I move—

I move—

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Instruction stated to Committee.

Clause 1,

I move—

(vii) “Republic” includes the territory of South West Africa.

Agreed to.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

In doing so, I should like to put to the House the effect of this amendment if it is adopted. It would amount to the administration of this Act by the Minister of the Interior rather than the Minister of Justice. I do this because if a state of emergency should be declared in the Republic to-morrow I ask myself whether this Minister could in fact administer this Act to the full. I do not believe he can. That is not a personal reflection on the Minister of Justice, but I envisage this Minister being completely occupied in his capacity as Minister of Justice with the conditions which would in fact create the emergency. Those are listed in the Bill. A state of emergency means a state which exists during a state of emergency referred to in Section 2 of the Public Safety Act, 1953. Those are quite clear; and any action or threatened action by any persons or bodies of persons in any area within the Republic which threatens the safety of the public and the maintenance of public order. The other one is where circumstances have arisen in the Republic or any area within the Republic which seriously threatens the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order. Then there is the ordinary law of the land which enables the Government to ensure the safety of the public or to maintain public order. In addition to that, a time of war is allowed for, and other conditions which would amount to a state of emergency. In any of those conditions this Minister would surely be so fully involved that he would not have the time to apply himself properly to the implementation of this Emergency Planning Act, which is designed to protect the ordinary people and the commerce and industry and the orderly procedures of government in the country in a time of emergency. The Minister, in his brief reply to the debate on the second reading yesterday, indicated that in the case of water it was not his job to know anything about water; his job was purely to co-ordinate existing services. Sir, what better department than the Department of the Interior is there; it is designed to do exactly that job in ordinary times, and I should imagine it would be very much better able to do it in a time of emergency because it is accustomed to dealing with provincial and local authorities? But this Minister will have to start de novo. He will have to start right from the beginning, whereas the Department of the Interior surely has these links established already in normal times. So I contend that the co-ordination of fire services, water services, local transportation systems, the operation of hospitals, are surely the work of the Minister of the Interior and not that of the Minister of Justice. In addition, this Minister is obviously going to expect from the local authorities I have mentioned, the financing of a large part of the duties he would expect them to perform. They will have to use their employees to perform these duties. Already there is surely sufficient liaison between the Minister of the Interior and the local authorities, without starting up a new liaison such as the Minister of Justice would have to do. It exists already; why go and look for it in another form? I contend that this House should very seriously consider this amendment. It is not put lightly. I have not resorted to saying that I believe this Minister is already entrused with sufficient powers and I would not like to see him being given more powers. I have left that argument out of my opening address on this clause because I honestly believe that this Bill is being placed under the care of the wrong Minister—not wrong from the point of view of the Minister, but from the point of view of the organization of this Department. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to accepting this amendment. I think that would leave him freer in a time of emergency to get on with his own job of work, which is already big enough. From the picture he has painted in the past, his hands are already full in dealing with such things as crime and sabotage and Communism.

On a point of order, Sir, is this amendment in order? At the second reading the principle was accepted that the Act should fall under the Minister of Justice. Now there is an amendment that another Minister should handle it. I submit that if this amendment is accepted, the principle adopted at the second reading will be negatived.

The hon. member may proceed.

Obviously that was quite a frivolous point of order, designed to get away from the point I was trying to make, and I hope the hon. member will not raise any other frivolous objections of this nature. We want to see this Act implemented properly. If we are going to have emergency planning, let it be done by the Department which is best equipped for it and which has the liaison and the existing controls in all directions, properly to co-ordinate and implement the provisions of this Act.

I just want to ask the Minister to explain to this Committee why he has included the influx of refugees in the definition of the word “disaster”. This is a new inclusion which did not appear in the original Bill which was submitted to the House last session, and I think we are entitled to some explanation.

The hon. member for Umlazi tried to make out a case that the Bill should not fall under the Minister of Justice, but under the Minister of the Interior. Let me say at once that an equally good case can be made out that it should fall under the Minister of Health, because this matter concerns him to a much greater extent than it does any other Minister. A particularly good case can also be made out that it should fall under the Minister of Defence, seeing that it is very closely connected with defence. Let me say this to the hon. member in all confidence. To show why I should not be charged with this matter, I submitted a much stronger plea to the Cabinet than the one he made here, and in spite of the many reasons I advanced, the Cabinet decided that I was to be charged with it, and that is how I accept it. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. The arguments advanced by the hon. member have some substance, except that they are based on one false premise, and no matter how fine the argument seemed to me it is still based on a false premise, and that is that the Minister of the Interior is merely the link between the Central Government and the provinces. He has very few, if any, direct powers of intervention in or control over the affairs of the provinces. He is merely the channel between the provinces and the Central Government. In addition the hon. member based his argument on the premise that it had to fall under the Department of the Interior because the latter had the necessary contacts, but at this stage contacts are of no importance whatsoever, because such contact as bad to be made between this emergency planning organization, the provinces and the local authorities has already been made. It is not something which still has to be done in the future. It is not something which has to be sought only when a state of emergency has arisen. The contacts have already been made and the skeleton organization is already in operation, as I have said before. It is not something which must still be established or lies in the distant future; all these things have already been done. For that reason, although the hon. member has made out a good case, for which I want to give him full credit. I can only tell him that the Cabinet decided that it should be so and I am sorry that I cannot accompany the hon. member any further along that road.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me why we were visualizing the influx of people as a state of emergency. The answer is quite simple. Experience has shown, in the Congo and in other African states, as well as in many other countries of the world, that when there is any major cataclysm in any of one’s neighbouring states, it frequently results in many thousands of people—and in some cases in Africa it has even been hundreds of thousands of people—simply swarming over one’s borders without one’s being able to stop them or having had anything to do with it; and these people can present one with a terrible problem. It can disrupt everything. It can result in tremendous health problems. It can give rise to a much worse state of emergency than any of the others one can visualize. For that reason, because we have learnt from experience, it is necessary that we should make provision in advance in case one has to deal with such a contingency.

I want to say at once that in spite of the fact that the Minister says it is a Cabinet decision that he should handle this Act. I think that is one of the bad Cabinet decisions. The Minister goes a long way towards agreeing with me that he should in fact not handle this. If one looks later in the Bill at the powers of delegation that the Minister has, this worries me quite a lot. He has not the power to delegate to other Ministers, as I understand it. He has the power to delegate to officials. I believe that the Minister of the Interior will be in a far better position to do that than this Minister because he has more links with the provincial authorities, and through them with the local authorities.

You cannot delegate to other Ministers; you can delegate to officials of that Department.

Cannot the Minister delegate to another Minister the power to appoint people to do specific jobs?

No.

Well, I still believe that a mistake has been made here, but unfortunately I must accept what the Minister says.

I may just say that apart from many other considerations, the decisive consideration on the part of the Cabinet was the fact that in such a state of emergency not only the police would fall under the Minister of Justice, but also, to a major extent, the Police Reservist Organization, which has expanded tremendously in recent times, and on which one would have to lean to an increasing extent in such a state emergency. Owing to the fact that they fall under the control of this Ministry, it is necessary that there should be the closest liaison between the organizations, and that can best be achieved when they fall under one Ministry. That was the consideration.

Amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis put and negatived and amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

I move as an amendment—

I wonder whether the Minister would indicate why it is that he only wishes in sub-section (2) (c) to designate to officers of Departments of State the performance of functions in connection with any matter referred to in Clause 3. When one looks at Clause 3 one sees mention particularly of fire-fighting, which is the function of a local authority. Has the Minister considered whether the proper officer in an area like Cape Town or Durban to whom such power should be designated should not in fact be an officer in the employ of the Corporation, rather than in the employ of the State?

But he is such an officer. He will be the man responsible. They have already been appointed.

The clause as it reads says that the Minister may designate any officer attached to any Department of State. That means that he may not designate an officer attached to anything that is not a Department of State, and then he may only do so after he has consulted with the Minister of the Department in question. That is my point. A local authority is not a Department of State. I wonder whether the Minister would indicate whether this does not in fact restrict his powers to designate an official like the fire chief of a municipality.

No, on the contrary, what the hon. member for Durban (North) has in mind should be done, has already been done. Discussions were held with all local authorities, and during the Second Reading debate I mentioned the example that engineers employed by local authorities would co-ordinate fire-fighting in any particular area, and that it would be under their control. What the hon. member is confusing here, are on the one hand, the work that has to be done and, on the other hand, the principles set out in Clause 3, which is the direction in which the Department should work, and those are two completely different things.

Do I understand the hon. the Minister to mean that in those circum stances the fire-master, who is really responsible to the city council of a particular town, would be responsible in this instance to someone else designated outside the municipal service? I think it is confusing because Clause 2 says they shall appoint persons who are competent and able to do the particular job for which they are appointed, but now we are designating officers attached to any Department of State. What are they designated to do? Are they, for instance, going to give instructions to the medical officer of health who is in the employ of the council, or will they give instructions to the chief engineer in the employ of the municipality and under whom the fire-master falls, or to the water engineer responsible for water supplies, or to the manager of Bantu Affairs, or to the caretakers of the Coloured townships? I think if the Minister could just give us some indication of what he really means as to who is to be designated, and what he will be designated to do, we will be much happier.

Firstly, I shall explain again what happens in practice. In practice the Director maintained liaison with the local authorities, because this organization concerns the local authorities as much as, if not more than, any other person, for the disaster or the fire that may occur will be in the area of that local authority, and whether or not this Act exists, it will be the duty and the function of the local authority to combat those fires. That is its duty and its function under normal conditions, and it will always remain that. However, what are we visualizing now? We visualize that a local authority is under normal circumstances so organized as to combat the normal quota of fires which occur in its area. But in a state of emergency one must visualize that more than the normal quota of fires will occur, which may mean that the machinery of a local authority will be inadequate for combating all those fires. In other words, all one is doing here is to render assistance to that local authority, and what can the nature of such assistance be? It can be either of two things. It can be that as a Central Government, because one visualizes that the local authority might have to deal with an abnormal situation with which it is unable to cope owing to lack of funds, one grants assistance to that local authority so that it may purchase more equipment than it has at its disposal at the moment so as to enable it to combat those fires, or that one helps it to train sufficient people to operate the machinery so that they may be able to combat those fires. Hon. members know what the present position is. A city council cannot go out of its area to help in combating a fire, and even if it can it is sometimes unwilling to do so. One can now assist a local authority by taking the necessary powers to compel neighbouring local authorities to pool their machinery in order to have an effective force to extinguish fires which have broken out in the area of one local authority, provided that such fires have not broken out in the areas of such neighbouring local authorities as well. How ever, seeing that one has to deal with various local authorities, one cannot have divided commands; then nothing will be achieved. For that reason, where one has to deal with various authorities such as in the Cape Peninsula or on the Rand, one simply has to solve the difficulty by appointing one person to serve as liaison officer. That is what is being done in this case.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Order! I regret that I cannot accept the amendment as it would involve increased expenditure requiring the State President’s recommendation, but I would point out to the hon. member that the same object can be achieved under Items VI and VII.

If you will allow me, Sir, I should like to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that if it were not for your ruling I would have accepted her amendment. But she can rest assured that the matters she has in mind will in fact be fully catered for. It is not necessary to have an amendment of this kind incorporated in the Bill to achieve the object she has in mind.

I thank the Minister for saying what he did and that he will deal with these matters in his own way later in the Bill. I am sure the Minister will accept that my only motive in moving this was that although schooling is obviously a provincial matter, the initiative must lie with the Minister in terms of this Bill.

Yes, that will be taken care of.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

I do so because Clause 3 provides that the Minister may, without prejudice to the aforesaid general powers (aa), direct any person to furnish him with certain information and statistics. Now, that has no relation to the existence of a state of emergency. I take it is preparatory to the setting up of the Directorate that certain information is necessary and has to be collated. In (bb) the powers are restricted, to be used only in a state of emergency.

No, it applies both before and afterwards.

Yes. And (cc) again provides an open authority to act at any time and to give certain directions. Now it seems to me that the details required under (aa) should normally be available to the Department of Census and Statistics. If the Minister wishes in normal times to have persons disclose additional information, then that desire to have additional information should be publicized by notice in the Gazette. It will be to supplement the information which is already available in the Department of Census and Statistics. Similarly, in (cc), where again there is a power to direct certain activity on behalf of industry, where that is not done in a state of emergency, similarly the directive should be publicized by publication in the Gazette. For those reasons I move this amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot understand the point made by the hon. member. Let me tell the hon. member that we have already obtained from the industrialists and manufacturers concerned much of the information to which the clauses in question refer and that there has not yet been a single one of them who has complained to us or who has refused his co-operation in this regard. These people are only too grateful to be able to co-operate in this regard. I also want to point out to the hon. member that these articles are, of course, of importance not only before a state of emergency, but also after a state of emergency. If we were to accept the hon. member’s amendment, we would defeat our whole purpose. One cannot tell company X by means of a notice in the Gazette, “You must supply me with the following requirements.” One can merely publish a general notice, which will be of no avail. Let me give the hon. member an example. I have already mentioned the example of the hospital. One should visualize that one might have to erect an emergency hospital one day. To do that one must have the necessary beds; one must have the necessary medicaments and the necessary cooking facilities. All that we are visualizing here is this: I approach a firm and I inquire about the number of beds that firm keeps in stock and I enquire about the number of beds I can get from that firm in case a state of emergency should arise. One obtains the same information from firms B and C and one files it. If a state of emergency should then arise, one would not have to run hither and thither in order to find out where those articles might be obtained; one would know exactly where these articles are obtainable. One keeps one’s information up to date and one knows exactly where to find what one requires. That is what we have in mind here. We are not concerned with the secrets of people as regards their work or business. It is merely a question of stock-taking with a view to emergency stocks one may require in the future. The firms have no objection to disclosing these things to us and to revealing what stocks they have. On the contrary, it is good business for them, because when the goods have to be sold one day, they will be the people who will sell them to one.

I want to raise three matters here. First is with regard to the question of what shall be asked of business concerns. Amongst the things which they can be required to disclose is their turnover. I cannot see how the turnover of a business can possibly be of interest to the Minister in regard to emergency planning. If it were a question of output or stock or goods produced then I could see the point, but the pure question of turnover, the question as to what a shop makes as far as sales are concerned, appears to be a matter which is not related to a state of emergency. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any specific reason for this. I have not yet moved an amendment. I first want to hear whether the Minister is prepared to drop the word “turnover” because the use of this word does create some suspicion in industry and commerce.

Then the same clause deals with the question of compensation and it provides that compensation shall be determined by the Minister. With due respect, I would like to submit that the Minister of Justice is not the most qualified person to determine the compensation to be paid to an industry or to a commercial undertaking for damages caused through action taken to ensure the safety of the State. Here I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to consider making provision for an advisory committee comprising representatives of commerce, industry and the Department of Commerce and Industry to advise him on the question of compensation. Having heard my views he may be prepared to introduce such an amendment himself in the Other Place. In practice, obviously, it will not be the Minister who will determine the compensation; it will be one of his officials. His officials are trained specifically in the field of justice, crime prevention and so on. I suggest that there are very few of his officials who are qualified in the field of finance or economics and who therefore would be ideally suited to determine the compensation to be paid.

To which clause are you referring?

Sub-section (bb). It would require no amendment to the power of the Minister to appoint committees. It would merely mean the addition of the words “in consultation with a committee appointed for the purpose”.

Whilst dealing with this same question of compensation I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any reason why in sub-section (cc) he has not made any provision for compensation flowing from a direction to an industry to perform any act. Compensation is provided for in Clause 8, but here and in Clause 4 compensation is excluded. There is an over-all power to compensate, but there is a specific exclusion of compensation in cases where the Minister directs someone to carry out work or where, as the result of such direction, injury or loss is suffered by a firm. Take the case where the Minister issues an instruction to a factory. The example was given to me of a corsetry and brassiere manufacturing company, which one would say does not manufacture an essential product in time of war. Let us assume—as happened in the last war—that they are instructed to stop making brassieres and to make parachutes instead. I can imagine that parachutes were very useful in time of war, but the normal manufacturing activity of that particular firm ceased in the interests of the State. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that where in the interests of the security of the State action is taken, at the request of the State, that there should be reasonable compensation for any loss in turnover, loss of markets and loss of trade occasioned by such direction. Whilst the Minister has general compensatory powers, he has precluded himself from paying compensation for a loss caused as the result of a direction issued by himself or by one of his officials. This appears to be an omission in regard to which I hope the Minister will be able to give us some explanation.

I want to move some amendments to this clause. I apologize to the House for not having them on the Order Paper. Sir, this to me is one of the objectionable clauses of this Bill and it contains. I believe, the important principle of this Bill. It allows the hon. the Minister to take vast powers to direct the management of any industry which in his opinion is an essential industry, or of any organization which in his opinion renders an essential service, to take any steps that he considers necessary in order to carry out those steps which he considers necessary with regard to fire-fighting, rescue and evacuation work. etc. This is a very wide power indeed, and what I particularly object to is that the hon. the Minister has the power to do this without declaring any state of emergency. He could do it tomorrow: he could go to any industry which he, in his opinion, considers an essential industry and he could order that industry to take any steps which he considers to be necessary in order to provide services which normally are only provided during a state of emergency. Even in times of war it is necessary for a proclamation of a state of war and indeed Parliament has to be summoned shortly afterwards to approve of any such proclamation before the State can exercise the wide powers given to it under the Defence Act. I might say that the Defence Act includes not only a state of war but it includes also a state of internal disorder. We have another Act on our Statute Book, the Public Safety Act of 1953, which gives further powers in other directions to the Minister. Without declaring any state of emergency the hon. the Minister is able to take all these wide steps to direct what he considers to be an essential industry. I do not know what he is going to consider to be an essential industry. It may not in any way affect the sort of industry, for instance, to which the hon. member for Durban (Point) has just been referring. One does not know what sort of industry the hon. the Minister is going to direct to cease producing one type of product and to start producing another type. I think there should be certain safeguards in Clause 3 and I would therefore move—

That is to say, a declared state of emergency. In other words, I want the same proviso inserted in sub-clause (cc) that the hon. the Minister has inserted in sub-clause (bb). Before he can take any of these wide powers the least he must do is to declare a state of emergency otherwise this means State control over industry in normal times; that is all it can mean. If the hon. the Minister does not, prior to taking these powers, have to declare a state of emergency, it means that tomorrow, in anticipation of something which may never occur, the Minister may exercise these powers in order to provide fire-fighting services, etc. I put it to him that any normal State which has the safety of its subjects under consideration would in any case see to it that there is at least a supply of the necessary services to look after its civilian people. It should not be necessary to have to go into a whole state of panic to deal with any disaster. An act of war, of course, is another thing, and we already have on the Statute Book the Defence Act which gives vast powers to the State and indeed there are common law powers which supersede even the Statutes in times of war or in times of internal disorder, but this is in terms of a disaster which, as the Minister has said, might include an act of God; it might include an influx of refugees from across our borders, which would apparently be so disrupting that the ordinary resources available to deal with emergencies are not sufficient. I believe that the hon. the Minister is going far beyond the powers taken in other countries where he gives himself the power tomorrow to take control of any industry. He will have this power as soon as the State President signs this Act, without any apparent emergency or without any declared emergency. This is giving the hon. the Minister far-reaching powers which I should imagine are not normally exercised in countries where industries do not fall under State control. I wish to move further—

I want to place at least some time limitation on the exercise of these powers. The Minister himself has provided for the declaration of a state of emergency before he can actually take control over any land, building, tent, conveyance, bedding, hospital equipment, etc., or ask the owners of such building or equipment or property to surrender the use of them to him. I want the same proviso to be inserted in the clause giving him the power to direct the management of an essential industry, which he considers to be essential. This is not narrowed by any definition; it is simply an industry which the Minister in his opinion considers to be an essential industry. Above all, I want some time limit to cover the application of both the sub-sections in this particular clause so that Parliament may approve of what the Minister has done or, if Parliament is not then in session, that Parliament shall have the right at its next ensuing session to approve or disapprove of Ministerial action.

I have now considered these two amendments, moved by the hon. member, and while I can accept the second amendment, I regret that I cannot accept the first one as it would be destructive of the objects of the Bill as read a second time.

In the first place, as far as the hon. member for Durban (Point) is concerned, I want to say that the word “turnover” to which he referred has nothing to do with the financial side of the business; it has to do with the production of the business. If the word is wrong, it is not my fault. Hon. members will remember that I told them that most of these provisions had been taken from the Defence Act and other Acts, and I have been informed that that was the wording used in the Defence Act a”d that it has been taken over in that form. The relevant section in the Defence Act has always worked well; it did not give rise to any problems during the last war, nor has it done so at any other time. However, I am not married to the word “turnover”. If the hon. member is concerned about the fact that I might want to see the balance sheets of business firms, I can merely tell him that I am not interested in doing that; they do not concern me. I am quite prepared to look at the words and if they are open to the interpretation that the hon. member thinks should be attached to them. I am prepared to put the matter right. I have simply taken these words from the existing legislation which would still have been valid if we did not pass this Bill.

As regards the hon. member’s suggestion in regard to a committee, it would seem to me that that is a good suggestion. Unfortunately I am unable to consider its full implications at the moment. Consequently the hon. member will have to leave it to me to consider it. Should I want to take the matter further then, I could do so in the Other Place, but to me personally the hon. member’s suggestion seems quite acceptable.

As regards his reference to paragraph (cc), the hon. member is wrong. The intention here is not that we want the power to tell a factory which manufactures the fine goods to which he referred, to start manufacturing something else. The intention here is that the industry must be a key industry, and however important the articles to which the hon. member referred may be, such a factory is not a key factory. Therefore I cannot come to them, even if I wanted to do so.

It keeps the morale high.

The hon. member is perfectly correct as far as that is concerned. It keeps many things in place. However, those are not the things we have in mind. The intention—and it has already been carried out in practice—is that one should be able to tell a key industry what safety measures it should take for the protection of its installations and machinery, for the protection of its employees inside the factory and for keeping out undesirable persons. I may say that most of these key industries are already doing those things of their own accord, but we have been in contact with all of them and, in the light of the experience we have had, we told them, “You may do this and you should do that as well”, which they then did. It is not necessary to force them, but one must have the necessary powers should it prove necessary to do so. However, that is not what the hon. member has in mind. That other material is therefore quite safe.

The hon. member for Houghton suggested that the instructions we give to industrialists and so forth, should come before the House of Assembly. There are a thousand and one factories that will be involved. What is more, the die has been cast. People are already doing it of their own accord. We make suggestions and they carry them out voluntarily. Therefore, apart from anything else, it will with all due respect, simply be a waste of time to submit these instructions to Parliament. I do not know what the hon. member’s motives are, but if it is her motive to facilitate matters as far as this legislation is concerned, she fails completely in her purpose. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

The hon. the Minister has told the hon. member for Durban Point that he will consider the question of appointing a committee to advise him on the question of paying compensation. I want to ask the Minister to do something else. I want to ask him, when he does pay compensation, to let the person who is compensated know exactly how the compensation is arrived at. We have personal experience now of cases where Ministers pay compensation without telling the other party how the compensation is arrived at and then there is great dissatisfaction. In applying the policy of the Government in the Transkei the Minister will know that trading stations can be offered to the Government; an adjustment committee makes a valuation and then makes a recommendation to the Minister. In such case the Government has laid down how the compensation will be assessed—so much for goodwill and so much for the property—but invariably the trader who is compensated is dissatisfied, and when he applies to the Minister for details as to how the compensation has been arrived at, the application is refused; the Minister simply will not give any information. The complaint is that the official, in estimating the compensation, may make some mistake in his calculations and the trader has no opportunity of correcting that mistake. Knowing what trouble and dissatisfaction is caused by this method of offering compensation, without giving details to the party concerned, I appeal to the Minister to bear in mind what I have said and to give details as to how the compensation is arrived at so that the other party can be satisfied that he is being fairly compensated.

May I just point out to the hon. member that this clause, as I have said before, is an old clause. It was in operation during the last war and it has not come to my notice that any difficulty was experienced in this connection.

But we had a much better Government then.

We won’t argue about that. The fact that my hon. friend sits on that side of the House is the complete answer to that statement of his. However, I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. member for Transkei has said, and if the old section presented any difficulty or if this clause is likely to present difficulties I will certainly do something about it. I will in any case bear in mind what he has said.

I would like to preface my remarks on this clause by saying that the hon. member for Peninsula, the Leader of our group, has indicated to the Minister that we support the Bill. He asked the hon. the Minister certain questions with regard to the Coloureds. I notice that “the object and purpose of the division is to take measures other than measures taken under the Public Safety Act … for the purpose of …” providing the Republic with the greatest possible measure of protection and that to this end the Minister shall have power to take steps with regard to fire-fighting, etc. Fire-fighting is one of the most essential services that will be required if we have a state of emergency or if we have riots and fires break out. Under the present Government’s policy of group areas, there has been created in the Cape Flats a tremendous area which the Coloured people occupy at the moment. It is true that they fall within various municipalities at the moment and that these municipalities will have fire-fighting machinery. but I assure the hon. the Minister that it is essential that the Coloured people should be trained in fire-fighting within those areas set aside for them by the Government.

That will be done.

The hon. the Minister does not know that fire-fighting has been reserved by the Government for Whites only. How then are you going to achieve the laudable object that the Minister has in mind when he says “that will be done” when in fact you will not be able to train Coloureds for firefighting because it is reserved for Whites only by this Government? [Interjections.] Sir, I am trying to be constructive because I realize that there are vast areas occupied by the Coloureds, and I am sure that within the next year there will be almost 1,000,000 Coloured people, if there is not that number there already, in one large area bordering on Cape Town. It is an area which is big enough to warrant the establishment of its own firefighting service. We want to make an appeal that the Coloured people should be allowed to have their own Coloured fire-brigade within their own area, but the trouble is that Coloureds cannot be trained as firemen under the Government’s policy. Sir, I do not want to embarrass the Minister.

You are not embarrassing me; you are embarrassing yourself.

I am only trying to help the Minister. I am suggesting, quite seriously and in a constructive manner, that the Coloured people, in their own area, if they so wish, should be able to train as fire-fighters in case an emergency should arise within their own area. The Minister has already said that that will be done and I want to ask him to see that it will be done in fact.

By way of an interjection I told the hon. member for Boland that he was not embarrassing me, but embarrassing himself. But, what is more, he is embarrassing his neighbours next to him even more than he is embarrassing himself. It is the hon. member’s idea that Coloureds should be trained to combat fire and in that I am in full agreement with him, but is it not in fact this side of the House which is endeavouring to establish separate Coloured municipalities which would have their own services for their own people, with their own fire-brigade and their own firemen to combat fire, and that side of the House that is opposing it? If those hon. members’ assistance in that regard had been as enthusiastic as their opposition to the policy of apartheid, those areas would have been established a long time ago, but who is thwarting it? The hon. member’s like-minded friends in the city councils are the people who are thwarting this as far as possible. If they had co-operated it would not even have been necessary for the hon. member to ask that question; then he could have looked forward to the people being available. In other words, I repeat that the hon. member does not embarrass me in the least. As a matter of fact, I am glad that he raised the matter so that we could see once again the extent of the follies which arise out of the policy of hon. members on the opposite side. However, we are not here to discuss policy. I want to save hon. members any further embarrassment in that regard. I was delighted to hear the contribution made by the hon. member for Peninsula to this debate. I would be pleased if the hon. member would convey that to him. It is our aim—and it is not only our aim, we owe it to them—to enable the Coloureds, as far as it is in our power, to protect their own lives and property in their own areas. Taking into account the facilities and the man-power we have in that regard, we shall therefore try to train them, to the best of our ability, to provide for those elementary and natural needs of theirs. The hon. member may rest assured that that is our aim.

Mr. Chairman, under this particular clause the Minister has powers when an emergency has been declared to take over the control of all fuel supplies. I listened to his reply to the second-reading debate, which unfortunately was very short. He did, however, by way of interjection during the debate say that the matter of stockpiling was being taken care of. He has also told us that most of these clauses are taken from other Acts. I would like to ask the Minister in view of what has happened in Rhodesia and in view of the importance of this Bill and the very serious responsibilities resting on his shoulders, whether he is making provision for the stockpiling of fuel. I do not think that the local oil companies or any other persons should be held responsible for this particular item. It is an expensive item. We certainly do not want to be caught as Rhodesia ’ was caught in its present state of emergency. Without any secrets being disclosed, I think we should hear from the Minister whether he is providing the necessary finance to see that we have the fuel because it is one of the most essential items that we will require should we be faced with a state of emergency. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in regard to this very important matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will realize that that is not a matter one can and should discuss in public. I also take it that he does not want me to discuss it, apart from giving him a very positive reply. I therefore leave the discussion at that. The hon. member will understand why I do so.

Amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and negatived (Mrs. Suzman dissenting).

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4,

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to explain this clause to me more fully. Does it mean that if a volunteer in the course of his work, for instance as a fire-fighter, happens to lose an eye or an arm, he will not be able to claim damages from the Minister? Or will his claim be dealt with under Clause 6? I hope I will be allowed to deal with Clause 6 in conjunction with Clause 4, because I feel that we will derive some elucidation from doing so. This is a most important point.

The principles are the same as those which apply to ballotees in the army.

Are the conditions the same?

Yes, the wording is also the same.

Clause 9,

I move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper—

This clause provides for training and it provides for certain exemptions. I should like to ask the Minister whether he cannot in terms of the powers already granted him under Clause 8, consider having an exemptions committee in the same way as the Department of Labour has an Exemptions Board for military trainees. Here certain classes which are exempted are laid down. If you are calling up people in an industry, it may well be that you call up a person whose presence in that particular industry is essential for the continuation of the work. The Minister’s Department is not going to know which industries require specific people as the key figures to keep those industries going. I therefore suggest that he appoints, in the same way as I suggested an advisory committee in regard to compensation, an exemptions committee on which industry will be represented to whom all requests for the exemption of any specific individual from full-time training should be referred. I am not talking about after-hour training such as week-end training and so on. If the Minister uses these powers to call up people for full-time training, there will have to be some machinery. He cannot just take them at random. Where industry is concerned particularly, it will be essential that those industries keep going. As an example let us take the clothing industry. You might have a small firm with one cutter and 30 or 40 machinists. If the cutter were called up for duty, the machinists would be useless because they would have nothing to machine. In this way one person can be the key to the employment of dozens of others. I should like the Minister to consider firstly a committee for dealing with exemptions—not the Exemptions Board which exists under the Defence Act, which is too clumsy and long-winded. It would have to be a committee which could meet on a local basis and deal with local problems. Secondly I should like him to consider the question of limiting training to non-business hours as far as possible, rather than take people out of their work.

I am glad that the hon. member has raised this issue because it gives me an opportunity to inform this Committee that what the hon. member wants us to do, we have already had in mind. The hon. member will see that the word “prescribe” is found in this clause. It will be prescribed in the regulations. This suggestion made by the hon. member will be incorporated in the regulations which will be laid on the Table of the House. That is the intention.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to move an amendment to this clause. As I stated in the Second Reading debate, I consider that this is the other clause in the Bill which contains the real principle of the Bill. I say this because I see that the side-note of the clause is “compulsory training and service” and the side-note of Clause 10 is “voluntary training and service”. I am all in favour of voluntary training and service. I think the hon. Minister should do all in his power to encourage as much voluntary training for this type of firefighting service, first-aid service and all the other essential services in times of emergencies as possible. I am, however, against the giving of blanket powers to the hon. the Minister to conscript every single member of the population between the ages of 17 and 65 outside of any declared state of emergency for compulsory training. We already have a Defence Act under which our young men are conscripted for compulsory military service for a certain period. We have an adequate supply of people ready to assist in times of war or internal disaster. At this juncture I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, during the time these young men spend in the Army—and a great deal of it, I understand, is not really gainfully employed—training in these essential services such as fire-fighting, evacuation of the population, first-aid, etc., is given to the young men who in any case have been taken away from their employment, families, universities or any other vocational training courses which they otherwise might have been attending had they not been inducted into the Army. I think we could have a valuable source of available manpower ready to go into action on occasions other than a time of war. These young men will not be engaged in shooting matches if there is an internal disorder, an act of God, an influx of refugees or any other disaster that the hon. the Minister may declare to be a time of emergency. I suggest therefore that there is already quite a large section of our population engaged in activities which could certainly be turned to use as far as the provision of training for these services is concerned. I am against conscription in times of peace and when there is not even a declaration of any state of emergency. I should like to move an amendment which I have not handed in, but which is very simple. Mr. Chairman, it will not require much study to see whether or not you consider it in order. It reads as follows—

I therefore want to give the hon. the Minister the great powers of conscription he takes here only during a state of emergency—that is, when he has declared a state of emergency. As I have said, we already have reserves of people who have been trained in the past to do various things. There is no reason why the young men at present in our Army should not be trained to carry out some of these essential services so that we have that nucleus on which to call, should there be a time of emergency or disorder. To give this Minister powers which no other Minister has ever taken in this country, to conscript in times of peace, let alone in time of war, when we have not even conscripted then, in the past, seems to me to be going far beyond the powers which the Minister should enjoy.

I am going to move a further amendment, namely to insert a proviso at the end of subsection (1). I should just like to make it clear that I am going to vote against this clause.

That is nothing new to me.

I am not really interested, Sir, whether I am springing surprises on the hon. the Minister or not. That is not my role in this House. I do not really care whether I please or displease him.

You are an open book as far as I am concerned.

The hon. the Minister is a closed book as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concerned our beautiful friendship is at an end. What I am interested in doing is trying to improve some of the legislation which he brings to this House. I am going to vote against this clause because I am against it in principle and, because I am against this clause, I am against this Bill in principle. That is one of the main reasons why I voted against the Second Reading of this Bill. I am in favour of the next clause, which deals with voluntary training. I have nothing against that at all. I am all for it, but I am against compulsory training. I cannot amend Clause 9 in such a way as would be permissible in terms of the rules of this House, as far as I can see, except to try to water it down. What I am going to do, knowing full well that I am unlikely to win the division which I shall call for …

Who told you that?

A little bird told me that I am unlikely to get any support from this side of the House and I certainly will not get any support from that side of the House. Bearing that in mind, and having warned this Committee that I intend to vote against the clause anyway, I should like to move an amendment, which I hope will be accepted. I really am doing this in a constructive spirit, to water down some of the strength of this particular clause in so far as it gives power to the Minister. I hope hon. members on this side of the House will listen to the amendment because it might even fall within what they are prepared to accept. The amendment reads as follows—

1. (i) the age and marital state of the person concerned;
2. (ii) the requirements of the educational or vocational training of such person;
3. (iii) the distance of the place where such person is to render service or undergo training from the place where he is ordinarily resident.

I should just like to explain this amendment. [Interjection.] Yes, I think it is very sensible. I thank the hon. member for Durban (Point). What I am trying to do is to see to it that there is some time limit to the compulsory training period or the compulsory service period during which the hon. the Minister may require any individual between the ages of 17 and 65 to serve. I really cannot see that more than three weeks is needed to learn fire-fighting, evacuation of the population and first-aid. I may say, Sir, that I took my St. John’s first aid in a matter of about two weeks without any difficulty whatsoever.

You are clever.

But then I am clever, the hon. member says. I will grant him that, so I am allowing an extra 33 and a third per cent to that hon. member over there, who will probably learn first-aid in three weeks. I think a continuous period of three weeks is enough for this sort of training. If certainly ought to be enough for any one person who is in continuous training. The hon. the Minister can conscript anybody and everybody, so he should not need to keep one single individual for more than three weeks. There is just no time limit at all on the call-up in this clause. There is, after all, a time limit under the Defence Act for the training of our young people. That is not just left at any unspecified length of time. Therefore I ask for this time limit in view of the type of service and the type of training which is likely to be required. The second part of the additional proviso is that the Director shall have it laid upon him as a duty—not just that it may or may not be prescribed in the regulations—in terms of this law, that he shall have regard to the age of the person he is calling up and the marital status of that person. In other words, I should like to ensure that young men who have escaped the ballot—and young women of that age for that matter—should be called up rather than people who are married, and who are the heads of families and the breadwinners of those families. I should like that to be a duty to be laid upon the Director. I should like the Director to take into consideration whether the person is in the middle of a training course, is at university, or is half-way through an artisan training course before he calls such a person up, and also that he has some regard to where he sends that person to be trained. He may very well do this in any case, but I should like this to be laid on him as a duty. He should have some regard to these essential matters before these wide powers are granted. I move.

I regret to inform the hon. member for Houghton, that, for the same reason stated previously, namely that it will be destructive of the objects of the Bill as accepted at the Second Reading, I cannot accept her first amendment.

The hon. member for Houghton stated her point of view very clearly. As a matter of fact, it was not even necessary for her to state it, because we know what it is. It is, in the first place, that she wants to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. If I understood her point of view correctly, she does not care either if the horse has bolted. It is therefore not possible for me even to consider her amendments. She is also anticipating the whole matter. The matters she mentioned here do not belong in the Act in any case. They belong in the regulations. She need have no fear that she will not know what they contain, because if she had looked at the Order Paper, she would have seen that the hon. member for Durban (North) had placed on the Order Paper an amendment dealing with the regulations.

I have already informed the Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection that I shall accept it; in other words, it will be possible to iron out in this House all the other misgivings she may have. Mr. Chairman, surely it is foolish to appoint a place where people have to be trained in fire-fighting while one knows full well that there are only a few places in the Republic where that can be done, namely in Johannesburg and Pretoria. Does the hon. member think that I want to train these people at Pofadder to combat fires? Let us be practical, level-headed and realistic. Let us not allow our suspicions and our petty political views to run away with us as the hon. member for Houghton has done.

Why do you not argue on merits instead of becoming so personal?

No, the hon. member is the last person who should complain about personal remarks. If the hon. member wants to take part in that game, let me tell her in all modesty that I can do it much better than she can. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot accept her amendments.

No, for no reasons whatsoever. You are merely being ill-mannered.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and a division demanded.

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

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 11,

Mr. Chairman, as to the provision in regard to persons called up for full-time training in this clause, I appreciate that it is the same wording and the same provision as applies in regard to trainees in the Defence Act. But there is a difference in the sort of person who is going to be called up under this Bill and those who are called up as bailotees. Under the Defence Act you are calling up lads who are leaving school. They are called up in their 18th year before they have become established and before they have responsibilities.

The same will apply here.

Yes, but in terms of this Bill any person between the ages of 17 and 65 may be called up.

The same applies in the case of the Defence Act.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, it is not so. In regard to balloting, it is stated in the Defence Act that a person shall register in the year in which he turns 17 and that he shall be balloted in the year in which he turns 18.

In the case of that Act many other people can be called up.

Yes, only those who are on the reserve. This is a broad power affecting all sections of the population. In practice, for peace-time training in the Defence Force, you are calling up youngsters straight out of school. In practice here, you are liable to be calling up people in all walks of life, many of whom have responsibilities.

You do not want them and you do not require them in peace-time, so what is the point in calling them up?

This provides for calling people up to undergo training or to render service.

Mr. Chairman, all that we envisage at this stage is training people in fire-fighting, in other words to operate fire-engines, etc. It goes without saying that that is the intention, and all the discussions centred on using for that purpose those young men who now miss training because their names are not drawn in the ballot. The other people are in actual fact unfit for this purpose, because the people who are to undergo this training must be young and fit.

Then why did you not restrict it by means of an age limit?

Because we are not making provision for peace-time only. We also have to provide for emergency conditions. One is then compelled, and it is one’s duty, to train everybody up to the age of 65 years.

But you can do that in terms of the Defence Act.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that it may be the hon. the Minister’s intention that at this stage only young boys who have not been called up for the Defence Force should be used.

That is the intention.

As it stands the clause provides that there shall be no financial obligation on an employer to pay wages to any person called up in terms of this measure. In terms of the clause that has already been passed, the remuneration of such a person rests entirely with the Minister. There is no obligation on the Minister to remunerate a person while he is undergoing training. Consequently, persons who are called up may lose their earnings, because the employer need not pay them if he does not want to do so. Whether or not the Minister will pay him, is a matter of discretion. In any event, I take it the Minister has no intention of fixing the compensation paid to a person who has been called up at such an amount that it will compensate him for what he would otherwise have earned in his work. It seems to me that we have a position here which may lead to losses being suffered by persons who are called up. Even though that is the position in terms of the Defence Act, is it necessary to duplicate that unsatisfactory state of affairs here, where it affects a new group of people? Will not the hon. the Minister consider paying compensation in the true sense of the word to persons who lose their wages because they have been called up?

In this case the conditions of service will be prescribed by regulation, but I must make it very clear to the hon. member that what we are laying down here is also expected of people who are drawn into our Defence Force if they are called up in war-time. The work performed by people on the front is much more hazardous than that expected of people on the homefront, however, and therefore the hon. member must not expect me to prescribe more favourable conditions for the last-mentioned than those which apply in the Defence Force. It would not be fair of me to do that. I may perhaps still do that because I am dealing with a small number of people, and because the financial implications are not so far-reaching, but surely the hon. member will realize how I would be played-up against my colleague, the Minister of Defence, if I did in fact do that. I also want to draw his attention to another provision in the Defence Act, a provision which hon. members are losing sight of. In terms of the Defence Act any citizen can be compelled to undergo training in the South African Defence Force between his 17th and 65th year. The hon. member will therefore see that in this regard we want to go about matters along the same lines as in the case of the Defence Force.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister will be so kind as to give us an indication as to whether his Department has already calculated approximately how long the period of training will be for the category of persons referred to in this clause.

As I said in my second-reading speech, we have had consultations in this regard. It was said that it is possible to train a reasonably efficient fire-man within a period of four months. It is our intention to give such training in the voluntarily provided time of the persons concerned if possible, but if that proves impossible, we shall have no choice but to call up those people. Therefore the hon. member need not be afraid that we shall extend a person’s training to two years if it is possible to give him that training within four months.

I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation as regards the position of young men, but should like to hear from him what the position of specialists will be. For example, the Minister may need a municipality’s fire-brigade officer to give training to young boys. He cannot treat such an officer on the same basis as the young trainees are treated. I presume, amongst other things, that when specialists are used to provide instruction to trainees or for other services, they will receive the remuneration of specialists.

The hon. member must remember that such an officer will render those services in the course of his duties, with the knowledge and approval of his employer, who will also make his premises available for that purpose.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 14,

The amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper on Clause 14 is designed to bring the period of detention under conditions applicable under the Public Safety Act. The Minister, however, has been good enough to clarify the position under Clause 14 by indicating that “detention” meant a short-term detention for the purposes of a search.

It is not a question of holding the man or of detaining him subsequently. It is only a question of holding him until such time as the police arrives.

As this clause does not stipulate any limitation as to the time of detention or of place, I think the word “arrest” should be substituted for the word “detain”. Accordingly I move as an amendment—

I have no objection to this amendment and accordingly I accept it.

Under the circumstances I will not move the amendment of which I have given notice on the Order Paper.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 18,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Provided that no such punishment shall exceed the punishment referred to in Section 17;

and to add the following as sub-sections (2) and (3) at the end of the Clause:

1. (2) Any regulation made under sub-section (1) shall be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within 14 days after promulgation thereof if Parliament is then in ordinary session, or if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session, and shall remain on the said Tables for at least 28 consecutive days, and if Parliament is prorogued before the necessary 28 days have elapsed, such regulation shall again be laid on the said Tables as aforesaid within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.
2. (3)
   1. (a) If such regulation is not approved in both Houses of Parliament by resolution passed in the same session (being a session during which such regulation has been laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament in terms of sub-section (2)) such regulation shall cease to be of force and effect—
      1. (i) as from the date of any resolution of either House of Parliament disapproving thereof to the extent of such disapproval; or
      2. (ii) as from the date on which Parliament is prorogued at the end of any session during which such regulation has been on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for at least 28 days, whichever is the earlier date.
   2. (b) The provisions of paragraph (a) are without prejudice to the validity of anything done in terms of such regulation or any provision thereof up to the date upon which it so ceased to be of force or effect, or to any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred as at the said date under and by virtue of such regulation or such provision thereof.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to accept the second amendment. The first amendment, I submit, is self-explanatory. I am sure it is not the intention that the punishment prescribed by regulation should exceed those set out in Clause 17 of the Bill. Under the circumstances, I hope the Minister will also accept this amendment.

I have no objection to accepting both amendments moved by the hon. member.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 19,

I wish to move—

19. This Act and any amendment thereof shall apply also in the territory of South-West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel referred to in Section 3 of the South-West Africa Affairs Amendment Act, 1951 (Act No. 55 of 1951).

Agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill provides mainly for the establishment of a pension fund scheme for the more highly paid Government non-White employees who are employed in a permanent or permanent/temporary capacity and in respect of whom no statutory provision has been made for membership of a pension fund. At present these employees, at retirement, share in a noncontributory pension scheme in terms of which relatively small pension benefits are paid from State funds in the form of a lump sum or a monthly pension, or both, according to the period of service. This scheme, which was introduced as long ago as 1923 and has since remained basically unchanged, bears no relation to the salaries received by the employees, because the pension is calculated at a fixed amount for each year of service. An employee who has served for 25 years or longer, for example, receives a pension of R3 per year for each completed year of service, irrespective of the amount of his salary or wages at retirement. In view of the fact that the salaries and wages of Government non-White employees have now been increased to even more than three times as much as the prewar amounts, the existing pension benefits are obviously obsolete and inadequate to meet the subsistence requirements of pensioners.

The need for more suitable pension benefits for non-White employees came to be appreciated more and more, with the result that in 1963 my predecessor appointed an interdepartmental committee to enquire into the matter. The Public Service Commission and the Departments of Bantu Education, of Coloured Affairs and of Social Welfare and Pensions were represented on that committee. The committee was therefore representative of all the interested Departments, and I may just mention in passing that the report of the committee was referred to the Departments mentioned, to the provincial administrations and to the Administration of South-West Africa, all of which stated that they supported the recommendations of the committee. The committee was requested, inter alia, to make recommendations on the advisability of replacing the present non-contributory scheme by a contributory scheme designed to fit in more effectively with the changed economic circumstances of the employees concerned, with particular reference to the merits of a provident fund which provided only cash amounts, or a pension fund which mainly provided monthly pensions plus a smaller lump sum. After thorough consideration the committee unanimously decided on a contributory scheme in the form of a pension fund.

A pension fund scheme, designed in accordance with modern pension principles and in co-operation with the State actuaries, was then recommended, and that is the scheme which will be embodied in the regulations to be issued in terms of Clause 2 of the Bill. It is a sound scheme which compares favourably with other schemes in the country. It will provide for the payment of a monthly pension plus a cash amount to any member who has completed at least ten years’ contributory service at retirement.

A member with less than ten years’ contributory service will be paid a cash amount only. Provision is made for the payment, upon the death of a member, of a gratuity to his dependants. Non-White employees will have to serve for a qualifying period of five years before being admitted to membership of the fund. Bantu teachers at Government Bantu schools as well as Bantu teachers at other Bantu schools, the whole of whose salaries are paid by way of subsidy by the State, will also become members of the fund.

Members of the new pension fund will contribute at the rate of 5 per cent of their pensionable income, and will also be given an opportunity of electing whether or not to contribute to the fund in respect of any previous uninterrupted period of service. Rand for rand contributions will also be paid to the fund by the State. The moneys of the pension fund will be deposited with Treasury and will be invested in Government stock by the Public Debt Commissioners.

Any member of the fund who has completed at least 10 years’ contributory service when he retires or is discharged on the grounds of superannuation, will receive a pension calculated at the rate of 1/96th of his average annual salary during the last seven years of his contributory service, for each year of contributory service. He will also be paid a gratuity calculated at 4 per cent of the same average salary for each year of contributory service. On the recommendation of the committee it has also been decided to retain an improved form of the existing non-contributory scheme for non-Whites in the lower-paid groups. For example: Instead of a pension being calculated at a fixed amount for each year of service, it will be calculated at 1 per cent of the employee’s annual salary prior to retirement in respect of each completed year of non-contributory service. Non-White employees who have a total of more than five years’ service when the regulations come into operation and do not elect to reckon their previous uninterrupted service for the purposes of the fund, will receive benefits based on the aggregate of their contributory and non-contributory service.

In conclusion I may mention that the regulations to be drawn up in terms of the Bill will be referred to the interested bodies and persons for comment before being promulgated.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side are indeed pleased that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in his first act in this House as the new incumbent of this post should have introduced a Bill such as this, which is of a constructive nature. We believe that this is an important piece of legislation. We believe it is a step forward because another group of persons will be covered by a pension scheme. It is very difficult to pass any detailed comment on this Bill because in its present form it only provides for the formulation of a pension scheme and the establishment of a pension fund, as set out in Clause 2. The details of the scheme will be worked out in terms of the powers which the hon. the Minister will have.

There are, however, a few observations which I should like to make regarding this Bill. We on this side have noted the fact that an inter-departmental committee has been investigating the establishment of a scheme for non-White Government employees, and we are indeed pleased to see that the stage has been reached where the Government has seen fit to accept the recommendation of that committee and that it is intended to launch a scheme which will be of great benefit to members of the proposed fund. Now, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will inform me whether it is proposed to have only one fund to cover all the non-White Government employees or whether it is intended to have separate funds for separate classes or categories of non-Whites. Because I notice that separate regulations may be made for various classes, categories, and types of non-White employees employed by the Government. I feel. Sir, that the establishment of only one powerful fund will go a long way to ensure that the sound financial footing and high prestige of this scheme will be maintained. A further important point concerns the question of which employers will become contributing members of the fund. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with this aspect. Certain classes of persons are to be excluded, namely persons who are already members of pension funds and provident funds under other laws administered by the provincial administrations or by the Territory of South West Africa. Also excluded are those employed by the railways. I suppose the hon. the Minister does not want to include railway employees as they can possibly be dealt with in terms of a railway scheme.

Now, Sir, I feel that difficulties may arise regarding the transferability of pension rights. We know that the hon. the Minister of Finance appointed a committee of enquiry into pension funds, and that that committee has not yet submitted its report. I feel that perhaps the committee could make certain recommendations regarding the elimination of certain shortcomings which exist in a number of pension schemes. Therefore, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not delay the date on which the scheme will come in operation until such time as he has studied the report and the recommendations of the committee. Because the committee may see fit to make certain recommendations which the hon. the Minister could give effect to when this scheme is launched. I think that the question of transferability of pension rights is indeed a most important aspect. It has often happened in the past that a pension fund contributor has resigned from his employment in order to be refunded his contributions because of certain pressing circumstances. Some time later, after being re-employed, he reapplies for membership of the pension fund, and in the result he is deprived of his full pensionable rights.

Another point which comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, is that regarding the transfer of Bantu teachers and others to the Transkeian Government. Will their pension rights also be provided for? Will the transfer of pension rights of a person transferred from a Transkeian Government post to a post in the Republic also be protected? I feel that these are matters which should also receive the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The Minister has indicated that the Rand for Rand system will be followed in the implementation of this pension scheme. Now, Sir, will contributions made by the Consolidated Revenue Fund be debited to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as the Government’s contribution towards the fund for all the non-White employees? Also, what will be the position regarding the debiting of the Bantu Education account for contributions in respect of Bantu teachers? We on this side of the House would like to have further information on these aspects as well, Mr. Speaker, and other members on this side will deal with these aspects in due course. We on this side feel that all the matters referred to by me should receive serious consideration to ensure that the scheme will be a success, so that those affected by the scheme will be adequately provided for after they have rendered their service to the Government and to the country. With these words, Sir, we on this side support the second reading of this Bill in principle.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I, too, welcome this Bill. I think a scheme such as envisaged by this measure has been needed in this country for a great many years. The fact that non-White teachers have, after spending many years in the service of the State, not enjoyed pension rights, has been a sad lack in this country. Because, Sir, this country, like any other modern State, is advancing in the field of social welfare. I think it is accepted by most modem countries which are concerned with the welfare of employees in the service of the State, that some consideration should be given to looking after such people after they have rendered many years of good and faithful service. Because there will be an opportunity in the committee stage, I do not wish to deal with any details of this Bill. I simply want to state at this stage that I welcome this measure and I am very glad indeed that the hon. the Minister is introducing it to-day.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has introduced this legislation. I wish to state that I support it. There are, however, one or two points which I want to raise, if I may. I notice in Clause 1 that Bantu teachers are included in the definition of a non-White employee. But I want to concern myself with …

Order! The details of the Bill can be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

I merely wish to inquire about a few points regarding this clause, Mr. Speaker. I wish to remark upon the fact that in terms of the Bill we will have different categories of non-Whites in the service of the State or of the Government who will receive a pension. The Bill refers to—

Of course, Sir, half a loaf is better than no bread, but I am not quite happy about the fact that we will have categories of non-Whites in the service of the Government who will not receive a pension. In my humble opinion every non-White employee of the Government who has been in such employment for a specified period of time should be entitled to a pension. Moreover, Sir, I have reason to believe that the implementation of certain provisions embodied in this Bill will take such a long time that many of those in the service of the State will have to wait for many years before they see even the beginning of a pension. In the meanwhile they are getting older by the day, and when they are one day admitted to the fund, the amount they receive as pension upon retirement will be so small as to be almost valueless.

The hon. member for Umbilo inquired whether the rand-for-rand system will be utilized in the implementation of the scheme. I should also like to ask the Minister whether that basis will be used. I also wish to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the proposed fund be given a good start by the payment of a lump sum into the Consolidated Revenue Fund from State funds. Such action will ensure that the pension fund will be reasonably strong right at its inception, and that beneficiaries under the fund will get something substantial when they are paid.

These are the points which exercise my mind, and I want to say quite frankly that I am delighted that the Government has realized that non-White persons in the employ of the State are entitled to a pension, because over a long time they render faithful service for low wages and salaries, but when they come to the end of their days they are more or less cast on charity and goodwill to keep them going.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on introducing this legislation. I rise in the first instance to ask the hon. the Minister whether I understood him correctly to say that non-White employees of the Government must have at least five years’ service to be eligible for membership of the proposed pension scheme. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is quite a long period. Indeed, it is far too long a period. Last year when we discussed the Railway vote with the hon. the Minister of Transport a new pension scheme for certain railway employees was referred to. No doubt that scheme will either be integrated with this proposed scheme, or else the hon. the Minister will make some other arrangements with the hon. the Minister of Transport. From the figures released by the hon. the Minister of Transport it appears that there are thousands of non-White employees employed by the Railways who are not covered by a pension scheme. I tried to ascertain from the hon. the Minister of Transport how long an employee had to work for the Government before he was appointed to the permanent staff. Because, Sir, there are thousands of Coloured men who are, so to speak, permanently temporary workers. They have been temporary workers for years and years and cannot get on to the permanent staff.

Permanent temporary employees are included in this scheme.

That means they must be permanently temporary for five years. That is why I said a period of five years is too long. The hon. the Minister has given no indication as to how he arrived at this figure. Has the figures been calculated actuarially? Or does the hon. the Minister feel that there is some risk involved in a man being employed for, say, only a year, and then joining the pension scheme and leaving the service not long after? Well, surely the employee cannot gain much by doing that. Indeed, I fail to see how such a man will benefit at all. All he gets back are his contributions. Why this period of five years? This stipulation will prejudice Coloured people in Government employ who are not at the moment in a scheme. Thousands of Coloured people in the employ of the Government will be hit by this requirement. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. the Minister must reduce the period of five years to one year, which is also quite a long time. Perhaps a certificate can be issued by the Department employing such a person stating that he is likely to remain in employment. I do not have in mind people like the dock workers who work on and off. I have in mind those people who work for years and years in the service of the Government, but who do not manage to get on to the permanent staff. Therefore, Sir, I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister could reconsider this matter and give us some information why he decided on a minimum period of five years’ service.

Now, Sir, a pension scheme for non-Whites is a pension scheme for non-Whites, and that is all it is. Why must there be different regulations for different classes of non-White employees belonging to different races, classes or categories? I can see some differentiation in this Bill, and the hon. the Minister has not explained why this should be. If a man’s pay will be the basis of his membership of this fund, then there should not be different categories and regulations at all. Because, Sir, a man’s pay will decide what his contribution and later on his benefit will be. If a man earns 50c or R1 or R2 per day, his contribution and eventual pension will be based on that figure. Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us why Clause 2 (4) has been included in this Bill.

With these few words I want to say that I am very thankful to the hon. the Minister and I hope that this measure will be an augury of future benefits for the Coloured people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo, when he referred to the new portfolio which the hon. the Minister now has, and also with his commendation of the introduction of this Bill. I listened carefully to the hon. the Minister when he made his introductory speech, but there are a few matters on which I should like more clarity. In the first place I refer to the Department of Bantu Education and the Bantu Education Account, referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill. In terms of Section 10 of the Bantu Education Act, which was promulgated in 1953, pensions could be allowed to Bantu teachers. When that Act was amended by Act No. 33 of 1959 provision still existed for the payment of pensions to Bantu teachers. I know that certain difficulties have been experienced over the years because certain pension schemes existed in the different provinces when they were still responsible for Bantu education. I realize that reference has been made thereto in this particular Bill. My difficulty is mainly, Sir, that it would seem that when this Bill is put into effect, Bantu pensions will be paid from the Bantu Education Account. Now, to me, Sir, it seems that other non-White employees, for instance Coloured teachers and Indian teachers, could well be included in this particular Bill. But their pensions will be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It seems to me that there could be some differentiation, which could possibly react unfavourably in so far as Bantu teachers are concerned. As I understand the position, the amount contributed by the State is limited by an Act of Parliament to R13,000,000 per year and the main variable amount available for Bantu education is the amount derived from Bantu taxation. So the actual fluctuation in the amount for Bantu education may not be fully in relation to the need that may arise now, in so far as the pension fund of Bantu teachers is concerned, and also for future expansion of Bantu education itself. It therefore seems to me, Sir, that if my conclusion is correct in so far as this Bill is concerned, that one or other party may suffer. The Bantu teachers who are due for pension may find that the amount of their pension is restricted, or else the expansion of Bantu education may be restricted as a result of this additional call on the Bantu Education Account. The hon. the Minister in reply to questions by me in the past, has helped to clarify the position of pensions for Bantu teachers. But, there thus seems to be room still in this Bill to correct the difficulties that have existed in the past. There has been a great disparity in the benefits which Bantu teachers have received. Those in Natal and in the Cape have been in a rather fortunate position. Their numbers have been as follows for eligibility for pensions: In Natal 783, and in the Cape 1,349. But, Sir, the Bantu teachers in the other provinces, i.e. in the Transvaal and the Free State, have been less fortunate. In the Transvaal up to the present time, according to figures supplied by the Minister, only seven have been able to enjoy the benefits of a pension and in the Free State, only five. It seems as if these difficulties at least will be ironed out and that all Bantu teachers who become eligible for pension will be treated on the same basis. For this we must be grateful. There is a further question on which I should like clarity from the hon. Minister. The hon. the Minister referred to State-aided schools, but in my own mind, I am not quite clear what the effect would be of this Bill in relation to privately paid teachers. In 1964 I put a question to the hon. the Minister and asked him when he expected that the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee would become available. The reply from the Minister, who incidentally is the same Minister, was as follows: “It is a very vast field that has to be investigated, as it concerns all State employees and all people subsidized by the State.” I should therefore be glad if the hon. the Minister could give me some clarity on the position of those teachers who are employed in private schools.

Mr. Speaker, like other members who have spoken in this debate I should like to welcome the steps that are being taken by the Government to establish pension schemes for non-White servants of the State. We have advocated that for many years in discussing Bantu education in this House. And I am glad that the Government at last is beginning to see the light. The hon. the Minister has told us that in connection with this enabling Bill—an enabling Bill it is because it is not a Bill that gives us a pension scheme but just a Bill to introduce the scheme and to make it possible to introduce the scheme—a committee of experts has considered the scheme and the nature of the scheme and that they recommended unanimously that the scheme should be a contributory pension scheme. Now, Sir, I disagree with the finding of that committee. I think that the finding of that committee is a most unfortunate one. We have a pension scheme in the Railways for non-Whites which is called an annuity and which is paid by that Department. That is a pension, and the reason why we have an annuity for non-Whites and a pension scheme for Whites is that the Whites can understand the nature of the calculations and the nature of the deductions that have to be made from their emoluments. Last year, Sir, I introduced a private members’ motion on this subject. My private members’ motion advocated a gradual transfer in South Africa from contributory pension schemes in the Civil Service, to noncontributory schemes. I was specifically referring to the Civil Service and not to the general national scheme. It is the modern tendency and that transpired in my debate. When statistics were given to us by our main spokesman in the debate, it was revealed that more and more pension schemes were becoming non-contributory instead of being contributory. The contributory pension scheme is a survival of the old pension days, even before the days of Union. Now, Sir, it is true that the schemes presently in force cannot be changed overnight. But now we are introducing a new scheme. There is absolutely nothing new in a non-contributory scheme. The staff of this House have, from the outset, had a non contributory scheme. The Judges of South Africa have a non-contributory scheme.

Order! The hon. member should not refer to the staff of this House.

I am not referring to members, Sir.

The hon. member must not make these comparisons.

A non-contributory scheme is nothing new in South Africa. I just mentioned that in passing because many business firms to-day in South Africa, big business firms, have introduced similar schemes. They are non-contributory. And what is more, Sir, they are on the increase. [Interjection.] I am not talking about members at all. I am referring to employees.

Order! That is the very thing I do not wish the hon. member to discuss.

We have always discussed that. I am now discussing the desirability of having a non-contributory scheme, because we have it already in South Africa in many businesses. Now, what is the effect of this contributory scheme that we are about to introduce? Let us take the case of a Bantu teacher who is badly paid at say R600 per annum, or R50 per month. In terms of the scheme we have before us we shall have to tell him that we are taking 5 per cent off his R50, that is, that R2.50 will have to be deducted from his salary.

Why not?

There is no reason why not. I wish the hon. member would listen and learn something. The teacher would have deducted from his salary approximately 5 per cent per month, i.e. R2.50, to which the Government would add another R2.50; in other words, R5.00 that would go into the fund. You have the bookkeeping, the accounting, and the deductions. Why not rather pay the man R600 less 5 per cent? In other words, R570. Let it be deducted from his salary. Take 10 per cent instead of 5 per cent from him and 5 per cent from what is left. Why do we do it? The system is out of date; it is obsolete. No civilized country in the world does it. The whole of the British Civil Service, the fighting forces, have a non-contributory scheme. Just imagine saying to a cook on one of our frigates: This is your salary, you are an employee of the Government and we are going to take off 5 per cent and we are going to add 5 per cent. He would not know what you are talking about. A contributory scheme is a scheme for people who have high salaries and for people who understand the accounting. But it is not a scheme for non-White people. And now I ask the hon. the Minister to give this suggestion consideration. If necessary, I should like to meet his staff, the experts, to give them the data I gave the House last year.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Why does your party suggest a contributory national pension scheme if you are so much against the principle of contribution?

I explained that last year in my private members’ motion.

Order! I do not want the hon. member to cover the same ground again.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. May I reply to the hon. member?

I do not think the hon. member was in order in putting the question. The hon. member may proceed.

Very good, Sir. If he was not in order I am very sorry. I would not have liked to ignore him. I will see him later in the usual place and explain things to him there. I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister: to follow the example of the hon. the Minister of Transport and have a noncontributory scheme for non-Whites in this country. It will be simpler, it will save labour, and they will be more pleased. Last year, Sir, the objection raised was something quite different. They said that if a man left the service before he had served his full period he would lose his contributions. That is nonsense. In every country where there is a non-contributory scheme the same benefits are given after five years, ten years, 20 years, or whatever the period may be, as in a contributing scheme. Therefore, Sir, I say: reconsider the matter and let us go for a noncontributory scheme.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this measure has met with general approval in the House, because I think the time has long been ripe for the establishment of a scheme of this nature. There was, however, a large number of practical problems that had to be smoothed out first, and the investigation and preparation in that regard took up quite a few years. Now this legislation is merely enabling legislation, and the regulations to be promulgated in terms of it will actually define the pension scheme. That is the general tendency in respect of pension benefits, because their allocation, if amended, is in actual fact a matter pertaining to the Estimates, and will then in any event be discussed during the Budget Debate. And if the Estimates are approved by the House those amendments are also approved by the House, and then it is not necessary to come to the House again in order to introduce amending legislation in respect of the pension schemes. Those schemes are than adjusted by way of regulations. The scheme will therefore be defined in more detail by way of regulations. As regards the various questions asked here, I can tell the member for Umbilo that it is intended to establish only one fund for all the different non-White employees. The groups of non-White employees will also be defined. If, for example, the Administration of South West Africa desired it—and that also answers the question of the hon. member for Karoo—certain Bantu teachers—Native teachers, as they are called there—who are employed at State-aided Native schools, could be declared Government non-White employees. Those teachers are not employees of the Administration, but their salaries are paid in full by that Administration. In the same way any other group could also be so declared, provided that they are in the service of the State in some way or other. But it is not intended to include employees of the Railways Administration in this fund, because the Railways Administration has its own schemes. This answers to some extent the question asked by the hon. member for Boland. I shall later again deal with the questions asked by the hon. member for Boland and the hon. member for Kensington. The member for Umbilo also asked the question what the position will be as regards the transfer of teachers from one State institution to another, particularly where one may be dealing with the Transkei. He gave the example of a teacher employed at a Bantu Education school in the Republic, that is, outside the Transkei, who is then seconded or even transferred to a school in the Transkei. He wanted to know whether that would be provided for. I can assure him that we will in fact provide for that in the regulations. That will of course entail an adjustment of the fund. The Transkei is also engaged in the establishment of a pension scheme for their employees, and they will therefore have their own pension fund there. There will therefore have to be some adjustment between the two funds in the case of a transfer. Adequate provision will, however, be made for that in the regulations. Both the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Berea wanted to know what the position would be as regards the rand for rand contribution in respect of Bantu teachers. The question was whether that contribution will be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Bantu Education Account. It will be defrayed from the last-mentioned account. The reason for that is that pension benefits are in actual fact part of the conditions of service and the emoluments of an official. As the salaries are therefore defrayed from the Bantu Education Account, it is only fair that the State’s contribution shall also be met from that same account. We cannot depart from that principle because that would give rise to too many problems. In fact, that will also be in conflict with the entire principle on which we have been acting until now and on which we intend continuing. But there is a further implication. The time will come when the responsibility for the education of the Bantu will be transferred to the Bantu authorities as and when they achieve self-government of their own affairs. The Transkei is an example of that. It is therefore much easier to make the adjustment by regarding the Bantu Education group as a separate group. The hon. member need have no fear that the payments will give rise to problems. Arrangements can be made in this regard. Members need not think that in the initial stages the fund will be too weak to make the payments that necessarily have to be made from it, because members of the fund have to contribute for ten years before they qualify for a pension. By that time the fund should be strong enough. When they buy in previous service for pension purposes, the fund is of course also strengthened. I do not think the hon. member need have any fears that problems will arise. If in practice problems of that nature arose, the Government would try to solve those problems by suitable means and in such a way that nobody would suffer. The member for Boland brought up two matters. He wanted to know why only non-White workers with more than five years’ service are admitted to the fund. He wanted to know why the period could not be made shorter. He said that he realized that there were many who worked for a month or two, that is, casual workers, and that they could not be included, but he submitted that one year was long enough. But the experience in the different departments has shown that there is a large turnover of staff within the first five years. During my term of office as Minister of Bantu Education I myself had the experience in Bantu Education that in many cases the female staff, in particular—teachers—remained at the schools for two, three or four years at the most. And if all those who remained in the service for such a short period had to be admitted to the fund and had to contribute, they would actually be entitled to receive no more than their contributions from the fund when they resign. That would make the administration of the fund tremendously expensive and impossible. That again could give rise to very serious problems. It has been our experience in the Public Service and in the different departments that deal with the non-Whites, that those employees who remain in the service for five years, usually do not resign shortly afterwards. The turnover or number of resignations after the five-year period is very small. The person who has been in the service for five years and joins the fund, can then buy in his previous service. It is merely that he cannot become a member of the fund before he has completed five years of service. The second question he asked was whether there will be different funds for the different population groups or for different groups of employees. Although the Bill provides for that, it is not the intention to establish different funds at this stage. It is the intention that there shall be only one fund at this stage. But the time may come, with the transferring of responsibilities to Bantu authorities, to the Coloured Council—when it is granted certain administrative and legislative functions—and to the Indian Council—when it is granted certain legislative and administrative functions—that they will want separate regulations for their employees. We are therefore merely providing for the possibility that the day may come when different funds will be established. But it is not intended to do that at the present stage. The hon. member for Kensington said that he regretted that a contributory scheme was resolved upon, because he was of the opinion—and he has advocated that on a previous occasion—that public servants …

Not all of them. We are now speaking of non-Whites in terms of this Bill.

That is correct. We are now speaking of non-Whites, but the hon. member for Kensington’s plea was that the trend in other countries is to change more and more to non-contributory schemes as regards officials. In view of the fact that we are now making provision for non-Whites, he therefore wanted us to do as in the case of the Railways and design the scheme on non-contributory lines. But, Mr. Speaker, the staff, the non-White employees of the Government in its different departments, are in general much more highly paid officials than employees of the Railways. In general, the non-White employees of the Railways receive a low remuneration. With regard to officials in the public service who receive a low remuneration, I said that the old non-contributory schemes remained in operation, and that certain improvements were merely being introduced in the existing schemes. Essentially we are retaining the same schemes. It is for the better and more highly paid groups, however, that this contributory scheme is being established. They are now placed on the same basis as White public officials. We cannot have a non-contributory scheme for the highly paid non-White employees at this stage. Some of them are professors and others inspectors of Bantu Education. There are, for example, school principals and non-White doctors who are in Government service. All of them are highly paid officials. There is no reason to admit them to a non-contributory scheme, and that while the White clerks in the public service do in fact have to contribute. The hon. member will understand that at this stage it is quite impossible to treat the non-Whites better than the White officials are being treated. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept the hon. member’s pleas. In general I am grateful for the support the Bill has received, and I trust that I have answered most of the questions that have been asked.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The question has arisen, however, whether the functions of some of those institutions are not closely related to the work of departments which fall under other Ministers. The Government has given careful consideration to this matter, and deems it desirable to transfer the responsibility for the National Botanic Gardens of South Africa at Kirstenbosch to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, as from the end of the current financial year.

It goes without saying that the status of Kirstenbosch as a State-aided institution will not be affected in any way, and that there will be no change in its association with the University of South Africa on the one hand or with the Botanical Society of South Africa on the other hand. I may just mention that all parties concerned have been duly consulted: the Board of Kirstenbosch, the Director, the University of Cape Town, and even the Department of Education, Arts and Science. After transfer, however, the State aid will be provided by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, with which there will be very useful co-operation, particularly in the field of botanical and related geological research and development. At present inquiries are also being made into the possible transfer of the responsibility for the South African War Museum in Johannesburg to the Minister of Defence. Such a transfer requires a new provision in the existing Act, which is contained in Clause 1, and an amendment of an existing provision (Clause 2) to assign to various Ministers the administration of the Act in respect of various State-aided institutions. This Bill now provides for this specific and imminent action, and also for further possible cases. I move.

Mr. Speaker, naturally we accept this Bill on this side of the House and we will support it. We think it is very necessary because there is no reason why the Minister of Education, Arts and Science should be responsible for these institutions which fall naturally under other Ministers. In fact, I felt sorely tempted earlier this afternoon, when we were discussing the Emergency Planning Bill, to suggest this clause, but I restrained myself. This clause would have solved a very serious problem which we were discussing. The Minister’s clause reads like this—

I think that would have solved all the difficulties. We support this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Where the principal Act has now been in operation for five years already, and all interested parties have had ample opportunity to study the practical application thereof, and offer suggestions which would eliminate any loopholes. I find it necessary to propose a number of amendments, as contained in this Bill. A few of the most important of the proposed amendments are those of Section 2 (1) of the principal Act which amount to the abolishing of the compulsory registration of dealers in perishable agricultural products, and those of Section 8 which relate to the employment and registration of salesmen by commission agents. The Bill contains further a number of amendments aimed at tidying up various provisions of the principal Act, thus facilitating its administration and improving its effectiveness.

In order to give the hon. members an idea of the purview of the different amendments, I shall now proceed to deal with the separate clauses.

Definitions (Clause 1).

The proposed amendment in paragraphs (a) and (d) are merely a tidying up of the relevant existing definitions, while those in paragraphs (b) and (c) are of a consequent nature and arise from the proposed abolishing of the compulsory registration of dealers to which I have already referred.

Registration of commission agents, brokers and dealers (Clause 2).

In terms of Section 2 (1) of the principal Act, no person (other than a local authority) shall inter alia carry on business as a dealer unless he is registered as such. In terms of the regulations issued under the principal Act, a “dealer” is at present any person who buys or sells four or more tons of perishable agricultural products in any one week. The provision making the registration of dealers compulsory presents a considerable number of problems because it cannot be enforced. Of course, where dealers come forward of their own accord to register, no problems are experienced. However, there are hundreds of cases where there is a strong suspicion that the persons concerned ought to register as dealers, but it is just attempting the impossible to try and obtain satisfactory proof in each case of the precise quantity of perishable agricultural products they handle per week. In any case there are many dealers who are not required to register on account of the small quantity of perishable agricultural products which they handle. The principal Act, in so far as dealers are concerned, binds them nevertheless. The registration, in terms of the principal Act, of dealers is thus regarded as being unnecessary and consequently compulsory registration may be done away with, but all dealers will have to comply with other applicable provisions of the Act.

The provisions of the principal Act are at present also applicable in respect of that portion of the business which a commission agent carries on by selling products on behalf of a control board established under the Marketing Act 1937 (Act No. 26 of 1937). In the different schemes under the said Act, there is adequate provision enabling control boards to exercise control over their agents, and in practice the control boards enter into an agreement with their agents to control such transactions. On the other hand, it is not always possible for commission agents to comply strictly with the principal Act in respect of their transactions on behalf of control boards. In the proposed new subsection (2) provision is therefore being made that the business a person carries on when he sells perishable agricultural products on behalf of and in accordance with an agreement with a control board shall be excluded from the provisions of the principal Act. The Banana Control Board, the Deciduous Fruit Board and Citrus Board are the only three control boards which will at present be affected by the amendment, and not one of the three above-mentioned boards have any objection to the proposed amendment.

Application for registration and renewal of registration (Clauses 3, 4 and 5).

Some of the proposed amendments, as far as dealers are concerned, are only of a consequent nature. The other amendments include an improvement of the existing phrasing on the one hand, and will facilitate in practice the issuing of certificates of registration on the other.

Refusal, suspension or cancellation of registration (Clauses 6 and 7).

The aim of these proposed amendments is to extend the grounds on which an application for registration or renewal of registration as commission agent or broker may be refused and the registration of a commission agent or broker may be suspended or cancelled so as to be able to exercise stricter control in respect of such registrations and the renewal thereof. The provision being made in this regard in the proposed Sections 6 (1) (j) and 7 (1) (g) is similar to a provision already existing in the Dairy Industry Act, 1961, and which relates to the cancellation of certificates of competency in cheese making and butter preparation issued in terms of that Act. Subsection (2) of Section 6 at present provides that an application for registration, or renewal of registration, may be deferred for not more than 30 days for the purpose of enquiries. This provision is unnecessary and its deletion is being proposed because all such applications are dealt with as rapidly as possible and the time limit is not necessary.

The other amendments are of a consequent nature and are intended to improve the existing phrasing.

Registration of salesmen (Clause 8).

In terms of the present provisions of the principal Act, the registration of a salesman (unless cancelled or suspended) remains effective indefinitely, irrespective of whether he changes his employer or ceases to act as salesman. Experience has shown that such a state of affairs makes for ineffective control over the actions of salesmen and consequently the proposed amendment provides that the registration of a salesman remains effective only for as long as the salesman continues without a break to be an employee of the commission agent who made application for his registration (Section 8 (7)).

Following from this, provision is being made in the proposed Section 8 (2) for a period of grace of 30 days in which application may be made for the registration of a salesman. On the one hand this will enable a salesman to change his employer without having to be unemployed for the period during which his application for registration is pending. On the other hand it will prevent the business of a commission agent being held up by a shortage of staff while his application for the registration of a salesman has not yet been disposed of. This provision should eliminate any possible hardships. As in the case of commission agents and brokers (Section 6 (1) (a)) the grounds with regard to the suspension or cancellation of the registration of a salesman, or the refusal of an application for such registration, are being extended in so far as the contravention of the provisions of the principal Act are concerned. Some of the amendments which are further being proposed relate to procedures which will apply when application is made for the registration of a salesman, and the others are of a consequent nature.

Section 10 of the principal Act requires that a register of registrations must be maintained in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner. This provision, i.e. that the form of the register and the manner in which it must be maintained, should be prescribed, is unnecessary because the details which should appear in the register have already been stipulated in Section 10.

The other proposed amendments are of a consequent nature.

Surrender of certificates (Clause 10).

Section 11 of the principal Act at present provides that any person who is registered under the Act and whose registration has been cancelled or suspended, shall surrender his registration certificate to the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing within seven days after he has been requested to do so. Apart from the consequent amendments arising from the proposed changes as far as the registration of salesmen is concerned, it is being proposed that where a registration in terms of the Act is suspended or cancelled, or expires, the relevant commission agent or broker shall be required to surrender the registration certificate without his having to be requested to do so. This amendment is being proposed in order to facilitate control in this connection.

The principal Act provides that details of the cancellation or suspension of a registration, be published in the Government Gazette and any prescribed official publication of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. The purpose of such a publication is to bring to the attention of interested parties (particularly producers on whose behalf commission agents are acting) that the person in question is no longer carrying on the business in question. The proposed amendment that such publication should take place in one or more newspapers, if the Secretary of Agricultural Economics and Marketing deems it necessary, instead of in any prescribed official publication of his department, will serve the purpose better.

Information to be furnished by a commission agent or broker (Clause 12).

The proposed amendments are for the most part of a consequent nature. In order to be able to exercise proper control with regard to the registration of salesmen, the provisions contained in the amendment Section 13 (1) (d) and (e) are being proposed.

Section 14 of the principal Act prohibits on the one hand the actions mentioned therein on the part of commission agents, brokers and dealers, and on the other hand places certain obligations on commission agents and dealers. The proposed amendments, which extend the existing provisions in this regard, are aimed at bringing about better control and making provision for circumstances which are not covered at present. The proposed amendment to Section 14 (3) of the principal Act clarifies the obligation which rests on dealers in terms thereof to pay for perishable agricultural products which they sell within a specific time.

The principal Act provides that a commission agent may purchase for himself, or on behalf of another person, by private treaty or at an auction at which he is not himself the auctioneer, produce which has been entrusted to him for sale, provided he has the written consent of his principal. The proposed amendments in this regard state more clearly under what circumstances a commission agent may sell, for himself or on behalf of some other person, produce by private treaty. The further amendments define more clearly the information which has to be stated on the auction slips and sales notes at such transactions. The purpose of the amendments is to make better control possible.

Records which have to be maintained by commission agents, brokers and dealers (Clause 15).

The proposed amendments in this regard extend the type of documents which have to be maintained by a commission agent for the stipulated period of time. Provision is also being made for documents such as sales notes, written permission given by the agent’s principal and written communications by the agent to his principal, which will have to be issued and obtained under other proposed amendments.

Security (Clause 16).

In the first place the proposed amendments to Section 18 of the principal Act state the purpose for which commission agents give security more clearly than is the case at present but entail no change in the present position. For example, it is now specifically stated that the taxed costs of any action for the recovery of the proceeds of produce made be paid out of the security. In accordance with the regulations issued in terms of the principal Act such taxed costs are still being allowed as a claim against the security. On the other hand it has never been the intention that any interest on the proceeds of produce, which a commission agent may owe his principal, should be payable out of the security. In any case it would entail almost insurmountable administrative problems if it were to be allowed that such interest may also be claimed against the security.

In the second place the proposed amendments provide that a farmer’s special co-operative company, which acts as a commission agent, shall be subject to the same provisions regarding the giving of security as are already applicable to co-operative agricultural societies and co-operative cultural companies carrying on the business of a commission agent. This amendment is being proposed because the former type of co-operative carries on a business which, for all practical purposes, is done on the same basis as the latter. Briefly the amendment amounts to this that a farmer’s special co-operative company, carrying on the business of a commission agent, will only have to give security in respect of its commission agent business which it carries on with persons who are not its members.

Preservation of secrecy (Clause 17).

According to legal opinion the existing provisions of Section 22 of the principal Act make it impossible for the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing to furnish information. coming to his attention during the administration of the Act, to market masters. This leaves a loophole since it is deemed essential in many cases to furnish the market master of a market where a commission agent is carrying on business with information about the actions of the agent, in order by so doing to achieve better administration of the Act. An amendment is therefore being proposed which will make it possible for the Secretary, at his own discretion, to make such information available to market masters. Of course the market masters will also be bound to preserve secrecy in such cases.

I am subsequently dealing with the general amendments occurring in Clauses 18, 19 and 20. These clauses comprise only consequent and formal amendments to the principal Act and amendments to make provision for the decimalization of the amounts as indicated. Mr. Speaker, apart from the bodies which I have already mentioned, the South African Agricultural Union, the Institute of Market Masters of South Africa, the Institute of Market Agents of South Africa and other interested parties, have also been consulted and the proposed amendments meet with their approval.

We on this side of the House support this amending Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister. We were, of course, in the fortunate position of having the Bill in front of us. If one had to rely on the hon. the Minister to explain the provisions of the Bill, one would make neither head nor tail of it. We support the Bill for several good reasons; in the first place, because the principal Act is already on the Statute Book, and because it has been proved that it is in the interest of the fruit and vegetable farmers. If there are two types of farmers who should be assisted and to whom one should be sympathetically disposed, they are most certainly those farmers who deal with perishable produce. In the past years it has become apparent that certain hitches have arisen in connection with implementation of this legislation. Accordingly the hon. the Minister explained, as far as we could hear him, that it was the object of the Bill to remove those hitches. In view of the fact that so many people act as greengrocers and fruiterers, one can understand that it is impossible to expect that all those people will be registered. Consequently we welcome the fact that they will be exempted from compulsory registration, but at the same time we are glad that they will still be subject to the provisions of this Bill and of the original Act.

In the first place, I want to refer to Clauses 6 and 7, which deal with the cancellation or suspension of the registration of a broker or commission agent. It is now being provided that the registration may be cancelled if the applicant is otherwise not a fit person to be registered as a commission agent or broker, as the case may be. Despite the Minister’s explanation that such a provision appears in the Dairy Industry Act, I wonder whether this provision is not rather too wide. What makes a person unfit to act as a broker or commission agent or a salesman? Is it quite fair, despite the fact that there is such a provision in other legislation, that only the Minister and the Secretary will judge whether or not a man is fit?

We welcome the fact that this Bill is overhauling the position in respect of produce delivered to the local market by the producer. According to the amendments made here, it is clear that it sometimes happens that a farmer’s produce is not dealt with properly. Therefore account must now be given of the appearance and weight of the produce. As I have said, we on this side want to adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the vegetable and fruit farmers; those people should receive proper treatment. In other words, they must not be cheated. When a man loads his produce at his farm and sends it off to market, he at least wants to know that he will get a decent price for it and that he will be paid for the quantity of produce he delivered. It is essential that the right kind of control should be exercised in this respect, and that proper account should be given to the farmer. I think the amendments introduced in respect of salesmen are being introduced to facilitate the implementation of this legislation. We therefore agree with most of the provisions of this Bill, and we shall support the hon. the Minister, and when we reach the Committee Stage we may perhaps have a further discussion on the two clauses I have already referred to.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The present Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, contains no provision compelling an employer to deduct trade union membership fees at the request of an employee. Unless an employer is therefore subject to such an obligation in terms of an agreement published under Section 48 of the Act, the trade union officials must collect the membership fees from each individual member. Over the years this matter has always been a bone of contention, since some employers refuse to grant trade unions these facilities, while others in their turn discriminate by granting these facilities to certain trade unions only and not to other trade unions. The result of this situation was that as far back as 1959, representations were made to the Minister of Labour to have legislation passed which would provide—

1. (i) for the deduction by employers of trade union membership fees at the request of a trade union member;
2. (ii) that trade unions be given the right to enter any works premises for organizational purposes; and
3. (iii) that all trade unions be granted equal treatment in respect of organizational facilities.

The Industrial Tribunal was then instructed to examine and report on the desirability or otherwise of the proposed amendments. During 1961 the Tribunal brought out its report and by an analysis of the evidence came to the conclusion that these requests should not be complied with.

Inter alia the Tribunal adopted the attitude that if there could be negotiations on conditions of service such as wages and hours of work, there could also be negotiations on the deduction of trade union membership fees, the entering of works premises and organizational facilities. The Tribunal was of the opinion further that the collection of fees, just like the recruiting of members and the maintenance of membership was an organizational function of a trade union and that these inherent tasks could not be shifted on to an employer.

In the last paragraph of its report, the Tribunal expressed itself as follows (translation)—

That was the very firm conclusion to which the Tribunal came. However, the evidence gathered by the Tribunal indicated that 33 trade unions were in favour of the compulsory deduction of trade union membership fees, and 55 were against. Owing to the Tribunal’s findings, the proposed amendments were not proceeded with. Representations from various sources have subsequently been received requesting that only the deduction of trade union membership fees be made compulsory by legislation. The other requests were abandoned. At the time of its introduction this latest request enjoyed the support of the South African Confederation of Labour, which consists of the South African Federation of Trade Unions, the Federal Consulting Board of the S.A. Railways and Harbours Staff Association and the Co-ordinating Board of S.A. Trade Unions. The Trade Union Council of South Africa also supported the request, and on 20th February, 1964, this body wrote as follows to my predecessor—

Executive Committee of this Council it was unanimously decided to strongly support the representations made to you by the South African Confederation of Labour in connection with the above subject. I am directed to recommend that you kindly give your favourable consideration to the introduction of implementing legislation during the current Session of Parliament.

This is what the Trade Union Council of South Africa wrote in 1964 when it said that its Executive Council had unanimously decided to give its strong support to the representations which had been made to my predecessor.

Is that still their attitude?

I am coming to that. Owing to these requests the Industrial Tribunal was approached once more and asked for its comments. The Industrial Tribunal then considered this matter and pointed out that the views of the trade union organizations which had made the representations differed fundamentally from those which they had made previously. They also pointed out that where the trade unions had previously asked for the attendant facilities, i.e. the right to enter a factory, and for organizational facilities, they were subsequently limiting their request to the deduction of trade union membership fees only. Since the trade unions had displayed such a change in attitude, the Industrial Tribunal, after further consideration, came to the conclusion that the request regarding the deduction of membership fees could be complied with. The Industrial Tribunal made one reservation, however, which was that this concession could only be granted to registered trade unions. Owing to these complications and on the grounds of this finding of the Industrial Tribunal, the Cabinet subsequently decided that legislation for the compulsory deduction of trade union membership fees should be prepared and published for general information. A draft Bill was subsequently published during October, 1964, for general information. With the sole exception of this one, all the employer organizations then opposed the measure. Only one trade union made comment and expressed itself in favour of the measure. No comment was received from any other trade union. On 3rd February, 1965, the Bill was then introduced in this House and read for a first time, but was subsequently referred to a Select Committee. Altogether the Committee held 12 meetings when evidence was heard, but on 9th June, 1965, it reported that it could not complete its activities and requested that it be re-appointed during the following session in order to continue its investigation.

On 26th January, 1966, the Committee was re-appointed and at its meeting on 9th February, 1966, it decided unanimously that legislation to provide for the compulsory deduction of trade union membership fees was desirable. However, the Opposition moved certain amendments which were not accepted and it subsequently also voted against the amended Bill which the Committee had submitted.

However, the measure now before this House differs fundamentally from the original Bill which was submitted in February, 1965, and which was referred to the Select Committee after the first reading. The original measure provided inter alia that any employee who was a member of a registered trade union could request his employer to deduct his trade union membership fees from his wages and pay them over to his trade union. In the amended measure it is now being provided that application must be made for this concession and that the Minister may grant it to any registered trade union which is at least 50 per cent representative and which complies with certain other requirements. As will be noticed, there is no restriction on a racial basis in this provision. In a proviso the Minister is empowered to depart from the 50 per cent requirement in specific circumstances, i.e. where a registered trade union experiences difficulties with the collection of membership fees, but this power can only be exercised in respect of either White or Coloured trade unions.

As hon. members know, mixed trade unions could, since the Act of 1956, no longer be registered unless the number of employees of the separate races were so small that the Minister found that, for that reason, it could be registered as mixed. I must just mention that since that time there have been no such cases.

Now I just want to refer to the attitude of the Trade Union Council, with reference to which the hon. member for Yeoville has just put a question. Since the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and during the evidence given before the Committee, there was a volte face on the part of the Trade Union Council. That organization then—and this is still their present attitude—strongly opposed the Bill and maintained that the measure would bring about the splintering of trade unions and that “mushroom trade unions” would arise. It is also being alleged that the letter written by the T.U.C. to my predecessor in which the introduction of the proposed measure was advocated, was really written by mistake. I am referring to the letter written on 20th February, 1964, in which the Trade Union Council stated that they had unanimously decided to request that the proposals be placed on the Statute Book, and now we learn that that letter was written by mistake. I shall leave it to the House to decide how much value one can attach to such an organization. I just want to say one thing in regard to this cry that mushroom trade unions will then arise. To us this cry that our labour legislation in this regard will cause mushroom trade unions to arise, is not an unfamiliar one. This was the cry previously when Minister Schoeman introduced this Bill; in 1956 when the legislation was being handled by Minister De Klerk the cry was once more that the legislation would create mushroom trade unions. I just want to furnish these few particulars to enable hon. members to determine what value one must attach to this mushroom organization story. In 1956 when this Act came on to the Statute Book there were 184 registered trade unions, of which 55 were White, 16 Coloured and 113 mixed. At present there are 176 registered trade unions and not, as these people intimate, between 200 to 500 more. In reality they are therefore less. Not only are there less trade unions, but they are also better constituted. Ninety-one of these 176 trade unions are White trade unions, 39 are Coloured and 46 mixed. This decrease in the number of registered trade unions is due to two factors: On the one hand, some of them have disappeared, and on the other, there are some of them which have amalgamated into larger national trade unions. What is of particular importance, if one takes into consideration the cry that we will create circumstances in which trade unions will shoot up like mushrooms, is the fact that coupled with a decrease in the number of trade unions, there has been an increase in their membership. In 1956 the membership of this number of registered trade unions was 403,000, a membership which grew to 474,000 in 1965. There was thus an increase of 71,000 and that despite the fact that the number of trade unions as such had decreased from 184 to 176. This fact can help members to decide how much value must be attached to this story of mushroom trade unions. As far as I am concerned, I want to state that it is my conviction that this measure with which we are now dealing is going to contribute to the growth of a very sound and strong trade union movement in South Africa and will definitely not lead to trade unions shooting up like mushrooms. Hon. members must note that my conviction agrees with that of the Industrial Tribunal, when it decided, after reconsidering the matter, that this measure was not only going to bring about greater industrial peace, but was also going to contribute to the elimination of disputes between trade unions.

There is one more aspect of this measure to which I want to refer. It remains the task of each individual trade union to canvass its members. A member of a trade union can, of course, not be compelled to have his membership fee deducted. It remains the task of this trade union to canvass him.

As I have already said, there are employers who are opposed to this measure. They are afraid that this measure will deprive them of a weapon, a weapon which they can use in the process of bargaining. They feel that where they have had to sit around a table with trade unions in the process of collective bargaining, this question of the deduction of membership fees was a weapon in their, i.e. the employers’, hands, of which they could make use. It is also a weapon which has often been used in negotiations, by it having been implied on occasions that if trade unions were unreasonable the employers could take away this concession from them. I think that this attitude on the part of the employers is unfair. I regard it as unfair that this concession should always serve as a kind of sword which must hang over the heads of the employees. It is unfair on the part of the employer to be continually informing the trade union that if they do not co-operate, that concession is going to be withdrawn. I am asking this House whether they think that this attitude of the employer is conducive to sound employer-employee relationships.

Let me repeat again that it is my opinion that this measure will not lead to trade unions shooting up like mushrooms. On the contrary, it will assist in a more representative position of trade unions being obtained. With the publication of industrial agreements the fact is continually being brought home to me how often there are trade unions, trade unions which are a party to that agreement, which really have a very unsatisfactory representative position, in other words, they do not represent enough of the workers in the industry in question. I am now expressing it as my conviction that this measure can only lead to the representative position of the worker in such cases being improved. It will place them in a better position to negotiate with their employers for improved conditions of service.

As far as the other assertion is concerned, i.e. that the collection of trade union fees by the employer is not something which is desirable, I only want to point out that the deduction of trade union fees by employers is no new principle. At present there are already 43 industrial agreements which make provision for the compulsory deduction of trade union fees. At the same time there are 51 agreements in which provision is made for voluntary deductions. Only in nine agreements has no provision in this regard been included. In this regard it is also interesting to note that in 10 industrial agreements the membership fees which employers have to pay to employer organizations have to be collected by the Industrial Council. Here we find therefore that employers have the advantage that their membership fees to employer organizations may be deducted while in many cases it is those employers in question who do not want to grant a similar concession to their workers. Hon. members must now take note of the fact that membership fees which will be applicable in respect of these stop-orders, have the same meaning as that which is provided in the principal Act. In other words, these deductions do not include deductions from any other fund, such as a strike fund, for example. Hon. members will also have noticed that employers are allowed to retain 5 per cent of the membership fees which they collect as compensation for their work.

Apart from textual alterations which have been made by the legal advisers, this measure differs in only one respect from the draft introduced by the Select Committee, i.e. it contains the insertion of a provision that the representative standing of a trade union making application for stop-orders must be determined as it was on the date of application. This is being done for obvious reasons. A date must be stipulated and the date which has been decided upon is regarded as being the most acceptable under the circumstances. Here I would like to express my appreciation to members of the Select Committee who devoted much of their time to this matter. I want to thank them for the sacrifices they made in doing this work so as to mould this measure into an improved form. In particular, I want to express my appreciation to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Pretoria West. He devoted a great deal of attention to this matter, and I want to thank him for doing so.

Would you please enlarge on the consideration which obtained when it was stipulated that no membership fees of any other fund could be deducted by means of this stop-order system?

According to the provisions of the principal Act no other fees may be deducted. The membership fees to which these measures apply thus exclude membership fees of any other fund.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister as well as the hon. Leader of the House have already indicated that they will accept the adjournment of the debate at this stage, so that the discussion of this measure will not be unnecessarily interrupted by an adjournment of the House. That is why I now move—

Agreed to.