reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 21—“Community Development”, had agreed to the Vote.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on State-owned Land.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Chairman, the definitions contained in this Bill, as well as various clauses of this measure, are indicative of the Government’s intention to continue to draw a distinction between the treatment of White children on the one hand and Coloured, Indian and Black children on the other hand. We in the PFP wish to record our strongest protest at the continuation of this state of affairs. Definitions in this Bill which do concern us, are, inter alia, those of “Minister”, “childrens’ court”, “commissioner’s court”, etc. In terms of the definition given in this measure of “Director-general” it seems there will be several departments of State that will be administering this legislation. This, to us, is a further indication of the Government’s intention to have child care administered by three separate departments of State, namely the Department of Health and Welfare, the Department of Internal Affairs and the Department of Cooperation and Development. This fragmentation of administration that should, we believe, be executed by one single department, is totally unacceptable to us. We believe that in this day and age this sort of practice has to be abolished immediately.

During Second Reading we raised five reasons why we believed this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading. One of the reasons we gave at the time was exactly the one I have just stated, namely the fragmentation of administration that should by right be executed by the Department of Health and Welfare.

The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, gave his reasons for rejecting our suggestion of a Select Committee. Allow me to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think the reasons given by the hon. the Minister were quite ridiculous. The hon. the Minister said then that people were drawing comparisons and were saying that we had only one Department of Health, but that yet so many other departments of State were entrusted with social services. I submit that we do have only one Department of Health, Mr. Chairman, in spite of what the hon. the Minister said. The hon. the Minister also accused me of not knowing what was going on in South Africa. He added that we had eight Black Departments of Health, and that the four provinces each had such a department of its own. According to the hon. the Minister there were a total of 12 such departments. I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister excluded his own department because when I add up four plus 12 plus one I get a total of 13, and not 12 such departments. It appears to me therefore that the hon. the Minister excluded his own department.

The definitions given in clause 1 of this Bill confirm the Government’s commitment to a total separation of the administration of welfare to the different race groups in this country. Meanwhile there is only one hon. Minister of Health and Welfare. We on this side of the House want only one hon. Minister of Welfare, who will devote his time and attention to the administration of this measure now before the House because the fragmentation of functions among all these different departments, we believe, is not in the interests of child care. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Minister to concede that his argument during Second reading was not valid. We still believe that one Department of Welfare under one Minister’s jurisdiction will serve the best interests of the welfare of children.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper and which relates to the definition of “place of safety” as contained in clause 1 of this Bill. Under the old Childrens’ Act “place of safety” was actually defined as a place which also included any police-station. The new Bill, in its definition, does not refer to a police-station. Clause 28, however, provides that all those places which under the old Act were regarded as places of safety will continue to be regarded as places of safety in terms of this Bill. In practice police cells have indeed been used in the past, and are still being used, as places of safety for the detention of young and very young children before they are admitted to any of the other institutions. This amendment is aimed at excluding police cells from places of safety; excluding police cells from places where young children may be kept for purposes of this legislation.

One has found in practice that children of 14 or 15 years old are detained in police cells because they are regarded as places of safety. It is correct that police cells are places of safety where young children, even very young children, who are difficult to control, have to be confined. My view is that by excluding police cells at this stage already it will encourage the authorities and the department to provide places in the ordinary institutions for the confinement of those difficult cases. It has happened in practice, very frequently, I am told, that children who are not dangerous, who are not of a category that needs to be confined in a cell, have been placed in police cells with other hardened criminals. This can only be to the detriment of the rehabilitation of a child. It can only cause him harm. I submit therefore that, if the amendment is accepted which I am going to move just now, it can only assist in eliminating one area where those problem children get into contact with hardened criminals, criminals with characters those children should never come into contact with.

The reason why I am not moving the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper is that upon reconsideration I have thought that perhaps this should be included earlier on in that definition. At the moment the amendment seeks to insert the new words in line 44, on page 6. I have considered, however, that it may be more appropriate to insert those words in line 43, on the same page. The amendment which I am going to move just now will then have the effect that a place of safety will mean any place other than a police cell established in terms of clause 28, etc. I consider that to be a more appropriate place to insert the words than the place provided for in my original amendment, as printed on the Order Paper.

I therefore move the following amendment—

, other than a police cell,

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown is obsessed with the idea of the fragmentation of welfare services, health services, etc. Our problem with the official Opposition lies in the fact that they do not see this fragmentation as an historical and cultural fact. It is not the Government which is responsible for this; it is a fact of history. For that reason we shall never find one another on that point. With respect, I consider the arguments he advanced here to be completely irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place the argument of the hon. member for Parktown is not relevant in the Committee Stage of a Bill. For that reason he saw fit not to move an amendment to that effect because you would not have been able to accept it, since he wants to change the principle of the Bill. I do not blame him for stating that viewpoint because I know it is the viewpoint of his party. However, he ought to know by now that it is not the viewpoint of my party. On this point, therfore, he and I cannot find one another. We had better agree to differ and somehow remain friends as best we can. That is what I have to say to the hon. member for Parktown.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the proposal by the hon. member for Durban Central. I am tempted to say I wish it were a feasible to accept his amendment. However, I have to take the actual situation in South Africa into account. It often happens that for their own sake children have to be taken to so-called places of safety, when in fact no such place exists. I know of cases where such children are taken away and simply placed in houses. I could also refer to a number of cases of the police taking Black children to their homes in order to keep them out of a police cell. Due to circumstances it is not always possible to do so, however. It is not the policy of the department to keep children who have to be taken into custody in police cells with hardened criminals. This is a matter we could easily become very excited about. It is not the policy of the department. However, if there is no other place and consequently, under the circumstances, it is the best place for the safe custody of the individual, one surely has no alternative. My problem is that it is not possible for me to accept amendments which will make the implementation of this legislation impossible under certain circumstances. It is a fact that there was reference to police cells in the old Act as well. It was in the Children’s Act for many years. This is not something new. It is purely for practical reasons that I am unfortunately unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it seems that the hon. the Minister and we are agreed that to use a prison as a place of safety for a small child is undesirable, since he would have to mix with hardened criminals. There is also the trauma for the young child, his loneliness and feeling of destitution at being kept at a police station. Some of us have had the misfortune to come across this in the course of our work. We are agreed that this should be avoided. The hon. the Minister says that he cannot agree to the amendment of the definition to eliminate it entirely. He raised the practical problem that in certain areas there are no places of safety other than a police station. As far as Soweto is concerned, an area where over 1 million Blacks are living, I do not know whether there is an alternative to a place of safety other than a prison. It is certainly undesirable that these children, as well as children in other areas, are kept there. Therefore, if we are agreed, is the hon. the Minister not prepared to undertake a plan of action and to embark upon a programme to provide other suitable accommodation in areas where the only alternative is a prison? If the hon. the Minister will give us that undertaking, then we will be going a long way towards achieving a goal which we both share.

Mr. Chairman, obviously it is the policy of the department to provide places of safety where it is within the financial means of the department to do so. We shall continue to do so, and without committing myself to specific places, this will continue to be the policy, and the department will provide more places of safety as funds become available.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the four amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Durban Central, as follows—

1. 1. On page 8, in lines 15 to 17, to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute:
   1. (a) The council shall consist of 12 members.
2. 2. On page 8, in line 20, to omit “At least”.
3. 3. On page 8, after line 30, to insert:
   1. (d) the remaining members of the council shall be appointed from a list containing the names of 12 persons who have been nominated by the Council for Social and Associated Workers on the basis of their special knowledge and experience in the field of child welfare.
4. 4. On page 8, in line 37, after “time” to insert:

In terms of clause 2 the Minister has the power to appoint a child welfare advisory council, consisting of not more than 12 members. This clause also determines that at least one officer of each of six Government departments will be appointed by the Minister.

Our first and second amendments are aimed at limiting the number of the council to exactly 12, and the number of officers from the various Government departments to a maximum of six respectively.

Our third amendment proposes that the remaining members of the council shall be appointed from a list containing the names of 12 persons who have been nominated by the South African National Council for Child and Family Welfare on the basis of their special knowledge and experience in the field of child welfare.

I think these are very reasonable amendments. In terms of the present wording of the clause the Minister can appoint all 12 members of the council from the various Government departments. Clause 2(2)(c) reads—

The six departments are then mentioned. This means that the Minister can appoint all 12 members from these departments. Council members are of course State officials whereas the provision of child welfare services are largely undertaken by voluntary welfare organizations. We have moved these amendments to try to make sure that the people who are mostly concerned with child welfare will have adequate representation on this council. We accept this council in principle, but we feel that the hon. the Minister has the opportunity to appoint too many State officials on the council.

Clause 2(3)(c) reads—

We believe this gives the Minister too much power. We feel the Minister should be able to terminate the office of a member of the council on the recommendation of the council. That is why we have moved the fourth amendment. We believe in this way the council can be far more representative and it will be much easier to function for the purpose for which it is appointed.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Parktown knows what the Council for Social and Associated Workers does. Just as the Medical Council looks after the interests of the medical profession, so it looks after the interests of social workers. It does not, in point of fact, have any direct connection with child care, in particular, or welfare services in general. So to say that specific council must contribute to that extent, in the sense that the advisory council must be drawn from its ranks, would not be an argument that would be easy to defend.

It is also very clear that in the new dispensation—because what is involved here is the advisory council—welfare services will naturally be an own affair, and there will consequently have to be this co-ordination, as already laid down in the principle. The council that is now going to be constituted will be a very significant one.

The other point mentioned, that of it’s being an advisory council, is true, and for that reason the hon. the Minister can surely appoint whatever people he thinks fit, because their sole purpose is to advise him. I therefore cannot find much fault with the six officials to be designated by the various departments, as proposed in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, either the hon. member for Rustenburg did not read the proposed amendments correctly or he did not understand them. It is recommended that the 12 people to be nominated by the Council for Social and Associated Workers should not be people serving on the council, but rather members of that organization; in other words, it goes without saying that they would be people who did not necessarily serve on the council, but were members of the organization, people who, by virtue of their work, have special knowledge and experience in the field of child care. As I understand it, all social workers are members of that organization, and form their ranks from the people who gain more experience each and every day and try to handle the child care problems that crop up. It is for that very reason that we hope that the best qualified people will appear on that list of 12 names. The best organization or body to draw up or handle this list is that very council representing the social workers. For that reason it is, in our opinion, the most suitable body to draw up that list.

If one reviews the objective of this council, as set out in clause 3 of the Bill, one sees that it is the objective of the National Council for Child and Family Welfare to advise the Minister on the problems that crop up in everyday life. It is difficult for me to understand how an official of the Department of Co-operation and Development, including the officials of a few of the other departments mentioned in the clause, can have more experience of the everyday problems in the field of child care than the social workers who work with those problems each day. If the hon. the Minister wants advice about solving problems and coming to the fore with good recommendations, that advice must specifically come from a body which is familiar with the problems and which knows where those problems originate.

For that reason it is our opinion that the proposed amendments of the hon. member for Parktown would contribute to sounder advice being given to the Minister than the council, as set out in the clause, would be able to give. I therefore support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown was quite right in saying that all four amendments moved by him linked up with one another. If one reads all four amendments, one after the other, his intention actually becomes very clear. His whole effort is aimed solely at restricting the Minister; he intends nothing more by proposing the four amendments. Let the hon. member make a sour face; we have been familiar with this game for a very long time. [Interjections.] Hon. members need not get excited; I shall deal with the amendments one by one. I believe hon. members are entitled to expect me to deal with the amendments one by one.

†I cannot support the first amendment. The hon. member seeks to curtail any discretion I may have in determining the size of the council. I can see no reason why I should be obliged to appoint 12 members if I find that for instance ten members would be sufficient. I wish to emphasize that the provision to appoint 12 members is not only an indication of the size of the council, but it is also an indication by the House to what extent I may incur expenditure in this regard. If no expenditure has been involved, the Bill would have been silent on the number of members. It would have been immaterial whether the council comprised 12 or 120 members. The hon. member’s intention in moving this amendment only becomes clear if one has a closer look at the remaining amendments he moved to the clause.

The hon. member’s second amendment is an attempt to restrict the representatives of the various government departments …

The amendment is aimed at better representation.

… to one representative per department. That means that I may not appoint one member from the welfare side and another member from the medical side of the Department of Health and Welfare. I find that unacceptable and therefore I cannot suppport the amendment.

Only on reading the hon. member’s third amendment does his intention become very obvious. He wants to fix the council’s membership at 12—six members to be selected by myself from Government departments while the remaining six are to be selected from a panel nominated by the Council for Social and Associated Workers. I may point out that social workers are not members of that council as the hon. member for Durban Central has said. They are registered with the Council for Social and Associated Workers. I think the hon. member for Parktown will agree with me when I say that had we been speaking about the medical side, he would not ask the Medical Council for a suggestion, but he would probably ask the Medical Association for a suggestion. That, however, is not what he has asked here. He is asking for the wrong body.

*The function of this council is do advise the Minister about the matters referred to in clause 3. In this case it will be the Minister of Health and Welfare who acts in consultation with the other Ministers concerned. I think it is fair and just that we ourselves should choose the people who are to advise us. I do not think the Council for Social and Associated Workers are the only people who can be consulted by us. The National Council for Child Welfare may give me better advice than they do, but the amendment deprives me of the opportunity to consult the National Council for Child Welfare and the churches as regards which, people I should nominate to the council. I am being pinned down by the Council for Social and Associated Workers. I do not think that is the best way to appoint a council. It is unreasonable to expect the council to compile such a list because the rendering of welfare services per se is not the task of the council. Consequently I cannot accept that amendment either.

†I cannot accept the fourth amendment, because it is apparently intended to curtail the Government’s say in the constitution of the council. Members of the council will not only be selected because of their special knowledge; due regard should also be had to whether they are actively engaged in the child and family welfare fields. I think I should have the power to replace a representative of, for example, the Department of Health and Welfare if he resigns or retires from the service of the department. What do I do when a member of the Department of Health and Welfare is appointed on the council and I am not satisfied with his word there? Should I not be allowed to appoint another member?

Do you not trust him?

No, I do trust him. The hon. member does not seem to trust me.

We have experience.

So have I. It should be borne in mind that my colleagues and I am accountable to this House in respect of child welfare matters. It is therefore only fair and just that I be given the authority by this House to select our own advisers.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, I do not think legislation should be made to put power in the hands of an individual. I have always understood that legislation was aimed at the broader aspects which should not be changed every second day. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister even asked the question whether we trust him. I think we have had three or four Ministers of Health in the last three years. It is not a question of whether the Minister is Dr. Nak van der Merwe, Dr. Schalk van der Merwe or Dr. Munnik; we are talking about legislation giving powers to a Minister. It does not matter who the individual is. It is not a personal matter. We are trying to put legislation of a more permanent basis on the Statute Book, hopefully for all time.

We have a new Bill before us in which many other Acts are repealed and revised. The amendments moved by the hon. member for Parktown are aimed at broadening the scope of the representation on this very important Child Welfare Advisory Council. This council will play a very important role, as one can see from clause 3, and its functions will include “to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the promotion of the general welfare of children so as to ensure adequate social welfare services…”. We are trying to get the council to function in such a way that it can fulfil the task which we are entrusting to it. In order to do that we thought that by broadening its scope by giving representation to the Council for Social and Associated Workers, this can be achieved. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can indicate to us whether he plans to appoint a member of the Council for Social and Associated Workers on the new council.

In the same breath and since this council covers such a wide field, I hope, and perhaps the hon. the Minister will confirm this, that we will in fact appoint to this council Coloured, Black and Indian members who represent social welfare and who can assist in so far as the social welfare of their people and their groups are concerned. In this way the functions mentioned in clause 3 can be performed properly.

Another point raised by the hon. member for Parktown as regards the fourth amendment, is that the hon. the Minister is asking for carte blanche to hire and fire at will. Where people are appointed, representing organizations like for example the Council for Social and Associated Workers, it should be on the recommendation of that body whether that person should be fired or his job terminated. That is all the amendment is aimed at.

I trust the hon. the Minister will respond to this.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the hon. member’s argument. First he says it is not a question of Nak van der Merwe; it is a question of the legislation. Shortly thereafter, however, he asks me for my assurance in connection with what persons I am going to appoint. Surely that is a contradiction in terms. It does not, after all, make any sense. What does it matter whom I am going to appoint? The hon. member then says that tomorrow there may be another Minister who appoints someone else. It cannot work that way. With their representations those hon. members are not extending the possible scope of appointments; they are narrowing it down. In terms of this clause the Minister would be in a position, for example, to ask the churches. He would be in a position to ask the National Council for Child Welfare, a council which consists of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people. In fact, the Minister could consult anyone. The hon. member says, however, that the Minister must, in fact, accept the recommendation of say the Council for Social and Associated Workers. That is a council that arranges only matters relating to social workers’ registration and their profession. It is not a council that is active in the practical field. It is a council that functions like the Medical Council. It is not a council, like the Medical Association, which is active, from day to day, in the practical field. With his amendment the hon. member is therefore not broadening the composition of the council; he is limiting it. For that reason I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the hon. the Minister one cannot reduce an argument to such an absurdity. What we have said very clearly is that we are legislating for the future. However, the hon. the Minister is now trying to get out of it by saying that there may be other Ministers who will make the appointments. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister now whether he intends resigning as the Minister of Health and Welfare. Is he not going to be the first Minister to appoint the members of the council and will this appointment remain while he is the incumbent of this post? Is he not the man who is piloting this Bill at the moment? So now we are not legislating on the basis of my first argument. We are now asking a question. The hon. the Minister does not want to accept the amendment and because he does not want to accept the amendment he will now have to act in terms of the legislation that is before us. The hon. the Minister will have to act unless, of course, he is not going to be the Minister tomorrow. Once this legislation becomes law, however, this hon. Minister will have to do the appointing. Therefore our question is pertinent: Who is the Minister going to appoint at this stage?

The other argument is that if a representative comes from an organization and the Minister is going to fire that representative, it should be on the recommendation of the organization who nominated him/her in the first place. That is all we are asking.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place there is not only one Minister involved in this Bill.

There are too many.

If the hon. member for Hillbrow had only listened to what the hon. member for Parktown had to say, he would have noted that there are quite a few Ministers involved in this.

But you, as Minister of Health and Welfare, appoint them.

Yes, I know, but I would have to consult those other Ministers. I surely have to consult them, because this does not, after all, merely involve one department. All I am now saying is that nowhere does the Bill state that council must consist of only one population group. There is no mention of that there. What more does the hon. member expect of me? I cannot, after all, do more than say that the Bill gives no population connotation to that council. It is stated there. Surely there is no doubt about that. I do not understand what the hon. member for Hillbrow wants of me. I cannot, at this stage, say whom I am going to appoint to the council, because the Bill has not even been passed yet. How can I therefore decide at this stage whom I am going to appoint?

But you do not exclude them?

Of course they are not excluded. I cannot exclude them if the legislation does not exclude them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says that at this stage he does not know whom he is going to appoint. I accept that. The hon. the Minister must concede, however, that if more than one official from each of the six departments were appointed, it is possible that council might consist solely of departmental people. Does the hon. the Minister consider that to be a good thing? This is where our problem lies. I think the hon. the Minister is suffering a little from those Monday afternoon blues and looking for things. We ask that the council should consist of 12 members, but not “not exceeding 12”, as the legislation reads at present. There are other people, apart from those in the departments tabulated here, who work for the good of children. These people and bodies must also be represented. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to think again. As the legislation reads at present, the council could consist solely of departmental representatives.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must also be reasonable. If it were the intention to appoint only public servants, this would have been stipulated in the legislation. It is not, however, stated as such in the legislation. All that is stated is that the six departments mentioned here should each be represented on the council. As soon as I include other bodies, my hands are tied. As things stand at present I may, as far as the Department of Health and Welfare is concerned, appoint one official with a view to the health aspect and one with a view to the welfare aspect. If I include other bodies, I am restricted to only one representative of the Department of Health and Welfare. So either the health aspect or the welfare aspect will not be covered. If it had been my intention to appoint only public servants, I would surely have had this included in the legislation. In fact, perhaps it would not even have been necessary to have had it included in the legislation. We could perhaps have done it administratively.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member must also be reasonable. I am sorry, but I cannot accept his amendment.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 3:

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

The word “welvaart” is used in the Afrikaans text. I think, however, that in Afrikaans that word actually applies chiefly to the tangible, the material, whilst the whole spirit of the clause in question is far more comprehensive than merely the tangible, the material. The spirit of the whole Bill—let me refer, for example, to clause 11 and clause 12—embraces the welfare of the child. The word “welsyn” is therefore quite rightly used in the aforementioned and in other clauses.

I therefore think that in the Afrikaans text the word should be “welsyn” and not “welvaart”. That is why I moved the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, the word “welvaart” was written into the legislation by the legal advisers. I want to point out, however, that I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I shall therefore be accepting his amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

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

This may appear to be a very technical matter, Mr. Chairman, but allow me to refer hon. members to clause 13 (4) of this Bill, which provides that the child concerned in the inquiry need not necessarily be present at the hearing, either because of ill-health, infancy or any other sufficient cause. If one now refers to this clause, clause 8, one sees that subsection (2) reads as follows—

The presence of the child in person is therefore not necessary in all cases. Clause 13 (4) provides that it is not always necessary, and one also knows from practice that the children concerned in these inquiries are not always present when the hearing takes place.

The motivation behind my amendment is to ensure that even if the child is not present—because in terms of the Bill it is not necessary for the child to be present—the legal representative of that child is still by right entitled to be there. He should not have to rely on a later stipulation in that clause, in terms of which he has to ask for permission to be present. By right the legal representative of the child in question, even if the child is not there, should be entitled to be present. That is the only motivation behind this amendment, Mr. Chairman. It is to ensure that it will not happen that a legal representative will actually have to apply for permission to be present at the hearing, but that he should by right be entitled to be present.

Mr. Chairman, I have given this amendment a great deal of thought, and I have also consulted the law advisers. The parties directly involved in these inquiries are children, their parents or their guardians. They are not the persons referred to in the subsection the hon. member for Durban Central seeks to have amended because their presence is not only necessary but obligatory.

It is unthinkable that in the normal course of events inquiries can be held in their absence. The Supreme Court had no hesitation in the past to set aside an order of the children’s court in a case where the specific inquiry was held in the absence of the parent. That court did not accept the submission that parents may be excluded if their presence is not necessary. Even in terms of the other clause to which the hon. member referred it is true that a child may be absent at the hearing owing to illness or any other valid reason. Nevertheless, his presence is still necessary for the hearing to continue. In that case I think that the words to be included are not only superfluous but will also obscure the true meaning of the clause. I think that what the hon. member seeks to achieve through his amendment is already provided for. I see no reason why the legal representative of the child concerned cannot be there. That possibility is not excluded by this clause as it is worded. Therefore I think the amendment is superfluous, and I am not prepared to accept it because I think it will only obscure the meaning of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, where in terms of clause 13(4) the child will not be at the hearing, that per se means that the child’s presence at the hearing is not necessary. In other words, the child’s presence is not necessary for the purpose in view. Therefore there is no provision in the Bill that the child’s presence is obligatory under all circumstances, precisely because of the exception where under certain circumstances the child can stay away.

I do not want to score points on this aspect, but I am just concerned that the legal representative may be left out. As I have indicated, in terms of clause 13(4) the child need not be present. The hearing therefore can continue without the child being there. However, the legal representative may be there and he may say: “I want to represent the child.” In my view, in terms of clause 8(2) the court can say to that legal representative: “The child’s presence is not necessary and therefore your presence is not necessary. You can ask me nicely and I may allow you, but you do not have the right of appearance.” Because the child’s presence is not necessary for the particular hearing, he does not fall under that clause. That is the point I hope to clarify.

Mr. Chairman, I am not a legal man, but if the hon. member looks at clause 9(1)(b)(iii) he will see that all procedures are being conducted under the rules applicable to the magistrate’s court and that the clause further contains the words—

Legal representatives are not excluded. I checked this with the law advisers and they are quite happy about it.

In that case subsection (2) is superfluous.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

This amendment must be seen in conjunction with the amendment on the Order Paper relating to the right of appeal against orders of a children’s court. It is aimed at ensuring that the Magistrates’ Courts Act and its rules will be applicable to the appeal for which provision is made in the other amendment. I believe that, if this is specifically provided for in clause 9, one will eliminate the doubt about whether or not the legislation applies, one will eliminate the doubt about what periods of time should apply, etc. In any event, there is also provision in the Bill for an appeal against adoption orders. That is already in the Bill. Although reference is made to the fact that it shall be an appeal as though it was a magistrate’s court’s decision, I believe if one were to include the amendment on clause 9 it will make it even clearer that in noting and prosecuting that appeal, even an appeal against an adoption order, the Magistrates’ Courts Act, the rules made there under and the Black Administration Act should be applicable. I believe it will assist in satisfying the procedural problems that may exist.

Mr. Chairman, it was with an open mind that I submitted this amendment of the hon. member to the law advisers. The answer I received from them is that clause 9 was taken verbatim from the present Act. No change has therefore been made. It has worked well in practice for many years now, and I should not like to change something that has worked well for many years now. The amendment was submitted to the law advisers and they are of the opinion that the amendment is unnecessary. The clauses in the Bill dealing with appeals, i.e. clauses 22 and 48, do make provision for an appeal against an order of a children’s court as if such order were a sentence passed in a magistrate’s court. By implication, the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, and the Black Administration Act, 1927, are applicable. For that reason the law advisers do not regard the amendment as being necessary. They do not think it would serve any purpose.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, clause 10(1) reads as follows—

1. (a) any illegitimate child under the age of seven years …

I want to ask the hon. the Minister why not all children under the age of seven years are included. I raised that point during my Second Reading speech, but the hon. the Minister obviously did not have enough time to respond to all the questions I asked him. Is this intended only for the illegitimate child of a single parent? As things are today, there are many children of divorcees. I should like the hon. the Minister to give an explanation as to why it only includes illegitimate children under the age of seven years.

We believe the provisions contained in Clause 10(1)(b) are very good. I have been asked by social workers to state that it is hoped that the regulation will further protect such children by insistence on a social worker’s report prior to consent being given by the Commissioner of Child Welfare in terms of section 10(1)(b)(ii). The social workers are extremely anxious that the practice of private or third party adoptions should not cease. They would like the assurance from the hon. the Minister that in terms of this clause that would not happen.

Mr. Chairman, clause 10(1) reads as follows—

1. (a) any illegitimate child under the age of seven years; or
2. (b) any child for the purpose of adopting him or causing him to be adopted …

It therefore actually prohibits it. For that reason a recommendation of a social worker is unnecessary.

As far as clause 10(1)(a) is concerned, the hon. member must bear in mind that here adoption is being prohibited. As far as the age of seven years is concerned, I want to say that it is an arbitrary age designed more or less to fit in with school-going age. At school-going age a child is placed in a hostel or goes away to school for a long time. One cannot therefore deal with such a child in terms of this clause. Hence the age of seven years.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, it is our view that this clause fails to protect the child in need of care adequately. Clause 14(4) states that at an inquiry the children’s court shall determine whether the child has a parent or guardian who is unable or unfit to have custody of the child in view of the fact that the child has been assaulted or ill-treated. However, the accent is not on proving that this has actually happened but that either the parents or the guardian were the cause of such ill-treatment. This is the problem and I think that the hon. Minister will agree with me here. It will become almost impossible now to protect the neglected or ill-treated child, and this must surely be the exact opposite of what a Child Care Bill should make provision for.

As we understand this clause, our main concern is that while the court has to decide whether the parents are neglecting or ill-treating the child, nothing can be done to protect the child from further ill-treatment. That is the way we understand it. We are not the only ones who understand it this way. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the material contained in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill had been obtained from a certain lady. I can assure him that he was completely wrong. I did not even speak to the person to whom he was referring. All I received was a letter, exactly as he did.

From the lady.

Yes, from the lady, but I had no telephonic or other communication with her at all. Therefore that too was not correct. However, I think it is very important for us to state their point of view, and I feel that the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation in this regard. Why are people not satisfied and why is there this difference of opinion? I can assure the hon. the Minister that I have read this clause over and over again and I can only come to the same conclusion every time and that is that the protection afforded is not adequate.

I have the letter here to which I should like to refer the hon. the Minister. Perhaps he has read it but I should like to quote some extracts from it just the same. The letter reads—

This, quite obiously, is not easy to prove. The letter goes on to state—

This is what they say. Then we have this important sentence—

*By that time the children could possibly have suffered serious injuries or might have died. This is the view they take of this matter. I think these people are responsible people. When I read clause 14 it seems to me that this possibility does in fact exist. If this is so, we cannot proceed with this clause. I want to ask the Minister whether it is possible for him to give us an assurance so as to satisfy all of us that it will not be possible for the situation as I have just enunciated it to arise.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I shall be able to satisfy the hon. member completely. The hon. member also put a few other questions to me.

In the first place, I want to say that nowhere in this Bill is it stated that proof must first be furnished. No onus of proof is prescribed in this legislation. The determination must be made on the preponderance of probabilities. That is how the determination must be made, and there is no onus of proof. I do want to refer the hon. member to the provisions of the existing Act on the question of the definition of a child in need of care. It is provided, inter alia, that a child in need of care is one who is in the custody of a person who has been convicted of committing upon or in connection with that child any offence mentioned in the first schedule to the Act. He must therefore first be convicted, and only then is there any question of a child in need of care. That is the position in terms of the existing Act. The people who write to the hon. member do not, however, have any objection to that.

I want to make things easy for the hon. member. There is one thing he asked me that I cannot fathom. He asks how it is possible for people to disagree. As long as we are human, there will be differences of opinion. That is a problem I cannot solve for the hon. member. We will indeed have our mutual differences; I do not know why. It is a fact that the people who write to the hon. member do, from time to time, change their minds. They change their minds quite suddenly. In the most recent letter I received from them, they seriously asked that in each of these cases there should be legal representation, because they thought it would be a very good thing to have justice done. From what the hon. member quoted, however, they are objecting to court proceedings. What must I do now?

I said I was going to make things easy for the hon. member. It is a very serious matter that we are busy with, and that is why I took a very serious look at this. I am going to accept the hon. member for Brit’s amendment to the effect that subsection (4) of clause 15 be deleted. Let me say why I am in favour of the deletion of that subsection. The position of a child that is being ill-treated could be debated at great length. There is a case that was given wide publicity recently. A young child was raped whilst the mother watched and took photographs. This case is still very fresh in our minds. The question that arises involuntarily in such cases is whether we can ever give such a child back to the parent at all. I honestly want to say that I do not think so. So if we cannot return the child to the parent, it surely follows equally that we cannot allow such a parent to thwart the adoption of the relevant child. That is why I originally included clause 15(4) in the Bill.

Since the Bill was published, there have been a considerable number of representations made to me and I have given the matter some deep thought. I decided rather to have this provision deleted and then to amend clause 19 in such a way as to make provision for such cases. Those making representations also point out that there are degrees of ill-treatment and that it is normally only one of the parents who ill-treats the child. That is why one must take this into consideration and make provision for it. I accept these arguments, and when clause 19 comes up for discussion, I shall have something more to say about that. When clause 15 comes up for discussion, I shall be moving that subsection (4) be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister was quite helpful in his explanation. The final word that I want to have with the hon. the Minister in this regard is that he should give us the assurance that if in practice problems should be encountered with the clause, he will come back to have it amended. Such an undertaking would satisfy us. Clause 14(2) states that the commissioner presiding over a children’s court holding such inquiry “may” at any time during that inquiry request any social worker to furnish a report. In respect of this I wish to move the following amendement—

This inquiry is not only concerned whether the child has no parent or guardian or whether the child has a parent or a guardian or is in the custody of a person who is unable or unfit to have the custody in terms of clause 15. It is also concerned with making an order in terms of clause 15. It is quite an important order that can be made. I fail to see how a proper inquiry can be held and more particularly how an appropriate order can be issued in terms of clause 15 without the report of a social worker. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to this. He said there is a shortage of social workers, but frankly I do not think this is good enough. This is an important matter and I think that in a matter like this a social worker can and will be available to make the proper recommendations. I will be very grateful if the hon. the Minister accepts this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I have already spoken about clause 15, but the two clauses are, in any case, closely related. Unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment by substituting the word “shall” for the word “may”. I prefer the word “may” and not the word “shall”. I am prepared to leave it to the discretion of the courts. I think the commissioner is competent to decide whether he wants a report by a social worker or not. If he wants a report from a social worker, he can obtain one. There could be cases in which it would really be unnecessary to have a report. I therefore prefer to leave the whole matter to the discretion of the commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. the Minister’s reply, I think it will be very sad for a court to make a decision in regard to a matter with such important implications without the report of a social worker. This is a social worker’s job. The commissioner may not be aware of all the intricate details. A statement is made by someone and the only person who has an impartial view and who can guide the court in a scientific way is the social worker. Obviously the most desirable way to go about this, is to have a report by a social worker. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would like to reconsider this amendment.

I have just two small amendments I want to move on this clause. Clause 14(4)(b)(v) talks about a parent or a guardian who “fails to maintain the child adequately”. “Adequately” is a very wide term and what may be adequate in one case for one child may not be adequate for another case and another child, depending on the child’s background, his station in fife, etc. I would like to clarify that, and perhaps assist the court in coming to a decision, by adding the words “to the satisfaction of the court”. Clause 14(4)(b)(vii) talks about a parent or guardian who “neglects the child or allows him to be neglected”. Here again “neglect” is a wide term. A parent may neglect a child for one afternoon and the question is whether that neglect will warrant an inquiry in terms of this clause. I therefore want to move an amendment to insert after the word “neglected” the words “to his detriment”. In other words, the court must satisfy itself that there was not just simple neglect, but neglect to the child’s detriment. This is of course in accordance with the Administration of Estates Act. I therefore move the following two amendments—

1. 1. On page 18, in line 62, to omit “adequately” and to substitute:
   to the satisfaction of the court
2. 2. On page 18, in line 64, after “neglected” to insert “to his detriment”.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the hon. member for Hillbrow for moving his first amendment. Hon. members of the official Opposition are only too ready to accuse this side of the House of not having any confidence in the courts, of not being prepared to accept the discretion of the courts. This afternoon, however, the hon. member for Hillbrow argued that the provision under discussion granted too wide a discretion to the courts, and with his amendment he wants to restrict that discretion of the courts. I can well imagine that there may be cases to which the courts, in their wisdom, would attach a different interpretation to that of the hon. member for Hillbrow. I am of the opinion that we must leave it to the discretion of the courts to reach a decision in the light of all the circumstances, not prescribing to the courts any norms that should be implemented. I therefore cannot go along with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of interfering with the discretion of the courts. It is a question of legislating and defining precisely what the legislators have in mind. Therefore, for good legislation, the amendments are necessary.

But is quite clear.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has already indicated that he is going to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Brits, but I still want to move my amendments. I therefore move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I feel that subsection (4) should be retained in respect of “the other person”. In terms of clause 14 the child is found to be in need of care because he is in the custody of “a person” other than his parent or guardian. In clause 15 provision is made for such a child, while he is in the custody of that other person, to be found to be in need of care and therefore to be put up for adoption. My problem is that I do not think it is correct, even if assault and ill-treatment took place, for a child with parents immediately to be alienated from those parents and simply to be put up for adoption. I am of the opinion that there is such a thing as reconstruction services in social work, which are rendered in the case of a child found to be in need of care and removed from the care of his parents as well as in the case of a child placed in the care of his parents under supervision. Reconstruction services are rendered in an effort to rehabilitate the parents so that the child can return to the care of his parents. I feel that whatever the reason was for the child being found to be in need of care, even assault, ill-treatment or prostitution, the parents should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate under the care of the welfare service before his child is simply put up for adoption and therefore taken away from him. I feel that circumstances may frequently be of such a nature that parents find themselves in situations where they commit offences against their children, whereas, after they have been subjected to reconstruction services by a social worker, they could be rehabilitated to such an extent that the child can return to his parental home. My amendment therefore requests that a child should not simply be put up for adoption. Only children in the custody of another person because they do not have a parent or guardian may be put up for adoption without further ado.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

It is not that one does not want to take steps against these parents, but on the other hand provision has been made for reconstruction services. If after two years these reconstruction services have not had the desired effect, allowing children removed from the custody of their parents in terms of section 15(1)(b), (c) and (d) to be returned to them, those children may at that stage be made available for adoption. Then the parent will no longer have any right to refuse permission for adoption. I shall move an amendment to this effect when we discuss a subsequent clause. I therefore move that subsection (4) be omitted because I think it is better if we make provision under another clause for what we want to achieve, namely to give reconstruction services a chance and also to make provision for the possibility that children may only be ill-treated by one of the parents. One of the parents may be away from home; say he is working temporarily on Marion Island. When he returns home he will not find that a disaster has taken place there in his absence. For that reason I prefer to accommodate this matter in this way.

Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose the deletion of subsection (4). However, that does not bind us to an acceptance of the amendment the hon. the Minister is going to move to a later clause.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to express my appreciation for the willingness of the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Brits.

As the clause now stands, there is a possibility that an innocent parent may find that in his absence, although he or she gave no cause for this to happen, his or her child was made available for adoption. I can imagine a case where a person is at sea for a long period and on his or her return home finds that the other parent ill-treated the child or allowed the child to be ill-treated and that as a result the child has been made available for adoption. I can also envisage a case in which, after a divorce, the husband for example agrees to his wife being given custody of a child, continues to pay maintenance for the child promptly until one fine day he discovers that his wife has remarried and because her new husband ill-treated the child it has been made available for adoption. I feel this would be too drastic a step. By accepting the amendment, the Minister has eliminated this possibility.

Amendment 2 agreed to and amendments 3 and 4 dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw attention to the last line of this clause, specifically the words “the age of 21 years”. On the other hand the age in subsection (2) of this clause is restricted to 18 years. At that age the child may then be discharged from a reform school or a school of industry. The age restriction of 21 years has applied for years now. Since young people are entitled to vote at the age of 18 years, I do not think there is much sense in continuing with the age restriction of 21 years. For that reason I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the motion of the hon. member for Koedoespoort gives one food for thought. What he had to say is definitely not to be sneered at. Basically the provision the hon. member wants amended, refers only to children in schools of industry. In this regard those children would not fall directly under the Department of Health and Welfare, but under the Department of National Education or the Department of Education and Training, as the case may be. These are therefore all children with behavioral problems. Over the years the age of these children has been fixed at 21 years in this regard. In this way a definite need has also been met, which is still the case to this day. For psychological or mental reasons, the children we have in mind here are not yet suitable for national service. What should we therefore do with these children? We cannot simply abandon them. As I have already mentioned, schools of industry are actually under the control of the hon. the Minister of National Education. Possibly the hon. member for Koedoespoort could ask him about the ages of the children in the relevant schools.

However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. Although I can see all the other problems the hon. member referred to, I still have to point out that the provisions contained in this clause have existed in legislation for many, many years. This is therefore not a new provision at all. I ask the hon. member to see it in this light and to accept that it is being worded in this way to enable us to deal with practical problems.

Amendment negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

New clause (to follow clause 16):

Mr. Chairman, I move that the following be a new Clause to follow clause 16—

17.

1. (1) Any interested person who feels aggrieved by any order of a children’s court may appeal to the competent Division of the Supreme Court against such order as if it were a judgement of a magistrate’s court.
2. (2) The said Division of the Supreme Court may confirm or set aside the order or decision of the children’s court concerned or give the order or decision which such court, in the opinion of the said Division of the Supreme Court, should have given, and may direct the children’s court concerned to do everything necessary to give effect to the decision of the said Division.
3. (3) Whenever an appeal is noted against any order of a children’s court the execution of such an order shall not be stayed by virtue of such a pending appeal.

This amendment is aimed at introducing a new clause, clause 17, into the Bill.

We and many other people were surprised when the Bill was published without making any provision whatsoever for the right of appeal against an order made by a children’s court. If ever there is an area of litigation or of conflict which creates intense emotional and parental involvement it is the area of proceedings revolving around children, either in a divorce case—or in an inquiry in a children’s court as provided for in terms of this Bill. For that reason it was surprising to see that this Bill made no provision for a right of appeal to the Supreme Court against an order made by a children’s court. Such orders can determine the lot of whole families—most definitely the lot of most children, and also the lot of parents.

The hon. the Minister’s department or the draftsmen who originally drafted this Bill quite clearly recognized the importance of a right of appeal because in their draft Bill, which was circulated some time ago, there was a provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Surprisingly enough that was later omitted, and this Bill is now before us without such a provision.

The hon. the Minister will know that it is not sufficient to say that the Minister will have the right to nullify any order by a children’s court because in terms of clause 37 that right does exist. The Minister can do with any order of a children’s court whatever he wants to. He can also reverse or even scrap it. That right exists in terms of the present measure. That, however, is not what will convince the people involved and the public at large that justice will be seen to be done in children’s courts. Confidence will not exist unless there is the realization, based on a provision in black and white, that in cases of dispute one of the parties has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. That is what the amendment aims to achieve. I do not see how it can possibly detrimentally affect the child because in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause it is specifically provided that whenever such an appeal is noted, the execution of such an order shall not be stayed as normally happens when an appeal to the Supreme Court is noted. In other words, if the children’s court has made an order that the child shall be placed in institution X, Y or Z, then the noting of an appeal will not detract from the validity of that order until the appeal is finalized. The child will therefore not be pushed backwards and forwards until the appeal is finalized.

In virtually any other form of litigation, be it judicial or semi-judicial, be it a hearing or a tribunal, there are provisions for appeals to the Supreme Court. This is the one area in which it is most essential. If one has been involved in practical cases in a children’s court, one knows how strongly people feel about these matters. One comes across people who want to sell their house and everything in order to take such a matter further. If there is no right of appeal and those concerned are merely told that the Minister will take a decision, that will most certainly not satisfy the aggrieved parent or the aggrieved party. The only thing that will satisfy an aggrieved party will be a provision for an appeal so that justice can be seen to be done and it will not depend on a decision by the Minister in which case no prescribed procedure has to be followed and there is no prescribed representation but the decision is at the whim of the Minister himself. An appeal enables all the parties to place the case before the judge of the Supreme Court and that will instil confidence in the proceedings of the children’s court.

One aspect one must not forget is that the children’s court itself will, I suggest, apply a higher standard or will be more conscientious if it is aware of the fact that an appeal can be lodged against that hearing—I am not suggesting at all that the court will otherwise be casual in its approach to its work, because one knows that it is very conscientious. However, the fact that an appeal can be lodged to the Supreme Court will necessarily have the effect that the person who decides on an issue will do his utmost to justify his decision, to base it on sound evidence, etc. For that reason this provision can do no harm. It can only improve the Bill as such, it can improve the standing of the children’s court and it will enable any aggrieved party to see that justice is done. The department had such a provision in mind. I do not know why they took it away.

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with the reasoning of the hon. member for Durban Central, except that he is reasoning like an attorney.

What is wrong with that?

In this case there is something wrong with it. In the first place I feel the hon. member should realize that the children’s court is not the kind of court in which people litigate against each other. This is not what is involved. The children’s court is the last ditch as far as treatment is concerned. Hon. members have to realize that the children’s court adjudicates over approximately between 2% and 4% of the cases regularly investigated by social workers. Only when the social worker is no longer able to proceed with reconstruction work, is the assistance of the children’s court called in. Then the children’s court has all the reports investigated, it makes an order and places the children in foster care, in a place of safety, in an institution or returns them to their parents, under the supervision of a social worker. These are the only orders the children’s court may make. The entire point of departure of the children’s court is therefore to assist the social worker in providing reconstruction services. That is what is decided on. The decision of the children’s court is only valid for two years. The reconstruction services must be completed within those two years. After two years adoption comes into the picture. Appeals in this connection may be made to the Supreme Court. Appeals against contribution orders may also be made to the Supreme Court. It is only against this assistance with the prescription of treatment, that no appeal may be made, other than to the Minister. Applications of this kind are received fairly frequently by the Minister’s office. The way in which one reacts to this is to order a new investigation to ascertain whether another decision cannot be reached. It is ascertained whether assistance other than that afforded by the children’s court may be offered. Litigation is therefore not the most important issue. What is important is treatment and the best interests of the child. This is not a new proposal. It is a section taken from the old Children’s Act which has stood the test of time for many years now, since 1937. I therefore want to ask the hon. member to leave it as it is.

Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in the hon. the Minister for saying that this is “belaglik”. The hon. the Minister misses the essential point. The emphasis has changed. If one reads clause 14, one sees that the emphasis is no longer focused, as the hon. the Minister says, on the last point of the investigation as far as the child is concerned.

Why not?

Because the emphasis is on the parent now.

No, it is not.

Let me read clause 14(4) to prove to the hon. the Minister that the emphasis is now on the parent and not on the child. I quote—

1. (a) the child has no parent or guardian; or
2. (b) the child has a parent or a guardian or is in the custody of a person who is unable or unfit to have the custody of the child …

It is not the child, but the parent who is unable or unfit to have the custody of the child.

It is the child and the parent. It is the whole family.

we are ascertaining whether the parent is unfit or unable to have the custody of the child and whether he is mentally ill to such a degree that he is unable to provide for the physical, mental or social well-being of the child. Clause 14(4)(b)(ii) reads—

This is not an inquiry into the child, into a child who has left the beaten track. This is an inquiry into the parent. This is the whole emphasis of the change in the Bill. Frankly, I feel this is a travesty of justice. An order, a wrong decision, against a parent can be made. This can happen. One need only look at the hundreds of appeals that are taken from magistrates’ courts and the Supreme Court to the Appellate Division and at appeals that are reversed in this country. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to allow a decision of this important nature, of making a ruling on a parent who is ruled to be mentally or physically unfit to have his child with him, without the parent having the right of appeal, then I am sorry we will be perpetrating a traversty of justice.

As far as clause 14(4) (vii) is concerned, that is where one has power, one would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have a little say. We do not quarrel with that say because it is only in respect of a child. Where a child has been sent to an institution or a place of safety, that is something else. We go along with that because the Minister can on good grounds be brought into the matter. However, this is not the case as far as the order affecting a parent is concerned. This is where the hon. the Minister is missing the boat entirely.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow speaks so lightly about “missing the boat”, but just a while ago he accepted the entire situation that the emphasis should be placed on the parent. Now he is opposed to it again. How are we to understand the hon. member?

†Who is missing the boat now? The hon. member is nowhere near the boat.

I am sailing in very rough waters with you!

Mr. Chairman, I feel I have stated the entire matter very clearly. Believe me, we do not want to institute court proceedings as far as children are concerned. That is not the idea and that is not what is at issue either. One has the right to appeal to the Minister and now those hon. members want to deprive them of that right.

Where.

I want to tell the hon. member that 99% of the people involved here do not have the financial means to care for their children let alone appeal to the Supreme Court. Those hon. members are negating the entire matter.

One can appeal to the Supreme Court without incurring costs.

I am sorry but I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow made a very relevant point to which the hon. the Minister does not seem to attach any weight at all. In section 30 of the Children’s Act the emphasis is quite clearly placed upon the child in need of care. Section 30(2) provides, inter alia—

The court before which a child is brought under subsection (1) shall hold an inquiry and determine whether the child is in need of care: …

That is the purpose of the inquiry in terms of this section. As the hon. member for Hillbrow has said, in terms of the Bill before us the inquiry is to ascertain whether the parents are fit and able to look after the children or not. If the children’s court finds that a parent or guardian is unfit or unable to look after the child because he has assaulted the child—this is a very wide provision—it would be sufficient in terms of this legislation to have the child put out for adoption. If the hon. the Minister wishes to suggest now that is not the most drastic step with which a parent can be faced, without the right to appeal, then I do not know what is. Nobody is suggesting that people must become involved in litigation. We do not suggest that the proceedings at a children’s court are the same type of proceedings as occur in any criminal or civil case. That is not our suggestion at all. All we are saying is that the avenue ought to be there. The hon. the Minister’s department knows and appreciates this fact and that is why this provision was included in the current Children’s Act. The way in which our suggestion is now being shot down makes no sense to me if the very same department included exactly the same provision in the current Act.

We are not saying that the Minister should have no right to nullify orders of a children’s court. In fact, clause 37 does not provide for the right of an appeal to the Minister. It makes no mention of the right of appeal at all. All it states is that the Minister has the right to discharge an order if it is in the interests of any pupil or foster child. As I see it, that right of the Minister will not in any way be affected if he allows the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore his argument that 99,9% of the people will not be able to afford an appeal is not a valid one because that same percentage of people, if they want to make use of the Minister’s power, will still be able to do so if they approach him. However, I do not mind what proportion of people are involved. Be it even 0,1%, I feel that those concerned should have the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court. No logical, understandable argument has been put forward why that should not be allowed. No prejudice exists to anyone, not to the child, not to the court and not to the parents. The prejudice which the hon. the Minister suggests exists as far as the former parents are concerned, does not apply because if they want to, they can approach the Minister. I cannot understand the reason for his flatly rejecting this proposal, but perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain to us why it was contained in the previous draft. Why did his department regard it as being important to be included in the previous draft and why has it been removed? This has not been explained. This is a fairly fundamental right which we believe should exist, and we hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal that there should be a right of appeal occurred once, as the hon. member said, in a previous draft of the Bill. However, it has not existed since 1937. The Act in terms of which it existed has been amended by legislation passed by this Parliament. There are people who are still angry with us because we wanted to change it. However, it did not continue to exist and over the past 40 years or so there has been no need for it. Because we again receive representations that such a provision was unnecessary, we decided to leave matters as they were. We came to this decision on the advice of the law advisers.

New Clause negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 17:

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

This amendment concerns clause 17(b) where it is provided that a child may be adopted with the consent of the Minister, by a widower or widow or unmarried or divorced person if the child is not a child born of him or her.

It is difficult to understand why precisely it had to be written into the Bill that the Minister’s consent shall be necessary before a widower or a widow or unmarried or divorced person may adopt a child not born of him or her.

I thought you had the interests of the child at heart.

Surely, it is not a provision which always works easily in practice. One is aware that very often persons apply for the adoption of children when in fact they are very undesirable persons for the purpose of the adoption of a particular child. I understand, for example, that one is faced in practice more and more often with lesbians applying for the adoption of children. One understands from practice that homosexuals often apply for the adoption of children. Is it necessary to deal with that situation by insisting that in every case if a person referred to in clause 17(b) wants to adopt a child the Minister’s consent should be obtained?

How would you suggest it be dealt with?

I suggest that the adoption procedure as such, the test which has to be followed and the requirements with which the prospective adoptive parent has to meet are on their own sufficiently strict to prevent a person, who is not suitable to be an adoptive parent, from adopting the child. The Minister should not be the person who, in every instance, has to approve of the adoption of a child by people referred to in paragraph (b). It seems as if the Minister wants to administer the legislation to such an extent that he makes virtually every important decision contained in this Bill. Whether because of the odd problem areas which may exist, the Minister should now be required to screen every application by persons referred to in paragraph (b), is something which I doubt very much. I understand the problem area, but I think it is an over-reaction in response to the problem area. I do not think it is necessary that we go that far, because the existing procedure is safe enough.

Mr. Chairman, I feel the answer is clear and obvious. I realize that nowadays it has become the fashion to be a single parent. However, I want to state categorically that it is in the interests of the child to be placed with a family. This is a policy we shall always adhere to.

However, one has to accept that exceptions do exist. In a few cases, such an adoption can take place. I shall give an example. It may happen that a couple raises a child and that he lives with them for 15 or 16 years. The husband or wife then dies and the surviving spouse decides he or she wants to adopt the child. It is against the policy of the State for children to be adopted by single parents. However, hon. members will agree with me that in such a case one has to make an exception. That is why the clause provides that an exception may be made with the consent of the Minister. Under normal circumstances the instruction will however be that children cannot be adopted by single parents.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

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

I just want to say that I am very well aware that one need not prescribe to the Commissioner of Child Welfare, who deals with the adoption by means of a report of a social worker, how he should do his work. However, clause 18(4) provides that an order of adoption may only be granted after the court has satisfied itself in regard certain things. The important question is how the court satisfies itself in regard to the suitability of the prospective adoptive parents. It can only do so on the basis of a report it receives from a social worker who did preparatory work with the parents, who investigated their circumstances and studied their personalities in order to determine their circumstances and natures, so that they would be given a child who would more or less fit in with the personalities and family conditions of the specific parents. Of course that this is not always successful, but this is nevertheless an important preparatory measure. I feel that the role played by the social worker up to now would seem to have been extremely successful. I feel that if we were only able to add here that the children’s court shall make its decision after it had considered a report of a social worker, this would not only facilitate the funtion of the children’s court, but it would also assist the court in arriving at the best decision and making the placement for adoption in such a way that it would have the best chance of success. That is why I have moved my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I shall have something to say in a moment about the amendments of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I first move amendment 2 printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The hon. member for Durban Central has an amendment to my amendment and if he moves it I shall be prepared to accept it. If he does not do so, I shall move a similar one.

Clause 18(4) (g) gives the foster parent a first right of refusal in connection with the foster child. As the clause reads at present, a foster parent is able to prevent the adoption of his foster child by not applying to adopt the child himself or by refusing to allow the child to be adopted by anyone else. This amendment will rectify this matter because in terms of it an adoptive parent will only be given one month’s grace to apply to adopt the child. If he does not do so, he loses his right to refuse.

Clause 18 is a new clause which is being incorporated into this Bill, and in my opinion it meets a specific need, namely that a child is sometimes placed for a few years with foster parents and when the child is ready to be adopted and the foster parents find this out they remove the child and place it with another couple. I do not think this is correct and that is the reason for the original proposal. After we had examined the original proposal, it became apparent that this foster parent could also be in a position, even if he did not wish to adopt the child himself, to prevent the child from being adopted. That is the reason for the amendment I have moved here, namely that the foster parent has to decide whether he wants to adopt the child or not, and if he does not want to adopt the child, he no longer has the right, after a month has expired, to demand to be taken into consideration with regard to the adoption of the child. This is the reason for this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment to amendment 2—

It is a pity that the hon. the Minister seems to accept amendments that do not really affect the material aspects of the Bill. However, I am happy that he is accepting this one. He has already explained why the new provision that he is moving and which we support will the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to move amendment 1 printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to speak frankly. I was not very happy about changing the age in this specific case from eight years to ten years. I also know there are hon. members who want it changed to 12 years. I have nevertheless decided to move here that it be changed to 10 years because at some stage or other one has to decide when one can really take the feelings and the desires of the child into consideration. Hon. members will understand that it is very difficult to make such a decision. As far as I am concerned, it is obvious that the views and the desires of the child have to be taken into consideration when it comes to adoption. I feel we cannot allow a child to be adopted without his permission. Now one has to decide for oneself the stage at which one has to set such store by the child’s opinion that one decides to cancel an adoption if the child does not agree to it.

After serious consideration I decided that a reasonable age is approximately the time when the child is in Std. 2 or Std. 3. This is a reasonable age. There is a great deal one could say about this, but I nevertheless feel this is a reasonable age. That is why I decided to fix the age at 10 years, and accordingly I am moving this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the explanation of the hon. the Minister, and I think he made out a very good case. It is indeed very difficult to determine what the age of the child should be in this case. As a matter of fact I believe it will vary from one child to another. All children are not equally mature at the age of eight, 10 or 12 years.

However, I am delighted that the hon. the Minister wants the age to be fixed at 10 years. As a matter of fact I believe that eight years is definitely too young. We on this side of the House would of course have preferred the age to be 12 years. However, the hon. the Minister’s argument is quite convincing. This is a matter which is difficult to debate, and for that reason we on this side of the House would like to support the hon. the Minister’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in view of what the hon. the Minister said, I ask leave of this Committee to withdraw my amendment. Personally I am in favour of the age being 12 years in the relevant case. In any case the reason why I moved this amendment is because I felt that eight years was too young. On the other hand, I also feel that since the decision of such a child is in fact irreversible, it is wrong to place a child before such an irreversible choice when it is too young. That was why I felt that after the child had reached puberty it would perhaps have become more stable and it would therefore be able to make a firmer decision. The possibility would therefore be more remote that the child would subsequently regret his decision. I am, however, prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the matter under discussion the situation is similar to that which we considered in connection with an amendment of the hon. member for Parktown on a previous clause, namely that the report of a social worker should be used. Here one has the situation that a children’s court has already reached a decision, quite possibly on the recommendation of a social worker, to place a child in foster care or whatever decision it may be. I do not say this has to be on the recommendation of a social worker, but it quite probably will be. This is where attempts have been made through reconstruction services to overcome the problems and after two years it has been found that there has been no success with these reconstruction services. For the greater part of the time the social worker has therefore been involved in the entire matter in any event. However, the children’s court is in a position to consult a social worker again if it considers this necessary. I am convinced that the children’s court will in fact consult a social worker if there is any doubt.

However, a while ago I furnished the example of parents who have raised a child from the time he was an infant until he reached the age of 16 years and then decided to adopt him. For what earthly reason would one want the opinion of a social worker in such a case? It would be unnecessary. However, the court can ask for a report and I can assure hon. members that if the court considers this necessary, it may in fact ask for such a report. I realize that the hon. member wants to do good with his amendments, but I really do not believe that it is necessary for us to accept that motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in the name of the hon. member for Brits on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (iii) who has assaulted or ill-treated the child or allowed him to be assaulted or ill-treated;
2. (iv) who has caused or conduced to the seduction, abduction or prostitution of the child or the commission by the child of immoral acts;

This arises from the amendment to clause 15, which has already been approved by the Committee. The main reason for my agreeing to the omission of clause 15(4), is that provision was included in the Bill in the wrong place. Clause 15 has a bearing on children in need of care and on parents who are unfit or unable to care for their children. On the other hand, subsection (4) of that clause deals with adoption, since it only becomes relevant if a person wishes to adopt a child. Therefore this is a provision which should rather come under the clause relating to adoption. In terms of this amendment, a child can be adopted without the permission of the parent who has ill-treated him. Therefore it will not be possible to adopt the child immediately without the permission of the innocent parent. However, the innocent parent will also forgo his right to grant permission if the child can not be restored to the care of the parent within two years of having been removed from the care of the parent by the court.

Mr. Chairman, I placed an amendment to this clause on the Order Paper because I have always believed that it is not right simply to put a child up for adoption—even the child of a guilty parent. I am convinced that we are negating the whole purpose of the reconstruction service. I am not quite sure in which clause of the Bill it is provided that a period of two years must elapse before such a child may be put up for adoption, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration—since it is clear to me that in this case the amendment of the hon. the Minister is going to be accepted—to making provision in this clause for a period of two years in respect of the innocent parent as well.

Therefore I am not going to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, all orders issued by the children’s court in respect of children placed in foster care, in children’s homes or in places of safety, apply for two years only. Thereafter, with the permission of the Minister, the period may be extended. Therefore if the Minister or the department receives a recommendation—these powers can be delegated—that progress is being made with the reconstruction services, and a further period is requested, a longer period may be granted. However, we must get away from the idea—and I think the hon. member will agree with me—of continually filling our children’s homes, when there are suitable parents who are longing to have children. Therefore I think it is a sound principle that, as the Bill provides, each order of the children’s court should apply for two years only. All that is stated here is that if, after that period of two years has elapsed, the child has not been returned—the child may be returned to the care of the parents within the two-year period in terms of the reconstruction services—the parent who has ill-treated or abused him does not have the right to refuse to have him adopted. That is all that is stated here.

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

The reason for moving the amendment is that one quite often gets a situation in a case of divorce that the father abandons the mother and the child. The mother is then left to try to bring up the child. In many occasions she finds it very difficult. She then decides to have the child adopted, but because the father is still involved—he has no interest—he precludes her from having the child adopted. I think this is an unfair situation. This is why I have moved the amendment.

To further motivate my case I should just like to read what a former Minister of Health said. He had the same surname as the present hon. Minister. I do not think that is any disadvantage today. His initials were S. W. He said (Hansard, 1 May 1979, Vol. 80, col. 5366)—

I quote again—

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can motivate my case any better than that.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has made out a sound case. I think it fits in with the whole spirit of the Bill. There are people who, in point of fact, unreasonably withhold their permission, and it is the child who suffers. In view of the fact that our whole point of departure is the interest of the child, I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, looking at clause 19, I just want to give this passing thought that grandparents have no say anywhere in this legislation. If the parents have gone, there is no provision in respect of the grandparents of a child. I would have liked to have moved an amendment to bring in the grandparents, but I can see that it is going to bring about tremendous legal complications. Perhaps we can think about it one day. Where the parents are both dead, maybe simultaneously killed in a motor accident, and there are grandparents alive, this child can still be given out for adoption, because the grandparents have no say. I think we might give consideration to it.

I would, however, like to move the following amendments—

1. 5. On page 24, in line 21, after “consent;” to insert “or”.
2. 6. On page 24, in line 23, after “unknown;” to insert “or”.
3. 7. On page 24, in line 25, after “adoption;” to insert “or”.
4. 8. On page 24, in lines 26 to 28, to omit subparagraph (iv).

In clause 19(b), we are dealing with four different sub-paragraphs. The following is provided there—

1. (b) from any parent—
   1. (i) who is as a result of mental illness incompetent to give any consent;
   2. (ii) who deserted the child and whose whereabouts are unknown;
   3. (iii) whose child is in terms of section 15(4) available for adoption;
   4. (iv) whose child is by virtue of the provisions of section 16(2) in the custody of a foster parent or is a pupil in a children’s home or a school of industries.

A legal interpretation of this would mean that all the elements, those of (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), must be present. I think—I do not know whether I put it in the correct draft form—that the word “or” should appear between the different sub-paragraphs. In other words, it should be only one of those factors. However, as I read it now, it looks as though all the elements must be present and I am sure that what is intended, is that only one of those should be present.

With regard to my last amendment, I believe that if the parents are available, they should not be deprived of their right to give their consent.

Mr. Chairman, to prove to the hon. member for Hillbrow that I am well-disposed towards him, I shall accept his amendments in respect of the word “or”. I am not, however, prepared to accept his amendment to delete paragraph (iv). I shall also insert a fifth “or”, since I have also accepted the proposed amendment of the hon. member for South Coast.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Amendments 5 to 7 agreed to.

Amendment 8 negatived.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, clause 21(1)(b) makes provision for the rescission of an order of adoption if, inter alia, the child is suffering from a “genetic disorder or injury”. Sir, it is the word “genetic” that is causing me something of a problem because a condition that is genetic can be congenital but a condition that is congenital is not necessarily genetic. Let me give the hon. the Minister an example. A child may be born with a serious heart disease that may not be obvious immediately. I think that it is a condition of this nature that the hon. the Minister is trying to make provision for. After adoption, therefore, this serious congenital disease may become obvious although it is not genetic. One can also take a condition like cerebral palsy. Perhaps it was with this in mind that the hon. the Minister had the word “injury” included, although it is not clear whether such injury is or is not congenital. One is born with a congenital disease. That is what I think the hon. the Minister is trying to legislate for, and that is why I feel that the word “genetic” is wrong. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s opinion as to whether the word “genetic” should not be changed to “congenital”.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to raise the same point, and I want to support the hon. member for Parktown in this regard. I consulted Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary and the word “genetic” is defined thus—

1. (1) pertaining to reproduction or to birth or origin;
2. (2) inherited.

When one looks at the definition of “congenital” one finds that it states—

I also queried the use of the word “genetic” instead of the word “congenital”. I support the hon. member for Parktown and I shall be very interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Parktown will move an amendment to that effect, I shall accept it.

Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances I wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I just want to focus the attention of the Committee on the fact that the words “genetic disorder” also appear in lines 31 and 35. I think we should also amend those lines at the same time, and I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

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

I do not regard this as a fundamental matter, but I move the amendment because I really do not believe it is necessary to have such a provision.

My experience is that it does not often happen that one specifically defines and lays down who shall be entitled to be cited as a respondent and who shall not, but this is what is being done here. In the ordinary course the rules of the courts make provision for this and if they do not apply, the court itself will direct or give an indication as to whom the respondent should be. In this case the position is that the clause lays down that in certain circumstances the foster-parent shall be cited as the respondent. This is so despite the fact that the foster-parent has very little to do with the adoption order. As I understand it, the foster-parent merely fills in the application form, gives the particulars and then hopes for the best that one day a child will be made available who suits the adoptive parents or the particulars.

The actual decision whether or not the child should be adopted is made by the children’s court. That is where things can go wrong and that may be the aspect of the proceedings against which people may want to appeal. They are not appealing against the fact that the adoptive parents initially have applied for adoption; there is nothing wrong with that. The appeal should therefore actually be against the decision made by the court, and the magistrate, the child welfare officer or the Minister should be cited as respondent. Why should the adoptive parent who is now being forced to be cited as respondent bear the cost of an unsuccessful appeal if he has had no part really in formulating the conclusion or the coming to the conclusion?

The court will in any event, if clause 22(5) did not exist, insist that the adoptive parent and other interested parties be cited in the papers or at least be notified by having all the appeal papers served on those parties. That will most definitely inevitably have to happen whether it is stipulated in this subsection or not. I regard it as unnecessary, but not only is it unnecessary; it may well also place an unnecessary burden on the adoptive parent who is now being forced to be cited as respondent. The court’s rules and proceedings make provision for what is aimed at in the subsection and for that reason I have moved the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member has just said, this is not a fundamental issue in the Bill. This is the legal balance. I took the liberty of laying the hon. member’s amendment before the legal advisors.

*I submitted this amendment to the law advisers and they suggested that the subsection concerned remain unchanged. The subsection merely provides which parties should be named as respondents in the case of such an appeal. These respondents are all interested parties who have a fundamental interest in the outcome of the appeal. Section 77(5) of the existing Act preceded this provision, and there were no problems with that. Hence this provision already exists in the present Act. As a result, I am unable to support the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, clause 24(1) reads—

We fully support the clause in so far as any money is concerned that may be paid for obtaining a child, paying for an adoption, etc., because that is contra bonos mores, in other words against the public morals. But with respect, the interpretation of this subsection does not allow a legal practitioner to charge his fee, which is the “consideration” mentioned in this subsection. Unless we amend the subsection, it can be interpreted that a legal practitioner who is acting legitimately in the matter in terms of clause 8(2), which allows a legal practitioner to appear before the Children’s Court, or as in clause 18(1), where the application for adoption must be brought before the children’s court, cannot charge a fee. To clarify the position I therefore move as an amendment—

I have worded my amendment very carefully so that there will be no room for any fancy fees and so that you cannot hide the fact that payment has been made for the adoption of a child. All the legal practitioner can charge, be he the attorney or advocate appearing in the matter or being consulted on the question of the adoption, is the normal legal fee.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the hon. member is reading the subsection correctly. I do not think it means that a person who renders certain services in his professional capacity, cannot be paid for doing so. I do not think the provision prohibits this. However, I want to tell the hon. member that he cannot expect me to decide on amendments of this nature at this stage. Some years ago a Minister could say that he would consider an amendment and that he would rectify the situation in the Other Place. For more than a month now there has been an opportunity to place amendments on the Order Paper, and this amendment has not appeared on it. I am afraid that I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, if we are to have a situation where we have to place amendments on the Order Paper before the hon. the Minister will give consideration to them, I think we are reaching a very sad stage in our legislation procedure. In fact, even today amendments have been accepted across the floor of the House in the interests of the legislation. What are we trying to do? We are trying to improve the legislation. We are not trying to score points off each other. This is not a political matter. It is a very serious matter. This is a legislative body. This is the Committee Stage, the stage when amendments must be moved. If the hon. the Minister wants time to consider the amendments we can report progress and hold the matter over until a later stage. I can assure the hon. the Minister that we shall not hold up the Third Reading of the Bill just because of that.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member is expecting me to make a decision, I wish to inform him that I am not prepared to accept his amendment. It did not appear in the previous Act, and there have never been any problems with that.

Amendment negatived. (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, I have another late amendment and I hope the hon. the Minister will not throw me out of court because of that.

Clause 25 deals with the registration by the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths of a birth certificate where adoption has taken place. This clause states that when the application is made the Registrar will “cause the fact of adoption and a statement whether the surname of the adoptive parent was or was not conferred upon the child by virtue of the adoption”. This means that when this adopted child applies one day—as he must—for his birth certificate, he will receive a certificate that is going to show that he is an adopted child, what his previous name was and the fact of adoption. This brings us to a very important social aspect that requires serious thought. The argument I advance is simply that when a parent adopts an infant and brings it up as one of its own and gives it all the love and care that a parent gives to a child, and that parent then has to decide whether or not to tell that child when it grows up that it is an adopted child, there is no law that states that the parent must tell the child that it is adopted. The parents may well feel that they are not going to tell the child that he/she is an adopted child. The child is happy in the knowledge that it has been with his or her parents for all its life. However, one day he or she must apply for a birth certificate which one needs for one’s book of life or for various other applications. There comes a time in fife when one needs a birth certificate. Imagine the trauma and shock of a child of 16, 17 or 18 years of age suddenly discovering that he/she is an adopted child and has never been told. I am not placing an onus upon a parent to tell a child. If he does so, we do not have the difficulty, but if he has not done so, I believe we face a situation which is traumatic for the child and can destroy the entire relationship between the child and the parents because of mistrust. The child may want to know why he was not told that he was an adopted child and that they were not really his true parents. Imagine the trauma that can be experienced by that family. I realize, however, that there may well be an occasion when it could be necessary for that child to obtain the information even with the consent of the parents. I cannot think of a real reason at the moment, but there could be an occasion. I would not like that child to be deprived of the right to obtain that information. Consequently I have considered moving an amendment which would have the effect of entitling such child to apply to the Supreme Court for the granting of an order. I do, however, also appreciate the fact that litigation and an application for a court order are expensive activities. Therefore I think the obvious answer is that the child in question should be entitled to obtain such information with the consent of the Minister.

In order to take care of this whole situation, I move the following amendments—

1. 1. On page 28, in line 57, after “cause” to insert:
   the name of the adopted child,
2. 2. On page 28, in line 57, to omit all the words after “cause” up to and including “adoption,” in line 60.
3. 3. On page 28, in line 62, after “child” to insert:

In other words, Mr. Chairman, the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths will merely bear the first name and family name of the child, and will make no reference to the adoption or the previous family name of the child.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow conducted a lengthy argument, an argument which, I am quite sure, he may perhaps understand, but no one else does.

I also understood it.

Yes, I am sure the hon. member for Parktown would understand it. It is probably the first thing he has ever understood in this House. [Interjections.]

Do not get nasty now.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this is an absolutely impossible situation. It makes things impossible when an hon. member moves an amendment on such a cardinal issue on the spur of the moment and then expects an immediate and satisfactory decision of me. In such a case I have no choice but to maintain the status quo.

For that reason, I therefore do not accept the hon. member’s amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31:

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

This clause empowers someone appointed by the Director-General or by the Minister to inspect certain institutions. The clause provides that those who will have the power to carry out such inspections will not be entitled to inspect a children’s home or a place of care maintained and controlled by the State.

It is probably correct that the control and the inspection of these institutions become necessary where such institutions are not run by the State. The State has to administer this legislation, and also has to maintain proper standards of control, etc. Therefore one obviously agrees with the concept that power is given to these individuals to inspect specific institutions.

It is also not really common for the State to grant specific power to its officials to inspect its own institutions. One would expect that the State would see to it that its own institutions, those created through its own legislation, are run properly and that the necessary standards are being maintained. Despite that, I cannot see why it should be specifically laid down in legislation that State institutions shall not be examined by these inspectors. By deleting the words referred to in my amendment, one merely keeps the situation open. Should it then happen that the Director-General wants to appoint someone to inspect an institution, a children’s home or a place of care being run by the State, there will be no problem as far as this particular provision is concerned. For that reason alone, viz. that it will be possible to inspect State institutions too, my amendment should be adopted. It still obviously provides for institutions not run by the State to be inspected. I cannot see why institutions run by the department should not also be inspected from time to time just like private institutions.

Mr. Chairman, what is the real crunch as far as this clause is concerned? The intention of this clause is to provide ways and means of obtaining evidence in criminal cases against the keepers of baby farms or unregistered children’s homes. That is a real threat, a very real threat, because this is something one very often comes across overseas. It should be noted that a social worker or a nurse may inspect the institutions concerned only if authorized by the Director-General or directed by the Minister to do so. A certificate must be issued to them which they will be obliged to present when confronted. In terms of subsection (2) these inspectors must produce that authorization upon request.

We do not need such an elaborate procedure to inspect institutions administered by the State. In that case we really do not need that. Those institutions can even be inspected by members of Parliament. Furthermore, State institutions cannot be taken to court because the State cannot take itself to court. That is the reason why I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 32:

Mr. Chairman, I feel very discouraged to move amendments. I would have thought the hon. the Minister would have welcomed people taking an interest in his Bill and trying to improve it. That is the object of all our amendments. Had the hon. the Minister agreed to refer this to a Select Committee, something we asked for in the first place, we would of course not have had all these problems.

Clause 32 deals with the cancellation of a certificate of registration. One month’s notice has to be given of the intention to cancel a certificate and representations must be made. There is, however, nothing which clarifies what “representations” really means here, for instance when and how such representations must be made. Therefore I want to move the following amendment—

This is a very simple amendment and I hope it is clear to the hon. the Minister. The aim is to make it very clear what representations are. A phone call, for example, is not representations. We also know it is not just a letter. We know it must be in writing and that there is a time limit involved. It must be done within 21 days. I am flexible as far as the period is concerned. It could be made 14 days or 30 days. However, I think 21 days is a fair time within which representations can be made.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this amendment is unnecessary. As the clause is worded at present, the persons involved are expected to make representations in a reasonable period of time. In my opinion there is no good reason why we should restrict the period to 21 days, 14 days, 30 days or whatever. A reasonable period of time is a good period of time, and I therefore cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are many cases reported where the words “reasonable time” have been misconstrued. What is reasonable time in one case is not necessarily reasonable time in another case. Because of the importance of this cancellation and for the institution to know whether it can be reinstated or not, it cannot be left as a “reasonable time”. There must be a time limit. If the hon. the Minister does not want good legislation, then I do not know.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35:

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

Clause 35 provides for leave of absence to be granted to children in institutions and in foster care. It goes without saying that this must happen. Children are, however, also admitted to places of safety. I concede that the idea is not to keep a child in a place of safety for any length of time, but at times it is also possible that a suitable place for a child cannot be found within a reasonable space of time and that it may consequently also be necessary to grant such a child a period of leave. Hence the amendment I am moving.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36:

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

I think it will be obvious to the hon. the Minister why I have moved this amendment. It is a question of widening the net and making sure that the child receives the proper medical attention. The examination needed by most of these children will be of a psychological nature and not of a medical nature. I believe if this is included it would give the child a better chance to receive proper treatment and proper care.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Parktown has drawn the Committee’s attention to a shortcoming in this Bill. I wonder whether the hon. member would not consider withdrawing his amendment and moving instead the deletion of “medically” in line 66. That would give the clause and even wider scope and would allow a pupil or child to be taken to a place of safety for examination purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation. I think it is correct that we should not limit the examination to a medical and/or psychological examination. I therefore ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I now move the amendment suggested by the hon. the Minister, as follows—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38:

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

1. 1. On page 38, in line 38, after “institution” to insert “or place of safety”.
2. 2. On page 38, in line 41, after “institution” to insert place of safety”.

These amendments arise out of the amendment I moved to clause 35.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39:

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

After some consideration, I have decided to suggest to the Committee that these words be deleted so that the opinion of another medical practitioner does not have to be obtained. This is basically an emergency case, the child being in hospital and in need of urgent medical treatment, but his parents cannot be traced or do not want to grant permission. I think it is necessary for the superintendent of the hospital concerned to have the right to decide, in such a case, that the relevant child should receive treatment. There will, in any case, be a second medical opinion involved, because it is not customary for the superintendent of a hospital to administer treatment himself.

Mr. Chairman, we do not quite go along with the proposal by the hon. the Minister because this is a very important decision that the superintendent of a hospital or medical institution should make. It is more desirable that he should in fact consult another medical practitioner when he makes this decision. It is for his own protection that he shares this very important decision about an operation on a child whose parents are not available. I would therefore suggest that these words not be deleted but that we amend the clause so as to make provision for a case where the views of another medical practitioner cannot be obtained. To bring this about I move the following amendment—

If this amendment is agreed to it will mean that if another medical practitioner is available his views shall be obtained, but if one is not available the superintendent can make the decision on his own. I think this will bring about a situation which will be in between what the hon. the Minister wants and what we on this side have in mind. However, the hon. member for Parktown will expand on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the situation the hon. the Minister wants to bring about with his amendment is, in fact, existing practice in hospitals. In emergency cases it is the practice for the superintendent of a hospital to give his permission for certain action to be taken, and that is in line with what the hon. the Minister is now asking for.

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree completely with the hon. member for Rustenburg. Let us take the example of a child who needs urgent treatment in a large hospital. Such a child is usually examined by another practitioner who is unable to obtain consent and who then asks the superintendent of the hospital for consent to operate or treat the child in some way or another. This is what happens in a large hospital in practice, and in this respect the hon. the Minister is quite correct. The consent of the superintendent is required. However, the problem arises in the case of smaller towns where quite often the treating doctor is also the superintendent of the hospital. He then is the man who diagnoses, treats and gives consent to operate. I do not think that this is completely correct. I think that for the superintendent’s sake, he needs more protection and therefore I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow should be accepted. If the superintendent is on his own at the hospital and there is nobody else available then of course he must go ahead. However, where other practitioners are available, he should obtain a second opinion. In fact, this very seldom happens because invariably there are other doctors available. Very seldom does the superintendent himself carry out the treatment. However, I think that the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow is necessary to cover this eventuality.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown has proved to us that the problem originates in the small-town hospital where the superintendent is also a practising doctor. Where is he going to obtain a second opinion? He will, in any case, have to act accordingly.

There would be other doctors available in the same hospital.

No, Sir. The hon. member said, a while ago, there were no other doctors available. The superintendent is the only one there.

You do not understand it.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, we are legislating here for the whole country and we have therefore to make provision for a small-town hospital where only the superintendent is available and for the hospital in the big town where there are plenty of doctors available. I feel that my amendment meets both cases. In a large city hospital the superintendent is normally not the surgeon. He is not usually the one who is going to operate.

Why not?

Well, perhaps the hon. member for Rustenburg will give an instance of a big city hospital in which the superintendent normally has to operate. A surgeon is usually in attendance and the surgeon and the superintendent will discuss a particular case. If the surgeon requires the Superintendent’s authority to operate he will have it because the superintendent is there with him. However, in a small country hospital where there is no other doctor available, the superintendent will have to make the decision on his own. When there is a doctor available, he will consult him, which will normally happen, but in a small place he will not have to because there is no other doctor available. Therefore, my amendment meets both cases.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with another clause the hon. member for Hillbrow expressed misgivings about the wording of the Bill not being specific enough and about the use of the word “reasonableness”. The hon. member is now suggesting, however, that only where there is no other medical practitioner available, should the superintendent himself be able to decide. The same uncertainty would arise in this connection, however. What is meant by “availability”? Is it availability within a radius of 20 km, for example, or within a radius of 10 km, or perhaps in the same hospital or in the same district? What does the hon. member mean when he says “when there is no other doctor available”? If one were to entrench in legislation that the availability or non-availability of another medical practitioner should play a role, one would have to go further and define the concept of “availability”, or one would be creating a great deal of confusion. I can therefore not support the hon. member for Hillbrow’s proposed amendment that we should simply include the concept of “availability” in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, the hon. member for Mossel Bay leaves me speechless. Had he accepted the amendments which we proposed to define clearly what is meant, he could have come with an argument. However, the argument which he then rejected, is exactly the argument which he now uses. Surely, he cannot have it both ways. He rejected a previous amendment on the basis that it was too specific; now he says this is not specific and therefore he rejects it. He cannot have it both ways. “Availability” means exactly what it says; it means “available”. There is the superintendent of the hospital. The child comes there and he needs an operation urgently. It is very simple for anybody to understand that a second surgeon is either available or not available.

Mr. Chairman, I think we must obtain clarity about what is going on here. What is involved here is the treatment of a sick child. If there is enough time to administer the treatment, and there is concern about whether the child should be treated, clause 39(1) makes provision for the parents of the child to be sought. If one cannot trace them, and it is necessary for the child to be treated, application can be made to the Minister to grant permission for the child to be treated. The Minister can then grant permission for the child to be treated. He can grant permission, even if the parents, when found, refuse to give their permission.

Let us suppose that a child who is seriously ill is admitted to hospital. It is specifically with a view to saving such a child’s life that we have clause 39(2) in the Bill. In order to save the child’s life, or to prevent any permanent damage, treatment must be administered. It is a matter of urgency that the child be treated. The parents are not available, they cannot be traced or whatever the case may be. In such circumstances we are looking for someone who can immediately give permission for the required treatment to proceed. All I am now proposing is that the superintendent be allowed to take the place of the parent when it comes to saying that the people concerned must proceed with the treatment necessary to save the child’s life. That is all we envisage doing; nothing more. Besides this, the clause provides that after the relevant superintendent has obtained the opinion of another medical practitioner, he can grant the necessary permission.

In the case of an emergency, an absolute emergency, it may not be possible to go looking for another medical practitioner. That is why I am proposing the words “after obtaining the views of another medical practitioner” be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks it is right that the medical practitioner who diagnoses and treats a patient should also have the right to grant permission. That is not a medical practice that we are in favour of. I also believe that it is not legally quite the right thing to do. There are, of course, exceptions when there is no one else available, and this creates a problem. My only objection to that is that the superintendent—this could easily happen—who is the medical practitioner who must treat the child, can also grant permission. If there is someone else available, he must obtain that person’s opinion. I believe that to be very important. That is what we in medical circles want, and we believe it to be a sound medical practice. We believe there should be such a provision in order to ensure that the superintendent does not land up with problems. He could land up with problems if he treats the child and, over and above that, grants permission for the treatment. All I want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether he foresees that the superintendent would also be the medical practitioner who would examine the child, do the diagnosis and operate, and, when all is said and done, also the person who would grant the necessary permission. If that is what is going to happen, I really cannot agree with the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the concept of “availability”. As the hon. the Minister rightly indicated, what we have here is the question of emergency treatment of an emergency operation that has to be performed. Let us suppose that some reference to the availability or non-availability of a second medical practitioner were included in the clause. An operation takes place. The medical practitioner involved alleges there was no second medical practitioner available. The child dies and the parents are dissatisfied. The parents, who could not be traced, now come forward and take this medical practitioner to court. They ask him why he did not consult a second medical practitioner, whereupon he replies that there was no second medical practitioner available. It then becomes very important to determine what is meant by “availability”. How far did he look? How much time did he spend looking? Did he inquire in a neighbouring town whether there was not perhaps a medical practitioner available? If the hon. member’s amendment were to be accepted, one would be including an element in the Bill which would lend itself to litigation. It would lend itself to parents subsequently objecting if the operation was not to their liking or was unsuccessful. The medical practitioner, who had to act in an emergency situation, would then simply be sacrificed, because he would hardly be in a position to prove that there was not, somewhere in the Republic of South Africa, a medical practioner available whom he could have consulted.

Oh, come on.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur may shake his head, but that is the situation to which the medical practitioner would be exposed.

You are taking the argument to the point of absurdity.

Yes, perhaps I am taking it to its limits. That much I do concede, but the hon. member must concede that if one included a concept such as “availability” in the clause without defining it, one would be including an element that would simply mean sacrificing the relevant medical practitioner who must act in an emergency situation because he would not be able to prove that he met the requirement laid down, i.e. that he should consult a second medical practitioner if there was one available.

This brings us back to the concept of “reasonableness”: When can a second medical practitioner “reasonably” be said to have been available? Then one is again on the slippery surface of what is “reasonable” in specific circumstances.

Each day the courts make decisions based on that.

The hon. member for Green Point, who has not been following the debate, does not realize that what one is dealing with here is an emergency situation. The relevant medical practitioner is trying to save the child’s life. Subsequently one must then judge whether his conduct was “reasonable” or not.

It happens every day.

One would be including an element in the Bill which simply makes that “reasonableness” impossible to prove, because one is adding another concept to that of “reasonableness”, which in itself is a difficult concept to handle. That difficult concept is “availability”. One is therefore making it twice as difficult. That is why we should rather keep this difficult concept of “availability” out of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have told the hon. member that I cannot accept his amendment. I want to tell the hon. member that he and I, and each and every other doctor, have treated people in an emergency without asking anyone’s permission. It has happened, whether one has known the person concerned or not. [Interjections.] That is a fact. If one has ever worked in a casualty section, one has done that.

I have never worked there.

Then the hon. member does not know what is going on in the world. Anyone who has worked in a casualty section would realize that doctors are expected to take immediate decisions, with or without permission …

To operate?

Yes, sometimes to operate too. [Interjections.] Yes I am not talking about heart transplants. Anyone who takes up a scalpel and makes an incision, is operating.

Are you telling me that in casualty units in South Africa doctors take it upon themselves to perform operations under anaesthetic?

Did I say anything about anaesthetic? Surely an operation is not only an operation if someone is given an anaesthetic.

Does one therefore not need to ask for an anaesthetic?

Often people come in who have swallowed a small chicken bone.

And then?

He is in the process of choking, and then? Would the hon. member first go looking for permission?

What does one do then?

Is it necessary for me to spell out to the hon. member what a person does? Surely the hon. member knows what a person has to do. [Interjections.] I think it is a question of splitting hairs, and I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clause (to follow clause 41):

Mr. Chairman, I move that the following be a new Clause to follow clause 41—

1. (1) Any child conceived within wedlock by means of artificial insemination shall for all purposes whatsoever in law be deemed to be the legitimate child of his mother’s husband if both the mother and her husband consented in writing to the said artificial insemination and if such consent was countersigned by the medical practitioner who performed the said artificial insemination.
2. (2) For the purpose of subsection (1) artificial insemination shall include the artificial insemination of any woman with the gamete of a donor who is not her husband.

This amendment stands in the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and is aimed at legitimizing those children who are born as a result of artificial insemination and more specifically to cover those children who are born as a result of artificial insemination from a donor. In South Africa few reliable statistics exist about how many children have been born as a result of artificial insemination. In 1980 there was an indication at that stage already that about 1 500 children, mainly Whites, had been born as a result of artificial insemination from a donor. In America, for example, more than 10 000 children a year are born as a result of artificial insemination, and there is a growing tendency in most Western countries, including South Africa, that a growing reliance is being placed on the concept of artificial insemination for parents who cannot have their own children. In 1979 the Transvaal Supreme Court ruled that children born as a result of artificial insemination from a donor are illegitimate. That was a finding based on the Roman-Dutch Law, on which our law is based in that regard. The judge in that case expressed his regret that he had no option but to declare the children born as a result of artificial insemination to be illegitimate. Intense discussion in journals and books followed and in a number of instances it was suggested that the courts themselves were not in a position to rectify the situation of those children because that would run directly contrary to the basic concept of the Roman-Dutch Law. If one refers for example to the book by S. A. Strauss, Doctor, Patient and Law, a selection of practical issues, one finds on page 154 in the second last paragraph that the author refers to the decision from the Transvaal Supreme Court in 1979 and says the following—

The learned author, who is well-known for his work in this area, Prof. Strauss, then suggests that the lacuna in our law can best be tackled by way of a simple amendment to the Children’s Act.

Other writers have dealt with the problem as well, and I want to refer to an article which appeared in Responsa Meridiana, Vol. 4, No. 2, of August 1980, where the author, Mr. J. H. Watt-Pringle, said on page 103—

There are many writers who have discussed and debated this subject, and who have suggested that the only effective way of really dealing with this problem is by way of legislation. The illegitimate child born of a husband and wife who are legally married is faced with an impossible situation. Both mother and father wanted the child, and agreed to the artificial insemination. Yet the child remains illegitimate. On a basis of equity it is unsound and cannot be supported, and the courts in America have grappled with this problem and have declared children born as a result of artificial insemination to be legitimate provided it is done with the consent of both parents. If one were to have a situation in South Africa in which husband and wife agree to artificial insemination, and that is to be recorded and confirmed by the medical practitioner, who also records it, there is then no reason why one should not declare those children to be legitimate for all possible purposes. Such children would then not be in a grey area as far as maintenance is concerned. They would also not be in a grey area as far as inheritance is concerned.

At the moment the husband and wife who have a child as a result of artificial insemination perjure themselves when they register the birth of the child because they state that the husband is actually the natural father of that child whereas in fact he is not. These people are being forced to perjure themselves when they register the birth of the child born as a result of artificial insemination.

There is therefore a need for this House to attend to this problem, and this has also been recognized by the department in that in the previous Bill which was published for information, they gave attention to children born as a result of artificial insemination. Why it has been left out in this Bill I cannot say. The amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—the amendment which I have already moved—also refers particularly to written consent by husbands and wives as well as a confirmation in writing by the medical practitioner. The children, if this amendment were to be accepted, would then to all intents and purposes be deemed to be legitimate. Artificial insemination per se is not illegal. It is acceptable and it is an almost daily occurrence in South Africa. For that reason we should bear this reality in mind. Just as in regard to evidence our law has caught up to the computer age during this session, we should also keep our law up to date with developments in the medical field. It has not happened up until now as far as artificial insemination and the products of that are concerned. I believe that, by accepting this amendment, we would be producing a positive result for the thousands of children who, with the desire of both parents, are born as a result of artificial insemination and who nevertheless find themselves on the wrong side of the law in so far as they are regarded as being illegitimate and have to bear the terrible stigma attached to that throughout their lives. It is unnecessary, and it can be rectified and I hope that it will be rectified through an amendment like this.

Order! The hon. member has rightly indicated that the point covered by the amendment would best be dealt with in other legislation.

I did not say that.

It introduces a new concept into this Bill which was not debated at Second Reading and which does not form part of the principle of the Bill. I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you on that. The amendment relates to one of the ways in which one protects children. The Bill before us, the Child Care Bill, deals inter alia with, as it is stated in the long title, “the protection and welfare of certain children”. If there is one category of children who need to be given protection by this House, or who need the attention of this House, then it is those children who are illegitimate because our Roman Dutch Law is not able to cope with the concept of artificial insemination. In my view that would fall squarely within the ambit of this Bill. We are concerned with the protection of those children and …

Mr. Chairman …

I should just like to conclude my submission, Sir. Prof. Strauss suggested that the Children’s Act should be the vehicle for this type of measure, and I support him in that. It relates to the child, the way in which the child can be protected, the consequences of parental powers, etc. Those are things that cannot be accommodated in the Human Tissue Bill—I know the hon. member for Rustenburg wants to say that is the legislation in which this should be dealt with. The Human Tissue Bill is mainly a clinical, medical Bill. I do not understand much about it, but I do know that it does not relate to the consequences of illegitimacy as far as adoption, maintenance and inheritance are concerned. For that reason I would urge you, Sir, to allow debate and discussion on this amendment so that this aspect will not be delayed again with the resultant increasing number of illegitimate children.

I have given my ruling and I regret that, after having listened to the hon. member’s argument, I find myself unable to alter my ruling. It would make hybrid legislation out of this legislation if this concept were introduced into this Bill. It is a concept which must be introduced through other legislation.

Sir, the Bill talks about a parent, and if the father …

The amendment introduces a totally new concept in that it deals with an aspect which is not covered by the principle of this Bill, namely children born as a result of artificial insemination. I regret I cannot allow any further argument on this.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the record, may I just point out that, when you stated that the hon. member for Durban Central had said that this particular matter would more properly be dealt with in other legislation, that is not quite true because …

He quoted other learned opinion.

Prof. Strauss said it had to be dealt with under the Children’s Act, and that Act is the predecessor to this Bill. It is therefore this Bill.

I have given my ruling and I uphold it.

Clause 42:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Edenvale, as follows—

We believe the measures which are introduced by this clause are positive ones. It is now provided that a medical practitioner or nurse who examines or attends any child has to report the fact that such a child has been neglected or maltreated to the authorities. That is a positive development. However, in our view it can be improved further by adding teachers and chemists to the categories of medical practitioner and nurse. A study in Durban has shown that 8% of the child battering cases which have been reported originated from information received from schools. The person who is most directly concerned with a small child and who can detect any maltreatment, is in the first instance a teacher who sees that child on five days a week.

The clause does not only refer to those people who actually examine children. If that were the case then one could easily say that teachers or chemists do not examine. In the clause the words used are “examines or attends”. Mr. Chairman, if you look at any dictionary, you will see that the word “attend” has the widest possible definition imaginable, so that most definitely a teacher who teaches a class of school children “attends” to the children. A chemist who has to attent to a mother and a child who come into a chemist shop for some medicine “attends” to the child. Therefore, if one were to accept the amendment, a teacher and a chemist would not qualify as people who “examine” the child, but they would certainly be people who “attend” to the child.

I believe that at this stage one should not come with a half measure by merely including medical practitioners and nurses. One might as well do a proper job and also include teachers and chemists who attend to children, to the benefit of those children who suffer and to the benefit of the authorities who want to assist. Not many parents who maltreat children will take them to medical practitioners or nurses unless the children are so badly injured that they need immediate medical attention. Many cases where the damage, injury or suffering is not severe enough to take the child to the medical practitioner or nurse, are apparent to the school teacher. At the moment the school teacher is not obliged to report it or hesitates to do so because of possible consequences within the department or by the parent. The parents might come back and the teacher may be in trouble. At the moment that is the problem. If we provide protection to the teacher who reports the battered child, if we provide a procedure and an indemnity, then we will have more information from schools where these battered children can be observed by the teacher, to the benefit of the children involved and to the benefit of everyone concerned.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Durban Central were to read the Afrikaans text, he would see very clearly that it specifically deals with the matter of the “ondersoek of verpleeg” of a child. In other words, it is more than just evaluation or observation, as seen through the eyes of a teacher. Since it is therefore a matter of the “ondersoek of verpleeg” of a child, we cannot accept that amendment, because here it is indeed a question of physically examining the patient.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very thin argument, because a child can be examined by a chemist but he is attended to by a teacher, so that point is in fact covered. I want to strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. We are doing a very important thing here. We fully support the idea of the compulsory notification of child battering. To my mind there is nothing more terrible than, say a two year old child being battered while lying defenceless and helpless and who is continually being battered without anyone helping him. We are entirely with him on this. One of the problems about compulsory notification is that the matter may be pushed under cover. People may be afraid to go to a doctor, a nurse or a dentist, as the case may be, knowing that it has to be notified. They will try to hide it. They will go to a pharmacy and try to get treatment from the chemist. Because there is a tendency that this could result in battering being hidden, much wider powers should be given to ensure that what we are trying to fulfil will be fulfilled. How can we do this? By bringing in the teachers and chemists, those we can think of at this stage. It is very important that we do so. As the hon. the Minister and this Committee know, the surface of child battering has not even been scratched as far as notification is concerned. Obviously, it is a domestic matter. It happens within a home and it is not the sort of thing that one would confess to one’s neighbours. It is the sort of thing that one would hide from one’s neighbours as well. Because of that we find ourselves in a kind of iceberg situation where seven-eights of it is below the surface. We have to bring this into the open. Let me just give one example. On 29 March 1983 I asked the hon. the Minister a question in this House with regard to how many cases of assault on infants by parents had been reported in respect of each race group in each province from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982. I shall not give the particulars of each province. I want to take the whole lot together. The figures are as follows: Whites, 80; Coloureds, 85; Blacks 104 and Asians 4. I want to take the case of the Whites only and I want to quote from an editorial in Die Transvaler of 17 May 1983 entitled “Kindermishandeling”—

Compare the figures given by the hon. the Minister in this House with these figures given by Die Transvaler. Obviously there must be hundreds of these cases which we have to bring out. We have to cast the net wider and therefore I would ask the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment on that basis.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg used the word “verpleeg”. In this clause the word “verpleeg” is translated as “attends” in the English text. I think that if our amendment were accepted, it would be better the word “verpleeg” to be substituted. Then it would be easier. I think the words “aandag skenk” would sound better in the Afrikaans text. As far as I am concerned it is not so much a question of who must do it. What bothers me is what is going to happen to that child. In this clause it is specifically provided that the circumstances should give rise to a suspicion—

As far as I am concerned, that is the important provision of this clause. I think the hon. the Minister will acknowledge that any person who is aware of this having been done to a child, ought to report it. That is why we on this side of the House want to cast this net wider. As the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Hillbrow both said, these children who are ill-treated do not always get to a doctor, a nurse or a dentist. They do, however, come to the attention of other people who could also ascertain whether they have been ill-treated or not. I feel very strongly that if there were a chance of our improving this aspect of the legislation by including other persons or professions that are in a position to do this, it could only be in the interests of these children.

Mr. Chairman, I understand very well what hon. members want to achieve with their amendment. I would gladly see everyone who comes across an ill-treated child immediately reporting such ill-treatment. There must be no doubt about that. I would like to see that happening, and nothing prevents anyone who has seen a child ill-treated, or who suspects that a child has been ill-treated, from reporting this. We can then have the case investigated, because the means are there to do so. If people would only speak up, it could be done. There is nothing prohibiting it. I want to appeal to anyone coming across something of this nature please to report it, and then we can do something for the child concerned.

I am, however, faced with a problem. In the legislation I also have to impose penalties on certain people guilty of an offence. The only person who, in terms of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, is authorized to examine a person, is a dentist and a registered medical practitioner, and no one else, and nurses have the same right in terms of the Nursing Act. Anyone else who, not being registered, examines a child, is contravening the law. It is therefore very clear that I cannot, in legislation, provide that those people who do not have the right to examine a child, must be subject to penal provisions. That is the fact of the matter, and that is why I cannot do it. It is not possible for me to do so, because those people do not have the right to examine a child. If people want to report what they see or come across, however, I will join hon. members in crying “Hosanna”. I cannot, however, provide in the legislation that those people who come across something like that, and who do not have the right to examine the child, should be thought to have committed an offence. That would be monstrous, and for those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is specifically that John Citizen is not going to report any instance he may encounter of a child having been ill-treated. He would not do so, specifically because he would be afraid of a possible libel action or something of that kind. It is specifically for that reason that clause 42(6) makes provision for such a person to be protected if he has acted in good faith. For that reason one cannot expect to get better results than one has had up to now from teachers or people like that. That is the case because they would also be afraid of this resulting in a libel action. The result could possibly be trouble between the parent and the school. One can also imagine other possibilities. It is specifically because one should grant protection to people who are under this obligation that we are proposing that teachers and chemists should also be included.

There is a further problem, and that is that the Afrikaans and English texts differ. In this connection let me refer to subsection (1). In the English text there are the words “examines or attends”, whilst in the Afrikaans text mention is made of “ondersoek of verpleeg”. There is definitely a difference between “attends” and “verpleeg”. If one goes according to the English text, the hon. member for Rustenburg’s argument does not hold water, because the amendment does not run counter to the concept “attends”. I ask the hon. the Minister to eliminate this difference too. It is a new provision that is definitely going to be applied, and it is very clear that there should not be any difference between the wording of the Afrikaans and English texts. I do not, of course, know what text is going to be signed, but if the English text is to be signed one could indeed accept the amendment that has been moved.

Mr. Chairman, I have already said that under the circumstances I am not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

But there is a difference between the Afrikaans and English texts.

I do not think there is any specific difference. If one were to translate “verpleeg” in the very narrow sense, it would be “treats”, but I think a nurse does much more than that. She does not only treat him; she attends to him too.

At this stage I am not prepared to effect any changes. If the hon. member had said that “anyone reporting ill-treatment could not be prosecuted for libel”, we would have investigated this. If he had said something of that nature, we would have reached an understanding. That proposal of his, however, does not fit in here.

That is another reason why we should have a Select Committee.

Then a few more amendments could have been moved to prove that a Select Committee was necessary.

Then you would also have been better protected.

I have enough protection, thank you.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 60:

Mr. Chairman, subsection (3) provides—

I want to object against this subsection. The hon. the Minister is fully aware of the complaints of this side of the Committee. We object to divisions along racial lines, and therefore we oppose the clause.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of section 2 of the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, No. 37 of 1967, it is an offence to be in possession of indecent or obscene photographic material. According to the definition in section 1 of the said Act of “photographic material”, it also includes a photo, photogravure and a cinematograph film, and any pictorial representation intended for exhibition through the medium of a mechanical device. In the application of the provisions of the said Act, the definition of “photographic material” was considered wide enough to include video tapes, and persons found in possession of video tapes containing indecent or obscene scenes were consequently prosecuted under the provisions of the Act.

*During 1982, however, the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa held that photographic material as referred to in the said Act did not also include video tapes, and consequently any person found to be in possession of a video tape containing indecent or obscene scenes could not, according to the said judgment, be found guilty of a contravention of section 2 of the Act. The exclusion of video tapes limits the effectiveness of the Act to a large extent because the video tape as a medium lends itself far more readily than cinematograph films or other photographic material which does fall within the ambit of the Act to the purveying of pornography to the public.

The hire and sale of video tapes has become a sizeable industry in the Republic and as a result there is also a perturbing quantity of video tapes in circulation, frequently containing the grossest form of obscene or indecent scenes.

The manufacturers or distributors of this type of video tape are only too well aware of the general opposition to this deplorable byproduct of the video industry and consequently make use of all manner of techniques to prevent their being exposed. For example, the distribution of video tapes under innocent titles or the insertion of introductory scenes that have no bearing whatsoever on the subsequent pornographic scenes. Frequently, too, only the postal addresses of the distributors are furnished so that they cannot easily be traced.

†Although it is not possible to eradicate this evil by means of legislation alone, it is none the less imperative for the Government to take measures to curtail it as far as possible. It was therefore considered necessary to propose an amendment to the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, 1967, which will extend the meaning of the definition of “cinematograph film” in section 1 so as to include video tapes.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House give this amending Bill our full support. Perhaps it is just necessary to indicate at this stage that there is an important difference between the provisions of this amending Bill and the provisions in the Publications Act in the sense that when something is considered to be obscene or indecent in terms of the latter Act, a court of law has to make that decision. To hon. members on this side of the House, this is a very important factor because we believe that the courts interpret provisions of legislation carefully and therefore arrive more readily at the correct conclusion. So we had the verdict of the Transvaal Supreme Court which excluded video tapes from the provisions of the Act as it then read. Legally I think that was an entirely correct verdict. Naturally it has now become necessary to include video tapes more specifically in the prohibition contained in this amending Bill. Of course we believe the more one is able to involve the law courts in the determination of what is permissible and what is not permissible under these circumstances, the better it would be for us. Consequently we have no problems in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House should like to support this amending Bill. To tell the truth, the amendment itself is almost shorter than the title. All that the amendment does is to extend the meaning of the word “cinematograph film”. Anyone looking at the amendment will be able to understand clearly that video cassettes are also included. Video cassette machines are the latest fad. Just as in earlier days when 16 mm projectors with films could either be bought or hired, video cassettes are everywhere available today. While cinematograph films are subject to publications control, video cassettes were excluded on a technicality.

No legislation is able to uphold or guarantee the moral standards of a people. The hon. member for Wellington made this very clear during the discussion of the Internal Affairs Vote. However, the authorities cannot allow blatant circumvention of the Act to undermine the norms of Christian life which apply in our country. The verdict of the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court in 1982 is a clear example of how the law was being circumvented on a technicality. Video tapes had become a major source of entertainment, but there are scoundrels going around with what appear on the surface to be innocent video tapes but which actually contain the grossest forms of immorality, and it is necessary to clamp down on them. The magnitude of obscenity and of indecent scenes recorded on video tape has become such a scourge that this measure is imperative. Of course it is not possible to put a complete stop to the scourge by means of legislation, but at least it can have a restrictive effect. This measure simply gives the authorities the power to act in respect of videos in the same way as in the case of cinematograph films.

In addition one should like to avail oneself of this opportunity to make an appeal to the outside communities—to the churches, the schools and to our parents—to accept their responsibility and to act with circumspection when it comes to video cassettes. Parents often use the video industry as a baby-sitter when they go out in the evenings, and they are not always certain about what appears on those video tapes. There are literally thousands of distributors in South Africa, and it is absolutely impossible for the authorities to keep a check on them. One would express the hope—and I wish to address this request to the hon. the Deputy Minister—that further measures in respect of publications control will also appear on the Statute Book shortly in order to deal with the entire video cassette industry.

We gladly support this legislation. It is a limited power which is being conferred upon the authorities, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House gladly support this amending Bill.

I think that in our times it has become the practice on the part of many people to seek all kinds of methods and means of trying to encourage immorality in the community. So it is, then, that many people utilize the video tape for this purpose. Actually the video tape could serve to provide the community with healthy recreation. It could also be a means whereby people could achieve certain educational goals. However, I am afraid that it has become the fashion among many of our people today to utilize as much material as possible to promote that what is immoral. The provision being made in this Bill is, I think, going to combat the promotion of immorality by means of this method and I hope it does so to a large extent.

It is a fact that censorship or restrictions apply in regard to ordinary cinemas. Cuts are made to specific films. Age restrictions are also imposed on certain films. However, when a video tape is brought into the home, there is no restriction on it. No one really knows what is being offered on that tape, and sometimes before parents know it, immoral things appear on that video tape, things which not only upset the parents, but which are totally detrimental to the children.

That is why I believe that it is imperative that urgent restrictions be imposed on video tapes of this nature. We must use every means possible to help ensure that immorality and obscenity are curtailed as far as possible in our society. If it is in any way possible we should even eliminate it entirely. That is why we on this side of the House gladly support this statutory amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the measure under discussion is called the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Amendment Bill, 1983. It contains an amendment to section 1 of Act No. 37 of 1967. The said section in the principal Act includes inter alia the recognition of the Christian outlook on life, and the endeavour of the people of the Republic of South Africa to uphold a Christian outlook on life, which is recognized in the application of the aforesaid Act.

This measure deals with the matter about which the less that is said the better. It is not a very pleasant subject to debate, and one only ventures into the sphere covered by the Bill because it is one’s duty to take steps in order to eradicate a canker in the moral life of one’s people. It is disappointingly, but unfortunately true, that we are living in a time in which sex is exploited for financial gain as well as for salacious ends. Modern man seems to know how to utilize the strongest urge of mankind for sordid gain and for allowing human weakness to run riot. Thus it has happened that for years now the most repugnant photographs and films imaginable have been in circulation in our country, and particularly in the urban centres, in spite of the fact that they are illegal.

These are not only photographs and films in which the sex act is unashamedly depicted, but it also assumes the most abhorrent forms imaginable. Most of the photographs and films are apparently smuggled into the country illegally, after which they are distributed and sold to clients which the smugglers somehow acquire. What is particularly disturbing is that many young people are drawn into this pernicious pastime. Whites and non-Whites participate with equal relish and there is nothing unusual about finding photographs and such films in the possession of groups. There can be hardly any doubt, that those who possess such photographs and films do not keep them merely for their own perverse entertainment, but that they also pollute the morals of others with them, and that a flourishing trade in such items is probably one of the motivations behind it.

As you may perhaps know, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister recently invited the Internal Affairs Groups on both sides of the House to view certain photographs and tapes. After hon. members had attended the exhibition of those films and had seen some of the photographs, everyone present there left the auditorium filled with the greatest repugnance imaginable. One simply cannot imagine that in a Christian and civilized country such as the one in which we live, things of this kind are in circulation. I hope and trust that this measure will contribute to closing another loophole which has been found in the law. I think this is a matter on which there ought to be no difference of opinion in this House. I gladly support the measure, as I would support any measure which will prevent the morals of our people from being assailed or polluted.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches support this amendment, because it is clear that the intention with the original Bill was also to curb and outlaw obscene and pornographic pictures and picture shows. In 1967 magnetic tape was not in common use and thus was presumably not considered to be a medium for dissemination. It is now in very common use and thus, if the original intention of the Act is to be maintained, consequent upon the adverse court decision which has been mentioned, the definition of unlawful photographic material must be updated to include alternative methods of showing sexual acts, disgusting sexual deviations, etc. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members who participated in the discussion very sincerely for their support. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that the decision of the court in this matter was certainly correct and that is therefore necessary to introduce this amendment to rectify this very important matter. The other hon. members who participated referred in particular to video cassettes. I want to agree with them that the video cassette is important, firstly as a source of entertainment for the entire family, since the film can be shown in the home and, secondly, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort also said, as an educational instrument. As always happens in this life, everything is being misused and incorrectly applied today. This has also happened in the case of video cassettes. I want to thank the hon. members for Umbilo, Witbank, Koedoespoort, Turffontein and Green Point very sincerely for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The S.A. Council for Professional Engineers has recommended that a board of control for engineering technicians be established in terms of section 30A of the Professional Engineers’ Act, 1968. It is estimated that there are between 15 000 and 20 000 engineering technicians in this country and the establishment of a statutory body to promote the standard of education, training and conduct in relation to the profession of engineering technician is considered to be in the public interest.

In terms of the principal Act the Minister of Community Development may advance to the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers out of moneys appropriated by Parliament such amounts as he may deem necessary in order to enable the council to carry out its functions. This provision however does not apply to a board of control, and the board of control for engineering technicians which is to be established soon will therefore not be able to obtain assistance from the State. The board will find itself in the invidious position that unless it can obtain an advance from the State, it will not be able to carry out its functions. The S.A. Council for Professional Engineers is also not in a position financially to assist the board.

*In short, what the problem amounts to is that registration and annual fees will be the only source of revenue for the board of control, although it will have to incur considerable administrative expenses before it is able to register a single applicant. The requirements with which applicants shall comply have to be determined, a registrar and other staff have to be appointed, office space has to be rented, and so on.

The object of the Bill is therefore to confer jurisdiction upon a board of control established under the Act and, as in the case of other professions in regard to which a controlling statutory body was established, to render financial assistance to such a board of control. The amendments proposed in clause 2 therefore seek to enable a board of control to regulate its own affairs in a proper way.

As I said at the outset, the board of control for engineering technicians is being established at the request of the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers and the amendments to the Act are therefore being effected with the wholehearted support of that council.

Mr. Speaker, the engineering profession is of course a respected profession in this country. The engineering council was established under the Professional Engineers’ Act, Act No. 81 of 1968. Engineers are not confined to one particular branch of engineering, but to various branches such as civil, electrical, chemical, mining, metallurgical and agricultural. The S.A. Council for Professional Engineers represents all of these disciplines. In terms of section 30A of the Professional Engineers’ Act other bodies may be registered that are allied to them in some way. I quote from the relevant section—

The estimated 15 000 to 20 000 engineering technicians which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to are not professional engineers as such. In other words, they have had no university training. They have had technical training and they want to be a body corporate and function as such.

We will support the Bill in order for a body corporate to be established in terms of section 30A. I understand that this may not be regarded as a precedent for the establishment of bodies corporate in other professions.

I am concerned about the financing of this. I am concerned about whether it is the State’s responsibility to finance engineering technicians to be established as a body corporate. Am I not correct in saying that this body was in fact established and is functioning, but because it was not established in terms of section 30A the regulations and the fees which they are claiming are actually ultra vires? It is not a body corporate constituted in terms of section 30A. I have understood that what we are really trying to do here is to legitimize that body and to make its functions and the fees it is claiming ultra vires. However, be that as it may, it is a body that deserves recognition because it represents 15 000 to 20 000 persons. Obviously we will support it on that basis.

As far as the funds are concerned, the hon. the Minister can perhaps, when he replies to the debate, indicate what sort of financial assistance he contemplates here and what the nature of the loan will be as regards the terms, interest and repayment. Other than that we have no difficulties with it. It will be controlled in the sense that a statement of its income must be provided and that the board of control must submit to the Minister a report regarding its activities within six months after the close of the financial year. On that basis we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is in my opinion one of the most important measures which has been before this House this session in respect of a group of professional people. As the leader of Southern Africa’s industrial countries, we have to make provision, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, by way of this Bill for approximately 15 000 technical assistants with professional qualifications ranging from those of artisan to those of professional engineer. We must create instruments to accord recognition to their professional status and enable them to organize themselves better in their profession. It is essential that this group of workers should in future receive the necessary recognition as planners of the industrial development of the State. Not only is it important that they should receive that recognition, but it is also important that as a group they should receive improved professional status owing to the qualifications they possess, so that this will encourage more artisans to improve their qualifications and reach this level and so that a larger group of professional men will enter the industrial world.

Times without number we have heard in this House about the shortage of engineers in South Africa and therefore it is a good thing that the hon. the Deputy Minister is supporting the engineering technicians by way of this proposed legislation. Not everyone who qualified for the engineering profession has the financial means or intellectual ability to qualify as professional engineers in the end. Most of the people with whom the legislation deals are people who have studied part-time and who therefore form part of the engineering corps of South African in another way.

In view of the constitutional development taking place in our country and the growth in technical education which is occurring not only in South Africa but throughout Southern Africa it is imperative that this development should be accorded recognition in the engineering profession. This board which is to be established will in my opinion entail that it will be possible to give these people greater recognition and rewards.

At present a large number of institutes are looking after the interests of this group, and for that reason a measure of this nature is in my opinion a rationalizing measure in the interests of the engineering profession.

The trade-unions look after the interests of the artisans and on the level immediately above this group the Council for Professional Engineers looks after the interests of the engineers. It is therefore important that we should encourage the organization of the engineering profession by promoting the interests of this group in the way proposed by the measure.

I think the proposed board will help to give this group powers of negotiation which will be conducive to greater recognition of their profession and will better enable them to look after the interests of their members. The hon. the Minister explained this.

When the Act was revised in 1979 it was in my opinion the intention of this House to help them. As a member of the professional engineering group I am personally grateful for the amending Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced here. I am also grateful that the Opposition parties have indicated that they will support this measure. To be able to function effectively, I believe that these people need offices and staff in order to start functioning and to manage their administration. That is why it is necessary that the State should render assistance in this way to enable them to do so. It is our view on this side of the House that the contemplated board ought to be well-established in two years’ time and that it may then be able, as the hon. the Minister said, to become self-sufficient out of its own financial resources.

I said at the beginning of my speech that this legislation was one of the most important measures to be passed by this House, and I want to associate this statement with a report which appeared in the Sunday Times on 28 April. The report read as follows—

Not all the shortages highlighted in this way fall into the category of the engineering profession, but a considerable number of that group of people do. The board of control which is being brought into existence by this legislation will determine the functions and form an important element of the organization and recognition of these people who, with doplomas and various other qualifications, have to carve out a niche for themselves as engineers, drafsmen or draftswomen or technicians on those levels. That is why it is important that we should, by means of this legislation, establish the administration of this board as quickly as possible.

While I have the floor, I should like to raise another related matter. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it has not perhaps become necessary for us to institute an investigation into why this specific department falls under his department. In my opinion, this department should rather have fallen under the Department of Manpower, or even under the Department of National Education. In my opinion manpower and the training of South Africa’s technicians is not a matter which should be dealt with by the Department of Community Development. The organization of the electrical engineering profession, the production engineering profession, the works engineering profession and the marine engineering profession, as well as those mentioned by the hon. member for Hillbrow, have very little and sometimes nothing to do with the Department of Community Development. Therefore I believe that we should perhaps give serious consideration to incorporating this section of the hon. the Minister’s department into either of these other two departments. I do not wish to take them away from the hon. the Minister, because I believe that he looks after their affairs very well and very capably, but I think it would perhaps be beneficial for that group and for South Africa if we allowed them to fall under either of these other two departments.

We on this side of the House have no fault to find with this legislation, and we gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that this step which is being taken here is a step in the right direction. The great shortage of engineers in South Africa today is causing us certain problems. It takes a long time to make the necessary preparations and do the necessary planning to enable the engineer to carry out his task properly. For this reason large projects in many cases take longer to be completed than is often really necessary. There are so many engineering assistants working in the Department of Community Development that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Boksburg. If one considers the millions of rands being spent by the department, the major projects they are undertaking, one realizes that an engineering board such as this should in fact fall under that department.

I think that people in the engineering industry who have not obtained degrees at universities also do extremely good work. Many of them have only a diploma in engineering, but as a result of their years of experience in the industry they have acquired practical experience which is of inestimable value. As we know, there are people in the employ of the State at present who are doing very good work. Often these are people who do not have university degrees, but who are of great service to the country. What we are dealing with here is a temporary measure. We agree wholeheartedly that the board should begin to function as soon as possible. This can only be to the advantage of the profession in its entirety. In addition, it will also be beneficial to the State.

Mr. Speaker, the engineering profession is a very old profession, although not as old as some perhaps. It is a very honourable profession and I was going to say a very noble profession until somebody told me that the hon. member for Greytown was an engineer. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member for Umbilo to suggest that the hon. member for Greytown is ignoble?

No, he did not say that.

Order! What did the hon. member for Umbilo actually mean by what he said?

Sir, is the hon. member a member of the nobility? Is he a lord, an earl or a duke?

Order! The hon. member for Umbilo may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I suggest that the hon. member for Umbilo is being frivolous with the Chair. He said very clearly that he thought the engineering profession was a noble profession until he found out that the hon. member for Greytown was a member of that profession. I think he should be ordered to withdraw that remark.

Order! Unfortunately my attention was distracted at that time. I want to know the ipsissima verba of the hon. member for Umbilo.

That means your exact words.

Sir, I am sorry, but I do not have them written down. I believe I said that I was of the impression that the engineering profession was a noble profession until I heard of the hon. member for Greytown being a member. They are still a very good profession, Sir … [Interjections.] … in spite of the hon. member for Greytown.

I do not consider that a reflection upon the hon. member for Greytown; it is a reflection upon the engineering profession. [Interjections.]

The Bill before us is in fact giving this very honourable and ancient profession the status that I believe it deserves. After all said and done, had it not been for the engineers …

What are your qualifications?

That hon. member should just stick around and listen … the Roman Army would not have been able to defeat the Zealots at Masada. One should remember that because it is very important. The Bill confers professional status, perhaps not so much professional status, but legal status on the engineering profession. It updates the names of departments and officials, something which one has to do fairly regularly and frequently these days. It also ensures that there is proper accounting and that members are informed that they are keeping their accounts in order. What is of course very important to Parliament, is that the reports will be tabled here to give us something to read from time to time. It also insures that the board has the right to collect money, to buy buildings and to set fees.

The only point on which I have a query, is why the Bill has to be back-dated to 1 January 1983. There has to be a reason and it is not quite clear why it has to be back-dated.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Durban Central, I happen to be a qualified sailor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support.

†The hon. member for Umbilo thinks that it is not the responsibility of the State to finance a body like the board of control and that they have to fight their own battles. Of course this is the position. This is merely a loan we are giving them of up to R80 000. It is a short-term loan for five years at a rate of interest to be determined in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act. The hon. member for Hillbrow is obviously confusing the board of control with the Professional Council of Engineers, which is an autonomous body with its own financial resources. This finance is unfortunately not sufficient to enable them to assist the board of control. As the hon. member rightly mentioned, section 38A of the principal Act empowers the council to form a body like the board of control.

The hon. member asked whether we now want to legitimize that body. No, we are not legitimizing the body. The formation of the board of control is perfectly legal in terms of the powers the Council of Professional Engineers have in terms of section 38A. We are not legitimizing the board here.

*The hon. member for Boksburg pointed out the bargaining power this board of control would have. Then he put an important question. He asked why this board of control had to fall under the Department of Community Development and said that, in his opinion, it should rather fall under the Department of Manpower or the Department of National Education. Over the years this body has always fallen under the old Department of Public Works. We never had any complaints and they seemed to be very happy with us. In any event, they are tactful enough not to tell us that they are unhappy. This is the first time that I hear that there is talk of them wanting to fall under another department. The hon. member is not correct when he says that we are involved to a very limited extent, because I think of all State departments, including the Department of Transport Affairs, there is probably no other department which provides more work for engineers and their technicians than the Department of Community Development. Consequently I find myself in the uncomfortable position that I have to disagree with the hon. member for Boksburg and agree heartily with the hon. member for Langlaagte.

Hear, hear!

Sir, that is how fluid politics have become.

†I will not react to the slight altercation the hon. member for Umbilo had with the hon. the noble member for Greytown. It rather saddened me that members of the PFP have lost their sense of humour. I think what the hon. member for Umbilo said was without malice and was done in a very mirthful spirit.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked why we are back-dating this measure to 1 January 1983. Initially we toyed with the idea of providing this control board with finance amounting to R80 000 and then to come to this House to legalize it. However, that would not have been the proper thing to do. That is the only reason why we are back-dating this particular section. To date we have not yet provided them with the funds. It is being kept on ice, and as soon as this Act is promulgated, we will have the R80 000 available for this board of control.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the first report of the Select Committee on Rent Control and Related Matters, recommendations were made with a view to preventing a repetition of the indiscriminate and undisciplined conversion of residential buildings into sectional title which was experienced in 1981, and to provide additional protection for tenants as well as prospective buyers. Those recommendations are embodied in the Bill which is now before us.

†The measures proposed in this Bill for the protection of tenants and prospective purchasers can be summarized as follows—firstly, an obligation is placed on the developer to inform the tenants on the proposed development scheme properly. To this end the developer will have to disclose certain information concerning the physical condition of all fixed improvements comprising the common property such as, for instance, the state of the roof, electrical wiring, plumbing and sewerage system. Secondly, the tenant is afforded the opportunity to purchase the unit he occupies and gets a reasonable period of time in which to decide. In cases where the premises are subject to rent control one year is allowed while in all other cases the period will be three months. Thirdly, a tenant who does not purchase is afforded a period of grace of six months to obtain alternative accommodation and his rental may not be increased during this period. Fourthly, if the tenant of a rent-controlled flat is 65 years of age or older and his income falls within the limits applicable to tenants who can claim rent protection, provision is made that such a flat may only be sold to that tenant.

The prohibition on the selling under sectional title of a building if any of the units in such a building was subject to rent control, which was introduced in 1981, is now lifted. Strong representations were made to the Select Committee for this prohibition to be lifted, and as the measures proposed by the committee to control indiscriminate and undisciplined conversion are regarded to be sufficient, the committee recommended the lifting of the prohibition.

*The second important aspect which is being regulated in this Bill is the question of property time-sharing. Property time-sharing has already been discussed at length during the debate on the Property Time-sharing Control Bill, and it is not necessary to repeat this discussion on this occasion. However, the Bill to which I have just referred required provision to be made in the Sectional Titles Act for the registration of undivided shares pursuant to time-sharing development schemes. Basically we are concerned here with two schemes under which it will be possible to register a time-sharing development scheme under the Sectional Titles Act.

In the first place, there is the scheme where the buyer of an undivided share is entitled annually to the exclusive occupation or use of the relevent section for a specific recurrent period of time. The sectional title deed which will be issued to him by the deeds registry will indicate this period.

Secondly, there is the scheme in terms of which the period during which the buyer is entitled to exclusive use every year is allocated to him in terms of the rules of the time-sharing development scheme. In this case, too, the buyer receives a sectional title deed to an undivided share, but it differs from the first scheme in that it contains no reference to any period.

A need exists for both these schemes, and the intention with these amendments is to place the registration of these schemes in the deeds registry on a sound footing.

Mr. Speaker, in rising to indicate the PFP’s support of this measure, allow me to say that we have heard the hon. the Deputy Minister in an unaccustomed style this evening. Usually he fills this House with rhetoric and emotion. Tonight, however, we have had him in a very matter of fact way, explaining the purpose of this Bill. [Interjections.]

It is of course quite a matter of fact Bill, but I do think the hon. the Deputy Minister will be the first to realize and to admit that behind this Bill and behind the work of the Select Committee that made recommendations there is indeed a whole legacy of trauma, heartache and emotion, as well as hundreds upon hundreds of memoranda that were submitted to the Select Committee on this very subject. At the outset I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the way in which he has chaired the Select Committee on Rent Control, that produced its first report, on which this particular legislation is based. We have to deal with something which is not purely a matter of fact legislative process. We have to deal with something which very closely affects the emotions, the mood and the whole style of life of people in the cities.

This Bill now before the House is divided into two distinct parts. The one part, which the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with at the end of his speech, is that part which makes provision for time-sharing schemes to be included in the provisions of the Sectional Titles Act. Therefore, throughout the Bill one will see reference to “undivided shares in a unit”. These undivided shares are to accommodate the new concept of time-sharing within the old concept of sectional titles. This is a very necessary provision in view of the growth of the time-sharing industry in South Africa.

The second feature of the Bill, however—and perhaps its dominant feature—relates to procedures for the sale of flats in terms of the Sectional Titles Act. This is, I believe, what the important emotional part of this Bill is about. This part of the Bill which deals with the procedures for the sale of flats in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, appears again in the Bill itself under two important headings. The one involves the deletion of section 2(6)(b) of the Sectional Titles Act—Act No. 66 of 1971—which, as it stands at the moment, prohibits a sale or the opening of a sectional titles register in respect of any block of flats in which either one or more units are being covered by rent control. In other words, if any unit or any number of units in a block of flats is subject to rent control there is an absolute barrier on opening a sectional titles register. The one important principle is that absolute barrier is going to be removed.

The second feature is that in removing that absolute barrier certain protections are going to be built into legislation to affect and protect the rights of tenants and to see to it that this new process of sectional title conversion, which is going to take place if this measure is approved by this House, will proceed in an orderly and responsible way. At the outset we want to say that we in these benches have no objection to the principles contained in this Bill; indeed we support this measure since it is a measure which is based on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Rent Control.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to deal now with the three essential features of this Bill. First of all as far as including time-sharing in the concept of sectional titles, we think it is timely and necessary in view of the growth of the time-sharing industry. As far as the question is concerned of removing the obstacle to having sectional title registers opened in respect of blocks of flats where any part or parts of those blocks of flats are under rent control, we too find it a step we can support.

I think it is perhaps appropriate that we should have a brief look at the history of the events which led the Select Committee to make the recommendation to which this legislation is now giving effect. It is necessary to realize that originally, when the Sectional Titles Act, Act No. 66 of 1971, was passed, there was no obstacle to sectionalizing rent-controlled flats. From 1971 it was possible, as will also be the case after this legislation is passed, to have sectional title units registered in respect of rent-controlled flats. What was important was that where flats were company-owned the tenants in terms of the Rent Control Act could not be evicted, and in any case in terms of section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act even if the flats were sold under sectional title the rent-controlled tenant could not be evicted. So, while on the one hand it was possible to sectionalize blocks of flats and to sell off sectional title units, it was not possible to evict rent-controlled tenants.

That situation obtained right through until 1978. In 1978, as a result of the recommendations of the Fouche Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters, the Government decided to start with the process of decontrol, starting in May 1978 with the decontrolling of flats which had been occupied from 1961 to 1966, proceeding the next year with those from 1956 tol961 and the year after that with those from 1949 to 1956. The effect of that was that in the space of three years a number of people who had enjoyed the protection of rent control lost that protection. That not only meant that they were liable to pay a higher rental, which was the least of their problems, but also that they actually lost the protection of their security of tenure because, whereas prior to that these people could not be evicted from their flats even if they were sectionalized, as a result of decontrol this category of people living in flats dating from 1949 to 1966 were now subject to eviction if their flats became sectionalized. One therefore had the situation that a number of tenants in addition to losing the protection of their rental also lost their protection of security of tenure and were subject to eviction.

Added to this, in 1980 the Government came to the House and passed through the House, against the advice and warnings of all the Opposition parties, amending legislation which provided that not only those people from whom rent control had been lifted could be evicted, but as from 1 April 1981 even people subject to rent control could be evicted if their flats were sold under sectional title. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of what took place. There was a sudden “stormloop”. Owners, speculators, converters and estate agents all rushed in to grab blocks of flats and to sectionalize and sell them after which they told the tenants, even the aged tenants and those enjoying rent control, that as from 1 April 1981 they would be subject to eviction notices.

The Government became aware that the whole sectional title market had come on the boil and was in a state of chaos and that many people, especially older retired people, were in a state of panic because suddenly they saw all the protection they had enjoyed evaporating. As a consequence the hon. Minister Kotzé issued a statement in November 1980 in which he said the Government intended repealing that provision. In March 1981 the Government came to the House and not only repealed that provision, thereby reinstating the security of occupation of tenants, but also, in order to get the pot off the boil, passed legislation actually to block any further sectionalizing of rent-controlled premises. That was therefore the situation.

We in these benches supported the action of the Government because quite clearly it was necessary to reinstate the protection of the tenants and it was highly necessary to get the whole sectional title property market off the boil and back to reasonable limits so that prices could once again operate at reasonable limits. So the legislation of 1981 gave back to tenants their protection; it got the sectional title pot off the boil and it gave both the Government and the Opposition a few years’ grace in which they could consider the state of the property market and decide what they were going to do. I believe the Government very wisely appointed a Select Committee to look into this matter. It was an all-party Select Committee and it has come up with these specific recommendations.

The legislation of 1981, while it solved certain problems at the same time created other anomalies. It is these anomalies which this legislation is trying to remedy. First of all, because in terms of that Act a limited number of protected tenants in a decontrolled property could completely block the sectional title conversion of the whole block, it meant that tremendous pressure was applied on the few remaining tenants to try to get rid of them so that sectionalizing could continue. The hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of the pressures, subterfuges and devices that have been used by various people to get rid of individual protected tenants blocking the whole process of sectional title development.

Secondly, the only way a developer could convert his block to sectional title, if there were a few protected tenants in the block, was to apply to the Minister to have those individual tenants’ properties decontrolled. The only remedy which there was to resolve this problem was the complete removal of all protection in order to allow sectional title conversion to take place.

The third thing that arose was that many tenants, either rent controlled or otherwise, who had lived in their flats for a long time and who wanted to buy them, were prohibited from buying them because the owner was prohibited from developing the property as a sectional title unit. So we have had the case of many tenants wanting to buy their flats but being prevented by law from doing so.

Finally, it did in certain instances place an unfair burden and hardship on property owners who genuinely, legitimately and quite fairly wanted to sell their flats to willing tenants in the form of sectional title units. We have therefore had this impasse for the past three years as a result of the history that preceded it.

It has therefore become very important to unlock the process and allow flats that are under rent control to be sold to people on the basis of sectional title. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that history has taught us that selling and conversion procedure cannot be allowed to take place as it took place before. It must not result in a rush of greedy, avaricious people to make as much money as they can out of the conversion of flats, never mind what happens to the tenants in those blocks of flats. Therefore the second and important feature of this Bill is that while opening the door to the sectional title conversion of rent controlled flats, it also lays down a very specific procedure which will see that this conversion takes place in an orderly way and that the rights of existing tenants, and more particularly the existing rent controlled tenants, are protected in the process of conversion.

Important provisions in this Bill are that a tenant who is rent controlled, irrespective of the fact that the flat is sold under sectional title, cannot be evicted, and that the same rights which he had as a rent controlled tenant will continue irrespective of who owns the flat in which he lives. That is very specifically contained in the proposed new section 8B(3) which provides that—

First of all, therefore the right of occupancy and the right to pay a rental set by the Rent Board remains with the tenant irrespective of the fact that the flats can be sectionalized and sold to somebody else. That is the first important safeguard for the so-called protected or rent controlled tenant.

Secondly, it also means that for all tenants, rent controlled and otherwise, there has to be a proper disclosure of the state of the building and the intentions of the owner. Those of us who live in flatland constituencies know that even with moderately affluent tenants who have lived in a flat for a long time, when the buzz goes round that there are going to be sales under sectional title, the building is full of rumours and tension. Tenants do not know what the intentions of the owner are, what the state of the building is or at what level the owner is going to pitch the market. Very correctly, therefore, this Bill makes provision, before the process of sectionalizing starts, for the landlord or the owner to call a statutory meeting. At this meeting the landlord has to meet the tenants, he has to explain his intention and he has to have a certificate of disclosure stating very clearly what the state of the building is. It has to disclose the state of the wiring, the plumbing, the electrical work, the lifts and the state of the finances. We believe that, far too often in the past, people have been pressurized into buying because they were afraid that they were going to be pushed out. However, they are not given the full story about the state of the building. We believe therefore that it is very wise that there is provision in this Bill for a statutory meeting and a certificate of disclosure.

The third point in respect of which, we believe, the rights of the tenants are properly protected, is that existing tenants, whether they be rent controlled tenants or non rent controlled tenants, are given a statutory option to purchase the flat in which they live. If the person is a tenant who is not protected by rent control, he has a 90-day option. If he is a rent controlled tenant, he has a 365 day option. We believe it is entirely appropriate that, if one does not want tension and almost panic to develop among the tenants, they, as the people who have been occupying the building, should have the first right to purchase that particular unit.

Finally, the Select Committee was inundated—like some of us in flatland constituencies—with the case of older people. The people of 65 years and older are, apart from the financial factor, put in a great state of emotional strain as soon as they find that the flat in which they have lived for five, 10 or 20 years, is going to be sold over their heads. It is no use our saying that it does not really matter because they cannot be evicted. The reality is that when an older person of moderate or low income is told that the flat in which he is living is going to be sold over his head, an immediate ripple of tension, of near panic, goes through his being. For this reason we have included a provision that, where a person is over 65 and where that person, by virtue of his income, qualifies for assistance under the Housing Act, the unit can in fact only be sold to that rent controlled tenant. We on this side of the House believe that this is a very important and necessary feature, considering the tensions that have arisen around sectional titles over the past few years.

This Bill opens up the blocked sectional title market as far as rent controlled properties are concerned. We believe it provides a reasonable balance between the rights of the tenants on the one hand and the rights of the owners on the other. We believe that it will encourage home ownership among people in rent controlled flats who want to own their own homes but who, in terms of existing legislation, are prevented from doing so at the moment. We also believe that it provides an additional protection for senior citizens of limited means.

In conclusion, may I reiterate a warning which is contained in the concluding paragraphs of the First Report of the Select Committee. That is that this Bill, while bringing more units on to the market for home ownership; will not add any new flats to the existing flat stock. In other words, it is merely a transfer of ownership. In itself, it is not going to stimulate the building of more flats. However, what it will do, is that it will take a significant number of flats off the letting market, as those flats will come under home ownership. In doing so, it is going to increase the pressure of demand over the shortage of supply and as a result of that, it could well have the effect of pushing up rentals, on the average, in the urban areas of South Africa. That is why the Select Committee, in making its recommendations, also included a concluding paragraph. I believe it is necessary to record what was said in that concluding paragraph. I quote—

In other words, as a corollary to the recommendation that a person be allowed to sell rent-controlled flats under sectional title, the all-party Select Committee said that there had to be incentives to encourage the private sector to build more flats for leasing purposes. It went on to say—

This is a very necessary condition. The Committee went on—

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we support this measure but we support it in a sense as an act of faith. We support the measure that is going to allow the sale of sectional title units that are rent controlled. We shall allow people to purchase them but we also support this as an act of faith in so far as the Government is concerned that the Government is going to follow the positive recommendations of the Select Committee and that it will also provide incentives so that more flat units are provided for leasing purposes. It is also an act of faith that the Government is going to take specific measures to increase the amount of accommodation available for the aged and that it is going to provide the financial facility for people who cannot afford ordinary bond financing to purchase flats under these schemes. We make the point very clear that we believe that this measure on its own is a positive and worthwhile one. However, unless the Government—as we believe it should and trust that it will—also takes positive steps to bring more letting units on to the housing market, we may in fact find in the long run that it is not as positive as we would have wished it to be. On the Select Committee I think we reached agreement and a very considerable amount of understanding between Government and opposition, and in the light of that understanding we in these benches have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in reacting to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point. In the first place I want to thank him for his support of the measure before us. Apart from that, the hon. member for Sea Point gave an up-to-date account of the history of sectional title affairs with which this side of the House has no fault to find. Indeed, the hon. member for Sea Point is an authority in this field, as was once again evident to us from his speech this evening. In the same spirit I also wish to thank the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Hillbrow for their support and for their positive approach to the problem of rent control and sectional titles in the deliberations of the Select Committee. Both these two hon. members made constructive contributions in the Select Committee as far as the report of the Select Committee was concerned. The recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee are, in fact, a joint effort on the part of the governing party and the Opposition parties to achieve the agreement that we have in fact reached. In the same breath I also wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Sea Point in thanking the hon. the Deputy Minister for his exceptional leadership in the Select Committee and for the guidance he gave the Select Committee in attempting to solve this very delicate problem.

This measure before the House is, then, the result of the first report of the Select Committee on Rent Control and related matters. The Select Committee also benefited from the fact that by the grace of the department, some of its members, had the privilege of visiting countries overseas to investigate the problem of sectional titles and rent control as well, in Britain and the United States. The visits overseas proved fruitful and afforded perspective, enabling the Select Committee to put forward the recommendations it has submitted to this House.

I wish to react to the speech by the hon. member for Sea Point by merely placing a different emphasis on the facts he submitted to this House. The measure before the House must be viewed against a certain background. This historical background was to some extent sketched by the hon. member for Sea Point. However, this relates specifically to the fact that rent control was phased out by way of three proclamations. In terms of Proclamation 83 of 1978, Proclamation 87 of 1979 and Proclamation 91 of 1980, rent control was phased out from 1966 to 1949. What is very important is that rent control was retained in respect of tenants qualifying in terms of section 19(1) (c) of the Housing Act. This means that tenants in buildings built between 1949 and 1966 who qualify in terms of income are still protected tenants, whereas all other tenants occupying units built before 1949 are also protected tenants by virtue of the fact that they occupy such a building.

One therefore encounters the anomaly that the tenants occupying units built before 1949 are all protected tenants, whether rich or poor. The rent they pay is determined by the rent board. That is obviously an anomaly. There are other anomalies, too, that are being rectified by way of the legislation.

The important factor is that as a result of the phasing out of rent control a vacuum has developed. It has been those who convert rented units into sectional title units who have moved into this vacuum. Rented units were then converted into sectional title units, so much so that the number of units available for renting declined drastically, with the result that the market for rented accommodation was disrupted. The Government then stepped in in 1981 by saying that (a) no unit occupied by a protected tenant may be converted, (b) units may not be sold before a sectional title register had been opened and (c) no sectional title plan can be opened if there was a protected tenant.

The entire situation in 1980 was a traumatic experience for certain tenants. There was the very interesting evidence of a certain Mr. Molteno before the Select Committee who submitted substantive evidence to the committee. As a tenant he had been affected by the conversion of units into sectional title units and the fact that sectional title conversion was exerting pressure on rentals. He was affected to such an extent that in his memorandum to the Select Committee he described the Sectional Titles Act as such as “the rape of the nation”. He went on to launch an attack on the Sectional Titles Act and on page 11 he ended his evidence with these good wishes to the Select Committee—

This illustrates a very important point, and that is that the solution of the problem of rent control is, in point of fact, the problem. The solution is more units, but in order to provide more units, rent control has to be lifted. On the other hand, however, the lifting of rent control has an effect on the number of units made available. Accordingly, the Select Committee has incorporated two very important provisions in the Bill. Section 8A of the principal Act is being corrected in the sense that a developer cannot offer units for sale before a sectional title register has been opened. The provision of the principal Act is being extended to apply to the successor in title and the agent of the developer as well. This is merely a technical rectification.

Section 3 of the Bill deals with the controversial section 4 of the principal Act. In a certain respect, section 4(6)(b) is being amended and in some respects additions to this section are being made. The question now is how we have amended section 4(6)(b). Section 4(6)(b) is being amended in that a rent controlled unit is now no longer an obstacle to conversion into a sectional title unit. Previously this was the case. This amendment is important because in practice, section 4(6)(b) was circumvented in that conversion did take place but not in terms of the Sectional Titles Act; instead it was done in terms of the Share Blocks Control Act. A specific section granting a statutory right was circumvented by making use of the Share Blocks Control Act in order to subdivide and get units sold in that way. My personal opinion is that share blocks are a weaker form of security than sectional title units. Therefore, section 4(6)(b) is being amended to provide that conversion may take place, but that the rights of the protected tenant are still protected in all respects in terms of the security of occupation.

A further very interesting provision is that together with the applications for subdivision into sectional title units, the developer has to make certain statements. He must make statements in respect of the electrical wiring, the roof, etc.; in other words, he has to make statements concerning the physical condition of the building. This is vital because, as the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned, this legislation throws open the sectional title market for units built before 1949. These buildings are old buildings, and in order to protect the rights of the purchaser, it is now required in terms of the Act that certificates relating to the physical condition of the building are to be submitted to the tenants at a meeting at which the intention to launch such a conversion is made known. I may just point out in this regard that this is not a alien provision. The same provision exists in New York. Indeed, there the provisions relating to conversion are such that the converter has to submit a detailed report on the physical condition of the building, viz. the drainage, the roof, the water supply, the structural system, the pavements, the windows and the entrances. The various aspects are singled out in the report and it also contains the comment of a professional engineer on the exposition of the converter, which is then made available to the developer. All these are essential amendments in order to confirm the right of ownership and possession of a home and to limit the purchaser’s risk by statute as far as possible.

I shall conclude with this final thought: In the Committee Stage I shall move—I have discussed the matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister and he has given his permission—that sectional title sales may only be passed if the buyer is in occupation. The aim thereby is to eliminate the possibility of speculation, because where one buyer buys and then leases seven to nine units, tremendous pressure is exerted on the rentals of adjacent units. If it is our aim to promote home ownership by way of this legislation, then there is nothing wrong in principle with introducing a provision to the effect that the purchaser may only buy one unit and that he must then occupy it himself to prevent pressure being exerted on the rentals of adjacent units.

This is a very positive measure, one which has been submitted to the House after lengthy deliberation, and it is my privilege to support it on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we certainly agree in this House tonight that the first priority of hon. members of Parliament should be to protect those people who need protection. I think I must be one of those people who have been arguing for a very long time in South Africa that rent control is not practical and that rent control in itself is not a solution because the pattern of supply is harmed by legislation which provides too much protection. It is harmed because the scales of justice—surely the law should maintain a balance between the two parties—are loaded on the one side to the point where the supplier is no longer prepared to go on supplying what he is supposed to supply. He pulls out because he does not know what other legislation may be made applicable to him tomorrow.

After all, we have not made any contribution by way of legislation in recent years to the real protection of people in any respect whatsoever. We have simply allowed the existing blocks of flats and other units to become more and more expensive by complicating the whole situation, as it were, by means of more and increasingly complex legislation, to such an extent that it is getting more and more difficult for people to buy accommodation as well as to occupy the dwelling units which they buy. As the hon. member for Bellville rightly said, no one who has developed an extensive scheme, a scheme which is no longer yielding any return, is going to sit back and leave matters as they are; on the contrary, he is going to consult a legal representative who is going to find loopholes for him in the existing legislation. In fact, I told the Chairman of the President’s Council as far back as 1981 that all they were going to achieve was that when certain units were sold in terms of the sectional titles scheme they were going to be between 50% and 70% more expensive than they were at that stage, in 1981, and so they are today.

I may point out to hon. members that sectional title units in Pretoria, for example, are 74% more expensive today than they were in 1981. Surely this is shocking. It is also shocking to have to see the very thing one wished to prevent by way of legislation being brought about by that same legislation.

I was a member of a group of hon. members of this House who visited America, and there we saw certain interesting and important things in this connection. In fact, I believe that hon. members of the Opposition as well as the Government side saw the enormous disadvantages which resulted from rent control in a city such as New York.

†In New York City, Mr. Speaker, “abandoned” blocks of flats have fallen into such a state of decay and have become so derelict that not even the State of New York is prepared to take them over and to try to repair them. Similarly the problem in South Africa today is that we have for too long given protection to people who do not really need it. Many immigrants and others who have moved into our cities have been protected by law. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with those who maintain that we should protect the aged. The State should, however, also grant them a subsidy. There is no reason why people of 65 years and older who cannot afford to pay a full rental should not be subsidized by the State. I submit that it is the duty of the State to subsidize such people.

I should like to refer to one excellent example of what we came across in the USA. In San Fransisco, for example, the Government rents blocks of flats and allow aged people to occupy them. They pay only what they can really afford, and the difference between that and the full rental charged by the owner of the particular block of flats is subsidized by the State. In that way the State renders assistance in bearing the burden which already weighs heavily on the shoulders of the aged pensioner. I should think that a similar scheme would be most feasible in the circumstances in which we live in South Africa. We can, however, not afford to give protection to people who are in many cases financially strong enough to purchase their own housing units but fail to do so because they somehow find loopholes which enable them to occupy dwelling units in which they continue to enjoy the status of protected tenants in terms of the Rents Control Act. We in South Africa have made a very big mistake by showing ourselves willing to protect people who should not have been protected in the first instance.

Do you want that protection to be abolished? [Interjections.]

Why should tenants who occupy flats built between 1943 and 1949 still be protected? Everyone living in such a unit, irrespective of who it is—even a foreigner—still enjoys protection in terms of current legislation. Why? Who are the owners of those old blocks of flats? They are mostly old people, people who had small blocks of flats—generally blocks comprising only a few units each—erected many years ago …

Do you want that protection to be abolished completely? Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am making my speech. The hon. member will just have to wait.

†The important thing is that the people who built, say, four, five or six flatlets are today old people. Those are old blocks. However, the people living in those flats and who enjoy protection often have incomes three times as high as the owner of such a block of flats. Then we continue to have rent control applying to those blocks. I think that is unfair. In the constituency of Langlaagte there are old people who own blocks of flats and who struggle to keep the building in a good state of repair, but they have to provide for people coming from Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. The owners still have to maintain the building to the satisfaction of people who only pay a quarter of what they should pay.

That is not what you said the other day. [Interjections.]

I think it is important to have a look at time-sharing. Again, a lot of stories are beginning to do the rounds about time-sharing. What are we doing? We are scaring people away from the cheapest way of having a holiday, the cheapest way of obtaining holiday accommodation for a lifetime. For as little as R3 000 to R4 000 one can obtain holiday accommodation for a lifetime and transfer that right to one’s children. On the Natal south coast, for instance, one would pay that. For that a person can get accommodation for a week each year during his lifetime. He can get two weeks per year in the off season for approximately R4 000. Why then do we scare people? Why do we say to people that they must stay away from time-sharing? Why do we think that all people are ignorant? Why do we think that people cannot look after themselves? Why do we want to make laws continually to protect people? One does not protect people by making one-sided laws. It is wrong for newspapers and for us to scare people away from anything that is new on the market.

I wholeheartedly support the legislation before us—let there be no doubt about that. I do believe people must have protection. What I want to warn against, however, is over-protecting people and placing a burden on the supplier of the housing that is so badly needed in this country. The hon. member for Bellville said tonight that only the owner of the flat should occupy it. What happens if I want to buy a flat for my daughter, for my mother or for an old uncle? Does that mean I cannot buy a unit in, say, Pretoria Central or Johannesburg because I then have to go and live there? I think that is absolutely wrong. We must not try to make up our own minds as to the circumstances in which a man is going to buy. It is also totally wrong for us to anticipate, as it were, the attitude with which people will in the future go into these buildings. For a long time sectional title was not acceptable to the South African, but today there is a dire need for more and more flats, which need not be as luxurious as some of the flats that are being built.

In South Africa and everywhere else in the world it has been shown that the overprotection of people in rent-controlled flats has never solved anything. It has been shown in America and in every other country in the world that such over-protection creates an imbalance. In the end no one wants to pay, and there is no such thing as protecting a man against himself. Therefore I wholeheartedly support the Bill before us. I do believe this is an attempt by Government to look into the needs of the situation. Safeguards for an honest buyer and for an honest seller are written into the Bill. I think it is very difficult for an owner to give a certificate for the steel or electricity in the building because the owner himself did not receive such a certificate when he bought the building. He may have bought a building built ten or 12 years previously. Now we are demanding that he should give a certificate specifying every detail in the building.

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

Yes, because I think it will be a sensible question.

Is the hon. member suggesting that the protection in this Bill is a form of overprotection?

I think this protection is necessary because the Government has overprotected people over the past few years. Therefore people have to be taken out of that phase slowly. I think there are elements of overprotection in the Bill. I do, however, feel it is necessary that we do it in this way because we have overprotected people over the past few years. Many of these people today are worried. From newspapers and from this House we have heard the cry of wolf, wolf. This cry has kept people from owning houses that they should have owned today.

*I did not allow the hon. member for Vasco to ask me a question earlier on because I was developing an argument. He may now ask me a question if he wishes.

I should like to ask the hon. member why his whole attitude in his speech tonight differs so materially from the standpoint which he stated in another debate the other day? His whole basic approach …

You are making a speech now.

I am not talking to the hon. member for Sunnyside. His standpoint changes from day to day. The argument which the hon. member for Langlaagte is advancing now is completely different from his argument a few days ago. [Interjections.]

It is difficult to give a satisfactory reply to a question which is phrased in such general terms. We were not discussing the same subject on a previous occasion. We were not discussing sectional titles. Therefore I cannot see what his question has to do with this matter. I cannot reply, therefore, because we never referred to sectional titles. Therefore the hon. member must not take it amiss of me if I cannot answer his question.

I regard this as important legislation. In New York we heard the searching questions which were put by hon. members of the Opposition, as well as by hon. members of the Government side, to financiers, tenants and various people whom we met. As a result, I was deeply impressed by the fact that hon. members of this House …

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member could not answer my first question, may I ask him a further question?

No, I think the hon. member just wants to play the fool. I want to conclude by saying that I was deeply impressed by the dedication and knowledge of hon. members, especially of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, with regard to this matter. The head of the Bank of Illinois told me, for example, that he was surprised at the penetrating way in which these people were investigating the subject. I think this is a compliment for them, and for the hon. the Deputy Minister as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have reached a kind of agreement with the hon. member for Langlaagte, and therefore I am not going to cross swords with him again this evening. I should not like to reproach the CP, but I want to say that the CP neglected their duty in the Select Committee. The hon. member for Langlaagte deemed it necessary to refer this evening to various aspects which the Select Committee—which was appointed by Parliament—debated for hours. All that hon. member had to do—and this is my friendly advice to him—was to consult with his colleague who had a seat on that Select Committee and to acquaint himself with the “blood and tears” cases submitted and the memoranda. He would then have made a more meaningful contribution to the debate. After all, the hon. member cannot have one story for election time, and virtually shed tears championing the cause of certain people, and then afterwards come here and say that Parliament over-protects the people. Quite simply, that is not how it works. The hon. member referred to over-protection. It is true that the Rent Control Boards protect people who do not require protection. If the hon. member takes a look at the exploitation that has taken place even in his own constituency, he will see that the Government has done its share to protect people who need protection. We must never overlook the fact that several of the people living in flats sold their properties at a time when they were able to obtain very good prices and when flats were attractive to people. It is not so long ago that people were unable to get tenants for their flats. They were even prepared to enter into agreements with tenants to give them three months free accommodation. I now wish to leave the hon. member at that and just say to him in conclusion that we in this House have a responsibility to the tenant on the one hand but also to the developer on the other. That is our whole intention as regards the legislation at present before the House. As far as the work of the Select Committee is concerned, members on both sides of the House have referred to it. I, too, greatly appreciate the spirit and attitude with which that committee has given earnest consideration to a burning issue in our country, viz. accommodation for our people. A roof over one’s head is probably the most important priority next to food and clothing. It is a pity that the hon. member for Sea Point tries to point a finger at the Government at every opportunity that presents itself. I think it is necessary—and this evening I again make an appeal in this regard—for us as parties to play our part, too, in encouraging people to invest in housing. We must encourage the people, but the hon. member for Sea Point does not come up with recommendations and proposals. He just wants to show the Government something, and all he says is that he sympathizes with the elderly and the people who are unable to obtain accommodation. The hon. member should stand up and tell this House what the Government has done over the past year in our country in regard to welfare housing alone. I want to state that the National Government, which has now been governing this country for 35 years, has built monuments on the road it has travelled and that one of its biggest monuments has been built by the Department of Community Development. I say that what this Government has done to promote home ownership and provide accommodation for people is greatly to its credit.

Where do your clients stay? [Interjections.]

Oh really, Sir, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member for Pietersburg now.

I should like to refer to the first and second reports of the Select Committee on Rent Control that have already been tabled. The proceedings of the Select Committee are far from complete. Many long hours lie ahead of us, but I want to say that the Select Committee is doing justice to this matter. I want to quote a single extract from the evidence we have heard, the evidence of a certain Mrs. Preller who is a member of the national executive of the Housewives’ League of South Africa. Mrs. Preller says—

The committee has at all times given objective consideration to the whole issue surrounding the part played by the developer, but has also tried to protect the tenant in the process. Hon. members will also note that the legislation before this House grants certain concessions to the developer but at the same time provides the necessary statutory protection to those people who buy flats in terms of the sectional title scheme. In the past it has occurred that the developers have simply given tenants notice that they had a month to decide whether to buy a flat or not, the alternative being that they had to seek alternative accommodation. That was before application had been made to the local authority for conversion. These people were given very little time. Due to this irregularity they were subject to tension, and we are now going to try to protect them by way of legislation. In the measure before this House the onus is now also being placed on the developer to give the tenant due notice of his intention. This has been pointed out by other speakers as well. There must be no doubt that when this legislation is placed on the Statute Book, those requirements will have to be complied with.

A very important provision is that an owner must submit a full report on the condition of the building. The hon. member for Langlaagte thinks that is not necessary.

But he said it was necessary.

No, Sir. The hon. member for Brakpan must not try to take part in the argument now. The hon. member for Langlaagte said that when the owner sold the building as a whole he accepted responsibility for all the defects. We must really bear in mind that we are dealing here with elderly people and people who have problems. If such a person is given notice by a developer he scrapes together all the money he can get to buy the dwelling unit so as to ensure that he has a roof over his head. However, very soon he finds …

I said I supported the Bill.

I appreciate that the hon. member says he supports the legislation.

I should now like to refer to a memorandum received from Prof. Cowen in regard to this matter. He writes as follows—

1. (i) the roof (being common property under sectional title) was on its last legs, or worse;
2. (ii) the whole structure (including the common property parts) needed re-wiring, and sometimes the wiring was so defective as to constitute a fire hazard.

Surely we have to take cognizance of this.

In which municipal area?

I quote further—

These are matters of which one must take cognizance. I believe it is true that by means of the legislation we seek to give those people that essential protection.

Finally I want to refer to the proposed deletion of section 4(6)(b). Section 4(6)(b) imposed a prohibition on the sale of the property under sectional title even if just one protected tenant in the building objected. We are now moving away from that in that we are protecting the tenant and no longer the building in which he lives. I think this is a step in the right direction. It is just a pity that a lot of time passed before our taking this step at this stage. This has meant that the prices of those flats have risen considerably over the past number of years. I also appreciate the fact that we shall at all times afford protection to those people who do not see their way clear to purchasing a property and who are protected. This applies in particular to anyone above the age of 65 years. He must be the only person who may buy that unit if the conversion takes place.

I should like to support the legislation before this House and I wish the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department, that has to implement the legislation, everything of the best. This is positive legislation which will be to the benefit of our community as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Select Committee on the production of the Bill. I feel it is long overdue and that it is going to serve an exceptionally good purpose. It is obviously clear that we are going to support the principles of the Bill. I should also like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the speed with which he has brought the Bill to the House.

It is also a noble Bill.

No, I could not really say it is a noble Bill; nonetheless it is a very useful Bill and sometimes useful things are not necessarily noble.

I am very much of the opinion that speed is of considerable importance in the passing of the legislation and the ultimate promulgation of it because a lot of property development projects are being held up by reason of the existing laws. I would hope that in fact it will go through quite quickly. I do not propose to go into the history of this Bill because the hon. member for Sea Point has done an excellent job of expounding the background to this measure. When I hear a good job well done, I do not like to gild the lily. He has done a good job, and there is therefore no point in my repeating what he has said. However, I believe this is a protection Bill in a number of directions. Whilst I agree with the hon. member for Langlaagte that one can overprotect the public, perhaps in the long term to their detriment, I do not believe that the general effect of this Bill is to overprotect. I believe that as a consequence of what we have before us, there are many persons, elderly people in particular, who will be able to sleep somewhat better at night knowing that, even though the situation vis-à-vis rent control and sectional title has not yet been finalized, if rent control does ultimately go, which I am not going to presume to prophesy at this stage, they at least have a reasonable measure of security and time to look around and to get their breath back. In that respect alone I think it is very important that this Bill goes through.

I believe that another protection is in respect of people who have been abused over the years by unscrupulous estate agents and property developers. I know that one would like to think that all property owners are knights in shining armour and that they are only looking after the interests of their tenants, but of course we know better. There are unscrupulous people. Many purchasers of flats under sectional title have in fact been taken somewhat for a ride. This Bill ensures that a person who is selling a building under sectional title will have to clearly indicate the condition of various aspects of the building such as the electricity and the plumbing. I believe this is very important. I know of two or three instances of people who have paid very high prices to buy a sectional title flat—they have in fact stretched their resources to do so—and who have then had to dig very deeply into their pockets to find money they possibly could not afford to spend, to put in new plumbing, new electrical wiring, etc. I believe this provision is a prime essential in this Bill. There are many instances of these very old blocks of flats being bought up by less than moral types, which are then very often offloaded onto elderly people, or certainly people in their late middle age who are scared to death of being turfed out and who are then suddenly faced with this additional expenditure.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that the S.A. Property Owners Association are a little unhappy about certain aspects of the details of this Bill. They are particularly unhappy about the time factor that is allowed for protected tenants and people over the age of 65. I have had certain representations made to me and one can perhaps discuss those points during the Committee Stage. However, generally speaking, I do feel that the maximum possible, yet reasonable, time must be given to the occupants either to purchase or at least to find alternative accommodation. I know that one of the arguments advanced is that if one has this lengthy period in which either a protected tenant or an occupant has to decide what he is going to do, at the end of that time the seller can be held to the original price and such a person can possibly make a profit on the property without his having had to use any of his own money. This may well be true in an odd case, but I think they are likely to be very few and far between because the people concerned may need that time to raise the money and finally make a decision, and so on and so forth. Very few of them would use that time merely to speculate. In any case if an odd one here and there were to do so, would that in fact be such a terrible crime? After all is said and done, in view of what the property developer makes out of these projects, if somewhere along the line somebody gets an odd crumb from the wealthy developer’s table, is that really such a terrible thing? I believe that it is more important to ensure the security and the peace of mind of the people concerned. It is far more important, as I say, that these people should have this additional time.

There are a number of aspects that one can discuss in this Bill. It is a very important Bill. Fortunately for me, most of the points have been covered by other hon. members and I do not really see much point in wasting everybody’s time on repetition. Therefore I shall conclude by saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister once again that I think his Select Committee has done a good job so far and I hope that he will have a successful conclusion to the deliberations of his Committee on Rent Control.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to react to the speech by the hon. member for Umbilo. In any event, essentially the hon. member did not say anything one could differ with. It is not that I want to ignore the hon. member. I think we are pleased at the contribution he has made. As a person with a very sound knowledge of local circumstances, one can always take note of the hon. member’s opinion in this House.

It is clear to me that there is no step we could take in South Africa today in respect of housing that could be regarded as too important. Recently I read that some authority on housing in South Africa said that in the next seven years we would need an additional 2,6 million dwelling units for all population groups in South Africa. The enormity of the problem is therefore immediately apparent.

When one has legislation of this nature before the House, I think there are a few tests to which one can immediately subject it. The first test is whether it is going to help us to make more dwelling units available to the general public in South Africa. In my opinion, we are going to succeed in doing this. The Sectional Titles Act, 1971, was passed in this House with the support of all political groups in the House at the time. Even the amendments to the original Act that were subsequently effected enjoyed the support of all, because the intention was, firstly, to get more people to invest in housing, from the point of view of the developer, the entrepreneur, and at the same time from the point of view of the man who would like to possess something. The hon. member for Sea Point outlined this evening how certain problems have indeed cropped up since 1971. That is absolutely correct. The most important problem that has cropped up is that on the pretext of wanting to sell the flats under sectional title, people have acted in an unfair and extremely unjust way to certain tenants, particularly the elderly, and towards other people whose incomes are not so high. What the hon. member for Sea Point said is therefore absolutely correct. Indeed, nothing has caused greater unhappiness, particularly in many of our urban constituencies, than conditions during that specific period. It was not the fault of the legislator. It was far more the fault of people who perceived loopholes in the legislation and exploited them. That is all that happened; nothing else. It was not the consequence of the policy of the Government. No one is accountable for that except that group of people who saw in this the opportunity to feather their own nests.

Of course, it would be a tremendous pity if the tenants of dwelling units in South Africa were to be ignored entirely. Indeed, we must understand that there are many thousands of people in South Africa who simply do not have the capital to afford a house or flat of their own. The legislation under discussion now puts it very, very clearly that the tenant will enjoy the desired protection. In the first instance, I have in mind here in particular clause 3 and, in the second instance, clause 5, in terms of which the tenant will enjoy the necessary protection.

Of course, it would also be a great pity if we were to do anything at any stage that would prevent property developers in South Africa from investing their capital in accommodation. I suggest that there is tremendous room for expansion in this respect in South Africa. That is why I referred to the fact that we shall need 2,6 million dwelling units over the next seven years for the proper accommodation of our population. Therefore there must be the necessary incentive for these people. Without that incentive, one thing is very clear, and that is that the State simply can never bear this obligation alone. Even today it cannot do so. Therefore I cannot foresee that in the next seven years it will be possible for the State to bear the greatest single responsibility of making 2,6 million dwelling units available in South Africa. We need the assistance of the private sector in this regard. Indeed, anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of the leasing of property knows that it is not one of the easiest fields of investment available. The costs involved are extremely high. I can give hon. members the assurance that to maintain even a block of flats or a few houses nowadays creates major problems for the man who invests in this field. He has to be content to see his maintenance costs increase annually by from 15% to 20%. It happens to all of them; irrespective of whether they are flats or other properties, on the platteland or in the cities. The moment one leases property, one takes enormous problems upon oneself. I know of some people who would prefer to sell their dwelling units rather than to accept responsibility for maintenance. I believe it would be a pity if entrepreneurs of this kind were to disappear in the process. Indeed, there has been so much criticism recently of people who spend their money on property that many of them have already begun to take fright. Under no circumstances do we want those people to take fright, because in today’s circumstances we already need them badly.

However, I believe that this legislation will not restrict these people in any respect. Because the necessary protection is also being granted to the lessor and the man who wants to buy a sectional title flat in terms of this Bill, I believe that this legislation is the correct step at the correct time. It ought to benefit the lessor and at the same time stimulate the construction industry, and in addition it ought to serve as an incentive for the property owners in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel at all with what the hon. member for De Kuilen has said to the House. I think we all share the concern he has expressed for the need to provide the most basic factor required by anyone, namely a home.

The Bill before us, as so clearly outlined by the hon. member for Sea Point, makes provision for two important aspects, viz. sectional title and property time-sharing. The amendments in respect of property timesharing have become necessary since the Property Time-Sharing Control Bill was passed in the House recently. That Bill related to property time-sharing in respect of any building. One would have hoped that in that connection people would have been protected by having a real right registered in a deeds registry. This was not possible in all property time-sharing schemes, and particularly not in respect of share-blocks, but it was possible in respect of sectional title. That possibility of registering a real right led to property time-sharing being brought into the sectional title legislation. I shall come back to that in a moment.

The recommendations of the Select Committee on Rent Control form the subject of the Bill before us. It was good to hear hon. members like the hon. members for Bellville and Witbank, who were also members of the Select Committee, taking part in this debate and adopting the attitude they did. I think we are all aware of the terrible concern the tenant experiences these days. The whole concept of flat accommodation has changed drastically. Not so many years ago a flat was looked upon as a temporary kind of accommodation. It was temporary in the sense that newly-weds would move into a flat while they were looking for a house which they would then regard as permanent accommodation. Other people used flats transitionally. I know, because my constituency consists of nearly 90% flat-dwellers. In 1960 I fought and won a municipal by-election in the ward of Hillbrow. When I fought a further election there exactly 12 months later, I found that nearly 40% of the people on the roll had moved. That shows that in areas where there are many flats one has a shifting population.

With the advent of sectional titles and share-blocks the concept has changed. The flat has now become a permanent place of abode to many people. It is looked upon as a permanent place of abode and not so much as temporary accommodation. We have to examine this legislation bearing in mind the climate in so far as it affects flat accommodation. As flats are transferred to people who become the permanent owners, letting accommodation decreases. The depression of the years between 1974 and 1977 has passed and for the last 20 months we have experienced a further depression. Despite that costs have escalated to a considerable extent. Building costs have gone up by something like 74% and let us face it, to build flats today as letting accommodation is not a proposition for a developer. Therefore we are losing letting accommodation in that on the one hand existing accommodation is being transferred to sectional title and on the other hand developers are not building new flats because, if they are to build letting accommodation and get a reasonable return, they will have to charge such exorbitant rentals that the average person will not be able to afford such accommodation. So we face the situation where there is a demand for sectional title because people want permanent accommodation. In the case of a building consisting of 50 flats units where 49 tenants were in favour of sectional title and one tenant was not, it could not be done in terms of section 4(6)(b). The Select Committee—I feel honoured to have served on it and am happy that we are dealing with the situation now—therefore felt that something should be done. The Select Committee felt that if sectional title was granted it should be done only on the basis that continued protection be given to those people who had been entitled to protection up to now, and that it should certainly not be granted at their expense. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the chaos and pandemonium that would be created for so many people—because it is difficult to get alternative accommodation at comparable or even slightly increased rentals today; letting accommodation has dried up—if one were suddenly to say that all accommodation could now be sold under sectional title, that units could therefore be sold over the heads of tenants and that they could be thrown to the wolves. We could not do that. It would be inhumane and cruel for any of us to be a party to that sort of action. Therefore it was necessary to give very stringent safeguards to those people. However, these safeguards are not only intended for these people in pre-21 October 1949 buildings or these who are protected because they fall within the income limit laid down up to 1 June 1966 but also for other people. These safeguards also apply to other people who perhaps can afford other accommodation but cannot find other accommodation at reasonable rentals. There are many categories of people who fall within the lower, middle and higher income groups. We are looking in particular at the lower and middle income groups. Those are the people to whom we are trying to give protection. Therefore the safeguard that has been built in with regard to the options of the 90 days, the 365 days and the 180 days, and thereafter another 60 days, as the case may be, is vital and essential. It is particularly important that we maintain the protection for those who had protection before. These are aspects which appear precisely in the tabled report of the Select Committee on Rent Control. Sir, if one looks at pages 18, 19 and 20 one will find set out there the recommendations that have been made which coincide with the clauses in the Bill before us. These recommendations have been carried out almost to the word.

There are one or two other recommendations which do not relate specifically to this matter. The first recommendation relates to clause 1, and also to a recommendation made in paragraph (a) of the report. With due respect to my learned friend from Mossel Bay, it shows how important it is to draft legislation precisely and accurately. It is essential to draft legislation precisely and to have the wording exactly as required. It has been the intention of this House in the Alienation of Land Act, in the Sectional Titles Act and to a certain extent even in the property time-sharing legislation, that no deposit be accepted until the sectional title register has been opened or, on the other hand, until the land has been made available for transfer. That is a basic protection that is given to people. It arises from the Glen Anil crash. It also arises from the commission of inquiry into the development of land. Many hon. members who sit here tonight served on that commission. We said a developer may not take a deposit until such time, for example, as a sectional title register has been opened. But what happened? They found a loophole. Instead of the developer taking the deposit and advertising the property for sale before a sectional title register had been opened, it was done through an agent. Because it was done through an agent, it showed that there was a loophole in the law. It was not the developer who was doing it but the agent. They got away with it and they circumvented the law as it was. Therefore we are going to come back with a new definition of developer to try to close up the loophole as far as possible and so that it will be absolutely clear that no one can, either directly or indirectly—and I am going to have a few words to say about this at the Committee Stage—take such a deposit.

I just want to mention one other point with regard to the certificate that must be furnished and the meeting that must take place within 14 days. Here I want to refer to the protection given to various tenants. I outlined this just now. I think hon. members will agree with me that not too many people understand what their legal rights are, particularly when it comes to this sort of thing. I think that we should ensure that when this meeting is held—and I shall discuss this at the Committee Stage—the rights of the tenants, the lessees, as set out here, are fully explained to them so that they will know exactly what the conditions are with regards to their rights, what opinions they have, the fact that they are protected and what if they refuse or accept the option. Quite frankly, in passing, I think that many of them are going to want to buy the property if they are afforded the opportunity to do so. If they turn it down and wait 365 days they will find that property, in today’s market, is going to be valued at a very much higher price, and so they will have lost out on it. If they can find the money, they are going to do so and I think we need not be worried about that. I think that basically takes care of the rent control side of it. We are happy to support the idea. There are thousands of people in South Africa living in rented accommodation today who require protection.

The hon. member for Langlaagte raised several points. Because of his arguments I thought at first that he was not going to support the Bill. In actual fact, contrary to his arguments, he said that he was supporting it. I want to tell the hon. member that even New York and Los Angeles still have rent control. Rent control came in 1921.

The report of the Select Committee on Rent Control which we have before us does not actually deal with the Rent Control Act as such. The question of rent control is still under discussion and the Select Committee is still deliberating on it. No recommendations as far as that is concerned have as yet been made. We have merely made recommendations as far as the question of sectional title is concerned.

I cannot really comment on the question of subsidies as it is a matter for discussion by the Select Committee. No doubt it will be discussed there. However, let me say that if there had not been rent control over the past couple of years there would have been chaos and pandemonium.

The other aspect with which I should like to deal very briefly is the question—and this is very much a technical matter which is dealt with by a conveyancer—of time-sharing agreements which have been entered into. Where sectional title has been granted and a time-sharing contract has been entered into, a certificate of registered sectional title must be obtained. What is provided here is that the fraction that a person actually purchases, has to be registered. From what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, it is not quite clear to me whether it will be registered as 7⁄365 on the certificate in the case of a person who uses that accommodation for seven days, say from to 7 June, each year, or whether there is room for variation in terms of the registration, so enabling that person to use the accommodation over, say, Easter or Christmas. I believe discussions have taken place with the Registrar of Deeds and regulations in respect of registration will probably flow from this.

I think it is important, as far as the conveyancing aspect of this matter is concerned, that the registered sectional title, the mortgage over it and the person’s rights can be registered without detriment to any existing mortgage over the property. If the hon. the Minister wants to make a success of property time-sharing he must be very careful to see to it that the regulations will provide for adequate administration. One may have, say, 52 people each of whom is occupying a certain flat for a week during the year, and they may all live far away from Umhlanga Rocks or Durban or wherever the place may be. These people are not interested in serving on the board and they are also not interested in what happens during the year because they are not there. Therefore, unless the regulations are going to ensure that there is proper administration and that such a property is properly maintained, the whole question of the time-sharing of property is going to go by the board and a great deal of money is going to be lost. Therefore, if we want to protect those people, then we must do so properly.

We shall obviously have more to say about the individual clauses at the Committee Stage but, as the hon. member for Sea Point said, we are happy to support the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for supporting this legislation. I should like to make just a few remarks that have not as yet been made during this debate.

As far as time-sharing is concerned, I think the legislation before us is good and logical. I must say, though, that I am not a fan of time-sharing. I say that quite openly. I am no fan of it for the simple reason that where there is such a shortage of capital at the present time in respect of first homes in South Africa, I am fearful that money will find its way into second homes, luxury homes, which will have the effect that the amount of money that may well be required for first homes in our country will not be available. Be that as it may, I think that this legislation is very good legislation.

I think too that it is also important to note, as the hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned, that the whole question of rent control is still under consideration. I say this because where we have a tenant of 65 years of age who requires protection and who is the only person to whom a particular flat may be sold in terms of the legislation, one has the fear that perhaps victimization may take place as far as these people are concerned. If a landlord is thinking of sectionalizing at some stage in the future and he has a flat to let and a man of, say, 62 years of age wishes to rent that flat, he may not wish to let that flat to that person in the knowledge that at a later stage he may not be able to sell that flat to any other individual. I think we may have to look at the possibility of victimization in such an instance although I do believe that the principle itself is a very good one.

One thing about sectional title is absolutely certain and that is that we know that it has worked and has worked very well. We also know that problems have arisen and that in large measure those problems are now being dealt with in this legislation. I say that the sectional title legislation has been good legislation and that its effect has been very good because it has had three very profound effects upon our society. In the first instance, it has extended home-ownership on an unparalleled scale. This brings with it long-term stability and long-term security of tenure. Therefore, although it has been uncomfortable in the short-term, in the long-term it will bring stability. The second point that is of profound importance—as the hon. member for Sea Point will know—is that where there were parts of our city where slum conditions existed or which showed a tendency towards those conditions: we now know that with the advent of sectional title those areas have been upgraded. This means in effect that private capital has been introduced in respect of properties that were previously controlled and that were in decline; that the decline has been arrested, and that in this way many of the inner city and suburban areas of our country have been upgraded. This has been a very good thing because it has also extended the effective live of the housing stock which in the long-term is also in the investment interests of our country.

I want to make a further point in this regard. We know that certain developers or their agents have bullied individuals in the whole process of sectionalization. In so far as the Bill reduces the possibility of bullying individual tenants to the absolute minimum I think to that extent it will bring enormous peace of mind to everybody in South Africa who lives in a flat that may at some stage become a sectional title unit. I do not think we can overestimate that peace of mind. The whole process of notification, the process of disclosure, the process of consultation and the guarantee that those things have taken place because of the obligation to get the consent of the local authority obviates the whole possibility of bullying and it therefore will bring enormous peace of mind to everybody living in a rented flat in South Africa.

We have only begun with this although we talk about it as if it has gone a long way. It has not really. There are parts of South Africa where only 5% of the flats have been sectionalized—95% of them are yet to be sectionalized. The great peace of mind which the Bill will bring is therefore something which is very good indeed.

In so far as this whole question of notification, disclosure and consultation is concerned, I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we should attempt to prescribe in the regulations that at the time this process is started there should be pasted in the foyer of the block the rights of the persons who are living in that block. Such persons will then know what their rights are and what kind of information they will receive at a later stage.

There are punitive measures that can be taken against people who do not apply the norms which are being laid down in the legislation and I should like to see the hon. the Deputy Minister applying those powers drastically for the first person who steps out of line.

There is a point with which I have a bit of trouble and I think we need to look at the position where a person living in a particular flat is 65 years old with the effect that the developer cannot sell that flat and further the tenant is protected by the Rent Board in terms of the board’s determination of his rental. The Rent Board should look very carefully at the basis on which it will arrive at his rental. If the protection is to be effective, it has to be real. If the protection in the case of a protected tenant who is poor does not lead to a realistic rental, then it is no protection at all. If his rental is going to be determined solely on the selling price of the individual units which have indeed been purchased—in some cases they could have been purchased for R60 000—one will find that if his rental is going to be determined at even 8,5% of that kind of selling price, the rental that is going to be charged will be so expensive that no real protection will be given to him. I think we shall have to look at how we quantify the rental which he has to pay. We must look at the norms which will apply in that regard.

As far as sectional title for the very poor is concerned—I am now referring to subeconomic flats as part of the 500 000 units which are going to be sold in our country—we are going to have problems with the running of the corporate bodies of those individual blocks. I touched on the subject in the Standing Committee debate last Friday and I should like to say something about that at this stage. In my view what we should do is create a utility company sui generis, the sole function of which will be to act as the manager of the corporate bodies that exist in a particular area. If, for example, we have ten sub-economic blocks of flats in Schotsche Kloof which are going to be sectionalized for purchases by the poor, we should create a utility company which can act as the manager or can act on behalf of the corporate bodies. This utility company will then receive the levies and do the maintenance. In fact, such a company may even have a small maintenance team to do the maintenance work on a non-profit basis, effectively and efficiently. In most cases, on the one hand a high degree of sophistication is not available in those communities in order to conduct their affairs and on the other hand they will not be able to pay the costs of buying that kind of expertise, should it be required.

With those few words we support the legislation and we thank the hon. members of the Opposition for their support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland was very lavish in his praise of this Bill and I thank him for it. He asked several questions, which because of the limited time at my disposal, I will not be able to reply to fully. However, in the Committee Stage we will be able to discuss those matters in detail.

He mentioned a very interesting point, namely the question of a utility company sui generis serving as a body corporate for a whole group of flats. I think that is an excellent suggestion and we will look into it. He mentioned the fact that some landlords may be inclined to discriminate against elderly tenants because a tenant who is 65 years old and who otherwise qualifies, will be the only person who can purchase that flat. We are investigating that problem as well as the hon. member’s suggestion that somewhere in the foyer of a block of flats a notice should be put up stating what the rights of the tenants are. Great minds think alike and we were thinking along similar lines.

*I believe this is an appropriate time to thank hon. members for their contributions. At the same time I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. members of the Select Committee for the wholehearted co-operation we have had from them over the past year. Approximately 450 memoranda were submitted to us and several persons submitted oral evidence. As hon. members have said, a very pleasant and cordial spirit has always prevailed in the Select Committee and we learnt a great deal from one another. What happened in that Select Committee is something that gives me much hope for the future. If I think how peacefully that debate went off and how hot under the collar we have become about this subject in the past, then I am almost inclined to say, with the psalmist: Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. I very much hope that if we in this Parliament can get so far as to change our conflict style of debating to a consensus style of debating, we shall achieve a tremendous amount in the future.

†The hon. member for Sea Point wondered why I was so unemotional and so very factual this evening. My goodness, Sir, it was simply impossible to become emotional over such a very mundane, highly technical, extremely intricate and complicated matter like time sharing. As they say in Dutch, this is not music that one can actually play from the score. However emotional we might become about power sharing, time sharing is a different kettle of fish. We do not get emotional over that.

The hon. member started off by saying, and this was the one recurring theme in almost every speech, that we were encouraging and promoting home ownership. There was another theme in just about every speech, namely that we were protecting prospective buyers, but that we were not overprotecting them. There was consensus on that score. The hon. member said that by selling these units we would be increasing the demand because we would be removing from the market certain rental units. Yes, that is so, but at the same time we are also lowering the demand because tenants are now becoming owners. He said it was an act of faith and that we would only succeed if we could succeed in building up letting stock. The hon. member is aware of the fact that the Select Committee is making this one of its priorities.

*The hon. member for Bellville made a very interesting speech, and I think he got to the heart of the problem when he said that our solution was in fact our problem. That is correct. The hon. member also raised a very interesting aspect when he said that he wondered whether it was still possible to amend the Bill to provide that only the buyer would be the occupant. I think that is a very interesting aspect. Personally I think it is not feasible, but I promise the hon. member that I shall think about it, and I want him to discuss the matter further with me. He puts me in the uncomfortable position that for the second time in one evening I have to say that I agree with the hon. member for Langlaagte, on both occasions in contradiction of one of my own supporters! The hon. member for Langlaagte had the same misgiving that I had. He wondered whether this would work. The hon. member said that there was too much State control. Perhaps that is true, but he did concede that we do not have too much control as far as this Bill is concerned. Then the hon. member really did an exceptional thing here. He closed his speech by praising me, and I thank him for doing so.

I also thank the hon. member for Witbank who said that this was a positive piece of legislation. The hon. member is a positive person who made a very positive contribution in the Select Committee.

†The hon. member for Umbilo also said that we were not overprotecting and therefore would not disrupt the market forces. On the contrary, I believe with the hon. the member that the by-products of home-ownership are such that in the long run they will only stimulate further development and assist us in building up the stock.

*The hon. member for De Kuilen also spoke about home ownership and its byproducts. He told us something about the problems of the entrepreneur. To me it was the culmination of the entire debate when the hon. member for Hillbrow stood up and said that he agreed with the hon. member for De Kuilen.

†I have always regarded the hon. member for Hillbrow to be the champion of the tenant, but this evening he was the champion of the developer, the entrepreneur, and that was a change of heart. That is a more balanced view. The hon. member mentioned the fact that over a period of 12 months 40% of the tenants in Hillbrow had moved away. I believe that with this Bill, with sectional title, we are creating a new style of living. We are creating more permanency, and that will be reflected by our voters’ rolls. We are upgrading property. We are allowing people to build up capital. Only the other day I was speaking to someone who purchased a flat five years ago for R10 000, and he had to borrow every cent of it. Today that flat is worth R40 000. He would never, he said, have been able to build up this amount of capital in a period of five years in the normal way.

*I thank hon. members very cordially for the participation in this very pleasant debate and for their positive and constructive contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.