I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is the Government’s policy wherever necessary and when circumstances make it possible to grant relief to the less privileged and needy groups of the population. In consonance with this policy the Government has already granted relief to old-age and other social pensioners.

Another unfortunate group of our population is the mineworkers suffering from pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis. The Government is very sympathetic towards these people and feels that it has an obligation towards them. They sacrificed their help in the service of the country and our economy and it is the Government’s policy to care for them as well as possible as far as circumstances permit.

When introducing the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act of 1962, my predecessor stated clearly that it was not the object of that Act generally to revise and to increase benefits. That Act, therefore, granted relief only to the dependants of deceased pneumoconiosis sufferers and to persons suffering from pneumoconiosis and incapacitated by it by more than 75 per cent. To the other pneumoconiosis sufferers a slight increase in benefits was granted last in 1956. The time is therefore now ripe, and there is every justification for it. to review the benefits payable under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act and to increase them.

The Government has after careful consideration therefore decided now to increase benefits throughout by 20 per cent. This increase applies to all grades of pneumoconiosis and to tuberculosis; it applies to all racial groups and to the dependants of deceased mineworkers and Coloured labourers.

This increase in benefits creates additional burdens for the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund. As hon. members know, the fund consists of three separate accounts, i.e. the “A”, “B” and “C” Accounts. The “C” Account is responsible for the compensation of all cases certified before the passing of the 1962 Act, and the “A” and “B” accounts for all cases certified since the coming into operation of the 1962 Act. The State guarantees all shortages which may arise in the “C” Account. The present obligations of the “C” Account are estimated at approximately R57,000,000, and the shortfall which the State will eventually have to supplement is estimated at about R 13,000,000. An increase of 20 per cent in the benefits will therefore increase the total obligations of the “C” Account by approximately R 11,500,000, so that the eventual shortfall in regard to beneficiaries who existed up to and until the coming into operation of the 1962 Act is estimated to be approximately R24,000,000.

This increase also creates obligations in respect of beneficiaries who came into existence since the coming into operation of the 1962 Act. These obligations are estimated to be approximately R3,000,000. This is additional, retrospective debt for which no provision is made in the Compensation Fund.

In 1956 the Government accepted the principle that it was unfair to burden mines with additional debt arising as a result of the retrospective increase in benefits. The Government then decided that this retrospective burden should be borne by the State. The Government has now again decided that the State should bear this burden which will be created in respect of beneficiaries who were added since 1962. The State therefore also accepts responsibility for this debt which, as I have already said, is estimated at about R3,000,000.

The increase in benefits will also create an additional burden for the Compensation Fund in respect of mines that have closed down. This burden is estimated at approximately R500,000.

As in 1956, the Government felt that it was unfair to burden existing mines with further obligations which are created in respect of the mines that have closed down. The Government has therefore decided that this burden will also be borne by the State.

Because cases which have been certified since the coming into operation of the 1962 Act are compensated out of the “A” and “B” Accounts, the additional obligations of these two accounts in respect of the increase of the benefits in those cases and in respect of the closed mines will be actuarially calculated and transferred from the “C” Account to the “A” and “B” Accounts. As I have already said, these obligations are estimated at this stage to be R3,000,000 and R500,000 respectively.

The total obligations which the State will therefore eventually have to accept in respect of the “C” Account is estimated at this stage as being approximately R28,000,000.

The mines remain responsible for the payment of the increased benefits in respect of future certifications. It is estimated that the additional outstanding amount of the Group “A” mines will be about R6,000,000, and they will pay this amount over a period of a maximum of 20 years. Current levies, it is expected, will increase by approximately R 1,000,000 per annum, from approximately R4,000,000 per annum to approximately R5,000,000 per annum. It is therefore clear that the State will bear by far the greatest portion of the additional burden created by these increased benefits.

The additional burden which the mines will have to bear is not large, particularly if spread over 20 years. There are approximately 60 mines which will share this burden, and therefore the burden is not too heavy for individual mines. I am convinced that the mining industry can bear these additional obligations without in any way being detrimentally affected. These payments are regarded as operating costs and are not taxable. Therefore it reduces the actual burden even further.

As could be expected, the mine owners object to an increase of benefits at this stage and particularly to the proposed percentage, 20 per cent. The industry feels that such an appreciable increase is not justified. They also feel that the percentage should have been divided in such a way that the seriously incapacitated mine workers should have received a bigger increase than those who are not so badly incapacitated. The industry’s objection to an increase at this stage is based on the fact that the findings and recommendations of the Commission which was appointed to investigate an alternative compensation scheme which the industry and the trade unions jointly submitted to my predecessor have not become known yet. That Commission’s report is, however, available now and its finding is that the scheme is quite acceptable. The report of this Commission has just become available and has therefore not yet been considered by the Government.

When there were indications that the Commission’s report would not be available in time, the Government decided that it could not wait for it. There is every justification for granting relief to pneumoconiosis sufferers, and the Government is not prepared to keep it back any longer. In view of the fact that the scheme would not include existing beneficiaries, an increase in benefits for them at this stage could in any case not influence in any respect the acceptance of the scheme if the Commission should recommend its acceptance.

In regard to the industry’s objection to a general increase of 20 per cent, I want to point out that the pension for pneumoconiosis in the category 20-50 per cent has risen by only 2.3 per cent since 1950 in respect of a miner with a wife and one child. The pension for the category 50-75 per cent has risen by only 8 per cent since 1950. In 1962 these two groups received no increase at all. For the category above 75 per cent the old attendants’ allowance was consolidated with the pension in 1962. Those who did not receive the attendants’ allowance therefore received an increase of R15 a month or 20.6 per cent. Together with the present 20 per cent it therefore brings their increases since 1956 up to 40.6 per cent.

Those who already received attendants’ allowance in addition received an increase of R10 per month in 1962, making it 11.5 per cent. This person’s increase since 1956 is therefore already 31.5 per cent.

The largest group of pneumoconiosis sufferers are those in the groups 20-50 per cent and 50-75 per cent. They are of an age where they generally still have dependants. It would, in my opinion, be unjust again to eliminate these groups who have had little relief since 1950. Viewed as a whole, I am therefore convinced that an increase of 20 per cent in all cases is justified. The pension of a widow will rise from R30 per month to R36 per month, and that of every dependent child of a deceased mineworker from R15 per month to R18 per month. I may just mention in passing that old-age pensions have already increased by 125 per cent since 1948 up to April this year, excluding this year’s concessions, and those of veterans by 75 per cent. A reasonable substantial increase whereby all the pneumoconiosis sufferers can benefit is therefore, in my opinion, not only justified but is owing to them. I can consequently not accede to the objections raised by the mining industry.

The trade unions welcome the concessions which are being made. They would, however, have liked to see a larger increase for the category above 75 per cent. For the reasons I have already mentioned I cannot, however, at this stage accede to such a request.

Another concession made in the Bill refers to the widows of mineworkers who on their death were found and will be found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis but to have less than 20 per cent incapacity. In terms of the 1956 Act such a widow received the benefit of a lump sum payment if her husband had not already received it before his death. Since 1962 she has no longer received that benefit in such a case. This is now being restored and made retrospective so that such cases which have arisen since 1962 will also receive this benefit, which has also been increased by 20 per cent from R960 to R 1,150.

Then one other matter is being remedied, and it refers to orphans. In terms of the 1956 Act, pensions of orphans could be increased and continued after the age of 18 years. In terms of the 1962 Act, that can also be done in respect of the orphans of a mineworker who was certified for the first time in terms of the 1962 Act. An oversight, however, arose in respect of the children of mineworkers who had already received a benefit before 1962 but whose children became orphans after 1962. Provision is now being made for increasing and continuing the pensions in such cases also.

From what I have already said, it is clear that this Bill introduces no new principles, nor does it affect the principles underlying the 1962 Act or amend them in any way. The Bill merely provides for a general increase in benefits and, in one case, for the restoration of a right to the widows and dependants of deceased mineworkers which they had for many years in terms of all the previous legislation up to 1962. The financial arrangements follow the pattern agreed upon in 1962 between the State and the mining industry, and the State is accepting the same type of obligations which it already in principle accepted in 1956.

Once again I must protest because this type of legislation has come before the House right at the end of the parliamentary Session. As I said in the Mines Vote arrangements must be made in the future to make sure that this Vote is not left till the end of the Session and that important legislation of this sort is not rushed through at the last moments of the Session.

We on this side of the House support this Bill. We welcome the increases that are being given to miners suffering from all stages of pneumoconiosis, and their widows. I listened carefully to what the hon. the Minister said and I have yet to know why the figure of 20 per cent was used as the figure throughout the increases. The Minister knows as well as I do that the largest groups of pneumoconiosis sufferers, i.e. the group from the 20 per cent to the 50 per cent and the 50 per cent to the 75 per cent group, received the least under the 1962 arrangement. I felt at the time that those groups had received a raw deal and I was of the opinion that if there was going to be a change in the amounts that were going to be given these groups, whom I admit are in the main still able to work, should have been given a different and higher category of increase.

I would like to know whether the Minister really appreciates how much the cost of living has gone to in our country. Does he really think that this 20 per cent increase, this increase which has been so long awaited by the mineworker, is in conformity with the steeply rising cost of living? I doubt it very much. I feel that some arrangements should be made whereby the cost of living should be reckoned apart from the ordinary pension. A cost-of-living grant should be given to the people who are receiving the pneumoconiosis pension which will keep in step with the rising cost of living. It is possible that this present increase in pension may be pegged for another five years. It may be pegged for another ten years; I do not know. No indication is given by the Minister whether it is his intention to review the pensions from year to year. If it is going to be a pegged pension and if there is going to be this steady rise in the cost of living then this 20 per cent increase will be outmoded in a year or two.

I want to deal particularly with the widows’ pensions and say to the Minister that widows are receiving a pension for damage done to their husbands by a disease, a disease which in many cases, if not in all cases, hastened the death of their husbands. This is not a pension for services rendered over a number of years; it has nothing to do with that. It is a pension which is given because of damage done to the husband while he was working and because of the work he was doing. I feel that in her case particularly she should be relieved of any means test in regard to this pension. We on this side of the House will go into that question in detail in a moment. But I want to point out to the Minister now that it is no use giving a widow an increase in pension if she is an old-age pensioner at the same time and will not, because of the means test, benefit by this 20 per cent increase.

Then I want to come to the matter of discovering pneumoconiosis after death through post mortem. We on this side of the House have pointed out this anomaly that has occurred. The Minister admits, with this clause, that many cases are discovered for the first time at post mortem. He is now going to rectify the position to some extent by giving a lump sum payment of Rl,150 to the widow. That would be the amount of money that would be paid to a first-stage sufferer of pneumoconiosis which had been discovered during life. i.e. the R960 plus the 20 per cent increase. But I am perturbed at something. There is no means of detecting the disability from 0 to 20 per cent before post mortem so it means that the group from 0 to 50 per cent may show changes at post mortem. Now what about the person who has not been discovered as a pneumoconiosis sufferer but who is shown, on post mortem, to have suffered 50 per cent to 75 per cent from it; the person whose lungs have really been damaged, or the person who is in what was called the fourth stage? According to the report people in the fourth stage have been discovered for the first time on post mortem. That group and the earlier groups are all being treated as one group. I want to know from the Minister whether, in addition to the lump sum payment, he is prepared to give that widow a pension equivalent to the pension received by a widow of the miner who suffered from all stages of phthisis during life? In other words, will the widow, in addition to the lump sum payment, get a pension of R33 (R36 now) for the first stage, a higher pension from the 50 per cent to 75 per cent, and yet a higher pension whose husband died of pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis, i.e. from 75 per cent and higher? It makes a big difference to the widow and I think that the Minister must please take this into consideration when determining the pension for the widow. I am not at all clear as to whether the widow will get any pension at all other than the lump sum if the disease is discovered for the first time at post mortem. I want her to share in the pension grants that all other widows get if their husbands were declared at some stage of pneumoconiosis during their lifetime.

The financial arrangements that are made in this Bill to cover the actuaries’ forecast for the future and to meet the payments that will have to be made because of the retrospective effect of this Bill, are in order, I take it. I am not an actuary and my knowledge of financial matters is not very great. But I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what percentage the industry will be responsible for in relation to the amount that is going to be paid by the Government. I take it that the Government is going to pay the major part and that industry is going to pay its share over a period of 20 years. That brings me to the levies that will be imposed on the marginal mines. I hope these marginal mines last for 20 years. Is the position of the marginal mines taken into consideration in determining the payments? If they are I would like to recommend to the Minister that marginal mines, unless the price of gold is increased, should perhaps be excluded from this arrangement until they are able to pay the levy that will be due by them.

I am very pleased that the difficulty in regard to the orphans is now going to be overcome. I understand that there is only a small number of these children who are going to be affected. I believe there are only 11 in all who have been left out of the 1962 Act. I want to know whether or not the Minister is prepared to see these children through a university course or whether their pensions will stop at the age of 21. Some of these children, I understand, are at university at the moment and it would be a pity if they were not allowed to finish their course because of financial difficulties.

I also notice that the Bill will come into force in October 1965. I take it that that date has been fixed to coincide with the social pensions. Is that correct?

It is one of the reasons.

Perhaps the Minister will let us know what the other reasons are. Those are the comments I wish to make at this stage. We will go into the matter a little more carefully at the Committee Stage. Other comments will come from this side of the House. I want to repeat to the Minister that we will support the Bill. We hope, however, that this is not the end of the story and that the position will be reviewed during the coming year and that, after studying the Silke commission’s report, the Minister will be able to grant further concessions to those people who, I feel, have been harshly dealt with up to now.

The first objection raised by the Opposition in regard to this legislation is that it was introduced so late in the Session and that the Vote of the Minister was discussed so late in the Session. It seems to me the object is to create the impression outside that this Vote was discussed so late because there is a lack of interest in mining, whereas the hon. member knows as well as I do that the Vote came on late because this Minister is the junior Minister in the Cabinet. The hon. member should not try to create the impression outside that this Vote is being neglected. It is the normal procedure in the House for Ministers’ Votes to be debated according to their seniority.

The reply to the second question why the legislation comes so late is also obvious. The Silke Commission, which investigated the matter, only made its report available on 3 June. How could the Minister introduce legislation earlier? Or did the hon. member want the legislation to stand over for a year and the benefits to be kept back for a year? I just want to dispose of the argument he used to try to create the impression outside that the matter has been badly handled because it was dealt with at such a late stage. On the contrary, we are very grateful that the Minister, in spite of this late stage of the Session, could still introduce this legislation so that the mineworkers can derive the benefit of it.

How did the newspapers know about it before we did?

The hon. member’s second objection is that an increase of 20 per cent is too little. One can, of course, never grant big enough increases in the eyes of those who expect them. If a man knows that he is going to receive an increase, he always expects more than it actually is. But we have to bear the realities in mind. I think the 20 per cent increase is a great concession to the mineworker. The mineworker is thankful for this increase. I have already received letters from my constituency in which mineworkers express their gratitude for the increase. At that stage they did not know what it would be, but they were grateful for the announcement made.

The hon. member also suggested that we should add a sort of cost-of-living allowance to the pension so that as the cost of living rises the pension will also gradually rise. I cannot agree with that because it would mean that if the cost of living comes to a standstill or drops, that amount would again be taken away from the mineworker, whereas under this system this 20 per cent increase cannot be taken away from him. It may amount to a smaller sum, but it cannot be taken away from him. I can still add that since this Government came into power certain mineworkers’ pensions were increased by almost 100 per cent, whereas the cost-of-living figure, according to all the figures of the various Departments, has risen by approximately 71 per cent since 1948. I do not want to say that the mineworker gets enough. As a representative of mineworkers, I want to plead that they should always get more, but if we regard the matter soberly, honestly and with a sense of responsibility, the pension, after this increase, has kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. I think the mine-worker benefits from getting it in this form and not in the form of C.O.L.A., which can again be taken away, whereas this pension cannot be taken away from him.

The hon. member raised another point I wish to deal with, namely the pensions granted to mineworkers at the moment, and particularly to widows, which are subject to a means test as soon as they also receive an old-age pension. We know that is so. It amounts to this, that if this pension is increased and the miner’s widow is in possession of an old-age pension, that pension is accordingly reduced so that on the whole the widow does not lose anything. We realize that this is the position, but the hon. member has raised the matter under the wrong Vote. These matters rest in the hands of the Minister of Pensions and he should have raised it under his Vote. It is that Minister who decides in respect of the means test that the amounts should be reduced with reference to the increasing of these amounts. This Minister has nothing to say about it and can do nothing about it.

I wish to refer to another matter raised by the hon. member, viz. the question of postmortem investigations. Previously the position was that if at a post-mortem examination the person was found to have suffered from pneumoconiosis but that there was less than 20 per cent malfunctioning of the cardiorespiratory functions, the poor widow got nothing. This Bill now remedies that matter and she now gets the lump sum payment. I shall return to it later. But, further—and here the hon. member is wrong—when a person has worked in the mine and has then left the mine and has gone farming and has not gone to the Bureau for a test for a number of years and then he dies and a post-mortem investigation takes place and it is ascertained that he had cardiorespiratory malfunctioning of 20 per cent to 50 per cent, or of 50 per cent to 75 per cent, or whatever the percentage might be, a pension is immediately paid to his widow and his dependants in accordance with the grade in which he was certified post-mortem. In other words, a post-mortem examination can only be to the advantage of the mineworker’s dependants. They can never lose as the result of it. Secondly, in terms of these provisions, if he is handicapped to the extent of 75 per cent, or to whatever degree it might be, according to a post-mortem examination, the widow and her dependants become entitled to a pension which cannot be taken away from her unless she remarries, in spite of the fact that the man during his lifetime was perhaps never certified as a pneumoconiosis sufferer. This is a tremendous concession in regard to which I think the hon. member should praise the Minister, instead of criticizing him.

The Act comes into operation on 1 October 1965 and I take it that one of the reasons for this is the fact that this is also the date of the coming into operation of the ordinary pensions announced in the Budget. The second reason is that it will take a lot of administrative work to apply the new increases to every case which comes to the notice of the Department. Administratively it will just not be practicable to let this Bill come into operation before 1 October. But the mineworker does not lose by it because the provisions, particularly in the case of those people who in the past were treated badly in respect of the post-mortem examinations, is retrospective to 1 October 1962 in terms of the Bill.

I want to bring a few matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. When Act No. 64 of 1962 was passed, in regard to pneumoconiosis compensation, the then Minister of Mines adopted the standppint that this Act was placed on the Statute Book as an agreed measure—I repeat that deliberately—between the Mineworkers’ Union, the Chamber of Mines and the Department of Mines, and that as circumstances developed in the course of time adaptations would be made. In his third reading speech at the time the Minister specially referred to it and said that the Act would now come into operation and that the Minister himself would come back, after the Act had been in operation for a year or two, to smooth out the rough spots. That was a promise which the Minister made to us at that stage. As the representative of a mining constituency, I want to say that we immediately encountered difficulties. One of them was this: As soon as it was ascertained, in terms of the 1956 Act, that a person was suffering from pneumoconiosis, no matter to what degree, he was immediately paid the lump sum of R960. The 1962 Act said that he first had to have 20 per cent cardio-respiratory obstruction before he could get compensation. In practice it happened that mineworkers, after having undergone a test in the Bureau, came back with the following certification: It was found that they in fact had pneumoconiosis but that the cardio-respiratory malfunctioning was less than 20 per cent. As the result, they did not qualify for a pension under the 1962 Act, nor did they qualify for any compensation of any nature. When this matter was brought to the notice of the Minister, he did not even wait to introduce legislation; he immediately provided by regulation that all mine-workers must immediately be certified as first degree sufferers the moment pneumoconiosis was discerned in them; i.e. they were therefore certified as 20 per cent plus and were entitled to a pension. It was remedied administratively and the first defect was eliminated in that way. But unfortunately this concession was not applied in respect of post-mortem examinations. The effect was that when a mineworker died and it was proved by the post-mortem examination that he in fact had pneumoconiosis, but less than 20 per cent, his widow received no compensation in terms of the 1962 Act, whereas if the 1956 Act had not been amended and as the result of the post-mortem examination she would have received a lump sum of R960. This matter is now being remedied in this legislation. The persons who are now examined after their deaths and are certified to have had pneumoconiosis, but with less than 20 per cent obstruction, their widows will now receive the lump sum payment. On behalf of the mineworkers, I want to thank the hon. the Minister heartily for this concession. On their behalf, I also want to thank him for the fact that it is being made retrospective from 1 October 1962. In other words, no widow will now suffer as the result of it. And the widows of the mineworkers who died in the meanwhile will now receive the lump sum, which has also been increased to R 1,150. That is a tremendous concession for which we are very grateful and which the mineworkers regard as a great step forward.

Then I want to say a few words about the general increase in pensions, i.e. the increase of 20 per cent to all. As the Minister pointed out in this speech, the opinion of the Chamber of Mines was evidently that the increase should not be 20 per cent but that it should rather be distributed in a different way, viz. an increase of 30 per cent or 40 per cent or even 50 per cent in the case of the serious sufferers, i.e. those over 75 per cent, and then a lower percentage of about 5 per cent in the case of the broad mass of mineworkers. I immediately want to emphasize a few facts and I want to support the Minister’s suggestion of a general increase of 20 per cent. According to the available statistics, there are only 363 mineworkers who draw benefits under the 75 per cent plus category of the 1962 Act. At the moment they receive the highest pensions in terms of the 1962 Act, but there is also another provision to the effect that a person may not receive a pension exceeding his monthly basic wage. That means that it we were now to announce a 50 per cent increase for that category, only 20 per cent or 25 per cent of those 363 people would be able to receive it because in the case of the others their pension would exceed their basic monthly wage. In theory this would have been a splendid gesture, but in practice very few people would have benefited from it. The broad basis, as such, on the other hand benefits all miners and I regard it as the best form of concession. We have the figures before us. If they are studied, it will be seen that this is actually so. It is estimated that the State over the next period, for the group which is now going to be benefited, including the amounts already approved, will have to pay an additional R15,000,000. I do not want to create the impression outside that this amount will immediately be spent on the mineworker. Therefore I say that this is a scheme to which the State now binds itself and in terms of which an amount of R15,000,000 will be paid by the State over a period to the miners and their widows. To this must be added the sum of R6,000,000 coming from the mines themselves, so that the total concession will amount to R21,000,000, an amount which certainly cannot be belittled.

This increase of 20 per cent is, I think, a welcome relief to the miner at this stage. It is welcomed by this side of the House. We want to tell the Minister that by means of this legislation two great difficulties have been remedied, the first being that pneumoconiosis compensation in the eyes of the mineworkers was too low in the past, and secondly the difficulties in regard to the post mortem investigation. As I say, this legislation remedies these two things. Sir, you will not allow me to mention other difficulties which are not covered by this Bill, but there are some which we will bring to the notice of the Minister at a suitable time. I know that in view of the sympathetic ear the Minister always has in regard to this matter and in the light of the co-operation which exists at the moment in regard to these matters, we can also in time eliminate the other difficulties to the advantage of the mineworkers.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) in trying to destroy the submissions made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has made some rather startling suggestions. The main one was that there was no justification for us on this side of the House making representations to the effect that the pension should be increased as the cost of living increases. The hon. member for Randfontein asked what will happen when the cost of living decreases. Well, Sir, I have had a look at the Statistical Year Book which goes back to 1945, and all I can see is a progressive increase from that year until today. The relevant figures are 59.8 points in 1945 which increased to 106.5 points in 1963. Over a period of 20 years there has been no decrease whatsoever in the cost of living, and I think statistics will also show that also prior to 1945, there was no decrease in the cost of living either.

I think we are perfectly justified in asking that the increase in these pensions should bear some relationship to the increase in the cost of living. I should like to substantiate that plea by quoting some figures which appear on page 1.11 of the Statistical Year Book. It appears that from 1950 to 1965 the consumer price index of all items increased by 56.6 per cent; while food prices increased by 84.2 per cent. If these figures are compared with the increase in pneumoconiosis pensions granted to pneumoconiosis sufferers, what do we find? We find in the second stage—I will call it that in order to keep it relevant to the old Act— which is the 20 to 50 per cent stage—that there was an increase of only 3 per cent from 1950 to 1965. In the third stage—the 50 to 75 per cent stage—there was an increase of only 26.5 per cent. I should like to point out too, Mr. Speaker, that old pensioners who are beneficiaries in the last-mentioned group, received an increase of only 8 per cent. Those who suffered from the disease to such a degree that they were classified as being above 75 per cent—-people who were so incapacitated that they were regarded as being “technically dead” as far as the medical profession was concerned-—received an increase of 32 per cent only. So, Sir, even if one adds the 20 per cent which the Minister says he is now so generously giving to these people, one still finds that, even with this additional amount, pensioners have not been sufficiently compensated for the increase in the cost of living since 1950.

I feel this is a shocking state of affairs! I submit the Minister should not have rushed into this legislation. I believe he should have given more mature and due consideration to the recommendations of the Silke Report. I find it so difficult to reconcile the recommendations of this report with the financial provisions of the original scheme proposed by the Mineworkers’ Union and Chamber of Mines. The hon. the Minister appointed a commission of inquiry to go into aff aspects of the mine-workers’ conditions, both as far as pneumoconiosis is concerned as well as working conditions in general. Nevertheless before he even received the report, he already decided to go ahead with legislation, adopting a totally different approach and using a totally different basis in regard to pneumoconiosis compensation. In his Press interview the hon. the Minister admitted that he had not yet received the report of the Silke Commission, but nevertheless he was going ahead.

Dealing with the question of widows’ pensions—a matter which was briefly referred to by the hon. member for Randfontein—I was surprised to hear the hon. member say that he regarded these pensions as being sufficient under the circumstances.

No. Who said so? Do not talk nonsense.

Well, if their pensions are not sufficient,, why then did the hon. member not plead for a different approach regarding their pensions?

Because I have a feeling of responsibility.

I am entitled to come to that conclusion, Sir, because the hon. member said the cost of living bore some relationship to this 20 per cent increase in widow’s pensions!

What however is the position as far as widow’s pensions are concerned? I should like to compare these pensions with the social old age pensions. What do we find? We find that as far as the Old Age Pension is concerned, this pension has since .1948 increased by as much as 125 per cent. But the widows’ pension has since 1950 increased from R20 to R30, an increase of 50 per cent. If the 20 per cent is added on to that, a widow receives an increase of only 70 per cent.

But what has been the increase in the widow’s cost of living? Her main item of expenditure is, of course, food. She is not really concerned with expensive clothing, etc. and the other items which go into the consumer price index. The pneumoconiosis widow is mainly concerned about food. And as far as food is concerned, the increase has been 84.2 per cent.

It is thus quite clear, Sir, that no matter what increase has been given to the widow, her pension bears no relationship at all to the cost of living and she has to hope for a miracle to survive. Hon. members who have to deal with cases of these widows know only too well how pathetic many of these cases are. Even if a widow is accommodated in the lowest-priced boarding house, where she has to eke out an existence, she nevertheless finds it exceedingly difficult to survive. Some of them are confined to a solitary room where they have to live on this mere pittance of R36 per month. I say it is scandalous treatment of those women who have lost the bread-winner so prematurely as a result of an occupational disease! I want to make this earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister, even at this late stage of the Bill, because I believe the Minister can do something in this regard. I want to plead with the Minister to consider excluding the widows’ pneumoconiosis pension from the means test in calculating the old age pensions. Because, Sir, the widow is in fact gaining nothing whatsoever, if one looks at the situation closely. Her pension is now being increased from R30 to R36. She can only receive R8 per month in the form of an old age pension because the maximum total pension is R44 per month. So, Sir, for all practical purposes the widow is receiving nothing extra. Before the increase in this Bill she was getting R30 per month which entitled her to R14 per month old age pension. Now, by virtue of the R6 increase, she is entitled to only R8 old age pension. All in all, she is thus no better off!

I want to ask the hon. the Minister that when he replies to the debate he must not hide behind the excuse that this is not a matter for his Department, but rather for the Department of Social Welfare. Everybody in this House knows that if the hon. the Minister makes strong enough representations—if he is sincere and makes determined representations—to the Department of Social Welfare, the Minister of Social Welfare will have to bow to the logic of the argument which is now submitted by this side of the House. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare will, in terms of his Cabinet responsibility, be obliged to exclude the pneumoconiosis pension of a widow when the means test is applied for the purpose of determining what amount of old age pension is to be paid.

This is the first time that this side of the House believes we have a sympathetic Minister as far as the Department of Mines is concerned. Because, Sir, for 17 years we had the frustrating experience of having to deal with seven different Ministers of Mines. We no sooner adjusted ourselves to the thinking and the approach of one Minister, when he was replaced by another Minister.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I was hoping that perhaps we could plead with this hon. Minister to make representations to the Cabinet so that this aspect of pneumoconiosis compensation could be given more sympathetic and more reasonable treatment.

The hon. member for Randfontein also saw fit to criticize the hon. member for Rosettenville for having brought up the matter of post mortem examinations of miners who were found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis as a result of X-ray examinations, after their death. He congratulated the hon. Minister for bringing in this particular clause remedying an unfortunate and an unnecessary penalty which had been placed on pneumoconiosis sufferers as a result of the introduction of the 1962 Act. But I would like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that in 1962—when we were likewise “bulldozed” into accepting the 1962 legislation because of the same shortness of time in which we have to-day to consider this new legislation I made certain submissions in connection with this subject. I refer to Hansard Vol. 4 Column 6646: in which I said—

and this is what I want to emphasize—

What was the reaction of the then Minister of Mines? Why, Sir, he blandly told me I did not know what I was talking about! He completely dismissed the matter and did not even see fit to give us a reasonable and decent reply. Events however have proved me absolutely correct in that regard. The hon. Minister now, in 1965, has to introduce a new clause, in order to remedy an injustice that has been done to so many widows. I think the hon. Minister should give recognition to the fact that we appreciated this shortcoming in the legislation, that we continuously made representations, and that during the period 1962-5 we were unfairly criticized for making the allegations which we did make.

I should now like to deal with another aspect of this Bill, and I hope the hon. the Minister will in due course give me a reasonable explanation. The Bill provides inter alia that this increase in pension shall not apply to any pensioners who happen to be domiciled outside the borders of the Republic. Well, Sir, I can understand the reasoning which preceded the decision to embody this provision in the Bill. No doubt it was considered that some people may have been guilty of acts detrimental to the security of the State and that they took refuge elsewhere. But, Sir, I want in all seriousness to appeal to the Minister that these pneumoconiosis pensioners are the last people in the world to ever get involved in activities of this nature! Because of the scant pension they draw, pensioners are often compelled to go and live with their children who may be resident outside the country. We know only too well of the large number of South Africans who emigrated to Rhodesia and particularly to the present Zambia—during the last 15, or 20 years in order to pursue mining in those countries. They are known to a large number of hon. members on the opposite side of the House. Incidentally, Sir, I notice that out of sixteen Government members representing Witwatersrand seats, there are now in this House only five of them who see fit to take part in this Debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

If the cap fits, let them wear it, Sir! These pensioners because of force of circumstances are living with their children in other countries. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this particular limitation and allow these people also to draw the increased pensions now being granted in terms of this Bill. These people offered the best years of their lives in developing and assisting us in the building up of our gold-mining industry. Is it therefore fair that, because of force of circumstances they have had to leave this country and go and live with their children elsewhere, they should be deprived of this increase in pension benefits?

The hon. the Minister has not seen fit in this new Bill to adopt a different and more positive approach to the certification of various stages of pneumoconiosis disease. I should like to emphasize to the Minister that until such time as a more practical method is adopted as regards certification, the discontent which exists among miners due to this . . .

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have to refer to the certification of the disease in order to . . .

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling and come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the basis on which the increase of 20 per cent has been calculated is somewhat obscure in view of the cost of living aspect to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. I should therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister why the figure of 20 per cent has been decided upon. Was this figure just taken at random?

What figure do you suggest?

Is there some actuarial or scientific reason why 20 per cent was accepted?

These are our main submissions on this Bill. In conclusion, I also wish to lodge my strong protest against the hurried manner in which this Bill has been introduced. And, Sir, were it not for the fact that I had no desire to penalize a single miner or a single widow pensioner, I would not support the hon. the Minister because of the manner in which this Bill has been introduced. But I realize that if this Bill were opposed in principle, people would be unduly penalized. We have been rushed into this matter. We have not been given sufficient time to consult our constituents. We have not had time to obtain the opinion of authoritative bodies in this matter. We have had no actuarial figures presented to us, and because of lack of time we have none at our disposal to justify the hon. the Minister’s recommendations. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, and with these reservations, I am prepared to assist the Minister in his efforts to improve the lot of the miner and the widow pensioners.

The Bill we are now debating deals with the payment of pneumoconiosis compensation. But in the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) mainly pleaded for higher cost-of-living allowances. It is very easy to say a good thing, but then it should be said at the right time. In any case, that has nothing to do with this Bill. What we have to do here is to confine ourselves to the compensation provided for in this Bill. The cost of living falls outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has seen the light of day without the moaning and groaning of weeks and months of negotiations and meetings of the parties concerned. Yet this Bill contains more material benefits for the phthisis sufferers than was the case in the long series of agreed measures in the past, measures which were agreed upon between the Chamber of Mines and the trade unions and the mine-workers. I like this legislation more than the 1962 Act. This Bill is devoid of all little bits of cleverness when one compares it with legislation of the past, about which a great fuss was made but which did not bring about any great benefits. Here we now have something. Here we have something which enables the widow of the mineworker and the pensioner to buy more than they could buy hitherto, and all without a whole series of agreements and all sorts of pseudo meetings which we had in the past in regard to the matter.

I think the Minister has done the correct thing by not waiting until it was possible to draft and to introduce legislation based on the Silke Report. The Minister said that he received a preliminary report. I was one of those who was becoming impatient in regard to this report. I am glad to learn from the Minister that the Silke Report rejected the proposal made by the industry, and that the Minister has also rejected it. Thereby the Minister has once again proved that the Government realizes its responsibility to the mineworker and the phthisis sufferer. The proposal of the industry was that the State should divorce itself from the phthisis sufferer and leave the matter in the hands of the employer and the employee to be arranged by way of a gentleman’s agreement. After all these years such a proposal was made, which disconcerted me and certainly the whole of the country. That is why I am so glad that a positive standpoint was adopted in regard to that proposal and that in its place we today have this Bill which gives the mine-worker and the phthisis sufferer some tangible benefits, although small.

The State is here assuming a tremendous responsibility. It is providing for this increase, which is of course appreciated very much. But now I want to point out that if it were not for the 1962 Act the financial responsibility the State is now assuming would not have been so onerous. The 1962 Act gave a direct benefit to the mineworker in respect of the first stage, a benefit which then still came from the levy fund. Now this benefit will automatically be paid by the State. I again say that if it were not for the 1962 Act, this enormous expenditure which the State is now incurring would not have been so great.

The Minister has explained that this Bill places a potential burden of about R5,000,000 on the mining industry. But we should not forget that in terms of the 1962 Act, the mining industry was exempted from a burden of R8,000,000. We should not lose sight of that, and it should be clearly stated. That is one of the things I do not like, that by means of all sorts of clever manoeuvres an ever-increasing burden is being placed on the State. Everybody of course appreciates the willingness of the State to bear it, but it is not right; it is not fair play, particularly in the light of the tremendous concessions the State has given to the mining industry. But now the industry by all kinds of clever tricks wants to lay burdens on the State gradually, burdens which should really rest on the shoulders of the industry.

I say without fear of contradiction that this measure is a good temporary measure to give immediate relief to pensioners in the mines.

Not “temporary", but “timeous”.

Temporary and timeous. In any case, thank you for that masterly advice.

I want to express the hope that as soon as the Silke Report is available, the whole question of pneumoconiosis compensation will be thoroughly investigated. I know, Sir, that you will not allow me to plead for further increased benefits in future, but it will have to come. The Silke Committee only had limited terms of reference and if the whole problem with all its implications is investigated thoroughly, great improvements in the benefits of the mine-workers may still be made. I hope you will allow me, Sir, to make an appeal to the Minister that when he again has negotiations in regard to these matters he will do it with the industry, with the Department of Mines, with the Treasury and with the mineworkers, so that the whole matter can be reviewed, and that the benefits obtained by the mineworker in terms of the legislation dealing with compensation for silicosis may be consolidated, and that the mineworker will in future also be able to draw a pension after a period of service.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far. He should now come back to the Bill.

Then I want to add this. I think that what has decreased the Minister’s difficulties is that he was able to introduce a Bill in this House to-day and announce its good provisions without again repeating the story that this was an agreed measure between the parties. That is why better benefits are now being granted than we had in the past. For the first time we have now again had the turning-point where the Government takes the responsibility for those people and no longer leaves it to an agreement between the employers and the employees. I hope that this will be the beginning of a totally new direction, and then there will also be more peace and satisfaction in the ranks of the mine-workers, because an agreed measure has never been passed in this House which has not immediately led to the greatest dissatisfaction. But now we are making a new start in order to have peace in the ranks of the mineworkers in future.

Mr. Speaker the group of persons affected by this amending Bill, namely the widows who are also receiving old-age pensions, is the particular type of pensioner I wish to discuss. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) sounded most optimistic about the increased benefits to be afforded these people in terms of this Bill. However, I believe that the persons drawing widows’ pensions will be disappointed. The object of the Bill, increasing the benefits, was outlined by the Minister. We know that in the past the provisions of the 1962 Act, Section 101, was substituted in 1964 . . .

You probably forget that not all the widows are 60 years of age: many are younger.

I appreciate that, and that is why I said I was dealing with a specific group of persons. The position is that when the widows’ pensions were increased to R30 a month, it meant that there was a group of persons who had previously been enjoying the widow’s pension plus the old-age pension and who in fact became disentitled to the old-age pension. Therefore the position arose that those persons were in fact worse off financially, and that is why an amendment was made in 1964 which substituted Section 101, where it deals with the question of the other Acts, namely the Old Age Pension Act, the Blind Persons Act, the War Veterans’ Pensions Act and the Disability Grants Act, to ensure that the persons who receive the additional amount of pension totalling R30 a month as widow’s pension would in fact continue to receive in addition the amount they were receiving as an old-age pension, so as to ensure that they would not receive less than the overall aggregate. The provisions of this Bill will come into effect on 1 October 1965, and therefore one has to see what effect this will have on these widows who are drawing a pension of R30 a month, and as from 1 October 1965 they will receive an increase of 20 per cent, i.e. R36 a month. The overall position would appear to be that a number of these people will be in exactly the same position. We know that the means test applicable to the old-age pension is a matter which is dealt with by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. The hon. member for Randfontein also mentioned that fact. However. I believe that the Minister, in considering the increase granted in terms of this Bill must take that into account as it was taken into account in the previous legislation. and also in terms of Clause 12 of this Bill. So the position on 1 October 1965 will be that a slight increase will accrue to this particular group of widows. The means test, prior to October 1965, allowed for a means plus pension limitation of R26 a month. So therefore a person with R26 a month could still qualify for R1 a month old-age pension, plus the allowance applicable, which would bring in an extra R16 a month, making a total of R42 a month. Now in terms of legislation that is to come and which will be applicable from 1 October 1965, that means plus pension limitation has been set at R528 p.a. or R44 a month. Therefore the ceiling will be R42 a month from some other source and the person could still qualify for R2 a month old-age pension, giving her R44 a month. So what is the overall result? It makes a difference of R2 a month. Consequently this increase in the widow’s pension of R6 a month, giving her a total of R36 a month as a widow’s pension, will entitle her to R8 a month in terms of the old-age pension, making it a total of R44 a month. Consequently it is pegged at R44 a month. During the course of this debate we have heard about the cost of living and the relationship of the increased cost of living compared with the amount of pension paid. Surely the Minister will realize that in spite of the increase in the cost of living, and in spite of the grant of increased benefits for this particular type of widow, in fact that person will not be compensated for the increased cost of living because they will not be able to receive additional benefits than the overall aggregate. Therefore the principle of increasing the benefits, which is obviously the purpose of this Bill and which we on this side of the House support, is completely lost in view of the fact that the provisions of other Acts will deny this particular group enjoying those increased benefits which should be accruing to them. The increase in the cost of living is undoubtedly a very grave problem for these people who lost their husbands because they gave their lives for the mining industry. Therefore I believe that these people deserve special consideration, and therefore I hope that the Minister will endeavour to ensure that these people will receive additional benefits whenever legislation of this nature is introduced in this House; and the only way to do it is by negotiation with his colleague the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I might mention that as far as this special consideration is concerned for this particular group of persons, another of his colleagues, the Minister of Finance, has in the past taken into consideration this very point. If one looks at the Income Tax Act for 1962, Section 10 (1) (g), we find this provision, that any amount received as an award or a benefit under any law relating to the payment of compensation in respect of diseases contracted by persons employed in mining operations—that is the provision dealing with exemption from income tax. So there is the question of giving special consideration to this group of persons. Therefore I hope that the Minister, in taking into account the increases granted in terms of this Bill, will also take into account the necessity for negotiating with his colleagues to try to ensure that in actual fact these persons do in fact benefit from any increase that is forthcoming from legislation of this nature.

I am very glad the hon. the Minister did not wait until the complete Silke Report was made available before introducing this legislation. This increase in the pensions of mineworkers and widows and also the allowances to the children of pneumoconiosis sufferers is a great step forward and I am sure that the mineworkers will be very grateful to the Government for it. Unfortunately there are members of the Opposition who try to make political capital out of this position. The last speaker had a long story to tell about the widows who will not derive much benefit from this increased pension. He wants to create the impression outside that it is specifically the widows of pneumoconiosis sufferers who will be detrimentally affected. He does not say that all the other widows are also subject to the means test. We should not allow the Opposition to mislead the public and pretend that it is only these widows who will not receive benefits. We know that there are many widows of pneumoconiosis sufferers who do not qualify for the old-age pension yet, and many of them still have children at school. This concession will help those widows and their children very much. I think it will comfort the pneumoconiosis sufferers to know that when they are dead their widows and children will be better cared for in future.

The post-mortem examination of the lungs with a 20 per cent loss of heart-lung function is a difficult decision to take and I want to ask the Minister to give instructions that where e.g. emphysema and chronic bronchitis are also found in the lungs, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the mineworker’s widow. I should like to see these widows also getting a pension instead of only the amount of Rl,150, but this is already a large concession and brings the position back to what it was in 1962. But if possible I should like to see these widows also receiving a pension. But there may be cases where there is not the least sign of pneumoconiosis, and then they cannot receive a pension.

There is one concession I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice and I want to ask him to consider it and perhaps to remedy it later, namely that the pneumoconiosis sufferers in the second and third stages have to pay quite a lot of money for medical expenses and medicines. Under the 1962 Act the Minister has the power to grant free medical services to these sufferers. I want to ask him whether it is not possible, instead of granting a higher percentage of compensation to these pneumoconiosis sufferers, he will not consider relieving these people of their medical costs. Many of them have high medical costs and they are not covered by the sick fund as soon as they become phthisis sufferers. I therefore feel that in this respect much can still be done for the mineworkers.

In general we want to thank the Minister and the Government for these increased pensions granted to pneumoconiosis sufferers and their widows and children. We are grateful for these concessions granted to the widows of mineworkers who are found to be under 20 per cent at the post-mortem examination, and that they will again receive that sum of money. In general, I am sure that this will bring great satisfaction to the mineworkers.

I am grateful to hon. members for the support that has been given to this measure and I have noted the representations that have been made by various hon. members in regard to the improvement of benefits in the future. I can also state that as far as these representations are concerned, they amount to the fact that there should be more after-care than has been the case up to the present. Here I want to refer to what I said when the Vote of Mines was being discussed—that this matter was being carefully considered by a Commission which had been sent overseas, but that those recommendations had to be withheld until such time as the Silke Report was issued. Now that it has been printed and made available, the report of that Commission will be further investigated.

I have been blamed particularly because we have introduced this legislation at this late stage. The reason is that we were waiting for the report of the Silke Commission. We expected the report to be available sooner so that it could be Tabled, but the report was only signed slightly more than a week ago and it was then handed to the State President and made available to members and Tabled. Unfortunately, we were not able to have it earlier. When we did know the possible result in this regard we considered leaving this measure over until next year or taking these steps this year and having the legislation passed at this late stage. There were two considerations which decided us to have it passed now. I would almost say that there were three considerations. If it were not for the fact that there were representations that the whole system should be changed—and those representations were made by the Chamber of Mines as well as by the Mineworkers’ Union, that they wanted to take the matter out of the hands of the State—and if that whole matter had not been investigated as a result of negotiations last year, it is quite probable that legislation would have been introduced in this regard last year by my predecessor. This matter has therefore been standing over from last year. We already knew then of certain amendments which had to be effected. The negotiations between the two groups was therefore one reason why this legislation was delayed. We felt that we should rather introduce it at this late stage because we did not want to delay it for another year, because we wanted to put the matter to rights, and because we wanted to give the mineworkers the benefit of this legislation from October. But there is also a third reason. If we had not introduced this legislation now, it would have meant leaving it over until next year. Because this legislation has certain retrospective provisions, and because the Government accepts the responsibility for these retrospective provisions, to pay everything, it simply means that when it is postponed for a year the retrospective period becomes so much longer and the commitment of the State in this regard is so much larger. The mines are responsible for the increases from 1 October, 1965, and they have to bear this expense themselves. Their duty, therefore, to make their contribution, arises now and is not postponed until next year.

In connection with the request that the Vote of Mines should be discussed earlier in the Session, I feel that the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has dealt very efficiently with this point. The procedure is for the Votes of the junior Minister to be discussed last, and I do not think that this procedure can be changed.

I have been asked to ensure that this legislation is reviewed each year. I do not know why these representations have been made now but hon. members will realize that in the first place this will mean a re-assessment every year, which is a great task because there are 13,000 pensioners. This will mean that their pensions will have to be reviewed every year and the State’s contribution which has to be voted by Parliament will also have to be reviewed each year. The mines themselves are faced with the position that they have to bear the increases and this also creates a certain amount of uncertainty as far as they are concerned. A review of this nature will cause a great deal of uncertainty all round. But I want to point out that as far as this side of the House is concerned, its actions do not differ from those of the Opposition because the Opposition did not tackle this matter annually either when they were in power. There was one increase in 1941 and the next was in 1956; therefore, the same principle that we are applying now, was applied then, and there is therefore no departure from it on our part. I take it that they also had good reasons at the time for not making a regular adjustment.

Reference has been made here to the cases which were investigated posthumously, and the fact that only one lump sum is paid in these cases. The position is that when these cases are investigated posthumously and it appears that such cases had an incapacity of more than 20 per cent, or up to 50 per cent or higher, their widows receive that pension to which such persons would have been entitled. I have been asked: Why 20 per cent? Why not something else? There was reference to what had happened and there were representations that this should be higher, and a particular plea was made for the widows. Let me say that in the past there were not always adjustments on the basis of the cost of living. The increases since 1950 have been referred to, but I think that we should rather look at the increases which we have had since 1946, because that was the year of the previous increases. In 1946 there was an increase of more than 25 per cent for those certified from 20 per cent to 50 per cent, and for those in the 20 per cent to 75 per cent category, there has been an increase of 39 per cent since 1946, because 1946 was the year in which these pensions were approved. A plea has also been made for the widows of these people, but in their case the increase since 1946 has been 56 per cent, and in the case of dependent children it has been 70 per cent. It is said now that the cost of living has since risen by about 56 per cent, but the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) has said that we should actually consider by how much food has risen, namely, by 84 per cent. That is now how we assess it. The average also includes clothes and other expenses which must be considered in working out increases in the cost of living. I do not think it is right to link it up with this. When we consider that since 1950 there has been an increase of 56 per cent in the cost of living, then this is not disproportionate. Particular reference has been made to the small increase there has been for those certified in the 20 per cent to 50 per cent class, and also for the 20 per cent to 75 per cent class. But I must point out that these people who have received this pension are people who are still working. We find in everyday life that salaries have been adjusted in accordance with the increase in the cost of living, to keep pace with it, and in most cases salaries have risen more swiftly than has the cost of living. So where these pensioners did not receive an amount equal to the rise in the cost of living, we must not lose sight of the fact that they are people who have been working and so have received salary adjustments and increases. [Interjection.] I have said that over this period the rise in salaries has generally speaking been higher than the increase in the cost of living.

Reference was also made to widows and a strong appeal was made for them and for their dependent children. We have every sympathy with these people. It is said now that they must receive so much more. But let us see how they were treated before this Government came into power. What was the pension which the widow received in 1946? There was an increase then. During the period of office of the United Party Government the widow received R13 per month. In 1950, three years after the National Party had come into power, this pension was increased from R13 to R20. There was an immediate large adjustment made by this Government, and in 1952 and 1956 further grants were made to these widows. Take the case of dependent children. What was the position in 1948? At that time the children received R4.50, and after this Government came into power, this amount was more than doubled; it was increased to R10. So, if the impression is created that this Government is not sympathetically disposed towards these people, those hon. members must not forget how little they did for these people during their period of office.

I have been asked why I cannot make provision for a larger increase for this last group, these certified over 75 per cent. The hon. member for Randfontein pointed out that there are 330 of them under the C account and that there are 33 of them under the A and B accounts, a total therefore of 363. But there is also a limit, and this is a monthly wage provision which provides that a mineworker cannot receive a pension higher than the average monthly wage paid to him. There is therefore a ceiling in this regard. If we give that group an additional increase which puts them above that ceiling, their pension will have to be reduced. They cannot receive a pension which exceeds that ceiling. This has always been the position. If we make larger increases applicable to these cases, a number of them will not be able to receive the benefit of those increases, but at the same time we must also not lose sight of the fact that a 20 per cent increase on a small amount is less than a 20 per cent increase on a large amount. This means that this 20 per cent which has been applied throughout results in different benefits for the recipients thereof. Those who receive a small amount, receive less, and those who receive larger amounts, receive more.

I have been asked how this R6,000,000 burden imposed upon the mining industry is going to be allocated. It has been estimated that the annual increase which the mines will have to contribute will be between R4,000,000 and R5,000,000 per annum, an increase therefore of R 1,000,000. I have been asked about the marginal mines. As far as the marginal mines are concerned, many of them are unfortunately not able to deduct it from their income tax any longer; it is a running expense, but on the other hand it is also a fact that the marginal mines make small contributions to this fund at the moment. The richer and younger mines contribute far more to this fund than do the marginal mines. I have been asked why the operative date is 1 October 1965. One reason is because it coincides with the date of payment of civil pensions, but another reason is that the pensions have had to be re-assessed and adjustments will have to be made for these more than 30,000 pensioners. It takes time to do this work, particularly because of the retrospective provisions. Furthermore, the 1962 Act came into operation on 1 October 1962 and the matter will be facilitated in this way.

Reference has been made to the Silke Report which has recently been published. We have not yet had an opportunity to deal fully with this matter. As a result of this report it may be necessary to reconsider this legislation during the recess. We will probably reconsider it in the light of the report. The former Minister said that this Act required adjusting. I have tried to indicate that there would perhaps have been more adjustments had it not been for the fact that there were negotiations between the parties. But because a certain line of action has been indicated, we shall follow it up, and if it is possible to effect improvements to this Act, either as a result of the Silke Report or as a result of representations which have been made by hon. members of this House, we shall go into the matter and, if necessary, we shall come forward with legislation next year.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister will be good enough to explain to us whether records have been kept of those post mortem cases since 1962 who were found to have pneumoconiosis dust on their lungs?

Yes, all the records have been kept and will be available.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, . . .

I am sorry the hon. member’s time has expired; or is he taking the hour?

I am taking the hour, if I may, but I do not intend to detain the House very long.

I was dealing last night with the value to science and scientific research of our reserves, and so forth, and in the few minutes that I am going to speak to-day I want to come back to that presently. As we do not intend to delay matters very much when we come to the Committee Stage of this Bill I would like to ask the Deputy Minister in charge of this Bill to deal with Section 5 of the Bill where provision is made for the board to grant to an officer or employee residential, pastoral and agricultural facilities in a park. These officers or employees are apparently to be given rights of residence and the right to depasture animals and even the right to practise agriculture in the park. Whilst it seems a little bit out of place, it may well be that there is a good reason for it, but I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he replies to the debate, to deal with this.

Then I would like just for a moment to deal with the scientific side again and to say that only a few days ago I was reading a work in connection with the scientific discoveries which have been made as a result of the study of national parks, not our own national parks in South Africa. The author said this—

He went on to point out that from the development of heavier than air aircraft on the one side right down to developments in connection with our forestry on the other side, science and our own development owed a great deal to what we have been able to learn from natural sources. In regard to the growing of timber it was of considerable interest to find out that timber research in certain countries overseas had been made with a view to trying to establish better strains of timber and bigger timber growing faster, and that all efforts had failed until it was discovered by scientific research that if a certain fungus was attached to the roots of the trees, it not only increased their rate of development but that they grew in size from little stunted shrubs virtually to huge timber trees. The missing factor was merely a fungus which it was found when attached almost as a parasite to the roots of the trees, created a situation where through their metabolism they were able so to develop the timber industry. Sir, I think that is the kind of thing that we should aim to achieve with our national parks as well as merely providing facilities for visitors and tourists to come and enjoy what we have to offer.

Sir, I want to end on this note: I believe that this will probably be the last occasion when we will have the present Secretary for Lands in his present position. I have known him for a very long time indeed—I think since he first joined the Service. I would like to say from this side of the House that we have appreciated his unfailing courtesy and the manner in which he has dealt with matters which have come before us; we have appreciated it. We were very pleased when he recovered from the very serious illness which he had and that was two or three years ago and since he will soon be leaving his present post we would like to wish him a long and enjoyable period of rest and enjoyment of his pension.

Sir, I will not detain the House long. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether these amendments to the Act will take care of an example which I would like to quote to-day, because I believe that although we have done such a magnificent job in preserving our flora and our fauna in the form of our big national parks which are such an attraction to oversea visitors, I have often wondered whether there are not one or two other places of a smaller kind, which might be classed as national parks. Sir, the point I want to make is this: Here in the Cape Peninsula there is a property, which belonged to the late Sir Drummond Chaplin. It was brought to my attention the other day, that this is a property, which contains all species of woods and flora of the Cape Peninsula and of this part of South Africa. My information is that the property is in a good state of repair; that there is a magnificent homestead on it and that it is chock-a-block with treasures, which are in the nature of Africana. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether these amendments would cover the possibility of those interested, acquiring this particular property for the State. My information is, that the heirs, who are two elderly ladies resident in Britain, are very anxious to do something of a benevolent kind. I am quite sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister would find sympathetic people, if he decided to investigate the proposition, which I have put before him to-day. Would the acquisition of property of this kind be covered by the amendments before the House? That is all I want to say, and then finally I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to this tremendous national asset which is there almost for the asking.

I should like to thank the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) very much indeed for the way in which he has given this Bill his support. The hon. member spoke about a study of nature and the study possibilities in connection with our fauna and flora. The hon. member is himself an interesting person because he is a member who has shown in the past that when he has to deal with the soil of South Africa, when he has to deal with nature, with the protection of our wild life and the protection of our indigenous fauna and flora, he tackles the matter with as much affection as one can expect from anyone, and is also prepared to make sacrifices. I think of the days when there was a danger that a certain plant which grew in the North Coast area of Natal, namely, the “saaikek plant” might be exterminated or smuggled out of the country. The hon. member was the one at the time who ensured that this did not happen. When a person like the hon. member lends his support to a Bill of this nature, one can take note of what he has to say.

The hon. member referred to study possibilities in connection with our flora and fauna. It is interesting to know that this indigenous plant, for example, existed before the stone age. It is one of the oldest plants in the world. It grows less than a quarter of an inch per year and it takes 30 years to grow its bulb. It is known in Afrikaans as the “bobbejaanbrood” or the “boesmansbrood”. I mention this simply because the hon. member referred to the necessity for protecting our plant life, and in this connection he also referred to the impala lily. In the first place the hon. member said that he would like to see the necessary steps being taken to ensure that the Augrahabies Waterfalls are not misused; that the indigenous flora and the natural surrounds there, made by the hand of the Creator, should not be disrupted as a result of industrial or power development. I think that we should be grateful to the Parks Board for the fact that they asked timeously for authority to spend the necessary funds in order to investigate the position so that they can advise us in regard to the steps which should be taken to conserve the plant life there and to ensure that the natural surroundings are not disturbed, as can easily happen if we concentrate upon industrial and power development in an injudicious manner. I feel that this area will be worth far more to us as a park.

I have already pointed out that the hon. member referred to the question of scientific research and study. Unfortunately, our time is very limited, otherwise I could wax lyrical about the various types of plants which we have in South Africa to show the world, plants which one will find nowhere else in the world. I could point out that we have flowers here which one will find nowhere else; that we have certain kinds of game and certain kinds of insects in South Africa which one finds in no other country; that we have some of the smallest animals here in South Africa which have already been exterminated in the rest of the world. In this connection I want to refer to the interesting fact that because of the use of D.D.T. over the years, flies, for example, have in certain places developed an immunity to D.D.T. The hon. member is quite correct when he says that by means of this Bill we are simply going a step further to ensure that our animal and plant life will be protected. South Africa will in 25 or 30 years’ time perhaps be the only country in the whole of Africa in which these pretty trees, plants and flowers and also game will be found.

The hon. member put certain questions to me. In the first place he referred to the possibility of the proclaiming of Sordwana and he said in passing that this could possibly be undertaken by the Natal Parks Board. I want in the first place to agree with the hon. member that the necessary steps should be taken in the future to develop a garden route there with a view to the fact that the natural surroundings there are different to those along the Cape Garden Route. I shall be pleased if the hon. member will tell me that we should summarily place all the parks in South Africa under the umbrella of the National Parks Board, but I do not wish to start a war because I know that the hon. member wants Natal to retain its nature reserve, although Natal will be better off if we can work out a co-ordinated travel plan for tourists in the future.

The hon. member pointed out that one still comes across too much vandalism in South Africa. People destroy and deface our nature reserves, sometimes as a result of negligence. One finds that people throw cigarette-butts away in the veld and cause a veld fire in this way. One finds sometimes that where a new coastal area is developed for housing purposes, every tree is removed. That is why we are coming forward with this measure to protect the Tsitsikama area because this area will be something particular and special in the future. The hon. member expressed the fear that the building of bridges and tunnels and landing stages for boats will be done in such a way that the natural life and surroundings on land as well as in the sea will be affected. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that nature will be protected as far as possible because in principle this is the first thing that the Parks Board wish to do. Because the hon. member has pointed out that one has to ensure that we have certain reserves, not for the benefit of the public but in order to conserve nature, I want to tell him that the Parks Board have reserved certain areas within parks, areas which are not open to the public. The Parks Board also has its technicians and its biologists who study grazing habits, the practice of selective grazing followed by animals, in order by so doing to protect our nature reserves as far as we possibly can for generations to come.

The hon. member put certain pertinent questions to me to which I should like to reply. In the first place the hon. member asked whether the advisory board which is referred to in Clause 3 will now be excluded because we are enabling the Parks Board to make inquiries. I just want to tell the hon. member that that advisory board is not being excluded but that as far as the Department is concerned the Parks Board is the body corporate. In terms of this clause the Parks Board can make use of that advisory board and it can also make use of outsiders. This Bill empowers it to make the necessary funds available when it considers it necessary that investigations be made. We are therefore not eliminating the advisory board in this connection.

The hon. member referred to the residential, grazing and agricultural facilities which may be allocated to officials or employees in a park. I want firstly to give the House the assurance that these grazing and agricultural facilities are not for commercial farming purposes. The intention is simply to enable our officials, our wardens, to be self-supporting. I want to mention as an example that in the Kalahari Gemsbok Park we have two supervisors. One of them is 210 miles from Upington and the other is 384 miles from Upington. In other words, one has to give those people the opportunity to keep a few cows and to grow a few things in order to be self-supporting, but the matter will be arranged in such a way that no damage will be caused to the natural surroundings and to the park itself. This step is only being taken in order to make the staff more contented.

The hon. member also referred to the supply and price of Bantu beer. We have made the provisions of this clause particularly wide, and for a few good reasons. We have to make provision for a difference in the price according to the distance. In the first instance, we are going to set up a brewery at Skukuza. One can well understand that if the beer has to be transported from Skukuza down to Kundamali, the price at Kundamali will be higher than that at Skukuza because it will also include the transport tariffs. We may also make this same beer available to tourists in small quantities in order to make it known to the world, and when beer is made available in small quantities we will probably have to sell it at a higher price than the price at which it is sold in gallons to the workers in the park.

Palm beer?

No, we are not going to make palm beer there. Palm beer is only made in Zululand where they make the so-called lala beer from the lala plant. I want to give the House the assurance that it is by no means the intention to discriminate on a racial basis in this regard. The purpose is to make a healthy Bantu beer available to the about 1,600 Bantu watchmen we have in the parks.

The hon. member pointed out that the new expressions which are being inserted in Section 23 of the principal Act, namely, albatross, porpoise, sea-elephant or sea-leopard are, not generally known, and that it may perhaps be difficult to prove a case in court. Hon. members will notice that “animal” in the principal Act is defined as including all types of animals. I shall certainly have the matter raised by the hon. member investigated. If we are not able to incorporate it in the Act, we may be able to make the Latin or scientific or biological names of the animals concerned known to the tourists who visit the parks.

The hon. member also referred to Clause 8 which provides that an official designated by the board can search any premises, place, vehicle, vessel and so forth in a park or any place within one mile of the boundary of a park, and he pointed out that it is difficult from the coast to estimate the distance of a vessel at sea. He pointed out quite correctly that if a man fires a shot across the water, he cannot estimate the distance. One is always inclined to underestimate the distance; one may think that the distance is 1,000 yards, while in actual fact it is 1,400 yards or more. But we had to use the word “vessel” in the Act because we also want to protect the Tsitsikama coastal area. We must be able to make the necessary investigation, and we must provide the necessary deterrents to prevent people exterminating sea life within a mile of the coastline, whether it be in regard to mussels or rock lobsters. We want the right to search those vessels, even if we have to measure the distance at a later stage.

I do not think that there is very much more I should reply to. I think that there are a number of gentlemen here who would like to go home and who might even want to be on their way to one of these fine parks which we have in South Africa. There are many hon. members who regard our nature reserves as the only holiday resort after a tiring session.

Order!

No, I am not making propaganda.

Order! The hon. the Minister must come back to the Bill.

I just want to reply briefly to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) who raised the question of certain property having certain indigenous plants and trees. I want to tell the hon. member that this matter has already been investigated and it has been found that the property is not suitable for use as a park or nature reserve. The hon. member himself said that there are large buildings on the property. But if the hon. member would like us to investigate the matter further, I shall certainly ask that the relevant documents be resubmitted to us.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 3,

I move as an amendment—

To insert the following paragraph as a paragraph (a) after “amended” in line 18:

1. (a) by the substitution for paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of the following paragraph:

   1. “(a) construct such roads, bridges, buildings, dams, fences, breakwaters, seawalls, boathouses, landing stages, mooring places, swimming-pools, oceanariums and underwater tunnels and carry out such other works as it may consider necessary for the control, management or maintenance of the park”; and.

I just want to deal with the point which has just been made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Parks are set up with the object of preserving things of geological, archaelogical or historical interest. I believe that the property to which I referred is an object of historical interest, and I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would not again investigate this matter on those lines. Sir, throughout the United States and in other countries, but especially in the United States, one finds that parks are established. Here we have a typical old Cape property which could be preserved as a park and which could be quite a money-spinner for the Government and the National Parks Board. I would therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, please, to investigate this matter.

The property referred to by the hon. member who has just sat down is quite unsuitable for the Parks Board. It is not a park; it is a residence with a considerable amount of ground attached to it. It is not an historic place but I will grant the hon. member that it is a beautiful place. There are many other bodies which ought to be interested in this property. I refer to the Cape Divisional Council, for example, or the Cape Town Municipality. It is not the sort of property, however, in which the Parks Board should be interested.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

I said during the second reading that we would oppose the Bill, which we did. and that we would! decide at the third reading how to act after studying the Bill as it had emerged from the Committee Stage. We must now consider how the Bill has. in fact, emerged. In assessing the Bill we must remember that there was no main principle, as the Minister pointed out, and we must examine the principle in each clause. It is necessary to go through the clauses to show what changes are taking place. We have no real objection to Clause 1 although the clause does nothing in -articular to make the Bill acceptable. It merely provides for a situation which has arisen because of the five-day week applicable to civil servants.

Clause 2 gives the magistrate jurisdiction to try cases under increased penalties and only affects those who have escaped from custody and offences linked with that offence. No important principle attaches to this clause and certainly nothing which makes the Bill so attractive as to outweigh any other unattractive or objectionable clauses. Clause 3 is consequential because of the change in the numbers of the sections in the consolidating Bill. This is nothing new and merely makes .the law more convenient to read. Clause 5 makes it easier for those under 18 years to get bail and provides for their detention in a place other than a gaol. Again nothing is radically changed. Clause 8 is one which we support. It merely facilitates proof by expert official witnesses. It will save time and expense in trials. Again no important principle is involved. Clause 9 deals with presumptions against persons receiving stolen property from youths. It is of no consequence at all. Clause 13 provides for additional conditions which a court may lay down when granting a suspended sentence and only really allows the court to order a person to submit himself and his earnings to the control of a probation officer. Again nothing really of vital importance although commendable. Clause 14, likewise, compels employers to pay wages due to convicted persons to probation officers. Again commendable but not of any important principles. Clause 15 increases the amount the court may order to be paid as compensation in criminal cases.

As I have said, in considering the attitude to be adopted at the third reading in a Bill of this nature we have to weigh up the good against the bad. In the case of the notorious 90-day Bill we decided that the necessary and advisable recommendations, as suggested by Judge Snyman, outweighed the objections to the 90-day Clause. So we supported the third reading of that Bill although we voted against the clause itself. In this Bill we have nine clauses which, while improving the administration of justice, do not really warrant considering in setting off against objectionable provisions.

There are other clauses, such as No. 10, which adds the offences of kidnapping and child-stealing to those offences in respect of which the death sentence may be passed. We approve of this. Clause 12 abolishes compulsory whipping to which we have always been opposed. Clause 11 lays down offences for which whipping may be imposed at the discretion of the court. As far as Clause 12 is concerned it is certainly very acceptable but the Minister was bound to abolish it because all our objections to its introduction have proved correct. Our only criticism is that he did not abolish it earlier once he announced that he was going to abolish it as he left the courts in an unenviable position in that they had to apply a law which they knew was to be repealed. This leaves us with Clauses 4, 6 and 7 on which we had most discussion and Clause 16 in respect of which the Minister accepted an amendment.

We objected to Clause 4 mainly on the ground that accomplices were being brought into its ambit without the witness having legal representatives present during his examination. We contended that this was a right which should be granted to him as we saw possible prejudice to the accomplice. The Minister chose to leave it to the discretion of the court or the magistrate to decide whether this was necessary or advisable. No principles are laid down for the magistrate to bear in mind when considering the matter and we still contend that it is wrong to leave such an important matter in the air. A new principle is being introduced and magistrates are now faced with new circumstances. We still contend that Parliament should direct magistrates as to what it feels should be done and not leave it to them to guess as to what the Legislature intended. The magistrate was in the same position previously until the Supreme Court ruled that he could allow legal representatives to be present at inquiries held under the law as it then existed. We are now amending the law by putting other duties and responsibilities on the magistrate. It is only right that we should tell him what we want him to do in the new circumstances. We oppose this clause, Sir, and the Minister’s attitude does not encourage us to support the Bill.

Clause 6 is both good and bad. We agree, and my Leader has publicly demanded, that something should be done to stiffen up the bail provisions as applied to political offenders. A new type of criminal has arisen recently and we know that they do not consider bail in the same light as the ordinary criminal. We know that their bail is provided by organizations and that they have no hesitation in estreating their bail. We know all the difficulties the Minister is faced with and that is why we agree that in respect of political offenders the bail provisions should be stiffened up. My Leader has in fact called for that, as I have said. However, this provision does not cover only political offenders but all serious crimes as set out in the Schedule. Here again the Minister has made a case. He has told us he required it to deal mainly with robbers and we are prepared to support him because we realize that violence is on the increase and that this wave of brutality must be stopped if possible.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) criticized us for accepting the clause as amended by us. We moved an amendment which the Minister accepted. The hon. member for Houghton could not understand our attitude as we had opposed the clause previously where it allowed the Attorney-General to object to bail for 12 days. I merely want to point out to her that that clause covered all offences in the original Bill whereas this provision now only covers the major offences. The position has also changed since the introduction of the 12-day clause because of our experience of political offenders over the past year. It was because of what had happened in the case of political offenders that my Leader made that appeal for the law to be tightened up. We moved amendments to that clause limiting the period of detention without bail to 90 days and the Minister accepted it. It still makes drastic inroads into our administration of justice and we feel that it should be revised annually. The only concession the hon. the Minister has made —and it is a real one—is the deletion of subsection (5) which would have given the State President power to add any crime he was instructed to add to the Schedule. The Minister has deleted that sub-section but that deletion does not bring about any change to our existing law. Were we to regard concessions given by way of withdrawal of clauses in a Bill as a reason for accepting a measure the Minister could put any atrocious clauses in a Bill and then merely withdraw them in the Committee Stage and expect the Opposition to accept the principle of the Bill because it had been made more acceptable. We approve of the principle of restricting bail in certain circumstances, as I have said, but this goes too far in that the minister will not agree to our request to make it subject to annual renewal.

That leaves us with Clauses 7 and 16. Clause 16 is necessary because of Clauses 6 and 7. It sets out the offences in which those clauses are to be applied. We agree that if they are to be applied—we concede that there is justification for restricting bail—that it must only be in respect of the most serious offences. We only envisaged political offences but, as I have said, the Minister has made a case for other crimes as well. I know there are many who feel that house-breaking should have been excluded but I would remind them that it is only where the offence is accompanied by aggravating circumstances that the Attorney-General is given the power to act in house-breaking cases. As I pointed out in the Committee Stage there have been brutal assaults accompanying housebreaking offences. In considering all the offences, it is well to remember that the Attorney-General must apply his mind to the matter and we trust that he will not act lightly and that the Minister will not intervene if he disagrees with the attitude of the Attorney-General in any particular instance.

Then I come to the detention clause, Clause No. 7. This allows the Attorney-General to detain a witness if he fears that he may abscond, or that he will be intimidated, tampered with or if he thinks it is in the interests of the witness to be locked up. The Minister amended this clause in the Committee Stage limiting the scope of the Bill to the serious offences as set out in the Schedule. We appreciate that the Minister has difficulties and we were therefore prepared to accept the clause if suitably amended to protect the witness from possible unreasonable actions by the Attorney-General who may have been misinformed by the police or who may be making a mistake. We wanted the witness to be allowed to appeal to a Judge-in-Chambers where the application would be heard in private and where the Attorney-General could talk freely to the Judge without fear of prejudicing the accused or the State’s case through publicity and possible influence on the court which would hear the trial. We also wished to ensure that the conditions under which the witnesses were held would not be severe bearing in mind that they were only witnesses and not accused. Our amendments were rejected. From the Minister’s reply it appears that there will be differential treatment and that some witnesses will be confined strictly incommunicado with only a weekly visit from the magistrate. There is a very real fear that this clause may be used to supplant the 90-day Clause and may, in fact, be used by the police for interrogation purposes. I am not going to go into further details on this clause. Other hon. members will deal with it. All I want to say is that this clause makes such drastic inroads into our system of administration of justice that we think it outweighs any possible and probable good in the other clauses of the Bill. We have indicated that we are prepared to assist the Government in maintaining law and order and the safety of the State but by measures of this kind the State is following steps and practices of ideologies from which it attempts to protect the State itself. We acknowledge that as a responsible Opposition we have a duty not only to see that our citizens are justly governed and not easily deprived of their liberty but also to protect the safety of the State. I only wish that all Oppositions in the past were as responsible and alive to their patriotic duties as we are.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I had summed up the various clauses of this Bill and showed that with the exception of the whipping clause and the bail clause none of the clauses which we accepted contained any important principle and did not outweigh the most objectionable clause, namely, the one dealing with the detention of witnesses and which made drastic inroads into our system of jurisprudence. I pointed out that we were very conscious of our duty both to the citizen and to the State and that we were just as jealous of the safety of the State as any member on that side of the House. Our past record proves that, Sir. We appreciate the difficulties of the Minister and were prepared to assist him in dealing mainly with political offenders by moving amendments to make the clause more acceptable. We were prepared to give him the powers he thought was necessary but at the same time we wished to protect the interests of the individual. He was not prepared, however, to accept our amendments and rejected our aid. We are the watchdogs for the people and before surrendering fights and freedoms we must be satisfied that such surrender is absolutely necessary. We know, from experience, what has happened in other countries where the Opposition was cajoled and bullied into surrendering one freedom after another until in the end there was a meek surrender of all the freedoms in the mistaken belief that they were required in the interests of the State. That ended in tragedy for both the State and the people. Our rights have been won for us by our forebears over the centuries from tyrants. Our administration of justice has been an example to the rest of the world and it is one of which we are justly proud. Before we agree to further inroads we must be certain that they are necessary for our well-being and for the protection of our way of living and cherished freedoms. As I have said, Sir, when we do agree to surrender some in the interests of the people whom we serve we must satisfy ourselves that we do not give more than is required for their safety, because of our experience in the past that where rights are surrendered they are very seldom restored. In this instance, Sir, we feel that the Minister has asked for far too much. We have showed our willingness to help; he was not prepared to accept it and we shall vote against the third reading of the Bill.

I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said. Like him, but perhaps to a greater extent, I certainly see nothing in the changes introduced to this Bill during the Committee stage to cause me in any way to change my mind and to take up a different attitude from the one I adopted at the second reading. I intend, therefore, to move exactly the same amendment at the third reading that I moved at the second reading and that is—

You will vote alone again.

That may be so; it is worth while voting alone when you are voting the right way for the right things. The fact that I vote alone makes no difference to me. I have only my own conscience to which I am responsible.

Last year, when speaking at a meeting in August, the hon the Minister said—

I think the hon. the Minister will recall those sentiments with which, by the way, I heartily concur. I cannot, of course, comment on the first part of his hypothesis because it is beyond the scope of this Bill, except to say that I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister’s conception of what constitutes a citizen’s rights and how they are exercised in South Africa differs profoundly from my own. But on the second part of the hypothesis, I want to say that we may have, and do have, a free judiciary, but that to my mind there is no doubt whatsoever that the actions of the Minister, through this Bill and through other measures, are affecting the whole character of the free judiciary, and, of course, the way in which the courts have to administer these laws. Secondly, of course, and more germane to this argument, by the gradual removal by the Minister of more and more of the discretionary powers of those courts and the limitation of the powers of those courts, the character of the free judiciary is altered. Laws such as the one we are passing to-day limit the discretionary powers of the courts, as have other similar laws previously passed by this Government and this Minister. It is my contention that, by so doing, we are further interfering with that second important concept of the democratic State, i.e. a free and independent judiciary.

This Bill is a further addition to the existing laws on our Statute Book which detrimentally affect that independent judiciary. I believe that this is an example of the Minister’s contempt, not of the courts of law, but for the courts of law. Our Statute Book is already loaded with laws.

Order! I do not think the hon. member must say that the Minister entertains contempt for the courts of law. She must withdraw those words.

Very well, Sir, I withdraw those words. Already the Statute Book is full of measures which place ministerial decisions above the independent action of the courts of law. The 90-day law was one such example. It placed people right outside the jurisdiction of the courts of law. All the measures which give the hon. the Minister the power to ban, to list or to restrict people in any way, are outside the jurisdiction of our courts of law because to prove male fides is most difficult. One has to prove that the Minister has not exercised his mind on a particular question and that is something very difficult indeed. The powers the Minister exercises under those laws are subject only to a very limited form of interference by the courts of law.

To-day we are introducing another law which is in keeping with previous measures. It limits the jurisdiction of the courts of law and the discretionary rights of the courts of law. We are repeating all the sins of the 90-day law and we are adding to the very considerable difficulties of people accused of certain crimes. The vast powers of the authorities are now going to be brought to bear on people who are going to give evidence against the accused. By the very threat of repeated incarceration of witnesses in solitary confinement and subject to we know not what methods of interrogation . . .

Where do you get solitary confinement from?

Incommunicado means solitary confinement and the law lays down that the hon. the Minister may prohibit witnesses from seeing anybody other than a magistrate once a week. [Interjections.] “Absolute nonsense”, Sir; that is one way of dismissing an argument but it is not a logical way of dismissing it. I am arguing on the terms of this Bill and not on an interpretation of my own; I am arguing on the actual wording of Clause 7, in any case. Already people who are accused of any political offences are placed under the greatest difficulty in defending themselves. They have difficulty in getting lawyers who plead their cause for them; they have difficulty insofar as their cases are heard in courts many hundreds of miles from their own places of residence. That means, of course, that the expenses of the trial are added to. It is difficult to bring defence witnesses. This new law will add to all those difficulties. I think it is a sad thought that the very people who, when in opposition themselves were so adamant . . .

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

With respect, Sir, I am dealing with Clause 7.

The hon. member must deal with the contents of the Bill.

Yes, Sir, Clause 7 contains all the features which I have been describing, every single one of them. I can only say at this stage that this Bill is introduced to-day by people who felt very strongly on these pointe not so long ago. There are a few alleviating features, and a few alleviating amendments have been made since the Bill was first placed on our desks. The hon. Minister has himself omitted one or two of the sub-sections, and he has of course limited, by accepting an amendment, the time during which a person may be detained, or rather held in prison without the right of bail. But the most obnoxious provision of all, Clause 7, remains untouched, by ministerial or other hands, and every single one of its objectionable features remains unchanged. I remember when the 90-day clause which now has been suspended and which was very similar to Clause 7 in this particular Bill, was being implemented, the police said that it was a great weapon in their hands. I maintain that an even greater weapon is now being placed in the hands of the police by the ability of the Minister to detain witnesses or anybody who is likely—such is the loose wording of the clause—to give evidence in a case mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. I am perfectly sure that I am speaking for thousands of freedom-loving South Africans . . .

Saboteurs.

I am not speaking for saboteurs or communists, and I am absolutely unmoved by the hon. member’s interjection. It is typical of him. it is typical of his way of thinking and it is typical of his absolute inability to see anything in an objective way. So I am completely unaffected by his remark. I wish to say again that I am convinced that I am speaking for all the freedom-loving South Africans, and there are thousands and thousands of them who have not lost their perspective.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the contents of the Bill.

Sir, I am simply saying that in moving the amendment that I have moved . . .

You have said all that before, and you can say all that again in the Drill Hall on Thursday.

I will say all that again on Thursday in the Drill Hall and I shall say all this again at every possible opportunity. As far as I am concerned, it is essential that people who have not lost their sense of freedom, who have not left their tradition of freedom behind them, will repeat over and over again the simple home truth that this Minister and this Government appear to have lost.

A broad survey of this Bill has been given by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) and I do not propose to cover that ground again. I think before dealing with the clauses which I wish to speak to, one is entitled to say this, that it is quite clear that this is not a Bill which is introduced accompanied by any degree of urgency whatever. It is inconceivable that a Minister of Justice would have introduced any measure which had a measure of urgency about it. only in the last week of a six-month Session. The position in the country to-day, Sir, according to the statements of the hon. Minister is no different from what it was five months ago. So I think it is fair to say that we must approach this Bill not on the basis that it is an emergency measure, but merely on the basis that it is an ordinary piece of legislation.

Order! The hon. member must not now make a second reading speech.

No. Sir, I will not take that any further. I merely wish to put the Bill in its right perspective at the third reading. It is in that circumstance that we have to approach this Bill at the third reading, and I think it is fair to say, as has been pointed out, that there are really only two clauses of consequence in this Bill, Clause 4 and Clause 7, and Clause 7 contains the kernel of this legislation, and that is really what we are debating this afternoon in this House. Now what does Clause 7 say? In essence it says that whenever the Attorney-General deems it to be in the interest of a person or in the interest of justice, he may issue a warrant for the arrest of any person likely to give material evidence for the State in any criminal proceedings. That is the essence: When he considers it in the interests of a person or in the interest of the administration of justice, he may then issue a warrant, the result of which will be the detention of that person for a period of six months and for such further periods of six months as he may consider necessary. And the person we are dealing with, the man against whom this warrant of detention will be issued, is not the saboteur, is not the agitator, not a criminal, but they are those persons who will enable the State to bring to book, to put in confinement the agitators, the saboteurs and the criminals. They will be to a certain extent, in some instances, persons on the fringe of the illegal activities the hon. Minister seeks to put an end to. I must concede that. But they will also in many instances be perfectly innocent, decent witnesses. Otherwise they would not be called by the State in those criminal proceedings, because they would be likely to be disbelieved by the judicial officer concerned. So it is ordinary persons, innocent of any offence whatever, innocent even of suspicion, who will be called, possibly as witnesses . . .

Do you imagine for one moment that they will be detained?

I am speaking of powers and I am speaking of rights.

I am speaking of common sense.

I am not speaking of the manner in which the Minister will exercise those powers. We are not here to discuss motives or to discuss intentions. We are here to discuss legislation which deals with rights and the limitation of rights, and it is on that basis that I approach this legislation. I will come to the question of motives a little later, Sir.

I know that the hon. Minister in his reply will deal with the power contained in this clause to detain witnesses who might be tampered with, to detain witnesses who might be intimidated, and to detain witnesses who might abscond. I appreciate that those are three of the categories that we are dealing with in this clause, persons who might be intimidated, persons who might be tampered with and persons who might abscond. But, Mr. Speaker, the legislation does not end with those three categories, and that is the difficulty I have with it. There are two further categories. The fourth one is merely that it is in the interest of the person that he be detained, and the fifth is merely that it is in the interest of justice that ha be detained—two categories which fall outside the categories of people who might be tampered with, or who might abscond, or who might be interfered with. I am not dealing with those three. I am dealing with the further powers in this Bill, the further powers to which principally I have objection. If the hon. Minister had limited himself to those three first categories where a man might abscond, or he might be tampered with, or where the witness might be interfered with, and if he had done away with the final paragraph of this clause, the hon. Minister would have an arguable case for which a great deal could have been said, because I think it is agreed universally that witnesses who are necessary to bring an offender to trial ought not to be allowed to abscond. I think it goes without saying that we are all in agreement that witnesses ought not to be allowed to be tampered with, to be interfered with. Had the hon. Minister limited himself and this Bill to those powers, subject to what I shall say in regard to the last paragraph of this clause, the hon. Minister would have had a good case. But the difficulty is that as so often happens, the hon. gentleman asks for powers well beyond those which on his own statements are needed to deal with the mischief with which he has to do. That is the difficulty we find on this side of the House. Had the hon. Minister limited himself to those three categories that I have just mentioned and had he omitted the final paragraph of Clause 7, we would have been in this position: The hon. Minister could have detained witnesses against whom it was thought there might be intimidation or who might be tampered with. He would have been able to detain those witnesses. He could have detained a witness of whom it was thought that he might abscond. But in order to safeguard any wrongful exercise of that power —I do not say male fides, I merely say “mistaken exercise” of those powers, those persons could have gone to a Judge-in-Chambers in terms of the Minister’s own clause without any amendment and could have said: “There is nothing to suggest that I am going to be tampered with, I want to be set free from my six months’ imprisonment”, and the Attorney-General if he had the information that there was a likelihood of that witness being tampered with would have been able to go before a Judge in private and say: “My Lord, we have this information and this man is being correctly held”, and he then would have been continued to be correctly held. But the hon. the Minister has not chosen to adopt that course. He has gone further. Now these powers in Clause 7 can be used, we know now, prior to any charge being made against anybody. That is clear. Detention can take place in accordance with conditions laid down in regulations which conditions we do not know the extent of. It can be used so that legal representatives, and medical representatives, doctors, and family will not have access to the person concerned, and finally, it can be used, and is to be used in terms of this clause, so that there can be no approach, in the case of a mistaken exercise of the power, to the courts, to a Judge in private, to have that put right, because, Sir, the jurisdiction of any court is specifically excluded in the final paragraph of this clause. Finally, we have yet to hear from the hon. the Minister the reply to the point that was put earlier by the hon. member for Durban (North) to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the power will not be used for the purpose of interrogation. What is the conclusion from this? The conclusion is that the hon. the Minister is taking powers in terms of this legislation to detain a man in gaol for six months, a man who is not likely in the opinion of the Attorney-General, or the Minister, to be intimidated by anybody, a man who is not likely to be tampered with, a man against whom there is no suspicion that he might abscond, a man entirely innocent of any of those categories, a man whose only fault, if one can call it a fault, is that he may be able to give evidence to assist the State in bringing someone to justice. In those circumstances, Sir, the hon. Minister and the Attorney-General may still detain that person against his will for a period of six months. I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I am dealing with the powers, not necessarily with the exercise of those powers in terms of this Bill. Sir, not only can he be detained, but as I say, this man against whom there is no suspicion of any kind, can be detained in circumstances whereby his wife and family may not see him, whereby his doctor and his lawyer may not see him, and whereby the manager of his business may not see him as of right.

Mr. Speaker, nothing that I have said this afternoon goes one centimetre beyond the terms of this Bill, and I have not in any sense, Sir, exaggerated the powers to be given to the Attorney-General in terms of this Bill. These are the powers, precisely as I have described them, and as I have said earlier, I have limited myself to powers and rights. I think there is little doubt that legislation of this kind runs counter to the philosophy and to the tradition of government in South Africa as we have known it in the past, as we have known it up to the present, and that philosophy and tradition is to take only such powers when it comes to the limitation of the rights of an innocent person, that tradition is to only take such powers as are necessary to deal with the mischief which one wishes to control, and the hon. Minister himself has said that the mischief which he wishes to control is people getting at witnesses, if I may use a colloquialism, interfering with them, intimidating them, or persons, witnesses who wish to abscond, or might wish to abscond. It is no use the hon. Minister saying that we can point to no abuse by him or his officials of their powers and that the Minister in future will not abuse his powers. Indeed, Sir, I find it an extraordinary statement for a Minister of Justice to make in this House: “I have not abused my powers.” We are entitled to expect no less a standard than that from a Minister of Justice.

That has always been your accusation.

I have never accused this Minister or any other Minister of Justice of abusing his powers.

When we took those powers, you said they could be abused.

I will tell the hon. Minister in a moment what I said then and what I say now in regard to this question of abuse. But it is an extraordinary thing to me for a Minister of Justice to stand up in this House of Assembly and blow out his chest and say: “I have not abused my powers.” Of course he has not. We are entitled to expect that a Minister of Justice will not abuse his powers. That should go without saying. It should be beyond discussion. It would be an unconscionable state of affairs if a Minister of Justice could not stand up and say “I have not and I will not abuse my powers”. I do not say that the hon. Minister has abused his powers, or that he will abuse his powers.

What are you arguing about then?

The abuse is in the taking of the powers. That is the abuse, not the exercise of those powers. It is an abuse of a parliamentary majority to take powers limiting the movement and freedom of an innocent, man, powers which, on your own confession, you do not need. I believe that that is a wrong approach to government.

I believe it is correct to say that it is a wholly wrong use of a parliamentary majority to take powers, broad powers, which go considerably beyond the case which the hon. the Minister himself has said he wished to overcome, and that is the tampering with witnesses, the intimidation of witnesses and the absconding of witnesses.

You don’t like the fact that we have a majority in Parliament.

I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that had the hon. Minister come with a Clause 7 in a form such as I have outlined earlier in this debate, limiting himself to the three categories which he wants to meet, the three difficulties which he has pleaded as the reason for this legislation, with the safeguard of the right to approach the court by the person detained (I emphasize that the man you are detaining has done nothing wrong, he has merely got evidence, which might help you to convict a wrongdoer), had the Minister limited himself to those three categories, with the right of that individual to approach the courts to put right a mistaken use of that power, then the hon. Minister would have been on very strong ground indeed, and I have no doubt that a different approach would have been taken by this House under those circumstances. But when he comes here with a clause as wide as this one is, whereby two categories remain beyond the scope of those three that I have mentioned—“if he deems it in the interest of the person” to detain him for six months— well, goodness knows that is wide enough, and I do not know how you are going to exercise that responsibility. It is not a case where a man can be intimidated. That has already been dealt with. It is not a case where a man can be interfered with. That has already been dealt with. It is not a case where a man is going to abscond. That is already dealt with. There is a further category: The Attorney-General has to solemnly say to himself “it is in your interest that you should be detained for six months. I know you do not want to be detained, but it is in your interest”. How you can exercise that function conscientiously. I do not know, but the power is there. And then there is the final one that “merely in the interest of justice” a man is detained. It is in the interest of the administration of justice that a witness should be detained for six months. Nothing could be wider, and I think that one can only take the stand that this side of the House has taken, and that is to say to the hon. the Minister: It is wrong that you should take powers considerably beyond the difficulty which you have to meet, particularly when those powers constitute an invasion of the rights of ordinary people. It is for those reasons amongst others, that this House has taken a stand against the third reading of this Bill.

We have arrived almost at the end of another debate on a matter of great public importance, a matter described by the hon. Minister and by his Press as being a Bill containing drastic measures, and once again we have had no contribution whatsoever from any member sitting on the Government benches, except for a silly interjection from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel). I can understand that normally the participation in a debate such as this, on the Criminal Procedure Act, an amendment thereof, would be one in which the lawyers on both sides would participate more than any other sort of member, but perhaps that is why they did not take part. Is there any lawyer in this House that this Bill does not offend? I am sure there is not. Perhaps that is the reason why we have had nothing from any member on that side of the House, no contribution whatever.

Mr. Speaker, there are two clauses here needing attention now and there is very little left to say about them that has not already been said very eloquently and very concisely by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, and the hon. member for Zululand.

So far as Clause 4 is concerned, and Clause 7, when we began the debate on the second reading, they looked at first not to be as bad as they appear to-day at the third reading. But during the discussions that we had in the Committee Stage, the hon. Minister indicated that, in relation to Clause 4 and in relation to Clause 7, certain aspects of this Bill which had occurred to me but which I did not want to believe, were part and parcel of this legislation.

So far as Clause 4 is concerned, it seems very clear now that it is in some way connected with Clause 7, because the persons who are going to be called to give evidence under this clause are also persons likely to be detained under Clause 7. I want to urge on the hon. the Minister to implement his assurance that he will see how this clause works and have regard to the amendment moved from this side of the House that legal representation should be allowed to persons who are called before a magistrate to give evidence under that clause. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in one important respect these persons are in exactly the same position as an accused person who is entitled to representation in that in the end, regardless of whether the procedure is a trial or the procedure is an interrogation under Section 83, ultimately they face two alternatives: Either they are going to be set free, given their liberty and an indemnity, or they are going to be put in gaol, either for a certain period or for an uncertain period, of a year at a time.

But what upsets me most about the Minister’s presentation of this measure and about the Bill itself of course is Clause 7, and what upsets me is that the Minister has spoken all along about a witness. The rubric of this clause speaks about “detention of witnesses”, and as has been pointed out, if that is what is provided for, it would not be half as objectionable, but it is not a witness only who is going to be dealt with in terms of this clause.

I want to say very frankly to the hon. the Minister that he would have had a considerable case and he would have had a considerable amount of support for the proposition that he outlined in this House when he introduced the Bill in the first place, but he does not expect surely anyone who gave him support for the case he outlined to this House, now to give him support for the same measure since he has given us to understand its contents during the Committee Stage. Because what has emerged from the Committee Stage? We have this clause in all its ugly nakedness. The hon. Minister was pressed to say that this clause would not be used for the purpose of interrogation, for the purpose of the 90-day clause. The hon. Minister remained silent throughout the Committee Stage on that point.

The clause speaks for itself.

Yes, Sir, it speaks for itself, and the hon. Minister spoke for this clause at the second reading and he did not mention interrogation. Why not? Because the clause spoke for itself? It spoke for the case the hon. Minister mentioned in his second-reading speech. It also spoke for the other cases that the hon. Minister did not mention, and in the Committee Stage the Minister’s silence is tantamount to an admission that this clause is going to be used for the purpose of interrogation, for the purposes for which before it was deproclaimed, the 90-day clause was used. The opportunity exists now for the Minister when he replies to the debate once again to say whether this clause will be used for that purpose or whether it won’t be used for that purpose. We tried in the Committee Stage to tailor this clause to the Minister’s second-reading speech and everything the Minister had to say about it, and every one of those amendments was rejected.

As a lawyer, let me say frankly that this clause offends me greatly, and as a citizen it frightens me. It frightens me that this House can consider passing a Bill like this. One of the most objectionable features of this clause is that it is to be made a permanent part of our law. One can look at the 90 days’ provision and one can see that all those provisions are in this clause, but there is something in the so-called 90 days’ clause which is not in here; it was put on a temporary basis and it would lapse after a year unless it was re newed.

I remember that when the Minister introduced that clause which provided that he could detain anyone for an unlimited period after he had served his sentence, I moved an amendment in the Committee Stage and said that that clause, under which at the moment only Sobukwe is held, should not be a permanent part of the law of a civilized country. I remember the Minister getting up and agreeing with me and accepting my amendment. That the provision should be temporary. Is not this clause just as offensive? But apparently it is not, to the Minister, and the Minister should tell us why. He should indicate why he has regard to the fact that this will remain for ever a necessary part of our criminal procedure.

There is no more to say, save this, that it is a very sad reflection on our circumstances and on the Government’s handling of our circumstances, that we are reduced to placing a measure such as this on the Statute Book, for ever. We will have no part of it.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill actually contains only three clauses that can be called contentious, Clauses 4, 6 and 7. We discussed them during the second reading, and we discussed them at length during the Committee Stage, and I do not propose discussing them at length at the third reading of this Bill, save to say that after listening to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) I look forward to January next year, when Parliament meets again, because I am sure the very first private motion which will be introduced next year will be a motion by the hon. member for Durban (North) about this very clause. The hon. member will then tell the House that this clause must be repealed immediately. I look forward to that motion. And in spite of the fact that I am not a prophet, I wish to say here and now that I do not think that motion will ever be forthcoming.

As far as the speeches of hon. members opposite are concerned, all I want to say is that we have progressed. We have certainly progressed since the days we had night sessions about the Sabotage Bill. We recall the unnecessary heat, natural or unnatural, that we had at the time. I wish to thank hon. members opposite for having progressed so far that we could have discussed this Bill in the spirit in which we have. I even want to thank the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) at this very early stage for giving me a clean bill of political health, when he made the admission for the first time as far as hon. members opposite are concerned that I have not abused the powers I asked for in the past.

Include me out.

Well, Helen is the only one in step, Sir, so I exclude her out. That being the case, in the light of the admission by the hon. member for Zululand that I have not abused my powers, I ask myself why we had all this heat in the past, why the accusations in the past, why the bogies that hon. members tried to raise in the past? Let me tell the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) that I appreciate his difficulty. I listened with close attention to his speech to-day and I appreciate his difficulty. He must talk to the right and he must talk to the left, and let me tell the hon. member he did it extremely well. The only difficulty my friend will have in practice outside is that neither the left nor the right will believe him. But he did his level best, and seeing that we are flinging compliments around, let me tell the hon. member that he did it very well.

As far as the hon. member for Zululand is concerned, he has rightly argued the matter. I have never tried to hide it. We have always known that that is the position, as far as legislation of this kind is concerned. His whole argument is that these powers can be abused. The gist of his argument was that it is so widely worded that it can be abused.

I never said that.

Then what are we arguing about?

May I put my point?

The hon. member cannot make another speech.

I said that you are taking powers far beyond those that you need, to the extent that there is no need for abuse by anyone.

The only objection to taking powers far beyond what one needs, to use the words of the hon. member—I do not necessarily subscribe to it, but let us accept for argument’s sake that that is the position—why then argue if there is no chance at all that they will be abused, in the words of the hon. member? Then it means nothing whatsoever; then we are talking up in the air. It is not a question whether these powers can be abused. The question is whether they will be abused, and have they in fact been abused in the past?

The question is whether you need them.

Yes, and I will tell the hon. member why. It is because the main difference between myself and the Opposition is that the Opposition knows as well as the Government side what we have to face. I told hon. members that and I am glad that they accepted it, and the difference between us is only that I am not prepared to take a chance.

Nor are we. [Laughter.]

Hon. members want me to take a chance, but I am not prepared to do it.

May I ask a question? Will the hon. the Minister be good enough to indicate to the House now why he needs the last two categories of the five I mentioned in the first paragraph in Clause 7?

What do we require the Attorney-General to do? We say that whenever, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, there is any danger of tampering with, or the intimidation of, any person, he can do certain things, and the hon. member agrees with that. He can also take action when any person is likely to abscond. There is no difficulty about that. He can also take action whenever he deems it in the interest of such person. I do not think we need argue about that.

Who decides?

The Attorney-General. Why cannot the Attorney-General decide what his interests are? If the Attorney-General has positive information that a certain witness is going to be murdered to-night, surely it is in the interest of the witness to protect him. [Interjections.]

That is tampering with him.

No, you are not tampering with him; you are killing him. The Attorney-General has the information. If he has that information, do hon. members opposite expect him to do nothing about it? Surely it is then in the interest of that person to take him into custody. And then he goes on to say “or whenever he deems it to be in the interest of such person or of the administration of justice”.

What have you in mind there?

Nothing more or less than is stated here. The Attorney-General must decide in every case whether it serves the interests of justice to have a person detained. Nothing illustrates the difficulty of the Opposition more, and I have every sympathy with them, because now that I have gone through Clause 7 there is hardly anything in it at all to which the Opposition objects in principle, but in spite of that they are going to vote against the third reading, but that is their own affair. I am perfectly satisfied that this Bill will work well in practice.

I am sure it will.

That is the only point on which I agree with the hon. member for Houghton and she will be very sorry to hear next session, for the last time, that it has worked well. In regard to this Bill, I have told the House for what purposes we want it and it will be used for those purposes; and, finally, the difference between the Opposition and myself is simply this, that they argue on paper, whereas the Government and I have to carry the responsibility. We have to fight the cold war, and hon. members know it as well as I do. Therefore, I have no hesitation at all in asking the House to accept this measure and to vote for it.

Qustion put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

AYES—88: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Jager, P. R.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch. A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—49: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett. C.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.: Eaton, N. G.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher. E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.: Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie. R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.: Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman. R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw. W. V.; Ross. D. G.: Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.: Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.: Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker. H.: van der Byl, P.: van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.: Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Original motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this measure is somewhat similar to the Bill we have just passed. When we discussed the second reading, we said that as the measure then stood, we could not support it and we would vote against it in the second reading and reconsider the measure after it came out of the Committee Stage and then decide what we would do in the third reading. Now the Bill has been amended in the Committee Stage and the Minister has withdrawn two of the clauses we objected to, and it now consists of only six clauses, but of those six clauses we oppose No. 1, because it makes it an offence for a person to be in possession of an emblem of an unlawful association. We feel that for an offence of that nature imprisonment without the option of a fine is too severe a penalty, because merely being in possession of such an article might unwittingly put a person in the position where he may be found to have committed an offence. Our main objection was to Clause 4. On the other clauses we did not have any particular objection because they did not contain any important principle and they could not affect our consideration in deciding whether or not to support the measure. But Clause 4 allows the Minister to detain people who have already served their sentences, and to detain them in a gaol for as long as he may deem fit. We oppose this clause. We opposed it when it was originally introduced three years ago, and I will say to the credit of the Minister that he then viewed the matter so seriously that he made provision for that clause to be renewed every year. The mere fact that he did that was an acknowledgment that the provision would not be kept on the Statute Book longer than was necessary. He made that provision so that he could remove this drastic measure from our Statute Book. In order to renew this clause every year, it is necessary for the Minister to justify it. What justification do we get from the Minister? He has justified it this year in the same way as he did last year, by referring to one persson whom he has detained. This clause does not only deal with one person; it is applicable to any person who commits certain offences under the Suppression of Communism Act. We feel if it has only had to be applied once in three years, there is no longer any necessity for its retention on our Statute Book, more especially as in this particular instance the Minister can deal with that detainee in terms of the Natives Administration Act, by banishing him to any part of the country he likes. We suggest that in view of the fact that he has powers to deal with this particular person, and that it has not been necessary to use the provision for anyone else, it is not necessary to keep it on the Statute Book. The Minister said in reply that he had to keep this particular person in a gaol. I submit that it is not necessary to keep him in a gaol. Sir, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has dealt with other members of the Bantu race whom he has to banish, also for political reasons. He has also found it necessary to banish certain Bantu from one part of the country and to confine them to a certain area. There is the very well-known case of Luthuli, who was head of the A.N.C. and who has been confined to a particular area, with very great success.

You cannot compare the two.

I do not know why the hon. Minister says that you cannot compare the two. Luthuli must have been considered a dangerous character otherwise he would not have been confined to a particular area.

Compared with Sobukwe, Luthuli is a lightweight.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Minister and his Department to find a way of confining Sobukwe; surely it is-not necessary to confine him in a gaol. After all, if he carries on with these nefarious ways of the past once he is out of gaol, if he should escape from a place of safety . . .

He is not in a gaol.

The hon. the Minister says that he is not in a gaol, but the whole of Robben Island is a gaol; the Minister cannot deny that. The Minister said that if he deleted this clause he would not be able to detain Sobukwe in a gaol. I understood him to say that yesterday.

Robben Island is considered to be a gaol . . .

Exactly; what is the Minister arguing about then?

... but it is not a gaol in the ordinary sense.

No, he is not in gaol in the ordinary sense; he is not locked up in a cell; that I grant the hon. the Minister. But, Sir, I am not going to be drawn into any discussion on Sobukwe because this clause does not deal with Sobukwe only. This is a general clause which can apply to every citizen in the country. I think it is quite wrong for the hon. the Minister in seeking to justify the retention of this clause, to harp continually on this one man whom he has found it necessary to detain. I repeat that the Minister himself regarded this measure as so drastic that he himself made provision for it to be renewed every year. Obviously if it was not necessary he would not renew it. I cannot believe that a provision of this nature has to be kept on our Statute Book to deal with one person.

The hon. the Minister spoke about abuse earlier on. Sir, the abuse in this instance is for the Minister, with his voting majority behind him, to ask Parliament to give him this right because this is a right which is given to the Minister, not to the Attorney-General or anybody else. We have opposed this clause every year when the Minister has asked us to renew it, and we have opposed it for the one simple reason that the Minister has not satisfied us that it is necessary, and we will oppose it again. It is the only clause in this Bill which matters. The Minister and the Government cannot expect us . . .

Do you want him to be freed?

I do not want him to be freed; I have never suggested to the Minister that he should free him.

What are you suggesting then?

Surely with all the powers that the Minister has under the Suppression of Communism Act and with all the powers that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has to deal with Bantu under the Native Administration Act, there must be some other way of dealing with Sobukwe. Sir, we will oppose the third reading of this Bill.

I agree with the one thing that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said and that is that there is a great similarity between this measure and the one we discussed before. I intend to take the same action at the third reading of this measure as I took at its second reading and the same action as I took on the Bill that we have just disposed of. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has pointed out, there is really only one important clause left in this Bill, but its very existence is sufficient reason for me to oppose this Bill at the third reading. I said so originally and I repeat what I said then. Unlike the hon. member for Transkeian Territories I do not plead for the banishment of Sobukwe. To my mind we are dealing with a very simple basic principle and that is that Sobukwe has already served his sentence for the crime which he committed and for which he was duly punished in the courts of law, and whatever the hon. the Minister’s opinion is of Sobukwe, I see no justification for keeping him locked up or for banishing him—no reason whatsoever. It is the hon. the Minister’s duty presumably to detect crime when it is committed. I do not see how any Minister of Justice can accurately anticipate the commission of crime. It goes against all the normal concepts of law and justice as administered anywhere else in democratic countries that people should be detained simply on the opinion of the Minister that the person concerned is likely to commit a crime similar to the one for which he was originally punished.

What would you do if he is released and then commits a murder?

I do not believe that he has said that he will commit murder. Sir, I am quite sure that there are many members in this House who have said in a moment of rage that they are going to kill somebody but you do not incarcerate them on Robben Island as a result of that. Many people make threats which they do not carry out. Until they carry out those threats they have committed no crime. The hon. the Minister did say in the second reading debate that this man intends to continue on his path of bloodshed and murder. As far as I know Sobukwe has never been convicted of murder or of causing bloodshed. He was convicted for one thing and one thing only; he had an unblemished record prior to that; he was convicted for incitement against the pass-laws and for that he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. I do not know whether the Minister can justify the statement that Sobukwe intends to continue on the same path of bloodshed and murder. It seems to me that that is a highly exaggerated statement. But, as I say, it is the Minister’s duty as Minister of Justice to apprehend people when they have committed a crime, to bring them before the courts of law and, when they have been duly convicted, to see that they are put in gaol. It is not his duty as Minister of Justice to detain people in gaol thereafter. Therefore for the reasons which I have mentioned before and which I do not wish to repeat because I do no want to delay the proceedings any longer because it would simply be tedious repetition, I wish to move the amendment which I also moved at the second reading—

In respect of this matter too I should just like to say for the sake of the record that we have made a great deal of progress. The only difference now between the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) and myself is that he agrees with me now, on behalf of the Opposition—and he must tell me if I am putting the position wrongly—that Sobukwe should be detained somewhere. I asked him whether he wanted Sobukwe to be released, and he said “No”. In other words, we agree that he should not be released; we only differ in respect of the place where he should be detained, and I think that when it comes to the place of detention, the hon. member should rather leave the matter to me, not because I am better able to judge, but because I have more information at my disposal than the hon. member has. By and large, this is the difference. Not only is it my responsibility to detain him but I also have information in regard to the best place at which to detain him. I also have information in regard to where he will be safe, and this is information which, from the nature of the case, the hon. member does not have. And so I leave the matter at that.

As far as the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is concerned, she did of course put her traditional point of view in this connection and I have noted it for the umpteenth time.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

AYES—84: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Jager, P. R.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F,; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—49: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Original motion accordingly agreed to, and Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is the usual omnibus Bill which is introduced towards the end of the Session. I want to express my apologies to the Opposition for the fact that the Bill has been introduced so late in the Session. It happens every year that this Bill is introduced at a late stage. From the nature of things I cannot introduce it earlier because it makes provision for the minor requirements of the various departments. I realize that it is inconvenient for hon. members, but I am sure that they realize that I have always tried to meet them in this regard as far as possible. In this case too I gave hon. members opposite a copy of the Bill before it was introduced. Sir, that is all I can say in this regard. The Bill does not, of course, have a general principle. It contains various non-contentious provisions in connection with the requirements of various departments. It is not my intention therefore to explain the provisions of the Bill at this stage but I shall do my best at the Committee Stage, if there are any enquiries from hon. members, to explain the various provisions. As far as other Ministers are concerned, if hon. members are not satisfied with my explanations, the Ministers concerned will put their respective points of view to the House themselves. In my humble opinion there is no provision in this Bill which need give rise to strife or contention. There is no general principle in the Bill either. I move.

The Minister has quite rightly expressed his regret that this Bill has been introduced late in the Session. He says that it is customary for bills of this kind to be introduced at the end of the Session. Sir, we on this side of the House want to record our protest against the fact that the Bill has come forward so late, at a time when we are sitting in the morning. If ever we have had an example of legislation by exhaustion, we have had a fine example of it this Session.

You look very well to me.

Sir, I probably have better staying powers than most members. Sir, here we have a Bill which deals with seven different Statutes. This Bill amends the Liquor Act; there a clause which amends the Slums Act; Clauses 12 and 13 amend the Rents Act, Clause 14 amends the Finance Act, Clause 15 amends the Coloured Development Corporation Act, Clause 16 amends the National Parks Act; Clause 19 deals with Bantu beer and Clause 20 contains a new provision—it does not amend any previous Statute—and Clause 21 contains the short title.

Sir, at the end of the Session when we sit the whole day, we have little or no opportunity to see the different departmental officials. I think hon. members will agree that it is necessary, in order to be able to do one’s work adequately to see the various departmental officials from time to time to find out what is behind the proposed amendments. In this case we have had little or no opportunity to do so. Furthermore, we have had no opportunity of studying the different Statutes to examine the effects of the amendments which are being introduced in this Bill.

I appreciate that.

Since the Minister appreciates that I do hope that in future he will see to it that the various departments come forward with their legislation earlier on and that they give members more adequate notice than they have been giving this Session. Each day this week we have had lengthy Bills placed on our tables. In fact, there has been such a spate of legislation that there have been frequent cases where notice has been given of a Bill and where the printed Bill has been laid on the Table of the House only several days later. Sir, this is not a tidy way of ending the Session. If mistakes are subsequently discovered in legislation which is passed towards the end of the Session under rushed circumstances, it involves the passing of further legislation the following year to rectify those mistakes. I hope that the Minister who is responsible for this Bill will see to it that his colleagues who are responsible for the various amendments will in future take note of the regret that he has expressed and also of the protest lodged from this side of the House.

I want to draw particular attention to one aspect of this Bill. Although this Bill is called the General Law Amendment Bill, ten of the clauses in fact amend the Liquor Act; two of the clauses are consequential clauses dealing with liquor; a third deals with Bantu beer and another deals with beer containing less than 2 per cent by volume of alcohol. In other words, it is not a General Law Amendment Bill, it is a liquor amendment Bill with three clauses being added. Sir, what I want to draw the Minister’s attention to is this impossible position: To deal with one clause only, Clause 10, you have to have Act 30 of 1928, Act 41 of 1934, Act No. 61 of 1956, Act 58 of 1957, Act 72 of 1961, Act 63 of 1962, Act 89 of 1962, Act 88 of 1963 and Act 85 of 1964. To deal with one clause you have to refer to these nine different Statutes. You cannot study these amendments without referring in fact to nine different Statutes. By the time you have gone through the ten clauses you have had to refer to every one of these Statutes, and I challenge the Minister to deal with these amendments without referring to each of the Statutes. You have, for instance, Section 166, which is amended by Clause 1; you have a section added by another Act; you have a proviso added by another Act; you have an extra proviso added by another Act. and in order to get a picture of what you are amending you have to go through this whole list of Acts. Apart from the fact that at this stage of the Session it is not easy to deal with this sort of legislation, having got that information, having ploughed through the legislation—and it takes a few hours to get— there is no opportunity whatsoever for this legislation to be considered by the very wide circle of people who are going to be affected by it. Sir, there are some quite important provisions which we will deal with in the Committee Stage, provisions which affect the livelihood of people, people who make their living from a protected, entrenched trade, and whose living is going to be affected by some of these provisions. But it has been quite impossible for any of the people concerned even to know about the Bill. The printed Bill became available yesterday. An advance copy was made available to us to study over the week-end, but the printed Bill only became available yesterday. The interests affected by this measure are spread throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. Therefore, the only opportunity that the people of South Africa affected by this legislation have had to study this Bill has been between yesterday morning and this afternoon. That is not the way which the Minister has always dealt with this sort of legislation. In the past he has regarded liquor legislation as something on which he has sought to reach agreement and to obtain the views of the people affected by it. On this occasion these amendments are being brought about in a Bill which is not even called a liquor amendment Bill but under a General Law Amendment Bill. That is why one has to come in here looking like one of the legal members of the House, carrying a whole series of Statutes. Sir. I think it is an unfair task to place upon us ordinary members of the House and I support the objection of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell).

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give me a little information so that I can know where I stand in this Bill insofar as it affects the Coloured people.

Order! We are now dealing with the second reading.

Sir, I want to say that unless I get an explanation from the hon. the Minister at this stage I may have to vote against the second reading to show my objection to the Bill. I heard no explanation from the hon. the Minister in regard to the increase in the number of shareholders . . .

I will explain that in the Committee Stage.

It sems to me that everyone wants to talk in Committee.

You should do so too.

I will do so out of respect for you, Mr. Speaker, not out of respect for the hon. member over there.

In pursuance of what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has said, hon. members will know that it is simply impossible to introduce this Bill too early in the session. There is, for example, one very important provision which is in no way contentious, which affects the officials of this House, and this provision was only received when this Bill had already been typed. I had to make special provision in this regard. The requests of the various departments to insert some or other provision are received late, and nobody is to blame in this regard. I do not wish to shift the responsibility on to my colleagues; I must bear the responsibility in this regard and I do so willingly.

As far as the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is concerned, I just want to point out that it is not necessary for him to look like an advocate when he walks into the Chamber. Neither do I think that there is any substance in his premise that one has to examine all the laws in order to ascertain the effect of the amendments, because this new procedure which we have makes this unnecessary. Let me give the hon. member an example. On the first page, “made” is being omitted and substituted by “lodged”. It is not necessary to go through all the Acts to work out the position. That is the advantage of this new procedure we have. One knows immediately where one stands.

As far as the other matters mentioned by the hon. member are concerned I must say that I was honestly not aware of the fact that any of the provisions was contentious and I should like to hear the hon. member’s remarks in this connection. It was not our intention that this provision should be contentious. As far as I am concerned, these are necessary provisions which are innocent and which are not contentious at all. If the hon. member can convince me that any provision is so contentious that it should stand over I shall have no option but to do just that because I do not want to try to steal a march on anybody. The hon. member knows that this has always been my attitude. I shall give hon. members the necessary explanations at the Committee Stage and I think that even the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) will be satisfied with the explanations which I shall give then.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

Could the hon. the Minister give us the reason why the procedure has been changed. Why is this provision inserted here and Section 13 deleted from the Parks Act.

This request came from the hon. the Minister of Lands. Hon. members will remember that when the National Parks Act was passed in 1962, provision was made in the Act whereby the National Parks Board could sell liquor in national parks. But they did not at the time make provision in the Act to the effect that they would not be subject to the usual provisions in respect of applications as in the case of other people, and it is not necessary for them to be subject to these provisions either because they have the sole right to sell liquor there. From the nature of the case they must have the sole right to sell liquor there. They have now asked to be relieved of all the provisions in respect of advertising and so forth. We have no objection in this regard because their position is of course completely sui generis as far as this matter is concerned. I do not think that there can be any objection in this regard.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

This is a matter in connection with which much feeling has been stirred up over the last year or two and in regard to which many complaints have been made to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that it is contended that many of the wine farmers who have a wine farmer’s licence have used that licence to open a depot for themselves in the nearest town and to carry on trading in liquor on a large scale from that depot. As a result of this fact complaints have been made by the liquor trade which is subject to very stringent restrictions, restrictions to which the wine farmer is not subject. As I read the proposed amendment, the intention is to make the granting of a licence to a wine farmer more easy. He can now apply in any month, not only in October as was the case previously, and if the magistrate approves the application it can be considered. This means that the persons who have an interest in licences which are granted will have to watch for applications not only during one month but will have to be on their guard throughout the year to prevent an application being made from behind the scenes. In that respect it is more easy for a person to obtain a wine licence.

Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister why this only holds good in respect of a wine farmer’s licence and not also in respect of a foreign licence which falls under the same section. Section 32 provides the procedure in respect of licences to wine farmers and in respect of foreign liquor licences. But this provision which we are adding refers only to the wine farmer’s licence. Is there any reason why it applies to the one group only and not to the other?

Provision is also being made for an appeal to the Minister by the person who has been refused a licence. Would it not have been better to make provision for an appeal to the Minister because of the refusal or the granting of a licence, because the objector is just as interested in the matter as is the applicant? If the applicant can appeal to the Minister I feel that it is only right that the objector should have the same right. The decision of the Minister is final. Even if the matter has to be investigated by the National Liquor Board, it is the end of the matter when the Minister gives his decision. Can the hon. the Minister please give us more information in regard to these three points: Why foreign licences have been excluded, whether there is also an appeal against the granting of a licence and whether an objector as well as an applicant can appeal?

In regard to the hon. member’s question as to why we only make provision for wine farmers and not for the holders of foreign licences, I can just tell him that the simple reason is that I received no representations from any foreign licence-holder or aspirant foreign licence-holder in this connection. If they had made representations they would have been dealt with on the same basis. In the case of a wine farmer’s licence we are dealing with a licence which stands by itself. I think that the hon. member will agree. I must tell the hon. member immediately—and he is aware of the fact —that there are wine farmers’ licences and wine farmers’ licences. There are those to which no objections could be lodged and then there are those which have been abused. The hon. member is aware of this fact. I can also tell the hon. member that I have taken action against those who have misused these licences. There was one part of the Cape—I do not want to go into details—where this appeared to be the case. I took the necessary steps in this connection and I received no further complaints. These are quite bona fide wine farmers’ licences. The hon. member knows that these are licences which in the past were subject to no conditions at all. The wine farmer could at any time walk into the magistrate’s office and, on payment of a very small fee—I think it was 2s. 6d. or something like that—he could obtain such a licence. We are now trying for the first time to bring order out of the chaos. I think that we are well on the way to doing so. As I have said, such a person was subject to no restrictions in the past.

Yes, in terms of the 1963 amendment.

Yes, but prior to that he was not subject to any restrictions. Then we reviewed the matter. The hon. member knows that in terms of the law an ordinary aspirant applicant can ask the Minister to convene a special meeting to consider his application. I am continually receiving such requests and where at all possible, I agree to them. But, according to the procedure to be followed, the wine farmer cannot do this. He is now, quite correctly, having recourse to the established right which he had in the past, and I think that this is fair. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if at anytime a case can be made out to me that the wine farmers are misusing the licences in order to compete with the ordinary trade in an unfair manner, I shall take the necessary steps. I shall always listen to representations of this nature, just as I have always done in the past. At the moment, I think that the position is very sound. All that this amendment provides is that such a person will not only be able to apply, as provided in the 1953 Act, to the October meeting; he will be able to apply at any time. But he is being restricted more now than in the past simply because we want to bring order out of the chaos. If we accept this amendment we shall make the farmers satisfied because they cannot understand the position. They tell me that they will also have to keep books, like the hon. member, if I do not give them these powers because they will otherwise not know whether they are coming or going. And so I think—the Department went into this matter very thoroughly—that it is a good thing for us to give them the necessary assistance in this regard and that is what we are doing here. But if this gives rise to any misuse. I can assure the hon. member that I shall be prepared to listen to representations at all times and, if necessary . . .

What about the question of appeal by an objector?

Yes, You see. Mr. Chairman, this is the man’s own product. That is the problem. It is not a foreign product, but his own, which he wants to market. The attitude adopted in the past has always been that everyone could receive it. He was not subject to any restrictions or conditions at all.

On his own farm.

Yes. I am going into that matter. The hon. member can take that from me. I shall not permit this matter to be misused in any way. If it is brought to my attention, I shall take action in this regard.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Will the hon. the Minister please explain the reason for this clause? As far as I know, there are no restrictions upon a brewery.

The position is simply, as the hon. member knows, that if one has a liquor licence on one’s premises, one may not carry on any other business on those premises. If one has a liquor licence to brew beer—and according to the law, beer is defined as containing 2 per cent alcohol —and one wants to brew beer containing less than 2 per cent of alcohol, one cannot brew it on the same premises, as the law now provides, because that is a different type of business. Some of the existing breweries have said that they want to brew beer containing less than 2 per cent of alcohol.

That is pure water.

Some people will prefer to drink it. I do not know what it will taste like. But nevertheless, they say that they want to market a beer which contains less than 2 per cent of alcohol. If we do not approve of the amendment it will mean that they will have to build a new factory because, in terms of the existing Act, they cannot brew this beer on their present premises.

May I ask the Minister whether that is in fact completely correct? As I understand the position a brewer’s licence, under the Liquor Act, is a licence to sell beer, not to make beer. The making of beer is a matter which falls under the Excise Act and not under the Liquor Act. If the Minister were to go through all seven of these Statutes he would find that that was so. The brewer’s licence and the Liquor Act deal with the selling of beer and not with the actual making of beer.

He cannot make beer unless he has a licence.

But the making of beer is controlled under the Excise Act.

He must also get a licence in terms of the Liquor Act before he can make beer.

But the licence he gets under the Liquor Act is to sell the beer.

And to make it too.

That is where I am at odds with the hon. Minister; that is what I cannot work out. let me say. A brewery can have a brewer’s licence which applies purely to their sales and stores but which does not apply to the brewery where the beer is actually made, where it is manufactured.

I think you are wrong.

No, Sir. I have checked on this, Sir. That is what is puzzling me. I cannot see the reason for this amendment which permits something which is not prohibited. I ask the hon. the Minister to look at the definition of a brewer’s licence. He will find that a brewer’s licence does not deal, in fact . . .

Wait, you are getting me into a corner now; let me first go and sit over there.

I can go on for a long time because I had to go through seven Statutes to ascertain that.

That is the best compliment you have ever had paid to you.

The position with these licences must be clear before we pass the provision in this Bill. We must be sure that what we are doing is in fact the correct procedure to deal with the particular problem. I am not satisfied that this is the right way. I don’t think anybody would object to this power being given but I don’t think it is being achieved in the way it is intended in this clause. I wonder whether the Minister could explain that a little bit more.

My information from the Department—the law advisers have examined the case and are satisfied that we are correct—is that the place where the man brews the beer is also the place where he sells it, and those are the licensed premises of the brewery. Take any factory where beer is brewed. Those are the licensed premises. Does the hon. member agree?

Not where it is brewed; where it is sold.

It is sold on the premises where it is brewed. I am not talking now of retail distribution; I am talking about the wholesale beer brewer. He brews beer on his premises and he sells it on the same premises.

That does not always happen.

Yes, but it does happen. Let me put it in this way: To whom does the brewery sell? They sell either to the wholesale trade or to the retail trade. And they sell the beer from the premises on which it is brewed. They may also have a large store where the beer is kept for sale. That is true. But normally they store it on the premises where they brew it. They may not carry on any other business whatsoever on those premises. The Liquor Act forbids it. The hon. member knows this.

That is where the brewer’s licence applies.

Yes, where the licence applies and if the licence applies to the premises where the beer is brewed, then this amendment must be effected before such brewer will be permitted to brew beer with an alcohol content of less than 2 per cent. He would have to obtain the same permission if he wanted to manufacture mineral waters on those premises; he would have to obtain the same permission if he wanted to bake bread there or wanted to do anything else, because he can only brew beer there in terms of the Act and nothing else. Because the alcohol content of beer is laid down in the Act, we are now providing that if he wants to brew beer with a lower alcohol content, he can do so on those premises.

Can the hon. the Minister please tell me where I shall find a definition of a brewer’s licence in the Act?

If the hon. member will look at Section 175 he will find that it gives a definition of beer.

That is beer, but what about a brewer?

“Brewer” is not defined anywhere in the Act but it follows from the definition of “beer”.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

This clause provides for the extension of the powers of the Minister to limit the volume of the quantity of liquor of any particular kind which is sold by any person to any member of a particular class. Could the hon. the Minister please deal with this a little further?

This has been inserted at the request of licensees who have drawn our attention to the fact that, in spite of the fact that we have made liquor freely available, there is still a certain amount of smuggling. Some licensees who are unscrupulous are exploiting this position to the detriment of the good licensees. We have been asked to insert this provision in order to restrict this unscrupulous smuggling, and we do so willingly.

Is it also your intention to restrict the quantity?

Yes.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for an explanation with regard to this clause. It says that the State President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, declare that within any area defined in such proclamation, no liquor or no liquor of a specified kind . . . shall be sold or supplied to any member . . . except subject to certain conditions. Is the object of that clause to allow of different powers being given in different areas? The reason I raise this, Mr. Chairman, is this: In my own area bottle stores have one set of hours, namely from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. whereas they are from 7.30 a.m. in a Bantu area half a mile away. A Bantu has been granted a bottle licence there. What I want to ascertain from the hon. the Minister is whether he regards it as a desirable practice . . .

No.

Does he control Bantu areas and if he does control them is he going to allow this position to continue. I think it is unhealthy that Bantu areas should keep hours from 7.30 in the morning . . .

Order! I don’t think the hon. member can raise that under this clause.

In any case, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I don’t think it is desirable and I shall be pleased to put a stop to it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Before I discuss this clause it may perhaps be a good thing if the hon. the Minister will explain the reasons for it and then we can discuss his reasons.

Hon. members are aware of the fact that for the first time the Coloured people have been given the opportunity to become licensees in their own residential areas. At the time the Act was introduced to make this possible for them, I held discussions with the Coloured leaders. They expressed the desire on that occasion that we should not give one person this right but that we should spread it among as many of them as possible so that as many as possible could derive benefit from this fact. It was as a result of their request not to give this right to one individual that we provided that a company should be established, a company of Coloureds with at least 10 shareholders, and that no shareholder could own more than 40 per cent of the shares. We then granted them licences on that basis. But it has now come to our attention that these licences are particularly valuable. The Coloureds are now complaining that ten are too few. They ask now that where it has been the principle to spread this right among as many as possible, we should not grant licences simply to a company of ten but to a company of 20 persons, and that we should make the minimum shareholding of any one of those persons 20 per cent instead of 40 per cent in order to make the distribution as wide as possible and in order to enable as many persons as possible to share in the benefits which accrue. The hon. member can take it from me that these licences, which cost them nothing, are extremely valuable; that they make good profits from them and from the nature of the case they are now requesting us to make it possible for as many of them as possible to share in those benefits. I think that the hon. member will agree that this is the right thing to do. This is the essence of the provision.

May I ask a question? I understand that a group of applications should have been made by 19 May. Will they fall under the old or the new provisions, because if they fall under the new provisions, things will be very difficult?

Those which have already been granted will be subject to the old provisions and the new ones will fall under the new provisions.

The hon. the Minister does not understand my question. The clause provides that those which have already been granted will fall under the old Act.

Yes, and those which are still under consideration will fall under the old Act.

I wonder then whether an amendment is not required because sub-section (2) provides that only those which have already been granted will continue to exist.

The Act will not have been promulgated by that time.

I appreciate the explanation given by the hon. the Minister but I do not know whether the Minister realizes the difficulties which may follow this increase to 20 people. I would like to see as many as possible get the benefit of the licence. As the Minister has explained it is a valuable concession to them and I think the Coloured people appreciate it. It is much sought after. But I believe that the greatest difficulty is to get 20 people who can subscribe the money. Then there is the question of the agreement between these 20 people as to the running of the licence. Many of them have told me that there is tremendous disagreement amongst them.

Surely it is a company with a manager, etc.

I know but the shareholders start falling out and others come in. I now refer to the next sub-section. I realize that this is really consequential to paragraph (b) where the number of shareholders has been doubled. Why do we do that? There may be one man capable of putting in 40 per cent in order to assist the other 19. We are now reducing the shareholding to 20 per cent and this places a greater burden on those people who want to come in, people who can put in some money, but cannot put in enough to come up to the percentage required. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider whether he should not have some discretion in regard to the percentage any man should hold.

It is not difficult for them to get money. They can get money from all money-lending institutions. The Coloured Development Corporation also assists them.

That is where the trouble starts. I do not want to go into the difficulties of getting money because that is not germane to the clause. But I think the Minister might make this 30 per cent instead of 20 per cent. There may be somebody who can provide the 30 per cent and that will assist the other 19. I am not pleading on behalf of any particular person, the Bill has only just come before us now.

I can consider that, for what it is worth.

I just want to say that I have found that a great many people cannot go into this business because they cannot get the money. As individuals they cannot borrow the money for a liquor licence so easily. I think it would make it easier if they can find who has the money to put in 30 per cent; that will make it easier for the others. Otherwise I have no objection to this clause.

I want to put a point of view to the hon. the Minister, and it is this: The present law is to limit shareholders to ten in an association or company, applying for a bottle-store licence, which is something many seek, and which, if successful, becomes more or less a monopoly. The hon. Minister’s intentions, I think, are sound and good, to try and spread the profit from such an undertaking to about 20 people, but in actual practice it works out differently. One shareholder acquires another one’s holding and he does not circumvent the law in any way. The hon. Minister will agree that to encourage Coloured people to borrow money from lending institutions to go into the liquor trade, is an unsound thing. What I want to submit to the hon. the Minister for his consideration is that he should not proceed along the lines of a minimum of 20 in order to spread the benefits but he should ensure that there will be no monopoly in Coloured townships for certain individuals in regard to bottle-store licences. The one thing that makes licences so valuable is the fact that the individuals who get the licences, then have a monopoly. I think if it is looked at from that angle, one might find a solution to the problem. I think it is a mistake to have bottle-store holders in Coloured townships with a monopoly. That I think is bad, and I think the hon. Minister would meet his problem more easily by granting more than one licence.

In pursuance of what the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) has said, there are various factors which must be considered: The size of the Coloured area is considered; there are certain areas which cannot carry more than one licence, and it would be stupid to grant two licences in these areas. If an area is large enough to carry more than one licence, it is our policy to grant more than one licence. But the hon. member must also remember that I cannot grant too many in the Coloured areas because, when the Bill was originally introduced, I said, and hon. members agreed with me, that we could not summarily cut the throats of existing licensees. I also have to consider this fact. So when the National Liquor Board has considered all these things, we either grant or do not grant a licence, but in principle I agree with the hon. member. As far as the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) who said that we should make it 30 per cent is concerned, I want to say that this is something I can consider, but the representations made to me were that 20 per cent was quite adequate with a view to the enormous profits which people make out of their shareholdings in this sphere, and that I should spread this benefit as much as possible.

It is true that we endeavour not to be too competitive with the existing licences, but under the new law where Bantu are allowed to enter a bar and get a drink or buy drink at a bottle store, these licences do not restrict trade exclusively to Coloured people in that particular township. There are cases, as the hon. Minister probably knows, where bottle stores are in existence and where they get quite a bit of passing trade from Bantu. By the same token the White licensees in the towns do not confine their activities only to Whites. They sell to Coloureds as well as to Bantu, and I want again to say to the hon. the Minister that I think the real solution to this problem is that there should be competition in the areas where the business is offering. I do not think it is of any consequence that White businesses in towns should be concerned in whether or not Coloured people in the Coloured townships are making money.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the provisions which are being proposed here are being proposed because since 1963 the transfer of licences has been illegal? Will the hon. the Minister please clarify the matter?

This springs from a technical shortcoming in the Act when it was passed. Hon. members will remember that Section 114 ter placed an absolute prohibition upon the transfer of certain liquor licences to a producer, manufacturer or brewer or to certain companies or persons who had a financial interest in the business of a producer, manufacturer or brewer. Paragraphs (p) and (j) of Section 166 make it a punishable offence if a producer, manufacturer or brewer obtains a financial interest, and so forth, without the permission of the Minister. Prior to the amendment of Section 106 of the Liquor Act of 1963, this was quite impossible. Thereafter, as hon. members will remember, this became possible in terms of an amendment to Section 163. But when we did this, we did not, through an oversight, make the necessary adjustment in regard to the amended paragraphs (p) and (j) of Section 166, and all we are doing now is to rectify that oversight.

It has been illegal up to the present?

Whether it has been or not is problematical; we just want to make doubly sure.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

This clause provides for the minimum quantity of liquor which may reasonably be bought or acquired by any person. There is no provision here for a person for instance who has a wedding or 21st birthday party and who may want to have liquor on his premises for a function of that nature. Here it would be an offence if he bought or acquired more liquor than he himself, his household and persons bona fide employed required. Should there not be a provision here for guests at such functions as I have mentioned?

The hon. member knows that there is a similar provision in the Liquor Act which provides that if one finds a person with a quantity of liquor which is mentioned here, he is guilty. But our problem is, and this is also the complaint of the law-abiding licensees, that it does not help to have this provision because, they say, one man may buy a very large quantity indeed. I can quote hon. members statistics of one Bantu who bought liquor to the value of R 1,800 in one week. He may have all the wives in the world but he cannot consume R 1,800 of liquor in a week! Our problem is, and I think that we owe it to the law-abiding licensees who do not offend in this way, to do something in this connection. The decent person refuses to sell it, but the unscrupulous person does not care. He does this to the detriment of the decent licensee because by the time the police know that a person has bought this quantity of liquor, that person has already distributed the liquor and one is unable to trace it. If one finds the liquor on the premises, it is an offence, but the liquor is no longer there. That is why I think that it is a good thing to insert this provision. The “finding” has not presented any problem in practice. No person who has ever held a wedding reception or something of that nature and who has therefore purchased a large quantity of liquor has ever found himself in trouble. This will simply act as a deterrent but it will not place an innocent person in difficulty.

I think the hon. Minister’s explanation is really much worse than what the position is. The Minister gave as an example a Bantu who bought R 1,800 worth of liquor and because that man was sold the liquor by a licensee who sold the liquor, the Minister now wants to punish the people who go and buy it. But why not place an embargo on a licensee that he shall not sell to any person a quantity of liquor which is unreasonable.

The good licensees refuse to sell, but there are some who do sell.

But now you are dragging within the net people who go and buy legally. I know of cases where a man was stopped, a respectful man, who was told that he had too much liquor in his house and he had to undergo the indignity of appearing before a court, and it was proved that he bought that liquor for a function. But this man was arrested and brought before the court because the constable said that he had acquired too much. Then this man has to go and give an explanation. Why does the Minister not consider placing an embargo upon a man who sells too much liquor to a Bantu, as the Minister has indicated. You are making potential criminals of people who legally go and buy.

May I explain to the hon. member. In the past it was an offence to have it on your premises but now the good liquor sellers tell us that it is no use having that alone, because these people buy it in abnormal quantities and don’t take it to their premises but spread it to all sorts of shebeens around the place, and the law-abiding licensees now ask us to make it an offence for a person to buy an abnormal quantity of liquor. Otherwise we will have to go back to the old restrictions. The hon. member knows that certain abuses flowed from the old restrictions. Now we are trying to kill this abuse that has spread according to the information that I have received.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) raised a very important aspect of this clause. The wording of this clause is so difficult to understand “bought or acquired more liquor than was reasonably required for consumption by himself, his household and persons bona fide employed by him”. It is limited to that group, and therefore if he buys it for some function, if he buys for his bowling club, technically he has acquired more liquor than what he requires for himself, his household and people employed by him.

I am perfectly satisfied that it will work out alright.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

This is the only really controversial clause and also the last of the liquor provisions in this Bill. If I am wrong, the Minister will correct me, but I see this as a provision for co-operative societies which are the only major group of people who are producers but are not wholesale traders. This provides for those co-operative societies to be able to acquire wholesale licences or wholesale businesses and therefore deal directly with the public. If that is the case and my reading of the clause is correct, then this provision goes directly against the expressed objection of the Minister and of this House when we discussed the major amendments to the Liquor Act the year before last. In fact I would almost go further and give this clause the name of a particular co-op for whom I suspect that it is designed. In other words, we are asked to legislate here for a particular individual problem of one individual co-op, but the effect of it will be not only to solve that one co-operative’s problem, but to open the door to an evil which the Minister went to great length to try and prevent. He will remember that we debated for hours in this House and in the Other Place the provisions limiting the amount of liquor, trying to place a high minimum volume of liquor which wholesalers could supply at any one time, with the object of stopping the growing business of selling direct from wholesaler to consumer, which was creating an unhealthy form of competition and was having an adverse effect on the trade and leading to monopolistic conditions and other evils. This House adopted measures to limit that trade. Now this provision opens the door to even greater expansion, because it means that every co-operative society now will be entitled to purchase a controlling interest in a wholesale liquor licence, and that in itself I think is wrong. But it is also wrong because there is at this stage an inquiry arranged for by the Minister of Economic Affairs, I think it is called the Steenkamp Inquiry, which is going into the whole question of competition between co-operative societies and normal trade, not only in liquor, but in every other field, and here in anticipation of an inquiry which is being held, we are prejudging the findings and opening the door for still greater competition. I hope the hon. Minister will give us more information.

The hon. member is to some extent correct but he is not quite right in this connection. My information in regard to this matter is that it appears from a recent series of court cases that there are certain bodies which are of the opinion that the granting or renewal of a wholesale liquor licence to affiliated companies of cooperative associations of wine farmers is in conflict with the spirit of section 166 (5) of the Liquor Act which makes the obtaining of a financial interest by producers or manufacturers in certain liquor affairs illegal in certain circumstances. There is considerable doubt in regard to the actual legal position and further costly litigation can be expected if this position is not put beyond all doubt. In the circumstances it is being expressly provided in Clause 10, so my notes say, that the provisions of Section 166 will not be of application in regard to the obtaining of a financial interest by co-operative associations of wine farmers in liquor businesses which are carried on by a company in terms of a wholesale liquor licence, provided the financial interest is at least a controlling interest, as defined in the Act. That is the note I have in this connection. It has happened in practice, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that we must be sympathetically disposed towards these people, that people obtain a licence from the authority concerned and then the other interests come forward and take them to court and win the court case, and then the whole thing starts all over again. It is in the interests of nobody to litigate continually in regard to these matters because we are dealing here not with outsiders but with farmers. One farmer can obtain a licence but the moment the farmers form a group, we have a doubt. If it is right for an individual farmer to obtain a licence, it is right that the farmers as a whole should obtain a wholesale licence in this connection. I do not think that this is wrong. For this reason I personally am in favour of the inclusion of this clause, but I should like to hear what hon. members have to say in this regard.

Can producers obtain a wholesale licence?

As I understand the position, only in the case of a co-operative wine-cellar.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

We are dealing here with what the hon. Minister of Justice described as patchwork legislation. But the clause here seems particularly patchy, both in form and in content. I don’t want to anticipate the explanation of the hon. the Minister, but it seems to me that had the revised provision of the rules of procedure been followed by which Section 21 was amplified, recast and reset, it would have been easier to follow what precisely the aim was here, and secondly, it would have made it very much easier to be sure what the offence is to which reference is made in the proviso. It says “provided that if a lessor is convicted of an offence under this section, he shall be liable to a fine”. Now the section itself does not seem to set out any offence as such.

Which section?

This new Section 21 bis. As regards that, I ask the hon. the Minister to explain the purpose and the difficulties that I have raised. My main objection to the clause however is the introduction of a minimum penalty of not less than R200. That is something this side of the House has always felt should be left in the hands of the courts. The court should be able to assess what the scale of penalties should be. Parliament rightly fixes maximum penalties in the case of statutory offences. It does so both as a guide to the courts and in fulfilment of its legislative obligations. In this case the maximum penalty is to be R 1,000. Perhaps the hon. Minister will also explain the reason for that. As far as I have been able to judge from the principal Act and the amending Acts, penalties have not been as high as this, but generally only R200. Perhaps the hon. Minister will also explain the reason for this higher penalty. But we are opposed to the introduction of minimum penalties. I leave it there for the hon. Minister to explain the position.

Perhaps I could draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact that if he looks through the Rents Act which I am sure he knows as well as one could possibly know an Act, he will find, for instance, in Clause 2 that there is a provision for an imposition of a fine of R 1,000. but not exceeding that. It deals with a contravention of this particular clause, and on being found guilty the offender would be liable to a fine not exceeding R200 where the offence is committed in respect of a dwelling and R 1,000 where it is in respect of business premises. Then if one looks at Clause 6, there is also a penalty for an offence where a fine is imposed not exceeding R200; in Clause 7, there is a similar provision and a fine provided not exceeding R200; and in Clause 19 a fine not exceeding R100, in Clause 22 again a fine not exceeding R1,000, and in Clauses 27 and 28, similar fines where the offender is subject to a fine on being found guilty not exceeding a certain amount. As the hon. Minister knows, we in principle are against imposing a minimum fine and therefore virtually binding the court to a specific figure. We would like to know why through the medium of the General Law Amendment Act there is introduced this principle of a minimum fine. Talking personally, I was rather surprised to find this particular amendment introduced in this Bill. I would have thought that a statute of this particular importance might have called for an amendment to the actual parent statute itself . . .

Order! The hon. member should have raised that at the second reading.

It has been raised. Sir, but not by me. I am merely reiterating what was the contention . . .

The hon. member must discuss the clause in detail.

That is the one aspect. The other aspect is that I would like the hon. Minister to explain to us the importance of sub-section (2). I think there is a specific objective which may be found to be commendable, but for the knowledge of persons in whose interest the clause is provided, we should have an explanation. I read into this, Sir, that it will apply as if, pending the consideration of the hon. the Minister of a report under Section 33, the provisions of 21 and 24 shall immediately apply in order to put it into a category, or rather that nothing should be done that would aggravate any situation at all; in other words, just as if it were already a dwelling under the jurisdiction of the Rent Board or a determination of the Rent Board. If that is the case, I would like the hon. Minister to clarify the position, because I would imagine that it is of great interest for the future operation of Section 23.

I fully accept the reason for the introduction of Clause 12, because one is aware that certain landlords have exploited the position of an uncontrolled building and used a complaint by a lessee in order to have that lessee ejected from the premises. It therefore became necessary for us to consider legislation forbidding a lessor from ejecting a lessee during the period that the Rent Board, or the Secretary for Community Development, was investigating the complaint. There is, however, one other aspect on which I would like to exchange views with the hon. the Minister in this regard, and that is the extension that he has put to any investigation by extending it for three months after the Rent Board, or the Secretary of Community Development, has investigated a particular complaint. You can have a situation arising where the Rent Board can take as long as six months to investigate a complaint. The period is then extended for another three months. The landlord is penalized to the extent of nine months having his property controlled, even though the Rent Board may find that the complaint was a frivolous one. That is the point I would like to discuss with the hon. Minister. The lessee can come along with a frivolous complaint. The lessor can then find his premises controlled for say six months, plus three months thereafter protection now to be given to the tenant. He cannot eject any other tenant in that block of flats, for reasons other than the fact that a complaint has been submitted, even if he proves to be an undesirable and unsatisfactory tenant. For that reason I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he would not consider accepting a proviso after line 68 on page 10, whereby a fixed period would be stipulated in which the Rent Board has to complete its investigation. I would like to recommend to the Minister that that period should be three months. It will then mean that a Rent Board would have to conclude its investigation within three months; the tenant would then have a further three months’ protection from any lessor who wants to victimize him for having lodged this complaint. The building then is virtually controlled for six months. I think that would be a fair proviso.

If you move that, I will accept it.

Then I move the following amendment—

To add the following proviso at the end of sub-section (1) of the proposed Section 21 bis:

I want to ask the Minister about this new clause inserted in the Act. The most important amendment is that a Rent Board or the Secretary of Community Development shall have power to do certain things. I do not know why the Minister wants both. Why is it not the one or the other? The Rent Board is a body set up by statute. I also see that in sub-section (4) it says that the provisions of this section shall apply to a dwelling situate in an area for which no Rent Board has been constituted. But the Rents Act says that the Act shall not apply where there is no Rents Board. It seems to me conflicting. Can the Minister explain it?

We have already effected an amendment in terms of which we can bring under control buildings which are not under control. If I do not mention the Secretary for Community Development as the person who can make an investigation, it will mean that I shall have to set up a rent board in each case and we do not want to have to do this. My reply to the second point is that where there are no rent boards—and we are gradually reducing their number—one may experience exploitation and then that case will have to be investigated.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) asked why a minimum penalty is being laid down. The hon. member must remember that we have already had a few cases in which we have had to take action in regard to exploitation, but our experience is that there is great misuse in certain cases—I do not say on a large scale-—where people are intimidated, and if people are intimidated when they complain that they are being exploited, one has simply to take the strongest steps possible. We recently had a judgment of a Judge in a case which is more or less the same, in which the Judge actually said that there should be stricter penalties in cases of such a nature. We thought then that we should insert this principle in order to have an effective deterrent against intimidation, because there may be people who, after the investigation has been made, can tighten the screw in all kinds of covert ways in respect of the person whom they wish to intimidate. We have therefore included it as a deterrent.

The other point is the meaning of sub-section (2).

It simply means that when a tenant has been so informed, all the provisions which include control are applicable to him.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether he is prepared to accept my amendment?

Yes, I am prepared to accept it.

I understand the Minister’s difficulty, but as the Minister himself has said, the alleged irregularity has not been done on a large scale, although there are instances of exploitation. I think that fully justifies the Minister imposing a penalty of R 1,000. But on principle we on this side of the House have consistently taken the stand that we are opposed to minimum sentences because we believe that the hands of the court must not be bound, and that the discretion of the court should not be interfered with. I feel that there is no justification for a minimum sentence. I accept his desire that the legislator should show his abhorrence of offences of this nature, but I think it is quite adequate if the maximum penalty is imposed. I accordingly move—

I think the Minister may have in mind the case which took place recently where a Judge said he was sorry that he could not penalize the offender to a greater extent than R200. He felt that the penalty should have been a larger one because the case warranted it. I think that is really what the Minister had in mind, that in a case of this nature the offender should be taught a lesson. I think if the court has the right to impose a fine of not exceeding R 1,000 that is sufficient to leave the assessment of the gravity of the offence to the court, which is the most desirable method of dealing with the matter, particularly because in this statute the pattern is followed of providing a maximum penalty, leaving the actual fine imposed to the discretion of the court. That is the principle which the Minister should accept.

I, too, would like to add my voice to that of my two colleagues. Only today we dealt with the case where a minimum sentence provision was removed from the Statute Book, to the satisfaction of all in this House. I believe that all experience shows that it is better to leave the matter in the hands of the court. In my experience, when there is a very high penalty stated—and the maximum penalty here is high—it is quite sufficient to convince the judicial officer concerned of the seriousness of the offence. Very often the matter is in fact not very serious, and I hope the Minister will agree to remove this minimum penalty, leaving the maximum or even increasing it. But I think the maximum penalty is sufficiently high and judicial officers will always exercise a reasonable discretion. I am quite sure that a heavy fine will be imposed in all such cases.

I do not see my way clear to accept the amendment. Take the position in which the rent board has already discovered that there is exploitation and has given an instruction to the person concerned, and in spite of this fact, the person concerned continues to make misuse of the power which he has over a person to make that person homeless. I think that that is a cruel offence and that is why the legislator ought to make his authority felt and to give a clear indication of the fact that he is not satisfied with the discretion which is sometimes revealed when the court imposes a minimum penalty. A man is often prepared to pay a R50 fine and then to do the same thing the next day with another person whom he leaves homeless. I hope that hon. members will see this matter in that serious light.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Taurog put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

This clause inserts a new Clause 26 bis in the Coloured Development Corporation Act of 1962. It provides for two things, that the Legislative Assembly of S.W.A. can apply those provisions of the powers of the corporation as it may elect and the corporation can accept such activity on condition that none of the money supplied by the Republic shall be used in S.W.A. I realize the delicacy of the matter, particularly in view of the case before the International Court. Part of the indictment there revolves around the allegation that we give insufficient aid to the non-White people of that territory. But this is the problem I would place before the Minister. As far as I know, there is no provision in the Bantu Corporation Act restricting it in regard to South West Africa. It can operate there to help the Bantu people there. Why is this restriction applied here, that the activities of the Coloured Development Corporation are being restricted in S.W.A. It is clear that the corporation cannot achieve its objects unless it provides capital and technical assistance to assist in establishing businesses, but why can they not operate unless money is supplied by S.W.A.? I ask that question because it appears that an anomaly will arise if the committee agrees to this provision. Clause 21 makes it obligatory on the corporation to submit its balance sheets to the Minister, who has to Table it in this House where we can approve or disapprove them by way of motion. But will we not have an anomalous position if the corporation has money supplied on the one hand by S.W.A. and possibly has its powers restricted in respect of S.W.A., while the corporation has to submit its balance sheet to this House? It would appear to be an extraordinary situation in the sense that a measure which this House has placed on the Statute Book gives powers to the corporation to do certain things but the Legislative Assembly of S.W.A. can restrict its activities. I hope the Minister will clarify this position, because it appears that overriding powers are being given to the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa.

There is a difference between the Bantu Development Corporation and the Coloured Development Corporation. There are clearly-defined Bantu areas in S.W.A. where the Bantu Corporation can operate. But as far as its actions in the Republic are concerned, the corporation is restricted to proclaimed group areas, and in S.W.A. there are no proclaimed group areas in that sense. But the Administration of S.W.A. have established certain urban townships for the Coloureds and they want certain facilities to be established there. The Administration of South West Africa negotiated with me and said that they were prepared to make the funds available for those facilities but that they did not have the knowledge and the means to administer the fund. They would have had to establish a separate body for this purpose. They asked whether we could not reach agreement by means of which the directors and the officials of the corporation could do that work for them and I agreed on condition that they provided the funds. There is the possibility that we shall give them a director on the corporation because we are able to appoint another director. If the corporation reports annually, it will only report to this Parliament in respect of the funds which this Parliament has voted. I do not think that it can be expected to report to this House in regard to the funds of South West. We just want to enable the corporation to operate in those townships as well. Under the present circumstances we cannot allow the corporation to operate there because group areas are not of application there.

I do not think I can quite agree with the Minister, because the corporation will exercise its functions according to the limitations that may be imposed upon it by the Legislative Assembly and that therefore the corporation is not under an obligation to report to Parliament. As I read the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, it is clear that the corporation must report on all its activities.

Order! That is irrelevant.

This clause says that the corporation may in the territory of S.W.A. exercise such powers as are conferred on it, and one of them that can be conferred upon it is to raise money. So the corporation will then act as the agent of the Administration in raising the necessary money. Or are we to assume that the corporation may be told by the Legislative Assembly that they will supply the money but they want the corporation to advise them on how to spend it?

That is exactly what I said.

But then other problems arise. There are certain declared areas in South West where certain classes of persons are classified as Coloured persons, like the Rehoboth Basters. They live in a declared reserve. Are we to understand that the corporation will function in lending money to businesses in that reserve?

It is possible.

Then we come to the problem of how the corporation will give an account of its activities to this House. Can the Minister clarify that?

I really think that we are making the matter too involved. The fact is that South West is setting up a fund and is making it available to this corporation. All that is expected of the corporation is to administer the fund. We have no responsibility in this regard. They do not have the knowhow, and they just want to make use of the corporation to administer the fund for them. The corporation is their agent. We are simply asking that the corporation should also be permitted to act there on conditions which they lay down in connection with their fund, after negotiation with the corporation. South West is not going to make a number of prescriptions and then tell the corporation to carry them out. It will negotiate with the board of directors and we shall appoint a director for them. Things will run just as smoothly as they are running at the moment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

Hon. members will find a new provision here. I rise simply to direct the attention of the House and of persons outside pertinently to this provision. It has come pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister that it often happens that people get into difficulties in the sea and when other people try to rescue them they find that the life-lines have been removed. I think that the time has come for us to take very serious action in regard to this matter. People have died where normally they would not have died if these life-lines had not been tampered with. The various organizations dealing with this matter want now to manufacture a life-line which will be one of its kind and which will not be available to the normal trade. They have not yet done this because they have not as yet had the power to do so, but as soon as this Bill is passed they will start manufacturing life-lines of this nature. It is because of this fact that we are making provision for the onus of proof as it is being provided for—so that, if a person is found in possession of this particular rope, it can only have come from one place and that is from a life-saving apparatus. The onus of proof is then on such a person to prove that he did not get the rope there. I do not think that this onus of proof is a severe one. That is why we are providing that this particular type of rope will be described in the Government Gazette. I want now—and I hope that the Press will give publicity to this fact—to make an earnest appeal to everyone not to tamper with lifesaving installations. This results in the death of people who could otherwise be saved.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the inclusion of this provision in the Bill is going to gladden the hearts of a great many people. It has been my misfortune to see two tragedies on our coasts, tragedies which need never have occurred but for vandalism and the fact that the life-saving lines put up by well-meaning organizations and local authorities at strategic points along the coast have been interfered with.

We owe these organizations a debt of gratitude, for putting up these installations.

Sir, that is one of the issues that I want to raise here. I feel that installation of this type of life-line should not be left to private and voluntary organizations only. Apart from the appeal which the hon. the Minister has made here to the public to pay greater attention to the necessity of protecting these life-lines, I feel that the Government itself ought to take steps itself by making adequate donations for the installation of more life-lines.

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the provisions of the clause.

Yes, Sir, I appreciate that but I am taking this opportunity . . .

Order! The hon. member knows that he should not do that.

Then there is another point that I want to put to the hon. the Minister. In my view there should not be the alternative of a fine for this type of vandalism. With the crosses dotted along the coast line of the Cape in particular it is clear that in most cases none of these tragedies would have occurred if adequate facilities had existed or if the life-saving line had not been interfered with. I for one would have preferred to see a provision to the effect that a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed because vandalism of this kind is directly responsible for the loss of life in many cases. If this type of vandalism continues I hope that the Minister will introduce even heavier penalties than the penalties provided for here.

I agree with you.

Finally I want to say to the Minister that this provision, which is long overdue will be generally welcomed.

I rise to say that normally we on the Opposition, as the Minister knows, are opposed to placing an additional onus on the accused and raising a presumption against the accused, but in this exceptional case we are prepared to support this measure. However, I do not want this to be quoted as a precedent against us in the future.

As one who has had considerable experience of the dangers resulting from interference with life-lines, I would like to add my voice to those of hon. members who have given their support to the Minister in his attempt to deal with what is a very difficult problem. I could quote probably a dozen cases off-hand where people have lost their lives through life-lines having been tampered with within six or seven days of the time when they were last examined and found to be in order. In my own particular municipal area, I know of one occasion when new lifelines, which were expensive, were deliberately cut off no fewer than five times within the space of two weeks, and where accidents have occurred or where people have been swept out to sea, it has been found that the life-line on which they depended has been missing. I know that there is tremendous difficulty in obtaining proof against any individual unless he is actually caught in the act. I know also that lifelines have been specially made, with markings running through them, some of them imported from Australia, where they have the same trouble, life-lines with a particular colour motif running through them, so that you can trace them afterwards if they are used as mooring lines for crayfish nets or as washlines in peoples’ backyards or other such purposes. While I do not want to suggest that one should override the discretion of the courts, I do want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that perhaps a word of wisdom dropped in the right place might result in a more serious view being taken of this offence by those who have to sit in judgment in cases, i.e. the magistrates. Where the necessary proof is available and the accused is convicted, the magistrate hearing the case should not allow sentiment to enter too much into the picture when imposing sentence. It is particularly difficult in these cases to secure a conviction and where a man is caught deliberately jeopardizing life by such a mean, petty theft or such petty interference with these facilities, the maximum penalty provided for in the Act should be imposed and no leniency should be shown.

I agree with you.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, you will remember that we had a detailed discussion on this matter when we were last together, particularly in pursuance of the doubts expressed by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) who was followed by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). When we adjourned we were faced with the position on the one hand, as expressed by the hon. member for Zululand, that we might perhaps harm people who ought not to be harmed, and, on the other hand, practical examples were mentioned by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and other hon. members from which it appeared that we would definitely find that people would be detrimentally affected if we did not accept the amendment. I then undertook to allow the matter to stand over with a view to ascertaining what the reaction of the public would be. I just want to say that the only reaction I personally experienced was in the form of a request that we should please accept the amendment. I received no request that we should not accept the amendment. But I also undertook to consult the law societies in this connection because the attorneys scattered throughout the platteland are far better acquainted with the position in respect of this matter than anybody else. I then contacted the law societies through my Department and the representatives of the law societies in Cape Town who have authority to speak on legislation on behalf of their respective law societies, just as the local representatives of the General Bar Council can speak on behalf of the Bar Council, felt unanimously, even having regard to the fact that we may perhaps harm people by means of this amendment, that its advantages far outweigh its disadvantages. The unanimous feeling of the representatives of the law societies is that we should accept the amendment and that we should finalize the matter here and now. So I have adhere to the undertaking I gave in this regard and I feel that it will be for the best to accept the amendment as it stands on the Order Paper.

I appreciate the inquiries which the hon. the Minister has made with representatives of the law society in Cape Town, and whereas I accept what the hon. the Minister says, that they hold the view which he holds that one should bring to an end forthwith the entailment clauses which might presently exist in any will or trust, I am very uneasy about that course being taken, because whereas one is admittedly giving expectances by following this course and doing away with limitations in respect of people who presently hold these properties, that is to say, you are giving them something which they have not already got, you might well at the same time be taking away something from somebody else. I believe that that is something which we should guard against if we possibly can, and in order to allow a discussion to take place on this aspect of the matter, I propose moving an amendment to Clause 7, an amendment which is necessarily long in its terms, but the effect of it is merely to allow one further substitution to take place in every case after this law becomes an Act; that is to say in respect of those persons who presently have expectations under existing wills, you are cushioning the blow of the limitations which you are bringing in in terms of this measure. It will merely allow one further substitution to take place in each case; that is to say, where no substitutions have taken place when this law becomes an act, you will allow two substitutions. Where one substitution has already taken place you will allow one more. Where two have already taken place, you will allow one further substitution to take place.

And when three have taken place?

Where three have taken place you will allow one more.

Always one more?

Yes, you will always allow one more in every instance. I move accordingly that certain words be inserted in place of the existing Clause 7.

Order! Clause 7, as printed, has been rejected. The hon. member can only move an amendment to the proposed new Clause 7.

That, Sir, is the intention and that is the form in which my amendment is drafted.

The amendment which the hon. member proposes to move can only be moved after the new Clause 7, of which the hon. the Minister has given notice and which he has moved, has been negatived. I will therefore have to put Clause 7 as moved by the Minister.

I do not want to go into this matter any further. I think I made my position perfectly clear in the previous debate. I am against entailment of any sort at any time. I thought it very wise of the Minister to discuss this matter with the legal profession, the members of whom have much more experience of this than I have. The legal profession unanimously supports the amendment as moved here by the Minister. Sir, I realize that there are people who are going to be detrimentally affected by this amendment, but on the other hand there are going to be so many more people who would be detrimentally affected if this amendment of the Minister’s were not accepted. I have to weigh up the pros and the cons; I have to see in which case more people will benefit and in which case fewer people will be worse off than they were formerly. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the Minister’s amendment is going to be beneficial to a very large number of people whereas it will be detrimental to only a few. In view of the fact that we cannot arrive at a compromise to suit everybody, I feel that there is only one thing that one can do in this case and that is to accept the Minister’s amendment, quite apart from the fact that I am totally opposed to entailments of any sort. We are breaking entailments in any case. I think the sooner we break it the better and I hope that the House will accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment.

I rise to support the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). If this Bill had been published in the Gazette in the form in which it will be if the hon. Minister’s amendment is accepted I would not have had any objection to supporting the Bill. In principle I am in agreement with the Law Societies but I believe that we are in this position that we have no knowledge whom we might be prejudicing. A person holding fideicommissum at the present time might die within a matter of days and the Minister knows what the consequences are. He might have made a will in view of the fact that he knew there was a fideicommissum to whom this property would go and without his having the opportunity of making any change, this amendment introduces an entirely new situation. I agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) to this extent that I believe it is a good thing to get rid of these fidei-commissa, particularly as we know that there are very many which have run over a very long period and have brought about an entirely ridiculous state of affairs. Many valuable properties are simply losing their value through misuse because of a hopeless situation which should never have been allowed to arise. I think we might be doing a grave injustice if we went the length of the hon. Minister’s amendment. I hope he will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand and then perhaps publish a Bill going the length of the Minister’s own amendment. That will at least give the opportunity to persons who have very important interests involved to make representations if they wish to do so.

I also have certain doubts in connection with Clause 7 as it stands here. I have doubts in connection with subsection (1) (c). It is my personal opinion that the amendment of the hon. member for Zulu-land (Mr. Cadman) goes rather far. Personally I think that two substitutions ought to be adequate in all cases.

Sub-section (1) has three parts (a), (b) and (c); (a) makes provision in cases where there has been no substitution at all as yet. In that case only two substitutions will take place. Paragraph (b) makes provision for cases in which there has already been one substitution and where there will be a further one. Paragraph (c) makes provision for cases where there have already been two substitutions, and the matter ends there. It is in connection with paragraph (c) that I have certain doubts, and I shall tell you why, Sir. Let us imagine that a very valuable farm has been left to my grandfather subject to the provision that it will go to my father on my grandfather’s death and to me on my father’s death. Eventually it becomes my father’s farm. He is very near the end of his life and I stand, as it were, on the verge of acquiring a valuable asset. Because of the provisions of paragraph (c) the fideicommissum terminates and my father becomes the absolute owner of that property and I am deprived of this valuable property which I would otherwise have acquired. It can now be said that it is obvious that my father can leave it to me by way of his will because it is solely his property, but it is also true that he need not of necessity leave it to me; he can leave it to somebody else. That is the doubt I have. I must now ask myself whether, in the light of that doubt, any changes should be effected. I am personally quite convinced of the fact that with the creation of a new fideicommissum which has not yet come into operation or in regard to which there has not as yet been any substitution, it is definitely not necessary to go further than two substitutions. I am convinced of this fact. My only doubt is in respect of (c). If the hon. member for Zululand had moved an amendment in respect of (c) I personally would have felt very much inclined to support him. But he is now extending it in every case, not simply in the particular case in which I think it may possibly have an unfair effect. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I think one can argue that this may theoretically bring about some measure of unfairness in all cases, but, after all, we want to rectify something that requires rectifying; we want to rectify something which is to-day, in our opinion, completely wrong. If this results in a little unfairness here or there, we must agree to accept that fact.

It is not my intention to insist that the problem which I see should be rectified by way of an amendment or in some other way. I have simply raised this matter because I wanted to participate in the discussion on a very important matter. I attach a great deal of value to the opinion of the law society and that is why I feel that notwithstanding the doubt which I have in respect of (c), we cannot go wrong in leaving the matter as it is here. I did think that the same action could be taken in the case of (c) as is taken in the case of (b), namely, that there could be an additional substitution.

New Clause 7 proposed by the Minister of Justice, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

In the Afrikaans version, in line 35, after “geregistreer” to insert “is of”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

To omit paragraph (a).

This is a contentious clause. In the past the practice has been for a trustee to receive affidavits and a power of attorney from the creditor. The power of attorney not only authorized the trustee to prove the affidavit but authorized him to act in future. The Joint Council of the Society of Chartered Accountants stated this—

We know that evidence has been adduced which showed that in the past certain trustees who have had wide powers of attorney had given considerable trouble to the Master of the Supreme Court and that creditors had complained. This was discussed during the second reading of this Bill. It subsequently went to a select committee which heard evidence. It heard evidence from three principal organizations, namely, the Handelsinstituut, the Chamber of Commerce and the Joint Society of Chartered Accountants. I refer to the evidence on page 3 which says this—

Die Handelsinsituut gave evidence and I asked one of the witnesses—

And this was the reply from the Handelsinstituut—

The report goes on further and I refer to page 47 of the evidence which says this in regard to Clause 12—

Further when we asked for evidence from the Chamber of Commerce, in reply to Mr. Tucker on pages 54 and 55, you will find this: Mr. Tucker’s question was—

The reply was—

Then finally, Mr. Chairman, on page 74 of the report, we had the Assistant Master of the Supreme Court before us, and I put this question to him—

The Master replied—

Then I put a further question—

The Master’s reply was—

You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister in this Bill is trying to get rid of an evil which obtains in the practice of certain persons’ offices and an amendment which was introduced in the original Bill we discussed in the Committee Stage, we discussed it in the Select Committee; we voted on it in the Select Committee and we were in a minority, but I submit, Mr. Chairman that the whole weight of the evidence was against this clause, against this new arrangement. When we find that organizations such as the Handelsinstituut and the Chambers of Commerce are against it and their representations being supported by no less an authority than the assistant Master of the Supreme Court who practised in Johannesburg and whose office is in Johannesburg and who is, I submit well qualified to deal with this matter, I suggest that we should take notice of that evidence, and I suggest that that evidence is powerful support for the amendment that I propose to move.

According to the argument of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) the evidence which was adduced before the Select Committee was overwhelmingly in favour of a change in this clause; that is to say, it was in favour of the omission of 14 (b). He said; “The weight of evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of the deletion of subsection (a)”. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the evidence which was given on this point by the witnesses concerned was evidence adduced by interested persons, persons acting as curators in everyday life. This makes me think of a case which I had years ago. There was one point in the case in connection with which there was insufficient evidence and this was the weak point of the case, and the advocate giving advice in regard to the case said: “It is a pity, but that is a weak point and there is not much evidence”. The plaintiff was present and the next day he came along with 100 affidavits which had been roneoed and which were all the same, and he said: “Here is evidence in this regard—the weight of evidence is now on our side”! It was so typical to my mind that the hon. member for Pinetown also said, where everyone was in favour of doing something to their own advantage, that the weight of evidence was in favour of the omission of Clause 14 (b). I must say that Clause 14 (b) is the crux of the whole matter. The malpractices which have arisen have arisen because curators get themselves appointed under powers of attorney. They were judges in their own case. Thç creditors no longer attended meetings at which they could vote because the curator could, in terms of the power of attorney which he held, do everything on behalf of the creditors. So many malpractices arose, particularly in the northern provinces, that the Master felt that positive action should be taken. On page 73 of the evidence we have a case where the Master in giving evidence before the Committee told the Committee why it was necessary to make a change in this regard. He mentioned the case of an estate worth R7,000 on insolvency. When the matter had been disposed of, the creditors had still to pay in. If the hon. the Minister agrees to accept the amendment, it will mean that the status quo will be restored and the curators will again, as in the past, be able to obtain powers of attorney and again have themselves appointed as curators and be able to vote at meetings, and they will once again be judges in cases in which they have a positive interest. I certainly hope that the hon. the Minister will not accept this amendment.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) has said that all the persons who gave evidence before the Select Committee were trustees of curators and therefore persons with personal interests. Of course he is quite wrong, because as the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) pointed out one of those who gave evidence was the Assistant Master of the Transvaal Supreme Court, and he is one who expressed very grave doubts in regard to this particular clause. In fact he went further and said that he thought that this might well give rise to more abuse than the present system. But quite apart from that, surely the hon. member for Prinshof does not suggest that because witnesses who were trustees and curators and therefore had a personal interest that their evidence should not be considered at all. Because if that is what he suggests, then why did the Select Committee bother at all, why did it waste its time? Obviously, consideration must be given to the opinions of those persons who are directly concerned with the operation of this clause. I accent that their evidence must be looked at carefully because of their personal interest, but to go to the length that the hon. member for Prinshof does, namely to give no consideration to their evidence is obviously taking this to ridiculous lengths. Therefore I propose to look at their evidence. The hon. member for Pinetown has gone through the evidence in detail and I do not propose to waste the time of the House by going over the details again, but I would like to make this point that if the hon. member for Prinshof or other hon. members on the Government benches wish to ask this House to reject their evidence, then they must surely do so on the merits of the evidence, they must point to reasons, to grounds, in their evidence for rejecting it. I suggest that the evidence was given in as an impartial a manner as possible. They admitted that there is abuse under the present system, they admitted that there is considerable abuse under the present system, but they gave reasons for their conclusion that the proposed amendments would not improve the position and in fact would probably give rise to further and more abuses than exist at the present day. I suggest that there is no doubt whatsoever that the weight of evidence, including the only impartial witness, namely the Assistant Master of the Supreme Court, was all to the same effect, namely, that the proposed amendment under Clause 14, far from removing the abuses would give rise to further abuses. The point made by these witnesses is that you cannot protect a creditor against his own folly, you cannot protect him if he does not wish to attend the meetings, if he does not wish to take an interest in what is going on. The suggestion was made that the only way of improving the position was to compel a trustee to give creditors notice of any resolution which it was intended to pass at a meeting of creditors, and to give it in sufficient detail so that the creditor would appreciate not only the resolution itself but the object of the resolution, the effect of it, and the general purpose of it. Now, Mr. Chairman, in my submission if one does that, then the creditor cannot expect further protection. If he himself does not want to take the trouble to come to the meetings and vote either for or against a resolution of which he has full details, then he has himself to blame. I submit that the change which is being introduced in this clause, namely to introduce agents, will merely increase the costs of administering insolvent estates, and as anyone who has dealings with the administration of such estates will know the costs are already very high. To increase them yet further, would simply mean that creditors have an even smaller dividend and despite the added cost, despite the fact that they will have a smaller dividend, they will not be protected further than they are at present; in fact, I suggest, that the position may well be worse than it is at the present time. I would point out that the suggestion of the witnesses that creditors should be given full details of resolutions to be passed at meetings of creditors has been adopted and is being introduced in a subsequent amendment. So I would suggest that in view of that the Minister should seriously consider withdrawing Clause 14. I do so on the two grounds (a) that it will simply add to the costs, and (b) that it will add to the abuse, and even if it does not add to the abuse it will certainly not reduce the abuse.

The hon. members for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) and Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) want to give the impression that we must maintain the status quo. It is true that there was a preponderance of evidence to the effect that we should leave it as it is, but if one considers the people who gave evidence, one realizes that they were not attorneys; they were people who were not concerned with the practise of law as such. There were the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Chambers of Commerce, the Joint Council of the Society of Chartered Accountants, the Deputy Master of the Transvaal Supreme Court, the Administrative Control Officer of the Department of Justice and the trust companies.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) made a very important point when he said that these people were all interested parties. It is quite true that we must take note of what they say, but we must not forget that they are interested parties. That is why we must accept their evidence with certain reservations. Some of those people gave the impression that after the curator had been appointed, it was his estate. They gave me the impression of people pleading for their own interests; who were actually not so concerned about the promotion of the administration of justice, although they ought to be concerned in this regard. If we look at the evidence, I think that the only person who did not have an interest in this matter was the Deputy Master, Mr. van der Merwe. This deals with the abuses to which I shall return later. I quote from page 72 of the report. He has this to say (translation)—

This is a sort of private business and the creditors have to foot the bill. He went on in this vein but he was not enthusiastic about the changes which we proposed. When one of the members of the committee asked him on page 73 whether he agreed that the present practice was highly undesirable, he answered: “Yes, all kinds of irregularities occur under the present practice.” When he was asked: “What do you suggest to improve the position?” he said: “We have considered various measures”. I do not want to read the whole thing but he said that he thought that these measures might help to improve the position. On page 72 he said that if no other alternative could be found, the Department would be prepared to apply the new system and to ascertain its effects.

I want to say further that the other people who were there were most unhelpful in suggesting alternatives. We accepted the only alternative they suggested. I want to tell hon. members what this malpractice is. It may be a good thing for me to do so now. It was our earnest desire to rectify the matter. The malpractice is that curators are appointed by creditors by way of a power of attorney given in general terms and which also gives the curator the power to vote on behalf of the creditors at a later stage. The power of attorney is drawn up for their convenience in such a way that a new power of attorney is not needed at a subsequent meeting. One finds the situation that the curator who has been appointed, has these powers of attorney and makes suggestions in regard to how the estate should be administered. He votes for his own proposals; in other words, he is the mover and seconder of these proposals and also decides that what has been done, has been done well.

The creditors have continually complained to the Master about this position. What we are now doing is to say that such curator can no longer vote for himself, and this is a very reasonable thing. I am sure that the hon. member for Musgrave will not vote for himself on any occasion in which he is personally involved. One does not say that what one has done is a good thing; one lets other people say it. For this, reason the people who are very intimately concerned with the administration of estates, the Master for one, although not very enthusiastic, agreed that this would at least improve matters. We can now have a group or profession — attorneys or accountants — which will act as a check on curators and see what they are doing. All that we are doing is to enable the creditors to issue two powers of attorney. The one is to appoint the curator and the second is to have a representative who can vote at the second meeting, and this is a good thing. We shall deal later with another clause which enables the people holding these powers of attorney to know in advance what they will have to vote on. This was suggested by all these people and we accepted the suggestion. While we accepted the only constructive proposal from these witnesses, I cannot understand why the hon. members for Pinetown and Musgrave do not want us to accept the constructive proposals which have been forthcoming from the Department of Justice. They may say that these are not constructive proposals but I am prepared to argue on this score. Is it not constructive if we provide that the curator cannot act as judge in his own case? [Time limit.]

I agree with the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) that in principle a man should not have the opportunity in such circumstances of being able to vote for himself and for his own appointment as trustee or curator, or to vote for resolutions he has submitted, but I think one has to appreciate that the reason why trustees are in that position to-day is simply because creditors in an insolvent estate do not take any interest in what goes on in the estate, and they give them a free hand. I suggest to the hon. member that if the class of agents it is proposed to appoint are appointed, the position will still be the same. Those creditors who to-day take an interest in the estate will continue to do so; others will not. The point made by the Assistant Master is that you will not get rid of the abuse because you will simply have this new class of agent getting into league with the persons who are at present appointed as trustees and abuse their position, and the two together will perpetrate the sort of abuses which go on to-day. You will not get rid of it by appointing these agents. If, as the hon. member has suggested, this was a constructive suggestion, we would accept it, but the question as to whether it is constructive or not surely depends, firstly, on whether it will do away with some or all the abuses which go on, and secondly, whether it will add to the cost of administering the insolvent estate. I think I have already pointed out that it will increase the costs and therefore reduce the dividends. It must increase the costs because these agents will have to be paid, and they will be paid either by the creditors or else their costs will have to come out of the estate. Someone will have to pay them, and obviously it will come out of the pockets of the creditors. Either directly or indirectly, the costs come out of the estate. If this new class of agent is not appointed at all, there is no question of adding to the costs. [Interjection], I do not think the hon. member for Heilbron really knows what is going on. He was not a member of the Select Committee and it would be wise of him to leave it to the members of the Select Committee on his side.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5. p.m.

Evening Sitting

I was saying when the House adjourned that under the present system there was a great deal of abuse taking place. But the question still remains how that abuse can be removed. Of course, it does not follow that because there is abuse, therefore this suggestion must necessarily lead to an improvement in the position. I also pointed out that all the evidence points in the other direction. It would seem that, far from remedying the position, this suggestion will give rise to yet further opportunities for abuse.

I wish in conclusion to read a passage from the evidence given by the Assistant Master of the Transvaal Supreme Court. This passage follows on the passages read to the House by the hon. member for Standerton. It is to be found towards the foot of page 72 and reads as follows:

and here he was referring to the proposed amendment—

Read the next sentence too.

I am quite happy to read the next sentence too if hon. members want me to. The sentence reads as follows—

That is the point.

That is quite obvious. The point is, Mr. Chairman, that he expresses the opinion, based on his experience, that far from improving the position this will make it even worse.

No, I beg your pardon, he never said it would make it worse.

The passage that I have read out suggests that quite clearly, and the passage read out by the hon. member for Pinetown makes that perfectly clear. The hon. member for Ceres perhaps ought to read that. It appears on page 74, paragraph 209 (a). For the benefit of the hon. member for Ceres the following question was put and answer given:

We object to the old gang of racketeers.

May I just complete the quotation—

But we objected to the old gang of racketeers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton is in a very cheerful mood this evening. It is all very well to object to the old gang of racketeers but there is no point in creating a new gang. It certainly does not help to do away with the old gang and to put in its place a new gang.

Except in the case of the Government !

We do hope the hon. the Minister will seriously consider withdrawing this clause, on the grounds that the appointment of agents will increase the costs to be borne by the creditor. These costs may not be borne by the insolvent estate as such and in that case they will have to be paid by the creditors themselves. Obviously the agents are not going to do this work for nothing. In the result then the costs to the creditor will be increased to the extent of the agent’s fees. Furthermore if it is unlikely to give rise to any improvement, then this added expense is not justified.

The basic difficulty in the administration of insolvent estates, as indicated by the Deputy-Master on page 71 of the Report of the Select Committee, is the very few creditors—in fact, less than 1 per cent of them—attend meetings. It appears to me to be a very poor argument to allege that where little interest is shown on the part of creditors, the legislator can do nothing more to assist in the matter. In any case, this has been the gist of the arguments advanced thus far by Opposition speakers on this clause. If we depart from this point of view we can also say that a person who parks his car, leaves his keys in the ignition and then has his car stolen, cannot accuse anyone of theft because he, the owner, has been negligent.

It is a fact that where creditors show little or no interest, the curator who holds the power of attorney has every opportunity to indulge in malpractices. With this in mind this provision is a very great improvement on the position as it is at the moment because a creditor must now appoint an outsider as his agent, a person whom he has specially to remunerate and who will have to report specifically to him. This will result in the fact that the creditor will now have more of an interest in the estate, although perhaps indirectly or in a round-about way, and more interest on the part of the creditor will mean fewer malpractices on the part of the curator.

The fact is that although the Deputy Master expressed doubts in regard to the effectiveness of the proposed legislation in this connection, he was unable to suggest a more effective alternative. It is recorded on page 73 of the Report of the Select Committee that he said that if something better could be suggested, it might perhaps mean that the whole structure of the Insolvency Act would have to be amended. He also suggested that all sales from insolvent estates should be approved by the Master. But, he said this was not practicable at the moment because the Master did not have the necessary staff available. After he had considered all the possible alternatives he came to this conclusion (translation)—

If this is the conclusion of a person with a great deal of experience of this matter, why should this House not decide to test the proposed system? Let us see how it works in practice.

As far as I am concerned I want to say that I think that this system will work well, particularly in the large, and also in the smaller, rural towns having two attorneys practising in opposition to one another. I have personal experience of this particular state of affairs. From the nature of things a creditor will instruct a rural attorney who is the opponent of the curator attorney. This in its turn will ensure that the estate concerned is administered properly.

I rise to express my complete disagreement with the hon. member who has just sat down. I am convinced that the Bill in its present form will not provide a solution to the problem which it seeks to cure. I have no doubt whatsoever that it will eventually be necessary to have an amendment thereto. I believe that while there have unquestionably been abuses under the law as it stands, those abuses have taken place because persons who should have done so did not take the interest they should have taken in their own interests in regard to insolvent estates of which they were creditors. The present situation, like the situation which will exist if the present proposals are accepted, is not satisfactory. I believe, Sir, that we have not yet found the complete solution to this problem. At the same time I am constrained to say that until such time as creditors take some interest in the estates in which they have claims, this situation will undoubtedly continue. If they took a real interest instead of leaving matters in the hands of the trustee, it would be quite different. We know that very powerful organizations—e.g. the Chamber of Commerce, the Handelsinstituut and a host of other important witnesses—indicated that they did not agree that the provision as recommended by the Select Committee and as contained in this Bill would prove successful. I, too, am satisfied that it will not be successful. I believe that in some instances we are putting persons to unnecessary expense, and in some cases I think it will be found that far less creditors will be represented at meetings on insolvent estates compared to the number represented previously.

It is quite clear, nevertheless, that the case for both sides have been fully put and thoroughly aired. The hon. the Minister has obviously given us an opportunity for putting forward our views, and I am sure we in turn would like to hear from the Minister how he feels about this matter. I should like to say to him in conclusion that I am utterly convinced that no matter what proposals are adopted by the hon. the Minister, he has by no means disposed of this matter. It is a matter which will in future again require the attention of the Minister and his Department. It is quite clear that there have been abuses. The evidence of the Master and others can leave no doubt about that. But, Mr. Chairman, I believe that under the proposed new system there can also be abuses. It is quite possible that there is no real solution to the problem, because in my experience—and it is quite considerable, if I may say so—creditors take a minimum of interest in insolvent estates against which they have lodged claims, unless they are secured creditors. In general it would appear that trading organizations are quite happy to sit quietly and let the affairs of the estate follow their course, irrespective of how small their dividend may be. Until a solution to this lethargic attitude of creditors is found, we will have these problems with us.

I believe that the amendment which has been retained in the Bill on a majority decision of the Select Committee is not justified in the light of the other evidence given before the Committee. The balance of evidence was in favour of the present system as opposed to this proposed system. I think none of the witnesses, including the assistant master, was satisfied with either of the alternative solutions which we have been discussing.

As you know, this Bill was referred to a Select Committee and hon. members of this House who are lawyers served on that Committee. They heard the evidence adduced there and deliberated on it, after which they arrived at certain conclusions. I find myself in somewhat similar position to that in which a certain magistrate found himself when he had to try a certain case. This was still in the old days and two attorneys appeared before him. The attorney for the plaintiff stood up and said that the learned de Groot had said so and so and on those grounds he asked for judgment in favour of his client. Thereupon the attorney for the defendant stood up and said that the learned Voet had said so and so and on those grounds he asked that the claim be rejected. The magistrate then asked why then they had come to his court when even the learned gentlemen de Groot and Voet could not agree on the point!

Although I do not want to adopt this point of view, I just want to point out that the lawyers on the Select Committee heard and deliberated on the evidence adduced before the Committee. As Minister I did not serve on the Select Committee but simply read the evidence and have heard the arguments advanced during this debate. Under the circumstances there is nothing for me—there is no political division in this regard—but to associate myself with the group which decided by a majority vote to make this recommendation. I should like to say a few words in this regard.

The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) has admitted that the evils which we have to combat here—and this also appears to me to be the case—start mainly with the curator. I think that we all agree that this is so. I think too that we are all agreed that what this provision envisages is to prevent the curator continuing to act as Judge in his own case. If then we all agree in this regard we can, with all respect to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), finalize the matter by saying: “Rather the devil we do not know than the devil we do know!” This I think puts the matter in a nutshell.

I do not contend that the system is going to work because I am not an authority on the subject. But we all agree that this provision will prevent the curator continuing to act as Judge in his own case. Let us see how it works in practice. If the doubts expressed by hon. members materialize, and it does not work in practice, we can make other arrangements.

In all fairness I just want to point out that where it has been said that evidence was given before the Select Committee to the effect that this provision would not have the desired effect, I interpret that evidence in this way— that the provision of itself may not perhaps have the desired effect but that the other provisions of this measure, provisions which also affect this situation, will make a great difference. That is why I think that we should leave the matter at that. It has been fully discussed and we have heard arguments from all sides in this regard. As far as I am concerned I cannot, from a principle point of view and no matter how much I might want to, accept the amendment of the hon. member.

It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Minister knows more about the devil than I do! In any case, I am going to vote for my amendment. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will come forward with a further amendment next session.

Amendment put and negatived (official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On old Clause 16,

I wish to move the following amendment—

This clause provides for the removal of a trustee by the Master. It contains an important change in the law. Previously a trustee could be removed only after application having been made to court. This power is now being removed from the court and placed in the hands of the Master. In addition the grounds on which a trustee can be removed are extended. There are also several new grounds added. One of these—to be found in sum-section (e)—reads as follows—

In my view the consequences of removing a trustee from office are so important and can have such far-reaching effects on the future career of a trustee, that a ground for removal ought not to be based upon the opinion of the Master. I want to make it clear that I do not suggest that the Master will act mala fide. But I do say he might be mistaken as regards the nature of the offence. He might consider that certain action on the part of the trustee warrants his removal and he might take a more serious view of the position than is justified. In other words, Mr. Chairman, he might be wrong, whilst not acting mala fide. Surely it ought to be simply a question of fact whether a trustee is no longer suitable to be trustee of the estate. There is no reason why it should be a question of opinion, particularly the opinion of the person who has the power of removal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it will be said, presumably, that a later clause gives the right to any trustee who is aggrieved by a decision of the Master to take the decision on review. But I suggest that that does not help, because if the matter is taken on review, the only basis on which the Master’s decision can be upset is that he exercised his discretion mala fide, in other words, the Master was mala fide. The fact that the Master was wrong will not be a ground for upsetting his decision. But if the words “in his opinion” are omitted it would remain a question of fact and the Judge would himself be able to decide whether or not the particular circumstances warrant the removal of the trustee. An appeal would then be based on fact and not on the Master’s opinion.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into details. The hon. the Minister will appreciate that in order to upset a decision of this sort one has such a heavy onus to discharge that it is well-nigh impossible to have it upset.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the change which has been made in this clause. I believe it is a good thing that the power should be given to the Master rather than the court in these circumstances to remove a trustee. But on the other hand I believe there must be reasonable limits and the position of the trustee must not be made impossible, as is the case under subsection (e). I suggest, Sir, that it will not make the Master’s position impossible if these words “in his opinion” were left out. Because, as I say, it will then be a question of fact, and the Master, if he has reason to remove a trustee, must have good grounds for removing him. He ought to be able to substantiate his opinion by showing the court that the facts of the particular case justify the removal of the trustee.

Before sitting down I would again urge the hon. the Minister to consider removing these words from the clause. I do hope the hon. the Minister will not adopt the attitude he adopted in regard to the previous amendment, namely that this proposed amendment was considered by the Select Committee which consisted largely of legal members of both sides of the House. It is true that it was considered by the Committee and it was rejected on a division. I do ask the hon. the Minister himself to . . .

I am a democrat.

Well, the hon. the Minister will certainly not be acting in an undemocratic way if he were to accept this amendment. If he is indeed a democrat I am sure he will accept this amendment in the interests certainly of the trustees.

I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will not accept this amendment. Hon. members will note that in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) certain grounds are given upon which a trustee can be removed. The first of these is if the trustee is not properly elected; the second is if he does not comply with the provisions imposed upon him by the Act, the third is if he is mentally or physically unfit, and so forth. If the words, “in his opinion” are omitted from paragraph (e) and the Master has to decide on the facts available whether the curator of a particular estate is no longer suitable to act as curator, it will make the position of the Master very difficult. In my opinion the Master must be given some measure of discretion. We discussed the Administration of Estates Act recently and we included in that Act a provision in similar terms, namely, that an executor in an estate can be removed from his post if in the opinion of the Master he no longer complies with the requirements with which an executor must comply. The position will be the same here. The Master may have some other reason not mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I think, for example, of a case of a curator who goes overseas and who does not obtain the Master’s permission to do so. The Master may then feel that this curator is no longer suitable for that post because he has not given the necessary notice. There may be various reasons why the Master feels that a curator should be removed from office and the right of the Master to formulate an opinion regarding the desirability of the removal from office of the curator must therefore be retained.

Mr, Chairman, the Master is a responsible person. It has been stated in other debates that Attorneys-General, for example, are responsible persons. Well, Masters are just as responsible. The Master has only one interest and that is the administration of the estate to the benefit of the creditors. As it is, the creditors have already lost money because the debtor has gone insolvent. If on top of this there is delay in administering the estate, the position is aggravated. There may be any number of reasons why the Master wants the curator removed.

As the hon. member for Durban-Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) has said, the curator does of course have the right to take the case to the courts on review. The curator will, I am sure, be aware of the reasons which caused the Master to decide to remove him. Some reasons are such that they should not be made known, and only the Master and the curator will know of them. When in such a case the Master removes the curator in terms of sub-section 18 (e) I am sure that the curator will not take the Master on review. The Master must be given this opening otherwise he will be placed in an impossible position. If the Master cannot take action in terms of paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) the curator will simply remain in office and continue to delay the administration of the estate, and so forth, and this at the expense of the creditors. I trust therefore that the hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave).

I rise to say where I stand in regard to this amendment. I must say that I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) for the simple reason—apart from others which I could advance if required—that we would not be consistent if we do accept the amendment. If the hon. member will only look at Clause 17, a clause which has been passed without any discussion whatever—presumably also by the Select Committee—he will see from line 15 that a similar principle has been embodied there, namely—

In other words, we have already accepted the principle which he wants deleted from the clause now under discussion. We have already accepted that principle as far as the appointment of trustees is concerned. Well, if this principle is acceptable in this respect, then there is no earthly reason why we should object to giving the Master similar power in this clause as far as the removal of a trustee is concerned. As I say, we have already given similar power to the Master as far as the appointment of a trustee is concerned and we have given that power unanimously, power which enables the Master to say, even before he has seen the man, that the person proposed is not acceptable to him (i.e. the Master) as a trustee. Why then should we not give similar power to the Master to remove a trustee after he has seen him in action? If, for instance, the selectors of a rugby team do not want a certain player to play in a team when they had not even seen him play, then it might be said that they are wrong because they have not even seen the player in action. But can the same be said if they leave him out after they have seen him in action? Surely, then it cannot be said that they acted unjustifiably.

The principle embodied in paragraph (e) of this clause is not a foreign one, because it has also been embodied in the old Act. If it was good enough for the old Act, then, I submit, it is also perfectly in order in this legislation. The hon. member is an advocate and not an attorney. If he was, he would have known —and here I think my hon. friend, the member for Germiston (District), will agree with me —that the Master is very chary of being taken to court.

Quite right.

Consequently he would not lightly suspend a man on account of his fear of being taken to court. The hon. member can take my word for it that there is only one other person who is more afraid than the Master is to be taken to court—namely myself, and that is saying a lot!

The hon. the Minister is quite right in referring to the previous Clause 17 and in saying that the provision contained in the existing Clause 17 is similar to the one which appeared previously and gave the Master the power to refuse to appoint a person if, in his opinion, he considered that that person was not suitable. With respect to the hon. the Minister there is a difference and I think it is an important difference. The difference is this: In the case of the refusal to appoint the fact that the Master has refused need not be generally known to anybody. The Master will simply advise the individual concerned that he refuses to appoint him because he regards him as unsuitable and nobody else need know and would know in normal circumstances, whereas in the case of the removal of a trustee from office it is very different, because he has acted as trustee to the knowledge of the creditors and various other people.

In the other case the creditors will know too because they elected him.

In the first case the majority of the creditors would certainly have had to pass a resolution but the hon. the Minister will know that that is very often done by powers of attorney submitted by the persons concerned.

Surely it is general knowledge amongst all creditors who the trustee is.

I think the hon. the Minister will concede that once a man has acted as trustee for a period, it places a very serious stigma on him if he is then removed from office.

I agree; therefore the Master will not do it lightly.

I accept that as well. The hon. the Minister made the further point that the Master does not like to be taken to court because he does not like to be shown to be wrong. I also accept that but in subsection (e) this House is giving such a wide power that it is virtually impossible for him to be proved wrong. So that the Master may not be so careful as he would otherwise be if he had to substantiate the facts and justify the facts in a court of law. It is on that basis that I do suggest that the hon. the Minister should reconsider this position.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister the reason for the removal of the words, “Upon the application of the Master or of any other person interested the Court”. The court, therefore, removed a person under the Bill as it stood at the request of the Master or any other person. I take it that the Minister is satisfied that this does not prevent a creditor who wishes to apply to court to remove a trustee from office if he is not doing his job from doing so.

There is another clause which deals with that; the creditor has that right.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended by the Select Committee, put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I wish to move a similar amendment in respect of this clause—

In line 64, to omit “in his opinion”.

Sub-section (2) (b) will therefore read—

I will not elaborate on the argument I have just advanced; I merely want it adapted to this particular clause. I suggest that there is no reason for giving the Master the power to disallow costs simply because he is of the opinion that the trustee acted mala fide, negligently or unreasonably. Those are questions of fact which can easily be established. If the trustee acted mala fide that is a question of fact; if he acted negligently that is a question of fact; if he acted unreasonably that is also a question of fact and the Master should be placed in a position where he could be made to justify his attitude if he wishes to disallow costs on this basis. I point out once again that the right of appeal which is given becomes so limited by the insertion of these words “in his opinion” that it virtually does away with the right of appeal altogether, because one has to show mala fides on the part of a Master. I reiterate that it is not suggested that the Master would act in that way but he is human and his point of view as to what is mala fides, what is negligent or what is unreasonable, may vary from that of a Judge. He should therefore be placed in a position where he ought to have to justify his wishes to disallow costs on that basis.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. Apart from the fact that we are dealing here with the same principle we have just dealt with in the previous clause, I am faced with the fact that we shall also have to amend Clause 35 because the very same principle is contained in Clause 35. Clause 35 was also considered by the Select Committee and after the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) had moved an amendment to that clause, it was accepted unanimously by all members of the Committee. The hon. member will see that Clause 35 says—

That was accepted unanimously by the Select Committee.

There is a proviso to that clause.

Yes, but the proviso does not affect the principle of the clause at all. We therefore have the same principle in that clause and for the reasons previously advanced by me, I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

The hon. the Minister has referred to Clause 35. Clause 35 is in an entirely different position by reason of the proviso because the proviso specifically gives the right of appeal on the basis set out in the proviso.

To which proviso are you referring?

I am referring to the proviso which immediately precedes subsection (2) “amended by the substitution in sub-section (2) for all the words preceding the proviso of the following words”:

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended by the Select Committee, put and agreed to.

On Clause 39,

I wish to move an amendment to this clause as follows—

I am sure the fate of this amendment will be better than the previous amendments I have moved. The object of this amendment is to ensure that the clause clearly means what it is intended to mean. In saying this I wish to refer the hon. Minister to the lines which follow line 30. Any person who has a complaint against the trustee is given the right to apply to court whereas previously it was the Master only who had that right. He is given the right to do so after giving the trustee not less than 14 days’ notice. It is obviously intended that it should be 14 days’ notice to remedy the defect. But as it reads at the moment that is not clear—

I wish to amend this clause by omitting the comma in line 31, omitting the words “apply to the court for an order directing the trustee” in lines 31 and 32, omitting the full stop in line 35 and inserting after the word “demand” the words “apply to the court for an order directing the trustee to do so”. It is to make it clear that the 14 days’ notice is notice to remedy the defect whatever it may be. I have a copy of my amendment for the hon. Minister.

I am faced with this difficulty, as the hon. member will realize, that according to the report of the Select Committee this clause was put as it stands here and agreed to unanimously, I take it, also by the hon. member. That is my difficulty and the hon. member will understand that under those circumstances I cannot accept the amendment. But what I will do is to consider what the hon. member has said and if there is any substance in what he has said, I shall consider bringing in an amendment in the Other Place. This being a Bill of the Select Committee and this clause having been approved of unanimously by members of the Select Committee, it will not do for me to accept any amendments at this stage.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as amended by the Select Committee, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments made by the Select Committee. 49-A.H. Vcl. 3

I move—

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the changes and concessions in respect of military pensions and social pensions announced by my colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech of 24 March this year.

It will be remembered that a White Paper was published at the time setting out the aforementioned changes and concessions in detail.

An explanatory memorandum in connection with the Bill has now also been made available.

It is not therefore my intention to give a long description of the various provisions of the Bill but there are a few matters to which I should like to refer briefly.

War Pensions. The first aim of the clauses dealing with war pensions is to consolidate the bonuses, which are at present payable to war pensioners, with their pensions and allowances. At the same time the consolidated pensions and allowances are being rounded off into convenient monthly amounts.

In the majority of cases the increases which will take place as a result of this step will be small. I want, however, to point out that the disability pension payable to a female volunteer or nurse will be increased to that payable to a male volunteer. In the case of a female volunteer whose degree of disability is, for example, assessed at 100 per cent, it will mean an increase of R92.40 per annum.

As a result of consolidation it is necessary to increase the limits which are at present of application in regard to supplementary pensions. The necessary provision is made in Clauses 3 and 5.

Although consolidation and the raising of these limits will result in small increases for those who are at present receiving supplementary pensions, I want to point out that last year they received a percentage increase which in the case of Whites amounted to 45 per cent of their supplementary pensions.

Furthermore, a number of ex-volunteers suffering from war disabilities and who are at present not entitled to supplementary pensions because of their earnings or fixed earning ability, will become entitled to these pensions as a result of the raising of the limits of application to such pensions.

The limit of application in the case of widows receiving family allowances has been doubled in the case of White persons. The actual increase is from R58.33 to R117 per month. I think that hon. members will agree that this is a generous concession. The amount of the increase payable to these widows will of course depend upon the amount at which their deceased husband’s “potential pre-disablement earning capacity” has been fixed. In this connection I may mention that the Military Pensions Board will review all determinations that have been made.

It is also proposed to make pensions and allowances payable from the first day of .the month and to continue them up to the last day of the month in which the beneficiary dies or ceases to be entitled to .the benefit. The necessary provision in this regard is made in Clauses 10 and 29. This step will result in further benefits for war pensioners.

The above-mentioned concessions come into operation with effect from 1 October 1965 and will cost R250,000 for the current financial year.

As hon. members will notice from Clauses 4, 22 and 23, no increase in attendants’ allowances and clothing grants, payable to ex-volunteers suffering from war disabilities is envisaged. Here, too, I must point out that attendants’ allowances were increased by 20 per cent last year. Clothing grants were increased by 25 per cent from 1 April 1948 and were doubled in 1959.

From 1 April 1966 the consolidated basic pensions (but not alternative or supplementary pensions) will be increased by about 10 per cent, and the consolidated basic allowances by about 15 per cent.

As far as pensions and allowances which are payable in accordance with the schedules to †the War Pensions Acts are concerned, the necessary provision is made in Clauses 15 and 31.

The cost of these further concessions is estimated at R500,000 for the 1966-7 financial year.

Social Pensions and Allowances. Clauses 32 to 43 provide for any concessions in respect of social pensions and allowances which are now being brought into effect.

Clauses 32, 35, 38 and 41 provide in respect of Whites that—

1. (i) The means plus pension limit of R324 per annum will be increased to R528 per annum;
2. (ii) The supplementary allowance of R180 per annum will be consolidated with the basic pension, the maximum of which is at present R144 per annum.

A person with an estimated income of R312 per annum qualifies at present for an amount of R16 per month; that is to say, R1 per month basic pension, plus R15 supplementary allowance. If the estimated income exceeds R312 per annum, no basic pension and, accordingly, no allowance, is payable. Therefore, if there is a small improvement in the financial position of certain pensioners, such persons may lose more in pension and allowances than the extent to which their financial position has improved. These anomalies are now being eliminated.

The raising of the means plus pension limit is certainly a large-scale relaxation in the application of the means test.

For White war veterans over 70 years of age, the means plus pension limit has been increased from R644 to R840 per annum.

It is expected that thousands of White persons who have up to the present fallen just beyond the limits of the scheme will now be included. The costs connected with the new pensioners and beneficiaries are estimated at R5,000,000 per annum in respect of Whites alone. The expenditure for this financial year will, therefore, be R2,500,000, because the proposed improvements will come into operation from 1 October 1965.

These clauses, namely, 32, 35, 38 and 41, also make provision for the increase of the maximum pension by R12 per annum; that is to say, a general increase of R1 per month. The costs connected with this are R2,000,000 per annum in respect of Whites; that is .to say, R 1,000,000 for this financial year.

Because the free means are being increased from R180 to R192 per annum, all persons who are at present receiving a reduced pension will receive an additional increase of R1 per month.

The decision to exclude assets to a certain value (R2,400 in the case of a White person) will, for a considerable number of pensioners, mean a total increase of up to R8 per month.

The concessions in respect of non-Whites are set out in the memorandum.

Clauses 33, 36, 40 and 42 make provision for the increase of the attendants’ allowance; for example, from R48 per annum to R120 per annum in the case of a White person, and the automatic granting thereof to all beneficiaries, who are not as yet receiving them, on reaching the age of 90 years.

The introduction of a supplemented pension scheme is contained in Clauses 34 and 39. I want to point out that this scheme has been introduced at my own insistence. The scheme is being established as simply as possible, and the person who has saved the State money by continuing to work longer, or by postponing his application for a pension for some other reason, is being compensated by means of a supplementary amount which is payable over and above his pension or allowance.

Clause 44 makes provision for the payment of a gratuity to Bantu employees of the Government whose services are terminated because of the expiry of their residential permits. Section 69 of the Government Service Pensions Act, 1955, does not make provision for the payment of a gratuity under such circumstances.

Some of the foreign Bantu have already completed long periods of service, and it is considered to be only fair that they should be entitled to some form of compensation on the termination of their services. Provision is accordingly being made in this class for the payment of a gratuity to the Bantu concerned, provided that they were employed prior to 1 January 1955, and have completed at least ten years’ service. A similar provision in respect of Bantu workers of the Railway Administration has already been included in the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Act, 1965.

The gratuity will be determined on the basis laid down in paragraph (a) of Section 69 (4) of the Government Service Pensions Act, 1955.

In conclusion, I want to refer hon. members to what I said last year and at the start of this year in this House. What I envisaged is now being put into positive effect. Hon. members will also remember that I have said on more than one occasion that proposals which are made will be carefully considered. This has been done. In actual fact, more .than this is being done. I also said last year that I was prepared to consider every possible change which we could make, having regard to the carrying capacity of the country. The continued relaxation of the application of the means test has, as far as the Government has been able, always more than kept pace with the continually fluctuating social and economic circumstances.

I believe that all the objections which were raised in the past to the schemes concerned are a thing of the past. I may also just say that another ideal is also being achieved by means of these concessions, namely, the simplification of the whole scheme.

We on this side of the House naturally support the second reading of this Bill. It brings into effect improvements that we have advocated in the past particularly as far as the relaxation of the means test is concerned. Before dealing with the Bill I would like to say that we on this side of the House believe it is a great pity that a Bill of such importance should only have been tabled this afternoon and has already come up for the second reading the same day. A large number of people are affected by this Bill. There are. for instance, over 500,000 social pensioners of all races, over 21,000 military pensioners, and then there are the many thousands of people who will be affected by the relaxation of the means test. So when considering the provisions of this Bill we must bear in mind that a large number of people are involved. One would, therefore, have thought that, in a Bill of this nature, which in many instances is the legislative effect of the Budget proposals which were tabled in this House on 24 March, it would have been possible for hon. members to have had a greater opportunity of studying its provisions. It is a Bill which consists of 71 pages and nearly 50 clauses. So it is no mean task having to study and comprehend the amendments that are proposed in this Bill. However, the opportunity we have had to study the Bill reveals that it is decidedly an improvement on the existing position. We support the Bill because of the increases that it grants to certain pensioners, because of the relaxation of the means test—this affects the White people in particular—because of the increased social pensions and attendant allowances, and also because of the new system of supplementing pensions for those persons who delay their pensions and carry on with their employment, and because of the general improvement in military pensions.

These are all pleasing features of this Bill. I shall, however, show at a later stage that there are certain disappointments in it as well. The question of bringing this Bill before the House at such a late stage is, I think, an important matter because it perhaps signifies the difficulties the Minister has as far as the shortage of staff in his Department is concerned. When we study the provisions of this Bill we realize that it is quite possible at a later date this year that the hon. the Minister will be faced with a staff crisis in his Department. An electronic computer was recently installed in the Minister’s Department and that brought about a long delay in the payment of pensions. There is a particular case and there are other cases which I have brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister, of persons who were granted pensions but were then told that they have to wait a period of six months before being able to receive any payment in respect of their pension. With the provisions of this Bill an enormous task is going to be placed on the Department and it means that some urgent steps will have to be taken by the hon. the Minister if long delays are to be obviated. I have quoted the case of a person who had to wait six months and in one particular case the recipient of the pension died two days before he was due to collect the six months’ retrospective pension. So, Sir, you can see that it can bring about a great deal of hardship and difficulty for these persons receiving pensions when such a long delay exists.

Now we know that the provisions of this Bill provide for an extra R1 per month for the White social pensioner and 50 cents per month in respect of the Coloured and Indian pensioner. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate if he can give any indication as to when his Department will be able to put into effect the increased rate of the pension later in this year so that these pensioners will not have to wait an undue length of time before being able to take advantage of the pension increase. The other aspect which I believe is going to cause a shortage of manpower in the Minister’s Department is that in regard to the relaxation of the means test. Here we can see that vast adjustments will have to be made to military pensions, but apart from that as far as social pensions are concerned, in cases where these persons are not at present enjoying the full maximum pension, in terms of the new provisions of the relaxed means test, those persons will have the right to have their cases reviewed after 1 October 1965, the operative date of this Bill. Consequently, there must be many thousands of not only new applicants who will now consider themselves perhaps eligible and qualified for a social pension, but there will be all those thousands of persons who require to have their cases reviewed, and perhaps the hon. the Minister could indicate in his reply whether it will be necessary for these people to have to fill in new application forms, new pink forms, with a statement of their assets and liabilities after 1 October 1965. so as to ensure what rate their new pension will be in terms of the provisions of this Bill. I understand that approximately 20 per cent of the White social pensioners do not receive the maximum pensions at the present time. So that will mean as far as the White pensions are concerned already over 20.000 persons who possibly will have to have their cases reviewed as far as social pensions are concerned. So it would appear that an enormous task will face the hon. Minister’s Department in not only reviewing all these cases, but in dealing with the normal applications that come forward and in addition having to deal with the many thousands of new applications that will be forthcoming in terms of the relaxed means test. I do hope that the hon. the Minister can give an indication as to whether he intends to take steps to meet the situation. I suggested that the hon. Minister could perhaps extend the number of part-time employees who could be employed by his Department so as to overcome this enormous amount of work which will be facing his Department.

The pleasing features of this Bill—and here we know that the first portion of the Bill deals mainly with military pensions from Clauses 1 to 31, with the exception of Clause 18, which makes provision for an increase in the pension of the State President—are improvements, consolidatory measures, and they will bring about slight improvements for those military pensioners and the widows of former volunteers. However, other members on this side of the House who have made a particular study of the question of the military pensions, will deal more specifically with the provisions of the Bill dealing with that category of pensioners. However, there is one aspect and that is that some of these amendments are to take effect from 1 October 1965 (I am now referring to the military pensioner) but the actual increases in the basic pension and the basic supplementary pension, or rather the basic allowances is only effective as from 1 April 1966. Therefore I would like to know from the Minister the reasons why those increases will only take effect from 1 April 1966, in other words, for the forthcoming financial year. Other aspects dealing with the improvements and the definition of a “war veteran” which is being extended and another important concession that I believe is being made, namely, to grant an additional amount to Coloured and Indian war veterans, will also be dealt with by other members. These Coloured and Indian pensioners will now also receive an additional amount due to the fact that they will also now be considered as war veterans.

As far as the social pensions are concerned, the relaxation of the means test, the means plus pension limitation, from R324 per annum to R528 per annuum, is undoubtedly a concession to the social pensioner and to those persons who have a record of service to their country, those persons who have toiled hard and perhaps saved a little for their old age and find that their savings are now inadequate to live out their existence on the amount that they have put on one side due to the devaluation of money. These persons in some instances now will be able to qualify for a pension. This relaxation of the means test, the means plus pension limitation, is a very important step in that it will extend the ceiling of the persons who can qualify for pensions, and it will affect the position as far as the assets are concerned. The income value of assets is taken into account after an amount of R2,400, and as the Minister indicated, a person could still receive a minimum pension of R2 per month with assets up to R 10,800, provided he has not got an income from other sources. Similarly as far as income is concerned, a person will be able to have R504 per annum, or R42 per month, and still be entitled to receive the minimum pension of R2 per month. Sir, these extensions are extensions which are mainly brought about due to the fact of the consolidation of the allowance with the basic pension.

The clauses dealing with this aspect, as I say, are pleasing features of the Bill. Similarly Clauses 34 and 39 which provide for the old-age pensioner and the war veteran pensioner who delays his application, to be able to qualify for a supplementary amount. That also is an item which is welcomed by this side of the House, and the other matters which deal for instance with Clause 43 to ensure that a person does not receive less than he might have received in the past due to the increase in the military pension, and here I believe that the hon. Minister should give serious consideration to exempting an amount that is paid as a military pension to a person for the purposes of the means test and is now classified as income. It is a pity that in many cases where there is an increase in pensions, such as in the case of a military pensioner, due to disablement or the loss of a husband, that such a person has to have that taken into account when it comes to assessing income for purposes of the means test. The other clause that is welcomed is Clause 44 which extends the provision of gratuities to certain Bantu employees of the Government. The increases as far as the attendance allowance is concerned, is another pleasing feature. These allowances have been considerably increased in terms of this Bill, and it is a matter which I believe deserves the fullest support and certainly will be most welcome to those persons who can qualify for that allowance. Those briefly are the most pleasing features of this Bill. And I am quite sure that every person who is interested in the welfare of the people who require some assistance from the Government, will welcome these concessions that have come forward at this stage.

Now there is the other aspect of this matter, and I am now going to deal with certain points which, I believe, are disappointing features as far as this Bill is concerned. First and foremost is the question of the rate of pension that is to be paid. We realize that the Government faces certain difficulties in regard to what they term the “inflationary periods” facing this country, and perhaps that is the reason why the Minister of Finance was unable to assist the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in being more liberal and more generous in his allocation of the very large surpluses that the Government has enjoyed. I believe that this increase of only R1 per month to our White social pensioners does nowhere near compensate the large increase in the cost-of-living. Sir, I am not interested to hear the percentages. We have heard them many times in this House. One only has to talk to an old-age pensioner who has to struggle to live on an old-age pension to realize the extreme difficulties they are having in order to eke out an existence on that rate of pensions. I believe that it is a great pity that the hon. Minister was unable to persuade the Minister of Finance to be more generous to these social pensioners. Many of these social pensioners have not had an increase since 1963. Under the system that was adopted of a special allowance in that year, approximately one-third of the social pensioners as far as the Whites were concerned qualified for the special allowance; two-thirds received an increase last year, but the one-third, the neediest of the needy who qualified in 1963 for a special allowance, have not had an increase since that year. Similarly we find that the Coloured persons have gained very little. If one studies the statistics that are made available, about 90 per cent of the Coloured pensioners received an increase in 1963, and therefore only 10 per cent received an increase last year. What do they receive in terms of the provisions of this Bill? An increase of 50 cents a month! I believe when we take into consideration the increase in the necessities of life, we can realize that this increase is a very small increase indeed. Sir, the very necessities of life, the cost of accommodation, the cost of clothing, the cost of food have all increased tremendously during the past two years, and I feel that the social pensioner deserves a far more generous act from the Government in regard to the pension that is payable in terms of this Bill.

I don’t want to stress this question of the plight of the aged. Every member of this House must know what the position is of these persons who are dependent for their livelihood on the social pension. These people have a tremendously difficult task to try and meet the necessities of life and they have to resort to receiving assistance from whatever source they might be able to receive assistance. I think a country such as South Africa, which is proud of being a young and wealthy country, could be far more generous towards these social pensioners.

The next feature which I believe is a disappointing feature concerns certain aspects of the relaxation of the means test. I mentioned earlier the consolidation of the allowance with the basic pension as far as the White social pensioners are concerned, and the increase that it has brought about in the means plus pension limitation, in other words, the raising of the means test. The figures show that where previously it was R324 (means plus pension limitation) in terms of this Bill it is increased to R528 per annum. That is a welcome concession, but unfortunately, the ratio which has previously been practised by this Government, and by past governments as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned, is no longer maintained. The ratio is not to remain one-half in terms of the means test, although the increase in pension and the pension payable to Coloureds and Indians remains one-half of the pension payable to the Whites. In terms of this Bill the maximum pension for Whites will be R28 per month and therefore the maximum social pension for the Coloureds and Indians will be R14 per month, but in terms of this Bill there has been no consolidation of the allowance with the basic pension as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned. Therefore the relaxation of the means test is virtually a concession only to the White social pensioner. This seems to be most unjust that although these people are to receive half of what the White social pensioners receive, the means test has not been appropriately relaxed as far as those groups are concerned. If you look at the White Paper, Sir, you will see that the question of the consolidation of the allowance into the basic pension is dealt with and it states that no such consolidation has taken place in their case. It says that the income plus pension limitation is being raised from R162 per annum to R168 per annum, an amount of R6 per year, which is equivalent to the increase that has been granted to them in terms of this Bill.

When the hon. Minister of Finance introduced his Budget speech, he mentioned that the concessions made, or to be made, to the White social pensions would also be extended in the usual ratio to the other racial groups. It would appear that the Government has had second thoughts about this aspect, or they did not intend at the time that the Minister of Finance delivered his Budget speech, to include these, persons so that they also should enjoy a consolidation of their allowance into the basic pension which would bring about a raising of the means test as far as they are concerned, and the means plus pension limitation would accordingly also be raised. So the position is that the means plus pension limitation for the White social pensioner has been raised to R528 per annum, whereas the Coloured and Indian means plus pension limitation has been raised from R162 per annum to R168 per annum, an amount of R6 per annum. The White social pensioners’ means plus pension limitation has been raised to the extent of R204 per annum. This hardly seems to be the ratio of 4: 2: 1, which is the ratio previously carried out by the Government in determining the amount to be paid to the various racial groups.

As far as the Bantu social pensioners are concerned, I believe the Government has taken a step which they possibly will regret in the future. Here the position was accepted for the Bantu living in the city areas, it costs him more to exist in that city area, and therefore they paid him an increased amount of pension in comparison with the Bantu living in the small towns and rural areas. The basis of pension at that time was R47.40 per annum for the Bantu in the city area, R41.40 for the Bantu in the towns and R35.50 per annum for the rural Bantu. Consequently, in terms of the provisions of this Bill the actual rate of pension for the city Bantu old age pensioner is being reduced. There is a saving clause which states that the Bantu residing in the city who is at present drawing the present rate of pension of R3.95 per month, or R47.40 per annum will continue to draw that amount provided he remains in the city. In the Committee Stage we intend to raise this matter again. However, it would seem very harsh treatment indeed to now discriminate against the future old age Bantu pensioner who qualifies for a pension in the city but will not receive R47.40 per annum but only R44.40 per annum, an amount of R3.70 per month. It would appear that this is a means that the Government is employing to endeavour to keep the Bantu out of the city and to keep them in the rural areas. I think it is a great pity that economic pressure of this nature has to be applied to bring about a political ideology.

A very good one.

You see, Mr. Speaker, they are prepared to go to the extent of reducing the actual rate of pension for the Bantu living in the cities. I believe that in all fairness to that group of persons who are voteless and voiceless, if the Government intended to consolidate these three amounts for administrative purposes, or for any purpose that they might deem necessary, they could at least have consolidated them at the present amount of R47.40 for the city Bantu. Why bring about a reduction in the rate of the pension? I feel that these people could have expected to have been treated more generously when we are dealing with a Bill which is making considerable concessions to other groups of social pensioners. This one group is singled out to receive worse treatment in terms of this Bill. The other feature which I believe is a disappointing feature is that although the Bill brings about a relaxation of the means test for war vetrans by the consolidation of the allowance with the basic pension, which raises the means plus pension limitation to an amount of R840 per annum, there appears to be no concession made concerning the assets and property permitted for the war veterans over 70 years of age. In the past the war veterans over 70 years have enjoyed an extended means test. The position is that these people will enjoy a concession as far as the means plus pension limitation is concerned, but there is evidently going to be no concession made to them in regard to the property that they are permitted to have.

Another point which I believe is perhaps a shortcoming in this Bill is that although provision is made to encourage a person to remain in employment—the inducement being that he shall delay his application for a pension and thereby qualify for the supplementary pension that is provided for in terms of this Bill—there seems to be no provision to assist the person who is self-employed. Here I believe that those older persons who show the initiative to be self-employed should receive the same consideration as those persons who continue in employment. It would appear that this is a shortcoming, and I hope that the hon. Minister will give some indication as to whether he is prepared to consider perhaps an amendment to this section in this clause whereby the person who is self-employed will also be able to enjoy the benefits of an increase in pension in terms of the clause dealing with the supplementary pensions, or at least shall be dealt with in such a way that he will not be discriminated against as would appear at the present time.

There is one last point in regard to this Bill. After having dealt with these aspects which I believe are disappointing features, there is the provision that is made in Clause 45. That clause also follows on an announcement made by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech that social pensions are to be extended to persons who are described as Natives in the Territory of South West Africa and the Eastern Caprivi Strip. The Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that social aid schemes were to be introduced for the indigent population of South West Africa, and the Eastern Caprivi Strip and it would involve the country in an expense of R 150,000 per annum. It does appear strange that this particular group of persons in the Territory of South West Africa should now be able to enjoy the benefits that are enjoyed by the Bantu living in South Africa. I listened to the hon. Minister’s introductory speech and I was hoping that we would get some clarification or justification of the extension of these privileges and of these grants, not only the social grants as far as pensions are concerned, but also maintenance grants and other allowances under the Children’s Act of 1960. It appears to be a general social relief measure for these persons living in the Territory of South West Africa. Therefore I hope that when the hon. Minister replies to file second reading of this debate, he will be able to give us some indication of and some justification for the expenditure of this amount on these persons in the Territory of South West Africa. Depending on the explanation of the hon. Minister we will reserve judgment as to whether we should support this step or not.

The overall position in regard to this Bill is that we welcome the Bill in that it will bring relief to persons who require relief from this Government, and we do hope that these people who are people who have toiled for their country, people who can expect the Government to assist them in their time of need, will go a good deal of the way towards alleviating the plight of those many persons who in the past have just failed to qualify for a pension, and I am of course particularly referring to the relaxation of the means test. That briefly is the situation as far as this side of the House is concerned. We support the second reading of this Bill and we hope that during the Committee Stage we might be able to elicit more information from the hon. Minister concerning various clauses.

Two promises made by the hon. Minister in his introductory speech were certainly very welcome as far as I am concerned. The first was that he promised that the Department would revise all the supplementary pensions. I was very concerned as to what the position would be in regard to this matter, and I hope that they have the staff to give effect to this. The next point I was pleased with was his assurance that the door was not closed for future improvements in pensions. I realize how much work has gone into this particular Bill by the Department and the Minister, and I did fear that we were going to be told that this was the last word for a few years, and that just in the ordinary course of parliamentary business he would courteously listen to further representations in years to come, but that they would be pushed aside. I am very pleased indeed that he has given us the assurance that the door is not closed to any possible future suggestions for improvements.

One could not possibly vote against this Bill, nor could one possibly say that the Minister has next given of his best in regard to it. It would be childish to suggest such a thing. The Bill contains several improvements for which we have been pressing for years, particularly in regard to war-disabled pensioners and war veteran pensioners, and we are very pleased with these particular improvements. However, I am not going to go on singing the praise of the hon. the Minister. One must realize that .this legislation is not only for the older generation who are naturally dying off. The Minister, in reply to a question this morning gave some figures in regard to war veterans’ pensions enjoyed by the Boer War chaps and, in the space of a year, there has been a considerable drop in the amount which has been spent on this particular subject. That is what we all anticipated would happen as the years went by, that our payments in regard to war veteran pensions would, in the natural course of things, dwindle and dwindle. But now, as a result of developments in the world, we are in the position that our war pensions legislation does not apply only to the men who served in past wars, but also applies to the chaps who are being trained at present, including our A.C.F. men, to whom the present War Pensions Act applies. And this matter cannot be regarded as static. All the time we are learning and with the number of men we have in our camps, there will be the usual number of casualties under such training conditions. So this is probably no longer a dwindling number that the Department will have to deal with—I hope it is going to dwindle, but it is quite possible that the number in the years to come will not dwindle any further, and, if real trouble is going to come, then, of course, the country must know that its war pensions provisions are adequate.

Now I am coming to my complaints, Mr. Speaker. We received a White Paper on Saturday last; we did not get the Bill until about half-past 12 to-day. Now this matter is so involved that it requires a lot of attention. How on earth we were supposed to examine this matter with all its complications thoroughly in a couple of hours’ time, I just do not know. The War Pensions Act is a most complicated bit of legislation, and the fist 31 clauses of this Bill deal with amendments to the War Pensions Act, and the only organization outside the Department that knows anything about these war pension laws is our South African Legion and, despite all efforts, and very strenuous efforts, we have not been able to take advantage of their expert knowledge. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, resent treatment like this. This is a most important matter, and I do resent having to deal with a matter as important as this at such short notice. I accept that the hon. Minister has made a genuine effort to improve the Act and to ease the administration. I was afraid that it would be probably years before we could get further amendments, but I am grateful that he has taken that fear out of my mind by his assurances in his introductory speech. I repeat that the treatment of the affairs of ex-volunteers and future trainees in this manner is. I must say, to me inexplicable. Let me give you one instance where the Minister has not acted. He knows what I am coming to, my old friend, the time, limits the infamous time limits, under which volunteers are penalized if they marry ten years after discharge—then their wives are not eligible for a pension, and no children’s allowances are paid if children are born more than ten years after discharge. There are other points to which we object. I simply mention this one to show that we really have not had the time to go into these matters properly. Another one is the amendment to Sections 6 and 7 that removes from a Bantu ex-serviceman the right to a gratuity, and the grounds on which this right into a gratuity is removed are given in the White Paper in Section 5: “No gratuities have been paid for a number of years.” I, for one, do not accept that that is a good reason for removing a benefit. The fact that no payments have been paid for a number of years does not mean that no such benefits are not due to various people. It simply means that they do not know about them. If there are such individuals, they should be entitled to that gratuity, and should not at this stage have it removed.

I want to read a quotation from a letter I received from the South African Legion of the B.E.S.L. on 3 May, in the reply to the first White Paper that was issued in regard to the matter. This is what they say—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister in his reply please to let me know whether the reading of that provision is correct.

Now let me turn to the real benefits being given under this Bill and become friendly to the hon. the Minister again. The bringing of woman volunteers into line is something which has been asked for for years, and I am very glad that the hon. Minister has taken the bit between his teeth and has placed the female volunteers into the same category as the male volunteers in regard to war pensions. We do appreciate too particularly the new Clause 37 where the definition of “war veteran” is now being extended. The White Paper reads—

We have been pressing for that for years and we are very grateful to the Minister for having granted our request. Then I come to Section 38 which is certainly an improvement for which we are grateful. I won’t read it all, but it says in the White Paper—-

I heard one hon. member saying that this addition should not be given to these ex-volunteers, and he was almost coughing venom. I wonder what he has got to say to the Minister’s giving this benefit which follows the normal course of giving benefits to ex-servicemen in this country. The White ex-volunteer gets this extra allowance of R96 and now at last the Minister brings the Indian and Coloured ex-volunteer into the picture as “war veterans” and they get an extra R48 per annum. I for one, contrary, I know, to the desires of hon. members on the other side, am very pleased with the Minister, for this particular provision.

I cannot understand why the Minister is still ignoring the Bantu ex-servicemen. In regard to pensions it has always been accepted that pensions would be in the ratio of 4: 2: 1. Now in regard to war veterans’ special allowances the Minister has brought in four for the White volunteers, two for the Coloureds and Indians and he still ignores the Black man, and there is no provision anywhere for a war veterans’ pension for the Black. To me it seems to be based on the idea that for ever the Black man is our enemy, whereas we know that in the past he served with us, and I feel, and I am sure all my colleagues feel that the Minister should give great thought to this matter of giving an allowance to Bantu ex-volunteers, even if it annoys some of his followers. I know that in the First War all the Blacks who served with our Forces were not volunteers but labourers and there is no mention of Africans in any of the laws relating to War Pensions of the First War, but in the last war the Africans were regarded as volunteers and they are provided for under the War Pensions Act, and while I admit again that the War Veterans’ pensions do not come under the War Pensions Act, I think the Minister is being shortsighted in not agreeing to give them some sort of war veterans’ allowance. It seems to me more than ungracious not to give this matter consideration.

Sir. I have told you about the good things in this Bill, and they far outweigh the bad things. Really, the essence of my complaint is that I have not been given the opportunity of going into this Bill with experts thoroughly. One does not want to be hypercritical because I know that behind this Bill is the desire to help, but the fact remains that we have not been given the opportunity to study it. I want to come back to one point my colleague mentioned, and that is in regard to the concessions to social pensioners and war pensioners. The White Paper says that it is also proposed to introduce social assistance schemes from 1 April 1965 for the African people in South West Africa and the Caprivi on the same basis as that in operation in the Republic; these assistance schemes include the payment of old-age pensions, pensions for the blind, allowances under the Children’s Act and allowances for lepers. I am not prepared to say that I will not vote in favour of this, but we have not been told what is behind this and why this should be done, nor has the Minister told us to-night why he has brought this in. I hope he will tell us more about this matter and the reasons for it in his reply, because we really do not understand what it is all about.

In conclusion, may I repeat that in my opinion this Bill is a sincere effort to improve the war pensions and the old-age pensions, but I must repeat that I am very sorry that we were not given time to digest it thoroughly, because there are other necessary improvements which we are almost sure could have been made.

I know it is not necessary for us on this side of the House to participate in the debate, but there are a few remarks which I should like to make. Besides all the tributes which have been paid by hon. members opposite, I feel that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not express the pleasure of this side of the House at the great improvements which have been effected in this regard. But I do not rise for this reason. Nor do I rise to remark upon what hon. members opposite have said. I feel compelled to draw attention to a few matters.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) expressed his disappointment at the fact that the allowances which have been made are not more generous. I can say in this connection that we do not adopt the fundamental attitude of the so-called welfare state. We give these pensions to the old people as a supplement, to assist them where it is absolutely necessary to do so. We do not want them to think that when they become old they can simply become a burden on the State. Every citizen in South Africa should know that he must save during his lifetime so that he can make provision for his old age. If he has not been able to make adequate provision in this regard, the State is prepared to supplement what provision he has made. But we must not adopt the attitude that it is a question of right that when a person reaches a certain age, the State has to help him. That would be a welfare state and every old person would simply be a burden on the State. I cannot associate myself with this idea.

The hon. member expressed his disappointment at the fact that as far as the means test is concerned, it is so small as far as the Coloured and the Indian are concerned. We must remember that both the Indian and the Coloured live at a very much lower level than the White man and their income is also on a smaller scale. If one were to make increases in their case on a scale equal to that of the Whites, one would include more than half of the Indians and the Coloureds and they would have to be paid pensions: It is for that reason that this simply cannot be done.

A few remarks have also bee made about the Bantu. I just want to tell the hon. member for his edification why this system has been changed in this way. We are following a policy of separate development, to make very good housing available for the aged in the Bantu areas, and it has so happened that many of the old people living in the cities have told us that they would like to spend their last days in their homelands, but that they feel that they will be penalizing themselves because they will then receive a smaller pension. The idea behind this provision is not at all as the hon. member has tried to suggest—that this is a measure to prevent the Bantu going to the cities. On the contrary, it is to assist the Bantu to resettle in their homeland. Special provision for the aged is being made in numbers of the townships which are now being established in the homelands. It is in order to assist them that this arrangement has been made.

Mention has also been made of the Caprivi Bantu. There is a simple explanation in this regard. The Caprivi is administered from Pretoria, while the rest of South West Africa is administered from Windhoek. Because they are administered from Pretoria, we must treat them in the same way as the Bantu in the Republic are treated.

There is one disappointment which I have in regard to this Bill and which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and this is actually my reason for rising to speak. Hon. members will remember that in his Budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned the fact that consideration was being given to the question of the payment of war veterans’ pensions to the civilians who protested in 1914.

Oh, the rebels!

Yes, you can call them rebels. I am descended from those people and I owe them some measure of loyalty. Thereafter, and during the debate on the hon. the Minister’s Vote, I asked whether consideration had been given to the matter and whether we could accept the fact that it had been approved in principle. I assume that it is on account of certain practical difficulties that this provision is not in this Bill. I would very much have liked to have seen this provision in this Bill. I understand that the difficulty may perhaps be the question of being able to identify these protesting civilians to enable pensions to be paid to them, but it is very easy to identify them. Most of those people were tried in the courts and a large number were sent to gaol. You will remember that a fund was set up, the Helpmekaar Fund, to pay the fines imposed upon those civilians because they did not have the money to pay the fines themselves. It can very easily be ascertained from the court records who those protesting civilians were, and the onus of proof can also be placed upon them to prove their identity. I want to appeal once again that this matter be given serious consideration. Most of them have already reached the old age pension stage, but I think that we have a duty towards those people because they fought for the ideal which triumphed in South Africa, the ideal which resulted in the establishment of the Republic of South Africa. That is why I think that they should be given particular attention. They fought for a Republic in South Africa and this was only achieved 50 years later. While on this subject, I want once again to mention the camp mothers and the camp children who ought also to receive attention under this Bill. Many of those children were exiled to Bermuda at the age of 13 and 14 years, together with their fathers. War veterans’ pensions are payable to these persons, but there were many lads of the same age who fled with their mothers across the veld of South Africa, or who were sent to concentration camps, and they receive nothing to-day. I appeal for them too.

I think I would be guilty of immoderate language if I adequately replied to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). The trouble is that the hon. member is still fighting the Rebellion and the Boer War and we are fighting for unity in this country. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I do not intend voting for the second reading of the Bill, but before I give my reasons I want to say that I have battled for the additional benefits for the Coloured that have been given to the Whites and for improvements in certain respects, but this Bill reeks of discrimination, clause after clause. Just look at the White Paper. I am ashamed to see it in print, where it says that this Bill is intended to increase the basic pensions and allowances payable to certain persons so that the ratio of the amounts payable to Whites and non-Whites other than Bantu shall be four: two: one. Sir, if you will permit me to refer to the gallant part the Coloured people played in the defence of South Africa, I am entitled to say that when the call came these people answered it as loyal South Africans and they went overseas and to East Africa in defence of this their country. They were maimed and wounded and lost their arms, legs and sight and some were killed and left widows. Are they to be in a less favoured position than the White man who went over? What justification is there for a man who has fought for his country and comes back, having lost the ability to earn his living through wounds, that he should receive less pension than the White man? I have raised these questions before. My views are well known and I do not want to make a long speech on that aspect of it. but I say that if an hon. member of this House can plead for pensions for people who fought against South Africa, I am entitled to plead with greater emphasis for pensions for people who fought for South Africa.

Order!

I will leave the war pensions alone. I want to refer to several clauses where the White man gets so much and the Coloured man gets so much, but I want to refer particularly to Clause 32. Here I think the Minister and the Government have shown scant regard for the Coloured people of South Africa. [Interjections.] If the hon. member can justify the discrimination set out in Clause 32, he will have some job, because he cannot do it.

That has been the policy of all Governments. Why did you not plead for it when you were in the United Party? Who started the formula?

Who started the war? Let us deal with Clause 32 and the means test. It says here that no pension granted under sub-section (1) shall be at such a rate as will make the pensioner’s income or means together with the pension exceed in the case of a White person R528 p.a.. and in the case of a Coloured person or an Indian. R168. What justification is there for this discrimination? There has been an increase for the White person. The means test as far as the White man is concerned has improved, but not for the Coloured man, and what justification is there for that? If there is an increase for one section it should also apply to the other section and it should be put into the law. There is no explanation for this. The White Paper deals with Clause 32. It says that the additional pension allowance of R180 per annum paid in respect of social pensions falls away and it goes on to say that income plus pension limitations will be increased from R324 to R528 per annum, and then it goes on to say that the maximum pension will not be increased and that the additional allowances for Coloureds and Indians will be increased from R90 to R96. I think the hon. member for Umbilo was quite right in drawing the attention of the House to the fact that these people are as affected as anybody else by the increased cost of living. The essentials of life cost the same for the Coloured as for the White man. You have acknowledged the fact that there is an increase in the cost of living, and that there has to be an increase in pensions. but you will not acknowledge it for the Coloured man. Why not? What justification is there for it? I say it is wrong in every possible way for us not to acknowledge that the aged Coloured person has to live and should be provided for. The hon. member for Heilbron mentioned that we must not be a welfare state. I think he stated the proposition that people should have made provision for their old age, but it is the very person who did make provision for his old age who suffers. The indolent person, the man who would not work, is looked after, but the man who in fact tried to uplift himself economically so that one day his widow and children should have a home is being prejudiced. So that argument does not hold water, and it is for these people that I am pleading. A person should not be prejudiced because he made provision for his old age. I cannot understand why the man who did not work should be in a better position than the one who tried to save something.

Read the Act.

I have read sufficient of it to justify the claim I have made that there is discrimination right through. Hon. members who have studied it. like the hon. member for Benoni, have confirmed my point of view. I only want to say that in order to show my. gross opposition and my contempt of this continued discrimination . . .

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

I withdraw the word “contempt”, but I would be failing in my duty as a Representative of the Coloured people if I did not show my opposition to this continued discrimination. I want to conclude by saying that I thank the Minister for the improvements he made, but it does not compensate for the continued discrimination to which I object.

I do not want to reply to what has been said by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I only hope that the pensioners outside this House, both military and civil, will take note of what he has said and will deal with him just as the Ossewa Brandwag dealt with him and that was with a sjambok.

What do you mean?

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am very sorry that we have had so little time to examine this important Bill.

Order! Every hon. member who has already spoken has made that point.

Then I want to say that it is a pity that such an important measure has been placed before us at this late stage.

That point has also been made at least ten times.

The hon. the Minister has said that these are concessions, but he emphasized the fact twice that they were very small, and we heartily agree with him. The concessions are particularly small and we hope that when he considers these matters again he will think bigger. I want to support my colleagues and say that we think that half a loaf is better than no bread, and we are very grateful in this regard.

These concessions are aimed at easing the lot of those who suffered war disabilities, and also at easing the lot of widows and children, but there is one group of pensioners whom the hon. the Minister has forgotten completely. The hon. the Minister said that we should make suggestions and I want to do just that. The group I am thinking about are the widows of deceased soldiers of the last two world wars, women who later remarried and thus lost their allowances and their pensions. But some of these also lost their second husbands by death and others were divorced, and there is no way in which they can be paid those pensions again. Many of them are struggling. It is argued that they remarried, but we are in favour of a family life and we are very pleased that they remarried. If their first husbands had not died, they would not have remarried and so they would not have lost their second husbands either by death or through divorce. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all earnestness to reconsider the lot of this group of widows and to see whether it is not possible for them to be repaid the pension which they had to forfeit when they married for the second time.

For the rest, we are very pleased at the concessions that have been made, but I hope that the hon. the Minister will not again come along here and tell us that the concessions he has made are small.

I wish to refute two of the remarks made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). He first of all spoke about a welfare state and said that they on that side had never advocated a welfare state.

Order! The welfare state should not be debated here.

Then may I point out that the increases which we welcome in this Bill are nowhere near what they should have been. The second point is that the hon. member for Heilbron mentioned that the urban Bantu will be encouraged to return to their homelands. I want to refute the argument that the aged urban Bantu should return to their homelands, because there are many of them who have lived all their lives in the Bantu townships around the cities in South Africa and they have lost all contact with their homelands and they have no families to return to. Having lost all touch, if they are sent back to their homelands they will be friendless and they will starve. May I say that together with my colleagues on this side, T, too, welcome this Bill and the principles established in it and the improvements. I wish to say that as far as the Minister’s introduction of the Bill is concerned, I was listening for one point to be mentioned, and that is that there would be an increase in the pensions for urban Bantu. I welcome the principle of deferred pensions. It is a very good move in order to encourage and persuade people to continue working after reaching the pensionable age. It is not since the years that followed the war when tuberculosis was widespread not only here but throughout the world that our social welfare structures both here and overseas have faced such difficulties as at present when the social welfare resources are being increasingly strained by the needs of the old-age pensioner. The problems arising from T.B. were alleviated by the success of the medical profession, but I would like to point out that there is no cure for the aged and in fact our very success in prolonging the expectancy of life has contributed to the growing problem, the financial and- other problems, of the aged; we have a greatly increasing aged population to-day, and with inflation continuing these people are rightly concerned for the future, and so are the welfare organizations that assist them. I am sure the Minister is aware of the recent figures from the welfare organizations. They say that during the past ten years these figures have been accepted also by lands overseas. The number of old-age pensioners who require help from funds has not doubled but has nearly trebled, while over the same period the number of cases has grown slightly in other respects. As the result of this, over half the number of old-age pensioners have to be assisted by welfare organizations. This is not all, because the cost per case is rising more steeply. It is rising in their case more than in the case of any other group, with the result that the funds spent over the last ten years have risen about four times. The increasing cost for old-age pensioners is very understandable when it is seen that the average age at which we give them help is rising and the economic impact of even minor aid to them becomes a matter of increasing importance, and even minor ailments constitute an important difficulty, and that is why they need increased help. There is a steep rise in the number of people between 70 and 79 years of age, and there is a fourfold increase in those over 80, and many of these people are very frail. One finds that the geriatric wards in the hospitals are full and they have little room for cases of chronic illness, and the old people have a dislike of public assistance. It is for all these reasons that I am asking the Minister to consider the real problems of these people to increase their pensions next year. I feel that in asking for this the general assessment of the Budget as incorporated in the 47 clauses of the Bill which amend nine Acts of Parliament have taken steps to ease the means test for the pensioners, and that we welcome, but nevertheless I feel that the harsh state of affairs which existed before has been alleviated only slightly by the improvements in this Bill. I want to concentrate particularly on the plight of the urban Bantu. It has already been stated that the Coloureds and the Indians are included in these adjustments in this Bill, but the Bantu pensioner will only get a uniform rate of R3.70 a month wherever he lives, whether he is a rural resident or a town resident, or whether he is an urban resident, and it means a drop in the city Bantu’s present pension of R3.95. But in future the urban Bantu pensioner will only get R3.70. The cost of living is rising. I should like to quote from the S.A. Institute of Race Relations . . .

Order! The hon. member is going too far away from the Bill.

May I point out that in 1944 the amount of food that cost R2.85 now costs R5.17? This is very important to the Bantu pensioner who is trying to live on this very small amount. I feel that the original criticism of the Minister of Finance’s announcements on pensions which are incorporated in this Bill was that the White pensioners would get a nominal improvement of only RI. I think we could have an equally serious criticism and that is that the adjustment for the Bantu is microscopic.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.