Mr. Chairman, during the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate it would appear that he took exception to a phrase used by me during that debate, when I said that a certain provision had been “sneaked” in. In the presence of hon. members here, I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it was no question of imputing any false motives to him. It was merely something that I had discovered, something which somehow did not tie up with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in introducing the Bill. He said this was merely an administrative procedure.

If there was any offence, I want to say now that no offence was intended and I apologize if the hon. the Deputy Minister took offence to that particular phrase.

I wish to reply further to something said by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply. He said he had asked officials of his department to talk with our group and with groups of the other parties on this side of the House and to discuss the provisions of this Bill with our groups. We appreciate the fact that they did come and that they did explain to us exactly what was intended by the Bill and what the Bill was all about. The officials who came, like the officials of other departments—we see not only officials from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department, but officials also from other departments in a similar manner—were very courteous and answered our questions.

However, it is the policy on our side not to discuss matters of principle with officials. This is a matter of principle, and I believe it would have been wrong to have raised this matter with those officials or to have argued the matter with those officials, because not only is it a matter of principle; it is also a matter which involves policy—the policy of the Cabinet. It is for that reason that the first time the hon. the Deputy Minister was made aware of our objection to this particular Bill, was during the debate here in the House. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me when I say I believe it is right that these discussions should be conducted in this way. I believe it would be wrong for any Opposition Party to discuss matters of policy or of principle with officials of the various departments. Those are matters for debate in this House.

Let us come now to this particular clause. We have the situation where we have an Act which allows the hon. the Minister of Planning to control the establishment of new factories or the extension of existing factories. I admit it does not apply everywhere, but it applies in certain areas, and certainly to most areas of the Republic of South Africa. In terms of that Act the hon. the Minister has on various occasions, it appears—eleven times during the first quarter of last year— tried to obtain convictions of persons who have either established new factories or who have extended factories without first obtaining his approval. By definition in the present Act the extension of a factory includes the employment of more Black employees. The Act applies only in so far as Black employees are concerned; so that those hon. members on the other side who have accused us of being concerned only with Black employees, of not worrying about protecting the rights of Whites or Coloured or Indian employees, are right our of court, because in this legislation we deal only with Black employees. We only deal with Africans; they are the only persons who are involved. Here we have the situation where the hon. the Minister has tried to obtain conviction. He has failed to obtain conviction, for various reasons, and he has now approached this House to ask for certain changes, changes which, he believes, are merely administrative, in order to close the loopholes to enable him the better to enforce the existing legislation. Let me place on record immediately that we are totally opposed to the enforcement of this legislation in any way.

However, administration loopholes that he wishes to close, we cannot oppose. Nevertheless, when it becomes the extension of the principle of the existing Act, when the Act now gets applied to additional people, people beyond those envisaged within the scope of the Act as it was passed here in 1967, or beyond those envisaged in the amendment introduced in 1975, we will dig our toes in and say to the hon. the Minister: You have your Act. You have to make it work. We will help you to make it work, much as we disagree with it. However, we will not help you in any way to extend the scope, thereby making the situation in South Africa worse than it is at the moment.

Unfortunately, in this clause we find that there are two provisions which will allow the hon. the Minister to extend the scope of the Act, to extend the scope of the application of the Act, in order to apply those provisions of the Act which we find abhorrent to additional people. I refer to the proposed new paragraph (a) of subsection (5) on the bottom of page 2, a paragraph containing a definition of “Bantu employee”. It appears from what the hon. the Deputy Minister said that it is imperative that he should have a definition of a “Bantu employee” if he is to succeed in a prosecution under sections 1, 3 or 12 of the Act. In the proposed paragraph (b) a “Bantu employee” is defined as follows—

We can have no objection to that—

That is the intention of the Act of 1967, and even though we might disagree with the Act, we must accept this definition. However, the clause goes on to say—

The effect of this is to extend the application of the Act not only to employees of the owner of the factory, but to any other Black worker who might come onto the premises for any reason when that reason will help the employer in the carrying on of the business of such a factory. As I have said in the Second Reading, a practice has grown up in commerce and in industry today for an employer not to carry out certain services by using persons whom he himself employs, but rather to employ service firms, firms which provide maintenance, cleaning, painting and gardening services, firms which hire out their employees to carry out these services within a factory. The effect of this amendment will be that if a factory has a permit to employ 500 Africans and it has on its roll 500 Africans who are employed in the production within that factory, and then enters into an agreement with a maintenance service organization to come onto the factory premises to maintain its equipment, the building, or whatever it might be and that contracting firm brings a squad of 10 Africans along to do the work, the factory owner will be regarded as technically extending his factory. In terms of the proposed definition the additional Africans employed by the factory owner are now taken up…

And you say the owner is not expanding his number of employees.

No, the employer is not expanding the number of employees. The hon. member for Carletonville will understand that these ten additional Africans who are hired, are not brought in to be used in the manufacturing process which is taking place in the factory. They are brought in to maintain equipment, machinery or the building or to clear the garden or to do the sweeping. They are brought in by an outside contractor and are employed by him and not by the factory owners. But the mere fact of them coming into the factory to “assist an employer in or about a factory in carrying on the business of such factory” is now being construed as an extension of the factory because it is being construed as an increase in the number of Bantu who are employed in the factory. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I stand up to speak for the hon. member for Bryanston who cannot be here today. There are three amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of that hon. member which simply propose the deletion of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the proposed subsection (5). I want to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that although we will not move those three amendments, we intend voting against the clause. I think it is fair to say that those three paragraphs are in one sense half of the heart of the Bill, the other half comes later. They deal with the definition of “Bantu employee”, of “employer” and of the “extension” to a factory. We on these benches reject outright the first and last of those three definitions. I think the grounds therefor are fairly obvious and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of them.

I should, however, like to deal with the hon. member for Pretoria East. I want to quote from his speech in the Second Reading debate (Hansard, 18 March, col. 3968)—

He then went on to ask a rather sick question—

In reply I want to say to the hon. member for Pretoria East—as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has already said—that Coloureds, Indians and Whites are excluded from this definition and from the purpose of this Bill. The hon. member may or may not be aware that in the Industrial Conciliation Act the exclusion of the Bantu discriminates against them, just like the inclusion of the Bantu in this particular Act discriminates against them. There one has two blatant examples of discrimination against Black South Africans. That hon. member apparently cannot make up his mind whether he is coming or going.

The reason why we are totally against this clause, must be clear to all. Most hon. members, particularly hon. members on that side of the House, who were present when the budget was read in the House yesterday, are probably capable of understanding that unemployment is a serious problem for Whites, Coloureds and, numerically at least, for Blacks. What is the purpose of this clause? It is to prevent and to deny the opportunity of employment to Black South Africans in factories in the established growth complexes, at least most of them in this country.

It seems to me an extraordinary indictment of the Government that they introduce this particular measure at this particular time. We have the evidence, referred to both by me and by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, that at least the hon. the Deputy Minister’s colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, is worried about the capital intensity in these established growth complexes. But there is the reverse side to the coin—I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will know that it is true of Witbank and other established growth complexes—that basically businesses have to make a choice between employing large numbers of human beings to do a particular job, or to employ a machine.

At low wages.

Perhaps at low wages in Witbank. I cannot speak for all the concerns at Witbank, but I am perfectly happy to defend certain of the businesses in Witbank and the wages these businesses pay. Basically the choice is between employing people or a machine. It is ironic that the Government has put forward a policy of encouraging the use of machines in the so-called White South Africa over a large number of years and now the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has realized the very grave problems which that creates for South Africa. He has not only realized that to import machines cost us foreign exchange, but also that we have serious and massive unemployment. What one is dealing with in this case, is that Government policy, introduced and put on the Statute Book in 1968, was then an indictment then and is a much worse indictment at this stage when we have somewhere between 1 million and 1,8 million unemployed Black people, a figure which is rising every month. We shall vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg North must not take it amiss of me if I do not react much to what he had to say, in the first place because he did not actually say much. Then, too, he is just like a sectarian: he grabs at a verse from the Bible and runs away with it. He says that I spoke about the definition of an employee in my Second Reading speech, but did not look at what the hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about, and what I was reacting to. Typically, since he does not know anything about the legislation or the provisions before the House at the moment, he raised the old financial power story again by alleging that we, as the Government, are withholding South Africa from further development and that we are keeping the unemployed out of work by accepting a clause like this. The hon. member withdrew the two amendments in the name of the hon. member for Bryanston. The hon. member for Bryanston saw to it that he was not here today. In effect, the amendments by the hon. member for Bryanston meant that the House was aware of the fact that the provisions of the Act could not be carried out, but that we should have to leave it at that. Offences may take place, but the hon. the Minister definitely must not be given an instrument to enable him to tackle the offenders. I shall leave it at that because I want to dwell on the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for a moment.

When one takes a closer look at the amendment of this hon. member, one is also obliged to look at the provisions of the clause. Why should there now be a new definition of “Bantu employee”? As we all know, it is there so that we can enforce the Act, as the hon. the Minister explained during the introduction to the Second Reading debate, because without a definition like this we cannot bring the accused persons to justice. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. member alleged that there was a hidden reason and an ulterior motive behind the Bill. He says (Hansard, 30 March, col. 4711)—

If this is the case, it is quite true and he is correct. However, does the hon. member want to intimate that he is prepared to see that a loophole is left in the Act, so that the Act can be circumvented? Is this what the hon. member thinks of the legislation of this House? He wants the Act to be there, but he is prepared to turn a blind eye and allow the Act to be circumvented. In order to be able to form an opinion on the definition before the House at the moment, we must also take a look at analogous cases.

†Therefore I want to ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied with the definition of “employee” in the Shops and Offices Act? Has he ever seen or read it? Is the hon. member satisfied with the definition of “employee” in the Wage Act? Has he ever seen that? Has the hon. member ever set eyes on the definition of “employee” in the Factories Act?

*After all, this definition has not simply been dreamt up. One prefers to have a definition which has already stood the test of time and of the courts. I should like to quote one other definition of “employee” to the hon. member and I should like him to compare it with the definition which appears in the Bill. Let us take a look at what the Wage Act has to say about this. We must bear in mind that the Wage Act, the Shops and Offices Act and the Factory Act do not concern Whites alone, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North has just said. This is what he said when he referred to the definition in the Industrial Conciliation Act. Those Acts deal with all the colour groups in South Africa. In other words, the definition in the Wage Act, for instance, is a valid definition for everyone falling within the scope of these Acts. I now quote the definition of “employee” in the Wage Act—

After all, Sir, essentially this is exactly the same. When we come to the Shops and Offices Act, we find the following definition of “employee”—

Sir, let us now take a closer look at this Bill, because after all, this Bill also deals with factories and industries. What does the Factory Act say? I quote from the definition of “employee” in that Act—

After all, Sir, this is identical to what we have in the Bill. Why does the hon. member want to change it? After all, the hon. member has never objected to these Acts. Sir, I want to say that the hon. member did not know about these definitions. I do not hold it against him, but he was out of his depth when he moved this amendment. If he had been aware of these definitions which are already on the Statute Book, I believe that he would not even have taken the trouble to stand up and talk about this.

Sir, I now want to return to the question of the exclusion of commercial travellers, caretakers, watchmen and messengers. These terms are excluded for a very simple reason. These people do not use the facilities of the factory, which is what the Factory Act is really about. However, this Bill deals with something else. This legislation deals with the number of employees, and for the edification of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I want to point out that it is not only the number of Black employees which is at issue here. There is a ratio, and the number of White employees as against Black employees is also taken into consideration. I wonder whether the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South knows what is stated in the White Paper which appeared on 1 June 1971. Has the hon. member ever seen it? [Interjections.] The hon. member does not know what it says, Sir. Therefore the hon. member does not know how this legislation is applied. I quote from that White Paper—

Then we find this important sentence—

Sir, before the hon. member takes his amendment further, I want to tell him that if any difficulties about a definition crop up in an Act, the machinery of common law comes into operation immediately. Then, when a case like this appears before the courts, it is necessary to turn to the common law. A very important part of our common law consists of the verdicts of our Supreme Court and of the Appeal Court. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East, who has just spoken, specifically mentioned that we on this side of the House would like to see a loophole in the Bill. He said that we “wil graag ’n gaping in die wet hê”. We are not suggesting this at all. Very far from it, because the Act would be no good if there were loopholes.

The point is that I would like anybody here to explain to us how this amending Bill can stimulate industrial development and economic growth. The other evening, when I spoke during the Second Reading, I mentioned that this Bill would only have a retarding effect on our industrial development and on our economic growth. The hon. member for Bellville who spoke immediately after me, said precisely the opposite. He said that this Bill would have a stimulating effect on South Africa’s economic growth. The next morning I happened to listen to the radio and without going into details the radio announced that I had said that it would have a “retarding” effect on South Africa’s industrial development and economic growth rate. They then went on to say that the hon. member for Bellville had said that it would have a “stimulating” effect. Can you imagine what anybody who listened to that broadcast would have thought? Here there are two members, who have both read and studied the Bill, having precisely …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member will have his opportunity to make a speech. He must not sit down and make one. He can get up later and make it.

Order!

Here we have two completely different assessments of the Bill. The hon. member alleged that we wanted to see loopholes in the Act. That is completely untrue. What we are endeavouring to do is to close up loopholes of which we have had experience in the past.

What clause are you speaking on?

I am speaking on clause 2. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Carletonville to this. I will come back to him in a moment.

We have had personal experience of this where industries right here in the Western Cape, in the Cape Peninsula, have had Bantu labour working for them and doing heavy work such as stevedores do, carrying heavy equipment and heavy goods. These people were brought into the factory on a temporary basis illegally.

Illegally!

Yes, illegally in terms of this legislation. They came here legally with work permits, but they were employed illegally. It was proved that unless the staff were extended, the factory would have had to close down. I do not want to mention names. We have had an awful problem with factories here in the Western Cape. We are not suggesting that Bantu should be hired illegally in the Western Cape. Members on this side of the House all acknowledge that labour must be controlled at all times. What is more, the employers are prepared to have it controlled. They would be happy to have it controlled, but they cannot possibly run or extend their factories with this provision in clause 2. All that we are suggesting, and here I want to refer to the hon. member for Carletonville again, who interjected whilst obviously not having read the Bill, is that these words in clause 2 be deleted: “of wat op enige ander wyse hoegenaamd in of naby ’n fabriek, ’n werkgewer help om die besigheid van so ’n fabriek te dryf”. What we also want to delete on the next page, for the hon. member for Carletonville’s information, is the following—

That is all we want deleted. I want to repeat that I challenge anybody here to convince this hon. House that this legislation is going to stimulate industry and our economic growth. I fail to see it. I am convinced it cannot do that. What it will do is to have a retarding effect on our economic growth and industrial development. I am convinced of that, and nothing can convince me otherwise. It is for this reason that we ask the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Mr. Chairman, we shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Let me by way of explanation tell the hon. member for Pretoria East that the only reason why we have not moved the amendments printed in the name of the hon. member for Bryanston is that we understand we would be ruled out of order if we moved them. However, we have made it very clear through the hon. member for Johannesburg North that we shall vote against this clause.

This clause is cardinal to this amending legislation, as was demonstrated by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech when, speaking on clause 2, he said (Hansard, 18 March, col. 3957)—

Then he went on to motivate this as follows—

Then he referred to recent cases in which certain industrialists were not successfully prosecuted even though they had transgressed the letter of the law. Therefore the definition in clause 2 is germane to the main thrust of this amending legislation.

The hon. member for Pretoria East in vain tried to make the point that this piece of legislation would actually improve the industrial situation. He thereby linked his remarks to those of the hon. member for Bellville who had the temerity to suggest that this amending legislation would actually stimulate growth. How on earth anyone can argue in such a tortured way is difficult to understand. One thing is certain: As the hon. member for Pretoria East demonstrates consistently, he still believes that Whites remain in the position where they can constantly tell Blacks: “We know what is good for you.”

You are talking nonsense.

That is the substance of his argument: “We know what is good for industry; we know what is good for employment; we know what is good for Blacks; and, if it is good for Whites, it must be good for Blacks.” In point of fact the obverse is very often the case. Very often, because it is in the self-interest of Whites, because we constantly want to protect Whites in industry, it is to the detriment of Black employees. But it goes far beyond that. In reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Deputy Minister, referring to an hon. member, said (Hansard, 30 March)—

The hon. the Deputy Minister then went on to say—

In other words, the hon. the Deputy Minister, who introduced this legislation, says there is a direct possibility that as a result of this particular legislation there will be further unemployment. Let the hon. member for Pretoria East deny that. Is he contradicting the hon. the Deputy Minister? Not at all. This is the economic growth we are witnessing in this country by encouraging unemployment. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has already made the point, but I think it must be underlined, namely, that in the budget speech of yesterday it became very apparent that there was no allowance for growth whatsoever in that budget. As a result the kind of unemployment we know today is going to escalate on a steep-rising curve tomorrow and in all the tomorrows still to come. Therefore it seems to me that it is totally counter-productive to introduce this kind of legislation which is before us today. The hon. the Deputy Minister did go on to say in his reply to the Second Reading that the numbers of people involved were very low. He referred to the answers to certain questions and said that there were only 694 that were involved. He then went on to make the point that he could not understand why so much fuss was being made about such a relatively small number against the background of a vast reservoir of labour which is being used in South Africa. We must also put the other question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Why on earth is he introducing this kind of legislation to close the loopholes, to encourage prosecution, if only 694 people are involved? What are we doing? What are we wasting our time for in discouraging employment? I find it very difficult to understand. In short, we do not say that this amending legislation is vicious—which seems to be the impression which the hon. the Deputy Minister has gathered from the debate—but we do say it is stupid. It simply has no place at all in the South Africa of today, bearing in mind the terrible need for finding jobs for new work-seekers, not only in the decentralized areas, not only in the homelands, but in the metropolitan areas of our country. Therefore we strongly oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 33, to omit all the words after “factory” up to and including “factory” in line 36;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 3, to omit all the words after “factory” up to and including “factory” in line 5.

I was leading up to moving these amendments when my time expired the last time I was speaking. I appreciate the support from hon. members on this side of the House who have spoken. The answer to the question of the hon. member for Pretoria East is that we believe that this Act is counterproductive. We believe that it is not in the best interests of South Africa and it is not in the best interests of industry in South Africa.

You are wrong.

It is no good the hon. member saying we are wrong; facts and figures given by the hon. the Deputy Minister prove that we are right and that he is wrong. What is the situation in terms of this Act since its promulgation? 955 applications for new factories have been refused, 1 047 applications for extensions to factories have been refused and as a result of those 2 002 refusals we have the situation that 101 557 less employment opportunities for African workers have been provided. We could have had another 101 000 African workers in employment. If one looks at the formula set out by Prof. Tomlinson in his report, those 101 000 African employment opportunities in industry would have created another 250 000 employment opportunities in ancillary industries to keep those 101 000 in their work. The result of this is that we have 350 000 people out of work today simply through the application of this Act. Today we are being asked to consider extensions to allow the hon. the Minister to take action in even further cases, to prohibit even further employment, to prohibit employment by firms who will work on a contract basis to assist a factory in the provision of services; not to assist a factory in the actual manufacture or production of its own product, not that at all, but to prohibit the employment of outside firms who provide services. I believe that the provisions are iniquitous. I believe that the Act is abhorrent. We shall move these amendments. We shall vote for these amendments in an attempt to alleviate the effects of the measures which are proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to add, however, that whether or not he accepts our amendments, we shall still vote against these clauses. We still believe that the whole Act is abhorrent. We do not accept it; we shall vote against these clauses.

Why?

The hon. Chief Whip on the other side asks “why?” It is because we believe that this not only does harm to the good name of South Africa, but that it does harm to the internal situation in South Africa.

I should now like to come back to the hon. member for Pretoria East. I should like to talk to the hon. member for Pretoria East? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East has industrial areas in his own constituency, industrial areas which are suffering under the application of the Act of this hon. Deputy Minister. He has an area known as Waltloo in close proximity to a Bantu area, Mamelodi. In that area there are at the moment tens of thousands of Africans seeking employment. However, this area is not completely occupied either by industrialists. There are a number of unoccupied industrial sites in that area, and there are factories there whose owners wish to expand, but who have been prohibited from doing so by the application of the Act. But the hon. member for Pretoria East has the temerity to get up here and to support this Bill. What will his own people think? Does he get any support from those people? Do they support him financially? Do they support him with votes? I do not believe they do. Yet he supports this legislation knowing full well that in his own constituency there are Africans and businessmen, industrialists, who are suffering through the application of this particular legislation. I cannot understand how a person can do that sort of thing. I am sorry to say that we will vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, now that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has moved his amendment, I want to support him very strongly. In doing so I want to have a word or two with the hon. member for Rustenburg. I am sorry to see that he has left the Chamber … [Interjections.] Perhaps one of his hon. colleagues will convey my message to him. [Interjections.]

When we were discussing this Bill during Second Reading, the hon. member for Rustenburg … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please be quiet.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg referred to the speech I had made. Oh, there he is! I welcome him back in the Chamber. [Interjections.] The hon. member questioned certain of the remarks I had made. In fact, in questioning what I had said, he even suggested that by saying what I had said, I had revealed disloyalty to South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. member how, if one takes a stance against a policy which the Government tries to enforce, because one knows that that policy is wrong, and one knows that it is not in the best interests of South Africa, he can possibly allege that it is a question of disloyalty? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I will quote what the hon. member said. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please calm down.

Mr. Chairman, I quote (Hansard, 30 March 1977)—

Mr. Chairman, I want to refute that entirely. In fact, if we were able, by way of moving amendments, to get the trend of this legislation reversed, we would be acting in the best interests of South Africa … [Interjections.] … and the interests of the optimal utilization of its resources. [Interjections.] That is what we are after, because one of the biggest resources of South Africa … [Interjections.]

Order!

… because one of the biggest resources of South Africa today is labour. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Rustenburg must contain himself.

He should take a little rest! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member goes on to make certain other extraordinary allegations. I quote again—

That is absolute rubbish. I am pleading for the industrial expansion of a very large area of South Africa. Obviously, the more the area expands and the more the industries that are established, the greater will be the job opportunities, not only for White people, but also for the Coloured and Black people. I want to know what the hon. member’s solution is. In the area that we are discussing there is a permanent population of 250 000 people. What must happen to the new workseekers that come onto the market every year? Ek wil van die agb. lid weet waar hulle werk gaan kry.

In the border areas. [interjections.]

Must I go and work in England for France? I want to work in the country where I grew up and where I belong …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is not arguing about the clause, but about the general principles of the Act. I therefore ask the hon. member to observe the rule.

I am discussing the hon. member’s amendment. The reason why I am supporting it, is because the Bill extends the draconian measures which is already in the Act. It makes it more difficult now than ever before for industrialists to employ Bantu workers in these areas. That is why I am supporting the amendment very strongly. In moving the amendment, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has made it abundantly clear that in terms of this clause it is going to be more difficult for industrialists to make use of the Black labour that is potentially available to them. My main argument is that if this position goes on, industrials will be frightened away from the area I represent, that there will be less industrial expansion, less job opportunities and greater unemployment. In pleading this I

want to say to the hon. member for Rustenburg that I am the man who stands loyal to South Africa, possibly even more than him.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the arguments briefly. I think hon. members will agree that most of the arguments have already been raised during the Second Reading and that a considerable proportion of them have been raised for a second time today. A large number of the arguments have already been answered by the hon. member for Pretoria East, and I thank him for this, but I do think it is necessary for me to reply to certain aspects. I hope that everyone will act according to his own conscience after this. An hon. member has already said that he is going to vote against the Bill no matter what the arguments may be, and therefore it is not necessary for me to argue about this for very long. If someone says at the very outset: “You can try and convince me till you are blue in the face; even when I am down, I am still master.” Therefore we shall just have to vote and get it over and done with and agree to differ.

†I think it can be justified if I say that we can sum up the arguments for and against this Bill in the words of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South when he said, “we find the whole Act abhorrent”. Those were the hon. member’s exact words. I am not going to argue, because I do not think this is the right stage for it, about the merits of the legislation which is an Act of Parliament.

Where did he say that?

He said “the whole Act”. Did I understand the hon. member correctly? The hon. member nods his head in agreement; so I understood him correctly that he finds the whole Planning Act abhorrent. If that is so it is “finish en klaar”. I cannot argue about the merits of the Act. What is the sense then of arguing about what I think is an improvement to the Act when he regards it as something that is even worse?

*Firstly, the whole issue in connection with this Bill is not to exercise total, stricter control over a few factories so that people can be prosecuted one day. I do not want to hold a long conversation about this, but allegations were made here yesterday by a very honest hon. member, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He spoke here as if the Bill was introducing such terrible restrictions that it would be the end of everything. I had information drawn up, because one must of course be responsible, to see how the Act has been working so far. I want to give him these figures. During the period 1 February 1971 to 31 January 1977, a period of six years, 814 applications for the building and expansion of factories were received in the area to which he referred. Of those 814 applications, 46 were refused and those 46 were not refused out of spite, but because in some cases there were applications for the establishment of obnoxious industries, which people would have objected to.

†These industries would have been disturbingly obnoxious and they could therefore not be permitted. Other applications were rejected for other reasons. But these are the percentages; he can check up on it if he wants to. Where does the sweeping statement come from that unemployment on such a large scale has suddenly occurred as a result of the limitations in this Bill?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will agree that the application of the amended Act will tend to keep industrialists away from those particular industrial complexes?

I disagree completely. What is more, I have already had experience to the contrary.

*Yesterday I said here that we had sent a letter to industrialists in the P.W.V. area, requesting them to discuss with us any problems which they may experience. I want to mention a simple example. I am not supposed to broadcast it, but the House is probably entitled to hear about these things. People pointed out to me—and not to me alone but to the whole Cabinet Committee, and I am saying this with the permission of the other members of the Cabinet Committee, who are my seniors—that Whites are leaving certain industries with the result that the ratio of 2½ Blacks to one White could not be maintained. In this way the business would suffer. This is a valid argument. After all, the hon. members sitting here are not a lot of sheep simply wanting to destroy wilfully the future of every last person in South Africa. That is why these people were asked to come to us with their specific difficulties and dozens of them have already come to us. The department has met them halfway by saying that where a White supervisor is not available, we will give them the opportunity to use a Coloured, an Indian or other people there so that the ratio can be supplemented. We have done this. Now a great fuss is being made about the permits and it is alleged that people are summarily being sent to jail, but what happened was that when people with permits came to us, we told them that we would first make an inspection. Then, if they are perhaps employing too many Bantu, we point this out to them. Is this, then, enough to make certain people talk about the so-called cruelty of a Government that simply does not want to give the poor Black man an opportunity to work? This is not the whole story after all. Where does that Black man come from in order to work for the factory owner? Does he come from Soweto? Of course we must sympathize with him if he grew up there. However, he does not come from there. Those who want to deny this, can go and enquire at the Bantu Administration Boards. I too have worked with this. These are the most pious words one can find anywhere under the sun.

The fact is that these people are brought illegally from the farthest comers of South Africa. It is considered terrible if somebody who lives in Soweto has to go and work in Newcastle. However, I have not yet heard anyone protesting that people are being transported in their thousands from the furthest comers of the Transkei and the Ciskei to Soweto. Those people go to work in Johannesburg. It suits the policy of those hon. members very well. Then no one objects to the fact that they have to be taken there and are far from their homes. In their eyes it is only wrong when we try to stimulate growth in the homelands.

This legislation is aimed at advancing the future of the whole of South Africa as an entire geographic unit—this is as the Government sees it. We can disagree on this, argue whether it is practicable and whether the economy can carry it or not. A previous Minister of Finance said: “Even if we have to bend the economy, this policy must succeed. ’ ’ [Interjections.]

He has broken the economy.

No, he has not. The policy will succeed. The hon. member for Johannesburg North comes from abroad. We accepted him here, and we are pleased that we can accept people from abroad here. Has that hon. member ever said a word in the House about why the industries decentralized from Manchester and Leeds? Why are all those industries decentralizing from those areas to the distant rural areas? Should riots break out in South Africa tomorrow and the Vaal Dam be shot to ribbons, what would happen to the industries and all the essential things which must be produced in order to keep our country going? Must all this be sacrificed just for the sake of a temporary provision of employment?

This is where problems arise. However, I have already assured the industrialists and do so again, that the Department of Planning and its officials will apply the legislation with the greatest of care. But at the same time, I want to address a warning to those people who are making the biggest fuss in this regard. There has already been an article in a periodical, which I read during the past week, which states: “After the Second Reading of the Environment Planning Amendment Bill …” The Second Reading of the Amendment Bill has not even been concluded yet, but this article has already appeared in a periodical. There was also a fine “snap” of the wolf in sheep’s clothing who is going to destroy the whole country with this legislation. Those people who want us to legalize illegalities so that they can employ and exploit the Blacks, must know that they will never have that opportunity. I want to tell those who contravene the Act wilfully and those who hide behind its technical points, that we hope to have eliminated the technical problems now. Malicious people who wilfully transgress this Act, not in the interests of the Blacks, the Whites or of South Africa, will have to bear the consequences of their actions. I am not saying this as a challenge, but only as a warning. I want to invite the people who want to obey the laws of the land, first to make use of the services of my department. The department will assist them and will provide for their labour requirements as far as possible in order to ensure a proper growth of their industries. I want to assure the Black people that, for our part, the Government will always try to combat unemployment to the best of our ability.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendments, because I believe it is essential for us to be able to implement the Act which is on the Statute Book.

Order! Before calling on the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out that the principle contained in this clause was discussed in detail at the Second Reading. The Deputy Minister replied to it at length at that stage. This afternoon, contrary to the normal practice in Committee, I have given each party two opportunities to make the same points and to repeat and underline the arguments with regard to the principle. I cannot allow this to be done a third time, nor can I allow arguments which have been advanced, to be advanced again. Therefore, hon. members who want to speak now are to confine themselves to the particulars of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. I am sure that you will give me an opportunity to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Order! If the hon. member intends discussing the principles again, I shall not allow him to do so.

Yes, Sir; as I have said, I shall abide by your ruling. Let me put it this way: I was glad to get from the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon the assurance that my interpretation of this particular clause is correct, and that what we are dealing with this afternoon is in fact an extension of the Act. It is not simply an administrative measure, but an extension of the Act which is now going to be applied to other Black employees in South Africa, Black employees beyond those who were envisaged by the Act when it was introduced here in 1967 and beyond those who were envisaged by any of the amendments introduced in 1975. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just said so, Sir.

Yes, he is bending the economy!

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he agrees with this.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue with that argument.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. I shall return to the point I was making. Section 3(1) of the Act provides as follows—

Subsection (4) of that same section reads as follows—

Now, Sir, the definition we have before us this afternoon goes a long way beyond that. I believe that it embraces the employees of contractors who will be used to carry out certain services in factories. The hon. the Deputy Minister has conceded that point this afternoon, i.e. that it is his intention to prohibit the use of Black employees of a third party from carrying out services within a factory. This is why it is abhorrent to us. This is why the whole Act is abhorrent to us. This Bill makes it even more abhorrent, because of this extension, and that is why we are arguing against it this afternoon.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he has problems regarding the ratio of workers. The hon. member for Pretoria East referred me to the White Paper of 1971. Of course I have read that White Paper. I want to say to the hon. member for Pretoria East that I am one of the people who suffered under that, because for five years the ex-Minister of Planning, the gentleman who is today the Speaker of this House, held up my personal development in terms of this Act. He must therefore not tell me that I know nothing about this Act. That is why I speak with such feeling about this Act. [Interjections.] People would have been employed. The economy of the country would have been enhanced and the whole country would have benefited from it.

Now the hon. the Deputy Minister talks about problems with regard to the ratio of workers. I want to put it to him this way: If we had not had this Act, he would not have had those problems. We believe that he is creating this problem unnecessarily for himself. He is creating more problems with this amendment. He is now going to have to look at all the service organizations who carry out services for industrialists.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister refers to influx control, he knows that for many years we have supported the principle of influx control. He must not come here this afternoon and imply that we are against the whole question of influx control.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss influx control now.

Sir, I shall not discuss influx control. I mention it only in passing. I take exception to the point that the hon. the Deputy Minister made when he said that the people against whom he is acting in terms of this legislation are those persons who are exploiting Black workers. He does not need this Bill to take action against people who exploit Black workers. In fact, the Act nowhere makes provision for him to take action against people who exploit Black workers. Sir, I do not care what he says; this Act remains abhorrent and this Bill makes it even more abhorrent and accordingly we shall vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I stand up to reply to two questions by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The one is in regard to the development of Manchester and Leeds. He associated this with the policy of decentralization in the country which lies to the south of Scotland. May I simply point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that both Manchester and Leeds are in a place where a natural matrix attracts growth and economic development. May I also point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he wishes to look at any of the other countries of the United Kingdom, for example the Highlands of Scotland, large parts of Ireland, large parts of Wales and also large parts of America such as the Appalachians, he will see that despite every effort by more intelligent people than those sitting opposite in this House to encourage development, they remain stark and very poor parts of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise another point with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We raised this point in the Second Reading but I would like to put the question to him again and we would like to hear an answer. We asked him for an example of how this clause can in any way increase the overall wealth of South Africa. We wish to hear an answer and we would wish to hear an example.

Order! I think the hon. member is discussing the matter too widely.

Mr. Chairman, I take your ruling, but may I reply to one other remark of the hon. the Deputy Minister. A few minutes ago he said that it was important to bend the economy to suit the policy. Mr. Chairman, may I simply say that those on that side of the House have done that only too well, and if I may utter one word of warning, if they do not bend their policy, they will break the economy.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Bryanston, as follows—

1. (1) On page 6, in lines 40 to 50, to omit subsection (2);
2. (2) on page 6, in lines 51 to 54, to omit subsection (3).

When the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced this legislation in the Second Reading, he motivated the reasons underlying this clause and stated, inter alia, that the new section 12(1) had been inserted to expedite court proceedings and to facilitate the furnishing of proof of the approval of the Secretary for Planning and the Environment. The new section 12(2), he said, would make it possible for the State to prove what number of Bantu employees were being employed by a factory upon the commencement of section 3 of the Environment and Planning Act, 1967, namely on 18 January 1968. He pointed out that in a recent court case the defence was used by a certain employer that his records were destroyed and that therefore they did not know how many Bantu employees were employed as of that date in 1968. Therefore it was not possible to secure prosecution. He made the point that other employers could do the same and could indeed use this as an excuse and simply destroy any records they had, in order for them to employ the number of Bantu employees that they needed for their work and for the development and extension of their work. The thing which strikes me as being ludicrous is that employers are almost being forced to a point where they have to resort to this kind of procedure where, in order to employ a sufficient number of employees, they have to start destroying their records or saying that their records have been destroyed. Because our opposition to the Act itself and the extension of the Act in the legislation which is before us has already been demonstrated in our arguments on clause 2, it will not be necessary for me to repeat those arguments. We state as clearly and strongly as we can that we are diametrically opposed to this procedure. We believe that it is bad for industry and the economy and we believe that it is very bad for people who are requiring an extension of the economy and seeking to employ more Black people in those factories.

Mr. Chairman, in case the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands on behalf of the hon. member for Bryanston is not accepted, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

When one looks at the new section 12(2), there are two elements to which we take serious objection. One is the question of the date, which naturally refers to the past, and the second is that at a prosecution, in terms of section 3, the mere production of a certificate shall be prima facie evidence that such employer had on that day employed the number of Bantu employees mentioned in the certificate. This, as we understand it, shifts the onus from the department to the employer. In the past the department had to prove, in regard to the number of Black South Africans employed, that they were indeed Black South Africans. This clause attempts to put that onus—the onus of establishing the facts—onto the employer.

My amendment, which has been moved on the grounds that we may not succeed in having the subsection deleted, is an attempt to at least wipe the slate clean for the past eight years from 1968 to 1976, and to remove any possibility of retrospective judgment or actions which may be brought. As we understand it, if the clause goes through as it now stands, the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able, on the basis of a document drawn up on 18 January 1968, to bring an action against certain employers. That, to my mind is, firstly, unreal, and secondly, to a certain extent inequitable. The reason why I have moved my amendment, the one in terms of which we have attempted to change the date to 28 March 1976, is that it is an attempt to remove the retroactive element and to get the hon. the Deputy Minister to recognize the facts of life as they now stand, so that even if we cannot get rid of the Bill, we can move forward from a position in which we now find ourselves, to one where the facts can be clearly established. Therefore, we will vote for the amendments which are aimed at the deletion of subsections (2) and (3). If that is not acceptable to the hon. the Deputy Minister, as we expect to be the case, we would ask him to consider the amendment I have moved, which is far from satisfactory from our point of view, but which at least fixes this thing at a point in time, a point from which people can move forward under the new legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be brief and say—as the hon. member for Johannesburg North has anticipated—that these amendments are not acceptable. As far as the amendments of the hon. member for Pinelands are concerned, I just want to point out that, unfortunately, some cases do occur, cases, however, that cannot be attributed to wilfulness. Those are cases that occur by chance, and the hon. member for Pretoria East also mentioned this during the Second Reading debate. There were cases where a person was expected to furnish physical evidence of an employee, or employees, being Bantu. Naturally such evidence had to be furnished in court. It is virtually impossible, of course, especially in the case of employers who employ 1 000 or more Bantu, to appear in court in that way. It is as big a practical problem for the employees. The hon. member for Pretoria East mentioned that such a request from the court, one which is merely made with a view to identifying Bantu employees, places both employer and employee in a very difficult situation. For those reasons, and also for the reasons I gave in the Second Reading debate, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

In the second place the hon. member for Johannesburg North asked me to omit the date 1968, as it stands in the principal Act, and to substitute 1976.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to say something which has not been said in this debate. Notwithstanding anything anybody else might say, the policy of decentralization has had its successes too. Those successes, although not as sensational as some of us would have wished, are proved, among other things, by the fact that many industrialists have decentralized, of course, with the assistance of the Government. If, as the hon. Opposition members now suggest, they have regarded this as some sort of punishment, must we now expect them to comply with what was asked of them at the time? They did not only comply, they also gave their full co-operation and were assisted. They decentralized. The country has reaped the benefit of it. The people concerned, employers and employees, reaped the benefit of it, and there has been growth in the decentralized areas. Now, all of a sudden, I must wipe out that date and decide that the people who did not want to co-operate must be favoured to the detriment of those who did assist in carrying out the policy. I am not referring to one-man businesses and those who really could not decentralize, but those who deliberately did not want to co-operate. It is impossible to do that sort of thing. I cannot possibly condone especially the acts of certain industrialists who deliberately stated that their records were not available and were within their rights to say so. We have to take note of them, but happily there were only a few. In this way these industrialists managed to employ more and more Bantu against the provisions of the Act. I regret that I cannot accept the amendments that have been moved.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that as far as we are concerned, it is a matter for great regret that the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot accept these amendments. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not make out that this Act is only being applied to the areas where the people who did not decentralize are established, because he knows as well as I do that the Act applies in many areas which were border industrial areas, to which industrialists were given incentives to move. Many of them were moved under duress because they did not want to go. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that. He knows that it is applied in the areas of Pietermaritzburg, Pinetown, Hammarsdale, Ladysmith and all the other border areas. He knows full well, so he must not come now and say that he is only going to apply these measures to the Vaal Triangle or in the Western Cape. It applies to those areas as well, and I do not believe that even if it only applied to those areas, there would be justification for the shifting of the onus. The onus is on the State to prove its case. Especially, when you have a measure like this, which is a punitive measure, I believe the State must not resort to a ruse such as this in order to obtain a conviction and in order to apply the punitive measures of the Act. I believe the onus rests on the State and it is not in the best interests of the administration of justice that the State should now resort to this sort of ruse in order to obtain a conviction. We will support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Chairman, I have already explained that we have no objection to the principle of the clause. We realize that the intention of this clause is, on the one hand, to afford protection to the status of the universities, and on the other hand, to protect members of the public so that they cannot be misled about the nature of degrees and courses that other people want to confer on them. However, I am worried about the words used in the clause. As the clause reads at present, it appears that the terms in which it is couched, are too wide for the university and perhaps too narrow for the training institutions that are not university-orientated. The clause reads that it is a punishable offence if anyone in any way makes it known or pretends to any other person that he or some other person—

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the clause to a large extent places limits on what can in fact be offered to the public by a non-university orientated organization. I can quite understand this in cases where this course or a part of it is linked to a degree course such as the baccalaureus degree, a magister degree or a doctor’s degree. When it is not linked with such a degree, however, it appears that there are many other educational institutions which can, in fact, offer a similar course without misleading the public if they offer it on this basis.

If one considers university courses that do not lead to a degree, one notes there are diploma courses that do not have the status of a degree course. Moreover, many extra-mural courses are offered and recently, more and more use is being made of courses at summer, autumn or winter schools or of refresher courses with a business background at the universities. Consequently, we must not regard the courses to which this clause refers as courses with the status of those that are linked to a baccalaureus or other degree. On the other hand, there are also various training colleges and other institutions. There are the teachers’ training colleges, which are not universities, yet some of their courses nevertheless correspond to a university course or a part of one. We also call to mind the training colleges for advanced technical education, as well as the various correspondence colleges. In particular, we call to mind institutions such as art schools which, offer courses in the field of art that are partly equivalent to a course at a university. I have in mind ballet schools and schools of drama. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he revise this clause and limit it to that part of a course which forms part of a course that will lead to a baccalaureus or other degree. As I interpret it now, it seems unfair to me because universities do not offer only courses which are degree-orientated, but a whole range of courses. There are other institutions that offer the same type of courses, or a part thereof, and it seems unreasonable to me that the universities are protected to this extent whereas in practice, and with the approval of the Government, there are other bodies which can, in fact, offer people this type of course. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has seen it in this light and if so, whether he will not amend the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member for Sea Point the assurance that we approached this matter from the same angle as he did. Firstly, I want to point out to the hon. member that up to the date of his amendment there is the existing legislation, in terms of which other institutions may not confer degrees. But due to the fact that the existing legislation is not effective enough, we are now submitting this legislation to the House. Furthermore, I must say that the wording of the amendment, which is the result of a lengthy investigation, was drawn up after the Universities Advisory Council had made a recommendation on this matter when it was found that the existing legislation was not effective enough. It has recently happened once again that an institution that was not a university indicated in the Press and in brochures that it conferred the degrees of baccalaureus, magister and doctor. There were similar cases before this one, as a result of which we called for and obtained legal advice. The legal advice was to the effect that the existing legislation was not effective enough to combat this, since it seemed that under the existing legislation, no effective action could be taken against the persons or institutions concerned, We therefore have no alternative but to introduce this legislation. We then drafted the wording and discussed it very thoroughly with the legal advisers. The attitude of the legal advisers was that if we wanted to take effective action against people who profess themselves to be qualified to confer degrees and who advertise in newspapers, and so on, that they confer degrees, then we had to make the wording as all-embracing as God’s mercy, or at least as all-embracing as it is here. That is the first point I want to explain clearly to the hon. member.

I now turn to the second aspect the hon. member touched on, by saying that we instituted a very full investigation into the question of training colleges that award diplomas, and so on. These include colleges for advanced technical education, which we discussed last night. These bodies—you must be quite clear on this, Sir—cannot confer degrees, but only diplomas. We in South Africa have on the one hand, a need to ensure that the academic quality and content of the degrees conferred are very strictly maintained to prevent the standard from deteriorating and becoming poorer. Universities are also very eager to have a say, as they put it, in every institution that awards degrees in order to ensure in this way that the necessary quality is maintained. They want to ensure that a B.A. degree, or any other degree conferred, will be of the required quality. In an attempt to clear up the matters the hon. member raised here, we devoted a great deal of attention throughout the whole of last year to establishing an agreement between the universities and the training colleges. Only last night I told the hon. member for Rondebosch that we were striving—this is also my personal endeavour—to establish similar agreements between colleges for advanced technical education and universities in order to ensure that a degree that is conferred, does in fact comply with those stringent requirements. In the case of Wits, the training colleges in the Transvaal, the Rand Afrikaans University and the University of Potchefstroom, such agreements have already been drafted and in the past two months, they have been approved by me. In terms of those agreements, a university gets a direct say in the college, and degrees conferred by the college will be certified by the college and the university. This will lead to the kind of set-up which the hon. member for Sea Point referred to. If we want to maintain that high standard, we can only go about it by regarding the universities as the duly registered institutions that confer degrees and by making all other institutions that have similar aspirations, comply with those stringent requirements before they reach the stage of being able to award the baccalaureus, magister or doctor’s degrees. They can only do this if they work in conjunction with existing universities. In fact, the necessity of maintaining the standards of academic requirements is so highly regarded that it is embodied in legislation. It is for that reason that the position must remain unaltered and I can therefore tell the hon. member that I do not have the slightest doubt that this wording is correct—the legal advisers went to a lot of trouble in this connection—and will prove to be the most beneficial wording as regards this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be of assistance to the hon. the Minister. I thank him for his explanation, but his explanation deals with the status of the university in so far as the degree courses and the standards of degrees are concerned.

And the requirements laid down.

Yes, also as far as the requirements are concerned, but this particular provision does not relate to baccalaureus, magister or doctors’ degrees. Subparagraph (bb) reads as follows—

As I have explained to the hon. the Minister, not all university courses are related to a degree. Not all courses form part of the training for a degree. There is a whole variety of courses—let us just call them subordinate courses or subjects—in respect of which one can receive the same tuition at other institutions. If this provision is only relevant to university degrees, as the hon. the Minister has just explained, I want to recommend that the subparagraph contain the following words—

Then it would be perfectly clear that it does not concern extra-mural study, autumn schools or refresher courses at business institutions, but only university training. Subparagraph (bb) does not refer to degrees. Subparagraph (aa) and subparagraph (ii) refer to the degree of baccalaureus, magister or doctor, but as I read (bb), it is expressed in such wide terms that it does not relate only to degrees.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Sea Point has not perhaps misunderstood this. He must note that paragraph (b) begins with the following words—

I think the hon. member has failed to see this, because, as I understand it, the position is that although what the hon. member discussed can certainly happen, we cannot judge that aspect here. Nor does the Bill by any means prevent this. It is the university council that has to decide on it. If they want to accept part of a course for the granting of the degree of baccalaureus, they can do so. This Bill does not prevent them from doing so. It only prohibits a body which is not a university and one which, without the authorization of a university, professes that it will award a degree of baccalaureus for a part of a course or a full course.

But there is no reference to a degree of baccalaureus.

It holds good for all the degrees a university can award. Consequently, if I have not misunderstood the hon. member, the position is that this legislation only prevents people from professing that they can do things they have no authorization to do. If a university has the authorization to do it, however, that university can do all those things the hon. member referred to. Then it is a matter the hon. member will have to thrash out with the university and not with us. The only restriction this legislation imposes is that people must not profess that they award degrees or parts of courses when they do not have the right to do so.

Mr. Chairman, as I said last night, we agree that it has to be stated as widely as possible if we want to catch the person who pretends he can do something he may not do. In this respect, the matter the hon. member for Sea Point touched on, is not without merit. I can see that problems could, in fact, arise, particularly if there were confusion about the matter. I know the hon. the Minister will tell me that the colleges for advanced technical education have already entered into agreements with the universities.

Some of them.

The hon. the Minister says that some of them have already entered into agreements. The hon. member for Rissik said we did not know what we were talking about. Last night we discussed pharmacy. As far as the non-Whites are concerned, we have degree courses in pharmacy for the B.Sc. degree at universities such as Turfloop. There are degree courses at the University of Potchefstroom and at Rhodes University. Moreover, there are diploma courses in pharmacy at the colleges for advanced technical education. The hon. the Minister said that some of the colleges for advanced technical education had not entered into agreements. The first four sentences of paragraph (bb) of the new section 28bis read as follows—

No further mention is made of a degree because what follows this, is the short word “or” and after that (ii). Here there is the fait accompli that there are in fact institutions offering courses and that the standards have to be the same as those of the universities, because in both cases; i.e. a diploma from a college for advanced technical education or a degree from one of the universities, the person who holds it may practise as a pharmacist. In other words, there is a third yardstick which is applied. So these problems do, in fact, exist.

May I just interrupt the hon. member? The clause states emphatically that if it “is not a university or who without the authority of a university … ”.

That is correct, but the hon. the Minister has already said that some of the colleges for advanced technical education do not have agreements. I have quoted only one case. There are other cases, too, in which courses of study are offered, not as part of a degree, but as part of a diploma. These are, quite simply, courses of study that are being offered in a field such as microbiology, for example. In point of fact they are equivalent in content to the courses of study offered at the universities. If the hon. the Minister can give me the assurance that there is an agreement with every college for advanced technical education throughout the country, then I will be satisfied. This is not going to cover the whole field, because there could be other cases. The hon. member for Sea Point spoke of art schools, etc., which also have to be taken into consideration. Hon. members said I should sit down, but one cannot simply let the legislation go through. Then amending legislation would have to be moved the following year to rectify the poor Acts of the previous year.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to support the hon. member for Durban Central who is supporting the hon. member for Sea Point. I think our difficulty is essentially with the first four lines of subsection (bb). There are, for example, some schools in Natal which offer post-matric courses. Their post-matric courses are virtually the equivalent of the first-year university courses. In fact, they will even say to their students that they are doing first-year university courses. Now, by telling them that, they are technically committing an offence which merits a six months’ gaol sentence or a fine of R1 000. I can see that this is reasonable if it is defined in relation to the degree or diploma.

However, when it is as broad as drafted in (b)(i) (bb), I believe it places a very wide control—indeed a monopoly—in the hands of the universities. That is something which, I do not believe, they deserve. I therefore want to support the hon. member for Durban Central.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, with reference to the penalty imposed on the institutions awarding diplomas and degrees purporting to have the same value as those of a university, what, if any, penalty is imposed on persons who have degrees which are in fact fraudulent? Are there any penalties on those persons?

Mr. Chairman, I shall answer that question of the hon. member for Houghton in a little while. First I should like to reply to the other arguments. I think that hon. members are making the mistake of not reading clause 3 in its full context. Hon. members must please take subsection (b)(i) into consideration. I am sure that there is no basic difference of opinion between us at the moment. What is really happening is that we are talking at cross-purposes. Surely the clause is quite clear. Hon. members should please remember that the intention of the clause is only to deal with people who wrongfully pretend that they are able to confer degrees—people who do in fact confer degrees. For this reason it is made clear in the clause that an institution which is not a university or which engages in such practices without having been authorized by a university is guilty of an offence. Which practices are being envisaged? Surely this is made clear in the clause. We find it in (b)(ii), and I quote—

This is all it amounts to, if the clause is read in the right context. This is the first statement I wish to make.

The second statement is that the only institutions in South Africa which are authorized to confer degrees are universities or institutions authorized by universities to confer degrees. Hon. members have forgotten the background to this. Some of our present-day universities began as colleges. How did they go about conferring degrees at that time? I shall refer to Unisa as an example. Certain colleges were affiliated with Unisa. Because Unisa is a university and therefore has the power to confer the degrees of baccalaureus, magister or doctor, the colleges were authorized by Unisa to confer degrees, and eventually they developed and attained to university status, a status which enabled them henceforth to confer degrees in their own right. Only after those colleges had achieved the status of independent universities did they approach the department and were they authorized by way of legislation to become full-fledged universities. In this way they obtained legal authority to confer degrees.

In reply to the hon. member for Durban Central I repeat that colleges—including training colleges and colleges for advanced technical training—may not confer degrees. They may only confer diplomas.

That is correct.

Well, then I honestly do not understand …

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would agree that the proposed paragraph (b)(i)(bb) does not relate to a course which is connected in any way with a degree. It could be, but it could be for a diploma or some form of extra-mural studies and there must be many people outside the universities who, in fact, have courses which are of the same standard.

But the only institution that can confer such a degree is the university. Nobody else can. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. the Minister I want to point out that in subparagraph (bb) our problem is that the wording up to the first comma after “university” is so wide that if a school, for instance Afrikaanse Hoër Seunskool, were to say to its clever boys who could perhaps get ahead of their matric course, that during their matric course they would be given an extra mathematics course which would be the equivalent of a first year university course, it would technically be committing an offence, because they would be making it known or pretending that they can offer any course of study which is similar to a course of study offered at a university. That is our problem. In the first part there is no reference to the granting of diplomas or certificates which the second part of subparagraph (bb) is confined to. I think our problem is that that part is technically so wide that we interpret it as referring to institutions which are not universities and cannot give university degrees.

Mr. Chairman, the matter has to be considered in the context of the existing Act as a whole. If there is a body which confers diplomas or degrees it will fall under this. There are many organizations such as those in the insurance industry and other sales organizations which have in-service training. They offer courses for their own staff and the content of the courses may be equivalent to that of a university course, or may be even more advanced. I am thinking, for example, of a course recently offered in a sales organization by Mr. Woody Mans. These courses are of a very high quality. The purpose of these courses is not to give diplomas to the employees, but to train them so that they will be better qualified and better able to do their work. As soon as a degree or diploma is conferred, such an organization will fall under the Act. Surely that is quite clear.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to read out the old section 28bis of the principal Act, so that the House may realize what we are replacing—

That used to be the position and the hon. the Minister considered it to be insufficient. As far as the new clause is concerned, I just want to say that we are not advocating that colleges should be able to confer degrees. The proposed paragraph (b)(i) says “makes it known or pretends to any other person” and subparagraph (aa) says—

We agree that this provision has to be there, but the first part of subparagraph (bb) refers to “content or standard” and only in the second part do we find specific mention of a diploma or certificate, and with that I agree. I just want the hon. the Minister to realize that there is a problem and that people may commit a technical offence through ignorance. I think the penalty for this offence is R1 000 or six months’ imprisonment. It may easily happen that people may be guilty of a technical offence.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain to the hon. members again that the law advisers say that subparagraph (bb) is only applicable to institutions which allege that courses are of such a standard as to make a person entitled to a diploma or certificate which can be conferred by a university. No other persons who wish to offer diplomas, parts of courses, etc., are affected by this clause in any way, and consequently they may continue to do their work as they have done it in the past. I believe that if one considers the whole clause in its proper context, the problems referred to by hon. members fall away. Hon. members know me to be a reasonable person. In the light of the discussion which has taken place here, and the arguments which have been advanced, I shall take up this matter with the law advisers. If I have interpreted matters incorrectly in thinking that the arguments advanced here have no bearing whatsoever on the Bill, I undertake to ensure that this clause is amended accordingly in the Other Place in order to solve the problems envisaged by hon. members. I hope that hon. members will be satisfied with that.

Mr. Chairman, I think one can accept what the hon. the Minister says. I want to make the suggestion that the difficulty in the proposed paragraph (b)(i)(bb) lies with the word “or”. If we change that word “or” to “and”, the whole problem falls away.

Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated that I shall go into it and should the legal advisers say “or” must become “and”, it will become “and”.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, this is a limited Bill which is virtually concerned with only two principles, principles with which we basically agree. I just want to repeat that I am glad the hon. the Minister came to realize at the end of the Committee Stage that practical problems could in fact be experienced in the administration of the legislation. I take this opportunity of urging him to see what he can do to have the word “all” replaced by the word “and” in the clause concerned.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a small Bill and is of a consequential nature only.

Section 20(1) of the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act, 1976, which provides for the registration of teachers, provides, inter alia, that from a date to be determined by notice in the Gazette, no person who is not registered or provisionally registered under the aforementioned Act, shall be appointed in a full-time permanent capacity at a school to teach or shall teach in such a capacity at a school.

†It is therefore necessary to provide for the termination of service of a teacher already employed in a full-time permanent capacity. In the conditions of service of teachers employed in terms of the Educational Services Act, 1967, provision must therefore be made that if the name of a teacher who is employed in a permanent full-time capacity, is struck off the register, he shall be deemed to have resigned voluntarily.

*That, briefly, is the content and purview of this measure. I hope that it will be unanimously accepted by this House.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister said, this Bill is purely consequential. I therefore only rise to say that we support this Bill. We may put one question during the Committee Stage concerning the issue of private schools.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches have no objection to the legislation either and we therefore support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches, too, support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to convey my thanks to all the hon. members for having supported this legislation so readily.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased with this clause of the Bill because teachers will now unmistakably know that they belong to a teachers’ council which has teeth and that if they are struck off the register, they are in fact fired and cannot be employed in any other State school. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how many teachers will be affected by this provision. I am thinking particularly of those teachers who are not registered, those who teach at private schools, or let us say schools which receive subsidies. I am also interested to know, when this measure comes into effect after it has been gazetted, who will be held responsible for a teacher staying on, because he has to resign automatically. I see there is a fine of R100 or three months’ imprisonment, or both. Is it the responsibility of the headmaster, the head of education or the teacher himself in this case?

Mr. Chairman, the employer in this case is the body responsible for the working conditions, the appointment and the dismissal of a teacher. We have to perceive the distinction very clearly in this regard. The Professional Teachers’ Council which was established last Friday is a council similar to the Medical Council and must ensure that the status of the teacher is duly recognized. To be able to do this all teachers will have to be registered with the board as teachers and this board will be entitled to take disciplinary steps against a teacher to afford the necessary status to the teaching profession and to take action to achieve these aims. The hon. member’s question implies that he is of opinion that a teacher is employed by the professional teachers’ council. The teacher is not employed by this council and consequently the professional teachers’ council cannot dismiss or pay off a teacher. The council can only make recommendations to the employer. In the case of provincial education the employer is the province. The Directors of Education are therefore the highest authority who may act on behalf of the employer in this connection. I hope this answers the hon. member’s question.

The hon. member also wanted to know how many teachers would be affected thereby. This of course is very difficult to determine. I think that very few will become involved in this. In this connection I have in mind in particular the special circumstances of private schools. Hon. members will recall that when we piloted the legislation relating to the professional teachers’ council through the House, we conducted a long debate on this. However, we shall keep our word and make an effort in various ways to see to it that the necessary provision is made to afford every teacher the opportunity to form part of this fine structure which has been introduced in order to afford the necessary status to this fine profession.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a very small Bill which contains only one provision. The amendment of section 6 has become essential because experience has taught us that it may be necessary to appoint members of the board for periods shorter than five years. As the section reads at present, members can only be appointed for a minimum period of five years at a time. In the first place, this amendment makes it possible to appoint a member because of his special knowledge and experience and for other good reasons and who has already reached an advanced age, for a shorter term; and secondly, it also makes it possible to have greater continuity on the board because the periods of service of members do not terminate on the same date. The question may possibly be asked why I do not terminate the service of the board’s members in terms of section 6(3). I readily concede that this can be done, but in my opinion it is not fitting to do so and I do not think it is right summarily to terminate the services of a person after he has been appointed for five years, particularly in the case of people who render and have rendered faithful and good service.

The other amendment in the Bill is purely consequential. Because it is a very small Bill and because I believe that it will be acceptable to the House I think that we shall be able to pass it without difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, we sympathize with the hon. the Minister’s problem. The amendments are logical and we shall support them. Nor shall we discuss them at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem at all with this Bill. It is a technical, adjusting amending Bill and we will support it in the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister made a good case for this very simple, but nevertheless essential alteration and we support it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, this measure improves the workability and the functioning of the War Graves Board and it is perhaps appropriate to say how much the work that is being done by the Board is appreciated by those who are concerned with the preservation of those graves and the preservation of an historical asset. There is very great dedication on the part of the members both of the Boer Graves Committee and also British Forces Committee of the War Graves Board. I hope that the hon. the Minister will convey to them the appreciation of the House for the work they are doing in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the appreciative words of the hon. member for Green Point. Not only do I agree with them, I should also very much like to add that the War Graves Board indeed does outstanding work in the interests of South Africa. In fact some of the most inspiring occasions I personally have had the privilege of attending have been occasions involving, and organized by, the War Graves Board. For the most part they are elderly people. There are members of the board who are about 80 years old. They are people who take an intense interest in the work they are doing.

†What is very satisfying about the work being done here is that it goes for both sections, for both English and Afrikaans-speaking people of the Republic of South Africa. The board deserves the warmest praise from this House for the very cordial relations which exist and which are constantly being furthered. I concur whole-heartedly with the words of the hon. member for Green Point. I appreciate them very much indeed. I will see to it that these words are properly conveyed to the board.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to motivate the Bill as follows:

Clause 1:

Section 6(2) of the Act provides for the following rights to the abstraction and use of water from the Vaal River downstream from the storage area of the Rand Water Board and up to the diversion works near Warrenton: Firstly, anyone who was not using water at the time the Act came into operation was entitled to a permit enabling him to abstract 3,52 litres of water per second from the river for every kilometer of river frontage of his property. Secondly, anyone who was in fact using water at that stage was entitled to continue abstracting the amount of water he had been using without a permit and if that amount was less than 3,52 litres per second, he was entitled to a permit for the rest.

Section 6(3) of the Act provides in turn for the following rights to the withdrawal and use of water from the storage area of the works constructed by the Rand Water Board: Firstly, anyone who was not using water at the time the Act came into effect, was entitled to a permit enabling him to abstract such amount of water as the extraordinary water court referred to in section 14 of Act No. 18 of 1914 may determine. Secondly, anyone who was in fact using water at that stage was entitled without permit to continue to abstract the amount of water he was so using.

Now, in terms of section 6(4), a permit issued under section 6(2) or (3) is attached to the land in respect of which it is issued and it is available to any successors in title of the person to whom it was issued. However, since subsection (4) contains no reference to anyone entitled to the use of water without a permit, the implication is that the limitations of subsection (4) do not apply to him. This appears to be an anomaly which was not realized in 1934 or since then.

I might just point out that the aims of the provisions of subsection (4) are clearly to prevent speculation with rights to the use of public water, something which could give rise to uneconomic use of the water, and these aims can still be endorsed today.

In the past it has always been accepted that in the case of a subdivision of a property referred to in subsection (4), the owners of the subdivisions in question could agree on the sharing of the permit rights if sufficient irrigable land was available on every subdivision. Moreover, sharing of permit rights has always taken place on this basis, even where it has occurred that no permit rights have been granted in regard to a specific subdivision.

However, recently there has been doubt as to the precise meaning of the legal provisions in question, and after legal advice had been obtained in this regard, it became evident that the existing interpretation is not quite correct. To be specific, it appeared that what the restrictions imposed by subsection (4) really entailed was that permit rights could only be allocated pro rata according to the size of each subdivision when a property was subdivided, and that the owners or the Minister had no say in the matter, and that the availability of irrigable land played no part in any subdivision. It is felt that this position is not reconcilable with the approach that public water may not be used in a wasteful manner, and consequently it is proposed in the Bill that the matter be rectified by affording the owners some say. However, this will be subject to the Minister’s approval, in order to make it possible to ensure that the original aims of section 6(4) of the Act are not departed from to too great an extent. At the same time it is proposed that the anomaly as regards consumers who may abstract water without a permit, be rectified.

It has been found in practice that a further departure from the provisions of section 6(4) is justified. Under present circumstances, it is desirable that sub-economic units be consolidated, and modern irrigation methods have shown that it is sometimes more economical to concentrate water rights on one of the original properties after consolidation. However, in terms of section 6(4) this is not permissible and consequently the Bill envisages making provision for limited rights in such cases as well. In order to prevent abuses, it is proposed that such rights will only apply in the following cases: Where the properties concerned have the same owners; where the transfer of water from one property to another will not prejudice other owners; and where uneconomic use of water will be avoided.

Consequently it is proposed that in such cases the owner may be permitted by the Minister to make use of the water rights in regard to any of such property or properties on another property or properties, but that this right lapses as soon as the properties in question no longer belong to the same owner. By so doing, the economic use of water will be promoted without detracting from the aims of section 6(4). In order to protect the rights of prospective purchasers, it is also envisaged that such an authorization from the Minister and the conditions attaching thereto should be entered on the deed of transfer in question.

Clause 2:

At present, no provision is made in the Act for charging interest on rates and charges which are payable but have not yet been paid. In order to eliminate this shortcoming it is proposed that section 7 be supplemented to provide for the charging of interest.

Clause 3:

At present there is no provision in the Act under which the Minister may delegate any of his powers in terms of the Act and this situation has a restrictive effect on administration. It is being proposed with a view to efficiency that provision be made in this connection.

Clause 4:

Due to the gradual drop in the value of money, the prescribed fines for offences in terms of the Act are so low as to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offences, and consequently the necessary adjustment is being proposed.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. There can be no doubt whatever that the efficient use of water is becoming of ever greater importance in this country. The hon. the Minister has introduced a Bill to make a regularization of the use of water in this area easier and to enable an owner to combine two pieces of ground, on which he has separate water rights, with a view to more efficient usage of that water. We regard this as being essential and support it. The fact that this has to be recorded in the deeds registry in order to prevent any kind of misconception in the minds of people who might wish to purchase ground is something we welcome. This protection of prospective purchasers can in no way lead to people being deceived as to what their water rights may be when they wish to purchase a piece of ground.

As regards clause 2 we would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the scope of this problem is, where people have failed to pay their levies. There is another Bill still to be introduced and which contains a similar clause. The other point is that these amounts of interest which are in arrear are not capitalized. It seems to me that this is going to go on, on a large scale and for a long time. There is a considerable amount of book work that will have to be done to keep these amounts separate, because every year there will be amounts of interest which in the following year will still be arrear amounts. I am interested to know, from a bookkeeping point of view, how the hon. the Minister is going to distinguish between these different amounts.

Clause 1 was the subject of another Bill which was before a Select Committee and all parties in this House were completely ad idem about the intent of the clause. This is another reason why we support this clause.

Clause 3 deals with the fact that the Minister is unable to make delegations of power. In the present climate this must be a considerable hindrance to the Minister. We on our side of the House have always been very suspicious and very wary of giving power to a Minister to delegate of his powers, but we regard this particular case as being a realistic request and therefore support it.

Clause 4 deals with the increase in fines for convictions from R10 to R500 for the first offence.

It has been R10 since 1934.

Yes, since 1934, and from R20 to R1 000 for later convictions. This is merely an interesting social comment on the way in which money tends to depreciate over a period of years although we have not had a Nationalist Government since 1934 all the time.

We are interested to note that there is no intention of increasing the term of imprisonment. When the other Bill which was before a Select Committee comes before the House, we shall have one or two words to say about that, but as far as this Bill is concerned, we support its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill will be a source of great pleasure to the farmers on the Vaal River. In my constituency there are farmers who own two adjacent plots of land. Such a farmer has irrigation rights on plot A, but the ground of A does not permit of irrigation. The ground of plot B does, but he does not have irrigation rights on it. In terms of this Bill he will in future be allowed to use the water of plot A on plot B. This is very advantageous to the farmers in the sense that quite a few farms will become more economical.

This Bill also entails considerable financial advantages for the Department of Water Affairs. One is only surprised to see that to date, the department has not charged any interest on amounts due to it but which have not yet been paid. One can only wonder at how low the water tariffs of the department were until a few years ago. Indeed, there was a time when the Department of Water Affairs provided what was really a charitable service to us farmers by way of the many financial advantages which we were afforded. Normal business principles stipulate that the clause which provides for interest being charged on amounts in arrear, is not only justified, but also necessary. It is my pleasure to thank the hon. Minister and the department on behalf of the farmers in my constituency on the Vaal River who will benefit by this. We welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has set the Bill out clearly, and the hon. member for Mooi River, as well as the hon. member for Meyerton, commented on the various clauses. Therefore I do not intend to deal with the various clauses as well. All I want to say, is that we in these benches support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also support this Bill at Second Reading. We support all the clauses of the Bill. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that the point raised by the hon. member for Mooi River, a point raised in a spirit of inquiry … In so far as clause 2 is concerned, especially the last two lines of clause 2, we on these benches welcome the fact that the net result of that will be that in fact there will be no interest on interest. I believe that is a commendable attitude which is taken, and we welcome that. I would not like to see this inquiry resulting in something else.

With reference to clause 1, there is one point which I want to raise by way of inquiry. It seems to me that in respect of the new section 6(4)(b), as substituted by clause 1, it will happen that if land is subdivided and an agreement is reached, that the Minister authorizes such agreement. I want to give a specific example. I have some difficulty with the new section 6(4)(b)(ii). If, for example, land is subdivided into two sections, which I shall refer to as A and B, and subdivision A comprises one third of the land, while subdivision B comprises two thirds, it may be that subdivision A is the land which is properly “besproeibaar”. One might come to the agreement that that subdivision gets half of the water from the river. Subdivision A, although it comprises only a third, gets half of the water. That may be the agreement reached between the owner of subdivision A and the owner of subdivision B to whom he has sold that part of the land. The difficulty I have, is that in subsection (2) it says—

That is the Minister of Water Affairs—

What it seems to say here, is that it will only be deemed to have been authorized by the Minister if the proportion of water is in the same relationship in which subdivision A is to the whole of the land. The effect of that will be that it will only be deemed to have been authorized by the Minister if subdivision A received one third of the water. I hope the hon. the Minister follows me. This subsection provides that it will be deemed to have been authorized, provided that the agreement as to water is in exactly the same proportion as the subdivided land. That is to say, the agreement as to the amount of water which may be abstracted, is exactly the same as the proportion of the subdivisions to the total size of the land. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister, is what happens where a different agreement has been reached, an agreement such as the one I have suggested, where one third of the land gets half the water. There one does not have a deeming provision, a provision stating that the Minister is deemed to have authorized that. I have read through this carefully a number of times, and that seems to me the inescapable conclusion. I merely mention that to the hon. the Minister as being something which seems to be missing from the Bill in that respect. Finally, with regard to clause 4, I just want to mention that we support the idea of a high increase in the fine. What we are really pleased about is that there should not be an increased imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to express my gratitude towards hon. members for their support of this Bill. I think that we all realize the value of water and that we appreciate the general approach that water should be used as efficiently as possible. Therefore I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation towards all the hon. members who have given this Bill their support. A few questions were asked.

†The first question was put by the hon. member for Mooi River, a question in connection with the scope of unpaid taxes or levies in a certain area. In the particular area the hon. member referred to, there are really only administrative costs outstanding. There are no big amounts involved, but we do want to make provision for that, should it occur again in the future. Hon. members will realize that my department will have to take more active steps if such levies are not paid. At the moment, however, there is no big amount outstanding. Moreover, no real difficulties are being experienced in this regard in the particular area. We make provision for the future. Regarding the question as to how we are going to distinguish between amounts, I do not think it arises right at this moment. I can only give the hon. member the assurance that my department is so efficient that they will be able to handle this sort of thing very easily.

The hon. member also mentioned the depreciation of money. I want to add to that that it is also the increased value of water, the appreciation of water, that adds to the depreciation of money.

*We have reached the stage in our country where water, regardless of the value of money, is becoming more and more valuable. In this respect one must also have regard to the fact that people who waste water should be obliged to pay more so that the value of water may be brought home to them.

The hon. member for Durban North referred to clause 1(2). This provision does not give rise to any change and has nothing to do with amending the Act. Therefore I cannot quite follow the hon. member’s argument in this respect, but as far as I am concerned, what this amounts to is that if there is a subdivision of land, the department looks into the matter so as to ensure that such subdivision will result in the most advantageous use of water. In those cases where subdivisions already exist—and as I see it, that is what the subsection refers to—the legislation should really be retrospective, in other words the Minister has to presume that it was done in accordance with the legislation. I think that is the only thing which is relevant in this case.

†I hope that the hon. member agrees with the way I interpret the subsection he referred to.

*I do not want to say anything more about this because it seems to me that one can reach a stage where one starts splitting hairs and arguing fictitious cases. The basic premise is that the department and the Minister have to see to the most efficient utilization of water.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Meyerton for what he said in connection with practical cases which can now be controlled in terms of the Bill and which will definitely lead to a more effective utilization of water. I do not think there is anything else which the hon. members raised and I think that what I have said will suffice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is proposed that the Water Research Act, 1971 (Act 34 of 1971), be amended as set out in the Bill. The reasons for the proposal are as follows:

As a result of the latest audit inspection of the books of the Water Research Commission, the Auditor-General focused attention on the fact that from time to time there are considerable amounts in arrears in respect of rates and charges levied by the Minister in terms of section 11 of the Act, with the resultant loss of interest to the commission on such amounts. It was also recommended that attention be given to the levying of interest on such arrears.

Since the Act does not grant any such powers to the Minister at present, in clause 1 it is proposed that the necessary provision should, in fact, be made.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the position is that the Water Research Act, 1971, does not bind the State, with the result that water used by Government institutions is not subject to rates or charges levied in terms of section 11 of the Act. Water is provided to Government institutions by a wide variety of distributors such as local authorities, water boards and irrigation boards, and for a large part of the supply it is administratively impossible for the distributors to distinguish, with any degree of certainty, between water supplied to Government institutions on the one hand and to consumers, who are liable to taxation, on the other. De facto the present position is that the State does eventually pay the rates and charges, levied in terms of the Act, in respect of the major portion of the water supplied to Government institutions. For reasons of efficiency, and because the State will eventually also benefit from the activities of the Water Research Commission, it is proposed that the Act be amended to bind the State in respect of the provisions of section 11.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of this Bill has just been accepted in the previous Bill and I do not think it is necessary to waste a great deal of the time of the House dealing with it. I do think, though, that the proposed new section (6), viz. “the provisions of this section shall bind the State”, is a very important innovation which has been made in this Bill, a provision which may have far-reaching consequences, because in other fields, for instance in the field of rates levied by local authorities, all Government properties are excluded. Here the State is taking upon itself the obligation to pay virtually a rate or levy to the Water Research Commission. The State is taking upon itself an obligation which it has refused in every other instance to accept. I am merely leaving the thought in the air that there may quite well follow a lot of other approaches being made to the State to take that obligation upon itself in other areas. The very fact that the State is taking this obligation upon itself, is very interesting. Again I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what amount of money is involved. Is the Water Research Commission really being affected to such an extent? I accept what the hon. the Minister has said and I accept the provisions of the Bill. It is, however, a very important amendment the hon. the Minister is making. I wonder how far the matter goes and whether the benefit is going to be large or small?

In regard to the question of levying interest on arrear rates, the hon. the Minister assures us that his department is so efficient that they are not going to get the amounts of money mixed up. The hon. the Minister himself said, however, that a considerable amount of money was outstanding and that he would now be levying interest on the amount of money outstanding. If this process continues for a number of years he will in fact be capitalizing that amount of money without adding it to the total that is going to become levyable every year. The hon. the Minister should take urgent steps to ensure that the arrears of rates do not build up into considerable amounts. I would hate to see the kind of bookkeeping his department is going to involve itself with if the process continues over a period of years. We support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill was before the Select Committee for a short space of time and all the questions were discussed. We are satisfied with all aspects of it and we therefore support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to express my appreciation for the support hon. members have given the Bill.

†The Water Research Commission does very important work regarding the general promotion of research and management of water. They have to identify fields for research and they have to co-ordinate and promote research. They do not do the research themselves, but make use of other bodies such as universities which are doing invaluable work in this regard. It is, therefore, very important that the commission gets the funds to which it is entitled.

The hon. member for Mooi River has asked certain direct questions. According to the department the amount involved is approximately R25 000 per annum. The present system greatly complicates the bookkeeping of municipalities which supply water to Government institutions, and then have to separate the levies in those cases. It is this system which we have in mind. I want to point out that this is not a tax; it is a levy. The Government does not pay taxes on fixed improvements. This is merely a levy for a specific purpose. The commission has practical difficulties with this sort of thing. For example, in Pretoria they have to sort out who has to pay the levy and who does not have to pay it. This is an aspect which complicates their bookkeeping. As far as the question of capitalizing the amounts and keeping them separate are concerned, the position is I think that the department does not do the bookkeeping but that it is done by the commission itself. It has now been indicated to me that my department does this work for the commission. In other words, my department actually sees to it that the levies are collected. I am not sure of the details at the moment but we can always investigate the matter in detail during the discussion of my Vote at a later stage. I have no indication of the difficulties that are experienced, but I think the hon. member should accept that my department is as efficient as I expect it to be. There is, however, no doubt that certain difficulties may arise from time to time due to the fact that there are so many items which have to be taken into account.

*Let that suffice. I again want to express my thanks to hon. members for their support of the Bill. We can, when my Vote is discussed, have another look at the important work the Water Research Commission is doing. It is exceptionally important and interesting work in the field of water research with all its various facets.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, many of the problems we have been faced with in the past are due to the fact that the department has never been able to provide a consistent flow of water to some of the irrigators in certain areas. This has been due to prolonged droughts and various other reasons. However, now that we have permanent water in areas such as the Sundays River and the Fish River valley due to the Orange/Fish River tunnel, and also in other areas where more permanent water has been provided, many of our problems will be alleviated. It is true that we have always had to pay interest on arrears on water rates and that this has been accumulating over many years due to acts of God such as prolonged droughts, but I do believe that with the development that has been taking place and the money that the Government has been spending on large irrigation schemes much of this problem will decrease in time to come.

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind agreeing with the hon. member but I do not want to make any further comment.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Import and Export Control Act, No. 45 of 1963, came into force on 8 May 1963. The Act grants wide powers to the Minister in connection with the control of the import and export of goods. Since the commencement of the Act during 1963 it has not been necessary to amend it, but a few shortcomings have now cropped up which necessitate an amendment of the Act. A Bill, in which provision is made to overcome these shortcomings, was published on 14 January 1977 in the Government Gazette for general information and comment. Organized commerce and industry were also approached for their comment. However, these organizations indicated, judging by the published Bill, that they had no objections to raise. The amendments embodied in the Bill now before the House are proposed in order to combat certain problems which have recently been experienced with the enforcement of certain conditions stated in permits, particularly when these conditions are related to the possession, ownership or disposal of goods, or the use to which such goods may be put after the relative goods have already been imported, and because some importers increasingly neglect to comply with specific conditions subject to which they obtained permits.

†The manner in which the Act is presently phrased prevents effective action being taken against persons who obtain an import permit for a specific purpose and then fail to comply with the conditions imposed in terms of the permit in respect of the goods after those goods have been imported under the permit. It is therefore proposed that the existing Act be specifically amended so as to provide that import permits may be granted subject to conditions which will be stated in that permit, and so as to provide also that any person who fails to comply with, or contravenes, a condition imposed by an import permit in respect of goods imported thereunder, shall be guilty of an offence which will, of course, be discouraged by the appropriate penalties.

Section 2(3) of the Act already provides that any permit issued in terms of section 2(1) of the Act may state the quantity or value of goods to be imported or exported in terms of that permit, the price at which, the period in which, the port through or from which, the country or the territory from or to which, and the manner in which, the goods concerned may be imported or exported, and such other conditions as the Minister may direct or determine. Although the Act provides for the wide powers to which I have already referred, and in terms of which conditions may be imposed by permit, the enabling powers do not explicitly provide that those conditions may also be of a kind which need to be adhered to after the goods have in fact been imported under the permit by which those conditions were imposed.

Clause 1 of the Bill which is now under consideration provides therefore for certain amendments to section 2 or the Act. It is proposed that a new subsection (3) be substituted for the existing subsection (3). This new subsection will provide clearly that the conditions which may be imposed by permit issued under section 2(1) of the Act, may relate to the possession, the ownership or disposal of goods after the goods were imported, and to the manner in which such goods may be used.

*Section 4(1) of the existing Act provides that non-compliance with the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act constitutes an offence and goes on to prescribe penalties while section 4(2) makes provision for the fact that goods imported in contravention of the provisions of a notice issued in terms of section 2 can be forfeited to the State.

Since the power to impose conditions by permit would be of no practical value if one did not also ensure that those conditions could, in fact, be enforced, a suitable amendment must be made to section 4(1) of the Act. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore amends section 4(1) of the Act to the effect that failure to comply with a condition stated in a permit issued in terms of section 2 would constitute an offence punishable with the same penalties as those imposed for other contraventions of the Act. The amended section 4(2) therefore makes provision for the fact that goods which, after they have been imported, are handled in such a way as to contravene the conditions imposed by way of the permit, shall now also be placed within the ambit of the court’s powers of forfeiture. As was the case in the past, such forfeiture does not, of course, affect any rights which anyone else, other than the convicted person, has to the goods if it can be proved that such other person did not know that the handling of the goods was in contravention of the provisions of the notices issued in terms of section 2 of the Act or the contemplated condition.

Mr. Speaker, in his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister indicated that this is the first amendment being effected to an Act which was enacted as far back as 1963. This Act has an interesting history in that the provisions giving the Minister power over the importation and exportation of a wide range of goods really became effective as a war measure during the Second World War. For many years the hon. members on that side of the House claimed that this was purely a temporary measure. In fact, the measure remained temporary for a matter of 24 years before Parliament enshrined it in the Statute Book as an Act of Parliament. We merely wish to place on record that at the time we stated that because of our fundamental belief in the free enterprise and free competitive system we did not go along with import controls as such. In the discussions that took place during the Second Reading of the Bill in 1963, we made our position entirely plain. For the record, I think it would be summed up best if I referred to the speech by the then hon. member for Jeppe, Dr. Cronje, in Hansard, Vol. 6, 1963, col. 4212. There he said—

The year was 1963. Today, in the year 1977, we find we are in similar circumstances. Because of those circumstances and because it was then necessary to protect our balance of payments and our foreign exchange reserves, we did support the Second Reading of that Bill at that time. We intend to support this Bill as well. The hon. the Minister has motivated his case clearly. There are only two main clauses. This Bill does give teeth to a measure in respect of which, after some 25 years, it has become apparent that there are loopholes in the provisions that are being made use of by certain people in commerce and industry. We believe that in the serious times our country is experiencing the Government, having passed the original Act, should now be given the privilege of ensuring that no loopholes are available to commerce and industry.

Mr. Speaker, we support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, we want to express our thanks to the official Opposition for their support of this Bill, even though they are doing it fairly half-heartedly, as is very evident from the words of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and I say this in the light of the fact that they do not support the principle but are nevertheless prepared to support the Bill because of the special circumstances we find ourselves in at present.

We are good patriots.

It is very important that we close these loopholes in the Act because they have given rise to abuses, particularly abuses of a dual nature: Firstly, in respect of conditions which are eventually not complied with after articles have been imported into the country and secondly also in respect of the grounds for application for certain import permits, ground which eventually turn out to be the wrong grounds when, for example, a welfare organization, which has obtained an import permit, gets rid of the goods, for whatever reason, once such goods are in the country. These two types of loopholes have resulted in transactions taking place in unfair competition with local merchants because the goods imported in that fashion were frequently not subject to tax and could therefore be offered to prospective buyers on much better terms. Apart from that it is surely also logical that when an Act is placed on the Statute Book full effect must be given to that Act. This amendment makes provision for the fact that after an article has arrived in South Africa there will be control over the manner in which that article is handled. This empowers the Minister to exercise proper control over it and therefore I should very much like to give my full support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will also support this Bill. It is quite clear that in times when foreign exchange is scarce and import permits become necessary, these permits become very valuable to the people who possess them. We all know that it is absolutely impossible to get rid of this menace completely, but there are actually many companies which deal in import permits. We believe this Bill will go some way towards eradicating this menace, but we do not believe it can be stamped out completely.

Mr. SpeaKer, we on this side of the House will not oppose this Bill. I can understand that the hon. the Minister wants to eliminate any defects and abuses. This Bill will provide the hon. the Minister with the necessary power to exercise a tighter control. The legitimate importers and exporters should have no quarrel with the Bill. They should have no problem with it.

However, there is one point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. I hope he will assist me with this particular matter. Where a person in the past had a substantial business and of course a substantial number of permits and he decided to retire from business, he did not necessarily give up his permits. Some such people apparently sell their permits to colleagues for some small percentage. In this way they can show the department that they do in fact have a turnover. It is not a legitimate turnover; they are merely sending their permits to some of their colleagues. I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. Here he has an opportunity of imposing conditions. Would he not consider that, where somebody wants to import a certain line of goods for which it is obvious large warehousing is required, it must be a condition of the permit that they must have sufficient warehousing to store that stock? If they do not have that warehousing, then obviously all they are going to do with the permit is that they are going to sell it to somebody else in commerce at a slight percentage. All I am trying to suggest to the hon. the Minister is that we must try to eliminate that form of abuse, because the person who has retired from business is not entitled to the permit and the 5% or 10% he is making is money to which he is not legitimately entitled.

Mr. Speaker, I am just standing up to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation. I want to emphasize what is actually relevant here. The shortcoming in the existing Act is that the Minister cannot impose conditions covering what happens to the goods after they have been imported. That is in terms a decision of the courts. In other words, the Minister can determine conditions covering the goods until they arrive, but no conditions covering the goods after they have arrived. That is actually the shortcoming that is being supplemented here. The second point is to introduce a penal provision to make contravention of the conditions subject to sanctions. I take note of the standpoint of the hon. member for Walmer. One would very much like to give import permits only to those people whose bona fide business it is to use those permits. There ought not to be commercialization as far as permits are concerned. I take note of what he has said and will give attention to the kind of circumstances he has referred to.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to put the two objections which we in these benches have to this clause. Firstly, we do not believe that an office of the State is necessary. Secondly, we believe that if such an office is established, it should not be restricted to the cinematographic industry, but should cover all common interests.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to explain that this clause does not intend that a new office be established. It will be part and parcel of the function of the Registrar of Copyright. Secondly, I should also like to explain, as I have indicated before, that a Bill will be introduced—I was hoping that it would still be this session—dealing with copyright as a whole. Unfortunately I still have to consult with various people and organizations and am, therefore, not in a position to introduce it now. I tender my apologies that it is not possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

In terms of the provisions of the existing proviso no person other than a legal practitioner or patent agent shall be permitted to perform certain acts with regard to the copyright in cinematograph films, or to make a profit from advice which is given in this regard. It is now proposed that the provision concerned be amended in such a way that no person other than a legal practitioner or patent agent will be permitted to perform the act to which I have referred, for gain, or to furnish advice in this regard. The proposed amendment will enable prospective licensees of copyright in films to undertake the registration with regard to licensing themselves. This is an undertaking that I gave during the Second Reading debate, and for that reason I now move this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 9, I want to make the point that it does not embody the right of a person who wants to object or who is thinking of objecting to the registration of a copyright to see the actual film. We have a completely different situation with a film, and although the hon. the Minister has said that in practice there would be no objection to a person who is thinking of objecting to be shown the film we believe that the hon. the Minister should think about actually putting it in the Bill so that the person would actually have the right to see the film before he decides to enter an appeal against the Registrar.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate that this particular clause does not deal with an appeal, but with an objection. I know what the problem is, but there is nothing in the clause which precludes any intending objector to a particular registration to ask for the film to be produced so that it can be seen. If, in actual practice, difficulties appear, I am prepared to come back to this House in order to rectify the situation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31:

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

The amendment will merely rectify the difference which exists between the Afrikaans and English versions of clause 31. I indicated during the Second Reading debate that I was going to move this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading of the Bill we in these benches put forward the objections we have against this Bill. In fact, we moved an amendment in this regard. Nothing has happened in between to change our minds about our objections. In fact, quite a lot happened that actually increases our objections to the Bill. We had a budget which showed clearly that financially South Africa was not going through an easy time. This is a time when we should be thinking of cutting our coat according to our cloth. Here we are instituting a whole new office that is going to cost a lot of money to establish. We do not believe this is the time for increasing the bureaucracy in this manner.

The hon. the Minister himself has said that he is looking at the whole question of copyright. What we are frightened about is that we are going to have one bureaucratic centre for looking at the cinematograph industry and another to deal with other copyright issues. Therefore our objections to the Bill still stand.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will support the Third Reading. I merely would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the reservations which were expressed on this side of the House during Second Reading. However, there is provision in the Bill for the hon. the Minister to rectify or perhaps to see from practice how these matters can be adjusted. Furthermore, I would also like to reiterate my concern about the proliferation of departments, and to express the hope that no extensive additional cost will be involved.

I drew the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Select Committee which sat in 1964 referred to this very aspect, the question of greater costs. On the other hand, of course, the Bill itself is to protect an industry. In that respect I would imagine the hon. the Minister will give some consideration to the powers that he will have in terms of section 45 to ensure that the cost of bringing about this important protection may largely be covered by the fees and tariffs that may prevail. Strictly speaking the Bill has a purely commercial aspect and nothing else. Nevertheless, it is important in the interest of an industry which in itself is protected by copyright under the Copyright Act and in that way tied up with the Berne Convention. One must expect the State to have some interest in ensuring that the industry is fully protected if it already receives some protection in terms of the Copyright Act. With these thoughts I would like to express our support for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that certain problems may, arise both in South Africa and internationally. We also realize that when the Bill is put into practice, obviously, as the years go on, we will get amending legislation from the hon. the Minister. In one regard the hon. the Minister has already undertaken that if there is a problem he will come with amending legislation. In the circumstances we in these benches will not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to thank the hon. members for their cooperation. As regards the standpoint of the hon. member for Randburg, I just want to repeat that the fears expressed by his party during the Second Reading; fears which have just been repeated by the hon. member, are unfounded. In this regard there is in point of fact no real danger. The reason is that the establishment of an office, for which provision is being made in clause 2, does not imply that it has to be an additional office, or that the appointment of a registrar means that it has to be a new registrar. The present registrar of the patents and copyright will perform this function.

The hon. member will remember that until recently the Registrar of Companies was the registrar of patent rights as well. For that reason this does not imply the establishment of a new office and consequently it is not an extension—as the hon. member said—of bureaucratic institutions either. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the expenses in this regard will be limited to a minimum. On the other hand, I also want to state that the point of view of the hon. member for Jeppe is correct. What this is about is the protection of the existing rights of an existing industry, i.e. the film industry. Specific problems arise in removing from a plaintiff the onus resting on him. In the light of the fact that a film very often is of overseas origin and that several acts have to be performed before the rights to show a film is vested in the particular industry, it is virtually impossible to institute legal proceedings successfully, and even if this should be possible, the costs involved are totally out of proportion to the rights the hon. member is trying to protect.

Secondly, this registration is not actually obligatory registration, but voluntary registration. For that reason every person who wants to protect his rights is free to use this machinery. I have indicated that I shall introduce full legislation next year after I have consulted with all the interested parties. At that stage we shall know whether this Bill has shortcomings which we shall have to eliminate.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During 1976 the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law had the opportunity, in consultation with interested parties, to study several problems in connection with the implementation of the Companies Act, 1973. The said committee, on the basis of its activities, made recommendations in regard to certain amendments to the Companies Act.

The amendments proposed by the committee were incorporated in a Bill which was published for general information and comment in the Gazette of 31 December 1976. The Registrar of Companies received representations with reference to the published Bill from a large number of persons and organizations. Because it was alleged that certain of the amendments to the Act that had been proposed by the committee would cause practical problems for specific persons, the committee considered those representations on 31 January 1977 and then recommended that certain amendments be effected to the published Bill.

The Bill which is now before this House is therefore the result of careful consideration by the Standing Advisory Committee and the adjustments to which I have just referred have been effected in the Bill to comply with the recommendations of the committee.

I now want to deal with the main principles of the proposed amendments incorporated in the Bill. The concept of “share” in relation to a company and in relation to a prospectus is defined in the existing Act. It is now being proposed in clause 1 of the Bill that the definition of “share” in relation to a prospectus be deleted and a definition of the said concept in relation to an offer for subscription or sale be substituted. Under the proposed amendment a share and a debenture of a company, regardless of whether that company is a company as defined in the Act, as well as the rights or interests in such a company or in or pertaining to such a share or debenture, will also be included in the implementation of the Act in respect of any offer of shares for subscription or sale. This wide definition of the concept in question is necessary to eliminate any possible circumvention of the provisions of the Act concerning an offer of shares for subscription or sale.

Under clause 2 of the Bill, a new subsection (1A) will be added to section 7 of the Act, which will empower the responsible Minister to appoint an acting Registrar of Companies when the office of registrar is vacant or he is absent or unable to perform his functions. As a result of a reorganization in the Department of Commerce which took place during March 1976 on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, it was only possible to make a suitable appointment to the post of Registrar of Companies with effect from 1 June 1976. Because an acting registrar from March to May 1976, it is being proposed that the provision shall be deemed to come into operation on 1 March 1976 in order to eliminate any doubt as to the legal validity of the actions of the acting registrar. Therefore this is merely a consequential amendment to make provision for that period.

In clause 3 of the Bill it is being proposed that a new section be substituted for section 37 of the Act. With certain exceptions the employment of any portion of the funds of a company for loans to its holding company is at present prohibited. I want to draw attention to the fact that this clause is one of the most important clauses in the Bill.

On the one hand, the prohibition in question serves no useful purpose because it is very easily circumvented in practice, inter alia, by the provision of security by a company to another person in respect of an obligation of its holding company. In addition it is not always clear when one company is controlled by another company. On the other hand, it is considered desirable throughout the Western World that funds should be able to move freely among companies within a specific group.

I realize of course that there is a need to safeguard the interests of minority shareholders of subsidiaries in conglomerate groups. The proposed new section 37 of the Act will, in view of this important consideration, require that the funds employed for a loan to, and also the security provided to another person in connection with an obligation of its holding company or a subsidiary of that holding company shall, with certain exceptions, be stated in the annual financial statements of a company.

Moreover, any director or officer of a company who fails to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance with the said provision, shall be guilty of an offence. However, another provision will be included in the section in terms of which any director or officer of a company who authorizes the making of any loan or the provision of any such security, shall be liable for any damage directly arising from the making of such loan or the provision of such security on conditions, which, at the time of the transaction— in other words, of the making of the loan or the provision of the security—were not fair to the company or failed to provide reasonable protection for the business interests of the company.

I have already mentioned that one of the reasons why the existing section 37 of the Act is being substituted is that the prohibition contained therein may easily be circumvented. Now I must add at once that the lifting of the aforesaid restriction does not mean that companies may disregard the provisions of other legislation in connection with the employment of funds. In particular, I must point out that section 37 in no respect infringes on the powers of the Registrar of Banks in terms of the Banks Act, 1965.

I also want to point out that, because certain amendments had to be effected to the Fourth Schedule of the Act in respect of the information which has to be stated in the annual financial statements of the company, it is being proposed that the proposed new section 37 shall come into operation on a date which will be fixed by proclamation.

In terms of section 98 of the Act, the profits of a company with which preferential shares may be redeemed, shall be transferred to a capital redemption reserve fund. In clause 4 of the Bill it is being proposed that a subsection (7) be added to section 98 to make it clear that the provisions of that section also apply to any balance of a capital redemption reserve fund which was created prior to 1 January 1974, i.e. the date of commencement of the Companies Act, 1973.

†Clause 5 of the Bill contains certain proposed amendments to section 142 of the Act. Members will no doubt recall that the definition of “rights offer” was inserted in the Act last year by section 7(b) of Act 111 of 1976. When the matter was considered by this hon. House, I undertook to refer the questions raised during the debate to the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. The committee has now recommended an amendment to the definition in question, which should make it quite clear that the shares of any company quoted on a stock exchange could be the subject of a rights offer. Apart from the amendment which I have just mentioned, the clause contains only minor adjustments to certain definitions in section 142 of the Act.

In the light of the prohibition in section 143(2) of the Act on offers to the public of shares of a company corporate which is not a company or external company within the meaning of the Act, considerable doubt appears to exist as to the lawfulness of offers by certain public bodies to the public for subscription or sale of debentures. It is therefore proposed in clause 6 of the Bill that the section in question be amended in order to empower the Registrar of Companies to grant appropriate exemptions from the prohibition by notice in the Gazette.

Since the amendments to the Act proposed in clauses 7 to 12 of the Bill are, in my opinion, self-explanatory, I now propose to deal with clause 13, in which certain amendments to section 173 of the Act are proposed. The provisions of sections 173(1) and (2) of the Act apply respectively to every company having a share capital and to every company limited by guarantee and requires every such company to lodge with the registrar in prescribed form a return, called the annual return. The information to be specified in the annual return is presently prescribed by the sections in question.

It is contemplated that the companies registration office will put a computer into commission during 1977. Much of the information presently required to be specified in the annual return is in fact furnished by companies in the course of their financial years. It follows that such information could be stored by the computer, and it would therefore be superfluous for any company to specify that information again in its annual return.

It should also in time be possible to simplify and shorten the annual return in accordance with the progress made with the operation of the computer. In such an event, it would be necessary to change the requirements in respect of the information to be specified in the annual return. In order to obviate any delay in the implementation of the contemplated procedure and to avoid repeated amendments to the provisions of the sections in question, it is proposed that the responsible Minister be empowered to prescribe by regulation the information to be specified in the annual return.

Because the date upon which the computer can be put fully into commission, is for obvious reasons uncertain, it is also proposed that the amendments in question should come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation in the Gazette.

In clause 14 of the Bill an amendment to section 177 of the Act is proposed. Under the section in question the registrar may in any particular case on application to him and on payment of the prescribed fee, extend the period within which anything is to be performed in terms of the Act. The common practice is to send through the post the documents in respect of companies which are required in terms of the Act to be submitted from time to time to the registrar.

It often happens that those documents are received by the registrar after the date upon which they should have been lodged. Unless the registrar extends the period for the lodging of the documents, penalties have to be collected from the defaulting companies. The proposed amendment will empower the Registrar of Companies, generally, and on his own motion, to extend the period within which certain documents should be lodged if he is convinced that the lodging of the documents was delayed without any fault on the part of the company concerned, for instance in the case of a delay in the delivery of the documents.

In such event, no penalties will be collected. It is also proposed that the amendment be effected with effect from 1 January 1974—that is to say, the date of the commencement of the Act.

Whereas clause 15 of the Bill merely contains a proposed amendment which stems from another proposed amendment, I shall now turn to the amendments to section 179 of the Act proposed in clause 16 of the Bill. This section deals, among other things, with the times upon which the annual general meeting of a company shall be held.

The registrar is empowered by section 179(3) of the Act, upon application to him before the expiration of the period within which an annual general meeting of a company must be held, on good cause shown and on payment of the prescribed fee, to extend such period by a period not exceeding six months. The Act requires, among other things, that the audited annual financial statements of a company shall be submitted to and approved by its annual general meeting.

In practice it often happens that annual financial statements of a company are not prepared and audited in time for submission to the annual general meeting of the company. Usually, when the company becomes aware of this state of affairs, it is too late for the company to obtain an extension of time from the registrar as prescribed by the Act.

It is therefore proposed in clause 16(a) of the Bill that section 179(3) of the Act be appropriately amended so that the registrar will be empowered to grant an extension of time as contemplated in that section either before or after the expiration of the period within which the annual general meeting of a company is to be held in terms of the Act.

In clause 16(b) of the Bill the addition of a new subsection (7) to section 179 is proposed. This subsection will allow any company to forgo the holding of a particular annual general meeting if all the members entitled to attend that meeting agree thereto in writing.

All the members of a company entitled to vote at the annual general meeting of the company will be allowed to approve any resolution dealing with and disposing of any matter which is required to be or may be dealt with or disposed of at the meeting, by signing a resolution in writing before the expiration of the period within which the meeting is to be held. The provisions of the new proposed subsection will assist certain companies in the disposal of their business and will also eliminate certain expenses which are necessarily incurred when formal meetings are required to be held. I presume the hon. member for Randburg will support this amendment, since it saves on expenses.

In clause 17 of the Bill a significant departure from the existing provisions of the Act relating to the consent of any person to act as a director of a company is proposed. Certain of the provisions of section 211 of the Act stem from the fact that it was alleged in evidence to the Van Wyk de Vries Commission of Inquiry into the Companies Act, 1926, that persons had been appointed directors of companies without their knowledge or their consent.

Under the existing Act it is not possible to appoint a director without his consent because section 211 of the Act requires the written consent of a person to act as a director to be lodged with the registrar in prescribed form. Presently, a person who is appointed as a director of a company is required himself to lodge his consent in prescribed form with the registrar and, after the issue to the company of a certificate to commence business, any such appointment does not take effect until such time as the company has been notified by the registrar that the form has in fact been lodged and if no such notification is received by the company within three months of the appointment, such appointment will be invalid, unless a court otherwise directs. The provisions in question, by virtue of section 211(6) of the Act, also apply mutatis mutandis in respect of certain officers of a company.

It is alleged that the provisions to which I have referred create uncertainty as to the validity of acts performed by a director or officer of a company between the date of his appointment and the date upon which the notification of the registrar is received. In order to meet the alleged problem which has been raised, amendments to four subsections of section 211 are proposed in clause 17 of the Bill.

Firstly, it is proposed that section 211(3) be amended to require a company to lodge the consent of a person appointed as a director or officer of the company after it became entitled to commence business, within 28 days of the appointment or within such extended period as the registrar may allow upon application by the company.

Secondly, the substitution for section 211(4) of a new section is proposed which will provide that failure to comply with the provisions of section 211(3) of the Act shall not affect the validity of an appointment as director or officer of a company for that period.

Thirdly, an amendment is proposed to section 211(6) of the Act to make it clear that sections 211(3) and (4) apply mutatis mutandis in respect of certain officers of a company.

Finally, the addition to section 211 of the Act of a new subsection (8) is proposed in terms of which any company which and any director or officer who fails to ensure compliance with the provisions of section 211(3) of the Act shall be guilty of an offence.

*The proposed amendments in clause 18 of the Bill to section 216(1) of the Act, arise in part from the proposed amendment to section 211 of the Act, to which I have just referred. As has been mentioned, a company will be required, under certain circumstances, to lodge with the registrar in the prescribed form the consent of a person to act as director or officer of the company. In the proposed amendments to section 216(1) of the Act, it is being provided that such a person shall, within 14 days after his appointment as director or officer of the company, furnish to such company the properly completed and signed form.

In 1974 my predecessor mentioned, during the discussion of the Companies Amendment Bill, 1974, that the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law had recommended a return in the Companies Act, 1973, to the old, well-tried and well-proven definitions of holding and subsidiary companies which had been used in the Companies Act of 1926. Although certain amendments were effected to the Companies Act, 1973, at the time to comply with the recommendation in question, my predecessor also intimated that the degree of duplication which still existed in the Act in respect of the definitions in question would in due course be eliminated from the Act. The proposed amendments to the Act in clauses 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill will give further effect to the said recommendation of the advisory committee. According to the advisory committee it is unfortunately not possible at this stage to eliminate the duplication in question entirely. Last year section 226 of the Act was inserted in substitution for a previous section of the Act. Subsection (1) of the present section contains a prohibition on the making of loans and the provision of security in regard to transactions by directors or managers of a company.

In section 226(2) of the Act, provision is being made for certain exceptions to the said prohibition. In view of certain problems which are being experienced in practice the application of the prohibition and the exceptions to it, certain amendments are being proposed to section 226 of the Act in clause 21 of the Bill, to effect a better demarcation of the prohibition and the exceptions to it.

Firstly, it will be made clear in terms of clause 21(1)(a) of the Bill that a director or manager contemplated in section 226(1) of the Act, shall only be deemed to control another company or body corporate if the circumstances mentioned in section 226(1A)(b) are present.

Secondly, in terms of clause 21(1)(b), in view of the provisions of the proposed section 37, a new subsection (1B) will be inserted in the section which provides that sections 226(1) and (lA)(b) are not interpreted to mean that a company is prohibited from making a loan, or from providing security to any person in regard to an obligation of his holding company or subsidiary or a subsidiary of that holding company.

Thirdly, in terms of clause 21(1)(c), any transaction entered into with the consent of all the members of a company or in terms of a special resolution in connection with the said transaction, will be excluded from the prohibition.

Fourthly, in terms of clause 21(1)(d), a qualification will be added to the exception mentioned in section 226(2)(f) of the Act. The qualification entails that the exception only applies if a director or manager of a subsidiary company which benefits from a loan made or security provided by a company is not a director or manager of both those companies.

Furthermore, it is also being proposed that clause 21(1)(b) of the Bill shall come into operation on 23 July 1976.

In clause 27 of the Bill it is being proposed that the responsible Minister be empowered to delegate to the registrar his power in terms of section 310 of the Act to grant exemption in respect of the disclosure of certain information, or to prohibit the disclosure of such information. The grounds on which the Minister is being requested to exercise his power in terms of this section are not of such a nature that each application need be submitted to him.

In accordance with clause 28 of the Bill, a proviso will be added to section 372 of the Act. The proviso provides that the auditor of a company may in future also be appointed as liquidator of the company upon a voluntary liquidation by the members. It is not expected that the creditors of a company will be prejudiced by such an appointment.

Clause 29 of the Bill merely contains certain proposed amendments to section 441(1) of the Act which arise from other proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the long and detailed motivation which the hon. the Minister has accorded the House is merely indicative of the fact that the amending Bill before the House is merely a further chapter in a saga of company law of which we cannot yet see the end. The House will recall that prior to 1973 and the adoption of the original Act some ten years of intensive investigation has gone into the revision of the former Companies Act. This was undertaken by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission.

I think it will be realized in retrospect that one of the wisest revisions made at the time was the creation of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. From every indication of the amendments before us today it becomes crystal clear that the whole involvement of company life in this country, an involvement which affects every facet of our industrial and commercial well-being, is such that protection must be given not only to the shareholders, but also to members of the public. Also, persons who accept office in a company must be fully aware of their responsibilities as well as their privileges. It becomes abundantly clear that today no one who is cautious or wise would accept a directorship in a company unless he or she has been actively involved in the affairs of that company and can account to the shareholders for the well-being or otherwise of the company.

We also welcome the fact that this particular amending Bill makes provision for the appointment of an acting registrar. The volume of work involved is indicative of the fact that the acting registrar, when called upon, will fulfil a very necessary function.

I believe that the detailed clauses of the Bill have been explained. They have been seen by the societies of chartered accountants of the Cape, Natal and Transvaal and also by the National Council of Chartered Accountants. They have also been seen by the Law Society and I believe that they merely indicate a translation into law of the adaptations that had to be made to the Act from experience gained from year to year. I do not think that this is the end of the chapter. I believe that company life is so virile and so adapted to change that virtually every year or every second year we shall be confronted in the House with another amending Bill of this nature.

Sir, I believe that any further comment can be reserved for the Committee Stage and, as was the case with the original Act when it was before the House, we are going to support this Bill, having said that we believe that the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law should have our thanks and appreciation conveyed to them for their tremendous involvement and for the professional advice and guidance they have given to company life in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House understand that this Bill comes as a result of the advice from the advisory committee. This advisory committee is representative of a large section of the people in the professions. For example, I believe that the various law societies have a representative on this technical advisory committee. We accept that these amendments will come from time to time following upon the technical advisory committee considering amendments and also as a result of the objections of certain interested parties. Under the circumstances we shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to say that we in these benches will also support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to thank hon. members for their co-operation in this particular respect. It is true that this legislation results exclusively from the operations of the Standing Committee on Company Law. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and also express my gratitude and appreciation to the committee which devotes a great deal of its attention to the particular Company Act.

In the second place I want to confirm that I believe that new developments in our commercial and industrial life do in fact mean that we cannot be static in our thinking as regards this type of legislation, but we shall have to adjust the legislation to new developments as they arise.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.