Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment yesterday evening I had been emphasizing the fact that the sources of financing for the Post Office during the present financial year were exceptionally limited. On the other hand, one must also accept that there are certain services which show financial deficits. I then asked the official Opposition whether those sources which showed a deficit should be financed from foreign sources. I asked this question in view of the economic climate and inflationary conditions throughout the world. I am certain that hon. members of the official Opposition will agree that there is a tremendous deficit on the postal services, the money transfer services, etc. I do not wish to quote the figures in this connection now.

Apart from that, the Post Office has performed extremely well during the past financial year. I think the criticism levelled at the Minister during the Third Reading debate was absolutely unjustified. The main speaker on the Post Office in the official Opposition, the hon. member for Hillbrow, knows how many telephones were installed during the past year. However, I wish to refresh his memory a little, and I am doing so with reference to a question which he put in this House. I am certain that he was listening when the reply was given to him. On 8 March he asked how many private and public telephones had been installed during the past year. The reply was a record figure of 3 109 234. There were 29 198 public telephones. Is that not an exceptional achievement?

Let us go back to the year 1980 when mention was also made here of record figures. At the time that hon. member and the Opposition agreed in general and paid tribute to the hon. the Minister for the budget which was then introduced. I am quoting from the budget speech delivered by the hon. the Minister on 18 March 1980 (Vol. 85, col. 2891)—

If we compare the 1980 figures with the figures I have just quoted, I think that the criticism levelled at the hon. the Minister and his department was unfair. A person can juggle with figures, but not with real figures. It has been proved that the Post Office, with limited financing, has rendered an excellent service to the public of South Africa. Yet those hon. members are not prepared to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and the department. They are not prepared to pay tribute to any person in the Post Office who does something for them. Do they begrudge those people a raise? That hon. member referred to trade unions, etc. Does that hon. member approve of the increases, or did he perhaps want to give them a bigger increase? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member wish to give them a bigger increase? [Interjections.] Does that hon. member not wish to reply? It seems to me he does not, for he knows there is no money.

The hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to these interesting estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1983, and to a certain extent expressed their regret at the fact that no reference was made to this during the present debate. I suggest that the hon. member should preferably read them in his office rather than wave them around here in this House.

Reference was also made to the exceptionally fine annual report for the year 1980-’81. Particular reference was made to what the Postmaster-General said. That was fine, and I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Postmaster-General and to top men like Mr. Raath. They are top men who are prepared to render a service, not only to this House, but to the entire Post Office, the whole department. That hon. member saw fit to quote the foreword written by the Postmaster-General, and then to comment that tariffs had been considerably increased, while they should be adjusted gradually. However, did the hon. member read further. Did he perhaps see what was said on page 21 in the general survey of the financial framework? I should like to quote this, because I do not think he read the entire report. I think he only read the foreword by the Postmaster-General and used the abovementioned comment to make an unjustified attack on the hon. the Minister. I quote—

[Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members who wish to converse aloud, should rather go and do so outside, not in this House.

I shall quote further—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is trying to imply in this House that they are “financial wizards”, but why do they not assess this budget on the basis of definite analyses?

When you get to the point, put up your hand!

The hon. member must not sit there talking now. He had his turn to speak. He can rise later and give us an analysis. Does he agree that in respect of all services the ratio of the net profit to the total net assets was only 5% and of the net profit to the operating expenditure 15,7%? The percentage of the capital expenditure financed from internal sources was 60,7%. Let us consider telecommunication services only. The ratio of the net profit to the total net assets was 8,9% and of the net profit to the operating expenditure 27,4%. Do hon. members want the Post Office to go bankrupt? Do they want the Post Office to have to borrow money abroad to subsidize itself? Are they not prepared to come forward with motivated statements to enable the Postmaster General, the Minister and the Post Office staff to be more productive and to render a better service to South Africa? As far as the future is concerned, the key lies not only with the staff, but in the sphere of finances it lies in self-financing. Consequently I feel that I am at liberty to say that these tariff adjustments were essential and sound, and not exorbitant. Consequently I should like to support the Third Reading of this Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Overvaal. He stated his case with utter conviction. It was my privilege to serve with him for several years on the Post Office study committee and I know that he always pleaded and advanced the cause of the Post Office with very great enthusiasm and that he definitely has the interests of the Post Office in South Africa at heart. His view on conditions in the Post Office is unimpeachable, and I have no fault to find with it.

As far is the budget is concerned, the hon. the Minister was unable to act in any other way. We must be realistic about this. Surely it is clear that there are no fairies from Never-never Land or a Father Christmas who, when one does not have any money, will simply give it to you.

Planning does not only apply to the Post Office, it applies to every facet of the Republic of South Africa. We need planning for the Post Office as well. We know that the engineers of the Post Office are always engaged in this, and we thank them very sincerely for doing so.

Since South Africa is growing very rapidly it is necessary, as in all other spheres, to plan a long way ahead for the Post Office as well and ensure that that planning is done very thoroughly and effectively. I know of cases where the planning was unsatisfactory, and of post offices which were planned years ago, long before the present hon. Minister became minister, which are today saddled with the acute problem that they cannot expand horizontally because there is no land available. If they were to expand into the air, i.e. vertically, it would cost an enormous amount of money. We also know that in the case of a public building to which many people come to do business. Often people who are quite old, one must confine one’s services that one renders to the ground floor as far as possible, unless one is quite unable to do so. Various mistakes were made in the past as far as sites were concerned, too, and insufficient land was reserved with a view to the future. This is something we should never lose sight of. When extensions become necessary, one is confronted by the inexorable reality that good and expensive buildings have to be erected. Sometimes buildings have to serve their purpose for at least 50 years. One does not wish to keep on breaking down and rebuilding. No one who works with public money will adopt the policy of sending in a bulldozer to raze a building which was erected a few years ago. This applies to all buildings, including provincial buildings. Nor should one be like a swallow who builds today, and builds again tomorrow, without there being any blueprint. Surely that would be the wrong thing to do, and therefore we know that the time of building swallow’s nests in South Africa is gone for ever. It is very important that ground floors of buildings should be planned in such a way that the elderly and invalids are able to move around freely and visit other people in the building. Parking facilities near to post offices and post office buildings are also very important because some people have to be brought right up to these buildings.

The foundations, too, are very important. It frequently happens that one erects a building, fully confident that future expansion will not be necessary, only to find later, when such expansion does in fact become necessary, that the land surrounding that building is so expensive that one is compelled to expand vertically and that the foundations are not suitable for such expansion. For that reason I think one should bear this in mind. I think that in cases where one cannot proceed to build immediately, one should preferably lease buildings, although I know that there are disadvantages attached to this. Consequently I leave this matter with great confidence in the hands of the very good engineers in the service of the Post Office.

The provision of satisfactory amenities for people of Colour in their residential areas is essential, for a lack of such facilities is one of the main reasons for an inundation of the White areas. In this regard the Post Office cannot be faulted. I can testify to this from my own experience. I recently addressed a request in this connection to the hon. the Minister, and he complied with it. I am very grateful to him for doing so, because it alleviated the pressure on the White post offices. I know that in this respect the Post Office is doing its duty, but nevertheless I wish to request that major expansions be effected in the Black areas. The backlog being experienced in these areas is considerable.

The hon. the Minister discussed the Telebank. I believe that this bank will to a large extent contribute to bringing about an alleviation in this sphere as well. We know that the Black people are to an increasing extent developing an awareness of the need to save. I believe that the Telebank will make a major contribution in this connection. This is a great step forward.

The hon. the Minister told us yesterday about what was still going to be done in this connection, although I do not think that the concept has been finalized yet. What I do know, however,—and I have the utmost confidence that the hon. the Minister and his staff will do their best—is that it will meet a great need. People in the non-White areas will be able to invest their savings at offices in their own areas, without any need to to into town to do so at the White post offices.

The word “Telebank” is also the right one. Colloquially it has a fine ring to it and is easy to remember. A major advantage attached to it is that one can earn interest on money which one has deposited in that bank. It is not an account on which one earns no interest. I believe that it will meet with a very good response.

I know that the Post Office has already been a pioneer in various spheres, and I therefore wish to make an earnest appeal for the necessary pioneering work to be done in the non-White areas as well so as to guarantee that the facilities in the White areas will, as far as possible, remain at our own disposal. I know that this cannot always be regarded as being the sole responsibility of the Post Office because we must be realistic, but to the extent to which we can afford it, we should erect such facilities in the Black areas even though we have to make major sacrifices. This would help a great deal to solve a major problem.

I believe that if the Telebank is expanded—and I know this will be done—other banking institutions and the private sector will soon follow suit.

At present the Black people are very dependent on bus and train transport and taxi services. These are expensive services which cost a great deal of money, money which, as we know, all comes out of the same purse. One can also consider all the fuel which would be saved if these facilities were made available. These are things which are essential. They would, more than anything else, be conducive to sound relations. I have always been prepared to grant the Black people facilities in their residential areas, and in that way protect the facilities of my own people.

Then, I should like to congratulate the Post Office on the fact that they are slowly but surely doing away with enclosed telephone boxes. Enclosed call boxes, as we know them, have not always been used for the purpose for which they were erected. They have also been used for other purposes. Since the new orange telephone booths are now being installed, we are greatly indebted to the Post Office. We feel that this step would contribute a great deal to far less damage being done to Post Office equipment.

I should now like to refer to the staff. During the short period he has occupied this position the new Postmaster-General has already left his mark in South Africa. We also know that the staff who are under his protection accept his guidance. The organization of the Post Office, organization and staff as a whole need never be ashamed of the services they are rendering to South Africa. That is why I know that the hon. the Minister can trust the staff of his department completely without spending any sleepless nights over them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading accused the Opposition of putting forward weak arguments.

And rightly so.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat obviously thinks so too, but I think that there are many in this House who will agree with me when I say that the hon. the Minister’s response to the Second Reading is something that I think he should look at carefully in future years, because every time he reads it he will probably hang his head in shame. I have never heard such pathetic responses in all my life, and I hope that we never have to listen to that sort of thing again.

He tried to make a big issue of my reported remarks concerning mismanagement. I just want to put the record straight for that hon. Minister so that we understand each other and understand each other clearly. Yes, there is mismanagement in the Post Office. Yes, there is a person responsible, and that person is the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. He is responsible, and it is no good him coming here and abrogating his responsibility by telling us that everybody else is responsible when it suits him. He is the Minister, and as long as he is a Minister of State, it is part and parcel of his ministerial function to accept the responsibility of his portfolio. Otherwise there is no place for him in this House and he should not be sitting here. I think he should understand that.

I was intrigued yesterday to hear his tremendous admiration for The Star and Rand Daily Mail. I have never heard anything like it coming from the ministerial benches. I think The Star and the Rand Daily Mail will love him so much after this that they will probably admit him to their kiddies’ clubs. He should apply for membership.

I merely quoted what you said to that paper.

Yes, you quoted me. In addition, there is the Financial Times, which is another paragon of virtue according to the hon. the Minister. Does the hon. the Minister think that The Citizen is a good paper too? Is it also completely honest and is everything it prints absolutely correct? If he believes that, let me tell him what appeared in yesterday morning’s Citizen. An article therein states—

This is The Citizen. They call it a “shock”. They say further—

The article goes on to say—

The article concludes by saying—

Do you agree that this is taxation?

I am just throwing a little quotation back at the hon. the Minister.

It is an uninformed newspaper.

If I may quote the hon. the Minister, he told me yesterday that the newspaper that he had quoted only reported facts. The hon. the Minister must be a little consistent.

Do you know the difference between a report and comment?

I know the difference between a Minister who is prepared to accept responsibility and one who is not. Sitting opposite me is one who will not.

The hon. Minister also spoke about telegrams and told us that if the tariff were increased from 5 cents to 8 cents a word, it would only bring in an additional R5 million. He also told us that if he put on a 50 cents handling charge, it would also bring in an additional R5 million. He went on to say that the R1 handling charge would not affect the ordinary man, but that it would affect businessmen. What arrant nonsense! What a ridiculous argument to put forward and to say that it will not affect the ordinary man. Does the hon. the Minister not know that every single thing that affects business in this country ultimately also affects the man in the street? Whatever happens in the business world is passed on to the man in the street. It is the public who pays. Yet the hon. the Minister glibly says it will not affect the public. I submit that the ultimate effect must be felt by the man in the street and that this handling charge is going to be the deathknell of the telegraph service.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that The Cape Times, The Natal Mercury as well as the Rand Daily Mail—from which the hon. the Minister quoted at such length—conducted surveys in which they sent each other telegrams and also sent telegrams to various people. The survey showed amazing results. In one instance it took 5,5 hours for a telegram to reach a person in Umbilo—the constituency represented by one of my colleagues—from the post office which is situated only 100 metres away. There were also instances where it took 23 hours for telegrams to be delivered between Johannesburg and the post offices of Bellevue and Craighall in the Johannesburg area. The hon. member for Overvaal—I will come to him later about his Soweto nonsense—should listen to this: A telegram sent from Johannesburg to Soweto two days ago has still not arrived at its destination!

The hon. the Minister attacked me for producing an envelope to demonstrate the sort of thing which was happening in respect of certified mail. He asked how I could talk such rubbish by producing one envelope—as I do each year—out of, according to him, 2 billion mail pieces. That is an untruth. It is a blatant untruth. If the hon. the Minister had listened he would have heard that I spoke about certified mail.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “blatant untruth”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “blatant”. It is a simple untruth. Here I have the piece of certified mail which I referred to. According to the hon. the Minister’s own report only 6 565 000 certified mail pieces were handled by the Post Office during the year concerned. So please do not come with 2 billion. The hon. the Minister is exaggerating by only 303%—just a slight exaggeration!

I now want to come to the hon. member for Overvaal. I think he put on a great perfomance yesterday. As a matter of fact, I think he and the hon. member for Sandton probably belong to the same repertory company. The only difference is that the hon. member for Sandton is into the heavy stuff, the Shakespearian stuff, while the hon. member for Overvaal is more into the musical comedy and variety. His speech was quite entertaining and good, full of huffs and puffs and good for a giggle. The hon. member suggested that I was suggesting that we want to “slinger” salaries across the floor. He went on to suggest that it was not Parliament’s function to discuss salaries. He asked one of the hon. members of the PFP whether that hon. member would allow that sort of thing to be discussed on his board of directors. What is this Parliament if it is not the taxpayers’ board of directors? What is this Parliament if it is not one of its prime functions to vote the expenditure of moneys of the taxpayer?

There is no tax money involved in this matter.

No, not globular sums.

There is no tax money whatsoever involved here.

The hon. the Minister does not have to reply to every allegation.

I am simply correcting his facts, Sir.

If that is the case, then what is the hon. the Minister doing here then? Is the hon. the Minister trying to tell us that because we asked him to run the Post Office on business lines he has no responsibility to Parliament? As long as the hon. the Minister has responsibility for this department, I believe it is his responsibility to report to Parliament and tell Parliament what amounts of money are involved.

[Inaudible.]

You know, Sir, I thought you asked the hon. the Minister to button up. He should just keep quiet until he has a turn just now.

In the estimates before the House salary scales are given, and therefore the hon. member for Overvaal should not come along with his “slingery” because those scales are here for one to read them. We do not, however, have the salary scales of the people who count, the rank and file of the Post Office. I do not want to know what Jan van Rensburg or George Bartlett earns. I am not concerned with the individual; I want to know—I think it is in the interests of the country to know—what the various grades earn in the Post Office, from the top to the bottom and not just halfway down the scale. I believe that is very important.

Unfortunately my time has run out, but there is much that I should like to talk about in this Third Reading debate. It is with some measure, I should say, of almost reluctance that we have to support the Third Reading, but that is the tradition of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the weather conditions were stormy in Umhlanga last night. Although I am certain that the hon. the Minister will deal with the speech made by the hon. member, there is one thing I want to tell him as far as salaries are concerned. The hon. the Minister was completely correct when he said we did not disclose a single salary scale here because the department was competing with the private sector. Since this was the case, the department must make certain that the private sector does not know what the salary scales for the various grades are, for if it did, it would simply lure our staff away from us again. I think the policy of not disclosing the scales is a very good one. I agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga when he says he wants to be able to see the total costs relating to salary, but we are informed of those amounts. However, it is not necessary for us to debate individual scales in this House.

We on this side of the House, who are being held responsible for orderly administration and progress, cannot afford, in a debate on posts and telecommunications, to make the kind of speech which is made on the opposite side of the House. Yet we cannot afford to look at the budget of the hon. the Minister, the Post Office report and the activities of the department uncritically either. That is why we do not hesitate, when we are afforded opportunities to do so in our study groups and elsewhere, to take up various matters with the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General and to level criticism there. To those of us on this side of the House, our patriotism has always been a guideline which determines that our contributions should only be beneficial to South Africa. It should always be conducive to enhancing the morale of the officials and to nurturing a pride in every South African for his own posts and telecommunications and the related industry which the Post Office has brought into existence in South Africa.

I believe that South Africans will agree that the debate on this side of the House on the budget of the department was constructive, as is always the case. Seen from a financial point of view our speakers succeeded— and I think the hon. member for Overvaal was a brilliant example—in making a critical analysis and demonstrating that the policy of the hon. the Minister of introducing timeous tariff increases was essential, that the expansions of the services kept abreast of the growth in the country’s needs, and that the Post Office was able to finance capital projects to a greater extent. Here and there one finds bottlenecks, but we understand the problems of the Postmaster-General and his people.

We have confidence in their expertise and managerial skills, and we observe that they are applying these to the benefit of the people and States of Southern Africa. In my opinion they are making a material contribution to the constellation of States which is taking shape, and they have to accept joint responsibility for the communications in this part of our subcontinent. Here in the Third Reading debate, where we review the affects of the budget, I think that we should consider the budget against the background of the development of Southern Africa during the next 10 to 20 years. The Government has committed itself to creating a better dispensation for the respective population groups in this region. In order to do so we shall have to postulate a sound economy as a prerequisite. A progressive economy required a modern and highly sophisticated postal and telecommunications system, an efficient system which will help to ensure that the training of our workers, the education of our children, the development of our country, the continued existence of our civilization and the expansion of our trade and industry always takes place at the highest possible growth rate. If stable and continued growth is our objective, it is important that the transportation system, whether it is in the despatch of information or of goods, shall be as efficient and cheap as possible.

The role which Posts and Telecommunications will play in Southern Africa during the next two decades requires that the officials of this department should dedicate themselves assiduously to their task and calling. That is why we must make the best equipment and working conditions available to them. The elucidation furnished by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech, and also in the report of the department, convinced us on this side of the House that the budget will in fact meet the needs to which I have just referred.

It is our honest view that South Africa requires an efficient post and telecommunications service and that our people are prepared to pay for it. However, they expect the department to render the required service to the country. My constituency makes a huge contribution to the progress of the communications industry of South Africa and the progress of our country’s communication system indirectly ensures the welfare of many of my voters and their families. In exactly the same way as my voters benefit, other communities also benefit, throughout South Africa from the progress made by this department.

This budget is a development of the ideals which the NP has set itself and the inhabitants of the country. It is aimed at developing the infrastructure of our communications system so that by the year 1984 our commerce and industry will reap the full benefit of fully automated electronic exchanges and digital telephones, for example, as well as various other electronic telecommunication devices. Since we will still be burdened for a considerable time by a shortage of trained manpower, this budget will help to ensure that the productivity of this department will be tremendously increased in future. It will be possible to transmit far more information and data, in the cheapest possible way, from one point to another in South Africa. The expected maintenance requirements at the new exchanges will be so low, within four years, that at most exchanges, permanent service staff will be something of the past. The service and maintenance of such exchanges will take place over long distances by means of remote control. Trained technicians will be able to isolate and eliminate faults at exchanges and in so doing ensure an uninterrupted service.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

I am sorry time caught up with the hon. member for Boksburg, because he is well informed about the subject he was discussing and he made an exceptional contribution.

†Before I reply to hon. members who took part in the Third Reading debate, I should like to furnish some details to the hon. member for Mooi River in regard to matters he raised during the Second Reading. The hon. member said that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications was advised of the fact that the local inhabitants of a particular village—he did, of course, not mention the name of the village—had no objection whatsoever to their post office being closed on Thursday afternoons. This request was, however, turned down by the department. What was offered instead was the closing of the post office on Saturdays. Although the hon. member did not mention the name of the village in question, I can inform him that the policy of the department in this respect is to consider the closing of small rural post offices for half a day on a particular day of the week in order to enable the staff of that particular post office to visit neighbouring towns in order to dispose of their private business and to do their shopping.

A concession of one afternoon a week is normally granted for this purpose as we do not wish to curtail services to the public on weekdays if it is not absolutely necessary. Secondly, to enable staff to share in the advantages of a five-day working week, the same procedure is followed. In this particular instance post offices are closed on Saturdays, and the hours of attendance of the staff extended over weekdays.

The post office referred to by the hon. member for Mooi River—although he did not mention the name of that particular village—is probably Balgowan. In this case the local community has been requested to give consideration to the closing of the post office on Saturdays as an alternative to the closing of that post office once a month on a Thursday afternoon. The hon. member should realize that we have particular problems throughout the country. When all other post offices are open on weekdays and one particular post office is closed communications become a major problem. It also becomes rather difficult then to make exceptions in respect of certain post offices. If this is not acceptable, however, to the local community, attention will be given to the closing of their post office on one Thursday afternoon a month.

The hon. member also stated that certain promises had been made to those smaller towns in the rural areas. That promise was that they would be afforded postal delivery provided they complied with certain requirements. He pointed out that there were towns that had complied with all the conditions laid down, and yet a postal delivery service had not been introduced there. Once again, of course, the hon. member failed to mention the name of the particular post office or village he was referring to. We did some guessing though, and it appears to me that the town he referred to is Richmond, Natal. My problem with the hon. member for Mooi River is that he tends to generalize. He did exactly the same thing last year when he said that at certain post offices in his constituency mail posted on a Friday afternoon would only be forwarded from those particular post offices on the following Tuesday. I replied to the hon. member afterwards in great detail, pointing out that such a thing could not possibly happen at a single post office in his constituency. That is why I say that the hon. member tends to generalize. If the particular post office to which he refers now is indeed the one at Richmond, Natal, where the postmaster stipulated that certain requirements should be met before street delivery of mail would be introduced, I should point out to the hon. member that the postmaster omitted to mention that the volume of mail should be sufficient to warrant such a delivery service. After the residents of Richmond had complied with the requirements laid down, it was established that the number of articles available for delivery was far too small to justify the expense of employing a postman. That is my reply to the hon. member for Mooi River.

*I want to refer once again to the hon. member for Constantia. Once again he is not present today. However, he raised a very serious matter here. He levelled the accusation that the philately policy of the Post Office contributed towards disturbing relations among the various population groups due to the choice of subjects for special postage stamp issues. He said the following, inter alia (Hansard, 17 March 1982)—

The hon. member said this with reference to his statement that virtually no attention was given, except in the case of commemorative stamps, to any cultural group apart from the Afrikaans group. The hon. member referred specifically to the Voortrekker movement, because that movement had had a commemorative stamp in October last year. However, that hon. member did so little homework that he did not even know that the Scout movement also had a commemorative stamp on 22 February, which was linked to that specific date in the organization’s history. I therefore wish to inform that hon. member that there is no discrimination against any language or cultural group as regards the philately division of my department. Commemorative stamps are issued at the request of certain organizations, and if we do not receive a request from an organization then we are, of course, unable to do anything about it. The policy of not commemorating more occasions as such but rather, selecting themes to which to give attention, stems from the very fact that we are overwhelmed with applications. Therefore, if one accedes to the request of one organization and refuses that of another, there is dissatisfaction. One needs the wisdom of Solomon to make a decision. That is why we have adopted a different policy, which the hon. member is now finding fault with. I do not think I should dwell on this any further in the hon. member’s absence. However, I just want to say that if that hon. member— and I had not thought that such a spirit still lived on in this country—wants to introduce the spirit of lord Milner in this country once again, then he must please do it on some other level than that of the philately service of the Post Office. I say this because the people involved in the various philately clubs in the country and in the philately federation are predominantly English-speaking. I often deal with those people. Last year I opened the big exhibition in Bloemfontein and there I had only the highest praise for the choice of commemorative stamps. The night before last in my own town a great man was honoured. I refer to Gen. Van der Spuy, who reached the age of 90 years. He was one of the founders of the South African Air Force. On that occasion prominent English-speaking people approached me and praised the philately service and the choice of stamps. Why, then, does the hon. member want to re-introduce the spirit of lord Milner here from the previous century? I wish to express my displeasure in this regard.

You are going too far now.

The philately service of our country is highly regarded throughout the world. I think that people who take an interest in philately will strongly condemn that hon. member’s role in this regard.

He did not mean it like that.

Yes, he did not mean it like that.

Of course he did. I should now like to deal with the Third Reading speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow, which was linked to a plea he made in the Committee Stage. He made a plea for the mail-order houses. I told him that certain representations had been received from that organization which we are considering. However, the hon. member made a statement on the basis of certain information and I do not know whether he obtained the information from them. He said that the service which the Post Office rendered them, contributed towards 25% of the postal revenue of the Post Office. I do not know whether the hon. member obtained the figure of 25% from them, but I want to tell him that that cannot be correct. The total revenue of the postal services of the department is R223 million. I think the hon. member calculated 25% of R223 million and arrived at a figure of R56 million. Without going into this matter further, I can tell the hon. member that that cannot be correct, because the hon. member added that the turnover of that mail-order industry is R135 million. How can an organization with a turnover of R135 million pay an amount of R56 million to the Post Office?

They would go bankrupt.

After all, that is totally out of proportion.

I obtained this figure in writing.

I had my department investigate the matter. It is difficult to determine the precise amount, because the COD service is not provided to the mail-order houses alone, but also to individuals. However, over the past year the contribution of the COD service to the revenue of the Post Office amounted to approximately R22 million this year. Therefore I think the hon. member should be a little more careful when he quotes figures.

†Then the hon. member yesterday raised a certain problem a second time. He said he wanted to know why the insurance payable on a registered letter is limited to R4. That is not the insurance, but the fee one has to pay. Then he said that, if the parcel gets lost, one can only be refunded to the extent of R4. That is in the case of an unregistered and uninsured parcel. In the case of an insured parcel and other items the value can be as high as R1 300 and the maximum fee for insurance is R50. I think the hon. member confused …

I was not talking about insurance. I know one can insure articles.

I had better come back to the hon. member. He does not seem to understand what is happening here.

*All that I should still like to say to the hon. member is that I asked him and the hon. members on his side to come forward with proposals if they differ with us as regards tariff increases and our capital programmes. Let them indicate to us what can be pruned or excluded. However, the best the hon. member could do here today was to suggest that we should rather have used the capital we have spent on blocks of flats for our own staff over the past three years, on telecommunications services. We purchased those blocks of flats in problem areas in order to obtain and retain staff there—a problem that he himself complains about. If the Post Office were to be managed in that way, it would collapse. Therefore I cannot debate the matter further with the hon. member.

Then, too, there is another matter raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to which I must refer. I am sorry I did not do so in the Committee Stage. He asked me whether the Telebank would in fact operate like a giro bank. It will not operate in exactly the same way. The proposed Telebank is an electronic system of transferring money. The giro bank, as I understand it, operates according to an obsolete method, a slower method, and is being phased out totally in Europe, where it is known. However, the Telebank will operate according to the EFTS principle, viz. the Electronic Funds Transfer System. With that system one can make transfers in a moment and even transfer deposits. Later this year we shall make a modest start in this regard. We are first going to involve our own staff who have accounts with the Postal Savings Bank, to see how it works. Then, in September, or a little later, we shall throw it open to the general public: We shall begin with 90 of the biggest post offices in the country. Our eventual aim, as I said yesterday, is to involve all financial institutions—commercial banks, building societies and the rest—in this system. It is a simple but also a very rapid service. I am pleased at the hon. member’s interest and I always like to listen to him. I know that he is sincerely interested in the system.

I have already dealt with the contributions of the hon. member for Mooi River and Constantia. Before saying anything in general, I must come back to the hon. members who have taken part in the debate today. The hon. member for Overvaal, who is unable to be present at the moment, made an outstanding contribution yesterday and today on finance. I should like to thank him for that.

The hon. member for Nigel discussed advance planning and referred to problems being experienced today which may be due to incorrect planning in the past. I should like to say to the hon. member that apart from our planning division, the buildings division of the Post Office took over the building work itself on 1 April 1980 and that at present our planning is outstanding, including planning for specific purposes. I have already referred to this. I also wish to say to the hon. member that it would require an enormous capital programme if we ourselves were to build Post Office buildings everywhere. What we do have to build everywhere on our own property, is accommodation for telecommunications services, e.g. exchanges. This we build ourselves. Fortunately, they can now be built far smaller, and the planning we have to do can be done effectively. In the past, when automation was being carried out, we ourselves had to move the old systems into old buildings, but fortunately this is now being phased out. As far as post office buildings themselves are concerned, however, we ourselves cannot continue to make provision everywhere. We, too, have to make use of leased buildings. There are 1 800 post offices in the country, and only 800 of them are in the department’s own buildings. The other are leased buildings which even, at certain places, work very well.

As far as parking is concerned, this—as I said yesterday to one of the other hon. members—is an expensive matter if provided underground. We try to obtain the co-operation of local authorities. In one case we even made some of our land available to the local authorities for development for public parking, where this was to the benefit of the Post Office.

The hon. member referred to facilities for other population groups. I want to say that we are working on this consistently, because it makes sense that when a community grows, services are required. On certain occasions, when representations were made in this regard in this Parliament, the reproach was levelled from the Opposition side that this was racist. That is not true, because a growing community has the right to obtain its own facilities, and the Post Office strives to serve everyone—Black communities, Brown communities and White communities. We try to do this in all respects, as was the case in the hon. member’s constituency. The hon. member is right when he says that for the Black population of the country in particular, Telebank can eventually be of great service. The Black people have confidence in the investment and savings facilities of the Post Office and we should like to keep it that way. They have developed confidence in them and I think that the proposed Telebank will assist a great deal in that regard.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Umhlanga …

On the rocks.

Yes, apparently he was on the rocks when he spoke here this morning. What this is really about is that I exposed the hon. member’s bluff yesterday. He said to a newspaper: “This is another case of mismanagement by a State department.” He then tried to get away from the words he had used in a very self-important way, and came up with the story that I supposedly had the highest praise for the Rand Daily Mail, or whatever newspaper may have reported it. The hon. member does not know the difference between comment and a news report. He must stand up here today and state honestly whether he told that to the Rand Daily Mail or not.

I gave you the answer to that…

You see, Sir, his answer yesterday was “oh, please”. When an hon. member, and what is more, a chief spokesman of a party, does not know the difference between tax and tariffs, and parrots a newspaper like the Citizen—that apparently does not know the difference either—in speaking about taxation, then there is something wrong, because in this debate taxation—belasting—is not at issue. The Post Office does not use a cent of tax money; only money earned from its own services. I referred to this yesterday too, and the hon. member is apparently still unable to understand it. For how long does one have to continue explaining basic concepts such as these to an hon. member who is the chief spokesman of his party? How long does one have to continue speaking about them?

The hon. member came along here and said that the registered envelope was not one out of two billion. He also had another envelope with him yesterday. My objection is that he does not understand my point. I say that the image of the Post Office must be built up, as in the letter I quoted here yesterday, which stated that one could not find such outstanding services anywhere in the world. I admitted yesterday that there were the occasional deficiencies in our postal service. Every year 2 billion articles of mail are dealt with. Is it fair, then, that a prominent member of the House of Assembly should come to Parliament every year with a few envelopes in his hand and speak about bad service? No, Sir, up to now he has never given those envelopes either to me or to the Postmaster-General for investigation.

And he is a frontbencher.

However, there is another side of the story as well. Last year, in the debate on the Post Office Appropriation Bill, the hon. member mentioned how wonderfully the staff of the regional office of my department and others co-operated with organized commerce in his region, with Assocom. About a week ago I attended a parliamentary reception for Assocom and in the course of the evening I spoke to about 12 former presidents and members of the present general management of Assocom, and from the various parts of the country, including the Durban area, they all expressed their praise and said that if a problem cropped up, such as the one which the hon. member is now carrying on about ad nauseam, organized commerce and industry would resolve the matter together with officials of my department. However, the hon. member’s game is to attack the Minister, but in doing so he withholds the information. The things he complained about have not yet been brought to our attention. The hon. member should grow up a little and not behave in that way.

Next year I shall really give you a work-out.

I should now like to say something about tariffs. I had expected there to be comment on tariffs, but there was none. I had hoped that in the course of the debate, suggestions would be made about what should and what should not be reduced. The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about an average increase of 55%. I have had to take the hon. member to task before for adding up percentages in respect of things that cannot be compared, and then, with the aid of his pocket calculator, dividing them to get an average. After all, one cannot work with percentages in that way. If the hon. member tells me that there is a 100% increase in the cost of a call from a public telephone, he omits to say that from the same public telephone the increase is minimal over a distance of further than 800 km. He must estimate how much of the revenue of the Post Office comes from call offices. However, he knows that a person who calls from a call office does not pay rental every month as does the ordinary subscriber to a telephone service.

†Is the hon. member for Hillbrow aware that in some cases tariffs were even reduced in my announcement?

I said so in my speech. I referred to the one item that was reduced.

I am sorry but I did not hear that. Once again, however, I wish to inform the hon. member that as far as postal orders are concerned, there has been a reduction in the tariff up to the amount of R10. For a postal order up to the value of R1 the tariff is still 7 cents, and this will be reduced to 3 cents. This is to the benefit of the small man.

I hope it will also induce you to reduce other tariffs.

For a postal order costing R5, the present tariff is 15 cents, and this will be reduced to 9 cents. This is to the benefit of the ordinary man. It is only at the level of R10 that parity between existing and the new tariffs will be reached.

*Although we went to great lengths in our effort to determine tariffs in accordance with the costs involved in the specific service, this exercise made no impact on the criticism levelled at us. I therefore want to say to the hon. member for Hillbrow that the average increase—and before my time the increases were calculated in the same way—are in terms of their impact on the revenue of the Post Office. The figure is 19,4% and not the 55%the hon. member referred to.

†I now wish to return to the allegation of the hon. member for Hillbrow in January and in this debate that in September last year I painted a rosy picture of the Post Office. What I actually did at the time was that I painted a rosy picture of improvements in and the productivity of the Post Office.

So you do admit that you painted a rosy picture?

But I never painted a rosy picture of the financial position of the Post Office. I quoted to the hon. member yesterday what he had said on the morning prior to the September 1981 debate on the basis of improper information.

*What I said on that occasion was the following (Hansard, Vol. 94, col. 2519)—

But one is never accorded recognition for that. I went on to say—

I then went on to spell out what the losses were and indicated that we were going to strive to reduce them. If that is not a realistic approach—and here I am referring specifically to the year that lies ahead—then what is? Of course, I am not trying to conjure up spectres as to what may happen in 1983-’84. That would be inappropriate. I want to say that in fact it was not I who painted a rosy picture of the financial position; it was the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I also wish to say that I reject with contempt all allegations of mismanagement, however, the hon. member for Umhlanga may embellish them. I reject all such allegations with contempt. The hon. member must point out to me, and spell out clearly, any form of mismanagement and not come here and speak in the uninformed and irresponsible way that he did. I challenge the hon. member to explain his statement in the Rand Daily Mail. [Interjections.]

†In general I wish to say today that it cannot be expected of the Minister to give details of or announce tariff increases more than a year ahead during the debate on a budget for the ensuing year. From what we have heard in the debate, that is what some hon. members expect of me.

*I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition fell into that same trap by using information in the no-confidence debate, information which he had obtained from the hon. member for Hillbrow. In September I referred to the present financial year. Hon. members of the Opposition wanted me to announce tariff increases for the coming year even at that stage.

And two weeks later you announced the tariff increases.

I shall always be prepared to inform the House about the situation, as I have indeed done in the past. I shall also do that in future. We have an arrangement with the National Consultative Committee on Post Office Affairs, representing the private sector, to inform them three months in advance of tariff increases, and I cannot accede to requests to inform them, or for that matter other people, earlier than that. What is now being requested of me in this debate is to do what neither the hon. the Minister of Finance nor the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is required to do. There is also no tax money involved in the budget of the Post Office. I repeated that, but in spite of that some hon. members keep on requesting me to announce price increases long in advance although they do not require the same from the hon. the Minister of Finance or the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs.

Do you not accept responsibility to Parliament?

Of course I do.

*I spelt out the overall financing policy of the Post Office clearly in the course of my budget speech. I think that any hon. member who is interested in this matter ought to make a study of it. This must be done with special reference to the policy on the financing of capital programmes. The proportion of this amount which is financed by the Post Office itself will gradually have to be increased. I am pleased that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout supports me in this regard. It is clear that the hon. member speaks as a businessman. [Time expired.]

I support you, but only under certain circumstances.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the issue which relates to the establishment of businesses by the Small Business Development Corporation and, in particular, the provisions relating to the nature of the shareholding to be held by the Small Business Development Corporation in companies that are established pursuant to the objects of that corporation. The fundamental issue is that, quite obviously, the Small Business Development Corporation is designed to encourage people to establish businesses, to encourage an entrepreneurial spirit in the country and to enable race groups that have not had their share of the capital side of the economy in the past to seek to obtain such a share in the economy. What is taking place, therefore, is that we have this Corporation that can assist in the establishment of businesses. It was never the intention and it cannot be the intention that the Small Business Development Corporation should continue to own these businesses forever. On the contrary, what must obviously be the intention is that once the Corporation has provided the capital and assisted with expertise and once the business is on its feet, the Corporation should move out of that situation either completely or to a very large extent and allow the businessmen to conduct such businesses on their own. As I have understood announcements in regard to the Small Business Development Corporation, that is the way in which I would expect the Corporation to operate.

By means of this amendment to the Group Areas Act, it is now intended that the Small Business Development Corporation should be allowed to establish businesses in areas that are not necessarily the group areas of those particular races or those particular groups. Let me give an example. In terms of these provisions, we are going to encourage the establishment of a business in the central business district of a town, a business that may be run by a coloured person, that that coloured person will have an interest in that business and that this fact will then not fall foul of the Group Areas Act. That I believe is the intention. If it is not the intention, …

Read the proposed new paragraph (b)(iv).

I have read it. I have read the entire Bill and it is quite obvious that the intention is that in respect of areas which are not allocated for a particular race group but which are business or industrial areas or areas in which various types of business activity can be conducted, whether in offices, factories or shops, the Small Business Development Corporation should encourage the establishment of businesses in such areas. In this regard we have the following situation. The proposed new section 1(5) inserted by clause 1 reads, inter alia, as follows—

1. (a) The Small Business Development Corporation, Limited, contemplated in the Small Business Development Act, 1981 …; or
2. (b) a company wherein a controlling interest is held by
   1. (i) the said Corporation;

For the benefit of the hon. the Minister I should also like to quote paragraph (d)(iv) which reads as follows—

shall not, in relation to any immovable property, land or premises in any area to which this Act applies, be considered to be a disqualified person or a disqualified company.

In other words, if a subsidiary of the Small Business Development Corporation sets up a business in the central business district of Cape Town, for example, then, as long as it holds the controlling interest in that company, it is not regarded as a disqualified company and can operate on those premises. If that is so, the question then arises: Where do we go from there? Is it intended that the Small Business Development Corporation should have a permanent controlling interest in such a company or is it intended, as has been announced by the hon. the Prime Minister and elaborated on by other hon. Ministers, that such a business be started and that the Small Business Development Corporation will then in due course move out whereby its controlling interest will turn into a smaller interest or perhaps no interest at all? What does one expect to happen under those circumstances? Does one expect under those circumstances that the coloured people should not move their businesses away? That cannot be the case. Quite obviously, what should be done here is that one can start with a controlling interest, but one must then allow it to be watered down to what may well be a nominal interest or no interest at all. This is fundamental.

It can be said that the Small Business Development Corporation could set up a business inside a residential area of another race group. I am arguing this from the NP’s point of view; not from our policy point of view. I would imagine that the Small Business Corporation will develop its businesses in areas where it would expect the coloured people to remain in those businesses indefinitely; in other words, they would not have a situation where, in accordance with Government policy, they will say that they will let them stay there while they exercise control, but once they do not have control then the coloured businessmen must move out. That would be highly illogical and it is not what one would expect from the kind of expertise that exists and will exist in the Small Business Development Corporation.

The appeal, therefore, that one makes to the hon. the Minister is that the provision that there must be a controlling interest is not a logical provision. One may start off with a controlling interest, but one should not end up with a controlling interest. I therefore move as an amendment—

The effect of the amendment will be that the provision will read—

1. (a) The Small Business Development Corporation, Limited, contemplated in the Small Business Development Act, 1981 (Act No. 112 of 1981); or
2. (b) a company wherein an interest is held by—
   1. (i) the said Corporation;

Somebody may say that that might extend the scope of the Bill; I do not believe it extends the scope of the Bill.

Of course it does.

I think what it does, is that it actually lays down the principle of the Bill. If the hon. the Minister wants to escape this on a technical basis, then he must say so. If he wants to argue it on its merits, then it is another matter, but the hon. the Minister should not say that he wants to raise a point of order because the amendment extends the scope of the Bill and therefore it should be ruled out of order.

I do not intend raising a point of order.

If the hon. the Minister should raise a point of order on that score, it would not be moral. I say (a) it is in order and (b) I do not believe anybody is going to raise such a point of order because I do not think that that kind of immoral act is going to be perpetrated in this House today.

I suggest that we delete those words and appeal to the Government to allow the true intention of the Small Business Development Act to come into being, namely when one allows people to establish a business, when one brings people into it and allows coloured people to be there, and where one starts off with a controlling interest, one allows that interest to be watered down so that the people can eventually own that business and can be the substantial shareholders in it.

Mr. Chairman, with his amendment the hon. member for Yeoville is suggesting that the Small Business Development Corporation should simply become a back door through which the provisions of the Group Areas Act can be overturned. [Interjections.] I simply want to say that if the Government wants to open trading in one way or another, wherever it may be, then we shall do it through the front door of Parliament and we shall bring the matter before the House so that everybody will know exactly what we intend as is in fact the case with the second leg of the Bill in respect of sport establishments.

I do not think we can ask the Small Business Development Corporation that it should abuse the provisions of this legislation or any other in order to circumvent what the Government’s intentions might be. If one wants to see what the intentions of the Small Business Development Corporation are, then one must look at their deeds. By their deeds one can see precisely what they intend to do. One can look at what they are doing in the industrial part of Orlando West where 43 factories will be opened next month. They are approving funds for development of industrial infrastructures and for an hotel at Atlantis, and are anxious to improve participation in under-developed areas. They are, in fact, contemplating further industrial areas in Greater Soweto.

I should like to refer hon. members to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central when the Small Business Development Bill was discussed on October 9, 1981. The hon. member said (Hansard, Vol. 95, col. 6358)—

He says further, and this is very interesting (Hansard, Vol. 95, col. 6360)—

He then goes further and qualifies the statement (Hansard, Vol. 95, col. 6361)—

He continues to say that there are certain restrictions that will have to be removed, and we are in fact discussing those restrictions today.

What we intend to do is therefore quite obvious in view of the actions of the Small Business Development Corporation to date.

I often come into contact with businessmen of colour at a social as well as commercial level in this part of the world and also in other parts of South Africa, and I have not yet heard a Coloured businessman who is conducting a business in a Coloured area expressing the wish that that area should become an open area. Whatever the morality of it is, I think that these people realize that at this moment they still are at a disadvantage commercially. They are not yet in the main stream of the economy in the real sense of the word. I have no argument against bringing them there; and that we must move in that direction.

Do they not want central business areas to be open?

One cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we want the monopoly of trading in our area and then also want to trade in the central business areas. If there is going to be equity, we either have to open all the trading areas, or we must not open any of them.

No.

The fact is that this provision will enable the Small Business Development Corporation to set about doing its work. It has a lot of muscle and is doing important work. It has an authorized capital of R150 million. The private sector has already taken up R28 million of the R75 million, while the rest will be taken up over a period of three or four years. The State has, by way of a contribution of R10 million in cash …

Do you know what the Riekert Commission’s recommendations are?

I know what the Riekert Commission’s recommendations are, but I still do not think we should accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, the principle of making commercial areas or commercial facilities available to Coloureds, Indians and Black people is of course something to which no one can object. It is also essential. Consequently I have made it my task for years to ensure that opportunities were created for these people to become businessmen in their own right, particularly in group areas. As far as I am concerned, the only problem we have in regard to the first section of this clause is that if the Riekert report were to be accepted, certain problems would definitely arise. I am therefore requesting the Government to take into consideration the character and nature of the group areas, together with that of the aforesaid company. The same applies of course to the character of the management of such a company. I believe that this is essential.

As an example of what I mean, I want to refer to the Asiatic Bazaar in Fordsburg. The Government probably spent approximately R50 million on the construction of that Asiatic Bazaar. Fordsburg is at present an established group area. Consequently I now hope that the co-operation will be of such a nature that those who are established in that group area today will not be prejudiced by the Coloured Development Corporation and its actions. If the recommendations of the Riekert report are to be put into operation, I am advocating once again that the character of the area and the administration of the community should be taken into consideration. The remainder of the clause I reject completely because it is aimed at helping to bring about total integration.

What do you mean when you talk about “total integration”?

I shall simply quote it, because it seems to me as though some people cannot understand Afrikaans properly.

Just tell us precisely what it is you are rejecting.

I am referring to the proposed new section 1(6), which reads as follows—

That section, and everything which follows, I reject completely. Moreover, I also reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, because the hon. member states his case as he believes in it. Of course he has every right to do so. However, we in these benches are opposed to that. Of course I am not condemning the hon. member for Yeoville because he stated his case as he believed in it.

There is still one little matter remaining which I should like to raise. I hope that the hon. the Minister will react to it with the same friendly disposition with which I am now putting it to him. The hon. the Minister alleged here that I was sitting next to him when this legislation was discussed by the group. I believe that the hon. the Minister made a bona fide error. That statement of his was not true. I should like him to withdraw it.

Do you mean in the caucus or in the group?

It makes no difference whether it was in the group or in the caucus. I neither participated in the discussion of this clause, nor in the voting on it. I was never present when it was discussed either in the group or in the caucus.

I request the hon. the Minister therefore to withdraw that allegation of his.

Order! I just wish to point out to the hon. member that the matter which he is discussing is not relevant during the Committee Stage. However, the hon. member is welcome to raise this matter again during the Third Reading.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will afford the hon. the Minister an opportunity to reflect on the matter.

As I have already said, we cannot support this clause. We are only prepared to give our support to provisions which are aimed at creating and developing employment and business opportunities for people in their own areas. I wish to let that suffice. As I have already said, we also reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. Our opposition to this clause will definitely be placed on record.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Langlaagte regarding the second half of this clause, but I do not want to debate the matter with him. I just want to focus briefly on certain misconceptions that the reading public, or the general public, may have in connection with the implications of this clause. If there are people outside this House who are under the impression that this clause will lead to the abolition of the Group Areas Act, I just want to tell them that this is not true. If there are people who are under the impression that the coming into effect of this clause will lead to sports federations and local authorities simply being able to open sports meetings to all races, I just want to tell them that this is not true either. It may be that there are people who are going about spreading such rumours or making such statements, but this is a wilful distortion of what this clause in fact envisages. There may be people who see this clause as an indication that the aim or intention of this Government is to impose integration.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that the effect of the Bill can be discussed during the Third Reading debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I am only discussing the possible repercussions of the way in which the clause can be interpreted.

Only the wording is of importance.

The provision reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member not discussing the second clause? [Interjections.]

No. I put clause 1 and that is what is being discussed.

The hon. member must wake up. I just want to repeat what I said. The coming into effect of this clause basically means that the principle of autonomy accepted in the administration of sport, is placed in the hands of those who administer sport. Bona fide sports meetings are administered by those involved with the specific sport, and it is their prerogative to decide who may attend a specific sports meeting, in what capacity that attendance will take place and what the period of attendance will be. It is therefore simply not correct to argue that this clause will lead to general or total throwing open of amenities and is therefore in conflict with the Group Areas Act. In point of fact, the coming into effect of this clause will give the Government a moral basis for its actions. If this clause comes into effect there will be no statutory discrimination—neither in common nor statutory law—prohibiting mixed sports meetings. This gives the Government a moral basis to say that it is not us who are racists, but those persons who draw up and administer the black list.

Mr. Chairman, with the amendment that is before us I believe that the hon. member for Yeoville has improved the intention of the Bill. I believe that, whether we introduce this amendment now or not, at some time in the future the hon. the Minister is going to have to introduce it. It is quite clear that the intention of the Small Business Development Corporation is to get these businesses going and to gradually move them over into the hands of the other race groups until ultimately they can pull out. If one does not have that as an ultimate intention, quite obviously one is going to build a bigger and bigger corporation with more and more ramifications in a wide sphere. I do not think that that is the intention. I imagine that ultimately the intention would be for the corporation to pull out. I therefore believe that the amendment is desirable in that it still at this stage ensures that the development corporation has an interest and, as a consequence, will be able to keep some sort of watching brief on what is going on, while it does allow for greater incentive and greater participation on the part of the community concerned.

If one does not have an amendment such as this, I cannot but feel that in one, two or three years time the hon. the Minister will have to come back to the House with this because at that stage the development corporation will be coming to him and saying: “Look, we want to get out of this, but we cannot; we are stuck with the situation where we have to retain a controlling interest, because otherwise these people will be moved”. I realize that, as was said by the hon. member for Maitland, this may appear to look like a backdoor way of achieving open business areas, but I sincerely do not think that that was the thought motivating the hon. member for Yeoville, although I am aware that it is the policy of his party, as in fact it is of my own, that the business districts should be open to all and sundry on a straight business basis. Nonetheless, I do not think that was the hon. member for Yeoville’s intention. I believe the intention was to make it a more practical proposition and I believe the amendment will have that effect.

The hon. member for Maitland made a statement to the effect that Coloured people do not want to have other people coming into their areas. That may well be so, but on the other hand they persist in making public pronouncements to the effect that they want to remove all aspects of separate development and of privileged treatment for one community. As has been said before, they cannot have it both ways. Is it a good thing for the benefit of few Coloured entrepreneurs, as I rather suspect is the case, to have a bad principle? I believe it would be a bad principle to perpetuate this. So, as regards this amendment, in terms of sheer logic and to save the hon. the Minister future work I would suggest that we do accept it. I forecast here and now that otherwise in a relatively short stretch of time the hon. the Minister himself will be coming forward with some such amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I should like to exchange a few ideas with hon. members regarding that part of the clause to which the hon. member for Langlaagte objected. I want to concentrate particularly on the presence of people at a sports meeting. I refer hon. members to the proposed subsection (6)—

1. (a) for the purpose of attending in some or other capacity a bona fide sports meeting being held there;

What is therefore at issue is the presence of a person. It does not matter whether he is participating in a sport, organizing it or is only the ice-cream vendor; it is his presence which is at issue. Of course spectators are also included in terms of this provision.

I should like to tell hon. members that this is not an easy matter to deal with. I can appreciate the problems the hon. member for Langlaagte foresees in this regard. I believe that he, too, looked at the relevant reports on this matter and that he remembers how, in the light of the problems that were encountered, the former Minister of Sport and Recreation appointed a committee as early as 1979 to investigate the entire matter. I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member for Langlaagte, but he will also remember that when that committee was directed to investigate, representatives of more than 98 different sports practiced in the Republic were present. On that occasion this entire matter was discussed. We have a problem in our country. The reason I stood up to voice my opinion in this connection is that we must not now lead the country to understand that the NP and the National Government favour total integration. We must get away from this idea.

In other words, you are finding this legislation difficult to swallow.

The hon. member for Barberton must realize that I am speaking to hon. members from the heart this morning. In this country we have a problem; a problem arising from the fact that there are not adequate sports facilities for all race groups.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte used to sit on this side of the House, too; we must not disagree with one another on this. We must recognize that there are inadequate sporting facilities for all race groups in this country—this is a fact. It is not easy to vote the necessary funds to make these facilities available. We must not therefore assume and lead the country to believe that this means the opening of all facilities to all races. For my part, I see it as a period of transition. We must impress upon our people that separate sporting facilities will be established for all racial groups. This is a period of transition.

A period of transition to what?

As soon as sports facilities have been established for the other race groups that compare with those of the Whites in the White areas, then surely they will no longer come to our stadiums. They will then no longer come to these stadiums. They will not make use of them. I see this as a period of transition, and this must constantly be borne in mind. I want to refer to a practical example. A specific group—I am referring to the Black Aces—applied to the local authority to make use of the facilities in a White area. Because facilities were available in the Black people’s area, the local authority—and that is its prerogative—decided not to accede to the request.

That is no longer its prerogative.

Do not let us argue about this. Surely hon. members know how the Press exploited this case. However, we are in a period of transition and we must handle it with great responsibility. The official Opposition, particularly the hon. member for Sandton, suggested that we now totally reject separate development in this respect. The hon. member asked that we totally reject it in regard to this matter. He tried to make political capital out of this issue. I do not think this is the debate or the occasion for this. I do not think it promotes good relations in our country. After all, we cannot afford it. I think it is important that we take cognizance of this today. What is indeed important, and what we must take cognizance of, is the control of incidents which may take place as a result of the amendment of the Act. I say “may take place”. A few days ago hon. members saw on television— and also in the newspapers—a man streaking naked, across a sports field in Durban. He was a White man. I think control at such meetings is very important. We must also provide facilities for the other racial groups so that they can relax. There are so many restrictions and all day long those people …

Order! The hon. member is now digressing somewhat. He must confine himself to the clause under discussion.

I should just like to conclude by saying that in this country we have a population explosion. If one looks at the entire situation surrounding sport and recreation—which is also important for the other population groups—and the great number of restrictions and the lack of adequate facilities and in addition, the fact that certain people must not be in certain areas after a certain time of night, there is only one recreation left for them and that is sex. This in turn gives rise to the population explosion.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react specifically to what the hon. member for Witbank had to say. I think the hon. member for Maitland replied adequately to the hon. member for Yeoville, although I shall add something to what he said. As far as the hon. member for Langlaagte is concerned, I think he intends to broach the matter he raised during the Third Reading, at which stage it can be better dealt with.

I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. I have the amendment in front of me and my reply to him is the same as my reply to the hon. member for Sea Point, who also handed me an amendment which he wanted to move. The aim of this amendment is the same as that of the hon. member for Yeoville. At the outset I just want to point out to hon. members that the primary aim of the Small Business Development Corporation is to help people of all races, including Whites, the poorer people who would like to enter the business world but lack sufficient capital, and not, in the first instance, to obtain an interest. I just want to point out that the aid of the Small Business Development Corporation is only to a very minor extent geared to the holding of shares. The Small Business Development Corporation aids not only Coloureds, but Indians, Blacks and Whites as well. This aid is in the form of expert advice given to people in the business world. Financing has a great deal to do with it, in that the Small Business Development Corporation advances money to companies that need development capital to expand further. The corporation supplies this working capital. In a minority of cases the corporation must, however, take a shareholding due to the aid it provides. Usually it is a minority shareholding. The corporation prefers to hold a minority shareholding and let the Coloured, Indian, Black or White owner be the majority shareholder.

The hon. member for Umbilo said that the Small Business Development Corporation will eventually approach me and ask to be allowed to do what the hon. member for Yeoville is asking in his amendment. There will be no need for this sort of request, because at present there are no non-White business undertakings in White areas and, the Small Business Development Corporation will not help to establish any in the future. This would be contrary to clause 1(b)(iv) of the legislation. Let me quote part of the relevant clause—

But surely that is the majority.

The Small Business Development Corporation took over the interests of the former Coloured Development Corporation.

If you are correct, there is no reason for this legislation.

I shall tell the hon. member why there is reason for this legislation. The Small Business Development Corporation was not established to help unqualified people. The idea was to help people to establish undertakings in their own group areas or areas. In this regard the hon. member for Langlaagte is correct. We must protect people to a certain extent. Many business undertakings have made sacrifices to start new undertakings in their own areas.

Then what about the Riekert report?

I shall get to that in a minute. The hon. member wants to enter by the back door while the Riekert report must enter by the front door.

I am entering by the front door.

The Small Business Development Corporation can help a Coloured, Indian or Black man to establish a business undertaking in an industrial area, because industrial areas do not have a group character. The corporation can help people in their own group areas and in industrial areas. The Riekert Commission recommended that certain areas in the central business districts of the larger centres be open to all races. The Government has accepted this in principle. The Government is not in favour of the entire area being opened up, but the White Paper makes it quite clear that people of colour or disqualified people should have access to such business districts. However, over the years we have experienced problems in implementing such a recommendation and as a result the necessary legislation has not yet been drafted. Owing to the problems we have experienced in implementing the legislation, it has been referred to the Strydom Technical Committee so that these problems can be ironed out. The principle has been accepted, and if the Strydom Committee can solve the problems, and if eventually, using all the channels proposed and in consultation with and on the recommendation of the local authorities, such central business districts are established in certain areas with the approval of the Minister after investigations have been carried out, then of course aid can be given to Whites, Coloureds or any other businessmen wanting to establish themselves there. It will then not be necessary to amend the legislation to enable them to do business.

In the interim, in the spirit of what has already been decided and recommended by the Riekert Commission, the department is positively and progressively helping people to gain access to certain acceptable areas. Section 19 areas exist that were originally established with the aim of giving businessmen who had been resettled, the opportunity to do business in an alternative area that was more acceptable, for example in the White business area of the town in question.

The resettlement cases have been dealt with, but we are now using the section 19 areas to give people access to certain business districts. Nowadays many such areas already exist. It therefore depends where the applicant is. If anyone wants to go to a section 19 area now, he can apply to the Small Business Development Corporation for aid to enable him to do business in that area. I shall readily grant such a person a permit.

However, we cannot totally abolish control. Owing to the nature of its work the Small Business Development Corporation cannot place itself in the position of, for example, helping a Black man to establish a business undertaking in Arcadia or Sunnyside in Pretoria, because if it were to do that, it would be acting illegally.

Are you expecting something of the sort?

No, not at all. All I am saying is that I must have control so that if it were to do such a thing I need not allow it. [Interjections.] The Government and the private sector each have a 50% share in the Small Business Development Corporation, but the corporation is run by the private sector. It is not run by the Government; the private sector takes care of its administration. I want to retain control and I shall.

There will not be problems, because we are not intractable in this regard. In addition, I want to tell the hon. member that I will bring this specific matter to the attention of the Strydom Committee, so that when problems arise in this connection, they can advise me.

I want to give the hon. member an example. Let us suppose there is an area in Johannesburg that is not controversial, and an Indian or a Coloured wants to establish a business undertaking in that area, which is not a residential area, but is near other business undertakings or industries. He approaches me and asks: “What do you think of that area? Will you give me a permit to run a business undertaking, for example a cafe, there, because I want to approach the Small Business Development Corporation for aid?” Everything will depend on where that undertaking is and how controversial it is. That man’s application will be considered in the spirit in which we are at present administering section 19 areas. I shall then decide whether or not I shall grant him a permit. Only after I have granted him a permit will he be able to approach the corporation for aid.

This is the spirit in which I regard this entire matter. I think we must be patient and not anticipate what will happen as regards the central business areas. We must wait until the technical committee submits its report, and then people can gain these rights in the proper fashion, without our letting them in by the back door.

Mr. Chairman, I must express some measure of disappointment at the words of the hon. the Minister. Some of what he said is very difficult indeed to understand. In fact, I am quite sure he did not even mean what he said. However, I understand his dilemma and his problem and he is in fact dealing with that dilemma or problem instead of dealing with the legislation. Let me set it out very simply for him. He tells us that he cannot trust the Small Business Development Corporation …

I did not say that.

He did and he cannot get away from that fact. He told us that the shareholding would be 50% to the private sector and 50% to the Government. Why is this? It is because he suddenly imagines that the private sector will act in a proper businesslike and humane manner and so, in addition to having a 50% Government share, he wants a veto besides. That is wearing braces and a belt and it shows very clearly that the private business sector of South Africa, even the private sector that is involved in the activities of the Small Business Development Corporation, is obviously far more advanced in its thinking than hon. members on that side. That is the reality of the matter and that is why the hon. the Minister does not trust them and says that he is not prepared to leave it to them. The reality of the matter is that before the Small Business Development Corporation will establish a business anywhere and assist it and take a controlling interest in it it will obviously have to take the law of the country into account. It may not agree with the law of the country but it has to carry it out. Therefore, to make the suggestion that because there is only 50% Government shareholding, the hon. the Minister needs another authority in order to hold the sword of Damocles over the heads of the business sector of South Africa, is something that is utterly wrong and utterly unacceptable to us. [Interjections.] I cannot understand how he could possibly suggest that.

The second point in regard to which we differ with the party to my immediate left as well as with the hon. the Minister and the members on the Government side is that we consider that the whole concept of the hon. the Minister being the supreme authority in regard to the issuing of permits when in fact they should have the right to do certain things, is something that is utterly unacceptable to us. The proof of this is contained in the second part of these provisions that we are debating. That was a permit provision; that was a provision in terms of which one could do things by permit. These were his very words yesterday. He came along yesterday and he told us that all he was doing was regularizing a practice. He told us that this was formerly done by means of permit and that the Government closed its eyes to this and that it was now allowing this to be done by law.

That is what you say.

That is what is so wrong and that is what is so unacceptable. The hon. the Minister gave the example of the man who cannot establish a little cafe in an area which has no residential aspects and no controversy about it. Such a man cannot approach the Small Business Development Corporation for assistance. He first has to go to the almighty Department of Community Development…

You are completely wrong.

… to get his permit and then he can approach the Corporation.

Leave it to the hon. member for Sea Point. He knows more about it.

No, Sir, that was what the hon. the Minister said and that is what it is all about. [Interjections.] I am dealing with the words used by the hon. the Minister himself. I am not dealing with anything but his words. I know the hon. the Minister may not like the words he used and I can understand that the hon. the Minister would not like what he said. I am sure he does not even believe what he said.

You did not understand what he said.

The hon. the Minister has problems. That is the situation in which we find ourselves.

There is another very fundamental point in regard to which one can only express very great disappointment. Maybe I am naïve but where we have a situation where the Riekert Report has made certain recommendations in regard to the use of the central business districts and the Government has accepted those recommendations in principle, then one would expect those recommendations to be implemented. I would expect them to be implemented because I take the Government at its word. However, as I say, maybe I am naïve and I should not do so. If we accept the Government at its word in regard to the Central business districts and the recommendations of the Riekert Commission, then the hon. the Minister has no alternative but to accept the amendment. That is the reality of the situation.

With great respect, Sir, what are we really arguing about? We are arguing about whether, when the Small Business Development Corporation has an interest in a company, that interest should be a controlling interest or whether it should merely be an interest. What is the difference? If we are going to help a man in his business and allow him to start a business in a particular area— and it will only be a disqualified area—why should we say that we will allow this to take place only if we have 51% of the shares?

What if one has less than 50%?

Sir, the hon. member agrees with me; yet he argues against me, and that is what is so ludicrous about this matter. If one is going to allow a man to establish a business, and one is going to give him assistance through the Small Business Development Corporation, it does not matter whether the Small Business Development Corporation holds 51% or 49%, because the reality is that one is trying to help this man in his business. One is not trying to establish the Small Business Development Corporation as a mighty conglomerate in order to go into business. The reality is therefore that whenever one gives assistance to a business through the Small Business Development Corporation, what one really intends is that the business should eventually belong to the entrepreneur. The clause as it now stands is a hindrance to that unless the amendment is accepted, and that is why we must pursue the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has prematurely rejected the amendment that I have prepared—I have not moved it yet—in an attempt to persuade the hon. the Minister to move away from the hard line taken in this particular clause. Having listened to the hon. the Minister, I do not think one can fail to draw attention to the fact that in the two clauses of the Bill before us there is a fundamental difference in attitude within the Government itself. In the second part of the Bill, which deals with sporting activities—i.e. relatively intimate personal relationships, like bona fide sports, sports meetings, clubs and sport clubs—the Group Areas Act is scrapped. This part of the clause touches upon the intimate inter-relationship of individuals, and in this regard the Group Areas Act is scrapped and White, Black and Brown can together practise sport and club life in any part of South Africa. The Group Areas Act is scrapped in that regard, but when it comes to the question of free enterprise and trading, the hon. the Minister will not even make the small concession to allow the Small Business Development Corporation, in partnership with other people, to trade in the central business districts of South Africa. [Interjections.] In terms of the Government’s policy there is going to be integration in regard to sports and club life. Here the Group Areas Act will be scrapped, but when it comes to the economic life of South Africa, we are going to continue to have apartheid.

I will not react to what the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Witbank and the hon. member for Bellville said. The Third Reading is a more appropriate time to do so, but the whole dilemma, the dichotomy of the NP, is summed up in those three speeches. When it comes to sport and intimate club activities, we can have integration and the Group Areas Act is scrapped, but when it comes to trading, even in consort with the Small Business Development Corporation, apartheid is going to remain in South Africa. This is an unreal situation. The hon. the Minister has rejected the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] In that amendment it is suggested that even if the Small Business Development Corporation is a minority partner, and there is a Black, Coloured or White in a disqualified area, that should still be permitted. In other words, the hon. the Minister rejects the concept of the Small Business Development Corporation being in a minority position vis-à-vis other people.

I want to put a set of circumstances to the hon. the Minister. These relate to the situation when the Small Business Development Corporation starts off in a majority position, in other words when it has a controlling interest, and in due course it wants to sell out to a person who would otherwise be disqualified. Such a business concern has been established, because this clause permits the Small Business Development Corporation, in consort with a person of the wrong race group to operate on a multi-racial basis as long as that person is in the minority position.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I have not changed my mind in the interim. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point either. His amendment and that of the hon. member for Yeoville basically amount to the same thing. The fact of the matter is that what is contemplated here is very simple. If any non-White—a Black man, an Indian, a Coloured or whoever— has the slightest interest in a company, even if he holds a single share in an enormous company, that company must be qualified to operate in a Coloured area or elsewhere. Surely I cannot allow that. As the position stands there are already problems. Unqualified people already have a minority interest in hundreds of business undertakings in South Africa in terms of the nominee system.

If, therefore, I accept this amendment now, I immediately legitimize all those things. I therefore do not think that hon. members should try to bring further pressure to bear on me. I cannot accept it on principle. It is not in line with Government policy.

The hon. member for Umbilo said that the Small Business Development Corporation would eventually be compelled to ask that we accept a similar amendment of the law. I have outlined how the Small Business Development Corporation helps people. However, I just want to point out that the amendment under discussion was in accordance with what the Small Business Development Corporation required. That is what they wanted. They requested that the Act be amended in this way and that this concession be made. It is therefore adequate. I want to emphasize that we are making an exception. This is only a concession to the Small Business Development Corporation to enable it to furnish aid in this way. They are satisfied. This is how they suggested we should accommodate them.

I believe I have done a great deal to accommodate people. However, I cannot take the matter any further.

Mr. Chairman, please record our objection.

Order! It will be recorded.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: On behalf of which party is this objection being recorded, because I am aware of no party in this House other than the NP, the PFP and the NRP.

Order! I accept that it is being done on behalf of the Independent Nationalists in this House.

Is there such a party?

Clause agreed to (Independent Nationalists dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr. Speaker, when we last debated this particular Amendment Bill, I posed a number of questions to the hon. the Minister. I think the hon. the Minister will remember the questions I posed. I should briefly like to refer back to what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, because that forms the gravamen of our reservations regarding this Bill. The hon. the Minister stated that the main reason why this amending legislation was being introduced was in order to facilitate Escom in its function to raise capital which in one way or another it would then make available for the exploitation of coal reserves or for the building of water storage facilities. The question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, in addition to my previous question, is whether he visualizes that Escom, as a corporate body, will go into the benefication of coal, the exploitation and mining of coal and the actual building of storage dams as such. Depending on the hon. the Minister’s reply, this party will have to decide whether it is going to support the Bill at Second Reading or not.

The hon. the Minister emphasized in his Second Reading speech that Escom in a competitive market was able to obtain capital at reduced interest rates as compared with private enterprise. The hon. the Minister did not, however, indicate whether the intention was to allow Escom to go into the building of dams itself or to mine coal. Let me say that, if it is the intention of the hon. the Minister and Escom to allow Escom to go into the mining of coal, which will be an invasion of the terrain of private enterprise, this party will not be able to support this legislation. If, however, the intention is merely to facilitate the raising of capital which will then be provided to private enterprise according to one formula or another, we could possibly see our way clear to support it. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that it is highly doubtful that his hypothesis is correct. Private enterprise in all probability will in most circumstances be in the best position to raise foreign capital, to raise local capital and, in fact, to negotiate low interest rates. We even have our suspicions whether the motivation of the hon. the Minister is correct, viz. that Escom can be more competitive in the capital-raising market than private enterprise.

Lastly, in winding up the contributions of the NRP to the Second Reading debate I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that, even if Escom goes into the capital market on behalf of private enterprise or into the mining operation itself, tariffs will inevitably have to be increased because of that particular input. The hon. the Minister has indicated in his Second Reading speech that he does not foresee any short or medium term increases in electricity tariffs because of this facility being offered to Escom. However, I want to predict that Escom will inevitably have to recover its capital and interest debt from the consumer if it goes into the capital or the mining market. It depends on the hon. the Minister’s reply whether or not we will support this amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, initially I should like to thank those hon. members who have already indicated that they would support the Bill. I have little doubt that, after I have given the necessary explanations, the hon. members of the NRP will also see their way clear to supporting the Bill. May I express a special word of thanks to the hon. member for Rustenburg, who made a constructive contribution during the previous discussion of this Bill to provide a further elucidation from this side of the House.

†The hon. member for Durban North asked why it was necessary to amend section 4 of the principal Act in the way it is being done now. He added that it was well within the powers of Escom to do a number of things. He then quoted section 4(1)(e) of the principal Act, whereby Escom is empowered to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, water rights, rights to coal and rights to property. The reply here is that the Government has just the opposite in mind with this amending legislation, i.e. to empower Escom to stimulate and assist private enterprise by financing the production of basic fuels and water, with the emphasis on fuels, instead of acquiring the right to mine for coal or the right to build dams, etc., and thus to invade the private sector’s domain. There is in fact an important difference between the acquisition of a mine and the financing thereof. It is certainly not the intention—and thus also answers the hon. member’s second question—to get hold of fuel resources or, as the hon. member put it, to go into the coal mining business. This is intended only to ensure that stability in production and supply is maintained at all times by private enterprise. That will be done by rendering financial assistance to producers, and for this two enabling clauses are necessary. Emphasis should be placed on the financing of and not on the objects that are to be financed. With regard to the hon. member’s remark in connection with Escom’s water supply situation, it is the position that although it is already within the powers of Escom to become involved in the building of dams and storage and supply of water, Escom may also deem it necessary to finance private concerns, for instance a mining company where underground water is a problem, to adapt to Escom’s needs. Such joint ventures are certainly not far-fetched, and the necessary provision is therefore made in the Bill should it become necessary to render financial assistance for the storage or supply of water on the basis contemplated in connection with the production and supply of basic fuels.

The hon. member for Durban North, as well as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, uttered a word of warning regarding the possible disturbance of revenue generation by Escom on the external and internal capital markets. They can rest assured that Escom will only assist whenever an investment by Escom will yield an advantage that will benefit the generating cost of electricity and at the same time contribute to a stable supply of raw materials. It may be added that interest rates are normally loaded with the dividends in favour of shareholders. This increased rate is a built-in factor in the coal price which, of course, will be eliminated when private mining companies are financed by Escom, whether it be from internal or external revenue. Consequently there will in fact be a difference in actual construction costs of generating capacity.

Finally with regard to the previous remarks made by these two hon. members, they can rest assured that financing of the capital needs of supply will be done under strict Government control in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance and that the sole object will be to keep generating costs as low as possible against the background of a stable supply position. Whatever the source of the funds may be, it will be used to the best advantage of the electricity consumer.

To allay the fears of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central with regard to the utilization of the capital funds, I want to state that funds from the Capital Development Fund will only be employed should such action prove to be advantageous to Escom in terms of the objectives of this amendment. However, I want to stress that tariffs would never be loaded to generate income for the Capital Development Fund in order to provide such financing as envisaged by this amendment. Furthermore, the terms and nature of such financing—the hon. member referred to short term and bridging finance—will be dictated by the normal healthy business principles and by financing practice. Hence the assurance can be given that the financing of such capital projects, whether it be aimed at bridging or more substantial financing will not result in tariff increases.

*The hon. member for Durban North referred to Escom’s ability, as opposed to that of the private sector, to obtain loans at favourable interest rates. Escom borrows far larger amounts at a time on the capital market, which therefore places it in a better bargaining position. Furthermore, Escom as an institutional borrower is, of course, entitled to State guarantees, which also benefit the security position, and therefore it is indeed true that Escom is often in a better position to bargain for more favourable conditions than the private sector in the raising of loans.

The hon. member again emphasized the question of an increase in the tariffs. The whole philosophy underlying this amendment is that Escom should be empowered to provide financing and that the test which it is going to apply, lies in attaining two goals when it provides such finance. One goal is to ensure that, as a result of a shortage of capital in the development of a new mine for a new power station, delays do not occur which may cause Escom to complete its power station while the supply of coal from the mine is not quite ready yet. A constant flow of fuel must therefore be ensured. Secondly, Escom wants to ensure that coal is obtained at the most favourable price. Hon. members must understand that bargaining for prices occur between Escom and the coal suppliers. If Escom can provide the financing, thereby influencing the cost structure of production positively in its own favour, it is able to obtain the coal cheaper. However, if Escom is not involved in the financing, it is probably going to pay more for its coal owing to the fact that the supplier has to develop his mine with money which he borrowed at high interest rates. In such a case, the supplier is going to charge more for his coal. When Escom does the financing itself, this would not really have a direct effect on tariffs, since what is being added in one case, is being subtracted in another, if I may put it like that. Therefore I wish to assure hon. members that what is involved here is the search for stability and the lowest possible costs to ensure that the development of the feeder mines—this relates particularly to fuel—takes place uniformly with the development of these new giant power stations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. By the nature of it, it is a very complicated question, consisting as it does of three parts. I want to know from the hon. the Minister, firstly, if he can give us an undertaking that Escom will only provide financing assistance to private enterprise and not purchase equity in the mining operations. Secondly, does what the hon. the Minister envisages here not amount to a subsidy on interest on capital for the mining companies? Thirdly, will this mean that Escom will guarantee the loan on behalf of the end user rather than actually providing capital itself? Does it revolve around the guarantee only for the repayment of the loan or will Escom actually borrow the money? Let me repeat the three parts of the question. Firstly, can the hon. the Minister give us the guarantee that Escom will not purchase equity in a mining company? Secondly, does the hon. the Minister not visualize this as being a subsidy on interest? Thirdly, will Escom only provide a guarantee or the actual capital itself?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of shareholding, this matter is not concerned with that. We are dealing here with the provision of financing. If Escom is already entitled to purchase a shareholding, in terms of the Act as it stands, why should we be arguing about this now? This provision has nothing to do with shareholding, with the involvement of Escom, whether as an operator or partner or sole shareholder in the mine. I wish to give the assurance that Escom, as a result of these proposals now before us, is not keen to take part in mining activities and to encroach on the domain of the private sector in this regard. It means that it wishes to enter into a contractual relationship with a person who has coal mining rights in order to purchase coal from that person. In order to fulfil that contract, the owner of the mine has to spend hundreds of millions of rands and he does not always have that amount of money available at exactly the right time. Escom can now assist in financing him if this House passes this Bill.

Financing only?

Financing by means of a loan. This is not concerned with involvement and participation in the mining industry itself.

The second question is: Is this a means of subsidizing? It may be, seen from the point of view of the mine owner, in the sense that he is now paying less interest. However, he is also going to receive a lower price. I therefore do not see it as a subsidy. In any case, Escom has to invest portions of the money it borrows for certain periods. In any case, it needs a turn-round period for its money and it invests in all kinds of places. Why can it not invest on a more advantageous basis where it perhaps receives less interest, but where it may purchase its product cheaper because it obtains less interest? There are so many possible variations. I therefore do not wish to bind Escom in respect of how it should invest that money and on what conditions. The fact remains that the object of the investment is to ensure stability of supply and to influence the price structure so that it can be as cheap as possible.

As far as the third question is concerned, it may be true that Escom would raise a special loan to be able to invest in a specific project. In other cases it may not be necessary depending on the amounts concerned as well as on the cash-flow position of Escom with regard to other expenses and loans it has already raised. To state categorically here what the precise situation will be is not possible. Escom is in a dynamic situation. There are continual complications in regard to its development programme. Depending on tender prices, its cash-flow position may suddenly change. Depending on delays in the delivery of certain plant costing hundreds of millions of rands, a new situation may develop. I therefore do not wish to bind myself in respect of how this may occur. However, hon. member may accept that there is nothing sinister in suddenly allowing Escom to venture into the sphere of the private sector.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The present position is that in terms of section 15(2) of the Magistrate’s Courts Act, 1944, local authorities authorize officials in their employment to serve process in respect of certain offences committed in their areas of jurisdiction. In terms of such authority traffic officials serve large numbers of traffic summonses and process in connection with such summonses. However, the problem is that officials must be authorized by name and that they only have such authority to serve process within the area of jurisdiction of the local authority concerned. Process to be served outside the area of a local authority, is at present usually served by the police officials, although it can also be served by messengers of the Court. This wastes a great deal of the policemen’s time and means that men who could be more usefully employed in their real task, the combatting of crime and the maintaining of law and order, are being used for this.

†The proposed amendment makes provision that an official authorized by a certain local authority to serve process of that local authority would also be authorized to serve process received from another local authority in the area of the first-mentioned local authority.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill should not delay the House very long. I think all sides of the House will support the hon. the Minister in whatever action can be taken to ease the burden of our Police Force which already has difficulties because of staff shortages and which is also burdened with duties which are very often extraneous with its main functions.

The amendment allows of municipalities to appoint officers to serve process relating to cases emanating from other local authorities within the jurisdiction of another local authority. In doing so it closes what I think is a gap in the law. It streamlines the process and I think it is going to cut bureaucracy to some extent. On this basis we shall support the Bill through all its stages and we shall offer no opposition at all.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the amendments to the Magistrates’ Courts Act that the hon. the Minister seeks to effect. As the hon. the Minister explained, provision has already been made for officials in the service of local authorities to assist in the service of, inter alia, traffic summonses. Whether it is in any way the function of local authorities and their officials to serve criminal process is in my opinion an open question which we can definitely consider in more detail on another occasion. However, the hon. the Minister has explained that what is actually involved here is the fact that the provision that such an official must be authorized by name before he can serve process is hampering administration, and that it is not always practicable. The fact that the police are expected to serve such process creates problems for them because they have a serious shortage of staff. For this reason we are of the opinion that this amendment is justified. After all, we are aware that the police have other and more important work to do and should as far as possible not be required to do this sort of work.

In the light of this the proposed amendment seems justified and improvement on existing procedure which, as has already been pointed out, does not function entirely satisfactorily. For this reason we should like to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches should also like to support the proposed amendment. We support the proposed measures relating to the service of process and other documents in cases where a public body prosecutes in respect of any offence. We also support the measure that when a member of the Police Force undertakes the service of such process, the fee paid for such service should be paid into the State Revenue Fund.

I just want to refer to the use of the Afrikaans word “lone”. In the English text the word “fees” is used. In my opinion “gelde” is the more correct word. In this legislation “lone” is of course a suitable word, but I would prefer that the word “gelde” be used in future because I believe it is more acceptable. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that we are so unanimous about this measure this afternoon. There is not much I want to add to what the other hon. members have already said, except to draw attention to the fact that section 15(2), which is now being amended in terms of this Bill, makes provision for two situations in which the police or an official of a public body can serve process. The first situation is that in which the public body itself has the permission of the Attorney-General to institute private prosecutions. When that public body appears in court it has its own prosecutor, and usually its own officials, too, who are authorized in writing to serve process in connection with such private prosecution on those persons who have been summonsed before the court. In the other situation the State is still the prosecutor, i.e. the State prosecutor remains the prosecutor in the criminal court, but the fine imposed by the court of law is payable to a specific local authority. This is the second situation for which section 15(2) makes provision. However, I am of the opinion that it is desirable that we exempt the police from this work. I do not want to label it administrative work, because the serving of a process of a court of law does concern the maintenance of law and order. However, in my opinion that policeman in fact becomes a messenger of the court and, as other hon. members have pointed out, he is being prevented from carrying out the task for which he was trained, namely the combating of crime. For this reason I believe that the principle proposed here will afford considerable relief to the staff position of our Police Force. In addition, as the hon. member for Sandton made clear, it will mean less administrative work for local authorities, particularly those instituting their own private prosecutions. It therefore gives me pleasure to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP support this amending legislation. We have nothing to add to what has been said by previous speakers. It is obviously a common sense and practical amendment to a situation that was time-consuming and unnecessarily involved. We therefore support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that this short and businesslike amendment has been accepted so unanimously. It is a very short Bill, but has far-reaching and beneficial effects for local authorities in cases where they have undertaken the service of process themselves. Taking into account what can in fact happen in practice if the local authorities do not utilize the powers now being given to them in terms of the legislation, this is an important amendment. In any case, they would be dependent on officials of other local authorities to handle their service of process. For example, Durban is a popular holiday resort for holiday-makers from the Free State and the Transvaal, and although everyone in South Africa drives on the same side of the road, traffic offences are easily committed as a result of the excellent holiday spirit. Therefore, when it comes to the service of criminal process, the local authority is entitled to know who the designated officials of other local authorities are, otherwise service cannot take place. Unless, therefore, a local authority has a list of names available or can telephone to ascertain who must undertake the service, problems occur. Such a list of names—even if it is available—is frequently out of date. It may even be last December’s list. Unless the authority therefore telephones or has a new list, or even works with an old list, only to find out later that it must again nominate someone by resolution, there is only one option open to it. What is that option?

It can send the documents to the messenger of the court. What is the present situation regarding the messenger of the court? The post of messenger of the court was established by law, and the messenger of the court is authorized by regulation to levy certain fees for each service. This means that unless the messenger of the court succeeds in serving the process at the first attempt, he levies additional fees for every subsequent attempt. Of course, we know that people are not always anxious to accept process.

In order to overcome this problem, local authorities circumvented the two problem areas I have just mentioned by sending the process to the Police. The situation therefore is that—also according to prescription—the Police can scarcely levy a sum of R2 for each service. For failed attempts at service they cannot levy any fee at all. At the same time, their actual costs are nowadays in the vicinity of R4 per service. Hon. members will therefore realize that it will have extremely far-reaching implications if we do not close these small loopholes.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg stated that he was not convinced that it was the duty of local authorities to serve such process. I shall leave the question unanswered for the moment. Of course, we must bridge an essential gap. We have decided not to go into the principle at all. The United Municipal Executive has requested this amendment. At the moment messengers of the court can still serve process. The Police will also still be able to do so. Of course, local authorities will now far prefer to make use of officials of other local authorities. We have not, therefore, deprived anyone of a single function. We have only made it possible for the original aim of this provision to be implemented in practice.

Under these circumstances I just want to thank hon. members who participated in the discussion. They are the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, the hon. member for Ermelo, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and the hon. member for King William’s Town. I thank them most sincerely for their support for the measure.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen objected to the Afrikaans term “lone”. He said he would prefer the word “gelde”. I suppose that from a purist’s point of view he may be correct. In the light of all our obligations in this House, our time is of course fairly limited. I should very much like us to debate this aspect. However, my directive is to discuss law today, and not this term. For this reason I want to ask the hon. member to make a submission to us in this connection, if he intended to do so. He is welcome to do so. We shall consider it in order to decide whether a man earns more when he earns “lone” than when he earns “gelde”.

In conclusion, I just want to refer to the hon. member for Ermelo. He referred to the destination of the fees which accrued to local authorities. If I understood him correctly, he alleged that because a policeman was the messenger, such a service was associated with the law, which would lead to the receipt of process being considered rather unpleasant. However, I want to leave the matter at that. This is a matter the hon. member could discuss with the hon. the Minister of Finance or with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. Unfortunately I cannot tell the hon. member whether money accruing to a local authority in this way, actually reaches the correct destination.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The various Acts regulating the attorneys’ profession were consolidated in the Attorneys Act, 1979. In this Bill some matters relating to the profession are being further regulated.

Clauses 1, 2 and 4 refer to sections 13, 17 and 81, respectively, which are related clauses. In terms of section 81(1)(a), regulations can be made identifying the countries or territories which shall be approved of for the purposes of section 13(1) or 17 and be designated for the purposes of sections 13(1)(a)(ii).

The effect of such approval or designation is, firstly, that a person who has been admitted as an attorney of the Supreme Court of such a country, and whose permanent residence in the Republic has been legally granted, can under certain circumstances be exempted from service under articles. Secondly, a person who has been admitted as an attorney in such a country or territory can be admitted as an attorney in the Republic in terms of section 17, provided that he complies with certain requirements. Approval in law has been granted in respect of Zimbabwe for the purpose of sections 13(1) and (17).

Section 13(1)(a)(ii) was specially inserted into the Act to enable attorneys who had been admitted in Zimbabwe but who had not yet practised there for five years to gain admission in the Republic without the requirement of service under articles. It was the intention to designate Zimbabwe for the purposes of section 13(1)(a)(ii). However, new requirements for admission came into operation in Zimbabwe on 22 May 1981, in terms of which lower standards are required than before. Among other things, service under articles is no longer required at all. The present requirements are not acceptable in the Republic for the purposes of the exemption of a person from service under articles. Therefore it is necessary that Zimbabwe be designated in such a way, for the purposes of section 13(1)(a)(ii), that only persons admitted as attorneys in that country before 22 May 1981 will be exempted from service under articles in the Republic. The same considerations apply with regard to the approval of Zimbabwe for the purposes of sections 13(1) and 17 of the Act. Consequently it is being provided in clause 1 of the Bill that exemption from service under articles will apply only in respect of people belonging to a class of persons (if any) which the Minister has designated by regulation. In clause 2, a similar provision is being introduced with regard to the admission of a person as an attorney in the Republic in terms of section 17 of the Act. In clause 4 of the Bill, provision is being made for the Minister of Justice to designate classes of persons in respect of whom the approval or designation of a country or territory will apply.

†The intention with clause 3 is to restrict the liability of the Attorneys’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund, when it comes to estate agent work done by an attorney, his clerk or employee, to those instances in which an attorney is not obliged to register in terms of the Estate Agents Act, 1976, and would therefore not be covered by the guarantee fund instituted by the Estate Agents Act, 1976.

Clause 5 extends the prohibition on the canvassing of certain types of work. Section 83(2) of the Attorneys Act, 1979, prohibits any person, inter alia, from canvassing for work in connection with the administration, liquidation or distribution of a deceased or insolvent estate. It is desirable for the prohibition against canvassing to be extended to work in regard to the judicial management or liquidation of a company. The principle is the same. While attorneys and chartered accountants are prohibited, by professional codes of conduct, from canvassing for work in this regard, persons without the necessary training and disciplinary rules of conduct are free to canvass actively for appointments as liquidators and judicial managers. The proposed amendment provides for a prohibition on the canvassing of work in connection with the liquidation or judicial management of a company.

Clause 6 provides for clause 3 to come into operation on a date to be determined by the State President, because it is expedient that it should come into operation on the same date as the Estate Agents Amendment Act, 1982.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition will support this Bill in all its stages. The explanations offered by the hon. the Minister are quite acceptable and, I believe, logical and, although he did not mention it, I assume they are in accord with the wishes of the Association of Law Societies. Clauses 1, 2 and 4, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, relate basically to the maintenance of standards of attorneys and solicitors in South Africa. While there may be political repercussions to the steps that are being taken, I believe that those political repercussions, if any, are not relevant to the question of attorneys being put in a situation where they have to ensure, with the help of the Minister, that the standards of the profession are not in any way dropped. The present position is that the law provides that certain countries, which may be designated, might produce attorneys who would subsequently immigrate to South Africa. Subject to the standard of professional education within that country and subject to the level of experience which the attorneys in those countries have obtained, if they come to South Africa these persons may be exempted to some extent from serving articles. As I see it, the amendment placed before us today takes account of changing circumstances and is merely being inserted as a protective measure to ensure that our standards are not affected, which is very much in the interests of the public of South Africa and of all sections of the community. After all, it is the community the attorneys serve, as applies to any other profession, and I do believe that it is most important that we retain the high standards the profession has at the present time.

Clause 3 of the Bill was explained by the hon. the Minister. It relates to the extension of the fidelity fund to cover activities of attorneys who act as estate agents. This does not really happen very often in the cities, but it does happen quite a lot in the smaller communities where attorneys perform several and diverse functions. This new protection which is being included and which correlates with legislation which was passed through the House very recently relating to estate agents will once again be in the interests of the public, and we shall support it.

Clause 5 was also mentioned by the hon. the Minister. It broadens the restriction on the canvassing of certain types of business; for example, as the hon. the Minister said, business relating to judicial management and to liquidations. I can tell the hon. the Minister—I am sure he knows it already—that obtaining appointments at the present time is a cut-throat business. One very often finds that, as soon as the company is placed in provisional liquidation, people are on the telephone, letters are sent out and canvassers from various trust companies and other organizations are sent out in order to obtain signatures from creditors to get the appointment before other people do. I think that this is most undesirable. I think that undue pressure is often brought to bear and that unethical conduct is often perpetrated pursuant to obtaining an appointment which requires a high level of skill and integrity. So we shall support that clause as well.

Having said that, that covers all the clauses of the Bill, from which the hon. the Minister can gather that we shall not oppose the Bill passing through all its stages this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister in advance that I regret that I cannot support the Second Reading with the same amount of enthusiasm as the hon. member for Sandton, although I do support the Bill as it reads at present, but with certain reservations. Firstly, I wish to refer to clauses, 1, 2 and 4, which deal with the entrance and admission of attorneys from Zimbabwe to South Africa. The sections which we are once again amending here in order to distinguish between the classes of persons, were inserted into the Act on 20 May 1980, when the Bill was taken through all its stages by the predecessor of the hon. the Minister. At that stage, i.e. after the take-over by Mugabe, the department, as well as the Association of Law Societies, were in constant contact with attorneys from Zimbabwe concerning their admission here. These people were given the impression that regulations would be a mere formality and that they would soon be admitted to the Republic.

However, it seems that the department did not begin to turn its attention to these regulations before the end of August 1980. I have not yet gone into who was responsible for this. One should concede, I suppose, that it could have happened during the process of a change in Ministers. However, the fact of the matter is that this caused certain people many problems. It caused financial problems for attorneys who had already come to this country and entered the service of firms on the understanding that when they had been admitted, they would receive higher salaries and would also be able to go into partnership with the firms employing them. Quite a few of these people are living in my constituency. The second problem was that those people could not do their work properly, since they could not act as attorneys. They could not sign their own documents and they could not appear in court, or do anything relating to these activities.

As I have said, it was apparently only in May 1981, one year later, that draft regulations were submitted to the Association of Law Societies for its approval. On 11 June the department was notified that these regulations were in order and that the Association was satisfied with them. I am saying this against the background that we should remember that the promulgation of the regulations was considered to be a mere formality. Other problems have also arisen, and I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could possibly react to these as well. However, I do not expect him to react to the history of this matter. I referred the matter to him by way of a letter, and I must say that when this was brought to his attention for the first time, i.e. in August last year, he did everything in his power to see whether something could not be done about the matter. He attended to it personally and consulted the Association of Law Societies to see whether something could not be done. However, I think the process which the regulations have to go through before they are finally promulgated is one which ought to be revised. Firstly, the regulations have to be referred to the Association of Law Societies for its approval. Subsequently they have to be submitted to the law faculties of the universities in South Africa. I think there are 113 such faculties. After that, they have to be sent to the council for approval of law examinations, in terms of section 16 of the Universities Act. Then they are translated and are sent to the Chief Justice for his approval. If amendments are made during this process, these have to go through the same routine. This is a long process and, in my opinion, not a sound one.

Meanwhile, new admission requirements became effective in Zimbabwe on 22 May last year. When the department learned about this, is not clear either. I am saying this in view of the fact that the department submitted draft regulations to the Association of Law Societies two months later. This was apparently done after August 1981. The reason for my mentioning all these things is to indicate that if a period of almost 18 months elapses from the time of the Bill passing through all its stages in this House, until regulations, which should have been a mere formality, are promulgated, this is certainly not satisfactory. I can only hope something like this does not happen again.

The second principle of this Bill as contained in clause 3, that attorneys who act as estate agents will be covered by the Attorneys Guarantee Fund, is a sensible decision. They act as attorneys when they do the work of estate agents and it makes sense that this principle should be accepted in the Bill.

I now come to the third principle of the Bill—a principle which the hon. member for Sandton supported with enthusiasm—viz. the extension of the prohibition of canvassing for work. Attorneys do deal with the winding up of companies, but for years this has been undertaken by the so-called professional trustees or liquidators. I wish to state that they do excellent work and that the vast majority of them are professional people. The prohibition is contained in section 83(2) of the principal Act. The prohibition already exists in respect of canvassing for of wills, as well as in respect of the administration of estates of natural persons, be it by death or when such person becomes legally incompetent in one way or another. However, this section does not provide for a prohibition on the soliciting of work in respect of the winding up or the judicial management of a company.

†Mr. Speaker, I have tried to ascertain whence this clause originated. It appears to me that at the Law Conference of 1978 the Master of the Supreme Court in Pretoria, Mr. Wattrus, delivered a paper in which he addressed himself to the issue of the appointment of provisional trustees. In this paper he said—

I want to press this point. I quote further—

He continues to say that the question may well be raised that at the first meeting of creditors they can be heard, but he finds that in practice they are usually not very much interested and that they leave it to the professional people also to look after their interests.

The problem that follows is that the Master must decide on a procedure for the appointment of a provisional trustee. Mr. Wattrus canvassed the alternatives that were followed through the years and says that prior to 1936, when the provisional trustee was still appointed by the courts, they sought to hear the majority to creditors and to appoint a trustee in accordance with the will of the majority of the creditors. Certain of his other predecessors have tried various means through the years, inter alia, a panel of five practising liquidators who decided who was to be appointed in each case. Mr. Wattrus says this caused delays—and I want to stress this too—and it was bad in law as the Master did not have to apply his mind.

A further alternative canvassed was the first come, first served principle. Then, however, he continued in this paper to tell the story about the fellow who arrived at his office one morning with a big smile on his face saying that he had passed his opponent at Halfway House coming from Johannesburg while he was driving his new Mercedes and his opponent his old Volkswagen. This too, he says, is not a positive way to approach the matter. He then goes on to put his own view. He says that creditors should approach the Master, as the position is at present but that their recommendations should not be binding on the Master. The wishes of the sequestrating creditor should also be taken into account except if it is a friendly sequestration. However, he stresses the point that the Master still has to have the right to exercise his own discretion. He goes on to say—

*If one analyses this, one sees that in terms of the present practice, the Master has the power to appoint people, but to refrain from giving certain people appointments, in spite of the fact that they may be recommended by a great many creditors. In practice, the Master has a list of approved persons at various offices, and the Master satisfies himself that those people whose names appear on this list are, in fact, competent to administer such an estate before he even considers them.

Mr. Wattrus continues to discuss this matter in his paper and then he deals with what actually gave rise to this specific amendment before us. This is the question of canvassing for work or “touting”. He reaches the same conclusion as was reached when it was decided to amplify this clause as it is before this House, that in fact there is something lacking, because there was no prohibition on canvassing. However, if one analyses this against the background of what he envisaged, then I wish to state that he was not so much concerned about the canvassing as he was about the practical aspect. I am also prepared to support this provision, as it places only the attorneys on an equal footing with the professional trustee. However, I have reservations. To tell the truth, I am extremely concerned about this. In practice, this means that no one may approach a creditor to ask him to recommend that a certain person be appointed as a trustee. This means that the Master has to take more and more discretionary powers, upon himself, and this paves the way—I would not be so harsh as to say to bribery, but at least to the semblance or the accusation of bribery if specific people are appointed more often that others when the Master acts at his discretion. Should he have to hear the creditor, he would have to adopt a different method of appointing a provisional liquidator on the second day in court after the order had been issued.

The objection which is being raised that attorneys are being forced to violate an ethical code if they wish to compete, in my opinion, does not hold water for two reasons. The first is that attorneys who do compete also approach the creditors for the recommendation of the appointment of a trustee. There is no argument about that. In fact, the practice is that the Association of Law Societies does not act, and that the Master does not concern himself with this either, since they argue that he is in a competitive field and if he does not violate his ethical code he is unable to obtain work. I have no knowledge of any complaint against an attorney who has violated the ethical code on this basis in respect of the prohibition on canvassing for work. The second reason is that I think that this approach to an ethical code is an archaic approach. We are living in a time of keen competition, but also in a time in which one must have the opportunity of making oneself known. One does this through one’s work, but one also does this by moving around. I wish to propose that we watch the application of this amending clause very carefully. Not only the department should do this, but also the offices of the Master and the Association of Law Societies. They should study the practical problems which may arise from this.

The first is definitely the lack of swift action immediately after the order has been issued by the court. It is the duty of the provisional liquidator to take possession of the assets. He must get hold of them. More often than not, it is a functioning business or farming practice to which immediate attention must be given. If a provisional liquidator is not appointed immediately, very often a loss may and will occur as far as the assets are concerned.

The second idea—Mr. Wattrus also said this in his paper—is that for the best effect there should be continuity in the administration process between the provisional appointment and the final appointment. He says in any case that the person who gets the provisional appointment is in the advantageous position that he can contact the creditors in order to protect the assets. He is therefore indirectly able to canvass support for the final appointment.

I do not wish to go into this any further, except to say that I am of the opinion that this will be a very sensitive and very important field of development in future, which could create many practical problems. I think that we should watch this very carefully. I think that all parties involved in this matter, should watch this with an open mind so that we can evaluate it again in the near future.

Notwithstanding these anxieties concerning the possible result, and without really questioning the principle, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Randburg. I think that we shall all take cognizance of the reservations the hon. member expressed so earnestly. He also made a few statements and aired a few views of a serious nature and I think the hon. the Minister will take cognizance of what he said. I think it is necessary for one to say with appreciation that the thoroughness with which the hon. member prepared and delivered his speech, is probably due to the fact that he never really had any problems with his articles while he was articled to me.

When one says that one supports the amendments before us as a whole, one could add that the proposed amendments in fact deal with three matters, as has already been stated on more than one occasion this afternoon.

But why did you teach him so little, Louis?

In the first place, we have a further ruling regarding the exemption from articles and the admission of attorneys from outside the country—Zimbabwe is a country which has been mentioned in this regard—who wish to practise here and therefore have to be admitted in order to continue practising law in this country.

Secondly, the proposed amendments are concerned with the protection which people enjoy under the Attorney’s Fidelity Guarantee Fund. This is a fund which was established to protect clients against the theft of money or goods.

Thirdly, the proposed amendments concern the extension of the prohibition on canvassing for work, and the hon. member for Randburg spoke in a very serious vein about this this afternoon.

Therefore we could say that the three * most important aims of the proposed amendments are as follows: Firstly, to ensure the orderly admission of attorneys to this highly esteemed profession in the RSA. One of the most important requirements for anyone who wishes to practise as an attorney in the Republic of South Africa, is that he has to enter into a service contract with a practising attorney for a specific period of time. This important rule also applies to people from outside the country, for instance from Zimbabwe, to practise as attorneys here. However, there are people who practise as attorneys or solicitors in specific countries or territories, and who then, for sound reasons, decide to come to the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Minister named one of his countries. The rights and obligations of this category of lawyers are defined in section 13, as well as in section 17 of the principal Act. In certain circumstances, provision is made in the Act for the exemption from articles in respect of people from outside our borders who wish to register as articled clerks or as legal practitioners. It is important to take cognizance of the fact that the Act provides that the Minister may prescribe by regulation who will be allowed to practise as attorneys in the RSA and from which countries they may come. It is equally important to note that such people may under certain circumstances, be exempted from articles.

The legal profession insists that the standards of anyone who practises the profession of attorney in the Republic, should be of high quality. The hon. the Minister also referred to this. That is why cognizance is not only taken of the territory or country from which these people come, but certainly of the quality of the standard of the administration of justice of the country from which they come as well.

Times and circumstances fluctuate continuously, in respect of the legal profession as well, and I therefore think that it is desirable that the principal Act be amended, so that the Minister will not only stipulate by regulation the specific countries or areas from which the prospective attorneys come to practise here, but that it will, in fact, also have a bearing on the class of person who may come to this country as a legal practitioner. I do not think that there can be any objection to the proposed amendments or amplifications, and we have pleasure in supporting them.

Another important aim of the amendments we are dealing with this afternoon, is to afford the public greater protection under the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. We all know that it is a fund which was established by the attorneys’ profession to compensate people for losses incurred when an attorney, his clerk or one of his employees steals money or goods. This protection is now being extended to attorneys who act as estate agents over and above their normal legal practice. Many attorneys have in their practice a section which does the work of an estate agent. He or his articled clerk, but more often another employee in his service, deals with this estate agent work. This legislation seeks to amend section 26 of the principal Act, so that if such an attorney, his articled clerk or his employee, should for instance, steal money which has been entrusted to his estate agency, the public can be protected against such theft.

The proposed addition to section 26 of the Act therefore extends the protection under the Fidelity Guarantee Fund to cover the loss which may possibly be incurred by clients in such cases, as well. It is true that the attorneys’ profession has for many years been engaged in fighting tooth and nail against the evil of theft among its own number. Of course, one has great appreciation for this. That is why the attorneys’ profession has built up the fund concerned into an extremely strong fund in order to furnish the public with further guarantees of security so that the public does not have to suffer in the case of theft of this nature.

The third and final amendment to the principal Act, is that of section 83. This is concerned with what is probably one of the most serious offences or abuses in the legal profession, viz. canvassing for work. The hon. member for Randburg has already dealt with this in detail, and I therefore do not wish to elaborate on this any further. All I now wish to add, is that I think that this is a fitting step which is now being taken, viz. that, as far as the ordinary public is concerned, this phenomenon of “touting” is now being approached with the necessary seriousness.

We in these benches support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, should like to support this legislation. Like the hon. member for Randburg, I have reservations with regard to clause 5 as well. However, I have already mentioned this to the hon. the Minister, and I should now like to put this on record.

As far as the question of the protection of the standards of the attorneys’ profession is concerned, I do not think there can be any objection. In any case, I think that in terms of the regulations referred to in clause 4, the position is facilitated for the hon. the Minister, in that in future, he will not have to refer to dates, but only to countries.

I think that in a certain sense, clause 5 should be interpreted a concession to attorneys enabling them to compete on an equal basis with professional liquidators. Nor do I think that this in any way prejudices the position of existing liquidators. I rather think that it protects them against the accession of new liquidators. As this enterprise is already, as the hon. member for Sandton called it, a “cut-throat” undertaking, I think it will be even more difficult in future for people to enter an industry of this kind.

What actually happens in practice, in terms of the Act as it is worded at present, as far as the permissible canvassing of work is concerned, is that when a client consults an attorney to apply for the liquidation of a company, that client pays the attorney concerned in full for the work he has to do in this regard. At the same time he enables the attorney—without his having to canvass—to receive his claim, as the first step in obtaining an appointment through the Master of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, should he not be interested in obtaining a provisional appointment, it often happens in practice that the attorney concerned gives details to one of these liquidators or trust companies over the telephone concerning the various creditors of the company to be liquidated. That liquidator then immediately sets to work to contact the various creditors in order to obtain a provisional appointment with the Master. However, it may also happen that the attorney is unable to contact such a company himself. Then, when the application for liquidation is submitted to the Master’s office, as a result of contacts which these liquidators or trust companies have in the Master’s office, a telephone call is made from that office to the office of a liquidator or liquidators. As a result of this, the liquidator or liquidators with whom contact has been made, will immediately take steps to initiate the process, in order to obtain such an appointment.

However, there is an aspect which I am concerned about. If there is no one who is immediately interested in the appointment or provisional appointment, a period of time may elapse before such an appointment can be made. In my opinion, this is something which has worked well in practice thus far. I think that in future, this would place a heavy onus, not only on the Master’s office, but also on the attorneys’ profession and people in that profession who wish to take on work of this nature, if they wish to provide the same quick service and if they wish to set the process in motion with as little delay as has been the case in the past.

I think that it can only be left to practice to determine whether the same rapid progress will in fact, occur. After many years of practising in the larger cities, I have never at any stage come across any attorney who specifically specializes in this, or even anyone in the legal profession who takes on this specific kind of work. The necessary interest is simply lacking. The attorney in the larger cities generally has so much work to occupy him, that he is not very much interested in this kind of specialized work. That is why I am saying that this also places a particular onus on the attorneys’ profession, should they wish to accept this kind of work, which would allow them to compete on an equal, or more than an equal basis in future.

There could be a measure of concern as to the question of corruption, or companies which do not do proper work. However, I think that this is covered by the Companies Act, No. 61 of 1973, as amended, more specifically by section 370, which gives a broad outline of the basis on which the Master may refuse to appoint a liquidator. Should anyone whose name appears on the list be a less desirable type of person, then in my opinion, they would be eliminated in time, as a result of the provision of this legislation.

There is also an added bonus in the manner in which the whole matter of liquidation can be brought to the attention of creditors, as there is a provision concerning the notification of the liquidation of companies in section 356 of the Companies Act. As soon as a liquidation order has been received from a company, the Master gives notice of such a liquidation in the Gazette.

This brings me to section 357. It concerns the notification of liquidation to certain officials. It also specifies the duties of such officials in this regard. A copy of every liquidation order—whether provisional or final— is sent by the Registrar of the Court to the sheriff of the province in which the registered office of the company or the main office of the body corporate is situate and the sheriff of every province in which it appears that the company or such body corporate owns property. Secondly, it is also sent to every registrar or other officer charged with the maintenance of any register under any Act in respect of any property within the Republic which appears to be an asset of such company. Furthermore, it is also sent to the messenger of every magistrate’s court by the order whereof it appears that the property of such company is under attachment. Then the Master summons the first meeting of creditors to take the necessary steps, as well as a meeting of the company, if necessary in terms of section 364 of the Act in question.

I wish to express the hope that as far as the provisional appointment of liquidators is concerned, firstly, swift action will be taken by the Master’s office, and secondly, that it will be seen to without fail that there will be no favouring of any specific liquidators. I believe that as far as this is concerned, the hon. the Minister will take effective action to ensure this. As far as the appointment of liquidators is concerned, I can say that sections 367 and 368 fully cover this matter. I do not think that I can expand on this much further. I therefore support his Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to what hon. members have had to say about this amending legislation. I am not quite sure whether I am going to be able to keep to the required run rate in this game. It does appear that with all the explanations we have moved away a little from the basic purposes of the amendments, which appear to us on these benches to be quite acceptable in as much as they offer protection to the legal profession. Clauses 1, 3 and 4 have to do with the maintenance of the standards of the profession and its ethics. In fact, the entire Bill relates to that, whether in respect of the profession itself or in respect of the profession’s dealings with the public.

I must say that I was interested in what the hon. member for Sandton had to say. He is not in the House at the moment…

He has gone to his drama classes.

… but I am sure he will not mind if I make mention of his tiptoeing through the miracle mine field of explaining why in fact the standards had dropped in certain areas. It sounds to me as if it is definitely either not cricket or not ethical that the legal profession should have been excluded from the miracles that have occurred to the north of us and that it should be necessary to bring about revised standards for members coming from those areas.

The NRP support the amendments. We have nothing further to add. I hope that thereby the hon. the Minister will have the necessary time to knock off the remaining runs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the Bill which is before us. I want to begin by saying, with reference to clause 1, that we have an arrangement with other countries in terms of which members of the legal profession in South Africa may practise there and they may practise here. When countries have Roman Dutch law in common, it is much easier to exchange qualified practitioners. This applied in the case of Zimbabwe. I want to make it clear that the legal profession, and especially the attorneys’ profession, attaches very great importance to qualifications, to knowledge of the law. A person may obtain the same academic qualifications in another country, but to be able to practise in South Africa, service under articles is of the utmost importance. It is in the interests of the client that the attorney should serve under articles, for in this way he becomes acquainted with South African practice. In other countries there is a different practice, but in this country it is based on certain principles. We have developed in a particular way in this country, with regard to the records kept of money transactions, for example, which is a very important facet of the training of an attorney. For this reason, our people in South Africa are accustomed to a certain standard which they may expect when consulting an attorney. I believe it is absolutely correct that we should not be prepared to lower our standards. We have laid down those standards for ourselves, and if other people want to come and practise in this country, they are welcome, but we require a certain standard of them. Therefore our standards will not be lowered. So it is a good thing that in this particular case—and perhaps it should have been done long ago—the amendment contained in clause 1 is being introduced. However, that clause must be read together with clauses 2 and 4.

Clause 3 deals with the money which may be involved if estate agent work is done by an attorney’s office. There has been development in South Africa in this field. This has always been the domain of the attorney, for who is better qualified than the attorney to do this kind of work. He is familiar with the law and with conveyancing, as well as with the guarantees and the payment which the buyer and the seller must receive, which are related to this. We must remember, therefore, that this has actually been the sphere of the attorney. The development has meant that the practices of estate agents have expanded and that certain precautions have been taken by establishing trust accounts for them as well in order to safeguard their clients. However, the attorneys’ profession is second to none when it comes to safeguarding the money of its clients. Therefore I regard clause 2 as a very sound and fine clause. It is typical of the side bar to request such an amendment.

Clause 5 deals with those who are involved in the judicial management or liquidation of a company, and provides that they are not allowed to advertise. The origins of this amendment are impeccable. It comes from the attorneys’ profession, from the chartered accountants’ profession and from the Master of the Supreme Court; so its origins are impeccable. Therefore I believe that this statutory amendment is going to work in practice. I cannot imagine that attorneys, chartered accountants and the Master of the Supreme Court would support such a measure—would in fact recommend it—if there were not good grounds for it to begin with and if it were not, in the second place, going to work in practice.

This amendment does not affect in any way the power of the Master of the Supreme Court to regard any person who wishes to apply for appointment as persona non grata. All the discretion and all the guarantees remain exactly the same, and there is nothing to detract in any way from the protection or control which the Master of the Supreme Court has under these circumstances. I want to add that times have changed and that attorneys are being involved in liquidations these days. Chartered accountants are also being involved in liquidations. What is more, they are sometimes jointly involved. In fact, I am involved in such a case at this very moment. In this case, a prominent Johannesburg attorney, auditors and a few other people are the joint liquidators of companies. So a practice is developing in this connection as well. The auditors’ profession and the attorneys’ profession are increasingly being consulted by big companies dealing with large amounts of money. If it is happening in cases where large amounts of money are involved, it is even more likely to filter through to other cases. I believe that this may be in the interests of our entire administration of justice and our whole community.

I have no objection whatsoever to people doing their work, but I think we must ask ourselves in respect of this clause: Does an attorney have the right to participate in the judicial management or liquidation of a company? Should an attorney have that right or should he not have it? I believe that the attorney is a very well qualified, probably better than any other practitioner, to do this. Therefore I think it will readily be conceded that attorneys should be able to do this work. If it is correct that attorneys should do this work, surely it is only logical that they should do it on an equal footing with anyone else. If they are entitled to do it, they are also entitled to do it on an equal footing with anyone else. This, I believe, is the answer, and no further argument is possible about this matter. I believe the answer lies in the question of whether an attorney is entitled to do this work. If the reply to this question is in the affirmative, as I submit that it is bound to be, he must also be able to compete on an equal footing. This is in fact the object of the clause involved. This clause is not depriving anyone of any vested rights, nor is it providing that no one else may henceforth handle liquidations. The clause merely provides that attorneys may also handle liquidations on an equal footing. It boils down to this: There is an ethical code—a very strict ethical code—in the attorneys’ profession which prohibits an attorney from advertising. This actually means that people who do not fall under this ethical code may in fact advertise. This amendment is now placing attorneys on exactly the same footing as other people. From now on, other people will not be allowed to advertise either. What is the effect of this? Does this not have the effect of introducing some measure of professionalism? I think the liquidation and judicial management of companies are very important aspects. I also think it is correct that some measure of professionalism should be introduced.

When the man in the street without any legal qualifications wants to do this kind of work, he must comply with the ethical code of the people who are in fact allowed to do it.

Who is the next of kin of Ruskin?

I do not know whether the hon. member knows what I am talking about, because I really do not know what he is talking about. [Interjections.]

I regard clause 5 of the Bill as an attempt to introduce a greater measure of professionalism into the liquidation and judicial management of companies. I consider it correct that it be professionalized. I also consider it correct that there should not be any advertising. I also regard it as correct that an attorney should be able to do his work under those circumstances.

I wish to make a final remark. We must not rely too much on past experience and practice. Practice grows out of the existing rules and regulations. As those existing rules and regulations are changed, practice will also change. I do not wish to enter into a discussion of present practice at this stage, except for saying that the powers of the Master of the Supreme Court are not being affected. I believe that practice is being adapted in this way and that this will in the first place be in the interest of the people involved in this judicial management and liquidation. Who has an interest in this? Who has an interest in judicial management and liquidation? In the first place, of course, the State, but in the second place there are the creditors. Some of them may be small men who are involved with a big company which has bought land, and they may have invested their last few rands in that land. We must know that in the final analysis, this amendment is a means of protecting the man in the street. It is a means of protecting the citizen of this country. Who am I to say that the attorney is not competent to protect him properly? Therefore I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who have participated in this debate for their well-considered contributions and the very interesting analyses they have given us. Of course, it has been a characteristic of Justice debates in this House over the years that hon. members, even within the same party, can disagree with one another with dignity and that they can still remain friends afterwards. Although they may cross swords about certain issues, they still manage to stay in the same party. In my opinion, it is very important to underline this point—that this can be done. To have a fraternal disagreement and yet to remain in the same party requires some greatness of spirit, and as I say, this has always been a characteristic of Justice debates. In fact, it is something which has been clearly demonstrated by the hon. members for Randburg and Pretoria West. I want to thank them sincerely for doing so. It was worth conducting this debate this afternoon just for the sake of having them demonstrate this.

The clauses to which hon. members referred are very clear. Each of them has a clear motivation which I explained at the outset. However, some of these clauses evoked more discussion than others, and while the hon. member for Sandton as a lawyer and, I take it, as a former attorney, was also able to show enthusiasm for some of the clauses here this afternoon, I know that he did so with a large measure of objectivity, because his primary concern remains the politics of the PFP and not necessarily some or other profession or interest. This was actually apparent from his conduct. The fact that he supports it makes it more valuable. We know how loyal he is to his party, and if it had been in the interests of his party that he should oppose it, he would have done so. Obviously, then, there is a great neutrality on his part, which is appreciated.

The hon. member for King William’s Town also supported us, and I just want to tell him that I am very pleased that there is so much unanimity in this connection.

As I have said, the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Randburg here this afternoon made one realize that he had made a study of his subject. He also made a very well-reasoned contribution in 1980, specifically about the amendment of section 13, which concerned the recognition of attorneys from countries other than South Africa and their admission in this country. He campaigned for this and I give him credit for doing so. However, the hon. member was critical of the fact that there was a delay of 18 months. The hon. member is a big man, and physically I am no match for him Nevertheless, I want to prove that I can be just as magnanimous as he by telling him that his criticism is justified. It is entirely justified, and it is regrettable that a delay has crept in. Ultimately it appears that a delay may serve a good purpose. Nevertheless, it remains regrettable that some people have been inconvenienced by it.

The hon. member for Pretoria West stated unequivocally that we required high standards of people who wanted to practise their profession in this country. To a certain extent this may explain what has happened. I say “to a certain extent”. We are dealing here with section 81. That section provides that the Minister may do certain things after consultation, except in the case of a certain regulation, with the Chief Justice of South Africa and after consultation with the presidents of the various societies and, in the case of regulations made under paragraph (b)— paragraph (b) is the very provision we are dealing with at the moment—also after consultations with the various universities in South Africa which have law faculties and the Board for the Recognition of Examinations in Law.

When one considers that one has to correspond with each one of these bodies—just think of the various universities and law faculties—it means that one will have to conduct a correspondence which may extend over a period of a month in each case. When four or five months have elapsed, one finds that the end differs from the beginning, and one has to start all over again. The Association of Law Societies may want to present a certain set of examinations with a specific content or without a specific subject, such as Latin, and in saying this I do not wish to start a debate about Latin. This particular set of examinations is then submitted to the various universities. If they do not accept it, it means starting all over again. When they have finally reached agreement, it is referred to the Board for the Recognition of Examinations in Law. As in this case, they may find that under certain circumstances they do not have the authority to prescribe such an examination.

To cut a long story short, I want to say that it is regrettable that we are faced here with a procedure which has been embodied in legislation for several years and which forces us to draw out negotiations, correspondence, and so forth, over a very long period. One must not hide behind this. I take it that we wished to cause the minimum of problems by extending the process of consultation and deliberation with all the interested parties over a very long period.

By way of illustration I should like to refer to paragraph (b), which provides, among other things, that the examination must be based on the principles of Roman Dutch Law and statute law of the Republic. In a growing Republic with a statute law which is constantly expanding, it is difficult, of course, to prepare an examination which covers everything. We recently passed legislation in respect of property law and mercantile law. There has also been the legislation on sectional titles and we are already beginning to talk about residential law. We have a living legal system, and one can imagine that every university will adjust its own requirements from time to time. One university may introduce a course or department which the others do not have and then insist on that course forming part of the prescribed examination. I am not saying that this has been the case here, but I am only pointing out the possibilities.

I am grateful to the hon. member for mentioning this point. I have already requested the department to look for a way of eliminating such delays. We must try to make the process more streamlined in the future, but—and I want to emphasize this—without any loss of quality and effectiveness.

We have now been faced with the situation that the country concerned has abolished the requirements with regard to service under articles. To us, it is impossible for an attorney to be an attorney without having served under articles. Hence the statutory amendment which provides for the designation of a specific class from specific countries. The fact is that we are also trying to resolve this matter in terms of the provisions of the 1937 Act and to accommodate the people referred to in the short term. We are at present negotiating with the Secretary-General of the Association of Law Societies to see whether we can take certain interim measures in this way. I hope that we shall then be able to deal with matters such as these more expeditiously than in the past.

Another question which was debated at some length is the clause amending section 83. This involves canvassing for work relating to testamentary writings, estates, etc. As far back as 1979, requests were made by the Association of Law Societies, inter alia, for this section to be amended. The question was asked whether an “insolvent person” did not include a company. Obviously it did not include judicial management. The Law Society obtained the advice of a very well-known advocate, and in his arguments he indicated that a company was not covered by the concept of “insolvent person”, and certainly not in the case of judicial management either. He also argued that if the attorneys wanted to resolve this matter, they would have to request an amendment to the Act. As a result of representations made, inter alia, by the Association of Law Societies and the Association of Chartered Accountants, we now have this amendment before this House. The question is whether the amendment is justified. Is this amendment aimed against anyone in particular? Could anyone be prejudiced by it? I want to make two statements. In the first place, as the hon. member for Roodepoort has argued, it imposes a very important duty on the attorneys to ensure that they do properly what they want to do. The same argument was advanced by other hon. members. However, I want to leace the matter at that.

In the second place, this amendment is not directed against any party outside the attorneys’ profession involved in administering company estates or in judicial management. Many of these companies act in a highly professional way and render excellent service. Therefore I want to state categorically that it is not my intention that such companies should be prejudiced by this amendment. In fact, they are not being affected. As it is, they have a sufficient interest in the preliminary liquidation, and if they are strong enough, they are already able to take their nomination to the Master of the Supreme Court. It is also likely that if a Master wishes to appoint people or companies to administer an estate—which he is entitled to do—he will involve some of those persons or companies. I do not wish to mention any names or to advertise these companies, but they are well known. The fact is, however, that this amendment is not directed against any companies or individuals outside the attorneys’ profession. What may happen, though, is that unqualified people may be affected. After discussing the matter with hon. members on this side of the House I had this matter investigated, and I can assure hon. members that it is not a very pleasant picture which emerges of unqualified people who fail to meet their obligations. However, I want to say at once that attorneys, too, may fail to meet their obligations. However, I am now referring specifically to people outside the attorneys’ profession who became involved in such matters, although I am glad to say that there are not many cases of this nature. It is happening to such an extent that the Master of the Supreme Court has expressed his concern about it. I am going to refer to only one example of this. A certain organization was found guilty of removing money from an estate. In the case of another organization, there are more than 200 estates that have not been administered or finalized. So it is not a very pleasant picture. Therefore I want to state categorically that we are in any event not going to improve the quality of work in this way. What we are in fact doing is to ensure that those people who are competent—whether they be attorneys or auditors, or even unqualified people—do their work properly. If we fail to do this, we are not going to improve the quality of the administration of estates. However, this is something which can be discussed in another debate, when a further statutory amendment is being dealt with.

There is only one other matter which I should like to discuss with the hon. member for Randburg. Up to a point, the hon. member did agree with the hon. member for Pretoria West concerning the question of professionalizing. Of course, he was referring to people who have been professionalized to such an extent that they are not really interested in ordinary canvassing, that their approach to their work is such that the ordinary impediments which exist will not apply to them. That was what the hon. member was talking about, if I understood him correctly. Since we still have the approach in South Africa that professional people— whether they be attorneys, advocates, auditors, accountants, architects or quantity surveyors—do not tolerate canvassing for clients because this is contrary to the spirit of free enterprise, we shall have to investigate this matter once again on a later occasion, as the hon. member rightly said. At the moment, however, it is not necessary. Still, the attorneys’ profession is not immune to this. The attorneys’ profession is certainly not immune to this. In this respect I should like to refer to what the present president of the Attorneys’ Association, Mr. Noll, had to say about this. He expressed it very well when he said that this was a new field which was waiting to be explored. Another well-known attorney, Mr. Bobbert, said that we should very definitely not be insensitive to the development which is going on world-wide with regard to a more relaxed approach to marketing. However, he left it at that.

As against this, we must also take cognizance of what is happening in America. In America there was literally chaos after a court ruling which made possible canvassing for clients possible. Immediately afterwards, a front page advertisement appeared in a newspaper in which a certain attorney offered his services in divorce cases at reduced rates. However, I do not think we want to commit ourselves in this connection at the present stage. The fact is that the attorneys’ profession is not insensitive in this respect; on the contrary, the profession is already adopting a highly responsible and sensitive attitude towards this matter.

With this, I believe, we have dealt with all the aspects raised by hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill contains minor amendments to criminal procedure as laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. The amendments are unrelated, but are aimed at simplifying the procedure, at eliminating unnecessary work and at removing deficiencies which exist.

Section 37(1) authorizes the Police to take finger-prints, palm-prints or foot-prints of accused under certain circumstances. It is necessary that this authority be extended to include the taking of photographs.

In terms of clause 2, bail may be paid to the police if there is no local prison and prisoners awaiting trial may be kept in police cells temporarily. At present, such an accused can only pay bail during normal office hours.

The present procedure under section 119 limits the procedure to those cases where an accused is brought before the court after his arrest or where bail has been granted by a police official or the accused has been warned by the police to be present in court. It is possible that the interrogation may take place after the accused has been released on bail by the court. In order that the provisions of section 119 may be better utilized, provision is being made in clause 2 for this procedure to be followed in all cases.

Clause 46 seeks to amend section 145(4) of the Act, which deals with the position of an assessor as a member of the court. Under the present section 145(4) of the Act, an assessor can only decide upon a question of fact. The judge decides upon a question of law. When questions of law, such as the admissibility of evidence, have to be decided upon, assessors are normally requested to leave the court. This is especially the case when evidence is heard concerning a confession alleged to have been made by an accused. When the judge had heard the evidence concerning the confession and the circumstances under which it was made he decides upon its admissibility. If the confession is found to be admissible, the assessors are called back and the evidence has to be led again. Clause 4 provides that the assessor or assessors assisting the judge may take part in any decision upon the question whether the evidence of any confession or other statement made by an accused is admissible as evidence against him.

Clause 5 amends section 146 of the Act and is merely a consequential amendment arising from the amendment in clause 4. The provisions relating to the giving of reasons by a judge at a trial are being made applicable to the circumstances covered by clause 4 as well.

†In terms of section 262 of the Act an accused who is charged with housebreaking with intent to commit a crime, may be found guilty of certain other offences if the evidence proves such other offences. In practice it often happens that the evidence, instead of proving housebreaking with a certain intent, proves malicious injury to property. Clause 6 therefore makes malicious injury to property a competent verdict on a charge of housebreaking.

Section 296 of the Act provides that a court may, together with or in the place of a sentence, commit an accused to a rehabilitation centre. In practice problems arise when an accused is committed to a rehabilitation centre in addition to a sentence of imprisonment which is not suspended. For obvious reasons it is undesirable for such a person to be transferred to a prison after he has been held in a rehabilitation centre for a considerable period. It is also not expedient to transfer an accused to a rehabilitation centre after he has been imprisoned for a considerable period. In clause 7 it is now being provided that a court shall not commit an accused to a rehabilitation centre in addition to a sentence of imprisonment which is not suspended.

Clause 8 relates to section 307 of the Act and, as in the case of clause 2, makes provision for the payment of bail to a police official.

In the case of a vehicular offence committed within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority a spot fine may, in terms of section 341(2), be paid to the local authority concerned. It would be convenient for the public, however, and would reduce the volume of work at magistrates’ courts considerably, if spot fines in respect of all the offences mentioned in schedule 3 of the Act could be paid to such local authorities. Clause 9 makes this possible.

Mr. Speaker: I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.