Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to some of the questions put to me by hon. members last night. I shall begin with the hon. member for Walmer.

†The hon. member for Walmer questioned me about subsidies and losses on passenger services. The estimated figures for 1982 in respect of income, expenditure, losses and cost coverage for mainline and suburban services are as follows: Mainline income amounted to R203 million and mainline expenditure to R469 million. That means a loss of R266 million. Cost coverage was 43,3%. The income on suburban lines was R125 million, and expenditure R487 million, which means a loss of R362 million. Cost coverage was 25,7%. These losses and cost coverage figures show the situation in respect of losses and cost coverage before the subsidy from the State has been added.

The subsidy for 1981-’82 will be R285 million. This subsidy is received in one lump sum, which cannot be subdivided or allocated to specific services or areas.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville is known to be a man who has a fondness for steam locomotives, and we greatly respect that sentiment. I want to assure oom Sporie that we shall go on using steam locomotives to pull specific trains as long as possible. It is our intention to keep using steam locomotives, during our lifetime, at any rate. The problem is that the maintenance, the knowledge and the handling, etc., of steam locomotives are getting out of date. However, we shall always have steam locomotives during our lifetime. I should like to satisfy the hon. member, especially because he made such a moving plea concerning the locomotives. I always respect a man who loves the old things in life.

The hon. member for Heilbron put some very reasonable questions to me. One of them has a bearing on a question asked by the hon. member for Ventersdorp, which I shall deal with separately at a later stage. However, the hon. member for Heilbron pointed out that the tariff for export maize, although it covers only 87% of the cost, should still be regarded as economical because it is higher than the marginal cost of transportation. My reply to that is that the tariff for the export of maize covers approximately 86% of the total transport costs. The average variable cost for the transport of maize is approximately 85%.

Although it is true that export maize is conveyed at above marginal cost, it still does not cover the total cost. Maize is a product which has been transported for many years, and which has required significant additional investment and infrastructure this year as well. Therefore it cannot be argued that his traffic is only incidental additional traffic which can, in terms of economic theory, be regarded as economical if it merely covers the marginal cost. As traffic which has been with us for a long time, and which will continue to be with us in the future, its economics must necessarily be seen against the background of the total cost of conveying it.

Of course, the hon. member is quite right when he says that I am a maize farmer myself. He knows that I am sympathetic towards this industry. It is true that it is South Africa’s biggest agricultural industry. Under present-day circumstances, however, it was not possible for us to increase the tariffs for the transportation of maize by less than 15%. I shall let the hon. member have all the information about this at a later stage. When it comes to the problems of exporting maize, we should actually see these as a package. There are freightage problems, problems with overseas prices, problems with transportation in this country, etc. We should regard all these as one package. It also depends to a large extent on overseas prices. The hon. member is aware of the fact that we even paid out a deferred payment of R8 per ton one year. This is of course due to the fluctuating world price of maize. If there is only a moderate drought in America, it causes an enormous rise in the price of maize. These are things which one cannot predict. Unfortunately, it is my task now to ensure that the losses of the S.A. Transport Services are not too great.

The hon. member also said that optimum use should be made of the Durban harbour for export. The Durban harbour is the best utilized habour in the Republic at the moment. No large-scale expansions are being envisaged for the exportation of non-containerized bulk freight. Richards Bay is the appropriate harbour for this purpose. Without hurting the East London harbour, we have to plan for the future. However, Richards Bay will continue to be the number one harbour. The hon. member also said we should allow maize to be exported through the Table Bay harbour at the same tariff as is applicable to the East London harbour. The hon. member will understand that we have to convey every load of maize in terms of the cost per distance. For this reason I regret that I cannot accept the proposal that maize destined for Durban should be diverted to Cape Town without any change in the transport tariff.

This brings me to the hon. member for East London North. This hon. member once again expressed his thanks for the increase in pensions. He also wanted to know what the procedure was for tendering for maize which had been damaged in an accident. Of course, I do not believe that all the accidents happen in his constituency. To keep the machinery going, to contact farmers’ associations and to get hold of the chairmen and secretaries, whose names do not appear on a permanent list, is not always so easy. However, I can state that we ask the farmers and dealers in the vicinity of the accident to tender as soon as they can for the removal of the maize from the section. With a view to the future, however, we are nevertheless giving attention to the hon. member’s proposals.

The hon. member for Greytown asked some questions concerning the South West Africa situation. The hon. member also added that the Transport Services was unfortunately making increasing use of private transport. His criticism was that the S.A. Transport Services had a monopoly. The hon. member seems to disapprove of this, because he used the word “unfortunately”. However, I want to remind him of the fact that the representations from his side were to the effect that private transport should be used so that the S.A. Transport Services would not have a monopoly. They argued that private initiative should be encouraged and that the S.A. Transport Services should not form a monopoly. Of course, we are always contradicting one another in this way, especially in such a well-organized business as the S.A. Transport Services. [Interjections.] In any event, I come now to the hon. member’s question about a functioning transport system if South West Africa becomes independent. The S.A. Transport Services began providing intensive training for South West Africans of all races years ago, to enable them to function in large numbers and in a variety of grades. Up to now, 1 200 have been trained, and the training process is continuing on an intensive basis. Several stations are already staffed by people who have been trained in this way. The S.A. Transport Services is also prepared to operate the service in that territory for its own profit or loss or as an agent of their Government, depending on what they prefer. We shall not leave this territory in the lurch. These things we can negotiate about in the future.

The hon. member also spoke about the toilet facilities at stations between Pietermaritzburg and Durban. Because of vandalism and abuse of toilet facilities at several stations, we sometimes have to lock up these facilities when the station staff go off duty. Otherwise the facilities are damaged. The hon. member has personal experience of this. In a few cases we are also forced to lock up the facilities while the stations are open and to provide the key on request only.

The hon. member also spoke about the remuneration that has to be paid for unmined coal and asked whether the amounts could be reduced. The S.A. Transport Services pays compensation to the companies for loss of profits in respect of coal which cannot be mined. Attempts are continually being made by both parties to restrict these amounts to a minimum. The amounts paid in respect of unmined coal are added to the construction cost of the line and recovered from the consumer by means of tariffs.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked a question in connection with the duration of the train journey from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town. When this train was converted to diesel, the time was reduced from 42 hours to approximately 38 hours. So there has been a significant improvement.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp also spoke about the long running times of trains. We shall go into all these matters. I just want to point out that there are some trains, for example, the train which runs through the Karoo, where merely providing the various coaches with water for drinking and washing is a major task. It is very hot in the Karoo and it takes quite a while to do this work. It is not just a question of changing locomotives; it is because water has to be supplied to the various coaches. However, we discussed the matter this morning, and attempts will be made to expedite this service.

Then the hon. member asked a question in connection with the Mossel Bay harbour and the establishment of a small boat harbour there. This is a matter which falls under the city council, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of National Education. I shall let the hon. member have the full particulars in this connection later on. He informed me that he could not be here today.

The hon. member for Springs made a very well-reasoned speech about accidents, the prevention of accidents and the loss of work hours and manpower. I thank him for his contribution.

The hon. member for Umlazi said that we were reacting promptly to his requests. If all hon. members addressed their requests in the way in which the hon. member for Umlazi does, we would have no option but to respond promptly. If any hon. member makes a request as a result of problems concerning a station or the serving of the public, it does not matter to which party he belongs. I have said before that it is not necessary to play politics in discussing this portfolio. This is a national enterprise and it belongs to everyone in this country. It is the duty of everyone to ensure that this organization is sound. That is why I said that hon. members were welcome to criticize, because they were doing so in the interest of this organization and not for political gain. If there is any other hon. member who has any problems, he knows that the management will always help him. One hon. member rose here and said that Dr. Loubser should not feel unhappy about the fact that he did not become Minister of Transport Affairs. Afterwards I asked Dr. Loubser: “To which party do you actually belong?” Surely he could not become Minister while being a member of one of the parties of the other side. So this organization is not a political one, and I approached the matter raised by the hon. member for Umlazi in that spirit. But Umlazi really has a very smart MP, and I am about 1% fonder of this side of the House than of that side when it comes to the S.A. Transport Services. The hon. member said that the S.A. Transport Services should be consulted when industrial areas were being planned. My reply to that is that in cases of this nature, the S.A. Transport Services are normally consulted. We are represented on the inter-departmental planning committee, and therefore that body will be able to assist the hon. member.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to a court case dealing with the dishonesty of S.A. Transport Services staff at Uitenhage, claiming because of what was said in court in mitigation that supervision and control was lacking and that our artisans were overpaid. These were the two things he mentioned. The hon. member quoted what the attorney for the defence said in this particular case. He did not quote what the judge said. There is no point in quoting what the defence has to say in a case of this nature. What is important is the finding of the judge. My information in this regard is that this was a case that was investigated by the Railway Police. The matter was brought to court because of the findings of our own personnel in this case. Why then quote what an attorney for the defence had to say? Why did the hon. member not quote the findings of the judge?

They went to gaol.

The hon. member quoted from a newspaper report in regard to what only the attorney for the defence had said.

You must read my speech.

Now that I have this information, I am very pleased to see the way in which our staff acted. When they found that there was something wrong, they immediately took action to bring the matter before the court.

All I asked was that if these men applied to be re-employed after having completed their sentences, you would consider giving them back their jobs.

But they are still in gaol. Why should I decide on that now? The hon. member also said that our technicians were overpaid.

That was what the newspapers stated.

Why then did the hon. member make that quotation if he was not convinced that they are overpaid? You see, Sir, the hon. member creates the impression that we overpay our staff. We went to a great deal of trouble to get all this information overnight. Our technicians of all trades are paid a basic salary of R10 260 per annum; in other words R855 per month. This may be higher than the local average in some areas but is less than the average in other centres. A man in a comparable position on the Reef, for instance, earns up to R1 500 per month in private industry and enjoys housing, medical and pension benefits similar to those received by our staff. I do not wish to mention the names of the firms that we are compared with but there is one firm paying an annual salary of R13 291 plus an amount of R2 800 in shift allowance. Why does the hon. member make this sort of comparison? Must we then reduce the salaries of our staff? If, as the hon. member has suggested, there is the feeling that our staff are overpaid, then I must discuss the matter with our labour unions.

But that is something that you must consider with your management. You should be monitoring it all the time.

The hon. member has raised this matter and he must tell us what his feelings are in this regard. Must we reduce these salaries?

I do not have enough information but it seems to me from the reports in the Press that there is a strong possibility that you are overpaying them.

Very well. The hon. member also enquired about the millions of rand being spent on hostels for Black employees where the inhabitants could be living with their families. The Transport Services operate on a 24-hour basis and must at all times have adequate labour available. Particularly in emergency situations such as accidents, Black employees play a major role. It is virtually impossible to call out large numbers of Black staff at short notice if they are spread over a large residential area. The latest development in the planning of new hostels provides that where such hostels are situated within national States the single accommodation can be converted into flats for married couples. This will, of course, result in only about 1 000 couples being able to be accommodated in a place like Umlazi as against 6 600 under single conditions. The effect on building costs will be self-evident. One cannot run a business such as the S.A. Transport Services unless one has these people available at short notice.

*The hon. member for Ventersdorp said that the S.A. Transport Services should treat the farming community sympathetically when it became necessary to adjust tariffs. The farming industry as a whole has always been treated sympathetically, especially because increased cost have such an adverse affect on food prices. In fact, most farming products are still being conveyed below cost; costs are only covered on 3,3% of all agricultural products. I may mention one on which the costs are covered, and that is tobacco. In the vast majority of cases, the tariffs charged for the conveyance of agricultural commodities do not cover the cost.

The hon. member spoke about meat and said that the cost of transporting it was not paid by the consumer, but by the producer. He is right. The cost of transporting maize in this country can be recovered from the consumer. There are so many other products where this does not happen. I am thinking, for example, of deciduous fruit and citrus fruit. In the case of both these products, the transport costs are deducted from the cheque of the producer. I have pointed out to the management that this is one of our problems.

I have given the hon. member an answer with regard to the shortening of the duration of certain train journeys. The time of the Trans-Natal express will be reduced by 90 minutes as a result of our new techniques. We are also looking at the train to which the hon. member referred.

The hon. member for Maraisburg quoted a splendid example of efficiency and loyalty. We already have the designation of “station manager” in the S.A. Airways. A committee has been appointed to investigate, inter alia, the possible use of the designation of “station manager” in our railway services. The old designation of “station master” goes back a long time. In the old days the station master and the schoolmaster were actually the two most prominent people in town. It was a fine name, but if the hon. member feels we should change it to “station manager”, the committee can investigate it.

†The hon. member for Simonstown requested that the level crossing at Fish Hoek be fitted with half-gates and warning lights. This particular level crossing is listed for elimination as soon as funds are available. Half-gates and warning lights will, however, be fitted as a temporary measure.

The hon. member said that more suburban trains should be in operation to Cape Town’s northern and southern suburbs during peak hours. In terms of the new timetable now being compiled and coming into operation on 1 November 1982, the number of suburban trains to the southern suburbs will be increased. Although it is not possible to do the same as far as the northern suburbs are concerned, it is the intention to increase the length of the trains from eight to 11 coaches, and this should relieve the position.

The southern suburbs are much more important than the northern ones!

Both the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti complained about inadequate facilities for first-class passengers on stations in the Durban and Cape Town areas. They also complained about loitering and muggings on stations. Most suburban stations have platform shelters or waiting rooms as well as toilet facilities that are cleaned and maintained on a regular basis. The lighting at stations is also checked on a regular basis. Loitering and muggings on stations are a problem which receives continuous attention. Some police measures implemented recently are: Additional police mobile units, additional police for certain stations and better communication systems. These have resulted in a marked decrease in the crime rate. Many crimes take place in the area around the stations and on popular routes to the stations and are erroneously counted as being our responsibility. We are, however, paying attention to all these matters.

*Several questions were asked by hon. members of the Opposition about Black air hostesses. We have dealt with this matter in a completely unprejudiced way. The hon. member for Houghton always complained about Black air hostesses and now that I am replying, she is suddenly sitting on my side of the House. [Interjections.]

You have convinced me.

Without any bias we called for applications for appointment as cabin staff and air hostesses. We received 830 applications from Whites and screened them. We have only one basic method of screening, and only 204 applicants complied with all the basic requirements. We received 341 applications from Blacks, and with the best will in the world, only 1 applicant could eventually be selected. There were 53 applications from Asians, of which only one was successful, while 37 applications were received from Coloured people, of which six were successful. The method of selection is exactly the same for all the population groups and is applied by an unbiased panel. The panel lays down certain basic requirements and evaluates, among other things, a candidate’s ability to handle dinner-ware, as well as the candidate’s language ability and pronunciation. All the applicants were treated alike. However, those who have been selected have to undergo further screening. We are now in the initial stages of the training of coloured air hostesses and there is no bias in the process of appointment. Due to the large number of applications we received, there is no shortage at the moment. I just wanted to make it quite clear that there is no question of bias in this matter. My conscience is clear because I know that there is nothing wrong with the process of selection.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a number of unrelated matters with the hon. the Minister, and I ask him for his patience because I am going to take him around the whole of South Africa in dealing with matters which have been referred to me and in respect of which I want information from the hon. the Minister.

Don’t take the hon. the Minister for a ride!

I want to start by referring to the statement by the hon. the Minister relating to hostesses. One welcomes the assurance which the hon. the Minister has given us that the positions were advertised and that there was no prejudice. The hon. the Minister in his reply to a question which I put to him on 15 February indicated that only two hostesses, other than White, are currently being trained, the one being a Coloured and the other an Indian. I did have the impression last year when the hon. the Minister made his announcement that he would give consideration to employing hostesses other than Whites, that at that stage there were four who were going to be trained. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can indicate to us in his final reply why there is a difference in the figures and why after all this time only two hostesses, one a Coloured and one an Indian, are being trained. In his reply just now the hon. the Minister also indicated that only one Black was found to be acceptable. I presume she will now be allowed to train as an air hostess. However, one welcomes the situation that the posts were advertised and that attempts were made to make the appointments on the basis of merit only.

The other point which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister arises from the reply he gave yesterday on the question of the Franzsen Committee and legislation which, according to him, will come before Parliament next year. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he is having discussions with representatives of organized commerce and industry in relation to any recommendations which may be contained in the proposed Bill. The hon. the Minister must also tell whether the Bill is going to be published in advance and whether comments are going to be invited from interested parties or what procedures he intends following. This is a matter which we know is of vital importance to the S.A. Transport Services and it can also be of great interest to commerce and industry in South Africa. I would like the hon. the Minister to give us that information.

I want to deal now with catering facilities at Windhoek Station. I am told that there are no catering facilities at Windhoek and during a visit with the hon. the Minister and other colleagues I certainly did not see any catering facilities on the station. I am also told that there are no dining-saloons on the normal trains running between Windhoek and Walvis Bay.

Do you want to entertain Swapo?

I am told that this causes inconvenience to the public and national servicemen travelling to Walvis Bay. I want the hon. the Minister to indicate to us whether this information is correct and whether the Administration will do anything about it.

I now want to move from South West Africa/Namibia to the Transvaal and refer to the question of Black commuters travelling by bus from the Sebokeng area, north of Vanderbijlpark, to Vanderbijlpark and Vereeniging. I am told that these bus commuters at present number about 25 000 daily. I am reminded of the fact that in 1969 the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Mr. Ben Schoeman, accepted a report by Dr. Marais that stated that there could be economic justification for rail transport, provided one had more than 20 000 commuters. I believe that was the import of the report by Dr. Marais, and so if one had more than 20 000 commuters this would justify consideration being given to rail transport. Yet I am told that in that part of the Transvaal there are about 25 000 commuters who are compelled to use buses to get from the area concerned to Vanderbijlpark and Vereeniging. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether the Administration is giving any consideration to providing rail transport for these people and, if so, what progress has been made.

The other question I want to raise is that of goods and passenger transport for Blacks between Bloemfontein and Onverwacht or Thaba Nchu where, I am told, there are two trains per day but where there are at present more than 120 buses operating. It is also estimated that in the not too distant future there will be some 200 buses operating there in order to transport people from Bloemfontein to the Onverwacht area. If this is correct, it would seem that a need does exist. A question was tabled earlier this year by the hon. member Prof. Olivier asking for a study to be undertaken into the provision of the sort of service, and I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether consideration is being given to providing better train facilities for those people, in fact facilities generally, in order to avoid an increase in the number of buses being used.

I think it was the hon. the member for Gezina who yesterday raised the question of transport in Mpofana. Here I am also told that the Mpofana-Pretoria train service is not a success because the line does not go deep enough into the township. The suggestion is that it ought to be extended in order to encourage greater partronage for the rail services, as opposed to the feeder bus services. I am also told that recently there was some dissatisfaction—in fact some stone-throwing—because passengers were irritated and impatient at the delay in the arrival of buses. It would seem that this is a situation that needs the attention of the Administration to see whether it is not going to be possible to extend the length of that line so as to provide better rail facilities for the people concerned.

There is a further matter I should like to raise, and for this I must move from the Transvaal to God’s own country, the province of Natal. This is a question that has been raised before, involving as it does the provision of a passenger halt, between Berea Road station and Durban’s new station, for office workers and people who have to go into the centre of the city. It would seem that such a halt, perhaps at the head of the street called Soldier’s Way, would be most convenient, because it is not convenient for people either to have to walk from Berea Road station or to catch buses from the new station if they happen to work in the city centre. I wonder whether the Administration has given any further consideration to that matter.

Another matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of the new medical aid scheme which the hon. the Minister has announced and which has received a great deal of publicity. It has been welcomed by both sides of the House, because clearly it is going to provide the employees of the Transport Services with a far better medical scheme than they have had in the past. It will give them a free choice of doctors and so on. We have had references to staff problems, and yesterday or the day before the hon. the Minister indicated that this matter was still in its teething stages and was to be put on a much more scientific basis. Certainly one must realize that there will be teething troubles with a scheme of this kind, but the scheme itself is generally welcomed. I had a brief look at the proposed regulations relating to the scheme that will formally come into operation, I understand, on 1 April, and I understand that there are differences in the operation of the scheme in the case of the different race groups. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us an indication of what the prime differences are and what the reason for the differences is. I am told, for example, that non-White employees in the Transport Services will not have a free choice of doctors but that there doctors or medical practitioners will be designated for them.

In other words, they will still be operating on a panel system. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of the position there. There also appear to be differences in the regulations between the operation of the scheme as it affects certain non-White employees on the one hand and the Indian community of Natal on the other. There are special provisions relating to Indian employees of the Administration who live in the province of Natal. I wonder why there should be those differences in regulations relating to the new medical scheme. I think it would be useful at this stage, with the scheme coming into operation, for the hon. the Minister to indicate what the basic differences are, why there should be these differences and what the problems are in regard to these matters on the part of those who are going to operate the scheme.

A further matter I want to raise—I did warn the hon. the Minister when I got up that I was going to jump from one matter to another—is an issue which has been brought to my attention again. It concerns the dissatisfaction that exists, particularly in Cape Town, about the air fare on direct flights from Cape Town to London as opposed to the air fare on the flight from Cape Town to London via Jan Smuts Airport. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his speech the hon. member for Berea went on a long journey. He visited South West Africa, then he called in at Johannesburg, after which he paid a short visit to the Free State. Unfortunately I have a different destination and cannot therefore travel any further with him. However, as he referred to Onverwacht—which I understand is now called Bochabela—I just want to thank him for showing so much interest in the Free State too.

During this debate we have travelled over quite a number of long stretches. We have visited many stations during this discussion. I should like the hon. the Minister to visit the city of Welkom. The service has been discussed here in sentimental terms. I suppose it is only natural that when an enormous business enterprise that is run by people is involved, it will be discussed in sentimental terms. Transport is one of the cornerstones of the economic life of the country. However, I want to add that it is also the cornerstone of specific regions. It is a key facet in the infrastructure of a region like the Free State Goldfields. A great deal has already been said in this House and throughout the country about decentralization. As Welkom is a growth point, I contend that it is the duty of the State to encourage this region—I do not want to be provincial and suggest that the Free State has not had its share of industrial development. However, where a growth point does exist, as is the case in this region, the State must do everything possible to assist it.

Because this is a matter of importance to me, I want to emphasize once more that an effective air service is of great importance to this area. I want to associate myself with an hon. colleague and neighbour of mine who has already discussed this matter. The hon. the Minister is known as one who has sympathy for a deserving cause. For this reason I am sure he will not take it amiss of me when I say that his reaction to the representations in this connection was rather disappointing. Perhaps it is unfair for me to assume that the department has no real interest in this matter. However, if the hon. the Minister had replied: “I am prepared to consider the inclusion of Welkom in scheduled flights of the SAA, and I shall institute a scientific investigation and market research on the economic possibility of such an inclusion”, there would be greater satisfaction. Perhaps it is true that the S.A. Airways is not really interested in expanding further or taking on greater responsibilities, but I believe that the Airways also has a duty to a specific community. After all, it does not only provide a service to the general public, but to a specific region as well.

The hon. the Minister said that Comair’s flights to Bloemfontein were suspended at one stage. However, I know nothing about that, and in any case it is of no consequence, because a service from Welkom to Bloemfontein could not fit in with SAA flights. In any case, people travelling between these two towns usually use their own cars.

When the hon. the Minister has an opportunity he should visit Welkom to see for himself what the circumstances there are. The services at the station, and the parcels office for passengers’ goods, are totally inadequate. Although the SABC may think that Bloemfontein or the Free State Goldfields are not part of the Republic, I hope that the S.A. Transport Services is not also of that opinion. We have only one university in the Free State, but the SABC does not even know that.

I want to express my thanks for the services rendered by officials of this department under trying conditions. We do not want to be unreasonable and make demands; all we ask is that they do not neglect us. Because we in the Free State do not make a big fuss, that ought not to be advanced as a reason for not giving attention to us.

Where is this place?

The hon. the Deputy Minister asks where this place is. I believe it is the duty of every Minister interested in the services offered there to pay it a visit. It is a pity the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know about the place. I think he has neglected his duty!

You do not even allow the Indians there.

There are 11 gold mines, one of which is actually a uranium mine, and these mines pay over R1 000 million in taxes to the State every year.

My time is limited and I may find myself in trouble if I speak for much longer, but I just want to say that the Department of Statistics indicates in its most recent newsletter that the building plans for the Free State goldfields totalled R95,5 million in 1981. Buildings valued at R70,6 million were completed in 1981. I do not want to draw comparisons, but I just want to mention the figures for Bloemfontein and Kimberley to indicate the magnitude of the building activities on these goldfields. The corresponding figure for Bloemfontein is R42 million and the figure for Kimberley is R12 million. Out of 11 areas mentioned, the Free State goldfields were in fifth place and Bloemfontein in eighth place.

I know the hon. the Minister is not unapproachable and for this reason I want to ask him to give attention to these matters and to visit that region together with his senior officials so that he can convince himself that it is not without reason that we are asking for these services, but that there is in fact a need for them in this region.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Welkom is a dyed-in-the-wool Free Stater. He knows the Free State. I therefore want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he prick up his ears when the hon. member for Welkom is speaking. The Free State has indeed produced exceptional people. I am married to a product of the Free State. I can therefore recommend Free Staters. The Free State definitely has more to offer to the other provinces than just gold.

However your Free State product was not very wise. [Interjections.]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister may be right. But I do take good care of her.

Shortly after the hon. the Minister took over his present portfolio, I believe he wrote a letter to all hon. members in which he indicated that he would very much like to look into the problems of hon. members of all the parties in this House, and that his door was open to everyone.

He said the same thing in this House this afternoon. Therefore I, too, want to thank him for this on behalf of those of us in these benches and assure him that we greatly appreciate this.

In my constituency there is a particular problem which I raised here during the term of office of the previous hon. Minister. This problem has not yet been solved. For this reason I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister again today. Of course, the previous hon. Minister now has another portfolio. He did not give me any problems, and as a matter of fact he dealt with matters very well. He happens to be present in this House at the moment.

In my constituency—which is of course an urban constituency—there are three small railway stations. For the information of the hon. the Minister I just want to mention that one of these three stations bears the name Loftus. The other two are Rissik and Hartebeesspruit. As I said, I still have the same problem that I mentioned in this House a few years ago. This problem lies in the fact that a great many workers from neighbouring Black residential areas make use of these three railway stations. In the nature of things, therefore, certain practical problems have arisen. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North also referred to this specific problem yesterday. However, I believe that the hon. member was rather superficial in his handling of the problem of overcrowding in such cases.

South Africa is still a young country. Moreover, its infrastructure is not yet as old as that of many other countries. Accordingly there is one thing we must accept, and that is that the initial siting of railway stations—as in the present instance—took place at a time when social conditions were very different from those that prevail today. Indeed, I believe that in many cases it is unfair to blame the Government of ten, twenty, thirty or forty years ago—this even applies to the Government of the day—if practical problems arise in this regard. No one can see so far into the future as to be able to plan now for things that will take place in the future. The suburban area in which I live originally consisted of large plots of land. At that stage very few people lived in that vicinity. However, today it is completely different. New blocks of flats are being built virtually every day, and naturally there are more Black labourers coming to work in that area. In that sense, circumstances have changed there considerably.

I want to make it quite clear that it is my conviction that Black people come to White areas to sell their labour. One of the basic principles that this involves is that when those Black people come to sell their labour to the Whites, it is the duty of the country, the State or the community that buys that labour, to ensure that the necessary facilities are created for those Black labourers. These must be proper facilities. The necessary services must be provided for these Black labourers as well. As time passes, the situation must be investigated regularly to ascertain what problems arise and to what extent adjustments are necessary.

Daan, you are in the “verligte” wing.

Yes, you belong here right next to us. [Interjections.]

If we can deal with this situation in South Africa, this meeting between Black people coming to sell their labour to us, and the people who make use of that labour, and in addition, do so in an organized way, many of the practical problems arising from the meeting of two separate cultural groups will be eliminated. For this reason I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in recent years—and there are various reasons for this—I have found that there have been more assaults and more robberies, involving not only the Whites living there, but also the Black people who come to work there. In the cases to which I have just referred the number of assaults on Whites and on Blacks is increasing. The S.A. Transport Services is responsible for the areas belonging to it; outside those areas, the responsibility lies with the police. The hon. the Minister must be mindful of the fact that the incidence of these assaults is growing and that we must consider this matter sensibly and carefully. In this regard I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I fully understand the problems arising from the ethnic situation in Southern Africa, in the light, too of world circumstances in which we find ourselves. I can understand that many people cannot understand why one introduces measures to separate people in Southern Africa. I also realize that any Government in South Africa today must take this into consideration when removing signs used to keep the various groups separate. At this station—I am now referring to Rissik station—these signs have already been removed. I can understand why the hon. the Minister initially had them removed. However, my practical experience at this specific station is that the removal of these signs is causing friction and problems.

Oh no!

Unfortunately I am now sitting too close to the far left Opposition. I realize that this is a new situation in which we find ourselves and that we shall have to take another look at all these little places. I am therefore asking the hon. the Minister to institute an on-the-spot investigation and to talk to the people in the area. The provision of separate amenities there will again contribute to better racial and human relations. I want to put great emphasis on this point today. Perhaps the new situation in South African politics is such that one can look at the problems sensibly and responsibly and from various angles. I am therefore asking the hon. the Minister to look into these matters, in the future as well, as he did when he and I were working together in the same team.

I want to conclude by saying that measures to separate people are essential in the conditions prevailing in Southern Africa and that they can be introduced without one group feeling that it is humiliating another group and without anyone’s human dignity being assailed thereby. Ultimately we must look at all these places, because the prosperity and happiness of all the nations of Southern Africa also depends to a great extent on everyone sitting in this House today, on our initiative, our enthusiasm, our sensible behaviour and also our attitude when we do these things.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Rissik discussed matters of local interest here, I am sure he will excuse me if I do not follow up his arguments. The hon. the Minister has already adopted a very clear standpoint in this debate and I am therefore sure that he will have something further to say to the hon. member in this connection.

Railways and harbours are combined to a great extent, and the question as to where the responsibility for the harbours ends and where the responsibility for the railways begins, interested me. I therefore went into the matter.

But there is no harbour in Beaufort West.

That is true, but Beaufort West makes use of the services of both the railways and the harbours. The Beaufort West constituency produces a great deal of wool and it is exported through Cape Town harbour. Even though we are far from the harbours, we still make a contribution to the economy of the country.

It is probably important first to consider what the policy was in the past as regards the differentiation between these two important branches of our transport services. The present financial dividing line between harbours and railways, namely, the railway line to the seaward side of the quay, dates from 1912. This dividing line means that the handling of goods on the quay and in harbour sheds, that cannot be regarded as anything other than an integral part of harbour operations, are considered to be railways activities. Spending of revenue relating to these activities is therefore considered railways revenue and expenditure. In the same way, all assets on the landward side of the first railway line on the quay are considered to be railways assets, and the railways bears the capital costs of these assets. These assets include harbour sheds, open yards, the quays themselves, and the like, without which the harbour industry cannot function either.

What this amounts to is that up to now, part of the actual harbour finances has been incorporated in railways finances. As a result it is not possible to ascertain whether harbours showed a surplus or operated at a loss as regards this function. For the same reason it could not be ascertained whether cross subsidization took place.

In order to ascertain the actual working results of harbours, it is necessary for there to be a definite separation of railways and harbour finances, corresponding to the actual activities of the two organizations. With this in mind, a task group was appointed in October 1978 to undertake an investigation into and report on the following aspects—

1. (1) Determination of the finances and activities proper to harbours;
2. (2) the fixing of a practical boundary line between harbours and railways that is in accordance with harbour functions;
3. (3) the allocation of harbour and railway assets and capital values;
4. (4) the separation of harbour and railway expenditure and revenue;
5. (5) the review of the classification of accounts; and
6. (6) the way in which the delimitations are implemented in practice.

The work group submitted its report on 6 April 1979. Briefly, the report states the following: That the finances of certain functions such as the landing, shipping and transshipment of freight, harbour grain elevators, pre-refrigeration services, harbour delivery services and the like, be transferred from the railways to the harbours. This new dispensation will come into effect on 1 April of this year. It was also provided that rail traffic in a harbour will be handed over to the harbours at a central exchange yard or yards from where the harbours will take full responsibility for shunting, placing of wagons, etc.

After this a new classification for the accounts of harbours was drawn up. All revenue and expenditure was classified and grouped under accounts designed to meet the requirements of purposeful management and target budgeting. This arrangement will come into effect on 1 April 1982. From the above it is clear that in future there will be a more accurate differentiation between harbour facilities and railways facilities.

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Loubser for the wonderful example he set in the service he has rendered the S.A. Transport Services during his term of office as General Manager of this organization. I also want to convey my congratulation to Dr. Grové, who is to become the new General Manager of the S.A. Transport Services and to wish him every success in this important work. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for the sympathetic hearing he gave once again yesterday and the understanding he has for the platteland and its problems. I thank him for this and I sincerely appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Committee Stage debate is now coming to an end and that I am the last speaker before the hon. the Minister replies. I should just like to tell the hon. the Minister in advance and apologize for the fact that I shall not be here on Monday for the Third Reading of this Bill because I have to be in Durban. There are therefore one or two matters I should like to raise today which otherwise I would have raised during the Third Reading debate on Monday. Before doing so, however, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the reply he gave to my colleague from the South Coast and other hon. members here as well as in respect of certain comments I made yesterday in regard to the problems experienced on stations, especially commuter stations. If there is one thing that has really come to light from this debate it has been the fact that the Railways do have problems on stations, especially commuter stations. There is the question of overcrowding. I think it was the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North who said that some of our railway stations are inadequate today to cope with the traffic they are handling, and I believe that this is a major problem.

In this debate and during the Second Reading debate I stressed the question of rail transport. I have done so because to my mind this is the area in which the heaviest losses are being incurred in the Transport Services Administration. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me in this regard. For this reason I believe that passenger transport in particular should be looked at very closely. At this stage I want to say that I believe, in fact I know, that it is far cheaper to travel by rail. In a railway debate some years ago, I gave actual figures in this connection. I am quite sure that if the average person did a little calculation he would find that it is much cheaper to travel by rail than to travel by car. I think this is a very great advantage that the Railways have and it is a plus point that they should push in the minds of the public. Unfortunately, not only hon. members on the Opposition benches but hon. members on the Government benches as well have indicated that conditions by rail have reached the stage where a large number of first class passengers refuse to travel by rail. I think that this fact is to be regretted and it is for this reason that I believe that the hon. the Minister should take a really close look at the conditions which first class passengers in particular have to contend with. I believe that the service can be improved and I am sure that if the Administration went into this matter in depth and made a close study of it, it would be able to find ways and means of improving the situation. As I have said, conditions on stations should be improved but I am sure that conditions in respect of railway travel itself can be improved.

I have here a little pamphlet that is handed out on the railways in Europe on something that is called a mini-bar. I shall give it to the hon. the Minister. It deals with what can be obtained from a small trolley that is pushed down the aisle of the train by an attendant. Some years ago I travelled between Bologne and Paris on a three-coach electric train on which there was one of these minibars serving passengers and it adequately met their needs. One of the complaints we receive from passengers in this country is that sometimes even the stations no longer have refreshment counters, and one wonders why. When one compares some of our stations now with what they were some years ago, one sees that they are dying and, as I say, I feel that there is great scope for an indepth investigation in this regard in order to attract people back to rail transport. I believe that the hon. the Minister should also take a very careful look at mainline traffic and in particular first class mainline traffic. I have a few ideas, and I am sure the hon. the Minister knows about them, to make better use of our rail facilities. We have the infrastructure; so why cannot we have something similar to what they have in Britain, called the Brit Rail Pass? Similar schemes are available in Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Argentine. In England a visitor to the country can buy a ticket for $62 which allows him to travel anywhere by train for up to eight days. In Australia it cost $300 for 21 days. Eurorail offers the same concession. I can give the hon. the Minister pamphlets on the various schemes. I also have with me a pamphlet on the Intercity Service for businessmen in Europe. I appreciate that the population distribution and geographical situations are slightly different, but obviously railways elsewhere in the world are in trouble as far as passenger traffice is concerned. Maybe it is due to the fact that everybody wants to fly instead of using trains. However, other countries are introducing innovations in order better to utilize their existing infrastructures. The various schemes are tied in with hotels, etc., and perhaps in order to survive the railway undertakings have to have hotels at major stations. I believe this is something to which the hon. the Minister should give consideration.

As I have said I think the hon. the Minister should take a particular look at first-class rail traffic. I want to be very provocative today by saying to the hon. the Minister that the first-class facilities on rail are there to serve railway employees and not the public. I want the hon. the Minister to challenge me on this, because I asked the Deputy General Manager earlier this week to give me some figures on this. If my memory serves me correctly there were 508 000 first-class mainline journeys travelled in 1980-’81 and 337 000 journeys in 1978-’79. During the 1978-79 period 56 643 mainline first-class free passes were issued. Free passes issued to railway employees include not only the employee himself, but perhaps also his wife and children. A free pass therefore could mean four or five journeys. If one took an average of three journeys then almost 170 000 journeys on free passes alone took place. If one looks at main-line privilege tickets—I think they are called “orders”, which enables an employee to buy a ticket at 20% of the normal fare—one finds that in first-class mainline traffic there were 1 896 single journeys, and also 13 316 return journeys. I ask the hon. the Minister to take me up on this challenge and tell us exactly how many first-class mainline journeys are undertaken by Railway employees and their families. One may find that my figures are pretty close to the mark. Perhaps what the Administration should do is rather than give their employees a free pass on the railways it should give them an equivalent annual money allowance and then allow them to travel by air and to close down the first-class service if it is running at such a big loss. I believe this is the sort of approach one should take towards this tremendous loss centre in the Administation’s affairs. So I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will look at this.

I also have figures on the number of privilege tickets issued to Railway employees for both suburban and mainline journeys. These figures run into hundreds of thousands of journeys per annum. For instance, in 1968-’69 some 269 000 suburban first-class monthly tickets, and 393 276 third-class monthly tickets were unused. A monthly ticket must involve some 50 journeys per month. This certainly builds up the losses of running the railways since very little revenue is derived from these journeys.

We must beware of the idea of granting concessions. Concessions are now being granted to servicemen and also to pensioners. One must, however, be careful that the whole service does not eventually become overburdened with all these concessions and as a result the whole service becomes uneconomical, as we are indeed finding today. I believe, for instance, that there is now a new free pass called a Black/Grey pass for use on South African Airways’ internal routes. I have been given an estimate that this may mean something like 50 000 free flights per annum for Transport Service employees or people holding these free passes. If the average flight costs R100, this means that an amount of R5 million is being given to those people by way of free flights. I believe that the hon. the Minister must take a good look at this.

When the hon. the Minister replied to the hon. member for Durban Point’s remarks about the turnaround time of trucks he was correct in saying that the turnaround time has been reduced in recent years. I have taken the time to look up the turnaround times over the past 12 or 13 years. Over the past 5 years there has actually been an improvement of 7,6% in the turnaround time, but the point is that over the past 12 years there has been an overall deterioration of 12,7%. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea asked me a great many questions. In the first place he asked whether I could let him have the figures in regard to air hostesses. There are air hostesses who are waitresses as well as those who do other types of work, and I shall obtain the figures for the hon. member within a few days. He also referred to dining-cars from Windhoek to Walvis Bay. We intend to introduce the service now because an investigation was instituted and it was found that there was a demand for them. At a certain stage there was no demand for them and the service was consequently abolished, but we are now going to re-introduce it. As from 1 February this year a refreshment concession has been granted on a full-time basis in Windhoek. The refreshments to which the hon. member referred, will also be available. The hon. member also put a question about the Mabopane-Winternest-Pretoria line, to which the hon. member for Gezina also referred. The plan for the railway line was temporarily delayed because of a delay caused by the Black states involved, but the matter will be followed up and I think the extension of the line will now take place.

This brings me to the passenger-halt between Berea Park station and the new Durban station. We submitted several plans to the Durban municipality. Their original plan which was introduced, was the bus service for the Berea Park station, but we will have to consider it afresh. We are prepared to consider further plans with regard to the train service. We are negotiating with the municipality of Durban on some of the suggestions referred to by the hon. member.

†This brings me to the question of goods and passengers between Bloemfontein and Thaba Nchu. We are watching the situation carefully. At the moment the number of buses is sufficient, but we are waiting for a response from various departments, watching to see how the scheme develops. So far it is said that the present transport facilities can cope with the situation. We are, however, looking into the matter. As the hon. member knows, a new railway line would cost a lot of money. What might have been considered a fair cost by many people ten years ago would be much more today.

And you do not want to add to inflation, do you?

No, I do not. Initially the medical scheme will be applicable to Whites only. The present schemes applicable to other groups will continue for the present. New schemes will be extended to other groups as soon as possible. The medical doctors point out that they have problems ascertaining the permanent addresses of these people, some of whom only stay in one place for six months at the time. So for the moment we must retain the old scheme for the Black people, but we told the Black staff associations that they would also be part of the new scheme eventually. This brings me to the bus service between Sebokeng and Vanderbijlpark and Vereeniging. The Transvaal Provincial Administration will have to investigate the matter and indicate what mode of transport is best suited to the occasion. If rail transport is necessary, it will be provided. It all depends on the findings.

Then I come to the question of air fares. On international services air fares are based on the journey from Johannesburg to the foreign destination. From points beyond Johannesburg an add-on fare operates. The air fare from London to Johannesburg is R982,30 and from London to Cape Town R1 074,30.

It is a shorter distance.

Whether the distance from London to Johannesburg and from London to Cape Town is the same is not the criterion. Certain other factors are taken into consideration. The distance is not very much shorter. I think I have now replied to all the hon. member for Berea’s questions. He put a lot of questions to me in the course of 10 minutes. I do not think I have skipped any. If, however, more clarity is required, I will reply to him in writing or we can have a discussion on these matters with the Management over a cup of tea.

*The hon. member for Welkom vented his spleen here a little and said that I had not taken it seriously when they asked for an airport at Welkom. I am a practical person, and we have received similar requests on previous occasions. The department pointed this out to me. We can appoint a committee of enquiry, but I want to get at the hon. member too. Why is this the first time he is inviting me to visit Welkom?

I have already done so previously.

It did not reach me.

You are not welcome in Welkom.

The hon. member for Welkom may fix a date, perhaps a Saturday morning, within the next two to three weeks. I will take members of the Management with me and we can then meet the town council, have a look at the station and consider the suggestions. As I said yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Virginia, provision has been made in the Brown Book for improvements to the goods shed and a new road transport depot. A new parcels shed has also been planned and will be built as soon as finances allow. At the moment it is listed for 1984. I can inform the town council about all these matters. I do not want the hon. member to think that we are averse to Welkom. We referred here in a good-natured way to the Free State because the Free State is unique. Free State people stick together. It is true that they cannot win the Currie Cup, but they have a particularly good disposition and that is why we sometimes tend to be a little light-hearted towards the Free State. With the type of disposition these people have, they never kick against the pricks. In any event, I shall give attention to the problems of the hon. member for Welkom.

The hon. member for Rissik spoke about the Loftus, Rissik and Hartbeesfontein stations, and particularly about Rissik station. In the course of time a concentration of Black people occurred there. They are actually there for our convenience and that is why it worries me that when one drives through Pretoria you see posters which read: “Let us vote Pretoria white”. For me, this is the most erroneous standpoint one can adopt while we also need these people for our own convenience. I have expressed my standpoint on this matter on a previous occasion. I shall spell it out again. I am not a racist, but I want to prevent the crowding out of minorities. Together with members of the Management and the commissioners I visited a station where the diningroom for Whites was a nice, large diningroom, with a small diningroom for Blacks next to it. Mention was being made of people being crowded out. I said: “Let us change the arrangement. Let us give the large diningroom to the Blacks and the small diningroom to the Whites”. Then the Blacks will be happy, because they can eat together as a group. However, we do have the problem in this country that separatism has had the connotation that the facilities for Blacks and people of colour are inferior in comparison with those for Whites. The feeling arose that because we want to be separate, we gave the Black people the poorer facilities.

The hon. member for Rissik stated his case in a responsible manner, and perhaps I should accompany the Management to ascertain what the situation is there. If 10 Blacks and 1 White arrive, we give one-tenth of the sleeping space to the White and nine-tenths to the Blacks. If a surface has to be tarred to please the Opposition—who say that I am a racist—we first lay the tar on the side where the Blacks walk and tomorrow where the Whites walk. We cannot afford to create unnecessary friction in this country. This is not a political standpoint, but a practical one which I have always held.

I want to be honest while the hon. member for Yeoville is looking at me like that. Because of my father’s view some of my closest friends in Delmas since my childhood have been Jews. Recently I was a guest at a party, and at one stage I said to my friends: “Isn’t it strange. There the English-speaking people are standing together talking; over there a group of 14 Jews are talking to each other and here we have a group of Afrikaans-speaking people together”. I then asked the various groups what the trouble was, and their reply was that they were just discussing a few matters among themselves and would come and talk to us later. There was no question of hostility.

Have you never been to a party where the Afrikaners and the Jews were talking to one another?

We did talk to each other, but at that specific moment the various groups were separated.

It is much worse when the men stand in one corner and the women in another.

I agree. I would love to be among the women.

You don’t need legislation for that.

Yes, that is the important point. One does not need legislation for that, but one can organize matters so that people need not feel that they are being trampled upon. In the past we have always felt that the Blacks must have the …

The worst.

… worst of a situation, while the White man enjoyed the best?

*However, we say that we want separatism without the crowding out of a minority.

But how do you remove the signs there?

We will find a solution there at Daan’s station.

†I wish I could take Helen and Harry one morning into a situation where …

Harry, Helen and Hendrik.

And we will give you “h …”.

Where do you want to take us?

I will take you, but then you must be ready when I call on you at five or six o’clock in the morning. [Interjections.]

*We could even start the previous evening.

The hon. member for Beaufort West made a fine contribution on the harbours and the distribution of costs.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said the mainline should be made more attractive and practical if it is to increase our turnover. I will investigate this matter. He also said that the mainline services were being used to a large extent by personnel who hold free passes. I should like to get those figures because that is a matter to which I have not yet paid attention, although I can hardly imagine that it is possible that more than 50% of the mainline facilities is being used by personnel who hold free passes.

*During the Third Reading I shall refer to other points which were raised and reply to questions which were put by hon. members.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of good order and reasonable debate I move—

As soon as we have dealt with clause 7, a number of other amendments for which notice has been given, may either be dropped or moved, depending on what the committee decides concerning clause 7.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for his attitude in this regard. I therefore assume that, after this, we shall be proceeding to the discussion of clause 7 of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 6 stand over.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, there are altogether 10 amendments which appear in my name on the Order Paper with regard to clause 7.

The first amendment in fact applies to the question of prescribing the procedure in respect of the education advisory committee. I wish to put it very simply by saying that we believe that in view of the composition of the education advisory committee, and the kind of people who will be serving on it, that committee should be competent, and, in fact, is competent, to determine its own procedures and that the council for which provision is being made in the Bill, should therefore not have to exercise those powers. I do not think I have to argue this matter any further. It is in reality concerned with the question of the calibre of the people who will serve on the education advisory committee. Of course I accept unconditionally that that council will act with the necessary responsibility. Our basic problem with regard to clause 7 concerns the provisions contained in clause 7(1) and (3).

With regard to clause 7(1) briefly the following. We find in this three matters in particular which fall within the jurisdiction of the council. In the first instance, the council may determine the requirements—for recommendation to the Minister—with which an association or society of natural scientists shall comply in order to be recognized in terms of the Act. In addition the council has the power to recommend to the Minister whether or not such a society of natural scientists would be recognized in terms of the present legislation. The final decision, in the first instance, with regard to the requirements, and in the second instance, with regard to the question of whether such a society would in fact, be recognized, rests with the Minister in terms of clauses 7(3)(a)(i) and (ii). In the nature of things, although he is being advised and although he considers the recommendations as well, the Minister has an inherent power of his own to do what he likes with the recommendation of the council.

Of course I am not casting any reflection on the hon. the Minister. We are not trying to attribute any mala fides to the hon. the Minister in the execution of his duties. We merely believe that, again in view of the composition of the council, it is quite sufficient in this regard that this power—i.e. the power to determine the requirements and the power to recognize an association of natural scientists in terms of the Act—should rest with the council itself, and not with the Minister. Secondly, provision is being made in clause 7(1)(m) for determining tariffs of fees which are recommended to the Minister by the council, the tariff which a natural scientist may charge for his professional services. Those tariffs are conveyed to the Minister by means of a recommendation and in terms of subsection (3) the Minister once again has the final say in determining the tariffs by regulation. Our problem is that we believe that the council itself, and not the Minister should have that power. It is indeed true, as I indicated the day before yesterday, that there is no direct coercive provision in the Bill itself which states that a natural scientist has to charge these tariffs. I presume that it is probably the intention that minimum tariffs would be prescribed.

Not minimum tariffs, but guidelines.

That there would be guidelines. I wish to draw hon. members’ attention to the possible implications in this regard, and this also applies to my next point concerning the question of work reservation. Let us now look at clause 18(7)(f) in which provision is made that—

1. (f) if he has been guilty of conduct by reason of which he is in the opinion of the council not a fit person to be registered.

In other words, it is conceivable that if a scientist does not adhere to the guidelines, the council may deem him unsuitable to be registered as or to remain a natural scientist. If we look at clause 18(8), we see that—

In other words, even if he had been guilty of disregarding those guidelines three years previously, the possibility exists that the council may say to him that since he had paid no heed to the guidelines, the council does not consider him to be a fit person to be registered as a natural scientist or a natural scientist in training. This is further confirmed when one looks at clause 21, which determines what “improper conduct” is. There is a provision in clause 21(1)(f) which reads—

The power of making regulations which the Minister has in terms of clause 25(1)(c) is that he may prescribe rules with which natural scientists and natural scientists in training, as the case may be, shall comply in practising their profession. In other words, the Minister may prescribe tariffs, even if it is by means of guidelines, and if a natural scientist does not comply with those tariffs in practising his profession, he is violating the provisions of clause 25(1)(c) and he may be found guilty of improper conduct. If it is prescribed here, then he may be found guilty of improper conduct and in that way forfeit his registration as a natural scientist or a natural scientist in training. We therefore feel that the coercive nature of the provision with regard to tariffs is not in fact appropriate for these persons. We feel that the possibly coercive provision with regard to the stipulation of tariffs, should not be made enforceable on natural scientists.

The same applies to the third basic principle in clause 7, viz. work reservation. This provision is stated in even stronger terms in the Bill and is made even more enforceable than the determining of tariffs. It is very clear that if that work reservation is determined by the council, laid down by the Minister by way of regulation in terms of clause 7(1)(m) and clause 7(3)(c), and if a natural scientist does not comply with that work reservation—in other words, if he performs work which is reserved for another natural scientist—then he is guilty of improper conduct and he would also be jeopardizing his registration as a natural scientist. Basically, from the nature of the work of the natural scientist, we feel very strongly that this coercive provision should not be included in a law; that, in the first instance, it is better in this situation that the sound judgment of the natural scientists be trusted, and secondly, that the council has enough muscle in terms of its supervisory capacity—which, if I understand the function of this Bill correctly, it will indeed have—to ensure that natural scientists adhere in general to the ethic principles which the council wishes to lay down as a basis for its recommendations to the Minister.

Thirdly, we feel that these matters should to a large extent be left to the private initiative of natural scientists themselves. In fact we believe that the State should concern itself as little as possible with the regulation of the kind of services which these people have to render, the professional services which these people render, and that the State should concern itself as little as possible with the kind of work which a natural scientist has to do. We therefore feel that it is essential that we do not retain clause 7(3) in this form. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the hon. member Prof. Olivier, but as I have said before, it is not clear to me why the PFP now wish to draw a distinction between the work reserved for natural scientists in terms of this legislation, and identical provisions in the Professional Engineers’ Act. I have the Professional Engineers’ Act of 1968 here before me, and the provisions of section 7(3) of that Act is identical, except that “professional engineer” is referred to and not “natural scientist”.

If one reads clause 7(3) of this Bill, then one sees that it provides, inter alia, that the Minister, after consideration and approval of any relevant recommendation made by the council, may do certain things. Therefore the Minister may only act after he has received certain recommendations from the council. He cannot initiate steps. Secondly, the Minister may not amend any proposals or recommendations of the council. This is very important. The way we see the position is that the Minister is responsible to this Parliament. He has representation in this Parliament and if he promulgates regulations, which is merely a subordinate form of legislation, then he should account to Parliament for this and he should be held so accountable, while a council may take all these decisions and merely publish them in the Gazette. In that case I cannot see how Parliament is to retain its control in this regard.

At this stage, I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (g) to determine the remuneration and allowances payable from the funds of the council to members of the council or their alternates or to members of a committee of the council or their alternates or to members of the education advisory committee or their alternates: Provided that the allowances payable to such member or his alternate who is in the full-time service of the State in respect of travel and subsistence expenses incurred by him in connection with the business of the council shall be determined by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance: Provided further that, except on the recommendation of the Commission for Administration, such allowances shall not exceed those payable to such a person in respect of his employment in the service of the State;

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

1. (1) On page 11, in lines 29 and 30, to omit “or the education advisory committee”;
2. (2) on page 13, in line 17, to omit “recommend to the Minister” and to substitute “define”;
3. (3) on page 13, in line 22, to omit “submit a recommendation thereon to the Minister” and to substitute:
   • grant the application of any such association which complies with the requirements
4. (4) on page 13, in line 23, to omit “to the Minister”;
5. (5) on page 13, in line 28, to omit “recommend to the Minister” and to substitute “determine”;
6. (6) on page 13, in lines 31 and 32, to omit “shall be reserved for natural scientists” and to substitute:
   • in its opinion should be performed by any particular branch of the natural sciences
7. (7) on page 15, in lines 3 to 19, to omit subsection (3);
8. (8) on page 15, in lines 20 to 32, to omit subsection (4) and to substitute:
   1. (4) All definitions, recommendations and determinations made by the council under subsection (1)(l), (m) or (n) shall be published in the Gazette for general information.
9. (9) on page 15, in line 33, to omit “(3)(c)” and to substitute “(1)(n)”;
10. (10) on page 15, in lines 38 to 42, to omit subsection (6) and to substitute:
    1. (6) Any provision, definition, recommendation or determination made by the council under subsection (1)(1), (m) or (n) shall be advisory only.

In reply to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I must point out that Parliament has so far not interfered with the kind of private work which natural scientists do. Nor can I see any reason why Parliament—i.e. if it is Parliament which is concerned here—should now become involved in the kind of work of natural scientists. I can see no legal justification for this.

The amendments which I moved, are all concerned with this principle. Consequently I do not have to repeat what I said in this regard previously.

However, there is one point which I do wish to refer to now. This concerns my tenth amendment in which I suggest that the stipulations made by the council concerning (a) the requirements for recognition of natural science societies, (b) tariffs, and (c) the kind of work which may be done by a specific discipline or by persons employed in a specific discipline, should be published in the Gazette for general information, so that the public, the employers and the natural scientists may take note that these are the general guidelines—if I may use the word “guidelines”—which are laid down by the Council for Natural Scientists.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to motivate further the amendment which I move. What this amendment amounts to is that clause 7(1)(g) is being replaced. It deals with the remuneration and allowances which are payable to members when they attend meetings of the council, or committees of the council, as well as the compensation which is payable to public servants.

In this clause, as it appears in the Bill, no provision is being made for alternates. If an alternate for a member should for example have to go from Cape Town to Johannesburg for a meeting of the council, no compensatory fees may be paid to him in terms of this clause. My amendment therefore makes provision that such moneys be paid to an alternate.

I have also looked at an identical clause in the Standards Bill which we passed during the course of this session. I am referring to Act 28 of 1982, and specifically to section 5(7). In this section the general principle is very clearly stated that only travelling and hotel allowances are payable to public servants. The fact that a public servant has representation on such a council does not entitle him to any additional emolument over and above the remuneration which he receives as an official of the State. Therefore my amendment is merely aimed at spelling this out very clearly in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate matters, I wish to point out that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria East is acceptable. I do not intend debating them as in my opinion, they are valid. I think that the hon. members of the Opposition agree with this.

Good.

There is a point I wish to deal with right at the outset. It is the argument of the hon. member Prof. Olivier concerning the question of the provision of a tariff of fees. He concedes that in terms of clause 7(3), the Minister is empowered to prescribe a tariff of fees in consultation with the council. The hon. member says that he concedes the validity of the argument I used the other day, viz. that this is not a coercive provision. It is a permissive provision; in other words, it is a power which is being vested in the Minister. The hon. member now says that he concedes that point, and that this is in fact the case. However, the hon. member referred to clauses 18, 21 and 25. Clause 25 in particular contains the power to make regulations. I want to set the hon. member’s mind at rest at once. One cannot insert a coercive provision by regulation, if the authorizing provision only gives permissive power. The hon. member should read clause 7(3) carefully. This clause provides that in certain circumstances the Minister, after consultation with the council, may prescribe a tariff of fees. This is apparently a power which the Minister has which does not require coercion. He cannot, therefore, have more power in terms of a regulation, than is vested in him by the provisions of the Bill. As a lawyer, I think that the hon. member would agree with me on this. I am not trying to score points now; I merely wish to provide answers to the problems which hon. members foresee. I therefore contend that that objection is unfounded.

I believe that I have furnished the hon. member with an adequate reply in connection with the question of the powers which the Minister has in terms of clause 1 and whether they are coercive or merely permissive. However, the hon. member has raised a further point which I wish to deal with. I refer here to the power of the Minister as opposed to the powers of the council. The amendment of the hon. member is basically aimed at transferring to the council certain powers vested in the Minister in terms of clause 7(3). I do not wish to deal with the details now. The hon. member’s standpoint is that in this legislation the Minister has too much power vis-à-vis the council. [Interjections.]

The first point I wish to make is that the powers to which the hon. member refers are equivalent to the powers already incorporated in existing legislation. The hon. member concedes this. I believe that this aspect was not discussed at that time.

It should have been discussed.

Yes, but it was not. Of course, the question arises as to why it was not discussed, but I do not wish to go into that now. It would have been an ingenious argument on my part, and I wish to avoid that. What is important, however, is that this clause does not give the Minister absolute power in the sense that he may act to initiate or amend. The Minister may only act after an appropriate recommendation concerning a specific subject has been received from the council. The powers of the Minister are therefore qualified in the sense that the institution which takes the initiatory steps, is, in fact, the council. I think that the hon. member will concede that this is a restriction on the power of the Minister. In practice, therefore, this means that the council must first give its approval to a specific recommendation in terms of clause 7(1) before the Minister may become a functionary. I think that the hon. member will concede this. In other words, the Minister may not initiate a matter as mentioned in clause 7(3), nor may he substitute his own recommendation for a relevant recommendation of the council. [Interjections.] This is most certainly the case. The legal advice I called for is to the effect that the Minister may not substitute it. Should the Minister concerned not agree with a relevant recommendation of the council, he must refer it back to the council itself, together with his objections, and the council must consider it. According to my interpretation—and the hon. member will understand that I must confine myself to this—I can only approve an amended recommendation if it comes from the council. This means, therefore, that there must be consensus between the council and the Minister concerned. Therefore I think that the hon. member will see the reasonableness of my standpoint, as we do not wish to be saddled with a surplus of power vested in the Minister. I know that we could argue about this all day, but I do not think that it will get us any further. However, cognizance must be taken of clause 7(3)(c), if the hon. member would refer to it for a moment. It concerns the reservation—and this is important—with regard to the work of natural scientists which is linked to other provisions later in the legislation—therefore it does not stand in isolation—and which is associated with penal sanctions. Here I should like to refer the hon. member to clause 20. Since this is the case, I think that the hon. member would agree with me that it is essential that the Minister, who can be called to account in this Parliament for his decisions in this specific regard, should be granted the authority to exercise his powers by means of regulation. I believe that the hon. member in this specific regard would concede that this is a protective or safety measure which one would not like to leave without further ado in the hands of a council which is not obliged to account to this Parliament. In all reasonableness, my argument is that this power is in fact a safety measure, for the profession as well as for the public, for if hon. members were to refer to Hansard, they would see how often I am called to account here. I think that it is fitting that this should be so. Therefore I wish to ask the hon. member please to agree with me in this regard.

At this stage it can already be stated that I cannot accept the amendments to clause 7(1)(m) and clause 7(3), and I do not say this out of obstinacy. Recommendatory power will be vested in the council, and the Minister, in turn, after consideration and approval of such action, will have the necessary power by means of regulation—i.e. by a subordinate form of legislation—to give effect to the recommendation. I maintain that in the circumstances this is the best we can do in this regard.

I am spending quite a lot of time on this, but if the hon. member does not mind, I should like to deal with all the amendments, as I do not want to keep on arguing these points. I now want to deal with the amendment of the hon. member with regard to clause 7(1)(b). If I understand this correctly, the amendment of the hon. member seeks to deny the council the right to regulate matters of procedure for the committees. Basically, this is what it amounts to.

Education as well.

Yes, wait a minute. I wish to explain this. The council is hereby also being empowered to determine the procedure at meetings of the Education Advisory Committee and other committees of the council, including the way in which minutes of the proceedings of their meetings are to be kept. That is the substantive provision. I listened to the hon. member, but I really cannot understand his objection to the proposals. It is only sound management and administration that the body which has the most power and, as a result, has the responsibility to make recommendations as well, should be able to prescribe to subordinate committees with regard to administrative matters, for the furtherance of uniformity, for instance. I think the hon. member will concede—I want to repeat this point by way of summary—that there is no dispute concerning the fact that the committees and the Education Advisory Committee exercise their powers and perform their functions subordinate to the council itself, and that the council is therefore the controlling body. After all, it is not an unusual phenomenon that for the reasons I have mentioned, the council may prescribe to the committees or the Education Advisory Committee in this regard.

I now come to the next amendment of the hon. member. I have already dealt with clause 7(1)(m) and (n). The amendment to clause 7(1)(n) relates to what I have already said and I cannot accept it. It is essential that the work reserved for natural scientists, should be legally defined. This is basic to the legislation. With all due respect, that legislation has absolutely no right to exist without that provision. I merely wish to point out— the hon. member will remember that I underlined this in my Second Reading speech—that it is precisely the intention that those who are not trained should be prohibited, in the interests of public safety, from undertaking reserved work, except under the guidance, control or supervision of a registered scientist. The hon. member will also recall that I quoted examples of incidents where, as a result of a lack of control, people were harmed and suffered damage. Therefore I would appreciate it if the hon. member would allow me to prevail upon him in this regard.

I have already stated my arguments as far as the other provisions are concerned. By way of summary, I wish to say that for the reasons I have stated, the amendments to this clause are not acceptable. I wish to be reasonable. Could we not give the legislation the opportunity so implemented in practice? After all, we are entering a new field. This legislation, in all fairness, is the product of the Council for Natural Scientists. I can assure the hon. members that no provision in this legislation comes from the Minister.

I accept that.

I therefore wish to propose that in the final instance, the success or shortcomings of the legislation should be identified in the process of its implementation. I shall not hesitate in the least to submit further legislation, should I be of the opinion that this legislation is not functioning properly, or that it suffers from deficiencies. In this spirit, I wish to say to the hon. member that I am not rejecting his amendments simply for the sake of rejecting them. He may find that I may still accept one of the others at a later stage. However, unfortunately, I cannot accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the hon. member Prof. Olivier, although I understand that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept it. I want to move another amendment as an alternative, which I think the hon. the Minister may accept. I intend moving it in the alternative because it is in fact in conflict with the amendment that the hon. member Prof. Olivier moved. I intend moving this amendment only in the event of the hon. the Minister not accepting the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the hon. the Minister, and I want to say at once that the problem is that there may be a difference in legal interpretations. In terms of clause 7(3) the question arises whether the hon. the Minister does not have an inherent power of his own. The hon. the Minister indicated that according to legal opinion he does not. He may therefore act only on the strength of the recommendations of the council. That is one aspect we were worried about because it is also linked up with the definition in paragraph (c) which is in fact an imperative provision, viz. the kinds of work which have to be carried out. If we do not take this aspect into account, it is not clear whether the hon. the Minister may disregard the council’s recommendations.

Clause 7(3)(c) provides—

The Minister may …

The same applies to the tariff of fees referred to in paragraph (b). The Minister may prescribe the tariff of fees.

He may do so.

Yes, that is correct. So it is concerned with the imperative provisions of the prescriptions with regard to tariffs of fees. In paragraph (b) it is provided that—

The Minister may …

The only possibility that it may serve as a directive then lies in the “may”. It would have been a different matter if “shall” had been used here.

That is correct.

Yes, but now the possibility of other interpretations exists.

That is the interpretation to which I shall adhere.

Unfortunately this hon. the Minister is not the responsible Minister in terms of the legislation.

I am responsible in terms of other legislation.

I shall have to accept it if the hon. the Minister tells me that that will be his approach but this does not necessarily mean that the Minister concerned, i.e. the Prime Minister, will adhere to it. However, in the circumstances I accept the legal opinion which the hon. the Minister has quoted to us in this regard, but I still think it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the council itself and not in the hands of the Minister. I prefer not to withdraw my amendment because it is our firm conviction that matters of this kind should rather be left to those who actually have to deal with them.

The fact that this issue was not discussed in the case of the Professional Engineers Bill could perhaps be used as an example, but it does not really affect the essence of our objection. I appreciate the good spirit in which the hon. the Minister has approached this matter.

Mr. Chairman, as both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria East rightly pointed out, I understand that this legislation and the legislation on engineers, architects and quantity surveyors are of exactly the same purport. Of course one cannot say now that for that reason alone the Bill before us should be accepted. In that respect I support the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

In the first place it is of course a fact that the Professional Engineers’ Act has been in operation since 1968. Furthermore it is an Act which has operated throughout the years according to the very same mechanics as those according to which the piece of legislation before us, too, will operate. Has it so far been necessary for the hon. the Minister to intervene and alter in any way the decisions of the Council of Professional Engineers? I do not think so. So in point of fact the hon. the Minister becomes nothing more than the rubber stamp of a council consisting of people of high calibre. What happens in effect is that we are trying to regulate a council which does not need regulating.

In the second place the hon. the Minister says that we should first give the legislation an opportunity to prove itself. He wants us to wait and see what happens when the legislation is in operation. However, I submit that we have indeed seen what happened in the case of the Professional Engineers’ Act. If the amendments moved by the hon. member Prof. Olivier were to be written as they stand into the Professional Engineers’ Act, I do not think it would have changed the engineers’ profession in any way at all. So we need not give the legislation before us a chance to operate first. Legislation of the same purport has been in operation since 1968. For that reason I submit that we should now start deregulating.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it clear that I, too, appreciate the attitude displayed by the hon. member Prof. Olivier in this regard. Yet I have to tell him—and I am not doing this simply to score another debating point—that the hon. member for Greytown does not in fact support the hon. member Prof. Olivier. His arguments are diametrically opposed to those of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The objection raised by the hon. member Prof. Olivier was that too much power was being placed in the hands of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Greytown, on the other hand, maintained that in practice the Minister was a rubber stamp. If the argument of the hon. member for Greytown is correct, then surely the danger discerned by the hon. member Prof. Olivier disappears.

What is of real importance is that in the event of conflicting decisions being made by the Minister and the council, the final decision by the Minister—in terms of the legislation before us—should in reality be a consensus decision. In terms of the provision contained in clause 7(3) the hon. the Minister simply cannot act in any other way. He has no inherent power to act unilaterally. I should like to put it to the hon. member for Greytown in a spirit of friendliness that he should bear in mind that we are dealing here with the interests of two groups, two general groups. On the one hand there are the professional natural scientists. They have interests which have to be served. On the other hand the interests of the general public also have to be served. Now surely the hon. member will understand that problems may also arise within the council itself. The council functions in terms of majority decisions. If the preponderance of the members making up the council should incline in a particular direction, it may occasionally happen—even if it were by way of exception—that the Minister would have to assume the position of an arbiter. This is all that is stated here.

Therefore I believe that in the circumstances it is fit and proper that the hon. member Prof. Olivier has put his amendments. He has every right to do so. However, he will also understand what my problem is at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this matter has now been dealt with fully and I now move the following amendment—

It might have assisted the hon. the Minister if those precise words appeared like that in the draft Bill that was published in the Government Gazette on 14 November 1980. The position is that in terms of clause 7(1)(n) the council shall have the power to recommend to the Minister what kinds of work he can reserve for natural scientists, excluding teaching and research. I am not dealing with my amendment now. I am just pointing out to the hon. the Minister that the recommendations the council can make exclude teaching and research.

May I just interrupt? The point has already been covered by clause 7(1)(c). So it is superfluous to do it again.

To some extent it does become the same argument that we have been involved in already. As I read the clause, what the Minister can prescribe in terms of clause 7(3) may not be precisely the same as what has been recommended in terms of subsection (1). I think the hon. the Minister made the point a moment ago, as I understood it, that there may be some disagreement in the council and that what is finally prescribed may not be identical to what has been recommended. However, I do not think it will alter the meaning of the clause at all. In fact, those words are precisely the same as those that appeared in the draft Bill. I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister that we have had representations from at least one university. I think there were two, but I know of one of them personally. Those representations were that they were concerned about that matter and while they might recommend that teaching and research be excluded, the Minister, when he prescribes, might not have that exclusion. We therefore ask that that proviso be inserted at the end of subsection (3).

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will just refer to subsection (3) he will see that it states—

do certain things. In other words, the Minister only becomes a functionary once he receives a report or a recommendation from the council. Let us now refer for one moment to clause 7(1), which determines the powers and issues in relation to which the council can make recommendations which the Minister may consider. In this regard one sees that clause 7(1)(n) states—

In other words, the council has no right to make recommendations in regard to teaching or research and, if the council has no inherent rights in this particular regard, equally then the Minister has no right in that regard either. As I have already indicated, the Minister’s right are qualified by the recommendations he receives from the council. This is simply a legal argument and I do not think we need waste time on it. In conclusion therefore I submit that because of the fact that the council does not possess the power in terms of clause 7(1)(n) to make a recommendation on this issue in relation to teaching and to research, the Minister accordingly has no function either because he cannot act on his own.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabour this point. It is, of course, true that the Minister, like an expert witness in a sense, has to be qualified before he acts. He has no function until the council has made certain recommendations. However, I do not think that these provisions indicate that the Minister’s powers are precisely coincident with any recommendation of the council. I do not think that the Minister’s power to prescribe is exactly coincident with the powers of the council to make recommendations. Therefore, the council may recommend that certain work be reserved, excluding teaching and research. However, the Minister is not obliged to give precise effect to that recommendation. All he has to do is to consider and approve. However, as the hon. the Minister himself stated earlier on, there may be exceptions and it is that possibility that we are seeking to eliminate. [Interjections.] Let me put it this way: The hon. the Minister is a lawyer and he knows that a court is always happier when it has a clear definition of something before it. The court does not want to have to imply anything from certain other provisions. I cannot therefore see in what way this Bill will be altered to its detriment if we alter it in this way. It will satisfy the teaching people from the universities who have asked for it because they want to be quite sure that their sphere, which is teaching and research, is excluded. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his decision.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the hon. member, being a lawyer himself, should advise those scientists who are not lawyers that there is no need for them to be concerned. I want to ask the hon. member please to refer to the provisions of clause 7(3)(c). I should just like to establish whether or not the hon. member agrees with me. From these provisions it is quite obvious that the Minister has no inherent power to make a decision on any issue that has not been submitted to him by the council. That is quite clear from these provisions. [Interjections.] No, I am not saying that. I can refuse to approve it. However, I cannot do it of my own accord and on my own initiative, suo modo. I have to have something before me and, if I disagree, I have to refer it back to the council. These matters require a consensus decision. This does not make me a rubber stamp.

It is precisely a rubber stamp.

No, of course it is not, because I can use my persuasive powers with the council as I am trying to do with hon. members in this House today. [Interjections.] I do not think that the hon. member on the other side is a rubber stamp, far from it. I do not think that he considers himself to be a rubber stamp either. However, purely from a legal point of view, the council has no power whatsoever to make a recommendation in relation to teaching and research and, to some extent, my powers are derived from the council’s functions. If they do not have that power then I cannot take that decision—I or any other Minister who is called upon to make that decision.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out briefly that the words appearing between brackets in clause 7(1)(n), viz. “excluding those involving teaching and research” were inserted at the request of the Committee of University Principals. The Joint Council of Scientific Societies has ensured that the objections to the legislation advanced by the Committee of University Principals are accommodated by the insertion of those words.

It seems very strange to me that a university has now gone over the head of the Committee of University Principals to lodge an objection to the legislation with the hon. member for Pinetown.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Pretoria East that the Committee of University Principals has considered the draft Bill presented to it, and that the draft Bill did contain the amendment which the hon. member for Pinetown has now moved. That is why they supported it. Later, several days or weeks ago, when the present Bill was published, they made representations again because that section had been deleted.

Amendment (1) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Dr. T. G. Alant agreed to.

Amendments (2) to (7) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Oliver negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. S. A. Pitman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (8) to (10) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, now that clause 7 has been dealt with, I propose that the rest of the clauses be dealt with in sequence, starting from clause 1.

The correct procedure is that the Committee first has to deal with all the clauses following clause 7 before reverting to the consideration of clauses 1 to 6.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House consider this rather an important clause. As the Bill reads at present, it means that the council can delegate the functions that it normally performs to a committee, but its own jurisdiction to repeal, review, or amend the decisions of such a committee, is not being restricted, except in so far as it has a bearing on the really fundamental matters that are indicated here, that affect the registration of the natural scientist, affect his living, his entire discipline and so on. As the Bill reads now, clause 10(2) provides that the council cannot change those decisions of the committee; the council may mitigate the punishment imposed by the committee only. It really makes no sense to us that these important aspects are being excluded. As far as unimportant aspects are concerned, the council may review, repeal or amend the action of the committee, but with regard to these truly vital aspects the council has forfeited its discretion to differ in essence with the action of the committee. Therefore I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 17, in lines 58 to 69, to omit the proviso;
2. (2) on page 19, after line 15, to add:
   1. (6) Whenever the council has assigned to any such committee the power to determine whether or not any person shall be registered as a natural scientist or as a natural scientist in training, or the power to cancel the registration of any person as a natural scientist or as a natural scientist in training, or the power to inquire into any case of alleged improper conduct and to impose a punishment in respect thereof in accordance with the provisions of section 22, any person aggrieved by a decision of such committee shall have the right to appeal to the full council, and the provisions of section 23 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such an appeal.

When such a committee has exercised these important functions—they affect the entire life of the natural scientist—and someone feels aggrieved about the committee’s decision, the aggrieved person should have the right to appeal to the full council. This seems to me to be a sound principle. It seems to me to be no less than right that with a view to the smooth functioning of the system, the aggrieved person should have the right to appeal, to the full council.

Basically, the hon. member’s motion amounts to the right of appeal being granted to any aggrieved person when it comes to a committee decision and that an aggrieved person should be able to appeal to the full council. Under normal circumstances one would be able to understand the rationale of the hon. member’s argument, but, we must also look at the situation in practice, however. The matters that are at issue here and that are going to come into question and be delegated to the committee in practice, apply to the other professions as well.

In the first place there is the acceptance or turning down applications for registration in terms of clause 8. Secondly there is the disciplinary power of the council with regard to charges of improper conduct made against registered scientists. I think hon. members will agree with me that in practice these are the two most important matters that can be referred to the committee. However, they have been arranged in this way for practical reasons too. In any event a committee is in a much better position to make a final decision on a specific matter than a general council could be. This does not apply to natural scientists only, but goes much further. It also applies to engineers, for instance. I hope the hon. member for Greytown is going to support me this time.

Since the consideration of applications for registration is a comprehensive task, the hon. member will understand that the applications must be dealt with as speedily as possible. It cannot be a long drawn out process, because it affects the professions of people. It is in the interest of the speedy settlement of the applications that it should be entrusted to a subcommittee that can act much more quickly. We have every reason to believe that the natural scientists will follow the same policy as the professional engineers. In the case of the professional engineers, the power to refuse an application is retained by the council. The committee can approve of an application, but only the council can turn down an application. In other words, the registration committee undertakes the necessary investigation and if it finds that an applicant does not comply with all the legal requirements for registration, it makes a recommendation to the full council—I am talking about the position in practice here—which then turns down the application. I believe that the council has to acquaint itself with all the facts and decide whether it accepts the recommendation or whether it is going to refer it back to the registration committee for further investigation. I think the necessity of equipping the council with appeal rights vis-à-vis the registration committee falls away in this case.

There is a specific procedure in connection with investigations into an alleged transgression of the code of conduct, and here I am referring once again to the procedure followed by the South African Council for Professional Engineers. All complaints of improper conduct are referred to the committee in the first instance for preliminary investigation in order to establish whether there is a prima facie case or evidence of a transgression of the code of conduct. If the committee establishes that this is not the case, the matter is settled. However, should the committee reply in the affirmative, i.e. a reply that is detrimental to the person in question with regard to practising his profession, it makes a recommendation to the full council that a full-fledged investigation should be instituted, without mentioning the evidence on which it based its own finding. This system has been in operation since 1968 and as far as I know, there has never been any right of appeal to the council. This is the case because this specific procedure is being followed. In such a case the council then appoints a committee of enquiry to give a hearing to the complaints, and for obvious reasons no member of the committee that dealt with the preliminary investigation, may serve on that committee of enquiry. The case is conducted by a prosecutor, usually an advocate, on behalf of the council and he advises the council on the legal technical aspects of the procedure that may apply for the enquiry in question.

The Bill makes no provision for an appeal against the verdict or for steps to be taken against the committee of enquiry. However, the full council may mitigate the punishment according to its own discretion. Under these circumstances it is an open question whether there should be a right of appeal. No such provision exists in the case of the engineering profession, and I know that the fact that it does not exist does not necessarily make this a valid argument. However, experience has taught us over a period of 14 years that there has not yet been any reason to introduce such a provision in the legislation. To me as a practical person it therefore seems as if it is not necessary in this situation. Under these circumstances the hon. member can therefore understand why the amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. the Minister as a lawyer, but as a lawyer he knows that he cannot argue on the basis of procedures that are followed in a different context. In other words, the fact that it has never happened in the engineering profession, does not serve as a valid argument in connection with the purely legal aspect of this Bill, and that legal aspect is very clear, because the council may grant these powers to a committee. If the committee exercises these powers, the council can play a mitigating role only when it comes to the penalties imposed by the committee. However, it seems so ridiculous to me that the council retains its full authority to do what it wishes with regard to any unimportant recommendation of the committee, but on really vital matters cannot repeal or amend the decisions in question, but can mitigate the penalties only. Under these circumstances I really want to ask the hon. the Minister as a lawyer, to agree with me on this point, because whatever may be found in other legislation, we must keep this type of thing out of this legislation or any future legislation.

Mr. Chairman, surely there are certain remedies for the situation to which the hon. member referred. I concede the legal argument to the hon. member, but there are two measures that have been built in here. If there were illegal irregularities, the aggrieved person could turn to the court. I should like to place this on record. [Interjections.] However, there is a second aspect. If a committee should find him guilty of behaviour that would have obliged him to reach another decision from the viewpoint of the council, i.e. if a committee should act wrongly, in practice the council would be able to withdraw the power that has been granted to the committee, and exercize that power itself. This is inherent in the legislation. If it should happen that these procedures are not followed, in other words should the committee make an arbitrary decision about anyone, the council would be in a position to withdraw the power. The council has the inherent power to withdraw it. The fact that it can delegate it, does not mean that it cannot take it back again.

Now the hon. member says that I should not argue on the basis of the procedure. However, the hon. member will concede that procedures are often very much more constraining than legal provisions. Once again I want to make the offer to the hon. member that, should a situation arise that would cause a committee to act in such a way that the case of aggrieved people would not come to the attention of the council, I shall move an amendment myself. That is all I want to say at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister uses the argument of “in practice”. In this regard there are many other spheres to which one can refer. A city council, for example, is very often given the power to award licences …

A city council does not consist of professional people dealing with their own profession.

No, but we are talking about whether appeals ought to be granted or not. Here we have the situation that the council is totally giving away its powers to a committee. It does not retain any power at all to hear an appeal. As I have said, city councils give committees the power to decide things, but normally they retain the power to hear an appeal. In practice that works very well and in practice it is very necessary. Appeals before councils have often been shown to have been very necessary in regard to decisions taken by a committee.

Let me say what strikes me as anomalous. Why should the council retain the power, in effect, to hear an appeal on a sentence but not on a conviction? That seems anomalous to me. The council retains that power because the provision says it can “mitigate any punishment”. Why should that not apply to the conviction, which is probably even more important than the sentence? This is an anomalous situation.

There is something else that worries me about the council being able to “mitigate any punishment”. How will the council in practice mitigate any punishment when there is no appeal by the person concerned? Does it simply take a decision in the air? Does it do it mero motu? Does the person concerned not appeal and does the council mero motu decide that the sentence is too heavy and that it is going to reduce it? On the hon. the Minister’s argument the council cannot possibly be in as good a position as the committee. That seems to me to be anomalous.

What ought to happen is that the person ought to have a right of appeal. Then the record will go up to the council…

Surely you know the principle of the automatic review of sentence—not of conviction.

Yes, but then there is a proper review of conviction and sentence. That would be very anomalous …

The review is not on the conviction, but only on the sentence.

No, no.

There are many instances of this.

The hon. the Minister is talking about criminal law. In that regard there is an automatic review when the sentence is in excess of four months, but that is not a review of sentence.

But that is the point I am making.

It is not a review of sentence. A judge has the power of review of conviction and sentence. With great respect, Sir, that example makes our point not his. How ridiculous would it be if a judge had automatic review of a case over four months and had to say: “Quite clearly the man is not guilty, but all I have is the power to review his sentence.” That is the anomaly we want to point out. Therefore I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister called on me and said he hoped that I could support him because I would know that this has not been necessary in the case of the Council for Professional Engineers. For that very reason I feel that one can in fact support the amendment. For instance, the council would not be overwhelmed by a large number of these cases for the very reason that they have never had to deal with such cases. Since it is within the profession and the profession wants to protect their people, the committee makes a thorough investigation before anyone is ever struck off the roll or disciplinary steps are taken against anyone. The Council for Professional Engineers has been in existence since 1968 and it has never yet been necessary for anyone to register an appeal against a decision, and that is why we can now suggest that the right of appeal should be introduced in this legislation, so that it is available should it ever be necessary. However, we cannot argue that if we were to do so, the council would suddenly be overwhelmed by appeals and references from the subcommittees. I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

Mr. Chairman, the natural scientists of South Africa undoubtedly appreciate the fact that hon. members are conducting a juridical conversation about them in this House. It is essential that this legislation with all its legal aspects should be passed by the House. I want to point out to the hon. member for Pinetown that the actual aim of this clause is to facilitate the rationalization of these two aspects, i.e. registration and cases where certain crimes are committed. When there is an application for registration and it does not give rise to any problems in terms of the requirements that are laid down, such an application is approved. However, should there be a problem with the application, the application must be referred back to the council. This applies to offences as well. I do not want to become involved in a legal discussion with the hon. member on this, but it is merely aimed at making it easier for the council to refer it to the committee. If there is no problem and no crime has been committed, the matter is settled. If a crime has in fact been committed, the committee must recommend the punishment and then it is automatically referred back to the joint council where it is weighed up once again and may be mitigated if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be fair, but I cannot accept the amendment as it is worded at present. However, I am considering something else at the moment and this is to see whether we could bring about an amendment that would mean that the committee would not have greater powers than the council, because the argument is actually that it is difficult to grant greater powers to a committee than those held by the council itself. I do not want to force through something that could possibly be improved on at a later stage, but on the other hand I do not want to accept anything that I feel is not correct either. I wonder whether I should not propose that we should leave this clause as it reads at present and then deal with the matter by regulation. I cannot accept the amendment as it is worded at present, but perhaps I can include the power by regulation. Once again it is a permissive and not a constraining power. I can prescribe by way of regulation that it should be referred to the council. However, I cannot accept the amendment as it reads at present and I cannot leave the legislation standing over. I do not want to be unreasonable, and if there is a case, I should like to give my consideration to it. If the hon. member agrees, I shall see what I can do in this regard. I undertake to do so by way of regulation. In cases where I cannot do so, I shall come back to this House and amend the section.

Mr. Chairman, further to what has been said here, viz. that the situation in practice is often more constraining than in certain legal provisions, I should just like to refer to the annual report for 1980-’81 of the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers, that we were given yesterday. On page 6 of the annual report we find a paragraph entitled “Oortredings: Professionele Gedragskode”. Here the council reports that during the year under review 11 cases of alleged transgressions of the code of conduct were investigated. Three of them were cases that were standing over from the previous year. In four cases no action was deemed necessary and one of these cases fell outside the current jurisdiction of the Act. In another case the prosecutor failed to pursue the case that he had introduced. Furthermore, it is mentioned that there is still one other case under consideration. In three cases the council, in terms of the Professional Engineers’ Act, convicted those that were charged, and in all three cases the accused were simply warned. The Council for Professional Engineers has discovered that, in the case of the engineering profession, it is very advantageous merely to warn people. Consequently people who are inclined to commit offences or who have transgressed only marginally, are summoned for an “educational talk”, as it is known, by the president of the council, who then points out to the engineer in question what his alleged transgression is. In only two cases were legal proceedings instituted. Therefore, the situation in practice proves that problems of the nature that hon. members of the Opposition are envisaging, do not actually occur.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have found a solution. I believe that I should accept the amendment by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. What the hon. member did, was to remove a specific section of the existing clause. This is the provision that the council may amend the punishment. Although the council cannot set aside a finding, it can amend the punishment. In terms of the regulation clause, the authority to amend punishment can therefore be introduced exactly as it now appears in the hon. member’s amendment. I therefore move that we accept the amendment of the hon. member as it stands, and that the authority to amend punishment, as it appears in the existing clause, be dealt with in terms of the regulations. I am therefore prepared to accept that amendment by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Of course, I must accept both his amendments, because having accepted the first amendment, the second one is merely consequential.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister very much for his accommodating attitude.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

The amendment is actually clear and self-explanatory. What I am trying to achieve here—I do not think it is necessary to conduct a long discussion on it—is that the specific body, the joint council for natural scientists—and a great deal of tribute has been paid to that council here—should nominate the three people itself, and not simply submit a list of names from which the Minister must choose. If we have confidence in the council, we may go ahead and allow the council to nominate its own people. I do not think I need motivate it further. It is in fact self-explanatory.

Mr. Chairman, my problem now lies in the fact that I have to decide who is speaking on behalf of the council. Is it the hon. member Prof. Olivier or is it the council itself?

I now want to assure the hon. member Prof. Olivier that the wording of the clause has been formulated exactly in accordance with the wishes of the council. I find it difficult to ignore the wishes of the council in this regard. I have given the assurance that the existing wording reflects the exact needs of the joint council of natural scientists for the reasons contained in clause 12(1)(e), which reads as follows—

Therefore clause 12 has been specifically worded exactly as the council itself wants it to be worded. The hon. member will therefore understand that without being difficult I prefer it to remain exactly as it is.

I have more confidence in the council than the council evidently has in itself.

Very well. If that is the case, let us accept the standpoint of the council.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have to leave it at that. With the permission of the Committee I therefore withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, since the first amendment that I wanted to move with respect to clause 13, would inevitably cause the deletion of clause 12(1)(a) as well, and since I have already withdrawn the amendment that I moved with regard to clause 12, the first amendment that I wanted to move with regard to clause 13, would not be valid now. I nevertheless want to say that the whole principle has a bearing on clause 12(1)(a). But how does clause 13 read? Clause 13 reads that persons can be appointed to the education advisory committee only if they have been registered as natural scientists or if they qualify for registration. Once again I want to point out that the university is a responsible body. I do not want to put the university in the position where, before it nominates anyone, it must first establish whether the person has been registered as a natural scientist or that he complies with the requirements according to which he may be registered. I feel that the requirement that is being made in this clause, viz. that the person should be registered as a natural scientist in terms of the definition of a natural scientist as contained in clause 1, places an unnecessary restriction on the power granted to the university in terms of clause 12(1)(a). Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to consider my first amendment on the Order Paper in this light, viz—

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment. As the hon. member has worded his amendment, it may happen that that education advisory committee could exist solely of people who are not natural scientists. This could happen. I am not saying it will happen. However, let us look at the position. If the amendment of the hon. member were accepted, it could mean that there will not be a single member serving on the education advisory committee who has been registered or who qualifies for registration. This is what his amendment to clause 13 means, and if my argument is correct, it is obvious that we cannot accept such an amendment. Unless the hon. member can argue that my interpretation is wrong, we will not be able to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect I think that the hon. the Minister’s interpretation is wrong. The provisions of clause 12(1)(a) apply to appointments by the university only. It is very clearly stated there that—

In other words, there is no possibility whatsoever of anyone besides a professor or lecturer in the natural sciences, agriculture or forestry being nominated. Consequently, the statement that the hon. the Minister made, viz. that these scientists cannot be appointed in terms of the provisions of clause 12(1)(a), is not correct.

No, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member’s argument is wrong. I contend that if this amendment is accepted, it could result in the council possibly consisting of people who have not registered or who do not qualify for registration. One must surely bear in mind that the provisions do not yet exist. We do not yet know who qualifies for registration or who does not. The council still has to decide on this. In other words, the situation may arise—I concede it is a theoretical situation—where the education advisory committee may consist of people who have not registered or do not qualify for registration. This is the basic reason why the amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, in theory there could be a professor who has been lecturing a natural science subject for years. The point that I actually want to make, is that before such a person can be appointed, or even recommended by the senate, that senate would first have to establish whether that person was registered as a natural scientist or qualified for registration. It seems to me to be a serious infringement on both the freedom of the senate of a university and the status of the person in question.

At this stage I want to move the second amendment to this clause that is printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, with regard to this matter too, we should not argue about it for long. The term of office of members of the council is laid down at a period of three years. If I understand clause 14(1) correctly, then it means that in every individual case of a person who is appointed to the education advisory committee, the Minister lays down his term of office as a member of that committee. It seems to me to be unnecessary and meaningless and I cannot see why the principle would not apply here that the membership of that committee should automatically be for three years before that member who has been appointed is relieved of the office or whatever the case may be.

I therefore move the amendment to this clause that appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Green Point, as follows—

a period of three years

Mr. Chairman, the rationale that has been submitted to me in this specific regard, is as follows. Other than in the case of councillors who are appointed for a period of three years, a member of the education advisory committee is appointed for a period—as the hon. member says—determined by the Minister on the occasion of such an appointment. The reason for the difference—so I am informed—lies in the fact that the vast majority of the members of the education advisory committee are people who are either in the employ of the State or of a university and that it has been found in practice that the same people are usually renominated when their term of office expires. Since this is the case and in order to eliminate unnecessary work, the provision in question has been left open on the basis of that advice with regard to the term of office of these people and the Minister, acting on the advice of the council itself, may appoint members of the committee for a period longer than three years. This is the rationale behind it. It brings about continuity on the education advisory committee that need not necessarily apply to the council with regard to a body that is continually involved in evaluating qualifications both locally and from universities abroad, because this is a large part of its function, particularly the latter, viz. the evaluation of qualifications that have been received abroad. Special research is required in this sphere in particular and it would be wasting manpower if a member who had already made good progress with the evaluation were to have his term of office terminated. This is the only reason for this provision. There is no other reason for it.

Mr. Chairman, since this clause is consequential upon other clauses that have already been agreed to by the Committee, I shall not move my proposed amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, for the same reason as in the case of clause 15 I do not intend moving the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the legal opinion which the hon. the Minister has quoted here, that he does not have a free jurisdiction to go beyond the recommendations of the council, I do not wish to move the relevant amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before I move the other amendments, I should like to enquire of the hon. the Minister which of them are acceptable to him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Prof. Olivier’s amendment No. 2 on the Order Paper deals with clause 18(2)(c). This paragraph provides for certain minimum periods of suitable experience on the part of natural scientists which are linked to university degrees for registration purposes. There is no objection to the omission of the word “four-year” as regards the bachelor’s degree, as the council is being granted discretionary powers with regard to the examination and the period of experience which are recognized. I therefore accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I do not accept this third amendment, which seeks to amend clause 18(4)(a)(ii). I do not accept it for the reasons I advanced when we were discussing clause 7.

His next amendment also deals with clause 18(4). I have to be consistent. The proposed amendment is consequent upon the one I accepted with regard to clause 18(2), and therefore I have to accept this one as well.

I now come to the hon. member’s amendment dealing with clause 18(14). As I interpret it, this concerns the automatic recognition of certain degrees in the natural sciences which have been attained at universities in South Africa up to the commencement of the legislation. The Joint Council of Scientific Societies does not want to grant such automatic recognition to the holders of three-year bachelor’s degrees. It is, therefore, not an automatic recognition. Provision is made in clause 18(14) for those who have to satisfy the council by way of application that their qualifications comply with the council’s requirements. This has been included in the legislation at the request of the Committee of University Principals, and I can therefore not accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in pursuance of what the hon. the Minister has just said, I move only the following amendments, suitably renumbered—

1. (1) On page 23, in line 2, to omit “four-year”;
2. (2) on page 25, in lines 6 and 7, to omit “Prescribed by the Minister by regulation” and to substitute “determined by the council”;
3. (3) on page 27, in line 29, to omit “four-year”;
4. (4) on page 27, after line 32, to add:
   1. (15) Any determination made by the council in terms of subsection (2) (b) regarding examinations to be passed shall be published in the Gazette for general information.

Amendments (1) and (2) agreed to.

Amendment (3) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (4) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, the majority of my amendments are consequential amendments which follow upon the acceptance of the amendments to clause 7, and because those amendments were not accepted, I shall not move my amendments as printed on the Order Paper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I have withdrawn my amendment to clause 3, all my amendments to this clause fall away.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

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

1. (8) Any person convicted of an offence under this section shall have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Republic of South Africa.

The amendment provides for an appeal. I want to point out that the words “any division of” which appear in my amendment as it stands on the Order Paper, have been deleted from the amendment which I have moved.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this clause, although incorporated in the Professional Engineers Act and other Acts, is a very wide-ranging clause indeed. In it people who are not natural scientists may be fined. It entitles the council to fine people who have nothing to do with natural science. It entitles the council to summon anybody in South Africa from anywhere in the country and it entitles it to interrogate such person. It also entitles the council to oblige such a person to comply with an order for producing documents and all sorts of other things. It also creates a large number of offences that people who are not natural scientists can be charged with. I have no objection to natural scientists regulating their own affairs or to having them summoned before their own council, but certainly not other people. In fact, this clause contains some provisions that not even the Supreme Court of South Africa is entitled to exercise. As far as I know, no Supreme Court in South Africa is entitled to oblige a witness, in a civil matter, “to answer fully and satisfactorily to the best of his knowledge and belief all questions lawfully put to him …”. One can only do that in the case of a criminal matter.

But you are arguing from completely wrong legal premises.

I would be very interested to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say at a later stage about why he thinks I am wrong. As I have said, this clause creates about 20 different offences in regard to somebody who is called as a witness in some inquiry involving natural scientists, and in terms of clause 23(7) such a person could be find. In our law it has always been the principle that one is not liable to be fined or imprisoned unless such fine or imprisonment is imposed by a proper court of law. Yet in terms of the proposed legislation, an entomologist or somebody else could call me as a witness because it might be thought that I have a document or a book in my possession. Then if, when called before that council, I am not prepared to answer all the questions fully, I am guilty of an offence. In a civil court of law or the Supreme Court I can say I am not prepared to answer certain questions because I do not want to, and I do not have to if I do not want to. In a civil case I do not have to, and even the Supreme Court cannot do anything to me. This council, however, can fine me. This measure goes very far indeed. The very least that a witness ought to be able to do is be able to appeal to the Supreme Court in the case of such a fine being imposed.

Mr. Chairman, let me explain the position. I have no argument about the fact that one should be able to appeal against a conviction, for any man who is convicted has the right of appeal to the courts. I need not write that into this clause. The insertion of clause 23(8) is intended to give a person convicted of an offence the right to appeal to the courts. That hon. member will find, however, that the offences he is talking about are created in terms of clause 23(3), (4) and (5) . Firstly this relates to a person failing to comply with the requirements of a summons issued to appear before the council. The hon. member will understand that it could well be that persons other than natural scientists may be called upon to appear before the council. Therefore it is necessary to give the council the right to subpoena those people. Secondly this relates to a person refusing to be put under oath when giving evidence. These offences are created in terms of the subsections I have mentioned, and the right to appeal against the conviction for an offence is an inherent right, and it is therefore unnecessary to make provision for it. If a man is convicted, he has the right to appeal to the courts, but surely when a man is convicted by any …

A magistrate.

No, if he is convicted by the council he has the right of appeal to the courts.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised by the hon. the Minister’s suggestion. Even in a magistrate’s court in South Africa one only has a right to appeal by virtue of the relevant statute, Act 32 of 1944. That is the only right one has, a statutory right. Otherwise one would have no right of appeal to the Supreme Court. It is a statutory right. Now, Sir, where here does it say that one has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against a fine imposed by the Council for Natural Scientists? Just to give an example, I can say that even in the case of the Medical Council—I have one of the cases here—the right of appeal that was given by statute was actually statutorily taken away. It was only a statutory power. Consider the case where a witness refuses to answer any questions and is fined R100. I think it is an extraordinary proposition to suggest that there is an inherent right of appeal. If the hon. the Minister is saying that, in the case of any quasi-judicial body, one has an inherent right of review unless one is specifically statutorily denied one, I can accept it but, as the hon. the Minister knows, a right of review is different to a right of appeal. It is a very much more limited right.

In this case I suggest that a statutory right must be given, particularly because the person concerned will not be one of the contracting parties, as it were. He will not be a natural scientist. Let me put another case to the hon. the Minister. When a student goes to a university, he enters into a contract in the sense that he accepts that, if he commits certain offences at the university, the university is entitled to fine him. Even the SRC can often fine a student. There is however, no right of appeal on that fine to the Supreme Court or to any board. I suggest that in the case of this legislation we must have a right of appeal. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can answer the following question: What does the person do who is fined R100 for refusing to answer a question in Pretoria …

He can go to the Supreme Court. That is the right I want to give him.

But, what would the judges of the Supreme Court say if, I appeared before the Supreme Court coming from the Natural Scientists Council and the judges asked me “By what right do you come here?” and I said the Minister said I could come here? [Interjections.]

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Green Point.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr. Chairman, in view of what was decided earlier in regard to clause 7(3) and (4), I shall not move my amendment, as printed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30:

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to move my amendment, as printed.

Clause agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 1.

Clause 1 (contd.)

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the previous discussion, I do not intend to move the amendment printed in my name. Nor shall I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Green Point.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

1. (1) On page 5, in line 12, to omit all the words after “one” up to and including “sciences,” in line 15;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 17, to omit all the words after “one” up to and including “chemistry,” in line 19;
3. (3) on page 5, in line 22, to omit all the words after “one” up to and including “zoology,” in line 24;
4. (4) on page 5, in line 27, to omit all the words after “one” up to and including “physics,” in line 29;
5. (5) on page 5, in line 32, to omit all the words after “one” up to and including “forestry,” in line 35;
6. (6) on page 5, in line 38, to omit all the words after “one” up to and including “botany,” in line 40;
7. (7) on page 5, in line 43, to omit all the words after “one” up to and including “mathematics,” in lines 45 and 46;
8. (8) on page 5, after line 47, to insert:
   and
   1. (viii) one shall be nominated by the South African Society for Animal Production;
9. (9) on page 5, in lines 53 and 54, to omit “the principal (or rector, as the case may be) of each university” and to substitute:
   • all universities in the Republic
10. (10) on page 5, in line 55, to omit all the words after “be” up to and including “Association” in line 60 and to substitute:
    • a lecturer at a technikon and who shall be nominated by a body representing all technikons in the Republic
11. (11) on page 5, in lines 63 and 64, and on page 7, in lines 1 to 7, to omit paragraph (f) and to substitute:
    1. (f) four persons representing organized commerce, industry and the mining industry, one of whom shall be nominated by the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, one by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, one by the Federated Chamber of Industries and one by the Chamber of Mines; and
12. (12) on page 7, in line 20, to omit all the words after “exist,” up to and including “suitable” in line 22 and to substitute:
    no person shall be appointed in the vacancy concerned
13. (13) on page 7, in line 26, to omit all the words after “notice” up to and including “(1)” in line 29 and to substitute:
    Such vacancy in the council shall remain unfilled

I think that the intention here is very clear. All that we want is that the persons and bodies concerned should do their nominations themselves and that the Minister should not make the appointments. The arguments which the hon. Minister advanced earlier when we were discussing the advisory education committee do not apply here. These are all scientific societies and associations and it seems logical and obvious to me that these societies and associations will make their own appointments to the council and will not in this connection be dependent on the Minister as an intermediary.

As far as amendment (9) is concerned, it is a fact that in the past the Committee of University Principals did not represent all the universities. What I should like to have now is that, whatever body is established, all the universities shall have representation on such a body.

The same applies to my tenth amendment. Mention is in fact being made of a body which could take the place of the body for higher technical education, but I also wish to make it representative of all the technikons in South Africa, i.e. the technikons for Coloureds and Indians as well.

I consider my eleventh amendment to be an important one as well, and I am moving it because we should like to make specific provision in this council for the three categories of persons who are most closely concerned with the employments of natural scientists, viz. organized commerce, organized industry and the Chamber of Mines. We are therefore moving that the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Mines should each be given the right to nominate a member to the council. I think this is a sound principle for in this way the private sector is being directly involved in the legislation.

Amendments Nos. (12) and (13) are in fact self-explanatory. If a body is not interested in nominating a person, or omits to do so, I do not think that such a body should have representation on the council, and consequently I do not think that the Minister should appoint someone to that council on behalf of that body.

The same argument also applies to my thirteenth amendment.

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

1. (1) On page 5, in line 11, to omit “seven” and to substitute “eight”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 42, to omit “and”;
3. (3) on page 5, in line 47, after “Society;” to insert “and”;
4. (4) on page 5, after line 47, to insert:
   1. (viii) one, in respect of whom the Minister shall be satisfied that he represents animal scientists and persons qualified in sciences related to animal science, shall be nominated by the South African Society for Animal Production;

These amendments were placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Prieska, but unfortunately he could not be present.

I am sorry but I cannot accept amendments Nos. (1) to (7) of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Clause 3(1)(a) stipulates the way in which the council is to be constituted and gives powers of nomination to certain natural science societies and associations, enabling them to appoint persons to the council. The hon. member must realize that it is impossible to give every scientific society of this kind the right to nominate a member. That would make the council completely unmanageable. A scientific society with powers of nomination, those specified in this clause, is therefore required to satisfy the Minister that when it recommends a person, such a person represents the scientists of that specific discipline, as well as the practitioners of all the other related sciences, for example earth scientists and people qualified in sciences allied to the earth sciences, namely geo-physicists and others. Within the general definition there are a number of other disciplines, and if I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment, it would mean that we would not be able to do this. The natural scientists themselves insisted on this provision, at the request of their representatives in the constituent scientific societies. Consequently, under these circumstances, I cannot accept the proposed amendment, which is aimed at eliminating this implied consultation with related scientific societies. I trust that the hon. member understands my problem in this connection.

I now come to the hon. member’s amendment in connection with clause 3(1)(c)—this is his ninth amendment—which is concerned with the nomination of three persons who shall be professors or lecturers in the natural sciences, agriculture or forestry at the different universities in the Republic, who shall be nominated by a body representing the principal or rector—as the case may be—of each university. The problem is that at present two such bodies exist. The one is the committee of university principals. The second is the committee of university rectors.

During the formulation of the clause under discussion, it was envisaged that these two bodies should consult one another, and nominate persons for appointment on a basis of consensus. The proposed amendment moved by the hon. member will achieve the same object, but without determining the mechanism or limiting the powers of nomination to the university rectors or principals. I hope that the hon. member is following my argument.

I think that the latter aspect is important. Therefore the amendment in question cannot be accepted.

The next amendment moved by the hon. member was his amendment No. (10), relating to technikons. Because this refers to only one appointment I am in fact able to accept this amendment.

The eleventh amendment of the hon. member Prof. Olivier referred to the nomination of four persons, instead of two, from the private sector I cannot accept this amendment. I shall explain to the hon. member why I cannot accept it. Clause 3(1)(f), as it reads at present, gives two persons who are not natural scientists representation on the council. Before I elucidate this aspect further, I wish to explain the object of this legislation, once again.

These two persons must be selected by the Minister, who makes the appointment, on the basis of their knowledge and experience of public affairs and the industrial requirements of the country, and should on these grounds be eminently suitable to judge in what way the public interests, in so far as the natural sciences are involved, may best be protected or furthered. One of these persons is then selected on the basis of his special knowledge of the law, as it relates to the practice of natural scientists. In his choice, therefore, the Minister will have to keep in mind the need to select persons who are active in the fields of organized commerce, industry and mining. He will not be restricted, however, because he will be able to choose from a broad spectrum of persons. Consequently it is not necessary for four persons to be nominated from this specific category. In any case that would only increase the membership of the council, and that membership is already large. In addition it will also disturb the numerical relationship on the council, a council which is in fact to be established with a view to looking after the interests of natural scientists. The hon. member will therefore understand that on the face of it it is not wise to allow sectional representation on the council. The hon. member now wants me to nominate four persons, representing respectively the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Mines. What about other organizations? For example what about an organization such as Naffcom? On what grounds should Naffcom be excluded? On what grounds should an organization such as Seifsa be excluded? So I could continue and enumerate many other organizations. I could take the argument much further than this. However, I believe that the hon. member will understand that I cannot proceed on this basis.

I come now to the hon. member’s twelfth amendment. Here I must point out that the words of which the hon. member has moved the deletion, were in fact inserted in order to ensure that the scientific disciplines which are represented by the scientific societies concerned, will at all times have representation on the council. I have already explained this. If any of the statutorily recognized scientific societies were to become defunct, and were therefore unable to nominate anyone, the Minister would still be able to select a suitable person for appointment. The fact that a particular scientific society becomes defunct does not necessarily mean that a specific scientific discipline should not have representation. In such a case the Minister will of course first have to consult persons in that scientific discipline before he takes a decision. That is why I cannot accept this proposed amendment of the hon. member.

As for the thirteenth amendment of the hon. member, precisely the same argument which I have just advanced in connection with his twelfth amendment applies.

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of Internal Affairs agreed to.

Amendments (1) to (6) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by the Minister of Internal Affairs agreed to.

Amendment (7) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (3) and (4) moved by the Minister of Internal Affairs agreed to and amendment (8) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier dropped.

Amendment (9) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (10) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier agreed to.

Amendments (11), (12) and (13) moved by Prof. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to point out in advance that I am prepared to accept amendments (1), (2) and (4), amendments printed in the name of the hon. member on the Order Paper. We can debate amendment (3) if the hon. member so wishes, but I am giving an indication at this early stage that I can accept the others. As a result of this I have to accept amendment (5) as well. In other words, amendments (1), (2), (4) and (5) on the Order Paper are acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I move amendments (1), (2), (4) and (5) as printed in my name on the Order Paper and which are now numbered (1), (2), (3) and (4), as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 54, to omit “(d)”;
2. (2) on page 7, in line 57, after “3(1)(c)” to insert “or (d)”;
3. (3) on page 9, in line 12, to omit all the words after the first “conduct” up to and including “council” in line 14;
4. (4) on page 9, in line 39, to omit “(d)”.

I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for being prepared to accept these amendments. I shall therefore not move amendments (3) and (6), as printed on the Order Paper.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the final stage of this Bill which has come through all its previous stages unamended. We wish this Peninsula Technikon well both now and for the future. There is certainly a desperate need for more technicians and more skilled people in the country and anything that is going to assist in that process is to be welcomed.

During the passage of this Bill, during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, we lodged objections in respect of certain aspects of this Bill. We pointed out the fact that we believed that this technikon would fall under the wrong department and that it should fall under the Department of National Education where it belongs and where the majority of people skilled in handling matters of tertiary education are to be found.

We also objected to the fact that it was to be a segregated institution and, because it is a segregated institution and as long as it continues to be a segregated institution, it will carry a stigma whether hon. members opposite like it or not. It will carry a stigma among employers but equally, and possibly more important, it will carry a stigma among members of the Coloured community because it is a segregated institution.

We are going into an era when we will need skilled people on a large scale and at a time when changes in our labour relations practice are enormous. Yet we seem to persist in wishing to have segregated training for people who are going to work in integrated work-places. As far as I am concerned, that is nonsense. It is true that there is often strength in diversity but not when educationally irrelevant criteria have been applied in the training of people. That I certainly do not believe is going to result in any strength through diversity. In addition, handling technikon matters in this way is going to make the life of employers in this country, big and small, more difficult than it need have been. It is also going to make the life of troublemakers in the work-place easier. In fact, a Bill such as this, or the aspect of it concerning racial exclusivity, is going to undermine the good work done by the hon. the Minister of Manpower in trying to effect improvements in the work-place.

At this stage of the discussion of this legislation the key question still remains the one of who it is who wants this racial exclusivity for this technikon. We suggested that it be left to the council of the technikon to decide on the students whom it wished to admit. However, hon. members on that side of the House refused to allow the council to choose whom it was going to admit as students to this institution. Surely they should have confidence in the Coloured people themselves, if they wish to protect their own identity, or if they consider it necessary to refuse admission to pupils of other races to be able to protect that identity and to do so through their council. However, the hon. the Minister will not accept that.

As far as Whites protecting their identity is concerned, they would not be obliged to go to the Peninsula Technikon if it were permitted to admit students of all races at the discretion of its council. They are not going to be forced to go there. So Whites going there, would go of their own free choice and presumably they would not go there with the intention of endangering their identity—if they wanted to retain it. Here we get to the crux of the matter as to where the problem really lies. The problem lies in the paternalistic and narrow-minded arrogance of the NP when it views matters concerning other groups in this country. [Interjections.] So much for separate freedoms and so much for self-determination; we are really back to White “baasskap”, White domination and the White political party that knows what is good enough for everybody.

It is unfortunate that this aspect is in the Bill. We nevertheless congratulate the Peninsula Technikon on its enhanced status and we look forward to the day when the blight of racial discrimination is removed from this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, all the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens really did was to repeat the arguments he advanced during the Second Reading debate. It is really a tragedy that the hon. member began his speech with congratulations to the technikon and devoted the rest of his time to the reasons why the technikon should not exist.

The test does not lie in sanctimonious avowals; the test lies in practice. What the hon. member is advocating applied in the time of his spiritual forefathers.

Nonsense.

It applied in the time of his spiritual forefathers. I am sure brother Kowie will remember that. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had better go and find out what the position was in regard to the content and extent of education under such a dispensation. He would do well to find that out. He must come and tell me where, in the dispensation that he advocates, people in the liberal institutions of which he is the spokesman were promoted to heads of universities, heads of technikons and heads of departments. It is so easy to come and moralize here and advance arguments about the ideal situation …

But that was 40 years ago.

No, it is not 40 years ago.

It is.

That hon. member was somewhere else 40 years ago.

He was digging tunnels at the time.

Yes, and that is quite an important difference.

The fact is simply that it is pointless setting ourselves an ideal that is unrelated to the realities of the country.

In five years time the reality will be Black.

We can discuss what the position is going to be in five years time, but at the moment I am speaking about where we stand today. Where I stand today I say that the standpoint I am adopting is a valid standpoint as far as it affects all the different communities. In contrast the standpoint of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is a chauvinistically small-minded standpoint; our standpoint takes all the communities into consideration.

You say that the Coloureds are immature.

The technical and tertiary education of the population group that will be served by this technikon gained momentum when this party came to power, and therefore its record is such that I need not concern myself with the yapping of others.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in the Estate Agents Act, 1976 (Act 112 of 1976) there is a definition of the concept “estate agent” in which provision is made for the exclusion of an attorney who, on his own account or as a partner in a firm of attorneys or as a member of a professional company of attorneys, performs certain acts in connection with his activities as a practising attorney.

However, after this Act came into force in 1977 there was uncertainty as to the scope of this exemption to attorneys.

In particular, the uncertainty centred around the question whether the actions of employees of an attorney, such as articled clerks, were also exempted from the provisions of the Act, and the question whether or not the fidelity fund for estate agents was liable in respect of the wrongful action, resulting in financial loss to another person, of any of these employees.

During discussions on 10 June 1981 among representatives of the Estate Agents Board, the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa and officials of my department, during which this problem and other matters of common concern were discussed, certain definite principles were agreed on, and at the same time a liaison committee was appointed from the ranks of the Estate Agents Board and the mentioned Association of Law Societies.

The directive to this liaison committee was to work out the technical application of the principles which had been decided on and the amendments of the law which this would require.

Therefore this amending Bill is a direct result of the decisions on principle taken during those discussions, which also concern the Attorneys Act, 1979, the amendment of which will be dealt with by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice.

The amendment contained in clause 1(a) of the amending Bill envisages extending the definition of the concept “estate agent” so as to include those employees of an attorney or professional company of attorneys employed by such an attorney or professional company in a capacity other than that of attorney or articled clerk, whose duties consist wholly or primarily of the selling or letting of immovable property or any interest in immovable property or any business undertaking or negotiates in connection therewith or canvasses or undertakes or offers to canvass a seller or purchaser therefor.

Because there was considerable uncertainty as to whether an articled clerk should be included in the concept of attorney as intended in section 1(iii)(d) of the Act, and accordingly whether such a clerk ought also to enjoy the right of exemption, the parties in question decided that this exemption should indeed be extended to such clerks, and the appropriate amendment in this regard is embodied in clause 1(b) of the amending Bill.

However, this exemption is made subject to the condition, firstly, that an attorney or articled clerk performs the acts I have already described in the course of and in the name of and from the premises of an attorney or professional company.

Secondly, the exemption is subject to the proviso that those acts are not performed in partnership with any person other than a partner in the practice of that attorney or through the medium of or as a director of a company other than such a professional company.

With reference to the question as to which fidelity fund should be liable to a claim in the case of theft by those employees of an attorney who now qualify as estate agents, the parties also decided that such agents should indeed register with the Estate Agents Board and the necessary levy in connection with their registration should be paid to the board, but that their wrongful acts ought to be covered by the attorneys’ fidelity guarantee fund of which their attorney-employer is a member, and that accordingly it would be unnecessary for them to contribute to the fidelity fund for estate agents.

Therefore, because fidelity fund certificates cannot be issued to these estate agents who are employees of attorneys, provision must be made in the Act for the issue of a different document, namely, a registration certificate as proof that such a person is indeed registered as an estate agent with the Estate Agent Board.

†In order to give effect to the recommendations I have just mentioned, which were also verified by the liaison committee, the Act is being amended on the lines set out in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.

Section 27 of the Act sets out the circumstances under which a person is prohibited from obtaining a fidelity fund certificate, and in terms of paragraph (b) of that section this includes any estate agent who, immediately before or on the date of the withdrawal of the fidelity fund certificate of a company, was a director of such a company.

The present usage of the word “immediately” gives rise, in law, to uncertainty about the period that should be taken into account by the Estate Agents Board when refusing a fidelity fund certificate to a person who ceased to be a director of a company prior to the date of withdrawal of the fidelity fund certificate. In order to eliminate the present uncertainty, the words “within a period of six months” are being substituted for the word “immediately” in section 27.

In terms of section 28(3) a court has the power, on good cause being shown, to withdraw a fidelity fund certificate. However, in the past the Estate Agents Board had to contend with the problem of tracing persons against whom the courts had made such orders, but who had fled the country. In these cases the relevant orders could naturally not be served on those estate agents, with the result that the board could not physically obtain the fidelity fund certificates in question. In order to facilitate the task of the Estate Agents Board in this respect, subsection (4) is now being added to section 28 in which the court acquires the power to order that the service on such an estate agent, of any process in connection with an application for withdrawal of that person’s fidelity fund certificate, be effected by the publication of such process in an Afrikaans-language and an English-language newspaper circulating in the district in which the person’s last-known business address, as reflected in the records of the board, is to be found.

Another important matter concerns the powers of inspection of inspectors of the board, as are set out in section 32A of the Act, the section already having been incorporated into the Act by way of an amendment during the 1980 Parliamentary session.

Owing to the problems surrounding the interpretation of the position of these attorneys who also operate as estate agents, professional companies of attorneys and their employees, in regard to the provisions of the Act, and furthermore owing to the reluctance of attorneys to have their trust accounts inspected by inspectors of the Estate Agents Board, the provisions of section 32A were not formally implemented pending a satisfactory solution to this specific problem. As a result of the aforementioned amendments regarding the fact that the Estate Agents Fidelity Fund would henceforth not be covering attorneys, professional companies and their employees, it was further agreed that inspectors of the Estate Agents Board would refrain from exercising their powers in respect of the said persons, or any premises from which an attorney or such a professional company conducts his or its practice, as well as any book, record or document on such premises or in the possession or under the control of any attorney or professional company. In order to achieve this object it is necessary to add subsection (5) to section 32A of the Act.

However, in formulating the present Bill, a technical problem was encountered regarding the amendment of section 32A. It is technically inadvisable to amend a section of an amending Act by which a new section was introduced into the principal Act, especially in a case where that section of the amending Act has not yet been brought into operation. In order to circumvent this problem section 32A, in which subsection (5), which I mentioned earlier, has now been incorporated, is again introduced by way of clause 6 of this Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 contain further technical adjustments as a direct result of the re-introduction of section 32A, namely the withdrawal of clause 12 of the Estate Agents Amendment Act, 1980, as well as a consequential amendment to the short title of that amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious, from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading Speech, that this particular amending Bill has been very well canvassed with various institutions and organizations and that some degree of unanimity has been reached about the amendments appearing before the House today. We in the official Opposition will be supporting this amending Bill. We see no reason why people who work for attorneys, but whose only or principal duty it is to carry out the exact same functions as estate agents normally carry out, should not be brought within the ambit of the legislation. Obviously, this is now done in this amending Bill, and we approve of it and have no problem with it at all.

As far as articled clerks of attorneys are concerned, the fact that they are not brought within the ambit of this Bill is something we also agree with. Obviously, these people are basically employed as articled clerks. They are there to learn the business, the profession of attorney. As such, it would not be wise to bring them within the ambit of the Estate Agents Act.

Also, the provision relative to a registration certificate rather than a fidelity fund certificate does not appear to present any problem. Obviously, attorneys have their own fidelity funds and, as the hon. the Minister said, there is an amendment Bill on the Order Paper in regard to this, which we have looked at, and, looking at the two Bills together, we find no problems in this connection.

I think there is no need for me to go into detail on every one of the remaining provisions. The hon. the Minister has done so. I have one small problem in regard to clause 6. The hon. the Minister has no doubt seen my amendment on the Order Paper, which I will motivate in the Committee Stage. We of the official Opposition will therefore be supporting this amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central supports these amendments. I believe that these amendments will eliminate the existing misunderstanding between the Estate Agents Board and the Association of Law Societies. I am pleased to hear that these two bodies have already met and reached consensus that these amendments will eliminate their problems. The solution is that the attorneys’ clerks who devote themselves mainly to property work will in future have to register with the Estate Agents Board, after which they will fall under the discipline of that board. What is important is that the client will continue to be protected under the Law Societies Fidelity Guarantee Fund.

The Bill also gave the hon. the Minister the opportunity to rewrite section 32 and insert a new section 32A, which will include the Law Societies from inspection by inspectors of the Estate Agents Board. In the past this matter gave rise to friction. I think that this amendment will result in a greater degree of order in the industry as a whole.

While we are dealing with the Estate Agents Bill, I should like to suggest something which the hon. the Minister could consider for the future. Paging through the Act, one finds on every page the terms “agent” and “estate agent”. Personally, I do not like those terms. I think a stigma attaches to them. The old people used to speak about “boereverneukers”. [Interjections.] Sir, I did not want to refer to the attorneys. The estate agent who is worth his salt is really a consultant. He has to advise his client when to buy, how to buy and what to buy, even though he loses his commission in the process. I want to go so far as to say that in fact, the estate agent develops the same kind of relationship as the house doctor and family attorney to his client. I think that when we take another look at the Act at some time in the future, we should perhaps consider deleting the words “agent” and “estate agent” and replacing them by “consultant”. I think that this would emphasize the status of the profession. It would also improve the confidence between client and estate agent.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP support this Bill. The hon. member for Algoa said that this will now clear up a certain amount of uncertainty which existed in the past. I am aware that in the past there was some confusion and a certain amount of misunderstanding, and that in some cases animosity existed between estate agents, for after all this is their field of business, and attorneys who practise as estate agents. For this reason we are pleased that the two institutions concerned, the Estate Agents Board and the Attorneys’ Association have been fit to get together to try to sort out their problems. We in this party believe that this is going to be of benefit not only to those who are active in the selling and letting of property but also to the public. I am led to believe that an individual may go to an estate agent for example, agree to a certain sale and then say that he would like to have the documents checked by his attorney. As a result of this the deal may fall through and then the estate agent discovers a day or two later that the attorney has finalized the sale. I believe that this legislation will sort out some of those problems that existed in the past. The public are definitely going to be protected through the various fidelity funds, and I also regard that as a good provision.

I was interested to see in clause 6 what powers inspectors will have. It states—

and later it stipulates that inspectors shall present their authority should they be asked for it. My mind goes back some years ago to the then member for Berea, Lawrence Wood. He got the nickname of Inspector Wood because whenever legislation of this nature was introduced where provision was made for an inspector, he always moved an amendment, which was never accepted by the Government, that such an inspector should be issued with an authority which he should show to the people whose premises or books he was inspecting, as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the authorities to the public. At that time this suggestion was not accepted, but I think this is the third or fourth Bill in the past year or two that has come before us that has included this provision. So all is not lost on the part of the Opposition. We put forth certain suggestions which eventually are adopted. Unfortunately, maybe a member has to retire from this House before the Government sees fit to accept some of his recommendations. We will be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members of the Opposition for their support of this legislation and for their contributions. It is with sincere gratitude that we take cognizance of the fact that the long-standing dispute between the Association of Law Societies and the Estate Agents Board was able to be resolved in such a satisfactory way. Not only has this problem been satisfactorily resolved with regard to these two organized professions; the legislation protects the client as well. What was not at all clear was specifically which fund accepted liability for the action of an employee of an attorney if he was not registered with the Estate Agents Board. I think that this legislation, and the legislation which my colleague has introduced and will deal with here shortly, now puts this matter beyond doubt.

I believe, too, that this legislation emphasizes the fact once again that the Estate Agents Board does not envisage gaining greater control and expanding in an unbridled fashion so that further access to the industry is made more difficult. As the hon. member for Algoa said, this is merely a rationalization of a very important branch of business. One need only consider the vast amounts in trust funds held by estate agents and the sums of money they handle in connection with rent collections and so on, to realize the responsibility rests upon these people. The professionalizing of the service is aimed at increasing the status of these people and ensuring that high standards will be set. However, the intention is also to protect the client, so that he can rest assured that the estate agent he negotiates with is a person bound to a code of conduct which sets a high standard. If wrongful action is taken, or if the client suffers a loss due to theft, such loss will be covered either by the fidelity fund of the estate agent or the fidelity guarantee fund of the attorneys.

The idea of the hon. member for Algoa that we could take another look at the concept of “agent” on another occasion can probably be given consideration.

With these few words I thank hon. members once again for their contributions and their support of the legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

This is merely an amendment of the Afrikaans text of the Bill. The aim is to word the Afrikaans and English text of the Bill identically.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in the Second Reading, I have a problem with this particular clause in terms of which a new section 32A is being inserted in the principal Act. The proposed new section 32A(1)(b) reads as follows. An inspector may—

1. (iii) to furnish him, at such place and in such manner as he may specify, with such information in respect of that fidelity fund certificate, book, record or other document as he may desire; …

Unfortunately it is true that in this regard we are dealing with human beings, and among human beings we are bound to find a vast variety of characters. There just could be an inspector who specifies totally unreasonable terms for the estate agent. That is the reason why I thought fit to put an amendment on the Order Paper. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I shall be reasonable and accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.