I move as an unopposed motion—

Mr. Speaker, I think you will permit me to enlighten the House as to the reason why I have taken this step. The House will remember that representations have repeatedly been been made to me by both sides of the House to do something about the delimitation conditions which a Delimitation Commission have to observe so that there will not be any dissatisfaction in connection with the delimitation of constituencies. You will remember that when these representations were made I always replied that the position would in due course be investigated. The Government in its wisdom decided that the best way to meet the position would be the way in which the Bill, which has been introduced and which has been read for the first time, does indeed offer a solution, if not a complete solution then perhaps a partial solution. You will remember, Sir, that it is and has always been customary that whenever the Electoral Act is amended it is amended on the basis of mutual consultation between the Opposition and the Government party. Because we are all affected by the Electoral Act that has been the custom and I have again done so. I consulted the working group of the Opposition and before I asked for leave to introduce the Bill they informed me that they had no objection in principle although there were minor points on which they differed. Following upon that I then introduced the Bill which has been read for the first time. Since then, last Friday, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) informed me that the Opposition did not see its way clear to support the Bill and that they would oppose it. It would actually amount to a departure from the usual procedure to try to get as much unanimity as possible on such a matter, if not in respect of the details then in respect of the principles involved. For this reason I do not think I have any option, so as not to depart from the usual practice, but to refer this Bill to a Select Committee and I trust the House will approve of it.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns has devoted itself with great success to its duties and has achieved great success over the past 54 years. The question arises, however, what the future tisk of the Akademie has to be in a world in which major changes have taken place.

In view of the fact that the Akademie regards the safety and continued existence of our fatherland essential for the maintenance and development of our language, practically no other sector and no part of our society falls outside its sphere of interest. Although the Akademie initially served Afrikanerdom in a defined field, that field has gradually become wider and more comprehensive, so that it can rightly be said to-day that the Akademie wants to serve the cultural life of the Afrikaner nation in all spheres so that it will develop into spiritual maturity.

The Akademie therefore feels that the definition of its objects is too narrow to enable it to achieve the proposed wider objectives and has therefore requested the Government to amend Section 4 of the Act-—a request we are gladly complying with. In terms of the amendment in Clause 1 of the Bill the reference to “South African Archaeology” is deleted and substituted by the words “culture” and “technique”.

“Culture” and “science” are wider concepts. “Science” is generally interpreted as not only meaning the “sciences” but also the humanities such as psychology. In the scientific sense archaeology is classified under the concept “science” and in a wider sense it also forms part of “culture”. The provision contained in Clause 4 that the objects of the Akademie are to promote, inter alia, science, includes the promotion for example, of South African archaeology. It is consequently not necessary to mention the promotion of South African archaeology specifically in the Act whilst it remains silent on the other humanities such as sociology and economy.

In view of the fact that it can also be argued that the Akademie is not competent to operate beyond the field of promoting precisely South African history and archaeology it is necessary to delete the word “archaeology”.

“Culture” in its widest sense includes everything produced by man, be it in the field of science, be it in the field of art. By inserting the word “culture” we shall therefore confer statutory power on the Akademie to continue with its activities in the cultural field.

By deleting the qualifying word “South African” from “art” we are widening the field of activity of the Akademie in regard to the promotion of art. As in the case of culture and science art is not always specifically of a South African nature. Obviously however the Akademie promotes South African art and culture and it is unnecessary to state that in the Act.

Since 1941 the Akademie has consisted of two faculties, namely, the Faculty of Art and Humanities and the Faculty of Science and Technique and makes a distinction between the pure sciences under which mathematics and nature study and chemistry fall and the applied sciences under which engineering falls. It is consequently necessary for historical and organizational reasons to state in the Act that “the technique” (applied sciences) are to be promoted. In theory there may perhaps be no difference between the pure sciences and “technique” but in practice a distinction is nevertheless observed in the scientific world.

I thank the hon. the Minister for the fine exposition he has given of the objects of the Academy. I want to tell him at once that we have no objections to the principle of this Bill. I think we also appreciate the way in which the hon. the Minister spoke about the various faculties. With your approval, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to another aspect of this matter. This Bill amends Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1959 Act. It seems to me that the most important amendments to Section 4 are mainly changes in the wording and in the construction; these are changes to which, of course, we can have no objection. But this particular clause also refers to certain new faculties, which have already been referred to by the hon. the Minister. I think it will be interesting to trace what happened 54 years ago, when certain aspects of the objects of the Academy came into prominence. The objects of the Academy have been changed from time to time. As the Minister said, it has kept pace with developments over the years. At its inception the South African Academy had certain objects. The foundation meeting was held here in Cape Town on 1 and 2 July 1909 during the session of the National Convention, when leading members made use of the opportunity to convene such a meeting. It is interesting to record what the object of that meeting in 1909 was and who attended it. The Academy was founded with the object of trying to put an end to the conflict between Afrikaans and High Dutch at that time and, secondly, to try to get the two groups to co-operate in preserving and promoting Dutch and supporting the Dutch-Afrikaans culture in its then struggle to survive in South Africa. Amongst others many leading South Africans attended this foundation meeting, and you will allow me to mention their names here. This meeting was attended by, for example, General J. B. M. Hertzog, F. S. Malan, D. F. Malan, J. H. H. de Waal, J. H. Hofmeyr, and N. J. de Wet, all of them men who have left their traces in this House and in the political and cultural history of South Africa. It is indeed an imposing group of South Africans whose names I have just mentioned. The following motion was moved by the late General Hertzog and seconded by the late Professor W. J. Viljoen. I will read it in the original language, because I want to come back to it later—

[Translation: That a body be established for the purpose of promoting the Dutch language and literature in South Africa, namely, a strong central body that will represent the whole of the country, that will adopt a sympathetic attitude to both forms of Dutch, that will bring expert knowledge to bear in deciding issues relating to language and literature and that will have a recognized general authority in negotiating with the university or the Government.]

The object was clear, therefore, and the two pillars, Dutch and Dutch-Afrikaans (which later became Afrikaans), still stand to-day. These two pillars have remained standing over all the years. I think the issue involved at the time, which was to preserve Dutch-Afrikaans and to ensure its survival, has to a large extent disappeared in practical life. During the past years the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections have drawn closer together and this has led to their recognizing one another’s rights to conciliation and to cooperation between the two language groups in South Africa, and as far as I am concerned, this matter is no longer a vexed question.

Moreover, more than language and art is concerned in the matter to-day; more than just the Dutch language and the Dutch-Afrikaans language, or Afrikaans, which it subsequently became. As the hon. the Minister has said, the faculties have increased. At present there are many more faculties than the two I have mentioned. As hon. members know, the original name of the Academy was “De Zuid-Afrikaanse Akademie voor Taal, Letteren en Kunst”. Over the years this Academy has expanded and new faculties dealing with archaeology, history, and the Dutch and the Afrikaans languages and literature have been established, and to-day, where the Academy is keeping pace with the developments of the times, “science and technics” are being inserted in the present Act.

The 1921 legislation provided that the association would in future be known as the “Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Kuns en Wetenskap”. In 1921 we finally switched over to Afrikaans. Hon. members know that from 1914 onwards Afrikaans was accepted as the language for everyday use, and in 1921, when the constitution of the S.A. Academy was laid down, Afrikaans was used.

The amendment in lines 9 and 10 is also an interesting one. Section 4 of the 1959 Act reads as follows—

No mention is made of “culture”. In the measure before us it is proposed that this section should read as follows—

The Minister has pointed out how essential it is to add “culture”, and I fully agree with him—

As far as the Dutch language is concerned, no mention is made of “culture”. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us why this new dispensation has been proposed by, I take it, the South African Academy, and why “culture” has been omitted as far as the Dutch language is concerned.

With these few observations I want to say that we on this side of the House not only support the Bill, but also trust that the S.A. Academy will continue to make its valuable contribution to the promotion of Afrikaans.

I feel friendly disposed towards the Akademie. I saw a report in one of our newspapers last year to the effect that the Akademie had expressed an opinion on English usage. They said that they did not think it was sound English usage to speak about “one rand”, “ten rand”, “a million rand”, and so on; they said that that was not sound English usage although it might be good Afrikaans usage to say “een rand”, “tien rand”, etc. Well, I am on the side of the Akademie, and I am grateful to them for having expressed that opinion.

Coming to the Bill, there is one point I should like to mention in the only clause that matters, the first clause. The first clause says that amongst the things they wish to dc is the promotion of South African history, art, science and techniques. I do not know, Sir, how you promote history. We have often heard, “blessed is the country that has never had a history”. I think that what they mean is to promote the study of South African history. In South Africa we do not want any more history; we have had more than enough and I would suggest that the hon. the Minister should reconsider the drafting—not his drafting, of course, but the drafting of the experts. I should like him to go into this matter before we come to the Committee Stage.

Finally, I should like to ask him whether it is customary to subsidize the Akademie. Does the Government subsidize the Akademie?

Yes.

I think provision is made for it under Item L, where there is an amount of R88,000. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether provision is made for it under that item, and, if that is so, what the amount is.

I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) who has briefly outlined to us the value, the meaning and the past of the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. I did not regard it as necessary to do so because it is such a well known subject but it was just as well that he has again sketched it briefly to us so that it can become better known. Where the great honour has recently been bestowed upon me by appointing me as an honorary member of the Akademie it gives me great pleasure to note that the activities of the Akademie are so highly applauded and regarded as being of such high value. The hon. member wants to know why the word “culture” has been deleted as far as Dutch is concerned. The word “culture” did not appear previously in the Act. We naturally are deeply indebted to the Dutch language. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) places exceptionally high value of the Dutch language and last Friday he complained and said too little Dutch literature was read in South Africa. Where the Dutch language is so closely related to the Afrikaans language and is to such a great extent responsible for the Afrikaans language it is understandable that the Dutch language and the study of it will always be acknowledged and promoted by Afrikaans speaking people. A nation such as ours naturally takes the best from all cultures and it is not necessary for us to rely on the Dutch culture alone; we can also rely on the cultures of other nations. We borrow from them; we steal from them in order to build up our own culture.

As far as the question of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is concerned regarding the promotion of South African history the hon. member knows as well as I do that the teaching of history has in recent years retrogressed considerably; that it has come to be regarded as one of the redundant subjects. There was even a time, which has fortunately passed, when history, geography, nature study and hygiene were all combined into one subject, namely, social study, in the primary schools in the Transvaal. Parents, teachers and other educationists were vigorously opposed to it and fortunately it came to an end. A nation which does not know its own history, always of course in relation to the history of the rest of the world, because it cannot isolate itself completely, is in the long run a spineless nation. As far as the promotion of the South African history is concerned it is of course the task of the Akademie to do research and to devote themselves specifically to promoting the study of history. I do not think any fault can be found with that.

The hon. member also wanted to know to what extent the Akademie was being subsidized. I heard the Speaker whisper that I could not go into that at the moment; I would be out of order. We shall therefore discuss that matter on a later occasion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

In terms of the University of Port Elizabeth Act of 1964 the convocation which consists of members of the Senate and the graduates of the University can nominate one person to represent it on the Council once its numbers have reached the figure of 100. It is expected that the figure of 100 will only be reached within a year or two. However, the University which has commenced teaching this year, wishes, for domestic reasons, the Convocation to enjoy representation on the Council at this stage already. As permitted under the Act I already appointed nine members of the Council last year to represent various interests but the term of office of this interim Council expires as soon as the University’s statute is announced which I expect to happen shortly when the various bodies will select their own representatives to serve on the Council. In these circumstances the University Council has unanimously requested me to amend the Act which governs them in such a way that I will be able to appoint somebody to the Council to represent the convocation. I do not think that is unreasonable and I want to accede to their request. Hon. members know that university councils are autonomous bodies and inasmuch as they are fair and reasonable these requests are usually acceded to.

The Bill under discussion is therefore introduced to give effect to the request of these people and the necessary provision appears in Clause 2. I just want to mention that the Opposition moved an amendment in the Other Place where the Bill was introduced for the first time. They asked me whether I would be prepared to accept this amendment. It was an amendment of which I had prior knowledge and I said I was willing to accept it but unfortunately the amendment was not effected in the right place. The Opposition in the Other Place was of the opinion that the words that I could “appoint anybody” could be interpreted to mean that I could appoint more than one person whereas the intention was that I should only appoint one person. I referred the matter to my legal advisers; they do not agree fully with the Opposition, because the intention is that only one person should be appointed, but in order to state it clearly and beyond any doubt I told the Opposition I would be willing to accept the amendment. But as it appears in the printed Bill it is totally wrong. The Opposition in this House approached me again and asked me whether they could put it right in the Committe Stage. I agreed because nothing whatsoever is being achieved with the amendment as printed at the moment.

I think it is also necessary for me to explain Clause 1 of the Bill briefly. During the recess the United pointed out that in terms of Section 10 (3) of the Act no difference was made between a professor at the University and other members of the Senate, except the rector. That is correct but that may give the impression that the term of office of a professor, as a member of the Senate at the University also expires after three years. As hon. members know a professor at a university remains a member of the Senate as long as he occupies his post. Although they do not think that provision will have any effect as far as the professors at their own university are concerned, the legal advisers have suggested that when it became necessary to amend the Act in some other respect, Section 10 (3) should also be suitably amended and that is now being done in Clause 1.

I just want to say that we fully support this Bill. This request has come from the Council of the University itself, and so we have no objection in principle. I am sorry that an error crept in in the Other Place, because it was of course the intention—I quote from the Bill as it read before it was introduced in the Other Place—to omit the words “appoint any person as a member of the council” and to substitute the words “appoint any one person as a member of the council”, which would have made it very clear that the Minister did not have the right to appoint more than one person. Unfortunately this error occurred and the Secretary, or whoever it was, went to the next line and substituted the words “any one other person” for the words “any other person”. As the clause now stands it is ridiculous. I am glad the hon. the Minister has agreed to a change being made, and when we reach the Committee Stage to-morrow, I shall move an amendment accordingly.

There is very little that one can add. There is only one point that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. When the hon. the Minister establishes a university I presume he is anxious to grant it autonomy as soon as he possibly can. If that is his intention, naturally we all feel the same about it. In this case the University Council has been established, but naturally until there are members of convocation, convocation cannot nominate their representatives. Would it not have been worth considering the proposition that the Council should co-opt a member to represent convocation? If the hon. the Minister does not think that that is feasible at this stage, would he perhaps give us an assurance that he will ask the Council as at present constituted to recommend to him a nominee to represent convocation? If the hon. the Minister is prepared to do that, then naturally there can be no objection to his nomination, but it seems to me that now that the University Council has been established, any additional member to represent convocation should be appointed either directly by them or by way of recommendation to the Minister. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider that suggestion before we come to the Committee Stage.

I am doing in this Bill exactly what the Council has asked me to do, namely, to appoint such a person. I can, however, assure the hon. member that I shall not make arbitrary appointments but that I shall ask the University Council to recommend somebody for appointment and in all probability it will be the same person who is serving at the moment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The present Bill takes over many of the provisions of the old Colonial Arbitration Acts. It has particularly taken over the provision that—

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would tell us why it is that the third matter referred to in the Cape Arbitration Act has not been included in those matters which may not be the subject of arbitration, namely, matters in which minors or other persons under legal disability may be interested. I appreciate that to a certain extent the affairs of minors do come up for consideration in connection with matrimonial causes but there can be other matters affecting minors which are not included in such a reference.

One of the other matters which is not included in the present Bill but which appears in the old Cape Arbitration Act is the question of the appointment by the court of an official referee. I am aware of the fact that an official referee can be appointed under the General Law Amendment Act of 1964. I think Clause 40 of that Act provides for that.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 2 of this Bill.

As you please, Mr. Chairman. I was just wishing to get the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the fact that the power of the court to appoint a referee where the parties do not agree has been removed. If I have succeeded in getting that across to the Minister I shall leave it at that.

I am not allowed to give you the explanation.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Clause 3 (1) reads—

In other words, unless the agreement provides otherwise, an arbitration agreement shall not be capable of being terminated, except by consent. Then sub-section (2) goes on to say—

1. (a) set aside the arbitration agreement; or
2. (b) order that any particular dispute referred to … shall not be referred to arbitration; or
3. (c) order that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect …

Sir, it is a small point, but I would have thought that it would have been necessary to insert at the commencement of sub-section (2) the words “notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1)”. So that sub-section (2) would read—

That will make it clear that there are circumstances in which the arbitration agreement is capable of being terminated other than by the consent of all the parties. It seems to me that unless those words are inserted you will have a somewhat contradictory statement. I would therefore suggest to the Minister for his consideration to include those words.

It is a question of draftsmanship. I shall discuss it with the law advisers.

Thank you.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

In the case of this clause there is a bracket to indicate that Clause 16 (1) (b) does not form part of this Bill. I would like to ask, if I may, why it has been deleted as it seems to be an eminently sensible provision.

If I may just explain. This Bill was originally started in the Other Place and that clause could not be considered there. It has to be considered by this House. When the Bill is disposed of here it must go back to the Other Place to accept this clause as well. I accordingly move the amendment—

To add the following paragraph at the end of sub-section (1):

1. (b) the clerk of the magistrate’s court having jurisdiction in the said area, may issue such summons upon payment of the same fees as are chargeable for the issue of a subpoena in a civil case pending in the magistrate’s court.

I think that amendment is necessary and we agree to it, of course.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell me why the normal word, “subpoena”, in respect of a document compelling a person to attend court has been replaced by the word “summons” which is also correct? “Summons” is used in respect of court proceedings in rather a different context, it is the document commencing an action. That is the more usual use of the word and it seems to me unusual to use it to replace the word “subpoena”.

The only reason I can suggest is that this Bill was drafted by the Law Revision Committee whereas other Bills are drafted by the law advisers. The latter accepted that word as coming from the Law Revision Committee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

With reference to the discussion during the second reading on Clause 20 and the doubts expressed by hon. members in that respect, I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (2) An opinion referred to in sub-section (1) shall be final and not subject to appeal and shall be binding on the arbitration tribunal and on the parties to the reference.

Hon. members will remember that we discussed Clause 20. And in order to state quite clearly what the Law Revision Committee had in mind when they drafted this clause I moved the amendment as set out above.

I am pleased the hon. the Minister has done so. I think it makes the position clear.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 28,

I move—

1. 29. Where an award orders the payment of a sum of money, such sum shall, unless the award provides otherwise, carry interest as from the date of the award and at the same rate as a judgment debt.

This clause deals with costs and could consequently not be discussed in the Other Place where the Bill was introduced in the first place. The Other Place has therefore left it to this House to approve of it.

I have no objection, Sir, but I want to raise one point. An ordinary judgment of the court carries interest at the rate of 6 per cent even if no interest is payable on a debt. That is not being proposed here but I take it that it is a matter which could be covered in the submission to arbitration if the parties so wish. Is it necessary to make special provision for it?

No.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 40,

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) has asked me to interpret the objects of this clause. I have had an opportunity of again studying the clause. I have also had time to check what I said in haste in the Other Place in respect of this clause and I notice that I omitted the negative in that case. It was obviously omitted by me when I stated the case. The object of this clause is that the provisions of the Bill shall apply in cases of arbitration under any law passed after the commencement of this Act unless a subsequent law passed by Parliament specifically excludes the provisions of this law. The interpretation on which the legal advisers are in agreement is that it will apply to all laws, also to future laws, unless a future law provides that these provisions will not be applicable to it.

May I ask the hon. Minister this question? Is the object to override previous Acts of Parliament?

That is how I understand it.

That is what I thought the object was and it is an object which we on this side of the House would support. But in my view the proviso does not do that. I should like to read the proviso again. It covers two situations. It covers a situation of an Act of Parliament in which this present Arbitration Bill is excluded. It also covers an Act of Parliament with which this present Arbitration Bill is inconsistent. There are two specific situations.

That is the general principle, is it not? The latter overrides the former.

Yes. In respect of an Act of Parliament in which the Arbitration Act is specifically excluded there can be no difficulty because such an Act can only be a subsequent Act of Parliament. But in respect of an Act which is inconsistent as this clause is worded at present, in my view, it could refer to a prior Act of Parliament, not only to a subsequent Act of Parliament, which happens to be inconsistent with this Bill. If I may read out the phrase leaving out the portion dealing with subsequent Acts of Parliament which are specifically excluded I think it will make my meaning clear. The proviso would then read—

Do you want those words excluded?

No. The hon. the Minister does not seem to see the point I am getting at. I am suggesting that the proviso as it reads relates to two situations, namely, an Act of Parliament which specifically excludes this Bill and an Act of Parliament which does not specifically exclude it but which is inconsistent with it. My point is that in respect of an Act of Parliament which specifically excludes it there is no difficulty because that can obviously only refer to a subsequent Act. It is obvious that no prior Act can exclude this one. I accept also the Minister’s intention of wishing to override prior Acts of Parliament by this Bill.

Unless it is stated specifically in those Acts that they are not to be over-rided.

That can only refer to subsequent Acts of Parliament. The point I am making, Sir, is that as it is worded at the moment, the portion of the proviso dealing with Acts which are inconsistent can refer to prior Acts of Parliament as well and not only to subsequent Acts of Parliament. If that is correct then it has this effect that if a prior Act of Parliament, dealing with arbitration, happens to be inconsistent with this Bill the proviso will exclude the operation of this Bill which is not the intention of the Minister and which is a situation which ought not to obtain. If I may just read the clause again leaving out the words “excluded by” I think it would perhaps be clear to the hon. the Minister. In respect of inconsistent Acts the proviso will then read—

May I just explain. Before the introduction of this Bill we had certain Acts in which arbitration was referred to. The Law Revision Committee has felt that that is what they want to say in Clause 40, namely, that where a former Act says “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law this Act will apply”. In that case this Bill, if passed by Parliament, will not apply. The same in the case of Acts passed subsequently to this Bill. If they say the provisions of this Act will not apply then they will not apply. That is the position as the law advisers inform me.

I accept that that is the object the Minister wishes to achieve and I accept that this is a desirable object. That is what this clause should attempt to achieve but I do not believe it is achieving this object …

I discussed it with the law advisers and was informed that that was the position.

I must accept the position but I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would give it further consideration.

I shall give it further consideration. That is what I am told is the object.

I hold the same view as the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie). I want to ask the Minister whether this clause is as it came from the Law Revision Committee or whether it has in fact been redrafted since it came from them.

To the best of my knowledge it is as it came from the Law Revision Committee.

My information is that the proviso was introduced in the Other Place. It may well be therefore that it has not been possible to give it the fullest consideration. The clause says quite clearly that—

That is clearly the intention of the hon. the Minister as he has stated it to-day. The point the hon. member for Musgrave has made is that one part of the proviso will mean, I think, that wherever any previous arbitration ordinance or Act governs an arbitration, and there is any inconsistency with the present Act, whether in the terms of the the Act itself or in the regulations or procedures recognized by that other law, then the Bill we are now considering will not apply. We believe that is not the intention of the hon. the Minister.

In order to state more clearly what the hon. member has in mind, the amendment was moved in the Other Place. The amendment was drafted by the law adviser, Mr. Conradie, who is also a member of the Law Revision Committee. He was present at that meeting. It was particularly to give clear expression to the standpoint that (a) it will apply to all Acts, except Acts passed before the passing of this Act, and where it is expressly excluded; and (b) Acts passed hereafter and where it is expressly excluded. The more I look at the clause, the clearer it becomes to me that this is precisely the intention reflected here. “This Act shall apply to every arbitration under any law passed before or after the commencement of this Act, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other law were an arbitration agreement.” It is therefore quite clear. The general statement is being made that it applies to all arbitrations before and after this Act. Then it continues—

i.e. the law which does not want to make this Act applicable to it—

That is to distinguish it from a provincial ordinance or the regulations of a lesser body—

It therefore follows very clearly that by means of this proviso we want to state exactly what both those hon. members have in mind.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would be good enough to tell me whether this refers to both an existing law and a law passed hereafter. The proviso says—

It cannot possibly be excluded by it. It is unlikely that it be a prior Act because this will now be the governing Act or arbitration.

Prior Acts also refer to the various ordinances and to the principles of arbitration.

Yes. But it does seem to me that this leaves room for doubt as to what the intention is. I wonder if it is not possible— we do not want to delay the Bill in any way— for the Minister to get the particular law adviser who drafted the Bill to look at it again. Frankly I think this clause lends itself to different interpretations.

I can do that; but that is my information.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

This Bill deals with only two matters. It deals in the first place with the courts as we find them in the Bill, and in the second place it deals with the question of attorney and client costs. In regard to the first aspect, viz. our regional courts, I am glad to be able to tell the House—all practising lawyers are aware of it—that these regional courts are doing excellent work. Not only do they do excellent work but they also take over much work from the Supreme Court, work which would have taken up much of the time of the Supreme Court and which would probably have resulted in our having appreciably to expand the number of Judges of the Supreme Court, with consequent detriment in so far as accommodation, etc., is concerned. Therefore the Department felt—and I wholeheartedly agree with it—that the time had arrived for us to place our regional courts on a firm basis. That is what this Bill seeks to do. The Bill also seeks to insert in the Act what the qualifications are with which regional court magistrates must comply. Hon. members will also find the personnel of the Committee which has to give advice in respect of the persons to be appointed to these regional courts in this Bill. Hon. members will find that they are quite representative and that they are persons who will definitely be able to form the best judgment as to whether these persons have the necessary qualifications and the necessary personality and all the other qualities to fit them to preside in the regional courts.

As hon. members will see in Clause 2 of the Bill, the Committee will consist of the Secretary for Justice, the Deputy Secretary for Justice and so many officials of the Department of Justice occupying the rank of Attorney-General or that of Chief Magistrate or the Under-Secretary for Justice as the Minister of Justice may from time to time appoint. These are par excellence the persons who can judge of the efficiency and the qualities of the magistrates. I do not think I need say anything more in regard to this aspect of the Bill.

I refer hon. members to Clause 3 of the Bill, where the words are inserted “including costs as between attorney and client”. Here we have the case that neither in the Supreme Court Act nor in the Magistrates’ Court Act is the power specifically granted either to a Judge or to a magistrate to grant costs as between attorney and client. This matter was raised in the Nel case in former years in so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, and hon. members will recollect that the Supreme Court decided that in spite of the fact that it was not specifically stated anywhere in an Act it was a long-standing practice and that the Supreme Court had the inherent jurisdiction to accept that practice and to legalize it when anybody cast doubt upon it. In so far as the magistrates’ power in that regard is concerned, all of us who have practised in the magistrates’ courts have grown up with the idea that a magistrate also has that power. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), for example, in the years in which he sat as a magistrate, probably often made an order in regard to attorney and client costs. I myself appeared in cases in which application was made for attorney and client costs, and I can remember one or two cases where such an order was in fact granted. We accepted that in spite of the fact that it was never provided for in an Act, the magistrate’s court by implication had that power. But now, in the case of Hoosan v. Joubert in 1964, the Judge-President of the Transvaal in an appeal case, after having consulted all the authorities, came to the conclusion that (a) in spite of the fact that it was the practice, a magistrate was not allowed to make such an order, and after having consulted the authorities he found that—

The court consequently ordered that the decision of the magistrate in this regard should be set aside. All we are now doing in Clause 3 of the Bill is to legalize this practice which has existed all these years and in which we all believe, and in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has said that magistrates do not have this power by implication, we now give them the power in suitable cases to aware attorney and client costs.

The institution of the regional courts has come to be accepted as having filled a very important place. Very important because it has unquestionably speeded up the work of the courts, and nobody would suggest that we should depart from this experiment which, as the Minister rightly said, has proved to be a success. Sir, we welcome also the provisions in relation to the regional magistrates being persons who are properly qualified. In regard to the third point referred to by the hon. Minister, namely the question of costs as between attorney and client, I think it is very wise that provision is being made in this respect. Those who practise in the courts will agree that in general costs between attorney and client have only been awarded where there was very good reason for it, and it certainly would limit the discretion of our judicial officers if it is not possible to impose this penalty in such cases where the court thinks fit to do so. We welcome the fact that this is being clarified. I must say with great respect to the hon. Judge the phrase “to grant such judgments as to costs as may be just” was very reasonably, if perhaps wrongly, interpreted to lay down that the costs may be costs as between attorney and client in appropriate cases. We all agree that it is most desirable that any doubt should be disposed of. It certainly would be undesirable that someone one day has to appeal to the Appellate Division on that point to establish the law. It is far better that Parliament should take time by the forelock. Regarding the other provision of the Bill, the establishment of the Regional Divisions Appointments Advisory Board, this seems to be a wise provision and one can only hope that in practice it will be as successful as all of us believe it will be.

I am glad to be able to lend my support to this Bill as well. The establishment of the regional courts after June 1952 has been a marked success in the system of the administration of justice, and I think the hon. Minister is quite right when he says that these courts have now gone beyond the experimental stage. They certainly have relieved the Supreme Court of a great deal of work which would otherwise have been time absorbing and an unnecessary burden on Judges. At the same time they also relieved the inferior courts of a considerable amount of work in regard to the holding of preparatory examinations. I think one must place on record that much credit for the success of the regional courts must go to the Department of Justice because of the care it has exercised in making appointments of regional magistrates. I know that the magisterial branch has been jealous of its prerogative in that regard and of the duty that has been assigned to it in general to provide from its ranks the incumbent of these higher magisterial posts. I am glad therefore that the hon. Minister has now found it advisable that the practice of selection should be made a part of the legislative scheme for the setting up of these courts by the creation of this new body, the Regional Divisions Appointments Advisory Board.

I myself believe that such a body will be best able to make the most suitable selection in regard to appointments of this nature. I certainly have confidence in the ability of such a body to continue to make their selection in the very careful and deliberate way in which they have done so in the past and that they will make the appointments in the best interests of the administration of justice.

I hope the hon. Minister will tell us why the ten-year period in the first clause is deleted. Originally, the magistrates appointed to regional courts had to serve as a magistrate or additional magistrate, or assistant magistrate for not less than ten years before being appointed as regional magistrates. I accept that ten years might have been an arbitrary period, but I do think that the doing away with it needs some explanation from the hon. the Minister. I am one of those who believe that years of service prove the man, and I think the hon. Minister will agree that the respect of people, that is the subjects of the State, for law and order is governed very largely by the quality of the justice that is administered or meted out in the inferior courts, and as a natural corollary therefore by the quality of the men appointed to mete out justice. Therefore it seems to me that although this might have been an arbitrary period of ten years, the practice has shown that it was a wise provision, and I hope the hon. Minister will explain why this has been deleted.

As regards the last clause, I agree with the hon. Minister when he says that awards of attorney-client costs must have taken place in most magistrates’ courts. I myself thought that the practice was firmly established, but one naturally has to bow to the judgment of the Judge-President of the Transvaal, and I am therefore glad that the hon. Minister has seen fit to put the position beyond any possible doubt by the inclusion of the amendment to paragraph (d) of Section 48 of the Act.

In regard to the Joubert case, it is interesting to note how the Judge motivated his decision. He put it this way—

Then he went on to say that he could not draw such an inference from the Act.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) referred appreciatively to the Department of Justice, more particularly in regard to the action of the Department in connection with the stabilization of the regional courts. I heartily agree with the hon. member and I thank the hon. gentleman for the well-deserved praise they have given to the Department in this regard. I may just add, and I do not think it is inappropriate to do so, that one of the persons who was particularly interested in this matter and who at all times gave a positive lead in regard to it was the present Secretary for Justice, and I think hon. members will agree with me that it was fair and reasonable to extend the period of services of the Secretary so that he could make available his services to the State for a further period of two years.

The question of the ten years was thoroughly considered by the senior officials of the Department and after mature consideration it was felt that in view of the fact that the qualifications are now made so high—we simply cannot set them higher than they are —and in view of the fact that it is now merely a question of the merits and qualifications of the person, the period of service as such is no longer important, and therefore they felt that the period of service could be omitted. In practice I believe that it will still mean that a man will need to have many more years of service, but one wants, as the qualifications have been made so high, to set the ideal for the younger people that the regional court is not beyond their reach and that if they qualify themselves they can go to the regional court and need not necessarily wait for seniority to get there one day. Because that is the reason underlying this amendment I think we must appreciate it and accept it as such. For the rest, I thank hon. members for their acceptance of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This clause, short as it is, contains two important principles. The first is that the Minister may delegate any of the powers conferred on him by the Act to any officer referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 8 seconded to the service of the Board, and the second is the condonation of the sins of omission by the Minister who failed or neglected to discharge the obligations imposed upon him under the Act and for his sins of commission by leaving it to some official of the Board to assume the obligations. I will firstly deal with the first principle, the principle of delegation, and in doing that I want to move the first part of the amendment standing in my name—

During the second-reading debate on this Bill the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in particular expressed the concern of the Opposition as to any change in the obligations which were imposed upon the Minister and which in effect required him to give his personal attention and approval to matters where called for in the Act. Secondly, he also expressed the Opposition’s concern in regard to the diminution in any way of the Minister’s accountability to Parliament in regard to the administration of the Cape Town Foreshore Act. In his reply the hon. Deputy Minister of Lands was not very specific as to why the need for the delegation had arisen, except to say that there have been certain irregularities found (I think he said by the law-advisers) in regard to the administration of the Act and that condonation was now sought to rectify what had been done. But, Sir, as was stressed in the second reading, and as I think must be stressed again, we are concerned here with an area which is strictly circumscribed. It is a relatively limited area but it contains land of very great value, and those are circumstances which must have weighed with Parliament when the Act was passed in 1950 and which imposed these duties on the Minister. Sir, the delegation in terms of Clause 1 is a delegation which is completely wide. In fact I think it divests the Minister of his obligations and I think it tends to absolve him from his accountability to Parliament in regard to the administration of the Act. It is because of that, in view of this delegation given in very wide terms, that I have thought it necessary to introduce this amendment. The most important section of the Act (No. 26 of 1950) is Section 10 which deals with the objects and powers of the Board and which places certain responsibilities on the Minister requiring his prior approval before any transaction can take place. The most important requirement is “that the board may, with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine (i) sell, let, hypothecate or otherwise encumber any land forming part of the Foreshore”. It goes on a bit further, but that is not important for the purpose of my argument. Now I understood the hon. Deputy Minister of Lands to say that to some extent practice has now been established over the years and that circumstances might be justification for this delegation. Because that is an understandable explanation of the situation, I selected the one aspect of which the Minister is required to give his approval and that is “to sell any portion of the land”. The word “selling” there has a finality about it, and in our view it is a type of transaction to which the Minister should still give his personal approval. The letting, hypothecation or encumbrance of land are not acts of finality, but the selling of land is a final act. I feel therefore that the delegation must be limited in some way, and the suggestion therefore is that it should be limited by leaving the other powers that the hon. Deputy Minister claims are necessary, but reserving to the Minister the necessary power to approve the sale of land before land can be disposed of. I think it is correct to say that we feel that the delegation of powers may be ill-advised in a case such as this, but it is obvious from what I have said and from what was said during the second reading that the area is limited, the number of transactions involved cannot be very great and the number of future transactions must even be smaller. By moving the amendment in this form, not asking for the deletion of the whole clause, I think the Opposition has met the hon. Deputy Minister more than halfway in respect of the case he has presented and I hope therefore that that portion of the amendment that I have now moved will be accepted.

I am afraid I cannot meet the Opposition as regards the amendment moved by them. I think I must refer them to what happened in the Senate. There the Opposition used as their spokesman one of their strong men, Senator Berman, who, as a member of the Cape Town City Council, has been directly concerned with these problems over the years, and he not only welcomed this Bill, but even thanked us for coming forward with it, because he realized what problems they have been faced with in the past. Sir, you will find this in the Senate Hansard of 10 February. Now I find it strange that the United Party disagrees with its own people. However, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has put his case in regard to the question as to whether it is right that certain rights (and in his view the right of sale is a limited one) should be delegated to an officer. If one looks at Section 10 of the original Act, which was quoted by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), one finds that 10 (1) (h) states explicitly—

1. (i) to sell, let, hypothecate or otherwise encumber any land forming part of the Foreshore …

In other words, the original Act explicitly provides “with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine”. It is not an unlimited delegation that is made to an officer. It is a delegation that is made to an officer to do the work “subject to the approval of the Minister and to such conditions as he may determine”. Now I want to put the following ridiculous position to you: If the Minister himself had to hold a conference with the Trust Bank in order to conduct the negotiations in regard to the land to be obtained by them, what would the position then be? It would create an impossible state of affairs. Every day the Minister is formulating policy and laying down conditions in regard to the various aspects of his activities and then telling officials, in this case a specific officer under a board, that the policy and the conditions have to be complied with. I want to add that I am glad that the hon. members are so concerned about the Foreshore, because the hon. member said that it was a limited area; it is a limited area, and it is precisely because we realize the limitedness and the importance of this area that there is a Select Committee of both Houses to supervise its development. In the case of the approval I have now granted, for example, I have arranged for a complete model-plan of the new civic centre, together with the opera house to be built there, to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament by the Foreshore Board, and that the House of Assembly, through the Parliamentary Select Committee, will stipulate that a certain part of the land is not to be alienated, but must be reserved for parks that are to be established in future. I want to go further: The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is a former Auditor-General, and hon. members know that the activities of this Foreshore Board and of the officials who have to give effect to the decisions relating to the sale, alienation or letting of land, etc., are subject to annual inspection by the Auditor-General. He has to carry out an annual inspection in this regard, and the audit is laid upon the Table, and ever since the establishment of the Foreshore Board we have never had a certified audit, in other words, the House of Assembly has merely received the assurance that any action taken has only been in the best interests of South Africa. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) says that the Minister cannot be called to account because the work is delegated and the House therefore cannot hold him responsible. This is not the position, because the officer only acts according to instructions given with the approval of, and subject to such conditions as may be determined by, the Minister, and furthermore, whatever is done by the officer as far as selling this land is concerned is set out in the audit report and the Minister can then be called to account in this House. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

I regret very deeply that the hon. Deputy Minister has adopted the attitude that he has. This amendment is a very advisable amendment and the case for it was put very clearly by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). I cannot understand why the Minister should adopt the attitude he has adopted. Here is an asset which is a national asset. The development of that area is of the greatest importance not only to Cape Town, but this is the gateway to South Africa and of importance to the whole country. The hon. Minister has been at pains to show the ultimate responsibility of the Minister. He cannot escape from the fact that when he gives a power of sale to an official that power is carried out, even if it is carried out in accord with the general directions of the Minister. The power of sale is vested in the official and while the Minister can be criticized in this House, the official makes the decision. If queried the ready answer is that Parliament has seen fit to vest the power of sale in the hands of the official concerned, it would obviously be advisable in the interests of the official himself and, I submit, of the Minister that in respect of the sale the final say should rest in the Minister’s hands. The number of transactions involved would not be many. The Minister has referred to the case of an hotel which is to be built and the examination of the plans, etc. In matters of that sort naturally the Minister must be guided by his officials. I am sure the Minister would not want to sit down and study the plans in detail and read the specifications, but he will accept the report of his Department and possibly look at the plans just to see whether from the aesthetic point of view he approves of them. I strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). I find it very difficult to understand why the Deputy Minister has adopted the attitude he has. He seemed almost aggrieved that such an amendment should have been moved, but the amendment is moved simply because it is felt that in the particular circumstances of this case the hon. the Minister should bear a direct responsibility to this House for the sale of land, and not responsibility for an official who has been empowered by this House to effect the sale. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude and accept the amendment.

I share the views of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and deprecate the manner in which the Deputy Minister referred to what happened in the Senate, but as was explained in the second reading, by reason of the procedure whereby Bills can be initiated in the Other Place this House becomes a House of review and therefore obviously the Opposition has to review the position at this stage of proceedings. I hope the Minister will not labour that point unduly. But it is quite clear from the attitude of the Deputy Minister that he himself misconstrues the purpose and the effect of the clause he wants to insert in the law. He misconstrues this power of delegation. I relied on the very clause which the Deputy Minister quoted himself, but he has misconstrued the clause by saying that the approval of the Minister stands. That is not so. This new clause now delegates to an official of the Board—and I am now reading the section as it will read with this delegation—“the Board may with the approval of the officer to whom the powers have been delegated and subject to such conditions as that officer may determine, sell, let, hypothecate or otherwise encumber …” That is the extent of the delegation. The officer who is delegated now substitutes for the Minister both in the legislation and in practice, and he may deal with the matter without the matter coming to the notice of the Minister at all. We accept that there may be a certain amount of practice already established, but we say that there can never be established practice in regard to the power to sell. Selling land is a final act, and it is the one thing which we contend should still be the obligation of the Minister to attend to. The Deputy Minister also misconstrued the position by asking whether we expect the Minister to negotiate and look at plans, etc. Obviously we do not. The negotiations are done by members of the Board-—by officials of the Board in the first place, I presume, and then by members of the Board. When a concrete proposal is made, it comes to the Minister and he gives his approval before the sale is negotiated. But the Deputy Minister tries to suggest that there is a safeguard in the Select Committee. Parliament is not concerned with negotiations of this nature. That is why Parliament vests in the Minister the obligation and the duty to do these things. He also refers to the safeguard of the Auditor-General, but that is a financial safeguard. The Auditor-General is not concerned with the administration of the Board’s affairs; it is only concerned with the financial administration of the Board. He obviously does his work to the best of his ability and reports to Parliament, but he is not concerned with the administrative aspect, with what leads up to the sale of property for which money is received. I hope the Deputy Minister will review his attitude because I think he is inclined to look upon this as being an obstruction rather than an endeavour to set the position right. We cannot get away from the fact that we are concerned here with a public asset in which the State and the City Council are both concerned, and I think there is a duty on the Opposition to make quite certain that before any change is made in the law which affects public assets of that kind, the matter should be clearly ventilated and understood. I therefore hope that the Deputy Minister will now review the position and see it in that light.

I am afraid the two hon. members who have spoken are labouring under a serious misconception. I first want to refer them to the original Act once again, and I immediately want to tell the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that I do not hold it against the hon. members that they come along with these arguments. On the contrary, I welcome this interest. It shows me that they are as interested in the development of this city, which is the gateway to South Africa. In addition I want to say to the hon. members that I take it that as a result of the new system in terms of which legislation may be initiated in the Senate, this House can also be a House of Review, and that I will therefore not burden them with what was said in the Senate. I only mentioned it because I wanted to show how someone who is acquainted with the work being done at the moment and who knows what problems they have encountered welcomed the Bill. If we look at Section 8, the section now being amended here, we find that it provides that the clerical and administrative work connected with the functions of the Board shall be performed at its expense and under its control by officers in the Public Service to be seconded to the service of the Board. In other words, here we have public servants who have to do the work of the Board. If we now look at Section 10—and this is where the hon. members make their mistake—we see that it provides very explicitly that the objects of the Board shall be to control, manage and develop the Foreshore and to dispose of the land included therein, and to that end the board shall have power to do certain things, and (h) confers upon the Board the power with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine to sell, let, etc., any land forming part of the Foreshore. In other words, in 1950 this House authorized the Foreshore Board to sell land, to let it, and so forth, and seconded public servants to the Foreshore Board to do the work for it. The Board may only do these things with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine. All we now ask is that where the Board may do these things subject to the approval of the Minister, there should be an executive official in this Foreshore Board who may do the work and sign the contracts on their behalf. Up to now these things have been done by these public servants, but now the law advisers have found that the right delegated to the Board by the Minister to do these things has not been delegated to an officer by this Act; and all that is now being asked is that we must stipulate in the Act what juristic person is to exercise the rights and powers which have already been conferred upon the Foreshore Board by the House of Assembly; and the juristic person who is to exercise these rights and powers is this public servant we have seconded to them to do the work. That is all we are asking. There is no new principle involved, and the Minister is not being relieved of any responsibility. All that is being done, is that executive authority that has already been granted to the Foreshore Board is being conferred upon a juristic person who has to do the work. Where this is the position, I cannot see how the hon. members can put forward a proposition that will make it quite impossible to carry out the functions of the Foreshore Board and that will also invalidate the work done by the Foreshore Board since that time. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this amendment.

It is quite obvious that the hon. the Deputy Minister still misconstrues the very purpose of this delegation. The delegation is a wide one. The Minister may delegate any of the powers conferred on him by Section 10. Sir, I am limited in regard to the number of times I can speak and therefore I now have to come to the second portion of my amendment which I had hoped I would not have to proceed with. Had the Deputy Minister seen fit to accept this amendment, it would have reduced the Opposition’s concern about the matter considerably, but in the light of the Deputy Minister’s attitude I have no other alternative but also to move now—

I am coming to that portion of the principle which I said dealt with the condonation of the sins of omission of the Minister and the neglect of his obligations under this Act, and also his sins of commission by leaving it to an officer of the Board to exercise or assume those objections. If there has to be condonation of what was done bona fide by a member of the Board’s staff, who is also an officer of the Public Service, then this side of the House would obviously not object to such condonation if a good case was made out. But before you can agree to condonation of something, you must know what you are condoning, and we are left in this position that neither this House nor, it seems to me, the Deputy Minister, knows what we are condoning. I think it is fair to say that the Minister and the draftsman here have adopted the lazy way of getting parliamentary condonation for the irregularities. We are now simply asked to pretend by a legal fiction that what was done by the officials, possibly in good faith, was done by them in terms of the law; whereas the Minister in the second reading admitted that what had been done was irregular. I think his words were that he wanted to condone “die vorige handelinge van die bestuur wat nie wettig is nie”. So we are now asked to condone something which was illegally done. I think the House must know in detail, or certainly in substance, what the nature of the condonation is that Parliament must now give. We cannot simply legislate blindly, as we are asked to do here. We cannot simply give a blank cheque. As I indicated before, the area is a limited one and the number of transactions must be limited, and it behoves the Deputy Minister to come to this House with the fullest details of what it is “wat nie wettig is nie”. We can assure him that if anything has to be put right that was done in good faith, we will accept it in the same spirit, but surely we are entitled to know. I think we have reached the stage in this debate where the hon. the Deputy Minister should withdraw the Bill because we are now obviously dealing with something in a slapdash fashion. We are dealing with the matter in a slapdash fashion and we are trying by a legal fiction to say that something which was irregularly done was done correctly. I think there is an obligation on the Deputy Minister to withdraw the Bill and to re-introduce it in the light of the arguments advanced from this side of the House, and then when he comes to ask for condonation to do so not in the lazy way but in a forthright way by setting out what the various Acts are which were done irregularly.

I should like to make an appeal to the Minister. We on this side strongly hold the view that the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) should be accepted. I do not believe for a moment that it will have the serious effect on the administration which the Minister thinks it will have. The Minister will only have to perform one administrative act. He will have to sign his name in respect of sales. We do not think that is an unreasonable request. In all other respects we accept that delegation is essential. That is clear from the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). It is not necessary to repeat it. We have made our point, that the sale of land is a final act which must be confirmed and we want it to be confirmed by the Minister. In respect of future sales, we would like the Minister to have a direct responsibility. I asked the Minister to consider seriously, if he will not accept these amendments now, that he should move to report progress so as to give him an opportunity of considering it further. We do not want to delay the matter, but it is absolutely essential that the Minister should accept a direct responsibility. I hope he will accept it and not be in a position where, if there is a query in this House, something with which we disagree, we can face the Minister man to man, because we do not want to hold officials responsible. I hope the Minister will not run away from that. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment he should move to report progress so as to give it further consideration.

I shall immediately deal with the second part of the amendment as well. I want to refer the hon. members back to my second-reading speech, in which I stated very explicitly that the words “with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine” were inserted in the 1950 Act with the intention of granting the Minister control over the general conditions of purchase or sale, and that the rest of the particular transaction would be handled by the Board on its own—this Board that already has this power in terms of the Act.

You are reading it incorrectly.

That is how it was passed in 1950, and the 1950 Act delegated these rights to the Board. Now I want to say this to hon. members: From time to time the Minister of Lands has also agreed to amendments to the general conditions and authorized the managers in office to act on his behalf in approving of the Board’s decisions in regard to land transactions. Let us try to take a few examples. Let us assume the Minister has approved the purchase of the Sanlam or the Broadway building and has delegated an official to conclude the transaction, and then the law advisers come along and say that because the powers that have been delegated to the Board are not also delegated by the Act to a juristic person who has to do the work on behalf of the Board the position is not quite legal, or there is some doubt as to its legality, surely it is then the duty of this Board to remedy the position, and to do so with retrospective effect. I repeat that no new principle is being introduced into the Act. The Minister is not being relieved of any responsibilities and no new responsibilities are being imposed on any official. All that is being done here is that the powers that were delegated in the 1950 Act are being conferred upon a juristic person on the Board who has to deal with any particular matter. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments in the Bill are mainly intended to adapt the principal Act to changed circumstances and developments which have been experienced in the dairy industry in recent times. Certain of the proposed amendments are being made with a view to greater clarity when it comes to the practical application of the Act.

Changes in manufacturing methods have made it necessary to tighten up the definition of certain dairy products in Clause 1 in order to conform to existing conditions and practices. In terms of the present definition of “cheese”, it is the product obtained by the draining of coagulated milk, skim milk or partly skimmed milk, which is then matured for more than ten days. This definition, however, is no longer comprehensive enough in view of the fact that new types of cheese such as “Drakensberg” are made by also adding cream to the milk. The requirement that the product should be matured for more than ten days is intended to draw a distinction between ordinary cheese and soft cheese like cream cheese and cottage cheese. In order to remedy the definition it is now intended to define “cheese” as the product obtained by the draining of coagulated milk, cream, skim milk or a mixture of two or more of these products, but with the exclusion of soft cheese which is normally used in a fresh condition.

“Process butter” is a product which years ago was manufactured from farm butter which was bought on the markets and was then reprocessed in premises which had to be registered for that purpose. This product is no longer being manufactured and the definitions of “process butter” and “process butter factory”, and the reference thereto in the Act, are being deleted.

“Process cheese” is presently being defined as the product obtained by the milling, mixing or pasteurization of one or more types, grades or qualities of cheese with or without the addition of an emulsifying agent, a harmless colouring matter or any food product. This definition is defective because it says “mixing or pasteurization” instead of “mixing and pasteurization”.

Provision is also being made for the definition of “cheese spread”, which is the same product as process cheese and is described as the product obtained by melting and emulsifying into a homogeneous plastic mass quantities of one or more varieties of cheese with or without the addition of spices, herbs, food products, emulsifying agents, flavouring substances or an approved preservative. This definition is technically more correct in respect of process cheese and cheese spread. Consequential to these proposed amendments, the definitions of “process cheese factory” and “dairy products” are also being amended to include “cheese spread”.

The amendment to the definition of “creamery” will not bring about any change in the existing position. It simply results from the proposed amendment of Section 3 of the Act.

Registration of Factory Premises (Clause 2):

In terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act, premises used for the manufacture of dairy products must be registered by my Department. Sub-section (2) however provides that such premises, with the exception of cheese factories, need not be registered unless the milk, cream or skim milk used there is obtained or purchased from somebody else, or unless the owner of the premises is a cooperative, company, partnership or any other association of two or more persons. No farmers as such manufacture dairy products in the factories mentioned in sub-section (1) from milk or cream produced by themselves, except for cheese and butter. In so far as butter is concerned, the definition of “creamery” has been amended, as I have already said, so that premises in which the owner makes butter from cream obtained exclusively from his own cows, with the exception of co-operatives or companies, is not a creamery for the purposes of the Act. The provisions of sub-section (2) are therefore unnecessary and can therefore be deleted.

In regard to cheese, the position will also remain unchanged in view of the fact that no change is being made in connection with farm cheese factories and a cheese factory (which does not include a farm cheese factory) in any case has to be registered.

The Act requires that no premises may be registered as a cheese factory and that no registration may be renewed unless at least one person is employed in a full-time capacity in that factory and who is in possession of a certificate of proficiency in cheesemaking. Provision is now being made that the Minister may grant exemptions from the proviso in the case of a cheese factory where no cheddar cheese, gouda cheese or any other cheese closely related to those are manufactured.

The output of the factories concerned with this is small in relation to that of ordinary cheese factories and does not justify the fulltime employment of a qualified cheesemaker. These factories are registered by the Dairy Board only for the making of specific types of special cheese and the owners concentrate on those types only.

Other than in the case of cheese factories, there is at present no provision in the Act that creameries should employ persons who are qualified butter-makers. It is now intended to make provision that the premises of a creamery may not be registered, or an existing registration renewed, unless at least one person is employed full-time in that factory who holds a certificate of proficiency in butter-making. This provision is being made at the request of the Dairy Produce Manufacturers Association and the National Union of Dairy Industry Employees. This can only redound to the benefit of the dairy industry. In order to allow sufficient time to enable factories to comply with this requirement, it is further being proposed that this new provision will only come into effect on 1 July 1966. In other words, there will be enough time for all existing creameries and prospective creameries to comply with these requirements of the Act.

In terms of Section 10 (3) of the Act, the names of persons appointed by the Minister as analysts, bacteriological experts and inspectors must be published in the Government Gazette and certificates proving such appointments must be issued to the persons concerned. The publication of the names of these persons in the Government Gazette does not serve any practical purpose. Nor does a similar requirement exist in the case of produce inspectors appointed in terms of the Marketing Act of 1937, the Export of Fruit Act of 1957 and the Agricultural Products Export Act of 1959. It is therefore proposed that the provision in regard to the publication of the names in the Government Gazette be deleted and that it will suffice for certificates to be issued to these persons.

There is at present provision in the Act that an inspector may take samples of dairy products or ingredients used in that connection with the object of testing them or having them tested. Samples of certain dairy products are at present being taken to be graded at a central point, and in order to dispel any uncertainty which may exist in this regard provision is being made in the Bill for the taking of samples also for the purpose of grading or analysis.

In Section 11 (6) of the principal Act provision is made that an appeal may be lodged with the Secretary of the Department or a senior official authorized by him, in the prescribed way against the decision of an inspector. The Secretary for such official must decide the appeal. Section 29 (1) (v), however, provides that regulations may be issued in regard to the period in which and the way in which an appeal may be noted; the security to be given in connection with such an appeal; the way in which this security should be dealt with, and the person or persons by whom the appeal has to be decided.

In practice an appeal board is constituted to decide such an appeal in terms of the regulations issued. With a view to greater clarity and in order to make the matter conform to existing practice, it is proposed to amend Section 11 (6) of the principal Act in such a way that provision is made for appeals to be noted in the prescribed manner and that the decision of the person or persons deciding the appeal will be final and conclusive. The present provision that appeals should be lodged with the Secretary of the Department or a senior official and should be decided by him is therefore deleted. In order to remedy the position further, Section 29 (1) (v) is being amended to provide that regulations may be issued prescribing the period and the manner in which an appeal should be noted; the deposit which has to be paid and the circumstances under which that deposit or part of it may be repaid; and the appointment of the person or persons by whom the appeal must be decided. Therefore no real change is being brought about by this amendment and it is being done merely with a view to greater clarity in the practical application of the Act.

Section 16 (1) (f) of the principal Act prohibits the sale of any dairy products—except margarine—containing a preservative. In terms of the regulations issued under the Foodstuffs, Medicine and Disinfectants Act, process cheese and cheese spread may also contain approved preservatives. In order to remove this anomaly, it is therefore intended to exclude from this prohibition also process cheese and cheese spread, apart from margarine.

Section 18 of the principal Act provides that persons employed to test milk or cream or to grade cream must be in possession of a certificate of proficiency in order to be able to do the work. The National Industrial Council for the Dairy Industry has requested that provision should also be made in the Act that persons employed in the grading of milk should be in possession of a certificate of proficiency in milk grading. This request is also supported by the S.A. Cheesemakers’ Union, which represents employees, and the Dairy Factories Employers’ Organization, which represents the employers. At present industrial milk is not yet being purchased according to grade, but these certificates will serve as encouragement for employees to qualify themselves better.

Provision is also being made in the Bill for the issue of certificates of proficiency in milk grading and butter-making and for the withdrawal of such certificates under particular circumstances.

A further amendment is also envisaged in regard to the persons who have to test applicants for certificates in cheese and butter making, so that they need not necessarily be inspectors, but that other persons with the necessary knowledge can also be appointed for this purpose. The last-mentioned provision will in practice facilitate the implementation of the provision with regard to the setting of examinations for certificates in cheese and butter making.

The other amendments contained in the Bill are simply consequential amendments flowing from the amendments I have dealt with here.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the bodies I have already mentioned, the Dairy Industry Supervisory Board has also been consulted, and the proposed amendments are approved of by that Board. These amendments are only in the interest of the dairy industry and will have the result that the Dairy Industry Act, 1961, and the regulations issued in terms of it, will be able to be applied with greater efficacy and clarity. I move.

Circumstances have necessitated the amendment of the Dairy Industry Act, and this side of the House gladly approves of the amendments proposed here by the hon. the Deputy Minister. There are a few aspects, however, that we want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to take into review, and in connection with which we feel that further amendments should have been brought about. I should like to deal with those proposed amendments. Although provision has been made for inspection and for everything else relating to the making of cheese and butter and the by-products of milk, the supplier of fresh milk, who supplies a product which is extremely susceptible to germs and which is consumed by practically every person in our country and which is one of the most difficult products to control, may nevertheless supply this product to the consumer under the most unhygienic conditions. Where a dairy is registered it is subject to inspection. That inspection is done periodically, but where the suppliers of fresh milk are not registered producers but they nevertheless sell milk or cause it to be sold, it is possible for them to supply milk to the public under the most unhygienic circumstances. In many cases the premises which are used by small dairies are not subject to inspection. There are numerous small dairies of this kind, particularly in the smaller centres, where it is not possible to inspect the premises because there is simply no health inspector. I should like to know whether the necessary control cannot be exercised by means of more stringent regulations. Sir, then I want to put forward a plea for the supply of quality milk to the consumer. I speak subject to correction but I think the regulations provide that the milk must have a butterfat content of 3.2 per cent. We know, however, that the butterfat content of milk may vary between less and 3 per cent and as much as 6 per cent or more, and that people will not be disposed to sell milk with a butterfat content of 6 per cent to the consumer where it is possible for them to keep cows yielding milk with a butterfat content of 3 per cent. In terms of the regulations, a supplier is not allowed to supply milk with a butterfat content of less than 3.2 per cent, but milk cannot always be inspected to determine its butterfat content. Then there is another amendment which relates to Clause 3 (a) (4). This clause provides that after 30 June 1966 no premises shall be registered as a creamery and that no certificate of registration will be renewed unless there is a competent person employed full-time in such factory who is the holder of a certificate of proficiency in butter-making referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 18. We want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we do not feel happy about this particular clause. We are dealing here with an industry which is already struggling and which is not very popular with our young people; we find it difficult to induce people to enter this industry. We do everything in our power in our agricultural schools and agricultural colleges to attract young farmers to the dairy industry, but because of the depressed state of the industry at the present time, there is a great shortage of manpower in this industry, greater than in any other industry. Where a creamery is faced with the problem that it still has no inspector, or that it had an inspector and lost his services, or that after having been registered it was unable to employ an inspector with the result that its certificate was cancelled, we want to ask the Minister whether he will not be prepared in the Committee Stage to accept an amendment in this connection which will provide that such a creamery, with the permission of the Minister, may carry on until such time as it is able to engage an inspector.

For the rest, Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is prepared to give its support to this Bill.

I think it is high time that this legislation was placed on the Statute Book. Sir, we naturally have our difficulties in connection with exports and in connection with domestic manufacture, but when the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) talks about a butterfat content of less than 3 per cent he surely ought to know that no milk with a butterfat content of less than 3 per cent may be sold in any town or any place in South Africa. Even in the smallest towns there are regulations forbidding it. We cannot, of course, lay down that producers must keep cows which produce milk with a butterfat content of only 3 per cent or of 5 per cent: the general principle is to place our dairy industry on a sound basis, and I do not think that there is a single provision in this Bill to which there can be the slightest objection. I do not think it is necessary for the Opposition to put forward any amendments.

Those of us who have watched the dairy industry through its various stages of development are extremely interested in these additional amendments proposed here.

We are interested particularly after having reviewed the position after the 1961 amendment came into operation. We are pleased to be able to tell the Minister that some good results were produced by those amendments. The Minister is now seeking further powers under this Bill. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what is perhaps the nasty side of the dairy industry and I want to warn him against the acceptance of any irresponsible recommendations to his Department to juggle with prices, as was done some two, three or four years ago. I want to assure him that the industry is suffering to-day as a result of that irresponsibility. The industry was thrown into chaos, and I want to assure the Minister that it is going to take many years before the industry recovers and regains the healthy state in which it was at that time. Sir, the dairy industry wants fair remuneration for its labour and it wants long-term stability. This country will then be able to produce all the butterfat that is needed for its own requirements.

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister reads the Bill he will find that there is ample opportunity given for it. However, I want to say that the Minister is dealing here with one of our primary agricultural products, which I suppose is also the most delicate, a product which has to be dealt with by men who depend on a sensitive sense of taste for the grading of either milk, butter or cheese. I sincerely hope that the Minister will see to it that adequate provision is made for the training of these men so that they can carry out these operations.

There are just a few items that I want to say something about. I want to refer here to something which has been recommended in previous years and that is in regard to the tidying up of the definition. Sir, why cannot a butter factory be called a “butter factory” instead of a “creamery”? There are such things as creameries, and I did think that in tidying up the Act, butter factory would have been clearly defined.

The other item that I want to deal with is in Clause 2. I do not know whether I understood the Minister correctly or not and I should like him to clarify this point. It becomes necessary from time to time for the various butter factories to reprocess or rework their butter, and I sincerely hope that that is not going to be regarded as butter processing under this Act. When we come to Clause 9 I would like the hon. the Minister to deal more seriously with it than has been indicated by hon. members on the other side. The proposed new sub-section (1), in paragraph (a), says—

One can understand what that is meant to mean, but will the Minister not tidy that up at a later stage and put the following in its place: “has, during the period of two years immediately preceding such inquiry, not been engaged in the grading or testing of milk …”

I think if the terminology is taken out it would help a great deal to achieve the objects of this measure. Sir, for the rest I sincerely hope that the Minister is going to make use of the powers for which he is asking here because it is high time the dairy industry in this country was tuned up and cleaned up and that a stop was put to the juggling that is taking place between creameries whereby they are using testing and grading for the purpose of attracting business. There has been some measure of improvement but we sincerely hope that the Minister will take the necessary steps to put a stop to this practice at an early date.

I want to thank hon. members on the opposite side for supporting and welcoming this Bill. Where the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) asked for additional protection for fresh milk itself and where this Bill more particularly grants protection to cheese and butter, I want to point out that no municipality, no authority, allows unhygienic milk to be sold in its area. I also want to tell the hon. member that the 3.6 per cent butterfat test is not the only test. There is an additional test as well; the milk must contain at least 8 per cent of non-fatty ingredients before it is allowed to be sold. This is to ensure that no water is added to the milk.

The hon. member for East London (City) also asked that, in view of the manpower shortage, the date specified in this Bill, i.e. 1 July 1966 as the date by which a butter maker has to be a trained, qualified person, should not be regarded as a law of the Medes and Persians. Factories have to apply for permits every year and the Minister will, of course, use his discretion where any particular factory has lost the services of such a trained person. Hon. members must bear in mind, however, that the qualified men referred to here are not necessarily persons who have obtained a degree at a university or at one of our agricultural schools. We ourselves are prepared to help to train these people and, if they can pass our test, we are prepared to accept and approve for this purpose persons who have been trained at existing cheese and butter factories.

Where the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has warned against irresponsible price determination I want to point out that, as it happens, that has nothing to do with this Bill. I think he has made out a case, however, and we shall most certainly take this into account. Where the hon. member spoke about the training of staff and asked that we should help to train people, he may rest assured that we will make use of the services of existing butter makers and cheese-makers if they can pass our test. We will then regard them as trained persons and grant the further assistance required in this connection.

Then the hon. member asked that where a factory has to reprocess its own butter it should not fall under the provisions of these measures. I said very explicitly that one previously had the position that farm butter was melted down and then processed. Hon. members know that the Indian population, for example, used enormous quantities of this processed butter. The hon. member need have no fear that we shall take action against these factories.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Sir, this is the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I have Tabled an explanatory memorandum from which hon. members have been able to get the details of the Bill. The major proposals before the House concern firstly the wage figure above which workers are excluded from the unemployment insurance fund, and secondly, the position of seasonal workers. While I intend referring briefly to all the amendments in the Bill, I propose going into some detail as far as the two more important proposals are concerned.

Hon. members will recollect that the maximum earnings in respect of which contributions were payable to the Fund, were increased in 1957 from R 1,500 per annum, exclusive of cost-of-living allowance, to R2,500 per annum inclusive of cost-of-living allowance. The allowance on R 1,500 was estimated to be R580 at that time, and the figure of R2,500 therefore exceeded the then existing ceiling of R 1,500 plus the cost-of-living allowance by R420. For some time the Unemployment Insurance Board has had under consideration the question of a further adjustment to the ceiling as laid down in 1957. The Trade Union Councils’ representatives on the board have suggested that the ceiling be raised to R3,120 per annum. The Trade Union Council was initially supported by the Koördinerende Raad van Suid-Afrikaanse Vakverenigings. It was then argued that a ceiling of R3,120 would bring the Act into line with the Workmen’s Compensation Act. But I would like to point out that the two Acts are really not compatible in this respect: Earnings, in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, have always included cost-of-living allowances, payment for overtime and other special remuneration of a constant character whereas earnings, in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, did not originally include either cost-of living allowances or payment for overtime. Cost-of-living allowances have been included as from 1 April 1957 but overtime does still not form part of earnings. It follows, therefore, that to some extent a higher figure is necessary under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is the additional factor that whilst workers earning up to R3,120 per annum are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act compensation under the Act is calculated only on earnings up to R120 per month. That is, R 1,440 per annum according to Section 39 (2) of that Act. Similarly earnings in excess of R 1,440 per annum are disregarded for assessment purposes. After the board had given due consideration to all the relevant factors they decided, by a majority vote, to recommend that the ceiling be raised to R2,860. All the employers’ representatives and four trade union representatives on the board voted in favour of this figure. It was only opposed by the two representatives of the Trade Union Council. I am, however, pleased to say that during October 1964 the Secretary of the Trade Union Council advised the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner as follows—

I now come to the question of seasonal employment which is dealt with in Clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill. At present a “seasonal worker” is defined in the Act as a person who is employed in an industry on work which, by reason of the seasonal variation in the supply of the raw material, is ordinarily available to such person for a continuous period of not more than eight months in any one year. In many districts in the Western Province the fruit and vegetable canning industry and the fruit-drying and packing industry, which are seasonal industries, have been excluded from the Unemployment Insurance Fund in terms of Section 2 (5) of the Act because employers are unable, at the beginning of the season, to say which employees will be employed for more and which for less than eight months. From time to time the Fruit and Canning Workers’ Union have made representations requesting that steps be taken to enable its members, most of whom are seasonal workers, to be admitted as contributors to the fund. However, the Unemployment Insurance Board is of the opinion that seasonal workers should, for practical reasons, continue to be excluded from the Act. But it has recommended that all the administrative, clerical, technical, office, sales and maintenance staff in seasonal industries be now admitted to the fund, as well as those employees who, after having been employed as seasonal workers, remain in the employment of the same employer for a further period, i.e. after the eight months. In order to give effect to the board’s recommendation it is now proposed to insert a new section in the Act which will provide for seasonal employment, and to define “seasonal worker” and “seasonal business” on the lines set out in Clause 1 of the Bill.

It is also proposed to substitute a new definition for the definition of “earnings” in the present Section 2bis of the Act. As this expression is at present defined it excludes, inter alia, special remuneration which is not defined. As hon. members know there is a great variety of types of remuneration to-day, some of which are earnings as contemplated by the Act and others which are not earnings. Anomalies have also arisen from differing practices in various industries in arriving at what constitutes basic earnings. It is now proposed to provide specifically that any additional earnings based on the quantity or the output of work done, any special bonus, special payment or allowance, shall not be regarded as earnings unless the Minister, after consultation with the Board, determines otherwise in terms of Clause 3 of the Bill.

Hon. members will remember that in the course of the debate on the Labour Vote during the 1963 Session the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) requested that consideration be given to the granting of relief to women employed as radiographers because such contributors are prevented from continuing their work in the early stages of pregnancy and are consequently unable to qualify for maternity benefits. I then undertook to give this matter consideration and the amendment now proposed in Clause 10 (d) is designed to rectify the matter. The board will now be able to authorize the payment of benefits to such contributors who are obliged to relinquish their work much earlier than in the case of other pregnant women.

During last session the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) asked me to review the 1962 amendments to the Act relating to the payment of ordinary benefits and illness allowances on the ground that the new requirements had given rise to undue hardship in a number of cases. I stated then that the board would be requested to go into the matter and to submit a report to me. At a recent meeting the board gave special consideration to the question as to whether the restrictions introduced in 1962 should be relaxed. The board took into account the purpose for which the restrictions were imposed and particularly the fact that Section 39 (3) of the Act gave the board the power to grant further benefits or further illness allowances to contributors who were still unemployed after having received benefits for 26 weeks. Such benefits are granted by the board for periods up to an additional 26 weeks subject to the same qualifying periods as for the initial payment. The board does not consider it reasonable to expect the fund to provide relief for a continuous period in excess of 52 weeks. In all the circumstances the board agree that the 1962 amendments should not be relaxed, but the board recommended that Section 39 (3) be re-drafted in order to clarify and simplify the procedure for granting benefits for further periods and thus remove hardships which may arise in certain circumstances. In terms of the amendment now proposed in Clause 10 (a) a special form of application will be prescribed and such application will be submitted direct to the board and no longer via the Unemployment Benefit Committee. In other words, the application will go direct to the board which has a discretion as hon. members know.

It is trusted that the new procedure will remove the delays which have occurred in handling these cases in the past.

It is also proposed to amend Section 32 of the Act in order to provide for a period of seven years’ prescription in regard to the payment of contributions to the fund and the refund to employers of amounts paid by them in error. No period of prescription is provided for at present and the position is beginning to create administrative difficulties, especially in so far as storage facilities are concerned. The amendment is designed to avoid the necessity for increasing the accommodation, both for additional staff and for records. I may mention that the period of seven years was agreed upon after consultation with the Controller and Auditor General. It is estimated that this amendment will result in an annual loss to the fund of approximately R2,000 but it is anticipated that the annual savings in storage space, fittings and staff will exceed this amount.

The remaining amendments are either consequential on the proposals I have outlined or are designed to remove existing anomalies in the administration of the Act or they are purely of a textual nature.

In 1962 we on this side of the House strongly opposed the amendments that were moved to the principal Act by the hon. the Minister. On that occasion I think the hon. Minister was introducing his first piece of legislation in this House and it was a Bill which brought about a narrowing down of the then existing Unemployment Insurance Act. We now find that this Bill extends the scope of that Act and it is for that reason that we on this side of the House support it. The main issues involved in this Bill show that the extension of the scope of the Act will to a certain extent improve the present position.

I intend to deal with the various points raised by the hon. the Minister. During the Committee Stage we shall deal with other matters and seek further information. The first matter deals with the raising of the ceiling. I think this is perhaps one of the most important aspects of this Bill. The hon. the Minister did indicate that the Trade Union Council representatives on the board wished to have the ceiling raised to an amount equivalent to the amount provided for in the Schedule to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, i.e. R3,120 per annum. The Minister then indicated that the board had agreed on an increase of R360 per annum, in other words, on an increase of the ceiling from R2,500 to R2,860 per annum. However, the hon. the Minister did not indicate as to how this figure was arrived at. I think we would appreciate it if, when the hon. Minister replies, he would give us some indication as to the basis on which that ceiling was fixed. I might also add that we on this side of the House, of course, welcome in principle this step that has been taken in raising the ceiling of the figure as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned.

When we look at Clause 2 which deals with this particular aspect we find that the ceiling has been increased due to various factors mentioned by the Minister and mentioned in the White Paper. The object is to keep pace with increases in wages and salaries and to ensure that the Act continues to keep covered that class of employee who requires such cover as provided for in the main principle of the Act. The position is that for those, other than Bantu, this figure has been increased from R2,500 to R2,860 per annum. But the figure in regard to the Bantu has remained the same and merely provides for the conversion of that amount from £ to R. In other words, there has been no increase in the case of Bantu. The Bill merely provides that instead of it being £273 per annum the ceiling will be R546 per annum. If the same reasons apply in regard to workers other than Bantu workers, i.e. increases in salaries and wages, why is it that the same conditions have not been applied in regard to the Bantu workers? We know that steps have been taken by the Government themselves, by commerce and industry and the private sector, to increase the wages of the Bantu. I consequently find it difficult to understand the reason why this particular figure has remained the same in respect of Bantu workers. The general trend to give sufficient coverage to those persons who require coverage of this nature is one which is welcomed on this side of the House. It is felt that the step in raising the ceiling is one that will be generally welcomed in all spheres. We must also bear in mind the importance of the amendments to the principal Act. The raising of the ceiling is a matter which has come about due to the necessity of adjusting the present financial and economic position of those employees who have in the past enjoyed coverage of this Act and intend to remain members of the fund.

Increasing numbers are involved. The latest report of the Secretary of the Department of Labour which was tabled in this House at the beginning of the Session gives various items of interest as far as the fund is concerned. As far as the present fund is concerned it gives the number of employers. It shows that from 1962 to 1963 the number of employers have increased by 3,352 so that 65,663 employers are involved. The number of employees who paid contributions increased by some 87,000 during that year to approximately 952,000. That was for 1963 and to-day possibly over 1,000,000 employees are involved, i.e. contributors to this fund. I mention this fact because I am trying to assess the effects of increasing the scope of the fund on the financial position of the fund. We are making provision for extending the scope, a step which is naturally welcomed. However, I was hoping that the hon. the Minister would give some indication as to what the financial effect would be on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It extends the number of persons under Group XII who pay contributions to the fund. When you look at the latest available figure you find that Group XII represents something like 28.3 per cent of the total number of contributors and they make the greatest contributions to the fund. By raising the ceiling we will be admitting more contributors who are in Group XII. in other words, contributors who pay the highest contributions. I believe what the effect on the financial position of the fund will be is of considerable importance. We find that the 1962 amendments, which were opposed by this side of the House as I have mentioned before, resulted in a considerable decrease in the benefits paid in terms of the Act. The latest report on the position of the fund shows that in respect of ordinary benefits an amount of R9,328,000 were paid in 1962 and an amount of R4,958,000 in 1963. That means a decrease of R4,370,000. As far as illness allowances are concerned there was also a decrease in the amount of benefits paid from R3,307,960 in 1962 to R2,641,900 in 1963. Similarly there was a decrease in the maternity benefits that were paid. The overall picture therefore shows that in 1962 the income was approximately R11,500,000 and that in 1963 the income had increased to R 12,500,000 but in 1962 the expenditure was R 17,000,000 and in 1963 it had dropped to nearly R12,000,000. i.e. a decrease of R5,000,000 The accumulated funds stood at R 120,000,000 in 1963. Earlier in the Session I asked the hon. the Minister for information in regard to the 1964 position. His reply indicated that from 1 January 1964 till end of December. 1964 an amount of R13,441,000 had come into the fund and that benefits to an amount of R9,736,000 had been paid out. This means that there was a difference between the amount received and the benefits paid of R3,705,000. We can safely assume, therefore, that the accumulated funds standing to the credit of this fund are in excess of R 120,000,000.

In view of these various factors I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give us some indication as to what the financial effect would be on the present position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The other point which I think is important and a matter which should be raised and is linked with the financial position of the fund is the decrease in the benefits that have been paid. These decreases are referred to in the report that has been tabled and which I have mentioned earlier on. In the case of every decrease reference is made to the 1962 amendments. I particularly mention this because the benefits which are paid are most important as far as this Bill is concerned.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Board had made certain recommendations and that they felt it was perhaps not wise to repeal the 1962 amendments and that they wished to retain the principles as provided for in Section 39 (3) of the principal Act. We consequently merely have here a tidying up of Section 39 (3) of the Act, as amended in 1962. In regard to this particular aspect of the extended benefits I am rather surprised to learn that the Board —I don’t know whether the board was unanimous in its decision—decided that the main principle underlying the 1962 amendments and which limited the extent to which benefits could be paid, maternity benefits, illness allowances and ordinary benefits, should be maintained and not amended, repealed or withdrawn. I know that during 1964 the Trade Union Council of South Africa made strong representations on 16 January to the hon. the Minister in regard to the adverse effect of those 1962 amendments. They called upon the Minister to carry out an immediate investigation and to see what could be done to alleviate the position. The approach that was made on 16 January 1964 certainly indicates that the Trade Union Council of South Africa remains strongly opposed to those restrictions that were placed on the Statute Book in 1962.

Clause 10 of the Bill before the House provides—and it is hoped that it will have that effect—for ways and means of reducing the delays that are often experienced by persons who find it necessary to apply for extended benefits. During the course of last year as the hon. the Minister will remember the hon. members for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and myself made representations to the Minister and drew his attention to the fact that tremendous hardships had been experienced by certain persons who had contributed towards the fund for many years and then found that they were strictly limited to benefits for the initial 26 weeks only. The Minister, of course, referred to the section of the principal Act, as amended, Section 39 (3) which empowered the Unemployment Insurance Board to extend those benefits under certain circumstances. Clause 10 as proposed in this Bill to a certain extent appears to reduce the time lag that will eventuate if the matter has to go, first of all. to the Unemployment Benefit Committee and then to the Unemployment Insurance Board before a decision is made in respect of extended benefits. By by-passing the Unemployment Benefit Committee it is now hoped that these matters will be dealt with more expeditiously. Clause 10 amends Section 39 (3) which is perhaps the most important section of the principal Act. It deals with persons who are faced with extreme difficulties; they require immediate assistance. They feel they have a certain extent of security in that if they are no longer in employment they will be able to get something from the fund. As I read this particular clause, apart from the fact of reducing the time lag by the application going straight to the board rather than via the Unemployment Benefit Committee, the main principle remains exactly the same. The experience I have had has shown that very few of these cases have received extended benefits in terms of the provisions of the Act. Section 39 (3) of the Act reads—

If one refers to the provisions of paragraph (m) of sub-section (1) of Section 40, we find that this is the particular provision which states that no contributor shall receive benefits, unless he has been employed as a contributor for a period of 13 weeks or has been in employment for 13 weeks, during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the date upon which a period of unemployment is deemed to have commenced, which in most cases is taken as the date of application. Consequently the position is that a person finds that he is faced with this extreme difficulty (it is often those who make application for the extension of benefits in terms of illness allowances) that he is unable to find further employment and therefore is disqualified from drawing any further benefits, and who then has to make application to the board to receive those extended benefits. So in terms of this clause it merely continues to state that those contributors could receive as a maximum an additional 26 weeks’ benefits, in other words, a maximum of 52 weeks. At the end of the 52 weeks period, that is at the end of one year, unless that contributor is able to find employment for at least 13 weeks, or able to become a contributor for another period of 13 weeks, it means that he will not be able to receive any further benefits, either ordinary benefits or in terms of this clause further extended benefits. Therefore he is limited in the same manner in which he was limited in terms of the 1962 amendments. It is in this particular regard that I feel that perhaps something further could have been done to alleviate the plight of many of those people who are genuine work-seekers but who find it impossible to obtain employment perhaps in the field in which they are qualified. I refer particularly to those persons who receive illness allowances.

As far as the board’s decisions are concerned for extended benefits, if we look at the report of the fund, it shows that illness allowances are perhaps the greatest cause of difficulty where a person requires extended benefits. Under the ordinary benefits it is stated that the board received 26 applications for payment in excess of 26 weeks and 13 of those applications (50 per cent) were approved of. As far as illness benefits are concerned, a greater number of applications were received, i.e. 83 applications of which 56 were granted.

I believe this is a very important aspect of the fund. These contributors who make their contributions over a large number of years, who then become ill and are unable to continue in employment in their particular occupation or calling, are then faced with the position of drawing 26 weeks’ benefits and in the circumstances if the board deems fit to extend those benefits (it is in the board’s discretion) the benefits can only be extended for another 26 weeks because the board is subject to the conditions in paragraph (m) of the 1962 amendments. So in the end we find that these people then cannot enjoy any further benefits in terms of the Act and in terms of the contributions they have made over a long period of time. I feel that this particular aspect is one which perhaps the Minister could have considered more favourably and perhaps he could have been a little more generous in regard particularly to the illness allowances. This clause deals with the ordinary benefits or ordinary extended benefits and extended allowances under illness allowances and makes the amendments that the Minister referred to in regard to maternity benefits. Other members on this side of the House will deal in detail with some of those particular aspects, particularly in regard to the maternity benefits. However, Sir, this difficulty is one which. I believe, is a very real difficulty indeed, and I could quote many cases to the hon. the Minister of a great deal of hardship that has been experienced by those persons. It reopens the whole question as to what happens to the contributor who after having made his contributions to the fund, receives his initial benefits and possibly extended benefits, but is unable to find other employment. The Minister’s point in the past has been that such a man has to look elsewhere, and that it is not the purpose of the fund to assist in such cases. But I would like to mention that the difficulties and the hardships experienced by those persons, particularly the older workers, who are over 50 years of age and who do not find it so easy to embark upon a new career and find some other form of employment if they had to give up their employment due to illness, are very real. These are genuine cases, people who are genuine work-seekers, and I am sure the hon. Minister should go out of his way to try and assist those people who are genuine work-seekers. Persons between the ages of 50 and 60 do not qualify for any old-age pension or social pension, and in many cases, they are unable to qualify for a disability grant, and if they should be of sufficient physical disability to qualify for disability grants, they are in some cases disqualified from receiving a disability grant because of the application of the means test. These people are faced with this difficulty that they made contributions to the fund and they feel that they should be able to go to the fund and receive further benefits because they are in dire need. I think that many of these cases deserve sympathetic consideration, and I feel a little disappointed that the provisions of Clause 10 of the Bill before the House have not taken due cognizance of the genuine work-seeker and the contributor who is seeking further and additional aid from the fund. Such a person is off the labour market, perhaps temporarily, and he is unable to receive the additional benefits to which he hoped he would be entitled.

The other aspects included in this Bill in regard to seasonal workers and seasonal businesses, which are dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill, we will deal with mainly in committee when we hope to raise certain points, but as far as the principles are concerned, we are in agreement that these people who wish to receive the cover of the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be entitled to become contributors and enjoy those benefits. As far as Clause 3 is concerned, the definition of “earnings”, we appreciate the differentiation between the position as far as the Workmen’s Compensation Act is concerned and as far as this particular Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned. The other amendments, as the hon. Minister indicated, deal with certain administrative and consequential amendments in the Bill, and the question of “prescription” is also an amendment to which we see no objection and we believe in principle that is also to the benefit of the better administration of the Act.

Briefly the position is then that we on this side of the House support this Bill in principle, on the basis that it widens the scope and the coverage and is raising the ceiling, as provided for in the schedule and in Clause 2 of the Bill, and that it does obviate unnecessary delay in dealing with cases of urgent need should they require extended benefits. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the limitations of the 1962 amendments virtually remain the same, and only in that respect this side of the House feels perhaps a little disappointed, but we see this Bill as an improvement on the existing position and we welcome this Bill.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has indicated that he supports the principle of this Bill. He has again put forward a plea that the restrictions imposed in 1962 to obviate abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be lifted to a certain extent. Sir, I think past events have shown that the steps which were taken in 1962 were wise and necessary steps. The hon. member has pointed out that the fund has increased in the interim; I want to point out that the fund has increased not only as a result of the restrictions imposed in 1962 but also because of the improvement in the economic position of our country. In 1962, that is to say, the year before the Act was amended and an attempt was made to eliminate these abuses, our unemployment figure reached its peak; the unemployment figure soared in that year to 31,793; thereafter it gradually declined, and we have now once again reached a period of full employment. But I also want to point out to hon. members on the other side that not only did the Unemployment Insurance Board adhere to its recommendation of 1962 that certain amendments should be brought about, but there have been very few cases where the applicants have been able to prove that they have suffered deprivation and have asked for additional allowances. The, hon. member mentioned certain figures. He mentioned, for example, that in the case of illness allowances, there were 83 applications for additional allowances, 56 of which were granted. Sir, when one takes into account the large number of applicants there were for sickness benefits, namely 23,000, one realizes what a small percentage of these people applied for additional benefits. Similarly, as far as ordinary benefits are concerned, there was a very small percentage of applications when one bears in mind the fact that as far as ordinary benefits are concerned there were 74,000 applications in 1963 and that 5,677 were turned down. A very small percentage of those people asked for their applications for additional assistance under this legislation to be reconsidered. That is why I say that the facts show that the steps which were taken in 1962 were timeous and necessary steps, and although one welcomes the provision which is now being made to give the Unemployment Insurance Board the opportunity to grant further assistance up to a maximum of 52 weeks. I want to say that I do not think the hon. member has shown that the steps which were taken at that time were not justified.

The other amendments which are being brought about in this Bill, in connection with prescriptions, for example, and in connection with women who have to undergo X-ray treatment, are also essential. These are all essential steps and I am pleased that this Bill has the support of both this side and the other side of the House.

Although we on this side of the House welcome this Bill and are going to support it, that of course does not mean that this is the beginning and the end of all that can be done for the workers.

There are several clauses here which require some discussion. Firstly, I want to say a word or two about the seasonal worker. I am not altogether satisfied that in Clause 4(2) we have a good definition which can meet the various difficulties which are going to arise in the very near future. You see. Sir, the clause reads—

I want to know why the Minister insists on the worker having to work for the same person throughout the eight months? Surely a person who works seven months for one person and then for some reason or other; perhaps because he himself so desires, or because of a failure in the plant that he has been working at—goes to another factory, immediately after the seven months should not be penalized because he has changed his job or she has changed her job from one factory to another. Why should it be necessary for a person to work for the same particular individual, or work in the same factory? There must be a reason for it, but I cannot see the reason, and I hope that the Minister in due course will tell us why he insists on this clause reading as it does. Will it be welcomed, by those people who are excluded in the Bill? I would like to see some, relaxation of that particular clause so that one can give a chance to those people who go from job to job, but are never out of work and who immediately go from one type of employment to another type of employment. They don’t work for a day or two and then have a rest for a month. These are continuous workers, but they are going to be penalized now because the Minister insists on them having to work for the same person. I hope the Minister will give an explanation which will be satisfactory to us.

Secondly I want to say that I am very pleased that the Minister has taken into consideration those requests that we on this side of the House made in 1962, and to some extent he has met our requests. We appreciate that very much. But let me say that what was said in this House, namely that the Unemployment Fund was being pestered by thousands of won’t-works. by people who do not want to work and that the fund would be denuded in no time if restrictions were not imposed on their demands, has not been proved to be correct. It has not been proved that such is the case. It has been conclusively proved by the hon, member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), that the fund has increased, but the demands on the fund have fallen considerably and the payments have fallen by over R1,000,000. I think that is very, very important. and I cannot agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) when he says that the Act of 1962 has proved the Minister’s case at that time. I don’t think so.

I think what does follow is that there were exaggerations made, and that it does follow that we in South Africa are not plagued with large groups of won’t-works. I think it has been proved conclusively that those people to-day who are able to work are working and there are very, very few unemployed people. That is one of the reasons of course why the fund is growing and is one of the reasons why there is so little demand on the fund. But the hon. Minister must realize this position and must be a little more relaxing in his prohibitions. In dealing with the unemployed people and especially those people who are unemployed because of illness, I would say he could relax a little bit further. The 26 weeks is fair enough, the 26 weeks in which he gives a sickness payout, is fair enough. However, people do come with a demand for a further 26 weeks, or perhaps for a further part of 26 weeks—in any case they ask for extended relief—and the Minister says now that those applications will go direct to the Unemployment Insurance Board. I do not know whether the Unemployment Insurance Board at this juncture is able to judge whether or not a person has a justifiable claim on the fund. I also don’t know what provision is made for people who receive a rejection in regard to their application. What happens when the application goes in? I take it the members of the board study the application, go into the merits of it and agree to give an extended period of unemployment pay or sickness pay, and that is the end of it, their word is the last word.

Now I would like to see on this Board a representative of the medical profession; it can be a district surgeon or it can be an independent doctor, but if possible it should be a general practitioner, one who is used to dealing with the ordinary illnesses which come under his care in his everyday work. This medical practitioner should act as a referee to the Board and he should be able to give his opinion, because every request for relief after 26 weeks should be made together with a supporting certificate in which details of the person’s illness or incapacity should be set out, and the referee then, together with the members of the Board, can come to a conclusion. And if there should be a rejection of the person’s claim, after that there should be some sort of appeal for such persons, and then perhaps there could be a tribunal where they could have their cases heard. That would give satisfaction to these people who are forced in many cases through incapacity of some sort to stay off work for longer than 52 weeks. In many cases they are obliged to stay off after 26 weeks, but when a person has been off for 52 weeks it becomes a very difficult problem to decide what to do with that person. I would think that most of those people if they do make their claims on the ground of illness are permanently incapacitated, and I think there should be special provision made for these people who are in such a state of permanent incapacity. These are not the won’t-works, these are special cases, and I think for them special provision should be made. In other words, they should have a referee, a medical referee, who could help the board to decide the application and if it is rejected, that person should still have the right to go to an appeal, and if the appeal is rejected, he would have to go to Social Welfare naturally. But I would suggest that these two steps when dealing with serious applications of people who find that they are unable to work after 26 weeks, should receive sympathetic consideration. The other question is the 13 weeks period that a person is required to work after he has been ill for 26 weeks. This does create a certain amount of hardship in the case of people who try to go back to work too soon, when they are still not fully recovered. I think there again the time has come for the Minister to review the question of the 13 weeks compulsory work as it were, the 13 weeks before they are entitled to get a further grant from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I would say that even in cases where people have not worked for 13 weeks they should have a right to say to the Minister, through his Board that because of this or that circumstance or this type of illness, I have been obliged to stop work before the 13 weeks were completed. I think the hon. Minister should listen to those cases and that again there should be a referee on the Unemployment Insurance Board who could give an ear to these people who find it necessary to give up work before they have completed their 13 weeks.

In Clause 10 (d) we are dealing with maternity benefits and grants to those people who fall pregnant while working in those institutions where ionizing radiation is present. I don’t know whether I have read the clause properly, but the way I read the clause it would seem to me that in the sub-paragraph (b) only radiographers are included. I am not sure whether that is the case or not. Can the hon. Minister tell us whether those people who are working in radiologists’ consulting rooms for instance and also to a certain extent are affected by radiation, are included? Let us take these specific cases of the typists, the receptionists who are working in those rooms, who are continually going in and out to the rooms in which radiation is taking place. Will these people as well as the radiographers be included under this clause? If not, I would suggest to the hon. Minister that he makes sure that they are included, because they are just as vulnerable as the radiographers—as a matter of fact, I think more so, because the radiographer at least knows what precautions to take.

It only includes radiographers.

Then I hope that the hon. Minister will take into consideration the suggestion I have made that he should take in those other people who are affected by radiation. I would appeal to the hon. Minister to make some sort of concession to those women who are not in employment when they fall pregnant, to those young women especially who are newly married and who fall pregnant soon after marriage. They give up their work perhaps for a short period to establish themselves in their new home. If they fall pregnant during that period of establishing their home and are not working, they are not able to get any maternity grant. Surely we should encourage those people to have families. Only the other day we sat here in this House and very piously said how important it was for the White people especially to build up their families. Everybody was so keen that we should all have big families. What is the Minister doing about it? Here he has got an opportunity of saying: Look, I am going to relax this position; I am going to give you an opportunity for a year; if you fall pregnant during this period, after a year after marriage, I will see to it that you will get a maternity grant, and it is not necessary for you to be working at the time that you fall pregnant. The hon. Minister has got plenty of money in the kitty. We have not too many babies in the cradles at the moment. Let him give some of the money that he has got in the kitty to the mothers who will welcome it, and who will say “Well, it is not going to be a hardship to me now. because I am going to get so much money every month.” If we are sincere in saying that we want to have big families in South Africa and we want to encourage the White mother to have babies, then the Minister must give a lead and he must now say: Right, I am going to listen to the hon. member for Rosettenville and I am going to say to all those people who are newly wed that they need not be in employment; if they want to have their first baby, I am going to see to it that they get their maternity grant. Then he will have his name up in lights outside every maternity home.

I want to say again that we welcome this Bill. I don’t want to labour the other clauses. There are a few speakers on our side who will deal with other points, but I hope that those simple suggestions I have made to the Minister, will not fall on deaf ears, and that he will find ways and means of meeting our requests.

I should like to add my word of approval to those already spoken by hon. members on this side of the House and to say that in general terms we give this Bill our blessing. There is not much more for me to add to what has been said already, except that I should like to comment on certain clauses.

In regard to Clause 2, we approve of the rise in the ceiling of wages (in terms of which benefits may be drawn by contributors to the fund) from R2,500 p.a. to R2,860, although we would like to see the ceiling a good deal higher than that. It is high time that something was done about raising the ceiling and we are extremely glad that the Minister has come with this proposal to-day because the value of money has severely declined since 1957 when this provision was first written into the Act. The value of money is almost half of what it was then. The present amendment will mean relief to a very large number of people in terms of unemployment benefits, especially since the cost of living has gone up so drastically since the original figure was incorporated in the Act in 1957. I should just like to add my own disappointment to that expressed by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) in regard to Bantu workers. As hon. members can read in the Bill—I do not think the Minister mentioned it in his introductory speech—there is no increase in the ceiling for Bantu workers. I would like to point out that thousands of Bantu in the urban areas, who are engaged in industry and various other jobs, live below the poverty datum line. That applies particularly to Bantu workers in the urban areas. They are the really poor people and it is a matter of great regret to us that the ceiling for the payment of unemployment benefits to these people particularly has not been raised at all. The Act, after all, exists for the purpose of assisting the people in the lower income groups, and these people represent the lowest income group of the whole lot. As the hon. member for Umbilo has pointed out, with the present accumulation of money in the fund, which has been quite considerable over the last few years, surely this ceiling could have been raised for them also when the board was discussing raising the ceiling for White workers. The Minister’s 1963 report reflected quite a large surplus in the fund. That of course is the report I had occasion to refer to in the House last Friday when we were dealing with the question of the standards of the English language, but I will not repeat any of my comments in that regard this afternoon. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has heard something about it indirectly.

With regard to Clause 4, we also approve of the contents of this clause, which offers unemployment benefits to seasonal workers employed up to a period of eight months in any year. Previously this type of worker had a very hard time. We have been aware of that fact for some time and I am very glad that the Minister has come with this amendment, because many of these seasonal workers are highly skilled workers and it is high time that they were included. I am glad that they will now be able to make contributions and draw benefits accordingly. As a Cape member of this House, I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister say that consideration had been given to these seasonal workers largely because of the situation existing in the Western Province. The workers in the Western Province, I can assure him, will be extremely glad to hear this news. The present amendment in regard to seasonal workers, as the memorandum points out, does not only include seasonal workers, labourers only, but includes the administrative, technical, office, sales and maintenance staff as well, and they will be able to draw these benefits now also. We very much welcome the extension of the scope of the Act in this regard.

Then in regard to Clause 10, whereby the board may authorize the payment of further benefits to any contributor or any class of contributor at either the full or such reduced rates and for such periods as it may deem fit, I need hardly tell him that we are very pleased that applications for extended benefits are now to go to the board direct and so by-pass the old complicated machinery that existed in the past. This will now do away with the previous time-lag, as the Minister pointed out, when applications for benefits were laboriously made through a series of committees and it was a very long-winded business. Many of the people who made these applications have no resources other than the wages they earn and they are apt to find themselves destitute whilst all his machinery of application has to be gone through. The working public cannot fail to be very pleased at this improvement in the general administrative machinery of the Act. The board, of course, is now also directly empowered to continue payments to deserving people under certain circumstances and the discretion they previously had under the Act continues. We welcome the fact that the whole process is to be hastened.

The other part of Clause 10 which interests me particularly deals with the payment of maternity benefits to female workers. I will not add much to what the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has said on the matter, except this, that I need not tell the Minister that this part of the clause will be very much welcomed by women workers throughout the Republic. For reasons of health, as the memorandum says, it will be necessary for these women when they fall pregnant to leave work almost immediately. This is a practical proposition and I would like to thank the Minister for giving this matter his attention during the recess and coming with this amendment in the Bill. I would like to add my plea to that of the hon. member for Rosettenville with regard to young women who are starting their families and who may be in employment but who may find it necessary to remain at home for a certain period when they are stabilizing their families. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville had a very good point there and I would like to support him on it. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would give that matter consideration during the coming recess. I conclude by saying that I appreciate the Minister’s approach to this amending Bill because it has been very reasonable and fair. He gave a very lucid explanation indeed and we welcome the amendments generally.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to this Bill the Minister has had the reaction from this side of the House. We will support this Bill. This is the ninth amendment of this particular Act and when one looks at the Act with all the amendments it almost looks like the house that Jack built. It is becoming a little unwieldy. I would say that we have disagreed with some of the amendments the Minister has moved over the years, and we disagreed with him in 1962. When we move amendments to this Act we must always remember that this is not a social benefit Act, but an insurance Act for our workers, and we should always look at it in that way. It is quite evident that as a social security measure it has been necessary. We do not have any compulsory contributory pension schemes in this country and the worker has always been afraid for his old age.

Sir, the hour is late and at this stage I should like to move—

Agreed to; debate adjourned.