announced that a message had been transmitted to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates requesting their concurrence in a resolution adopted by the House of Assembly on 25 August that a select committee be appointed to form part of a joint committee to inquire into and report upon a complaint of alleged breach of privilege.

Order! On Wednesday, 27 August, during the discussion of the Second Report of the Joint Sitting of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders, I told the Chief Whip of Parliament that it did not become him to single out one hon member of the House after another for personal attacks on them. Upon reviewing the Hansard concerned, it appears that the hon Chief Whip of Parliament did not single out one hon member after another for personal attacks on them, and did not even do so on a previous occasion. Consequently I have ordered the necessary corrections to be effected in Hansard.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The South African Development Trust Corporation Limited—popularly known as the STC—was established by a proclamation of the State President with effect from 2 March 1984 to continue with the residual functions of the Corporation for Economic Development Ltd and the Mining Corporation Ltd until they have been phased out or until other acceptable arrangements are made. The legal position is such that in terms of the Promotion of Economic Development of National States Act, Act 46 of 1968, with a view to operating in several national states a corporation may be established only for one specific industrial, commercial, financial, mining or other business undertaking.

The STC has, however, been obliged, since its establishment, to carry on more than one kind of undertaking in the national states, and the proposed amendment will enable the STC to achieve its main objective.

The mining corporation was dissolved with effect from 26 July 1985, and the phasing out of the Corporation for Economic Development Ltd has virtually been finalised. In fact, developments have reached such an advanced stage that a draft proclamation for the dissolution of the Corporation for Economic Development Ltd has virtually been completed for submission to the State President.

Hon members are already aware of the outstanding results achieved by the STC in the short period since its establishment. The first annual report of this corporation was tabled during this year’s parliamentary session, and hon members will recall the opportunity they had, earlier this year in the auditorium of the Hendrik Verwoerd Building, of viewing an exhibition on the operations of the STC.

The other two clauses in the Bill are of a technical nature and make provision for changing the name of the Department of Cooperation and Development and of the designation of holders of certain offices in legislation administered by the Department of Development Aid. The clauses also make provision for the repeal of certain obsolete legal provisions.

Mr Speaker, this side of the House takes great pleasure in supporting the legislation now before us.

This Bill regulates the activities and the continued existence of the trust corporation, the STC. I think this is a fitting opportunity to take note and mention with great appreciation that the STC as the development arm of the State in the various Black areas, is doing work of a very high standard and has achieved excellent success in the past. We wish to express our heartfelt appreciation for that. I think that every hon member of this House should thank the STC for the excellent annual report that has been laid upon the Table—the first annual report of this corporation—and in particular also for the most excellent exhibition the corporation arranged for the convenience and information of hon members. Those of us who took the trouble to go and view the exhibition can only speak highly not only of the professional way in which the corporation displayed its activities to us as Parliamentarians, but also of the imaginative way in which the corporation performs its work in the various national states and in the trust areas.

The NP Government is often accused of the fact that not much is being accomplished in the development of the Black areas in South Africa. However, with its exhibition and its annual report, the corporation proved the contrary in a graphic way, and impressed everyone who wishes to look objectively at its activities with the fine work it has done in South Africa and for the Black people in the various areas. For this we should like to thank the directors of the corporation, and its management and all its officials most sincerely.

The corporation is an essential instrument in the work that has to be done as regards development in the Black areas. The department cannot physically undertake farming itself, or lay out industrial parks itself, for example, and for that purpose the department needs an instrument to perform the physical tasks on the land in close co-operation with the Black people concerned.

This legislation is necessary in order to set out properly and unequivocally certain uncertainties that may possibly arise concerning the validity of the corporation’s activities in terms of the proclamation whereby it was established.

Firstly, the continued existence of the corporation is clearly set out in clause 1 of the Bill. Its objects are properly defined, viz to be able to plan, finance, co-ordinate, promote and carry out in the fields of industry, commerce, finance, mining and other businesses in the national states.

When one reads these objects, it once again emphasises the wide field in which the corporation is involved and in which it renders services, not only to the department of which it is the active arm, but also to the various Black people whose interests it serves.

I should like to focus the attention of the House on the provisions of the proposed new section 1A which is inserted by clause 1. When the corporation functions within the area of jurisdiction of a national state and is going to tackle projects there, it cannot simply rush in. Not only must there be the closest co-operation with the authorities and the government of that national state, but also in fact by implication there must be permission for the corporation to go and carry out a specific project within that national state. It is a very important to bear in mind the provision that the corporation is going to tackle its projects within the limits of certain restrictions, as well as recognising the autonomy of such a self-governing state.

I should also like to refer to the provisions of clause 2 of the Bill where references to the old designation of “Co-operation and Development” are altered to the present designation of “Education and Development Aid”.

I think that this is a fitting opportunity to take a brief look at the old Department of Co-operation and Development in retrospect. I think I am correct in saying that this is the first time since the decision to rationalise State departments that this House has the opportunity briefly to look back on the activities of the old Department of Co-operation and Development. Now we are aware that department was a department that was quite often cursed as a result of the functions it had to perform. Contemptuous reference was often made to the so-called co-operation and the so-called development of which the department was in charge.

However, if one wants to look at the past objectively and fairly, it is as plain as a pikestaff that department, with the then designation of co-operation—with the emphasis on co-operation—and development did in fact play an exceptional role in the development of the Black peoples and Blacks of this country. That department, and all of us, can look back with a great deal of pride at outstanding achievements over many years. Those outstanding achievements were in fact attained on the basis of the concept “co-operation”, since there had to be co-operation over a tremendously broad spectrum.

I just want to refer to a few examples. Firstly, what that department achieved was the result of co-operation between the department with its Ministry and all its officials and various leaders in Black areas. One could refer to co-operation with the leaders of the various national states—in other words the Black people who have settled mainly in the rural areas in our national states.

That department was, however, also in charge of the welfare of the urban Blacks. In that respect the department has a fine record as regards co-operation in respect of their actions in conjunction with elected leaders in urban residential areas throughout the country.

There was therefore not only co-operation with elected leaders in the national states, but also with the elected leaders within the urban communities. There was also co-operation with the traditional Black leaders, and in retrospect we can thank the old department today for the mammoth task they performed, for the very reason that they were prepared to co-operate with these communities and leaders, and they proved it in an active way.

At the same time I believe that it is our duty today also to thank the officials of the then Department of Co-operation and Development. We are aware that quite a number of those officials have meanwhile been transferred to other State departments, and I should like to avail myself of this opportunity this afternoon to convey our heartfelt appreciation, on behalf of the hon members of this House, to all the officials of the old department for the excellent work they performed, mostly in very difficult circumstances. They performed their task in the face of a flood of criticism, particularly from the opposition and the media who were not favourably disposed towards the policies of the party on this side of the House. Their actions were usually dismissed as being the insensitive actions of a lot of bureaucrats who simply continued implementing laws to the detriment of the Black people of this country. A completely false image was created by this.

A group of officials who, in my opinion, can be specially singled out, consists of those who were seconded from the department to the government administrations of the national states. They were often removed very far from their communities. Every day they served those governments and leaders, teaching them how to administer a country, how to draw up budgets, how to deal with the budget—I could list a whole series of functions. Without the extremely valuable and expert work of the seconded officials of the old Department of Co-operation and Development, South Africa, as well as those national states—some of their leaders have already confessed this to me personally—would simply not have progressed as they have. I think we would all like to reiterate our greatest appreciation to those officials.

Other speakers on this side of the House will single out other aspects, and with these words I wish to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Ermelo, who introduced the discussion on this Bill.

Do you support the Bill?

Naturally I regard it as a privilege to support this Bill. The hon member for Kuruman has asked me whether I support the legislation. It is logical that I have risen in order to support the Bill, but the hon member should actually have taken part in the debate himself in order to tell this House whether or not he supports this legislation. [Interjections.]

In terms of sections 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Promotion of the Economic of Development of National States Act, Act 46 of 1968, the State President may establish a development corporation or a corporation with specific powers and functions. He may do so by means of a proclamation in the Gazette as from a date fixed by him in such proclamation. As has already been mentioned, the South African Development Trust Corporation Limited was established by proclamation R.26 in edition 9097 of the Gazette of 2 March 1984.

The hon the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech that this corporation had been established to take over the remaining mining functions of the Mining Corporation Limited, as well as certain agricultural, industrial and transport undertakings of the Economic Development Corporation Limited, which has been phased out. The intention in doing so is to continue and develop these functions in consultation with interested parties, until such time as the functions concerned have been finalised or other permanent arrangements can be made. I shall not go into this matter any further, therefore, since this has already been stated.

When the STC was established, this corporation actually took over the functions and powers of the defunct EDC. With a few exceptions, as indicated in the proposed new section 1A(4) of this amending Bill, any reference to the Economic Development Corporation Limited shall be construed as a reference also to the South African Development Trust Corporation Limited. The powers and functions of the Economic Development Corporation Limited, the EDC, as defined in section 4, paragraphs (a) to (y), of the Promotion of the Economic Development of National States Act, Act No 46 of 1968, will now be those of the STC in terms of this amending Bill. The repeal of proclamation R.26 necessitated the insertion of the proposed section 1A as an expositional provision after section 1 of the principal Act. Any doubt about the establishment of the STC is now being removed by the insertion of this expositional provision, and in this way, the extended functions and objectives of the STC are being placed fully within the ambit of the Act. Henceforth, it will no longer be dealt with in terms of proclamation R.26, but in terms of the new expositional section which is now being inserted into the principal Act.

The hon member for Ermelo referred to the excellent work done by the STC. I also wish to refer to that, but I want to deal with the activities of this body in a slightly broader context.

The STC functions in four spheres in particular. Firstly, it functions in the agricultural sphere. The STC exercises control over the existing industries on land falling under the South African Development Trust. It conserves resources and maintains existing assets. The STC draws up budgeting and marketing strategies, provides funds for approved projects and exercises control over their implementation. Furthermore, the STC provides technical assistance over a broad spectrum of agricultural activities. On the instructions of the department, and in accordance with its requirements, it plans land which has not been purchased. In co-operation with the department, it involves the private sector in order to obtain optimum utilisation of land.

The second very important sphere in which the STC functions is that of commerce and industry. It is active in this sphere at a place such as Botshabelo in the Orange Free State, approximately 60 kilometres to the north of Bloemfontein. The Botshabelo area is 140 ha in extent, and the activities there are aimed at establishing a very modern industrial town. As we all know, those activities are developing very well, and a big industrial town is coming into being there. However, the STC is also active in serveral trust areas in the Northern Transvaal which have not yet been incorporated into an independent or self-governing state. This area in which the STC functions extends from Louis Trichardt in the north to Steilloop in the west and Marble Hall in the south.

In this sphere, the STC concentrates on the rural environment as well. Activities in that environment are mostly aimed at supporting and assisting small businessmen and small industrialists and allocating business and housing loans.

A third sphere in which the STC does important work is the mining sphere. In order to assist in the development of the mineral potential of the national states and trust areas, the STC has a mining section. The objective of this section is to perform certain tasks with regard to mineral exploitation in order to promote the optimum development of the mineral potential of those areas.

The fourth and final sphere in which the STC is active is that of transport affairs. It is the objective of the STC to continue the development of the transport infrastructure so that it will be possible, taking into consideration the rationalisation programme, to maintain it on an increasingly decentralised basis, by means of local expertise, so that it may eventually function independently, provision being made for its eventual privatisation. I believe it to be extremely important that all these things should be done in order that those areas may eventually be able to function independently, and so that increasing privatisation will be possible in the four spheres I that have just indicated briefly.

It is essential that this important work of the STC in these spheres should continue so as to make possible the optimum development of South Africa as a whole, and so that all who live in this land of ours may benefit from these activities. For this reason, Mr Speaker, I gladly support the second reading of this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, placing this measure on the Statute Book will cause certain laws of the past to become obsolete and to be repealed by means of the Bill under discussion. In this way certain provisions of Act no 38 of 1927, which has reference to Black administration, will be repealed. It is interesting to read section 2(5) of that Act which reads as follows:

Section 2(5) is repealed by this legislation. Section 2(6) of Act 38 of 1927, which makes provision for the appointment of a temporary superintendent to assist a commissioner is also being repealed. In addition, Act 45 of 1947 as well as section 30 of the Black Laws Amendment Act, Act 76 of 1963, is being repealed.

I can merely repeat that the repeal of these Acts and sections of Acts is caused by the fact that we intend to place the legislation before us on the Statute Book.

Mr Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the South African Development Trust Corporation Limited—STC—to proceed with its development work. Development in a country such as South Africa is of the utmost importance, especially because the various population groups of South Africa are on different levels of development and, as a result of the difference in development levels, are inclined to contribute to the creation of tension in South Africa, and also in general because it is one of the Government’s objectives to stimulate development.

Development is a very involved subject, and in fact is tackled as an inter-disciplinary subject in academic circles, because development affects almost all facets of man’s life. One of the problems ensuing from this is that development has to take place in various spheres of life simultaneously and in a synchronised way.

The STC does focus its work on certain specific facets in certain specific areas, but it remains part of the much greater pattern. That is why there is a variety of other bodies in South Africa, in addition to this corporation, which concentrate on development.

It is imperative that development take place properly in all these spheres. The activities of the STC are very important, therefore, and it is appropriate that by this legislation, we enable the corporation to do its work properly.

It is also true, however, that if development is successful, it entails change in the circumstances of the community. Precisely because of the development work that is being done, constant change is taking place regarding the requirements within which the development bodies have to function. For that reason it is logical that certain development bodies will complete their work from time Jo time and then be phased out, after which other development bodies can be established to continue the work from that point.

As I said, development is a very central theme in South African politics. It is also true, however, that we are very often accused of having abandoned the development facet of our policy—the policy of the NP and therefore of the Government. In fact that is not the case. The continued activities and the continued creation of further development bodies attest to this, because it is of the utmost importance that development takes place in the best possible way.

It is also true that in the years just after the Second World War—actually towards the end of the fifties and the beginning of the sixties—when development was placed under the magnifying glass for the first time, we had a very simplified view of this phenomenon. It was thought that if one had money, technical expertise and educational stimulation in a society, one would have a developed community within a generation or so. It is much more involved than this, however, since this development, which really means the transfer of inter alia a Western technology to a non-Western society, is a cultural activity and cannot be absorbed within a very short time. The activity of this development corporation makes up part of this extremely involved subject. Although it comprises only a very small part, it is imperative and that is why I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank hon members for their support of this Bill. In particular, I wish to thank the hon member for Helderkruin, who went to the root of the matter with which we are concerned here—the problems involved in development. He also indicated how important development is. Pursuant to his remarks I wish to emphasise that development is something which cannot simply be conveyed to a community from outside. Development is only successful if one succeeds in activating the community from within, thereby helping the community to develop through its own efforts, to determine its own needs, to work out its own plans and schemes and to generate its own energy in order to embark on that process of development. It is undoubtedly one of the disasters—one could almost say tragedies—of Africa that so much money and manpower have been injected into an underdeveloped continent from outside, but that in spite of this, it has not been possible really to activate the people of Africa to embark on a process of self-development. Under these circumstances, those investments are actually futile and do not generate a continuous process of self-development and self-upliftment.

The hon member for Helderkruin referred to a second aspect of this fundamental problem of development, and I should like to mention it too. Development also involves a transfer of culture—one could actually call it a transition from one culture to another. In our particular situation this means a transition from a Third World situation—in the economic and social fields and also as far as values are concerned—to a First World situation. Development is not only a question of finance, technology and skilled manpower, therefore. It is something which must also form part of the process of education, because education, in our situation, should concentrate on helping people from a Third World background to cope with this sometimes traumatic transition to the demands of the First World—the modernisation of industrialised and urbanised society. They must adapt to these, they must find their feet in this new environment and still survive as a community, for this apparent development which has taken place in many parts of Africa—sometimes in our own country as well—and which is a merely external and material improvement, has involved serious social disruption for both individuals and communities, since both have actually lost their roots and values and become disorientated strangers in the modern world. That is why the Government and the various instruments which support it in its development task consider it to be of the utmost importance to regard development as a means to self-help and self-development, and to relate development—especially in the transition from the Third World to the First World—to the part played by education in facilitating this transition.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Potgietersrus for his brief exposition of the most important spheres of activity of the South African Development Trust Corporation. I should like to point out to hon members that this corporation was actually established as a transitional instrument. While the functions which used to be performed by the Economic Development Corporation have largely been transferred to the development corporations of the various national states themselves, certain functions have remained, relating, on the one hand, to the trust areas which do not yet form part of any national state, and, on the other hand, to specific skills which cannot readily be duplicated or multiplied in the national states. Those remaining functions had to be performed by a suitable body in the interim, until they could be properly accommodated. This body, the STC, is charged in particular with the task of effecting the transition from the rather strongly centralised development control under the old Economic Development Corporation to the strongly decentralised—one could say nationalised—group-orientated development for the various national states.

The transitional function of the STC is an important aspect which we must underline. By way of illustration I should like to refer to the progress which is being made with the phasing out of specific transitional functions of the STC. I am referring to the passenger transport function, which was also mentioned by the hon member for Potgietersrus. There are three large passenger service corporations which are managed by the STC on a centralised basis. One is the passenger bus transport service for Bophuthatswana, another is that of kwaZulu and the third is that of Lebowa. The transfer of Bophuthatswana Transport Holdings, as the company is called, to the full control of Bophuthatswana’s Development Corporation, under the supervision of the government of Bophuthatswana, is being finalised, while negotiations are also under way with the government of kwaZulu in connection with the transfer of that bus transport corporation. The Lebowa corporation, too, has made certain representations, and the STC is investigating the possibilities.

In addition, however, there are three smaller bus transport corporations which would find it somewhat more difficult to operate completely independently. These are the bus transport corporations for Gazankulu, Qwaqwa and Ciskei. We are considering the most suitable way of dealing with these corporations in future, since they cannot simply start operating independently. Owing to the extent of their activities, it is somewhat difficult for them to function quite independently as far as management, technical maintenance and a replacement programme are concerned. At the same time, the bus transport service in those areas is of the utmost importance.

It is significant that the bigger, established bus transport corporations are negotiating with a view to being transferred, while an alternative method will have to be found for the smaller corporations. This indicates that the STC is taking seriously its task of phasing out some of its functions. This is also apparent from what I mentioned in my introductory speech, namely that the Mining Corporation has already been dissolved and its functions transferred to the various corporations of the national states.

I also wish to express a word of thanks to the hon member for Kimberley North for his support. He briefly indicated the obsolete laws that were being replaced by this Bill. This is a further indication of the fact that the Department of Development Aid is continually going through the great mass of old legislation with a fine comb in order to remove from the Statute Book obsolete legislation which is no longer relevant. In this way, legislation is being made more orderly and more compact to administer.

The hon member for Ermelo made some kind remarks about the old Department of Co-operation and Development, the functions of which are dealt with in clause 2 in so far as they are now being handled by the Minister, the Director-General or the officials of the new Department of Development Aid. I should very much like to join the hon member for Ermelo in paying tribute to the spirit of dedication which prevailed in that department under its former name, and especially on the part of officials who devoted their entire career to the problems of development.

The families of those officials sometimes had to make very great sacrifices because they had to do their work in remote outposts, far from the facilities of modern urban society, and often with communities that had to be trained, educated, developed and prepared for the services that were being rendered to them. They were not only officials in the narrow sense of the word; they were also dedicated and idealistic developers. They were people who rendered a service to those communities and who had and still have confidence in them and in the future of this country. They were very loyal to the department and made enormous sacrifices in carrying out its task.

I believe that I have now dealt with the most important contributions made by hon members. I should like to emphasise once again that with this Bill, we are actually putting the legal foundation for the establishment of the South African Development Trust Corporation beyond all doubt. The proclamation in terms of which it was created is being repealed because doubt existed as to the validity of that proclamation. The STC is now being explicitly recognised by legislation, with retrospective effect from 2 March 1984. All the provisions in the Promotion of the Economic Development of National States Act which are necessary and relevant are explicitly re-enacted in this proposed new section as being specifically applicable to the STC.

Finally, I just want to emphasise again that the involvement of the STC within the national states or self-governing territories is subject to agreements which have to be entered into at the request of those self-governing territories and that they have to act in accordance with such agreements. There is no question, therefore, of the STC acting as a kind of umbrella corporation, as the old Economic Development Corporation used to do. Like the Department of Development Aid itself, in fact, it can only render assistance when it is asked to do so. It will continue to be managed in this spirit.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Sir, much has been said and written about the penal provisions of the Abuse of Dependence-Producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act since it was placed on the Statute Book during 1971. Generally speaking, the mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for which the Act makes provision have been opposed by jurists and by every committee or commission which considered the issue during its investigations.

On the other hand, the Human Sciences Research Council found, in a multi-purpose survey amongst Whites, that more than 80% supported the provisions of the Act relating to the possession or use of dependence-producing substances such as dagga. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that the mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment in the principal Act have served their purpose. They should now be reviewed, particularly because the drug menace has assumed alarming proportions throughout the world, and it is not passing South Africa by.

We cannot counter the danger effectively if we persist in applying a penalty which, according to the Viljoen Commission, has a doubtful deterrent effect because it does not carry any specific stigma for certain members of our society. Nor is it conducive to improving or reforming the offenders because sentencing officers cannot impose sentences to fit particular individuals.

The Department of National Health and Population Development is at present reviewing all laws on medicine and related substances with a view to consolidating them and bringing them up to date and into line with current practices and viewpoints. What is envisaged is the consolidation of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act of 1965 and Chapter 1 of the Abuse of Dependence-Producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act of 1971, as amended by the Bill, into one Act.

Representations have, however, been received from judges and attorneys-general about not delaying the abolition of the mandatory sentences until the proposed new Act can be submitted to Parliament. This Bill is therefore an interim measure.

†I need not say much about the provisions of the Bill because they have, to my mind, been adequately explained in the long title and the memorandum on the objects of the Bill. The Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic (the Viljoen Commission) suggested, in para 5.1.4.3.74 of its report, a maximum fine of R50 000 for a first offence and R100 000 for a second or subsequent offence. The commission was of the opinion that “Such provision would enable the court to punish the master-mind severely and the high maxima would allow the court ample range within which to have regard to the reduced value of money and to exercise its discretion in accordance with the seriousness of the offence, the person who committed it and other circumstances surrounding the offence.” I am, however, advised that our courts rarely fix penalties of that magnitude and that R30 000 and R50 000 would be appropriate and sufficient.

Mr Speaker, some people say things more in sorrow than in anger. I rise today to say things both in sorrow and in anger and to express this party’s anger at the Government’s failure to deal adequately and competently with the escalating problem of drug abuse that faces South Africa today. The Government has failed to have a proper educational policy and training in the schools to teach youngsters about drug abuse. They have also failed to deal adequately with the laws that are presently on South Africa’s Statute Book.

When Richard Nixon was President of the United States, he voted $1 million for the Shafer Commission to go into the question of drug abuse. The wife of the present President of the United States, Nancy Reagan, is heading a campaign in that country to deal with the problem of drug abuse.

I am sorry for all the thousands of people who are languishing in jail, serving the minimum sentences prescribed in our laws today. I am sorry that the Government failed to listen to many of us who made representations as far back as 1971 not to impose minimum sentences on people; not to take away the discretion of the courts and to enable the courts to make decisions to postpone a sentence, or to give a reprimand or to give people the right to come back to court at a later stage. None of those things have been done. However, this Government appointed a commission of inquiry under Mr Justice Viljoen to go into penal reform in South Africa as far back as 1974. In 1976—10 years ago—they made recommendations which the Government ignored.

On page 88 of its report the commission makes the following recommendation:

The Government ignored that. To give credence to the argument which I am supporting here today I can only quote the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development himself who, this weekend, made a statement in which he disclosed the most alarming figures which shocked South Africa and which shocked all of us—to wit that between 1 June 1984 and 30 June 1985, 2 329 children between the ages of seven and 17 had been convicted for drug abuse; 6 176 between the ages of 18 and 20 had been convicted for drug abuse; and 27 205 had been found guilty of crimes related to drug abuse, making a total of 35 750. Now, I ask the hon the Minister how many of the 35 750 are languishing in gaols because of the minimum sentence of five years which has been imposed upon them? I accuse the Government of failure to provide proper rehabilitation centres. Magaliesoord is not sufficient, neither is the privately established Phoenix House.

The abuse of drugs today involves mandrax, obex, cocaine, LSD and heroin. I am told that today children are making and eating pizzas containing dagga. On page 39 of the Reader’s Digest it is stated that:

Now, one has to be very careful with regard to the punishment of a pusher. It is all very well to punish the pusher, but there are two categories of pushers. Firstly, there is the pusher who is making money and should be punished. Secondly, there is the pusher who is a drug abuser who cannot work and who sells drugs in order to obtain more drugs. He falls into a different category and must be treated accordingly. The discretion of the courts to deal with this sort of thing has been taken away until now when a fine can be imposed.

My next angry accusation against the Government has a bearing on three Acts which were published on 30 August 1984 in Gazette No 9029, namely the Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act, the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances, Chapter I and the Rehabilitation Centres Act, Act 41 of 1971. More than two years have elapsed since they were published for public comment and reaction. Nothing has been done about them, and these Acts actually need revision. The principal Act needs revision on the question of presumptions, because as section 10 reads at the moment the presumption is that if a person is in possession of a dangerous dependence-producing substance, he is deemed to be a dealer. That forces such a person to make an admission of guilt on the question of possession, which is absolutely wrong.

The question of social workers is another point I wish to raise. This matter is not properly defined and the definition should include a social worker who is not registered as such but who is in private practice. These social workers should be included.

Lastly I want to ask the hon the Minister what will happen to those people who are languishing in gaol today, serving minimum sentences, now that minimum sentences are being abolished. I want to urge this Parliament to take action either to ask the State President to grant them a pardon so that they can come out of gaol, or to request the hon the Minister of Justice to grant them parole.

Mr Speaker, it was with a degree of amazement that I listened to the tirade of my colleague, the hon member for Hillbrow. I know him as a very moderate person, especially in respect of the subject we are discussing now, viz the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Amendment Bill. Without referring to the merits of the legislation or to what the Government has done over the years to combat this problem, also under other administrations than the one under the present State President—I am referring to the days of Mr Vorster—the hon member for Hillbrow proceeded without saying a single positive thing about the efforts of the authorities under the NP Government.

I should like to associate myself with a few of the remarks made by the hon member for Hillbrow. In the first place he knows just as well as I do that one cannot seek the solution to this problem with a specific authority. I can refer him, for example, to what is going on in Thailand and to the procedure in Iraq and Iran.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is a quorum present in the House?

Order! Will the Whips of the Government party determine whether or not there is a quorum?

Quorum

The attention of the presiding officer having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Order! The hon member for Brits may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Just before the short interruption which arose as a result of the absence of hon members of the opposition parties because they do not accept the responsibility of being here when they should be, I was saying that one should not seek the responsibility for the solution of this problem with a specific authority, but with the public. I was referring to two examples, and I should like the attention of the hon member for Hillbrow, because he spoke about these things.

The most robust punishments in the world apply in a country such as Thailand, for example. The same applies to countries such as Iran and Iraq. When I was visiting Bangkok, for example, a whole number of years ago, in 1970 or 1971, I saw a photograph album at the office of the Commissioner of Police containing photographs which had been taken of the arrest of a so-called “pusher” by the police. A “pusher” is the person who makes heroin or cocaine or whatever the case may be available to the public in the East by means of agents he uses to sell it. Photographs show what happened the moment he was arrested. In the first photograph he was refining the opium to heroin and eventually to morphine and its other derivatives in his tiny factory in the backyard of his home. The next photograph shows him in the police office where he is being given the opportunity to make and sign his will. In the third photograph he is standing against a pole, blindfolded with his hands behind his back, in front of a firing squad. In the fourth photograph he is hanging limply at the foot of the pole where he has been shot dead. Everything is concluded within three hours. This is the kind of punishment that applies in parts of the rest of the world. The same applies in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere.

The point I want to make when that hon member contends that the Government has not acted strictly and seriously enough, is that the Government has considered all those possibilities and realised that they are not the solution. This even applies to the reference the hon member made to what Mrs Nancy Reagan, the wife of the President of the United States, is doing. She is the patroness of a campaign against drug abuse by the young people in the USA.

America is not a country; it is a continent. It is a country which consists of 52 states. The annual income California alone derives from its own harvest amounts to more than South Africa’s GDP. I just want to put matters into perspective. What is a few million rand to the Americans to establish rehabilitation centres as against the means we have at our disposal and with which we are doing the best we can?

Hon members should read the latest Reader’s Digest to which the hon member referred and in which there is a very good article about someone who was a drug addict, was converted, and through his faith was given the power to convey the message that the eventual solution lay in the Lord God alone. This is a mouth-to-mouth solution; it is conveyed by one person to the next. Everyone maintains that the solution does not reside in the kind of punishment one gets in Thailand, for example, nor in the very best methods of treatment one can find on earth.

We do those things in our country. They are done by Sanca—the South African National Council for Alcoholism—for example. I want to pay tribute to them this afternoon. It was my privilege to be a member of the management committee of their executive committee from approximately 1967 to 1974. I saw what was done by them in association with the various churches, welfare organisations and the Department of Social Welfare.

One of the great things was the commission of inquiry that was appointed by the Department of Social Welfare in 1979 and which considered the drug problem in South Africa at the time. They travelled throughout the country, from one big city to another, for a whole year, as well as to other areas which were brought to our notice by the Police. They investigated matters and published an excellent report with recommendations to the relevant Minister. This led to the original Act which was later amended and is before us here again today—I shall refer to certain other amendments in a moment—because only in practice does one learn that an Act has certain shortcomings and only then one can introduce amendments to that Act to the best of one’s ability, to meet the requirements.

I am going to mention one of the great problems, and the hon member for Hillbrow and other hon members will agree with me. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development referred to this during the past weekend. It is also broached in the article in the Reader’s Digest. The great problem is that the data we have today with reference to the extent of the problem among the general public and the essence and nature of the problem, is totally different from what it was 15 or 16 years ago when this House passed the original Act, prompted by that commission’s inquiry, which had come from the Department of Social Welfare, and in which members had been nominated by the public to take part in that inquiry. We are dealing with a completely different society.

By way of contrast I want to give hon members an example. If alcohol were to be discovered in a laboratory today, it would immediately be classified as a drug of the first degree on the basis of its pharmacological value. Because it is socially acceptable, however, is used in society and is associated with an immense education process throughout, comprising its use with food in a proper environment and people’s pride their product—it has been socialised therefore—it is not necessary to classify and categorise it as a drug that has to be dealt with according to certain schedules.

On the other hand one has the problem, for example, of dagga’s being freely available in South Africa. One need only put a little plant in the soil in the Transvaal Low-veld, the whole of the Drakensberg range—in all the warm water areas as it were—and it grows like mad. I have been abroad, in Australia for example, where heads of departments told me the best dagga in the world was grown in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The tragedy is that a lot of this dagga is exported. The big thing, however, is that this is illegal, and in contrast with alcohol, which I spoke about a moment ago, which is socially acceptable and must be used in a civilised way, dagga is used in a subcultural atmosphere and environment. I am referring to subcultures in which the people go underground, and the use of dagga is associated with a certain philosophy and attitude toward life. That is why one cannot say that because those two substances are toxic or addictive on the basis of their pharmacalogical values, they must be treated in the same way. As far as this specific point is concerned, I should like to tell hon members that over the years the Government has done everything in its power not only to take preventive steps, but also to take remedial steps.

If hon members go and look at the speech made by the hon the Minister during the weekend, they will see that he specifically said he needed the public, society, to help him. He needs the assistance of every institution which is involved with this situation. He even invited those in the subcultural environment who have problems to come forward and said no one would be prosecuted. The Government merely wants to help where it can. He said that there were plans to establish many more institutions at which people can be assisted.

If we do not proceed on the premise that we accept that between 1969-70 and today times have changed and that this problem as a whole, as manifested today, cannot be dealt with using the methods, philosophy and view of 1970, we shall always be wide off the mark, and this situation will simply go from bad to worse.

I have referred hon members briefly to the activities of this commission of inquiry. It may be interesting to point out that the commission’s report said time and again—this was 15 or 16 years ago—that the source of most of the problems in which one has to contend with chemical drugs such as mandrax and that kind of substance, resides in the use of either dagga or alcohol. The hon the Minister quoted figures which indicate that the use of these substances in all the respective categories, those of pre-adolescents, adolescents and early-adults, began with dagga or alcohol which they got at home, and in whose case the upbringing at home left much to be desired. The children did not have the power of discretion that they should have had, therefore. We found evidence of this in many cases, and later reached the conclusion that one has to contend with problem parents far rather than with problem children.

I say this, because basically I am pleading for there to be a re-evaluation in the community for a better and healthier family life, religious life and attitude in respect of one’s own responsibility to serve society and one’s country in a better way. If that happens, instead of the negativism and the runaway syndrome one finds today, this problem can be solved much more easily and in a much better way.

All indications were, however, that the essence of the problem can usually be traced to dagga. This is the case not only in South Africa, but also in the United Kingdom, Europe and the USA. There it merely has different names, such as marijuana, hashish, grass, pot and various other names, but in fact it is the same thing.

That is why we said at a stage in that report that such an inquiry was very necessary, because a proper inquiry into the use of dagga as such was last made in the fifties, and it was high time to appoint a separate commission of inquiry to investigate that problem. I want to plead with the hon the Minister today to give consideration to the appointment of such a commission for inquiry which should make a penetrating inquiry into the place and the role of dagga in such a subculture, but also in the society in which that subculture exists.

In addition such an inquiry must not be made only among the Whites, because we are involved with a general affair today. In 1970, when to all intents it was still an own affair, only the situation among the Whites was considered. As an authority, Government and Parliament, we are responsible for the whole situation among all population groups in this country today.

Hon members will see that this is a much more involved matter than the hon member for Hillbrow would like to infer, because it is a completely different matter in a White milieu and subculture than in the case of Black workers in the rural areas, for example, who have been using it for years, since the previous century, without the subcultural facets of the effect of such a substance manifesting itself among them in any way, because the purpose for which the farm worker uses it—I almost want to say in a primitive situation—is quite different from the purpose for which today’s young people use it in a First World situation, viz to get certain “kicks” out of it or because they have a deficiency in their characters or for whatever reason.

That is why I think it would be a very good thing if the hon the Minister could pay attention to this, since he has already instructed his department to investigate this matter. He could go even further and determine whether it would not perhaps be possible to get a commission of inquiry established by Parliament and to involve people from outside in a penetrating inquiry into the situation.

I also want to draw the attention of the House to the particular Bill, as hon members have it before them. The hon member for Hillbrow referred to certain existing penal provisions and said that we should inquire into these provisions because attorney-generals inter alia come to us and say that we should introduce certain amendments because medicinal legislation in general is being considered as well. People say that to consolidate this, the minimum punishments can be changed as a kind of interim measure, but I shall come back to that in a moment. In addition they say they can no longer apply the legislation at their disposal successfully and act positively and constructively, because of the way in which society is structured today.

The main concern is the minimum mandatory punishments—I am referring to the terms of imprisonment—which were sharply criticised by jurists as well as by committees which inquired into the legislation. We must not look only at the criticism, of course, because there was also a great deal of positive reaction from the public. The HSRC determined in an investigation a while ago, for example, that 80% and more of the respondents supported the provisions of the legislation in connection with the possession or use of these dependence-producing substances, for example dagga. A body such as the HSRC, which made an in-depth inquiry into this, tells us, therefore, that the respondents who were consulted expressed their satisfaction with most aspects of this legislation. More than 80% of the respondents are quite satisfied with this. Only the specific facets are at issue here, however. When the hon the Minister submitted legislation to rectify the situation, the hon member for Hillbrow nevertheless maintained here in the House that the baby now had to be thrown out with the bath-water and all, as it were. Where is that hon member’s objectivity? In my opinion his reaction attests to mere political expediency. That is why I said just now that I was disappointed. I said it because I did not believe this attitude to be typical of the hon member for Hillbrow’s normal style. I know that in the days when he was still a member of the Johannesburg City Council, he co-operated with the Police quite often to be of assistance to the young people of Johannesburg with regard to this problem.

What went wrong, Alf? [Interjections.]

The problem is that as the Act reads at present, the specific punishments do not have the desired effect at all. I can give the reasons as to why this is so. The punishment is irrelevant to the changed conditions in society. There are two reasons for this. In the first place many people no longer regard it as a disgrace, for example, if one of their children is caught with dagga. A crowd of students may have a party and a few dagga cigarettes are passed around—quite “innocently”, from their point of view—and suddenly the Police clamp down on them and all of a sudden everyone present is a great law-breaker. Then the attorneys-general come and complain that as a result of the machinery made available to them, they cannot do their work within the relevant milieu as they should like to.

In the second place the Act as it stands no longer has the deterrent value it should have. There are enough lawyers in this House to support me when I put this point this afternoon. It is extremely important for an Act to have the necessary deterrent value, otherwise it is useless and has to be thrown out as soon as possible.

In the third place—this is extremely important—it does not succeed in the effort of rehabilitation we had in mind with the commission of inquiry’s report, and eventually with the legislation and the amending legislation which followed and is on the Statute Book at present, because sentences simply became outdated and inappropriate and the Bench no longer applies the sentence strictly according to the Act as it stands on the Statute Book.

Hon members are aware that the Department of National Health and Population Development is revising all Acts on medicine and related substances—I referred to this briefly a little while ago—to consolidate them. I think this is a noble effort and we must wish the department the best of luck in making that effort. The purpose is to bring it up to date in agreement with present practices and opinions. We intend to revise and amend the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act—take note that what I am saying now is extremely important, also to the public at large—and to consolidate it with Chapter 1 of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, as it is being amended by this Bill, in a single Act. Then we shall have something decent with which to address this problem. I referred to the representations of judges and attorneys-general who requested that the abolition of compulsory punishment not be postponed until the intended new legislation could be brought before Parliament. That is why this legislation must merely be regarded as an interim measure.

The hon member for Hillbrow referred to the Viljoen Commission which recommended maximum punishments of R50 000 and R100 000 for a second or subsequent offence in any case. We are all aware that the hon the Minister said during the past week-end that in his opinion R50 000 and R30 000 would be sufficient, which I agree with. The objective is the proper punishment of Mr X, the person behind everything, and also, as a result of the high fine, to give the court more room for manoeuvre to use its discretion in relation to the offence that has been committed. We cannot do this with the present legislation. The judge has no discretion to do this today.

Not even the abolition of the minimum punishments in respect of dagga in this Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Amendment Act of 1978 could solve this problem. Instead it created many new problems. But as I said, one cannot determine the deficiencies in legislation before one has introduced the legislation and applied it in practice. I want to tell you why. No provision has been made for fines. In the second place, this has led to a practice in which the courts suspended the sentences of first offenders without exception unless aggravating circumstances existed. In other words, no sentences were really applied either for deterrent purposes, rehabilitation purposes or whatever purposes.

We now have this Bill of which the objective is spelt out very clearly to us in the first paragraph—all hon members can read it if they want to—which summarises many things. The memorandum that was prepared with this Bill also spells out the objectives of this amending Bill before us.

That is why, apart from giving my sincere support to the Bill and thanking the hon the Minister for submitting it, I wanted to ask hon members in conclusion not to try to steal petty political marches on one another and score political points off one another as far as this extremely serious matter is concerned. We should rather try to establish only the very best for South Africa in respect of this extremely serious social problem which can assume immensely serious proportions. It did in fact reach such proportions 15 years or more ago, but at this stage it has become critical in my opinion because we are living in other extremely difficult times which require us to apply special measures. I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, it was a pleasure to sit and listen to the speech made by the hon member for Brits. He is clearly an expert in the problem of dependence-producing substances, and because of his background and field of activity before he became a Member of Parliament, he could tell us this afternoon exactly what this Bill comprises and what is intended by it. I think that if we were listening to the hon member for Brits, it is very clear to us that we are dealing with a very serious matter. It is also very clear to us why the hon the Minister came to the House with this legislation as an interim measure after representations were made. There is no time to wait for the consolidation of the Act, and this measure must be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. We are aware that drugs, or rather dependence-producing substances, have various effects on the human being. This is true in the case of dagga in particular. Some people become depressed, some become moody, ill-tempered or aggressive, whereas others can get really high on it. I think the hon member for Ceres would be quite happy, however, with what the hon member for Brits said in respect of alcohol. He said there is room in social life to use a bit of alcohol in a sociable way, a way in which it is not all that damaging.

Dependence-producing substances are found in various forms and are an evil in society which have one of the most destructive effects on the lives of human beings.

Earlier this year the South African National Council for Alcoholism calculated that with the exception of the Black rural population, in respect of whom there are no reliable statistics, 353 000 South Africans drink alcoholically, consuming more than 100 ml of pure alcohol per day, which adds up to an estimated amount of R1 178 million per year. I do not think a total estimate of R2 billion is excessive.

Above and beyond the loss of hard cash, things such as loss in production, loss of man-hours, medical expenses and car accidents are involved, and we suffer many other much worse similar losses. 57% of the fatal road accidents are alcohol-related, while at least 24% of the White divorces, which amounted to more than 100 000 during the past six years, involved alcohol abuse. During the period 1984 to 1985, 22 255 out of a total of 393 390 convictions of criminal offences were as a result of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

The newspapers have daily reports of allegations that young people and children are becoming the victims of drug peddlers. I think the category of drug peddlers in particular should not be ignored in the amending Bill before us. They should be brought to book in terms of a measure which makes proper provision so that it can be a deterrent.

Thousands of human lives, including those of children, are destroyed around us every day. It is frightening to see on television quite often, the large amounts of Mandrax and other drugs which have been seized. Since the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act came into force in 1971, the Viljoen Commission like various departmental and interdepartmental committees, has come to the conclusion in its inquiry into the RSA’s penal system that the minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment for the illegal possession of or use of or dealing in drugs has not had the desired effect. The hon member for Brits analysed this matter very thoroughly.

Even the abolition of the minimum punishments in respect of dagga by the amendment of 1978 did not resolve the problem. Because no provision was made for fines, a practice evolved whereby the courts suspended the sentences of first offenders without exception. The hon member for Brits mentioned this. I do not think we can emphasise this sufficiently, because this is the crux of the problem. That is why this legislation is before us today. Only in cases in which aggravating circumstances existed, did the courts not impose suspended sentences.

The objects of this Bill are—

1. (a) To restore the courts’ discretion in fixing penalties for the illegal possession or use of or dealing in dependence—producing substances, by the abolition of the mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment;
2. (b) to provide for fines in addition to, or as an alternative to, the existing sentences of imprisonment;
3. (c) to repeal the prohibition against the suspension or postponement of a sentence, or discharge with a caution or reprimand;
4. (d) to repeal those provisions which are linked to compulsory minimum sentences, namely, the power to impose less severe sentences in cases where mitigating circumstances exist, in view of the fact that a discretion is now conferred upon the court providing both the nature and the extent of the sentence which is to be imposed.

This legislation was unanimously agreed to by the standing committee. There was no difference of opinion in respect of this and that it is why it is a great pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Middelburg. He always looks like such a stable person, who does not associate himself with dangerous and pleasant things. [Interjections.]

I want to support this Bill. If people do not want to listen, they must suffer. This applies to every aspect of life. Too much of anything is not good for one, no matter how pleasant it is; in the end it catches up with one.

Just like in the rest of the world, dagga is the most common drug in South Africa. Dagga is no one’s friend; it breaks one down little by little. I do not associate myself with that kind of thing, but I have seen what dagga can do. The finest and smartest team of horses I have ever seen drawing a cart at a show—I showed horses in my day as well, but this was not my team—was a team of eight horses that had been given a bit of “boom”—as we called dagga in those days—in their fodder. What a sight that was! They were high-spirited and proud, their ears pricked up and their tails in the air, but they were played out very soon. Then they were just like a team of transport riders’ donkeys, listless and apathetic.

Just like the CPs! [Interjections.]

That is what dagga does to one; it makes one ready to take on the world, but the effect does not last long. It is like the dance of an old woman—she is barely on the dance floor when she has to lie down! [Interjections.]

Mandrax is our next greatest problem. The seizure of dagga and mandrax is increasing terribly, but we simply have not managed to clamp down on it. There is a deficiency, therefore, in the spectrum of the punishments in respect of this legislation. That is why it is necessary that stricter punishments be imposed for dealing in drugs, and that greater discretion be given to the courts in imposing sentences. What we want is not mere punishment, but appropriate punishment. Mr Chairman, in today’s edition of Die Burger an appeal is made to all bodies to determine the true magnitude of the drug problem. Only then can effective planning take place to combat the problem and can facilities and services be established for the treatment of those who are caught up in the grip of drugs. It is the responsibility of the entire community to combat drug abuse. The emphasis should be on the cultivation of a healthy standard of living in the preventive action as well as in the treatment of the drug addicts.

As the hon member for Middelburg said in the standing committee, this Bill has elicited very little debating; but I should also like to support it. I want to point out to you, however—as I have said before—that in my opinion a good, decent wine is not what is at issue here. Wine is a food! Just look at me! It is a noble food! Treat it in a noble way and with respect. I support this measure, and I support this food aspect even more strongly.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Worcester. He has a way of saying a nice thing in a nice way and lending force to it by his sense of humour. I shall refer briefly to the alcohol part of his speech again later. At one stage I was not completely sure whether he was in favour of or opposed to the use of dagga when he began to refer to horses, because that is my other passion; but when he ended with the team of donkeys, then I was sure he was opposed to the use of dagga.

However, I also listened to the hon member for Hillbrow.

†I listened with attention to the hon member for Hillbrow, and after he had finished his speech I was not sure whether he was in favour of this legislation or not. May I ask the hon member for Hillbrow across the floor whether he is in favour of this legislation or not?

Did you hear my speech?

I heard your speech and I still do not know! [Interjections.]

*While I was listening to the hon member, it sounded to me as though he was opposed to drugs, and then it is only logical that he should be in favour of this new kind of legislation. However, we are now in the dark, because we do not know for sure if the hon member is in favour of it or not. [Interjections.]

Hon members might perhaps ask me, being the fourth speaker on this side of the House, if there is still something new to be said about this piece of legislation, and if, in fact, there is something new to be said, whether it is necessary to say it. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Sasolburg that the answer is a very definite “yes”. It is very necessary, because he also had a share in the matter which I now want to rectify. The four opposition parties, or should I rather say, little opposition parties, have been creating the impression during the past few days—they actually said so in so many words—that we are merely whiling away the time here in Parliament with trivialities.

†The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, among other things, referred to “only these feeble matters”. He said that we were dragging out this session unnecessarily “with trivialities” and “feeble matters”.

*I think it is an absolute disgrace that these four little opposition parties—they could perhaps be classified as trivialities that sometimes do feeble things—are adopting this attitude. The legislation before Parliament at the moment, and specifically this legislation on drugs, is extremely important legislation. I should like the impression created by the opposition that we are engaged in trivialities to be eliminated as soon as possible. [Interjections.]

From my own experience—having been involved with the Defence Force for four years, where we were also up against this problem, and after having been a district surgeon and having practised as a surgeon for 25 years—I want to tell hon members that the effect that drugs have on people is nothing but a slow death of body and soul. When one sees the things that happen as a result of drug abuse one realises that one is not dealing with feeble things here. These are not trivialities.

One should try to determine the extent of a problem. I think the hon the Minister hit the nail on the head this week-end when he said that very urgent scientific research was needed, and I am in full agreement with him. However, there are also methods, when adequate research does not exist, of trying to determine how serious a problem is. One of these methods is simply to keep browsing through the daily newspapers. When I wanted to prepare myself for this little speech, I thought to myself: I shall just wait until the day of the speech and then I shall collect a few newspapers and get enough particulars from them—that is how serious this problem is. One could take any day’s newspapers.

This legislation was to have come up for discussion last Friday, and I glanced through the Citizen of the same day. An article under the headline “Miami is a nest of conspiracy” appeared in that newspaper:

†I do not want to quote too much from this very interesting article…

Drug-related murders are common, many of them carried out with a popular tool of the drug trade, submachineguns.

On the same day I also read an article on this topic in the latest edition of Reader’s Digest.

*There is a long article on drugs in this week’s edition of Sarie. One can read something that provides information about this problem in the Press every day. That is how serious it is.

The hon the Minister furnished interesting statistics, to which hon members also referred. In the Annual Report of the Commissioner of the South African Police of 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 we find the following interesting statistics on page 7, under the heading “The South African Narcotics Bureau”. There were 46 241 cases in connection with the possession, use and cultivation of and dealing in dagga, and in this respect 48 417 people were arrested. One could continue in that vein. Statistics are also given on the possession of and dealing in Mandrax tablets, as well as on cocaine, opium and LSD offences. Altogether more than 50 000 people were arrested in connection with drug offences.

In English we have the expression: “I make bold to say…”, or words to that effect. I have heard how the former Senator Jack Loock always used to say: “Ek maak my stout om te sê …” instead of saying: “Ek verstout my om te sê…”. I think I also want to “maak myself stout” and point out that a total of 490 people were arrested for the illegal purchase of rough or uncut diamonds. Furthermore, approximately 442 people were arrested for the illegal possession of diamonds. I now want to “maak myself stout” and tell the hon the Minister I think it is time this hon Minister had a word with the hon the Minister of Justice. Those policemen who are setting traps to entice people into dealing in diamonds, should rather be used to deal with this drug problem. In that year there were not even 1 000 cases of illicit diamond dealing, while approximately 50 000 people were killing other people with drugs. It is nothing more, nothing less. I am perhaps being a little bit “stout” when I say this, but although I am speaking rather tongue-in-cheek, I am nevertheless in earnest about what I am saying. I think the police who are setting traps to entice people who are dealing in diamonds, could much rather be used to deal with these serious cases.

In conclusion I want to say that I support this legislation and that I support the hon the Minister in his plea for more research. More scientific research should be done on the actual extent of the problem and on the actual consequences and physical effects of these drugs. The hon member for Brits, as well as other hon members, referred to the question of dagga on the one hand and alcohol on the other. You know, Sir, I sometimes find it quite ludicrous when someone at a party tosses down one double whisky after another and then tells you how terribly dangerous dagga is.

There are Whites who, because of their culture, are seriously opposed to dagga, and there are Blacks, to whom reference was made, who, because of their culture, are not nearly so strongly opposed to it. I think one of the underlying problems is, of course, the fact that dagga is a stepping-stone to LSD and that sort of thing. In the Black’s culture of those years, when he smoked dagga as part of his culture, there was no LSD which could have been the next stepping-stone. In fact, no cocaine was available. In my opinion the modern world has therefore given it a totally different dimension.

However, I want to reiterate, to the hon member for Worcester as well, that because I am of the opinion that alcohol is relatively acceptable to our society, I think we may sometimes be inclined to overstate the dangers of dagga and to understate the dangers of alcohol. In this respect I think scientific research would help us a lot.

I advocate more scientific research on prevention though. We must place greater emphasis on prevention, on rehabilitation and on the upgrading of housing and the environment for example. I want to mention just one example. Some time ago the hon Member of Parliament for Bosmont and I went to look at Riverlea. That is a Coloured residential area in Johannesburg. As in the case of White residential areas, one part is situated above the railway line and the other part below the railway line. The part below the railway line does not have electricity. For example, I was in one woman’s home, and her bill for paraffin, wood and coal is approximately three times higher than it would have been if she had had electricity.

That area, next to the main road, is a town which is situated next to Nasrek, with all its bright electric lights, which burn all night. That little area lies there in the dark. I want to make a plea for that area. We can really brighten up the lives of those people by fighting the drug problem properly, by upgrading and lighting up that place, literally and figuratively.

I gladly support this legislation.

Mr Chairman and hon members of the House, permit me firstly to thank the standing committee for its unanimous support of this legislation. In doing so, I should like to thank the hon member for Brits for the work he did as Chairman of the standing committee owing to the fact that the actual chairman of the standing committee was ill at that stage. The hon member for Brits led the standing committee very nicely and with great enthusiasm towards the unanimous support of this legislation. Therefore I do not want to spend too much time replying.

†The hon member for Hillbrow said that he stood up in shock and anger. However, he looks neither angry nor shocked. [Interjections.] He did not show those emotions at all. As a matter of fact, he looked friendly, as is his nature. Unfortunately, I have to put him right on some of the aspects he mentioned because, as is so often the case on that side of the House, there are so many inaccuracies. In the same tradition, there were of course many inaccuracies today as well.

First of all, I should like to tell the hon member that there is no way in which we can compare the United States of America’s drug problem with South Africa’s. I shall quote some examples. During 1985 we had no cases of heroin abuse whatsoever. You know that heroin abuse is one of the biggest problems in America. So we should not equate the problem of the United States with that in South Africa as far as drugs are concerned. We do have a problem, but our problem is that of dagga. During 1985 we confiscated no less than 442 000 kg with a market value of R1 000 per kg. We confiscated only 1 167 grams of cocaine, which is very little compared again with the United States of America.

Mandrax is our second biggest problem. As a matter of fact, we confiscated during 1985 no fewer than 7 735 tablets with a market value of R3,5 million; other drugs such as opium, only 100 grams and LSD, 1 294 units, with a market value of R12 490.

However, there is a problem when we look at the increase from 1983-84 to 1985-86. The increase in the usage especially of mandrax was from 251 000 tablets in the previous year, to 427 000; that is an escalation of 88%, which I think is important to note. That of dagga escalated with 47%.

However, I would like to tell the hon member that we do have a policy in South Africa as far as drugs are concerned. The South African Government—and it is important that members should know this—is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971, and currently enjoys observer status on the 40-member Commission on Narcotic Drugs—the decision-making body comprising of the signatories to the conventions which are administered by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. It is important that we should know that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs is currently in the process of compiling a new convention to be titled “Convention on the Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances” which will embrace both conventions.

I must tell hon members that I feel a measure of pride about the fact that in South Africa we have a Schedule 4 of the convention which does not fall within the ambit of the principal Act but that schedule which generally corresponds with Schedule 5 of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act of 1965 contains the anti-depressants, tranquillisers and hypnotics such as the benzodiapenes. This we did long before it was regulated internationally. In other words, the point I want to make is that in this regard we are ahead of the international situation.

The hon member asked me about the problem of those who are languishing—that was the word he used—in prisons. As a matter of fact, most of those arrested on drug charges were given suspended sentences because they were first-time offenders. [Interjections.] From the outset the courts avoided the mandatory sentence by applying section 297(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 and its predecessor. This section provides that if a court convicts a person of an offence in respect of which any law prescribes a minimum punishment, the court must pass sentence but may order—it has to use its discretion—that any part of the sentence be suspended for a period not exceeding five years. It was therefore competent for any court to order that a person should serve part of his sentence and that the remainder be suspended. To my knowledge this has never happened. It was before section 2A of the principal Act was enacted even competent in cases where a minimum sentence of five years had to be imposed to order that a person be detained until the rising of the court and to suspend the whole sentence. Section 2A of the principal Act closed this loophole. Since the purpose of this Bill is to restore the court’s discretion, section 2A of the principal Act will no longer be necessary or appropriate. I think it is important to record the fact that they are not languishing in jail.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if he is aware of the appeal in the case of Darryl Smith versus the State where Smith, on a drug charge of possessing 30½ Obex tablets, was sentenced to a minimum of 5 years in prison? The case was taken on appeal and the decision was upheld on the presumptions. The case has now gone to the Appellate Division for decision. Is the hon the Minister aware of that?

Mr Chairman, I am of course not aware of all the cases, but I do not think it is relevant in this situation because we are dealing with a new and I think very important Bill which is before us. [Interjections.] We are dealing with a Bill which really evolved from the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission, as hon members know, and from suggestions by two judges president in South Africa. I also think we are dealing with a new situation which I am quite sure…

I will show you the judgements; I have them here.

I do not think that is relevant in this situation. The relevant point is that we have more discretion in the Bill before us and that it is no less effective than previously.

*We are therefore still empowered to sentence persons dealing in drugs to 25 years imprisonment, and I think that that is a very valuable penalty to have in any situation. No one must therefore think that this is a watering-down of the existing legislation with regard to drugs. It merely makes provision for greater discretion—something which is very important, to my mind.

†The hon member for Hillbrow quoted from an article in Reader’s Digest, but only referred to page 28. He did not, however, say what edition it was—what year or month.

The Reader’s Digest of September 1986.

Good! I believe it is important that Hansard should carry that reference in full. It is important too for the hon member’s own sake. If the hon member does not give the full particulars in relation to sources from which he quotes nobody will be able to look them up. [Interjections.]

Well, there you have it now!

Thank you. I am glad he has done it because I feel for him. [Interjections.] I have a great feeling for the hon member for Hillbrow. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much!

In conclusion, Sir, I should mention—because I do not want to refer to the hon member for Hillbrow again—that all the various Acts which have any bearing on medicine are now being consolidated, and we will have that legislation introduced here next year.

*Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits sounded like someone who was familiar with drugs.

Oh my goodness! [Interjections.]

He personally visited Thailand. He says the greatest problem lies in the absence of a proper educational process. I completely agree with him. The hon member for Brits said that a re-evaluation of community and family life in this regard is important. He touched on the heart of the matter. He also referred to drug-taking by children. In this connection I want to assure him that we are only waiting for the results of the survey being conducted by social workers in schools to be completed.

On 12 March 1986 the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters set a new plan in motion. We are now implementing the new plan. It is to the advantage of hon members of this House—particularly of course of the hon member for Hillbrow—to know that at present there are six State-run rehabilitation centres for Whites, Blacks and Coloureds, as well as 13 registered rehabilitation centres—12 for Whites and one for Coloureds—being run by private welfare organisations. There is also a registered rehabilitation centre for Blacks in Gazankulu, and in Soweto we also have a very good facility for drug addicts. The major problem there is glue-sniffing and petrol-sniffing.

I am very glad that the hon member for Brits also explained the consolidation of all legislation dealing with medicines. The hon member is undoubtedly an expert on this matter. We will definitely follow up his recommendations regarding children.

The hon member for Middelburg gave a very clear clinical picture—the effect of drugs on drug-takers—and pointed out the dangers of alcohol, in particular, for which I thank him. He also referred to drug-dealers and I want to repeat that they have 25-year prison sentences in store for them. I want to assure hon members that this legislation will be applied relentlessly in future.

They should get the death penalty!

The hon member for Worcester has medicine in his office—medicine which is not registered, I understand. [Interjections.] We will be dealing with that matter in the new consolidated legislation regarding medicine next year. [Interjections.] The hon member for Worcester is undoubtedly an expert on horses and older women. [Interjections.]

Particularly the latter!

I want to thank the hon member for his good contribution to this debate. The hon member Dr Vilonel made a very telling point when he said that the hon member for Hillbrow had said that we had no more important legislation to discuss, and that the legislation appearing on the Order Paper was trivial. I agree with the hon member Dr Vilonel. It is scandalous, absolutely scandalous, for the hon member for Hillbrow to say something like that. We are dealing with legislation which will safeguard the future of our children where drug-abuse is concerned, and the hon member for Hillbrow said that that was trivial! It is scandalous! It is absolutely scandalous! [Interjections.]

The R50 000 in connection with traps set for diamond-buyers is an aspect I will gladly convey to the hon the Minister of Justice. In conclusion the hon member referred to alcohol. I merely want to point out that Sanca is busy with a major programme in this connection. I believe that it will indeed show results.

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful to hon members supporting this Bill. I am very grateful that the hon member for Hillbrow is supporting this measure. I am also grateful for the excellent co-operation of the standing committee.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill before us is a financial measure and hon members know from experience that the Bill introduces amendments to various pension laws, amendments which have become necessary to facilitate the smooth functioning of the administration of pension matters, to regulate the pension rights of members to better effect and generally to keep pace with developments in the field of pensions.

This Bill also gives effect to concessions made to pensioners during the current session of Parliament.

It goes without saying that the provisions of the Bill are of a technical nature. I nevertheless want to highlight some of these clauses for the benefit of hon members. In the determination of a military pension, one often loses sight of the fact that different injuries affect the daily lives of human beings in different ways. Certain military pensioners can, notwithstanding the impediment resulting from their disability, lead normal lives. Others are less fortunate, however, because they are dependent on someone else for their basic needs. To my mind it is only fair and just for pensioners labouring under such a handicap to receive additional compensation.

Although the allowance for which provision is made is an attendant’s allowance, no condition will be laid down stipulating that a beneficiary has to be assisted by a full-time attendant. The degree of a pensioner’s dependence will be determined by the medical pensions officer. So if we have a military pensioner who cannot, for some or other reason, care for himself, whether on a part-time basis or on a full-time basis, he can thus obtain this allowance to compensate for the services of such an attendant. In other words, it is an allowance which is additional to the pension itself.

There will be two rates for the payment of the proposed allowance so as to obviate the problems normally experienced with compensation based on the everything-or-nothing principle. It is envisaged that the allowance be divided into two categories. These categories can broadly be classified as a (a) major extent and (b) minor extent of dependence, with compensation fixed at between 25% and 12½% of the pension respectively.

For most people membership of a pension fund is their major asset. Since I am dealing with this, let me state unequivocally that since its inception in 1973 the State Pension Fund has used only 43% of its capital and therefore has no cash-flow problems whatsoever. If there are people in this House—and there are—who want to make political capital out of that, let me tell them that they are saddling a horse that can never win the race, because the fact of the matter is that there is enough money for everyone in that pension fund.

The truth is that people are reluctant to accept any appointment or transfer—this is important—that could possibly prejudice their pension rights. That is why sections 15 and 20 of the General Pensions Act of 1979 were enacted. The protection afforded by section 15 is twofold. Firstly a member of a pension fund can be declared a dormant member. He therefore ceases to be a contributing member and his pension rights are retained for him until he retires on pension or dies. Secondly provision is also made for such a member, in exceptional cases, to retain his membership of the pension fund. If he is declared a dormant member it is, of course, with his permission.

As it stands at present, section 15 of the General Pensions Act of 1979 is only applicable to members who are appointed to the service or elected as members of certain Government or State institutions.

It is very important to note that the purpose of the amendment in clause 7 is to do away with these restrictions with a view to enabling the Director General to apply section 15 to all appointments and transfers of members of State pension funds to the service of any employer, including an employer in the private sector. So a member of a State pension fund is now free to transfer his pension to an employer in the private sector if he takes up employment there.

†The principle underlying clause 9 of the Bill is that any member of a State pension fund who has to perform his duties in dangerous or uncertain circumstances should have the assurance that, should his services be terminated prematurely through no fault of his own, he would be put on pension if no suitable alternative employment in the Republic can be offered to him.

The persons to whom section 20 of the General Pensions Act applies are firstly members of the staff of a Black university who are replaced by the appointment of Black persons; secondly, South African citizens seconded to universities in the TBVC countries; and thirdly, persons who may lose their jobs—this is important—as a result of intimidation, the kind of physical intimidation which we see now in South Africa.

We must get one thing clear. Section 20 of the General Pensions Act of 1979 does not purport to be a sanction for a quick and easy pension. It should also not be seen only in a cold and stark perspective. It should rather be seen as a gesture of appreciation for the work that these people are doing and it should serve as an assurance to them that should they lose their employment or if it becomes impossible for them to perform their duties, they will not be left in the lurch.

The remainder of the Bill is of consequential nature or is explained in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I take great pleasure in associating myself with the hon the Minister who has just resumed his seat. The Pension Laws Amendment Bill has my whole-hearted support. [Interjections.] I was most gratified to deduce from his Second Reading speech that the Minister was giving the House a précis of what was presented to us in this specific Bill.

In addition, I find it very pleasant to be able to inform the House that we had a very good working relationship with one another on the standing committee and I am referring to all the members of the standing committee from this House, the other Houses and all parties. I wish to thank them for their hearty co-operation and support. There are many able people on that committee and it is a privilege and a pleasure to lead them.

In the first place I should very much like to make a point. It emerged from the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech that the Government was very jealous of the pension services of our country. For this reason action was recently launched to guard jealously against people’s pensions, built up with difficulty and many years’ service, being nullified for reasons beyond their control and forcing them to pay for mistakes made by other people in some way or other. This is very important and I should like to support the hon the Minister in what he said.

Secondly, without wishing to be or to sound socialistic, the Government further wants to ensure that the maximum number of people start building up the best pensions for themselves from the earliest possible date. We believe in the generality of this; each person should have a pension. We further believe that a pension should not be capable of termination. Regardless of the pension fund to which a person belongs, no one should be able to terminate his membership, draw the money and buy a car or something else with it while the State then has to care for such a person in future. Before one knows where one is, one has then embarked upon socialism. I appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that we establish this principle as soon as possible.

Thirdly, we believe in the transferability of a pension. This is incorporated in this amending Bill as regards certain categories which did not exist previously. I can give innumerable examples of this.

I wish to establish the fact that a pension is not a right a person may claim. It is more in the nature of a responsibility devolving upon every citizen in the country regardless of his race, sex, creed, etc. If there are working people in the country who are not building up a pension for themselves, they are indirectly doing the country endless damage. I therefore call upon the general public and on influential people to ensure that everyone who starts working somewhere immediately commences building up his pension so that he is able to support himself at the end. The Government can then do its utmost to carry out its responsibilities in caring for compassionate cases, for which there is also provision in this Bill. Instead of having the Government and other people building pension funds, the pensioner does it himself.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? Would the hon member give us an indication of what advice he would proffer to the farming community in respect of farm workers on the question of pensions?

That is a good question. I think exactly the same principle applies there that, when one has a faithful worker who does his work during “working hours” from Monday to Friday from seven to five and Saturday until one o’clock, one should ensure that that labourer is included in a situation in which he can start building a pension for himself as well. When he reaches retirement age, he will already have built a pension for himself. The responsibility will then not rest on the State alone to care for the wrong people among senior citizens in their old age.

Mr Chairman, I should like to give a concise summary of the Bill before us. I support the amendments moved by the hon the Minister. In a nutshell, quite a number of measures have been streamlined here. In addition, a measure is being introduced to care for disabled pensioners in particular. Here I am referring to military pensioners who have become disabled in consequence of serious injury—in other words, those who are incapable of caring for themselves.

Clause 5 provides for military pensions to become retrospective. No such provision existed in the Military Pensions Act, 1976. This left a great vacuum which has now been filled by this clause.

Clause 6 deals in particular with the position of judges. Their position was reasonably unfavourable especially in the case of interrupted acting service or when they were not on the Bench immediately prior to retirement. Judges were not credited with acting service performed during interrupted periods on the Bench. Excellent provision is now being made for them and I wish to thank the hon the Minister and his department for having put this matter right.

As regards independent states, categories are now being extended to enable the Director-General to provide for dormant members and safeguard the position of such people to a great extent. The pension rights and privileges especially of those employed in national states under the Southern African system in particular are now being safeguarded if various uncertainties should arise. They may retire on pension without paying the contributions unless their position changes.

The regulations enacted in clause 10 put a number of matters right.

This amending Bill is a splendid piece of work, especially from the side of the officials now occupying the official bay. I am pleased that the hon the Minister introduced it in the House. It has the whole-hearted support of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Brits.

I also wish to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development who introduced this measure in the House. It is a fact that in the times in which we are living many people in our country are struggling and existing below the breadline. This measure now provides for an improvement in the condition of life of those people. I therefore find it a privilege to express the hearty support of this side of the House for this measure.

I also consider it important that this be recorded this afternoon. I am not eager to cast aspersions on Opposition parties in any way but I think the public should take note of the attitude of such parties regarding pensioners and the less affluent and less privileged in our country. [Interjections.] The National Party may be accused of much but this Government cannot be accused of not seeing to the interests of our pensioners at all times.

The measure before the House this afternoon was placed in the Statute Book in 1973. I listened to the comments of the Opposition but I should like to remind the hon the Minister—this afternoon is the first occasion that he has come as the Minister with an amending measure in respect of this pension law and the Government Service Pension Act of 1973—of what the former Minister of Health and Welfare, Dr Connie Mulder, said in his Second Reading speech in this House. We should then judge his action over the past years in the light of his Second Reading speech of 1973. (Hansard, col 8292 et seq).

I take pleasure in quoting Dr Connie Mulder here this afternoon. He said:

I ask you, Sir, who has weak knees now? The hon gentleman proceeded and said:

I ask myself today, without derogatory reference to a former Minister, whether he is still in the front line now.

He stands in the front line for the Whites. [Interjections.]

The Government Service Pension Act of 1973 consolidated five separate pension funds, namely the Public Service Pension Fund, the Permanent Force Pension Fund, the South African Police and Prisons Pension Fund, the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund and the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund. Those five measures were consolidated in one Act and this facilitated the task considerably. Many of the amendments being effected in the measure today are the result of the allocation of the activities of Ministers.

I next wish to refer to the Military Pensions Act of 1976 now being amended here to provide for the payment of a special allowance to a military pensioner to acquire the services of somebody to provide him or her with full-time or part-time assistance. I wish to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon what the future position of a pensioner will be who at this stage applies for that allowance which is calculated on the basis of the degree of his disability or physical handicap. We know that, as the years pass, someone who qualifies for a smaller amount at present will qualify for the larger amount in five years’ time. I want the hon the Minister’s assurance this afternoon that such a person may apply for the higher amount again. I am exceptionally grateful that—an anomaly which is being eliminated to my mind—provision is now being made in the Pensions Act that regulations with retrospective force may be issued—in the case of military pensions too. I think we are eliminating a certain form of discrimination here. In supporting the measure, especially as regards military pensions, I do so with great appreciation of those people prepared to take up arms, don a uniform and ensure the security of our country. I should therefore like to say this afternoon how very regrettable I found it that the hon member for Durban Point allowed himself to be caught in a trap. I had expected that, if there were one person who should rise and participate in this debate on these pensions, it would be the very member for Durban Point. I find it a pity that he permitted himself to be caught in such a trap.

Talk to the hon Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, I wish to tell the hon member for Durban Point we may have our differences—I do not wish to express an opinion on them this afternoon—but it is our people outside who are suffering and I hold it against the hon member for Durban Point that he did not participate this afternoon. [Interjections.] I want to tell you that the number of people receiving military pensions at this stage totals 12 101 and the monthly amount paid to these people is R2 680 783,00. On behalf of the 12 101 military pensioners I wish to thank this Government this afternoon for another concession.

Clause 9 deals with the case of a person whose pension is jeopardised as a result of threats of violence against him. Here we are dealing with someone whose pension is in jeopardy because of circumstances not created by him and where the circumstances are therefore beyond his control. That problem is also dealt with in this Bill.

In my opinion clause 10 contains a very important provision as it deals with the control, management and auditing of certain pension funds by the Auditor-General. I think it important for us to ensure the safety of our people’s pensions at all times.

In addition, I wish to discuss the increase of the gratuity or the non-recurring amounts and the increased amounts payable to people in occupations in which they have to work in dusty surroundings. This problem is addressed in the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. The exploitation of our minerals is of paramount importance to us in this country. I represent a constituency containing various mines so I also regard it as important for us to protect those people employed in dusty surroundings and who contract an incurable disease in the process. For this reason I also wish to express my thanks that these people have been remembered and that an increased amount will be paid to them from 1 October.

I am sure the hon the Minister will permit me to refer in addition to the fact that there are 3 968 people involved here who receive a monthly pension of this nature. These people were certified before 1 October 1973 but cases certified after that date receive a non-recurring amount only. At the end of August 1986 an amount of R1 507 094 was paid to 83 such people—I am referring only to Whites and Coloureds—which represents an average of R126 000 per person.

I really have a problem regarding this matter. I am a member of a standing committee and of a committee investigating the entire problem of pensions. I consider it important, too, that we should examine this measure and far rather consider paying a smaller amount to ensure that these people actually receive a monthly pension. People may apply this amount which they receive—which is a considerable one—for some other purpose than to ensure that they do not suffer in their old age. I want to request seriously that we examine this.

I also consider it important that we examine the entire question concerning the payment of gratuities—whether to a public servant or whoever. We should far rather consider paying a smaller gratuity to ensure that those people receive a monthly pension on which they can live.

I should like to refer to a last matter which concerns the hon the Minister to a lesser degree but hon members may perhaps differ with me this afternoon. I wish to say, however, we should look into the matter of who drafts our laws and I should like to say, Sir, I discussed the matter with the man who drafted this Bill. I ask myself whether the time has not come for our legal draftsmen to look into the way in which our laws are phrased.

If one examines clause 12, one sees that increases were announced over the past 12 years which had to be written into the Act. This was inserted in 1974, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and also in this measure in 1986. I told the jurist this morning we would have to agree to differ. His reply was that it made the task of calculation easier. One looks up what someone earned in 1974 as well as in all subsequent years but it is all written into one clause here. I honestly believe the time has come for our legal draftsmen to take time to examine this. I think the Act of 1973 made provision for increases. There are many arguments against this—and I am no legal expert—but my request is merely that we write the laws in language which the ordinary man can also understand. I am pleased to support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the standpoints expressed by the hon member for Witbank. I should like to confine myself to clause 4 of this Bill.

I think it is to be welcomed that we are making an allowance available to the seriously disabled too. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon Whips wish to converse, there is plenty of room outside. The hon member may proceed.

I think it is to be welcomed that an allowance is now to be available to the seriously disabled. No one who has not personally had to care for someone appreciates what great problems this causes and I consider it a type of debt of honour which the community owes those people. Nevertheless I also regard it as necessary to add immediately that money cannot compensate for what those people have lost and it is important for the community not to salve its conscience now that it is paying an increased allowance to those disabled people and not feel that it has done its share. I think it important that there should be a realisation in the community that these are the very things money cannot buy, for instance, concern one person has for another and the loving care essential in these cases. This is the type of thing money cannot buy and which the community owes to these people.

When we examine what is made possible by this clause, I should like to ask the hon the Minister—although we welcome the fact that an allowance is now being paid—whether it is not also desirable for finance preferably to be made available in the long term to establish facilities or institutions in the community to provide care on a permanent basis for those seriously disabled people.

The crux of the matter is that these persons have to be helped to regain their independence as far as possible. It means that these people have to be helped to restore their self-image—that is to say, to develop a realistic self-image—where it has been shattered by a disability. It further entails the support of this disabled person so that he may accept the reality of his situation. Money can never give him these things. However large the allowance we might pay this type of disabled person, it would not ensure that such a person would be lovingly cared for and assisted, particularly in the development of a positive attitude toward himself.

It is also necessary for funds to be available and the attitude of the community constructively orientated toward these people because the community also contributes to the recovery or inclusion of these people or makes a contribution to enable these persons to regain their independence as far as possible.

I should like to emphasise that these community structures or institutions which should be established are of more importance in the long term than allowances and pensions which are paid to persons because provision is made on a sounder basis, especially for the permanent care of these seriously disabled people.

We welcome this measure and I should very much like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation and gratitude to many of these parents or persons responsible for the care of these disabled people. I also consider it necessary to express our thanks for these possible new developments. I take pleasure in supporting the Pension Laws Amendment Bill in these few words.

Mr Chairman, permit me to thank the standing committee for its members’ unanimous support of this Bill with the amendments I attached to it for their consideration.

The hon member for Brits is the chairman of the standing committee and, according to my information, mutual relations in that committee are excellent, the work proceeded very well and all supported this Bill. I wish to thank the hon member for the excellent contribution he once again made today; it is obvious he knows the world of pensions. I also thank him for the way in which he replied to the hon member for Roodeplaat; in my opinion there is no doubt that it was a very good answer.

The way in which we debate in the House nowadays is rather monotonous; it seems to me we should put more questions to one another. If someone therefore wishes to put a question to me, he should feel free to do so.

The point I wish to make is that there is no room for socialism here, as the hon member for Brits said. I believe that when the Select Committee on Pensions submits its report—I have been informed we shall be receiving it shortly—it will also be of value to all hon members in this House to see what the hard work of its members has produced. We are looking forward to it.

The hon member for Witbank made a very important appeal here. He also expressed his gratitude for the assistance provided to the Military Pension Scheme. I want to tell him, however, that we discussed the allowances of military pensions schemes at great length and in great depth with the South African Legion which is the official mouthpiece of military pensioners, as hon members are aware. We have a problem here. If, for instance, we have two military pensioners with the same degree of disability but one is a graduate whereas the other has not matriculated, it is obvious that the graduate pensioner would have been entitled to a higher salary than the one who had not matriculated. Consequently we made that distinction so that the graduate will receive R1 000 a month, a person with a matriculation certificate R750 and one without such a certificate R600 a month. This was done after long consultation with both the Defence Force and the South African Legion.

The South African Legion is not happy about this. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am delighted the hon member for Durban Point has finally said something. [Interjections.] According to my information, the Legion is very happy about this and supported it fully. Nevertheless I am grateful that the hon member has eventually spoken. I hope he will add something more. Mr Chairman, does the hon member for Durban Point not perhaps wish to make a speech?

May I put a question to the hon the Minister?

With the greatest of pleasure.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he has noted the unanimous recommendation the standing committee made to him that the allowance paid on these military pensions should be based on a percentage of the top grade, that is the R1 000 per month received by a degreed pensioner, and not be subject to the three categories because that is unfair, since the cost of an attendant is the same. Has the hon the Minister noted that recommendation? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Durban Point is tempted to make a speech; he wants to make a speech. He is desperate to make a speech. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, it is wonderful to see the way in which he reacts. He really wants to get into this. [Interjections.] He honestly cannot resist the temptation and I thank him for that. We shall look into the matter again and will discuss it with the South African Legion. The problem, however—the hon member must surely agree with me on this—is that the largest proportion of pensioners falling into this category will be youngsters who are currently returning from the operational areas. It is very difficult to put these youngsters into the top category since some of them do not even have a matric certificate. Nevertheless, we will go into and consider this matter. The reason for this is as a result of our discussions with the South African Legion.

*The hon member for Witbank referred to cases of silicosis and asbestosis. The entire matter of workmen’s compensation is currently under discussion and I am sure we shall come up with legislation in this regard next year. I am pleased the hon member raised that matter.

In addition, the hon member made the point of a smaller gratuity and a pension over a longer period. I am sure the Standing Committee on Pensions will examine this. My department has taken note of it and we shall also give it further attention.

I wish to thank the hon member Dr Rina Venter for the expert contribution she made. I wish to inform her that the organisers of the Year of the Disabled are actually paying attention to the matter she raised. I have requested the Medical Research Council to investigate all causes of physical disability and also how those people function within the community at present and how we may improve our care of them. I expect their report next year. My thanks again to the hon member for her contribution.

It merely remains for me to thank the members of my department, especially Mr Piet Swart. In mentioning legal draftsmen, I wish to tell the hon member for Witbank that there is only one reason why Bills are drawn up so that we ordinary people cannot understand them and that is that attorneys and advocates would otherwise not have any work! [Interjections.] Sir, before the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning reprimands me for my opinion of the legal profession…

Look out! You will need them yet. [Interjections.]

… I merely want to say one has to keep the legal draftsmen near one. That is the only solution.

I believe this Pension Laws Amendment Bill will hold very great benefits for a large number of people. I therefore find it very pleasant to say the standing committee has approved this Bill and that this Government can offer it to our pensioners.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the mere fact that the hon member for Yeoville did not rise to speak, is an indication to me that he agrees with the amendment. [Interjections.] I should like to thank him for that. I also want to make it quite clear straight away that this side of the Committee would very much like to support this amendment, and we do so most strongly.

We are living in extraordinary circumstances in South Africa; and it requires good planning to cope with those extraordinary circumstances. It is also clear to me that extraordinary circumstances are prevailing in this Chamber as well. This side of the Committee is quite prepared to cope with them as well. [Interjections.] During the Second Reading of this Bill it became quite apparent that the restrictions imposed by various countries on the import and marketing of the renowned Kruger Rand had had a material effect on the production and marketing of this quite exceptional coin. This led to the Act having to be amended in such a way that commemoration coins—they are nothing new in South Africa—be recognised as coins and as legal tender. As became quite apparent from the previous discussion, this principle is not a new one. The Post Office—under the control of the Minister of Communication—issues quite a number of series of commemorative stamps every year to commemorate special occasions and events. Both commemorative stamps are bona fide stamps which have real value and are of intrinsic importance. However there are other series of stamps, such as Easter stamps and Christmas stamps, which of course have no intrinsic value.

In the past commemorative coins were frequently issued which often had great value as collectors items, but which had no face value, and which could not be recognised as legal tender. The reason why this measure has now to be made with retrospective effect is obvious, as the hon the Minister explained in the Second Reading debate. This Protea coin will be used to commemorate important occasions—for example the Johannesburg centennial—but at the same time it will fall into the same category as the famous Kruger coin.

I want to add something here. The mere fact that this legislation has to be made with retrospective effect focuses the attention on the whole issue of sanctions. Today one gets the impression that in constitutional affairs,

and also as far as world affairs are concerned—virtually in all affairs—there is nothing but self-interest. Here I am referring in particular to self-interest in the short-term. A few countries that agitated for the ban on the import of Kruger coins actually did so for no other reason than for the sake of their own gain. In the absence of the extremely popular Kruger coin while the Canadian and other gold coins popped up everywhere.

Who are the actual people—particularly in the USA—who speak out so strongly in favour of sanctions against South Africa? It is clear that South Africa is no longer a foreign policy matter in American politics, but has become a domestic policy matter. Their only concern is self-interest, the election on 4 November and things which are important to themselves in the short term.

I myself saw that in the process they would in the short-term do anything in their own interests. It is quite clear now that the hon the Minister, under these circumstances, had to devise a plan, and the plan was to make this legislation with retrospective effect so that the Protea coin and other commemorative coins would qualify as ordinary coins. For that reason it is a privilege for this side of the House to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member has put it well. The problem that has arisen is the retrospectively problem, because some coins have already been struck. With these few words I want to say I think the hon member for Paarl has explained the position very well.

Clause 2 negatived.

New Clause to follow Clause 1:

Mr Chairman, I move:

2. This Act shall be called the South African Mint and Coinage Amendment Act, 1986, and shall be deemed to have come into operation on 25 April 1986.

New Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The existing Board of Trade and Industry is the direct successor to a board established in terms of the Trade and Industries Act, 1924. That board, in turn, was the successor to an earlier board established by administrative process. The 1924 Act was superseded by the existing Act, no 19 of 1944, which is now to be repealed by the provisions of this Bill.

The existing Board of Trade and Industries, whose functions will be taken over by the proposed new Board, is largely concerned with the welfare, encouragement and protection of the manufacturing industry in the Republic. Judging by its contribution to the gross domestic product, for some time now the manufacturing industry has been the major sector in the RSA’s economy. There is also little doubt about the importance of the manufacturing industry in the growth process and, in particular, as a major provider of job opportunities in the RSA.

During the past 60 years the previous and present Board of Trade and Industries served as a stimulus for more rapid industrial development in the country by employing their expertise to furnish advice on the implementation of policy in the various fields of industry.

†Industries manufacturing textiles, clothing, footwear, electrical equipment, motor vehicles and many other products are indebted to these trade boards for their unfailing practice of judging every issue on basic economic merits. The stability recorded by many South African industries in their capacity utilisation in comparison with over seas countries can largely be credited to the measures recommended by these boards in the past.

It is interesting to note that the boards have been remarkably stable bodies. During the past 60 years, fewer than 40 persons have served as members, and only eight of them chaired the boards.

As hon members are aware, the question of customs duties and their effect on industry is one of the main areas of activity of the present board. This is especially the case at present where imports are being regulated by way of tariffs instead of by direct import control measures. In this way, the Board of Trade and Industry plays a prominent role in the protection of our local industries.

As hon members will appreciate, a country’s policy of fostering and protecting its industries is most important. For this very reason, the nature and the application of this country’s policy has been repeatedly investigated in the past. I am referring to the Viljoen Commission in 1957, the Steenkamp Committee in 1983, the Kleu Committee report in 1982 and, most recently, the Van der Horst Committee report of 1985.

The private sector was strongly represented on both the Kleu and the Van der Horst committees and played a significant role in the eventual formulation of the committees’ proposals to the Government. The Bill before us is a direct result of the Van der Horst Committee’s proposals, for it was felt that only a new and modern Act could embody the principles put forward by this committee. Consequently the Bill provides for the establishment of the new Board of Trade and Industry, with a wider mandate than the existing board. This extension should enable the new board to conduct its investigations expeditiously as well as innovatively whilst not diminishing the effectiveness with which it has always conducted its affairs.

It must be emphasised, however, that, as is the case with the existing board, the new board is an advisory board and has no executive power. The new board will be strengthened by the addition of trained professional manpower and better and more modern information-processing equipment.

I now would like to discuss some of the other important aspects of the Bill before us. The first of these is clause 3, which contains a short exposition of the objectives of the board. These objectives are the promotion of economic development in the Republic, as well as in the common customs area of the South African customs union, which widens the scope of the proposed board vis-à-vis the existing board. Fortunately, by comparison with the existing board… the Bill widens the new board’s functions. Some of the functions as set out in clause 4 are related to the effective utilisation of resources, utilisation of technology, international trade, trade relations, and the promotion of small businesses.

An interesting feature of the Bill is to be found in clause 9, which provides that:

The board may then delegate any of its powers to such a committee without divesting itself of any of those powers.

As far as the very important matter of disclosure of the board’s activities is concerned, clause 18 stipulates that every report and recommendation in connection with any amendment to the schedules of the Customs and Excise Act of 1964 must, as soon as possible, be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Trade and Industry. This also applies to any other report and recommendation made to the Minister concerned and which, in his opinion, could be made known without detriment to the public interest which is of general importance.

As a last reference to any specific clause of the Bill, I refer hon members to the provisions of clause 20, in which all the transitional provisions vis-a-vis the existing Act are contained. Amongst others, this provision allows for the current chairman, as well as members of the existing board, to take their place on the new board as from the commencement of the proposed Act. In these transitional provisions reference is also made to the disposal of any matter which was referred to the present Board of Trade and Industry before such commencement.

I would like to mention that a detailed explanatory manual of the board’s operations, activities and procedures has already been drafted, also in accordance with the recommendation of the Van der Horst committee, and this manual will be available to industry in the near future.

In conclusion I wish to thank the Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr Van der Horst, for their hard work and for their fine report. Furthermore, I extend my thanks to the chairman and members of the standing committee of Parliament for their penetrating evaluation of the legislation and for the improvements they have made to this Bill.

Finally, I wish to congratulate Dr L P McCrystal on his appointment as the new chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry, and pay tribute to the retiring chairman, Dr Kleu, who has served with such distinction over so many years.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. (1) the Board of Trade and Industry established by the Bill to have its own staff; and
2. (2) the said Board to submit an annual budget to the Minister of Trade and Industry and the Minister of Finance for the purposes of financing the Board from funds voted by Parliament.”.

The background to this Bill is a very serious situation indeed. South Africa has been losing the battle to export manufactured goods over a large number of years. Up to the recent decline in the value of the rand to unprecedented low levels the export of manufactured goods measured in volume terms had actually been declining. When one remembers that the Kleu strategy for industry had pinpointed manufacturing and the export of manufactured goods as the one way in which South Africa could be pulled out of its economic doldrums and enable it to achieve growth rates which would give it just a ghost of a chance of employing the bulk of the people who enter the labour market every year, the seriousness of the situation can be easily understood. A protection policy which was flexible, effective and sophisticated was essential.

The Board of Trade has failed to measure up to these criteria over a very long time. There have been endless complaints by organised industry through the medium of the Chamber of Industries and also by individual manufacturers.

A protection policy has to be flexible and effective and it must have the ability to be applied quickly as circumstances develop. However, none of these things has happened. An analysis over a long period of time has proved methods cumbersome and slow. It cannot respond quickly when goods are dumped in this country. Immense damage has been done to local industries in which people have invested heavily. There has also been a consequent loss of employment. Two significant committees were appointed.

Could you give me one or two examples of the cases to which you refer?

I have given many examples in past speeches.

I am just asking for one.

The Chamber of Industries has also written to the hon the Deputy Minister on the subject.

First the Steenkamp Committee was formed and subsequently the Van der Horst Committee to go into this and make recommendations as to how the situation could be improved. The fact that these committees were appointed shows that the situation was obviously extremely serious.

[Inaudible.]

The Van der Horst Committee went into the whole question of protection and made recommendations in so far as the Board of Trade and Industry was concerned. The recommendations they made were far-reaching and were specifically designed to increase the sophistication and effectiveness of that body.

The hon the Deputy Minister asked me for individual examples of delay. I can give him whole schedules of them.

No, I was asking for examples of dumping.

I am now discussing the lack of a flexible and quick response to dumping and applications for protection.

He is ducking and diving!

The situation is that we have totally failed to measure up to what was required to help make South Africa competitive in one of the most difficult markets in the world, namely the export of manufactured goods. In this area, we were playing against the world’s first teams. The Japanese exporters were supported and assisted by an organisation of the sophistication of Miti. Other countries have similar organisations, but we were just failing to produce what was required.

Why do you support this Bill, then?

With all due respect, I think that is an absurd question. There are aspects of this Bill that I believe could be greatly improved and the hon the Deputy Minister should want them improved. My suggestions fall exactly into line with the recommendations of the Van der Horst Committee. I made these suggestions in the standing committee which, in its wisdom, did not support them. I think it is a great mistake, because it shows a failure to understand that, if South Africa is to get its manufacturing off the ground, it just has to be successful in this area.

The total industrial strategy applied by the Government has had the effect, over a very long time, of hamstringing industry and distorting industrial investment in this country. What did the Government then do? Let us look at the proposals contained in this Bill regarding the two prime recommendations of the Van der Horst Committee. Firstly, the recommendation that the board be allowed to appoint its own staff is ignored. The reason given to the standing committee was that it created disruption if a group of officials did not conform with the standard pattern of remuneration and terms of employment of other officials of the staff. That attitude indicates very clearly the bureaucratic thinking in circumstances in which something far more flexible was required. It is not simply a question of whether this board’s affairs can be run comfortably, but literally one of whether we can get South Africa’s industrial machine working so that it exports and earns foreign exchange at a time when our foreign credits have been cut off through the actions of the Government.

Particularly when one analyses the industrial strategy recommended for South Africa by the Kleu Report and the advantages that can accrue through the export of manufactured goods, it should be apparent to anybody that we need a board of trade which can meet the requirements of the situation and that it should be allowed to appoint its own staff. Anybody who has ever been in charge of an organisation will realise the additional advantage of employing one’s own staff. It will give the chairman of the Board of Trade an increased authority over that staff because the staff look upon him as their ultimate employer. This makes his own job easier and it gives him the opportunity of selecting the staff he needs for the job. I believe that it is a far sounder setup.

In addition we would have the beginnings of a far more effective organisation if it were financed separately and its financial report was made available separately in the manner in which the CSIR is financed and does its reporting. Just to do something which we hope will be a little bit better than what we have at the moment is an indulgence we cannot allow ourselves.

We should establish the kind of body which we need to get our manufactured exports off the ground effectively.

Mr Chairman, I am quite sympathetic towards this standpoint of the hon member for Walmer, because we all have dreams about a Miti for South Africa, but unfortunately this involves certain practical problems. I do not think the hon member for Walmer spelt that out clearly here.

It is easy to say that we should give the board its own budget as well as the right to appoint its own staff, but then we must remember that the board’s post structure is fixed. The post structures of more or less all the boards under the Commission for Administration at present are fixed. If the number of posts as well as the post structure is fixed, this means in fact that the budget too, is fixed. As far as the question of an own staff is concerned, I think we should remember that the Board of Trade and Industry has many levels of contact with the department. If we think in terms of Miti in Japan, we should actually view certain parts of our Department of Trade and Industry in conjunction with the Board of Trade and Industry, in the sense that the one carries out the investigation and gives advice, while the other one gives effect to the recommendations made by the board.

One should also remember that the activities of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Trade and Industry should be seen as a whole. The management committee of the Department of Trade and Industry is under the leadership of the Minister of Trade and Industry and is composed of the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry, the Director General of the Department of Trade and Industry and the chairman of the Competition Board.

The Van der Horst Report refers to the CSIR and, I think, also to the South African Bureau of Standards. We should remember that both these bodies are corporate bodies, whereas this board is not. One could actually say that the board is a division of the organisation of the Minister of Trade and Industry. The Board of Trade and Industry does not receive any funds either, whereas the SABS and the CSIR do receive funds, which gives them certain other functions as well.

I feel very strongly that the Medicines Control Council should also become more independent. Although they receive funds, I feel that a great deal more funds should be channelled to them for taking care of our pharmaceutical services. However, the problem remains the same, because one cannot allow one council to have one structure and another council to have another structure. We should also remember that although Escom and Iscor have different structures, their posts and salaries are constantly being compared. Comparisons are constantly being drawn within the whole State structure.

The hon member for Sasolburg is not here at the moment, but I should just like to come back to something interesting he said which I want to compare to the Bill before us. The Board of Trade and Industry was established to improve economic development in the Republic. In the process of developing the economy, tariff protection, for example, is used to accord the industries better protection. The other day, when we dealt with the Bill concerning deregulation, the hon member for Sasolburg said that a conflict had arisen in this regard. He said that on the one hand Dr Stals said we had to move away from the free market system to a more regulated market, but that this view was in conflict with the concept of deregulation.

However, the hon member for Sasolburg did not present the whole picture. When dealing with the Board of Trade and Industry or with what Dr Stals said, it is actually the protection of the South African market that is under discussion, but the legislation on the deregulation of industry concerned competition within the South African market. One of the major functions of the Board of Trade and Industry is to stimulate economic development by manipulating our imports—we may as well call it that—and making sure that our imports do not destroy our local industries.

The Board of Trade and Industry has played a very important role in our history. I actually want to point out to the hon member for Walmer that structure is not always what matters. It is the man who occupies the position of chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry who makes that body dynamic. In this respect I can think of people I knew well such as Dr A J Norval, who was the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry for a long time, and Dr S P du Toit Viljoen who, in my opinion, made an enormous contribution in this country. In his time he was responsible for the promotion of the motor car industry in South Africa. The present structure of the motor car industry is the result of Dr Viljoen’s investigations. The expansion of our textile industry is another of the fruits of his labour.

When one looks at this board there are some interesting things that strike one. I have consulted the report on protection that was published in 1958. Dr Viljoen was the chairman of this commission. This reminded me of the subject that is discussed so often today, viz business confidence. I want to quote from the report:

This was valid in 1958, and it is still valid today. This sentence led to a policy of import replacement being followed during the ’sixties. The chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry, together with the general manager of the Industrial Development Corporation and the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry when Dr Diederichs was the Minister responsible, followed the policy as expounded in this sentence. At the time we experienced some of the greatest industrial growth periods this country has ever experienced.

Towards the end of the ’sixties we decided that import replacement had reached its end; there were not many opportunities left for this. During the ’seventies Armscor, whose activities were of ah import replacement nature again, was developed. An investigation will indicate what influence Armscor had on the engineering industry during the ’seventies.

We then decided to promote exports, and we had the Reynders Commission as well as others that followed it. Unfortunately, however, when I look at our export figures today, I must ask in all honesty whether we have succeeded in promoting industrial exports in this country. I must ask that question, and then I want to come back to the policy of the Board of Trade and Industry in the light of the difficult period we are now entering.

A new chairman, Dr McCrystal, was recently appointed to the Board of Trade and Industry. I wish him everything of the best, because I know he, too, will provide guidance in the difficult period that lies ahead.

Unfortunately, in contradiction to the views and philosophies of many people, import replacement will once again have to be actively promoted. We cannot afford to import the paper for our milk containers, nor can we afford to import pencils from Ireland. I can list many articles that we can manufacture in this country instead of importing them from overseas. I want to refer to a very important recommendation in the Van der Horst Report that reads:

I quote further from the Van der Horst Report:

At the beginning of the ’seventies the Board of Trade and Industry published a series of reports on the industrial potential of textiles, chemicals, wood and paper and engineering, but that type of investigation has since been abandoned, and I think the Bill before us will again give us the opportunity, if one looks at the objectives clearly stated in it, to promote economic development in the Republic. However, it also clearly states that the aim is to promote economic development in the common customs area of the Southern African Customs Union.

No mention is made of tariff protection in the Bill before us, but exports and imports are mentioned. With reference to the amendments agreed to by the standing committee, I also want to mention that we have now added a provision that the board should also look after the small businesses. We always think of a small business as perhaps a backyard business, and when we think of an informal organisation, we think of a small one-man business that cannot really be called a factory or an industry. When one then looks at the history of industrial development in Japan, one finds that it is the small industrialist that supports the large companies such as Mitsubishi, Mitsui etc.

That is why I think in carrying out its functions and objectives, the board should now also actively assist the small industrialist in his investigations, because in the search for new industries, it could perhaps be the small industrialist who will use that information.

While the board may ask other persons to assist them in their investigations, amendments to the effect that other bodies, too, may be approached, have now been effected. I think that, too, is a great improvement, because although the staff of the Board of Trade and Industry has been increased considerably and its effectiveness greatly increased, I think the board should also involve other bodies such as the bureaus of the various universities. In this respect I am thinking of the Market Research Bureau and the Stellenbosch Bureau for Market Forecasting. Those people could be combined into a team.

The CSIR could also, for example, be used for technological development, because the Board of Trade and Industry does not have the staff to do this. We could facilitate the transfer of technology by liasing closely and constantly providing information to the CSIR—especially if sanctions are imposed. Particularly where we have to manufacture products that perhaps have a short run and that are technically difficult to manufacture, the CSIR could be of tremendous help.

I trust that the Bill before us will herald a new era for us under the new chairman, with new dynamics for industrial development in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Waterkloof for his contribution. In my opinion he has replied very well to the amendment which the hon member for Walmer moved, in which he requested that the Board of Trade and Industry should be a statutory board. The hon member for Walmer gave his reasons for that and I should not like to argue with him about them now.

†However, if he could not persuade his colleagues in the standing committee to accept his point of view, I do not think he can expect to persuade us here today.

[Inaudible.]

The fact of the matter is that the hon member could not persuade the standing committee, and that he has failed to persuade us here today.

Furthermore, the hon member focused on the one negative aspect he could find—I do not think it is negative—because he wanted something to say. He totally ignored all the great benefits which will flow from this Bill. All the reasons he gave concerning what we needed to do—all of those things—are addressed in this Bill itself.

What is the intention with this Bill? One point of criticism which the hon member raised was absolutely valid. Nobody has ever argued with me about the quality of the work of the Board of Trade. There has been criticism of the speed with which it works, and we understand that. That is why the hon the Minister appointed the Van der Horst Committee; that is why they worked with all speed; why we responded to the report with all speed and why we have this Bill here today.

That is also why we do not only have fulltime board members but also part-time board members. We will thus be able to cast the net more widely because the kind of skilful, high-grade people one wants—whether one is a statutory authority or not—are not prepared to work for the kind of salary one can offer them, being very often leaders in the field in which they find themselves. Therefore, by being able to engage them on a part-time basis, one can use those skills.

The same applies to the ad hoc provisions. In terms of these one can call people in on an ad hoc basis and use them in particular studies. Furthermore, the board can form committees in order to distribute the work more evenly. It can also farm out work, as the hon member explained to us. All of this is designed not only to improve the effectivity of the board—because the effectivity has been good—but also to address the problem of speed.

However, the hon member also came along with accusations of dumping and, when I asked him to give me an example, he could not give me one. I can give him a few if he wants examples.

I can give you a few.

Well, why did the hon member not respond when he could? The fact is—and that hon member knows it because if he does not, he should not be taking part in this debate—that we do have anti-dumping provisions. We can react within 24 hours. As a matter of fact, I have done that on several occasions because that aspect happens to be delegated to me. We have reacted, and will still do so.

We accept the fact that the question of speed was a problem. We are addressing that. What we will now have, is a modernised board of trade. This board of trade will make as great a contribution as the one before it. It has the opportunity of making a contribution and is indeed challenged to do so in a challenging time—and I am sure it will.

I thank the hon member for Waterkloof for his speech. He knows a lot about industrial research and demonstrated that again to us today. There is no question about the fact, when one is looking at import replacement, that low production runs and so forth are a challenge. However, the White Paper indicates to us that it is not only import replacement at which we must look; we must also respond to the export challenge. That will help us in overcoming these problems in regard to the economies of scale which we have in an economy the size of ours. I think we can and will export and, as a matter of fact, the Board of Trade in its reconstituted form will help promote exports. Furthermore, the hon member for Walmer knows that Dr Kleu, the recently retired chairman of the Board of Trade, is heading a committee on export promotion, ie how to go about restructuring so as to effectively give effect to our export programme at this very time.

*With those few words I want to thank hon members who supported the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon member for Walmer.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Mr Chairman, I move:

It will have been observed by hon members, both from the text of the Bill and from the short memorandum which accompanies it, that the matters introduced here are not of a contentious nature. Instead, they flow largely from decisions already taken and announcements already made. In this connection it will be noted that no fewer than nine clauses relate to matters affecting the taxation of certain building society interest and dividends and the issue of securities by mutual building societies. The Building Societies Act of 1986 and the amendments to the Building Societies Act of 1965—now called the Mutual Building Societies Act—were passed by Parliament a few days ago.

It is not the intention that the radical changes that will now take place in the building society movement should alter the tax status of the interest or dividends flowing from certain tax-free investments in a mutual building society which is converted into a company building society, and most of the amendments now proposed are designed to achieve that objective. Clauses 12 and 13 likewise effect amendments to the Stamp Duties Act which are designed to ensure that the status quo as regards building societies and mutual building societies is maintained for the purposes of stamp duties.

It will be recalled that earlier this year representations were made to the Government about the value placed for income tax purposes on the private use by an employee of a vehicle owned by his employer—that is on the private use of what is usually known as a company car. An investigation made by my department showed that while the values presently reflected in paragraph 7 of the Seventh Schedule were not excessive in certain circumstances they could not be justified in others, particularly where the vehicle is used mainly for business purposes. The help of Naamsa was therefore sought in devising a new table of values which would represent, as nearly as possible, the fair and full value of the private use by an employee of a company-owned vehicle. The new table proposed in clause 10 of the Bill represents the product of this investigation and I am sure that hon members will agree that the figures proposed are fair and reasonable. The need for a phasing-in provision in relation to company cars now falls away. It will, however, be understood that the table will be reviewed from time to time and, if necessary, revised.

As was perhaps to be expected, the adjustments made to the company car tables have led to representations for relief in respect of what are usually known as allowance or scheme cars. These are vehicles which are owned by employees and in respect of which they receive a cash allowance. The cash allowance is gross income in the hands of the employee, but against that allowance he may set off the cost of operating the vehicle for business purposes. Where the taxpayer is unable to establish the actual cost of operating the vehicle for business purposes he may determine that cost on the basis of a table of costs published by the Minister of Finance under the powers granted to him under section 8(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Where the allowance exceeds the actual or determined cost of operating the vehicle for business purposes, the excess is subject to tax but, in respect of the 1986-87 tax year, only to the extent of 40% of that excess. As the law now stands, 60% of any excess will be taxable in 1987-88, 80% in 1988-89 and 100% in 1989-90.

The persons making the representations are asking that the phasing-in of the tax on the excess, if any, be pegged at the 40% level—the argument being that company and scheme cars should be placed on an equal footing. With respect, this request is based on a misconception; the fact of the matter is that company and scheme cars are not comparable. The company car is undoubtedly a very valuable benefit in that it may save the employee the cost of acquiring and running a car of his own, but it does not put any cash in his pocket. By paying an employee a generous car allowance and requiring him to provide and operate a car of his own it is possible to place a substantial sum of money in his pocket, only 40% of which sum will be subject to tax in the 1986-87 tax year. It is a fact that thousands of employers have seen the gap created by this particular portion of the fringe benefits legislation, and have taken it—to the financial benefit of their employees and to the detriment of the fisc. A few simple calculations will show that where the vehicle is used to a material extent for business purposes and the allowance paid is reasonable, the profit, if any, subject to tax will be small.

Hon members will, however, be interested to know that my department has already had discussions with interested bodies and that a small committee has been formed to ascertain whether any adjustment needs to be made to the figures contained in the table published in terms of section 8(1)(b) of the Act. If the committee recommends any changes the matter can be dealt with next year. The request for freezing the phasing in at the 40% level cannot, however, be considered.

*Clause 5 of the Bill corrects a weakness in an amendment which was made to section 22(l)(f) of the Income Tax Act in terms of clause 14(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1986. It will be recalled that at the time of the withdrawal of the provision permitting trading stock to be valued on the Lifo basis, it was provided that where a business undertaking in respect of which that basis had been applied was taken over by one company from another before the date of commencement of the 1984 Act, the Lifo reserve calculated in respect of the business could be transferred to the purchasing company.

Because it was found that the potential loss of the Lifo reserve was inhibiting the rationalisation of business, section 14(l)(c) of the 1986 Act provides for the removal of the time restriction. It was unfortunately not realised at that time that subparagraph 3(iii) of section 22(l)(f) should have been amended and subparagraph (iv) deleted at the same time. This oversight is now being corrected.

Clause 6 of the Bill also deals with a point which was overlooked when the recent amendments to section 24 of the Act were drafted. Certain persons who had been granted a debtor’s allowance and who no longer qualified for such an allowance were granted a concession in terms of which the allowance could be phased out over a period of four years. In order to accomplish this, the allowance granted in one year must be reversed in the next and a new and reduced allowance determined. No provision was made for the reversal of the allowance, however, and the provision now proposed remedies this oversight.

The amendments effected by clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill relate to sales tax, and their purpose is clearly explained in the memorandum which accompanies the Bill. Under the circumstances, I shall not go over the same ground again.

Finally, I refer briefly to two almost identical provisions which were introduced into the Income Tax Act and Sales Tax Act earlier in this session of Parliament. These are sections 105A and 44A respectively, and they deal with the reporting of unprofessional conduct. During the debate in Parliament, two points were made. One concerned the use of the word “avoid”, which was thought to have an undesirable connotation, and the other related to the fact that whereas section 4 of the two Acts prescribed penalties for any breach of the secrecy provisions, the new sections 105A and 44A do not provide…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he knows if members of the House have copies of this Bill?

Mr Chairman, as far as I know the distribution has been made.

When?

I do not know…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I intended to raise this matter at the beginning of my speech, but I want to raise it now as a point of order and ask any hon member of this House to look through the Bills in front of him and to tell me whether he has this Bill.

Which Bill?

This Bill! The one the hon the Deputy Minister is introducing.

The answer is “no”. We do not have such a Bill.

I am talking about the Bill we are dealing with at present. If hon members care to refer to it, it is item 11 on the Order Paper, B 127—86 (GA).

I ask any hon member to get up here and tell me whether he has this Bill on the pile of Bills in front of him, and whether it has been tabled in this House. I ask any hon member to get up and say that. [Interjections.]

Order! This is the first time that such a point of order has been taken, and it is a new situation too. I should just like to confer with the Secretary because on the one hand I am not quite sure whether this is a point of order. On the other hand, however, it would be much better if hon members had this Bill in front of them.

It would help people if they knew what they were actually working on.

You have made that point three or four times.

Mr Chairman, of course the problem is compounded by the fact that in terms of the rules such a Bill has not been before a standing committee. I would therefore make the point that we do not know what amendments are in the Bill.

Order! Yes, I am just going to discuss the matter with the Secretary of Parliament very briefly. I understand this Bill was tabled on Friday last. [Interjections.] Order! Hon members must permit me to find out what the facts are. I am not quite certain of the facts myself.

Mr Chairman, I move:

[Interjections.]

Order! It was my suggestion that we do that. Under the circumstances I do not think it was such a bad suggestion.

Is there any objection to the debate being adjourned?

Mr Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that my information is that this Bill was tabled on 29 August.

Order! The problem is that this is a financial Bill. Should it not have gone to a standing committee?

No, Mr Chairman. Bills on matters of finance do not go to a standing committee. If the hon member for Yeoville was referring to the remarks I was making at the tail end of my speech, about matters such as “avoidance” which he does not see in the Bill… [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister is addressing me.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply moved that the debate now be adjourned. There was no objection and I think the hon the Deputy Minister is out of order in wanting to finalise this Bill now.

Order! I have not put the question yet. In the circumstances I should like to put it in this way: The hon members do not have the Bill before them. I did not have the Bill before me either; I had to ask for it. In the circumstances it would only be fair if we postponed the matter at least until hon members have had the Bill before them.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I just draw your attention to the fact that I have personally ascertained from the Clerk of the Papers that these Bills arrived late last Friday. Therefore, for some reason or other, they were not distributed in the House today.

Mr Chairman, may I not complete my speech? The debate on the present Bill may then be held over? [Interjections.]

Order! I put the question that the debate do now adjourn. No objection? Agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

Order! [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Waterkloof must contain himself! When the Chairman calls for order, hon members should resume their seats.

Clause 4:

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

The reason for this motion is that after the Bill was printed, the Department of Justice brought it to our attention that “co-ordination”, in terms of the Constitution, was a function of a general affairs department. Because this is an own affairs Bill, confusion in regard to the legal position would have risen. Consequently, in order to effect a correction, we are therefore moving that the word “co-ordination” be omitted. It will have no effect on the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to support the motion of the hon the Minister. It is known to us that welfare is an own affair, and that the word “co-ordination” could create confusion. Furthermore, it is an unnecessary word in this legislation.

I think we are proud of having been able to pilot a Bill dealing with the welfare of the White population group, through this House. The hon the Minister’s amendment is intended to eliminate any misunderstanding, and I gladly support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

This Bill amends the schedules to the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, Act 2 of 1980, hereafter referred to as the principal Act, by the insertion of further land definitions. Section 1 of the principal Act provides that the State President may from time to time, by way of proclamation in the Gazette, transfer land defined in the schedules to the principal Act to particular sovereign and independent states. Land thus transferred ceases to be part of the Republic and becomes part of the state to which it has been transferred.

Particulars of the additions to the respective schedules to the principal Act appear in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill which is before us, and I shall therefore only refer briefly to them.

The addition of the land concerned to areas which may form part of Transkei and Venda—schedules 1 and 3 respectively to the principal Act—will result in rounding things off and bringing about effective consolidation. In regard to the amendments to the descriptions of land which may form part of Bophuthatswana—schedule 2 to the principal Act—the proposed additions are aimed at implementing consolidation proposals and agreements between the Government of the RSA and the government of Bophuthatswana.

The additions of land descriptions to schedule 4 of the principal Act, ie land which may form part of Ciskei, give effect to the recommendations of the then Select Committee on Co-operation and Development. These recommendations were approved by the House of Assembly on 30 June 1983.

Hon members will notice that amendments are printed on the Order Paper in my name. I should like to move those amendments in the House at a later stage. They are not contentious amendments and in no way affect the principles of the Bill. I should like to discuss them in the Committee Stage in more detail.

Mr Chairman, when this Bill came before the standing committee—it met on a number of occasions over a fairly long period—it was unable to achieve consensus on it. The problem which occurred in the standing committee arose over doubts relating to the rights of individuals on the sections of land to be exchanged or transferred to certain of the independent states. We were concerned about the lack of consultation, although from time to time it was alleged before the standing committee that in fact there had been consultation with the people concerned—those people who were occupying the land in question. Our concern arose primarily over the question of change of status and jurisdiction in regard to the people concerned, and the lack of consultation with them.

As one went through the Bill one found that there were a considerable number of people who were in fact involved, or whose status as South African citizens and as people resident within the Republic of South Africa would be affected if this Bill were to be passed. When one looks at random at the Bill one finds for example in paragraph (a)(iv) of the proposed new Schedule 2 to the principal Act as contained in clause 2(a) of the Bill that one is dealing with the addition of certain land to the Republic of Bophuthatswana. Here we were told that approximately 500 families on this land might well be involved. When one looks further at other aspects of the Bill one finds information relating to the transfer of certain farms in the Transvaal in clause 2(d). I refer to farms like Hartebeestpoort, Krelingspost and Portion 4 of the farm Boschfontein. Here too we found varying figures—in the one instance some 1 600 people would be affected and in the other instance there are some 180 people on the property. One can go further into the Bill and have a look at paragraph (e)(vii) of the proposed new Schedule 2 to the principal Act as contained in clause 2(f) of the Bill. In the Marico district some 15 000 people on farms will be involved and their status will in fact change from citizens of South Africa to citizens of Bophuthatswana.

On the standing committee we believed and still do that particularly at this time in South Africa’s history one should be extremely sensitive to questions of this kind involving the status of people and the jurisdiction under which they find themselves. During the discussions on the standing committee we were also aware that a number of representations had been made by the people concerned to various hon Ministers including this hon Minister. Under different circumstances one could have made this a major debate. I have copies here of representations made over a long period to the hon the Deputy Minister and other hon members by the people involved who claim that they were not consulted. They also state that they are not in favour of the idea of having their status changed from citizens of the Republic of South Africa to citizens of Bophuthatswana.

I have here a copy of a letter which arrived in my mail this morning. It is dated 18 July 1986 and addressed to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. It comes from the headman of the tribe involved on the farm which is described in this legislation as Boschfontein 458 JQ in Machakaneng. He writes as follows and I quote:

That is to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—

The letter is signed by the headman of the tribe concerned, and there are also accompanying signatures of committee members.

It is this very sort of situation which concerned us throughout our discussions of this matter on the standing committee. There was considerable doubt, and we made repeated appeals on the standing committee to be allowed to receive evidence from people involved, particularly those who had made written representations of this kind. We wanted them to be allowed to come before the standing committee so that we could satisfy ourselves as to their rights and the Government’s claims that there had, in fact, been consultation and that the measure which would change the lives of these people in such a way was a mere formality.

As a result of the great concern shared by hon members of the Official Opposition in this House and, of course, hon members of the other two Houses, consensus was not achieved on the standing committee.

I want to repeat that changing the status of people ought always to be a matter of real concern to the State. Particularly at this time in South Africa, however, when there is so much evidence throughout our land of division, mistrust and hostility, I believe it is absolutely essential that this Parliament and its standing committees take the utmost care to ensure that they respect the rights of South African citizens in matters of this kind. For that reason we could have a major debate because I actually believe that the time has come when we should stop fiddling around with the exchange of land in South Africa and look at the real problems confronting this country at present. Yet, despite the evidence which they see around them, the Government still proceeds piecemeal to make these deals either with independent states or with other groups. I believe this is one of the most divisive factors in our national life at the present time.

For those reasons we in these benches are going to oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, what the hon member for Berea said was true, namely that the standing committee could not reach unanimity on this. The only component of the standing committee which had problems with this—if I may talk about components—was the component from the House of Delegates. The House of Representatives supported the Bill, and in this respect the hon member for Berea was wrong when he dragged the House of Representatives into this too.

This Bill deals with the meaningful rounding off and consolidation of four independent and national states. Because the hon member is so concerned about so-called consultation with the inhabitants, we must consider what process was used in the past—also with regard to the land this Bill is dealing with.

Hon members know that the Commission for Co-operation and Development is the instrument which deals with consultation as regards the identifying of the land which must be added to the national states. The Commission for Co-operation and Development undertakes specific investigations and submits specific recommendations to the Executive Authority. Those recommendations are first published on a provisional basis so that they can be inspected by the general public, including the Black residents of those areas.

An open invitation is addressed to everyone who has an interest in the proposals to appear before the commission and put their case there. In this way all the interested parties, whether they were land owners, or merely lived on the piece of land, or were going to be new border farmers, were given every opportunity—and they still have it, as the process continues—to state their standpoint before the commission. What is more, they have the opportunity to state their standpoint to the commission confidentially, and consequently they can feel quite free to submit their problems—if they are experiencing problems with this—to the commission. A person who is only living on the land and is not a land-owner is obviously also included in the invitation addressed to the general public.

Of course I cannot say whether in this specific case the particular communities and individuals to whom the hon member for Berea referred did appear before the then commission. If an open invitation is addressed to someone and he has the opportunity to appear before the commission and he does not make use of that opportunity—whether it is a tribal authority, a land-owner or an individual living on the land—the hon member for Berea cannot now complain, after the process has been completed, that the people were not consulted. It is totally impractical to consult every single person who is going to be involved.

I want to put one practical problem to the hon member and the other hon members in the House. What happens in the case of an absentee owner, and specifically an absentee member of a Black tribe in the area? What practical solution does that hon member have to the problem of how to consult that interested party? Where does one find him? Must one wait until one can find him and if he cannot ever be found must one halt the entire process and not proceed with the matter?

Consequently there are also practical considerations in this connection, but the point I want to make is that one cannot say—one cannot therefore agree with the hon member for Berea—that there was no consultation. In those cases where consultation did not take place, the interested party in any case had every opportunity fully to put his case to a body or a commission. That is all I have to say about consultation. But that is not the end of the matter.

It is not only the commission which is used as the instrument in the first instance. The department, through its officials and the old commissioners, had constant contact with all Black people who could possibly have resided there. Consequently there was a second channel which any Black man could feel free to use at any time in the past, and they did in fact use it, to bring their views on possible inclusion—whether they were opposed to it or supported it—to the attention of the department through the commissioner.

There is a third channel which was also used in this case in the past, and which is still being used, namely the recognised authority of the relevant Black people. In the case of the example I mentioned, it was the government of Bophuthatswana, and in other cases it was the governments of the other national states. There is continuous discussion at all levels, and particularly at the executive level.

Consequently I am telling the hon member for Berea that the standpoints he has adopted here—he did so in the standing committee too, cannot hold water. They also merely reflect the political attitude of that hon member and his party, namely that they have serious objections to what they call so-called “grand” apartheid. The consolidation of the national states is one of their objectives, and a target at which they launch their attacks against the policy of this side of the House. Everything cannot come to a standstill because that hon member and his party have specific views on the entire process of consolidation. We cannot simply abandon the process of turning the national states into viable territories—a home for their own peoples.

The hon member went on to say that one of his objections to this specific Bill was that the status of the Black people in the areas which were to be added to the national states on the basis of the legislation, were seriously affected. This is a standpoint the hon member also stated in the standing committee. Because this was an important aspect which was singled out by the hon member for Berea, as a member of that standing committee, two hon Ministers appeared before the committee at its request to explain the entire matter of citizenship—particularly in the light of the legislation which was in the pipeline at that stage, and which has since been passed in this House.

I maintain that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who addressed the committee on the objections of that hon member and his party, as well as those of certain other hon members of the committee, dealt with that matter in the greatest detail—so I was informed, because I was not present on that occasion—to the satisfaction of most of the elected committee members of this House and also to the satisfaction of most, if not all, of the members of the select committee of the House of Representatives. All questions were answered in the most expert and detailed way by those two hon Ministers.

In view of the hon member’s political standpoint we consequently expected him to raise the matter again today during the discussion of this Bill. [Interjections.] We shall never satisfy that hon member and his party, because they see this entire matter from a specific angle, and no matter how many assurances one gives and even if one produces the new legislation on citizenship of Black states and reads out the provisions of that legislation to that hon member and his party again, he will still object to it. That hon member knows—and this is what he was told in the standing committee—that specific negotiations are still being held with the independent states within the framework of the most recent legislation in connection with the citizenship of Black states.

[Inaudible.]

I also want to get back to the hon member’s request, which he repeated, namely that the standing committee should hear evidence.