Mr Chairman, I was speaking when the House adjourned last night. I therefore had the privilege of being able to conclude the first 40 years of NP rule in this House. Now, this morning, I have the privilege of being able to introduce the second 40 years. [Interjections.] On this fine Cape morning here in the shadow of Table Mountain I want to say to the people of South Africa that they can trust the NP with the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] To the Whites of South Africa I want to say this morning that they can unhesitatingly entrust their interests to the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

This statement I have just made was confirmed by the contributions made by hon members on this side of the House in the discussion of the Welfare Vote yesterday. I refer, firstly, to the hon member for Bezuidenhout who, among other things, expressed his concern about the control of welfare organisations and their fund-raising. I want to draw the hon member’s attention to the Fund-raising Act. This Act provides, inter alia, for the co-ordination of fund-raising, the examination of each application to ensure that the objectives of the welfare organisations do not conflict and also the examination of the financial statements of the organisation to ensure that funds collected are utilised for the purpose for which they are collected. Therefore I think that what the hon member asked for is, in fact, already covered by the Fund-raising Act.

This morning I read an excellent description of the hon member for Rosettenville in Die Burger. Unfortunately my appreciation did not extend to seeing her in action yesterday because she sits behind me and I was unable to look around. However, I greatly appreciate what she said and what I heard.

I want to say to the hon member that she made a strong and positive contribution. She asked, inter alia, that pensioners and elderly people be given guidelines with regard to the spending of their pensions. I do not think it would be possible to lay down rigid guidelines, but in pamphlets which are issued by the department and are drawn up by nutritional experts, guidelines are laid down on how to prepare more economical meals. I have before me two pamphlets. The first is the “Food Guide for Senior Citizens”, and I think that the hon member for Parktown would do well to look at this, read it and apply it. The second is “Recipes for the Elderly” that we could probably all look at. These two pamphlets do not lay down guidelines but tell us how to have a balanced and economical diet. I believe that hon members will agree with me this morning when I say that all South Africans could have a more economical and balanced diet, and I am right at the front of the queue.

The hon member for Jeppe made a sturdy contribution on care of the elderly …

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly.

The hon member for Jeppe made a sturdy contribution on care of the elderly. It is true that research undertaken over the years, in various parts of the world and in the Republic of South Africa, shows that elderly people prefer to live and function as full members of ordinary society for as long as possible. Accordingly it is the approach of the Government that the elderly are an integral part of the ordinary community and that they should therefore be placed in a position enabling them to remain full-fledged members of the community for as long as possible.

An effort is being made to organise community life in such a way as to make it possible for the elderly to function in it. To achieve this objective it is first necessary to ensure that the elderly have suitable accommodation, that is to say housing. Secondly, the elderly must be supported and assisted in their daily functioning if they have need of assistance. This means that community services for elderly people must be available. Thirdly, it is reassuring to the elderly person to know that when he becomes infirm and is no longer capable of living independently, facilities for the provision of such care are available in homes for the elderly.

It is true that care of the elderly has developed in a somewhat disjointed way in the Republic. The community, as well as the welfare organisations concerned with elderly care, proceeded from the standpoint that all problems relating to elderly people could be solved by placing them in homes. This attitude on the part of the community, and the elderly person’s fear of being uncared for in his old age and infirmity, have given rise to a tendency among elderly people themselves to enter old-age homes at a very early stage. As a result of this standpoint, and the fear of the elderly person himself, provision is currently made in the RSA for accommodation for 7,5% of the White elderly population in subsidised old-age homes. If the inhabitants of private homes for the elderly are added to this, the percentage is 9,2%. This percentage is excessively high if one takes into account that in other Western countries provision is made for only between 3% and 6% of their aged population in homes. No country in the world can afford to base its policy for the care of elderly people on care in institutions.

For that reason the Ministers’ Council of the Administration: House of Assembly gave serious consideration to this matter in 1985 and decided that provision ought not to be made for more than 6% of the aged population in subsidised homes. Although on average the accommodation provided by institutions in the Republic of South Africa is already more than 6%, I wish to reassure those areas where the 6% has not yet been reached, that applications for the provision of homes for the elderly will indeed be considered.

I want to add that we should take special care of the frail aged in the community. Provision must be made for such people in homes.

The hon member for Kimberley North, who apologised for not being able to be present this morning, referred to the four settlements and spoke at greater length about the Ganspan settlement situated in his constituency. Among other things he asked that the dwellings that are not currently occupied, be utilised. I can inform the hon member that the department is currently considering the relaxation of the admission requirements of the settlements. This ought to bring more families to the settlements.

As regards the termination of agricultural activities in the Ganspan settlement, I should first like to have all the facts at my disposal, and for that reason officials of the department and I will pay a visit to the settlement after the adjournment of this House—that is to say, towards the end of June or the beginning of July. I shall inform the hon member of the date of the visit.

The hon member for Winburg spoke about aftercare centres for handicapped children and asked for protected places at these centres. I want to say to this hon member that the handicapped enjoy the on-going attention of the department and that we are aware of shortfalls in this sphere. The hon member’s request is already receiving the attention of the department and we should like to meet this need.

The hon member for Winburg also referred to people on the salt-pans who, owing to the recent floods in the Free State, are now without any income. Investigations have already been launched into these circumstances and wé will ensure that people do not suffer hardship. Aid will be provided if we find that it is necessary.

The hon member for Humansdorp spoke about mentally-handicapped people in the Eastern Cape and referred to two institutions in Port Elizabeth. I want to say to the hon member that efforts are currently being made to improve and expand the services for the mentally handicapped in the Eastern Cape. The allowance for the day centres such as Aurora was increased by approximately 50% in October 1987. This was done because we realised that the need for services among this group of handicapped persons in the Eastern Cape was very great. The East London Mental Health Society is currently engaged in establishing a new day centre for the severely mentally handicapped which will be subsidised by the department from the beginning of June.

The efforts on the part of an institution such as Aurora to establish a residential centre for severely handicapped persons in Port Elizabeth are appreciated and enjoy the full support of the department. Efforts are also currently being made to place allowances for severely mentally handicapped persons on the same uniform basis as those for other handicapped persons.

On 13 and 14 June I shall be paying a visit to the welfare projects in Port Elizabeth and East London. This has been arranged by the ministerial representative, Mr Rufus Dercksen, in co-operation with the department. I shall then give further attention to the representations of the hon member for Humansdorp when I visit the institutions personally.

I just wish to draw the attention of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens—since he referred to the matter yesterday—to the fact that a social pensioner does not only receive the R218; he can also make use of the services subsidised by the State such as clubs for the elderly, service centres, meals, meals-on-wheels, domestic services, the services of district surgeons and other services such as free municipal transport, discount meals, rebates on food purchases at chain-stores, cheaper television and radio licences and a rebate on transport with the SATS. All these are things that the social pensioners and elderly people can make use of. Apart from these financial benefits, a large percentage of pensioners also live in subsidised State housing that can be leased at subeconomic tariffs.

I believe that I have replied, to the best of my ability, to questions that hon members have asked in connection with welfare. I should like to convey my sincere thanks to all the officials of the department. They are doing very good work in this sphere. I have only been occupying this post for two months. I have had the opportunity to speak to these people and to be informed in this regard. I have also visited certain projects. I appreciate what is being done for the Whites of South Africa in this sphere. I reiterate that it is probably not enough, because of a lack of funds. We should have liked to do more, and as funds become available in due course we shall provide those services.

I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the ministerial representatives. Our department liaises very well with them and they are doing outstanding work at grass-roots level.

I believe that we are going to conduct a meaningful debate on health services in the time now available to us.

The hon member for Parktown once again spoke about the fragmentation of health services as a result of the own affairs concept. He addressed the hon the Deputy Minister in particular. Because I have delegated much, or virtually all, of the activities of the health component of the department to the hon the Deputy Minister, I have asked him to react to hon members. However, if questions are put to me directly in the course of the debate, I shall have pleasure in replying to them.

To begin with I would very much like to draw hon members’ attention to schedule 1 of the Constitution which spells out specifically that if health matters concern a specific population group only, they are an own affair. In this regard reference can be made firstly to hospitals, clinics and related institutions, secondly to medical services at schools and those provided to the needy, thirdly to health and nutritional counselling and, fourthly, to the registration and control of private hospitals. Broadly speaking, this is the task of the Department of Health Services.

On paging through the 1987 annual report one becomes aware of the important and extensive work being done in the field of medical care and nutritional, pharmaceutical, dental and nursing services as well as mental health for the White population of South Africa. The full statistics submitted to me by the chief directorate, which also appear in the annual report, confirm the statement I have just made.

You are only talking for White people!

Oh, really, Sir, that hon member concerns himself with various associations and they read all kinds of things in newspapers and then run around telling people about them. If he would only focus on important matters at grass-roots level, look after his people and consider their needs, he and his party would have got a lot further. However, he does not do so. If a report appears in the newspaper, they run around telling people about it as if the sky is falling. [Interjections.]

I want to give the hon member for Parktown some good advice. He has more grey hairs than I have. It seems as if the Barnards also get older, but they do not always get colder! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member should stand by his people for a change. After all, he is a Beaufort West boy. He should stand with the Whites of South Africa. He should not be ashamed of being a White person. [Interjections.] After all, Whites also have needs!

Go and stand with the CP!

No, why should I stand with them? I stand by my own people. They are Whites. If the CP also wants to stand by my people, they are very welcome to do so. However, they should not do so out of selfishness. They should do so in honesty, sincerity and fairness. [Interjections.] I see that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is also sitting there grumbling. Apparently he, too, has a contribution to make. His contribution is so great that his ranks are becoming increasingly depleted! [Interjections.]

Order! Too many interjections are being made. Hon members must not converse with one another while the hon the Minister is making his speech. This must stop immediately.

I want to say to the hon member for Parktown—he says I am a good member of the CP—that I am not a good member of the CP and do not belong to their party; I am merely a good South African and a good White South African. [Interjections.] Now they, too, are awake and can participate in the debate.

I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the Chief Director, Dr Martin van Rensburg, and every member of his staff for the dedicated service they provide.

Next I just wish to refer to a few problem areas. Forty-four hospitals have already been identified and designated as the responsibility of this department. These hospitals are currently still being managed and operated by the various provincial administrations. Owing to the amendment of section 15 of the Act on constitutional affairs, which was passed during this session, matters can be delegated to Administrators to perform the work on an agency basis.

My intention is for us to gain control of these 44 hospitals by means of delegation and proclamation. We are currently negotiating with the various provincial administrations and we have set 1 October as the target date on which the relevant hospitals will be controlled by the department by way of proclamation and managed by the provincial administrations by way of delegation.

A second problem area involves the fact that there are beds at these hospitals that are not being fully utilised. Reference is being made to the so-called “unutilised beds” at White hospitals. In this regard the department, as soon as it controls these hospitals, will carry out further investigations into the utilisation of these beds for, inter alia, the infirm aged. Because this will entail adjustment and also a departure from the fixed pattern, careful consideration will have to be given to this aspect. A committee is already investigating this.

A third problem area to which I want to refer relates to health services provided at schools.

Order! I shall now have to identify hon members if these discussions in the House persist. I have already requested hon members to converse more quietly. I am presently listening to four different hon members who are sitting talking loudly. I am not going to permit this. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Health services at schools in the Transvaal and the Free State have already been handed over in their entirety to the department. As far as the Cape and Natal are concerned, there are still problems relating to the conditions of employment of the staff. As soon as solutions have been found, the health services rendered to all White schools in the Republic of South Africa will become the full responsibility of this department.

A fourth bottleneck involves the transfer of four mental health hospitals and the transfer of all the clinical services to the department. Negotiations in this regard, too, are being conducted.

The object is not to fragment health services but to give effect to the Constitution. My policy is that there must and will be co-ordination with regard to the provision of services. [Interjections.] I hear the feeble little laugh from the hon member for Parktown. He laughs about everything in life.

I am laughing at your argument.

It would help if the hon member would just be serious for once. This is a matter of the implementation of the Constitution, and this country is governed in terms of a Constitution. We shall keep to that Constitution, and if the PFP wants to cause chaos in this country, we shall certainly not allow it. If the hon member for Parktown wants to persist in doing so, and if that is his policy, he can laugh if he wishes, but we shall keep to the Constitution in order to maintain order in this country.

As far as the provision of services is concerned there must be co-ordination, but control must rest with our department. We must provide those health services to the White population of South Africa to the best of our ability, and we shall do everything necessary to achieve this.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon the Minister said he was ushering in the NP’s second 40-year term. If it is to be ushered in as I have seen it happen here, that party has really become long in the tooth, a party which has grown defiant and which in no single case has shown any interest in the Vote of the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] There can be only one of two reasons for that: There is no longer any interest on that side, or perhaps yesterday’s celebrations were too much for some hon members, and they have not been able to attend today. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe told me yesterday that I had been guilty of misrepresentation when I said, in a speech two months ago, that the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology had said “so what?” by way of interjection when we mentioned that there had been no increase for pensioners. The hon the Deputy Minister, who unfortunately is not here, then quoted from Hansard, but what he quoted proves conclusively that what I said was correct, ie that he made the interjection.

I call on the hon member for Durban Central as a witness to this. [Interjections.] He also referred to that in Hansard and said he had heard and seen the hon the Deputy Minister saying that. The hon member for Jeppe must not shy away from it now, because the hon member for Durban Central himself has said that the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology made that interjection. There are only two such hon Deputy Ministers, and it has to be one of the two.

I again want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister who made the interjection that I shall continue to say so here. I shall say it in Rapport and I shall say it to the voters, because he did in fact say “so what?” [Interjections.]

I want to come now to the discussion of the Health Services Vote. Without in any way intending to offend the hon the Minister or his department head personally, let me say here today that the best evidence of there no longer being anything like own affairs health services, is specifically the appointment of the hon the Minister and his department head. This apparently also explains the fact that the sequence for the discussion of the relevant Vote is different to what it was in former years. This year welfare services and pensions have been discussed first, and now we come to health services. With all due respect, I maintain that the closest that hon Minister could get to health was clinking glasses yesterday at the 40th anniversary of the NP’s coming to power. [Interjections.] The mere fact of his having said yesterday that a generic equivalent was the same as a therapeutic equivalent in regard to medicines, is proof of his absolute ignorance of medicine. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister quoted the Constitution and referred to Schedule 1. I maintain that in terms of Schedule 1 the Government is acting unconstitutionally in regard to health services and hospitalisation. Schedule 1(4) states very clearly:

The legislature expressly provided that hospitals shall be an own affair. What happened in practice however? The general affairs Department of Hospital Services of the four provinces has sole charge of hospital services, with the exception of three psychiatric centres, namely the Alexandra Centre, the Caledon Care and Rehabilitation Centre for the seriously disabled and the Tara Centre for acute psychiatric treatment.

The annual report refers to the transfer of 44 hospitals to the hon the Minister’s department. The running of those hospitals will be a full-fledged general affair. It will be under the control of the provinces.

We are going to control them.

Oh, the hon the Minister is going to control them. I should like to see where the Administration is going to get its staff of doctors and nurses to do that.

Each hospital, of course, has its own staff.

So we shall have so-called general affairs hospitals and own affairs hospitals. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister if the policy of the four so-called general affairs hospitals in the four provinces will be uniform or whether provincial differences are to be maintained. My question also applies to those hospitals which he says he is going to control. What is the situation in the Cape? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spelt it out here. The policy on integration in hospitals is the following, and I quote from a reply which he gave to a question by the hon member for Parktown:

In other words, there is total integration in hospitals in the Cape Province. That is the factual situation in the Cape Province, while in the Transvaal it is taboo. The nearest they get to that in the Transvaal is that White and Indian outpatients share some hospitals. These days, however, this also applies to hospital boards. The hon member for Standerton recently received a letter from the MEC in which he was asked to recommend the appointment of a Black man to the Standerton hospital board. [Interjections.] It is the policy of the NP to have mixed hospitals. [Interjections.]

I allege that hospitalisation as a whole is no longer an own affair; it is a general affair. The following distinction is drawn in the White population group: A social pensioner is a full-time or an own affair; but if one is in the fortunate position of being able to pay, health care becomes a general affair.

This creates the following problems for the pensioner. On page 5 of the annual report it is said that for the whole of South Africa the department has 48 approved posts for district surgeons, of which 17 are part-time and 13 full-time posts. The others are vacant. I want to ask how on earth 30 own affairs district surgeons can handle the workload? It is impossible.

What happens in practice? The so-called general affairs district surgeons who visit remote areas where they maintain clinics may no longer treat Whites—not White pensioners either. The Whites on farms far away from own affairs clinics or provincial hospitals may no longer be treated by that district surgeon who has treated them for so many years.

Even the contracts of pharmacists who make up district surgeons’ prescriptions for pensioners have been cancelled. These people must now travel 50, 60 or 70 miles to have their prescriptions made up at the provincial hospitals. This is a major cause of dissatisfaction and unhappiness for thousands of old people. I hope the hon the Minister has taken note of this and will do something about it, because as far as I know, nothing has been done up to now.

Social pensioners have suffered a further blow. The Transvaal hospital programme having increased its services—this was said by the MEC in Pretoria—an aged pensioner, when admitted to a provincial hospital, must now pay an admission fee of R5—R5 of his measly R218.

This has caused consternation in Natal. I quote from the Natal Mercury of 7 April 1988, in which a former MEC is reported as follows:

I maintain that health services, which have to provide for the needs of social pensioners, are in a chaotic state. I cannot see how we are ever going to get out of that situation, unless another government comes to power. [Interjections.] All the hope we can give social pensioners is that the day is not far off when a new government will come to power which will be prepared to care for White pensioners and to look after their interests. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg will forgive me if I do not reply to his argument. In any case, his arguments were so negative that I really do not want to react to them. I must say that he is usually far more positive than that.

Today it is a great pleasure for me initially to touch on a few very pleasant matters. In the first place, as the chairman of the NP study group on health I want to express my sincere congratulations to the hon the Minister on behalf of this side of the House. I think the negative remarks made here by the hon member for Pietersburg were totally inappropriate. There is no Minister who knows everything about everything—nobody knows everything about everything. Surely the hon the Minister of Finance does not know everything about finance and the hon the Minister of Agriculture does not know everything about wine-farming, wool-farming, wheat-farming and whatever other kind of farming one would like to mention. It was therefore an inappropriate remark. We on this side of the House work as a team and not as individuals who encroach upon team-work as those hon members do.

I merely want to say that as regards health matters the hon the Minister gives a very strong reinforcement. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and the hon the Deputy Minister who worked in this department and in the other department still hold these posts. This hon Minister has now been added to their ranks. He may come from Oudtshoorn, but I am sure he is going to be a tower of strength here.

Hear, hear!

Reference was made to Mr Wessel Meyer, the Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly. He is also well-acquainted with welfare and has done a stint in these departments, and we also wish him everything of the best and assure him that we have every confidence in him. Dr Jannie Pieterse’s name has already been mentioned, and we also welcome him here. The welfare section forms a particularly large part of the Department of Health Services and Welfare, and he has already proved himself there with his particular knowledge. We are glad that he got that promotion.

Hon members will forgive me if I say a final word with regard to this aspect. This concerns my mate, the hon member for Worcester, Hans Rabie. This year the hon member was absent from this House for more than three months because he had to undergo major knee operations. He returned approximately a week ago. I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone on both sides of the House when I welcome him back.

Hear, hear!

Today he is going to make his first speech this year. I can reassure hon members that the doctors have done all they can and his knees are now as right as rain; now we are going to “tackle” his head! [Interjections.]

Today I should like to point out the particular importance of health services on the basis of a practical and world-famous example. This department concentrates on health services, and emphasis is therefore placed on the services which are rendered. It is particularly important to our people, and this importance goes much further than health alone. It has a very wide rippleeffect. It is also a strong unifying factor in a community and a people. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to our people, and particularly the politicians and journalists, not to misuse such a sensitive and fine situation for party-political or political gain. I shall mention a few examples in this regard.

I want to refer hon members briefly to a certain drama which was written and produced by the people of South Africa. It was Sunday, 7 December 1986, in the Thsepong Hospital in the Western Transvaal. Twins were born by Caesarian section. They were unique twins, so-called Siamese twins, two little girls. Medical literature tells us that such births only occur in one out of 10 million cases. These twins were only joined at the head and world literature tells us that only 15 such sets of twins have been born in the history of the world.

The mother suffered severe emotional and psychological shock. This mother was an unsophisticated woman who had not received much academic training. At first she did not want to accept them. Hon members can understand what a tremendous emotional shock it must have been for this woman, but the doctors and the nursing staff gave her information. They dealt with this woman’s very human problem in a professional way and she accepted the situation.

Hon member could just as well have transferred this situation to the Krugersdorp Hospital or the H F Verwoerd Hospital. I am mentioning this one specific example, but it could just as well have happened in any other own affairs hospital.

In the ensuing 16 to 17 months this drama unfolded at the Baragwanath Hospital. Hon members must understand that the own affairs departments concentrate on handling the so-called State patients who are less wealthy. This unsophisticated country woman arrived at this hospital which, with 2 800 beds, is the largest hospital in the southern hemisphere. She took her two babies to this hospital where 30 000 babies are born every year, 1,75 million out-patients are treated and 124 000 in-patients are admitted every year. How are such unsophisticated people treated in such a hospital?

Everything which can be said about this hospital could just as well have been said about many other hospitals. This year a book entitled Modern Surgery in Africa—The Baragwanath Experience was published under the editorship of Dr Desmond Pantanowitz.

†In the preface Prof H H Lawson, Professor and Chief Surgeon at the Department of Surgery, University of the Witwatersrand and Baragwanath Hospital, said the following about the hospital.

*I am mentioning this because it is always said that Whites receive preferential treatment through their own affairs departments, whereas Black people are not taken care of. Let us weigh the matters up against one another. Prof Lawson said the following about this hospital:

†That is a Cat-scan—

*He then went on to discuss the surgery, etc, which is not important to this debate. He went on to say:

He refers to 3 000 nurses who are in training in one year. He also said:

I do not want to elaborate on this any further, but I want to come back to the very human case of these twins.

The important question was whether or not the twins should be separated. I have newspaper cuttings here concerning a set of Siamese twins in America who were not separated and who have to go through life joined. They used to work in a circus and now they are trying to study. It had to be decided whether or not the Mathibela twins should be separated.

†In the ensuing 16 to 17 months this unsophisticated woman proved to the whole world that she was a brave, well-balanced, strong, straightforward, sincere and deeply religious woman.

*Prof Lipschitz decided that they should operate, but there were differences of opinion and the mother had to take the final decision.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member now discussing the own affairs Health Services Vote?

Order! I am listening to the hon member. He is also making this applicable to other hospitals, but I would appreciate it if the hon member would continue with the discussion of this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I clearly indicated that this example could have taken place anywhere.

Order! Yes, the hon member did indicate that, but unfortunately his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, if I have prevented the hon member from completing his speech, I am now affording him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, I thank that hon Whip. That was a far more intelligent remark than the previous one he made.

I want to discuss this matter briefly. I merely want to say that this woman had to take the eventual decision. The final decision lay with her and what did she say? She said: “Professor, you must operate; God will help you, you will see.” Now I do not want to discuss the operation. It was decided that the operation would take place in three phases. Shortly before that the Binder twins were operated on. The operation lasted 22 hours and they were unconscious for months afterwards. Here in South Africa the operation was performed on Mpho and Mphoyana, and if those hon members are so worried about general and own affairs, the people involved in this—a strong 40-member medical team—are also working in own affairs hospitals and rendering services there too. Let me mention a few of them: Prof Robert Lipschitz—let us say in plain language that he is a Jew—Dr Mike Ford, and English-speaking person; Dr Dirk Hagen, an Afrikaner; Dr Sam Mogokong, the first Black neuro-surgeon in South Africa …

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

No, I only have three or four minutes left, I am sorry.

*There was also a Taiwanese involved. Then there was also Dr Bernice Peltz, the anaesthetist—she is a woman—and Dr Grethe Drummons, and I can carry on in this vein. The operation was very dramatic—there were three operations in succession—and they were very successful.

I have wonderful quotes here on what the mother said. They are typically South African remarks. People prayed together; as a matter of fact the whole world was watching and it was a great success.

And you are trying to retain apartheid!

“Tog het die humor nie uitgebly nie”, wrote Lood in his column in Beeld. There was the irony that out of apartheid one got unity; these twins were separated and this brought the world and South Africa together. [Interjections.]

Now I want to say something else. One must not want to use these own affairs or general affairs or health services for political gain. I heard certain right-wing elements complaining because this hospital superintendent and this Black woman were so happy that they embraced. There were unpleasant remarks from certain right-wing elements. I must say it was not that strange. I have a photograph here in which the hon member for Overvaal is also embracing a Black man, and I do not think it was an own affair.

I also want to mention a second aspect. The South Africans stood together when there was sickness. When a child and a mother are involved it does not matter what colour they are, South Africa stands together. Jon Qwelane wrote the following in his column “Just Jon” in The Sunday Star of 15 May 1988:

†He goes on to say that very important people visited the hospital, and then he says:

Then he goes on to say, however:

Then he refers to Mr Cruywagen, the Administrator, and asks where he was when he was needed before. Mr Chairman, there was a particular time when this particular Administrator brought five Ministers to the hospital because they were concerned. He also talks about Mr Daan Kirstein.

*We can take off our hats to these people for the great work they do, with a big financial deficit. I should like to come back to this.

Order! Yes, but I do not want the hon member to come back to this. The hon member is now very far from the Vote he should be discussing.

With all due respect, Mr Chairman, the point I want to make is that when we talk about health, we should not misuse it for political gain.

In other words there is politics … [Interjections.]

When I work in an own affairs hospital there are certain medical principles at issue. It does not matter who the patient is and where I am working. I am talking about those medical principles which apply in all medical cases and all medical services. [Interjections.] Sir, I think you will allow me to mention two more examples. [Interjections.]

†He then refers to “the lady from Tuynhuys, Mrs Elize Botha”. Then he says:

*That lady visited that hospital, and wonderful human relations resulted from this visit. The nurses spontaneously started singing. After all, Pres Reagan does not meet every aircraft to greet every person returning to America, but on special occasions these people do this kind of thing.

I want to mention a final example, before I come to the rest. Thousands of letters were sent to the hospital, reports appeared in the Press and thousands of people stood together in South Africa; but there was also a letter—I think I know who wrote this letter—addressed to the superintendent. I quote:

†The writer goes on to talk about “Kaffir” and “Hotnot” standards and then continues as follows:

So it goes on. The writer continues as follows:

*The whole point I want to make—if I have the time I shall come back to the so-called fragmentation—is that in medicine, in medical science, in medical services and in health services we must not denigrate one another. We are not trying to divide people. [Interjections.] If there are administrative reasons why there must be different hospitals, and if there are practical reasons for certain administrative phenomena, we must not try to misuse those administrative phenomena to denigrate the medical profession and medical services.

What happened has again proved that when there is distress, for example the floods I mentioned earlier, and when there is joy, we South Africans can stand together in a field like medical science or health services. We need not seek to misuse it for petty, ugly political gain.

I can merely tell the writer of this report in his own words:

[Interjections.] I am asking that petty politics and things of this kind be taken out of our health services, and that we carry on doing the work. [Interjections.]

As regards the so-called fragmentation of health services, yesterday the hon member for Parktown quoted from a document of the Medical Association. The Medical Association came to see the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. The meeting was arranged for a Wednesday because the House usually only meets at 15h30. The hon member for Parktown will remember that unfortunately we only decided a few days prior to that that the House would meet at 14h15 on that Wednesday. Consequently the discussion had to be curtailed by an hour and a quarter. Unfortunately we therefore did not have the time to discuss the matter fully.

That is why I asked the hon member why he left out that one sentence. That sentence reflected the attitude of the Medical Association. In it the Medical Association said they wanted to cooperate, were in favour of the health services, etc, and wanted more information. They then gave the example with regard to a clinic in Durban which treated various people.

Now, they say, it has been decided that there have to be three clinics, one for Whites, one for Coloureds and one for Indians. They went on to say that there were too few Coloureds for a clinic, but too many Coloured nurses. Indians do most of their welfare work at home and consequently there are also too many Indian nurses. However, there are not enough White nurses to treat the Whites. However, that is beside the point. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have very limited time, so I am sure the hon member for Langlaagte will understand if I do not deal with much of what he said, except to say that I do not agree with his assessment of Baragwanath Hospital. I am not criticising the actual scientific and medical work that takes place there, but the facilities for patients. It is fine to do very successful experimental operations, but if one looks under the bed, one will find three patients there. That is really what we are criticising as far as the Baragwanath Hospital is concerned, and that is what the Baragwanath staff have quite justifiably been criticising over the past few months.

I want to deal with the problem of the population explosion and the need to try to regulate this. Again, it does have to come under both own and general affairs. It is impossible to separate programmes on this subject.

There is much talk about total onslaughts these days. I believe that the total onslaught that South Africa ought to be making is against population growth. It has been called the “ticking timebomb” of South Africa. We already have 28,25 million people and if one includes, as we should do, the TBVC countries, which are our responsibility in every way and are dependent on us, that already brings us to 34 million people.

We started with the planning system, the National Family Planning Programme, in 1965. It was not an outstanding success. It was supplemented in 1984 by the Population Development Programme. The aim is to restrict the population of South Africa to 80 million by the year 2010, which is the maximum the Republic can support, according to the President’s Council’s report on demographic trends and the HSRCS projections on the South African population. Drs Mostert and Van Tonder worked out that with a low fertility projection, by the year 2035, we would have a total of 94,25 million people, of whom 5,75 million will be White, 5,25 million Coloured, 1,5 million Asian and 82 million Black. With a high fertility projection, the total will be 118,75 million, with 6 million White, 5,5 million Coloured, 1,5 Asians and 105,5 million Blacks. This will be too much for what South Africa can possibly support at that time.

I want to quote Robert McNamara, the American statesmen, who said: “If there is one thing certain about the population explosion, it is that it will explode in violence, in poverty and in inhumanity.” I think this is absolutely correct, and indeed all those aspects are already with us. This is evident in South Africa’s very high crime rate and the increasing unemployment and poverty.

Mr De Klerk, who is the past president of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut has said: “The crisis is here today with us. It is not in the future. We need to resort to drastic measures to control the birthrate.” Mr De Klerk suggests—and he is hardly a member of the permissive generation—incentives to limit families to two children. This is not an easy thing to do.

The hon the leader of the PFP and I were in China last November. They have a successful programme to limit families to one child per family. It is successful in the urban areas, but not very successful in the rural areas.

What does your church say about that?

I am talking for myself, not for my party. This is my own personal view. We have no party policy, by the way, on a subject like abortion, though I am quite sure all the members of this party agree with the family planning aspects and population control in the face of the explosion. Never mind about my church. The hon member should worry about his religious affiliations and not bother with mine.

The point is that in China they offer disincentives. If one has have more than one child, one does not get the same accommodation; one has to move to a smaller apartment. One does do not get free health services and free education for the second child either.

Mr De Klerk suggests the opposite. He suggests incentives for people who only have two children. He suggests R1 000 for voluntary sterilisation after two children. Maybe the hon member for Langlaagte should ponder on that point. He also suggests, however, massive provision of free condoms in public places and legal abortion. Those are his suggestions, and he is hardly a member of the permissive society. I want to emphasise once again that the question of abortion is a free vote as far as the PFP is concerned.

Do you want to legalise murder?

I myself have very definite views on the need to liberalise the abortion laws. [Interjections.] I have no hesitation in saying that. The abortion laws have to be liberalised.

One cannot legalise murder.

Order! No, the hon member for Hercules must stop making interjections.

Yes, just shut up now!

I want a commission of enquiry into the effectiveness of the existing Abortion and Sterilisation Act. I have asked this of the hon the Minister and I hope the hon the Deputy Minister has broader views on the subject than his Minister. I am prepared to carry on nagging about this until this is done. I know the hon the State President is going to say, as he has said ad nauseum, that a nagging woman is like water dripping on a tin roof. I have heard that brilliant phrase from him over and over again. I intend to go on dripping on the tin roof, and that can apply to the heads of many of the members in this House, I might add.

I want this commission because there has not been no in-depth enquiry since 1975 when the Act was passed. All one has are statistics of the number of operations which have been performed for the removal of the residue of pregnancies. Since more than half of these in the past two years—I have the statistics from the official report—are operations performed on unmarried women, divorcees and widows, I think it is quite likely that those are the result of self-induced attempts at abortion which have failed.

Any of these hospitals like Baragwanath, which the hon member for Langlaagte was referring to, and the Edward VIII in Durban are jampacked with these cases of septic abortions and those of women who have had to undergo operations for the removal of residues. There is no good trying to buck it, if a woman does not want to have a child, she will find a way of doing something about it, and the rate of backstreet abortions in this country is rising every year. Something has got to be done about it because they are very dangerous and often cause death and permanent physical damage to the person who has proceeded with that very unattractive way of trying to get rid of a foetus.

I want women to be represented on this commission, not like the original commission with all those male chauvinist members that reported to this House. There was not a single female on that commission, not one! I want women on the committee, but of course not exclusively.

You don’t want to serve on it?

I want women who are qualified. I want medical women, sociologists, women who are interested in community work and obviously women who are lawyers and so on. I want a cross-section of the community and I want women of all races on that commission as well as men of all races.

They must examine what the result of the Abortion and Sterilisation Act of 1975 has been. In particular, they must examine the concept of permanent mental damage, which makes it almost impossible for people to have legal abortions in this country. Of course, there are other factors like pregnancy as a result of rape which allow of legal abortions, but the procedures are much too complicated. I would like those to be examined. It is easier if there is serious damage to the woman’s physical health and she is likely to die if she proceeds with the pregnancy, or if there is a danger that the child will be deformed or in any other way mentally affected, like Down’s Syndrome for example.

In such cases it is easier. Nevertheless, it is still not too easy, I might add. To have a legal abortion, it is necessary to get two doctors—one of whom has to be a State psychiatrist—to sign a certificate stating there is a likelihood of serious mental damage. State psychiatrists are rare birds. I do not think there is one State psychiatrist north of Pretoria right up to the border.

There is one more point which I would like to stress. The case of pregnant girls under the age of 16, women who already have large families and women who fall pregnant despite sterilisation—in other words, cases of failed sterilisation—should also be reconsidered. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton gave us some very interesting statistics. We are all concerned about this. However, we are very successful on the farms as far as birth control is concerned. We are doing something about it, even if we do not always talk about it. The farmers’ wives are seeing to this problem. I think the hon member should leave this problem to the “boere”.

*A farmer makes a plan! [Interjections.] It is a pleasure for me to take the floor in this House after three months and participate in this discussion on the Health Vote. I appreciate the fact that my bench-mate has afforded me the opportunity to do so. Today I feel like a new man. I feel as good as the NP felt 40 years ago. I have no aches and pains. Things can only go well in future. Look, we are laughing now, because we do not have such long faces as the members of the CP. Things are going well here. [Interjections.]

Let us consider what it costs to be admitted to hospital, operated on and cared for. It costs a pretty penny. There is virtually no hospital in the Peninsula or in Worcester which I have not been in. I have been in every hospital, except a maternity hospital! [Interjections.] I could natter on about my aches and pains for half an hour without exhausting the subject. While preparing this speech I came across several interesting aspects.

†Firstly, I have discovered that the cost of good health is enough to make one sick! Secondly, in this life one gets what one pays for, or perhaps the taxpayer may have to pay for this. Thirdly, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.

*This was said at the annual congress of medical schemes in Johannesburg. The cost of health care is extremely high. However, people are prepared to pay for it, provided they get value for money and are not exploited—which does happen nowadays.

The State cannot continue to offer good, sophisticated services to everyone cheaply. This is simply not possible. In 1986 the hon the Minister of National Health said that in future the economy and health services in South Africa would have to be given constant and careful scrutiny.

A deliberate and purposeful privatisation policy must be adopted to increase the contribution of the private sector in the health sphere as part of the new policy. This is what we are now doing. Only by means of a privatisation policy for the rendering of health services by the private sector can it be stimulated and developed so that a successful shift in emphasis can take place between the public and private sectors.

We are aware that there are an increasing number of paying patients of all population groups who belong to some or other medical scheme. Our people are now becoming educated and they know how to join medical schemes and organisations of this kind. In the old days, when we were children, all agents were chased off the farm. If a clergyman, an insurance agent or a nun entered the front door, we fled out the back door, because these things brought trouble to the farm. [Interjections.]

A clergyman too?

A policeman too, yes, and clergymen. [Interjections.] That is why that hon member did not get a profession! [Interjections.]

In a country like South Africa, where free entrepreneurship is encouraged, the private sector should accept greater responsibility in respect of the medical care of its workers. This applies specifically to the Coloured and Black population groups who have, in recent years, become members of medical schemes in large numbers. They have better living standards—they also have money. In the South African context this means that as many people as possible should belong to medical aid funds. In addition these medical aid funds will have to give cover from minimum benefits right up to maximum benefits. [Interjections.] On the other hand the State will, in the main, pay only for the following patients: Firstly, the impoverished, who will always be with us—we cannot simply shoot them; secondly, the aged who can no longer provide or afford medical aid cover; we also have many such ailing persons; and thirdly, patients whose own medical aid cover has been exhausted. I understand there are also quite a number of them.

As I have said, thanks to excellent services I am able to stand on my own two feet today. [Interjections.] Doctors took me apart bit by bit and put new parts in, and I am guaranteed for 15 years. [Interjections.] No, I have brand new parts. [Interjections.] With this new kind of medical science there is no need for grease and oil; these parts are self-lubricating. [Interjections.]

In recent years I have got to know hospitals and service stations. There are few of them I have not visited. If my wife or I were not in hospital, the car was in the garage; something was always not in working order. Now everything is working again, and we are ready for anything.

Recently I was privileged to spend three weeks in a very posh private hospital. It was wonderful: The treatment, the care, yes, particularly the nurses—now they really were smart “klimmeide”. They were all trained.

In the past I got virtually the same treatment in provincial hospitals, but we know that the State cannot keep this up any longer. I think our own people and the State probably spoiled the people too. Are we not too quick to go to hospital? Are we not too inclined to get sick? Do we not simply imagine that we are sick?

One evening I returned to this building to do some work in my office and an elderly service officer told me the place was haunted. So help me, I saw the ghost and went straight back home! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow up on what the hon member for Worcester said. I should also like to welcome him back after a long absence. We are glad to see him looking fit and healthy again, full of mischief and as quick-witted as ever. I am grateful, too, that after all he has been through he still has so much praise for the medical profession. We are thankful to have him back again.

It is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. I should like to associate myself with previous speakers and the congratulations conveyed to the hon the Minister. I can attest to the wholehearted co-operation we have had from him, and my wish for him is that he will be endowed with strength and wisdom in the years that lie ahead.

I should also like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials of his department for their efforts in obtaining approval for the erection of a White clinic in Welkom. Hopefully, construction will commence during the year. This clinic will undoubtedly help to improve the provision of community care services for the Welkom community, and for the children and aged of the town in particular.

I also want to speak today on the provision of primary health care for the aged. I want to refer more specifically to the importance of home-care services. There has been an increase in the number of aged in society. This is a world-wide trend which is closely related to progress which has taken place in the field of medical science, and to the rise in social standards and better living conditions. Coupled with the factor of ageing in the community, there is an increase in the number of frail aged suffering from one or other chronic complaint related to the ageing process.

Because of the importance of keeping the aged for as long as possible, and as happily as possible, in their own normal environment and community, the home-care services for the aged provided by the department are of the utmost importance. They are rendered by a multi-disciplinary team, but in particular by the nursing staff. Unfortunately, in the past homes for the aged have been regarded as the best method of accommodating the increasing number of aged. Today there are 26 800 aged in 405 subsidised homes, while 371 extremely frail aged are accommodated in four Government homes and 530 in private homes. The total subsidy amounts to R74,9 million.

However, there is a danger involved when the aged are kept in the community, and that is the possible onset of loneliness and neglect. This is a problem which is difficult to deal with, but the home-care services do address these problems.

Firstly, less serious conditions are diagnosed and treated, while more serious illnesses are timeously referred to doctors and institutions. Total enfeeblement and dependence on institutional care are thus reduced.

Secondly, good counselling in regard to exercise, a diet programme, etc, is offered. Thirdly, psychiatric help and guidance are given. This is important because the aged are inclined to worry too much. The result is that they can no longer sleep and becomes quite disorientated, and dangerous medication sometimes has to be administered for this condition under the strictest supervision. This service ensures that medication is correctly used; in this way its abuse, with resultant harmful effects, is prevented. Toxic sideeffects of medicine are promptly noted and treated.

Fourthly, ordinary nursing care is provided, such as injections for diabetics, administering enemas, treatment of bedsores and many more complaints.

Most important of all, the aged know that there is still someone who is prepared to spend a few minutes every day listening to them, while a wrinkled hand is tightly held. I specifically want to express my gratitude and appreciation today to the nursing profession who are providing this very important service on behalf of the department.

A matter which worries me considerably is that it is becoming more and more difficult for the aged to obtain medication. I am sorry that the provincial administrations, for purely financial reasons, have recently been compelled to introduce certain restrictions. As a first step, it has been stipulated that district surgeons’ patients, in centres where there are regional hospitals, must take their prescriptions to the hospitals instead of private pharmacists for dispensing. Some of these patients live a long way from the hospitals and the personal attention they received from the private pharmacists in the past has now been eliminated.

I realise that these savings were necessary, otherwise the provinces might have found it necessary to close more wards, and even hospitals. Hon members will appreciate what the results of such a decision would be. I want to express the hope today, however, that these arrangements will be reversed in the future. I maintain it is a pity that such a decision had to be taken, because I believe that the pharmacist plays just as important a role in the provision of primary health services as the doctor, the dentist, the nurse, the clergyman, the welfare worker or any other member of our multidisciplinary team.

It was a sorry day for me when a dispute arose between pharmacists and the medical profession on diagnosis and the dispensing of medicines. From earliest times doctors have been providing medicines, and pharmacists have been diagnosing less serious complaints and treating them. Each knew his limitations, and never before have these two professions been at loggerheads to such an extent.

I think these two noble professions must put their pride in their pockets and start negotiating at the highest level. At grass-roots level, on the social level, they must reach out to each other, find each other and put their houses in order, so that the old, good relationship and the mutual trust which previously existed between doctor and pharmacist on the social as well as the professional level can once again become a reality. I believe it can happen, and I do not think any Act of Parliament can make any difference to these troubled relations. It is important, in the interests of the community, for these two professions to find each other again.

Another thing that makes it more difficult for the aged to obtain medicine is the continuous increase in the price of medicine. I am aware of the relevant inquiry presently being conducted by Dr Wim de Villiers in this connection. I am looking forward to his report. I realise only too well that this problem cannot be addressed at one level only.

It is also important, in dealing with this aspect, that retailers and wholesalers and the suppliers of medicine should come together to negotiate on the prices of medicines.

I should also like to appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance to abolish GST on medicines for the aged above a certain age. There are people who earn too much to qualify them for free medicinal services, but too little to pay medical costs.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Welkom must forgive me for not replying to him, but my time is very limited.

What we witnessed in this House yesterday afternoon was symptomatic of the interest hon members on that side of the House show in this Vote, particularly when matters affecting the man in the street are being discussed. They adopt the same attitude when pensioners and the indigent are discussed. When the hon member for Jeppe was speaking yesterday, 100 hon members from that side were not present in the House.

There were only five of you a short while ago.

Yesterday only 31 of their 131 were here. [Interjections.] I say that is symptomatic. The day before yesterday, during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing, they were spread just as thinly as they were yesterday and are today. I can only say that hon members on that side of the House are only interested in pensioners and other people at election time. Then they flock to the homes for the aged and walk round with supplies of biltong and cakes and make tea. When one discusses matters affecting these people, however, one sees the interest really paid by that side of the House. The NP is royally celebrating, while the public find it a hard struggle to keep their heads above water. Pensioners and other less-privileged people are really struggling.

On paging through the Department of Health Services and Welfare’s annual report, I noticed something of particular importance for the blind. Nothing has been said about the blind so far in this debate, and because I grew up in a house with a father who had failing sight, and at one stage was virtually blind, this matter is of great concern to me. This important matter is the care of the blind, and particularly rehabilitation of the blind in the centres available to them.

I see from the report that an amount of R595 000 was voted in the past financial year as a subsidy to welfare organisations for the maintenance of hostels and the readjustment, rehabilitation and training of people who are either totally or partially blind. That R595 000 is even less than the amount given to Mr Riaan Eksteen when he was recently discharged from the SABC. [Interjections.] I think it is scandalous that such a small amount is given to these people who have to perform such an enormously important task.

Blind people are very proud people. They do not want financial assistance from anyone, and they do not want to beg. This will be apparent to hon members from the report, which reflects that only an additional 66 blind people registered for pensions in the last financial year, as against more than 1 000 in other categories who registered for disability pensions and other forms of welfare mentioned in this report. A blind person is a proud person, and it is because of rehabilitation and the job opportunities which they created that so few people apply for pensions. They prefer to look after themselves.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether the Government, as the major creator of job opportunities for the blind, could not, as an employer, create more posts for these people.

Many more of these people could be employed by the Government due to the increasing extent to which computers are being used, and because people are being trained in other ways and can work in other fields. They can then lead independent lives and no longer have to be merely telephonists, attorneys or ordinary labourers, as was the case in the past. There are many other government departments in which they could be employed. I want to ask the hon the Minister, therefore, to provide opportunities for those people. They want to work and they do not want pensions or to be dependent on the Government. I ask the hon the Minister to try to accommodate them in that respect.

I should briefly like to refer to a problem in my constituency. This relates to frail aged. There are three homes for the aged in my constituency, one being in Volksrust, one in Perdekop and one in Standerton. The home for the aged in Standerton is a category-B home. All homes for the aged try to fall into category C, because the subsidy is much higher. The old-age homes are categorised on the basis of certain criteria, one of which is that more than 75% of the residents must be frail aged. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is not possible to lower the percentage to say 65%, so that it could be easier to fall into category C. Unfortunately, my time has expired.

Order! The hon member must decide for himself when his time has expired within the period laid down in the Rules.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Standerton, and there are very few matters about which I want to cross swords with him. I do, however, want to tell him that we are proud of the fact that we take biscuits and coffee along to the old-age homes. I want to ask him only one question, and that is whether he and his party are proud of the fact that they went around to the old-age homes a few years ago and upset the aged by telling them: “Dear friends, do you know that if the NP should win the election, the Blacks and people of colour would be living among you here in these old-age homes within a few months?” Is that what they are proud of?

It is still going to happen! [Interjections.]

It is disgraceful the way the CP treats the aged in the old-age homes. Yet they want to ask us here whether we are proud of the fact that we take them biscuits and tea. The reply is yes we are. [Interjections.]

I should like to come back to another facet raised by the hon member for Worcester, viz private hospitals. At the moment 80 private hospitals are registered with us. They have 8 015 nurses, and 9 049 beds are available.

The perception has, perhaps quite justifiably, originated in our country that private hospitals are engaged in exploitation. Last year the hon the Minister said that a council on private hospitals which would serve as a controlling body, was being contemplated. Today I want to make an earnest appeal. We must constitute that council as soon as possible so that it can start functioning. I have already received several letters from my constituency about costs in private hospitals, and the perception very definitely exists that patients and medical schemes are being exploited.

I am going to mention two cases to hon members. The first is a letter which I received on Friday from a constituent. He wrote to me and said that I would see, on the copy of the clinics account, that his wife had been in hospital for one day. She underwent a normal examination and, when she was discharged, the account was R621 for the day. But that is nothing.

Here is another case of a man who underwent a heart-bypass operation, which is a very serious operation. He was not in hospital for even a full month—it was a private institution—and when he was discharged, the account was R40 446. What is worst of all is that I do not know where they stuffed or pumped in all this medicine, because the account for medication was approximately R30 000. That is why I say that the perception exists that private hospitals are misleading our people somewhere along the line.

Together with this I have received a few accusations from people who say that some medical practitioners are also, in some cases, protecting their own interests in the sense that they have shares in private hospitals. Let me say at once that I have no objection to that. A medical practitioner is welcome to own a share in a private hospital. Once again, however, a perception exists, and I want to make a serious appeal to medical practitioners to be very careful when they have such interests.

I am of the opinion that he should not then compel the patient to go to a private hospital or a private institution, but that he should allow such a patient, because of the perception that exists, to go to a provincial hospital, especially those patients whose medical schemes do not cover the full costs of their treatment.

The private hospitals argue that provincial hospitals are subsidised by the State, that they do not receive a subsidy and that, for this reason, their tariffs should be higher. One asks oneself whether their tariffs need to be that much higher.

Why are the tariffs in the provincial hospitals subsidised? I shall tell hon members why. Very high costs are involved in the training of nurses, and these costs are mainly subsidised by the taxpayer as well. According to the Report of Investigation into Cost of Basic Nursing Education Programmes at Colleges of Nursing of 25 September 1987, it costs R16 615 per annum to train a nurse.

It is very interesting to note that if we were to multiply that amount by the 8 015 nurses we have in private hospitals at present, the costs that private hospitals are receiving as a subsidy for this training in today’s terms, is R133 million per annum. If one takes that over the training period of four years, it represents an amount of R532 million in today’s money which private hospitals are, in actual fact, also receiving as a subsidy.

Today I want to suggest that we start giving serious consideration to whether we should not, as we used to do in the past in certain sectors, impose a levy on people who make use of qualified labour and who do not undertake training themselves. Now I will, of course, be told …

[Inaudible.]

Just give me a chance.

Now I will be told that they were not allowed to train nurses in the past. That restriction was abolished a long time ago, however, and still the private hospitals do nothing about training, with the exception of two private hospitals in Natal, which are actually church hospitals. Let me make this clear.

No!

That is the information I have, and the hon member can have a look at it.

Nevertheless I want to make an urgent appeal that we do what is being done in other sectors. We must tell these people that they would receive some form of compensation for any training they provided, ie an amount equivalent to what it would cost the State. This would alleviate the pressure on our training hospitals, and it would also afford these people an opportunity to plough something back, instead of constantly wanting to take something out of the care of the sick.

Mr Chairman, the amount of stress experienced by our population has increased alarmingly in recent decades. This is apparent, for example, from the millions of rands spent on tranquillisers and sleeping pills every year. More composite pills acting as tranquillisers as well as pain-killers are taken by South Africans than by people in any other country in the world.

Many alcoholics also associate their drinking problem with stress. Often the burden of stress and tension becomes too great and the person concerned breaks down emotionally and commits suicide or even a family murder. Often, unfortunately, no one is willing to listen or help while the crisis is building up.

Psychiatry in our country suddenly found itself unable to cope. Psychiatric hospitals and psychiatrists who had become accustomed to a less acute form of service had to design a different type of psychiatry. The solution was the mental health team, the transfer of services to the community and to general hospitals and the development of emergency psychiatric units at the casualty departments of general hospitals.

For the first time in our country, section 16 of the Health Act also made statutory provision for the introduction of psychiatry in the provincial hospitals and the provision of acute psychiatric services at general hospitals.

In the past, mental health services did not concentrate on the treatment of psychiatric problems. The emphasis used to be on curative services or treatment as well as on all facets of health services other than prevention. It is understandable that this should have been the case in the infancy of modern health services, when there was no clear understanding of how this illness could be combatted and prevented. Thanks to the progress that has been made in the medical and related fields, however, we finally have the knowledge and the means with which to combat physical as well as psychiatric health problems.

†I should like to illustrate this modern approach in regard to schizophrenia, depression, anxiety and ageing. Schizophrenia affects approximately one in every 100 of the population. [Interjections.] What makes it so tragic is that it occurs for the first time primarily in otherwise healthy adolescents, and that without treatment most of its victims never recover.

All too often the poor prognosis of schizophrenia results from the delay in diagnosing and treating the condition. Why the delay? [Interjections.] The most important reasons are the stigma attached to psychiatric care, the fear of being hospitalised and lack of knowledge. There is widespread ignorance about the good results achieved in recent times because of earlier diagnosis and treatment. The earlier the diagnosis and the more intensive the treatment, the better the prognosis of recovery. With modern treatment, the majority of patients with this illness can make a complete recovery. To achieve this we need to overcome the stigma attached to psychiatric care, and to inform the public about the nigh miraculous changes that have occurred in the treatment of schizophrenia over the past 35 years. [Interjections.]

Depression—some would call it clinical depression or major affective illness—is one of the most common psychiatric conditions, and affects a fifth of the population and about a quarter of all women. Early effective treatment can prevent the ravages of a lifetime of chronic depression.

Anxiety states can be reduced by promoting healthy lifestyles that reduce stress. Learning how to use coping skills effectively, the use of exercise and learning how to relax are all effective techniques that combat high blood pressure and other stress-related physical conditions.

Programmes to keep the older generation physically and mentally active can prevent premature ageing, and recently certain compounds have been developed that may even be able to reverse the symptoms of ageing. One understands that they do not yet have the elixir of eternal youth, but they can promote mental health at all ages.

*Mental illness is far more damaging that other forms of illness. A child who is born with Down’s syndrome is going to suffer from it all his life. The person who commits suicide makes his children feel that they have been rejected, an impression that is difficult to eradicate in subsequent years. The bad behaviour of an elderly person at the onset of senile dementia, or of a young man suffering from schizophrenia, is much more difficult to accept than symptoms of other diseases. It is extremely important, therefore, for these conditions to be combatted.

Even where these conditions cannot be prevented, their harmful effects can be alleviated and the quality of life of the psychiatrically disabled person can be improved by means of early treatment. By promoting a positive self-image even among children and by encouraging greater assertiveness—this may sound strange—among girls in particular, we can prevent the problems of depression and inadequate personalities. There is a great deal of evidence that the early diagnosis of these illnesses can lead to a cure and a complete recovery.

Approximately 1 500 mentally retarded babies with Down’s syndrome are born every year. By means of a test performed on the pregnant mother, which is already provided free of charge by State laboratories, especially in the case of older mothers, a significant number of these births could be prevented.

For this reason, it is extremely important to make community clinics and service centres available throughout the country so that mental health services may be available to all. It is gratifying, therefore, that the hon the Minister has recognised this need for the promotion of mental health and has appropriated R70 000 for this purpose. It is a modest amount, but it marks the beginning of an historic attempt to rectify the imbalance caused in the past by the heavy emphasis placed on curative services and to do greater justice to the promotional approach.

An amount of R4,8 million is being budgeted for community mental health services, because the department wishes to treat the patient in the community and to prevent, by means of early diagnosis of minor illnesses, the serious disabilities these may eventually cause. I should like to convey my thanks today to Dr Aubrey Levin, the Director of mental health, and all the professional staff working with him, as well as his other staff, for the wonderful work they do for the prevention of mental illness in our society.

Order! I just want to point out to hon members that at one stage during the speech of the hon member for Umbilo, twelve spirited conversations were being held in the House. The cumulative effect of these is an unacceptable level of noise in the House.

Mr Chairman, if you will allow me to do so, I shall be sufficiently loud to make it impossible for anybody else to talk. Perhaps that will solve my problem!

I want to touch on a variety of subjects, encompassing both the welfare and health aspects of this hon Minister’s Vote.

I would like to commence by making reference to social pensions, which both the hon the Minister and a number of hon members have addressed. I would particularly like to support the pleas of my colleagues that this matter has not received sufficient attention in the overall perspective of the Government’s economic policy. Let me give hon members an example. The hon the Minister will be aware that an increase of 15% for social pensioners, in terms of the increase in the cost of living during the past year, would have cost the State an additional R50 million. That represents roughly 1% of the State Budget for this year. In addition, there is little doubt that this hon minister will have to address the subject next year. If the inflation rate continues at its current 15%—hopefully it will be reduced—he will have to find R100 million next year.

However, to put this in perspective, the Public Servants’ Association last week submitted a pay request for a 30% increase for next year. That 30% represents some R5 000 million, an increase I do not think the Government will be able to meet, but which the public servants appear to feel is justified. Therefore, I think I must seriously take this hon Minister to task when he said in his speech yesterday, “Gemeet aan enige standaarde is hierdie toegewings so ruim as wat die Skatkis kan dra”. I do not believe that that is so. I believe that what is actually happening is that the soft target of pensioners is being attacked.

I want to repeat what I said in the debate on the Vote of the hon the Minister of Finance—that it is high time that the pensioners of South Africa, of whatever party, become united on this single issue. Then they can put pressure directly on each and every member of this House—of whatever party—through the so-called “grey power”, as it is called in the United States, in order that the pensioners get a fair deal.

Mr Chairman, I would like to look now at a speech made by the Minister of National Health and Population Development in which he replied to a number of points which I had made regarding both pensions and the position of military disability. I understand military disability does not fall under this hon the Minister and therefore I am not pursuing that. I want to quote from the Minister of National Health and Population Development’s reply to me. He is talking about additional expenditure due to the floods and for that reason says:

I should like to ask this hon the Minister directly as to whether there is any advance on this broad perspective discussion being held between the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and the hon the Minister of Finance on relieving the plight of those above 80. Can he make an announcement?

Secondly, I would like to look at the situation of the military. I am not referring to military disability but to war veterans’ pensions. The hon the Minister’s Vote encompasses some 13 187 war veterans who are currently receiving R33 million in pensions. A means test is applied to the vast majority of these persons. I say vast majority because I understand that the means test is not applied to survivors of military engagements before World War 1 and that there is no means test applied to war veterans over the age of 100.

I want to take up the cudgels for a cause that was pleaded for a number of years in this House by the previous member for Durban Point—the cause of the war veterans of World War 1 and that the means test should be removed for those war veterans. I am quite happy that they should be coupled together with the protesting burghers at that stage. According to the departmental report there are 629 World War 1 veterans and 21 protesting burghers receiving funds this year. The number is small and it is likely to diminish ever further. We believe, however, that it is incumbent on this hon Minister to review the situation of this means test and to remove it for those World War 1 veterans and the protesting burghers.

I want now to turn to the hon the Minister’s remarks about the “nuwe welsynsbeleid”. He remarked on the fact that this had been passed by the Cabinet and he said: “Die nuwe beleid geniet tans indringende aandag.” I would like to ask this hon Minister very directly—this flows from questions put to his predecessor last year—whether he would be willing to remark on the position of privatisation and welfare; and secondly, concerning the very contentious aspect in the original draft of the new welfare policy, the position regarding the question of attempting to enforce racial separation on the voluntary welfare bodies. Here I understand that that has been removed from the new welfare policy but I would be pleased if the hon the Minister could in fact clarify the situation for us.

There is another matter which arises from a reply received in this House last week from the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation in the Office of the State President. It concerns the matter of the cancellation of vacancies in various departments of State. That hon Minister then said that the cancellation of vacancies which were not budgeted for would not affect security forces and education. In an interjection I asked whether this would affect health and he said no, health was included. I want to ask the hon the Minister a question.

In the latest report of the department it is indicated that 453 of the 3 500 posts in this department are vacant. I want to ask the hon the Minister directly whether the policy of the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation to cancel vacant posts is going to affect his department; if so, to what extent is it going to affect his department?

In conclusion, there are two matters that I want briefly to refer to. The one has to do with school health services which the hon the Minister is taking over. On a co-ordination basis I have no particular problems with that. However, I would like to ask him and his department to look at the reports of previous Directors of Education of the provinces on school health services. They were very comprehensive. They gave statistical breakdowns of the kinds of activities carried out by those school health services. I trust that that statistical information and those full reports according to the provinces will be carried in the departmental report from next year.

I have a question on the Order Paper—not to this hon Minister though—with regard to nutrition. There have been cases of malnutrition discovered in White schools in South Africa. These were previously reported by the Directors of Education of the various provinces. I trust the hon the Minister will take up these matters in the near future.

Finally, I come to question of pharmaceutical costs. The hon the Deputy Minister will be aware that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development was concerned about pharmaceutical costs. I merely want to add that a very accurate breakdown of the increase in pharmaceutical costs affecting provincial hospitals over the past two years, was given during the provincial debates we had in Natal on Monday and Tuesday. The concern of the MEC in charge of hospitals was particularly expressed. I merely want to add that pharmaceutical costs have increased by 100% to 150% in some cases during the past two years. I believe this is totally unacceptable. The Government should be looking at those pharmaceutical costs and the question of pharmaceutical companies’ profit base. If one looks at the financial Press, it is quite clear that pharmaceutical companies have, in fact, been increasing their profits to a very great extent.

Mr Chairman, since the hon member for Pinetown touched on so many different aspects and since my time is limited, it is not possible for me to answer all his questions. It is indeed a privilege, but also a great responsibility, to speak here today while my predecessor, Mr Gerrie du Plessis, is sitting in the gallery. It is indeed a privilege to succeed him in the Kempton Park constituency.

When the facts of our country and the structure of its population are taken into consideration, we can be proud of our health services. That does not mean, however, that we do not have any problems. One problem involves making the best possible use of hospital beds. One finds that available beds in White hospitals, in particular, are not put to full use. In some cases this is due to the lower population growth in the White community, but in others it is much more complicated, and a shortage of funds is the root cause. This is the case particularly with academic hospitals.

It is also necessary, however, to consider the status of the various hospitals and their purposes when one considers the problem. The National Health Services Facility Plan is divided into six level. Levels one to three deal with the provision of basic needs, education and community services. Levels four to six deal with hospitalisation. Level four deals with community hospitals, level five deals with regional hospitals and level six with academic hospitals. I particularly want to concentrate on the latter.

The Johannesburg Hospital is an academic hospital for the southern Transvaal.

†It is common knowledge that almost half of the total beds in the Johannesburg hospital are not being used. It has also been highlighted in the Press recently that Baragwanath Hospital has from time to time had more patients than it has beds. The proposal is frequently made that the unused beds at the Johannesburg Hospital be made available for patients from the Baragwanath Hospital. Superficially seen, this proposal sounds like a very simple solution to the problem.

Why then has it not been instituted? The use of beds in academic hospitals is a complex issue, and needs to be looked at in broad perspective as well as in depth. On the one hand one has to establish why there are vacant beds at the Johannesburg Hospital, and how best they should be used. One also needs to consider the problems facing other academic hospitals, as well as the implications of the use of vacant beds at non-teaching hospitals, the private sector and health services in general. The economic situation also needs to be taken into account.

Why are there vacant beds at the Johannesburg Hospital? I understand that the hospital was designed to accommodate White patients from the Southern Transvaal area and provide for their medical needs up to the year 2000 as an academic hospital. However, there has been a decrease in the White population growth. The number of Whites qualifying as indigent has decreased as over 80% of Whites are now members of medical aid schemes. This has had a major effect on services such as obstetrics and paediatrics at the Johannesburg Hospital where the shortage of patients limits the ability of the academic staff to train both undergraduates and postgraduates in these disciplines. Patients simply prefer to use private institutions, for instance when having their babies.

On the other hand, the average age of White patients has continued to increase. With the availability of more and more technology and improved medical care for older patients there has been an excessive demand for adult medical and surgical services at the Johannesburg Hospital. The hospital should have expanded its services to meet these needs, but it has been restricted by the limited number of nursing staff available. More recently the hospital budget has become a limiting factor, which prevented not only the appointment of nurses, should they have been available, but also limited the number of patients who could be treated at the hospital. I refer hon members to two articles in The Star of 10 and 11 May.

It must therefore be seen that the vacant adult beds at the Johannesburg Hospital are actually required for the treatment of people living in the Southern Transvaal area and such services as the hospital provides for the Southern Transvaal region, and are actually not available for other use. Thus the financial limitations and the shortages of medical and nursing staff have prevented the hospital from fulfilling its expected role. The availability of additional funds for the Johannes-burg Hospital has to be seen from the perspective of the limitation of State expenditure, and not only from the patient care point of view.

Paediatric beds are in great demand for patients other than indigent patients, as there is a shortage of such beds in the private sector, but again beds are kept vacant as a result of nursing shortages. Given that the financial limitations are not reversible at this stage, could these beds be used in some other way? Let us consider the various possibilities.

Firstly, let us consider taking the overflow from the Baragwanath Hospital. There are a number of aspects to be considered. In the first instance, the Johannesburg Hospital is a considerable distance from Soweto. Patients and their families would have transport problems for which they would have to pay, adding to their financial difficulties. The transfer of patients will also have additional cost implications for the State.

Secondly, which of Baragwanath Hospital’s patients should make use of the Johannesburg Hospital? If individual patients were moved, the Johannesburg Hospital would have the same problems as they would have if the hospital were used for their own patients; that is, where would the additional nursing and medical staff come from, or would these patients be treated as non-academic patients by medical officers who unfortunately are also very scarce?

There would of course be considerable cost implications for the Johannesburg Hospital. The concept of using an academic hospital for nonacademic patients has serious implications for the medical faculty. It must be noted that the Johannesburg Hospital has been built as a joint venture between the university and the State. University interests must also be taken into account in planning for the use of vacant beds.

Thirdly, should whole units be moved from Baragwanath Hospital to the Johannesburg Hospital, including the medical, nursing and administrative staff as well as the money for the services, this would indeed make the use of the empty space in the Johannesburg Hospital viable. However, the problem with the transport and the accessibility of the Johannesburg Hospital would remain a problem for patients and nursing staff.

What would happen to the Baragwanath Hospital? Academic hospitals are finely-balanced to provide a comprehensive range of services and teaching. Such a move may make the Baragwanath Hospital less viable as a teaching hospital, and therefore impede its ability to attract and retain suitable staff. The filling of the beds thus left empty at the Baragwanath Hospital would pose additional problems to the hospital as the unavailability of interns and other medical staff may prevent the use of such beds as part of the academic hospital.

It is difficult to envisage how a hospital such as the Baragwanath or the Johannesburg could be run on two levels, namely as an academic hospital and as a service hospital. These educational, organisational and financial difficulties as well as the difficulties for patients and their families suggest that the vacant beds in the Johannesburg Hospital cannot be used to take the overflow from the Baragwanath Hospital in the current circumstances.

My limited time will not allow me to go into the other situations but there is also the possibility that the Johannesburg Hospital could accommodate the J G Strijdom Hospital. Theoretically this is a possibility but again in practice it may cause a few problems which, unfortunately, I do not have the time to elaborate on.

Another suggestion would be to use it for private enterprise but this would again force us into a situation where we would have State nursing staff working under the same roof as private nurses. This would be likely to increase the dissatisfaction of the State nursing staff.

In conclusion, the use of vacant beds in academic hospitals is a complex problem and most definitely not as straightforward as some may suggest. Perhaps the hon member for Parktown should pay a visit to the Johannesburg Hospital before he makes recommendations or offers criticism again. I may add that the staff of the Johannesburg Hospital are not very pleased about this. I am prepared to introduce the hon member to the superintendent of this hospital in his constituency.

I would like to recommend the appointment of a committee of enquiry, consisting of politicians, academics, economists and health service officials to investigate this many-faceted problem which can only be solved by a multi-disciplinary approach by a commission of experts. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am amazed by the speech of the hon member for Kempton Park. I find it to be the most racist speech that I have ever listened to in this House. I would like to ask the hon member if she has ever heard of the Hillbrow Hospital. Is the Hillbrow Hospital situated next to the Johannesburg General Hospital? Is the Hillbrow Hospital for Blacks? Does the Hillbrow Hospital take patients from the whole of greater Johannesburg and the Southern Transvaal? Every argument that the hon member used implied that the Hillbrow Hospital should also not be used for blacks. The hon member used every possible argument to prevent the empty beds of the Johannesburg General Hospital being made available for Blacks.

I find it unbelievable that such racism can come out in this House. The only reason why the beds in the Johannesburg General Hospital are not used for Blacks but are reserved for Whites is because of the racist policy of this Government in its health services. [Interjections.]

Has that hon member ever asked the academic staff of the medical school of the University of the Witwatersrand whether they share her views and what they would like to happen to those empty wards? The hon member only referred to Blacks. What about the Coloureds and the Asians in Johannesburg? Cannot they use those beds? Why is mention only made of the Blacks of Soweto? The Government has created a monster of racial discrimination in our health services.

The hon member said that there is no staff. Why? She said there is no money. Why is this the case? It is because of the racism in the health services of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is unbelievable that after 40 years of NP racial discrimination affecting our country’s medical services, an hon member can come and tell us about a lack of money and a lack of staff. The Government has moved the Blacks away from the city centres and it costs them money to come into the city centre—not only to come to hospital, but to come to work. It is due to this Government that their travel costs are so high.

She wants to tell us that it is impossible. I find this totally unacceptable and I would like that hon member to accompany one on a visit to the academic staff of the medical school so that we can discuss with them what they feel should happen to these more than 400 empty beds in that hospital. The Johannesburg General Hospital is in my constituency, and I invite her to come with me to visit that hospital. If she has never heard of the Hillbrow Hospital, she can come with me to see the overcrowding in that hospital. Where do all those patients come from? That hon member should try to do her homework and take her prescription. [Interjections.]

I would like to refer to the hon the Minister’s speech in which he used the usual NP political tactics of trying to become personal when he did not know what to say. He tried to compare his South Africanism with mine. He said: “Ek is ’n Suid-Afrikaner, en daarom staan ek vir die Blankes van Suid-Afrika.” I would like to say that I am also a South African and that I stand for all the people of South Africa, for all the races of South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not stand for the Whites only. He devoted his whole speech to the White part of his portfolio.

But we are discussing health services for Whites! [Interjections.]

That is the difference between us. I work for all the people of South Africa.

I would like to tell that hon the Minister that when I was still a practising surgeon—I still am a surgeon—I cut through Black, White and Coloured skins, and their blood is red—not black, white etc. It is all racism. [Interjections.]

I would like to come back to the hon member for Langlaagte. I congratulate him on a speech that proves the total lack of the necessity for own affairs health services. I would like to congratulate him on a speech which proves that where South Africans work together we can achieve things like the separation of the Siamese twins. I agree with him that the standard of medicine at the Baragwanath Hospital—and evérywhere in South Africa—is as high as one can expect. He also spoke about the team which consisted of people from the different population groups. However, did he look at the rest of the hospital? Did he look at the patients in the hospital? Were they people of various groups? They were all Black. [Interjections.] Did he look at the nurses in that hospital? They were all Black.

He talked about the high standard of medicine and the great things that take place in surgery, in the theatre. [Interjections.] No, I have no time. The hon member must take his medicine too. Did he look under the beds? Did he look at the people lying on the floor? Did he speak to the doctors working in that hospital—not those working in the specialised units, but the ordinary doctors looking after the medical patients?

Yes, I have often done that.

He says yes. Have they told him that the patients are dying because of overcrowding and the lack of staff? Have they told him that?

That has bugger-all to do with apartheid!

This has nothing to do with apartheid!

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Parktown may continue.

Did that hon member attend the provincial affairs debate in the Transvaal? Did he listen to Asians and Coloureds speaking about the hospital services? Did he listen to them? No, that is where the hon member goes wrong. I do not see Whites; I see patients. That is what I see, and that is what that Government has never been able to see. It only sees colour and race. [Interjections.]

I should like to point out to the hon member and the hon the Minister and any other spokesmen here today that not one of them has dared to reply to the accusations which the Medical Association of South Africa makes against this fragmentation of our medical systems. Not one of them has had the courage to do so. People criticise me, but I want to repeat that I work with patients, doctors and nurses. Over 40 years I have seen what this Government’s policy of racial discrimination has done to our medical services. When I started medicine in the 1940’s and students of different races had medical lectures in the fifth floor lecture room it Groote Schuur Hospital, when a White patient was pushed in to be examined, all the non-Whites had to leave. That happened under the NP Government. All the non-White students had to leave, because people of other races could not watch a White patient being examined. That has changed now.

Why do you talk about it then? [Interjections.]

I worked at Groote Schuur Hospital for many years when the wards were segregated. There were Whites in one ward and non-Whites in another ward. Coloureds, Asians and Blacks were all grouped together, but Whites were in one ward. When I used to work at Groote Schuur Hospital there were separate entrances. That has changed, but why has it changed? It has changed out of necessity. The Government does not have the money or the nursing staff to cope with this racial discrimination in hospitals.

Why has it not changed in the Transvaal? In the Transvaal we still have Black hospitals, White hospitals and Asian hospitals. There is clearly still racial discrimination. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kempton Park says that the distance will inconvenience the other race groups. The Government has caused the problem of distance! [Interjections.]

I would like to deal with the speech of the hon member for Stilfontein, who unfortunately is not here at present.

Hit and run!

He was also trying to talk about … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am sorry, he is here. He spoke about the R40 000 fee for a coronary artery bypass graft. I hope the hon member knows what a coronary artery bypass graft is.

It has to do with one’s foot, isn’t that so? [Interjections.]

Yes, and that is where the hon member’s brain is.

No, it is a little bit higher. [Interjections.]

He talks about the cost of drugs. I would like to ask the hon member if he knows how long the patient was in the intensive care unit. Does he know how long the patient was in the intensive care unit?

Yes, about 6 ft 3 inches!

Yes, that is fantastic! He mentioned the cost of the drugs that were used. Does he know which drugs were given? Does the hon member know …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

May he finish his sentence?

Finish your sentence, Marius!

Mr Chairman, I rise …

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Parktown may continue.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, I have really silenced them.

†He talked about the drugs, but does he know why the cost of drugs is so high? Does he know that this Government claims 12% of GST on those drugs? The hon member complains about the high cost of medicine, but 12% GST is charged by the Government on drugs, not only to that patient in intensive care, but also to the old age pensioners.

What profit do you make—12% or more?

Order! No, there are too many interjections. The hon member must be allowed to deliver his speech.

Mr Chairman, before it goes any further, I would like to state here that although I am in private practice I do not have one share in a private hospital, so hon members may just as well stop making their insinuations.

I would finally like to ask the hon member for Stilfontein if the patient left the hospital alive.

He was in the intensive-care unit for three and a half days.

Was the patient alive when he left the hospital?

Would you like me to answer you?

High-technology medicine is expensive and results in patients who used to die being restored to health. That patient would have died if it had not been for modern medicine, and the hon member thinks that R40 000 is a high cost to pay to bring a patient, a father, a breadwinner back to his family.

That was only the hospital costs. That does not even include the doctors’ fees.

Does that hon member really believe that that patient could have been treated without having to go to the hospital?

I am saying that …

Order! No, I cannot allow a dialogue across the floor of the House.

This is typical of trying to attack without ever knowing what is happening.

I was going to speak on private hospitals today and I would like to pay tribute to the private hospitals in South Africa and their standard of medicine. They are not training nurses, although they want to do so. I would like to tell hon members that if they do train nurses it is going to cost money. The hon member for Stilfontein has indicated how much it will cost. Somebody will have to pay for it as it cannot be done for nothing. The patients will have to pay for it and the hon member for Stilfontein has already complained that the cost is too high. [Interjections.]

Private hospitals are necessary in South Africa. They have maintained the highest medical standards in South Africa. We must not try to make snide attacks on them when we know nothing about the matter. We must commend them for what they are doing.

Mr Chairman, before I react to hon members who participated in the debate on the Health Services part of the Vote, I just want to refer to a few other matters. I want to begin by having my congratulations to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare on his appointment placed on record in Hansard. The short while we have already been co-operating has been very gratifying to me, and I foresee that in spite of the derogatory remarks made by other hon members, we as a team will devote the necessary attention to health services and welfare.

During the 40 years it has been in office, the only reason for the success of the NP has, in fact, been that there is such a thing as teamwork. That is the reason for our success, and we shall carry on in that way. It is of the utmost importance that health services and welfare should indeed be placed on a firm footing.

The hon member for Carletonville said the Minister looked old. The state of the hon the Minister’s health is excellent. He has a mild attack now and again when Western Province rugby is going through a bad patch, but then I help him through it. [Interjections.] Otherwise he is fine.

I also want to refer to Dr Jannie Pieterse, the departmental head who has joined us. It is very pleasant to co-operate with him. I want to convey a sincere welcome to Dr Oosthuizen of School Health Services, which has now been amalgamated with us. Dr Moolman, who was director of medical services and who did a great job in connection with the handling of private hospitals, has left our service, and on this occasion I want to thank him for the work he did and wish him everything of the best. It goes without saying, too, that I want to extend my sincere congratulations to Mr Wessel Meyer and welcome him.

The hon member for Pietersburg is the chief spokesmen on health services on that side of the House. One would have thought that the hon member, who is the shadow Minister of Health Services in their so-called government of tomorrow, would at least have made a decent policy statement on the procedure they will adopt. The hon member for Pietersburg, as well as the hon member for Parktown, merely repeated last year’s speeches. We do not mind if they do that; it is their own indaba.

He said that last year as well! [Interjections.]

We are looking for fruitful discussions about how to place the health services of this country on an even sounder footing. The hon member for Pietersburg said that we were acting unconstitutionally.

Are hospitals own affairs?

That is why this is a slow, time-consuming process, and the same applies to the transfer of hospitals, because we want to do these things within the framework of the Constitution. Why is it a slow process? It is slow because we also want to stay within the Constitution in a legal, technical sense.

How long is it still going to take?

Sir, those hon members would spend just as much time if they wanted to persuade the White farmers, over whose heads a sword will now be dangling under their dispensation, and specifically anyone living between Durban and Pietermaritzburg, to relinquish that land for their homeland.

Precisely because we want to act within the framework of the Constitution, we are therefore examining these matters very carefully, and there is no doubt in my mind that among our officials we have people with administrative skills who are able to do this. We shall report on the matter, and next year hon members will see what has happened in this connection.

The hon member also referred to the integration of hospital services, as he also did last year. The department’s policy is that the status quo will be maintained in provincial hospitals or sections of provincial hospitals reserved for Whites. The utilisation of provincial hospital facilities is continually being monitored and adjustments made, if circumstances necessitate this. Consequently we make no apology for the fact that an integrated service exists in intensive-care units at provincial hospitals. The fact of the matter is that in all provincial hospitals, in all the provinces, there are wards or sections allocated to a specific population group in accordance with Government policy.

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

No, Sir, I do not have very much time left.

I want to ask the hon member for Pietersburg something. He has such a lot to say about what is troubling him and what is weighing on his mind. He must ask all his CP supporters among the specialists in the Johannesburg General Hospital, where they do cardio-thoracic surgery, to withdraw if they are not satisfied with the conditions there. They will laugh him to scorn!

When we talk about primary health care, preventive medicine and a community service, then we are also in fact talking in a sense of a health service for own affairs. I cannot understand how the hon members can want to dismiss these things as being unimportant. And then they profess to be the very people who are fighting for it?

We are going to place, in fact we are placing the emphasis on a comprehensive health service for a community. We are going to expand it, and this can be done inter alia by consolidating and rationalising own affairs services, for example by integrating care of the aged and school health services with hospital services. This will in fact lead to our emphasising community involvement.

We shall carefully ensure—the hon member for Parktown and others need not be concerned about this—that the services we render will not be difficult to administer, that the standard of health services rendered will not be affected, and the service must be acceptable to the recipient.

However, the hon member does not understand when we say this. He says we must ask the doctors of the Johannesburg General Hospital what they want. Of course we know what they want! After all, we know what the standpoint of the Medical Association of South Africa is. We know what the standpoint of the deans of the medical faculties is. We know what the standpoint of the Committee of University Principals is. However, there is one other standpoint one must take into consideration. It is because that party does not take the standpoint of the people they are supposed to serve into consideration that they are where they are. [Interjections.] We shall have to ensure that this service which is being rendered will also be rendered cost-effectively in an own affairs connection.

I come now to the hon member for Parktown.

He merely makes a noise.

That is true. After all, we know him. I do not want to be nasty to him now.

[Inaudible.]

Perhaps we are bigger pals than other people think. [Interjections.] What he said about this party and the festivities in connection with our having been in office for 40 years, was relevant. [Interjections.] What is very interesting is that his party also holds meetings while we are celebrating our 40 years in office. I have an idea there are many Progs who are as pleased as punch because things are going so well, that the NP has been in office for 40 years. [Interjections.]

†According to a news item this morning, the hon leader of the PFP expressed his concern about the fragmentation of the political groupings on the left.

*I am so pleased that the word fragmentation is now being applied in a different context, because that is, after, all the item which the hon member for Parktown discusses all the time. [Interjections.]

†Now it seems that hon leader of that party is worried about fragmentation. I think he should be worried about the total disintegration of his party. [Interjections.]

Answer the argument instead of just insulting the party!

What they should do is leave us alone. We will see to health matters in this country. [Interjections.] They should go back to the drawingboard and see to the fragmentation in their own party, and then they might be able to come back with some positive plans to try to make it possible for us to render the best possible services in the health field. [Interjections.]

*I just wish that the hon member for Parktown, when he has such a lot to say about festivities and is perhaps figuratively wearing black armbands, together with certain other people, to signify mourning, would also take the floor one day—I have frequently asked him to do so—to thank us in the NP in some way for the conditions which this party has created over 40 years and which have meant that there is no obstacle in the way of that hon member rendering the best medical services in this country.

But I am White! [Interjections.]

He forgets that we created those conditions because we have governing in a proper way for 40 years. Let us take an example. He boards an aircraft here, and in a jiffy he is in Johannesburg to perform an operation there. [Interjections.] Surely that does not simply happen. It is part of creating an infrastructure.

We have moved away from medicine now, but the point is that he must be grateful that conditions and a milieu have been created here within which he can do the things he would like to do. If he is not satisfied with that he will simply have to go and seek another refuge, but I think he is happy where he is.

I shall be here long after you have gone!

He is so happy in this country. [Interjections.] It is just a pity that he is sitting in the wrong party. [Interjections.]

In connection with the hon member’s statement that we are not taking cognisance of Masa’s standpoint, I want to tell him that of course we are. We must remember, however, that those people are inside the health set-up. Everyone who is interested is inside the health set-up, but they are in fact sitting on the sidelines, because they need not govern the country.

†When one has to govern the country, then it is a totally different story. Then one must take cognizance of what the people in this country, who one is supposed to serve, want. The hon member speaks about doctors who have taken the oath and who should therefore not discriminate and he says that the present system is immoral.

*Last year he said it was unethical. Last year he spoke Afrikaans; this year he spoke English. Why does the hon member never give us any credit? Why does he not, in fact, tell the people about the cardio-thoracic surgery, to which I referred, and which is being performed on people of colour in the Johannesburg General Hospital? Give us credit for that. However, the hon member is making a major error of reasoning. He thinks that if we place patients in separate wards, we are discriminating. The NP says that if we withhold the opportunity to receive good health services from people of colour, or indeed anyone, we are discriminating. The hon member for Houghton also referred to people lying under the beds. That is true, but surely we have committed ourselves to rectifying these matters. If it is true, and we are depriving those people of an opportunity of receiving proper health services, we have also, in fact, committed ourselves to removing that inequality.

In connection with fragmentation I just want to say that surely it is nothing new in health services. The division into preventive and curative health services, as it used to be implemented by the various tiers of government, was an artificial and in many respects inadequate division. What is more, it was surely nothing but fragmentation to have each province do things in its own way. Various autonomous institutions, with their own sources of revenue, were separately responsible for the provision of services, and fragmentation and duplication services were clearly discernible.

Surely we have no reason simply to accept that the health services, as they were rendered under the old dispensation, were rendered in an efficient and cost-effective way. In any event, there was considerable room for rationalisation and the concomitant lower costs, and a new dispensation can definitely serve as a stimulus to greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We have people at our disposal who have the administrative expertise to help us find an answer in that respect. [Interjections.]

†Does the hon member for Houghton want to leave? I want to thank her for participating in the debate …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Rule 90 states quite clearly, and I quote:

1. (a) the State President, the Chairman of a Ministers’ Council, the Leader of an Official Opposition and the member in charge of the business before a meeting, shall not be restricted in regard to the length of time they may speak; and
2. (b) members other than those mentioned in paragraph (a) may not speak for longer than 10 minutes …

Quite clearly, the hon the Deputy Minister is not a Minister. Quite clearly, also, he is not in charge of the business, because the hon the Minister is in charge of the business. I therefore submit that granting him unlimited time in this debate is a contravention of the Rules.

Order! I was under the impression that the hon the Deputy Minister was in charge of the health aspect of this department. For that reason I have allowed him to speak for more than 10 minutes.

Mr Chairman, with respect, that was in fact an incorrect interpretation. The hon the Minister is present. He is the Minister in charge of the Vote. The deputy is simply delegated to look after that side of it but the Minister himself, in terms of any normal parliamentary practice, is in charge of the Vote—not the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In this connection may I just suggest that if the hon member’s point of order is correct, the hon the Deputy Minister is, in any event, entitled to three speeches of 10 minutes each and that the Whips can arrange it in this way if it is necessary? [Interjections.]

Order! Unfortunately that does not answer the question put by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. We are on the point of suspending business for lunch. I request the hon member to allow the point of order to stand over, and I shall go into the matter during the lunch break. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton referred to a general affairs issue on population development but it was a very important point which she made. She said that the aim of the population programme was to restrict the population numbers to 80 million. That is part of the aim. The actual aim is to improve the quality of life of everyone living in this country. I can assure the hon member that we will see to that. We also need her support, however, and we know that she is against disinvestment, but she must tell the people outside that we are really concerned about the population explosion and that we need everyone to assist us in reaching that goal. [Interjections.]

She visited China in the company of the hon leader of the PFP and I think she should submit some of her recommendations to our department where we will certainly look at them. At this point in time she knows a lot about the issue.

I need not tell the hon member about our party’s point of view on legal abortions but we will listen to what everyone, whether it is an individual, organisation or interested group, has to say about the issue of legal abortion. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, I come now to the hon member for Langlaagte. Like the hon member for Houghton he was treading on the very threshold of a general affair. He got himself out of it very well, however, and the point he made and the point I tried to emphasise was that what did the trick there in the end was teamwork. It began with a team effort, and in the process a top-notch team was built up.

I want to state in this House that it is wonderful if a person like Dr Lipschitz can end his career as a neuro-surgeon on such a high note. Very few people have the chance to retire on such a high note, and I think it should be placed on record in this House.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Order! Before I put the question I have to reply to the point of order raised earlier by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to Rule 90 as the basis of his point of order. Rule 90 reads as follows:

1. (a) the State President, the Chairman of a Ministers’ Council, the Leader of an Official Opposition and the member in charge of the business before a meeting, shall not be restricted in regard to the length of time they may speak; and
2. (b) members other than those mentioned in paragraph (a) may not speak for longer than 10 minutes at a time on a vote in the schedule to an appropriation bill or 30 minutes at a time on any other business before a meeting.

We are dealing here with an appropriation measure. We are also dealing with two Votes put simultaneously, which, in a way, complicates the issue. It is established practice that a Deputy Minister may assist a Minister in Committee of the whole House in relation to appropriation Bills, the one not being restricted in any way by the participation of the other.

I refer the hon member to the fact that Rule 90, to which he referred, makes reference to Rule 89, which reads as follows:

I have been furnished with a list of speakers in this debate. On that list no time is allocated specifically to the hon the Deputy Minister. Time has only been allocated to the hon the Minister. From that it follows that the time used by the hon the Deputy Minister is part of the time allocated to the hon the Minister and/or the hon the Deputy Minister.

As I understand the two Rules quoted, it appears to me, in view of the established practice and also in view of the fact that we are dealing with two separate Votes put simultaneously, that the hon the Deputy Minister is in charge of the one Vote and the hon the Minister is in charge of the other Vote. I do not wish, however, to give a hard and fast ruling at this stage. I am only giving an interim ruling now to meet the situation confronting us at the moment. In the circumstances I rule that the hon the Deputy Minister, who has already spoken for more than ten minutes, may continue. If there has been any contravention of the Rules it is now a fait accompli which cannot be remedied at this stage.

I am not in a position to give a final ruling on the matter now. In view of the circumstances my ruling is that the hon the Deputy Minister may continue. I am not sure whether the hon the Deputy Minister has not already concluded his speech. Although I rule that the hon the Deputy Minister may continue, this ruling must not be considered final in respect of this matter.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Firstly, I would like to draw to your attention that you say that it is, in fact, a fait accompli. May I point out that I raised the point of order as soon as I was aware that the hon the Deputy Minister had gone beyond the 10 minutes. It was within three or four minutes of that time. I think that would not have established a fait accompli.

Secondly, I want to question your ruling as to whether, in terms of what you have said, it is going to set a precedent, and can be quoted back to this House on a future occasion. I understand from what you have said that you are giving a temporary ruling, and that you are not establishing a precedent with that. I want to get that clearly on record.

Thirdly, you have said that it is an established practice that a Deputy Minister can fill in for a Minister. I submit with respect that there is no established practice as regards the Rules of Parliament, which, in fact, only came into effect a very short while ago. The established practice—and I say this respectfully—that you refer to, was an established practice in respect of the old Standing Orders which have now fallen away. Rule 90 is, in fact, a totally new rule as substituted. I do not think we can quote an established practice as a basis for giving a ruling in this regard.

You have also said that Rule 89 applies. However, Rule 89 clearly states, and I quote:

The hon the Deputy Minister is a member of the NP, which is also the governing party. He must be allocated time by that party, and if they have not seen fit to fill in an amount of time for the hon the Deputy Minister, then I submit that he should not have been allowed to speak in the debate at all. The Rule states clearly that time must be allocated, but the hon the Deputy Minister has clearly not been allocated time.

I come now to the subject of who is in charge of the Vote. Here we have Vote 7 and we have Vote 8. In these new Rules, there is no Rule whatsoever with reference to who is in charge of a debate. In that regard, I believe we have to go back to established practice. I submit that it is the established practice in this House—and has been since 1910—that the Minister concerned, and no-one else, is the member in charge of a Vote. We have had plenty of precedents that one can quote, going back over a long period of time, ever since we had Deputy Ministers. These clearly indicate that it is the Minister who is in charge of the Vote.

Sir, if you are now ruling—even on a temporary basis—that the hon the Deputy Minister is deemed to be in charge of Vote 8—“Health”, I believe a precedent has been set, despite what you have said. This is a serious matter. It can affect future parliamentary debates to a large degree.

I would suggest with respect that it would be far easier simply to ask an opposition party Whip to rise to allow the hon the Deputy Minister to complete his speech. Let us proceed in that way. We do not want to keep him quiet. By all means, Sir, I am sure that the hon the Whips of the Official Opposition and I as a Whip would be prepared to give that hon the Deputy Minister the time to complete his speech, but I think it should be done in the correct way. I would suggest that rather than in terms of a temporary ruling, the proceedings of the House could go ahead far more effectively if one adopted that line.

Mr Chairman, the precedent already exists. May I quote to you from the debate on Vote No 12—“Defence”—which took place on 17 May? On that occasion the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence spoke for 14 minutes. If the hon member therefore wants to allege that the practice is not yet established, for my part I want to allege that this has already been the order of the day during the present session. It is also the order of the day during the present session for Deputy Ministers to reply to questions during Question Time. I think the hon member is simply wasting the hon the Deputy Minister’s time. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order in response to the hon the Whip of the NP: I am not sure of the exact date on which the new Rules became applicable, but I think that I am right in saying that those new Rules only became applicable after the date referred to by the hon Whip. [Interjections.]

Order! When points of order are raised, the hon member raising the point of order is entitled to have silence.

Firstly, in respect of the fact that I referred to a fait accompli, I agree with the hon member that it was only a matter of three minutes after the ten minutes had expired that the hon member raised the point, whereupon I allowed the hon the Deputy Minister to carry on for another three minutes until proceedings were interrupted for lunch. All I said was that the hon Deputy Minister had in fact spoken for longer than 10 minutes. That was all I meant to convey.

Secondly, when I said that I was not giving a final ruling on the matter, I meant that this would be an interim ruling which would not be regarded as a precedent.

Thirdly, the hon member argued that the established practice arose when the Standing Orders were in force previously, which is correct. However, when the Standing Orders were in force, there was a Standing Order limiting the time a member was entitled to speak. The hon member is correct when he argues that we now have a new set of Rules.

Fourthly, as regards the point of the hon the Deputy Minister being in charge of the Health Services Vote, I think it is clear that the hon the Deputy Minister is in fact in charge of that Vote. However, as the two Votes have been put together, that raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the hon the Minister is not in fact in charge of both Votes. For that reason, I am not prepared to give a final ruling on the matter.

However, everything considered, I believe it would be in the interests of the debate to allow the hon the Deputy Minister to conclude his address, and the matter can be resolved when there is sufficient time to go into all the relevant authorities on the subject.

Mr Chairman, I want to propose, on a further point of order, that we delete from Hansard that part of the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech that exceeded the time limit of 10 minutes, and that he start all over again from the 11th minute.

Order! No, I cannot agree to the proposed procedure.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: If in fact the hon the Deputy Minister is replying to the debate, will the hon the Minister not reply any further? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in reply to that I want to say the following: I have made it very clear in this House that I have delegated certain tasks to the hon the Deputy Minister. He will reply to questions and speeches made by hon members. I have also said that I am, in fact, present here and that I am prepared to reply to any other questions that may be asked. I am fully in charge of this debate and this Vote. [Interjections.] I am prepared to go on. The hon member for Pinetown put certain questions to me, for example. Now I hear the inane laugh of the hon member for Parktown again. If he does not want me to reply to the hon member for Pinetown, he must say so. Why did he take part in the debate in that case? I am in charge of this debate and I shall participate in the discussion during the available time.

Mr Chairman, may I then submit that because the hon the Minister quite blatantly insists that he is in charge of the whole debate, the hon the Deputy Minister is therefore not in charge even of part of it and he is therefore also not entitled to the extra time.

Mr Chairman, may I proceed with the debate?

Order! I should very much like the debate to proceed, but it cannot proceed if that would be against the Rules of the House. Until it has been ascertained what the Rules provide in this connection I have to allow points of order to be raised in this regard. My ruling is that the debate should proceed. I am going to put the question, and if the hon the Deputy Minister wishes to participate any further, I suggest that the Whips arrange for the necessary time to be made available to him. I put the question.

Mr Chairman, I rise to allow the hon the Deputy Minister the time to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank you for your temporary ruling in this regard. What we have seen here today is that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is an expert at wasting the time of this House. We knew that he was an expert at boycotting but now we know this as well. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister is suggesting that by taking points of order one is wasting the time of the House. I submit that that is a direct reflection on you as the presiding officer.

Order! I do not regard it as a reflection on the Chair, but at the same time I do not think that there was any justification for that suggestion, inasmuch as the point of order taken by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was well taken. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, my time has run out. There is just one matter that I want to get off my chest. The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition suggested that the first part of the speech should be deleted from Hansard.

No, the second part, or the whole speech, in fact.

I just want to tell the hon member for Barberton, who is sitting there quite red-faced at the moment, that walls have ears.

Whom are you threatening?

I shall explain later what I mean by that. I have nothing more to say. [Interjections.]

I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who participated in the debate. I shall not be able to reply now to the speeches of the hon members for Worcester, Welkom, Standerton, Stilfontein, Umbilo, Pinetown and Kempton Park, who all spoke about health services, but I shall reply to them personally or by letter. I think this has been a very interesting debate. I also think that we have been deprived of the opportunity of elaborating on these matters and of resuming our discussion later, when our business has been disposed of, in order to debate the subjects that the NP regards as very important. It seems that the replies that we could have furnished, or that could have resulted from such a discussion, are not important to the other parties.

It has been a pleasure to participate in this debate, even though it has ended on this note. I hope the hon member for Parktown is pleased about the course the debate has taken. He has no contribution to make to a debate of this nature in any case.

Mr Chairman, I shall not refer to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and say that he wasted the House’s time, but I merely want to tell him that as far as I am concerned this was further proof of their political bankruptcy. Only a party which is politically bankrupt in South Africa, which has nothing to say and has no contribution to make to the politics of South Africa, seizes on the debates and points of order it does. [Interjections.] I shall not pursue this matter.

The hon member for Pietersburg was being very spiteful. I was appointed to this portfolio by the hon the State President. I know I do not have medical training, but I want to tell him, in all friendliness that I told my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister—I am saying this in a good spirit—that I would talk to the clergymen when it come to welfare, which constitutes approximately 80% of this portfolio; he could talk to the doctors. However, I want to go further and be spiteful to that hon member, too.

No, that is most uncalled for!

The hon member was spiteful to me by saying that I had no medical training. I want to tell him that the clergymen in Pietersburg who have completed their theological training have told me that they have buried many of the hon member for Pietersburg’s failures. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to the hon member for Standerton. I take pleasure in doing so because that particular result in Standerton was achieved precisely 40 years ago today.

He is not a clergyman!

No, he is not a clergyman, but he is not a doctor either. However, I know what he is. He spoke about the blind and expressed sentiments about them which I greatly appreciated. I think this is the one category which receives a great deal of attention in the department and for which a great deal of provision is made. If one looks at the annual report one sees that provision is made for pensions for the blind. It is stated that at present 758 blind persons are receiving pensions, and an amount of R1,6 million has been made available for pensions for the blind. There are also hostels for the blind, and an amount of R595 000 has been made available for subsidies to six hostels and one rehabilitation centre for the blind.

The hon member asked whether provision could not be made for more employment opportunities for the blind. I want to tell him that over the years it has always been the policy of the Public Service that the blind should not be debarred from suitable posts in the Public Service. In other words the blind are not being discriminated against. I want to express the hope that this is not being done in the private sector either, but that these people, with their skills, are being appointed to the posts for which they have been trained. The hon member rightly said that they should not only be used as telephonists, but should also be appointed to other posts.

The hon member for Pinetown, who is unfortunately not here … I beg your pardon, here he is … put certain questions to me. He referred to the speech I made yesterday, in which I referred to social pensions and pensioners. He said he thought this was what the Treasury could afford. Of course the Treasury has a certain capability, and if it cannot meet all its obligations, it cannot afford more than that. I stated expressly that I was aware of the circumstances of pensioners and of the aged, and that we understood their circumstances. We will also do everything in our power to accommodate them. However, we shall have to see what the Treasury can afford. We shall have to wait and see what the new financial year has in store for us. The hon member for Pinetown also referred to people of 80 years of age and older.

†He referred to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and the statement he made in his speech. I will discuss it with the hon the Minister, but I think he referred more to other pensions than to social pensions.

*The hon member also referred to military pensions. We must differentiate and say that military pensions are awarded to persons who are wounded while performing military service. There is no means test, but the amounts awarded are determined by the nature of the profession or the training of that person. I think it stands to reason that if a doctor were to lose both arms he would possibly be awarded a higher military pension than a person who has such an accident soon after matriculating.

+The hon member asked me about war veterans’ pensions and referred to the means test. He asked that the means test must be removed or reviewed for veterans of World War I. The answer is that it has been removed two years ago at the request of the former member for Durban Point.

*The hon member referred to the new welfare policy and said we should privatise. I want to tell the hon member that my policy and that of the department is that the welfare policy in South Africa depends on the partnership between the State, the private welfare organisations and the Church. We have tried to apply this over the years, and I think we have, to a very great extent, succeeded in privatising welfare services in South Africa by means of the private welfare organisations. This already exists in South Africa.

The hon member for Pinetown also asked whether we would give detailed statistics on school health services in next year’s annual report of the department, in the same way the different departments of education do. The reply to this is that we will definitely do so. I have the assurance of the relevant section that this will be done in detail. We can therefore give the hon member a definite reply to this.

The hon member for Pinetown also referred to what the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation had said about the vacant posts. I shall discuss this with the hon the Minister at a later date when we are dealing with posts in health services. I fully understand this. It is true that there are certain posts which have been vacant for many years now and serve no purpose. However, there are also posts we would very much like to fill.

†I can assure the hon member that we will look at that.

*I think I have replied to all hon members’ questions. We have reached the end of this debate. It was a pleasant debate, with its excitement, its sporadic celebrations and its points of order. I want to ask hon members on both sides of the House to make it possible for us to co-operate in order to promote the health of our people, to promote the welfare of our people and to give South Africa people of quality. Those of us entrusted with this task will carry it out in respect of the Whites. I know that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates and the provinces will also do this in respect of the other population groups. There is adequate co-ordination in South Africa.

We do not work in watertight compartments. We are building a country and we are building the people of this country to work for the country and to create a future for it. I have committed myself to South Africa and the people of South Africa so that we can give them good health and good welfare services, irrespective of whether they are Whites, Coloureds or Blacks. Everyone must share those services. It was a pleasure to be able to handle this Vote.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, this Bill was published in the Gazette for the first time on 19 December 1986. Approximately 150 memorandums and submissions followed upon its publication. Evidence was heard from the industrial court itself, the National Manpower Commission, the Department of Justice and other bodies, such as those to which reference is made on pages 3 and 4 of the amended memorandum on the objects of the Bill. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I should like to express my sincere gratitude towards all these persons and bodies that gave evidence before the standing committee and displayed such a broad interest in the provisions of this Bill. They displayed a sense of public responsibility in devoting so much time to giving evidence before the standing committee.

We were assisted during the recess by competent officials of the Department of Manpower who have a tremendous knowledge of this Act and who dealt with our questions and arguments with the utmost patience and understanding.

Our special thanks go to Adv Fourie, the Deputy Director-General, Mr Van der Walt, Mr Volschenk, Mr Moore and others in the department who assisted us throughout the deliberations on this Bill.

From 2 November 1987 until about April 1988 we had various sittings in order to discuss the matter. The hon member for Stilfontein and I did not cross swords during the proceedings, but in his over-eagerness to please all hon members, the proceedings really moved at a snail’s pace. This convinces us that the system of standing committees, in contrast to the open debate in a committee of the whole House, is totally inadequate. [Interjections.] We maintain that if this Bill … [Interjections.] The hon member was not even there.

I was there a few times.

The hon member did not then know what it was all about. [Interjections.]

In terms of the old system this Bill, which was published in December 1986, would have been dispatched before May 1988. What is more, in accordance with the old system it would have been argued clause for clause in an open debate in public. Now we are going to discuss this Bill in a general fashion during a period of three or four hours and we shall not have time, as is normally the case in a Committee Stage, to deal with the nitty-gritty of the various clauses. Every person walking the streets of South Africa is involved in this important measure and should have had the opportunity to hear, to see and to read precisely what is happening here.

This Bill entails tremendous consequences for the public of South Africa, and yet the entire Bill was discussed behind closed doors. That cannot be in the best interests of the community. [Interjections.]

You are rotten at the core!

The Labour Relations Act of 1956 was universally regarded as pioneering legislation.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member refer to the governing side and say that these hon members are rotten at the core? [Interjections.]

I think it is very apt!

Order! I think that is something which the hon member would not say about himself. The hon member must withdraw it.

He spoke with his brain!

Order! The first question is whether the hon member for Durban Central did in fact say it. Did he say it?

Mr Chairman, I said “you …" …that is to say, the NP … “are becoming rotten at the core”. I did not address it to any specific hon member.

Order! The hon member therefore directed it at everyone, and he may withdraw it with regard to everyone.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

The old Act was universally regarded as pioneering legislation in regard to labour relations, and particularly in regard to the resolving of disputes and the creation of industrial peace. Inasmuch as the Bill at present before the House attempts to ensure that the delicate balance in relations between employer and employee will not be upset, it could be welcomed in a homogeneous society. However, when we are dealing with a multi-ethnic society such as that which exists in the RSA, comprising both First and Third World components, sophisticated legislation of this nature misses the mark. This has been proved by the deterioration in labour relations since 1981, despite the implementation of the recommendations of the Wiehahn Report in new legislation. There has been an increase in strikes. In 1979, at the time when the Wiehahn Report was released, there were 101 strikes, whilst there were 1 148 strikes in 1987.

There has been an increase in man-hours lost. In 1985, 641 269 man-hours were lost, whilst 1,16 million man-hours were lost in 1986. In 1987 there were 5,626 million lost man-hours.

According to the amended memorandum on the objects of the Bill, the fact that the number of applications for the establishment of conciliation boards rose from 23 in 1980 to 2 312 in 1987, is an indication of the increasing extent to which the conciliation machinery of the Act is being utilised to settle disputes, but I say it is also an indication of the fact that there is a screw loose in so far as labour relations in South Africa are concerned.

Furthermore there is also the increasing pressure on the industrial court. The number of cases referred to this court increased from four in 1979 to 3 533 in 1987. That reinforces my argument. One must remember that these disturbing phenomena are manifesting themselves in a depressed economic climate, something which is totally foreign to other comparable countries and which runs contrary to trends in the rest of the world. One does not find strikes and loss of man-hours occurring to the same extent in other Western countries in a depressed economic climate. Here they have increased in depressed economic conditions, which is an indication of deteriorating labour relations. Furthermore, it is the clear aim of the Black trade union leaders to achieve certain political objectives against this background of growing tensions, and it is precisely on this important point that the CP wishes to do battle with the governing party.

Hear, hear!

Not only are we dealing with political objectives, but we also find flagrant intimidation and victimisation of trade union members who ask nothing more than to do a good day’s work and to receive a fair wage.

But then you should support the Bill!

The Bill does not deal with this vexing problem! [Interjections.] However, that hon member will probably be given a chance to speak.

It was then referred to the Department of Justice. In reply to the discussion of his Vote, the hon the Minister said that this matter, which was raised by my hon friend from Randfontein, had been referred to the Department of Justice so that they could come forward with legislation regarding victimisation and intimidation. In our view, priority attention should have been given to this.

Consequently, if we take cognizance of the reaction of certain trade unions to the Bill, it does not predict a rosy future for labour relations either. I quote from The Star of 29 February 1988:

It is clear that trade union leaders are upset about the Bill before us at the moment.

Having said that, I want to place on record that there are two aspects of the Bill with which the CP agrees, for example clause 2, which provides that the legislation will not be applicable to agriculture or to domestic servants.

However, we do have a very great fear, and there is great anguish, because the chairman of this standing committee, together with the chairmen of the standing select committees of the other Houses, was instructed by the NP and the other parties in that standing committee to write a letter to the hon the Minister, requesting that very serious attention be paid to the circumstances surrounding agricultural labour. We have a problem, and we fear that these hon Ministers are going to sell out the farmers as well, just as they are selling out the Whites. [Interjections.]

That is not true!

During the discussion of his Vote, the hon the Minister did not reply to my argument in respect of the agriculturalists. [Interjections.] We would be pleased if he could tell us what he envisages doing with regard to this very sensitive aspect of the economy.

A second aspect I want to mention also appears in clause 2. As the amended section is now to be worded, the legislation is only applicable, in so far as educational institutions are concerned, to those who provide teaching, educational or training services. The legislation will therefore not be applicable to non-teaching staff, for example research, administrative and technical staff and service workers. We feel that it may not be the intention of the legislation to make the legislation applicable only to a specific group of people at educational institutions.

A further aspect in regard to which we agree with the Bill, is the establishment of a labour appeal court in relation to judgments of the industrial court. We also welcome the provisions contained in clause 5 (1) (d), in terms of which the industrial court will be given the power to make an order which it deems reasonable under the circumstances, for example by either lifting the order or allowing the judgment to be put into effect, depending on the circumstances of the specific case.

We also welcome the fact that attorneys are to be permitted to appear before this labour appeal court. It was made very clear in the standing committee that attorneys had made, and were still making, some particularly competent and effective contributions in this regard and that they were exceptionally well-equipped to appear before this labour appeal court.

It says nothing about advocates.

I do not know whether those hon members who are advocates are very happy about it, but the situation is that the attorneys are performing exceptionally well, particularly before this industrial court.

In so far as the labour appeal court is concerned, however, we feel that provision ought to have been made for this in a separate Act. In this regard, I also want to pay tribute to Adv Rudman, who was of considerable value to us in the standing committee and who furnished us with advice. The fact that the evidence given before the standing committee was overwhelmingly in favour of the reconsideration of the provisions of the Act, and that we were requested loudly and clearly to ensure that various bodies used their combined efforts to make this Bill really meaningful, forms one of the considerations which led the CP to decide to oppose the Bill. We feel that there were certain matters which could have been dispatched urgently, but that an unhurried look should rather have been taken at the framing of a totally new, comprehensive Act.

A further step which we welcome is the fact that the industrial court is now to receive the recognition and status of a court of law. The fact that this court is still a specialist court, which must strive towards fairness and justice, has never been disputed.

During the discussion of his Vote, the hon the Minister quoted something which I had said on a previous occasion, namely that whenever a dispute ends up in the industrial court, it is vital that this court should not always take only the juristic considerations into account, but that it should also use fairness as a norm. It is particularly in the labour field that the “law of equity” is of cardinal importance. I am in the dark as to why the hon the Minister should have quoted these thoughts of mine in the discussion of his Vote. He apparently did so in order to indicate that I had changed my standpoint in this regard. I just want to tell that hon Minister that this has always been our standpoint. We have always been of the opinion that the industrial court ought to function according to the principles of equity, but also according to legal principles. I do not know what the hon the Minister tried to indicate when he made this allegation against me. I think it was once again just another lot of hot air.

There are certain other aspects with which our party agrees, but which my hon friends will deal with. My time has practically expired. However, I should just like to say the following: We do not agree with certain things. One thing we do not agree with is the fact that unfair labour practices are defined. However, if it were intended to serve as a norm and effected a possible shift of the onus, as the evidence by jurists overwhelmingly indicated, it would be more acceptable. As the definitions stand at present, jurists may have a field day, as they could drive a team of horses through those definitions of unfair legal practices. One of the jurists said: “You are creating more difficulties than you can solve”.

Our chief objection to this Bill, however, is that it represents a continuation of the principle of acceptance of Black trade union rights. The hon the Minister is under the impression that the CP will not recognise Black trade unions. I do not think he has ever read our programme of principles, because we do not say that! We say that we will prohibit them. The hon the Minister is under the impression that common law may always be the decisive factor, even if one has statutory law. He should go and consult his legal advisers about this, because he does not know much about the law. He does not even know much about labour relations. He should go and get a little advice about statutory law. However, he must just not say again that I am sickly. My nickname at university was not “Siek Piet”. I want to tell the hon the Minister … [Interjections.] Yes, shame! I want to tell him that one of the reasons for statutory law is precisely the amendment of the common law.

Who is arguing about that?

The hon the Minister is arguing about it. He has made the same statement two years in a row. We shall deal with Black employees on an interstate basis, and in fact by way of liaison committees and work committees.

Hon members would do well to refer to the history of the best Minister in control of labour matters that South Africa has had in my day. It was Minister Marais Viljoen. They should just go and look at what he achieved by way of liaison committees and work committees, and to what extent there was industrial peace and quiet during the time Minister Marais Viljoen was involved in labour matters.

Go and look at the circumstances in Belgium and Germany. No method has as yet been found there to curb intimidation and victimisation. For these reasons, because we are opposed in principle to the entire concept of the recognition and development of trade unions, we say that those Black trade unions are a threat to political peace, tranquillity and order, and that is why we shall oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan is correct when he says that we did not cross swords in the standing committee. It is a pity, therefore, that he has now begun to debate, in this vein, a Bill which was and may still be extremely sensitive.

I did not really gain the impression that he had a great deal of criticism of this Bill. Moreover, because that was so, he had to start his speech on a personal note. He said, on a personal note, that he took it amiss of me as chairman for allowing the matter to drag on.

On the one hand he accuses me of having prolonged the work of this committee, but on the other he says that he thinks that we should discuss the labour appeal court quietly in a separate Bill. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that he wants to discuss it at length or does he mean what he suggested I should have done, namely simply to have pushed the thing through, without giving all parties the opportunity to have their say?

If he says that I should have reduced the number of witnesses, and one considers the number of people who came to submit evidence before the committee, is it his opinion that I should not have given those people the opportunity to submit evidence to us? Is that what I should have done? Let me go further. Should I have instructed the Department of Manpower not to give us further information? Is that what I should have done? Did the hon member want us simply to rush this thing through, without considering all the implications?

However, this is, after all, another opportunity for him to say that the Government’s tricameral system is not working. I just want to point out to him how extremely well the system worked in this regard. This Bill before us at present—this amended legislation—is not the same as the one we started with. In some respects it has changed completely. Why? It has changed specifically because we were able to hold discussions with one another in regard to this law.

If he says the clauses were not discussed, that is nonsense. Every clause in this Bill has been discussed in depth. Surely it is unnecessary for everyone to discuss the clauses. After all, he sits there together with his other members. Every clause has been discussed. Everyone had the opportunity. This is an extremely important measure we are dealing with here. This is the measure that he wants to rush through Parliament and through the standing committee.

When it suits him, he delays legislation on the standing committee. When he appears in public he says that the chairman and the NP delayed the legislation. He must tell us what he wants. I do not know what he wants. I only know what he does not want. I do not know what he does want. The committee system, as we have it, gives us far better legislation than I could otherwise personally have hoped to pass, because the legislation is discussed in depth.

That hon member wants to suggest that they would have no labour relations problems when the CP come to power—no industrial problems at all! Oh really, Sir, that is so ridiculous that I do not even wish to reply to it. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member states that the strikes are on the increase; that strikes have increased so tremendously. However, if we compare the number of man-hours we have lost per head of our working population as a result of strikes, with the figure in other countries, our country compares extremely favourably. Surely he is simply making a fuss about nothing again. It seems to me that when someone makes a fuss about nothing, he really makes a big fuss.

Then he stands in Stilfontein!

I think that is what has happened here once again. Never mind, the hon member for Carletonville will get his opportunity to speak. He need only wait a little longer. He should just not try to be over-hasty. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan mentioned several matters here, matters which he and his party supposedly wanted to raise in the standing committee. Why did the hon members not raise them in the standing committee? He has persistently been stating here everything that they wanted to do. However, I did not hear those things from them in the standing committee.

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

No, Sir, unfortunately I do not have time to answer questions now. The hon member had a lot of time on the standing committee. I gave him so much time to ask questions in the standing committee that he is complaining that I wasted time! However, now that I have only 20 minutes at my disposal he wants to put questions to me.

Then you must just not tell untruths.

Mr Chairman, I now wish to ask the hon member for Brakpan which trade union leaders are upset. He should just go and establish which trade union leaders are really upset about this labour legislation. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan states that the CP would not permit any trade unions for Blacks. Now, I do just want to ask him whether it is only pure Black trade unions that they will not permit. There are still other trade unions to which he must also refer. What about trade unions for Coloured people? Would the CP permit them? He must also tell me what he is going to do about the present trade unions which have both White and Black members. What is the CP going to do about those trade unions? Ban them? Are they going to permit them or are they now going to tell those trade unions that they must exclude Blacks as members so that they can carry on with only White membership. They must please tell us a little more about what they are going to do in this regard. We would appreciate it.

Arrie will tell us!

Now the hon member is raising strong objections and saying that the chairman of the other Houses and I wrote a letter to the hon the Minister in which we referred to agricultural labourers. Of course we did. The hon member for Brakpan does not, however, even know what was stated in the letter. He does not know what was stated in the letter, but he comes here and makes a fuss about it.

Nevertheless he even lacked the decency to approach me and ask me what I had written in that letter to the hon the Minister. If he had been interested in knowing what was in the letter, I would have shown it to him.

Is that not your duty as chairman?

The hon member did not open his mouth to raise any objection at all to what the possible contents of the letter might be. [Interjections.]

He is a real old hen!

Yes, he is a real old hen, and now he has come here and laid a few eggs as well. [Interjections.] He might just as well ask the hon the Minister how we worded that letter.

He goes on to argue that the attorneys could drive a team of horses through the definitions we have formulated. Surely this is the most ridiculous argument possible and the hon member knows it. When one has no definition, one leaves the matter wide open for anyone who wants to argue about it in a court of law. After all, then he has no limits within which to argue. If by means of these definitions I could prevent only 10% of those lengthy court cases from coming to court, I would have achieved outstanding success.

I should like to thank my party’s members on the standing committee and all the other members, including the hon members of the CP, for what they also did on that committee. They facilitated our task by being kind enough not to take much part in the proceedings. [Interjections.] Then, too, I want to thank the departmental officials. It was really a special privilege to co-operate with them. They performed their task very well.

South Africa’s labour legislation and the way it handles disputes are regarded by many people abroad—this is very interesting—as among the best in the world. The hon members of the CP cannot argue with that. People from abroad come here to study our labour legislation. I can assure hon members that some of the visitors are jealous. Some of them wish and hope that they could obtain the same kind of legislation in their own countries. By means of this piece of legislation we have once again achieved something absolutely unique. I think that this is another major milestone in our history of successful labour relations. We have a positive attitude. We have an absolutely positive attitude. We do not sit on an ox-wagon that goes at a snail’s pace. We change with the times and with the demands of the times. When I look at labour conflicts, I set myself three goals. The first requirement is that the conflict be resolved at the lowest possible level. The second requirement is that the conflict be resolved as speedily as possible. The third requirement is that the conflict be resolved as cheaply as possible for both parties.

Let us measure this piece of legislation against those objectives. In the first place conflict must be resolved at the lowest possible level. Both parties first gain the opportunity to try to resolve the dispute among themselves without any interference. Provision is also made for other mechanisms if the parties are unable to agree among themselves, mechanisms such as arbitration, conciliation and industrial boards. Everything possible is done to resolve the problem at the lowest possible level.

Hon members will note that up to those levels the State has not yet interfered. Moreover the State does not intend doing so now. Conciliation and industrial councils make provision for mutual agreements between employers and employees. Only when all those channels have been exhausted does the first State-created mechanism come into operation, namely the industrial courts.

My second requirement is that conflict be resolved as rapidly as possible. Once again this piece of legislation is right on target as far as this requirement is concerned. Certain actions in terms of the conciliation mechanism have to take place within a certain period. Therefore the dispute is not permitted to take years, as is the case in many other countries. The time taken is limited so that the dispute can be resolved as soon as possible.

As I have said, disputes must also be resolved as cheaply as possible, and this is very important. I am perhaps making myself unpopular among the lawyers today, but one of our problems of the past was that cases involved so many senior advocates and attorneys that they entailed enormous expense for parties. This piece of legislation also succeeds in cutting costs. We have made certain very important breakthroughs. People can now appear personally before the courts. Attorneys can now appear before judges. It is no longer necessary for senior advocates to appear in court.

The hon the Minister is now also acquiring the power to refer a case personally to the Supreme Court or Appeal Court if there are any contradictory findings or if anything is left unclear. In this way further expenses need not be incurred by the parties. The State can then have the matter considered, and this may subsequently serve as an indication to parties.

This piece of legislation has become a very emotional issue. I have even received calls from overseas. One must ask oneself why this has happened. I can tell hon members why this has happened. There are certain trade unions in this country that would do everything in their power to function without any form of control. Moreover, there are certain employers who would do everything in their power to have any form of control abolished. It is, of course, true that if one could carry on as one liked without any control, and subsequently control measures were imposed, one would rebel.

Cosatu, as an umbrella body, has levelled the accusation that this piece of legislation constitutes “union-bashing”. They see it as a big stick that we are going to use to beat them with. Hon members may also hear this today from the Official Opposition and the other opposition groups in this House. However, I wish to state very clearly—I want to have this widely publicised—that this legislation applies equally to the employer and the employee. Management and trade unions are treated equally. One need only look at unfair labour practices. Consider whether we are only prescriptive as far as trade are concerned. No, the answer is that we are prescriptive as far as both employers and employees are concerned.

What is defined in this piece of legislation as unfair practices is based on findings of the industrial court, which are accepted by everyone in the field. If they accepted it there, what is the difficulty in accepting it here? After all, we are not putting forward alien concepts. These are principles given to us by the courts which have already been accepted.

Why do we not consider the positive aspects of this legislation? They are legion. Consider how both the trade unions and the employers are protected in terms of the proposed amendments. We are here striking an absolute balance in the relationship between employer and employee. Neither of the two can treat the other unfairly without suffering the consequences.

However, we also have an overall responsibility to guard the interests of our country—the interests of all of us, including those of hon members of the opposition. Unfortunately, over the past number of years there have been trade unions as well as employers that have disrupted relations, and we are making ample provision for that in this legislation.

Once again there has been a great deal of criticism of the decision to make sympathy strikes unlawful. Why may other Western countries do this to protect their economies, but not we? Why may other Western countries prohibit sympathy strikes but we have to permit them? Surely this is another instance of the double standards applied by the world.

I shall tell the hon members why the world does not want to permit this. It is because they want to see our country destroyed. That is the reason. They want chaos here. They do not want their own countries to be destroyed, but we must sit back quietly and simply accept things. Just as they would not permit it in their countries, I say without fear of contradiction: This NP Government will not permit it either.

Employers and trade unions that act responsibly have nothing to fear from this legislation—not a thing. No organisation acting responsibly need have anything to fear. This legislation does not abolish any rights when responsible action is taken; nor does the legislation make any strikes illegal, as Cosatu seeks to contend in its pamphlets. Surely that is absolute rubbish. They can still, as before, follow precisely the same course in calling a lawful strike. After all, we have not made that illegal. Anarchy, murder, assault and economic chaos are, however, things that the Government cannot accept.

I wish to give a word of advice to both the trade unions and the employers. If one begins examining the definitions to establish whether actions are going to be unfair or not, be warned; one will quite probably find that they are, in fact, unfair. Once one begins to examine the definitions to establish whether something is unfair, one must know that the matter is already troubling one’s conscience and that the actions very probably are unfair.

In the International Labour Review, vol 120 of 1981, the following appears:

All we ask is that this should not be held against us. If it is good for other countries in the world, why do they begrudge the same to us? Why is pressure being exerted on us by overseas companies not to proceed with any form of legislation of this nature? After all, in our country the following words also apply, and I add my own words to the quotation:

If that is good enough for the world, it is undoubtedly good enough for my country, South Africa, as well.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend entering into the debate between the Official Opposition and the Government on the way in which this particular standing committee operated. I merely want to say that it was a hardworking standing committee. The hon member for Stilfontein worked particularly hard on this standing committee. I think if one were to count the actual speaking time that was used in this committee one would find that the hon member for Stilfontein used at least half of it. [Interjections.] I do not want to question his bona fides.

What about yourself?

I came a close second. [Interjections.]

The one interesting aspect about this standing committee was on the one hand the extent to which such a standing committee is able to call in evidence and hear points of view. We certainly heard points of view that brought about substantial changes in the legislation. The other interesting aspect as far as I was concerned was the extent to which in spite of evidence and despite objections to some of the more important aspects of the legislation, there was, because of Government domination on that committee, no budging on very important aspects which should have been dealt with.

When the Bill was first published it provoked a storm of protest from all quarters affected by labour legislation—and I believe quite rightly so. The submissions and evidence submitted to the standing committee by these organisations, and not least by the Industrial Court itself, have led to substantial improvements which we obviously welcome.

The main thrust of this legislation does, however, remain bad and the dangers created by this Bill as well as the anomalies in ill-considered provisions far outweigh the benefits which will flow from amending the existing legislation. In short, the Bill will disrupt the progressive development of industrial relations since Wiehahn, undermine collective bargaining and therefore increase rather than regulate industrial unrest.

I will tell the House why I say so. Increased industrial unrest is the last thing we need, not only in the field of labour but more importantly in the fractious political climate where labour power needs no excuse to fill the vacuum created by our White-only democracy.

I think this is very important. I am not trying to bring politics into it. In fact, I would like as much as possible to see legislation pass through this Parliament which effectively helps labour relations. One cannot, however, ignore the political implications. I think the hon member for Stilfontein in his closing remarks recognised that. He emphasised that the NP would see to it that politics would be curtailed by this particular legislation. One of my fears is that underlying this legislation there is an element of trying to clamp down on unions for fear of political activity.

My only warning to the Government is the following: Recognise that as long as democracy is curtailed in this country one must not expect that disenfranchised people will not use what powers they have at their disposal, including unfortunately labour power and the potential for disruption in the field of labour. That must not be underestimated. [Interjections.]

The PFP will certainly oppose this Bill. We have tabled amendments which, if accepted by the standing committee could swing the balance in favour of the legislation. In its present form, however, the Bill cannot be supported by anyone who seeks to promote industrial order and political stability.

Good industrial relations or, to put it simply, harmony between employer and employee is best achieved and maintained by negotiations and agreement between the parties themselves with minimal outside interference, minimal legislative control and prescription. A fundamentally sound industrial order has developed and prevailed in South Africa. Here I want to disagree with the hon member for Brakpan. As far as I am concerned, the fact of increasing strike action is not indicative of a system falling down but of a system working. It is precisely because of strikes or the threat of strikes that a collective bargaining system actually functions. If one looks at it purely as increasing strikes, however, one can get a distorted picture. One must also look at the vastly increased number of disputes which went to conciliation boards and the industrial councils and which were deliberated on by the industrial court. Not only the strike action but the whole process of the resolution of disputes has increased substantially since the recognition of Black unions in this country.

In spite of what the CP tries to draw from this I believe that since Black unions were recognised in this country we have had a substantial increase in the collective bargaining process and in industrial harmony in this country—certainly not industrial unrest.

The wildcat strikes which took place before that were of a far more disruptive nature than the sort of industrial action we have had since the recognition of Black unions.

The law and functions related to industrial relations should, I submit, be limited to maintaining industrial order by preventing industrial unrest, by limiting and regulating strikes and by promoting fair employment practices. Industrial order is best maintained by allowing an effective process of collective bargaining and, where this process fails to produce agreement, by providing alternative methods to resolve labour disputes through mediation, arbitration and the remedies of the industrial court.

Collective bargaining and dispute resolution through agreed settlement function best where there is a balance of bargaining power. Here I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Stilfontein that a balance of bargaining power must be maintained. However, that balance is unfortunately, to my mind, created by the Government largely from an employer’s viewpoint and not a union viewpoint. Individual employees could in most situations not exercise the necessary muscle neither could small employers. The role of trade unions and employer organisations, and the weapons they use to back demands and impose restraints, must therefore receive full recognition.

Labour relations legislation should therefore recognise and legitimise the process of collective bargaining, including the right to strike. Experience has taught us that in order to control the forces inherent in employment relationships it is necessary to introduce an order into the relationship so that such forces may be channelled constructively rather than destructively.

Experience has also taught us that once these forces are directed along formal channels—not to be confused with official interference—they result in better communication which in turn can avoid conflict situations arising. When conflict situations do arise and are formalised, they often dissipate in the process due to irrelevant or emotional issues being discarded and the cooling-off period which is provided. This process is what we refer to as institutionalising conflict.

The statutory processes—I stress this—are essentially an extension of the process of negotiation and mediation between the parties. They can only function effectively if the industrial council, the conciliation board and the industrial court are effective, speedy and impartial. If the parties believe that these forums are unfair or that they cannot resolve disputes speedily, they will resort to industrial action. In essence, therefore, any legislation which ignores the principle that the statutory bodies which the parties will resort to and the laws applicable to those bodies are merely an extension of the process between the parties to resolve a dispute between themselves, is going to fall foul of what the parties in fact require. The parties will not go through those processes if they do not fall within that category.

Despite the shortcomings in the present structures and procedures the processes of collective bargaining and conflict resolution through the structures made available under the Act have, I believe, developed remarkably well and have been largely acceptable to employers and trade unions alike. Hon members may recall that when this Bill was originally published the sort of criticism levelled in the Press was why the existing legislation should be tampered with. In fact, most organisations that had anything to do with industrial law—although they realised there were imperfections and although they realised there was room for improvement—regarded the existing Act as far preferable to the Bill which we are now dealing with. The Bill before us introduces limitations and prescriptive law which we believe will disrupt the progressive development of industrial relations.

I want to deal now with some of the more important concepts and clauses in the Bill which cause us concern. The most crucial aspect of this legislation is the attempt to define “unfair labour practice”. The definition in the existing Act is by no means perfect, nevertheless the definition did allow the industrial court and the tribunals which had to deal with the question of unfair labour practice a fairly unfettered discretion to decide what was and what was not an unfair labour practice in any given set of circumstances. That is obviously desirable. A definition which attempts to prescribe in watertight fashion each and every act or omission which constitutes an “unfair labour practice” is not only impossible but will inevitably lead to inequitable and unjust results.

Why cannot one codify it?

I will tell that hon member why one cannot codify it. If he listens to me, he will understand exactly why one cannot do it. In the same way that our courts have never attempted a prescriptive definition of “reasonable conduct”, “unfair conduct” defies precise definition.

The whole French law is codified!

The whole French law may be codified, but the French law has not codified “unreasonable conduct”.

[Inaudible.]

With the greatest respect to that hon member, if he thinks that one can codify a term such as “reasonable” or “unreasonable” to any specific set of circumstances which may apply, he is talking through the top of his head. Likewise, if he thinks that one can codify “unfair conduct”—which is not far removed from “unreasonable conduct”—to every set of circumstances which may apply in the labour field, he is talking through the top of his head.

That is something to talk through!

You know nothing about definition. [Interjections.]

With the greatest respect, the Bill as originally published attempted to do just this. I am pleased to say that the amended legislation has introduced a preamble to the definition which restores a measure of the court’s discretion, but the definition remains prescriptive and all the most important categories of labour practice or conduct remain precisely defined in restrictive straitjackets.

Let us have a look at the Bill. There are some anomalies which I think may illustrate to the hon members who criticise my point of view that this definition is unfortunate. The termination of employment, the most common form of unfair labour practice, has been so restrictively defined that the court has virtually no discretion to decide whether particular circumstances affect the fairness of a dismissal.

The Government’s reason for taking over the function of the court, ie the codification and restricted interpretation of the term “unfair labour practice” is supposed to create certainty. That was the argument given to us all along the line before the standing committee. It was said that people needed to know what an “unfair labour practice” was and therefore it was going to be defined absolutely so that anybody could come and say that he now knew what an unfair labour practice was.

[Inaudible.]

But one cannot do that in law! One cannot codify, for the general public, what is reasonable and unreasonable conduct on a motorway! One simply cannot do that. One has to go according to the particular circumstances.

One can furnish guidelines!

One can furnish a guideline by all means! Nobody has any objection to a guideline. However, we are talking about a codified definition.

That is a guideline!

Order! The hon member for Klip River is participating too often in this debate. The hon member for Groote Schuur may proceed.

It is not only because the word “unfair” cannot be precisely defined, but because, in attempting to do so, the legislator has created loopholes, anomalies and, more important, inequitable confines.

Paragraph (a) of the definition deals with dismissal by reason of disciplinary action. In line 52 we have the situation where it is intended to say that the dismissal by reason of any disciplinary action against one or more employees without a valid and fair reason and not in compliance with a fair procedure is an unfair labour practice; in other words, both things must be present. However, they have inserted the word “and” instead of the word “or”, because as soon as one uses the negative, one has to substitute the word “or” for the word “and” if one wants the two to be cumulative.

I am suggesting that unless that amendment is brought about one would have a situation where a dismissal for disciplinary action could be regarded as fair if only one of those two aspects were present. It is quite clear that the legislator intended that there had to be both a valid and fair reason and that it had to be in compliance with fair procedure. The way it is worded has exactly the opposite effect and this is the kind of loophole that I am referring to.

However, worse than that, we find that clause 1 (h) (b) deals with the termination of the employment of an employee on grounds other than disciplinary action; in other words, termination of employment for any reason other than misconduct or disciplinary action which means every single other category of termination of employment. Because of the Government’s inability to appreciate the meaning of words—I argued this point before the standing committee with relation to where to put the words “and” and “or”—we in effect have a situation where, if this Bill goes through as it is, once an employee has served a probationary period the employer will never be able to dismiss him for incompetence or for any reason other than retrenchment or disciplinary action. In other words, if a man becomes totally incapable of doing his job but he does not misconduct himself and the employer does not need to retrench employees, as the legislation stands, once he has served his probationary period one will never be able to dismiss that employee. This is simply because the subparagraphs to paragraph (b) have the word “and” at the end of each of them, except for the last one which has the word “or” at the end of it. They should in fact be exactly the other way round. They are not used correctly because of a misunderstanding on the part of the Government of the use of the words “and” and “or”.

It has a further effect. Because the word “or” prefixes a subparagraph dealing with retrenchment, the situation now exists that if this law is passed as it is, an employer will be entitled to dismiss an employee for reasons of retrenchment without giving him notice and without any prior consultation. I am sure that that was not the intention of the Government. I am sure the Government intended subparagraph (ii) with regard to prior notice and subparagraph (iii) with regard to prior consultation to apply in the case of retrenchment, but because of the incorrect use of the prefixes we have the situation where exactly the reverse applies. An employer will be able to dismiss an employee without prior notice or consultation in the case of retrenchment.

I believe the kind of thing that I am referring to is exactly what we were being warned against by the many legal people and union people who dealt with labour law on a regular basis. They said that if one tried to codify the concept of unfair labour practice one would benefit only one body of people, namely the legal profession. They said that there would be so many holes in this legislation that the only people who would stand to gain by it would be the people who were called upon to interpret and to find loopholes in this legislation. That is exactly what has happened.

I believe there are further anomalies. If one looks at clause 1 (h) (a) (iv) it would appear that where one is dealing with disciplinary dismissals one can nevertheless dismiss a person without any reason other than compliance with the terms of his employment contract. One might think that it is fair enough if an employment contract states that 48 hours’ notice can be given either way. However, that is not the way our labour law has developed.

Our labour laws state that despite a contract like that, one has to have a fair reason for giving the 48 hours’ notice. One can certainly dismiss him if he misconducts himself, if he is incompetent or if one no longer needs him or if one needs to retrench, but one cannot merely rely on a time clause to dismiss a worker. In terms of this clause, which for some or other reason is fitted in under the “disciplinary action” clause, one can now dismiss a man, even if one does not want to take disciplinary action against him, merely by complying with the terms of his agreement of employment.

I also want to refer to other aspects of the definition of an unfair labour practice. We have clauses dealing with the question of product boycotts, we have clauses dealing with the sympathy strike, and we have clauses dealing with the intermittent or grasshopper strikes. A salient aspect of the fact that these matters are now included in the definition of “unfair labour practice” is that they have been taken out of the area of criminal law. They are not going to be visited with criminal sanction. Nevertheless, and this is the point that the hon member for Stilfontein, who seems to have disappeared …

That is a silly remark!

He is looking for air!

But he is not here! It is not a silly remark; it is the truth!

He is the chairman of the standing committee. [Interjections.]

The point he seemed to miss entirely in the standing committee was that it is not a question of whether one is in favour or not in favour of sympathy strikes, or whether one is in favour or not in favour of intermittent strikes; it is a question of leaving that sort of decision to the industrial court to decide under what circumstances a sympathy strike, an intermittent strike or a product boycott is justifiable.

One must remember that one is dealing here, as the hon member for Stilfontein correctly pointed out, with trying to create a situation of a balance of power between labour on the one hand and capital on the other hand. If one, through legislation, makes it unfair labour practice for unions to use recognised mechanisms in order to try to persuade their employers to come to the bargaining table, the unions are not going to say they will not do it because it is an unfair labour practice; they will just do it illegally. We have already experienced—and we had a lot of evidence to this effect before the standing committee—that criminal sanction just does not mean a thing in labour law. When 3 000 men go out on a wildcat strike because they cannot effectively use the legal processes, one cannot prosecute 3 000 men. One has to work with them the next day or the next month, and one has to provide a legislative structure, processes and law, all of which have to be seen as effective mechanisms and an effective and fair law through which both employer and employee can perfect the process of bargaining and achieve a result, or a compromise on the result which they want and which they will consider to be fair.

Once one starts to be prescriptive …

The hon member for Stilfontein is back!

I am glad to see that the hon member for Stilfontein has come back. [Interjections.] Once one tries to be prescriptive about the type of strike that people are allowed or not allowed to indulge in, without reference to the circumstances in which that strike takes place and without reference to the action or the surrounding factors, one is taking away from the court a discretion which is absolutely essential if the court is to decide in a fair manner whether in a particular set of circumstances the balance between employer and employee has been unfairly disturbed.

That is what the hon member for Stilfontein wants to achieve—a balance between employer and employee—but by this sort of legislation we achieve exactly the opposite effect.

There are a few other aspects I would like to deal with. One that concerns me is the proposed amendment of section 17 (21A) of the Act by clause 5 (m), which relates to the lodging of appeals. You will recall, Sir, that under the existing legislation, review procedure of the industrial court finding is the appropriate method of having a decision reversed. As we know, under review procedure the decision of the court is not suspended pending the outcome of the review. On appeal exactly the reverse takes place, that is the decision is suspended until the appeal court decides which way it is going to go. If an industrial court makes a ruling, therefore, and the matter is taken on appeal, the finding of the industrial court is then suspended.

Yes, but they can still make an interim ruling.

I appreciate that, but not in all cases. That is exactly why I suggest, with reference to section 17 (21A)—I have tabled an amendment to deal with this aspect—that the standing committee should look at it again so that the industrial court can make an interim order in relation to section 17 (21 A). It is not the same as the other section where they can make an interim order. [Interjections.]

There are also a few other aspects that bother us. One concerns the question of indemnity. In terms of the existing legislation, an indemnity is provided by section 79 against civil proceedings in connection with any action relating to a strike. This indemnity is retained in the amended legislation—there is a slight change of wording, but it is not of any great import—but then a new subsection is introduced, subsection (2), which recognises the indemnity but nevertheless adds that any member, office-bearer or official of a trade union, employees’ organisation or federation who commits certain acts shall “be deemed to have been acting with due authority on behalf of the trade union”.

This means in effect that, regardless of what the trade union’s action is—whether they approve or disapprove of the member’s conduct, or in fact even if they try to stop the member from doing this particular act—it will now acquire vicarious liability for the acts of its members. We believe that this is an entirely unacceptable concept, and we have accordingly tabled an amendment in that regard to be submitted to the standing committee.

In closing, I want to add that this particular Bill really went into the melting pot before the standing committee, and we heard evidence from a very wide spectrum of people involved in labour legislation. I did not do a head-count, but my impression was consistent with that which the hon member for Brakpan seems to have gained, namely that the overriding opinion of the people who gave evidence to the standing committee was to the effect that this legislation was highly unsatisfactory.

While I can see that there have been substantial improvements—people with whom I have discussed the Bill since the changes were made agree with me on this score—certain basic and very fundamental flaws remain which, unless remedied by the standing committee, will have the effect not only of upsetting industrial relations in this country to a very large extent but also, I am quite convinced, of our having to come back to this Parliament in the very near future to undo the wrong which is presently being done.

Mr Chairman, before I reply to the speech made by the hon member for Groote Schuur, I should like to convey the sincere appreciation of the NP members of the standing committee to our chairman for the very hard work he did there and for the great patience he had to exercise on many occasions. It has been said here that the committee did its work at a snail’s pace. It may have been very wise to let it proceed at a snail’s pace. The story is told of a boy who was writing a letter to his mother. In the letter he wrote: “I know that you read very slowly, Mother, so I am writing slowly too.” For some members of other parties on the standing committee to be able to keep up with the work, it was necessary for the chairman to proceed at a snail’s pace. [Interjections.]

†I want to return to the hon member for Groote Schuur. He started off by saying that despite the weight of evidence against certain principles, they were still adopted by virtue of the predominance of Government members on that committee. Hon members can see why I say that the chairman should have gone even slower. Members of the Government had only one third of the say in that standing committee. Two other Houses were also represented.

They were rubber stamps.

They were not rubber stamps! I think that this is an insult to those members. Why should they have been rubber stamps?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper for the hon member for Groote Schuur to refer to other Houses of this Parliament as rubber stamps?

My reference was not to the other two Houses as rubber stamps. I referred to the members of the standing committee.

Order! I did not understand the hon member to be referring to the Houses either. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I still say that that is an insult to the hon members of the other two Houses who served on that committee. I think the hon member for Groote Schuur should think twice before he makes statements like that. I think it is most irresponsible to say things like that. He and his party want democracy to be extended. If democracy is extended to all race groups in South Africa, in relation to the statement he made just now, I suppose he will come back and tell us that all the other race groups, including the Coloureds and Indians, are to a certain measure rubber stamps.

He is a racist! [Interjections.]

No, Sir. This is the kind of argument and the kind of logic we get from a lawyer. Can one believe it? [Interjections.]

The hon member said that this legislation has its origin in the fear of trade unions abusing their union rights to achieve certain political aims. I want to say to him that unfortunately there are some trade unions and confederations of trade unions which have become henchmen of certain radical organisations. They do not want to use trade union rights to further the interests of their own members, but rather, if not to destroy, at least to paralyse the economy of South Africa.

They have said so in the resolutions which they have adopted at certain of their congresses. They have said so themselves on many occasions. There has been a recurrence of sympathy strikes with more frequency. They have occurred more frequently than before. We had the latest miners strikes and the strike by employees of the SATS…

Why do you not leave it for the industrial court to decide whether they are justified?

The hon member must take note of the fact that while it is the Government’s duty to protect the worker of South Africa it is certainly also the Government’s duty to prevent harmful practices aimed at destroying the economy of the country.

It seems that for that reason, inter alia, our labour legislation had to be updated. This legislation before us is the result of that. When one looks at the machinery, one notices the streamlining and the updating of the procedures. There are, inter alia, the new clauses relating to the conciliation boards, the industrial courts and the labour appeal court. This is all aimed at expediting the disputes which come before the various bodies. Then there is the labour appeal court which is completely new. I think the hon member will agree with me that it is necessary to institute a body of that nature.

I agree.

I am glad the hon member agrees. As far as I can remember he did not point to any of these positive factors in the legislation we have before us.

He argued for a long time about something he also raised in the standing committee. I would like the hon member’s attention. He argued about an “and” or “or” in a certain clause. If he looks at page 340 of the Order Paper, he will see exactly that amendment in the name of the hon the Minister of Manpower. I hope he will give it his full support without more debate when this comes before the standing committee.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear the hon member for Bryanston. He is mumbling to himself. I cannot hear him. It is better that he mumbles to himself. He is the only one that understands himself. [Interjections.]

Order!

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

No, I do not have time. [Interjections.]

Then I will continue to mumble. We already have that amendment on the Order Paper on page 314.

Order! That may be so, but the hon member for Bryanston will have the opportunity to put his case fully within a few minutes.

Are you referring to page 314?

Yes.

Is that your amendment?

Yes.

We have a similar one on the Order Paper. [Interjections.] I hope it is not a question of “great minds thinking alike” because I would hate to think my mind is as big as that hon member’s!

*Mr Chairman, the kind of legislation that we have before us at the moment can never be finalised. It can never be the final and definitive legislation. The fact of the matter is that amending legislation of this nature will always be needed again. Labour and business are both forms of human activity, and because man is a dynamic being who is constantly changing, legislation dealing with labour relations will also have to be adapted from time to time in order to meet current needs.

I do not think anyone would maintain, therefore, that the legislation we have before us is the final word on the subject of legislation relating to labour relations.

We agree with that!

As I have said, the question is whether we shall be able to meet the immediate needs. After all, there has to be a reassessment, from time to time, of the machinery used for regulating the relations between employers and employees and keeping them on a sound footing.

A further dimension has now entered our labour relations as a result of the emergence of Black trade unions in the labour force. This factor must now be taken into consideration, whether we like or not. I listened today to the hon member for Brakpan, who simply said that they were going to ban Black trade unions, for he then foresaw that all these difficulties that gave rise to labour unrest would disappear. I think that is a pipe-dream. One cannot prevent people from organising themselves. One cannot prevent that, even if they go underground.

What we must remember about Black trade unions, nevertheless, is that they have enjoyed statutory recognition since 1979. This means that relatively speaking, they are still very young groups. They have by no means gained the maturity that some of our White and mixed trade unions have developed. In spite of this, it is a gratifying to see the extent to which they are already making use of the machinery created by the legislation for settling disputes. I believe that the enormous increase in the number of cases referred to the conciliation boards and industrial courts, to which the hon member for Brakpan referred, proves that we are achieving success with the machinery created to regulate our labour relations.

The members of Black trade unions have confidence in this machinery and in these mechanisms, and that is why they are making use of it more and more. There is one problem in connection with Black trade unions, though, and that is that their members are kept very well-informed by their trade union leaders of their rights and privileges in terms of the Labour Relations Act, while most employers—usually Whites—in the small businesses have not taken the same trouble or are not as well-informed of their rights. The result is that many employers have bowed to trade union demands in the past when those demands may not have been valid or justified. This has been done as a result of ignorance about the rights of the employer himself.

The same applies to the conditions for the dismissal of employees. In this regard, too, there has been great ignorance. Now all these shortcomings are simply being blamed on the existence of Black trade unions. I say that this is wrong. The unhappiness about the compulsory payment of Black wages, the unhappiness caused by re-employment owing to the fact that employers were not familiar with the conditions in terms of which they could dismiss people, all contributed to this.

All these factors have led people to be prejudiced against Black trade unions. This draft legislation before us was given wide publicity. It was published in the Gazette for information and comment. We received evidence from a wide spectrum of representative bodies. One can only express the hope that interested parties will make sure of their rights under this new legislation in future. That would save them great inconvenience.

Many people also seem to expect that if this new legislation were passed, Black trade unions would no longer strike. That is incorrect. What this new legislation seeks to do is to limit strikes as far as possible by means of certain measures such as the payment of damages when losses have been incurred. However, one can never deprive the worker of his right to strike.

With the machinery that has been created to expedite the settlement of these disputes, obligations are being imposed on both parties. This will do a great deal to enable disputes to be settled in future without having to be referred to the industrial court or industrial appeal court.

This is very good legislation. Having been thoroughly canvassed on the standing committee, it will meet our present-day needs. I take pleasure in supporting it.

Order! Does the hon member for Carletonville want a turn to speak? If he does not, I shall call upon the hon member for Benoni.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The idea was that another hon member of the NP should speak after the hon member for Kuruman.

Order! It does not say so on my list, but I do not mind accommodating the hon member.

Sir, the hon member for Carletonville may have a turn to speak.

Mr Chairman, yesterday I congratulated the NP on its 40th year in power and said that looking at their faces, it seemed as if they had been to a funeral, because there were no signs of joyfulness.

The CP’s funeral!

A line from today’s Cape Times reads: “Hundreds of seats were vacant when President Botha spoke last night at a subdued meeting of the party’s faithful in Parow Civic Centre.” This is proof that the South African voters do not want to listen to yet another funeral oration.

The hon member for Benoni said, by way of an interjection, that the CP sat with their traps shut in the standing committee. [Interjections.] Those were the words he used. He attended two meetings that I know of, and it looked as if he was awake, but he was not.

I should also like to refer to the hon member for Stilfontein. To begin with he carried on like a bantam cock. I want to put it very clearly to him that in the next election we are going to pluck his tail feathers in Stilfontein. He will not have the HNP to help him.

The hon member for Groote Schuur said the chairman of the standing committee used up 50% of the time. He was very conservative in his estimate. I would say the hon member for Stilfontein loves the sound of his own voice so much that he simply goes on talking. He does not even give another hon member a chance to finish speaking before he interrupts him. He loves the sound of his own voice.

He also said that the CP would ban the Black trade unions and asked what we were going to do with the mixed trade unions. I now want to tell the hon member for the umpteenth time. We are going to ban Black trade unions, and we are not going to allow mixed trade unions. [Interjections.] He need not worry, therefore, about our not doing what we said we would do. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman said we were dreaming if we thought we were going to ban Black trade unions, and in so doing keep unrest under control. [Interjections.] I want to ask him to go and have a look at what happened prior to 1976, how quiet and peaceful it was in South Africa, and how many strikes there are today since Black trade unions have been recognised. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the legislation. This legislation has been introduced in an attempt to correct what the previous Minister responsible for labour relations had introduced in 1976, matters which had virtually been bulldozed through this Parliament to achieve his aims. I want to put it clearly that this legislation will not achieve what the hon member for Stilfontein envisages. When one looks at this legislation, it is clear it would even give a legal representative or a trade union representative who was not very clever more than enough room to manoeuvre. They say there is a reason why they have included a code in the legislation. The hon member for Stilfontein said that if he could keep 10 cases out of court, he would be very happy. The aim was to keep cases out of the industrial court. That will never happen, however, because in this legislation there are so many blind spots which affect that code that it cannot work.

When we look at the legislation, we find that an “unfair labour practice” in the new section 1(1), as contained in clause 1, is defined, inter alia, as follows—

That has always been the position in terms of the Labour Relations Act. Now it is simply being called an unfair labour practice. In the past the Minister has, in fact, been empowered to act in these matters.

The present Act states that no employee may incite another employee without the employer being involved. I am not going to quote the whole piece. The difference is now that the process is being reversed. Because we are afraid to implement the Act, now we take the matter to court so that the court can decide, whereas previously the department could take action.

Another provision is that an employee organisation may not participate in a strike in terms of the new section 1(m), as contained in clause 1—

What the Government is trying to do here is to introduce legislation which will restrict Black trade unions.

The Whites, who have carried the economy of this country over the years, and who have ensured that there were no unnecessary strikes, are now having certain restrictions imposed on them. [Interjections.] I want to give the House an illustration of this.

Order! The hon member for Benoni will have an opportunity to make a speech at a later stage. The hon member may continue.

I want to refer to a situation in which employees strike because one of their co-workers has been discharged. They cannot get him back his job because the industrial court has decided not to reinstate him in his previous position. Now the other employees decide to strike. Six months later the employer discharges another employee. The other employees went on strike on the previous occasion, but 12 months have not yet elapsed and according to the legislation they may not strike again, because it is the same strike that is involved.

Now the legislation refers to “virtually the same”. Who is going to decide if it is virtually the same? All one can do is go back to court again so that the court can decide if it is virtually the same or not. The legislation gives no clear definition. The legislation which previously defined an unfair practice was much clearer and everybody knew where he stood.

Oh no, Arrie!

The proposed subsection (1)(A)(v) of section 1 of the principal Act—as contained in clause 1(e) of the Bill—reads as follows:

Anybody with the slightest knowledge of labour matters will know that victimisation has never been proved anywhere in the world. Now they are trying to tell the trade unions that if one is a member of a trade union, one will not be discharged. But if one wants to find a stick to beat the dog with, it is easy. [Interjections.] One will have to resort to the industrial court again to re-employ the person to show that he was discharged because he was, in fact, a member of a trade union, although he did not claim to be one.

As far as strikes are concerned, past experience has shown, and this will be proved in future, that strikes will continue in South Africa because the existing legislation is not implemented. As long as legislation in South Africa is not implemented, the Black people will strike. In the future the Whites will again have to submit to the legislation this Government is passing to try to keep the Black trade unions in check. [Interjections.] The only solution will be, therefore, for Black trade unions with their political ideas and ideologies to have a seat in this Parliament one day, something which is even being suggested at this juncture.

A very good amendment to the Act is that of now allowing regional directors to grant approval for conciliation boards. That is something which has been advocated for many years, because experience has shown that when conciliation boards are asked for, the papers lie on the hon the Minister’s desk in Pretoria and proliferate. The request is never approved. It can take up to six months before approval is given for a conciliation board.

It is simply not true!

The hon the Minister says it is not true, but I say it is the truth, and I can quote cases to him. [Interjections.]

It is untrue that cases lie on my desk for six months. The hon member knows that is not true.

When someone makes an application for a conciliation board …

Order! The hon the Minister may not say the hon member knows that what he said is untrue. The hon the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon member that he is making an allegation …

Order! That may be, but the hon the Minister must simply withdraw his words.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the words. [Interjections.]

Another matter involves the fact that when someone applies to the Conciliation Board, the request …

Order! The hon the Minister of Manpower is not permitted to say that an hon member knows that what he said is untrue. This amounts to having said that it is a lie. The hon the Minister must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. I merely want to point out to the hon member, however, that he is making an allegation …

Order! That may, in fact, be the case, but the hon the Minister must withdraw all those words.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Regarding another amendment which restricts the trade unions, I want to say that the present Act provides that a vote to strike can be held at any time, even before one negotiates, to determine whether the members are in agreement on a matter one wants to discuss with the employer. One can then decide whether or not it is worth all the trouble of going further or not. It is now laid down, however, that a vote to strike can only be held after the conciliation board or the industrial council has submitted a report to the Director-General. From this it is clear once again that the Third World is not being restricted, but that the First World is having to bear the burden.

Another point I think could have been amended, in an endeavour to keep the Black trade unions in check, is the following. When a legal strike takes place at present, according to the Act it is an unfair labour practice and the case must be taken to court. I am of the opinion, however, that when a legal strike takes place, and the employee organisations have adopted the required legal procedures, there must be an unequivocal provision in the Act to protect the employees participating in such a legal strike. I want to say again that this issue goes back as far as 1968, when legislation was requested which would provide that an employer could not evict employees from their homes and that they would not have to forfeit their pensions or membership of medical aid schemes. This has still not been done; the matter has once more reverted to the industrial court.

Another aspect I want to raise—the hon member for Brakpan has already referred to it—concerns clause 2(2), which provides that the legislation does not apply to farm workers and domestic servants. Other workers are also excluded. I think the time has come for the Labour Relations Act to be applicable to all workers, except farm workers and domestic servants, so that they too have the right to bargain. We saw what happened earlier this year when employees of the Public Service did not get a rise. These people cannot bargain; they simply stand hat in hand and say: “Yes, Sir, thank you very much.” [Interjections.]

[Inaudible].

Order! If the hon member for Benoni would like to have his turn to speak soon, and does not want to leave the House, he will now have to stop making interjections. The hon member for Carletonville may proceed.

I think if the Act were made applicable to these people, they could have bargained. If there had been negotiations, and they did not get what they wanted, they could not have gone to the industrial court. I do not say they should strike; just as other institutions are declared essential services, the employees of the State must also be regarded as people rendering essential services. Then they would have the right of arbitration. I ask the hon the Minister to give consideration to this.

As the legislation stands at present, only registered trade unions may belong to an industrial council. When the original Act was passed, the previous Minister of Manpower said that unregistered trade unions would not be given stop-order facilities. We were told that that Act would eliminate unregistered trade unions. The Act was then amended and it was decided that if an unregistered trade union applied to the Minister, he could give permission for such a trade union to obtain stop-order facilities.

What did we find then? We found that the hon the Minister simply approved everything, and how many trade unions are there today which are not registered, but do have stop-order facilities? Although the old Act said that an unregistered trade union could not belong to an industrial council, it is now permissible for such a trade union to belong to an industrial council.

The hon member for Kuruman also said that it was not the end of legislation, and I predict today that the next amendment will no longer refer to a registered trade union. Reference will merely be made to a trade union.

I could focus on many more points, but unfortunately, it seems as if my time as run out. I have here, however, an article from Die Transvaler of yesterday under the heading “Arbeidswetgewing moet beste vir Suid-Afrika wees”. The report states:

Once again the plea is that we must satisfy Africa. We as First World, the Whites in South Africa, must be drawn back into the Third World so that our legislation is such that their needs are satisfied. [Interjections.]

I want to put it clearly again that the South African economy is in the big mess it is in as a result of the tremendous amount of man-days which were lost last year because of strikes. The situation can only be rectified if it is possible to end strikes when we take action to stop them. I want to repeat that when the CP comes to power at the next election … [Interjections] … we stop these illegal strikes immediately.

Mr Chairman, I have here in my hand a copy of the legislation before us. I want to tell hon members today that this document is a receipt for the NP which serves as proof of the fact that it cares for the White worker, the Black worker, the Coloured worker and the Indian worker and that it wants to protect their interests. This document is also a receipt for the NP in respect of what it is doing for the employers of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

It is their interests that we are looking after here. The sanctimonious CP are doing the rounds outside this House and telling people that they are the workers’ party. They say that they will look after the workers’ interests. This afternoon we are going to take a brief look at that statement.

In the words of the hon deputy leader of the CP—I want to wish him luck with his beard and I hope it will be ready when the Trek begins—when they came to power, all trade unions would be abolished.

Not all trade unions!

Pardon me, trade unions would be abolished, not all trade unions. That is correct. He said that trade unions would be abolished. [Interjections.] He did not qualify it. [Interjections.] Very well, I shall accept that it is only Black trade unions that would be abolished. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member for Brakpan must calm down now. I am going to give him a promotion this afternoon. He is going to become Minister of Manpower this afternoon. And the hon member for Carletonville is going to become a Deputy Minister …

Probably a shadow Minister. He cannot progress any further than that! [Interjections.]

He is afraid of his own shadow! [Interjections.]

This important piece of legislation, aimed at establishing harmony in our labour relations outside this House for our employers and employees, is being opposed by the CP. I want to submit here that this is the second test that they have failed this week, because we shall go and tell the White and the Black workers, and everyone else outside this House, that the CP does not have their interests at heart. They boycotted the sittings at the beginning of the week and now they are boycotting this legislation which, inter alia, protects the interests of the Whites. [Interjections.]

I now want to tell hon members—it is a great pity that the hon member for Lichtenburg is leaving—that if the CP were to come to power and implement its policy relating to the abolition of Black trade unions, four things would happen to South Africa. The first would be that anarchy and revolution would break out. I am going to comment on and give proof of each of these statements. The second point I want to make is that they are playing right into the hands of our revolutionary enemies because they, too, want anarchy in this country. Thirdly, they would destroy South Africa’s economy within a matter of weeks. Fourthly, they would leave thousands of White workers unemployed.

Before I devote attention to these points, I want to tell the CP today that trade unions are probably one of the most important mechanisms of capitalism. That is a fact, and they would do well to reflect on it. If the hon member for Carletonville does not understand it, he should feel free to ask the hon member for Ermelo. He is more educated and will explain to him in plain language what it means. If one abolishes trade unions, one destroys capitalism and plays into the hands of socialism. They would do well to reflect on that point.

Let us, for the sake of argument, place the CP in power in this country this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan would immediately be appointed as Minister of Manpower and Mr Paulus, the hon member for Tarsus, I mean Carletonville, would be appointed as his Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] These two gentlemen would abolish the Black trade unions. The hon member for Carletonville surely knows the trade unions, and he knows that differences exist among them. There are even differences among people within a single trade union. However, if the CP were to take away all the Black trade unions’ rights, the CP would immediately give them one common goal. I am telling hon members—I shall give them all a letter—that they would go on a country-wide strike in all spheres of activity. They would stand together because their right to bargain and to negotiate would have been taken away. The employers would then consult the CP government and tell them that they were having problems because their factories and mines were standing idle. They would ask the CP for assistance, because they had repealed the Act. They would want to know with whom they should negotiate, because there would no longer be a body with which they could negotiate. [Interjections.] They would no longer be able to institute a claim for damages in terms of section 79 of this Act, because there would no longer be a trade union. They would want to know whether they must negotiate with 22 000 individual members of one trade union and 12 000 individual members of another trade union. They would ask the Minister and Deputy Minister, who had prohibited Black trade unions, for assistance. [Interjections.] The hon member for Carletonville must listen. He is running away now. [Interjections.] As the Dutch say, he sat there like a “moffen getroffen door de donderen”. [Interjections.] Surely he knows that is true. When one allows more than 2 million Black workers in our country to strike, surely one is destroying the economy, because where will the CP get 2 million Whites to come and do that work? That is the realism of the CP for you.

Let us take this a little further. Those trade union members will immediately go underground, and that is why I say that the CP is playing directly into the hands of the revolutionary forces against our country, because they want chaos in our country.

They want to destroy the economy so that they can rise from the ashes and take over, and they are playing into the hands of these people with that policy of theirs.

I think we should take this just a little further. After all, we know what trade unions are like. International trade union bodies will immediately turn around and say: “See here, we are going to stand by our trade union brothers in South Africa, and we are not going to handle any South African goods; we are not going to load or off-load any exports or imports onto or from ships.” Then the farmers will approach the CP Minister and his Deputy Minister and tell them that their export products are lying and rotting on the quaysides because those people refuse to load them. Those, after all, are the consequences; I am not dreaming! [Interjections.]

The CP will have to stop inflaming the voters outside this House, and particularly our workers outside this House, telling them that they will protect the White workers, because it is a flagrant untruth!

They love to tease!

It is a flagrant untruth; they will not protect the interests of the White worker, Sir! I want to tell them today that we shall brandish this receipt in our constituencies and tell our voters that it is here in black and white—it is contained in a Bill which proves how we are looking after their interests in order to give them the opportunity to negotiate and to solve problems, and to protect their interests, not only the interests of the White workers, but also those of the Black, Coloured and Indian worker. We shall be able to tell our employers that we have now made provision for machinery in the legislation and that the NP—the friend of the employer and employee—has done it for them.

The CP will have to explain this, because we are going to tell our voters that the CP have rejected these things which we have had embodied in legislation, or that they have boycotted them, as they are apparently beginning to institute boycotts these days, ostensibly in the interests of the worker.

I want to tell the CP in all sincerity today to stop misleading our workers outside this House about this type of thing. I am really very sorry that the hon member for Carletonville is not here, because, after all, he is now the fundi on trade unions. The day the employers come and tell them that they have to close their factories because all Black workers throughout South Africa have gone on strike, they will ask Minister Le Roux and Deputy Minister Paulus what they must do. They will tell them that they will simply have to dismiss their White workers because their factories are no longer able to survive. That is the upshot of CP policy—that our White workers will find themselves unemployed—and the NP will not allow that under any circumstances, and that is why we are coming forward with sensible legislation like this.

Mr Chairman, before entering the argument of the debate, I would like at the outset to just place on record my dissatisfaction with the negotiation process that appears to have broken down between Whips on the side of the opposition and Whips on the side of the Government. All parties have logistical problems from time to time. It has been parliamentary practice in the past to negotiate when a party has difficulties, but no more does that appear to be so. They pay no attention at all to parliamentary practice and tradition. Whips on the other side lay down the law, they do what they like, they instruct us what to do and because they are in the majority, democracy can go to hell! They do not care! [Interjections.] Parliamentary practice and tradition can go where it likes, Sir; it just does not exist any longer. [Interjections.] They are arrogant in the extreme; there is no question of negotiation or compromise …

Order! I am afraid that that is a matter for the Whips to discuss among themselves and to take whatever steps they deem fit. Let us continue with the debate on this Bill.

Sir, I will of course abide by your ruling, but it has nevertheless been said, and I hope that they will bear it in mind.

The hon member for Benoni has sketched out a scenario of what would happen if one followed the CP viewpoint on this legislation, and I must say that I agree with most of what he said. That is not to say that his alternative in the form of this Bill is perfection. It most definitely is not, but chaos would certainly result if the CP scenario were followed. [Interjections.]

There is only one point on which I can agree with the CP. The hon member for Brakpan expressed himself on the present parliamentary system with regard to the old Committee Stage, when every member of the House was able to participate in the discussion of individual clauses of a Bill. [Interjections.] That is no longer possible. In the case of a smaller party like ours, only one member is allowed to make an input in a standing committee. Although other members can be there, they are not able to contribute, submit argument or put viewpoints, and it becomes impossible and most restricting for other hon members who are not members of the standing committee. I would agree with him on that.

Nevertheless, on the question of the Bill itself, it is, as the hon member for Groote Schuur has said, good in parts and bad in parts. The bad parts are very seriously bad indeed, and will have a bad effect on labour relations in South Africa. As for the good parts, there are indeed some improvements.

I think one has to accept that labour and industrial relations machinery are vitally important in South Africa right now, because Black people, who are denied any meaningful political rights, are inevitable going to use the power of their labour, which is very real power, to sell political points. We see this in so many strikes and so much industrial action today. It is absolutely inevitable in the present system.

In a sense, industrial relations machinery is a safety valve for the society that we live in at the moment, and the more efficient that machinery is, the better chance we will have of keeping industrial peace where there are political difficulties which stray over onto the labour scene.

As the hon member for Groote Schuur said, one will not stop strikes by forbidding them by law. If a wildcat strike of 3 000 people takes place, one cannot prosecute everybody. The withdrawal of labour is something that is almost a right; in fact it is indeed a right under certain circumstances.

That is right—under certain circumstances. Thank you! Well said!

The hon member agrees with me on that, but one must not make those circumstances unreasonable.

They are not unreasonable!

As you know, Sir, before alterations in the labour legislation came about as the result of factors such as the Wiehahn Report in the late 1970s, there were thousands of illegal strikes every year, and the law could not stop them. Good law is law that deals with realities and possibilities. If one passes laws that are impossible to enforce, that is bad law. There are sections of this Bill that are bad law and are going to be very difficult to enforce.

Firstly, I must say that some of the phraseology in the Bill is absolute legal gobbledygook. I picked out one particular clause which happens to be very contentious. The proposed new section 1(1) (j), which is part of the definition of “unfair labour practice”, is a sentence consisting of 94 words, and I think it defies adequate interpretation. The legal profession is going to have a field day with that sentence because there are so many ways in which it could be misunderstood. I really fear for the future in such circumstances.

I believe one also has to take an objective look at this legislation in view of the considerable criticism that has come from outside, and specifically from Cosatu. I hold no particular view in favour of or against what Cosatu says, but I tend to listen to what they say. If they talk sense I agree and if they do not, I disagree. [Interjections.] Elijah Barayi, the president of Cosatu, has said in public that this Bill will lead to chaos and conflict. He has said that it will destroy the South African industrial relations system and lead to conflict and chaos on the factory floor. [Interjections.] I do not agree. It could have that effect in part, but I think he overstates the case. [Interjections.]

Let us try to analyse further what he says and see if there is justification in it. Firstly he says that the Bill attacks the right to strike. This is not entirely true in that, in terms of the legislation before us, one cannot strike in certain circumstances, but the basic right to strike still exists. However, it forbids sympathy strikes for example. I am not sure whether this will be good law, because I am not sure whether one will be able to stop sympathy strikes. [Interjections] I disagree with the idea of sympathy strikes. I would not go along with it. However, I am not sure that it is a good idea to legislate against it, because I do not think one can make it stick, unless one uses the strong-arm tactics envisaged by the hon members of the CP.

Maggie Thatcher succeeds in doing so.

Well, Maggie Thatcher does not do it quite the way the hon members on my right suggested. [Interjections.]

Another of Mr Barayi’s claims is that it allows employers to deal with minority unions over the heads of the majority who have democratically chosen their own unions. The majority principle in labour legislation is an accepted principle. Nevertheless, the principle of freedom of association is also very important, and if, for example, an employer wants to deal with a minority-represented union, he is doing a very dangerous thing. He might believe it to be a sweetheartunion and that he might get a better deal from that particular union. I believe, again, that this is something which is difficult to legislate for or against.

One of my quarrels with the whole question of the codification of an unfair labour practice is that there is such a diversity and there are so many permutations of what is possible, that any legislation or any code would not find it possible to deal with every eventuality. That is why I agree with my colleague, the hon member for Groote Schuur, when he says that the industrial courts must be given latitude and must not be restricted. They must be able to express opinions as to whether something is a fair or unfair practice. I do not believe that one should codify as much as we have.

I believe quite a serious criticism of the Bill is raised by Mr Barayi when he says that it grants managers power to sue unions for loss of production during strikes. I think this refers to clause 26. Hon members will have noticed that the hon member for Groote Schuur has placed an amendment on the Order Paper to scrap clause 26. The proposed new subsection reads as follows, and I quote:

This is a very serious provision. The hon the Minister will understand just how serious this can be, because it will result in court action after court action of inordinate length and inordinate complexity. Again, I am not sure that this is good legislation. I do not believe that it is possible, in terms of this kind of provision, to place the onus of responsibility on a union to prove that it was acting within the terms of the law when it called for a strike. There are provisions in our common law which state that if one knowingly and willfully does unfair damage to someone, one can be sued therefor in civil courts. I believe that we should perhaps have left it to the civil courts to decide in matters of this nature, rather than introducing a provision which will be absolutely impossible to enforce.

I suppose one could say that industrial law should be designed to ensure that the inevitable conflict between employer and employee—I am afraid there will inevitably be conflict on questions of wages or whatever—is minimised and conducted in a fair manner. As I said earlier, enforceable law is good law and unenforceable law is bad law.

The president of Cosatu takes issue on the question of unions which would like to declare a dispute within 12 months of having declared a dispute on the same matter. I actually think this is not a bad provision—one cannot carry on chewing over old bones—if it can be enforced.

I think it was the hon member for Benoni—he seems to have left—who talked about the necessity of making sure that our industrial legislation is fair in terms of our international relations. I know—it was reported in a newspaper article which I read—that Cosatu has asked the International Labour Organisation to investigate the proposed changes to this legislation and to determine whether it contravenes ILO standards.

There seems to be some argument as to whether it does contravene them or not. In the standing committee hon members on the other side or officials of the department said that it did not contravene ILO standards, but there are still contentions that it might contravene ILO standards. South Africa is, of course, not a member of the International Labour Organisation but I think it is necessary for us still be sensitive to the international labour pressures which can be exerted on South Africa. I add my voice to the voice of the hon member for Benoni when he warns that one has to be aware that this sort of thing can have severe economic consequences for our country. We have to be very, very careful indeed of what we do.

All in all, because of two or three unacceptable provisions in the Bill, we are going to vote against it at Second Reading stage. We wish we had the opportunity—more of us than are on the standing committee—of discussing the Bill again during a Committee Stage, in which one could go through it clause by clause.

Labour legislation is of its very nature something that has to evolve all the time. It has to develop all the time with changing circumstances. It cannot go backwards. The hon members on my right, regrettably, would like to go backwards. They would like to go back to the days of the early 1970s, before various commissions brought about enormous changes in our labour legislation. We cannot go backwards; we have to go forwards.

I can only ask the hon the Minister to listen very carefully indeed to the difficulties which we have raised in this debate, because I believe the future will show that we are right. I believe that we will have to look at this legislation very seriously again within a very short time. To my mind there are sections which will be totally unworkable in practice. One has to accept that this is not any final answer; it is no panacea. Labour troubles are going to escalate because our political difficulties are escalating and this hon the Minister is in the hot seat. He will have to be very flexible and he will have to be able to react very quickly when problems arise. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this legislation is surely a milestone in labour relations in the Republic of South Africa. The standing committee succeeded in giving thorough consideration to all aspects and facets of labour relations, and all important employer and employee organisations were given the opportunity to put their case by way of evidence.

This amending Bill defines a number of very important aspects. It makes provision for the introduction of a labour court of appeal. In addition the industrial court is more clearly defined and provision is made for procedures for settlement of disputes by industrial councils.

The legislation also provides for an amended procedure for the establishment of conciliation boards. This is being done in order to define more clearly the period within which a conciliation board shall endeavour to settle any dispute referred to it; to alter the manner in which a conciliation board is composed; to provide that the parties to a dispute which is considered by a conciliation board may agree to provide the secretarial and clerical assistance required by the board. The legislation also aims at amending certain requirements in regard to the prohibition of strikes, increasing the penalties for certain offences providing for a decision of the Appellate Division to be invoked on a question of law, and providing for the extension of the indemnification of certain bodies and persons against losses incurred as a result of strikes or lock-outs.

A most important aspect of this legislation is that it is definitely not a code of unreasonable labour practices. South Africa is the leading industrial country on this continent. Not only do we have to provide work for almost 3 000 new workers who enter the labour field each year, and in addition for the unemployed who stream here from neighbouring states. In this way an enormous burden is placed on our country’s economy.

This Government does everything in its power to create job opportunities and to attract industrialists by way of concessions offered in terms of its decentralisation policy. The Department of Manpower, with its comprehensive training programmes, the Industrial Development Corporation and the Small Business Development Corporation, together with many others, are all involved. It is nonetheless important to maintain a balance between the employer and the employee in relation to labour legislation. Because of the unauthorised labour practices of certain trade unions, we have found in East London that certain industrialists have moved to the neighbouring homelands. What we have specifically found is that the small industrialists in particular, who do not have large investments, or cannot afford labour experts, are giving in to these unauthorised labour practices.

It is a fact that the ANC has imposed a total boycott. Has Joe Slovo not been transferred from the Umkhonto we Sizwe to the labour wing of the ANC? Are Archbishop Tutu and the Rev Alan Boesak not the patrons of the UDF? These two gentlemen are both protagonists of a total boycott against the Republic of South Africa. Who always acts now as the labour arm of those organisations? Is it not Cosatu? Does Cosatu not make use of intimidation and violence for achieving its goals?

I have a problem, however, with these fragmented left-wing parties. They are fellow-travellers of Cosatu. The delaying tactics, used in the case of the legislation under discussion, show clearly that the PFP and the NDM do not put the interests of the workers of South Africa first. [Interjections.] Those hon members have now come to light with amendments. What is the purpose of their amendments? [Interjections.] It is simply an organised attempt by the left-wing parties to delay this legislation. [Interjections.]

We find it very interesting that the PFP is opposed to the definition of unauthorised labour practices as contained in the proposed measure. I make the allegation that the PFP is only interested in the large employers, because those large companies have their own labour consultants and legal representatives, and they also enter into their own agreements. On the other hand, the small employers cannot afford to employ labour consultants and legal representatives.

That is quite true!

This Labour Relations Amendment Bill defines 14 unfair labour practices. Within a short period the courts will lay down guidelines which will reduce the amount of litigation. In the present situation, one must have recourse the industrial court each time. There are now many more cases of litigation because the decisions of the industrial court are not binding.

The hon member for Johannesburg North tried some fence-sitting again this afternoon. It is quite clear that the PFP has two wings. One is the left wing, which looks to Cosatu. The other wing looks to the employers. They are trying to satisfy both, but they are sitting on two stools, and eventually they will fall between the two. Only this morning it was announced that Mr David Neppe, who has been a member of the Johannesburg City Council for more than 20 years, has resigned from the PFP.

He is now going underground!

Mr Chairman, it is simply a further indication of the disintegration process the PFP is undergoing. [Interjections.] I nevertheless have pleasure in supporting the measure under discussion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Albany again made an amusing speech. He accused the PFP of being fellow-travellers of Cosatu, but at the same time said that the PFP was a party which supported employers. I find it amusing that a person can make such a statement.

The hon member was pushed into this debate by his party, because he does not seem to understand the legislation at all; if this is not so, he apparently did not prepare for the debate and spoke about the Johannesburg municipal elections and aspects which did not apply to this debate at all. [Interjections.]

When one listens to such opinions of Cosatu, it does not surprise one that employers, but especially trade unions, make allegations about the Government and say that it intends clamping down on Black trade unions. One may then think that there is something behind this. The hon member did not say this in so many words, but he implied that Cosatu should be curbed. This is why people outside say this Bill will tip the balance of power in the employer’s favour, precisely because someone like the hon member for Albany displayed such an attitude. This is also attributed to the Government. [Interjections.]

†I want now to return to the Bill and join the hon member for Brakpan in expressing my appreciation to the officials of the department for their assistance. They are professionals in the true sense of what senior public servants should be. I can imagine that any employer or employee organisation who could have the assistance of individuals like those available to the department will be well-off. They were of tremendous assistance.

I wish to point out very briefly the handicap which one has to operate under when a debate has been guillotined and a Bill is steamrollered through Parliament. Employers, unions and the public must know that the Labour Relations Amendment Bill is being steamrollered and bulldozed through Parliament. [Interjections.]

I have been told that I have restricted time. I was initially told that I had 15 minutes. I had to plead with the Whip—I am not saying it is his fault—and I now have 18 minutes. It is a disgrace that a Bill as important as this is bulldozed through Parliament. That is what is happening. The Government has put a clamp on this. The Government does not want to allow an open debate. That is what is happening to Parliament, and the public must be aware of it! [Interjections.]

If your time is so limited, why do you not get on with the facts?

There is no possibility of even discussing one or two points in any depth at all if one only has 15 or 18 minutes at one’s disposal. [Interjections.] I do not intend to discuss anything in great depth because I do not have enough time.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Does the hon member mean to say he did not have enough time to discuss this in the standing committee?

Order! That is not a point of order. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Durban Central may proceed.

The Wiehahn Commission submitted its report at the end of 1970, and suggested a very progressive, forward-looking labour relations procedure. That was at a time when the politicians and even the Government were looking forward to positive constitutional changes. They called it broadening democracy and power sharing. In the light of that anticipated constitutional change, the Labour Relations Act was then passed.

What has happened, and the reason why we have this Bill before us, is that the constitutional change in our country has remained at a standstill and has started to lag behind more and more in comparison with what has been happening in the labour relations area. The result is now that the Government, due also to pressure from employers, has had to pull in the reins in the labour relations area, and this is exactly what this Bill is doing. The reins are being pulled tighter because the anticipated political and constitutional change has just not taken place. Here they sit now, shaking their heads, not knowing how to take it further. Until substantial political and constitutional change takes place, the unions and employers must know there will not be an improvement in the labour relations legislation, because that lack of change is what is holding back more advanced labour relations legislation.

The Bill does contain positive aspects. I do not want to go over all of them. They relate to streamlining procedures for the conciliation boards and for the industrial councils. A number of positive amendments were affected in the standing committee.

However, I wish to return to one major flaw in this Bill, and that relates to the definition of “unfair labour practice.” The hon member for Stilfontein tried to argue, not very convincingly—I do not know whether he has convinced himself or not—that there was merit in a code or a definition setting out all the details of unfair labour practice. He was supported by the hon member for Ladysmith who tried to suggest that it was possible to define adequately and effectively what constitutes unfair labour practices.

The overwhelming weight of evidence before the standing committee was that we should not do it as it was going to be counter-productive. It was impossible to define such things and would make it more difficult to know what was going on.

You obviously did not read all the submissions.

Let me read the more important submissions to the hon members in this House. The Natal Chamber of Industries said:

The FCI said—

They are now supporting it.

The hon the Minister must make sure of his facts when he makes interjections like that. He is used to making flippant interjections. He is again wrong. Here is a statement made by the FCI a week ago, and I shall read it to the hon the Minister so that he knows what they say. The FCI says—

That is the standpoint of the FCI.

The Association of Law Societies, all the attorneys in the country, made a submission to the standing committee. [Interjections.]

What about Assocom?

Order! The hon the Minister cannot continue making interjections.

The Association of Law Societies, the legal profession, says:

The industrial court itself says:

It also says—

What does Assocom say? Assocom says—

You are quoting selectively!

The General Bar Council says that codification cannot work and it should not work, and that at most one can make it a guideline. The Tongaat Huletts Group says that one should not codify because it will be counterproductive and very vague. The Institute for Industrial Relations says:

Then we have the Northern Transvaal Chamber of Commerce and the Western Cape Chamber of Commerce. Cosatu says:

These are not all the examples that I can quote. I repeat: The overwhelming weight of evidence and submissions before the standing committee was that one should not codify, and they gave substantial reasons why it should not happen. There is apparently no system in the world that I am aware of where a labour code dealing with unfair labour practice of this complexity has been included in the Act as a definition. I do not know whether the hon member for Stilfontein can mention an example to me.

I will answer you later.

Why was there an insistence on putting in a definition and placing it in a straitjacket? It was because of political reasons and the attitude of “Vat hulle vas.”

No! [Interjections.]

What will happen as a result is that labour lawyers will have a field day. There will be delays revolving around complicated interpretation problems. It will remove a large portion of the equity area in which the industrial court could operate. Until this definition it was free to apply equity because each case differs from the next. Now, if one binds it with the definition, one removes some of the room for manoeuvring which makes it more difficult for them to apply equity in each and every case as they would otherwise have done.

I do believe that this aspect should be looked at again because the industrial court should not be hamstrung in applying equity. The industrial court should be entitled as before to look at every single case on its merits.

Another matter in the Bill which is dangerous and to which both employer and employee have objected with justification relates to the amendment of section 79, namely the inclusion of a provision which will now make it possible for an employer to sue for damages if an employee disturbs or is responsible for breaking a contractual relationship. What is intended here is to prevent wildcat strikes from taking place. A wildcat strike would not be a legal strike and it would break the contractual relationship between employer and employee. The employer can then sue the union unless the union can prove that the union member or the shop steward had no authority to call a wildcat strike. The hon member for Stilfontein shakes his head. I do not know why he disagrees with me because that is more or less the wording of the Bill.

What are the consequences for the union in the Bill? If in a particular plant the workers decide on the spur of the moment to have a wildcat strike and the union headquarters get to hear of it, what will they do? They will say that they have nothing to do with it. They will stay clear and they will not want to involve themselves in any way in that wildcat strike. What will the employer do? The employer will pick up his phone, call the union head office and ask them to come and sort out the matter. The union will then reply that they know nothing about it and they are not going to get involved because if they do get involved in trying to settle the wildcat strike the employer will sue them too. That is what will happen. There is a great risk now for union leaders to involve themselves in the settlement of, for example, wildcat strikes because by doing so they could make themselves liable to damages if the employer should later decide to sue.

I believe many an employer will have more difficulties than before when it comes to resolving the disputes that lead to wildcat strikes because with justification the union will keep clear and stay away from the matter.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to set something straight. At Tuesday’s sitting of our Extended Committee on Provincial Affairs some of our members left the Chamber whereas I remained behind. People who want to cause problems, now want to create the impression that there was dissension between us. However, I remained sitting because we had decided beforehand that I would hold the fort when the other members walked out. [Interjections.] There is no difference of opinion among our members of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Cape Province.

At the outset I merely want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to two things. Yesterday the poor treatment which our people receive at the hands of the officials in the regional offices was discussed. However, we must make a distinction. Not all officials act in this way. There are some of them who act in a humane manner. I should like to give an example. A farmer from the Bergsig district outside Worcester went to fetch workers at De Aar. Among the workers were two school-going boys who were still at primary school. The parents went to a lot of trouble to try to get the children back, but could not succeed in doing so. The parents telephoned me on the Thursday morning and asked whether the Department of Health Services and Welfare and I could not do something about the matter. At 10 o’clock that morning I went to the hon the Minister’s office and we contacted the Worcester regional office by telephone. The official here was a Mr Williams and we discussed the matter with a Mrs Niemand in Worcester. That was on Thursday and on the Friday afternoon those boys got off at De Aar station. Surely that is service! The efficiency with which it took place is praiseworthy.

I have also been told that the farmer apologised for his foreman’s having picked up the boys. I thank the department for the way they went about that matter.

Secondly, I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister could tell us what progress has been made in respect of the branch at De Aar. We have been trying to get a regional office there for three years. Everyone at De Aar knows when the office is going to be built. They know where it is going to be erected. I, as the MP of the town, however, do not know. I should therefore appreciate it if the hon the Minister could furnish me with this information in writing.

Thirdly, I want to tell the hon the Minister that he need not be concerned about people hitting out at him. He strongly emphasised in his speech that people were hitting out at him. However, I should like to give him the assurance that we are on his side and that we shall support him. The general public appreciates what he does for them. He therefore need not worry if one man hits out at him, because thousands of people out there are prepared to be his rear guard. He is the man of our people.

I now want to discuss alcoholism, drug dependency and other social pathological phenomena. The hon the Minister discussed this service field in his speech and explained the aims, structure and modus operandi to the House. By way of summary one can say that this service field is basically concerned with the policy and the coordination of services in respect of the prevention and treatment of alcohol and drug addiction, as well as other socio-pathological phenomena such as idling, prostitution and homosexuality.

Specific aims have been drawn up in respect of this phenomenon with the problem of alcohol and drug abuse being a priority. I therefore want to focus specifically on the latter problem—drug abuse. No one can deny the fact that the toll taken by alcohol and drug abuse is unaccountably high, not only among adults but also among the youth. It is the biggest single cause of family disintegration among our people. We are all familiar with the misery and heartache which alcohol abuse causes among the people.

Sanca (the South African National Council for Alcoholism) launched an investigation in 1985. The inquiry gave an indication of the proportions this socially destructive evil had already assumed at that stage.

It was determined that 4,4 million people in South Africa were alcohol consumers; and of these, the Coloureds form 60,2%. That saddens one, Sir. The number of identified alcoholics was 3,35 million, of whom 36 000 were Coloureds. That causes one to shudder, Sir.

Of these 36 000, 31 000 were men and 5 000 women. It is cause for concern that our people have become addicted to drink and the abuse thereof to this extent.

The cost of this problem in the working situation already amounts to R530 million per year. An amount of R648 million was spent on alcohol-related health and medical costs. Motor car accidents, crime and violence as well as programmes to combat alcoholism cost the country an amount of R1,178 million in one year.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon member the opportunity to utilise his allotted time.

Order! The hon member for Britstown may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

According to the 1985 statistics, 4 472 of the 8 376 deaths were directly caused by drunken driving. A total of 22 258 motorists were convicted of drunken driving. At that stage South Africa was already spending R4,168 million per annum on alcoholic beverages—an average of R11,5 per day. According to this consumers of alcohol would on average spend R947 per annum on alcoholic beverages.

How does our problem compare internationally? South Africa’s incidence of alcoholism is exceeded only by that in France and Italy.

The problem of drug abuse is also assuming terrifying proportions. During 1987 the Narcotics Bureau seized illegal drugs worth more than R2 million. More than 40 000 people were taken into custody in South Africa in the same year because of contraventions relating to drugs. No parent can say of drug abuse: “That will never happen to my child,” even though he might very much want to say so. The possibility exists, unpleasant as it may be, that this could in fact happen to one’s child. During 1987, 1 400 patients with drug problems were treated at the Observatory drug centres.

One of the youngest patients was an 11-year-old child. Thousands of people experiment with drugs and according to calculations, one out of every 20 people who experiment with drugs in this way becomes addicted. Furthermore, it has been determined that at some schools between 20% and 25% of the pupils experiment with drugs. It no longer serves any purpose for teachers to act like ostriches, because the problem has to be addressed. Most drug experimenters are of school-going age and are between 12 and 17 years old. Some of the experimenters are even younger, especially when it comes to inhaling volatile substances from bottles and plastic cans. There is a disturbing increase in drug abuse on all socio-economic levels of our society. Consequently it is of the utmost importance that the increasing social and destructive evil be combated tooth and nail.

I also want to refer to the use of strong drink. It has been proven repeatedly that the Coloureds are wine drinkers, because the cheapest wine costs less than R2 a bottle. Drugs such as Mandrax and other sophisticated drugs are too expensive for the man in the street and therefore he turns to cheap liquor.

Order! Hon members at the back of the Chamber must please lower their voices. Hon members must listen to what the hon member for Britstown has to say. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, as I said, besides the fact that the Coloureds are wine drinkers, they are also weekend drinkers, because they only drink when they have money. Hon members are aware of the existence of the De Novo Rehabilitation Centre in Kraaifontein which falls under the Department of Health Services and Welfare. Shortly a second rehabilitation centre, namely Bergsig, also in Kraaifontein, will come into operation. Almost R1,6 million has been allocated for rehabilitation services. An amount of R9 000 has been granted in the form of subsidies to Toevlug, a private rehabilitation centre near Worcester, as well as to Sanca.

Another issue to which I want to refer, is the question of people who are discharged from the De Novo Centre. I still remember how I travelled by train from Cape Town to De Aar earlier this year. There were five people on the train with me who had been discharged from De Novo that very morning. They were as drunk as could be, however. Now I ask myself whether perhaps there is something amiss in the treatment the people receive there, and whether perhaps there is some other problem. Unfortunately I forgot the names of the relevant persons at home, because I intended to write a letter to the person in charge of that institution. At Touws River the police were called in to take all five of them off the train. I pleaded for them, because I knew that they were on their way to South West and had to change trains at De Aar. At Beaufort West the police had to be called in again, because the abusive language of those people was dreadful. I cannot repeat the words here.

At Beaufort West I undertook to assist in getting those people off the train at De Aar, because I knew that they had to get off there. This saved them from going to gaol. They were discharged that very same morning, but were still as drunk as could be. [Interjections.] There is something wrong somewhere, and we must look into this matter.

In addition to the curative services, the department is also trying to combat alcoholism and drug abuse by means of places of safety for alcoholics as well as the hitherto only existing secondary school for dagga addicts. That is a good thing, Sir.

The “dop” system on farms has also been investigated. It would appear that it is still being practised on 1 269 farms countrywide—mainly in the Western Cape. Further investigation as well as negotiations about community development with the Rural Foundation, for example, are envisaged to deal with this sensitive matter in a tactful way.

Experience has shown that the good work that is done in rehabilitation centres is often rendered futile in that sufficient supporting facilities in respect of after-care, for example, are not available in the communities. This is another phenomenon, Sir. A person is discharged. Things go well for a month or two. Afterwards, however, he lapses again into that misery once again. There is no one who provides him with after-care or advice.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, it has also been realised that this problem of alcohol and drug abuse must be addressed at all levels. [Interjections] That is why the department, in addition to its curative services …

Order! If hon members at the back continue to disregard my ruling, I shall be obliged to take action against them. The hon member may proceed.

For this reason the department has committed itself to the recently announced national plan of the Department of National Health and Population and Development for the prevention of alcoholism and drug abuse. The national plan makes provision for a more community-orientated approach. It has been designed in such a way that it not only addresses the problem on the curative level, but also especially on the preventative level. The aims include equipping the youth and the communities with a positive and constructive lifestyle and equipping a community in such a way as to maintain a positive attitude which will promote the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. It is also a matter of bringing home to people the concept of a safe drinking pattern, psychologically and physically.

We are grateful for an institution such as the IOTD, as well as an institution of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church, the CAB, and an institution of the Dutch Reformed Church, the CAD for what they are doing. We appreciate what is done by these organisations.

Training with a view to the early identification of problem drinkers and alcohol and drug dependents is also important, as are planning and expansion in respect of statutory services to the dependent and his family.

Furthermore, control must be exercised in respect of the availability of alcohol and drugs. The stimulation, establishment and expansion of research is essential. Active community involvement is therefore of cardinal importance in combating alcoholism and drug abuse, something which is in line with this department’s policy of a community-orientated approach. We look forward to the dynamic development projects which, upon the implementation of these goals, will be possible on a local level.

Another evil is the consumption of sorghum beer. There are cafés in the rural areas which concentrate solely on selling sorghum beer. There are hardly any other goods for sale in the café, but there are boxes and boxes of sorghum beer. I saw how sorghum beer was “breathing” in one of those shops. It stood there, fermenting. [Interjections.] That is one of the problems which we have to contend with in the rural areas. A man comes from work, but does not have enough time to go to the bottle store. He then goes straight to the café and the first item he purchases is four cartons of sorghum beer. [Interjections.] As soon as he has consumed that beer, he is as stubborn as a mule. There is nothing to be done with him. He becomes the strongest man in his neighbourhood. Measures have to be taken to prevent that beer from being so freely available. In so doing we shall manage to solve an increasing number of our problems.

There are also problems concerning those people who are sent to De Novo. Usually it is a man, the head of a family. If such a person is sent to De Novo or any other institution for alcoholics, it means that there is no other form of income. The family is also restricted by this. We have had two such cases. Because these people’s employers have refused to pay their wages for two weeks while they receive treatment, they have refused to receive any treatment, unless their employers pay them for those two weeks. That is the problem we have to contend with as far as the use and abuse of alcohol is concerned. I hope that these things will receive attention. As soon as such people are discharged from such institutions, they abandon themselves completely and utterly to liquor. In due course I shall provide the department with the names of those people who caused so many problems.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Britstown, who made an impressive speech. He is a man who has made a deep impression in the sphere of the health and welfare of our people. He is a man who knows what is going on as far as the health and welfare problems of our people are concerned. The hon member covered a wide spectrum. He addressed the things with which we are struggling, especially the problems in the rural areas.

Pursuant to this I am going to recount briefly something which in fact happened. Some people may find it humorous, but it indicates what the evil of alcohol abuse has caused among our people. The story is told that the inspectorate of a certain inspection circuit heard about a school principal who drank to excess and, especially after having received his salary cheque at the end of the month, was under the influence of alcohol for an entire week. He even brought liquor to school, where he consumed it in the classroom. The chief inspector instructed the circuit inspector to clamp down on that man. The little school lies in a small hollow and two days after the end of the month the inspector let his car run very quietly right up to the door of the school. When the car flashed past, the principal saw the car passing. The bottle of liquor was almost empty. That man had presence of mind, because he then jumped up, grabbed the bottle and told the children—ignoring the inspector completely—“My children, as I told you a moment ago, this is satan’s milk; it is the devil’s food. This thing is a homebreaker, a troublemaker. It has brought tears and sorrow into the home and if you find it at home, you must do what Sir is doing. Take the bottle and throw the stuff out. Good morning, Sir, how are you? I see you have been sent.” The inspector was dumbfounded and stunned, because he had not expected the man to pour the stuff out, and he could not report the man either, because after all, he was teaching a lesson.

This shows that liquor—to some people it is a joke—and the abuse of liquor has become an evil which must be addressed. There was a time in the life of a Coloured teacher when there was an expression: “As drunk as a Coloured teacher”. That hurts, because I come from the profession. It is a reflection on the profession and it affected us deeply. One will never be able to address the evil of alcohol abuse enough, because it has reduced our people to a standard at which one no longer looks up to one’s people, but looks down on people who drink to excess.

Alcoholism is an evil which has become a disease among our people. I do not believe that there are enough clinics and homes where these people are treated. I think these people will have to receive increasingly intensive treatment. I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the positive contribution which they are making in addressing this evil in our community. I want to thank him for his department’s regular visits to people who are guilty of alcohol abuse.

We are saddled with that problem, however, and we shall have to address our people even more seriously. We shall have to swallow our pride and speak to the people; we must not be ashamed when we think of these people as our voters. In fact, it is because they are our voters that we are concerned about their condition and their future, and I believe this evil must be addressed very seriously.

In the rural areas, and especially where I come from, sophisticated drugs are not a problem. People do not know cocaine, mandrax and so on. Their parents smoke dagga, however. The children smoke dagga. The young people smoke dagga and tree-gum. They are guilty of drinking “blue train” which can be bought freely across the shop counter. These children are the people who have to take their places as adults in the future. These are the people we are concerned about.

As a result of alcohol abuse, the potential of our children is being destroyed. The resistance which they were able to offer against certain habits has been broken down. Our children are subjected to certain evils when they are under the influence of drugs. Sinister elements make use of the children by pumping them full of strange ideologies. Such a youth is amenable to these strange ideas. I am speaking as a concerned parent. I am speaking as a concerned community leader. I am discussing this because I know the abyss that our people are heading for, and because I am concerned that the leadership element in our community will be reduced to nothing as a result of liquor and drug abuse and the “blue train”.

Is it not tragic to see a beautiful person, a beautiful South African—we so-called Coloured people are the most beautiful people—walking down the street with a face full of blisters? These people are crippled on the inside and burnt on the outside by the “blue train” which they have embarked on. It is a heartrending issue. We shall never be able to address the matter strongly enough. We should address this issue all the more intensively.

The hon member for Britstown discussed the abuse of sorghum beer earlier. I had the following personal experience. A truck, loaded to the brim with sorghum beer, capsized on Van Reenens Pass between Ladysmith and Harrismith. When I came upon the scene of the accident three hours later, the sorghum beer had eaten a hole into the tarred road. Now I want to know, if it could eat a hole into the tarred road, what happens to a person’s insides. Can hon members imagine how many holes there must be in a person’s stomach … [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, please do not tell me my time has expired. [Interjections.] I have not even … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure for me to participate in the debate of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare.

First of all I should like to compliment the hon the Minister on the wonderful speech he delivered here yesterday. The hon the Minister is a very hardworking Minister who has achieved a lot for our people during the past four years. For this we say a very big thank you. We trust that he will keep up the good work. May the Almighty God give him the necessary health and strength to carry on.

Secondly I want to compliment the hon the Minister on the co-operation and service I receive from the staff at the regional offices in the friendly city of Port Elizabeth. That is something I really feel very happy about.

With the vast expansion in the northern areas it is a very expensive exercise for most of the people needing help from the regional offices actually to get to the offices. The distance between the northern areas and the regional office is vast. It is the consensus of opinion throughout the city of Port Elizabeth that if the hon the Minister could have the regional offices located in the northern areas, a lot of matters would be simplified. The people would then be in the next neighbourhood and it would be easy for them to get to the regional office if, for instance, they had to get their disability grants reviewed or to submit applications for old age pensions or to sort out other matters relating to health or welfare. At the moment they are encountering big problems because of the great distance between the regional office and the northern areas. As I said, it is also very expensive to travel by bus or taxi. Some of the people do not even have money for that and so they go to the regional office and back home on foot. I think, therefore, that the hon the Minister has to give very serious consideration to this issue. He should really try to get the regional offices relocated so that they are in the northern areas.

Thirdly, I want to touch on the problem of tuberculosis. This is a problem that has been given much publicity recently, and I think that is the right thing to do. The populace has to be educated from time to time about this disease called tuberculosis.

We must admit, however, that in our so-called Coloured community TB is the direct result of overcrowding and socio-economic circumstances, and these are things which have to be seriously addressed if we are going to reduce the rising rate of TB throughout the RSA. We have to address these issues on a national basis.

It is also worth noting that the incidence of TB throughout Europe dropped significantly when an improvement was brought about in the socioeconomic circumstances of the people—and this took place long before specific TB control measures were introduced! The cardinal requirement, therefore, is the upliftment of the people and the upgrading of their environment.

Order! There are hon members at the back of the Chamber who are reading the newspaper. I think they should rather listen to the hon speaker. The hon member Mr Solomon may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the present economic climate, in which the unemployment rate is very high at present, and in which in there is poverty and an increasing number of social pathologies such as alcohol and drug abuse, as well as emotional problems, has exacerbated a stressful situation that had already resulted in an increasing incidence of the infectious disease of TB. I am most gratified to learn, therefore, that the hon the Minister’s department is doing its best to get the situation under control. Of course, the overall planning, the policy-making, the controlling of finance, and the overall control of the TB control programme are the responsibilities of the Department of National Health and Population Development. It seems, however, that the matter is being brought under control and I trust that this hon Minister and his department will achieve success in their efforts to bring down the rate of TB on a national basis.

The other point I want to touch on here today is the dire need for day hospitals in Port Elizabeth. We do not have one day hospital in the entire northern area of Port Elizabeth. In the Western Cape we have day hospitals in every suburb.

Not in Bonteheuwel.

I accept that, but there are day hospitals in most of the suburbs. The hon the Minister and his department must give serious consideration to the problem of day hospitals in the northern areas. We need hospitals in the thickly populated areas of Helenvale, Salt Lake, Windvogel, West End, Sanctor, Salsomeville, Arcadia, Chatty and Booysens Park. This is a tall order and I do not expect things to happen overnight. I nevertheless want to put it on record and ask the hon the Minister to consider this problem from time to time and give it the necessary attention it requires. These areas are far away from the only non-White hospital in Port Elizabeth, namely the Livingstone Hospital. This hospital is situated very far from the areas where day hospitals are in fact required. Day hospitals in these areas will also relieve the overcrowding that prevails at the Livingstone Hospital day after day. It is pitiful to see sick people braving the elements, especially in winter when they have to sit in the cold. They are in want of the necessary medical services and they have nowhere to go but to the Livingstone.

I also want to refer to old age homes. We have a few old age homes which were built many years ago. We have the Elizabeth Stuurman homes, as well as the Adcock homes and homes in Salsomeville, but these homes are fully occupied. As soon as an occupant dies, we have someone else on the doorstep waiting to be accommodated. Many people are growing older by the day and there is a definite demand for more old age homes. There are long waiting lists for accommodation in old age homes. Often when a person gets accommodation in such an old age home, he or she is fit only to occupy a grave. We ask the hon the Minister to do his best to help in this regard. The hon member for Britstown referred to drug abuse amongst other things. I trust that the hon the Minister and his department will put in more effort to solve this problem, maybe through the good services rendered by our social workers. These workers should visit our school and do everything possible to try to eradicate the problem of drug abuse our children are confronted with. It is a very serious problem and only through the department and the personnel of the hon the Minister will something be achieved to bring about a reality of the present situation at these schools. We read newspaper reports about drug abuse every day and it is something that is definitely not diminishing. It is in fact escalating. I read a report about a Bill they want to pass in America to legalise drug abuse, because they cannot control it. It is like closing one hole on one side with 12 others opening on the other side. Finally, I trust that the hon the Minister, as we know him, will carry on and do his utmost so that when he retires one day, people will be able to say: ”Well done, Minister Chris April”.

Mr Chairman, today I should like to talk about a healthy nation. We read daily about tuberculosis, asthma and stomach complaints among our babies. I should like to ask whether the causes of all the diseases in our Coloured population have been investigated. When one comes into contact with one’s people in the community, one begins to get an idea of what the causes of all these sicknesses are.

I have often left my work-place in the early hours of Saturday morning, between one and two o’clock. One then sees drunken mothers with helpless babies sitting at bus stops at which there is no shelter. If one happens to be in the region of Goodwood and Parow in the early morning hours over weekends, one sees Coloured men and women sleeping on shop verandahs and in corners. Once again, it is as a result of alcohol addiction that they are homeless. In this way I can mention many cases. Sir, cannot something be done to help such vagrants? After all, they are dependent on the Government for help, because in the long run they have to be sent to psychiatric institutions, where they are a burden to the State.

I had a case in Manenberg in which a mother phoned me at eleven o’clock one Sunday evening. She asked me to come and look at how wet the shanty in which she lived was. I went there on the Monday morning. She was ankledeep in water in that shanty. How can people remain healthy under these conditions? It is no wonder that there are so many asthma and tuberculosis cases. The woman’s baby was suffering from gastro-enteritis and one of the children has asthma.

I know of another case in Manenberg where 22 people are living in a two-bedroomed house. The house is so full that one man and woman have to sleep outside in an old motorcar. [Interjections.] This woman is emaciated; she suffers from asthma and tuberculosis. In this regard I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for their helpfulness. I managed to find a house for that family. There is a case in Belgravia where 12 people are living in a garage—a mother and father with their nine children and the mother’s mother. [Interjections.]

I am asking again how we are supposed to build a healthy nation if the conditions are so desperate and there are so many shortcomings. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Health and Welfare, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing and the other members of the Ministers’ Council must put their heads together and come up with a plan in regard to housing. Not in a million years shall we be able to build a healthy community while the housing shortage is so great.

As a result of unemployment, our people are living below the breadline. Our children are suffering from malnutrition, because their basic daily diet consists only of coffee and bread. Those people’s systems are so weak that they are vulnerable to any diseases. Good food makes people healthy. Strong, healthy children eat healthy foods. In this way tuberculosis is prevented. There must be community involvement in this regard as well, so that our people can be helped.

In this connection, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether something cannot be done to help these homeless and vagrant alcoholics. I have never seen White children in the streets at midnight. I have never seen White women sleeping on shop verandahs at night. That proves that indigent Whites are cared for. [Interjections.] I feel that our people should also be taken care of, and that more funds should be granted for institutions, so that these people can be housed and helped to begin a new life.

A father from Belhar came to visit me one Sunday morning. The man told me that morning with tears in his eyes that he lived with a woman who had tuberculosis. Two of his children had already been inoculated against tuberculosis. However, he could not find any other accommodation. That father visited me again about a month later. In the meantime, he had gone to live with other people in the same street, but he again asked me to help him. The people with whom he was living were alcoholics and they kept him awake at night. These are the desperate conditions in which our people are living. Therefore, I again want to ask how we can build a healthy nation if there is no accommodation for our people. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I went home yesterday to reread the speech which was made by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this Chamber yesterday. I want to reiterate that his speech was one of the most dynamic and impressive speeches ever made in this Chamber by a Minister of State. [Interjections.] He touched on many important issues affecting the lives of South African Coloureds. However, when I turned to the parliamentary column this morning of one of the largest newspapers in the Western Cape and in South Africa, namely the Cape Times, the rules of this House will not allow me to use the adjectives to describe my feelings. I think it is a living shame that the Cape Times, in nine columns printed on things which were said in Parliament yesterday, only gives the hon the Minister nine little lines, after this most impressive speech made by the hon the Minister and a number of my other hon colleagues in this Chamber, during this most important debate which affects the lives of so many people.

That is a disgrace!

One wonders whether this House sat yesterday. Why must we wait until Sunday when what we have said here will be printed in the “extra” section of the Sunday papers. We are not extra people, we are not extra South Africans, we are South Africans. [Interjections.] I feel that we have been done a disservice by the Cape Times because of the lack of coverage of what was said and done in this Chamber yesterday. [Interjections.] This Chamber is not the kitchen of Parliament, as many people outside Parliament describe it to be! [Interjections.] This is an integral part of a tricameral Parliament and I want to say today that whatever is said in this Chamber at any given time is as important as what is said in the House of Assembly and the other House of Parliament. [Interjections.] Therefore we need more coverage by newspapers which claim to be democratic. In the past, as the first official leader of the Official Opposition in this Chamber, I had to make sensational statements before I was quoted in this paper.

I think we have passed the point on the road to reform where whatever people in this House say about people of colour is as important. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the main part of my speech this morning. People of colour in our townships, many of whom were moved there by a rejected, biased and discriminatory system of apartheid, find themselves in a socio-economic quagmire. Some of our townships consist of people from all walks of life, who are thrown together to live together in overcrowded subeconomic conditions often not conducive to healthy living. In these overcrowded townships conditions that have in many cases become breeding grounds for all kinds of diseases are prevailing. The lack of proper health services and facilities, especially in our rural areas where even doctors are scarce, adds to the prevailing health hazards. Now one asks how many of our townships are still—this is in 1988—without proper sanitation, lighting and power supplies.

In my travels throughout the Western world, one factor stood out like a sore thumb. [Interjections.] When one goes to the townships one wonders why people are already standing in the streets early in the morning and why there are countless numbers of dogs walking around. These people are standing outside because their living conditions are bad and their places of accommodation are overcrowded. Last week a little boy of four was torn to pieces in Mitchell’s Plain in broad daylight by savage dogs. I want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention the fact that many people have phoned me to complain about marauding packs of dogs which, besides the gangsters, prowl our townships at night and terrorise innocent people living there because they have no other choice.

In his speech the hon the Minister has at last come to admit—as no one else has done in this Parliament before—that the “dop” system is alive and well in South Africa in 1988, the fourth year of the tricameral system. I want to ask for how long we are going to allow our citizens to be weaned on wine. It has been proved medically that a child born of an alcoholic mother or parents is already affected. This poor child is already at a disadvantage at birth. His mental and physical deficiencies will tie him to the farm, the farm labourer’s cottage, the farm school, the farm mentality and that second-class, mediocre standard of living which some Whites want us to accept. These living standards are mediocre in comparison to First World White standards. Is it therefore not time that our hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare, a Minister of State in this Parliament, confronts those people who are keeping this evil “dop” system alive in this country? It is time that we get hold of the liquor barons and those farmers who are abusing our people.

The hon the Minister made one of his most dynamic speeches in regard to the “dop” system yesterday. He underlined the “dop” system. And our newspapers, like the one I have here—the Cape Times—said nothing about it. They are quiet! [Interjections.]

We are grateful that a few farmers have already started with the upgrading process by providing better facilities for their workers. However, the “dop” system and alcoholism remain endemic amongst people of colour in South Africa. This hon Minister needs the support of the whole House to bring about an end to this destructive social evil prevalent in our rural farming communities.

I hope time will allow me to touch on another social habit amongst our people that causes health hazards, viz the growing number of smokers. Smoking has been proven to be a major cause of lung cancer, a major killer disease. [Interjections.] However, what about the many people, especially in our rural areas, who chew tobacco and inhale …

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to use the time allocated to him.

I thank the hon member.

Mr Chairman, there is a vast number of people who chew tobacco and inhale quantities of snuff.

*In a programme which was presented on TV recently, the danger of tobacco … [Interjections.]

Order! This is definitely the last time that I shall call upon hon members at the back of the House to come to order.

The programme drew the attention of viewers to the dangers tobacco and snuff hold for the consumer. The subject was discussed thoroughly. I want to know from the hon the Minister what he is going to do in connection with this unhealthy habit of numerous people in our country, especially the elderly in the rural areas, who chew tobacco and use snuff. [Interjections.] How can one prevent this unhealthy problem?

†It sounds very strange, but the expert on tobacco, snuff and smoking was adamant that the amount of tar and nicotine one takes in by merely chewing tobacco has a tremendous health hazard for a person who continues with this dirty habit for many years.

*In this connection I am thinking particularly of our schoolchildren. I am worried about the number of children at primary schools who smoke from a very young age. It is also alarming that more and more girls—just like the boys—are beginning to smoke. One finds especially at our primary schools that girls are competing with boys with regard to this terrible habit of smoking.

Unfortunately time does not allow me to talk about drug abuse. One way in which one can prevent the distributors of these deadly substances from reaching our children, however, is to take stricter action against them.

Hang them.

I am convinced that the hon the Minister can be assured of the support of all hon members in the House.

†I want to conclude in a lighter vein, Sir. A miserable, unemployed, smelly tramp was standing on the pavement. He stopped a passer-by and said to him: “My dear sir, please give me a couple of rand to buy some food.” The passer-by said: “Look man, I cannot give you money to buy food; but I tell you what I will do. I shall give you a couple of rand if you will go out and buy yourself a drink.” The tramp said to the man: “My good sir, I do not drink.” So the man said: “All right, fine, let me give you a couple of rand to buy some cigarettes.” The tramp replied: “Sir, please, I want some money for food; I don’t smoke.” The man said: “I’ll give you a couple of rand to place a bet on the Pick Six.” The tramp said: “Sir, I don’t gamble.” The man turned to the tramp and said: “My good man, you must come home with me. You must come and have lunch with me at home, because I want my wife to see what a man looks like who doesn’t smoke, drink or gamble.” [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I was refuting the statement that our forefathers gave in too easily to the misdeeds of the Whites.

Sir, at one stage in our history—I am talking about 1948—the Coloured population component had a decisive vote in 11 constituencies, and at that stage our forefathers boycotted the elections. At that stage, our forefathers caused the NP to come to power as a result of boycotting activities. Yet, believe it or not, today these wise gentlemen are allowing and condoning boycotts.

Our forefathers also had faith. They entrusted the Whites with our future—just as those wise gentlemen are entrusting our future to the Blacks today. When I say that, I do not mean to be racist. I merely mean that our people, our population component, must stop running away and leaving our future in the hands of others.

Hear, hear!

We must put our shoulder to the wheel ourselves and work out our own future. To those wise people I want to say the following: You are not doing any better than our forefathers, even if you think so; on the contrary, where were you when our parents, who are members of the LP today, or were members in the past, had to run away under fire? Where were you when they were detained and interrogated in isolation in times when the police did not play games? Where were you, you wise gentlemen, when the rest of the world refrained from protective action? After all, it was only yesterday that the outside world adopted a protective stance towards us. Where were those wise gentlemen then? They were peacefully studying overseas and collecting degrees. [Interjections.] Today they are the ones who know better; tomorrow or the day after, history will repeat itself. Then the progeny of the Tutus will return to South Africa. Hon members must think about the Boesaks and the Gerwels, not to mention the others!

Today they accuse our parents of having accepted things too easily. Many of those people sat here in South Africa stuffing themselves on education, while other people had to make sacrifices. Now they want to condemn our forefathers. Such an attitude destroys discipline. I strongly object to it—and I want to place it on record—that authority and order in our schools is being broken down as a result of this statement. The authority of teachers who do not want to play the game is being broken down, either by pupils, other teachers or by radicals. That is why our children find it difficult to settle into the work environment. They come into conflict with order and authority. Many of them are not adequately schooled and against their will have to be satisfied with an inferior job. This is as a result of school boycotts.

We have not even spoken about the unemployment problem that Bishop Tutu is aggravating with his campaign for sanctions. Our young people are disillusioned young people. They seek refuge in gangs and I do not blame them for doing so. They are disillusioned and shattered. The guidelines in our community are the wrong guidelines. Many young people come from oppressed rural circumstances to seek work and a solution here in the cities. That is when they become trapped in unemployment situations. However, they cannot be held responsible for the conditions. As a result of these circumstances, people are forced to steal and murder simply in order to survive. In many cases they hate their communities. Bonteheuwel is a typical example of this. I want to tell the parents of Bonteheuwel today that they must realise that school boycotts and sanctions are largely responsible for the chaos we are experiencing. They must help us to restore order and authority and to oppose Tutu’s sanction campaign tooth and nail.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Berg River. Today, I want to emphasise in particular our State medical practitioners and health. I find it difficult to understand that there are still State medical practitioners who often turn away people who are sick, invalids and cripples, with the instruction that they should find light work. What employer will employ someone with a missing arm or leg to do light work?

Why must the MP take a half-dead voter to a medical practitioner and explain to him that the man is really sick? Why is it necessary for him to have to explain to the medical practitioner that he cannot even recommend that the man do light work? For example, I took a dying man to a district surgeon, and told him that the man was terminally ill. Forms were then completed and sent away. Two months later, when his grant was finally approved, I buried the man myself. [Interjections.] This is the kind of thing that our people have to go through.

I always tell my people that when they go to the district surgeon they should dress properly. I tell them that they must wash themselves. [Interjections.] When they get there, the district surgeon tells them they are better dressed than he is. [Interjections.] It is a shame, Sir. I motivate my people in my constituency to live decently. If they go to a medical practitioner or to hospitals, I always tell them they must wash and put on clean clothes. When they get there, however, they are told that they are so well-dressed it does not seem that they are in need of any grants. I strongly object to this kind of reaction. [Interjections.]

Sir, it is too easy for our people to obtain methylated spirits. There are meths drinkers in our community who lie on the sides of the roads and under bushes. They cannot help themselves. They are sickly; they begin to swell. It must be ensured that methylated spirits is not so readily available to anyone across the counter. In the past one had to sign for it, but now one can buy it freely. Who suffers? The nation and our community. I should like to see stricter measures applied so that it is not all that easy to obtain methylated spirits.

The blue train must be stopped!

With regard to the “dop” system, I am grateful to be able to say that in my constituency there are only a few farms that still make use of this system. There are only a few farms in the Klein Drakenstein in my constituency in Paarl where the “dop” system is still applied. We are truly grateful to those farmers who did away with the “dop” system. Instead, they paid their workers more money, built beautiful houses for them and gave them a piece of land on which to grow vegetables for themselves. To those farmers who still cling to the “dop” system, and who say that unless a “dop” is given, the work is not done, I want to say it is nonsense. It is that “dop” that has made the worker weak and resulted in his not being able to think clearly. The sooner the “dop” system is destroyed, the better.

Sir, I am coming to the question of illegitimate children. We should bow our heads in shame because of the large number of illegitimate children.

When one considers the situation, the reason is that sufficient decent housing could not be provided for our people. If we were to give people decent houses with two or three bedrooms, the situation would be different. [Interjections.] We are not talking about showy houses. We are talking about decent, ordinary and economic accommodation for our people. As soon as this is done for our community, there will be fewer illegitimate children. I am appealing to the men who simply father children, and then abandon the mother so that she has to take refuge with the State. Stronger action should be taken against those men; not only against those in our community, but also against the White men who father children with our Coloured girls and then simply disappear.

I feel that more service centres than old age homes should be built. Our elderly people should remain involved in our community where they can be kept busy for, as long as possible. [Interjections.] An elderly person can go to a service centre for a day and spend his or her time profitably. The elderly can meet people from their own age group. They can do gardening and the like, but as soon as more old age homes are built, our elderly people and possibly their children take refuge in such a home for the elderly.

Therefore my plea is that more service centres should be built. I want to request that the hon the Minister complete the planning of the service centre in Parow as soon as possible. We have already started with it, so that more of our elderly people can become involved in the community. They can report to the service centre daily. This is why we have begun to move in that direction, and I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister and his department to see to it that the service centre in Parow is built as quickly as possible, so that we can motivate our elderly to become constructively involved in the community.

With regard to hospitals, I want to say that we are often disappointed when we see how we are treated by our own people in hospitals. I think it is a disgrace that some of our own people do not treat our people decently. [Interjections.] It breaks one’s heart to hear how members of the younger generation talk to an elderly person. The elderly person often can not walk properly; his voice is weak, but the clerk or the nurse does not think of listening to such an elderly person carefully. They are screamed at, and some of those elderly people simply burst into tears. Therefore, I am making an appeal for greater consideration to be shown to our elderly and to our community as a whole. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, when my two colleagues from the Boland spoke before me, the debate became like sparkling wine. There was an effervescence characteristic of the Boland. I shall talk about the Boland again later.

When we listen to these speeches, there is a rainbow over our frustrations. I want to say this morning: “Coloureds, let us forget our frustrations and build a better future. Let us throw away those bricks that we have been hoarding. Let us shake off that bitterness and laugh together the way we used to laugh.” To do that, I am repeating what I said yesterday. With this hon Minister at the helm, we are going to swing into action. We are not going to leave it to others to do.

There are a few points that I want to bring to the attention of hon members. Much has been said here about diseases. Let us fight those diseases. Let us form societies in our community to fight this extremely destructive illness, TB. The hon the Minister is aware of the problem and is in a better position than I am to give statistics on how this disease is slowly consuming our community like a cancer. This disease could be our downfall. It does not help merely to speak about it academically or to leave it to the next man. We must actively fight this disease.

The second point is alcohol. There is absolutely nothing wrong with drinking wine. After all, South Africa is a wine country, but it is high time the correct habits were cultivated with regard to the consumption of alcohol. We are handicapped by limited drinking hours in comparison with other countries. If we were to ease these constraints on the use of alcohol, we would be dealing alcohol abuse a deathblow. A man works on a building for up to seven hours and then rushes to have a quick drink on an empty stomach—it is physically detrimental to him—because time is running out. For this reason, we find that in the modern world in which we live, our artisans and even those people who are higher up on the employment ladder, are crippled by the alcoholic condition in which they find themselves.

There is another law that the hon the Minister could inform me about in his reply. There is so much red tape involved in having someone admitted to a rehabilitation centre, that if my brother were an alcoholic, I would be tempted simply to let him go to the dogs. That red tape must be done away with. If I can prove that I can save a human being from the condition that he is in, I should be able to do so as quickly as possible.

In my home town, Worcester, there is such a centre and I therefore know what I am talking about. We often experience problems in having such a person admitted to Toevlug. The man himself must want to be admitted to such an institution. That is important. However, the whole community often feels that he should go there. I want to pay tribute to the Toevlug rehabilitation centre which has helped many a person back onto the road that the hon the Minister and I walk.

A third possibility that some hon members touched on, was the private sector. I should like the hon the Minister to arrange for workers in factories to have regular medical examinations to see whether they do not have some or other disease. I want to go further and ask that we and the hon the Minister have our domestic servants medically examined at least twice a year. There is no point in their leaving our houses shining but full of germs. If we all work together in this way, I believe that South Africa will once again become a healthy country.

One often reads that in other countries, especially Germany and even in Japan, great emphasis is being placed on the role that the school plays in physical education. Do we build schools to be used only from eight in the morning until two in the afternoon or should they rather be built to serve as community centres in our residential areas? Surely our young people could receive physical education after hours in our school halls under the supervision of teachers or other people in the community. Social workers could also play a part there. I am glad to be able to say this afternoon that the students of the Minnie Hofmeyer Training School are doing this kind of work with their chipcross movement. A clergyman once said that if he could win only one soul per year for the Kingdom of Heaven, he would be happy. I want to say that if such institutions could restore only one person per month to physical health, it would make my community happy. The school must stand there like a beacon to promote physical education and welfare in the community.

I now want to bring a few constituency matters to the attention of the hon the Minister. As a result of inflation, the Minnie Hofmeyer Training School for Christian Coloured social workers is experiencing serious financial problems. On my visit to the rector last month, I was asked to do something about the matter. I promised him that I would raise it in the debate. The CPTA have never been to Minnie Hofmeyer. They do not even know that such a place exists, but they run to Oudtshoorn, Steinkopf and wherever. The hon the Minister knows better than I do that the number of people per social worker in South Africa does not compare favourably with that in other countries. That institution ought to produce four times as many workers to continue this important work. Therefore, I want to invite the hon the Minister to get in touch with the rector so that something can be done about the matter. I should appreciate that. I want to thank the mother church as well as the mission church for what they have done for Minnie Hofmeyer. However, it is time this institution was expanded.

I am glad that the municipality of Worcester has agreed to make more land available—as the hon the Minister of Education and Training has said—so that such places can become mini-universities. The idea behind this is that more people should be trained and more lecturers should come from our own ranks. Unfortunately, if our White counterparts were to walk out on us today, it is doubtful whether we would have the necessary people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on this occasion I should like to thank the hon the Minister and congratulate him on the debate that commenced in the House yesterday and is continuing today. The hon the Minister has an exceptionally well-informed ministerial committee. The committee is informed regularly about the activities of the hon the Minister’s department and about the service fields that fall under his portfolio. I am not surprised, therefore, that this hon Minister’s committee has visited a number of institutions during the past year. On these visits we saw what was being done at these institutions and what improvements have been made and are going to be made in future.

I decided to talk about the position of the mentally handicapped child. These unfortunate children in our community are usually regarded as the stupid children. They are ostracised at school and they are “rejected” in the community, but it is our task, as community leaders, to take care of their needs. It is because of these shortcomings with regard to the mentally handicapped child that we have begun to address the problem.

It is essential to express one’s full potential in order to lead a happy and satisfying life. For that reason it is essential that the mentally handicapped child be properly trained so that he can function on that level. The mentally handicapped child is an individual who generally has a lower than average intellectual capacity. As a result, such a child finds it difficult to learn to adapt in his stages of development. The causes of this include genetic deviations, brain damage and brain injuries, malnutrition, or alcohol and drug abuse. The IQs of these children are between 30 and 50. I should like to know from the hon the Minister to what extent his department grants financial assistance to institutions that take care of these children.

After everything that has been said about technical aspects and other problems, we are still caught up in a cycle of poverty. Consequently, despite all the fine things we have in mind, we cannot do anything unless we help this hon Minister to help our community to move out of that cycle of poverty. We have a duty to our community, and that duty rests on the shoulders of every responsible person in our community. We can no longer say, “That is not my child; he is not part of my family structure and therefore I need not concern myself about him.” I think we have reached the point where every person must have the needs of others at heart, irrespective of whether those other people are related to him or form part of his immediate family structure. We must draw those people’s problems to the attention of the hon the Minister so that they can be brought to the attention of the Government.

I am not saying we must go begging to the Whites. As the representatives of our community, we must make ourselves available to take care of our people’s needs.

Sir, what does one see when one looks at the past of this hon Minister? I have seen video recordings of his work in George and in the Southern Cape, and I can say that it is no wonder that the standard of living of the George community is on a much higher level today than it was before the hon the Minister took over there.

I now want to come back to my own constituency. The hon the Minister has visited my constituency on numerous occasions. He has said: “Piet, this constituency of yours is rotting.” Sir, my constituency is situated in the Olifants River Valley. It is in a wine farming area, and there are large wine cellars in every town in my constituency. Last week I held a report meeting in my constituency. The hon member Mr Lockey accompanied me, and I can tell you, Sir, that it is tragic to see our people crowding around the bottle store. I really do not know what we can do to restrict the abuse of liquor in our community. I am really unhappy about the condition of the community in my constituency. The people no longer have any self-respect whatsoever. Nor do they respect other people’s norms and values when it comes to the abuse of liquor.

The biggest problem in my constituency is the question of liquor as payment for service rendered. I have mentioned here in the past that I have spoken to people in my area about giving workers liquor for services rendered. The one man told me: “But if I stop the liquor, I will have no workers left.” I said to him: “Let us go and see what the farmers at the Rural Foundation are doing. They have stopped giving the workers liquor.” I tell you, Sir, the productivity of those people has improved considerably. Those people’s profits increased with rapid strides. The conditions of the employees of those people improved by more than 100%.

Those farmers have become interested in the health and welfare of their workers. There are decent houses today on farms that are associated with the Rural Foundation. I want to appeal to the farmers in my constituency from this House today, and especially to those who still give their workers liquor, to stop that practice. Only when that custom is stopped will there be higher productivity among the workers, as well as higher profits and better living conditions in my constituency.

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity in the first place to thank the 22 members of Parliament who participated in the debate on this Vote. Then I want to congratulate them on the excellent quality of their speeches and debating. I am delighted because every year one can see clearly that our MPs are better prepared and that they make better speeches to render a great service to our people. It is merely a pity that the Official Opposition are conspicuous by their absence. I understand this, however, because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to me as an irrelevant Minister in the no-confidence debate. What he was actually saying to me was—bear in mind that such an irrelevant Minister has to administer R756 million—that the poor man is irrelevant to them. Wherever I go in future I shall tell voters how members of the Official Opposition act in this House.

I want to thank hon members for their support as well as for the thanks and appreciation which they expressed regarding the vast majority of our officials. It is pleasant to work with our study groups week after week. It is wonderful to see how the MPs of the LP take an interest and tell me that they want to sit every week to discuss the service field, the model community or this and that. They are eager to visit places like Faure and Bonnytown. MPs who serve on those study groups have really convinced me that they want to leave here as informed persons to render their people a better service. I want to thank hon members for supporting the department in such a wonderful way.

I listened to hon members’ requests. I think the requests were reasonable and when there was criticism—of which there was very little—it was truly constructive. It was pleasant and good to listen to hon members and to hear from them.

I want to touch on a few matters before I get to thanking hon members individually, as is our custom. I want to mention a few matters on which hon members are in complete agreement with me. Firstly, I am filled with gratitude that hon members agree with me that the Coloured population component must be uplifted socio-economically.

Hear, hear!

I am pleased to hear that hon members desire the enhancement and the promotion of the quality of life of our people.

Secondly, I am grateful that hon members all support the departmental policy. I spelt out clearly what we wanted to do by means of our policy service fields. I stated clearly what our objectives were and hon members all indicated that they supported them wholeheartedly. Thank you for this. I am also grateful that hon members support programmes which the department wants to launch. When we wanted to meet our senior citizens and people receiving allowances, MPs came forward and invited me. When we launched the programme “Give a child a chance”, MPs came to help my department with it. We have held 129 meetings on this subject so far, in which almost 59 300 people were involved. Sir, I want to thank hon members for helping us in such a wonderful way. I want to thank them too, however, for agreeing with us that this department should no longer handle only statutory matters, but should become community orientated.

Hear, hear!

That is why hon members pleaded that our communities should become our very own—that they should become caring communities and self-help communities. Hon members said the church, the school and the community itself should do far more toward upliftment. I want to thank hon members for this. I look forward to having our communities become more involved and to taking over more responsibility ourselves as regards the upliftment of our people.

I want to add that we are all in agreement that a positive attempt should now be made to equalise social pensions, allowances and the means test. [Interjections.] Sir, I can assure you that I intend changing my strategy next year. Hon members will see what my strategy will be next year.

Thirdly, I want to thank hon members for emphasising that officials should treat our people courteously and show a positive attitude. Emphasis was placed on the conduct of the district surgeon, the pension officer and the magistrate.

Hon members also gave prominence to our own department’s officials.

†I would just like to repeat this in English. All officials serving lesser privileged people must bear in mind that they are civil servants. [Interjections.] They are civil servants. They are there to serve the community. They are not the bosses; they are there to serve the community.

*I also want to thank hon members for conveying the thanks of beneficiaries to us. I know how grateful our people are for that tiny bonus of R60. I know how they feel. The day after the bonus was paid, I visited Ladismith, Riversdale, George, Willowmore and Uitenhage. At the late Mrs Sweetland’s funeral, at the “Give a child a chance” programme at Ladismith, Riversdale and Uitenhage, senior citizens came forward and thanked me for what I had done for them. Last Friday at Ladismith a woman of 103 came specially after the introduction of the programme to say thank you. She is 103 years old. I am grateful that hon members conveyed the thanks and gratitude of beneficiaries to us.

†Our people do appreciate it and it is only a small percentage of our people who abuse pensions. [Interjections.]

Yes, or in ignorance.

Nevertheless, there is a further point with which all hon members in this House will agree and that is the dissemination of information. Almost 10 years ago in East London the hon member for Esselen Park addressed me as the executive member of Assomac when I said that our people …

Are stupid.

I did not use the word “stupid”, I used …

Ignorant.

Yes, that is what I said. I said they were ignorant. Then he added that he wanted to tell that clergyman that they were not ignorant; they were uninformed. That is why I consider it so important that all hon members referred to the dissemination of information to our people. The hon the Minister of Finance, for instance, did not know why so much money had suddenly been spent on pensions and allowances last year. Our people were not informed and that is why they did not request the necessary Government aid. They were uninformed, but then we went to our people. MPs, the department and the Minister then moved out and informed our people and told them what they could obtain, even if they earned this or that amount. We said, “You can get it because the Whites get it.” What applies to the Whites applies equally to us. [Interjections.] That is why I exceeded my budget last year. That is why an additional budget was required for this department last year.

As far as information is concerned, I am grateful that we are invited and used by the department. I can furnish the figure, even though the Official Opposition says that we merely shake hands with our people. I have held 305 meetings over the past three and a half years. I am not referring to political meetings now, but to work which has been done by my department. Those 305 meetings involved 105 904 people. Hon members can take a look at Ellis Park Stadium when it is crammed full of people. I addressed twice as many people. We are doing our share to inform our people and hon members agree with me that our people must be informed.

There is something else about which we agree. We agree about decentralisation. I shall reply further to the hon member for Britstown when I thank each one personally, but I want to tell hon members that our department agrees. That is why the plans for De Aar have already been approved. The department of my hon colleague, the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works, is involved with Vredenburg, Oudtshoorn, Caledon, Port Shepstone, Aliwal, Nelspruit and Klerksdorp.

What about Piketberg?

That is still coming. [Interjections.] Just give me a chance; give the child a chance. We believe, like hon members, in the decentralisation of our services. Then there is a further important point on which we agree and that is that people should help themselves. I have already spoken about this. Everyone agrees with us that we have to do something positive to uplift our people. People often come to me during meetings and say: “Mr Minister, what is the LP doing for us?” Then I ask them what they are doing for themselves.

A further point on which we were in agreement was the co-ordination which had to take place between us and welfare organisations and how we should co-operate to fight poverty. I want to ask every hon member to draw up list of all the welfare organisations in his constituency. Hon members must also make a list of all the churches. The church is not there only to look after the soul. The church must look after the entire person, body and soul. That is why hon members must have all people who furnish our people with welfare services on that list. As an MP, every hon member who represents a constituency must know what those welfare organisations do. Hon members can join them and offer their services. Ask them what they require and what their needs are so that we may see where we can help. In this way hon members must become actively involved and must co-ordinate their work. We must work together in this way to uplift our people. [Interjections.] If there is no co-operation, this must be put right. If an hon member knows that those people are supported by our department, he must invite the official or even the Minister to go along so that the matter may be put right as this causes our people suffering. It is not I as a Minister, hon members as MPs, or welfare organisations which suffer as a result of this, but our people.

I should like to continue. We are speak about overcrowding. We all in agreement on this. Unfortunately this falls under my hon colleague’s portfolio and I shall not discuss it any further, but it is very detrimental to health, as hon members said with justification.

We are also in agreement about the “dop” system.

I should like to ask hon members something. As the hon member for Vredendal knows, there is always liquor, but we must teach our people to drink in the right way. One should first have a meal and then a glass of wine. I do not enjoy liquor, but we must remember that there will always be people who want to take a drink to toast somebody’s health or with a meal and we simply have to teach our people to drink in the right way.

They can drink grape juice.

I am pleased that we agree about fighting tuberculosis and other diseases such as asthma, heart disease and so on. This falls under my colleague the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, but we shall play our part in informing and helping our people.

Many complaints are received about hospitals. Hospitals fall under the provinces and therefore also under this colleague of mine. I am privileged, however, to be able to serve on the National Health Policy Council and I want to ask hon members today as members of Parliament to report any problems or any requirements regarding their hospitals to us. They may do so in writing and I shall be pleased to discuss this with this hon Minister.

I now came to speeches which were made during the debate. I hope I have enough time left.

†I want to express a special word of appreciation to the hon member for Ottery. He participated in the debate regardless of the fact that he did not feel well. This is the kind of dedication which is displayed by an MP who is really concerned about the wellbeing of his constituents. The long delays and consideration periods as well as the problems which he has experienced at the regional office of my department in Wynberg may be attributed, firstly, to the lack of sufficient trained personnel acting in an advisory capacity. Secondly there are too many relief schemes administered by us. My department is in the process of consolidating these different schemes into one scheme. This will make the administration much easier for junior officials. The situation, however, is no excuse for bad manners and a lack of courtesy. A senior official of the department will investigate the matter and I can assure the hon member that it will be resolved. The same applies to the regional office in Worcester to which the hon member for Rawsonville referred.

With reference to his request that there be closer contact between officials of the regional offices and those of the local offices, I think it could be done and preferably by the officials in the field who, at regional level, could advise and train staff members.

*This applies to all hon members, not only the hon member for Ottery. If they invite us, our officials can address their groups.

The hon member for Swartland expressed his concern about the welfare of the youth outside the school context. This is already being addressed by my department.

The hon member’s proposal about the after-hours use of school buildings as regards the upliftment of the youth outside the school context is a matter about which this department is already negotiating with the Department of Education and Culture.

The hon member for Diamant is not here now, but I want to inform him with reference to his question on school feeding schemes that the department is not involved in such schemes. Departmental funds are not used for such schemes either. I am able to inform the hon member, however, that the department has been involved in the school feeding scheme in the Richtersveld for the past two years, but this is subsidised by the mines; they supply funds for bread and milk. From this it should also be possible to determine whether a school feeding scheme is justified. Dieticians in my department are primarily involved in the education and tuition of the community in general.

On the subject of model communities, I should like to enlarge on what I said in my speech in this regard. Although we have started on one community, we have also identified other target communities which are receiving attention practically simultaneously. I can name places such as Douglas, Campbell, Rietfontein and Daniëlskuil in the area to which the hon member referred. Rural areas are definitely not overlooked.

Unfortunately the hon member for Hantam is not here today because he has hurt his foot. I want to thank him for the concern which he expressed, however, about the disparity in the means test. I want to mention that an applicant for a pension or an allowance is permitted to own a house. If he occupies the property himself, its value, regardless of the municipal valuation, is estimated at only R4 900 for the purpose of a pension or allowance. This amount, together with the applicant’s other assets such as investments, bank accounts, etc, is currently not permitted to exceed R28 000. Nevertheless I want to assure him that we shall pay attention to this matter next year.

The hon member for Heideveld spoke about the upgrading of places of safety at Bonnytown and Faure. I want to assure him that this is definitely receiving attention.

The hon member for Rawsonville spoke about unmarried mothers and the payment of allowances by the magistrate’s court at Paarl. In this regard I may mention that the takeover of administrative functions attached to the Maintenance Act, 1963, is receiving attention. Concerning the matter of the payment of allowances on death, my department is doing everything in its power to assist the beneficiaries of the deceased as rapidly as possible. Long delays should then occur only in exceptional cases and in such cases the department would appreciate it if they were brought to the attention of head office immediately. I want to ask the hon member not to wait until six months have elapsed; the matter must be concluded much more quickly. If the hon member informs the regional office of this, they have to acknowledge receipt of his letter within six weeks; the case must be concluded within three months. If this does not happen, I request that the hon member bring the matter to the attention of head office.

Applications for disability allowances for tuberculosis sufferers are dealt with on an urgent basis by my department. The hon member must not hesitate to bring such delays to my attention. Please, hon members—this applies to all our MPs but especially to the hon member for Rawsonville who has brought it to my attention now—cases of tuberculosis are to be brought to my attention immediately because such cases always receive priority.

†Now I should like to refer to the hon member for Griqualand West. He expressed grave concern about the shortage of dentists and dental personnel. The ratio of one non-White dentist per 50 000 Coloured people is an assumption that may be correct. The dental faculty of the University of the Western Cape and this department are in the process of negotiations for a new dental hospital, with increased training facilities for the training of additional dentists. A request to double the number of Coloured dentists to be trained by the year 2000 is being considered. The Government’s Interdepartmental Committee for Dental Services and Training and the Dental Association have recommended the establishment of expanded training facilities for the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of the Western Cape and the department. The demographic factors fully substantiate these recommendations. In view of the difficult economic circumstances prevailing in the country, a feasible and cost-effective system is being devised to provide the University of the Western Cape with the necessary facilities so that it may provide vital health services for the developing communities which it serves.

*I shall now reply to the hon member for North Eastern Cape. I hope hon members will be patient with me because I should like to reply to everybody in the time at my disposal. As regards problems experienced with clerks at magistrates’ offices, I want to inform the hon member that the department is aware of alleged problem areas in this connection and is in the process of addressing them. For instance, it is departmental policy to furnish its services as near to the people as is possible, preferably within the community. This matter is being addressed nationwide at present and, as soon as it has reached its logical conclusion, everybody should be happy. As far as the payment of pensions at post offices is concerned, where community facilities exist arrangements may be made with the postmasters involved to pay pensions in the hall.

The hon member also requested that a programme on alcoholism similar to “Give a child a chance” be launched. The service field committee will consider such a proposal, but it could also be included in community involvement programmes. The co-operation of Sanca and other organisations such as “Toevlug van die Diakonale Dienste van die NG-sendingkerk” will also be sought.

On the subject of the office at Aliwal North, I may mention that a health facility for Aliwal North is included in departmental planning. The hon member is not here now, but I want to tell him this.

Linking up with this, I want to bring the following as regards the accommodation of my department to the attention of all hon members. With reference to branch offices at Upington, I may mention that new offices were taken into use as from 1 May 1988. New offices are already in use at George. In the case of Vredendal, additional offices are being made available as from 1 July. New offices are being erected at Springbok and are expected to be ready by March 1989. New offices are being built in Worcester and will be ready by approximately January 1989. At present offices are being fitted at Walvis Bay and they should be ready soon.

I now come to the hon member for Berg River. The hon member for Berg River spoke about problems of our youth. This matter links up with the model community program of the department and also forms part of the child and family care service field. It is true that the type of housing has an influence on a child’s character. The Ministers’ Council, in adopting the model community strategy, has involved the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture to provide service in the project. I agree that parents have a sacred duty to ensure their children’s chance of a future, but the most important aspect is that the community should become involved and should take the initiative in making improvements. As I have said, I agree wholeheartedly with hon members’ approach.

†I also want to refer to the hon member for Bishop Lavis. I sympathize with the matter which was raised by this hon member. There is obviously a great need for housing subsidies for employees at the institutions the hon member referred to. However, it is an issue between employers and employees, which in this case is the Cape Peninsula Organization for the Aged. The old age homes controlled by this organization are subsidised by the department, but we cannot prescribe their conditions of service. However, the merit of this appeal is something the CPOA should consider.

*I want to add that I shall discuss the matter with their executive director. It may be possible that money which they are spending on their subsidy at the moment could become part of the budget which is submitted to the department. We can discuss this later. I can assure the hon member, however, that I shall investigate the matter.

The hon member for Esselen Park expressed his concern about the matter of overcrowding in his constituency and I support his request that upgrading is essential. I want to assure this hon member that negotiations take place continuously between my department and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture on the subject of community development. As regards the furnishing of health services in the hon member’s constituency, I want to re-emphasise that in the takeover of clinics’ day hospitals and community health centres, my department will definitely ensure that the services rendered are not substandard. Concerning allegations of horrendous conditions at Tygerberg and Groote Schuur Hospitals, I should appreciate it if the hon member would bring the matter to my attention in writing so that we may raise the matter with the National Health Policy Council.

We are continually looking out for better accommodation at Beaufort West, Vredenburg, Oudtshoorn and Port Shepstone; suitable accommodation is also being sought at De Aar. As for Port Elizabeth, more suitable accommodation is also being sought in the city.

The hon member for Heidedal requested that MPs’ offices be used by officers. I welcome the proposal and my department will see what they can do about the matter. Hon members may invite us to take a look at the offices and we will then be able to decide to what degree we can use them.

The hon member also said that pensioners’ allowances should not be linked to another income as social allowances were specifically intended to be of aid to the needy in society, for instance those who could not make provisions for their old age. It follows that a means test is essential in order to protect the less affluent against exploitation. If the means test is discontinued, the hon member for Heidedal could also queue up, for instance, and apply for a social pension. There must be a means test.

As regards the withdrawal of allowances to 18-year-olds, I want to say that the onus rests on the beneficiary to continue it or not. If the department assumed responsibility for this, it could lead to maladministration. The merits of a case could be lost. I want our people to stand up for their rights themselves. We have told people everywhere that, if their child was in Std 8, for instance, and was going to turn 18 and was progressing well at school, the parents could go to the school principal three months beforehand and request a report on his or her progress. They could then apply for the continuation of the maintenance allowance on an annual basis. I assure hon members that if a child does his or her share, my department will assist in paying the maintenance allowances until he or she has passed Std 10.

In reply to the request that there should be co-operation between the regional welfare board and the MP, I consider it obvious that this should be the case.

I shall now return to the hon member for Hawston. He spoke about the aggressive attitude of social workers. If this attitude should turn into blatant discourtesy toward anybody, hon members must not hesitate to bring it to my attention. Discourtesy and rudeness cannot be tolerated. Hon members must bring this kind of conduct to my attention immediately so that we can reprimand the officer concerned. From the nature of their work, social workers have to maintain a degree of aggressiveness to be able to furnish their clients with the best service. Sometimes they have to draw information out of people. You know, Sir, there are certain people one has to treat differently from others.

One has to draw it out of them.

As the hon member for Bishop Lavis says, one has to draw information out of some people, because they do not listen to what one says. Frequently one also has to speak sternly, but this does not mean that one has to act rudely and discourteously. Nevertheless a social worker does his best to obtain all the necessary information from the person whom he is questioning.

I also wish to assure the hon member that district surgeons who fall under my department may not charge a fee of R2. My department does prescribe that a R2 fee must be levied by magistrates’ offices for a statement of indigence. It is departmental policy to appoint assessment committees to consider applications for disability allowances. This service has already been put into operation at the Karl Bremer Hospital and we envisage extending it.

Sir, just as a person finds bad teachers, one unfortunately also finds bad officials. There are good district surgeons and there are bad ones. There are those who are well disposed toward our people and there are bigoted district surgeons.

If one is convinced that that patient is really disabled, one need only go to a doctor. Hon members may then send his report to me or to my department and say: “This doctor says the man is disabled, but now your doctor comes along and says he is not disabled.” Do hon members understand this? [Interjections.] I had an experience of this nature the other day after the hon member Mr Lockey had brought such a case to my attention. I then recommended that the person in question go to a private medical practitioner. If that man is so ill, he must go to a private medical practitioner so that he may submit a comprehensive report. That man is receiving a disability allowance today, but one first has to establish the truth. The hon member for Rawsonville was correct. That man died two months after he had been granted the disability allowance. This may not happen.

In reply to hon members’ request concerning the Rural Foundation, I shall give instructions that my department pursue the matter. The Rural Foundation falls under the department of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, but we co-operate very closely and I have addressed many a meeting of the Rural Foundation. As regards furnishing organisations with relief, these organisations in various constituencies are free to approach my department. Nevertheless I must mention that all applications will be considered on merit.

I want to speak about health services. The hon member for Britstown referred to people who were discharged from the De Novo Rehabilitation Centre and turned to drink again the same day. The hon member for Southern Free State also broached this matter. This does not necessarily mean that the staff of the rehabilitation centre had failed in their task of rehabilitation. Unfortunately a very great measure of reliance also has to be placed on the co-operation of the patient in the rehabilitation of a person addicted to alcohol or drugs. It frequently happens that somebody has to be referred to an institution for rehabilitation as a result of alcohol abuse. He has no understanding of his condition, however, and is in no way motivated to help himself. Even with the best treatment in the world he does not develop any understanding and such a person is never cured. Possibly the hon member for Britstown was referring to one of these incurable cases.

†The hon member Mr Solomon referred to the problem of tuberculosis and, although it is a matter which resorts with the Department of National Health and Population Development, we are also involved because we realise that tuberculosis is a symptom of poor socio-economic conditions. Our primary task in this regard is one of education and guidance, which the department takes very seriously. However, the provision of work and adequate compensation is probably more important in the upliftment of our people, because no man can really make use of treatment and educational facilities unless he can afford to do so. People can only afford to do so if they have the assurance that their families are secure. This is a real problem. We do not need more treatment facilities, more pensions or handouts. The Department of Health Services and Welfare strives for total health and therefore will not ignore the problems of restricted work opportunities and the differential compensation of our people.

*I regard this in a very serious light. Hon members should look at the department’s population development program. One becomes anxious when one sees that the monthly income per breadwinner at a place like Riviersonderend, where the “Give the child a chance” programme was launched the other day, averages R55.

Do hon members realise now why our people are so sick?

I want to return to the hon member for Heideveld who asked what could be done to curb the vagrancy problem. This problem is universal. As regards the abuse of alcohol and drugs and other pathological manifestations, discussions have been held with the SA Police, the Cape Town City Council and private welfare organisations such as Nicro to see what can be done about this problem. Various proposals have been put forward, even for the establishment of work colonies at places like Sishen among others, and we are still investigating this matter.

I shall have to hurry as my time has almost expired.

†The hon member for Ottery referred to an important issue. Environmental health is a matter of real concern to us and the issues the hon member raised confirm the need for us to have our own health inspectors with the necessary statutory powers to enforce the Health Act regulations. Negotiations are taking place in this regard at present.

*If we think in terms of environmental health, I consider it very important that we should have health inspectors who serve our department. We would never have built those Helenvale-Katanga houses if we had had good health inspectors. I paid a visit to Helenvale. One railway carriage serving as a house has four double rooms and up to 20 people live in each room. This would not happen if there were health inspectors to investigate these matters.

I want to return to the hon member for Rawsonville who referred to disability allowances. I have already explained how these are assessed.

The hon member for Esselen Park referred to health matters among others. The departmental policy is to appoint health committees in every community so that distinctive needs may be identified and the problem solved in co-operation with the department and other relevant service organisations. We want to involve our own people and communities these health matters too.

The hon member for Vredendal asked what contribution was made by the Government in subsidising mentally retarded children in institutions. The reply is that the unitary cost has been revised and that they are subsidised on the same basis as children’s homes at present. I also want to tell hon members that the education of the mentally retarded child is a task which is dealt with by the Department of Education and Culture.

With these words I thank hon members for their splendid support in dealing with this Vote.

Debate concluded.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Mr Chairman, the amount of R18 559 million is being provided for the possible improvement of certain occupational groups that are still to be investigated.

Debate concluded.

Debate on Supplementary Estimates:

Mr Chairman, hon members will remember that the hon the Minister of Finance made an announcement in Parliament during May of this year that a single bonus of R60 per beneficiary would be payable to pensioners. At the same time emergency relief was announced for victims of the recent flood disaster. When the Budget for 1988-89 was finalised, this was an unknown factor, as was the consequential amendment of this after an amount of R20 589—the estimated amount necessary for defraying expenditure in this connection—was granted to the Administration by the central Treasury from the general account of the Vote. This amount was apportioned as follows: There is R6 964 million for the Subprogramme: Care of the Aged under the Programme: Welfare Promotion, consisting of old age pensions to the value of R6,528 million and veterans’ pensions to the value of R436 000. Under the Subprogramme: Care of the Handicapped, there is R4 857 000 for disability pensions and R81 000 for pensions for the blind, amounting to a total of R4 962 000. A total of R3 604 million is being budgeted for the Subprogramme: Child Welfare, consisting of maintenance grants amounting to R2,947 million and foster parent grants amounting to R657 000. Under Subprogramme: Relief of Distress, R5 million is allocated for the flood disaster. Under the Programme: Mental Health, we have the Subprogramme: Hospital Treatment, for which R59 000 has been budgeted.

Approval for a supplementary budget of revenue and expenditure therefore has to be granted by this House to supplement the original printed budget of revenue and expenditure that was tabled during the present Parliamentary session in this House earlier this year.

Debate concluded.

Votes and Schedule agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the objectives of the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill, Bill 25 of 1988, comprise the following: In the first place there is a need for a uniform and scientific system for testing persons who handle arms.

Secondly, as a result of the increase in the workload of the Minister of Law and Order, it is no longer desirable that he should be burdened with the ever-increasing administrative functions in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act of 1969. Provision is therefore made in this Bill for certain of these functions to be transferred to a board—known as the Appeal Board—with the proviso that the Minister may still exercise these functions if he so wishes.

Thirdly the Bill provides for a number of miscellaneous and practical changes. These comprise inter alia the introduction of stricter control measures over the safekeeping of arms; the declaration of a person who has been found guilty of certain serious offences to be unfit to possess an arm and, thirdly, the compulsory carrying of licences to possess arms. A firearm is a special kind of dangerous object which traditionally is meant primarily to kill, to injure or to cause damage. There are few instruments as dangerous as a firearm, however. [Interjections.] One hears almost daily of shooting accidents which have taken place because of the careless attitude with regard to and the negligent handling of firearms. There is legislation to prohibit the negligent driving of cars, but there is no legislation to prohibit the negligent handling of firearms. Because of the careless attitude with regard to firearms, arms are often lost and crimes are often committed with stolen arms. The careless attitude with regard to arms often contributes to their not being taken proper care of. On the basis of statistics, I want to indicate today how many firearms are lost and how many crimes are committed with stolen firearms.

In 1974,1602 arms were lost; 3 147 in 1976; 4 706 in 1978 and in 1980 the figure was 4 870. In 1982 the figure was 5 366; in 1984 it was 6 566 and in 1986 it was 10 111. [Interjections.]

That is more than negligent.

Sir, the figures are increasing. The figures for crimes that were committed with stolen firearms are as follows. In 1986 there were 1 013 murders and attempted murders; 1 896 robberies; 198 cases in which firearms were unlawfully aimed; 6 cases in which firearms were fired in built-up areas; 6 cases of public violence and 13 rapes.

In order to gain better control over the possession and handling of firearms, stricter control measures had to be drawn up. Consequently the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill [B 25-88] became essential. Clause 1 (a), clause 14 and clause 27 deal with the Appeal Board.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, as a result of the increase in the hon the Minister’s workload in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act, it is no longer economical or desirable to saddle him with administrative functions in terms of this Act. The number of memoranda dealt with by the hon the Minister is indicative of the increase in his workload.

Abe is available. [Interjections.]

Why Abe? I can become the Deputy myself. [Interjections.]

In 1980,373 memoranda were submitted. In 1981 the figure was 529; in 1983 it was 1 162; in 1984, 1 408; in 1985 it was 1 943; in 1986,4 215; and last year the hon the Minister—this is a man who works hard—dealt with 4 999 memoranda. He dealt with only one less than 5 000 memoranda last year, therefore.

There are no restrictions on the nature or scope of the functions, powers or duties which the Minister can delegate to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board has both a legal and administrative nature. Its relationship to the Minister is one of decentralisation in that it does not exercise any power delegated to it in its own name, but in the name of the Minister. The Minister retains control over the way in which the Appeal Board exercises its powers at all times, and can promulgate regulations on how the Appeal Board should exercise its powers.

The Minister can also intervene in respect of a matter which has not been dealt with by the Appeal Board, and can deal with it himself. If a party is not satisfied with the Appeal Board’s ruling, he can still appeal to the Minister. The Appeal Board will therefore not be an independent body at all, but will merely be seen as an extension of the Minister’s arm.

Clauses 1 (b), 3,4 and 4 (b), 6,8,9,15,16,17 and 26 of the Bill deal with the competent person and the certificate of competence. The question arises: When is a person competent to obtain a licence for a firearm? In the first place such a person may not be under the age of 16 years.

That is too young.

Such a person applies in the prescribed manner; he has to complete a prescribed test successfully and he has to pay the prescribed fee.

Characteristics that have to be tested are the person’s knowledge of how and when a firearm can be used legally and safely. His crime record will also be taken into consideration, as well as his temperamental suitability, whether he has a quick-tempered nature or a tendency to violence, for example. [Interjections.] Sir, hon members say I do not qualify. As far as possible, it must be determined whether or not the person is dependent on alcohol or drugs. Now I should like to hear who does not qualify! The person’s attitude to other population groups must also be determined. His status and sense of responsibility must be taken into consideration. If the person complies with all these requirements to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, he will be issued with a firearm licence.

Another very important point is the provision that if the Commissioner refuses an application, the applicant may, within 60 days after the date on which the Commissioner has refused the application, appeal to the Minister who may confirm the refusal or direct the Commissioner to issue the certificate of competence or licence applied for.

The insertion of the requirement that a licence will not be issued to a person unless he is in possession of the prescribed safe gave rise to suspicion among us in the standing committee. Safes are expensive articles, and we felt that this was simply a way of refusing licences to people who are not White. This suspicion was eliminated, however, when we were assured that in terms of the Explosives Act, Act 26 of 1956, one can make one’s own safe out of 6 mm mild steel.

Firearms have to be locked away in a strong-box when they are not on one’s person or under one’s direct control. Arms that are not kept in safekeeping hold certain dangers, in that they can easily be stolen and can end up in the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes. Children and irresponsible people who get hold of the firearms can cause shooting accidents. The present provisions for safekeeping do not work, and it is most important that no positive requirement has been laid down in respect of the safekeeping of firearms. The police frequently receive enquiries from the public on how arms should be safely kept.

The answer to this depends in any case upon the relevant person’s background knowledge and feeling about arms in general. Some people say, for example, that an arm should be locked up in a strong-box, whereas others think it should simply not be lying around in the home if there are small children who can play with it. Even the courts and the Commissioner’s delegates differ to a great extent about what do and do not constitute reasonable steps. In terms of this legislation, the Minister is now receiving the authority to promulgate regulations on the safekeeping of arms. [Interjections.]

Sir, hon members will simply have to listen patiently and acquaint themselves with the facts, because it has always been a problem to obtain a firearm licence. Clause 9 of the principal Act deals with arms and licences which have to be produced upon the request of a policeman. In terms of the present Act, a person who is found with an arm in his possession without his having a licence or other authorisation to possess the arm, will be given a reasonable period in which to produce it. What constitutes a “reasonable period” will depend upon the circumstances. If, for example, the person argues that he is travelling and will get home, where his identity document is, only three weeks later, a reasonable time will not be shorter than three weeks.

In view of the present security situation in the country, and for the sake of combating crime in general, it is essential that it be possible to recognise an unlicensed firearm as such immediately. It must then be possible immediately to arrest the person who has an illegal firearm in his possession—during police action or at roadblocks, for example. For that reason it is required in terms of the amending Bill that whenever a person has his arm on his person, he must also have his licence for that arm with him. For practical reasons a copy of the licence will be acceptable. It has been cleared with the State legal advisers that it is not necessary to amend the Act in order to provide that a copy is valid. Provisions in respect of copies will be contained in the regulations in any case, however.

In conclusion I want to talk about clause 18, which deals with the penalty that can be imposed for the illegal possession of armament, with the obligation to report the illegal presence of such armament, and also with certain suspicions relating to the law of evidence. The classes of armament which are controlled by section 32 of the principal Act have been taken over as is from the Arms and Ammunition Act, Act 28 of 1937. In view of the technological development in the armament industry, however, these classes should have been expanded some time ago.

Provision is now being made for the expansion of these classes, so as to cover all possible new technology. The use of explosive and incendiary devices in modern warfare, especially in acts of terrorism, is a reality. There is no legislation to regulate these devices at the moment. A degree of control is exercised over explosives by the Explosives Act, but this control is deficient, since control over explosives is exercised only by that section. The definition of armaments is therefore being extended to these devices.

The illegal possession of armament is regarded in a very serious light in South Africa and throughout the world. It is common knowledge that illegal military armament is generally used for acts of terror. The armament is smuggled into the country in an extremely devious way and is stored here for later use. Broederstroom was clear proof of this. Because of the serious and repugnant crimes that are committed with this armament, it is of the utmost importance that it be tracked down timeously. That is why people who are aware of such armament are compelled to report this to the police.

I have already pointed out that the people who are in illegal possession of armament are extremely underhand, and store such armament in depositories. It is true that it is often impossible to prove who has smuggled the arms in, and who has possessed or stored them. It is usually suspected that anyone who was in contact with people who possessed such arms, or was in the place where such armament was hidden, had knowledge of the arms. These sections are closely connected to sections 54 and 69 of the Internal Security Act, No 74 of 1982, which regulate offences such as terrorism and subversion and provide that if any of these offences is committed with illegal armament, the suspicion exists that the offender possessed the arms for the purpose of committing such offence. This amending Bill therefore prohibits the possession of the armament as such. In view of the seriousness of the illegal possession of armament and the fact that it is used to commit acts of terror, a maximum imprisonment of 25 years is being imposed as a deterrent. What this amounts to is that if a person was in contact at any stage with a person who was or is in possession of illegal armament, or if this person was at any time on premises, including any building, dwelling, flat, room, office, shop, structure, vessel or vehicle or any part thereof on or in which illegal armament is found, it is suspected—until the contrary is proved—that he is guilty of an offence, and he can be imprisoned for up to 25 years.

Finally I can assure hon members of this House that any colour that was concealed in the principal Act has been removed by the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill [B 25-88]. [Interjections.] The hon member need not hope so; it is a fact.

Mr Chairman, we support the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by thanking hon members sincerely for their willingness to deal with and dispose of this Bill this afternoon. This has bearing on what I want to say about hon members’ contributions in the standing committee. I was informed that hon members had handled the situation very responsibly. I think it was only right for hon members to act like people who realise their responsibility to the community, because the hon member for Riversdal made reference to the fact that firearms are not something to be treated lightly. There are many examples of cases in which people have dealt irresponsibly with firearms, and this has resulted in tragedies, something we want to try to prevent in South Africa. I think the approach of hon members in the standing committee indicated that hon members realise their responsibility to the community and the public. I want to thank hon members sincerely for that.

The hon member for Riversdal once again made a valuable contribution here this afternoon, as is his custom. I listened to his explanation of the legislation and it is clear to me that he made a thorough study of it, because he was absolutely correct in everything he said. I should like to congratulate him on this contribution. Hon members joked about whether or not he would qualify for a licence. [Interjections.] I want to say that that hon member qualifies for a licence.

Just a goat.

No, let us forget about the goat for the moment. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to stand by the hon member for Riversdal. He is a man into whose hands I would entrust a firearm if he wanted one.

To come back to the information the hon member gave us, I want to say that he sketched a frightening picture of the abuse of firearms. Last year more than 10 000 people simply lost their firearms. These arms were stolen or simply disappeared. Those firearms were not stolen for nothing, however. They are used, especially against our ordinary good people, our hon members and the public at large who depend on our protection. We have tried everything. During the period in which I have been involved in this, we have appealed to the public. We have asked the owners of firearms to be careful and to take good care of their arms, but this has not helped much. We also went further. We declared people incompetent. In 1986, 986 people were declared incompetent. In 1987 this figure shot up to more than 2 600. All these people were declared incompetent to possess a firearm. Things cannot go on in this way. We have tried everything to point out to people as cautiously as possible how serious the matter is, but it has not really helped. Consequently we have decided to institute stricter steps. We must try to exercise stricter control in deciding whom we are going to give firearms to, and how such a person should control and take care of the firearms.

At this point I want to come back to the hon members of this House who said again today that the Police have their unqualified support. I think that is to everyone’s credit.

I do not think that what we are doing here is going to solve all our problems in this connection. We must not bluff one another in that respect. We are creating a new system which may help, however. I want to agree with the hon member for Riversdal who said that this new system of a certificate of competence will eliminate the possibility of discrimination against different race groups completely, because everyone is going to write the same test. The criteria are exactly the same for everyone. The hon member is correct in saying that if the Police should refuse to give someone a certificate of competence, they would have to supply reasons. If the refusal has reference to the race or colour of the man, the Police would be in trouble, because that is not contained in the Act, and therefore cannot be given as a reason for not giving someone a certificate of competence.

With these steps we are going to try to improve the control over firearms and the possession thereof. The hon member also referred to the stricter penalties. We feel strongly that people should lock up firearms in safes, in strong-rooms, etc, but I want to give hon members the assurance that we are not going to apply the Act so rigidly that we are going to force people to keep their firearms in safes or strong-rooms at all times. If one wants to keep one’s firearm with one for reasons of self-defence when one goes to bed, that will be permissible.

The hon member for Riversdal also referred to the fact that people are not going to be compelled to buy expensive safes. The Bill provides that one may have a “device, apparatus or instrument” for the safekeeping of the arms. There are other cheaper methods, therefore, by means of which people can keep their firearms in safekeeping, but we want to improve upon this. However, as I said, this does not mean that the firearm has to stay in the safe or strong-room all the time, even when its owner is home. After all, one buys a firearm for one’s protection, and as long as one has the firearm under control, one need not lock it up in a safe or strong-room. We are going to try to implement the Act more flexibly, while at the same time trying to attain the objective we have set ourselves.

In addition, we want to draw up the regulations that are going to be promulgated as soon as the Bill has been passed—the other two Houses still have to approve it—in consultation with the people who are going to be affected by these regulations. Some of the regulations, such as those with reference to the Appeal Board, which do not really affect the general public, because the board is merely going to perform administrative functions and deal with documentation, are going to be announced urgently and implemented. The regulations which deal with safes and the certificate of competence as well as the tests that have to be written, for example, are going to be discussed with the interest groups and the people affected by this, however. We intend having a daylong seminar at which we are going to see whether we cannot enlist their aid.

This Bill has come a long way and we have received very good inputs from members of the standing committee as well as from interest groups and members of the public. We intend to follow the same method when the regulations are promulgated. We want to make use of the expertise of people who are going to be affected by the regulations.

I have come to the end of what I want to say about this matter. I want to thank hon members sincerely once again for their contributions and willingness to dispose quickly of a serious matter, which affects everyone in this country, and with great responsibility in respect of the general public.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.