factor.

I should like now to deal with the provisions of clause 31 which, obviously, also as far as my party, the NRP, is concerned, is the biggest bone of contention in this legislation. This is what I was referring to when I said at the start of my speech that, although the hon. the Deputy Minister said that there were no significant changes in principle, the attempt to change the practice in such a case does have serious consequences both for the financial institutions concerned and for the protection of the consumer, the person who owes money to a financial institution. If we look at the historical pattern in regard to the granting of mortgage bonds for private homes in particular, we see that in the early stages of the building society movement, the permanent building societies, there was no restrictive ceiling on the percentage by which the rate to the mortgagee could be raised. There was no such restriction. It was open house. The building societies could decide for themselves by what amount they wanted to raise their interest rate to the person having the mortgage with them. They did so according to the money supply, the cash flow and their costs. Then, in the late ’fifties and early ’sixties, the building societies started to compete with one another and, as a result of post-war development in the building society movement, they attempted to attract customers to their institutions by guaranteeing a ceiling to the rate by which the mortgage interest rate could escalate in respect of a client. In most cases this was 1% and in some cases it was 2%. Not all building societies followed that particular principle. About ten years ago we found that this practice was being dropped by the building societies and that the rate at which the interest rate could escalate was not limited by this particular type of ceiling.

The motivation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister—presumably one he got from the building societies—regarding the removal of this protection for the consumer, is also quite interesting in some cases. The theory is that certain mortgage owners should not subsidize other mortgage owners. This is the motivation, But we have to take a very careful look at this principle of whether, in fact, high-rate mortgage payers are subsidizing low-rate mortgage payers. I believe that the present circumstances, where the rate of interest is tied to the size of the bond, may in fact weaken that argument. The hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware of the fact that, the higher the sum borrowed, the higher the rate of interest, which in itself is somewhat of an enigma in the private free-enterprise system, because normally one would think that one would get a discount for bulk consumption, but what do we find in South Africa? A man with a R40 000 bond pays considerably more interest than a man who has a R19 000 or R20 000 bond. Surely in principle it could be argued that it should be the other way around. We find that the majority of the 1% ceiling bond holders—because these bonds were to a large extent discontinued 10 or 15 years ago—are the people who have the relatively low bonds. In other words we are looking at the R20 000, R25 000 and R30 000 bonds, and this is where the protection actually lies in the ceiling height of 1% or 2% escalation in the rate. The larger bonds occurred predominantly in the latter years, because that is when the market price of houses went up, and the holder of such a bond is already paying a higher rate. Therefore I do not quite believe that the justification for the removing of this protection lies in the fact that one purchaser should not subsidize another. I cannot see the justification for that.

The fact that a contract was concluded between two parties, a contract with certain conditions, is a very important one and, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, if we allow this type of precedent to creep in here, who can predict what the consequences would be of the acceptance of this principle of revoking unilaterally—unilaterally, because the consumer has no say in this—a specific condition of contract between two parties?

We do not insist on rejecting this clause in the Committee Stage, although we certainly object to it. What we will, however, do in the Committee Stage depends very largely upon the reply we get from the hon. the Deputy Minister to the Second Reading debate, because I think fundamental to the argument here is the question of quantities. How many bonds today still have the protection of this particular principle, which purports to be lifted by clause 31? We would like to know what the quantity is, the number of mortgagees who own these type of bonds and the volume, as a percentage, of the actual cash involved. I think it is important to find out what the proportions involved are.

One must not depress one chap.

I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that one has to protect all consumers. On the other hand, one has to look at the long-term consequences here. What will the effect be if this principle is not removed, there is a shortage of money and the rate goes up in any case? Therefore, I think it is important to know the proportions involved in this particular problem.

We also welcome the amendments in clauses 27, 29 and 30. Due to inflation it is obviously necessary to now push up the ceilings. I should, however, like to use this opportunity to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that one of the most critical problems facing South Africans of all race groups today is the shortage of housing. Particularly for the White group the cost of housing today is becoming almost prohibitive. The chances of a young couple in South Africa today owning their own house is reducing at an alarming rate. One only has to look at earnings and the cost of housing to see that it is becoming almost impossible for the majority of young White South Africans to own their own hearth and home.

It is almost becoming impossible. So I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, as I made to his hon. Minister last year during the budget debate, by saying that the time has come for the Government to review interest paid on mortgage bonds on dwellings. That time has come. In fact, it has become imperative for interest payments on mortgage bonds to be allowed as a tax deductible allowance, or else young people in South Africa—and this will eventually affect all race groups—will no longer be able to own their own homes. That would be a total disgrace in a country which has massive reserves of ore-body which have earned us massive foreign exchange, and which has a buoyant economy, work for everybody who is trained and qualified, and which has a very large piece of the continent on which there is no shortage of land. It is also the ideal country climatically for every citizen to be able to afford to own his own home. If we were able to do that, I do not think it would be necessary to come along with this amending legislation. There would be such a volume of business for the building societies that they would not be looking for that few extra percent from mortgage bonds which are protected by an escalation ceiling of 1%. They would have such a volume of business, and there would be such a stimulation of the building industry, that it would perhaps not be necessary to come with these changes in principle and practice. That is all I should like to say at this stage, except to reinforce what the hon. member for Yeoville has said and reserve our position regarding clause 31. The principle and practice involved there are extremely important. I should therefore like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to this.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Smithfield for their support, particularly the hon. member for Smithfield, who focused on certain aspects of certain clauses of the legislation.

The hon. member for Yeoville made many interesting remarks of which I took notes but to which I am not going to reply, as certain of them are irrelevant ina discussion of this legislation. Nevertheless the remarks were very interesting, and I give the undertaking that we shall examine these points raised by him. Where necessary we shall also give attention to them by way of the department, financial bodies and persons and various committees which we have for this purpose.

However, before dealing further with the comments made by the hon. member for Yeoville, I first just want to address the hon. member for Durban North, for the few clauses which I am going to focus on and discuss elicited comment from both the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Yeoville. Finally I shall deal with clause 31, on which I shall also comment. The hon. member for Durban North must know that one can juggle with figures to great effect, particularly if one is working with percentages. Listening to his enumeration of percentages, one would have thought that they were better represented in this House than the NP. But to show how wrong one can be, if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South were to increase his support in this House by one, he would have increased it by 100%. Consequently one must be very careful, for one can juggle very effectively with percentages to establish an entirely false image.

Figures do not lie but liars do figure.

The hon. member for Yeoville tended to jump from one clause to another and consequently he must pardon me if I do not comment on the clauses to which he referred in the same order.

My first comment concerns the “ratecutting” which he mentioned. I think the hon. member is quite correct. Rate-cutting is going to affect the insolvency position of these people because it immediately influences their premium income. If I felt like being somewhat mischievous, I could say that they are, after all, advocates of the free market mechanism. Do they want us, then, to stipulate minimum rates, or must the free market itself determine what the rate is going to be? As I said, Sir, that is somewhat mischievous, for I do think this is a matter of importance which was raised by the hon. member. I should like to leave the matter at that.

As far as re-insurance is concerned, the hon. member was quite right. As we are unable to determine the solvency position of the foreign insurers, it is in my opinion important that we should not take them into account when examining the solvency position of our internal insurers and institutions. But it is also important, as the hon. member said, that one should not force the foreign insurers out of the market completely. I think we should aim at a sound balance between the two types of financial institution. I accept the hon. member’s remarks in that regard as an argument. We shall ensure that the foreign insurers are not in the process of being supplanted in our local market.

Clause 27 deals with the increase in the mortgage rate from R28 000 to R45 000. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member said about this. I think it is important for our financial institutions, for example building societies, to see to housing for those income groups. The hon. member for Durban North referred to that as well. I think the Government is doing everything in its power to improve the housing position of the middle income groups in particular. The hon. the Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services recently announced that special permission had been granted for the building of a large number of these units for the middle income group. I think the appeal which was made by the hon. member is one which all hon. members should support, viz. that the building societies should concentrate on granting bonds to income groups in which the housing shortage is most acute. I do not think that the amount of R45 000 is so high that it would only benefit only luxury housing.

With reference to the remarks on clause 24, viz. those concerning liquidity coverage and value coverage requirements, I want to tell the hon. member that I think an imbalance has arisen between acceptances, promissory notes and bills. I think the hon. member was trying to make a little cheap political capital by saying that we were going to push the price of promissory notes and bills up very high, at a time like this when our inflation rate was still high. I think the hon. member was trying to make some cheap political capital out of the matter. I think the important point is, as I said in the Second Reading speech, that there has been a shift from financing with the aid of acceptances on the one hand to promissory notes and bills on the other. I think this is particularly important in respect of the “off-balance sheet” problem to which the hon. member referred as being an important problem. It is important that a balance must be found and I believe that it is now as good a time as any to attempt to do so.

Clause 26 deals with tax-free investments, which the hon. member also remarked on briefly. I want to give him the assurance that this aspect is being looked at again at the moment. This is an important aspect and one which is receiving our constant attention. I can at this stage give the hon. member the assurance that the question of tax-free investments is again receiving attention at present.

I now come to clause 31. I should like to say that the statements by the hon. members for Durban North and Yeoville really have merit, but everything they said has been taken into consideration in the evaluation of this clause and the question as to whether or not we should include it in this Bill. I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. members as far as most of their statements in this regard are concerned. There are also certain aspects which may be considered and which the hon. members did not refer to. Consequently I am at this stage prepared to make a proposal. It will not be worthwhile to take up the House’s time by going over all the arguments again. In my introductory speech I referred to the most important arguments and the two hon. members made certain additions to them. In view of the overall picture which has resulted from this, I am prepared to accept that we shall have to re-examine this clause and that we shall consequently have to take the Committee Stage of this Bill later. I thank the hon. members for giving so much attention to this clause. We too consider this a contentious clause and I feel that we would do very well to re-examine it. Then in due course, when we deal with the Committee Stage, we can come forward with a further proposal in this regard.

I want to thank hon. members wholeheartedly for their support and the hon. member for Smithfield for his support. If it were not for him I would have been quite alone here at the deep end.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Tourism today is an important earner of foreign exchange for the Republic of South Africa—an invisible export product which, according to provisional estimates, earned the Republic R480 million in foreign exchange during 1980. Internal spending by South Africans as tourists was estimated at R950 million.

In order to ensure that the industry rests on a sound foundation, that there is further growth and development and that we receive a ever increasing share of international tourism, the department, and in particular the Tourism branch, is engaged in various marketing operations aimed at improving the geographical and seasonal distribution of tourism within our national boundaries. In addition the S.A. Tourist Corporation is constantly engaged, by means of more dynamic marketing campaigns in the overseas markets, in attracting larger number of foreign tourists to South Africa. Similarly the contributions being made by the S.A. Airways and S.A. Railways as well as by the private sector in this connection are of the greatest significance.

The growth in the South African tourist industry during the past few years has led to ever greater emphasis being placed on the improvement of the existing services available to the tourist. A greater measure of professionalism is required in all spheres, particularly international tourism. The extremely important role played by the travel agent and the travel agency in this respect cannot be over-emphasized. The success of a tour or of a vacation frequently depends on the way in which travel agents and/or travel agencies cope with the travel arrangements of individual tourists or tour groups.

At present there are approximately 400 travel agents in South Africa who organize tours and render allied services to the public. This applies in respect of visits to South Africa, overseas visits and South Africans who tour in South Africa.

The vast majority, viz. 362 of the travel agents, are members of the Association of South African Travel Agents, a trade organization which prescribes a code of conduct for its members. A further 25 to 30 travel agents are members of the Independent Travel Agents’ Association, while a few remaining agents are not members of any organization.

All travel agents throughout the world render a service to the public and all of them handle money which they collect from their clients in respect of the services rendered to and arrangements made for those clients. Consequently there is a tendency throughout the world to regulate the activities of travel agents and travel agencies by statutory means. Legislation in this connection already exists in many countries and is stringently applied. However, such legislation does not exist in South Africa.

At present any person is free to open a travel agency without any supervision. Knowledge or experience of the travel industry or of tourism, as well as the question of whether or not the person is financially sound, does not enter the picture. There is no protection for the consumer against losses which may arise if the agent handling his travel arrangements becomes insolvent or is unable, as a result of some omission or other, to provide the consumer with what he has paid for.

Admittedly Asata strives to improve the professional standards of the services offered by its members. In this way the association has, with the encouragement of the Tourism branch of my department, introduced a procedure which makes provision for a certain measure of consumer protection. However, not all travel agents are subject to discipline.

In view of the considerations I have just mentioned the Bill before this House was drafted in consultation with various local interested organizations. In this connection the department was also assisted and advised by the Secretary General of the Universal Federation of Travel Agents’ Association, on the basis of assessments carried out in 30 countries where such legislation does exist.

Inter alia the Bill makes provision for a number of matters of an administrative and other nature. To be able to implement the measure, provision is consequently also made for the appointment by the Minister of a Registrar of travel agents. He will be an officer of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism.

†However, it is not the intention to apply the provisions of the Bill in an arbitrary and bureaucratic manner. On the contrary, I am sure that it will be generally appreciated that all sectors of the industry should make a contribution towards the rationalization of all travel agency services in the interests of the tourist industry as a whole. With this end in view, the various sectors of the industry can be of great assistance. In clause 4 of the Bill provision is therefore made for the establishment of an advisory committee consisting of not more than nine members. In this respect it is important to note that the majority of the members will be persons who will be chosen from a list of names submitted to the Minister at his request by organizations which are recognized as being representative of the tourist industry, and this automatically includes travel agents.

The committee will assist the Minister and the Registrar with various matters relating to the application of the provisions of this Bill. Accordingly, there will be continuous liaison with the industry in order to ensure that the best interests of all parties concerned are served.

Furthermore the Bill sets forth various requirements pertaining to matters such as the establishment of registers of travel agents and travel agencies, the registration of travel agents and the licensing of travel agencies, and the withdrawal of registration certificates or of licences.

I would also like to mention in particular that it would serve no purpose if we were to endeavour to improve the travel agency industry and to put the services on a professional level, for example by providing for the registration of travel agents, if unregistered and incompetent persons were still allowed to enter the profession. For this reason clause 5 is designed to prohibit the provision of travel agency services by persons who are not registered as such or who are not exempted from registration.

As regards the latter aspect, it has been realized that there will be travel agents who, for one reason or another, will find it difficult to comply with all the requirements for registration, but who are nevertheless good travel agents and have rendered excellent services over many years. Although they might not be able to comply with all the requirements laid down in the Bill, they could in all other respects be competent to act as travel agents. It is only fair that these persons should not be deprived of their livelihood and that the tourist industry should not lose their services. For this reason clause 17 provides that such persons could, under certain circumstances, be exempted from the provisions of this Bill in order to enable them to continue their activities.

Turning now to the question of specific consumer protection, the Bill provides that the travel agent must submit proof to the satisfaction of the Registrar that he has made adequate provision for the payment of compensation to his clients in respect of any losses which they may suffer as a result of any act or omission on his part or failure to provide the services and facilities which have been paid for by the clients. I wish to add that the amount of security which will have to be provided for the possible payment of compensation will not be unreasonable. The extent thereof will be determined in consultation with the advisory committee, which will, no doubt, also take into consideration international standards in this respect, such as are being applied by the International Air Transport Association.

*From what I have said it will be clear that this Bill contains three main principles. Firstly it seeks to raise the standard of travel agency services in South Africa to the level of professionalism. Secondly the object is to protect the public against possible losses which may result from any acts or omissions on the part of travel agents. Thirdly the Bill aims at improving the image of South Africa as a tourist country in our marketing areas. The confidence of the international travel industry in South Africa will be strengthened if they know that the interests of the clients whom they send to us are protected by good legislation.

I am satisfied that these principles are highly meritorious. Nevertheless I am of the opinion that there are certain clauses of the present Bill which could present problems in their practical implementation. I am referring here to matters such as the position of an individual who organizes a tour group, the question of security, as well as certain other matters which could justify further examination. In my opinion it is essential that there should be absolute clarity on the practical implementation of the envisaged legislation, bearing in mind that tourism represents such an important component of the national economy. Consequently I intend moving on Monday that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee in order to clarify all its aspects, including those to which I have just referred in passing.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—