Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the Third Reading of a very important Bill and, as I indicated at the Second Reading, we support the improvements to this legislation before the House, particularly as regards the provision made for labour brokers and the improvements to the working of the industrial court and, more specifically, as regards the extension of the use of conciliation boards to others.

Right at the very end of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate, he saw fit to launch an attack upon me for certain remarks I made in my Second Reading Speech. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is going to perform again. There are no television cameras here today, so I do not know whether he is really in good form. I do, however, want to take him up on two points. Firstly, he accused me of bringing politics into a labour debate, saying that that was very bad. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and also hon. members to cast their minds back over, say, even the last ten years and to note how the labour debates in the House have changed. If we read Hansard and see the number of times quite deliberately politics has determined our labour policy, politics on the part of the Government, it seems to me that the hon. the Minister, to put it quite kindly and mildly, has a cheek to accuse me of bringing politics into labour debates.

Times without number we on this side have had to ask the hon. the Minister to address himself to the discrepancies within labour law. Time and time again we attacked the job reservation operating in this country totally on grounds of race. Time and time again we highlighted those areas which discriminated against people of colour and women. We have been amongst the first, if we were not actually the first, to applaud the hon. Minister when changes were introduced.

I understand that he has problems—he has problems in his own caucus—but then he must not use that occasion to launch a strong attack on me. What did I in fact say? I said that we commend and welcome the changes to the legislation and that anything that improves the resolution of labour disputes would be welcomed by this side of the House. I went on to say that unfortunately there were extraneous ideas and factors brought in where they should not be but for which there was no other place to deal with them. I urged the hon. the Minister to extend, with his colleagues, the labour reforms into a wider area so that political and social changes could be made affecting the larger percentage of workers in South Africa. That is not bringing politics into labour relations. It is saying: Let us keep it out by attending to the problem which exists. There is a vacuum. We all know there is a vacuum, and, until such time as that vacuum has been filled meaningfully and realistically by genuine political rights for workers, we are going to have these problems. That is why I said I sympathize with management on the one hand and with labour leaders. Independent unions, registered unions, Black, White— you name it—non of them can meet those aspirations and those demands. I take the strongest exception to the hon. the Minister’s launching this attack when all he is really doing is saying: Well, we are making these changes, but in order to sort of cover them up a little bit, we must have a go at the Progs. That is not good enough for this hon. Minister. We have admired him, and have said so, and have sometimes possibly embarrassed him by our admiration. However, as a Minister of Manpower we commend him for the work he is doing. We are encouraged by these further improvements and we welcome the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands almost embarrassed me as well because, for a moment, I was wondering what I should say after he had once again applied the soft soap. The hon. member should not be over-sensitive when at times the hon. the Minister deservedly chastises him. I am not going to say that the hon. member for Pinelands and his party have made no contribution whatsoever to the revision of industrial legislation and labour dispensation in South Africa. I would not say so, since it would not be true.

It is true that the hon. member, who is chief spokesman of the official Opposition, has from time to time made positive contributions concerning labour matters and we should thank the hon. member for this. However, where we do feel that the hon. member is at fault, is that on so many occasions he finds it necessary to echo the views of the enemies of South Africa—not so much in the labour sphere, but in many other areas. I think this is what the hon. the Minister had against the hon. member for Pinelands. I am aware that from time to time he finds it necessary to intercede on behalf of others, something which need not necessarily be done here.

During the Second Reading of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill we pointed out that the Bill consisted mainly of four components. The first component is that section dealing with the compulsory registration of labour brokers and their offices, as well as the fact that a labour broker is now being placed under the control of the provisions dealing with employers in a different capacity. In clause 2 of the amending Bill we find that a labour broker is deemed to be an employer. This means that we shall be able to approach the labour broker in the same way as we approach an employer or employer’s organization. The contractors who fall under the jurisdiction of a broker are deemed to be employees of the broker in terms of clause 2. The contractors may therefore be registered in respect of the provisions of the various appropriate agreements of the industrial council.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister is being empowered also to appoint conciliation boards in those areas in the labour sphere where organized labour in the form of employers’ organizations or trade unions does not exist. We must accept the fact that from time to time disputes and differences will arise in the labour situation. It is almost like a marriage. One cannot get away from the fact that from time to time problems will arise between the employer and the employee.

Order!

Problems may arise, as the hon. member for Welkom has just experienced. However, one cannot always walk away from a problem as the hon. member does. In the labour situation we need a particular instrument. We have introduced this instrument by way of this legislation in the form of a conciliation board. For those hon. members who do not know how a conciliation board works, I wish to say that it is not like when problems have to be solved in a marriage. By introducing a conciliation board we make an effort to get the employer and the employee to sit down around a table and face one another in order to solve the problem.

I wish to agree with the hon. chief spokesman of the CP that it could create a problem when it comes to unorganized labour since we wish to develop the trade union movement in the form of registered trade unions as far as possible in the South African labour sphere. May it never become a practice to introduce conciliation boards for unorganized labour when this could result in organizations, unofficial organizations, regarding themselves as trade unions, but not wishing to comply with the statutory requirements. I think this is the problem of the hon. member for Brakpan, and I agree with him. However, this is not what we are dealing with here. That is why, as the hon. the Minister said at the conclusion of the Second Reading, we must look at this particular matter with circumspection.

I think we agree on the two other components of this Bill, viz. the appeals to the Industrial Court instead of to the Minister. We do not wish to politicize appeals of the kind that result from an agreement of an industrial council. We do not want them to go to a political figure such as the hon. the Minister, but rather to a legal institution such as the industrial court.

As far as the fourth component is concerned, viz. secrecy—the old section 67 of the old Industrial Conciliation Act—I think that all of us who from time to time have had to deal with the implementation of the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act, have had problems with precisely what may be made known. Reference was only made to certain matters and this could be interpreted extremely broadly. I therefore think that this amendment brings with it a greater degree of security of justice in respect of this matter, and I believe that this can only be an improvement in that we are giving the old Industrial Court, previously known as a tribunal, more of the character of a law court. I therefore believe that the hon. the Minister and the department have made extremely sound amendments to the Industrial Conciliation Act by way of this amending Bill, and I therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, in this House it is always good to listen to hon. members who are experts in their field. However, there are always problems when the subject in which they are expert becomes confused with a new philosophy, in this case, the philosophy that the White man no longer has any rights in the labour situation in South Africa. The moment one puts a question about something concerning the Whites to an hon. Minister, for example this hon. Minister, he says one is talking nonsense and he blazons it abroad, simply because one is asking a White man for protection for the Whites. Then one is talking nonsense. In respect of this legislation this hon. Minister has capitulated. This Minister was the one who convinced all of us, including me, in the caucus as well as elsewhere, that if we accepted that Black trade unions would be registered, he would have a full say over the activities of those trade unions. Last year the hon. the Minister informed us that he would be submitting legislation to clamp down on unregistered trade unions. But in the meanwhile, Sir, he has capitulated. The hon. the Minister is incapable of dealing with these people. He is just like a mole that turns around when it crawls up against something in the dark. He does not have the courage to tell us that he cannot organize labour matters in South Africa to the benefit of all races and groups. Sir, he is not fit for the task, and I shall prove it. When the hon. the Minister has no answer, he launches an attack such as the one he made on my hon. Leader yesterday, in a way which does not become …

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

I shall respect your ruling, Sir, and I shall deal with the Bill and with the hon. the Minister now. In this Bill large sections of the existing Act have a black border around them. Certain sections have a black mourning band around them, just like a letter one writes when someone has passed away. In the same way, sections he wishes to extract from the existing legislation have a black border around them. Sir, as I have said, when it comes to Black trade unions, the Minister is capitulating. Look at clause 11 of the Bill. It looks like a game of noughts and crosses. However the words “registered trade unions” appeared, they have now been omitted. This is the Minister who stated a few months ago that unregistered trade unions would not have the right to force their employers to accept something, and what is happening now? They simply took no notice of him. And now these people are being given better benefits than those who are registered. Now I ask myself … and I am extremely pleased that we have a Minister like Minister Heunis. We know that even if he does something wrong, at least he knows what he is doing. At least he knows what he is doing and he follows a path which, rightly or wrongly, he will continue to follow in future. But I cannot say this of the hon. member for Waterberg … [Interjections.] I mean Soutpansberg, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, even the hon. the Minister could not believe it when he heard what I had said.

Only you believed it. [Interjections.]

Only the hon. the Minister believed it. [Interjections.] This hon. Minister promised us faithfully that no money from overseas would reach a trade union. Does the hon. the Minister wish to tell me that he still maintains that no money from abroad will reach unregistered trade unions?

In which clause does it say that?

Be quiet, you. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is also quiet now.

The hon. Minister is going to speak at a later stage. You just finish making your speech.

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to give the hon. the Minister too much time to think it over. He must reply to me now. [Interjections.] What the hon. the Minister told us would never happen, viz. the recognition of unregistered trade unions, is precisely what is happening now. We have even seen in newspaper reports that the hon. the Minister has said that it could happen. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, there are certain things which I find odd. One should read these newspaper reports from time to time. Of course, one cannot read some of these English reports at all, because they are so obscure. However, I wish to quote from one of these reports —

Is the hon. the Minister still going to introduce that legislation? I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is still going to introduce that legislation. Mr Speaker, I cannot take the matter any further if the hon. the Minister does not reply to me in this respect. [Interjections.]

Even if I were to speak until I was hoarse, you would never understand these matters.

No, the hon. the Minister must please not become angry now. We are not going to have this hon. Minister with us for much longer. [Interjections.] No, he is not going to be here much longer. I heard that he is going to resign. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Minister must confine himself to this legislation chapter and verse. After all, he is still a Minister. He should therefore confine himself to this. Is he going to introduce that legislation here this year or not? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is simply not replying to me. Just look at him sitting there. He is not stirring. No, Mr. Speaker, according to this same report, the hon. the Minister also said that mixed trade unions would not be permitted. One of his earlier pronouncements was that no people of colour would sit in this Parliament. He stated this from a platform. It was at the same time that this report from which I have just quoted, appeared. The hon. the Minister stated this from a platform in his own constituency. I hope he is still standing by that.

Order! I appeal to the hon. member for Langlaagte to come back to the provisions of the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that there are a number of hon. members on the opposite side who do not like it when one occasionally points out a Minister’s faults. Of course, I believe that hon. members opposite have recently had a very difficult time. They have recently gone through a very difficult time, because … [Interjections.]

Which Bill are you discussing now?

I should like to know one thing today. When a Cabinet Minister promises that he will now allow an unregistered trade union in South Africa to negotiate with employers, that he will see to it that this would be illegal, and precisely the opposite happens, what must the employers and the workers of South Africa think of such a Minister? Surely the hon. the Minister should be able to explain. He should say that he is incapable of dealing with these people, that he never worked with them before, that he has managed other portfolios, that he was not aware that the Black people of South Africa act in a certain way, etc. In the past the hon. the Minister did not perform too badly in respect of the other portfolios he was in charge of. However, that was only the case until he took over the Manpower portfolio. In respect of the Manpower portfolio he has been found wanting. However, in order to remain in the good books of certain people, the hon. the Minister is trying to throw all groups and races into one melting pot by way of this legislation. After all, we see this happening. Wherever one looks, one sees mixed trade unions, mixed this and mixed that, but when it comes to registration, they disregard this Minister. The Minister has feeling for the White worker, but they make concessions to people in this country who, in the words of the hon. the Minister, may cause a great deal of unrest in this country. We cannot afford to have a Minister who does not stand by the legislation he announced and which he tells us he is going to pilot through this House. We cannot allow unregistered trade unions to be on an equal footing with registered trade unions.

Mr. Speaker, in the nature of things it is very difficult to follow the hon. member for Langlaagte because he has the unique ability to talk a great deal without saying anything. I hope you will forgive me if I deviate slightly from the legislation but I just want to say the following. As we know, the moment the members of the old Progressive Party stood up they spoke about the Black worker who was being neglected, and that is what the hon. member for Langlaagte is now doing. This reminds me of the story of the two men who were sitting in a room talking. When a mouse ran in one of the men screamed and jumped onto the table. His friend then said: “Don’t be silly; you are not a woman. How can you be afraid of a mouse?” Then the man replied: “Before I was born my mother was frightened by a mouse and now I am also afraid of them.” His friend then said: “That is nonsense. Before I was born my mother tripped over a gramophone and I can assure you there is nothing the matter with me, with me, with me.” Evidently the hon. member for Langlaagte’s mother also tripped over something. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte had a great deal to say about trade unions and unregistered trade unions in particular. The hon. member told us that the hon. the Minister of Manpower had been weighed and found wanting as far as the Manpower portfolio was concerned. What is interesting is that despite the fact that the judgment of that hon. member and some other hon. members in his party has been clouded by hate. It has been demonstrated during this session that this Minister is extremely effective as far as labour legislation is concerned, because those hon. members had virtually no objection to that legislation. That was in fact the position until the hon. the Minister quite justifiably stepped on the toes of the hon. member for Langlaagte. Now he says that the hon. the Minister has been weighed and found wanting.

As I have said, the hon. member had a great deal to say about trade unions and in particular unregistered trade unions. At some or other stage one must decide for oneself where national interest and political expediency must be separated from each other. The recognition being afforded to unregistered trade unions has a very specific and practical aim and use in our particular circumstances with their unique problems and political overtones. What is more, the hon. member for Langlaagte also knows that unregistered trade unions have to comply with certain conditions. The conditions are exactly the same as those registered trade unions have to comply with. If for the sake of labour peace in South Africa such a measure is expedient, what objection does he have to that?

The hon. member also had a great deal to say about the fact that the hon. the Minister had said that no money would be able to come in from abroad. After all, the hon. the Minister has no control over this matter. As far as I know—I have been with him all along the line—the hon. the Minister never said that he would not allow it. He said that he would at least know whether trade unions were registered, and if they had to keep account books, whether money was coming in from abroad. If an unregistered trade union wants bargaining rights it will specifically have to do this. It will have to keep account books our inspectors can take a look at and we shall know whether money is coming in from overseas. The hon. member had a great deal to say about the mourning bands, or the black borders around certain things but I could not ascertain what exactly was surrounded by a black border. He also referred to a conciliation court, whereas it is not in fact a conciliation court at all but a conciliation council. After all, there is no such thing as a conciliation court.

The NP has become a party of jokers.

Look who is talking!

At the start of his speech the hon. member for Langlaagte referred to a philosophy when he was discussing White and Black interests in the trade unions. I just want to tell him that normally when one refers to different races, these become ideological concepts and not philosophical concepts. I must say that once again the hon. member for Langlaagte really outdid himself by allowing his judgment to be clouded by antagonism. I think his behaviour on this occasion, as on a previous occasion, was not worthy of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sasolburg will forgive me if I do not react directly to what he said. We obviously agree with a great deal of what he said.

I should like to remind the hon. member for Langlaagte that it was not so long ago— in fact it was in 1979—that we reached consensus in Parliament supported by all hon. members, on the basic principles of labour legislation. That hon. member agreed.

Yes, as far as registered trade unions were concerned.

But there is no difference today.

At the time there was a difference.

There is no difference between the rights and protection being afforded to Whites and those which Coloured, Indian and Black South Africans are being afforded, and that was the basic principle: Equal protection and equal rights for the workers or labourers of the various groups in South Africa. Therefore we find it strange that the hon. member for Langlaagte made such a fuss about the basic principles in respect of which he differs today.

†I said in the Second Reading that this party essentially supported this particular piece of amending legislation; we had no difficulty with it as far as principle was concerned and we believed that the Labour Relations Bill was a considerable improvement on what we had had to date. I drew particular attention to the rights of unregistered unions to be able to call for a conciliation board in areas where there was no industrial council. This is of course a right which employer organizations also enjoy.

The hon. the Minister will remember that during the Committee Stage I moved an amendment to a particular provision of clause 3. I am not going to repeat the detailed argument of why we believe it is wrong for the Minister to have arbitrary powers to call for conciliation in a situation which could be in the middle of a collective bargaining process. I know that the hon. the Minister is going to reply that he already enjoys those powers; he can already do it in certain circumstances. That is correct. We are not against the principle of the Minister being able to call for conciliation in certain circumstances where it is in the national interest or where it is due to the inability of the disputing parties to find settlement. That we are not disputing. What we are asking for very simply, because we believe this leaves a deficiency in the Bill, is that the Minister should consult prior to his decision with both parties. When one says “after consultation”, it does not mean “in consultation”, and I should like to make that point again and differentiate between the words “after consultation” and “in consultation”. “In consultation” means that one must achieve consensus with all three or both the parties involved in the dispute, be that the Minister and the employers or the Minister and the employees’ organizations or all three. That is “in consultation”, but we are saying that “after consultation” with the parties concerned, the hon. the Minister can then exercise his prerogative to call for conciliation. We feel very strongly indeed about that because the workers corps in South Africa, in particular organized labour by way of trade unions, can say that this is improper inteference in the collective bargaining process.

Quite right.

Absolutely right, as my honoured and learned friend from Umhlanga says. I thought that would have been obvious. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. the Minister that collective bargaining is an on-going process. When one reaches a strike situation and one is ready for mediation, arbitration or conciliation one is at the tip of the iceberg. The process that has led up to that decision is a considerable one, both in terms of time and intensity. There is a lot of psychological interplay between trade unions and employer organizations. They build up a climate, trust and agreements, all of which may eventually lead to the settlement of a difference, whereas in the absence of a settlement the result could be a strike. There is, however, a great deal of work that has gone on, prior to the strike, between the unions and employers. Now the hon. the Minister wants to give himself the power—or he wants to retain the power—to walk into the middle of the collective bargaining position, particularly after a strike, and like a bull in a china shop call a halt to the collective bargaining process and tell them they will now go over to conciliation.

Does anybody support him in this?

I have not heard any expressions of “Hoor, hoor!” from the other side. [Interjections.] Obviously the hon. members on that side of the House are considering this very seriously. We in this House do, in fact, spend many hours talking about unfair labour practices, and there are certain steps that can be taken against an organization or individual guilty of an unfair labour practice. We consider this power the hon. the Minister is giving himself in this Bill, the power to interfere without consultation, also to be an unfair labour practice. [Interjections.] I also want to say that it is improper interference in the collective bargaining process. That is why we have stood so strongly in opposition to that particular clause. Could I perhaps just have an undertaking from the hon. the Minister today when he replies to the Third Reading debate—if he can take time off from fighting with the CP—that despite what is contained in clause 3 of the Bill, he will consult with the disputing parties before calling for conciliation, as is visualized in terms of clause 3? My appeal is therefore: By all means, make the decision, call for conciliation, but only after consultation with the disputing parties.

For the reasons I have given, in both the Second Reading debate and in my speech today, I should like to say that we shall be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

The story does not, however, end there, because yesterday a very strange thing indeed happened in this House. We found the official Opposition, the PFP, voting with the Government against the clause.

Not against the clause.

I mean, against the amendment. [Interjections.] They voted against our amendment to that clause. [Interjections.] What they voted against was consultation between the hon. the Minister and the disputing parties, and to my knowledge the PFP has never before ever agreed, in this House, to give a Minister arbitrary powers to act without consultation. [Interjections.] I should like the Chief Whip of the official Opposition to tell me whether it has not always been a foundation-stone of PFP policy that a Minister cannot have arbitrary powers to act, in particular in a field and in regard to an issue as sensitive as labour relations. For years the hon. member for Pinelands has been fighting, in this House, for the rights of unions—including unregistered unions—to take care of their own affairs. [Interjections.] Yet yesterday we find the official Opposition voting to give the hon. the Minister those arbitrary powers. [Interjections.] I hope there will be further speakers of the official Opposition taking part in this debate today so as to be able to explain to us why they suddenly changed their basic principles in this regard yesterday and voted with the Government. [Interjections.] Voting with the Government is not always a crime, but one must know why one is voting with the Government … [Interjections] … and one must be right when one is voting with the Government. One must know what principles are involved. [Interjections.] Let me therefore direct my question at the hon. member for Pinelands. I know he was not here yesterday, and that is probably why they did the wrong thing. Will he nod his head? [Interjections.] No, he will not nod it. [Interjections.] I want to make a serious appeal to the official Opposition to clarify their position on this, because the implications for their stand on industrial relations are very serious indeed. In conclusion let met say that I am sure that the hon. member for Pinelands will take the earliest opportunity to explain their reasons for voting as they did yesterday. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we need to dwell at any length on the hon. members who took part in the Third Reading debate. I do not wish to argue any further with the hon. member for Pinelands concerning the matter he raised. I just want to say to him that we were together and we had a share in the legislation introduced here. What is more, from the outset we have looked at the labour legislation, and the field of labour, with a jealous eye and said that this was a field that we should allow to be used for one thing only, viz. to negotiate and settle matters pertaining to the labour situations and the legislation should therefore be geared to doing so. When the legislation was introduced we also issued the warning that we should not permit this field to be misused by anyone as a field of conflict or negotiation for anything other than labour affairs. However, when the hon. member for Pinelands took part in the debate he skirted around this. If the hon. member states that he did not mean it that way, then I accept that. However, he added that there were problems in other fields as well and that there was danger that the field of labour would be used for that. That is the kind of language and threat we have to hear all day in this regard. Accordingly I warned the hon. member, and I want to put it to him once again that I do not believe that that is the kind of discussion we should conduct here. I do not believe that that is the kind of link we must make here. I think that all of us in this House should make a joint effort to set this field aside for labour matters only and not for other matters.

I merely warned that it would happen. That is all.

Very well, but I think we can leave it at that. I have already dealt with that. I just wish to say in reply to his Third Reading speech that he and the hon. members on his side can make a contribution towards enabling us to achieve that goal. I want to issue the warning that if we are unable to achieve this we are going to encounter serious problems in this regard. We want labour peace here. What we do not want is ultimately to give encouragement, through what is said here, to people in regard to what they are threatening to do. Already this is constantly being done. I shall leave the hon. member at that. I just wish to warn him and everyone else that we cannot allow this field to be used as one in which to decide on, or battle to achieve, other goals.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat also spoke. I just want to come back to a matter he touched on again, and that is the matter of labour brokers. In this Third Reading stage, at the conclusion of the debate, I do just want to point out to this House, for interest’s sake, that in fact there are more labour brokers than one would expect. I tried to obtain figures relating to both the bodies and the workers involved. I have very interesting figures in this regard. As far as commercial activities alone are concerned, there are 20 brokers concerned with the supply of people in this field. 7 000 workers are involved in this regard. Let us look at the occupation of draughtsman. This is a very wide sphere and there is an acute shortage of people in this field. There are no fewer than 60 undertakings concerned with providing people in this field and 3 500 draughtsmen are involved. As far as artisans are concerned there are no fewer than 200 brokers, and 25 000 artisans, who are hired and transfered around, are involved. If, then, we speak about a total of 280 enterprises and 35 000 artisans, one can understand how much disruption this could cause South Africa if we did not set limits in this regard. Accordingly I should like to refer to these figures and say that the result of this legislation will be that we shall have a greater degree of order in this regard.

The hon. member also referred to conciliation boards and said that they had to comply with certain requirements. That is so. In fact there are two types of trade unions that are unregistered. These are those trade unions that we suspect exist but which we do not know a great deal about. They try to act without showing their hand. In addition there are many who do comply with the requirement that also applies for unregistered trade unions. What requirement do we set? We set the requirement—before the benefits we now want to grant are included—that the trade union must represent more than 50% of the workers. It must at least have complied with the requirements and prescriptions of the Act, namely to meet their financial obligations as well and also to provide the necessary details that we expect of them. In other words, these are organizations, many of which are at present in the process of becoming able to register and of registering. Therefore it is essential to draw a distinction. There are several of these trade unions that are in the process of registration. If a trade union intimates that it wishes to register, we consider that it is as well to accommodate it, as we are doing here now.

Earlier on one of the hon. members remarked that there was a wide field where industrial councils did not exist and where, as a result, there was no regulation. He warned that problems could arise in that field. It is for that very reason that we are adjusting the legislation in this way, viz. in an effort to achieve order in that field.

Again today the hon. member for Langlaagte spoke about a philosophy and made the remark that the Whites did not have rights and that we did not want to protect the rights of the Whites. The hon. member understands absolutely nothing about these matters. I want to show hon. members how little the hon. member understands. I want to ask the hon. member to tell this House which Act, passed over the past four years— including legislation we are now discussing and that which we discussed together on this side of the House—deprives the Whites of their rights. Mention just one example.

You did not want to answer his questions.

The hon. member said that we deprived the Whites of rights. Nowhere have we abolished rights.

You did not want to answer my questions.

Having made that remark, it is evident that the hon. member has another problem as well. He has difficulty reading. He is unable to read legislation that is under discussion properly, in order to determine what it says. He talks about black circles that he simply cannot understand. I think the hon. member would do well to arrange for someone to teach him how to read a Bill. The hon. member should know that the black lines to which he refers have a meaning, which is that one leaves out words and inserts other words in their place. The hon. member hummed and hawed to such an extent that it was quite evident that he did not understand what was going on here. He also spoke about a conciliation court (“ver-soeningshof’)· Where in the legislation is reference made to a conciliation court? What is a conciliation court? The hon. member keeps referring to a conciliation court. There is no such thing as a conciliation court. The hon. member should start by getting his terminology straight. Is he referring to a court or is he referring to a conciliation board? What is he talking about?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte says that I gave the assurance that no money would reach an unregistered trade union. I did not give that assurance. When did I give that assurance? The hon. member does not know what is said in this House. The hon. member understands nothing of these matters. It is interesting to read his Hansard and to see how anyone who knows anything about labour matters cannot make head or tail of what he has said. Just go and read what he said here the other day. It is impossible to make out what he wanted to say. I shall leave the matter at that and say that the hon. member made no contribution whatsoever and that there would be no point in my taking any further notice of him.

The hon. member for Sasolburg made certain remarks for which I should like to thank him. What he said is quite correct and accordingly I shall not reply to him. He furnished an explanation which is entirely correct.

The hon. member for Durban North repeated a question he asked here yesterday. I am pleased he did so because it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding here and I should like to eliminate it. The hon. member said he wanted the assurance that a conciliation board would not be appointed summarily, without due consideration of the situation, but that instead this would happen only after consultation. I can understand his problem. The fact is that our experience over the past years has been that on every occasion on which we have sought to achieve conciliation, the people concerned have investigated a situation with exceptional dedication and sympathy. Then, with all the good judgment at their disposal, they have tried to bring about conciliation. Their constant aim is to seek to defuse what could be an explosive situation and to try and achieve conciliation. The hon. member wants this incorporated in the Act, but I want to give the hon. member the assurance across the floor of this House that what he asks, will happen in practice. Indeed, it would be very unwise if that were not to happen. It would be a very foolish Minister who announced one morning that trouble was brewing at a certain place and that he was announcing a conciliation board in the absence of a contribution from the department or anyone else. And any official who rushed in in this way would be a very foolish official. Therefore I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this is indeed the intention. It may be that in the future, when we take another look at the whole situation of conciliation, we may redraft the legislation or insert further provisions. I do not know what is going to happen. I do want to give the hon. member the assurance that he need not be afraid that we shall be so unwise as to act without having done everything in our power to investigate what is at issue and get the parties together.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to dwell for a moment on the exclusions contained in clause l(2)(c). They concern persons employed in private households. In my Second Reading speech I referred to this exclusion and also to the fact that the Manpower Commission is investigating this matter. The hon. the Minister also referred to this. I do not think it is necessary to mention that a very large number of people fall into these two categories of workers, and it is therefore essential that serious attention be given to their conditions of service and the like. We are well aware, as the hon. the Minister also indicated by way of reaction to an interjection, that it is very difficult to speak of minimum wages in these cases, particularly in respect of people employed in the farming industry. However, I do think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that there is in fact a need to go into this matter very thoroughly because I think it is general knowledge that sometimes misuse is made—if I may use this expression—of manpower in these categories. It is essential for there to be a greater measure of standardization in this connection, and I am not only thinking of wages here. There are also housing facilities and other aspects involved, such as vacation and other leave for both domestic employees and employees in the farming industry. In this regard I must say, Sir, that it gave me great pleasure during my recent trip through the Western Cape to see the degree of improvement that has taken place, particularly as regards the housing of farm workers. It is really gratifying to see what improvements have taken place in comparison with the position five years ago.

Allow me at this stage to address a few words to the hon. member for Durban North. He tried to make party politics out of my request to the hon. the Minister that we should please not use the designation “domestic servant”. Well, if the hon. member thinks that he can make party politics out of such a trifle, then he is welcome to try. I made this request because I know what the feeling is among the people concerned, as was quite clear from investigations made. If the hon. member for Durban North wants to refer to “state servants” or “servants in the Public Service” he is welcome to do so. As far as I am concerned, we call them Government officials and do not refer to them as servants. Allow me to point out that in this Bill and in the explanatory memorandum the department refers to “domestic workers in private households”. The term “domestic servant” is not used in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum. I welcome this because it is in line with the request I made.

Sir, I am glad the hon. member referred to this again. Hon. members will remember that when an announcement was made on this matter a while ago, an announcement which appeared in the Press, it was stated explicitly that there is a need to gain clarity on the working conditions of these people. There can be no question of wage determination here. How can one have such a thing? After all, conditions differ from one branch of farming to another and from district to district. There is also the matter of fringe benefits. Some workers may even have a piece of the farm to cultivate on their own account and this may form part of their income. There is a negative and a positive motive for this investigation. The negative side is that the story is being disseminated in the outside world that we allegedly have a slave labour system here. On the other hand the positive side is an attempt to reach an agreement with regard to certain basic conditions of service. In this regard the South African Agricultural Union is co-operating because they see in this an opportunity to put the matter right for themselves. If we were therefore to discontinue the investigation, the South African Agricultural Union would be the body that would object. Of course there is political capital to be made out of this matter. All manner of things have been said and ulterior motives have been seen in it that do not exist at all. The fact of the matter is that such an investigation is under way. Such investigations can take a long time. The National Manpower Commission is undertaking quite a number of simultaneous investigations and I cannot therefore urge them to bring out a report on this matter soon. The underlying reason for the investigation is however positive and not negative. We want to help the agricultural sector in this way.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

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

Sir, before I proceed to motivate my reason for moving this amendment, I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would consider this amendment without any prejudice in spite of my surname. I speak here as the member for Parktown.

This subsection deals with the maximum ordinary working hours per week. Subsection 1 reads—

1. (a) a security guard or a guard to work for more than 60 hours in any week;
2. (b) any other employee to work for more than 46 hours in any week.

My amendment relates to private hospitals. The maximum of 46 hours per week is not a problem as such. It is the 46 hours “in any week”. The word “any” is going to create problems for private hospitals. Sir, a hospital works 24 hours per day. A hospital does not have a fixed programme of work per day. There are days on which the work is very intensive. For instance, a surgeon may have a long list of operations on the Monday set aside for him, taking him right into the night. He cannot stop at a certain stage in order to release the staff. He has to continue; otherwise the work would have to wait until the next Monday. That can cause the patients lots of inconvenience. I today phoned a hospital here in Cape Town and one in Johannesburg. The one in Cape Town, a private hospital, works a 42 hour week, while the one in Johannesburg works a 40 hour week. So there would not be any objection to a 46 hour week although I myself feel it is too long. But complications might arise. Let us take night duty for instance. In hospitals, private or otherwise, night duty is regarded as being a 12 hour shift. Nurses quite often will do night-duty for seven consecutive nights. That totals up to 84 hours. But the next week they are off for the entire week. Why do hospitals do this? On the one hand it is done for the orderly running of the hospital and on the other hand for the convenience of the nurses. This night-shift of 12 hours is therefore not there to penalize anybody. It is there for the convenience of the staff and to ensure and provide good medical treatment. That is what hospitals are there for, i.e. to provide the best possible treatment. I believe that if private hospitals can be included in this clause so that their number of working hours could be limited to 46 hours in any given week, it would in the first instance destroy the whole system as it exists now. It will be grossly inconvenient for the nursing staff. It will also add to costs because more people will have to be on duty. In the third instance it will also cause the standards of private hospitals to deteriorate.

I believe this clause is actually meant to deal with factories, shops and offices. By no stretch of imagination can a hospital be included anywhere in this category. It is completely impossible. Should my amendment be accepted it would, of course, also affect many other later clauses of this Bill. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to accept my amendment in the interests of good medical care, for the sake of the convenience of private hospitals, and in order to keep the nursing staff satisfied. Should the hon. the Minister be agreeable in this respect it could only contribute to the proper functioning of private hospitals and to the maintaining of high standards there.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that we are with him in spirit but that regrettably we will not be able to support his amendment—the amendment he has just moved, as well as the one he has indicated he will move later—because of the following reasons. I believe it is very important that it should be clearly understood what the attitude of the NRP is towards the question of overtime, ordinary time and also towards the exclusion or the exemption of nurses and other staff in private hospitals from the provisions contained in clause 2 of this Bill.

At the moment the position is that in State hospitals—I use that term in order to cover provincial hospitals as well—a 40-hour week is worked. The nursing staff work a 40-hour week, with a maximum of 60 hours a week. This particular clause states in the first instance a maximum which staff may work. The nursing fraternity and all the staff employed by private hospitals are therefore free to go to the management and to negotiate a shorter working week. That is not prohibited. They can negotiate in their own right. They also have their association to do it on their behalf, and at the same time it will be possible for them to negotiate time off, flexibility of hours, when they have to be on duty, etc.

We believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown has one inherent weakness. That is that if that amendment is accepted it will then leave the door open to abuse in terms of the employment of hospital staff in private hospitals, because unless a maximum is prescribed, there will be coercion and pressure will be brought to bear on the staff to work longer and longer hours, if for no other reason than that it is more cost effective. That is what will happen because the moment one prescribes a 40-hour or a 46-hour work week one determines the point beyond which overtime rates have to be paid. If ordinary time is limited to 40 hours it will mean that from the 40th hour on overtime will have to be paid. Therefore we do appreciate what the hon. member for Parktown said regarding cost effectiveness, but the hon. member, I am sure, will also appreciate the fact that it will leave the door open to abuse, and that if private hospital staff are excluded in terms of his amendment there will be institutions that will not stop at making their staff work a 72-hour week. They will simply coerce their staff into working longer and longer hours.

We believe it will be better to stick to the conditions as laid down in clause 2 of this Bill, where a maximum of 46 hours a week is prescribed, and then to leave it to the staff associations to negotiate for shorter hours. However, the door should be closed to abuse in respect of longer hours.

I should like to return to one of the points of motivation the hon. member for Parktown used. That is the efficiency of service, the fact that hospitals are unique. How do the nursing staff cope efficiently if they have to work very long and arduous hours? Surely their efficiency and their productivity must drop, and in as critical a situation as nursing, where split-second decisions have to be made in order to save a patient’s life or in connection with administering a correct dosage of drugs and reporting incidents correctly and accurately to a doctor, this particular profession must have highly efficient people, and they cannot perform well if they have to work long hours. We have prescribed here that office workers may not work for longer than 46 hours a week, workers who do relatively less responsible work, people who sit and punch out numbers on an adding machine, people who file papers. They do not have to make critical decisions. Therefore, the nursing profession in particular must be protected in their own interests and in the interests of the service itself and good health in particular from arduous and long hours.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

The hon. member said that people become ineffective if they work longer than a certain number of hours a day. However, they are not excluded from working longer hours as long as they are paid overtime. What I want to know from the hon. member is whether people suddenly become effective again once they start to be paid overtime.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member knows the answer to that question. It is such an obvious question and it has such an obvious answer to it. The point is simply that there is a restraint placed on the entrepreneur in a private hospital to keep his costs within limits. If he is encouraged to make his staff work long hours at ordinary pay he is going to have a greater incentive to have them work those longer hours in order to save overtime. That stands to reason. If one is in private business—and a private hospital is a private business—one has to watch one’s cost effectiveness. I am sure the hon. member knows the answer to that question and was just trying to get some exercise for his legs. What a pity he does not do it for his brain occasionally!

What brain?

Unfortunately, I do not have time to answer that question. I think what the hon. member for Parktown has in mind with this amendment is admirable. We recognize that he has taken into consideration surgical techniques, surgical operations, and we certainly will not agree with the fact that surgical staff should walk out of an operation half way through it because of any limitation in the legislation. However, they are a very specialized category of people. Perhaps therefore we could take another look at surgical staff performing operations with doctors in order to see whether special conditions cannot be laid down for them. However, the effect of the hon. member’s amendment will be to include all workers in a private hospital, clerks, cashiers, the whole caboodle, and we believe that the door will be opened to abuse if we do not limit the period to 46 hours per week.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, has used the right argument and I do not wish to add anything further. The real point at issue here is what will happen in practice, the problem we see in this regard and the steps we want to take to solve that problem. I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that I have sympathy with his point of view. Of course, this does not apply to hospitals only, but to other establishments and institutions as well. At present the position is simply that we could grant exemption. I prefer not to exclude a single establishment or institution. I prefer to grant exemption; the Minister will be empowered to do so. Should things go too far we shall have to continue to make amendments. Since this is enabling legislation, I think it is advisable that in practice we should deal with the situation in this manner. I want to tell the hon. member that should applications for exemptions be received, whether from individuals or groups or categories of institutions, they would be treated very sympathetically; in other words, at this stage he practically has a green light as far as these specific institutions, private hospitals, are concerned. The hon. member must forgive me but I cannot deviate from that. I do not think, from the point of view of our legislation, that I should do that. We shall, through our action, achieve what the hon. member wants. As I said, I prefer to do this by way of exemption and not by way of incorporating it in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for having given the assurance that he would react positively to applications for possible exemptions, I assume in terms of clause 34 of the Bill. The hon. the Minister must forgive me if I say that his argument is not convincing, since in clause 2(3) specific categories are already excluded. It seems senseless to us to exclude certain categories by way of legislation and then advance the argument that certain other categories should not be excluded by way of legislation. I mention this merely as a minor point.

Perhaps we should not have excluded these categories either. I think we should rather leave it at that.

It actually frightens me when there is so much agreement.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, clause 5 deals with the maximum ordinary working hours per shift in the case of shift workers. It provides that no employer shall require or permit a shift worker who is employed in a continuous activity to work a shift of longer than eight hours. “Shift worker” means an employee who works in shifts in or in connection with an activity with respect to which work is performed in two or more shifts per day. A nurse and most other employees are therefore shift workers. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will accept that a nurse will also be regarded as a shift worker. The term “continuous activity” means an activity declared as such in terms of clause 33(1)(a)(i) viz. an activity with respect to which work may be performed continuously in three shifts per 24 hours seven days a week.

It is quite clear that the Minister in the proper exercise of his discretion should declare a private hospital to be a continuous activity. The point I want to make is that private hospitals should be considered a continuous activity. This, however, is not an anwer in so far as the private hospital industry is concerned. There are several reasons why it is not an answer.

In regard to the first reason I definitely disagree with the hon. member for Durban North. I can accept some of what he has said, but I think his arguments are not completely correct, because what has happened in connection with clause 2 is repeated here. It is no good him saying that the private hospital industry wants to bring down costs and for that reason they “vemeuk” the nurses and other staff. Most of them are already working a 40 or 42 hour week, and no nurse will work in a private hospital if those conditions are imposed by their employers. Nurses can go anywhere in South Africa today because there is such a shortage of them, and therefore the various hospitals are actually fighting to get employees, not only nurses, also telephonists, etc. The argument is valid in one instance, but I do not think it applies in practice.

It has always been recognized that the basic night shift in a hospital is 12 hours. There is no doubt about it—the private hospitals have these shifts and also the State hospitals. If this shift was to be disturbed, it could have various effects on the nursing industry. I have already pointed out—this is another point I want to make to the hon. member for Durban North—that some of the nurses prefer working these long shifts and seven nights consecutively because then they get a week free. Now here the hon. the Minister will be interfering with staff arrangements, and I do not think that is right. I think that the wishes of the staff must also be considered.

You want that we must make it possible that it can be arranged so in these circumstances, not so?

Yes, but I want to continue with my argument. Secondly, to adopt a system of three shifts per 24-hour period would be most impractical, in fact unworkable. If such a system were to be adopted in a hospital, the most obvious shift pattern would be from 07h00 to 15h00, from 15h00 to 23h00 and from 23h00 to 07h00. That would be the kind of shifts that would have to be worked, but that would be impractical, because a nurse who finished her night-shift at 01h00 would be in difficulties if she did not have her own transport. One knows that in cities like Johannesburg, at that time of the morning, transport is unobtainable and that moving around is quite dangerous. So the hospital would have to provide transport, which would be very difficult and which could only be provided at great cost, let me tell that hon. member. The cost incurred by the people employing the nurses would not be paid out of their pocket, because in the long run the patient will pay for it. That is something the hon. member for Durban North must also remember. One must not glibly speak of cost, because any cost increases are transferred to the patients.

We are looking after the patients too.

No, you do not, that is the point. [Interjections.] It is no good simply saying that after a certain period of time the nurses are tired. Nurses know all about this. They have been working 12-hour shifts for a long time. So it is no argument at all. They can do it. In fact, it is done every day, not only in South Africa in Government hospitals and private hospitals, but also overseas. So his argument actually shows a lack of understanding of what is going on in the medical profession. Longer uninterrupted service is actually beneficial, because continuity is important, and not changing nursing staff around all the time means better nursing. Changing staff at odd periods means a loss of continuity, and then a patient’s case cannot be followed up properly by the nurses concerned. The hon. member must therefore go back to talking about labour relations and things like that…

Why? Are we giving you a hard time?

… and leave hospitals to those who are recognized as experts.

We are the experts.

Because that hon. member cannot go anywhere, he must not be jealous if I can. [Interjections.] No matter how the shift times are juggled around, the finishing time of at least one of the shifts will be in the early hours of the morning when no public transport is available.

Thirdly, to introduce more than three shifts in order to overcome the transport difficulty, is also impractical, as it would mean having to employ more nursing staff, and it is common cause that there is a dire shortage of available nursing staff. The hon. member for Durban North is not even aware of that. Nurses are simply not available at the moment, and to make this system work, one would have to increase the nursing staff. Most hospitals have difficulty in manning their existing shifts. For example, sometimes there are weeks when there is a tremendous amount of work and the numbers of hours per shift have to be increased. This means that overtime has to be increased. Let me tell that hon. member, however, that having a tired nurse looking after a sick patient is better than having no nurse at all. If the hon. member for Durban North were ill, would he not rather have a tired nurse looking after him than no nurse at all? No, even if additional staff were obtainable, this would increase running costs, and this would ultimately be passed on to the public, something which is most undesirable in the light of the Government’s request to the private sector to curb expenditure in these times of inflation. There will have to be an increase in medical aid contributions—in fact increases everywhere—if this provision were made applicable to the private nursing profession. [Interjections.] In terms of this provision a security guard is permitted to work a 12-hour shift. Does he not also get tired after an 8-hour shift? Should he therefore still be allowed to work? He will, however, be allowed to go on working, but what is so special about a security guard? Why must he be allowed to work a 12-hour shift, whilst other people are not allowed to do so? The real problem stems from the fact that the lawmakers are attempting to alter the basic conditions of employment of hospital staff and other types of employees to fit in with the basic conditions of employment that apply in shops, offices and factories, even though the two areas are not even remotely comparable.

I therefore move as an amendement—

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. member for Parktown has introduced this amendment but, before actually getting on to the merits of that case, perhaps I could just have a look at some of the motivations. The hon. member has stated that there is a shortage of nursing staff. Yes, there certainly is. However, as he will know, his party and my party have consistently fought for equality of employment opportunities for non-Whites, for Black nurses and Coloured nurses. In fact, this is being applied in our provincial hospitals in Natal. Where there has been a shortage of White nurses, we have said that the most important thing to the NRP is the health and welfare of the patients in the hospitals and, despite the objections of the Government, we were prepared to fly in the face of authority and employ properly qualified non-White nurses.

My concern, however, is that, when one starts bringing in non-White nurses of whom there is an oversupply, there is going to be exploitation. The point is not whether there is a shortage of White nurses. I agree with the hon. member. If White nurses do not like one hospital, they go to another. However, the hon. member knows that the private hospitals in South Africa employ a considerable number of non-Whites. We have to guard against exploitation where there is an oversupply of staff. As the hon. member will know, his hon. Chief Whip gets up in the House every year when the hours of sitting of the House are extended and says one cannot have legislation by exhaustion. He then pleads for shorter working hours in the House.

I never used that expression. It was used by Mr. Gray Hughes.

The hon. Chief Whip knows how tired he gets just sitting there. Imagine how tired he would get if he had to think. Here, however, we are working with people in a critical situation.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he will then plead for nurses employed by the Government also to fall under this Bill and not to have to work as long hours as we are asking for private hospitals? In other words, must there now be differentiation between them? Must the one group, with or without exhaustion, work longer hours?

I can answer that very simply. We are a party of consistency. The de facto position is, however, that nurses at State hospitals work a 40-hour week. That is the position. The maximum ordinary time is 40 hours per week. I said that in my last 10-minute speech, but the hon. member was not listening.

But I said the private hospitals work a 40-hour week.

If the hon. member would just keep quiet, he would hear something that is going to be to his benefit, as the lawyer said to his client. I want to say to the hon. member that we are in total sympathy with him as far as medical staff is concerned, i.e. the people who work in the theatre, administer drugs, take temperatures and hold the doctor’s hand. We are in total agreement with the hon. member that they require specific conditions. However, the hon. member made the same mistake in his amendment, i.e. he referred to all employees of a private hospital. That includes the cleaner, the lift attendant, the whole lot.

Despite the deficiency, I want to say to the hon. member for Parktown that this time we will be supporting him. We do so for the very reason that he lost the previous amendment. Within the framework of a maximum of 46 ordinary hours per week, we are prepared to see hospital staff—it is a pity he did not specify medical staff—subject to this amendment and not having to work more than a 12-hour shift. That is within the framework of a maximum of 46 hours per week. As I said, it is a great pity that the hon. member did not improve his amendment by specifying medical staff. Nevertheless, in the interests of protecting those workers and limiting them to 12-hour shifts in this clause, we are prepared to support the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member. I want to draw his attention to certain facts. I want him to come and visit a private hospital one day— not as a patient, although he is welcome to do so in that capacity as well.

What are you going to cut out? [Interjections.]

No, I meant it in good faith. It is unfortunate that we are talking here about private hospitals, but the hon. the Minister has already excluded State hospitals from this Bill. He has done so for obvious and good reasons. We are now, therefore, talking about private hospitals. The hon. member for Durban North must remember that a hospital is like an ant-heap. It is a continuing activity. It is a recognized fact that the entire staff work under the same conditions and work the same hours. To exclude the other workers will bring such problems as to make it work impossible.

I want to come to another point. We are not against the 46-hour week. We welcome it. It is longer than at present. We object that in any specific week there is no carryover of time. I want to ask the hon. member what the private hospital I phoned today must do where they, since its inception, have had a system where the night-shift is 12 hours per night for seven nights, a total of 84 hours per week. Then follows a week off duty, which averages out on a work-week of 40 hours. The hon. member is wrong. Private hospitals are not exploiting nurses but helping them. What will they do under this system? In Government hospitals they are allowed to do this. They work these hours. What is good for Government hospitals will therefore no longer be good for private hospitals. In other words, the hon. member is saying that Government hospitals exploit nurses but private hospitals should not.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Parktown for his invitation to visit the private hospital. We have, however, quite a number of very efficient private hospitals in Natal and I visit them frequently. I want to point out that the hon. member is oversimplifying the situation when he gives us the case of the personnel who work 12 hours night-shift for seven nights consecutively and then get perhaps three, four or five days off before coming back again.

They get seven days off.

But they work a 12-hour shift seven days a week.

Yes, because they prefer it.

No, not because they prefer it, but because that is a condition of service.

No.

The hon. member is using the argument because he is averaging out. He says that the human frame and the human mental capacity can stand 12-hour shifts for seven days a week. That is impossible.

The nursing profession say that, not us.

It is impossible for them to be efficient in the ninth, tenth or eleventh hour after two days on that shift. As a medical man himself the hon. member should know that. The argument the hon. member is using is that on average if, over a period of one month, they work like slaves for one week and live like kings for the following week, they are well off. It is the same as the argument of a man who says that he has one foot in the oven at 120° and his right foot in the fridge at minus 60° and therefore on average he is quite comfortable. That is the same argument the hon. member is using. Actually, I think the hon. member missed the point I made. But within the framework of the limitation of 46 hours ordinary time per week, we will actually be supporting his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have argued at length and in complicated detail about a matter which is actually very simple. What did the hon. member ask? Let us look at the clause. Clause 5(1) reads, inter alia—

So the clause provides that no employer shall require or permit any other shift worker to work shifts exceeding a certain length. So the clause seeks to lay down the number of shifts per week that would not exceed people’s capacity. I have sympathy with the argument of the hon. member that hospital work is a special profession. In those special circumstances other arrangements could be made. Where people’s lives are at stake, one would indeed be compelled in practice to apply the provision in a different manner. That we do realize. I do, therefore, have sympathy with his amendment. We do in fact want to do what he wants, although I cannot accept his amendment because his amendment seeks to lay down a maximum of 12 hours. If there should be a proposal in respect of a hospital or a special category of hospitals, that could be arranged by way of exception. Let us rather deal with it in that manner. It could happen that one category wants an arrangement which suits them and another category wants an arrangement which is not exactly the same. Let us then accommodate both of them. In other words, yes, we do wish to oblige the hospitals, but the way to do it is not to incorporate it in this legislation as the hon. member requests. If we were to allow this in terms of enabling legislation such an application would be considered favourably and the hospitals would in all probability be accommodated.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief with regard to clause 7. The hon. the Minister only has to tell me whether the work of hospital staff will be accepted as being a continuous activity. The proposals contained in this clause will not affect the private hospital industry—it deals with meal intervals—provided the Minister is prepared to declare it a continuous activity as the provisions of this clause do not apply to a shift-worker employed in continuous activity. If he does not accept them as such it will cause many problems.

It will be considered in conjunction with the proposal your side is going to make.

But the hon. the Minister has still not told me whether he considers the hospital industry to be a continuous activity.

Mr. Chairman, the request the hon. member has just made, will be considered in conjunction with the request for exemption. If I am to make a decision across the floor of this House, I must first have all the particulars. I do not know if I have all the particulars, but with the particulars at my disposal I do not think it is. However, I cannot give the hon. member a definite answer. When the hon. member comes forward with an application for exemption, all the particulars will be considered and in the light of these the hon. member will be accommodated. I think that is fair. That is what I have been trying to tell the hon. member all afternoon. Let us rather not write anything like that into the legislation here this afternoon. The fact is that we have authority to grant exemptions, and let us consider these exemptions. In any case, we shall be most sympathetic to the representations made by this profession. We are very sympathetic towards the profession and we want to accommodate them.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we need belabour this clause at any length. I think it has been covered in our discussions already. However, it is laid down in this clause that overtime may not exceed 3 hours on any day or 10 hours in any week. I refer again to the word “any”.

That is the maximum.

Yes. If these provisions are to be applied to the hospital industry and a portion of these recognized hours were to constitute overtime, it could have the effect of exceeding the prescribed limit of overtime per week or per day. The nursing staff will be paid overtime—there is no doubt about it—but this provision refers to any day, not per month. This means that a 12 hour shift will now include four hours overtime.

It will therefore exceed three hours, and that is your problem.

That is my problem.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put it to the hon. member for Parktown that the same principle applies here. If we lay down a maximum or a minimum number of working hours in legislation, and go on to provide that we shall grant exemption in specific circumstances, surely this also applies to the case he has mentioned. All the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown amount to exactly the same thing.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, clause 10 of the Bill deals with work on Sundays. What I am going to say in respect of this clause applies also to clause 11, which deals with public holidays. Exactly the same arguments apply in both instances. Therefore I shall not address myself to clause 11 again. The stipulations contained in this clause can clearly not apply to any private hospital, or to any hospital for that matter because a hospital, unlike any other type of industry, functions round the clock. A hospital operates seven days a week and 365 days a year. It is just like the transport services. Owing to the nature of the hospital industry there is no difference or distinction between a week-day, a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday. A nurse, for example, works so many days or nights a week, and whereas an office-worker or any other employee knows that his day off is a Sunday, a nurse’s off day is any day on which she is off duty. This clause is therefore totally inapplicable to the private hospital industry, which industry should have been exempted in terms of clause 2(3). It is utterly impossible to apply this stipulation to the nursing industry. If the hon. the Minister has listened to my argument he will have to agree that the hospital industry should not be included in this clause because it is an industry which is completely different from shops, offices and factories.

If the hon. member wants hospitals to be exempted it can be done.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the clause under discussion to be substituted. There are certain people who have conscientious objections to undergoing military training. However, there are also people who have conscientious objections to working on Sundays.

And to many other things as well.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for Balaam’s ass to take part in· this discussion. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I now move as an amendment—

1. (a) Subject to provisions to the contrary in this Act no employer shall without the written permission of the employee and an inspector require or permit an employee to perform on a Sunday any work in or in connection with a factory or shop.

This is the practice we have followed for many years. Of course, there have always been people who worked on Sundays. However, it has never been a problem for them the way it is for some other people. The hon. the Minister upset me a little. In his Second Reading speech he mentioned in passing that the existing prohibition on work on Sundays was being done away with. Simply done away with. Forget about all these other people. Forget about their religious and conscientious objections. Forget that almost all of them belong to the three Afrikaans churches, or to other Christian churches, that consider Sunday to be a day of prayer. Conveniently forget that there is a day that people still consider to be a day of prayer.

Why do you then travel by train on a Sunday? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we should deal with legislation pertaining to working on Sundays in this flippant way. I am therefore asking the Minister of Manpower to give serious consideration to my amendment. I am making an earnest request to him to consider my amendment favourably and to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member that we must maintain the position as it is. [Interjections.] No, we now have a certain position. Must we maintain it?

I am asking the hon. the Minister to accept my amendment.

The answer is “no!”. The position must be maintained as it is.

Is the Minister also in favour of working on Sundays?

The legislation as it is stated here maintains the position as it exists today.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect I want to disagree with the hon. the Minister and tell him that the position is not as it was in the previous Act because in the past no reference was made to an inspector who has to give his permission. This is a new insertion. We were led to believe that when the inspector gave his permission for work to be done on Sundays this implied that the employee had to consent to this. However, this does not appear in this legislation. All that we are asking is that the hon. the Minister give consideration to not only the inspector having to give his permission but also to the employee giving his consent. That is all we are asking.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member that there is no departure from the practice as it now is.

The hon. the Minister said the prohibition was being lifted.

There is no departure. If the hon. member wants the position to be maintained then I want to assure him that it is being maintained.

Cannot the hon. the Minister read?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this amendment does not make sense to me. The amendment starts with the following words—

It then goes on to refer specifically to a factory or a shop. However, if we take a look at the technical composition of the Bill, then we see that these provisions to the contrary are contained inter alia in clause 10(5). Subsection (5) for example refers specifically to shops that are open on a Sunday. I therefore cannot quite understand why the hon. member wants to say on the one hand that subject to provisions to the contrary this provision must come into operation while on the other hand those provisions to the contrary in fact make provision for what the hon. member actually wants to exclude. Seen from a legal technical point of view alone, this amendment does not make sense to me. I am sorry to say that it does not seem to me as if those hon. members have given proper consideration to the legal implications of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, all I want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether he agrees that the existing Shops and Offices Act does not contain provisions similar to those in clause 10(1). It seems to me that the practice is followed that when a person is told to work on a Sunday, that person must consent to doing so and the inspector must also concur. If it is the case that the legislation must now be brought into line with what is happening in practice, then we are satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that that is not the intention and that it is not being done like that either. There will be no departure from the present situation. I am giving him that assurance. If the hon. member goes into the matter, he will realize that there is no change from the present practice.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is that this has nothing to do with practice. We are dealing with the legislation and we have to interpret the legislation. There are certain provisions in the specific Act and there are certain provisions in this Bill. There is no provision in this Bill that the employee must give his consent. We just want to be sure that the employee will have to consent to working overtime and to working on Sundays, as set out in clause 8. Clause 8 provides specifically—

However, no mention is made of this in clause 10. Now we must simply accept that in practice, even if this is not stated in the legislation, clause 10(1)(a) means that the Minister may do this by means of an agreement. I should like to know why, if this is the case in practice, this is not specifically laid down in the legislation? Surely we shall then know where we stand. That is all I ask.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion one cannot find fault with the hon. member for Brakpan’s approach to the wording of the legislation. I believe that every legal practitioner would like to see something in print, because he wants to be in a position to say: That is what it says. In that regard I think we can agree with the hon. member. However, it is also true that the hon. member is one of the most knowledgeable hon. members as regards labour matters …

He is a Nationalist.

Yes, in the wider sense of the word.

… and as regards the interpretation of labour legislation. Surely the hon. member knows that we have now introduced a new dispensation in the old industrial conciliation legislation which is at present known as the Labour Relations Act, namely that one may refer a labour malpractice directly to the industrial court for arbitration. Now the fact is that if one wants to compel an employee to work overtime or to work on a Sunday or a public holiday, that is a labour malpractice. That in fact leads to prosecutions in the industrial court, as we foresaw. The hon. member participated in the discussions when we tried to ascertain what a labour malpractice was. I do not think it is essential that it should now be written into the legislation.

I think the hon. member will concede that if in future it becomes clear to us that this provision is being misused—one does not want to go to court every time this happens; one would rather try to intercept the problem—the hon. the Minister or the Director-General will ask for the legislation to be reconsidered. I am convinced that the hon. member for Brakpan will concede that there is in fact a remedy if misuse were to be made of this situation. The remedy exists, and for this reason it is not necessary for us to write it into the legislation.

I want to make one topical remark in connection with this matter. As a legal practitioner the hon. member for Brakpan also knows that when it comes to the regulation of conditions of service, we are not trying to act in a regulatory way in our labour relations legislation; we are rather trying to establish the machinery so that the parties can clear up matters for themselves contractually. I am aware that all matters do not fall under the legislation on labour relations, but if we use this as the point of departure, I believe that under the new dispensation on labour relations it will not matter what Act an employer or employee falls under, because it will always be possible for an unfair labour practice to be brought before the industrial court. That is why I believe it is not necessary for it to be written in here. I agree with the hon. member that if a problem should arise in that employers or groups of employers are misusing a provision, it is essential that we take another look at the matter.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I am sorry, but I must point out to the hon. member that he has already spoken three times on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. member that this legislation is an amalgamation of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act and the Shops and Offices Act. In the old Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act it is expressly stated in section 19—

1. (d) without the authority of an inspector to work on any Sunday; or
2. (e) who is a female, to work—
   1. (i) between 6 o’clock p.m. and 6 o’clock a.m.; or
   2. (ii) after 1 o’clock p.m. or more than five days in any week.

The hon. member will note that the wording has been taken over from this piece of legislation. What I therefore want to say to the hon. member, is that there is no departure from the intention at the time. I want to point out that the legislation now before us is an amalgamation of the Shops and Offices Act and the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act. For that reason I give him the assurance that there is no departure. The hon. member is quite correct. If there were to be a departure, we would debate it again, but there is no departure. I have just quoted from the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, and those are the exact words which have been used in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did not refer to Sabbath legislation. He referred to overtime and not to Sabbath legislation. Why did the hon. the Minister say in his Second Reading speech that the existing prohibition on work on Sundays was being done away with? What legislation was he then dealing with? He was dealing with this legislation.

He also said—

Where is that stated in this clause? I am asking the hon. the Minister to amend the provision and to accept my amendment. Let us be friends.

I have already said all I have to say on this matter. I am not prepared to debate the matter any further.

Amendment negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, my objections to clause 10 concerning work on Sundays apply equally to this clause as far as private hospitals are concerned.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (f) contrary to the provisions of section 8 force or require or permit an employee to work overtime;
2. (g) contrary to the provisions of section 10(i)(a) force or require or permit an employee to perform on a Sunday any work in or in connection with a factory or shop.

I can now, perhaps, reply to what the hon. member for Roodeplaat had to say. I have a lot of sympathy for what he said about the question of an unfair practice as well as the fact that under certain circumstances there are certain remedial steps an employee can take. However, surely it would have been so much easier for the employee, especially in this maze of complicated labour legislation, if the employee could just see that clause 8 and clause 10 have the same wording. Now we come to clause 19 which stipulates that an employer is not allowed to do certain things. We should look at this in conjunction with clause 18(b) which provides that an employer shall not dismiss an employee or alter his position relatively to other employees employed by that employer to his disadvantage by reason of the fact that the employee—

Clause 18 deals with a ban on victimization. Now the purpose of the amendment is that we incorporate in clause 19 further prohibitions against the employer so that he cannot force, intimidate or victimize an employee to work on a Sunday or to work overtime. If the employer should do this, he will therefore be guilty of a contravention of clause 18 and can be prosecuted in terms of clause 25. This is the purpose of our amendment and I ask the hon. the Minister to please accept it.

Mr. Chairman, this is a standard provision which is basically similar to section 21(2) of the Shops and Offices Act and section 45(2) of the Factories Act. That is why we have this wording in the Bill. I cannot therefore accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Conservative Party dissenting.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has already referred to this clause repeatedly during the discussion of clauses 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. According to this clause the Minister may “exempt any employer or category of employers generally or with respect to any particular employee or category of employees … from any one or more of or all the provisions of this Act”. I accept that the hon. the Minister has honourable and correct intentions as far as this exemption clause is concerned. Unfortunately, it does not say that he “shall”, but that he “can”, and therefore it is left to the Minister’s own decision. He can therefore exempt people employed by a private hospital, but I believe that this is not the appropriate manner in which to deal with the matter if the provisions of the Bill are not intended to apply to such people. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he accepts my argument that the relevant clauses do not apply to private hospitals. I believe that the appropriate procedure would have been to exclude people employed by private hospitals under clause 2(3) which already lists employees not included. In any event, exemptions under clause 34 will no doubt be granted for a fixed period or on a conditional basis only, which I believe is unsatisfactory as far as it applies to private hospitals.

The hon. member objects to the word “may”. He wants to substitute the word “shall”. I cannot accept that it should be “shall”. Circumstances may arise where it conceivably would have to be “may”. The hon. member wants to make it compulsory, but I cannot accept that. In circumstances where we require flexibility, I cannot accept “shall”. It must be “may”.

Clause agreed to.

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

(c) premises on which farming activities take place,

Yesterday the hon. the Minister said the following, inter alia—

He was referring here to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen—

He went on to say—

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to show this House where I or the hon. member, Mr. Theunissen, have in any way referred to farmers with scorn or with insensitivity, or implied that farmers are insensitive in respect of matters pertaining to safety. That is what that hon. Minister does. As soon as he sees that he has been driven into a corner in respect of the logic …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: What has what the hon. member is saying now, to do with the provisions of this clause?

The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

As soon as the hon. the Minister is driven into a corner by the logic of an argument, he begins to get personal, as he did in this case. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen had, in fact, said that the farmers had set a praiseworthy example in respect of matters pertaining to safety in agriculture. It is on record that the hon. the Minister, in his haughty way, neglected to consult organized agriculture officially about this Bill. Therefore the largest employer in the Republic was not formally consulted. The hon. the Minister thinks it is sufficient that the chairman of the S.A. Agricultural Union serves on the Manpower Board. As the largest employer in South Africa, the S.A. Agricultural Union was not consulted in respect of matters of this nature. This was a foolish and arrogant thing to do, and the farmers of South Africa will deal with him on that score. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister consulted with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture concerning this matter. Did he specifically discuss the details of clause 17 with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture? Allow me to point out how the hon. the Minister argues with regard to clause 17, and clause 17 is the core of this Bill. It provides that if any person consequent upon the use of machinery, hazardous working conditions or heatstroke or exhaustion suffered in the course of his employment, an accident occurring at a workplace, or exposure at a workplace to any hazardous article, dies, becomes unconscious, suffers the loss of a limb … The hon. the Minister stops at that point. I ask: Is this the proper way in which to conduct a debate when the Leader of the House, a senior Cabinet Minister, stops quoting at that point, whereas it goes on to say that if a person is absent from work for 14 days or more as a result of exhaustion, the farmer has to report the matter to the inspector. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture is present here. Let me put it to him this way: For example, there is a farmer, who, during the planting and harvesting seasons, has all his tractors on the lands, and the inspector comes and says that the workers cannot remain on the tractors for such a long period. They are being exposed to heatstroke and exhaustion. The farmer must therefore abandon his activities. Or, after a person has been on a tractor for 24 hours and he gets … [Interjections.] I shall correct myself by saying that if a person has been on a tractor for a long period on a long, hot day … [Interjections.] The hon. members are joking about this now. If a worker is subsequently absent from work for 14 days, do hon. members know what could happen to the farmer? He may be found guilty of an offence and fined R2 000 if he does not inform the inspector of this incident. Is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture satisfied with this? Is organized agriculture satisfied with this? I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that if I were to say precisely what I think of this kind of argument, I would have to use unparliamentary language. Furthermore, I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 28(2), which provides that if, under certain circumstances, a person acts in such a way that an employee dies, it may be regarded as culpable homicide and he may be fined R4 000, or imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years.

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that I have allowed him, as the first speaker of his party, to speak in general and to touch on the principles once again, but he must not go too far.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am not going too far, since I am only pointing out what the implications for the farmer are going to be if agriculture is included in this legislation. In the light of implications I request that the farmer be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. With respect, I wish to add that there are all kinds of other implications—I am not going to refer to those implications now—which will affect the farmer if this Bill is adopted without changes.

Order! The hon. member must bear in mind that only Clause 1 is before the Committee now.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore wish to conclude by saying that I address a friendly request to the hon. the Minister…

All these insinuations that farmers are killing people … they are still going to hang you.

Mr. Chairman, just listen to that foolish remark made by the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare! [Interjections.]

You were insinuating that farmers cheerfully kill people.

No, I was not insinuating that. I said that when an employee of a farmer is absent from work for longer than 14 days as a result of exhaustion, or as a result of any of the other incidents mentioned in clause 17, the onus is on the farmer to let the inspector know that that worker was injured under those circumstances. If he does not do so, he is liable to be fined R2 000. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied with that? [Interjections.]

You are the most immoral man in this House.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. However, I should like to explain.

You are looking at yourself in a mirror, Nak.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that allegation unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan wanted to know whether the Minister had been consulted. My reply to that question is yes. I have his reply before me. In any case, we sit together in a Cabinet Committee which deals with these matters. I do not do things which could affect that hon. Minister without consulting him about them. That is not the way to govern a country. [Interjections.]

Other organizations were also consulted. We also have the full support of the S.A. Agricultural Union. The hon. member was apparently speaking on the basis of an amendment which he placed on the Order Paper, was he not? In that amendment he requests that agriculture be excluded from this legislation. I wish to remind hon. members of the conversation which took place here yesterday. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen also made a speech here. Do you know what he said, Mr. Chairman? I do not have his Hansard here; of course, I could get hold of it very quickly. However, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen said that he wanted the farmers to be exempted, that the agricultural industry should be excluded completely because, he said, farmers did not wish to be subjected to the whims and fancies of a lot of inspectors. These are the words he used. I objected to my officials, people who carry out their duties in an extremely loyal and competent manner, people who, as inspectors, have an extremely difficult task to fulfil, being spoken of in such a disparaging manner. The hon. member went on to say that the agricultural industry wished to be excluded from this. Hon. members will recall that when I reacted to this, the hon. member for Brakpan stood up and said: “Yes, but this is about factories. Do you not know that this is about factories?” As though I did not know what was stated in my own Bill. In this way, the hon. member demonstrated that he was completely unaware of what the Bill was about. The fact is that …

In any case, you never know what is going on.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte should rather hold his tongue and listen. He does not know what this debate is about. If he were to listen, he might learn something. I wish to explain to the hon. member that the Factories Act does, of course, apply to the agricultural industry. Of course that is so. All machinery used in agriculture must at present comply with certain safety requirements. Afterall, the agricultural industry is not excluded from this. Nor moreover, is the farmer excluded as far as his building activities are concerned. Nor are excavations undertaken by farmers excluded from the provisions of this legislation. This is also applicable to farmers. Besides, there are registered companies which in turn, are subject to registration in terms of the Factories Act; which fall within the jurisdiction of that Act.

Hon. members of the CP are now trying to imply that legislation of this nature has never had anything to do with farmers, but that this Minister has now come up with a provision to the effect that farmers are now also to fall under the Factories Act. This is not correct. The facts are what I have just mentioned. Of course, these things are applicable to everyone. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen is himself a farmer. He ought to know that his farm manager cannot do as he pleases. Such legislation also applies to him.

Furthermore, I wish to point out that the inspectors in agriculture are very closely involved with this. Inspectors of the department at present have the same powers of entry and inspection on farms in terms of the Factories Act, as are contained in this Bill. They have the right to do so now. What is more, an inspector from the department regularly investigates accidents on farms. I went on to say that in his speech yesterday, the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the unfortunate incident a few days ago in which a young girl, Elize Groenewald, had her hands taken off by a press. Does the hon. member for Langlaagte know where this took place? On a farm. What the hon. member is asking, is that inspectors should not go and investigate what happened to that poor girl on that farm. This is what the hon. member is asking. What is more, all boilers being used on a farm fall under the restrictions imposed by this legislation. If agriculture were to be excluded, this would mean that there would be no protection of the safety of the farmer and his family and his people whatsoever. Moreover, the sale of unsafe machinery, which is something we want to prevent today, is also being restricted by way of this legislation. We want machinery which may be sold in future to comply with certain safety requirements. Does the hon. member want this to be excluded? Apparently he wants farmers to purchase and, in particular, to import machinery from abroad without that machinery fulfilling certain safety requirements. The hon. member also wants the advice which is freely available to farmers with regard to accidents, the prevention of accidents and safety on the farm to be unavailable, since they would be excluded from the provisions of this legislation. I say to the hon. member that these are the implications of his request. The implications are that agriculture should be excluded. I wish to reiterate that the S.A. Agricultural Union and the farmers of this country would take it amiss of him if he stood up here and pretended that he was talking on their behalf. The farmers of this country are not so insensitive that they wish to be excluded from the provisions of this legislation under these circumstances. That is why I reject what the hon. member had to say here.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to read to the hon. the Minister what is contained in Section 3(2)(f) of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, No. 22 of 1941. It reads as follows—

This is excluded from the definition of a factory.

Mr. Chairman, that is part of the truth. Did Langenhoven not say that one should not lie blatantly; one should just twist the truth a little? The fact is that the hon. member should review the position in its entirety. The hon. member has amendment on the Order Paper which stipulates that agriculture and farms should be excluded. I am now reacting to what the hon. member Mr. Theunissen said, viz. that agriculture should be excluded, since the farmers do not wish to be subjected to the whims and fancies of the inspectors. That is why the hon. member said that they wanted us to exclude the farmers in particular. I was in the process of telling him that we could not exclude them. The Department of Agriculture and the farmers support us. They have told us that they do not wish to forego the benefits of this legislation. What is more, certain sections of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act do, in fact, apply to farms. This was the case in the past, it is the case now, and it will be so in the future as well. The hon. member wants this no longer to be the case.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to what the hon. member for Brakpan said under clause 1. I want to make it clear that we in these benches have supported the Bill, but that there are certain aspects we want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, aspects we consider as absolutely vital from an agricultural point of view. We bring this to the Committee in order to highlight possible deficiencies that may exist in regard to the extension of safety regulations to the agricultural sector.

It is well known that the agricultural systems in this country are divergent and comprise many types of machinery. I went to lengths in my speech yesterday to point out that it would be inadvisable to bring in regulations and endeavour to implement them if this was going to be impractical. It is, therefore, with some feeling that I would like to put to the hon. the Minister the point that farmers as such have a natural antipathy and resistance towards regulations and rules. I think, however, that as a responsible sector of society they accept that sometimes these become necessary, and with the increased mechanization that has taken place over recent years, one accepts that, in this particular case, safety regulations are something to which greater attention must be given.

I understand that the amendment in my name on the Order Paper cannot be accepted for technical reasons. I fully understand that. With this in mind, however, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister if he will allay the fears of the agricultural sector by agreeing to constitute a technical committee for agriculture so that this technical committee can formulate, in a practical manner the regulations that appertain to agriculture. That is my request and I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he will agree to this recommendation as a means of allaying the fears and concern of the agricultural sector.

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

1. (1) On page 8, in line 15, to omit “nine” and to substitute “eleven”;
2. (2) on page 8, after line 27, to add:
   1. (g) one person with specialized knowledge of occupational safety who is not a member of the Public Service;
   2. (h) one person nominated by the Council of the South African Bureau of Standards.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the matter of constituting the body as set out in the Bill, probably took a great deal of thought and negotiation. Consequently it is very difficult, of course, to omit anyone from that body. The people concerned have already been approached, so one cannot omit any of them.

I agree, with reference to the previous speaker, that his proposal is a very good one. I myself should also like to know what the technical reasons are which render it impossible for the agricultural sector to have representation on this body. If one were to remove one member from the council—for example, there are two members representing the Department of Health and Welfare, whereas I am of the opinion that one member would be able to put the case of the department as well as two are able to do—it would mean that the council would consist of an even number of members. Of course, one tries to keep the number of members of a council such as this an odd number. This is a very important council and the larger the number of inputs one is able to obtain and the wider the field one is able to cover, the better it will be. One could argue, it is true, that the council will appoint technical committees and that it will obtain its export advice mainly from those committees. Nevertheless, one does feel that one member could be appointed from the private sector. For example, an academic could be appointed so that universities could provide a more theoretical input.

My second proposal is that one member be nominated by the council of the SABS. That council is pre-eminently concerned with the investigation of quality control and the safety of equipment and I believe that such a member will in fact be able to make a very important input.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Greytown since they involve increased expenditure for which the State President’s recommendation is required. However, I have allowed the hon. member to address the Committee so as to afford him the opportunity of trying to persuade the hon. the Minister to take over his amendments.

Mr. Chairman, may I, too, have the opportunity to address the Comittee on this clause?

The hon. member may do so by all means.

If it is a futile attempt to convince either the Committee or the hon. the Minister to accept these amendments, I want to content myself with two remarks to convince the hon. the Minister even more not to accept them. The amendments moved by the NRP envisages an advisory council of 10 members. [Interjections.] In his amendment the hon. member of the PFP envisages 11 members.

The NRP did not move an amendment.

If the hon. member would only listen quietly, I shall tell him in a moment what the NRP’s amendment says. The point is this: Where does one draw the line? I have a great deal of sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. member for Mooi River that one should appoint knowledgeable people to a body such as this, for example a member of the SABS. Suppose the SABS were to feel that it wanted representation on this body, what of the CSIR, for example?

What are you talking about now?

I am talking about the amendments which have been moved. If the hon. member for Houghton were to propose that at least one woman should serve on the body, one would also have sympathy with that proposal. However, one has to draw the line somewhere. I want to mention for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that since provision is being made for representatives of two employers, one can by virtue of that at least try to appoint to this body a representative of either the SABS or the CSIR or—if the hon. member for Houghton were to propose the Black Sash, the hon. the Minister would not consider it—a woman. I am of the opinion that neither of these amendments should be accepted. In the light of the circumstances, and particularly since this is a new body to be established, I do not think we can advise the hon. the Minister to accept either of these amendments. I believe we should give this body the opportunity of proving itself. We should rather review the matter in an evolutionary manner.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the statement made by the hon. member for Roodeplaat that one has to draw a line. I would be perfectly prepared to draw the line at nine so that one need not spend more money. Nevertheless, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether one cannot omit one of the two officers of the Department of Health and Welfare and appoint a representative of the SABS in his place. I am of the opinion that two officers of the Department of Health and Welfare would probably not be able to put the case of the department any better than one officer would be able to do. I do feel that because of the technical knowledge of a person from the S.A. Bureau of Standards, this would provide a better input. Consequently I want to move that one officer …

Order! I have already ruled that I am unable to accept the amendments and that the hon. member may make one speech in an attempt to persuade the hon. the Minister to take them over. If the hon. member continues to discuss the amendments, I shall have to call him to order.

No, Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared to accept another amendment which would be technically correct; in other words, to retain nine members of whom only one would be a member of the Department of Health and Welfare and one a member designated by the S.A. Bureau of Standards.

Mr. Chairman, this entire point of the constitution of the council has been properly cleared with aU the people concerned. There is general satisfaction that the council is constituted in this way. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendments. In the first place, the hon. member will understand that if we were to give special representation on this council to agriculture, for example, viz. one out of two, there would be a whole series of other groups that would demand the same thing. We cannot do it that way. Nevertheless, I can tell the hon. member that I found his proposals a sensible one. What he asked for was whether, in the event of our being unable to accept his proposal, we could not establish a technical committee for the agricultural industry. Of course, we shall be able to do that, and not only for the agricultural industry; we shall be able to establish any other technical committee that may be necessary. I think this is the answer because we shall shortly be coming to the clause dealing with technical committees. Consequently, it is possible to make special inputs by way of technical committees in order to have representation for special groups. This argument also applies in respect of the argument advanced by the hon. member who wanted to accommodate other bodies as well, for example the S.A. Bureau of Standards. The answer is “no”. The manner in which we can do this is to include technical people in this way. Consequently we shall structure the bodies in such a way that there will be a small number of knowledgeable people whose knowledge can be augmented by means of technical committees. I regret being unable to accept the two amendments.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I shall not move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

1. (1) On page 10, in line 17, after “service” to insert:
2. , in consultation with such employees
3. (2) on page 10, in line 29, after “concerned” to insert:

In motivating these amendments and, firstly, with regard to the first amendment where I propose to insert the words “in consultation with such employees”, we would actually like to have these representatives elected from the employees because the whole point of this matter is to try to get employees involved in becoming safety-conscious. It is a funny thing but if one can get the people who are most likely to be hurt involved in safety measures and to realize that safety measures are one thing against which they are going to be measured, one gets a safe factory. We do not like the idea, however, of an employer just being able to appoint a safety representative. Therefore we want the clause to provide that he should at least consult with his employees because we realize there are very real difficulties in having such an election.

The second point is not really such a very serious one. There are many instances, not particularly in factories but in major construction jobs, where the ratio of one safety official to 50 workers is really unnecessary. It is to avoid creating a silly situation, where one has to have such a representative for every 50 workers, that we believe that provision should be made for the inspector to use his discretion.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite surprising that the hon. member for Walmer should suddenly have turned into a great champion of employees’ rights in this House today.

I think the hon. member for Walmer has moved a good amendment, to which one could give attention in due course. In the future, I believe, we shall probably find that when the employer has to decide whom he is going to appoint to a particular position, he will probably consult with the employees or their representatives. As a big employer in his own right, the hon. member for Walmer will of course concede to the hon. the Minister that the employer, with his senior operators and senior employees on the shop floor, will probably be best qualified to say who should be appointed. Now I would like the hon. member for Walmer to note the provisions, the terminology, in clause 9. It is said that this person must be acquainted with the conditions at that workplace. This means that it has to be someone in a fairly senior position. This is the first aspect. In the second place, it will probably have to be a person who has been working for that employer for a fairly long time. Then, I believe, no one will be better qualified to decide who should be appointed than the employer, naturally in consultation with his senior employees, whom he is going to consult in any case. Therefore, I believe, we should give this provision a chance to see how it works. If it does become necessary to make an amendment at a later stage, that can be done. However, I am convinced that every employer who desires the co-operation of his employees will make such an appointment in consultation with his employees.

Therefore I believe that an amendment such as the one moved by the hon. member for Walmer is not really necessary. It is not really necessary for the smooth functioning of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of good labour relations I believe we should leave this matter in the hands of the employer. The employer must decide for himself. A sensible employer will probably consult his employees as well. I do not believe that the directions should be set out in so much detail as the hon. member for Walmer wants them to be in terms of his amendment. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer specifically to subsection (3), in terms of which a workplace with fewer than 20 employees can be excluded. I can understand that in a case of this nature, one might want to accommodate the informal sector, that one does not want to make too many provisions applicable here in order to prevent an employer in the informal sector from being inundated with paper work. However, I do want to sound a warning. I want to do so because of an example I have come across. The other day I went to a certain workshop to have some work done there, and as I walked in, I saw about 15 joiners at work. I was struck by the fact that there were 15 White people standing behind the lathes. My surprise was great, of course, when they dusted themselves off for lunch. Then I realized that they were actually Indians. They had been so covered in dust. I asked the owner of the shop how on earth he could allow those people to work under those circumstances, without any fans, etc. He told me that it would cost him too much to have fans installed to extract the dust. Then I asked him whether any inspector from the department ever put in an appearance at his workshop, and his reply was: No, they never come here. This was in the centre of one of the industrial areas in Durban. When I say that one should exclude small workplaces, therefore, I also want to say that when the inspectors have to evaluate matters, when they visit smaller firms such as this one, they should not exclude those long-term health hazards. There are many provisions which one could in fact exclude, such as the way in which paint has to be stored, how big the space must be, etc. which may be technically correct if the setup is very large. I just want to say that one should not be too quick to exclude firms with 20 or fewer workers.

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member has a duty. If this was one of his voters, why did he not complain? If the situation there was serious, why did one of the workers not say something? An inspector would have done that. It may be true, but then the hon. member neglected his duty.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

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

I just want to say that the purpose of this amendment is to enable safety representatives to approach the inspector directly if they cannot obtain satisfactory answers to their proposals from an employer. One may argue that such a safety representative will in any case be able to approach an inspector, because his employer will then be guilty of an offence as laid down in clause 28. Then it is his duty to approach the inspector directly. However, my amendment protects the employer as well, so that the employee of safety representative does not always approach the inspector directly, but first gives the employer a reasonable opportunity to give attention to the proposals of the safety officer.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment means, of course, that the safety officer, who is an employee, could end up in a confrontation situation with his employer if he had to report every trivial matter to the inspector. I do not think it would be wise to accept this amendment, and therefore I shall not accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I have also placed an amendment to this clause on the Order Paper. The reason for the amendment to subsection (3) is to exempt the safety representative from any liability in case of failure on his part to perceive a hazard in the workplace. I think it would be unreasonable to expose the safety representative to a civil claim by an injured co-employee merely because the former did not perceive a hazard at the workplace. The purpose of subsection (4) is to ensure that the employer will see to it that the safety representative does his work. As an employee, the safety representative is subject to the authority of the employer, who has the power to order him to do or to refrain from doing something at the workplace.

I consequently move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 12, in line 8, to omit “be liable to any person” and to substitute:

1. (2) n page 12, after line 10, to add:
2. (4) An employer shall take the prescribed steps to ensure that a safety representative performs the duties assigned to him by subsection (1)(a), (b) and (d).

Mr. Chairman, you will notice that the second part of my amendment to clause 10 requests the deletion of subsection (3). I put this request to the hon. the Minister during my Second Reading debate. I see that he has now made some concessions to my point of view, and I shall reciprocate by not moving the second part of my amendment.

I still think it would be better if common law were to take its course, but we have reached a compromise and I accept it.

Therefore I only move the first part of my amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Clause 10(1)(a) provides that a safety representative shall once a month or at such other intervals as may be determined by an inspector inspect the workplace or section of a workplace for which he has been designated, including any machinery and safety equipment at that workplace or section of the workplace, with a view to the safety thereof. Paragraph (b) provides that he shall bring any threat or potential threat to the safety of any employee at that workplace to the attention of his employer. Paragraph (c) says “may”, however, and this paragraph is in fact concerned with an incident of the kind referred to in clause 17. This is the most important aspect, for when an accident takes place or when something happens which causes an employee to be absent from the workplace for more than 14 days, it is particularly important that the inspector should know under what circumstances it took place. But no obligation is being imposed on the safety representative in terms of this provision; it is only a permissive right which he is being given. As against that, paragraph (d) provides that the safety representative shall perform such other functions as may be prescribed. When it comes to the most important aspect of this Bill, i.e. clause 17, there is no obligation on the safety representative. That is why I am moving the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of view of the hon. member for Brakpan, but bearing in mind that more than 300 000 clause 17 cases were reported last year, he will realize that it is quite a burden which will be imposed on the department if it has to receive another set of documents relating to an accident which already has to be reported. From the nature of the case, it will be the safety representative who will report the accident in the first place in terms of the provisions of clause 17. Then, if the inspector decides, having received the report in terms of clause 17, that he is going to investigate the matter further, he could call for further written reports from anyone. I believe that in such a case, he will naturally require a report to be submitted by the safety representative as well. For that reason we shall not support the amendment of the hon. member for Brakpan.

Mr. Chairman, I have followed the argument of the hon. member for Brakpan. The first two provisions concern observation and the last one concerns reporting. The change would also mean, of course, that the safety representative would have to be informed in some way of all incidents, and that would be impracticable. By making a written report obligatory, an unreasonable burden would be imposed upon the safety representative. This is with regard to the third case, where it is not a question of observation, but rather of rather of reporting. The safety representative is not an expert at investigating accidents, and if he does not have all the information available it would be better if he did not report on it and left the formal investigation to an inspector. That is the difference. I follow the hon. member’s argument, but unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment moved by Mr. P. C. Cronjé negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. F. J. le Roux negatived (Conservative Party and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments moved by the Minister of Manpower agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to clause 11 (6)(a) in which it is stated that—

I think that in clause 11(6)(a) the hon. the Minister recognizes the overflow from occupational hygiene to occupational disease. In his explanatory memorandum he makes it quite clear that this Bill is only aimed at occupational hygiene which he defines as—

There is no doubt that the safety workers …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to discuss clause 11(6)(a) while—so it would appear to me—an amendment has been moved to clause 4(2)?

That does not matter.

Has that amendment been withdrawn?

Order! That amendment has not yet been moved. The hon. member may proceed.

I want to point out that these safety committee members will form the first line of defence in the fight against occupational disease. I therefore think that this provision is of very great importance and of great value for the prevention of the development of occupational disease. It is also very important, in view of the technical advances and the great risks that workers are exposed to in modern factories and work-places, that there must be safety committees. There is only one problem. Will the safety committee as such have enough knowledge, at all times, to perceive the relevant dangers and therefore appoint the necessary specialist authorities? I want to see the employer or the inspector also having this power, but I think that would detract somewhat from the functions of the safety committee. So I want to stress the importance of this whole matter and express the hope that the employers will co-operate with the members of the safety committee in carrying out this vital and very necessary function for the protection of the workers.

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

We are asking for the safety committee to be appointed after consultation and together with the workers, with regard to the number of members as well. Once again we would like to refer specifically to a trade union, but because there may be many trade unions on the same floor and elections would be difficult, we shall not do so. We just want to insert “after consultation with such safety representatives”. One may assume that the safety representatives will come from the lower echelons among the workers. Once again, the Minister may tell me that for purposes of good labour relations, it should be left to the employer himself to appoint safety representatives at his own discretion, but I think this is somewhat simplistic view of the workplace. Actually I think it is a somewhat Marxist view of the workplace, because it is not really a case of employer versus employee. It is actually management versus employees. This is the kind of competition we want to try to eliminate there. There is never really such a big problem between the worker at the bottom and the employer, “Almighty Board” or whatever at the top. We are talking about various classes of workers or employees. Safety is expensive and it is quite possible that the management of a firm, which also consists of workers, may load such a safety committee with “management” as against workers at the lower level. Once again, not in order to make it more difficult to achieve good labour relations, but rather to make it easier, and to give the lower echelons of the labour corps a say in the composition and number of members of such committees, I move my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is one aspect of this legislation which we should not confuse with another aspect of labour legislation. This is not concerned with the relation between employer and employee as such when it comes to negotiations about conditions of employment and so on which are conducted around a table, in an industrial council or conciliation council. This is basically concerned with safety on the factory floor or in the industrial situation. It concerns three matters, i.e. safety, health and hygiene. That is what this situation is concerned with. It is not a question of loading this body with “management”, as the hon. member for Greytown said, at the expense of employees from whatever category, because the members appointed to serve on this body will indeed be employees. In other words, they are going to come from the ordinary category of people. The accountant or the general manager will not be appointed to one of these bodies. Indeed, one is creating a body for the workers or employees here which will consist of employees. That is why we on this side of the House believe that while the employer will of course consult—how else would he know who is competent to serve on such a body?— the essence of the matter is that the people on this body will be employees serving for and on behalf of their own colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodeplaat referred to labour unrest and asked where this occurred. It occurs between two types of people who are both employees. Management also consists of employees, but the workers at the bottom of the pyramid are also employees, and is of course their safety that we are discussing here. The safety of the workers costs management a lot of money. Therefore it is very possible for management to ensure that the proposals of the workers in the lower echelons are never passed on to the employer. One does not know, of course, who the employee actually is, because the final decision will be taken by management.

Actually, it is the other way round.

That is why I say that the lower echelons should be given a chance so that they can be consulted.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to dwell on this matter, but I just want to say that I believe it would be wise to regard the composition of the committee as a practical matter and to allow the employer to arrange it after and in consultation with his people. After all, he bears the responsibility. I do not think we should try to write it into this clause in the form of an obligation. All we are trying to do here is to place the responsibility on him. I do not think we should try to write it in. It would not be wise. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

1. (1) On page 14, in üne 4, after “employer” to insert “or an inspector”;
2. (2) on page 14, in line 4, after “(a)” to insert:

As far as the first amendment is concerned I propose the insertion of the word “inspector” to make it conform to clause 1 (a) to which is referred. I believe it has to go in there to make the two conform.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, I think we are dealing here with a very important thing. It is the right of the people who work in a factory to know what steps are being taken to put something right that is wrong and to make an objection to their employer or to the inspector about some condition in their factory. I know exactly what happens in practice. The inspector comes around and agrees that something is wrong. He tends to give the employer three months to put it right. He could ask for machinery guards, for example, the floors could be slippery or there could be noxious fumes. However, I believe the works committee who spend their lives in that factory have a right to know what steps are being taken to answer their problems and complaints. I have actually seen this happen. These people’s fives and health is at stake, they have wives and children who depend on them and they have nothing else. After they have made such a report they should be in a position to be told what steps are being taken and how long it would take to remedy a situation that is unsatisfactory. Then they have a choice. They can decide whether they believe the risk of staying in the factory is too great or is not too great. I think it is an essential thing to include in the legislation.

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

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members have tried to explain to me very carefully that the possibility does exist that such a committee may represent some of the lower echelons of workers. The first üne of clause 12(1)(a) reads—

Let us suppose that there is a small safety committee which has been established at a fairly low level in the organization and which does not include any member of the management of the organization. If such a committee is able to make recommendations to the inspector directly, without the knowledge of the firm’s mangement, then we shall have exactly the situation which the hon. the Minister said a short while ago we did not want, i.e. the situation of bypassing management by making recommendations directly to the inspector. The matter must first be decided by management, and we do not wish to involve the inspector in a dispute while management is not even aware of it yet. All we are asking for, then is that the recommendations should be submitted to the employer and only the, after the employer has been notified in writing, to the inspector.

Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with the amendment of the hon. member for Greytown when it comes to employee and employer. The hon. member has spoken of an employer, but the printed amendment refers to an employee.

That has now been changed.

If it has been changed, I accept it. In other words, the hon. member for Greytown wants the employer to be notified in every case before the report is submitted to an inspector. Does the hon. member want the employer to be notified first at all times? Perhaps the hon. member should consider the following. The way I see the functioning of the safety committee, the employer will have access to the minutes of the meetings at all times, just as the employees, too, will probably be able to request a report of what has happened at a specific meeting of the committee. Therefore I cannot see how the employer will be left out in the cold and will not be fully informed of the reports submitted to the inspectors by these committees, and consequently I cannot see why any specific provision should be made for this. To me it is quite clear that the co-operation on the committee between employer and employee will always be of a very intimate nature. Therefore I do not believe that it is necessary to regulate it by means of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in the one instance, the hon. member for Roodeplaat accepts the hon. the Minister’s argument that a safety representative may not approach the inspector directly, because the hon. the Minister does not want to involve the inspector in disputes that should in the first place be settled in the workplace. The legislation makes it possible for the safety committee to report to the employer or the inspector, and I have tried to explain in what circumstances the employer may be passed over. In terms of the definition of an employer and employee etc. it is quite possible—for instance, in the construction industry—that a small sub-division of a major enterprise may perform certain work at a specific place. For example, they could be people working in an isolated area in a forest. In the nature of the matter it could, for example, be a foreman and a few workers who have told their employer that they need a specific piece of apparatus. Say, for example, he tells them to go and cut a branch in a forest and use that. The result may be that those workers hold a snap safety meeting and inform the inspector. In terms of the legislation this is entirely possible. Why do we not see to it here and now that the legislation can work smoothly? Surely we can do so without arguing the matter further. It is possible. The same argument cannot apply in respect of one clause and have just the opposite effect in respect of the other clause. I believe we must be consistent. Nor is this such a terrible thing. After all, we are doing it in the interests of the safety of our workers. We therefore call upon the hon. the Minister please to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greytown asks that I accept his amendment. I can give him the assurance that I have followed the tenor of his argument. However, the committee will comprise safety representatives and representatives of the employer; representatives, therefore, of both sides. After all, it is obvious that the employer will be aware of what is going on. It is not as if he will not know anything. Therefore there is no fear that something could happen without one of the parties knowing about it. Therefore this aspect of the hon. member’s argument falls away.

Moreover, I also just wish to point out that in addition, further regulations are still to be made to specify how these committees function. I therefore believe that the hon. member’s fears are unfounded. Accordingly I shall be unable to accept his amendment.

The hon. member for Walmer, too, argued along the same lines. The recommendations of the committee to the inspector are of course in writing. Therefore it becomes an official departmental document and is filed in this department. The purpose of clause 12(2) is to support the recommendations of the employer for consideration by an inspector during an inspection. The action of the employer or by an inspector arising from a recommendation of the committee will in the nature of the matter be known to the committee. In other words, the element of disclosure is present. Therefore I am unable to understand the fear expressed by the hon. members. I therefore regret that I do not see my way clear to accepting the amendment.

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

1. (1) On page 14, in lines 5 and 6, to omit “be liable to any person” and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 14, after line 7, to add:
2. (4) An employer shall take the prescribed steps to ensure that a safety committee complies with the provisions of section 11(4) and performs the duties assigned to it by subsections (1)(a) and (2) of this section.

My reason for moving this amendment is to exempt the safety committee and its members from civil liability for neglect on their part to foresee danger and make recommendations accordingly. Not all dangers in a workplace can be foreseen. The insertion of subsection (4) is being effected to ensure that the employer will see to it that the safety committee carries out its activities. Members of the safety committee have the status of employees under the authority of the employer.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the accommodating spirit shown by the hon. the Minister with regard to the amendment I intended to move, I shall not proceed with it. Therefore I shall not move the amendment of which I gave notice.

Amendment moved by Mr. P. C. Cronjé negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments moved by Mr. A. Savage negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments moved by the Minister of Manpower agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

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

I think we are all· acquainted with the problem of the monsters that prowl around factory workshops gobbling up safety equipment. In a factory situation one has shelves and storage spaces etc. but nevertheless these things evaporate. They dissolve, or are put somewhere and simply disappear. On one day a worker may be equipped with safety goggles and gloves, etc. but if one looks away for a moment they have just disappeared. In such a case one may not make deductions from the salary of such a worker, in terms of clause 15, in order to replace such equipment. It is easy to say that the employer can produce an issue book when the inspector arrives at a workplace and remarks, for example, that there is a man standing behind a lathe who is not wearing goggles, and in such a case the employer need only say that he gave that employee goggles two weeks previously. That would then exempt him. However, the issue here is people’s safety and it does not really matter whether those goggles were given to that employee two weeks previously. The fact remains that he does not have them at the moment and if he does not wear that safety equipment then the employer is breaking a law. One cannot rectify the position by saying that the employee had been in possession of it just recently. Therefore I say that we must make provision for the replacement of such equipment, particularly equipment of a personal nature, such as goggles, hats, shoes etc. If the employee cannot prove that the equipment in question has served out its useful life in the course of the performance of his duties, or that there was no negligence on his part if the equipment simply disappeared, then such equipment can be replaced and the cost recovered from the employee himself. The hon. the Minister may say that such an employee may be told to replace that equipment himself, but that is simply not the way things happen. Surely the hon. the Minister knows that an employee who receives his money on Friday usually has nothing left the following Monday. Then, if an inspector turns up on the Monday and that employee is standing there without safety goggles, one of two choices must be made. That employee can be laid off until the following Friday in the hope that he will buy goggles, or else he has to be discharged. I do not think that is what one wants. To promote good labour relations, or at the least in the interests of the safety of employees, I should like to call upon the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment of mine in order to make the replacement of this equipment possible, particularly with regard to personal equipment, and the cost may then be recovered from the salary of such an employee by the employer. This would teach such an employee good manners and at the same time it would promote improved safety.

Mr. Chairman, if an employer can prove that he has provided his employees with safety equipment and they have therefore misused it, he is not committing an offence. I do not believe we should go further and incorporate in the legislation the kind of discipline he should apply. I fear we cannot go so far as to accept the amendment. If the amendment were to be accepted this could open the door to abuse, in that unscrupulous employers would be able to deprive the provision of virtually all its statutory force and effect.

Accordingly, I am unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. the Minister agrees that if one calls to mind, for example, the situation at construction sites, it will be realized that it can differ considerably from a factory situation. One gives the employees hard hats, raincoats etc. These for the most part are things that are not used regularly. Moreover, here is not a case of all the employees reporting at the same place and storing these things in a trunk. If the employer does make deductions from the employee for anything of this nature, he is breaking the law. And if he wants to cover himself by saying that he once gave these things to the employee, then that does not promote safety either. Therefore I am of the opinion that if one does accept the envisaged amendment it will not deprive the clause of its statutory force. On the contrary, I think one would be contributing to the statutory force of the clause. It is impossible to detract from the statutory force as the hon. the Minister argues. The clause has a certain statutory force but all the employer has to do to prove his innocence is to present a book which shows that he gave the employee safety goggles six months previously. I think that this in itself deprives the provision of its statutory force. If one accepts the amendment, however, one does give the provision teeth and one enables the employer to look after the safety of his employees without breaking the law.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with the same argument that was advanced earlier in respect of certain other proposals. Look, if such a problem were to arise in a specific industry then I believe that this could be considered, but I do not believe that it is the right way of going about things to try to foresee all possible problems and then incorporate solutions for them in legislation. It is for that very reason that we are dealing here with enabling legislation. Because provision is being made for exemption, this problem could be considered and rectified. That is the way in which the Bill makes provision for it. If in every specific industry—the hon. member referred to the building industry—a specific problem arises and one tries to incorporate a solution for that problem in the Bill, where is it going to end? I fear I am unable to concede that we should rectify the matter in such a way. There are remedies, and I think we could conduct a meaningful discussion about this at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greytown has drawn attention to a very practical situation. It is not an exceptional situation; in a dozen different industries and a dozen different workplaces this is a general situation. I honestly do not know how this can be run in a practical fashion without doing what the hon. member says. We have all seen this situation: One issues somebody with the things which are required, and the only way in which one can ensure they do not disappear tomorrow, is to have the authority to deduct the cost of replacement from the employees’ wages. I think it is a simple, practical everyday problem and it applies to almost every industry I have been in.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

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

I must start by saying that of the many good amendments we have suggested, this amendment is probably the least good, but it is nevertheless an improvement on the present situation. In moving this amendment, however, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to go into the matter very carefully because he is now dealing with a serious situation. If an inspector can demand books and records and make copies of them, we are really playing with fire if those records are confidential. I must say at the outset that we agree completely with the fact that the chief inspector must be able to get those records—there is no problem about that—and he must also be able to get those records quickly, but the hon. the Minister’s problem—I believe—is to see to it that if an employer objects to handing over the records because they would reveal confidential industrial information, there is some way in which those documents could be channelled to the chief inspector. We actually have to realize what is happening in the field of industrial espionage overseas and in this country today. In America they talk of thousands of millions of dollars involved in industrial espionage. It is a real problem. If an inspector is empowered to demand records that might not really pertain completely to what he wants to investigate (even if he gets production figures) one could be talking about information that is worth hundreds of thousands of rand to someone else. Normally that will not happen, so the problem with this legislation is that if the employer objects, a mechanism must be introduced— either through the S.A. Police or in some other way—to see to it that the records get to the chief inspector, and I do realize that they have to be obtained quickly.

We have had some very serious situations in this country already, with millions of rand actually being involved in industrial espionage. Our little incident in Simon’s Town makes one realize that this is a real problem. In summing up my motivation for this amendment, let me say that I know that it does not fully meet the problem, but I do think it improves the provision in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister please to give this matter some further consideration, because I promise him it is indeed of great importance.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that this provision has been taken over verbatim from the Factories Act and that it has worked well in practice, without any major problems. I also want to point out that clause 24 contains a secrecy provision, and as a result of that provision there is a reasonable degree of security. From the nature of the case, an inspector will not concern himself with matters which are not related to his work, and if he were to do so, an employer could take action and appeal against it. I do not think the hon. member need be afraid of that. It is not as if this were a novelty to us in South Africa. So I am afraid that I cannot support the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer in particular to subsections (1)(b) and (c). In terms of paragraph (b), the inspector has the power to stop the work if certain safety measures have not been properly complied with, and in terms of paragraph (c), he may allow the work to continue once he has been satisfied. The Minister does not seem to be sufficiently well informed to know, for example, that the construction industry and the building industry together form one of the biggest employers …

Of course.

Very well. Let us discuss the matter, then. In a factory the safety situation usually changes very slowly. When a new machine or a new process is being introduced, for example, the circumstances change, but they usually change only once. In such a situation the inspector would come to investigate the matter, ask for certain things to be done, perhaps, and say that he will come back the following week. When the matter has been rectified, the factory continues its operations and everthing goes smoothly for the next 10 years. In the case of construction work or civil engineering work, however, the safety situation can change from minute to minute or at least from hour to hour. That is why, in the case of regulations concerning building sites, I would like the hon. the Minister to give specific attention to the fact that when an inspector has stopped the work at such a site, he should return within a reasonable period of time, or upon request, in order to investigate the situation again, because if he comes round on a Monday and stops the work and one rectifies the matter immediately on that Monday, he may say that he is only coming back the following Thursday. I would like this to be taken into consideration in making regulations.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, the implication in clause 24(4)(i) is that the people concerned do have legal representation. I just want to inquire of the Minister whether this is in fact the case.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister why the inquest had to be held under the chairmanship of the magistrate and in the presence of the inspector, why the two inquiries had to be duplicated. Could the hon. the Minister just explain to us the reason for this double inquiry, while surely the chief inspector or the inspector could simply request a copy of the record of the inquest in order to obtain the evidence given there?

Mr. Chairman, a joint inquiry is often very useful, because the proceedings are then strictly in accordance with court procedure. This saves a lot of time and prevents evidence from being given twice. Therefore it is simply a practical arrangement in this connection. I do not think there is anything else involved which could create sinister or other problems. If this is in fact the case, however, the hon. member is very welcome to discuss the matter with us. However, we have inserted this provision for no other purpose than to facilitate matters.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.