announced that Mr Speaker had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Friday, 14 June, at 09h15, for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain Bills.

Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, relative to the Regional Services Councils Bill [No 83—85 (GA)], as follows:

J C HEUNIS,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

11 June 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Tenth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, relative to the Constitutional Affairs Amendment Bill [No 101—85 (GA)], as follows:

V A VOLKER,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

12 June 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Ninth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, relative to the Income Tax Bill [No 113—85 (GA)], as follows:

1. (1) Due to the introduction of three tax Bills on the same day and the conduct of debates in the three Houses in which members of the Committee had to participate, only two sessions of three hours each—from 09h00 to 12h00 on 11 and 12 June—could be held to consider the three Bills. The Committee is of the opinion that the time was insufficient to hear all the interested parties and give proper consideration to the proposed legislation. The Committee, however, wishes to record its appreciation to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and his staff for their assistance in this regard.
2. (2) As regards the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act pertaining to fringe benefits, the Committee feels that the Minister of Finance should from time to time give consideration to the official rate of interest referred to in clause 26(a), and that the provisions of the Act as a whole should be referred back to the Margo Commission of Inquiry into the Tax Structure of the Republic of South Africa for review in view of the current year’s experience.
3. (3) The Committee recommends that the period of 20 years referred to in clause 28 be reduced to 15 years.
4. (4) As the provisions relating to initial allowances are being considered by the Margo Commission, the provisions in the Bill should be regarded as interim measures only.
5. (5) In respect of the provisions relating to insurance policies, the Committee is of the opinion that there have been gross abuses, particularly by companies and some wealthy individuals, and that steps to eliminate abuse are justified, and in this regard has made certain suggestions to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for consideration. In view of the limited time it is recommended that the provisions in this regard should before the next Parliamentary session be considered by both the Margo Commission and the Standing Committee on Finance.
6. (6) A number of amendments to the Bill were suggested in the Committee and will be moved by individual members in the debates in the different Houses.

CH W SIMKIN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

12 June 1985.

as Chairman, presented the Tenth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, relative to the Sales Tax Amendment Bill [No 111—85 (GA)], as follows:

CH W SIMKIN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

12 June 1985.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:
The Standing Committee on Pensions having considered the various papers referred to it, your Committee begs to recommend that the House approves the following items for inclusion in the annual Pensions (Supplementary Bill):

1. (1) There shall be paid to J T Durrant, formerly Chief of the Air Force, a pension of R6 000 per annum from the State Revenue Fund with effect from 1 October 1985.
2. (2) The pension awarded to Jacomina H de Villiers in terms of item 7 of the Schedule to the Pensions (Supplementary) Act, 1969 (Act No 100 of 1969), shall be increased to R4 800 per annum with effect from 1 October 1985.

D P A SCHUTTE,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

12 June 1985.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:

1. (1) That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitioners be entertained:
   Brink, Henrietta M; Du Preez, J van R; Verster, I C W; Walker, R; Whittle, Dora A; Wollaston, Helen M.
2. (2) That, with reference to the memorandum relating to C R Hills, it has no recommendation to make, as it understands that the case has been met administratively.

D P A SCHUTTE,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

12 June 1985.

Report to be considered.

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with clause 10 for a reason which I think is fundamentally important and to draw attention to what appears to be an unsatisfactory situation, but which it is hoped is going to be remedied as a result of this particular provision. It concerns the loss of State property. The explanatory memorandum says the following:

That is a very serious statement in regard to the actions of members of the Public Service. When evidence in this regard was given before the standing committee, the Treasury said the following …

Order! Hon members must not converse so loudly. I am not going to allow so much noise in the Committee while an hon member is speaking. The hon member for Yeoville may continue.

The Treasury said:

The issue which arises here is a very serious one. If valuable equipment which is difficult to replace is dealt with in this manner by people who are in charge of it, it not only causes financial loss to the State, but can actually cause irreplaceable loses. If one takes as example some of the more sophisticated equipment people are using in the Defence Force and this equipment is dealt with in the way described before the standing committee, it can have very serious consequences because it may well be that we will be unable to replace that equipment. The issue I therefore raise with the hon the Deputy Minister and which I think needs to be conveyed to the heads of the various departments is that we should not only have the strictest control in respect of such equipment but should also actually bring home to a greater extent than we are doing now the question of having to replace equipment which it may not be possible to replace. When one finds oneself in a situation where people are threatening one with boycotts in respect of technology and it is difficult to get this kind of equipment, it is clear that one is dealing with a serious situation. It may not just be a pair of boots but something far more serious. I am aware that there are and have been moves in the Defence Force to try to instil in people a greater concern for equipment, but this does not only happen in the Defence Force. It happens throughout the Public Service and I would like to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to see to it that a campaign is conducted to encourage people to look after the property of the State and to care for it, particularly in times such as these.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Yeoville for his remarks. I think we all share his sentiments. He said that the Defence Force is already taking certain action in this regard. The step I am aware of is the establishment of the loss control unit. However, I have heard what the hon member said and I undertake to bring what he said to the attention of the Treasury and the Defence Force.

I just want to say that what is happening here is that the law is being brought into line with practice. The hon member will know that as from August 1983 what is anticipated in this clause is already being done, and we are trying to regularize the situation. I share the views which the hon member has expressed.

It is quite appalling to see the way in which people treat State property. This clause is intended to remedy that situation. If a man loses a rifle, for example, the depreciated value of that rifle may be R5 while a new rifle may cost R700. All this clause now does is that the man could be liable for the amount of R700 and not for the amount of R5. One could get even worse abuse. A man could even say: If I lose this rifle the depreciated value is R5 and therefore I shall only pay R5. He might even sell that rifle or some other item and then pay what he was allowed to pay previously. He could then put the difference in his pocket. Cases of this kind do appear, and therefore I agree with what the hon member has said. I shall pass on what he has said to the relevant authorities.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr Chairman, in principle we have no objection to clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15, but I think there is a matter which should be raised in this context. I want to deal with the transfer of State assets. This applies particularly to movable assets, particulars in respect of which do not come before the appropriate standing committees. If immovable property which is land is to be transferred, the matter is usually dealt with by the appropriate standing committee of Parliament before such transfer takes place. If it is movable property, the matter is not dealt with by a committee. I believe that when we transfer movable property of substance, in terms of these provisions, there should be tabled in Parliament details of what is being transferred so that both Parliament and the public will be aware of what is being transferred.

Mr Chairman, I heard what the hon member said. What he has said is correct. We are not talking about land here but about services. The particular details of those services have been given to the hon member, and I shall not delay the Committee by making any further comments about them.

I am actually concerned about the future.

I shall go into the hon member’s request insofar as the future is concerned.

Clause agreed to.

Title:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, it is actually going to become relatively unique to have a third reading debate in this House so this is an unusual occasion. I will therefore not abuse it by making a long speech. I will be relatively brief.

Sir, it is in respect of clauses 1 and 2 that we have a major quarrel with the hon the Deputy Minister. I just want to deal with one fact. I want to put it in its correct perspective. The reality is that this money is being written off. The hon the Deputy Minister, however, keeps on saying that it is not so. One does not write money off only when somebody owes it to one. I should like the hon Deputy Minister to tell us in his reply who owes the State the R814 300 000. It is neither Iscor nor the SATS that owes it. In effect, the State owes it to itself; and when one owes something to oneself, the debt is automatically extinguished. It is that simple. One cannot, in fact, owe oneself money. That is not reality. It is just a figment of the imagination. It is an item in one’s books and no one owes one that money.

What is happening here is that only if there are profits, I repeat, only if there are profits from this particular mining venture, will there be any reduction in the amount of R814 300 000. If there are no profits from that mine, then that will in fact be the end of the story. If the mine were to be closed down tomorrow or if it were to run at a loss, there would be no obligation on the part of Iscor or on the part of the SATS to pay any sum of money whatsoever. So the reality is that this represented a liability on the part of somebody else to the State but which the State has now assumed itself. When one assumes liability upon oneself, the liability is in effect extinguished. That is the reality of the situation, and one cannot escape from that fact.

It is a set-off.

It is a set-off, as the hon member says, but it is a set-off almost against oneself. It is nonsense to argue that someone owes one the money when one owes it to oneself. Really, I find it most remarkable that something like that could be suggested by the hon the Deputy Minister.

If, in fact, the principle is that profits from the mine are to be used, then I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to tell me the difference between using the profits from the mine and using Iscor’s profits. If it is wrong to use Iscor’s profit, it would be wrong to use the mine’s profits, because the mine’s profits are Iscor’s profits since the mine is part of Iscor. What is happening here is that if the mine makes a profit of say R10, R8 goes to the State and R2 is retained by Iscor. However, in exactly the same way as it may be argued that Iscor is owned by the State, so it can be argued that the mine is owned by Iscor and that the State therefore owns the mine. So the argument I put to the hon the Deputy Minister is that the profits of Iscor should be used to extinguish this liability; and that they should be used for this purpose is, to my mind, the correct thing to do. It should not be the taxpayer who pays for it and neither should this liability be extinguished. It is bad enough that there is going to be a loss of interest of over R100 million per year. Thus, in these circumstances, there should be greater certainty about whether or not Iscor should repay the debt which it really has in this regard. Whether legally or morally this is Iscor’s obligation.

I think one also needs to draw attention to the irrefutable fact that this whole problem would never have arisen and thus that nothing would have happened in this regard had the Government followed its own 1971 decision. In 1971 the Cabinet decided that they would only go ahead with this if in fact there were long-term contracts to cover this situation. Then, for a reason which nobody has yet adequately explained, the Government went ahead with this without having longterm contracts. Similarly, they were supposed to have had commitments from the private sector, but for some reason nobody concluded contracts with the private sector people in order to tie them into the situation. There is no doubt, insofar as this is concerned, that this is a situation which has arisen due to a mishandling of very substantial sums of public money. Now the taxpayer has to foot the bill. The second point I want to make deals with what to our mind is a most remarkable situation viz that the people who have really suffered a loss in respect of this Government stock, the farmers who were under pressure to sell their Government stock because they needed the money either to pay their debts or to buy new farms or to make a living of some kind as well as other people who were expropriated and found themselves in the same position as the farmer, are not being compensated. I fail to understand, if this is a moral obligation which the State is assuming towards the people who have held the stock until now and who have not been under that kind of pressure, how one can ignore the people whom financial circumstances really pressed and who really suffered the losses.

These, to my mind, are unanswered questions in this debate and that is why we cannot support the third reading.

Mr Chairman, this is quite a historical debate in the sense that apart from the financial legislation, this Bill is the first to be discussed in a committee stage and a third reading debate.

If one thing has been proved by this Bill, in my opinion it is the immense success the new dispensation and the standing committees contain for this parliamentary system. This Bill was discussed by the standing committee in detail for two full days. Yesterday it was discussed in detail here in the House and is now being taken even further. The standing committee called in 13 witnesses who included the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Industry, the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, the Director-General of Trade and Industry, the General Manager of Iscor and the senior official of Iscor, of the SATS and of Finance. If one Bill was discussed in detail during this session and was dealt with to the satisfaction of everyone except one hon member, it is this very Bill. I believe it can justifiably be said that this Parliament has given this situation due attention.

I must admit it is one of the few pieces of legislation we have had enough time for.

I find the reaction of the PFP through the hon member for Yeoville on the one hand and the reaction of the other two Houses, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates on the other hand, very interesting. The PFP voted against the Second Reading of this Bill yesterday. From that I must deduce that the whole project should be abandoned, thousands of people should be left unemployed and their dependants must go hungry.

That is not true and you know it.

On the other hand the members of the other two Houses also put many critical questions in the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, may the hon member for Yeoville say: “That is not true and you know it”?

Did the hon member say that?

I did and I withdraw it.

In contrast with the hon member for Yeoville, the members of the other two Houses put many critical questions and the members of the House of Delegates even voted against certain aspects of the Bill in the standing committee. When the Bill was dealt with in their Houses, they debated the Bill with great realism, however, and weighed the alternatives carefully to reach an eventual positive decision on the matter. This applies in particular to the clause in connection with the Sishen/Saldanha line and the effect of clause 3 which the hon member for Yeoville has just referred to once again.

In summary let us merely ask what the choice is today. The choice today is whether or not this course prescribed by the Bill should be followed by keeping the line open and therefore also keeping the mining activities going, or whether one should rather close it with the detrimental effects that will follow?

What were the choices at the time? Could one rely on the export estimates that were made and on the basis of which the whole project was tackled, or should other altematives have been investigated, for example the possibilities of St Croix? Now I want to say that in all fairness very careful attention was given in the standing committee to the alternative of St Croix.

The general manager of Iscor said the following in this connection. I quote:

That is as far as St Croix is concerned.

Mr Van Wyk said the following on the effect it would have today with the present recession in world trade in respect of iron and steel:

I want to broach another matter in connection with what the hon member for Yeoville is saying. He wanted to know to whom that R814 million was owing. It is an investment made by the State. It was made indirectly at first and as far as I am concerned, it is now being made directly.

What asset does it have for that investment?

It has a fantastic railway line.

No, that belongs to the SATS.

All investments made by the SATS or whoever in this country, are part of the investment in the infrastructure of South Africa. Although this was a guaranteed line, there are many other lines in South Africa which are not operated economically either, but they make a very important contribution to the development of the infrastructure of the country.

The most important question we have to ask, however—and I want to conclude with this—is what the immensely great contribution made by this project to the opening and development of that whole area is. One can never underrate that. [Interjections.] Like the economy in general, this project must be seen in the long term, and then one may never ignore its immense contribution to the socio-economical development of that area. I should like to support the Third Reading.

Mr Chairman, I think with this debate, particularly the Iscor debate, we are now really beginning to chew the cud and restate arguments which we have argued over and over on questions which have been asked over and over, also in the standing committee.

*However, I want to thank the hon member for Paarl for his explanation. I think what he said is quite correct. I just want to say a few things in reply to the hon member for Yeoville.

†The fact is that it is not a write-off because we established a board and Iscor and the SATS are contractually bound. They must report to this board and there is a contract in terms of which this debt is going to be reduced, if at all possible. We cannot now engage in crystal-ball gazing and ask ourselves what the future holds.

Who is the debtor?

Who is the debtor? Iscor.

To what amount?

In the amount of 80% of their surpluses on the activities of the mine and the railway line. [Interjections.] The SATS must also pay over all surpluses arising from the use of the line by other parties such as Phelps Dodge at Black Mountain to the board. These will then be used to reduce the R814 million. So what we have is a situation that the contingent liability has shifted from the SATS to the Treasury.

If the State had wanted to write off the amount, we would have done what we have done on several occasions. The hon member will know better than I that in 1983, under section 27C of the Exchequer and Audit Act, we wrote off R525 million for the SATS. In 1980, under section 27A of the same Act, we wrote off about R1 800 million, and under section 27B we wrote off R854 million. We could have written off that R814 million in the same way, but we did not do so because there is every chance that that money will not be lost. I do not make that statement on a whim. It is based upon a study which the hon member has had sight of that was made by some of the most eminent people in this particular field. Mr John Maree is one of them. These people studied the matter and gave us particular advice.

By and large we have taken the advice that they have given us, which is, as the hon member for Waterkloof said yesterday, that the incremental costs are such that there is every chance of recovering the money. Whilst there is a chance of recovering the money, we must try to do so. That is what we are attempting to do and that is what all these arrangements are about. There appears to be every chance that these amounts will be recovered. Not only will they be recovered but there are also other spin-off benefits in keeping the line operational. If we do not do the kind of thing that we anticipate doing which this Bill seeks to give effect to, then we will run the risk of closing that line. If we close the line we will lose R300 million in exports and therefore valuable foreign exchange. Many people will lose their jobs, and we will not be able to keep our options open for the future, as has been mentioned ad nauseam in this debate in all of the stages. Therefore I do not agree that the hon member is correct. The amount has not been written off and there is every chance that the amount will be recovered.

As far as the second point the hon member makes is concerned relating to the consolidation-related stock, the question why everybody and not only the holders or hereditary heirs should not be able to cash in their paper and why people should not be compensated for their losses, is a matter which I think has been argued over and over. Fundamentally the matter is that, first of all, there are a great many people who, in the years up to 1980, might have sold their paper at a profit. Secondly, people who in fact sold their paper might have bought other properties which might have appreciated, and probably did, because if they had remained on those farms the farms would definitely have depreciated considering the sword of Damocles that is hanging over that land. It was only because the interest rates began to rise after 1980 that it was decided that this scheme could not be pursued because people would suffer losses. Now we are trying to regularize the position. We have decided that everybody holding that paper or their hereditary heirs will be helped. The explanatory memorandum sets it out clearly. There are something like 277 brokers. Because the brokers destroy their records after five years, it would be almost impossible to prove who the holders of that paper were. We would be involved in an endless wrangle as to who owes whom what, how much, and so on. We have done the best we can under the circumstances and we are attempting to help those people who can be helped practically. It is not practicable to do what the hon member suggested we do.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a third time.

Fair copy of Bill certified and transmitted to the State President for his assent.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In terms of the provisions of the Animals Protection Act an official of an association for the prevention of cruelty to animals may only seize an animal when a person is arrested with a view to criminal proceedings. The proposed amendment, however, now meets a need to make provision by regulation for the abovementioned officers also to be able to seize animals without a person being arrested. It also meets the need to make provision by way of regulation for officers of societies for the protection of animals to dispose of or destroy such animals, regardless of their condition.

These regulations have already been formulated and will be promulgated as soon as possible after the commencement of the Act. They will enable officers of societies for the protection of animals to discharge their duties properly, for example in respect of an animal which requires immediate care and which is found in a place under circumstances in which it is not always possible to determine who the owner of the animal is, or even when it is necessary, within reason, to prevent the maltreatment or the suffering of an animal. Such an animal cannot be kept for an indefinite period and it is therefore obvious that if no refuge can be found for the animal it will have to be disposed of in some other way. These powers of disposal will also be conferred upon the officers concerned by way of the regulations.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, before coming to this Bill in particular, I wonder if you would allow me as the PFP’s spokeman on justice to say a few words about a particular incident.

This morning two hon members of Parliament had their houses bombed. The one hon member, Mr Landers, is in hospital. On behalf of the PFP I wish to express our sympathy with those two families and in particular with Mr Landers and his family and we wish him a speedy recovery. I want to say that we condemn violence of this sort—of any sort in fact—and we hope and believe that the cowards who perpetrated this deed will be brought to justice speedily.

In regard to the Animals Protection Second Amendment Bill there is very little to debate and I wish to advise the House that we will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for his support of this legislation. It is true that there is not much to say about legislation of this nature. The legislation is essential because there are people who do not always adhere properly to the Creator’s command to rule over the animal kingdom as well. We therefore need this legislation, as well as the reinforcement of the legislation provided by this amending Bill.

I read in the Transvaler of 3 June that there are a great many people who have great piety for their animals. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Silverton has erected a Garden of Remembrance for animals as well and the curator says it is so popular that substantial extensions are to be made to this garden shortly. I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, we also support this legislation. What I find important about this Bill, is that the emphasis will be on the animal rather than its owner. At present the owner of the animal has to be criminally accused before possession can be taken of the animal. In future, regardless of the availability of the owner, one will be able to look at the animal’s helplessness and its situation and the official concerned can then deal with that animal as he thinks fit. As someone who is fond of animals, I want to have it put on record that I approve of this step and welcome it.

I want to add that on other levels of government where animals are dealt with, there was indiscretionary action at times in the past. Where authority is given to officials of animal protection societies by means of regulations, one accepts that those officials will always ensure, applying their discretion, that they take action only in cases of animals who are truly in need of care. We therefore support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the NRP will be supporting this legislation. It is a measure which is very gratefully received by the societies concerned because for a long time the existing legislation has been inadequate to deal with situations on an immediate basis. It made it very difficult for them to take the necessary action in certain cases and this led to circumstances of continued suffering and the hassles of following certain procedures. I am sure this legislation will result in their being able to act far more effectively and to carry out their very worthwhile function of the protection of animals. We support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the hon member for Sandton I want to associate myself with his words of condolence towards the hon members Mr Landers and Mr Peters. I hasten to say that these acts—at this stage the first of their kind—indicate very clearly that those who plan and perform them, do so regardless of who gets hurt. It is very clear that they aimed at vulnerable targets and that other people, even wives and children, could have been injured or killed. I think the whole House should make use of the opportunity to express its absolute aversion regarding the most cowardly deed that can be performed, viz that of a midnight attack on sleeping people.

I should like to associate myself with the hon members who indicate that they support this Bill. The hon member for Soutpansberg is correct when he points out that we are dealing here with an adjustment in respect of the approach to the Animals Protection Act, viz that the animal itself now becomes an important subject of the Act. Those who do their best to protect animals, can now take such an animal into their possession, and deal with it as they think fit, as authorized by the regulations. The intention is to give officials of animal protection societies in particular the necessary authority to act timeously in order to prevent animals from either suffering or being caused irreparable harm. I also thank the hon members for King William’s Town and Nelspruit for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The formula used for calculating the gratuity payable to a judge who retires was in the past similar to that applicable to members of Parliament. The formula regarding members of Parliament was, however, amended very recently by an Act called the Members of Parliament and Political Office-bearers Pension Scheme Act which came into operation on 1 July 1984.

It is consequently proposed, in clause 1 of the Bill, that the formula according to which the gratuity of judges is calculated be brought in line with that applicable to members of Parliament and political office-bearers. Provision is also made that, as in the case of members of Parliament, the total of any gratuity shall not exceed an amount equal to three times the highest pensionable salary earned during his period of service. However, this restriction is only of academic importance because few judges, if any, will have or already have served on the Bench long enough to enjoy the privilege of such a restriction.

Clause 2 provides that the pension of a judge who retires on or after attaining the age of 65 years but before attaining the age of 70 years, and who again holds the office of judge in an acting capacity, be suspended for the duration of service performed by him in an acting capacity after retirement prior to his attaining the age of 70 years.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the formula for the payment of gratuities to judges was in line with that of parliamentarians until approximately a year ago. This Bill has the purpose of bringing that formula back into line with the parliamentary formula, and accordingly we have no objection and thus support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it does not often happen that I express the same standpoint as the hon member for Sandton, but I am afraid that in this case he made such a meaningful contribution that I must thank him for the meaningful approach he adopted.

I also take pleasure in supporting this bill, because I think that it is essential for these adjustments to be made to protect judges. Judges actually make a very big financial sacrifice when they are appointed to the Bench. It is only right that their pension contributions be increased to bring them into line with ours.

Mr Chairman, we concur.

Mr Chairman, the NRP will support this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Section 10 of the Supreme Court Act provides that judges of the Supreme Court shall receive a remuneration prescribed by Parliament. In terms of section 1 (1) of the Judges’ Remuneration Act, 1978 (Act 91 of 1978) judges receive, apart from the prescribed salary, an allowance of R3 000 per annum. This allowance was originally awarded to judges in 1966 purely as a means of increasing the remuneration of judges. Section 1 (2) of the Act which provides that this allowance is not taxable was, however, repealed with effect from 1 March 1985 by section 49 of the Income Tax Act, 1984, with the result that the allowance became taxable. This means that a judge will have to surrender approximately 50% of the allowance for purposes of tax. This is contrary to the spirit in which the allowance was originally awarded—being part of judges’ salary packages and not a perk. Accordingly clause 1(a) of the Bill proposes that the previous position be reinstated by the reenactment of section 1(2) of the Act. I may mention, Mr Speaker, that I intend bringing proposals as soon as possible aimed at phasing out the allowance by means of salary adjustments so as to bring the position of judges into line with the Government’s general remuneration and tax policy.

In terms of section 1(4) of the Act only a judge who holds the office of chief justice of the high court of a state which formerly formed part of the Republic in a permanent capacity, is entitled to a specified allowance in certain circumstances. If a judge of a provincial division holds the office of chief justice in such a state in an acting capacity, he is not entitled to the increased remuneration which is provided for. This matter is now rectified by clause 1(b).

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, we will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill provides that the tax-free allowance, which judges received and which was repealed by the Income Tax Act, will be re-allocated to them. I just want to point out that this tax-free allowance was allocated to judges for the first time in January 1966. It amounted to R1 500 per year, and was increased from time to time so that it amounted to R3 000 per year in April 1980. I think it is quite clear that if this amending Bill is not passed, the salaries of judges would decrease considerably. Consequently I take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill, and I also thank the hon member for Sandton for his support for it.

Mr Chairman, we also agree with this.

Mr Chairman, we also support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to reconfirm the Government’s standpoint that the allowance referred to in this Bill will be phased out by means of salary adjustments as soon as it is possible to do so in future, in order to bring the position of judges into line with the general remuneration and tax policies of the State.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Section 38 of the Attorneys Act, 1979, regulates the investment of the moneys of the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Fidelity Guarantee Fund which is not immediately required for the purposes thereof, and limits such investments to State and other securities. An in-depth investigation, however, brought to light that, in order to ensure that the fund remains financially sound and that its money is invested to the best possible advantage, the fund’s investment powers should be extended. In order to achieve this goal, and at the same time to serve public interest, provision is now made in clause 2 for the appointment of an actuary to determine the amount which the fund will require to meet its statutory obligations during the ensuing financial year and to issue a certificate accordingly. The Minister is thereafter required to determine the amount which, in his opinion, will be necessary to meet the obligations of the fund. Money in the fund which exceeds the abovementioned amount may be invested in the prescribed manner. The portion of the abovementioned determined amount which is not immediately required for the purposes of the fund may, however, only be invested in such State and other securities as may be prescribed. The same principle is applicable to any other surplus money.

Clause 3 is, inter alia, aimed at streamlining the decision-making process of the board of control of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. Clause 3 also proposes that a law society be enabled to recover from the fund expenses incurred in connection with actions brought to remove practitioners who are found to be wanting.

*In terms of section 46 of the Act the board of control may make grants to any person or university in the Republic for the purposes of legal education or research, or pay honoraria to any person for services rendered at the request of the board of control with the object of enhancing the professional standards of practitioners. Clause 4 envisages an extension of this section so as to empower the board of control to make such grants to universities in designated countries, to persons attached to such universities and also to any association or society of attorneys in the aforesaid countries for the purposes of establishing or maintaining a fund for facilitating the practice of law. This provision could be a very important step in supporting the development of the administration of justice in the neighbouring countries of the Republic of South Africa. Provision is also being made for the payment of compensation to persons for services rendered at the request of the board of control.

Besides the substitution of an obsolete expression, clause 6 also makes provision for the extension of section 78(B) of the Act which provides that the council of a law society may inspect the accounting records of a practitioner in order to satisfy itself that the practitioner concerned is keeping his trust account in the prescribed manner. If, on such inspection, it is found that such practitioner has not complied with the provisions of the Act, the council may recover the costs of the inspection from that practitioner. To enable law societies to uncover irregular conduct by practitioners in this regard more effectively and without being unduly restricted by financial considerations and thus also strengthening control, it is being proposed that, firstly, such law societies be authorized to write up the said accounting records in the course of an inspection; and secondly, the costs of such inspection may be recovered from the practitioner or from the fund.

The Bill also envisages an increase in the maximum fines which may be imposed by a law society on practitioners or articled clerks for unprofessional, dishonourable or unworthy conduct. As a former practitioner, Mr Speaker, you will know that, thanks to good control, it is very seldom necessary to exercise such powers.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Minister has already told us, this Bill makes provision for the investment of unutilized moneys in the Attorneys’ Fidelity Fund. There can be no objection to this, and the mechanisms created by the legislation before us are quite acceptable. The PFP will therefore support the passage of this Bill through this House.

Mr Chairman, the last occasion on which the Attorneys’ Fidelity Fund was discussed in Parliament was during August 1983. At that time the commercial banks had decided to pay interest on moneys in current accounts, and provision had to be made for the interest which would acrrue to the credit balances of all the trust accounts of attorneys throughout the country to be paid somewhere.

The 1983 legislation ordained that this interest should be paid over to the Attorneys’ Fidelity Fund. A quick look at the history of this fund reveals that some 16 years ago it was worth a total sum of approximately R2 to R3 million. Between 1967 and 1983 the fund built up in value to some R20 million, after having met al its obligations. The amounts that it has met in claims have varied over the years. For instance, in 1979, an amount of R500 000 was paid out in claims; in 1980 it was R800 000; in 1981, R400 000; in 1982, R1 100 000; in 1983, R1 350 000; and in 1984, R2 715 000. I am advised that the fund is properly insured and that its maximum exposure to claims in any given year is limited to R5 million. The running and administration costs of the fund amounted last year to some R225 000.

I think it is important to know that the fund is also entitled to and does make grants for legal education, research etc and it may also pay certain compensations within certain strict parameters.

I predicted during the debate in 1983 that as a result of the receipt of interest from attorneys nationwide, the income of the fund would rise meteorically from about R3 million per annum to some R10 or R11 million per annum, and that within three years—I said this in 1983—its total value would double, and that within five years it would exceed R50 million.

Mr Chairman, what in fact has happened is the following: The fund’s income in 1983 was R8 million, and in 1984 the income alone topped the R17 million mark. The assets of the fund presently stand at R43 million, which means that it has doubled in less than two years. It has not even taken three years for it to do this. Within the next year the fund should stand at something like R60 million, and thereafter should increase at the rate of some R20 million per annum in an ever-increasing cycle. Within a few years the Attorneys’ Fidelity and Guarantee Fund will constitute one of the largest funds of its kind in the world.

While this legislation must be supported, there is a question of principle which arose and was discussed in 1983 and should again be the focus of attention. That question of principle is the following: Is it right to allow a fund of this limited nature, fed by money belonging to the public, to grow out of all proportion to the need it serves? What is the point of allowing a fidelity fund that is called upon to pay out perhaps R3 million per annum, but thanks to its insurance arrangements never more than R5 million per annum, to grow into a vast monolith of money and investments with its concomitant bureaucracy to handle that money and those investments?

The real answer is not to stop the fund, nor to limit or place a ceiling upon the receivable income of that fund. I believe that the hon the Minister should, in co-operation with the Association of Law Societies, negotiate legislation to broaden the scope afforded to the fidelity fund in its permissible expenditure. At present—and I said this in 1983—it can spend its money in only four ways: It can pay for its own administration; in terms of section 26 it can pay the public for losses suffered at the hands of attorneys; in terms of section 46 it can make grants to universities for legal education purposes and perhaps for research; and it may grant bursaries to persons and students for education purposes and for law research. We know that only a fraction of the moneys received is used for these purposes. The fact that in under two years the fund has grown by R23 million to the staggering figure of R43 million substantiates that statement.

During the 1983 debate—and I would ask the hon the Minister to read through that debate again at his leisure …

You did not make a bad speech.

During that debate I, and other speakers, offered several suggestions as to how the activities of the fund could be broadened and this growing pile of money could be utilized within the legal sphere and for the public good. I do not intend to repeat all these suggestions this afternoon. They are on record, they are there to be read by the hon the Minister, and they are also of relevance.

I would however like to pursue yet again one important suggestion, and that relates to legal aid. As I said in 1983—and it is still valid today—there is a crying need in this country for a more sophisticated, more easily accessible and more broadly available system of legal aid in regard to both civil and criminal matters. To illustrate my point, I quote from the most recent report of the Legal Aid Board. On page 4 one reads:

A little later in the report, on page 6, the board reports as follows:

Then on page 8 of the report one reads:

Basically, the Legal Aid Board had absolutely no money to advertise and let people know precisely what services it was able to render.

Two specific, basic and self-evident facts cannot be refuted. The first is that the Legal Aid Board virtually lives from hand to mouth. It cannot, with the limited moneys granted to it, satisfy the growing need for legal aid, while the Exchequer in this financial climate is really very hard pressed to help a great deal.

The second fact is that the Attorneys’ Fidelity Fund has grown dramatically and is likely to grow from now on by some R15 to R20 million per year without there being any real prospect under present legislation of its putting this money to good use, other than by investment which will make the fund even bigger.

In 1983, in reply to a debate on this subject, the hon the Minister stated that he anticipated that the fund would grow by an additional R1,5 million in that year. That was his advice. In truth he was wrong and as I predicted it benefited in that year by the receipt of an extra R8 million.

Your forecast was that it would reach R200 million.

No, I said R50 million within three years. It has now reached R43 million in under two years. I was right. I know what was said in that debate and I know what I am talking about.

Are there any mitigating circumstances?

I do not know if there are any mitigating circumstances in the case of the hon the Minister.

The case for using some of these funds to broaden the scope of legal aid is stronger than ever. If this were allowed, attorneys would be placed in a position to make a really significant contribution to the administration of justice in South Africa. I sincerely request the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to this new and evolving situation and to come up with a response which will redound in the interests and to the benefit of the public at large whose money that really is.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Sandton for the very interesting information he gave here and during the meeting of the standing committee.

One cannot thank attorneys enough for establishing such a fund because such a fund places the honesty and integrity of clients and attorneys beyond all doubt.

The size of the fund is relative. One person may think that R10 million is a large amount, whereas another may think that R43 million is a large amount and yet another may think that R100 million is not enough.

I think that the law society of South Africa is original, enterprizing and responsible enough to decide for itself how they want to handle this fund in future.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Bill.

While the hon member for Sandton was speaking and explaining how the fund had grown, I thought of the biblical words that more will be given to those who have. I agree it says a great deal for the legal profession that the fund has increased to such an extent. It is not something which will ever be superfluous as there will always have to be a fund to provide for those who transgress. Nevertheless one is concerned about the magnitude this fund can assume if it is not limited. Attorneys will have to seek a solution to this themselves as advocates are not going to dictate what they should do in this respect. One cannot, for example, discontinue contributions to the fund as the practising legal profession has to provide for cases in which its members become involved. The legal profession is, in fact, doing community work with the money available. It is actually a strange direction from which community work should emanate. In saying this, I am not casting reflections on attorneys but wish to point out that the fund was created for a specific purpose and is now being used to render community service.

They should return the money to their clients.

That is perhaps a solution. I know, for instance, that the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics could also put this money to good use interest-free if the legal profession would make it available to him.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton gave us a very interesting exposition of the origins and subsequent growth of this fund. I must say that the hon member for Bloemfontein East was just a little too laudatory of the attorneys and the establishment of this fund. I think I should just jog his memory a little and ask him why it was necessary to have the fund established in the first place. There is good reason to believe that in days gone by and before the establishment of the fund the clients were at somewhat of a disadvantage.

I think the ideas put forward by the hon member for Sandton as to the use of the excessive amounts over and above those which are required in the future certainly have a great deal of merit. I am sure that given the right by legislation to do so, the board of control itself will have plenty of opportunity of discussing various ways to use those funds. They could be used for legal aid or in the direction of legal-aid clinics provided of course that the funds are used in terms of the legislation. If the legislation is aimed at the inclusion of that right on the part of the board of control, I am sure that many interesting ideas may come forward in the interests of improved justice. A fund which is at present certainly not used to its fullest extend may then be used very beneficially. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to deal with just two aspects of this matter. The first is that I think in recent times there have been quite substantial claims against the fidelity fund. I for one think that the manner in which the fidelity fund and its administrators have handled those claims has done much for the good and the credit of the profession. I think they have approached the matter in a most reasonable manner. They approached it in a very considerate manner. We must bear in mind that in most cases they not only pay the claim which is involved but they also pay the attorney’s fees where it is necessary to engage an attorney or other professional people in order to lodge these claims, I can say that there have been some very substantial claims which I think have been very sumpathetically dealt with. I think this has enhanced the status of the profession. I think it needs to be placed on record that the people who handle that fund do so in a manner which redounds to the great credit of the profession.

In the second instance I just want to tell the hon the Minister a very short story. Some years ago there was an attorney in South Africa who emigrated to Canada. He settled in a particular town. I can give the hon Minister the name of the attorney as well as the name of the town. The attorney was then admitted to practise there. He built up a very flourishing practice until one day it appeared that there was a deficiency in his trust account which was of such magnitude that the whole of the fund of that province of Canada was entirely exhausted. There was a levy put on every single attorney who practised in that province in order to pay in so that the claims of the creditors could be met.

There is a moral in that story. One has to bear in mind that a fund, in order to create an impression on the public, has to be of a very substantial nature. Secondly the ingenuity of South African attorneys who have a very high standing, particularly when they go beyond the control of the law societies in South Africa, is in fact very great. Therefore the control that is maintained in South Africa must be very good because they can only do that when they go to other countries. One has to bear in mind that when that sort of thing happens to a fund every single attorney in a province has to pay in in order to ensure that the honour of the profession is maintained. [Interjections.] There is a moral somewhere in that story and I leave it to you, Sir, to convey it.

May I ask a question?

Yes, the hon member may.

Is the hon member aware that the fund is insured with, I think, Lloyds, and that its total exposure in any given year is up to R5 million, and that any balance which may run into hundreds of millions of rand, will then be met by the insurer?

Yes, I am fully aware of that. However, I am also aware of the fact that there are very substantial troubles at Lloyds as a result of which we now have to increase the deposits which have to be put up by the brokers at Lloyds in South Africa from 70% to 130%. [Interjections.]

So, Sir, while I appreciate that the fund is insured, I think that in those circumstances it is very important that the image of the fund should be such that the public has absolute confidence that they are being safeguarded.

Harry, will you go back into practice now? [Interjections.]

I will go back into practice now.

Mr Chairman, while the practitioners on both sides of the House are finding one another, I think I should quote the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to affirm his solidarity with the profession. He requested me to point out to the House that attorneys are the one category of people not receiving subsidies from the State. [Interjections.] Secondly, they are not a category of people who bury their mistakes. [Interjections.]

In getting to the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Sandton, I ask myself: Who am I to settle the trifling difference which has arisen between them? I would naturally rather encourage it and recommend they develop it further. [Interjections.] I thank the hon members for their support.

†Let me say immediately that the contribution of the hon member for Sandton in 1983 did not go unnoticed. I did take cognizance of that contribution. [Interjections.] For that very reason we studied the Act afresh and came to a decision. We did this, not only as a result of his contribution but also because the attorneys themselves, the management board of the fund, appealed to us to confer broader powers upon them such as, for instance the power to invest moneys in such a way that the fund would increase thereby rather than just have to rely on contributions and interest. Therefore I think that we should review the whole matter in principle.

The fact that the capital of the fund is being sizably augmented by interest earned on attorneys’ trust accounts actually accentuates the fact that the public has an interest in the fund. In substantiation of this approach the chairman of the board of control himself made the following statement elsewhere:

Whilst such interest cannot be described as public money in the true sense of the word, this extra accrual to the fund is made possible by the public. That fact—the fact that the interest is not paid back to the public—is due to the impossibility, from the accounting point of view, of attorneys determining the amount involved. That is why the hon member supported the amendment the year before last. The amendment was to enable us to add to that fund the interest that could accrue on daily balances.

The association raised the further point that it would be a practical impossibility to police compliance with legislation requiring interest to be paid back to the clients. That too was accepted as a fact by Parliament. Therefore, if the matter is approached from the point of view that the State can be expected to protect the public’s substantial interest in the fund, it appears that the State’s involvement in the fund owing to its joint responsibility with the attorney’s profession is justified for certain purposes, and I want those purposes to be placed on record.

The first purpose is to ensure that the amount in the fund is sufficient for the reimbursement of members of the public in cases of pecuniary loss as a result of dishonest conduct by practitioners. That is the primary and foremost purpose of this Act. I think if we are to go much further beyond this purpose we shall have to look again at section 26 which limits the purpose of the fund to that which I have stated. It has also been pointed out to me by the secretary-general of the attorneys’ executive that seven large firms in Johannesburg alone control trust accounts to the value of more than R43 million. I am not suggesting anything in particular about those firms. The hon member for Yeoville has just told us a very interesting story which bears out what I am saying. In case the hon member thinks that I am casting aspersions on Johannesburg I hasten to add that I am aware of the fact that in Bloemfontein, I am proud to say, three firms of attorneys control an investment portfolio of nearly R100 million. Therefore it could perhaps be pie in the sky to think that any amount beyond R5 million should be available for purposes such as for legal aid for instance.

*In saying this I wish to emphasize the point very strongly that we should be careful before we proceed further than this first object I have sketched here.

The second object is to ensure that money in the fund is reasonably available to serve the purposes of the fund. Investments should therefore be made in such a way that they may be realized rapidly. If there is a surplus, it should be one which may be applied in the public interest. The legal profession and everyone—including the hon member for Sandton—agree and I wish to state it as our basic point of departure in the amendments to the Act as introduced in the House today that we should ensure that the amount which may be payable to the public over a specific period should be determined by an actuary. At the moment it is R2 million but an actuary would be able to indicate the precise figure to us. We have laid a foundation for the future with this.

I do not want to give the hon member for Sandton the idea that he deserves all the credit. Members of the other Houses also argued that this fund should be applied more broadly. In consequence I thought it right and proper to use this opportunity to lay the foundation by expanding the Bill to such an extent in the Committee Stage that we meet the ideas of the hon member for Sandton and those of the hon member for Port Elizabeth North which he stated so strongly in the Justice Vote. Other hon members also argued along these lines in this House previously. All these thoughts are covered by an amendment which I shall introduce at the Committee Stage.

This will also enable us, for instance, to assist the Appeal Court with a library. That was a further outstanding matter which we will be able to deal with now. I wish to emphasize, however, that the board of control of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund remains autonomous in all these actions. Any initiative, for whatever purpose, will originate with it. Consequently I accept that hon members will realize that we are approaching the matter in such a way that we continue to entrust this money to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund but that we are definitely setting wider horizons for the application of these funds.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

That the Bill be considered in Committee of the Whole House.

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Fair copy of Bill certified and transmitted to the State President for his assent.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, during the discussion of my Vote in the House of Assembly last week I indicated that I intended to introduce statutory amendments in order to make it possible for more than one Deputy Judge President to be appointed for a Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The Bill which is now before Parliament, seeks to effect this statutory amendment.

The Diemont Commission, which investigated the desirability of converting the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa into an additional provincial division, recommended inter alia that a Deputy Judge President should be permanently in control of the Johannesburg court. During the past number of years, however, the volume of work in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court has increased considerably. The amending Bill will therefore make the appointment of one Deputy Judge President to serve in Pretoria and another to serve in Johannesburg possible. This will improve the present organization and control to a great extent and reduce the number of administrative problems that are being experienced.

The intention is therefore to amend the Act in such a way that the recommendations of the Diemont Commission can be implemented. These are—and I am now quoting from the report:

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, while the PFP is not opposed to this Bill which at least in part gives expression to the main recommendations of the Diemont Commission of inquiry into matters relating to the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court—which report was finalized almost five years ago—I have serious reservations about the way in which this Bill is worded.

I should like to remind hon members of what Mr Justice Diemont wrote in his report which was accepted by the Minister and the Government. I quote from page 7 of the Diemont report as follows:

Then, later on page 9, Mr Justice Diemont is even more explicit. I quote:

Finally, the wording of the main recommendation of Mr Justice Diemont could not have been couched in plainer language. His report reads as follows:

This statement is specifically reiterated by the hon the Minister himself in the memorandum attached to the Bill which we are debating this afternoon. The problem arises in the description of the duties of the deputy judges president as set out in clause 2 of the Bill. Here the hon the Minister deviates entirely from the recommendations of the commission for the legislation grants to the deputy judge president no authority to control and no authority to discipline and organize the work of the court, as recommended by Mr Justice Diemont. All that the legislation provides is that the deputy judges president—

That is stated in clause 2 of the Bill.

In other words, the new appointee for the Witwatersrand Local Division has no power other than that allowed to him by the judge president who is based in Pretoria. I doubt very much whether this is going to work, and I doubt whether the problems addressed by Mr Justice Diemont will be solved in terms of the mandate contained in this legislation.

It must be remembered that the functioning of the Supreme Court is not governed by ministerial assurances. The functioning of the Supreme Court is very strictly governed by statute, more particularly by section 10 of the principal Act and most relevantly by section 43 of the Supreme Court Act which reserves to the judge president—not to the deputy judge president—the power to organize the courts in virtually every detail. Section 43 is a section which comprehensively gives the judge president the power to run the courts under his sphere of control. In spite of the appointment of the deputy judges president, section 43 is not altered at all. In other words, the Bill before us paves the way for the appointment of deputy judges president on the Witwatersrand and in Pretoria but it gives those deputy judges president no powers at all except those allowed or delegated to them by the judge president.

By presenting a Bill in this form, the basic concept of appointing a strong deputy judge president for Johannesburg with the power to organize and to control and the authority to deal in his own right as a deputy judge president with the matters relating to his local division, is negated.

I have said that we will not vote against this legislation, but I ask two things of the hon the Minister. The first one is that he makes a statement of intent here today setting out his concept of what the spirit of the new dispensation should involve. We want to know how the hon the Minister sees the new Witwatersrand Local Division deputy judge president functioning. Taking section 43 into account, what does the hon the Minister see as the sphere of authority of the new deputy judge president?

Secondly, there is one other thing which I would like to ask of the hon the Minister, namely to give this House an assurance that, if over the next six months the inadequacies in this legislation that I have mentioned give rise to problems and retard the proper reorganization of the Witwatersrand local division, the hon the Minister will bring amending legislation next year to circumscribe properly the sphere of authority and control and the specific powers of the deputy judges president.

I hope the hon the Minister will let me have full replies to what I have said; that he will give us a statement of intent on the spirit of the appointment; and that he will give us an assurance that if the wording of the Bill leads to problems, amending legislation will be introduced next year.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Sandton. I believe that the hon the Minister will fully cover the aspects raised by that hon member.

But I think that it can be accepted as one of the basic points of departure that if one has a judge president in a specific division, he will take full responsibility for that entire division. Deputy judge presidents appointed under him must exercise delegated powers and will consequently also have to answer to him. However, I do not have the full background in this regard and I think that the hon the Minister will deal with the matter fully.

I want to tell the hon the Minister very briefly that this legislation is welcomed by former legal practitioners from that part of the world. If one considers how the work of the Witwatersrand Local Division has increased during the past 20 years, then it is high time that this particular division can act more autonomously. Over and above the criminal work which has increased tremendously, there is also the motion work. According to the statistics in the directorate’s report which has already been tabled, at present the motion work in Johannesburg even exceeds that dealt with from week to week in Pretoria.

The administrative problems have also increased. These are not only problems in connection with the work of the registrar and the attorney-general, but also the arrangements in connection with the activities of the judges, for example the trips by judges between Pretoria and Johannesburg and the problems of direct supervision in this connection. Consequently I want to thank the hon the Minister very much for his concession with this legislation.

I think that the legislation will possibly have to be amended in future according to the needs indicated by the hon member for Sandton. As a resident of the Witwatersrand I should like to express the hope that a special division of this court will be able to function independently in future.

Mr Chairman, actually I am merely rising to say that we support this legislation. I just want to say that I do not share the worries of the hon member for Sandton regarding how the division of work is going to take place between either the two deputies or the judge president himself and the two deputies. I think that people who have already reached that stature in the judicature would have the necessary maturity and insight to arrange these matters in such a way that it would be in the best interests of the entire administration of justice.

Mr Chairman, we too support the amending Bill. I am sure that the hon the Minister will keep a wary eye on the possibility that the job description—for want of a better expression—not being carefully enough included in the legislation will receive the attention it deserves. The mere fact that the matter has been debated may bring about the situation where the two deputy judges president and the judge president himself will seek a clear division of duties to bring about the improvement that one desires.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their support of this Bill. I wish to reach the crux of the matter immediatly and ensure the hon member for Sandton that we would not have introduced this Bill if our objective had not been the execution of the spirit of the Diemont Report and the recommendations contained in it. We can promulgate any legislation on earth but, if the functionaries do not act in such a way that its spirit is fulfilled, the legislation will be of no assistance or use. Consequently I think I can give the hon member no more earnest assurance in this regard as that of the recommendation which, in fact, already appears in the Diemont Report. The recommendation adopted by the Government and Parliament is the following:

†The hon member for Sandton does not deny that the judge president should be the responsible and controlling officer of that division in the final instance. Secondly, he does not deny the fact that no more functions can be delegated to a deputy judge president than the judge president himself has. In that regard he agrees with me. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it must be left to the judge president to take cognizance of the fact that this is enabling legislation; that he has to attend to the proper functioning and administration of that division and that he must delegate and assign such powers and functions to the deputy judge president as will meet with the recommendations of the Diemont Commission. When I say this, I take it very far because I express exactly what I have in mind with this amendment.

*The hon member for Roodepoort in fact also argued that the judge president was the person responsible for the administration and control of that division. It is also a fact that in terms of section 43 the judge president has the power to make specific rules and regulations. I think the judge president will have to review his powers in terms of section 43 in the light of the new development and decide whether he will apply them in such a way that the ideals of the Diemont Commission are accepted and implemented. Consequently I first wish to tell the hon member that with this I envisage making the recommendations of the Diemont Commission practicable.

Secondly, I cannot give him the assurance that a trial period of six months will be adequate. The reason is that a team is appointed here to deal with the administration of that division in such a way that it can, in fact, maintain its record which is already very good and, if possible, even improve on it. With this, I intend in particular, however, to enable it to deal with cases referred to in the Diemont Report. In this regard I wish to refer the hon member to the closing sentence in paragraph 20 of the Diemont Report. It reads as follows:

It is very clear that he does not say this division should now become separate. It is very clear that this power has to be derived from the judge president because in the final instance he remains responsible for that division. It therefore has to be a derived power. It cannot be a power derived from the State. It has to be a power which, viewed administratively, has to be derived from the judge president. The paragraph continues:

Not only the deputy:

If I were to respond to what the hon member said, I would therefore have to give the undertaking that if we thought the judge president was the obvious person to give the necessary attention to these matters in Johannesburg, we would tell him to five in Johannesburg. At this stage it is not the intention at all. Consequently we cannot indicate at any stage that, in determining the powers of the deputy judge president, the judge president can be passed over. It has to be a derived power because the judge president could have manned the post there himself. According to the Diemont Commission it would then be unnecessary to appoint a deputy.

We are going further now. We say we are assigning two deputy judges president to that division to deal with the administration in its entirety. The judge president may himself decide to live in Johannesburg or a judge president who lives in Johannesburg may be appointed. Where do we land, therefore, with an amendment which gives a deputy judge president powers equal to or even greater than those of the judge president? That does not make sense. Consequently after repeated consultation with our legal advisers on this matter and also arising from a proposal we received from specific interested and responsible circles in this matter, they indicated to us that it would be irreconcilable with the entire spirit of the Act if we were to amend it in a manner other than I proposed to the hon member.

I wish to close. As we have the joint objective of good and efficient administration for that division, I can give the hon member the undertaking that I shall be in continuous contact with the judge president concerning the development of that division and the practical experience of the application of these provisions. I am fully confident we are dealing with adults here who have proved themselves; they are responsible people. It surprises me that the hon member now wishes to intervene from above by means of legislation. We should permit these people to deal with this matter themselves without interference. The hon member will forgive me for remembering in future that he wished to confer more powers through Parliament than we otherwise wanted to do. I wish to leave the case to the judges themselves.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Speaker, I move:

As is customary, this Bill deals with diverse matters affecting the State Revenue Account. The Bill consists of only four clauses, which are explained in detail in the memorandum on the objectives of the Bill. I should nevertheless like to elaborate on clause 3 of the Bill, which deals with the O’okiep Copper Company Limited.

†The O’okiep Copper Company Limited, is a South African registered company. O’okiep is the oldest mining area in South Africa. It was first explored by Simon van der Stel in 1685. Since 1940, some 30 new ore bodies have been located and opened in this area, culminating in the massive, deep ore body at Carolusberg West in 1972.

In 1979 O’okiep initiated a project to develop the Carolusberg Deep Mine at an installed capacity of 120 000 tons per month. O’okiep planned to finance the required R27 million—at the 1979 value—for this project by means of bank loans and retained earnings. In the process a joint venture agreement was entered into between the mine and Barclays National Bank. However, the copper market dropped dramatically in 1981 and due to this the financial position of O’okiep deteriorated to such an extent that the mine at Carolusberg would have had to be closed if additional funds could not be found.

Mr Speaker, in view of the serious effect that this would have had on the regional economy of Namaqualand, Government was approached for assistance. It bears noting that some 13 000 people, mostly Coloured, were dependent, either directly or indirectly, for their livelihood on the continued operation of the mine and that very little alternative economic activity is available in this region. In addition, three villages with their infrastructure are managed and administered by O’okiep.

Hon members will therefore realize that in order to ensure social stability in the area Government was compelled to intervene and, after due negotiations between the mine and the Ministries concerned, Parliament in 1982 ratified an agreement in terms of which Government issued a guarantee up to a maximum of R40 million in respect of a new loan facility provided to O’okiep by Barclays National Bank. In the event of the Government having to pay, the payment was to be regarded as having been appropriated by law. The company had in this process also raised some R30 million for the project from shareholders.

Far from recovering, however, the copper market remained in the doldrums and it became apparent that O’okiep would not be able to meet its obligations in terms of the R40 million agreement. The effect of this was that the Government was obligated to pay Barclays some R32,8 million, and did so.

A new agreement was, in the circumstances, concluded on 21 September 1984 between the Government, O’okiep and other parties concerned whereby the amount of R32,8 million which was paid to Barclays is regarded as a loan to O’okiep repayable to the Government at the latest by the end of 1990.

Very adequate security for this amount has been put up which includes not only a mortgage on the immovable assets of the mine but also certain share investments of the mine previously ceded to the bank. The company, moreover, undertook a further rights issue of R20 million which, in effect, also transferred effective control from the American shareholders to South Africa. Simultaneously, the new controlling shareholders, Gold Fields of South Africa, bought an amount of R40 million in a matching Government stock issue of six years in order not to influence negatively the Government’s overall cash-flow position as a result of the payment to Barclays Bank.

*Mr Speaker, the infrastructure of this particular area of the North-western Cape is of cardinal importance economically as well as socially. In this area in which, as I have already said, there are few other employment opportunities, O’okiep continues to be an important source of employment, especially for the Coloured community. Apart from the other facilities that have been created, O’okiep was an important party to the establishment of the Namaqualand Technical Training Institute, which trained 100 apprentices during 1984, of whom 74 were Coloureds.

The Government considers the steps which it took to be a positive contribution in counteracting the depopulation of the rural areas in fine with its general policy of regional economic development. It should also be mentioned that the mine pays approximately R15 million per year directly in wages to its workers and spends a further R25 million on stores and other services.

In conclusion I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking hon members of the Standing Committee on Finance for their support of this Bill.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this particular measure contains a number of provisions and there are two in particular we propose to deal with. The first is the question of the foreign exchange loss which amounted to R654 million as at 31 March 1984, an amount which is now going to be paid by the Treasury to the Reserve Bank. In terms of the existing arrangements it is a payment which need only be made when there is agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Reserve Bank as to when such a payment should be effected. It is interesting that this particular payment is being effected at a time when we have been told that there is to be a substantial cutback in Government expenditure in the Budget as a whole. In the circumstances R654 million which comes from the surplus of the State Revenue Account as at the end of the last financial year might well have made a substantial difference in regard to the Budget had it not been paid. It would have had certain financial implications for the Budget for the 1985-86 financial year if that surplus had been carried forward and not used for that particular purpose.

What is also of importance is that this is only the deficit as at 31 January 1984. As far as I am aware there are no detailed figures available at the moment of the exchange losses that have been suffered since then. Estimates have been made putting those exchange losses at between R1 billion and R2 billion as at 31 March 1985. It will obviously be even more than that after the beginning of the new financial year. The burden of the losses that have been incurred in respect of foreign exchange is now becoming quite substantial and will have to be borne in mind in any future financial planning for the country. What is equally important is that there are very substantial amounts outstanding in respect of loans in foreign currencies to the State and parastatal institutions and local governments which have been guaranteed by the Reserve Bank and in respect of which there has of course been a dramatic change in the value of the rand. If one is to be realistic one has to bear in mind that while one hopes that there will be an appreciation in the value of the rand in the years or even months that lie ahead, I think there are very few people in this country at the moment who are prepared to say that we will again experience the heady days of a rand which is worth $1,35 as opposed to the approximately $0,50 it is today. We therefore have to bear in mind that there are very substantial amounts which are contingent Liabilities that have be provided for in this respect. There are changes in regard to the forward cover which is going to be granted in future and which will to some extent reduce potential liability in respect of trade transactions, but it must also be borne in mind that the contingent liability will involve very large sums of money.

The second matter is the question of the O’okiep Copper Company. This matter has been the subject of debate in this House on previous occasions, particularly in June 1982 when authority was sought for a guarantee to be given by the State to Barclays Bank. It gives me very little pleasure to be able to say that unfortunately we have been proved right in regard to some of the fears we expressed on that occasion. It is also quite remarkable to look back on that debate and to read what was said at that time about the possibility of having to pay in terms of that guarantee and what has happened since. Some R32 million had to be paid in terms of that guarantee. At the time the then Minister of Finance said that it was not the sort of thing that one anticipated one would have to pay. The hon member for Amanzimtoti who is on this occasion conspicuous by his absence belonged to another political party then. He asked some very challenging questions about the issue, things that have now become pertinent as far as the whole matter is concerned.

Let me take the liberty of quoting the hon member for Amanzimtoti in a number of respects (Hansard, 1982, col 9061):

When it came to answering the hon member for Amanzimtoti in regard to the question of economic viability, the then Minister of Finance said (Hansard, 1982, col 9069):

Then he went on with a long story about how banks were so careful to investigate the viability of a project, all of which of course was utter nonsense because the reality is that Barclays Bank did not have to investigate the viability of this project at all since they had a guarantee from the Government. When in fact the money became due, all they had to do was to say to the Government that it should pay and the Government paid. It was as simple as that. Therefore the question of asking Barclays Bank to go into the viability of the project when they had a State guarantee is to my mind quite a remarkable statement.

Something else which is interesting and to which reference is made here too is that the then Minister, when originally the concept of guarantees was introduced to the House by the then Deputy Minister, said the following:

That is the case in terms of the general position of a guarantee, but here we gave a guarantee and we were certainly called upon to pay it. The reality is that when we look at the position in which we now find ourselves, we find that first of all we queried the viability of the project at the time. We queried the issue as to whether it had been fully investigated. We queried the whole issue of a guarantee where private enterprise was involved.

The only factor which was material and which persuaded us to give this matter our consideration was, if I may use the term, the plea by the hon member for that area, the representative for Namaqualand in this House, in respect of the socio-economic situation in that particular area. I think the hon the Minister of the Budget made that plea too. Therefore there were two gentlemen in this House who put a very strong case for the socio-economic plight of those people.

What is also interesting is that I said at the time:

My hopes, I am afraid, were a little too optimistic:

It did not even last 10 years and we had to spend that kind of money.

We are now in the situation where we have a project which is viable at the moment only because of the low value of the rand and which even with the low value of the rand is just about at a break-even point. We had to honour our guarantee. Fortunately now the private enterprise concern which is involved has put in some of its own money as well in order to strengthen that proposition. We are really in the position now of the person who has paid for a guarantee, who has tried to salvage a situation, and who in fact has some security in order to do it. Now we really have been, if I may use the term, made an offer that we cannot refuse because of what has happened in the past. That is why we have, I think, very little choice but to vote for this provision at this stage.

It is essential, however, that we ask ourselves some simple questions. The people in that area are people about whose future the members of Parliament involved are quite rightly concerned. One cannot continue to keep a project going indefinitely which has no viability if one has to continue to pour money into it. The reality is that, sooner or later, somebody is going to have to call a halt to it if the thing does not come right.

The hon member for Namaqualand made the point that there was a new copper reef which was going to solve the whole problem in relation to this matter. That, however, has also not brought about a solution to the problems in that area.

I would like to appeal today that we look at the problems of that area in terms of the future. We should plan for the future of those people, not on the basis that we are going to keep subsidizing a non-viable project but on the basis that we are going to allow those people to be there and to earn a living from something that is viable and that will continue to exist. So while we agree to this provision, we say that what we need now is an honest commitment to forward planning to ensure that, if the whole of this project does not become viable in the future and cannot be continued, there will be some alternative way in which these people can exist there. I think, Sir, that that is not an unreasonable request to make. We do not disregard the people in that area. Neither do we disregard the socio-economic aspects. However, one cannot keep projects going indefinitely when they lack economic viability.

I therefore make a plea that we have some long-term planning in relation to this and that we try to salvage the situation in order to ensure that the people in that area can continue to exist there irrespective of what happens to the copper mine in the long term. That is the appeal I make today.

Mr Chairman, as in the case of the Finance Bill which we disposed of earlier this afternoon, I think this Bill is a very good testimonial to the work of the Standing Committee on Finance. I should very much like to use this opportunity—and I hope I may also do so on behalf of the hon member for Yeoville—to thank the hon member for Smithfield for the work he has done as chairman of that Committee.

Hear, hear!

I think the Scof went into this Bill very thoroughly. We had the most excellent evidence of the Director-General of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Dr Alberts, before the committee. We also heard the evidence of two very senior officials of the O’okiep Copper Company, Mr Van Rooyen and Mr Jones. The members of the committee—including the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Cape Town Gardens—could convince themselves that we could now ratify what the Government had been obliged to do in this respect over past months.

I wish to say at once I thank the hon member for Yeoville for his support of the legislation. I think if one had listened to him without being a member of the standing committee, it would have taken a long time to discover whether he would actually support the Bill. Those of us who served with him on the committee had the advantage of discovering beforehand that he would, in fact, support it although perhaps under some degree of protest. [Interjections.]

The enormous contribution of this company to the development of the North West over a period of more than 40 years compares very favourably with the example of the Sishen/Saldanha project which was dealt with in the previous Finance Bill. In both these cases the North West is really being opened up.

In both cases the worldwide economic recession and the low prices of metals and minerals in particular had a fundamental effect on the situation, especially on the profitability of those projects. The Government therefore had to decide in the case of Sishen/ Saldanha as well as in the present case of the O’okiep Copper Company Ltd how it could assist not only in keeping those specific projects in operation but particularly in maintaining the socio-economic structures of the areas. Whether one wants to admit it or not, this is an enormously important aspect of the entire situation. In this case the universally low price of copper caused basic problems for the O’okiep Copper Company.

I therefore wish to state it very clearly in this debate today that the company itself, the O’okiep Copper Company, is a fundamentally sound undertaking with very strong shareholders. The amount of approximately R32 million the Government was obliged to pay to Barclays Bank in terms of its guarantee agreement, which in reality is a loan to the company, is altogether safe in its entirety in my opinion.

Would you guarantee it?

Any time—if my guarantee is worth R32 million. O’okiep has seven million shares which for the sake of interest are held as follows: Gold Fields of South Africa Ltd, 41%; Newmont, one of the largest companies in America and in the world, 40% and 19% by individual shareholders especially in the USA. The O’okiep Copper Company in its turn holds 5% of the shares in the Tsumeb Corporation in the north of South West. It also holds 27,5% of the shares in the Gamsberg Zinc Corporation and these shares have now been ceded to the Government as collateral for the investment of R32 million.

What is the background to the O’okiep interests? It estimates that it has underground copper to the value of R840 million at its mine. Its shares trade in America at $10 per share. Its total assets amount to between R300 and R400 million. I think South Africa should be only too pleased that so large and strong a company should have so much confidence in this country as to make such a large investment here.

For the sake of interest, the copper content of the copper at O’okiep is of a low grade—between 1,2% and 1,4%. If one compares it with the copper content of between 4% to 5% of that of a mine like Palamin, which in addition is an opencast mine whereas this copper has to be mined at a depth of 1 500 metres, this mine is actually highly productive if it can compete with other types of mines.

The hon member for Yeoville referred to the new copper development at Carolusberg where R80 million had to be applied in expanding the mine. There the copper content is appreciably more, namely 2%, and that will ultimately enable the mine to be much more profitable and competitive. That mine has sufficient underground copper to keep it in operation until the year 2000—according to current prospecting only. Futher substantial deposits are expected to be found.

It should also be mentioned that the loan of R32 million was granted to the mine at an interest rate of 3% above the normal State rate and is repayable over three years to 1990. To enable the Government to honour the guarantee to Barclays Bank, Goldfields of South Africa had to invest R40 million in Government stocks over a period of six years. The State therefore received that money which it lent to the company as such from one of the shareholders. Precisely by bringing in Goldfields of South Africa—this answers another question put by the hon member for Yeoville—the best local business expertise was involved in the project. Expectations are that there will be a worldwide improvement in the copper price as a result of the decrease in world surpluses, the closing of ineffective mines and that extra production in the USA is declining in consequence of the cost aspect and poorer content. In addition the rand also has a realistic value today.

Does it have a realistic value? Have I understood you correctly?

Does the hon member not agree? [Interjections.]

The loan to O’okiep is not a subsidy and I think that answers another question of the hon member for Yeoville, but it is bridging finance to see a company through which earns R50 million in exports annually. It is expected that, if the value of the rand rises—if that will satisfy the hon member for Yeoville as to its realistic value—a higher copper price will compensate for this in future which will have an effect on this mine.

Against the background I wish to ask the hon member for Yeoville: What would the position be if the Government were not to help?

But I said I was voting for the thing.

Yes, the hon member for Yeoville ultimately agreed under protest. [Interjections.]

How was the parent company, Newmont in the USA, to settle this matter? The temptation must have been great for them to say: In the light of the copper price which is currently the weakest in 25 years, because there is no chance of dividends in the next five years and in consequence of the entire disinvestment campaign which is raging at present in the USA in particular, we had better close it for a few years and when matters improve and these terrible stories about disinvestment have blown over for the time being, we shall open it again. This has been said in regard to other copper mines in the world and could easily have happened in this case.

The Government has a responsibility to look much further, however. This involves the general interest of the region and its inhabitants as regards employment opportunities, stability, the strategic importance of that area and the socio-economic interest of the area in general. It is a key industry in that area and the hon member for Kuruman—it is not altogether his region—will be able to confirm that it is probably the largest investment made today in the North West.

According to the memorandum attached to the Bill, O’okiep offers a livelihood to 2 140 Whites, 10 070 Coloureds and 790 Blacks. There are no employment opportunities for those people within 500 km of O’kiep. This is as far as the 3 000 people actually employed there are concerned but what about all those dependent on them? The mines put approximately R25 million directly into circulation in that region in the form of salaries, wages and other services. The mine itself has an electricity and water account of R6,5 million and it has made Escom power and water from the Orange River a reality in that area.

Closing the mine would directly affect the livelihood of 13 000 people living in the mining towns. Not only they, but all the industries, all the shops, all the schools, all the hospitals and all the services furnished would be directly affected. Worst of all, those people really have no other refuge. It would be absolutely disastrous for that area, which is already sparsely populated, if this very important industry were dealt a death blow.

The last question is: What risk does the loan to O’okiep carry for the Government? I think this loan is probably a better investment today, with the collateral lodged against it, than the 1982 guarantee was. I do not have the least doubt that, exactly like the case of the Sishen/Saldanha undertaking, this is a long-term project with enormous possibilities.

I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Chairman, this is a short Bill with three clauses of importance in the main. I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Yeoville and put a question to the hon the Minister of Finance. An amount of R654 million is being paid in compensation of that loss. Can the hon the Minister give us an indication this afternoon of what likely loss has to be provided for next year?

I do not know the exact figure yet.

The hon the Minister says he does not have that statistic yet but I should be pleased if he would inform us as soon as possible, perhaps next week, before this session ends.

I wish to refer to clause 3 which deals with the O’okiep Copper Company Limited. I do not wish to repeat everything said by the hon member for Paarl. What he said is naturally true. I wish to raise a further point, however, as regards the number of employees. As the hon member quite rightly said, and as stated in the report, there are 2 140 Whites involved. Nevertheless not only they are involved because there are many more people who are dependent on them again—as the hon member said. For example there are 10 070 Coloureds involved and with their large families there are perhaps five times as many people dependent on them. The 790 Blacks do not form such a large number and, if they were unemployed, the hon the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education could perhaps accommodate them in Khayelitsha.

We should not lose sight of another factor, however. This mine at O’okiep and the Sishen/Saldanha Bay undertaking are two projects not economically viable at present but they serve the purpose of keeping these people on the West Coast and of developing that region still further. There is an additional factor, however, of which We should not lose sight. In view of international pressure exerted on South West Africa these payments, as regards security matters, possibly represent a premium to be paid against future problems which we cannot or may not underestimate. I hope they will not be a premium but that matters will progress in such a way that these undertakings will develop into altogether good enterprises in future on a purely economic footing as well as other bases and that we shall later be very grateful for them.

After my saying all this, the hon the Minister probably wants to know whether we support the Bill. My reply is yes, we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to mention just a couple of points to begin with for the sake of the record. In clause 1 mention is made of the R654,6 million which is to be paid into the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account to cover the foreign exchange dealings for private and semi-private organizations. Obviously this is essential, and therefore we will support it. Without it we would lose a certain amount of our national credibility as far as international trade is concerned.

Insofar as the amount mentioned in clause 2 of the Bill is concerned, I think it is a prudent measure on the part of the hon the Minister to look after the possibility of unavoidable increases in expenditure or shortfalls in revenue. Therefore we have no problem in supporting that particular clause.

Clause 4 merely ensures that the commemorative coin in respect of the 100 year-old Parliamentary Building will be certified as legal tender. Any numismatist will be very happy that that is the case because it enhances the value of the coin. I merely mention those points for the sake of the record to indicate that they have our support.

As far as the O’okiep Copper Mine is concerned, I am afraid I have some problem in understanding why there has been so much debate about it. This debate seems to have been a rehash of the 1982 debate. The spending of an amount of R32 million is not questioned. It has already been spent in terms of a decision taken in 1982.

What is before us at the moment is the fact that this Bill gives the Government the right to cancel a certain agreement that was made in 1982 and to procure certain securities. That is all that is in this O’okiep provision. It does not help to discuss the question of whether or not we should spend the R32 million. The commitment was made in 1982 for better or worse and all one can do in this regard is to discuss history and say “I told you so” or whatever, for whatever personal satisfaction one may get out of it. It does not help the situation which is before us today.

From what I can gather, it appeared to be a good proposition for socio-economic reasons at the time, as various hon members had indicated. I believe that had I been the spokeman on finance for my party at that time as the hon member for Amanzimtoti was, I would doubtless have given my support to the project even though I realized that it may not at the time have been good business. I would have supported it purely for socio-economic reasons. There is no doubt about it that when one has such a large number of people depending on one facility with no other worthwhile facilities to which the labour can be transferred, one has to think very, very seriously about the steps that one is going to take.

The hon member for Yeoville said that one is talking in terms of R12 000 per job. This may well be true but if one is going to uproot those people and move them away to another area or try to create other job opportunities within that same area it may well cost considerably more. If one moves such people one has to provide housing as well as job facilities, whereas at least the housing is there if they are not moved.

Whilst it may or may not have been a good thing to have done in the first place I do not believe that matter is before us at the moment. It is a question of whether we should take over these securities and cancel the original agreement. As far as we are concerned, cold-blooded common sense and logic indicate that we must support it.

Mr Chairman, I do not think that the hon member for Umbilo is correct in saying that we have an obligation to end up with an investment in the O’okiep Copper Company because of a commitment that we made in 1982. We had an obligation to underwrite a loan from Barclays National Bank. [Interjections.] Having underwritten a Barclays loan the option was ours to demand that that money be paid back.

We asked many questions when this matter came before the House in 1982. We tried to ascertain what the whole background was to the O’okiep situation and what the cost of their investment had been. It looked as though they had invested something over R1 million, but let me add that we did not recieve answers to these questions. We only ascertained quite clearly that the Government had not done its homework. We wanted to know how the company was financed, what dividends they paid and what their local borrowings were. Eventually we received none of that information but what did become clear was that the Government had not actually gone into this case. What we were frightened of has actually happened. As we anticipated, the company is still in difficulties in 1985.

One must ask oneself in what way the O’okiep Copper Company and its problems are exceptional to hundreds of other companies in the country. It is certainly not exceptional in that it is short of funds; those other companies are also short of funds. It is not exceptional in that the employees who work for its cannot find alternative work. I can show the House many employees in Port Elizabeth whose companies are going out of business or have gone out of business already because they could not finance their operations and whose employees have no alternative work.

The O’okiep Copper Company may be exceptional to the degree that its shareholders are immensely powerful. This is where I find the contribution of the hon member for Paarl such an extraordinary paradox. He gave a whole series of reasons which concern this company—its strength, its wealth and the strength of its shareholders—as to why we should be satisfied that we have lent this company R32 million. That is absolute nonsense. If the company is that strong and that secure, why are we lending it money? We are told that the company might close down, but I think one should really look into this a little bit more carefully.

I find the Government’s analyses—and this appears also from the debates we have just had over Saldanha Bay—terribly unsophisticated. What do they believe the scenario would be if this Government said that they wanted their R32 million back? It is easy to say: “We close the mine down.” But it costs a lot of money to close a mine down. Unless one wants one’s asset to be totally ruined it requires a lot of maintenance, and the cost to start a mine up again is immensely high.

Now does one really believe that companies of the size of Newmont, with an investment of this size, are just going to mothball their mines? I very much doubt it. The company is certainly not going to go insolvent. However, it is quite extraordinary that a company in which the shareholders have been prevailed upon by the circumstances to advance another R50 million to the company from shareholders’ resources is not granted a further R40 million loan or a continuation of that loan by Barclays Bank. In the light of this precedent I believe any company which is in difficulties has the right to appeal to the Government to help them out.

What is the Government doing? The Government is actually putting money into the company at a reasonable rate of interest to see it through a very bad time. However, it has immensely strong shareholders. They could virtually buy this Government out. Newmont is a vast company and we are now helping them to see their company through a depressed state of the copper market, so when it surfaces again on the other side, we say: “Thank you very much. Give us back our R32 million in depreciated rand and continue on your way.” What a ridiculous example of sensible Government financing! I do not know who the Government gets to carry out negotiations with the sophisticated representatives of big companies but I think they should probably employ someone else. I, certainly, am unconvinced by the argument that if we did not make this R32 million available, that company would just close up and tell 12 000 people that they must go and seek work elsewhere. They would have the greatest difficulty in ever starting that mine up again.

However, this is water under the bridge. We accept this fact but there are now too many incidents where the Government does not do its homework properly and where we are subsequently left with a mess of this nature. The Government makes hasty, unsophisticated decisions and I believe that if the hon the Minister of Finance is going to make a contribution in this regard, he must tidy up the business approach to this kind of problem.

Mr Chairman, the subject of the loan to O’okiep has been debated extensively this afternoon. I do not intend to say anything further on that particular subject other than to point out a weakness to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister which, I believe, we have in our current procedures. As was mentioned by the hon member for Paarl, various people have given evidence on this subject to the standing committee, and we are now debating this particular Bill, but that evidence is not available in written form either to the members of the standing committee or to hon members at large. In many respects this defeats the purpose of recording evidence in that the idea is that members who are not on the standing committee but who want to participate and be well-informed on the subject, can read up the evidence that was given. In the nature of the system at present, however, that is not happening. It is something we need to look at, because otherwise it is not assisting debates.

I wish to refer briefly to clause 4 which relates to the coins commemorating the 75th anniversary of Parliament. Specific provision for those coins is now made in this Bill. There were initially two sets of those coins made, one of which was given to the State President and one to Mr Speaker of this Parliament which, I might say, I consider an acceptable procedure.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due. So I believe I should on this occasion congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance, and perhaps his deputy if he was involved, on learning a lesson from the past and ensuring that those sets of coins are going to be freely available at a normal price to members of the public who want to buy them. I might say that that contrasts quite starkly with 1980 when, as some hon members will recall, 60 sets of mini-Krugerrands were sold secretly to various persons for less than R500 per set.

To assist the Government, I should like to point out to the hon the Minister of Finance that, if he does not know it, in the first quarter of this year one of those sets was sold for R60 000. [Interjections.] I might say that in previous years sets have been sold for over R40 000. [Interjections.] I can tell from the face of the hon the Minister of Finance that he obviously did not get one of those sets. I am sure that a number of members in the House feel aggrieved at the proceedings that took place.

I have asked in the past, and I did so in the early days, that those sets be recovered from the persons who have them and that they be repaid the R500 odd they paid for them, because I consider it a most unsatisfactory and undesirable episode in the history of this country. I accept that by this stage it is probably too late to get those sets of coins back. I would hope that the hon the Minister will at least ensure that the man in the street gets his pound of flesh by ensuring that the people who sell these sets at these enormous prices are required to pay tax on those profits.

Mr Chairman, listening to the debates over the last few days, one gets a feeling of déjà vu. We seem to be going back to old debates, as the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has just done again. We nevertheless thank him for supporting the Bill under discussion here this afternoon.

As regards the hon member for Umbilo, I think he dealt best with the relevant clause in that he recognized that what we are doing here has nothing to do with the R32 million or the R40 million, but that we are actually sanctioning the Minister’s decision to enter into an agreement. In that sense I appreciate the speech of the hon member for Umbilo. He is absolutely correct in that regard. We thank him for his support.

We also thank the hon member for Sunnyside for supporting the measure.

*I just want to tell the hon member that we cannot at this stage know what the losses in the coming year are going to be. The copper market is very unpredictable and we do not know what world prices are going to be. However, I can give him the assurance that we are watching the situation carefully and are monitoring it. We will look after the interests of the taxpayer in this regard. Perhaps we will have the opportunity again next year to talk about this.

†I think the hon member for Paarl responded quite adequately to the hon member for Yeoville’s contribution to this debate and I do not intend to repeat it. As far as the foreign exchange loss is concerned, I can tell the hon member for Yeoville that the reason we paid it was for the reason he himself suggested, namely because it looked as if the forward loss position could be heavy. I know the hon member had certain provisional figures disclosed to him in the standing committee but he must also bear in mind that the situation can change. The gold price could, for example, change which would make an enormous difference as it will influence the status of that account. The reason we paid the amount is a very simple one. In anticipation of the fact that we might incur heavy losses it is best that we try to keep the amount within manageable proportions.

In respect of the copper price, we have been advised that it looks as if it is at its lowest ebb at the moment. It also looks as if the accumulated stocks held internationally are dwindling. We also know that several mines all over the world have been closed.

You must be careful. This sounds like a 1982 speech all over again.

We are in the same economic climate, we are still in the same ball game, as we were. It would therefore not be unreasonable for us to expect that there will be a slow rise in prices, and we certainly hope that this will be the case. The hon member for Walmer endorsed the fact that we are dealing with a strong company and that the guarantees we hold are, therefore, reasonable. The hon member for Yeoville said that he supported the measure more for socio-economic reasons than for any other. He said that that was his position in 1982 and that it remains his position. He said that we should keep an eye on the situation and see to it that it does not get out of hand. Has the hon member for Walmer ever visited this copper mine? We are not dealing with an ordinary situation here but with a mine in a remote part of the country and with people employed there who are by and large from that area. If we were to allow that mine to close, it would be so prohibitively expensive to start it up again that the chances are that we would never do it again. If that part of the world is depopulated it will be almost impossible to get people to go back or to retain the infrastructure in the meantime.

May I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, three or four hon members of the Opposition have spoken and I think that is enough.

The reality is that to start that mine up again would be prohibitively expensive. If the hon member for Walmer had experience of the area he would know that what I am saying is absolutely correct. The Government has a responsibility towards the people of Namaqualand. As I mentioned in an earlier debate, they have suffered enormously due to drought and other natural phenomena. In addition, the low copper price makes things very difficult in that part of the world so that if we were to close down the mine or even put it in mothballs the impact upon the whole social fabric of Namaqualand would be absolutely disastrous. The costs involved in the wake of this if the Government had to maintain the infrastructure of the area would be so expensive that this is a relatively cheap way of keeping the area going. We know that we have good sureties and that the future is not too bad as far as the copper price is concerned. We know that the reason this money has been borrowed is to improve the milling rate of the mine and we therefore think it is a sensible decision.

Once again I thank members on all sides of the House for their support of the measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Speaker, I move:

As hon members know, the Close Corporations Act came into operation on 1 January 1985. The object of the Close Corporations Act is to provide a less complicated and cheaper form of enterprise for the small entrepreneur in accordance with his peculiar needs and without burdening him with the multitude of statutory requirements of the Companies Act of 1973.

This new form of enterprise undoubtedly enjoys firm support in the farming sector. In addition, other existing forms of enterprise such as small private farming companies are finding it convenient to convert into close corporations in order to rid themselves of the multitude of statutory requirements of the Companies Act. A need has therefore arisen for the adaptation of Land Bank financing in order to accommodate close corporations as well.

The Land Bank Act confers exceptional powers and authorities of summary execution on the Board of the Land Bank, in terms of which the Board is empowered to exercise its legal remedies contained in sections 34 and 35 of the Act against a debtor without recourse to a court of law. Due to the drastic nature of these powers the Land Bank is required by law to exercise its powers and authorities strictly according to the provisions of the Land Bank Act and to adhere closely to the provisions of the Act at all times. Such provisions are therefore interpreted against the Land Bank in their strictest sense and the slightest deviation places the enforceability of the Land Bank’s legal remedies in serious jeopardy.

†Although the Land Bank Act at present does not prohibit the making of advances to close corporations, it does not expressly provide for the board of the Land Bank to grant such loans and to exercise the legal remedies already vested in the board in terms of the Act, in respect of close corporations as well. Furthermore, the conversion of an existing company into a close corporation could jeopardize the Land Bank’s position if such a company should happen to be an existing debtor of the Land Bank, due to the fact that a company, in terms of section 27(6) of the Close Corporations Act, does not require the prior consent of creditors, but merely has to notify creditors after the conversion.

During 1972 the Land Bank was faced with a similar problem when the Land Bank Act had to be amended to make explicit provision for the granting of advances to companies and for the exercising of the Bank’s legal remedies against such companies. This amending Bill consequently provides for similar amendments as far as close corporations are concerned.

The object of the amending Bill is expressly to regulate the powers of the board of the Land Bank in respect of the making of advances to close corporations and to extend the Bank’s legal remedies in order to provide the board of the Land Bank with the legal powers to recover the debt from a close corporation if it should be deemed necessary in order to safeguard the Bank’s interests.

* Finally, it is also necessary to rectify a few deficiencies in the Land Bank Act. The most important of these is the fact that in 1973 for the first time the Companies Act made provision for the de-registration of companies, and no corresponding amendment has been effected in the Land Bank Act. It is important that the Land Bank should be able to protect its interests in a debtor company in the event of the de-registration of such a company.

I trust that the envisaged amendments will meet with the approval of the farming community and that they will make an important contribution towards the Land Bank’s endeavour to keep pace with changes that effect the farming sector and, where possible, to keep on meeting the financial needs of the South African farming industry.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is one of the few measures which was accepted unamimously by the standing committee. I think you will understand why I am so deeply grateful and delighted about this. For that reason I want to thank the hon member very much for their support.

Mr Chairman, this Bill actually contains only one clause, and it is to insert the words “close corporation” throughout. I can only point out again that that legislation was introduced with the objective of affording the people the opportunity so that families or small groups could be secured in another form of company without all the bother of the Companies Act.

We are very grateful to the hon the Minister and everyone involved that this form of company is now also being included in the legislation pertaining to the Land Bank, because the farmers who want their farms registered in a company, will now be able to use this method which is an extremely advantageous method. We thank the hon the Minister that this can now be done in terms of the Land Bank Act.

Mr Chairman, we too will support the Second Reading of this Bill. I would commend to the hon the Minister the points made by the hon member for Yeoville in respect of this area being a single business economy which is not good under any circumstances. Therefore I would recommend that somebody look into the possibility in the event of this base being not too successful in the future of having an alternative so that one will not have to drag people away. With those few words I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to thank hon members on all sides of the House most sincerely for their support. I also want to thank the hon members of the standing committee very much for the unanimous support they pledged to this measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Speaker, I move:

It will be observed from the twelfth annual report of the South African Law Commission that marriages and customary unions of Black persons are the subject of an investigation by the commission.

In view of the fact, however, that leasehold rights of Black women require urgent attention and especially on account of reservations expressed by building societies in this regard, the Law Commission, at the request of the Department of Co-operation and Development, obligingly agreed to investigate the matter separately, and the proposal in clause 1 gives effect to the recommendation of the Law Commission.

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to express my sincere thanks to my colleague the hon the Minister of Justice as well as to the chairman, members and secretariate of the Law Commission for their wholehearted co-operation in finding an interim solution to the problem of the leasehold rights of Black women. The proposed amendment should solve the difficulties at present encountered by building societies in making loans available to Black women.

The main object of the proposed insertion of section 29A in the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, is to ensure the continuation of the functions of Black local authorities if such local authorities for some or other reason no longer effectively function. Such provisions are provided in the Community Councils Act, 1977, but for some unknown reason were omitted from the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982.

Local authorities in a few towns have come to a standstill. This measure should not be seen as substitutive but merely an emergency measure to be applied in certain circumstances to nominate a person or body to continue with the functions of a local authority until such local authority is in a position to resume its functions.

Clause 4 is an interim measure which provides for the exercise, execution or performance of powers, duties and functions under certain laws referred to in the Schedule to the Black Communities Development Act, 1984, which laws are either repealed or to be amended. Certain functionaries were removed from, the Statute Book in terms of the 1984 legislation while the functions which they were to execute continued to exist. Therefore a body or a person may now be designated by the State President to continue with such functions, should the proposal be accepted.

I trust that the contents of the Bill will be acceptable to hon members.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister explained the Bill in considerable detail and also the importance of the Bill when he delivered his introductory speech. He made it clear that this was really an interim measure to solve the problems which were presently experienced by Black women who wished to take out loans with building societies in order to obtain either a 99-year leasehold or a freehold title. The difficulty has been up to now that the building societies were not willing to make loans because they felt it was very possible that a woman purported to be unmarried could have a customary union husband who might eventually pitch up and claim the property with the result that thereafter the building society would have no rights against her. So women were being refused these loans although in many instances women in the urban townships today are the major breadwinners in the family. Indeed, a survey done a few years ago revealed that in Soweto women were at the head of some 28% of the households. This was thus an important issue for the women and it was introduced as an interim measure because Black women were excluded from the benefits which accrued to other women, namely Indian, Coloured and White women, with the passing of the Matrimonial Property Act last year. The whole issue has therefore been referred to the SA Law Commission which is still busy dealing with the very intricate and involved subject of the marriage laws pertaining to Black women.

This law has been introduced, as I have said, as an interim measure. We were told during the deliberations on the standing committee that the building societies had been consulted and that they were satisfied that this would resolve the difficulties involved. Therefore, we on this side of the House are going to support this Bill which includes the other clause that has been inserted to ensure the continued functioning of the local authorities where in some cases these have folded altogether.

We will not go into the sad causes of the failure of the local authorities system in many of the urban areas. Again, this is something to tide the Government over until it can establish a more stable situation in those townships.

I would like to express here the pleasure my colleague the hon member for Berea and I experienced in serving on the standing committee which helped to draft this Bill.

Mr Chairman, because of the new system of handling Bills in this House, the system of standing committees, and the practice which now excludes the possibility of clause after clause being discussed in the Committee Stage by a Committee of the Whole House, one finds oneself in the position that, although one supports certain clauses of a Bill, one is necessarily obliged to oppose the Bill as a whole because there are certain clauses in the Bill which one does not support. One thus votes against the Bill as a whole for the simple reason that, if one does not make known one’s opposition to the entire Bill and does not vote against it, it can be said afterwards that one accepted every provision of that Bill. We also find ourselves in this position as far as the Bill in question is concerned.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, we made our position clear in the standing committee, namely that we have no objection to it. Neither did we raise any objection as far as clauses 3 and 4 and of course the short title are concerned. I would just like to say, however, that it really is a pity that it was necessary to introduce a provision such as that contained in clause 2 in any law. I do not want to elaborate on that, but it does show that Black local authorities in at least a large portion of our country are in a chaotic state and cannot get going. It has been suggested, however, that this measure is but a temporary one.

Surely you know why that is so. [Interjections.]

Of course I know why that is so!

What do you have to say about the reasons for it?

Does the hon member want to fight with me? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Ermelo that I did not attack the NP about this. I simply expressed my concern about the prevailing situation. I did nothing more than that. The hon member must please not be so unnecessarily sensitive now. [Interjections.]

Our objection to this Bill is aimed at clause 1. It is generally known that the CP is opposed to the extension of rights to Blacks in respect of immovable property in White-controlled South Africa. Initially it was the leasehold, and this is now being extended to full rights of ownership. I do not believe it is necessary that our standpoint be put ad nauseam in this House. With this measure as contained in clause 1, that position is being extended even further and the granting of leasehold rights to Black women, too, is being facilitated. The explanation was given in the standing committee that the whole question of the matrimonial property rights of the Black woman in South Africa will be investigated by the Law Commission and that this measure is an emergency or interim one. However, that does not meet our objection to the Bill. Put shortly, our objection is based on the fact that White-controlled South Africa will inevitably be further weakened as a result of this. This is why we object to this clause in particular and consequently also to the Bill in its entirety.

Mr Chairman, I should like to use this opportunity to thank the hon member for Ermelo for the competent and outstanding way in which he fulfilled his role as chairman of the commission and as chairman of the standing committee.

This measure remedies a significant deficiency in the Black Local Authorities Act. The Minister is vested with the power to nominate a person or body to continue carrying out the functions of local authorities in the event of resignations and where, owing to circumstances, it is not possible to fill vacancies by means of elections. We accept that it is an emergency measure and trust that it will not often be necessary to do that.

I some Black urban areas there is unrest, instability and insecurity, which makes the holding of elections impossible. I would like to express a few thoughts on that.

With the promotion of, inter alia, a free market economy and private ownership of land—to which the hon member for Barberton just now raised objections—adequate job creation and efficient training systems through which a stable entrepreneur’s class could be further expanded, the hope of a better future will help to ease the insecurity in these areas. Through personal experience it is clear to us that the more Blacks progress in the building up of, inter alia, small businesses in the cities, the more people there will be who cannot afford to be revolutionaries or to be manipulated by them. It would be a good thing if all of us would accept that the best way, which would be the most advantageous for everyone, is the way of evolution and not that of revolution. The revolutionaries must realize that they themselves or innocent people are the victims of their revolution.

Orderly urbanization and participation in the system of local government is the ideal and is to everyone’s advantage. With those few words, I am pleased to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us is a very definite improvement in respect of two major matters in the Black communities and Black authorities situation. The question of the changing of the Act with respect to the ability to make use of the new circumstances surrounding property ownership, whether it is 99-year leasehold or, very shortly, freehold tenure, is a very positive one. As a matter of interest, I recently received in reply to a question to the department figures which indicated that in respect of applications for 99-year leasehold and those that were successful and had been granted, the Eastern Cape which is at present experiencing a great deal of unrest had the lowest success rate in that respect.

The explanatory remarks attached to that reply—if my memory serves me correctly—were to the effect that problems were being experienced with relation to the question of surveys, grants and the issuing of title. A fall-off in enthusiasm for the scheme had also been noticed as a result of the realization that capital and loans for the financing of the scheme were not too readily available. There is therefore very definitely a problem in the Eastern Cape as far as applications for 99-year leasehold is concerned and we hope very sincerely that this amendment will improve that situation very quickly.

As far as the amendment with regard to the right of appointing a person to carry on with the functions of a local authority is concerned, I really think that in regard to the unrest situation there is a certain amount of what one may almost call glee sometimes evident on the part of the Official Opposition when they state that…[Interjections.] I am about to tell the hon member …the failure of Black local authorities is something which has to be expected as a result of Government policy and it is a natural consequence of the shortcomings with regard to the representation of Blacks in the sphere of central Government. I do not think that a party can say that and at the same time evince its announced support for evolutionary reform, because if people are going to support evolutionary reform, they should in fact be egging the people on to participate in whatever democratic process will enable them to control their own affairs at whatever level in the process of advancing to greater levels as the debate on constitutional reform continues. To have evinced that slight amount of gloating glee that this has failed—it comes through in their speeches—in the light of the reality of what is taking place in those townships, is something that I believe shows a very, very poor understanding of the fact that the success of the referendum brought with it an enormous campaign to wreck the reform initiative.

There is no doubt that what is going on thee is an initiated and very carefully planned and orchestrated campaign. If people can almost support the concept of socio-economic frustrations being an adequate reason or excuse for knocking on a person’s door, yanking him out of his home, tying his hands behind his back with a piece of wire, ramming a motorcar tyre over his head, filling it with petrol and setting him alight, I would say it is time for those people who are very inclined to be a little soft in their condemnation of that sort of action to stand up and indicate very clearly that all the attempts to involve Black people in governmental procedures in their areas including the Black local authorities are genuine and sincere. The Official Opposition should lend their full support to the participation of Blacks in that system …

That is a disgusting allegation. [Interjections.]

If the cap fits, the hon members should wear it. [Interjections.] I think the fact of the matter is that these things need to be said. There has been inadequate condemnation of the actions of total barbarity and incalculable cruelty among the Black people. A lot of it has been pinned on the question of participation in a democratic process of upliftment and evolution for which that party says it stands.

Don’t you stand for it.

Indeed, but they should demonstrate it a little bit more. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he can tell me on how many occasions he and his own party have done exactly what is telling us that we should do? I can assure the hon member that we have done so on a number of occasions, but I have actually not seen that his party has been reported as coming out strongly condemning it in particular.

It is a characteristic of that party. We have no sensitivity as far as that is concerned. It is characteristic of that party in that in all the speeches that have been made in relation to Black affairs there is a very definite lack of commitment to the support of Black local authorities and the participation of Blacks in those authorities, and the condemnation of poeple who are hounding those Blacks who have made their participation known. [Interjections.] No, it is there.

You are following Ron Miller now.

No. What those party members must do is to examine their consciences and, when they get up to talk on these matters, make very clear how they feel about the participation of Blacks on Black local authorities and Black community councils. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, that party has an opportunity now in this debate to make it very clear to the outside world and to the Blacks in all the townships, that they support their participation in these bodies.

Why do you not speak to the Bill?

That is exactly what I am doing. [Interjections.] Has the hon member read it? Does he know what clause 2 is all about? It is about Black local authorities which have broken down and have to be assisted by this measure to continue to carry on with their activities. However, I think the message is loud and clear, otherwise we would not have had this kind of reaction. [Interjections.]

Those are our feelings about the question of Black unrest. We hope that these measures will assist in regard to the granting of leasehold title—soon to be freehold—particularly in the Eastern Cape. We hope that the measure taken in order to ensure continuity at local government level in Black townships is a successful one. We support the amendment.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton has put our standpoint in principle in regard to this, but I think there are a few matters which the hon the Minister has to clarify for us a great deal more than he did in his Second Reading speech. The point is that in all its years of existence the Government, the old National Party, took a very strong fundamental stand on these things which the hon the Minister is giving away so readily today. The hon member Dr Odendaal, who will be the Government’s candidate in the by-election in Sasolburg, said that this by-election at Sasolburg will be about the principle and policy standpoint of the Government in regard to Blacks in White areas.

The second point I want to make concerns the remark made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that there is no longer such a thing as a White land in South Africa. The editor of Die Vaderland also devoted his leading article to this.

In his reply to this debate today the hon Minister concerned must tell us very clearly what the standpoints in principle are in regard to this particular matter. This is what the old dispensation would have been concerned with. He has to explain to us why the Government is now simply repudiating the old standpoint of the NP.

Another point I should like to mention is that, under the old dispensation, we would have had a Third Reading stage in which we could have debated the consequences of this legislation to our Southern African Community. I would very much like the hon the Minister to tell us in his reply now what the consequences will be of the acquisition of rights of ownership by this increasing number of Blacks. The CP regards the area in which they are to get these rights of ownership as a White area and the hon the Minister must explain to us what the consequences of that will be.

Mr Chairman, I would very much like to express my sincere thanks to the hon member for King William’s Town. He raised a very pertinent point when he emphasized that the revolutionary elements in South Africa cannot afford to have the process of evolutionary and orderly reform succeed, as was happening with the granting of effective local self-government to Black communities.

The elements that seek to bring about violent upheaval and revolution in this country began a fierce campaign when they saw that in the referendum of 1983 we had obtained a large majority in favour of orderly reform. They also saw that a new system of effective Black local self-government for the local Black communities was being created. It was actually at the time of those events that the UDF originated. They started a fierce campaign against any possible success in regard to Black local government.

I want to lend my full support to the appeal of the hon member for King William’s Town that all the parties in this House and all responsible South Africans stand together to encourage and contribute towards the success of Black local self-government. This is necessary because in the first place Black communities are entitled to exercise self-determination in their own areas on the basis of local government; this is a sound principle. In the second place, local self-government is also an extremely important component in the construction of any good and orderly system of government, especially a democratic system of government. I want therefore to express my particular appreciation to the hon member for King William’s Town for his remarks in this regard and also for the remarks he addressed to the Official Opposition in this House.

All hon members expressed their support for the clause which makes the continuation of orderly local government possible. We should also view this matter in the proper perspective. As I have already said, there are irresponsible revolutionary and criminal elements who have tried to break down those aspects of local government which have already been built up in an orderly fashion. It is true that a large number of councillors have resigned from the Black local authorities. It is, however, an encouraging fact that out of the total of 38 Black local authorities that were instituted in terms of the 1982 legislation, there have been only two cases in which so many Black councillors resigned or withdrew that the local authorities came to a complete standstill. This was in the case of Lingelihle at Cradock and kwaNobuhle at Uitenhage. It is especially to accommodate those cases and to arrange for an alternative authority to continue to perform the functions of the local authorities that the second clause in the Bill is necessary.

I would also like to point out that provision has been made in the Community Councils Act, 1977, for the continuation of orderly government at the community council level if for some reason or other the community councils can no longer function efficiently. However, similar provision was not made in the Black Local Authorities Act of 1982 and so it has become necessary, especially in view of the unfortunate experience we have had recently, to effect this amendment.

As I have often done before, I would like to pay tribute on this occasion to the courage, perseverance, determination and sense of responsibility of the Black councillors and mayors who have followed the course of the maintenance of law and order, of orderly government and of dialogue with the Government of this country by continuing to carry out their functions in spite of intimidation and violence and even when heavy pressure was brought to bear on them in the dark of the night and in the form of intimidation. This country will in time to come realize its debt of honour to the Black leaders in the local communities who, under difficult circumstances have displayed the courage to continue their work. Where we have had to resort to an emergency measure now to keep the wheels turning in those instances where local government has come to a complete standstill—at least until such time as order has been restored—I trust that we will succeed before long in restoring the normal procedures and order so that the Black communities concerned can look back with satisfaction at the sacrifices many of them made to help ensure this order.

I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the hon member for Umfolozi for his contribution in which he stressed the importance of both the free enterprise system and the advancement of those who have small business interests in the community in order to ensure orderly development in the community and the orderly development of local government.

†I should also like to thank the hon member for Houghton for her support and for the explanation she has given of the problems in which Black women found themselves which are now—at any rate with reference to the leasehold system—being alleviated by this measure.

*On behalf of his party—he was supported in his objections by the hon member for Rissik—the hon member for Barberton objected to the principle of the extension of fixed property rights in Black residential areas outside the national states. I would like to remind those hon members and their party that the instituion of the 99 year leasehold scheme dates back to 1978. The author of this legislation and the man who piloted it through this House was one of my predecessors in this office, to wit Dr C P Mulder. Dr C P Mulder advanced a comprehensive argument in this House that the permanence of Blacks in urban areas outside the national states was an undeniable fact. [Interjections.] That was why, according to him, the conclusion had to be drawn that they should be granted leasehold rights for 99 years.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, let me first conclude my argument. Dr C P Mulder also pointed out that there was not necessarily any connection between the granting of rights to land and political rights. [Interjections.] He pointed out that in terms of most legal systems even people who did not have citizenship of a country could still own title rights to land in that country, and that there were also citizens of a country who did not have title rights. The two concepts, political rights and rights to land, are thus neither identical nor interchangeable.

What is your source of information? What did State President Botha say in 1979?

Order! The standpoints of the various parties in this House are clear. It is not necessary that interjections continually be made to prove those standpoints. The hon the Minister must be given the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question now?

No, the hon the Minister does not want to answer a question now. He will let us know when he wants to do so. The hon the Minister may continue.

I want therefore to reply unequivocally to the question of the hon member for Rissik. I assume that when he refers to what he calls the old NP, he is referring to the NP prior to 1982. The so-called old NP, the NP prior to 1982, was the author of this legislation to which I have referred, namely the institution of the 99 year leasehold scheme.

What did State’ President Botha say in 1979?

Order! I have already asked hon members not to interject so often. I shall now mention hon members by name. The hon the Minister may continue.

It was the so-called old National Party of before 1982 which, by means of legislation in 1977, displayed a clear deviation from its previous policy. Before 1977 it was the NP’s policy not to grant any political rights whatsoever to Blacks outside the national states. In 1977 the then incumbent of the office that I occupy today, Mr M C Botha, introduced legislation in terms of which Black communities outside the national states were granted political rights—voting rights and decison rights—in the field of local government through the medium of community councils. That was a change which the old NP brought about in the old policy. The answer to the hon member’s questions is therefore very clear. They must just remember that one has to shoulder the responsibility for one’s actions after one has turned in the way they have done.

In view of the considerations I have mentioned it is very clear to me that the hon member for Barberton does not really have any valid reason for having reservations about the clause concerning the 99-year leasehold rights for Black women, particularly as he agrees with the rest of the Bill, because the clause does not introduce any new principle. It is based on a principle for the introduction of which he himself has to share the responsibility.

Mr Chairman, may I now ask the hon the Minister what Mr P W Botha’s standpoint was in 1979 when the 99 year leasehold legislation was introduced in regard to the exclusion of leasehold rights in the Western Cape inasmuch as Black women are now obtaining leasehold rights?

It is well known that in 1979 it was the standpoint not only of Mr P W Botha but also the NP as a whole that leasehold rights in the Western Cape be excluded. However, just as the NP introduced a new principle concerning leasehold, in 1979, so did it also under the leadership of Mr P W Botha as State President—for sound reasons and in the light of the realities—change its standpoint in this regard last year. Just as those hon members went along with change in the past, so too they will have to learn to go along with change in the future.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The main provisions of this Bill reflect the declared objectives of the Government in regard to the position of Black people in urban areas and, without anticipating the matter, prepare the way for a reformed dispensation in respect of influx control in urban areas, together with a positive strategy for orderly urbanization.

Representations were received from various quarters asking for the provisions of section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, to be made more flexible, so as to promote the mobility of Black workers in prescribed areas. I have already announced in Parliament that the matter would receive attention during the present session, and the amendments which are now being proposed will undoubtedly afford relief until such time as the important task of establishing a new urbanization plan has been completed.

The proposed amendment of section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, promotes the free movement and residential qualifications of Black workers in prescribed areas in that:

• Blacks who have already acquired the necessary qualifications in terms of section 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Urban Areas Act, retain such qualifications when they reside or work in prescribed areas other than those in which they acquired the qualifications;
• Blacks may accumulate the qualifying period as determined in section 10(1)(b) of the Urban Areas Act in various prescribed areas;
• The 10-year working period required in section 10(1)(b) need not necessarily be with one employer;
• The residential period in section 10(1)(b) is being reduced from 15 years to 10 years; and
• Blacks who settle in the areas of legislative assemblies of self-governing or independent national states or on land of the South African Development Trust, or whose place of residence becomes part of the territory of such legislative assembly, state or Trust land, and who already possess the necessary qualifications referred to in section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Urban Areas Act, continue to possess the qualifications in the prescribed area in question.

This is not a final solution, and it is gratifying that there are Black leaders in our country who perceive this fact, but who nevertheless strongly support the positive steps which are now being proposed. I am referring in particular here to the speech made by the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, which was delivered in the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly and which welcomed the proposed amendments to section 10 unequivocally.

As you know, Sir, the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, was recently amended by Parliament, inter alia, to rescind the requirement for the acquisition by non-Blacks of a permit to be present on Development Trust land. The same result is achieved in clause 3 of the Bill in regard to the presence of non-Blacks in Black towns in urban areas. Powers are however being conferred in the clause upon a senior police officer in terms of which he may take certain steps to ensure the preservation of public order and safety in the Black town in question. In order to restrict the possible arbitrary exercise of powers to a minimum, a right of appeal to the Minister of Law and Order is being incorporated into the proposed clause.

As regards the position of the contractual capacity of Black women the initiative in this respect was taken by the kwaZulu Government and the amendment in clause 1 will make it possible to bring the powers of Black women in Natal under the Code of Zulu Law into line with the powers of women in kwaZulu. The members of the standing committee were agreed that discussions should be held with the governments of other self-governing territories with a view to achieving uniformity in this connection. Since the contractual capacity of Black women is at present the subject of an in-depth investigation by the South African Law Commission, I am however, of the opinion that we should first await the Law Commission’s report on this matter.

Provision has also been made for the repeal of section 22ter of the Black Administration Act which provides that a marriage officer shall not in the province of Natal or the Transvaal solemnize the marriage of a Black female who is of age, unless her father or legal guardian has granted written consent to the marriage.

†The assets of the Economic Development Corporation in and in regard to Soshanguve were transferred to the Small Business Development Corporation Limited with effect from 1 April 1984 by agreement between the parties concerned. The insertion of a clause which validates the aforementioned transfer of assets is necessary.

The power conferred on a member of an executive council under section 14(1A) of the National States Constitution Act, 1971, to appoint, among others, a judicial officer only applies in respect of new courts, established by the government of the area concerned. Since some existing courts, referred to in section 14(1) of the Act, are situated wholly or partially in the area for which a legislative assembly has been established, it is necessary to extend the aforementioned power of appointment also to existing courts in the area concerned.

The amendment of section 14(1A) is retrospective so as to regularize certain appointments made since the insertion of the section concerned.

Another point is that the majority of the employees who are placed at the disposal of the community councils and Black local authorities are in the employ of the development boards and are contributors to the Associated Institutions Pension Fund. Section 6(1A)(a) of the Community Councils Act, 1977, provides that Black personnel may be transferred from a development board to a community council without a break in their membership of the said pension fund. So too, personnel who are transferred under the provisions of sections 4 and 36(1) of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, to local authorities also retain their membership of the said pension fund.

Although, however, provision is made in the aforesaid provisions for the continuation of membership of the pension fund, neither the community councils nor the local authorities are in fact associated institutions. In order to eliminate this anomaly it is necessary to insert a provision in each of the Acts concerned in terms of which a community council and a local authority are deemed to be associated institutions. These arrangements will be necessary until a pension fund is established for the boards and councils in question.

Provision is also made in this legislation for the interpretation of the Lebowa Constitution Proclamation, No R225 of 1972, in terms of which the area of the Lebowa Legislative Assembly is defined in order to put the generally accepted construction of the proclamation beyond all doubt.

Mr Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Co-operation, Development and Education for their contribution towards the promotion of this legislation.

It is not an easy task to deal with legislation of this nature where it concerns various sensitive matters. In the light of this fact I would especially like to thank the chairman, the hon member for Ermelo, for his capable guidance.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this Bill has been the subject of lengthy and detailed discussion in the standing committee. It deals with a variety of matters and represents an improvement in each of the existing situations which it seeks to address. The Bill in its present form is a distinct improvement on the original Bill which was submitted to the standing committee and, as a result of those improvements, we will support the Second Reading.

Clause 1 relates to the rights of Black women who are married by virtue of a customary union and who, in terms of the Black Administration Act of 1927, are deemed to be minors and whose husbands are deemed to be their guardians. This Bill, which follows initiatives which were taken by the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly and Government, excludes Black women permanently resident in Natal from this disability and in that sense clause 1 should be welcomed. We on these benches would naturally have liked to have seen this situation extended to free all Black women in South Africa from this disability, but the hon the Minister has given the assurance to the standing committee that this aspect relating to the rights of Black women is receiving the urgent attention of the Law Commission and we await the results of that attention with considerable interest.

As a result of an amendment moved in the standing committee, clause 2 removes the disability of Black women in Natal who, in terms of section 22ter of the Black Administration Act of 1927, suffered the disability that marriage officers could not solemnize a marriage to which they were a party unless their fathers or legal guardians consented. Incidentally, this included a guardian in terms of Black law and custom. This was obviously a ridiculous provision and in this day and age it was a restriction which we found totally unacceptable. The original intention was to remove this disability only in respect of Black women in Natal, but as a result of the amendment approved by the standing committee, section 22ter of that Act is now being repealed, which means that the provision is now extended to the Transvaal. The Cape Province and the Orange Free State were never affected by it.

As far as clause 3 of the Bill is concerned, it provides for amendments to section 9 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act which provided that any person other than a Black person required a permit to enter a Black urban area. This requirement is now abolished. Power is given in terms of this clause to a policeman of or above the rank of lieutenant to prohibit any person other than a Black person from entering a Black urban area under certain circumstances. The circumstances detailed in the legislation are if such policeman considers that person undesirable with a view to the maintenance of public order and security.

We had difficulties in the standing committee with the Bill in its original form which gave no definition as to what was intended by the word “undesirable”, and I think it is to the credit of the hon the Minister who appeared before the standing committee, and the members of the standing committee, that they were able to accept an amendment giving some definition or restriction in respect of the word “undesirable” which is now contained in the Bill as amended. It now makes it clear that a person shall only be deemed undesirable with a view to the maintenance of public order and security.

Provision is made in the Bill in its amended form for a form of appeal to the Minister of Law and Order from any person who has been deprived of the right to be in a Black urban township.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, again the hon the Minister has made it clear that this is an interim provision. It is in anticipation of the Government’s looking again at the whole question of influx control in South Africa and the formulation of its urbanization policy.

The Bill as originally drafted provided for certain minimal improvements in the situation relating to categories of people who have section 10 rights, namely the ability of transfer those rights from one urban area to another. As a result of discussions which took place on the standing committee there have been other minor improvements relating to the lot of people who qualify or may qualify for such section 10 rights, namely that they do not have to work continuously for a single employer in order to acquire these rights. Furthermore the period of residence in respect of people who qualify for section 10B rights has been reduced from 15 years to 10 years.

We see those as minimal improvements and also the whole question of the sanction in the clause relating to any offence which a person may have committed which now has been changed from a fine of R500 to a fine of R1 000. These are, as I have indicated, marginal improvements in a very sensitive area.

We in these benches of course believe that racial restrictions on the mobility of people in South Africa should be removed completely and immediately. It has been the stance of this party over a period of years that the whole question of influx control applying as it does only to one section of the South African population is totally untenable in a multiracial country like South Africa. We believe it is totally discriminatory and we believe that it cannot be justified in any sense. We also believe that it is one of the principal causes of grievances among the Black people that they are subjected to this sort of restriction.

While we accept the improvements contained in this Bill in regard to these people in the urban areas, we await with some impatience perhaps but with considerable interest the legislation which we are told will follow, presumably during the next session of Parliament, relating to the whole question of the Government’s urbanization policy and its attitude towards influx control and the pass laws in South Africa. This is an interim measure and it does contain certain elements of improvement.

As far as clause 9 of the original Bill was concerned, as a result of discussions on the standing committee that clause has now fortunately been deleted. The Bill made retrospective provision in respect of the removal of a tribe to any other area, irrespective of any legal proceedings which may have been pending at the time. The provision in the Bill in its original form was retrospective to 21 March 1973. We believed at that time—we argued this in the standing committee—that it was a thoroughly bad provision. If related purely to the position of the people of Magopa in respect of which an appeal is pending before the Appellate Division. We raised very strong objection in the standing committee and we believe that had that provision not been deleted we on these benches would have been compelled to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

It is a mystery how this clause came into the Bill in the first place, a Bill which, as I have indicated, contains a number of positive improvements. I do not quite know how clause 9 in its original form came into this Bill. Happily, that has now been deleted and it is now possible for us to consider objectively the real improvements in the other provisions and to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.

We have difficulty with clause 10 of the Bill. It relates to the boundary definition in the national state of Lebowa. We are not satisfied that sufficient consultation has taken place with the Lebowa Government. Although the explanatory memorandum says that there has been consultation, our own contact with the Lebowa Government indicates that while they might have been made aware of the provision they are in fact opposed to it. It is unfortunate that the standing committee was not able to receive direct evidence from the Lebowa Government in respect of the matter relating to this particular clause. So we are not satisfied that there has been proper consultation. There is a fear, we know, in the ranks of the Lebowa Government that it may adversely affect the situation in the Mutsi area which, in terms of the Government’s consolidation proposals, is proposed for excision from the area of Lebowa. We believe that, because of the doubt which exists in regard to the attitude of lebowa, and because of the lack of any real evidence of proper consultation, this clause should be opposed. In fact, we did oppose it during the deliberations of the standing committee.

However, the clauses other than those on which we have made those observations are innocuous and are improvements. Generally, we find the provisions of this Bill an improvement on the existing situation in each case and will support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I wish to thank the hon member for Berea and his party for their support of this measure. The hon member gave a comprehensive summary of what the Bill covers. [Interjections.] I have no intention of following his example.

I wish to make only two comments arising from the hon member’s pronouncements on clauses 2 and 4. As regards clause 2 the hon member said section 22ter of the Act which is now being repealed was a ridiculous provision. [Interjections.] I cannot see why it should now become so ridiculous because, if one examines section 22ter of that particular Act, it appears that that section merely applies the existing customary law of Blacks to the conclusion of a marriage by Blacks before a civil authority. Why the hon member wishes to disparage the basis of that section, namely Black customary law, is not very clear to me. I should say one would do better to express appreciation of Black customary law.

As regards clause 4, the hon member actually disparaged the provisions of the Bill as “minimal improvements” and “marginal improvements”. That may be the view of that party and that hon member on the legislation but one should bear in mind that section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) consolidation Act granted Blacks very valuable rights and will do so in future. [Interjections.] Consequently to denigrate the improvements to and greater flexibility lent to the Act as “minimal” and “marginal” is not altogether fair, to my mind.

The provisions of the Bill are a sign of the increasing urbanization process of the Black people of South Africa in particular. This is a process which should be thoroughly noted by everyone who wishes to ensure an orderly future for South Africa. The preparatory steps taken in approving this Bill are essential to permit this urbanization process to develop properly.

As increasing numbers of Blacks become urbanized, their needs change. Legislation therefore has to keep pace with altered realities, for example that millions of Blacks find themselves in urban surroundings and that this will increase in future. Consequently the contents of clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are examples of adaptations to the legislation which have become necessary in this case to furnish the needs of urbanized Black women who participate especially as breadwinners in modern commercial traffic nowadays.

It is true, however, as the hon member for Berea indicated, that the most important provision of the Bill is clause 4 which amends section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. It promotes the mobility of Blacks in prescribed areas and has very strong support from important bodies of employers. I wish to name two which made important submissions to the standing committee, namely the South African Federated Chamber of Industries and the SA Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.

Blacks’ retention of section 10 rights under the circumstances as set out in the proposed new subsection 1B are also essential to promote establishment in towns and on trust lands and in the territories of national states. This is a matter I wish to emphasize very strongly. It is important to bear in mind that section 10 does not deal only with influx but also grants very valuable rights to Blacks in urban areas—rights they guard very jealously. This appears very clearly from a statement by Chief Buthelezi in his own Legislative Assembly which I should like to quote. His comments arose from the proposed legislation we are now dealing with. This is what he said:

This side of the House therefore takes pleasure in supporting the legislation. I should like to use the opportunity to thank all the members of the standing committee and to express my appreciation to them for their cooperation while dealing with the Bill and at the same time to record that the members of the committee highly appreciated the hon the Minister’s appearing personally before the committee, that he explained the legislation and replied to questions. We support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, as in the case of the previous Bill, I have to inform the House that the CP does not see its way clear to supporting this Bill.

We have no objection as regards numbers 5, 6 and subsequent clauses and we said so in the standing committee.

I attended the meeting of the standing committee because of my interest in the subject concerned but also to see how the new consensus politics in South Africa worked. It was rather informative. Initially people on the committee adopted very strong standpoints but they were prepared for so-called “horse-trading” concerning their political points of view. The PFP adopted a very strong stand against the provisions in clause 10; so much so that it voted against it in committee. Today, the same party is supporting this Bill. Either its members are wrong today or they were wrong in the standing committee when they voted against that clause. They had better choose now. Apparently the PFP is also prepared for horse-trading as regards its own standpoints. [Interjections.]

The NP members adopted a very strong standpoint in the standing committee regarding the proposed clause 9 as initially introduced. They said that clause could not be jettisoned under any circumstances but then we arrived at the discussion of clause 4. The PFP has always held the view that section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act should be totally removed from the Statute Book to enable Blacks to move freely and work where they please.

Hear, hear!

The PFP says “hear, hear” and I assume this is still its view today. Nevertheless that party is voting today for a clause in the Bill which provides that a Black has to spend 10 years …[Interjections.] The principle contained in the legislation is that a Black has to work for the same employer or reside in the same place for 10 years and the PFP is voting for that. [Interjections.] In the standing committee that party initially said that clause was totally unacceptable to it. The Labour Party of the House of Representatives then proposed that this period of 15 years as contained in the original legislation be decreased to three years. Then the horse-trading began. The Labour Party members said they were prepared to extend it to five years but they would make no further concession whatsoever. It was pathetic to watch NP representatives on that standing committee because not one of them was prepared to make a stand on behalf of the NP. [Interjections.] Time and again they had to adjourn to seek inspiration from the Minister to ascertain how far he was prepared to go.

Did you express a standpoint? You did not utter a word.

Naturally we did. We said we were opposed to the clause and supported the current legislation. [Interjections.] It was of interest that the horse-trading then began in real earnest. Ultimately the NP abandoned its standpoint on the proposed clause 9; it failed to obtain a concession from the PFP and the Labour Party as regards clause 4. [Interjections.] Then the wonderful consensus was reached because we had supposedly met each other half-way regarding principles. It is as simple as that.

The CP is inexorably opposed to the passing of a further relaxation of section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act as proposed now. If we examine the situation in the Western Cape as it has developed over the past two years, we find the Government initially adopted the stand that the Blacks would move from Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu to Khayelitsha and the Black squatters’ camp at Crossroads would be cleaned up.

One staggering development followed another and in a debate earlier this year the hon the Minister announced that he was granting a concession to Blacks illegally in Crossroads to live in Khayelitsha for 18 months. I think it is more than a concession because it will ultimately be interpreted as a right. I asked him at the time who he thought he was bluffing beside himself in thinking he would move Blacks from one place to another for 18 months. What was that same hon Minister’s reply? He did not reply to me here in the debate. What was his reply in the standing committee? From the Opposition’s side he was asked what this 18-month concession comprised, to which he replied that the duration could simply be extended. That is precisely what this hon Minister intends doing. We should like to know of this hon Minister what exactly is happening in the Western Cape. Much mention is being made of the success in moving Blacks from Crossroads to Block C, Khayelitsha etc. We want to know of the hon the Minister whether the illegal influx of Blacks to Crossroads is continuing. Is there any real decrease in the number of Blacks in Crossroads itself?

We are informed that further illegal squatting is taking place adjacent to Khayelitsha at present and that Blacks are pouring illegally from Ciskei and Transkei to the Western Cape on a large scale. Is this Government going to wait any longer until a further untenable situation arises and then not take countermeasures but make further concessions?

Initially the Government supported only a slight amendment to section 10. That amendment provided that a Black man who had acquired section 10 rights in one Black urban area would retain those rights and be entitled to work in another area. Their coalition opponents, who are also their coalition partners, were encouraged and assisted by the PFP and to a lesser degree by the NRP and they clutched at the opportunity of obtaining an enormous concession—almost a capitulation—from the side of NP-members and in particular the hon the Minister.

We can make no other deduction regarding this case than that the NP is in the process of gradually abandoning its policy of the past. That is all I have to say on section 10; other hon members on our side will expand on it.

We now have a peculiar position regarding clause 1. Hon members on the other side of the House say our representative on the standing committee did not participate in the discussion at all. Nevertheless we specifically raised this argument, which I shall not take further here, in the standing committee. The hon the Minister conceded that the hon member for Lichtenburg possibly had a valid argument. What does this clause provide now? It reads:

It has always been ordinary Black tribal law among nearly all Black peoples of Southern Africa that a Black woman is a minor and her husband her guardian. The Zulus of kwaZulu then brought about a change which would apply to their people, the Zulus, of kwaZulu. That is their privilege. If they wish to change that Black customary law in respect of the Zulus, we do not begrudge it. But what do we find in this clause now? Now the change which kwaZulu wishes to introduce as regards its own people is extended to all Blacks—not only Zulus—resident in Natal, whether they are Basutos, Xhosas or Swazis. The hon member for Ermelo will know how many Swazis are currently living in kwaZulu. This now becomes applicable to them.

You say they have a good law. Why does kwaZulu want to alter it then?

Yes, but numerous Blacks who are not Zulus live in Natal outside kwaZulu. [Interjections.]

What will the consequence of this clause be if it is passed? It will mean that if a Black woman lives in Natal in a customary union with a Black man she is emancipated to a certain degree. This applies to Zulus, Xhosas and all the rest. The moment that Zulu woman and her husband pass through Charlestown and into Volksrust, however, that provision lapses. Then she falls under the guardianship of her husband again.

If a Black Northern Sotho woman is married to a Northern Sotho man in the Transvaal, Black customary law applies. If they were to move to Natal, however, the legal position would change. The hon member for East London City is shaking his head but he would do well to reread this clause. I am going to read it to you again: “…excluding a Black woman who permanently resides in the province of Natal”.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether, if he were to move to Australia for example, his marital state would change in consequence? [Interjections.]

I do not wish to offend that hon member but he has not read this clause. Allow me to read the clause to the hon member:

She has to reside there permanently but, the moment she no longer does so and moves to the Transvaal or the Cape, one cannot interpret this clause otherwise than that the legal position then changes.

The hon member can reply to my next question as well. What is the position of a Black woman who resided permanently in the Transvaal, entered into a Black customary union and then moved to Natal with her husband? Does the hon member want to tell me she remains under the guardianship of her husband in terms of this clause? Really, I am of the opinion the hon member should think again.

As regards clause 2, we voted against that in the standing committee as well. The argument of NP representatives in that standing committee was that the proposed change as contained in clause 2, as initially introduced in the House of Assembly, was to comply with the request of kwaZulu regarding Natal. At the insistence of the hon member for Houghton, who was the “women’s libber” of the committee, it is being extended to the Transvaal.

Arguments put forward by NP members in the standing committee against the extension were valid arguments. They contended that we should first consult the leaders of the Black peoples in the Transvaal. We should not start interfering with Black law without first consulting Black leaders. Those were the arguments put forward by hon members in the standing committee to the PFP and the Labour Party. In the process of horsetrading, however, they also abandoned those valid arguments.

This brings me to clause 3 of the Bill. The existing position that any person, other than a Black, requires a permit to enter a Black area as defined in the law now lapses and is replaced by the arrangement that police officers above a certain rank or in some cases a delegate are granted the right to forbid a person other than a Black to enter a Black town or, if he has entered already, to order him to leave the place.

This amendment will probably go through in spite of our opposition. It is a good thing that at least this provision is retained in the Act. We wish to warn, however, that there should be no belated effort to close the stable door after the horse has escaped.

Koos cannot even ride! [Interjections.]

Oh, let me hold my tongue. [Interjections.]

At present there is proper control to ensure that persons other than Blacks may enter those Black residential areas providing they have permits. The reason for this is that undesirable elements should not obtain access to those Black residential areas. Surely we know what present conditions are like in numerous Black residential areas. Nevertheless that requirement for a permit is being deleted from the Statute Book at the very time in which we now find ourselves. The onus is placed on the Police to decide whether a person is a threat to the safety and good order in the country. Discretionary power is granted to a police officer—and if I recall it correctly, to an officer with the rank of lieutenant or above—to exercise his discretion in forbidding a person to enter a Black town or house or in ordering him to leave it.

I must admit I was slightly dumbfounded that this provision was acceptable to the PFP—they who have such a peculiar concept of the rule of law and especially seeing that the hon member for Houghton exhibits such particular appreciation of Police action under various circumstances. I find it strange that she in particular is prepared to grant a policeman with the rank of lieutenant the right to decide for himself whether a man should be removed from a location or not. I am grateful she was prepared to go that far but, regarding this as well, I think the hon members for Houghton and Berea forgot about their principles slightly for the sake of the necessary horse-trading with the NP. [Interjections.]

In these few words we wish to express our strongest opposition to the first four clauses and in particular to clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill. We are therefore left with no choice but to vote against the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to commence by saying that I think the hon member for Ermelo was an outstanding chairman of this standing committee throughout the session. He set a style of participation and of calm and logical argument which was much appreciated by all the members of the standing committee. [Interjections.] I believe only good can result from that type of approach to standing committees. It certainly gives everyone the opportunity to ask as many questions as possible so that clarification can be obtained both from the departmental officials who attend and from the hon the Minister himself on occasions when he attends meetings. The feeling of participation in and real clarity about various parts of the legislation is greatly enhanced by the style which the hon member for Ermelo adopts as chairman of that standing committee.

We saw this Bill in the initial stages as an improvement on the existing Act—as I am sure other hon members also did, apart from the CP. As a result of the procedure which was adopted, further improvements resulted—in particular with relation to the question concerning Black marriages. In fact, I should like to continue with that argument briefly because the hon member for Barberton put one point of view, but what is noteworthy is that the kwaZulu Government saw fit to make amendments to the Natal code of Zulu law on a unilateral basis which resulted in a situation in which that amendment had effect only in kwaZulu. In the rest of Natal the South African statutes, which included that particular codified law, still applied.

So one had a split situation already within one geographic area, not to mention the rest of the country. In this case the Republic changed its statutes to follow the lead given by that particular homeland. Concerning the question of going to the leader of each national state, my argument is that since in today’s circumstances each ethnic group has a geographic area within which it exercises its own authority about these matters, this changes things to such an extent that I believe the Republic could in fact easily change and update the marriage laws pertaining to Blacks as it sees fit within the geographic area of the Republic, after which the individual national states could follow suit if they so wished. In other words, they would be left in the position where they could maintain those laws within their own areas if they wished without losing any face whatsoever or on an individual basis follow suit, as we in fact have had to follow suit in the case of kwaZulu. I see no reason why the Republic should not proceed to update its marriage laws in respect of Blacks and modernize them to a far greater extent, allowing the national states to follow suit later.

Assurances were given in respect of the period of time the Law Commission was likely to take to go into this matter. I seem to recall a period of time of three years being mentioned. If it is going to take that long before we even get to the stage that this matter can be debated and legislation can be formulated, perhaps it might be a very good idea if we do unilaterally change our laws in the Republic and allow the national states to follow suit as and when they see fit. Alternatively, we could phase in sections of those particular laws as the Law Commission completes them, thereby accelerating the process to the greatest extent possible.

As regards the question of the right of a police officer to eject or prohibit entry of a person deemed to be “undesirable” as it was originally described in the Bill, the further qualification of what “undesirable” means by the inclusion of the words “with a view to the maintenance of public order and security” was a great improvement, as was the additional paragraph dealing with the right of appeal within seven days.

Further down in that clause, clause 3 of the Bill, one notices that these powers may be assigned, after consultation with the Minister of Law and Order, to various persons, including inspectors of a development board, persons appointed by a local authority and members of a community guard. I should just like to ask the hon members of the Official Opposition whether they would be in favour of the extension of those rights to members of a community guard and whether in fact the concept of a community guard finds favour with them. I should like an answer to that. I wonder whether the hon member for Berea will perhaps indicate what he feels about the idea of a community guard.

Just make your speech. It is totally irrelevant.

I think the fact of the matter is that that party is opposed to the concept of a community guard and is also opposed to a community guard having those powers.

What does that have to do with the Bill?

It has a lot to do with it. You see, Sir, that party has said that the police and the troops must get out of the townships.

Of course.

The hon member says “of course”. They say the police and the troops must get out of the townships.

I think you are following Ron Miller.

If the hon members do not agree with the concept of a community guard, who is left in the townships to maintain law and order?

You should be criticizing the Government, but instead you are criticizing the Official Opposition.

When members of the Official Opposition shoot off their mouths with the first thought that comes into their minds about law and order, and do not take a line that is consistent with them saying they are against violence, I want to ask them how one is going to prevent violence in this situation without using the police, or the troops or a community guard. [Interjections.] I think that party has a problem. They have said too many things, and when one says such things, one must have a long memory. They do not really know how they are going to go about it. They do not really know how to cope with law and order in that situation. The hon member for Barberton, in saying that they surprised him by saying that a police officer of the rank of lieutenant should have the the right to evict or to prohibit the entrance of a person, was correct, because I believe it is not in keeping with the fact that they do not like the presence of the police in these areas.

As far as influx control and the amendments concerning it are concerned, we obviously welcome them, but I believe that this is very much a temporary measure. As has been indicated by the hon the Minister, a further Bill dealing with this subject will be drafted and dealt with by the standing committee during the recess when the whole question of urbanization will be gone into. It is quite within the realms of possibility that the chaos everybody forecasts when influx control is done away with is already with us. I would not be at all surprised if the chaos that we all fear will follow the lifting of influx control already exists in and around all our townships, because these measures have never worked. One has always turned a blind eye to the fact that tens of thousands of people who are so-called illegals are already with us. What we need to do is to reconsider whether chaos will follow, because I think the chaos is already with us. It is evinced by the fact that we have an enormous backlog in housing and an impossible law and order situation in which we can only adopt one course.

In conclusion I would like to thank the hon the Minister for withdrawing the original clause 9 of the Bill. I think it was a very wise move, because the whole tenor of the Bill would have been spoilt by insisting that that clause form part of the Bill. It would not have done the Government any credit, because it almost implicitly recognized that the removal of the Mogopa people was a bad move and that the Government was covering its tracks in the event of the Appeal Court decision going against it.

It was not that at all.

It looked very much like that, and I need a lot more convincing before I am convinced that it was not that. I believe that provision was well out of that Bill and I think the hon the Minister’s preparedness to withdraw it does the NP great credit.

Mr Chairman, listening to the hon member for Barberton, one would think that we have certain sinister motives with this legislation. We do not have any aims in regard to this legislation that cannot be disclosed and we are happy to say that it is aimed at improving the living conditions of Black people, at addressing certain bottlenecks in Black areas and bringing relief, if possible, in that regard. This is what we talked about in the standing committee, and I would like to thank the chairman for his patience in this regard. In the Department of Co-operation and Development we have some capable officials I have ever met. I appreciate their knowledge and their willingness to assist members of all parties so that consensus may be reached. The hon the Minister is a very busy man but he made time to try to help us reach consensus. If people differ with each other, the whole purpose of discussions is, after all, to see whether they cannot find each other. The hon member for Lichtenburg sat there absolutely silent. He did not say a word. I think he voted each time against every improvement for the Blacks, but he did not participate in the discussions. He merely said that he opposed it. He did not advance any reasons and played no part in the improvement of the legislation. I contend that the hon members of the CP do not want to improve the living conditions of the Black people.

Do not talk nonsense. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Barberton said the other day that he does not hate the Black people, but he has yet to prove it to me. [Interjections.]

The aim of clauses 1 and 2 is to improve the circumstances of Black women. They are deemed in law to be in the position where, at every marriage ceremony, the marriage officer has to obtain a note from the father or guardian even after the person concerned has come of age. It has to be obtained before that person can enter into the marriage. It is in the interest of neither the Black people nor the country, but we are happy that so much progress has been made that this came from within the ranks of the Black people themselves. There is nothing wrong with this. We are keen to have it and the Black people are also keen to have it. So I do not know why the CP is opposed to it.

What clause 3 amounts to is that Blacks, Coloureds, Asian and Whites may, for various reasons, enter a Black area. It is absolutely impossible in the current circumstances to exercise control by means of a permit system when people who are not Black enter Black areas on sporting occasions, for the purposes of local government, for the purpose of social intercourse, for cultural events and for business affairs.

There is no ulterior motive for this. It is impossible to maintain the permit system. There are not enough people to handle it. In terms of the new system anyone may enter Black areas, but there is a provision that anyone who enters such an area to provoke unrest can be requested by a police officer to leave the area. There is nothing wrong with that. This system is easy to administer and is actually the ideal method of improving the circumstances. As we know the CP, they baulk at any improvements introduced for the benefit of the Black people.

All that clause 4 relates to is the terrible difficulties experienced in South Africa as a result of the influx of people. It is a fact, after all, that Black people feel incensed about the fact that there are certain provisions which require that a Black has to be in a White area for periods of 10 years and 15 years before he may live and work in that area. The hon the Minister stated clearly—it is no secret—that we are going to see whether this state of affairs cannot be improved further. This is a temporary measure aimed at determining whether an improvement cannot be brought about at this stage. I want to warn the CP now that we are going to effect further improvements because it is in the interests of South Africa that such further improvements be effected.

This is why I say to the hon member for Barberton—he holds terrible views in regard to this—that his assertions about the steps taken by the NP are absolutely untrue. The NP has gone out of its way to reach consensus at this stage and we are proud that we were able to achieve it. We have to contend with serious problems in South Africa. One of our big problems in South Africa is the simplisitc solutions in regard to the Blacks that the CP want to offer the public; but those solutions are not feasible. They will not work in practice and play into the hands of revolutionary elements in South Africa. I have pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I am sure that it was a great comfort to all the members of the standing committee—here I exclude the hon member for Barberton who arrived as an observer—to know that his beady eyes were fixed on us and that everything we did was noted down so that he could use it politically when the Bill that we had been discussing came back to the House. It was a great comfort to know that the hon gentleman very carefully watched what we did.

Unfortunately, however, he has forgotten what he ever knew about parliamentary procedure. He comes back to this House and chastises the PFP members who served on the standing committee for voting for an amendment to section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. We vote for all amendments that improve the situation, whether or not we have voted against the principle originally. That is common procedure in this House. If one does not accept the amendment, one is not left without section 10 at all—rather, one is left with section 10 unamended or, in other words, unimproved. Clearly, where there are amendments suggested then, although we may have voted against the principle of the measure, if that measure is later improved by an amendment we will support the amendment. We have done it over and over again in this House. We voted against the setting up of separate universities for Blacks, Coloureds and Asians. However, when amendments come before this House which give greater powers of autonomy to those universities, we vote for such amendments. That is just another example. So I do not understand what the hon member was growling about. [Interjections.] I shall not pay any further attention to what the hon member said.

This Bill which we discussed in great detail in the standing committee contained several improvements and it also contained some clauses to which we objected. We managed to bring about certain improvements. The hon member prefers to call it “horse-trading”; we call it “trying to arrive at consensus where possible”. It was not always possible, and then one had to compromise by deciding whether to support the measure or whether to object to it and thereby lose the advantages of the improvements which were in fact introduced.

I might also say that what I am saying now also applies to the hon member for King William’s Town who, all of a sudden, has become ferocious in his attacks on the PFP.

Another Ron Miller.

I do not know whether he is making his way across to the other side of the House, but I must say that the arguments he uses are very illogical. They are the sort of arguments that I used to get hurled at me. When I oppose capital punishment I am told that I am in favour of murder. That is exactly the same argument the hon member for King William’s Town used today when he said that because we object to vigilantes operating in the townships we are in favour of violence. What nonsense!

Do you encourage people to participate in the elections for local government officials?

The hon member forgets that we voted for the Black Local Authorities Act.

That is correct, but do you encourage it through the Press?

We neither encourage nor discourage. We believe the Blacks must make up their own minds. It is not for us to decide for them. However, we voted for the Black Local Authorities Act, and as far as we are concerned that means we hope that the Black Local Authorities Act will work. [Interjections.]

What does this Bill in fact contain? It contains first of all a clause which brings the kwaZulu code and the law of the RSA into a consistent form. We agreed to that, although we believed that it should go further and that women who are married by customary unions in the rest of the country should also be relieved of their minority status. That, I believe, will come sooner or later. However, I do not like this pious attitude always adopted by men in this House—except, of course, for my colleagues such as the hon member for Berea—when they say: “Oh, we do not like to change anything that applies to Blacks and their customary laws without consulting them”. I have sat here for many a year and watched hundreds, probably thousands, of provisions being placed on our Stature Book about which Blacks had never been consulted and which they would have rejected had they in fact been so consulted. So those hon male members should please not make those pious excuses. It is a rotten law and it must be changed. Sooner or later I believe it will be changed. We left it to one side because we were able to persuade the other members of the standing committee to drop section 22ter of the Black Administration Act of 1927 entirely. That is certainly an improvement. It was an absurd measure when it applied only to Natal, and it became doubly absurd when it was extended to the Transvaal in 1972. I objected to that extension then. It never applied in the Free State or the Cape, so there was no logic in this at all. It meant that a Black woman who was a major could never marry without the permission of a guardian, and often the guardian was her 15-year old son, or it might have been some old uncle living in a homeland whom she had never set eyes on. It was total nonsense. Why we extended this to the Transvaal in 1972 was never explained by the then Deputy Minister, Mr Raubenheimer, but the Bill went through. Now, at last, so many years later, we are removing it from the Statute Book and for that I am duly grateful. I am quite sure that many thousands of Black women who have resented this subservient minority status as far as marriage is concerned will also be pleased.

The clause that now does away with the need for a permit to enter a township is also to be welcomed. We accepted that, although we do not like the idea of having to give powers to a lieutenant or anyone who ranks above that in the Police Force to refuse anyone they wish a permit to enter a township for a certain period. This might lead to victimization and obviously we are against it but at least we managed to get an appeal to the Minister, which is something, and we also managed to get the power circumscribed to a certain extent.

To my mind one of the most important clauses is clause 4 which amends section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, which we want to see scrapped in its entirety. It is no secret that this party is dead against influx control and the pass laws. We have been against them for many years. We believe it is this law which causes the greatest racial friction and that it imposes tremendous hardships on Blacks who wish to move around to sell their labour in the best market, have their families with them and set up stable family lives in the urban areas. I do not want to go over all that again; I have done so millions of times in this House and my colleagues have done the same. I just again place on record that we wish to see the influx control and pass laws scrapped entirely and I agree with the hon member for King William’s Town that the so-called chaos this would cause is vastly exaggerated and that the great number of people who would come into the towns if the laws were to go, are, in fact, already here, and that a large number will not even want to come. It is not that everybody wants to come and or to bring his family with him. So the sooner that measure goes, the better. This is an improvement. It does increase the mobility of Blacks and also does more than that: It allows Blacks who have section 10 rights in the Republic to retain those rights if they move to an area which later becomes an independent state.

This is going to be very important to thousands of people who are apparently going to live in Ekangulu, for instance, which is probably going to become part of an independent kwaNdebele. I think those people would perhaps be happier to live in that area—even though they do not want to be part of an independent Black state—if they knew at least that they were going to retain section 10 rights when they moved. So this is an improvement on the existing position and once again I want to say to the hon member for Barberton who is not here …

He is watching you on TV.

Oh, how lucky! I want to tell him that if we had not voted for this, we would still have had section 10 without these additional rights. We would have had the old section 10 with the restrictions as they obtain at the moment. So we make no apology for voting for this amendment. We are pleased with it.

For the rest, my hon colleague from Berea has expounded at length on the removal of the old clause 9 which we certainly objected to very strongly. Retrospective law is bad and, apart from that, this provision would have quashed before it was heard a case presently before the Appeal Court on behalf of the people of Magopa who have already been moved, who object to it and believe it was done invalidly. This would have validated that removal retrospectively and, of course, made the court case irrelevant. So we are very glad that the hon the Minister saw fit to omit that, and I know that lawyers who are interested in preserving the rule of law in South Africa will certainly welcome the fact that this is not going to be on our Statute Book.

For those reasons we are pleased to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton devoted the greater part of her time to explanations on why the Official Opposition had voted against section 10 in the standing committee but would vote for the legislation as a whole in the House here today. [Interjections.] I think the hon member for Barberton sketched the PFP situation most effectively in saying that for reasons of affiliation they had decided to support the legislation together with the New Progs in spite of the fact that they were opposed to it in principle. [Interjections.]

We should have known what was coming right from the start when we heard that the hon member for Berea welcomed this Bill and said it was an improvement on the measures because any political observer in South Africa who is informed that the PFP welcomes an amending Bill proposed by the Department of Co-operating and Development must know they are measures decreasing partition, dismantling the policy of separate development and a movement to the ideology of the PFP.

The hon member for Vryheid even warned us by saying they would not leave the matter there. They would go even further. We know that, however. [Interjections.] I am pleased he is honest enough to admit they intend going further until the policy of separate development is scrapped in its entirety. Is that not true?

I was talking about the living conditions of Blacks.

But the hon member for Vryheid used the NP stock phrase that this policy was no longer “haalbaar”. What he actually wanted to say was that the policy of separate development was a mistake, it was no longer viable and it had to disappear.

As Beukes said.

As the ambassador to the USA, Mr Beukes, said openly.

If one examines this legislation and the most important principles contained in it, one sees that in truth one of the most important principles is the promotion of the integration situation. The hon member for Vryheid called it by name: The measures now removing the permit system so that persons other than Blacks may enter Black areas are necessary because we require them for social and business occasions. [Interjections.] I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Barberton in warning that they should not attempt belatedly to close the stable door. This void will not only be abused in situations mentioned by the hon member for Vryheid but also for other purposes, for example to transgress section 16 of the Immorality Act. That is why I agree with the hon member for Barberton that all these measures to make rules for order and regulate partition among the various population groups of this country are now being systematically removed. [Interjections.]

That is one aspect of the matter. A further important aspect is the fact that the relaxation of the restrictions on section 10 rights underlines the NP acceptance of the permanence of Blacks in White South Africa.

We have already said so; haven’t you heard?

Yes, but I say it is emphasis of the fact that it is a method of arranging matters in such a way that all Blacks permanently present in South Africa obtain free rights of movement and ultimately political rights in the highest council chambers of this country. [Interjections.] This NP movement began with a speech made at the time by the previous Minister of Co-operation and Development at Palm Springs in the USA when he said apartheid was dead. [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton said this was a gradual renunciation of the policy of separate development. I actually wish to express it more strongly. If we look at what has taken place in the political arena of South Africa over the past few weeks, we realize it is a radically swift renunciation of the policy of separate development.

I am very pleased the hon member for Bloemfontein East is present this afternoon. When I asked him on Friday whether he still believed in the policy of separate development including the concept of a White fatherland, he told me across the floor of the House that he believed in it utterly. He still believes in it. Does that hon member still believe in it?

I believe in the policy of separate development.

Does he believe in the policy of separate development including the concept of a White fatherland?

I believe Whites have a fatherland as does every other people.

Is that so? Fine! In other words, I assume he still believes in the preservation of a White fatherland. That is the policy of members on this side of the House.

I wish to put the same question to the hon the Minister, namely whether he believes in the preservation of separate development which includes the concept of a White fatherland? What is his reply to that? Does he agree with the hon member for Bloemfontein East?

Do you agree with the “Oranje” workers?

That hon member can leave the “Oranje” workers to the Ermelo constituency. They will deal with them.

I wish to ask the hon member for Turffontein if he agrees with the hon member for Bloemfontein East. [Interjections.] All I can infer from the silence of the hon the Minister…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he supports the CP pamphlet on a “Boer” state?

The pamphlet to which the hon member is referring is not an official CP document. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must be given the opportunity of completing his speech without unnecessary interruptions.

I can tell that hon member that pamphlet is not an official CP document. Members of this side of the House stand by the policy of separate development, however, and our ideal is to retain and perpetuate a fatherland for Whites in South Africa where our descendants may continue to exist in safety and prosperity. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vryheid said the CP does not want to improve the living conditions of Black people. I think that is a scandalous remark that that hon member made here today. [Interjections.]

It is the truth.

He says it is the truth. Let me ask that hon member if he remembers the days when all of us in the NP still believed in separate development. We said that separate development was a liberating policy, that separate development was a policy that gave true freedom to the various peoples. We said that domination of one group by another could only be eliminated by the creation of separate freedoms.

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask that hon member who is sitting there making a noise whether he still remembers how we took exception to the PFP’s accusing us as Nationalists—who were not racists but wanted to give true freedom to other peoples—of hating Black people and of begrudging them everything.

Now you are doing so!

Let me tell that hon member that he is doing exactly what the PFP has always done to the NP.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member must give me a chance. Let me tell that hon member that he is doing a very dangerous thing by setting White and Black against each other. [Interjections.] That hon member tells the Black people: There is a growing number of the Whites in South Africa who are going to take over as the majority in the House of Assembly at the next election. [Interjections.] That is what the hon member tells the Black people. He tells them that the members of the CP begrudge the Black people a living in this country. [Interjections.] I think that hon member should examine his own actions.

I want to tell him that the CP stands for separate development which boils down to the fact that the various peoples will govern themselves each in its own fatherland. If the NP introduces legislation into this Parliament to improve the living conditions of Black people, particularly in their own fatherlands, then the CP will support that legislation. [Interjections.]

The CP wants to make the circumstances in an own fatherland such that Black people with initiative who want to achieve something will want to go there to promote development in their own fatherland. The CP is opposing this legislation for the very reason that it makes conditions for Black people more favourable in White areas than in their own fatherlands. We are opposing this legislation precisely because that is what the NP is doing. The NP is facilitating the movement of Black people from the homelands and other regions to certain other areas.

The CP believes in separate development. We want to give all peoples an own father-land. I greatly appreciate the honesty of the hon member for Bloemfontein East who said that he also wants an own fatherland for the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman …

No, I was praising that hon member. He must not run away when we praise and thank him for propagating the right of the Whites to have a place in his country as well.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman is digressing too far from the legislation. The hon member must bring his arguments more into line with the legislation. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I was trying to reply to an accusation that the CP does not want to improve the living conditions of Black people. [Interjections.]

We are opposed to this legislation precisely because it makes it easier for Black people to flock to the metropolitan areas. In discussing previous legislation the hon the Minister ascribed the leasehold legislation to Dr Connie Mulder who was the Minister of Cooperation and Development at the time. He said this man who is now a CP member had changed his viewpoint entirely.

I should like to quote an extract from Pronat of 24 September 1978. Hon members will tell me now that I am delving very deeply into the past. I quote:

This hon Minister who has attacked us comes along today and extends property rights to Black women here in the Western Cape as well. On top of that he blames the CP for it. He ascribes these things to Dr Connie Mulder but what did the congress of the NP decide in 1978? It was decided, inter alia, that the minimum fines for the employment of Blacks whose presence was illegal should if possible be made prohibitively high. The congress said that the fines for the employment of a man illegally in the Western Cape—it is being made easier for him now to move here—should be prohibitively high.

Order! Before I suspend the business of the House I want in the context of events here this evening to quote something by a well-known writer. It reads as follows:

I think we should go and eat!

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, when business was suspended before supper I was dealing with resolutions of the congress of the NP on the illegal influx of Black people into the Western Cape. I should like to tie it in with those clauses in the Bill that increase the so-called freedom of movement of Black people in the Republic and which therefore ostensibly improve their living conditions in the Republic. Let me ask if the following resolution of that congress meets these requirements. The resolution was that employers who were found guilty of employing Blacks whose presence was illegal, would be responsible for the repatriation of those Black people.

Order! I have asked the hon member for Kuruman to come closer to the amending Bill. The hon member must explain to me which clause he is now discussing.

Mr Chairman, I told you that the amending Bill makes provision for greater freedom of movement of Black people. The CP is apposed to this viewpoint. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not want to interrupt the member unnecessarily. However, he must just tell me whether what he is discussing is in fact covered by the clause.

Sir, among other things the CP is accused of opposing this amending Bill. I am referring specifically to the restrictions governing section 10 rights that are being relaxed. It is becoming easier for a person to acquire those rights and therefore to be able to move from one place to another.

You do not know what the law provides.

Sir, that hon old fusionist member for Vryheid is sitting at the back making a noise. [Interjections.] Perhaps I should not attempt to carry on describing that hon member because then I shall be getting away from the Bill completely. Sir, will you give me the opportunity to discuss the principle?

Order! No, the hon member must realize that this is an amending Bill and that the principle contained in the principal Act is not again at issue. In fact I want to point out to the hon member that he has spent seven minutes on the introductory remarks to his speech. Now, however, he must get down to the Bill.

Sir, I want to refer to clause 4 which amends section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. Hon members allege that it makes the freedom of movement of Black people less restricted. After all, in terms of this clause it is also true that people will now obtain more rights of freedom of movement.

What clause?

I have just mentioned the clause I am discussing.

Order! I want to draw the attention of the hon member for Vryheid to the fact that the hon member for Kuruman is addressing the Chair. He must give him the opportunity to do so.

Sir, I am referring to the amendment of section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act.

Order! I shall allow the hon member to continue discussing clause 4 but he must not wander too far from its provisions.

Sir, I should like to know what your decision in this regard is when I inform you that an accusation has been levelled at my party which has adopted a standpoint on principle against this. It is said that we do not wish Black people to have freedom of movement, and that we also begrudge them better living conditions in the Republic. [Interjections.] Those accusations are made because we oppose this particular clause. I am now assessing it in the light of a resolution of the NP Congress in 1978.

That resolution was changed.

Yes, I know the resolution was changed. The NP changes its resolutions daily. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bellville is one of the leaders when it comes to changing decisions. [Interjections.]

I want to ask whether this resolution which requires an employer who employs Black people having to repatriate these people if it is found that they are here illegally will be improving the living conditions of these people. I want to know if a Black man who has lived in Kimberley for 15 years and who will now probably be given the right in terms of this clause to move to Cape Town will in terms of that decision taken by the NP Congress be repartriated to where he came from by the employer who had employed him illegally. I want to ask whether this is improving the standards of living of people.

There is a further resolution that repatriation must follow upon the conviction of Blacks whose presence is illegal. The presence of the people who are here now and who streamed in their thousands into the Western Cape in particular is now being legalized by clause 4 of the Bill. Their presence here and their coming here is being legalized, yet the NP decided at its congresses in 1978 that these people had to be repatriated. Then hon members like the hon member for Vryheid come along and accuse the CP of begrudging the Black people elbow-room and an improvement in their living conditions.

The CP cannot support this Bill because it will result in …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, sir, I do not want to reply to a question by that hon member. Sir, this Bill will result in …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, Sir, I do not feel like replying to that hon member’s question either. Sir, let me state that this Bill will result in an ever-increasing influx of Black people into the Western Cape as well, and the hon the Minister and the Government will make one concession after another and be forced to do so.

This Bill was dealt with as a general affair by a standing committee consisting of members of all three Houses. I also want to indicate why this resolution was taken. In this regard I want to quote from Rapport of 17 March 1985 in which it was stated that the Labour Party had said that it had already asserted itself. I quote the following point:

The Coloureds have also forced the Government in the consensus decisions to make one concession after another so that the Western Cape will be overrun.

As a result of this, and as a result of the building of Khayelitsha and the retention of the other Black residential areas here, there will be 600 000 Black people living here in the Cape when the city of Khayelitsha is completed who will have political rights in terms of the announcement in regard to NP policy standpoints, and let me say that this will create political and social problems for the NP and for South Africa. The CP cannot support this legislation because we believe in separate development and because we believe that the steps to be taken by means of legislation should make it possible for the attraction of the Black national states to be such that with their freedom of movement the Black people would prefer to move there rather than crowd out the Whites in their own living space here in the Western Cape as well.

Mr Chairman, earlier on this evening you adjourned the House for supper in a strikingly wise way and, when you did so, it made me think of another historical truth. The hon the Minister who, I concede, is one of our country’s experts on the classics, made me think of one of the servants and supporters of Catiline. In the light of the standpoints adopted by him in the past, I think the hon the Minister should in his approach to the politics of today and the future of his own people give some thought to Catiline’s behaviour. I want to say that in the present political set-up the State President makes me think of Catiline.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is that an acceptable comparison in the light of the fact that Catiline was a conspirator and rebel and a man who attempted to overthrow a lawful government? I want to suggest that this is an objectionable comparison.

Order! What did the hon member for Rissik mean by that remark?

Mr Chairman, I was comparing the State President with Catiline as someone who no longer wants the existing order to continue. The existing order in this country is separate development, but if the hon the Minister takes umbrage at the remark, I withdraw it. The hon the Minister is very quick to attack us on certain points but he is the last person to speak about making an about-face or a change. He underwent an essential change of standpoint in regard to what he believed in earlier. The Bill that the hon the Minister has brought to the House must not be seen as being separate from the new political philosophy which the hon the Minister and the Government support.

The hon the Minister and the Government have undergone a considerable change of mind in regard to the philosophy of the old NP. They have moved away from it and no longer see South Africa as consisting of a White nation, a Brown nation, an Indian nation and the various Black nations, but now regard all Black people outside the national states as being part of a new nation. The CP feels very strongly about this matter. When one reads the debates that have taken place in the House over the past 30 years one sees that the hon member for Houghton was the advocate of power-sharing and a mixed Government. The CP which is historically and in principle the extension of the old NP is equally strongly opposed to the repeal of the Acts that we have always believed were essential for the survival of the Whites and all the other peoples. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Kuruman by saying…

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, but I am prepared to accompany the hon member to his constituency and to debate these matters there.

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Kuruman said. A very delicate ethnic situation exists in South Africa. The argument of the old liberalists that the NP is using—that the CP begrudges Black people progress in all spheres—is something to which we object strongly.

I should like to say something about clauses 3 and 4. With reference to these clauses there is a certain word which I think should be looked at afresh, namely the word “location”. This word appears in clause 3 and I know that we used this word in our young days but I think that in the times in which we live it is a word that should be reconsidered. [Interjections.] One could perhaps speak of a “Black residential area” or something similar.

A real liberal.

I think my thinking is very enlightened and has always been very enlightened.

The other issue which bothers me is that the hon the Minister is providing in clause 3 that a police officer of or above the rank of lieutenant will be empowered to take certain steps or to authorize certain people to do so. Up to now only two NP members have spoken but they did not debate the content of this clause in a very sensible way. By way of interjection an hon member spoke about cultural relations and sporting relations while the hon member for Ermelo spoke about relations in the medical sphere and said that a doctor sometimes had to go to a Black residential area. In my opinion, however, one is now opening the door completely to the movement of Whites to Black residential areas.

What about the people who have to work there?

People have always worked there and a procedure has always existed according to which it was arranged. The NP with its new philosophy, however, now wants to free the movement of Black people and that of Whites to Black residential areas from all restrictions. The aim of the NP is to increase the freedeom of movement and make it more convenient. An additional responsibility now falls upon the Police. When such a person enters a particular residential area the Police now have to determine whether it is necessary for him to be there. If they regard his presence there as undesirable the Police have to take action. Also because of the change in the political philosophy of the Government our recent experience has been that the onus on and responsibility of the Police continues to increase while the powers given to them are not always adequate or supported sufficiently by the Government to enable them to carry out their responsibilities there.

I want to issue the warning that the so-called throwing open of the Black residential areas to admit anyone creates two problems. The first is that the authority of the Police officials and the responsibility that rests on their shoulders is going to grow. It is going to become increasingly more difficult for them to control these matters. In my view the question remains: When is someone undesirable? How is such a Police officer to judge if someone’s presence there is undesirable? Liberal attorneys or advocates such as the hon member for Randburg and others to the left of me, could play around a great deal with the meaning of the word “undesirable”. In the delicate security situation we are experiencing in South Africa at present the circumstances and milieu in which policemen have to act are aggravating factors.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No. I should like to go and help the hon member at Ermelo because if I had not made good speeches for him there he would not have won there in the election of 1981.

There is a second aspect as well, and we are not dealing with a third reading debate now. We are now throwing the Black residential areas open.

Why did Ferdi not vote against it?

As soon as the hon member for Lichtenburg returns I shall ask him myself. He is in Mossel Bay this evening where he is in the process of getting rid of the hon member for Mossel Bay by taking over his constituency. [Interjections.]

Order!

The point I want to make is that if one wants to throw open all these Black residential areas then surely the opposite will hold good as well. The more the Government seeks to open the Black residential areas to leftist Whites like most of the hon members sitting on the other side the more it will also have to throw open the White residential areas to Black people. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister and his colleagues live over in Brynterion which is enclosed by high gates and fences …[Interjections.]

Order! The House cannot continue in this fashion. Too many interjections are being made and this will compel me to mention hon members by name. The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Sir.

I just want to say that where the hon the Ministers live they are protected, but they would have to live in specific residential areas to see to what extent assaults, disturbances and molestations have taken place since the Government began repealing all these pieces of legislation. This kind of action has a further detrimental effect on the Black residential areas. Clause 4 is ostensibly bring relief …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if those Black people who are now moving to the White areas are not moving there specifically because Whites have given them employment?

But that is exactly the problem that the Whites in South Africa have experienced from the beginning, that for various reasons they have been unable to provide their own labour. Particularly the liberalists …Does the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education not understand me?

I read you like a book.

I am pleased about that. The hon the Minister and I know each other well; he ought to be able to read me like a book.

Let me return to the question of the hon member for Parys. The problem that we have had in South Africa was precisely that there was an influx of Black people coming to sell their labour to Whites, and that the control over the selling of that labour and over the position of the Blacks and White areas was not handled carefully enough. That is our dilemma. [Interjections.] Our problem is that the NP is now allowing multiples of Black people, thousands upon thousands of them, simply to stream into the White areas.

The NP uses the expression “urbanization process”. They speak of a sound urbanization policy but these very things the NP are saying were said by the United Party years ago when they were sitting in this House. During the years when the hon the Minister was still safe in the academic milieu and was speaking of a White homeland similar to operation Israel, we sat where he is sitting now while the Progressive Party and the United Party advocated precisely what the NP is now advocating. The NP comes along now and acts as if it has a new reform policy, a great solution, for South Africa. All the NP did was to take over the policy of the old United Party and of the Progressive Party. [Interjections.]

That is why we state that we still stand for a White South Africa in spite of the fact that thousands, even millions, of people come here to sell their labour. Our dilemma is simply that if one changes one’s political philosophy and starts speaking of a new, relatively unitary state with not only Coloureds and Indians but also Blacks, the Black people will move to precisely the places where they think they will be able to find work. The other problem I have here is that the development of the Black national states has come to a virtual standstill because Black people are being told: “You are going to form part of this new political structure. We are throwing open South Africa. We want you to urbanize in White South Africa.”

You do not know what you are talking about, man.

Any demographer, even an intelligent member like the hon member for Ermelo—who of course will no longer be the member for Ermelo after the next election—will realize that if one tells the Blacks they are allowed into South Africa, because of increase in numbers there is going to be, there will probably no longer be any Whites, within 20 or 30 years. The NP is therefore making it impossible for the White man to survive. [Interjections.]

Let me conclude, therefore, by saying that we oppose this legislation because it is embedded in the new liberal political philosophy of the hon the Minister and also because it will place the White man in his fatherland in an even more difficult situation as far as his continuing to live and to survive in this country is concerned.

Mr Chairman, it has been clear to me on more than one occasion that the hon member for Rissik has an uncontrollable attack of spleen the moment he addresses me or whenever he talks in general to this side of the House. [Interjections.] I must honestly say, however, that the bitterness and the exaggeration of his outburst this evening really surpassed anything he did in the past. I want to repeat that if we compare one another here across the floor of this House with prototypes of traitors and of tyrants who tried to undermine and overthrow the State in the same way as Catiline did in the history of Rome …

Order! That remark was withdrawn. Therefore the hon the Minister cannot refer to it. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, reference was made here this evening to Catiline …

Order! Yes, but it was withdrawn. The rules state that once a remark has been withdrawn, no further reference shall be made to it. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Very well, I accept that, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by referring to the whole question of influx control. Quite a number of members discussed this topic. Once again I want to give the undertaking here which the State President gave in his opening address during the opening of Parliament at the beginning of the year, which is that the Government realizes the urgent need to carry out a thorough review and to reform the existing legislation on influx control, particularly with a view to eliminating from it as far as possible the negative and discriminating elements. I have said repeatedly in previous discussions, and I want to repeat it here this evening, that this is a matter on which the various departments concerned are hard at work. I also want to mention that it is the target to have revised legislation in connection with influx control ready during the second half of this year for consideration by the standing committee.

It is admitted that the existing influx control measures contain quite a number of negative and technical provisions, the result of which is that people are sentenced to terms of imprisonment or are brought to trial without any real criminal element being involved. That is why these aspects will be considered.

Cognizance will also have to be taken, whether we like it or not, of the fact which is apparent from responsible surveys, that the feelings in regard to influx control is one of the strongest causes of bitterness in Black communities that exists at present. One must take cognizance of this. One must therefore, in all reasonableness, endeavour to do away with those aspects of influx control which can readily be done away with.

Influx control also created the impression that the urbanization of Black people was being counteracted. That is why one of the aspects of the revision of influx control must in fact be to cause it to be accompanied by a proper strategy for orderly urbanization for Black people. Such an urbanization strategy will not only relate to urbanization in existing metropolitan areas—although provision for additional settlement possibilities will in fact have to be made there as well—but will especially promote the spread of such urbanization and will ensure that there are incentives to promote urbanization in the decentralization or deconcentration points in terms of our regional development scheme, and also in the various national states.

Together with that it is also essential that a planned promotion of housing possibilities will be provided as a component of the urbanization strategy. I have already said that the Government accepts that a housing strategy which is part of an urbanization strategy will also have to take unconventional housing into account. With urbanization in South Africa we shall no longer have the financial means to provide everyone with conventional houses. We shall at least have to provide a properly serviced site and a properly planned residential area or town in which people can erect their own, unconventional structures, their own orderly squatter structures. This will enable adjustment to the capacity to pay and financial means of the persons concerned at the beginning of an urbanization process, and it will also bring the urbanization process within the —means of the State. This informal housing is an extremely important aspect of urbanization and it will have to be taken into account.

With reference to the remarks made by the hon member for Berea and the hon member for King William’s Town I want to say that because of the demographic and economic realities of South Africa I cannot see how there can be a total abolition of all control measures aimed at orderly urbanization. Consequently I want to make it very clear that it is definitely not the Government’s objective to do away with the essential measures for ensuring orderly urbanization. The envisaged revision of influx control and the development of a properly planned urbanization policy will have to take into account an essential element of control which we shall simply not be able to manage without in the South African situation.

In that spirit and against that background it is clear that what is happening under the direction of this Government is in no way the possible creation of an orderless, uncontrolled influx and unplanned settlement, and of choatic conditions or an intermingling of residential areas. It is very clearly the policy of this Government that prospects of this kind, as suggested by hon members of the CP, are not on the Government’s programme.

I should also like to refer to remarks inconnection with the entire question of influx and urbanization which were made by the hon member for Barberton. He said that squatting was allegedly taking place in areas adjoining Khayelitsha. That is not true. The hon member must show we where that is taking place, because my department ensures, by means of its officials here and through co-operation with the development board, that no squatting is occurring in that vicinity. Furthermore, I also want to make it clear that with the resettlement of more than 30 000 people from Crossroads in Khayelitsha great care will have to be taken to ensure that squatter structures are not again erected in the areas evacuated in Crossroads. This will enable us to make a properly planned upgrading of the Crossroads area with a view to Black residential area development possible.

I also want to emphasize here that the Government is aware of the serious need to deal with the situation which exists at present in the national states and the independent states in the eastern parts of our country and in the areas in the Eastern Cape which are suffering economic hardships. All possible measures are being adopted, firstly to prevent the influx of people from those territories to the Western Cape from increasing and secondly, to exercise control so that people who do acquire temporary residence here, do not exceed their period of residence. Here, too, I want to refer to the positive measures which have been adopted in the Eastern Cape to promote employment opportunities with the announcement of the making available of funds to combat unemployment and for irrigation and agricultural development schemes. An improvement in the regional settlement benefits has also been announced to encourage employment possibilities in the Port Elizabeth area. Consequently proper attention is in fact being devoted to both the positive aspects of the provision of employment and livelihood opportunities in the areas from which these Black people come, as well as the aspect of control over those who migrate to the Western Cape to make sure that they do not exceed their concessions or their period of residence.

I want to give the assurance that it is not acceptable to the Government that a disorderly influx of people will take place to areas where they are not entitled to establish themselves.

I should like to react to the contributions made by various hon members. I want to thank the hon member for Ermelo very sincerely for his support and particularly, too, for clearly pointing out that clause 4, which deals with the retention of rights in terms of section 10 of people who are going to establish themselves in trust areas or national states, is in fact aimed at the promotion of decentralization, the establishment of industrial development and the establishment of Black workers in areas where there is at present little development. This will in fact serve an an incentive for Black people to go and work in those decentralization areas if they do not in that way lose the rights which they have already acquired in the urban areas. In this way I think we are promoting decentralized development, as well as the development of urbanization in areas which can readily be included in or amalgamated with the national states.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Vryheid for his support and for the effective way in which he refuted quite a number of arguments put forward by other hon members.

†The hon member for King William’s Town has also expressed his and his party’s support and I should like to thank him for that as well. I should also like to thank the hon members for Houghton and Berea for their support. They both informed me that they would not be able to be here this evening, and I accept their apologies.

The hon member for Berea referred to the withdrawal of the original clause 9 and I should like to comment on this aspect.

*The original clause 9 was withdrawn for very good reasons. The original clause 9 was not intended to be a statutory amendment but merely a formulation of the existing interpretation of the legal position. The clause was withdrawn becasue what was contained therein was the legal interpretation applying at present. That it is the legal interpretation applying at present is apparent from two Supreme Court judgments which interpreted the section dealing with re-settlement. The one court judgment was given in the Eastern Cape Provincial Division in 1977 in the case Steven Shiawala v Kotzé and the Minister of Co-operation and Development. The other judgment was given in the Transvaal Supreme Court in the case Shadrak More v The Minister of Co-operation and Development and J de Villiers. According to these judgments the position as formulated in the original clause 9 was in fact the correct legal position. That is why we decided that it was sufficient to leave it at that and not anticipate other possible judgments by other divisions of the Supreme Court.

I also want to point out that that clause did not deal with powers of the executive authority, which were perhaps not properly exercised, but that it dealt with the way in which Parliament itself, according to its own Acts, had formulated the necessary resolutions authorizing the re-settlement of specific communities. The judgment in these two Supreme Court cases which I mentioned, indeed confirmed that Parliament had adopted its resolutions which formed the foundation for the re-settlement of various communities in the past in the correct way. It was therefore not a question of a statutory amendment, but of an interpretation, as subscribed to at the present moment by the Supreme Court, of the legal position underlying the Parliamentary resolutions in question which authorized the settlement of people.

In addition the hon member for Berea referred to the original clause 10 and expressed concern at the possibility that there may not have been sufficient consultation with the government of the national state of Lebowa in this connection. In the new Bill it is clause 9 to which the hon member was referring. Here, too, the clause in question is merely a confirmation of the generally accepted legal position in respect of the definition of the territory of the national state of Lebowa. In the 1972 constitutional proclamation of Lebowa the constitution of Lebowa is described with reference to the definition thereof in the schedule to an earlier proclamation of 1971. The definition refers merely to the territory of Lebowa, as defined in the schedule to the earlier proclamation, without explicitly stating: “…and as subsequently amended from time to time by other proclamations”. Now, most of the legal advice obtained by the department in this connection is that this is sufficient, and that it is not necessary to state expressly in the proctarnation in question: “… the definition as in the 1971 proclamation, as amended from time to time”. However, other legal advice emerged which did express such doubts.

To place the matter as it is generally accepted—viz that Lebowa’s territory is defined in the 1971 proclamation, as amended by subsequent proclamations—beyond all doubt, this provision is being included in the new clause 9. No one doubted that this was the legal position, and because this is the case, it is being very clearly stated in this provision, so that it may remain that way. I also want to point out that I have kept the chief minister of Lebowa fully informed about this matter in writing, and I have provided him with further information orally, through the Commissioner-General concerned. The feedback I have received is that the chief minister made no negative reaction to this information. Since this amendment is so obviously in the interests of Lebowa, I assume that the matter is in order. If any doubt should exist as to the definition of the area of jurisdiction of Lebowa, it could of course place the effective implementation of Lebowa’s state authority on uncertain grounds.

I should also like to refer to the clauses in connection with the status of Black women, namely clauses 1 and 2, a matter which was raised by the hon member for Barberton in particular. As far as clause 1 is concerned, the Natal Code of Zulu Law applies to all Blacks in Natal and is not only applicable to the Zulu. In spite of the name of the code, it is very clearly apparent from section 24 of the Black Administration Act of 1927 that that code applies to all Blacks in Natal. Therefore it is logical that any amplification which is effected here should be effected in such a way that this amendment applies to all Blacks outside the boundaries of kwaZulu, so that the same arrangement for Blacks will apply within the province of Natal in respect of the territory of kwaZulu and the territory of Natal itself. Since there has been criticism that this causes an illogical geographic separation between Black people in Natal and Black people in the rest of South Africa, I want to say it is essentially the same position as that which existed previously in terms of section 22ter which applies in clause 2. Then there was a separation between the legal position of the Black woman in Natal and the Transvaal, compared with the legal position of Black women in the rest of South Africa. This discrepancy in section 22ter has existed since 1972 when the section concerned was inserted into the Act. In 1972, what is more, it was nearly a codification of a situation which had existed since the previous century. The degree of discrepancy which therefore appears to arise from clause 1 because it supposedly results in arrangements within Natal which differ from those in other provinces, is something which occurred in practice in the past.

I also expect that the SA Law Commission, which is at present investigating the contractual capacity of the Black woman, will, through its recommendations, bring about uniformity in this respect throughout the country. The position which is now being regulated for Natal by means of this legal provision will in due course also apply in the other provinces and inside as well as outside the national states. To this end the Department of Co-operation and Development and the governments of the national states are working very closely with the Law Commission in its revision of this matter.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I also wish to refer to the remark made by the hon member for Barberton implying that the abolition of clause 2 entailed that we were amending Black law without consulting the Black leaders or Black governmental bodies. In the first place I want to point out that clause 2, with the abolition of section liter, does not deal with Black law but with normal civil marriages for Black people. The amendment is being effected in respect of such marriages. It therefore does not apply to common law marriages but to civil marriages. According to the Constitution Act of the National States this repeal will, in addition, not simply apply in the national states, because the national states themselves have to decide before it will become applicable to the citizens in their states. I therefore hope that it is clear that the objections which were raised to clauses 1 and 2 were really not valid.

I just want to make an observation about clause 3 and the objections to it that were raised. It was said that the abolition of a permit requirement for non-Blacks who wished to enter Black urban areas was going to cause grave problems.

I ask myself what effect is greater on the structuring and the circumstances of society: The huge numbers of Black people who enter the White areas daily to work there, or the relatively small number of White persons or other non-Black people who may possibly be interested in entering Black areas for specific reasons? Apparently we have no difficulty with having large numbers of Black people enter the White areas legally every day for our convenience, but now we are mortally afraid that a small group of nonBlack people are going to be allowed to enter Black residential areas without a permit.

The hon member for Pietersburg made the strange remark that one of the things which worried him was that the abolition of the permits system for the entry of non-Black people to Black residential areas would lead to an increasing number of contraventions of section 16 of the Immorality Act. I must honestly say that it would surprise me if persons who contravened this section in the past, first applied for a permit in order to enter the Black residential areas. [Interjections.] I cannot imagine a more ridiculous argument than the one this hon member advanced.

The Government finds that it is not desirable to place a restriction on the presence in general of all non-Black people without a permit in Black residential areas. We accept instead that it is acceptable in principle that non-Black persons may be present in Black residential areas for lawful reasons. There are many such reasons: Commercial, administrative, professional or in connection with sport. One could rather make an exception by means of which a police officer is authorised to declare a specifically identifiable person to be undesirable from a security point of view owing to specific, identifiable reasons. This is not an unreasonable encumberment of the Police either. The existing Internal Security Act already provides in section 20 that a policeman with a lesser rank than that which is mentioned in this legislation—in this legislation a police officer with a rank of lieutenant is mentioned, but in section 20 of the Internal Security Act the rank of a warrant officer is mentioned—is authorized to take specific steps against a person when he deems such person’s behaviour to be a threat to safety and public order.

I am convinced that the Police have been trained well and are experienced enough to deal effectively with this kind of matter. It is therefore not necessary to try to score debating points off one another in respect of this matter. In any event it has also become apparent in practice that it is administratively impractical and unfeasible to cause all nonBlack persons who have good reasons for entering Black residential areas to be issued with permits first. Experience has shown that it is impractical as far as the administration is concerned, and that there are in any event no material risks attached to this if the matter is dealt with as is being proposed in this clause of the amending Bill.

I am therefore convinced—as were those hon members who supported us in this matter and who argued the matter so clearly—that this amending Bill will bring about a considerable improvement in the circumstances of life of Black people in the Black residential areas outside the national states, and that it cannot be argued at all, as the hon member for Kuruman did that we are now creating better conditions for them outside their national states than is the case within the national states. In my opinion there are no grounds for such an argument at all. That is why I think that this House may confidently support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to indicate that we on this side of the House support the Bill. You will allow me, Sir, just to address a word of appreciation to the chairman of the standing committee which dealt with this Bill who gave the members of the standing committee plenty of opportunity to discuss the Bill properly. We were also privileged to have members of the South African Council for Natural Scientists with us. Actually it was their Bill and not so much the Government’s Bill. That was why a general atmosphere of give and take prevailed in an effort really to achieve the best with regard to the objectives of the Bill.

The Bill entails important amendments to the existing Natural Scientists’ Act. The most important of these is probably, in the first place, that the responsibility for the implementation of the Act shifts from the Office of the Prime Minister, which has obviously fallen away as a result of the new constitutional dispensation, to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. It seems to me as if the hon the Minister has great faith in his own capacity for work, because the number of responsibilities he has shouldered is really tremendous. But we can discuss that on another occasion.

As a former academic I find the new definition of “research” an interesting definition of this concept in the field of natural science. We also welcome the fact that the decision in connection with the recognition of associations of natural scientists is now, in the first place, to a great extent placed in the hands of the SA Council for Natural Scientists and not the Minister. We also welcome the fact that the requirements set by the Council for the recognition of such an association of natural scientists, must be published by the Council in the Gazette and this applies to the recognition of associations of natural scientists as well.

Another interesting amendment which has been effected, concerns the easing of the requirement that natural scientists must be resident in South Africa to be registered as such. With a view to the development of the four independent states and the close links which should be maintained between South Africa and those states in the field of natural science—I am referring here to the natural scientists who practise or are trained in these states—I just want to say that in my opinion it is a very good development that in this way we have created the opportunity for the registration of the relevant people who are resident in those areas and elsewhere.

It goes without saying that the problem which took up most of the standing committee’s time, was the one contained in clause 10 of the Bill which substituted section 20 of the principal Act. We spent a great deal of time on that in the standing committee. It actually concerned the extent to which the restriction in the Act with regard to registration should also apply in particular to lecturers at universities and technicons and to universities and technicons. In this connection the Act contains fairly drastic provisions in connection with the right of natural scientists to perform work as natural scientists under the name “natural scientist” and to be employed by a body as a natural scientist.

We had a big problem when it became apparent that some of the universities and technicons in fact had a fundamental objection to the original provision in the Bill. I am happy to say that the standing committee eventually told the SA Council for Natural Scientists that it had to solve the problem itself by means of negotiations and discussions with the universities and technicons. Those discussions took place, with the result that the Board put forward a proposal which was accepted by the standing committee and in terms of which universities and technicons and natural scientists working there would be exempted from the restriction.

In conclusion I want to point out that the original Bill contained a large number of definitions in its schedule regarding what a natural scientist was. Approximately 170 to 180 designations were embodied in the schedule, but this caused problems. I do not want to go into particulars because then we will become hopelessly too technical. The matter was sorted out in the standing committee with the assistance of the law advisers so that at present only 11 kinds of natural science professions are set out in the schedule.

With these few words it gives me pleasure to support the Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my thanks to the hon member Prof Olivier for the remarks he addressed to me as chairman of the standing committee.

The Bill is one of those which was referred to the standing committee twice, first prior to the Second Reading and then again after the Second Reading because it became apparent that there were certain aspects which required further attention. In my capacity as chairman I should like to express my appreciation to all the members of the standing committee for what I almost want to call the scientific way in which they set about giving attention to the Bill.

When the Bill was submitted to the committee for the first time, it looked as though it would be a fairly simple Bill and as though the handling of the Bill by the standing committee would be fairly easy. Later it became apparent that there was far more involved than was apparent at first glance. After the principle of the Bill had been accepted in the House, it was necessary to refer the Bill back to the standing committee because further attention had to be given to certain matters which would not affect Parliament or the administrative control of the measure as such but the acceptance of the provisions of the Bill by natural scientists.

Basically the Bill envisages introducing an inter-profession discipline because it provides that in order to call himself a natural scientist, a bacteriologist, a physicist or an ornithologist, for example, a person must have university training of at least four years in a Baccalaureus degree. This means that natural scientists will acquire a greater status and prestige in the professions. It is a good thing that a body such as the council pertaining to the natural scientists’ profession, will enforce that discipline itself to the maximum extent as is also applicable in the case of engineers, medical practitioners, the legal professions and so on. They have their own society to discipline their own members and profession. This will now also be the case with the natural scientists.

As the hon member Prof Olivier indicated, it appeared that doubts were being raised by lecturing staff of tertiary educational institutions in particular regarding their status in terms of the new legislation. In view of this further evidence was requested. Dr Saunders, Rector of the University of Cape Town and Chairman of the Committee of University Principals, was asked to give evidence, inter alia. Representatives of the SA Council for Natural Scientists also attended the meetings. Further meetings of the Committee of University Principals were convened. There was give and take, and after negotiations between the interested groups the council itself put forward an amendment which had been agreed upon. This now appears in clause 10 which amends section 20 of the principal Act.

In clause 1 which deals with the definitions, a definition was also built in of what a natural scientist actually was and also what “research” meant, because it was pointed out that a person who undertook research or taught at a tertiary educational institution did not necessarily have to be a registered member of a natural science profession in order to be able to call himself a natural scientist. The question then arose what exactly research was. It was decided that the word “research” should be defined as follows:

This is a very apt definition of research.

The hon member Prof Olivier has already indicated that a very large number of natural science professions were mentioned in the first draft of the Bill, far in excess of 100. On the occasion of the second meeting of the standing committee the number was reduced to 11 blanket designations of natural scientists.

After thorough consideration by all parties involved and after the hearing of further evidence this measure is now before the House and we can say that it is acceptable to the natural science profession itself. That is why I am grateful that it was possible for the standing committee to work together so that this discipline could also be equipped with greater status and higher prestige. I want to express the hope that in future the natural scientists will still make a very big contribution towards development and research work in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Klip River rightly indicated that this legislation was actually before the House for the second time. Perhaps this also gives one the opportunity, which one does not get every day in the new dispensation, to participate in the debate for a second time, because the Committee Stage and the Third Reading have fallen away as it were. When this legislation was dealt with before I put certain questions to the hon the Deputy Minister, who dealt with this legislation, which he did not reply to. I should like to ask him in a friendly manner whether he will not reply to certain questions this evening.

The hon member Prof Olivier pointed out that certain amendments had been effected. Certain of the amendments he mentioned—that this Bill had been transferred to the department of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for example—were already accepted in principle in the previous Bill.

Thus far the SA Council for Natural Scientists has experienced certain problems. They spelt out in their annual report that there were actually still misunderstandings among natural scientists themselves in connection with the legislation. They pointed out that as a result the registration of natural scientists did not progress as they would have liked it to. In its annual report the council also reported that they had drawn up and distributed 14 000 copies of an information document. I therefore really think that one would like to bring this matter to the attention of all natural scientists so that this council, which will play a very good role with regard to the regulating and even the status of the natural science profession, can come into its own.

In the previous debate I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister regarding clause 10. In clause 10, which substitutes section 20 of the principal Act, and which concerns the “prohibition against practising as a natural scientist by an unregistered person”, members of recognized professional associations are exempted from any restriction, as the hon member for Klip River has already indicated. But we still have certain professions in the legislation under discussion which in my opinion fell under the existing statutory professional councils.

Now I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister: Those professional bodies have now been reduced to a total of approximately 11, namely those mentioned in the schedule to the Bill before us. They are earth scientists, forestry scientists, chemical scientists, and so on. There are a total of 11 of them. My question consequently is: In clause 10 the different statutory bodies are mentioned, inter alia professional engineers registered in terms of the Act, architects, quantity surveyors, pharmacists registered in terms of the Pharmacy Act, medical practitioners, dentists and medical scientists who are registered in terms of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, and veterinary surgeons, professional land surveyors and so on.

The problem I now have is that there is also the SA Associated Health Service Professions Board with which we have also had dealings in this session, as a matter of fact very recently. Now I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister: Where is this group of people now being classified? If I understand the objective of this Bill correctly, provision should also have been made in this clause for associated professions in respect of which provisions have already been on the Statute Book since 1982. After all they cannot be classified under any of these other headings. For that reason I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister in a friendly manner whether he does not think that those people are natural scientists. If so, should provision not be made in this legislation to exclude them, specifically like the other professions, from registration in terms of this Act?

For the rest I think this is good legislation and we on this side of the House support the measure.

Mr Chairman, this is one of those odd Bills. When it came forward initially, it seemed to pose no problems. It seemed to be a very easy sort of Bill to handle. Once we got started on it, however, it required a great deal of work. In fact, I would say that the standing committee spent more time on this Bill than probably on any other we have been handling during this particular session. I might add, just in passing, that this proved the value of the standing committee system in that no Minister could possibly have accepted the amendments that were effected to this Bill in the standing committee in an open House. He would really have looked as though he had not done his homework properly and he could never have accepted them. In the standing committee, however, without political rancour or anything like that, all these little points were sorted out and I believe that we ultimately came forward with a Bill that is good. Just in passing, it is one of the few that required three printings. Of some interest, I believe, is that the professional titles which the council originally wanted to retain were ultimately reduced from 164 to 11 which indicates that the standing committee did their homework and also that the people who came in to give evidence from the universities etc, managed to put their cases across well.

The objective of this Bill, primarily, is to regulate professional titles, to remove regulation on mandatory fees and to give the council a right to establish membership fees for their members as well as the residential requirements of their members. I believe all of these points are very necessary to the council of a professional society.

As I said earlier, it seemed a very simple Bill; it took a lot of time; and the Bill that we have now is a relatively simple Bill which, perhaps, it should have been in the first place. Nevertheless we do have a Bill which we can quite happily support and I believe all other professional bodies from the technicons and universities who had considerable trouble with and doubt about this Bill at first will be very happy to accept it now. We support it.

Mr Chairman, my hearty thanks to hon members who participated in the discussion at this third reading for their contributions and I wish to thank the various parties very much for their support of this Bill.

It was pointed out with justification that this Bill had come a long way and I think it was a good thing that it took that course and in so doing proved we were, in fact, capable of reaching consensus. Outside institutions also had the opportunity of appearing before the standing committee, the matter was discussed from various points of view and ultimately we have this Bill before us.

I think the hon member Prof Olivier gave a very good exposition of this Bill and he was capable of this in consequence of his great interest in the matter and his good contribution in the standing committee. The hon member referred to the chairman of the standing committee. I wish to thank the hon member for Klip River very much for the leadership he provided in that standing committee and all the members of the standing committee for their contributions.

The hon member for Pietersburg put certain questions to me inter alia on clause 10. They dealt inter alia with the SA Associated Health Service Professions Board. He asked whether these people were not also natural scientists and obliged to be registered. I wish to refer to the schedule to which other hon members also made reference. We substituted approximately 11 generic names for 179 natural sciences professions. I wish to say to the hon member that all were possibly not included and that changes can take place again in future. If it should be regarded as necessary to revert to specific nomenclature in the course of time and also to include other professions which may have been omitted at this stage, the Minister may be approached to do this in terms of the new section 20(4) which provides for this. Such submissions may therefore be directed and will receive attention. The hon member referred to other questions he put during the Second Reading debate but unfortunately I do not have those questions with me as I was under the impression he may possibly have submitted them to the standing committee. I shall look at the hon member’s Second Reading speech again, however, and then we can return to those questions.

In conclusion I wish to thank all who contributed. I have already mentioned the standing committee but there is also the Committee of University Principals, the Committee of Technikon Principals and the Chamber of Mines. I believe all these institutions contributed to enable us to have a thorough piece of legislation before us.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The greatest threat to the healthy survival of a community is stagnation.

In South Africa the dynamism of the respective communities is also reflected, inter alia, in their self-examination and the adoptations which are made from time to time. The amendment of legislation which no longer measures up to the demands of the times, is an excellent example of this quality.

The constitutional reforms which are earnestly being implemented at present are also reflected in existing legislation and policy statements which appear to be neutral in regard to these matters. In the process of eliminating discriminatory measures from the Statute Book the time has also arrived to address this matter as it finds expression in legislation pertaining to the physical utilization of land.

Section 3 of the Physical Planning Act, 1967, apart from its spatial ordering function, also served as an instrument for applying influx control in respect of industrial development in urban areas. This aspect was addressed as long ago as 1979 by the Commission of Enquiry into Legislation concerning the Utilization of Manpower, the Riekert Commission. In the White Paper which appeared after the aforesaid report the Government accepted the recommendation that section 3 be repealed, subject to a suitable measure being found to retain the ordering function of section 3. During the delivery of the opening address by the then Prime Minister, the present State President, at the conference with business and community leaders in Cape Town on 12 November 1981, better known as the Good Hope Conference, he said the following in connection with regional development and industrial decentralization:

This intention, which was announced at the time, can now be implemented. The proposed establishment of regional services councils must also be considered in this connection, by means of which inter alia the matter of orderly urbanization will also receive the required attention. The urbanization process which will in future be one of the central issues on all levels of government, makes heavy demands, inter alia in respect of the rendering of services, housing, the creation of employment opportunities and recreation. This challenge is being taken up by the Government, and positive steps are constantly being taken in various spheres to bring about the further orderly expansion and development of towns and cities. The regional development initiatives of the Government are well-known; so, too, are the measures adopted to discourage the overconcentration of people in a few metropolitan areas. In so far as the orderly control of factory establishment outside the narrow urban context in non-industrial areas is concerned, that is to say on farm land in general, control is being retained by means of the amendment of section 2 of the Act to make provision for this.

†The repeal of section 3 of the Act should accordingly be seen as another milestone in the Government’s honest and determined intention to abolish discriminatory measures and in the process to treat all employees on an equal level. The disappearance of these measures should, however, not be seen as a step which will harm the orderly control of the urbanization process. It must be emphasized that this greater freedom to employers to engage employees places an even greater responsibility on the employer to see to the welfare of his workers, particularly in respect of housing and transportation. The employer will consequently in future more so than is the case at present have to make a contribution towards these needs of his workers.

Should it be claimed that this step is counter-productive in relation to the Government’s regional development policy and the industrial desentralization policy in particular, I wish today to state that this is not the case. The greater responsibility which is placed on employers, as is also indicated in the Regional Services Councils Bill by way of service and establishment levies, will compel employers carefully to consider the establishment and expansion of industries in metropolitan areas. It is only right and fair that a reasonable contribution towards the provision of services of at least a minimum standard be asked of everyone who prefers to locate in the metropolitan areas in particular. The ever-increasing concentration of people in the metropolitan areas places a great obligation on the government sector to provide services which could, relatively speaking, be provided more cheaply in smaller urban areas. In this respect it will in future be required of the employer to contribute to the orderly development and proper maintenance of urban areas.

In line with previous policy statements by the Government, the present direct administrative control measures such as contained in section 3 of the Physical Planning Act, can now be replaced by indirect financial control measures such as provided for in the Regional Services Councils Bill. The repeal of section 3 should therefore be synchronized with the introduction of the regional establishment levy and the regional services levy which will primarily be used for the improvement and maintenance of infrastructural services and facilities.

*This Bill also proposes that when provision is made to enable the private sector to have a say in the guide plan strategy, the period within which comment and/or representations should be made, may at request be extended. It is found that the provision that comment on a draft guide plan should be submitted within a period of 60 days after its announcement is in many cases not adequate. Instead of deterring interested persons or bodies in this matter, it is now being proposed that this provision be extended so that interested parties may at request be granted an extension of time in which to submit representations.

Another aspect which emerges in regard to the guide plan strategy is the provisions as contained in section 6A(12) and 6A(21), which provide, inter alia, that no permission or approval for the use of land in terms of another law may be granted for a specific purpose if it is contrary to a guide plan. As the Act reads at present it means that the Minister, when he or his delegate considers an application in terms of sections 2 and 4 of this Act, are not, like other Ministers or their delegates in terms of other legislation, bound to the provisions of a guide plan. Since all legislation in regard to the ordering of the use of land is subject to the guide plan provisions, it is only fair that applications in terms of sections 2 and 4 of the Physical Planning Act should also be subject to those provisions, which is not at present the case.

With the amendment of section 6B, which is now being proposed, an attempt is being made to eliminate duplication in regard to the submission of applications for the use of land for a specific purpose. Although the proposed amendment does not address the problem of duplication in regard to applications in its entirety, I can inform hon members that the Government has already decided that other duplication which occurs should in fact be eliminated. It can however be done in terms of section 7 of the Act, without further statutory amendments, by means of notice in the Gazette, by means of which specific exemptions are granted. This step will be announced soon.

It is also being envisaged, in conjunction with this, to give attention to the matter of the small entrepreneur in the service industry sector. Consideration is being given to exempting the coming into existence and establishment of certain small service industries, as far as the orderly control over the use of land is concerned, from control under the provisions of this Act, and to transferring the matter to lower governmental authorities.

†The law is there, among other things, to give guidance, to protect rights and also to provide for offences, but most of all the law is there to assist every community and every person to achieve ideals and objectives within an orderly framework where equal opportunities must exist for all. It is against this background of guidance for orderly development that this Bill should be considered.

The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning brought about three further amendments to the Bill which I fully support. Firstly, Black local authorities are included in the definition of “local authority” in section 1 of the Act. One of the consequences of this amendment will be that Black local authorities will in their own right be represented on Guide Plan Committees. Secondly the standing committee amended the constitution of the interdepartmental committee as provided for in section 9 also to include a representative of the Department of Environment Affairs. This interdepartmental committee controls the zoning of land for industrial purposes, and the Department of Environment Affairs can make a valuable contribution in this regard. The third amendment of the standing committee relates to the fact that different dates may be fixed for the implementation of different provisions of this Bill. This will, inter alia, make it possible to synchronize the repeal of section 3 with the introduction of the levies provided for in the Regional Services Council Bill.

*Mr Speaker, as indicated, there is merit in these amendments, which all effect improvements to the existing Act. I request the support of all parties for the proposed amendments.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for the guidance provided by the chairman, the hon member for Klip River, on this committee and for the work done in this connection by the officials of the department. It was an interesting Bill and I want to say at once that I think it is also probably one of the most important Bills that is going to be passed during this session of Parliament.

This Bill follows, as is in fact stated in the explanatory memorandum, on the various recommendations made by the Riekert Committee and also by the Venter Commission on the rationalization of procedures pertaining to the establishment and development of factories. What it amounted to in essence was that the control measures contained in section 3 of the Physical Planning Act had to be replaced by other more indirect control measures, namely by a shift in emphasis to something more akin to a spatial ordering function and to a prohibition on the use of land not indicated in the guideplan, and so on.

It is probably general knowledge among members of this House that section 3 of the Physical Planning Act was indeed a great source of unpleasantness and friction to employers and industrialists throughout the country as a result of the ratio which was set of 2,5 Blacks to 1 White and in the Western Cape, if I remember correctly, of 2 Blacks to 1 White. As hon members know, this caused very great problems, because the intention with section 3 was in fact, to introduce a further control measure to control the influx of Blacks to urban areas and the employment of Blacks as employees in industries in particular. The implementation of this measure caused major problems for many industrialists when they were compelled to think of expanding their undertakings. That is why I can say that I welcome the fact—and it is quite likely that most of us in this House do so too—that this measure will now at last, disappear from the Statute Book. [Interjections.]

The function which section 3 fulfilled is to a large extent been taken over by other spatial ordering aspects contained in the legislation. I am not going to go into details on this Bill. I just want to say that the amendments which were accepted by the Standing Committee and which met with our general approval, in fact made the Bill even more acceptable in certain respects.

Apart from the deletion in terms of the Bill of all reference to Blacks in the Act, a further important amendment is the clause which provides that officers to whom these powers of the Act are being delegated, shall exercise those powers in co-operations with what was formerly known as the Committee of Seven, but now in fact also with the people as indicated in the Bill, including the Ministers responsible for the respective departments in question in the other Houses.

While I confirm my approval of this amending Bill on behalf of this side of the House, I do nevertheless wish to say that the final clause, namely that in respect of the commencement of the measure, provisions may come into effect on various dates, causes us to fear that the actual repeal of section 3 with all its detrimental consequences is going to be unnecessarily delayed. Unfortunately it has been suggested to us—and I must say this here—that the repeal of section 30 of the principal Act, in a specific area is to a certain extent going to be dependent on the acceptance of the measures contained in the Regional Services Councils Bill, including the new taxation system which is being established in terms of that Bill. As is well-known, it was and still is the standpoint of the Government that in respect of urban local authorities, and the rendering of regional services by regional services councils, other sources of revenue have to be found.

The standpoint which my colleague and I on the Standing Committee adopted was very clearly that in spite of what the government envisaged, we could see no causative connection between the repeal of section 3 of the Physical Planning Act and the implementation of the envisaged Regional Services Councils Act. For that reason we found this provision of the amending Bill, which in fact postpones the repeal of section 3 and, according to the impression which was created, makes it dependent upon the acceptance by private bodies of the evisaged Regional Services Councils Act, and more specifically of the new taxation system, unacceptable. For that reason we opposed this particular provision in the amending Bill.

The Regional Services Councils Bill has now been agreed to by the Standing Committee. Let us forget for the moment that in many respects we feel unhappy about this Bill and will probably not support the Bill in its present form when it is discussed in this House. The Regional Services Councils Bill will probably be passed by this House, because the Government has a majority in this House. In spite of the Opposition which we may express here, they will consequently probably have it accepted. In fact, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made it very clear to the Standing Committee that he was determined, in view of the reasons which he mentioned, that this Bill would be passed during the present session of Parliament. Consequently I should like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister and to the Government in general, that they concede that there is no reason that section 3 of the Physical Planning Act should provisionally be retained. Even if it were retained, I want to make a serious appeal in view of the unpleasantness which is caused by section 3 of the Act, that there should be no delay in the repeal of section 3 of the Physical Planning Act. In my honest opinion all positive aspects which could flow from the clear and rapid repeal of section 3 could be undone if there were any unnecessary delay in the application of this Bill as far as the repeal of section 3 of the Principle Act was concerned. I want to make an appeal to the effect that we should not prejudice the good aspects of the repeal of section 3 by unnecessarily delaying the implementation of the legislation.

In spite of our objections to this final clause to the Bill—this is a clause which was subsequently added and which did not form part of the original Bill—and to the fact that the repeal of section 3 may be unnecessarily delayed—we regard the repeal of such section as the fundamental element of this amending Bill. It is my pleasure to express the approval of this side of the House for the amending bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member Prof Olivier again for his kind remarks which he addressed to me as chairman of that standing committee.

With this Physical Planning Amendment Bill a new era is in fact being ushered in for development planning in this country. Since the original Act was passed in 1967, section 3, which is now being deleted, was probably the most contentious provision of that Act among industrialists. Besides the spatial ordering which it sought to accomplish, it also tried to regulate influx control by means of negative provisions. Those provisions, which were at the time to be dealt with by means of section 3, sought to prevent such a rapid influx to the metropolitan areas that the cost involved in the creation of infrastructures would inevitably have to be paid by the Government.

As the hon member Prof Olivier correctly stated, the deletion of section 3 of the Physical Planning Act is closely dependent on the provision which is being made in the Regional Services Councils Act that a levy may now be imposed to finance certain essential infrastructures of regional services, such as water supply etc. These levies are to be paid by the bodies which require the additional workers.

Some time ago a calculation was made indicating that the hidden subsidy required for bringing in the large number of workers to major metropolitan areas was in fact approximately R6 000 million. This was a hidden subsidy from which the metropolitan areas received a direct benefit.

Mr Chairman, may I put the following question to the hon member? It has been stated on several occasions from the Government side that the metropolitan areas are receiving that hidden subsidy. I think the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said there was a factor of approximately 36%, which would make it cheaper to develop infrastructures in decentralized areas. Can the hon member tell us what study this is, so that we may also get to see it?

According to my information it was a departmental study which was made at the request of the Cabinet because this information had to be obtained.

Naturally it is essential that influx cannot simply be allowed to continue without control. If the influx results in expenses, it is only fair and right that those who are responsible for the influx and insist on better facilities must do one of two things. They must either pay a market-orientated salary so that those people who are brought in from the rural areas will themselves be able to pay for the services they require if their salaries have been adjusted accordingly, or if they are of the opinion that production is still not of such a standard that paying the higher salaries is economically justified, those industrialists must at least make a greater contribution to covering the costs involved in the creation of that infrastructure.

That is why the deletion of clause 3 goes hand in hand with the introduction of the envisaged Regional Services Councils Act, which makes provision for a levy on wages and turnover, for it will entail additional costs for those who derive benefit as a result of the lower salary structure on the one hand, and on the other as a result of the tremendous buying power of primarily the Blacks in those metropolitan areas. It is therefore not exclusively a negative measure to impose a levy on these services. This clause is being deleted at the request of the industrialists, and at the same time provision is being made which at least makes it possible, to a certain extent, to deal with the matter by means of other measures. In this connection I could quote from a letter from the SA Federated Chamber of Industries, in which they state:

I want to express the hope that industrialists will realize that they enjoyed the benefit of an enormous subsidy—a hidden subsidy which nevertheless was of great advantage to them.

Furthermore, I just want to mention that this Bill also provides that the new Bill will now also include control over Black local authorities, because that was not previously included. It is now possible, in terms of the Physical Planning Act, for co-ordinated control to be applied to industrial development and the planning of industrial development on the basis of the regional industrial development planning which we advocate in this country.

Mr Chairman, in this amending Bill there are certain clauses which the CP will be able to support, and others which we will not be able to support. It is the unfortunate part of the new system that when one wishes to support certain positive aspects in a Bill, one has to make them subordinate to others that one wants to vote against because one is opposed to them in principle.

One of the positive aspects which we want to support, is that the period of 60 days within which interested parties were able to representations in respect of guideplans—a period which was insufficient—will now be adequately extended so that proper consideration can be given to such a guideplan. We therefore support clause 4(a) which amends section 6A of the principal Act in this way. In the memorandum, the department stated that the Commission of Inquiry into Legislation concerning the Utilization of Manpower recommended in 1979 that section 3 be repealed. They went on to state:

The argument may perhaps be used that at that stage we were still part of the NP, but the department also stated the following:

The hon member for Klip River said that section 3 caused influx control to take place through negative provisions and that these were now being eliminated. I want to tell him that at a place like Rosslyn, which was designated as a border industry growth point, there are wonderful monuments consisting of factories which were relocated to this border industry area from overconcentrated industrial areas so that Black people today are able to live in their own father-land, Bophuthatswana, are able to cross the border every day to offer their labour to the factories and tonight are able to be re-united with their families in their own fatherland. This is a fine ideal which we cherished over the years in the NP and to which section 3 gave expression in respect of this matter.

Section 3 of the Physical Planning Act was aimed at halting the influx of Blacks to urban areas, and giving expression to the decentralization policy of the NP and at causing development to take place in the Black national states. It was a measure which was aimed at causing development to take place in and around Black national states in order to attract Black people from Black residential areas in the White area to employment opportunities which would enable the Blacks to live with their families in their own country and in their own environment in which they were also able to exercise their political rights. That is a wonderful ideal which is this evening being described by the hon member as a negative provision. However, we say that it also has positive aspects, because thousands of Black people were attracted away from metropolitan areas in the White area to settle with their own families in their own fatherland where they had political rights and could realize themselves and could cross the border to sell their labour.

Section 3 provided that a ratio of 2,5 Black workers to 1 White worker could not be exceeded and that if an industry should expand and its work force should expand to such an extent that this ratio was exceeded, such an industry would be compelled to move to a border area growth point. There are many industrialists who co-operated and who moved to these border industry growth points. The monuments are already standing there today. I think the repeal of this section is a great injustice to these people who at that stage agreed with Government policy and co-operated to cause development to take place in and around the Black father-land. Their relocation took place at great expense and was accompanied by a great deal of disruption.

Section 3 is now being deleted from this Bill and the spatial ordering function of this section is being eliminated because it is ostensibly a discriminatory measure. As a result the CP is not able to support this Bill, and we shall vote against the Second Reading because we believe that every possible measure should be adopted to halt the influx of Black people to White metropolitan areas and that every possible measure should be supported and retained which is able to attract Black people away from the White metropolitan areas so that they can be settled on a family basis within their own homelands, exercise their own political rights there, if necessary cross the border to sell their labour, and return at night to sleep in their own fatherland. Consequently we cannot support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I find it interesting to note how hon members of the CP go completely overboard and have the idea that they always want to see everything in a negative light. There have been two very striking examples of this attitude. The hon member for Kuruman began by saying that the new system had caused there to be things in the legislation which they wanted to support, but that these things were then overshadowed by other provisions which they could not support. This situation has nothing to do with the new dispensation, yet the hon member ascribes it to the new dispensation. In the past opposition parties were frequently in such a situation, but the hon member attributed it to the new dispensation. That shows how manic they are about the so-called faults of the new dispensation. The second point was stated very clearly by the hon member for Klip River, namely that we are moving away here from compulsory measures to other more natural measures to bring about specific things. Section 3 contained a certain element of compulsion which was entirely arbitrary, and it is being replaced by incentives in the sense that when workers go to urban areas their presence has specific implications for the creation of infrastructure. Levies are now being imposed on the employment of those people so that the infrastructure can be created. These levies will to a certain extent serve as a discouragement to people to employ Black people in the urban areas, while it can be done cheaper elsewhere in places where the necessary infrastructure exists. The hon member for Kuruman said, however, that we were undoing this fine ideal of border industries. The hon member must remember, however, that this fine ideal had a major drawback. I agree with him that it was a wonderful idea to have industries in the border areas so that every population group could live in its own area and go to work in the industries by day. As things worked out, the former towns were situated in the edge of the Black homelands, while the industrial areas which could offer a tax income, were situated in the White areas. Such border industries eventually had a very negative and unfair effect. The fine ideal which the hon member for Kuruman praised so much, therefore had a major drawback. There is nothing in this Bill which causes that fine ideal to miscarry. All we are doing is to cease compelling people to come here, but we are creating positive measures in other ways so that the element of compulsion no longer exists.

Mr Chairman, this Bill deals with two major aspects. The one is the extended control over the use of industrial land under certain circumstances. I believe from discussion that the circumstances justify the amendments envisaged in the Bill. The other one is the matter raised by every hon member who has participated in this debate, and that is the repeal of section 3 of the principal Act.

The provisions set out in the now repealed section 3 have been in the Act since its enactment in 1967 and have been resented by industry ever since. Insofar as we are concerned we are very happy indeed to see it removed. To us it seems as though it was an unnecessary provision in the legislation in the first place. In our thinking at any rate it was an ideological provision with the object of harshening influx control as it formed part of the influx control mechanism. The effect it had was to put a damper upon the expansion of certain types of industry, something which is not in the interests of South African trade. I believe furthermore that it never really served the purpose for which it had been intended. As far as we are concerned this provision hampered the creation of job opportunities and it hampered the expansion of trade which we desparately need. Therefore we are very pleased to see it disappear.

I should like to make a comment on clause 4 which I did discuss in the standing committee. The clause provides for a 60 day limit on an objection against a guide plan instead of the unlimited period, because this is what can happen today. As I see it, this time limit was imposed to ensure that the guide plans were put through, and at the same time allow people an opportunity to raise objections within a very reasonable period. People who are involved in future development in an area will not now be able to get on with that development. In terms of the Bill as it is before us now the Director-General of the department has virtually unlimited scope to carry on ad nauseam. I think that this is a minor defect which does not justify our objecting to the Bill. It is rather a pity that it is included in the Bill, but we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is one of those Bills in respect of which the NP, when we talk about change, always comes back to say: Look, it is not that we are really changing, but the point is that we do not need the legislation anymore or we can try some other measure to reach the same objective. There was never a greater problem in urbanizing and using our infrastructure and so forth to best advantage than getting the Black people out of the rural areas and into the cities. The principal Act actually contained one of the provisions aimed at preventing that happening; in other words, it prevented us using our resources to best advantage.

Section 3 which is now to be repealed indicated to businessmen that it was better for them to invest in plant and capital equipment rather than employing people. We are very happy that finally this section is to be repealed, but what saddens me is that the hon member for Klip River and even the very enlightened hon member for Helderkruin are saying that the section is being repealed not because they consider such repeal as something good but because there are other ways to achieve the same objective. During the entire existence of the principal Act from 1968 to 1984 there were only 21 prosecutions in terms of this section, and that, I think, is good enough reason for its repeal.

I should like to come back to something which has often been aired in the House and that is that hon members of the governing party tell us that decentralization has nothing to do with ideology; that it is economically based and so forth. I have in front of me the submission of the SA Institute of Civil Engineers to the President’s Council’s Planning Committee. I just want to quote from if. It says:

It goes on to say:

Concerning this Government’s plans of getting infrastructure going, and so on, they say:

The crux of the matter, according to the civil engineers—and they are the people who provide the infrastructure, not the ideologues from Klip River—is the following:

With that, Sir, I close my case.

Mr Chairman, as was to be expected, the discussion centred around section 3.

I want to thank the hon member prof Olivier very sincerely for the support which he pledged for this Bill. However he also appeared to be rather aggrieved about the wording of clause 13(2). Subsection (2) provides that the provisions of this Bill may be put into operation on various dates. I want to tell the hon member that it is not necessary for him to feel so aggrieved. I think this matter has already been replied to effectively. There will be no delaying process, and I can definitely say that no delaying tactics will be applied. The section in question will be repealed as soon as we have been placed in that position.

That brings me then to the hon member for Greytown, who actually saw fit to make another attack on the Government. I want to tell this member, though, that there is one thing in South Africa that we cannot do away with. Whichever way we look at it, we cannot cancel out the way in which South African society has been structured. Surely none of us want anarchy; nor do we want chaos.

We have it now.

No, we do not. The hon member is living in a country in which there is a great deal of order. He enjoys it every day. I think he would sing a different song if things were otherwise. It is that ordered structure of society that we wish to preserve here in South Africa.

The hon member for Kuruman said that he found himself in a very difficult position, and the hon member for Helderkruin referred to that and replied to it. Surely it has always been the case, with all legislation, that an opposition party in the nature of things wanted to support certain of the provisions, but not others. Consequently I do not think that we can hold up this Bill and say that this is the disadvantage of the new dispensation; on the contrary, under the new dispensation—and I want to thank the hon member for Klip River very sincerely who, as chairman of the standing committee, provided guidance in this respect as well—we have the standing committees on which all these things can be discussed thoroughly and in depth and on which it is ultimately possible to reach a conclusion.

The hon member for Kuruman referred to certain things which would supposedly disappear now, such as the decentralization policy. He also referred to the opportunity which Black people supposedly had to live near to their places of work, which would enable them to spend the night with their families, and the establishment of industries in their own fatherlands. Surely these things are not being cancelled out. Surely they still exist in South Africa and surely the Government is still concentrating on decentralization. It is after all a fact that we cannot concentrate all our factories in the few metropolitan areas. That is why we should like to have an orderly distribution over the whole of South Africa. Surely we want to develop our rural areas as well. Surely we want to put a stop to the depopulation process there.

Why?

Is that hon member only interested in large urban areas? Is he not interested in other areas in South Africa also being developed and in other people also sharing in the prosperity and benefits of such development? The repeal of section 3 is not something which happened by chance.

Order! The hon member for Greytown must take note that I have called for order.

The proposed repeal of section 3 did not happen by chance, because that aspect was investigated as long ago as 1979 by the Commission of Enquiry into Legislation concerning the Utilization of Manpower, the so-called Rickert Commission. At the time the Government, in the White Paper which followed this report, accepted the recommendation that section 3 be repealed. However, that was subject to a suitable measure being found to retain the ordering function of section 3. On 12 November 1981, at the Good Hope Conference, the then Prime Minister said inter alia:

Then he went on to say:

On that score I want to agree with the hon member for Klip River, as well as the hon member for Helderkruin, who referred to the creation of infrastructure. Surely we cannot merely establish industries. The people employed in those industries must also be established and receive certain services. That is why we must also ensure that there will be sources of income for the local authorities that have to render those services. That is why we have the Regional Services Councils, and the levies associated with them.

You are just waffling.

Would the hon member just repeat that.

Sit.

I would be pleased if the hon member would keep his mouth shut for a change; he has become too big for his boots in this House.

Order! I have already mentioned the hon member for Greytown by name. The hon member is not to make any further interjections during the discussion of this Bill. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I want to conclude by saying that we shall ensure that order prevails in South Africa. We shall ensure that these are structured local authorities which provide people working here in South Africa with those services so that our communities in South Africa can be happy communities.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill provides for the construction of a guaranteed double line of railway between Philippi and Khayelitsha.

Full particulars of the proposed scheme are furnished in the report of the SA Transport Services Board which has already been tabled and my remarks will, therefore, be very brief.

The Government has decided to establish a new residential area, ie Khayelitsha, at Swartklip in the Drift Sands area on the Cape Flats for the Black population of the Cape Peninsula. Since the development of a new residential area of the proposed magnitude would obviously have a significant impact on the metropolitan transport system, the Administrator of the Cape Province instructed the core city of Cape Town to conduct a study to determine the most appropriate mode of transport to serve Khayelitsha. It is recommended in the transport study that an electrified double railway fine be constructed between Philippi, on the Bonte-heuwel/Kapteinsklip section, and Khayelitsha.

Khayelitsha will eventually accommodate about 220 000 to 250 000 persons in family dwellings and approximately 30 000 single contract workers and according to the transport study approximately 16 100 passengers will use the train service during the morning peak period by 1990. This number could possibly increase to 22 900 passengers in 1995.

The proposed railway line will be approximately 10,5 km long and the estimated total cost of constructing and equipping the line will amount to approximately R62 million. It is expected that the line will be opened to limited traffic by the end of 1987.

The proposed railway line will constitute the first stage of the new passenger service to Khayelitsha. It is envisaged in the transport study that the line will have to be extended in future as and when the Khayelitsha area is further developed. The quadrupling of the line will also be possible in future without structural changes to any of the bridges, as this has already been provided for in the planning.

†The SA Transport Services Board conducted an inspection of the route of the proposed railway line and found that it would be possible to construct an electrified double line of railway between Philippi and Khayelitsha. It is expected that the revenue derived from the operation of the line would be insufficient to meet the exploitation and capital costs thereof and the board cannot, on purely economic grounds, recommend that the proposed railway line be constructed. Should Parliament nevertheless decide that the line should be constructed, the SATS will have to be indemnified against losses, including expenditure in respect of capital costs, in terms of section 10(3) of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981. Any such losses will have to be made good annually to the SATS from the State Revenue Fund.

Even though the proposed railway line will have no economic benefit for the SATS, the provision thereof will give effect to the Government’s declared policy regarding settlement areas and it will greatly benefit the residents in that area.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this Bill seeks to provide a railway line from Philippi to Khayelitsha and in this way to provide Khayelitsha with rail linkages as well as the present bus transportation for its people. We on this side of the House welcome the decision to build this line because it is essential that we have cheap and fast transport for people who are forced to live nearly 40 km from the city centre.

What sort of city are we really talking about? We are talking about a city which will have some 40 000 houses which will accommodate in time almost a quarter of a million people. There will also be a full range of community amenities, shopping centres, health centres and recreational facilities, as well as a regular bus and train service. It is essential that this should be done with all speed and we hope that the promises which have been made, will be kept.

According to the report there will be a limited service by December 1987. That is that this line will carry some 10 000 passengers per direction per peak hour. We hope that his target will be met. On the other hand the following was said by a political correspondent in the Cape Times of 21 February, and I quote:

Yet, according to the report it will take 2 years and 9 months to complete. I should like the hon the Minister to tell us who has control of the SATS, the Minister or the board? His decision is very important indeed, and we hope that he will endeavour to expedite building this line as soon as possible because, as he himself knows, it is most essential.

Dealing with the line itself, there are certain features for which we must congratulate the SATS. The first is that there will be no crossings over the railway line at ground level whatsoever: in other words bridges will be provided everywhere thus ensuring the safety of the citizens of Khayelitsha. The most important thing is that provision for the future expansion of the line will be made. Although they will start off with two lines, it is possible to quadruple the track and bridges will in the first instance be built wide enough to take four fines. However, there is one problem that must really be considered by the SATS in the construction of this line, namely the possibility of acute congestion because Mitchell’s Plain is alongside Khayelitsha, and the traffic on this line will therefore be exceptionally heavy. We want to ask the hon the Minister please to go into this and let us know when it is his intention to quadruple the line because, if its is not done, it could, as we has said, cause very severe problems.

I also want to deal with another problem that arises out of this, and that is that the report only deals with the core city of Cape Town, and that seems to be the main point to which they wish to carry passengers. However, I believe it should be the duty of the government to ensure that work opportunities are provided in other towns like Bellville, Parow, Kraaifontein and even in Paarl, Stellenbosch and Somerset West. If that is the case transportation becomes a most important factor. Here the problem will arise at Bonteheuwel station because that will be the place where passengers will have to start changing trains to go in other directions. I hope the hon the Minister intends to tell us how he will solve this problem because to believe that one can have a city of this size and only transport passengers to Cape Town, is a false premise. People should be able to travel to any place in the Peninsula in order to have full work opportunities. This applies to both Mitchell’s Plain and Khayelitsha.

The economic factors which have to be taken into consideration are that the SATS has to be compensated for losses, to start off with, of R20 million a year. In the first year it will have to be R20 million, and later on, as Khayelitsha increases in size, the amount will have to be increased. The question is: Who is going to bear this cost? Is it going to be the citizens of the Boland, or is it going to come from the Treasury as a whole? [Interjections.] The question I put to the hon the Minister is: Who is going to pay for this? Is it going to be the people of the region who are going to pay these subsidies or is it going to be the taxpayers of the whole of South Africa? The reason why one should ask this particular question is that this town has been created so far away because of the apartheid policy of the Government. The growth rate of Khayelitsha will be very great, and yet very little money has been budgeted for the 1985-86 financial year for the development of the town. We hope that the development will not be allowed to slow down to a trickle because it seems that the money that should have been given for the development of Khayelitsha is not forthcoming. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens asked a question about this.

Dealing with subsidies on a long-term basis, I want to point out that the Government has been talking about phasing out subsidies. What they really mean is that instead of paying subsidies out of the general State Revenue Fund or out of the Treasury, they intend collecting it from these two new levies they are going to apply under the new legislation dealing with regional services councils. In anticipation of the Bill coming before the House, I am prepared to say that this will be a false method of collecting revenue. It is necessary that that money should rather be used for the development of Khayelitsha and that the people of South Africa should pay for the subsidizing of all train services as they have done in the past.

The question that I have asked before is who should pay for these subsidies? The hon the Minister of Finance asked why widow Pienaar of Pofadder should pay subsidies for the train services for people in metropolitan areas. I say that widow Pienaar of Pofadder must pay because she as well as everybody else in South Africa voted for this particular Government. She therefore has to pay for the policies which she supported and not necessarily the people who find themselves in the metropolitan areas. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, there seems to be a certain amount of competition between the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and myself for the support of widow Pienaar of Pofadder, and we hope the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will stay out of the fray.

He wants her address.

I will give it to him outside. [Interjections.]

The other thing I wish to add is that I hope that other means of transport from Khayelitsha will be allowed. It will not only be necessary to have rail transport but buses will also have to be provided and private taxis should be able to operate. When the hon the Minister has the opportunity to introduce the necessary legislation, mini-buses should also be allowed to be used. It is important that we should develop the informal sector, and allowing mini-buses to be used is one of the ways of doing that. I know the hon the Minister is not afraid of any kind of competition, so I think that that will happen. He must provide a choice of transport to ensure competition.

You are quite right.

Thank you very much. I am even getting support from the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. [Interjections.]

Lastly, allow me to say that the time has come that we should provide some music on these trains travelling to and fro, because I do not know whether the hon the Minister has …

Stevie Wonder.

That is the one I was thinking of! I do not know whether the hon the Minister has travelled on these suburban lines, but I believe he has. I happen to have been travelling on these suburban lines from time to time to keep a check on the hon the Minister. I think as one finds on the suburban trains in America where they do have music playing that it might be a good idea to provide some music and start off with Stevie Wonder.

We on this side of the House will support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout made a positive contribution on this legislation, just as he did on the standing committee. It was actually a pleasant change after the attitude which the hon member and his party adopted on the other legislation we passed a little while ago. [Interjections.]

This railway line is just as essential as that railway line was. In this case there is of course a tremendous number of people involved. This Bill proves that the Government accepts that Black people are going to be in our urban areas permanently and that we do not want any more Crossroads in our area. A viable residential area such as Khayelitsha is being built in which 300 000 people will in due course be living. It goes without saying that there will have to be proper transport facilities for those people to the urban area. Those people are being accepted as permanent inhabitants of the metropolitan area of the Cape Peninsula.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout said “the line should be expedited and we should have it as soon as possible”. Of course that was a good argument the hon member was advancing, but I think he will also understand that such a comprehensive railway line, which has to handle so much traffic, cannot simply be completed overnight. But I think it will happen within a reasonable period of time so that those people can be certain of their transportation.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout asked: “Will the Treasury as a whole pay for the shortfall and the losses, or will it be the Boland people only who will pay for it?” I want to refer the hon member to the report itself. There it is stated that the South African Transport Services must be reimbursed annually from the State Revenue Fund for any such losses. It is the normal arrangement that when such a railway line is built it is financed from the State Revenue Fund. I do not know why the hon member thinks that a certain area has to be penalized because the Black people have to be settled 30 or 40 km outside that urban area. [Interjections.] I do not know why the hon member raised that point. Does he want the rest of South Africa to pay for it? Does he want this area to be entirely responsbile for it? [Interjections.]

The hon member also asked whether these people could not be accommodated by other railway lines. I think it is possible in future. I think it will be possible to eliminate the congestion, to which the hon member referred, by means of the quadrupling of the line which is going to be done in due course. We on this side support the Bill. It is essential and it is in the interests of the development of the Western Cape in general, and of the Peninsula in particular.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Kuilen said that the Government no longer wanted a Crossroads with all the problems that go with it; that is why Khayelitsha was built. The hon member also said that Khayelitsha, to which this railway line is now going to be built, will have 300 000 Black inhabitants within a few years. He also said that they would be a permanent part of the Cape metropolitan population. Over the years the NP was opposed to the Africanisation of the Western Cape, and this sentiment was expressed by its members of Parliament and its Congresses. At the NP Congress in 1982 there were 11 draft resolutions from the Cape Peninsula alone which reflected that opposition. With the passing of the Constitution in 1983, and after the Conservative Party had left the National Party, this opposition simply disappeared. [Interjections.]

This Bill, which makes provision for the building of a railway line to Khayelitsha at an overall cost of R62 million, is a direct result of the capitulation of the NP in respect of the Africanisation of the Western Cape. [Interjections.] This capitulation or total collapse of resistance on the part of the NP and its representatives to the Africanisation of the Peninsula in particular, not only implies far-reaching political and social consequences for the Western Cape, but is also a very expensive concession. It is a concession which is going to cost the taxpayer millions of rands. [Interjections.]

The inhabitants of the existing Black residential areas, Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu, are served by a rail link. In 1983, however, the Government announced that a new city, namely Khayelitsha, was going to be built which would, upon completion, accommodate 300 000 people. On the condition that all the Black people from Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads would be removed to Khayelitsha, as a consolidated Black city, every public representative of the NP accepted the building of this Black city. [Interjections.] In this connection I should like to quote what the hon member for False Bay said on 6 June 1983 (Hansard: House of Assembly, Vol 107, col 8697):

He was therefore talking about one consolidated Black city. On that condition the hon members for False Bay and Tygervallei accepted the building of the city.

At that stage I could understand the standpoint of my hon NP colleagues, although I differed with them quite radically. In particular I understood the standpoints of the hon members for False Bay and Tygervallei, because they trusted the Government, and believed that all the Black people of the Cape Peninsula would, on the basis of a Cabinet resolution on 15 March 1983, be settled in the new city of Khayelitsha. Even the planned size of Khayelitsha was in accordance with the number of Black people—legally and illegally—in Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads. If all the Blacks of the Cape Peninsula were then to be settled in Khayelitsha, it would be a logical step to build a railway line to Khayelitsha, as is being recommended in this Bill. It would in fact be a logical step to promulgate legislation to this effect if all the Cape Peninsula Black people were to be established in Khayelitsha, as was initially planned. It would be a logical step because Khayelitsha, as a consolidated Black city, would have had to be provided with a rail link. Under those circumstances it would have been possible for the CP to support a Bill such as this, although we are vehemently opposed to the influx of Blacks to the Western Cape, and are making a stand against it.

I also accept that the planning of the railway line was proceeded with on the assumption that with this facility transportation would be provided to all the Black people of the Cape Peninsula because all of them would be settled in the new city of Khayelitsha. I should like the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to listen to this as well, because I now want to talk to him. [Interjections.] Sir, I am again asking the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to listen to me, and I am asking him now for the third time, because I want to put a question to him. [Interjections.] I want to repeat what I said, because I want the hon the Minister to listen. [Interjections.] I accept that the planning of this railway line was proceeded with on the assumption that with this facility all the Black people of the Cape Peninsula would be provided with transportation because they would all have been settled in the new city of Khayelitsha.

I do not want to place the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in a difficult position. I am certain that he will agree with me that the construction of the railway line was planned and approved and that an estimate for an overall cost of R62 million was drawn up on the assumption and subject to a Government resolution that all Black people would in due course be settled in Khayelitsha. This railway line was planned under that pretext. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with me on this score. [Interjections.] Does the hon the Minister agree with me?

I am talking after you.

Yes, but I am asking: Does the hon the Minister agree with me?

I am talking after you. You insulted me, man. You said you had asked for my attention three times. You lie! You only asked me once. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to ask that hon Minister …

Order!

You did not ask me three times …

I asked the hon the Minister for a third time.

When? Tonight?

You were sitting there talking to Chris. You did not hear.

Yes, but he did not ask me three times.

He did.

Order! I think this dialogue has gone on long enough. In the first place the hon the Minister must withdraw the words “he lies”.

I withdraw them, Mr Chairman.

In the second place, the hon member cannot keep on asking questions. It is only the Chair that can call upon the hon member to reply. So he may as well put his questions through the Chair. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I think that hon Minister owes me an apology as a result of an untruth which he told in this House. [Interjections.] Now he comes along and this evening he said—everyone was my witness that I said to him: “I am now asking you for the third time what it is” …

That is not correct.

You did not say that. [Interjections.]

Sir, I do not wish to cross swords with that hon Minister now. I do want to say, however, that if we wish to accuse one another of being liars in this House, we must come forward with the facts. I am prepared to come forward with mine. Hansard is my witness.

The hon the Minister does not want to tell me whether he agrees with me on this score. Only last year Dr Koornhof said the following in this Parliament in respect of relocation, when the hon member for Cape Town Gardens asked him whether they were going to compel people to move out of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu to Khayelitsha.

The then Minister indicated at the time that regardless of what was done in future as far as this problem was concerned, he would prefer it to be done on a voluntary basis and by way of a process of development. That is what he was pleading for, the hon the Minister said. I then made an interjection, namely that:

To which the Minister replied:

That was in May 1984, when the planning was still there.

At that stage, I now want to say, the hon the Minister was already engaged in the planning of this railway line. After all, he could not have done it so rapidly. Only last year the hon member for False Bay said the following in respect of influx:

Then he said:

He is now referring to the CP members.

[Interjections.] That hon member said these things with reference to the removal of all the Black people—and he can go and read his Hansard—to Khayelitsha. On that ground this railway line, which we shall have to decide about this evening, was planned.

But what happened in 1985? We have heard what Dr Koornhof said when he was Minister of Co-operation and Development. This year a new Minister of Co-operation and Development was appointed and first of all he announced that Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu would remain where they were. Ultimately he also said that Crossroads would remain where it was and that it would be upgraded.

What has that to do with this Bill?

All that hon member has to do is listen, and he will hear what it has to do with the Bill. Subsequently the hon the Minister announced that leasehold rights would be granted to Blacks in Langa, Nyanga and Crossroads. The hon the Minister said he accepted that a large percentage of the inhabitants of Crossroads were going to remain there and that the others would be removed to Khayelitsha. Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu were to remain, and extensions and improvements for them were anounced.

Rev Hendrickse joined the Cabinet in September 1984. According to Rapport he said that he was not a junior partner of the NP, but a person in his own right. Inter alia he also said:

Rev Hendrickse also said that he had persuaded the Government not to carry out the undertaking which had been given to the hon members for False Bay and Tygervallei that everyone would be removed to Khayelitsha. He regarded that as one of his successes.

This railway line was planned for Khayelitsha as the consolidated Black city of the Cape Peninsula in which everyone was to have been settled. Now this railway is being built for Khayelitsha as one of five Black residential areas in the Cape Peninsula. That means one of two things. Firstly it could mean that if influx to the Western Cape is controlled, Khayelitsha will accommodate far fewer people than the number for which it was initially planned, namely only for the illegals from Crossroads who were to have been moved to Khayelitsha. Surely it is logical that if the people of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu remain where they are, it is basically only the illegals of Crossroads who would be moved to Khayelitsha. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I want to ask you whether you can offer me the same protection when I am speaking that you offer to the other members. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to protect the hon member. It is a little difficult to hear from this vantage point what is being said at the back of the House. I ask hon members to give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceeed.

Thank you, Sir. If that happens the overall construction costs of R62 million and the loss of R20 million in the first year in the form of operating costs are excessively high. They make an already uneconomic railway line even more uneconomic. [Interjections.]

Order! I think there are hon members who are trying to circumvent my ruling. Hon members must obey it. The hon member may proceed.

If the people of Langa and Nyanga remain there and Khayelitsha has a smaller population, then this Parliament is taking it upon its shoulders to guarantee the growing loss of a completely uneconomic railway line, which is going to become increasingly uneconomic. What it amounts to is that a railway line is being built to convey people who originally settled in Crossroads illegally.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 22h30.