Mr. Speaker, I move—

Apart from certain exceptions, section 55(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa—Act No. 32 of 1961—disqualifies any person who “holds any office of profit under the Republic” from being a member of the Senate or of the House of Assembly. A historical review of the origin of and the reason for the acceptance of that provision and similar provisions here and in England, is set out in, inter alia, Hedley v. Cilliers—20 SC 271, pages 278 and 279; Constitutional and Administrative Law (4th edition) by O. Hood Phyllips—pages 134-144; and Taswell-Langmead’s Constitutional History—11th edition, pages 463, 467 and 565-568.

It appears that in England, attention was given to the introduction of measures similar to those contained in the mentioned section 55(d), to ensure the independence of members of the House of Commons and to prevent corruption and obsequiousness of those members towards the king and the Government. This was a phenomenon arising out of the increasing power of the British House of Commons in the 17th century and the corresponding increasing dependence of the king upon the House of Commons. The holding by members of the House of Commons of “offices of profit under the King” and the receipt by such members of a pension from the Crown, would have undermined that independence and have strengthened the position of the king by means of the mentioned corruption and servility.

These circumstances, after several abortive attempts, gave rise to the passing of the Act of Settlement, 1700, of which section 6 provided—

Before this section came into force, it was evidently realized that this would result in a total separation between the executive and the legislative authority and would hinder the development of responsible parliamentary government and of the cabinet system. That section was accordingly repealed in 1706— before it had come into force—and replaced by a provision which limited the relevant prohibition to new offices of profit and a number of other specified offices. The distinction in legislation between old and new offices of profit, gradually disappeared and made place for a distinction between political offices of profit and non-political offices of profit. Subject to certain limitations, the former were permitted, but the latter not. More and more ministerial offices were allowed, although a limit was still maintained. The ultimate result was the Commons Disqualifications Act, 1957, which repealed the provisions which had imposed the prohibitions concerned on the holders of certain offices of profit and on the recipients of pensions. In lieu of that, the holders of specified offices were declared unsuited to become members of the House of Commons. Among them were, inter alia, holders of judicial offices and of offices in the Public Service, the Army and the Police. The number of Ministers in the House of Commons is also limited.

It is noteworthy that the English Act on which the mentioned section 55(d) was evidently based, was never put into practice. Indeed, the circumstances which led to the passing of that Act, can hardly apply today in view of the party system and party discipline as it has developed here. This system and discipline ensure support of the Government. It is highly questionable whether the prohibition on the holding of offices of profit can make any difference. It appears that the reasons which gave rise to the origin of section 55(d), no longer exist here. An imitation of the present English legislation can hardly serve any purpose in this country. I do believe however, that section 55(d) does serve a good purpose for other reasons and I should like to create an opportunity to identify those reasons and restructure the entire section, in necessary, in the light of present needs. In this connection I shall make a proposal later in my speech.

In passing, I might also mention that the exceptions made to the main provision of section 55(d), are not regarded by the State Law Advisers as being exceptions in all cases. On several occasions in the past, it has been necessary to amend section 55(d) in an attempt to eliminate doubt which had arisen in the minds of certain hon. members as a result of obscurities in the legal provisions concerned. The matters has also enjoyed the attention of the Chief State Law Adviser from time to time. He was of the opinion that the legal provisions concerned should be reviewed and formulated more clearly.

After the recent general election of members of Parliament and of provincial councils, an elected member of a provincial council was removed from office by the Supreme Court because, according to the court, he had contravened a certain provision of the section concerned.

This verdict of the court gave rise to inquiries by members. They had heard that in terms of section 55(d) they could render certain services to the State in some temporary capacity. Although the viewpoint was adopted that it was for every member to interpret the provision concerned himself, it must be conceded that the possibility exists that the legislation is not complete and moreover does not state the position clearly enough.

As was already apparent from a previous Bill—which I withdrew—I also want to safeguard the position of members of Select Committees which are converted into commissions.

In view of the implications which a contravention of the provisions of section 55(d) may hold for a member of the Senate, the House of Assembly and a provincial council, it has been decided to recommend to this House that—as is proposed in this Bill— the position of such members be safeguarded in the meantime until the whole matter can be given further consideration.

It is the intention to recommend to this House in the near future that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate, give consideration to, and report on the matter of offices of profit under the Republic, and to submit a suitable Bill in execution of that recommendation.

If necessary, it will be proposed that every member will be given a month within which to consider his position after the recommendations of the proposed Select Committee, or proposals arising therefrom, are placed in the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister explained in the very first part of his speech to the House the implications of section 55 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. This law operated well until 1977, when after the general election, a case was brought to unseat a sitting member of a provincial council. The case succeeded on the grounds of a contravention, albeit inadvertent and innocent, of this section. There, Sir, the matter would have rested had it not become apparent, in the light of this court decision, that a not inconsiderable number of elected public representatives around the country were now vulnerable to court or other action. Accordingly, early in this session, the hon. the Minister brought before the House the Constitution Amendment Bill. That Bill was one which I think opened the door to the holding of an office of profit under the Executive Government on any basis, and also exempted all State commissions from the restrictive provisions of section 55 of the Constitution Act. There were two major flaws in that Bill which was before the House. Firstly, it widened, I believe, too far the scope for persons elected to Parliament to serve on bodies for remuneration which were not directly concerned with the workings of Parliament. There was, and is, a major objection to that principle. We do not believe that persons who are elected by the voters of South Africa to manage the Government of this country should earn even a portion of their living from the State or from the Executive Government other than what they earn in their elected capacity. A general contravention of this principle can only give rise to a growing body of persons serving conflicting interests, and in some cases of persons sitting in judgment in this Parliament, as elected members of Parliament, on the results of their own work. I do not believe that we could support such a Bill to extend the right of elected members of Parliament to accept offices of profit under the State in this manner.

The second major flaw was that, in so far as the provincial councillors were concerned they were, to say the least, left in limbo. At any rate, clarity did not exist in so far as their position was concerned. We felt that this was unfair. The Bill was withdrawn. It was a Bill which would have exacerbated the problem without solving it, and we were very pleased that the Bill was withdrawn.

I now come to the Bill before us today. The long title of the Bill makes provision for the granting of temporary exemption to members of the Senate or the House of Assembly or a provincial council from the provisions of section 55(d) of the Constitution Act. It is clear, from a reading of the Bill, that it has limited application. It has application in time only to persons who were nominated or elected after 23 September 1977 up until the promulgation of this Act. In other words, persons who are nominated for by-elections, let us say after the promulgation of this Act which we are debating today, will not be affected at all and will not have the benefit of the suspension granted here. This Bill, then, protects the status quo. It pegs the situation as it is today. In other words, it attempts to create a situation in which uncertainty in regard to public representatives elected at this moment is avoided. I also believe that it ensures that there will be no court cases relating to elections which have already taken place. We could not, of course, support this as a permanent measure. We could not support the dilution of the principle, on a permanent basis, of the separation of the legislative and executive arms of Government, certainly in so far as this relates to members of Parliament being remunerated by the executive.

In the light of this Bill, therefore, I think I should like to make one or two general remarks about this legislation, and I think such remarks would be apposite in the circumstances. I think we should realize the seriousness of taking the step of amending this Act because we are not suspending a provision of any ordinary Act. We are suspending a provision of the Constitution of South Africa. When the Constitution is tampered with in any way, this should not be done lightly, for after all, the Constitution is a contract by which the people of South Africa are governed. In so far as it specifically affects us, as members of Parliament and public representatives, it is a document which emphasizes and enshrines the powers of Parliament and its very sovereignty. In other words, by virtue of the Constitution of South Africa, Parliament, being sovereign, is free to change its own rules and regulations governing the activities and rights of Parliament. It can do so quite easily, and therefore that right should be exercised with the greatest caution, particularly when we realize that it is very easy for Parliamentarians to change rules which, from time to time, may become inconvenient for them. I think that one’s duty to exercise restraint becomes even more apparent when one realizes just how fragile the South African Constitution is. It is a document which can be amended without any special procedures or mandate.

Section 55 of the Constitution Act is a section which was not enacted without reason. It is a section which is there to protect the public of South Africa. It is there to protect the public of South Africa against persons unsuitable or unqualified for office being elected to office. It is a protection for the public against the use of the public office of a member of Parliament or the provincial council to obtain other remunerative appointments. Parliament is a watchdog of the executive, and I do not believe that it is in South Africa’s interests to have members who, because of their offices of profit, will in fact not be able to fulfil that watchdog responsibility. The judgment in the Hylton-Smith case, in the Natal Supreme Court, which gave rise to this legislation, has exposed a situation in which certain public representatives find themselves inadvertently—I believe innocently; certainly without any malice—subject to possible disqualification. There is, of course, nothing in the law, as it exists today, which would allow such persons who find themselves in that position, retrospectively to put right such innocent contravention. There are consequently certain questions to be asked. The first question I can think of is whether it is in the interests of the country that an unspecified number of members of Parliament or provincial councillors who, perhaps by innocently being members of a Select Committee which was subsequently converted to a commission be placed in danger of being unseated?

The second question is this: Even if this does not occur, is it in the interests of this Parliament and good government that this type of uncertainty should continue to exist? Thirdly, taking it to its extreme: Should the country at this time be involved in a series of by-elections because of these technical contraventions?

In the face of this, what does the hon. the Minister propose? He proposes, firstly, to peg the situation to ensure that the status quo of people who have been correctly, properly and democratically elected will be maintained and that those people can occupy their offices without uncertainty. He has in fact removed the uncertainty. In doing this, he has limited the application of this Bill to people affected between 23 September last year and the date of promulgation.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister has also given us certain assurances. Firstly, he has assured us that it is his intention to appoint or have elected shortly— “binnekort” was the word used—a Select Committee whose task it will be to go into the question of the application of section 55(d) as it affects publicly elected representatives of the electorate and, where necessary in the interests of good government, to introduce certain amendments or alterations. He has given us that assurance and it is an assurance which, I think, is accepted by all members of the House. I think that implicit in the earlier part of the hon. the Minister’s speech—and I should like him to respond to this—is the fact that it is not the intention, as I see it, of the Government to discard the basic principle that elected public representatives should not in fact take on offices of profit as a matter of course under the State. I think that that is the basic principle relating to the separation of the legislature and the executive, and I believe it is very important that we be given an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to discard that principle.

There are one or two reservations which it would be correct to express. The first reservation relates to the time factor. In the long title of the Bill, as I have mentioned, it is clearly stated that the Bill is meant as a temporary measure. From the very assurances given by the hon. the Minister it is clear that this measure will not be on the Statute Book for very long at all. However, we—this is certainly true of those of us in the Official Opposition—would feel far happier about the application of this Bill if the time limit for the rectifying of the matters that have to be rectified were clearly laid down. Therefore we would hope that in the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister—if the hon. the Minister will not do it, it will certainly be done from this side of the House—would place an amendment before the House limiting the application of the Bill to a certain period, say until early in the next session.

That is ridiculous!

It is not “ridiculous” at all. I believe it is only correct that a Bill of this nature, which is suspending the Constitution for the benefit of hon. members of this House and of members of other bodies around the country, should have a limited time application until the law is put in the sort of order in which we should like to have it for the good government of the country. To have this Bill as a temporary-permanent measure is certainly not in the interests of the country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider that factor.

The second point relates purely to an assurance. We should realize that, while this measure is in operation, it could be subject to abuse—although I do not for a moment believe that it will be—in that it opens the door to the taking on of offices of profit under the Republic by elected representatives while this suspension is in operation. I would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he and the Government will not allow an extension of people taking on offices of profit using this Bill whilst it is on the Statute Book.

The third matter relates to the Hylton-Smith case. It is a case in which our party was not involved, but certain matters do arise nevertheless. It is not clear to me—I am sure the hon. the Minister will find it somewhat clearer—precisely what is going to happen in that particular case. Does this Bill create a situation in terms of which Mr. Hylton-Smith will be reinstated as a provincial councillor or does it not? Does it open the door to him being reinstated or does it create a situation where a by-election following upon the court order, will continue? If it does not open the door and does not allow Mr. Hylton-Smith to be reinstated it is certainly a Bill which, while it benefits other people, is not at all fair to Mr. Hylton-Smith. On the other hand, if it does allow his reinstatement, it creates a further tricky situation and that is that a court order has been made, a court case has been fought and certain costs have been incurred— innocently by both the applicant and by the respondent. I think in these special circumstances, if the court order is upset by virtue of this Bill, the State should take some responsibility for the costs of both the applicant and the respondent, who acted bona fide on the law as it then stood.

With these words we in these benches would like to give our support to the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the aim of this legislation, which is quite clearly of a temporary nature, is to rectify a lack of charity in regard to certain matters. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has indicated that the Constitution is not just any Act and that one should not effect amendments to it lightly. I agree with him that the Constitution is something to which one attaches a special value, and that is why this amendment is merely of a temporary nature, in other words, until an issue concerning which there is clearly a lack of clarity at the moment, has been cleaned up. The hon. member for Sandton has asked that the measure should not be of a temporary-permanent nature. Talking of a temporary-permanent nature: I remember that a number of years ago there was a road from Durban to Sherwood. Because the road had an uneven surface, the Durban road authority erected a notice which read “tydelike oppervlak—temporary surface”. About a year later, that notice was still there, until somebody added the words “permanent notice” to it. Then the authorities in Durban moved very quickly to give the road a new surface.

I think we can accept that this amendment Bill is purely intended to rectify an uncertain situation and to maintain the status quo until, as the hon. the Minister has announced, a Select Committee is appointed to put the matter in order and to make clear what is now obscure. This particular section of the Constitution, section 55(d), which deals with offices of profit under the Republic, is at the moment so formulated that, in the nature of the matter, questions may arise which give rise to confusion as regards the precise aims of the legislation. I refer to only one possible office of profit which may be affected—it has already been referred to—namely Select Committees which are converted into commissions. At present, the legislation reads that no person who holds an office of profit with an income of more than R15 per day, may sit in the House of Assembly or in the Senate. In the case of a Select Committee being converted into a commission, the provision applies that a member of that commission, while attending sessions away from his place of residence, is entitled to remuneration of R22 per day plus his travelling expenses. If, however, the sessions are attended in his town or city, as when we are attending sessions in Cape Town while we are here for the Parliamentary session, as is the case now, the remuneration is R10 per day. In other words, that is less than the disqualifying amount of R15. The question now arises: Is that office included in the disqualifications in terms of this section, or is it not? As there is a lack of clarity in this connection, it is definitely necessary in my view that the position be rectified and that at the least, the issue be clarified as soon as possible.

I have before me a copy of an Act of the British House of Commons, an Act which contains similar provisions. Their Act is known as “The House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957”. In this Act there is not merely a vague reference to offices of profit. The Act contains a schedule which specifically mentions more than 200 different offices, disqualified offices and non-disqualified offices. In this Act, with its bulky schedule, they therefore leave no room for uncertainty. They specifically state which offices are excluded and which offices are disqualified. Inter alia, they mention the following: “Judge of the High Court of Justice or Court of Appeal; Judge of the Court of Session.” Then follows a whole string of such offices. Those people are therefore absolutely excluded; they are disqualified. Then there are certain other offices which in certain circumstances may well qualify, for example service on commissions appointed by Parliament. I just want to ask that when a Select Committee is appointed to investigate these matters, consideration be given to the addition of a schedule to the Constitution—in my view it would be better to make it a separate Act—which puts this matter in absolutely clear language in order that there can be no doubt about it. I agree with the hon. member for Sandton that a person who holds an office of profit in the service of the State, or who derives benefit from the State in another capacity, should not also be in a position to decide here on Acts passed relating, for example, to his own occupation. That is wrong. In this particular Act of the House of Commons there is no lack of clarity on this aspect.

Returning to the specific matter which gave rise to the legislation, we must again look at the case which came up in Pietermaritzburg, namely the case of the MPC who had been elected for Pietermaritzburg South. I assume that this legislation will reinstate that member in his office as member of the provincial council. I would very very much have preferred us to fight a by-election there. Here we have, in my view, one of the classic instances where a bosom friendship has been concluded between arch-enemies. Pietermaritzburg South is the only constituency where there was a really effective agreement to co-operate between the PFP and the NRP, and it is only as a result of that agreement to co-operate that the NRP won Pietermaritzburg South.

Now you are talking nonsense!

I have been informed that a person who is now sitting in the House and representing the parliamentary constituency, was instrumental in having an opinion poll undertaken by The Daily News to prove that if the PFP candidate had stood, he would have lost. [Interjections.] That, however, is not the main reason for the Bill. It would have suited me if a by-election could have been held there, because I think that that bosom-friendship, with the bark of arch-enmity in its bosom, cannot endure for long.

We accept that this rectifying legislation must go through in its present form and that we shall not have a by-election in Pietermaritzburg South, although it is a great pity, and that we shall rectify the matter as soon as possible by a Select Committee and a resultant amendment of the law.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River who has just resumed his seat, is the last person from whom I expected such a speech. I think the hon. member must have declared an interest in this Bill, for he was on my list of people to be unseated, and if it were not for the Bill before the House at the moment, he would be unseated because he is one of the members of the Commission on the Development Schemes Bill.

†He is one of the very people who would have been unseated were it not for this Bill … [Interjections.] … and I am surprised that the hon. member took part in the debate because he received an allowance …

Of R10 per day.

I do not care whether it was R1. In terms of section 55 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act he would have been unseated because commissions are not provided for in that section. Therefore, I would rather have advised the hon. member to have kept quiet than to have made the speech which he did. I can assure him that Pietermaritzburg South would have been a safe by-election … [Interjections.]

As the hon. the Minister pointed out, section 55 of the Constitution Act is deeply rooted in history. He quoted the English history and background, but one only needs to look at section 55(d) to recognize the colonial history of South Africa from which it springs.

Vause, were you also on the list?

No, I was not. If one looks at who is excluded in terms of section 55 from an office of profit, one notices that it refers, inter alia, to “an officer or member of the South African Defence Force on retired or half-pay”. This is an old colonial concept of officers who served in public office. The section also refers to “justices of the peace” as well as to “an officer or member of the South African Defence Force or any other force or service established by or under the Defence Act, 1957”. In other words, it goes back to the old history of colonial government when soldiers, retired officers or officers on half-pay, etc., participated in Government. Section 55 was further amended in 1972 and 1973. The hon. the Minister made it clear that the object of this provision in our Constitution was intended to prevent nepotism, the granting of perks to persons by favour and appointment to boards or commissions, but I do not believe it was ever the intention to exclude them from public service in the interests of the country. There sits—no he stands in this House at the moment—he has just walked in—a man who serves as an MP on a public body, a board. The hon. member for Cradock serves as a citizen on a public board and so performs a public service in the interest of South Africa. It was never intended that the hon. member for Cradock should not be allowed to provide a public service by serving on the National Parks Board because he is a member of Parliament.

He receives nothing for it.

I know what he gets for it. [Interjections.] That hon. member is also receiving R10 per day. [Interjections.] I am talking of the principle and I am trying to praise those hon. members, but they are squealing. I am trying to say that they are members of Parliament who are serving on other bodies. They are not disqualified because they do not earn at the disqualification rate. However, they embody the principle of a member of Parliament giving his knowledge and rendering service to another body. There are hon. members in this House such as the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke who would be unseated if this Bill were not passed. Other hon. members, who are members of control boards—one of the new hon. members is chairman of the Maize Board—who would not be disqualified by this measure. However, I am dealing with the principle of members who render service in other fields who would be excluded from rendering that service because they are members of Parliament. This was never the intention of the legislation. It was intended to prevent abuse but not to prevent people in public office rendering public service in other fields. What brought it into the limelight was of course the election petition to which the hon. the Minister referred. I want to say—I hope other hon. members will bear this in mind—that that particular petition and the judgment is sub judice. It is under appeal and therefore I do not intend in any way to refer to the judgment or the merits of the judgment. I merely quote it as the incident from which the facts which have led to this Bill flow. The fact is that many people—in this House alone there are nearly 30 hon. members—would have been unseated in terms of this provision by doing, quite innocently, their duty as members of Parliament and by serving South Africa. They could have been unseated— would have been in another instance—and in another instance is already unseated. I hate to tell the hon. members for Yeoville and Bryanston that in terms of some legal opinion they are in fact already unseated. The same applies to one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Umhlanga.

You too.

No, I am not and that is why I am able to speak freely on this measure, but there are many people to whom it applies. The hon. members for Langlaagte, Simonstown and Johannesburg West would not like to be unseated. Some 30-odd hon. members who have been appointed to three State President’s commissions have unwittingly infringed upon this legislation.

Let us look at the circumstances which led to what is known as the Hylton-Smith case. A person was appointed to a board. I quote from the terms of his appointment—

In other words, the actual appointment specifically stated that a member of Parliament or a provincial councillor would only be paid R11 per day at the time of appointment. This subsequently became R15 per day. If we look at the Act we find that it states in section 55—

The issue was that once a person was elected, in terms of his official appointment, he earned allowances within the allowable limit. But he was not elected until the end of polling, and the election commenced when the first vote was cast. Therefore he was not capable of being elected because at the time that the votes were being cast he was not yet a provincial councillor and therefore not yet under the reduced scale of remuneration. I mention this to indicate how fine is the distinction and how hidden are the snags which no person would normally be expected to appreciate. However, that sort of situation shows that the hon. the Minister is correct when he says this whole section needs to be thoroughly investigated. I support that fully because I believe that it is the only way in which we can find a satisfactory solution. I have specifically quoted the appointment and the disqualification to indicate that a person, quite innocently, and believing himself to be covered—as I am sure the hon. member for Klip River felt that he was acting genuinely when he accepted nomination and was elected—can be disqualified and unseated by this provision.

I think it is only right to put on record that when we realized the implications, I reported to the authority of Parliament and to the Government on what the implications were of the present situation. I believed that it would not have been in the interests of Parliament as an institution—it would have been very lonely in Parliament without a lot of our colleagues—to have 30-odd by-elections and to have by-elections in the provincial councils. I therefore felt it was my duty to bring the matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the Government. I welcome the fact that a responsible attitude has been taken which will eliminate that indignity to Parliament. I therefore welcome this provision for indemnification.

However, there is a question I would like to raise. The Bill refers to exemption from the provisions of section 55(d) and states—

In other words, it refers to a person who was elected or nominated. Section 56 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act— and I hate to tell some of my colleagues about this—reads—

1. (a) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in section fifty-five.

Therefore, in terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act every one of the members who served and is serving at this moment on commissions—one of those commissions met this morning—shall vacate his seat. In other words, he is then not “elected”. The legal point has been raised as to whether those members are in fact “elected” and therefore covered by the provisions of this validating Act. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will accept an amendment which will state that section 55(d) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act shall not apply to any person who was “declared elected” or nominated. This would then ensure that those who were declared elected, even though they are now unseated by section 56, would be covered by the provisions of this indemnity. I am assured that this would give the coverage required. I would ask the hon. the Minister to place that assurance on record so that we have it before us in the House that, with that amendment, it would in fact cover all the members of this House, as well as any members of the Senate or provincial councillors, including the Pietermaritzburg South case, who were elected, quite genuinely and quite correctly, but who technically are now unseated. If we could have the assurance that the hon. the Minister will accept that amendment, I believe this will rectify the mischief.

There was one other way of rectifying this. That would have been by reinstating in section 55 a realistic figure of remuneration which could be accepted. In 1961, when the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act was enacted, the allowable figure was R11. In 1973 it was increased to R15. I think it is of interest because most people tend to think that members of Parliament are grossly overpaid. The average wage or salary of a White person in South Africa—taken as an index of 100 in 1961—in 1977 would have amounted to 355. That means R11 in 1961 would now have been R39 and five cents, according to the average wage index. However, members of Parliament, during the same period, had their remuneration—and we can even include 1978—only a little more than doubled, against an increase of 3,5 times in the average wage of the White earner in South Africa. These are official figures obtained from the Department of Statistics.

I mention this because I believe it is important that we realize that there is a sacrifice made by people in public life. It is not often realized just how big that sacrifice is, that even members of Parliament, in their remuneration, lag such a long way behind the average earner in the private sector.

If I look at the amounts which are paid by different public bodies I find, for instance in a series of bodies at provincial level, that the minimum daily remuneration is R16,50, the average is R25, and in some instances R35 a day. I do not want to bore hon. members with the details, as I have here details of approximately 15 or 16 boards, committees, etc. The minimum remuneration is R16,50 a day. Therefore the present figure of R15 is quite unrealistic. In reviewing section 55, I think we shall have to look very hard at a more realistic basis.

So, Sir, I welcome the temporary protection which is being given. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but I think we are all agreed in this House that the principle of a prohibition on earnings under the Republic is one that should be retained, and that we all regard this as a temporary measure. I do not think any of us want to see an “Open Sesame” such as the first Bill would have introduced. Under that Bill there would have been no control and no limitation on what one might earn. I therefore support the retention of this principle. I support the proposed investigation by a committee to try to find a proper solution which will cover all the ramifications. I also welcome and support this measure, which gives temporary relief to those who are affected. I would nevertheless be grateful if the hon. the Minister would react to the question of the amendment and give the assurance that it is the intention to cover all those who were affected in the last election. We support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Sandton and Durban Point have treated this matter with the respect and the honesty with which it deserves to be treated. There are, however, two aspects I should like to mention apropos of the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member seems to accept that many people, including members at present sitting in this House, would be unseated in certain circumstances. That is of course not at all clear. The point is that we the NP, want to remove any possibility of a misunderstanding. That is the light in which I view this particular measure. We want to make doubly certain that a person is not unseated when, for instance, he had no intention of accepting an office of profit under the State.

Secondly, hon. members mentioned that a possible solution would be to increase the amount payable. As far as I am concerned, the amount payable does not enter into the matter at all. What does concern me is the office held. It is the office that one should look at and not the amount payable. The amount is secondary. We are here to render a service.

*There are two aspects of this legislation which particularly interest me. The first principle which must be accepted in my view, is that it is the right of every citizen of this country, in the first place, to become a member of this House of Assembly. In the second place, it is his right to participate in all the public bodies which exist in this country. It is his country, he is a citizen, and he must have a part in the Government of the country. That, then, is my first point of approach, namely that it ought to be the right of everybody to come here.

A second aspect which runs parallel to this, is that such a person, whether he be Senator, MP or MPC, should be independent when he comes here. He must not be anyone’s lackey. He must not have loyalty to the executive or any other authority due to financial considerations. He must be independent.

But, Sir, there is a third aspect. This independence of his must be regarded seriously. We must not impose disqualifications which have nothing to do with his independent thought and action on a man’s participation in this House of Assembly. These are to me the three aspects around which this legislation revolves. That this is the case, is in fact clear from section 55(d) of the Constitution. Over a long period, exceptions were made in the case of certain persons who did hold certain offices of profit. No sanctions were attached to that. It is only right and it should be the case that as we develop, there should be aspects which deserve attention. I want to point out that this party places a very high premium on the independence of members of Parliament, because it is, after all, my party which placed this Act on the Statute Book. Now a fuss must not be made, especially by the hon. member for Sandton, about this independence and the importance of certain aspects. This aspect (section 55(d)) has been placed there by the Government and we attach very very great importance to the independence of members of Parliament in this House. It is not something we would soon abandon. It is indeed regarded as being of so much importance that one does not need an intention or “malice” for this as the hon. member has said. Whether or not there is malice, one is disqualified. It is an absolute prohibition. That only goes to prove once again how highly this side of the House really regards the office of member of Parliament, Senator and provincial council member.

There is, however, another aspect which must be mentioned. This Parliament must not incapacitate itself. This Parliament changes. It may want to change its methods of working in the future. This Parliament can decide that we should follow a different procedure, and for that reason it is to me a very good idea that a Select Committee is to be appointed to go into all aspects, both past and future, so that we as a Parliament can be more effective, to the benefit of every voter in this country. That is the idea.

I now come to commissions. Much has been said about commissions, and certain names have been mentioned, names of persons who are evidently going to be removed from office. I think it is bad taste to mention names here. It is not necessary, especially when it is by no means final that those persons will not be able to occupy a seat here. I also wish to point out that a commission does not simply appear from nowhere.

Service on a commission is in accordance with terms of reference given to a member of Parliament by the State President. One cannot refuse it. It hardly seems likely that the Supreme Court will not take this aspect into account when giving a verdict. The mere fact that a member of a commission is appointed by the State President, makes it quite clear to me that it could never have been the intention of the State President to act in a manner whereby he will relieve a member of Parliament of his office. That is the position, and for that reason I am once again very pleased that this aspect can be gone into in detail, not because members may be unseated but rather to eliminate any possible doubt.

At this stage I do not wish to express an opinion on the view that this aspect should be of a purely temporary nature. The hon. the Minister will react to that as he sees fit. I have not seen the amendments by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Sandton and for the time being, therefore, I shall leave the amendments aside. There is, however, something which I should just like to add. In the democratic functioning of our country we believe that we must ensure that the right persons are in Parliament, persons who do not fawn and who are not financially bound to proclaim other people’s views in this House of Assembly. I do not wish to score cheap political points now, but I just want to say that this is in fact true of my party. Nobody buys one’s vote. One votes here as one likes. I do not want to say that there are other parties who do not listen to “His Master’s Voice” now and then. That I do not want to say, but I am of the opinion that the legislation which the hon. the Minister is introducing here, is being introduced bona fide and is sound. I am really pleased about it and I therefore want to support the legislation. I am also pleased that the Opposition sees the legislation in that light and supports it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask your indulgence to raise a question of privilege at this stage, if you will allow me to address you very briefly on it. You will know that the measure presently before the House deals with the possible unseating of certain members and of certain elected representatives in other institutions throughout the country. May I refer you to a statute which is very wide-ranging in its provisions. Before I do so, however, may I say that it has come to my notice that at least one and probably two of the speakers on the Government side are or probably could be in the category of those persons who fall under section 56 of the Constitution Act. I put it no higher than that, but certainly my information is that these gentlemen have served on bodies which in fact would disqualify them from taking their seats in the House.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I refer you to the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 91 of 1963, and specifically to section 11 of that Act. Let me very briefly read to you the main provisions. This section provides that—

Subsection (2) provides that—

Subsection (3) is an important one. It provides that—

This is the qualification upon the prohibition against taking part in the discussion. That prohibition—

Mr. Speaker, my submission is—it is a simple and a crisp issue—that there is a total prohibition against a member taking part in any discussion in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. My second point is that a member who could be unseated in fact has such a direct pecuniary interest. My third point is that, applying the ordinary canons of construction of a statute, subsection (3) makes provision for. two exceptions and two exceptions only, viz. that he may take part in a discussion in which his allowance as an MP is an issue, and that he can take part in the discussion of a matter in which he has a common interest with the public generally. My submission is, Mr. Speaker, that neither of these two exceptions apply in the present case.

Having said that, I want to do no more than to draw your attention to the question whether there has technically been a breach of privilege by a member or members, and I would ask you, certainly, to rule that it is not within the dignity of the House, putting it at its lowest, that a person who may have a direct pecuniary interest should take part in this particular discussion.

Order! My reaction to the two points raised by the hon. member is that in the first place the Bill before the House caters for a general situation and it would have been for a court of law to give a verdict whether any hon. member in this House in effect would have been liable to be unseated. That is not a matter which has been made out in any way. It has just been raised by the hon. member as a remote possibility and therefore it is not a matter that has been finalized. In the second place I would like to say as far as the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act is concerned that section 11 has always been taken in this House not to apply to public Bills. When any public Bill comes before this House some or other members, be they farmers or be they medical doctors, are in a way liable to be financially benefited by that measure. Therefore section 11 has always been taken not to apply to public Bills. Because of what I have said in the first instance, but mainly because it is a public Bill, I cannot uphold the point raised by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to comment on your ruling in relation to the point raised by the hon. member for Groote Schuur. However, I do wish to remark that I find his intervention quite astonishing. I find it astonishing, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of this debate the hon. member for Groote Schuur should rise with this great air of innocence and say that he is not prepared to take the matter any further than this. Nevertheless, with all the terminological wisdom of a Senior Counsel he tells us about the interpretation of statutes …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Groote Schuur raised a point with you and you have given a ruling. I do not think it is correct and proper that the hon. member now … [Interjections.]

Order! I will stop the hon. member if he comments on my ruling. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that here one has a Senior Counsel, a lawyer, in fact anticipating a decision which can only lie with the judiciary.

As the hon. member for Durban Point, who is not a lawyer, remarked in the course of his speech, the Hylton-Smith case has been taken on appeal and the matter is sub judice. He therefore did not wish to express an opinion in relation to it. However, here one has a leading spokesman of the official Opposition rising at the end of the Second Reading debate and in this innocent way casting these slurs and telling us that in terms of the interpretation of statutes and in terms of all the canons of statutory interpretation, his particular exegesis of this legislation applies to hon. members who have in fact spoken.

I wish to raise two points. First of all there is the fact that he is anticipating the judiciary in this matter and secondly, there is the matter of direct pecuniary interest. The fact is that despite what the hon. member for Groote Schuur has said, there is considerable agreement and basic unanimity on all sides of the House in relation to this legislation and the need for this legislation. Certain Opposition members tried to score small political points but they recognized that this is a reasonable and wise bit of legislation and that it is also an essential bit of legislation.

There is no need for us to disagree on the fundamental principles of our parliamentary system. These are principles which have developed down from British constitutional history. There is no need for us to doubt the wisdom of maintaining what separation of powers there is within our constitution and our parliamentary system. It is also a fact, however, that times, circumstances and systems of government change. It is true that government in South Africa and government throughout the world has changed very considerably. Those changes have, in fact, been reflected in various amendments that have been brought about to the South African Constitution since 1909 and in particular to the particular provisions of section 55 with which we are now concerned. If one studies those changes, it is clear that they have involved an expansion to allow members of elected bodies to participate in commissions, committees and in the various subsidiary aspects of government. That is so for the simple reason that government has become more specialized, that the volume of government has grown and that there has been more public scrutiny. It has therefore become necessary that, because of the broadening of the scope of government, elected members of Parliament and provincial councils should in fact participate in those subsidiary aspects of government. If we think about it, it is only right that it should be so. It is only right that members of commissions, who have been enriched by their experience in commissions, should be able to take their places in this Chamber. In the second place it is only right that hon. members of this House or the Other Place should be able to take their place on commissions and committees for the simple reason that this is an enriching process. In so far as there has been reference to certain members of this House who serve on commissions and in the light of the fact that they have been criticized, I would like to say that I believe that the hon. member for Cradock, for instance, is a better representative precisely because of his exposure and his experience than he would have been were he not to have had that experience. I do not believe there is anybody here who will question that. What is important, however, is that in so far as people are appointed to commissions and committees, it should be within the framework of the separation of powers which is laid down in terms of our Constitution and on which section 55 is premised. That is what is important. The fact is that with this piece of legislation the Government is saying to the House that they recognize that there have been changes and that there is an element of confusion; they believe that the situation should be frozen where it is, and to avoid the confusion they are appointing a Select Committee to go into the whole matter. I believe that despite the sniping and the small points made by the Opposition spokesmen, they fundamentally go along with this proposal and support it because it is a wise, expeditious, practical and quite obviously a necessary measure.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to express my gratitude to all hon. members for their support of this legislation. In this regard I am referring to hon. members who actually dealt with the legislation.

In the first place I agree with the hon. member for Sandton that one should not lightly tamper with our Constitution. This is, however, a serious matter, one which has been considered by my predecessors. I am told, inter alia, that one of my venerable predecessors, Dr. Dönges, said on occasion that there was a need to re-examine this particular section of the Constitution. In other words, we did not introduce this legislation lightly. We felt that it was necessary and long overdue. The hon. member also put a specific question to me and I want to reply to that question as follows: There is no intention of relinquishing the principle that elected Senators, members of the House of Assembly and provincial councillors may occupy offices of profit under the Republic to an unlimited extent. As I said in my introductory speech, a total prohibition would lead to a position where there could not even be Ministers. Therefore exceptions must be made.

A question was put with regard to the case which is on appeal. It is, of course, up to the court to say how it feels about the matter. The intention of the legislature is that everyone, including those disqualified by rulings of the court, should be reinstated. But, of course, it is up to the Appeal Court to say how it regards the case before it.

As for the rest, I am prepared to accede to the request of the hon. member for Sandton, and I shall accept an amendment to the effect that the words “but not later than 31 May 1979” be inserted on page 3, in line 4 after the word “law”. In other words, I accede to the hon. member’s request for this legislation to be applicable up to 31 May 1979 only, in other words, for a limited period. [Interjections.] Actually I agree with exclamations from my own colleagues that this is in fact not necessary. The whole object and intention with the Bill is to set up a Select Committee and to effect the necessary amendments to the Act subsequent to that, but if it will make the hon. member happier, I shall accept such an amendment.

As far as the question of the costs of parties involved in court proceedings is concerned, I want to point out that no one approached me about this matter prior to the introduction of the legislation in the House of Assembly. In other words, I have to conclude that it was not a compelling issue to anyone. I have given the matter no consideration and consequently I am not prepared to give any undertaking in this regard.

The hon. member for Klip River, who apologized for his inability to be present during my reply, suggested that the Select Committee give consideration to drawing up a schedule similar to the one appearing in the House of Commons Disqualification Act of 1957. The hon. member for Klip River already had to disappoint us with regard to the candidate for Pietermaritzburg South, and now, unfortunately, I have to disappoint him, too, in that I am unable to accept his suggestion. In my opinion the English system is an unnecessarily complicated one. I have the Act concerned in front of me. They literally have pages and pages of offices which are disqualified. I want to mention two examples only. They go so far as specifying that “any chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribune” and the “Director of the Ulster Folk Museum” may not stand for the House of Commons. [Interjections.] We really cannot follow this complicated system. I trust that the Select Committee will lay down a clear principle and draw up simple legislation which will create certainty without incorporating such lengthy schedules.

Now I want to come to what was said by the hon. member for Durban Point. First of all I want to express my appreciation to him for having brought certain things to my attention. In the same breath, however, I want to agree with the hon. member for Pretoria West and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens that it was really unnecessary to name certain hon. members here. It is true that I wanted to introduce legislation—and that is, in fact, the object of the Bill—to safeguard the position of certain members of commissions beyond any doubt.

However, I deny categorically that they would have been disqualified as a matter of course. That is why I regret that names have been mentioned here. I deny that certain members of commissions could have been unseated as a matter of course. This matter most definitely has two sides. Likewise, the disqualification of the MPC for Pietermaritzburg South is not a foregone conclusion. After all, there is an appeal pending. The hon. member struck a very positive note when he talked about remuneration. I shall consult with the Treasury, and if I am able to instruct the commission to examine the question of remuneration as well, it will very definitely be one of their terms of reference.

I am also prepared to accept an amendment from the hon. member for Durban North if it is more or less in line with the following—

I think I have replied to all the questions. I want to thank all hon. members once again for their support of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for accepting the idea of this amendment. I accordingly move—

I would like to raise one point which the hon. the Minister dealt with in his Second Reading reply. It relates to the costs of the current court case. I am thinking particularly of the applicant’s costs. Here is a man who has succeeded, in a court case, to unseat somebody else in terms of the law as it exists, only to find that, having before him the prospect of becoming a member of the provincial council, he is now in the situation where he knows that within a few weeks’ time that decision by the court will have been declared null and void. I am certain that he will have expended several thousands of rand. Similarly, the other party also, quite innocently, will have expended several thousands of rand. I want to put that aspect to the hon. the Minister purely for his consideration, not now, but perhaps at a future date when it arises.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply and would like to move the following amendment—

I do not think I need to argue the matter any further, because it was motivated in the Second Reading. I also thank the hon. the Minister for the assurance which he has given in this respect. But I would just like to refer to the hon. the Minister’s point that it was uncalled for to mention hon. members’ names. Well, those names are public, because they were all published in the Government Gazette. What I did was not done with any evil intent. As a matter of fact I mentioned specifically one member of my own party who is involved as well as two other members of the Opposition. It was not done with any evil intention and no malice aforethought. I might mention that in the British Act—the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is not here now—one of the prohibitions is specifically a “member of an agricultural marketing board”. So I do not think the hon. member for Klip River will get much support for the sort of list he pleaded for from the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. As I say, I intended no reflection on any hon. member. It was more in lighter vein that I referred to them.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express a few ideas. In the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister most sincerely on the fact that this legislation is now being placed on the Statute Book. I want to express my gratitude for the amendments he has effected. But I also feel that it is my duty to refer to the attitude which the Official Opposition, through the mouth of the hon. member for Constantia, adopted yesterday when they objected vehemently to some of the clauses. In the light of the situation in which South Africa finds itself at present we cannot be too careful in watching over our secrets, over some of the major projects undertaken by us. We have the fullest confidence in the Atomic Energy Council. We also have the fullest confidence in the hon. the Minister. What they recommend, will not be trumped-up stories, but will be in the best interests of this country, in the best interests of the council itself. What they submit, they will submit with the approval of the hon. the Minister, who, in turn, will submit it to this House. Consequently we shall support the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly as regards all these aspects. I hope the hon. member for Constantia is satisfied with the answers he has received to the objections he raised during the Second Reading as well as during the Committee Stage. I hope that he will resign himself to the matter now and that the Bill will be accepted at the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we have already made clear the reservations which we have about the restrictive measure of this legislation. I do not want to take this opportunity of repeating the arguments which we have used. We have, in fact, used the time since the Committee stage yesterday to reflect on the hon. the Minister’s argument and on the implications which it has raised.

I have also, in the meantime and earlier, received representations from some interested parties. That is to say, from people who are involved in the development of nuclear energy in South Africa and who are themselves very seriously concerned about the restrictive measures which apply to the disclosure of information and to the discussion of information about this very important subject. In the light of our reflections and in the light of the information which I have, I very much regret that we cannot support the hon. the Minister in the Third Reading of this Bill. As I said yesterday, we must agree to differ. I hope we will have further opportunities of discussing with the hon. the Minister the very real objections and the fears, which, I believe, are bona fide fears in the minds of certain people who are concerned with this legislation. In the circumstances—since we have already reached the Third Reading stage—I do not believe it at all necessary to raise these matters afresh and to produce new arguments at this stage. However, I do hope that the opportunity will be provided in future to reconsider some of these matters, because I believe very seriously and very sincerely that the best interests of nuclear energy are not being served by restrictive measures of this nature. We shall oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the hon. member for Stilfontein expressed the kind of sentiment which had already been expressed by other hon. members on the Government side at the beginning of the debate on this Bill. Consequently I agree with the hon. member.

I want to tell the hon. member for Constantia that my door, as well as the door of my department, is open to him to discuss matters of this nature. What is involved here, is the question of secrecy and the making available of information to the general public. Therefore, once this legislation has been passed, the hon. member is very welcome— he as well as those people who made representations to him—to come and discuss the matter. After all, one always wants to serve the best interests of the country in matters like these. Therefore, it is not even necessary for me to tell the hon. member that my door is open to all who want to come and discuss this matter. It goes without saying. I do feel, however, that it is necessary to make it clear once again on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, at about 20h27, I spoke very briefly on this Bill and I referred to the fact that the hon. member for Aliwal had suggested that one should whip more frequently and with a cat-o’-nine-tails. This is the sort of attitude which more properly, like some of the policies of the Government, belongs in the dark ages.

I then proceeded to the hon. member for Jeppe and mentioned the situation regarding privilege. The clause which deals with the question of privilege is actually the clause on which this party wishes to put its view to the House since we find ourselves in disagreement with the clause. At the same time, however, we also find ourselves in disagreement with the suggestion, put by the Official Opposition, to amend the clause. We shall therefore also be moving an amendment in the Committee Stage. The particular clause— clause 4 of the Bill—seeks to introduce a new section 22, subsection (2)(b) of which reads—

We do not believe it is right to put any man above the provisions of the law. We believe that in all instances in a country such as South Africa, which is under the spotlight of international judgment, it is necessary to put no man above the law. I believe, however, that the clause does seek to put the Commissioner above the law in that it says “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law”. I believe that such a provision is a very serious provision and while I fully accept the fact that we are dealing in this instance with prisoners and I also fully accept the fact that these are privileges which are granted to the prisoners, I am of the opinion that the Commissioner of Prisons should have the right to withdraw privileges. I do not believe, however, that he should have the right to withdraw privileges that would perhaps cause him to be in conflict with any law. Our amendment will, in other words, seek to amend the situation so that the Commissioner can in fact withdraw the privileges which he himself has granted. If he has granted a privilege—well, fair enough. We are not dealing really with a privileged member of society; we are dealing with a prisoner of the State—I believe it should be the Commissioner’s privilege to withdraw any right he has granted unilaterally, without any right of appeal.

This is where we find we cannot agree with the amendment put on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Houghton, because, in terms of her amendment, it will be a somewhat long-winded process to withdraw a privilege. After all, one must remember, as some other members have said, that it is a privilege. We shall therefore be moving an amendment in the Committee Stage.

[Inaudible.]

Do not show your stupidity. [Interjections.]

Why are you in such a hurry?

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is wasting time in making an interjection, because that is making my speech longer.

The next clause with which I should like to deal is clause 5 which removes the necessity for the Commissioner of Prisons or members of his staff to inspect Police cells or lock-ups. I should simply like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there will be provision for these Police cells or lock-ups to be inspected by somebody. I should be glad if he could let us know in the course of his reply to the debate whether perhaps a magistrate will be inspecting them from time to time or what police mechanism there will be involved in inspection, because we believe it is not really necessary to have the Prisons Department as such to inspect them, as long as somebody in a responsible position does inspect them from time to time.

Now we come to clause 7, in which we have two new principles. A number of speakers have referred to the one principle, i.e. the situation of reciprocal arrangements between countries concerning what one could virtually call swopping prisoners around. The second principle is that the Bill now gives the right to swop detainees around as well as persons convicted by a competent court. The amendment Bill, quite apart from the reciprocity angle, makes provision for swopping around someone who is detained but has not necessarily been convicted in a court of law. This gave us a certain amount of difficulty. We discussed the matter at great length because we wanted to look at it from the point of view of the detainee himself. Would it, in fact, be to his possible advantage or to his disadvantage? On balance we came to the conclusion that it would probably be of advantage to the detainee because I am sure that if a White South African citizen were detained in another country, it would be to the advantage of that White South African citizen to be returned to South Africa and to serve his prison sentence in a South African gaol. Equally it could be to the advantage of a citizen of another country to be put into a gaol in his own country. Therefore we decided that, although the NRP is totally opposed to the principle of detention without trial, we believe that we must pass this provision because it will be in the best interests of the detainees.

I think I would just briefly like to refer to the attitude of the Official Opposition as far as this is concerned, because it does, in fact, rather interest me. You see, on a previous occasion we have had a situation in terms of which an advantage was to accrue to South Africans who had lost their South African citizenship, and the Official Opposition elected to oppose that Bill because the members of the Official Opposition said they did not want to lend respectability to the idea of taking away South African citizenship from present South African citizens.

Right.

The hon. member for Houghton confirms that that is right. I would consequently like to pose her a question. If that is her party’s attitude, how can they then vote for swopping around detainees? Are they then lending respectability to the suggestion that we should have detainees? It seems to follow fairly logically. All in all, we find that there are many good provisions in this Bill, and we believe that this Bill will better enable the Commissioner of Prisons and the entire department to cope with the situation that pertains at present. I repeat, however, that we do have reservations about putting any man above the law, and I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will react to this in his reply to the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North who has just resumed his seat, said that he and his party would support the Second Reading of this Bill, and one is grateful for that. As usual, however, they support the Bill with a “but”. There are a number of reservations about certain of the clauses which are troubling them. If I understood him correctly, he said, inter alia, that this Bill seeks to elevate certain people above the law. That is nonsense of course. Surely that is not so. This legislation is not elevating anyone who works in the Department of Prisons above the law. It is that sort of thing which is said in this House and then blown up abroad. It creates the impression that this is the normal procedure in South Africa. That is definitely not true. There is no one who is being elevated above the law in terms of the Bill at present before the House.

The hon. member also objected, inter alia, to the provisions of clause 4, as did the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who spoke last night. The provisions of clause 4 are concerned with people’s privileges, not their rights. However, the hon. members want to elevate the privileges of people who are being detained in our prisons, to rights, which then has many other implications. They are entirely unable to appreciate the distinction between privileges or indulgences on the one hand, and rights on the other hand. The hon. member for Johannesburg North made his speech last night, before the House adjourned, and to us he was the epitome of confused thinking, just as his 14 principles on which the PFP is founded are. If one considers the state that party is in at the moment, one can understand it and one also has sympathy for them. They are beyond help and they are confused. I do not know who can still save them. I think they ought to call on “Redding Internasionaal”, but I doubt whether even that organization will be able to help them.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also objected to clause 4. He said, inter alia, that the indulgences and privileges should make the difference between a tenable and an untenable existence in prison. I hope I understood him correctly. In any event, those were his words. However, the rights of prisoners are embodied in the Prisons Act, ensure the people in our prisons more than a tenable existence. The hon. member ought to know that, at least. We hope he has visited the prisons. When he had the opportunity of visiting them, as the hon. member for Jeppe pointed out last night, he never made any objections to these things. The tenable existence of the prisoners in our prisons is founded in the rights of those prisoners, and these are embodied in the Act. But that is not relevant now. We are discussing the privileges of these people, and not their rights which are embodied in an Act. Nor are the rights being changed.

The hon. member has also said that we will get poor publicity abroad as a result of the abolition of the right to be heard. For what reason must a person be heard? He must be heard on the question of privileges—no right is being taken away, because the audi alteram partem rule is not applicable when a person’s privileges are involved. As a jurist, the hon. member ought to know that.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North went further and, inter alia, also expressed criticism and moved an amendment in respect of clause 18. It is really surprising to me that the hon. member wants to propose an amendment in this connection, because the provisions of clause 18 will be to the benefit of the prisoner. But the hon. member, who is a member of that party which claims so piously that it is always talking on behalf of the prisoners—I should still like to have a few words with the hon. member for Houghton just now, who is very worried about the prisoners in our prisons—has asked that the provision contained in this clause, a provision which is to the advantage of these people, should be deleted. It is truly incomprehensible that the hon. member can adopt this type of attitude. I think he ought to realize that it is to the benefit of the prisoners. Apparently he did not realize that, either because he did not read the Bill properly or because he did not understand it. We are looking forward to a thorough debate with the hon. member during the Committee Stage on his amendment to clause 18. We shall then indicate that he completely misunderstands the Bill or that he did not read it at all.

I should still like to have a word with the hon. member for Houghton as well, but before doing so I should first like to take a quick look at what the legislation has in view. In the first place the hon. the Minister wants to adapt the Prisons Act to bring it into line with the Criminal Procedure Act which we passed in this House last year. We want to introduce certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act into this legislation, provisions which we debated thoroughly and which we found to be sound provisions which would work well in practice. It is only logical, and I think any reasonable person will say that it is a good thing that we are doing it in this way.

In the second place—and this is also a general principle which I see in the legislation—we should like to implement the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission as far as is feasible. Once again it is a case of the hon. the Minister and his officials taking cognizance of the recommendations of an expert, an important commission which made certain recommendations. The Minister is sensitive to those recommendations and wants to make them part of our legislation. To that, too, no right-minded person can have any objection.

In addition, however, there is also a third important principle involved here, and that is that administrative measures in the department itself are being rationalized so that the activities of the department can be made more streamlined.

The principles of the Bill as it is before us, are therefore merely the introduction of measures which any citizen of our country can expect of a responsible Minister and responsible officials in the Department of Prisons. They are doing their duty, and that is why the Bill is before this House today. For that reason it is a pity that attempts are nevertheless still being made—during the Second Reading speech by the hon. member for Houghton—to cast suspicion on these people. The hon. member for Pretoria East also referred in his speech to the attitude of this hon. member. The hon. member for Houghton simply cannot pass these people by without sowing a little suspicion in connection with their conduct. I am referring to the Second Reading speech by the hon. member for Houghton, in which, inter alia, she said about the hon. Minister (Hansard, 16 March 1978, Col. 3195)—

She went on to say—

Any responsible hon. member will agree with me that it was totally unnecessary to use these words. I think that the conduct of officials in the Prisons Service is such that it is unnecessary for her to create suspicion in this manner. These people are genuinely concerned about the lot of people in our prisons. They are not only concerned, but they are in a position to do something and indeed they are doing something to relieve the plight of those unfortunate people. They take good care of the interests of those people and they really look after them. These days officials of the prison service are highly-trained people, people with the very best training for their task, definitely better than any hon. member and in any case better than the hon. member for Houghton, to see to the interests of the prisoners. The officials of the Prisons Service are people who are really hand-picked. We have heard that only one out of every two applicants are appointed. In-service training of the staff is given the highest priority; during the past year, 2 500 members were subjected to this training. During 1975-’76, 55 bursaries were awarded for further academic study to equip them and train them better for their work. We who know these people, know that they are people who really have the interests of those unfortunate persons in the prisons at heart. Therefore I think it is really unfair to refer to them as if their conduct is such that we on the outside have reason to be deeply concerned about the plight of people in our prisons. The officials in the Prisons Service work with people for people, and in my view the hon. member for Houghton cast a slur on them unnecessarily. The legislation contains no sinister provisions. All the measures contained therein are in the interests of the people in our prisons and in the interests of the Prisons Administration. For that reason we on this side, can support this very positive measure with pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the arguments advanced by all the hon. members in connection with this matter and I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members on this side of the House for the contributions they made. I also want to express appreciation to other hon. members for the contributions made by them in this connection. I shall try to reply only to questions put to me by hon. members of the Opposition parties.

The hon. member for Houghton raised two aspects to which I believe I must reply. She wanted to know the reason for the inclusion of clause 4 in the Bill. The hon. member for Umbilo raised the same aspect. The hon. member for Houghton said that she suspected that it was due to the fact that the department and I were irritated by the behaviour of certain prisoners. She alleged that we wanted to take those people’s rights away from them in a fit of irritation. I must assume that that hon. member used those words tongue in cheek, perhaps for the first time in her career. The hon. member lifts her eyebrows. This indicates to me that she was being serious. Sir, I do not get irritated so easily and I certainly did not bring this legislation to this House as a result of irritation. [Interjections.] It is being done in an attempt to improve the administration of prisons, not only for the sake of the administration, but also for the sake of the prisoners themselves. As far as irritation is concerned, I believe that the hon. member for Houghton takes the lead, for she suffers from a kind of chronic irritation, not only with this side of the House and with me personally, but even with hon. members in her own party. This hon. member goes about muttering all the time. We do not know what is going on there. But obviously something is going on there which is greatly upsetting her. [Interjections.] The reason for the inclusion of clause 4 is to be found in the Hassim court case. I quote what Mr. Justice Diemont said about the matter—

That is the real reason. In this connection there are two aspects. In the first place, prisoners have certain rights under the law. Those rights are not easily encroached upon, because they are rights which the prisoners can have tested in the courts. The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred in a terribly dramatic way last night to privileges and indulgences provided for in the existing Act at the moment. This hon. member waved his notes about dramatically and said: “It says so in the law; it may not be changed the commissioner.” Of course it may not be changed by the commissioner. We are changing the measure here in Parliament, because it was mistakenly written into the legislation by Parliament before, and therefore Parliament is now making a change, and if necessary it will be changed by Parliament again, not by other people. In actual fact, a privilege, an indulgence, is something which is used in prisons for rehabilitating, uplifting and disciplining a prisoner. There are certain small benefits which the Commissioner of Prisons deliberately uses for this purpose. He knows the people. He knows what type of person he is dealing with; he knows the needs of every individual prisoner. He then grants certain privileges and indulgences to these people. The whole idea is to lead the prisoner step by step, first to his inner rehabilitation, and then to discipline the man as well. When a prisoner acts in a disciplined way, he receives certain privileges or indulgences. When he has to be rehabilitated, he is led to rehabilitation along a different road by means of privileges and indulgences.

As far as this aspect is concerned, surely we cannot allow the prisoner the right to make representations if such privileges are taken away from him. These are privileges which are granted to him in the first place and which can then be taken away from him again. The prison system is trying to uplift the man in a fatherly way. For that reason there must not be any arguments about the matter. This is one of the reasons for our introduction of this Bill. Arguments arise about matters, about privileges and indulgences, which should not be argued about. At the moment one finds that when a prisoner is deprived of a privilege or an indulgence, it does not lead him to reflect and to realize that he is still undisciplined or that he has done something wrong, but it causes him to feel rebellious. He believes that he is entitled to the privilege, so he goes running to court …

That is too bad!

You know, Mr. Speaker, I really pity the hon. member for Houghton. She is always muttering into the front of her dress. Or she speaks to everyone and is always reacting. One is really getting tired of that.

Is she irritating you?

Yes, she irritates one. I wonder whether the hon. member would not forget about prisons just for a moment. I know that many of her friends are in prison and that she has great sympathy with them. But we all have sympathy with them, and that is what the hon. member cannot understand.

Instead of its being possible to use these privileges and indulgences to guide and to discipline the prisoners, they become rebellious about them and use them as reasons for going to court. They get money from outside, and this is used for unnecessary court cases. Instead of our achieving what we want to achieve with the privileges and the indulgences, the matter develops into a kind of rebellion against the prison administration. Under the circumstances we have no choice and we have to put it the way it is written into the Bill so that there can be no argument about anything which the prisoner has not deserved. It is something which has been given to him in an attempt to help him, and if he is not helped by it, it is in the discretion of the prison authorities to take the concession away again without his being heard on the subject. If the prisoner has the right to be heard, it means that he can advance an argument again, and instead of being disciplined he begins to sulk. This is why we cannot accede to these requests. I want to express the hope that the hon. member for East London North will accept this argument in the spirit in which I offer it.

The hon. member for Houghton also asked questions in connection with the reduction of the number of strokes from ten to seven. She pointed out that the Viljoen Commission had recommended five strokes. The Criminal Procedure Act provides for a maximum of seven strokes, and the amendment in clause 8 has only been introduced to make the number of strokes under this Act exactly the same as that in the Criminal Procedure Act, i.e. seven. This amendment is being made irrespective of what was recommended by the Viljoen Commission or any other commission. The Criminal Procedure Act provides that seven strokes are admissible, and therefore we are amending the prisons legislation accordingly. The corporal punishment we are dealing with here is not imposed by the prison authorities. That is quite another matter. We are speaking of the strokes which are imposed by the courts and which have to be inflicted by the prison officials. Surely it would be wrong of us to provide that the prison official may inflict only five strokes when the judge has decreed that the man is to be given seven strokes. That is why we are introducing this provision about seven strokes. It is simply in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act—nothing more or less. It is to the advantage of the prisoners. Furthermore, it is very possible that two courts may both sentence the same prisoner to seven strokes within a short period of time. In other words, there are 14 strokes waiting for him, which have to be inflicted by the prison official. It is now being provided in the Bill that only seven strokes can be inflicted in a prison.

In other words, even if two different courts were each within a short period to impose seven strokes for two different crimes without being aware of each other—which very often happens—the prison official is bound by the provision of seven strokes, and the prisoner receives only seven strokes and no more. Therefore this is also to the advantage of the prisoner. This is all I can say to the hon. member for Houghton. These are the two matters which were raised by the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked me quite a number of questions. The first question was whether we intended to give any further effect to the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission. As far as the Prisons Act is concerned, I want to tell him that we have embodied all the proposals of the Viljoen Commission in the Bill. There are other proposals made by the Viljoen Commission, but these fall under the Department of Justice, or the Department of Plural Relations, or the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. The hon. member also asked for clarification about the citizenship of someone detained in terms of this section. In reply to this I want to say that when someone is arrested in the Republic for an offence committed within our country, his citizenship is quite irrelevant. Our courts then have jurisdiction over him. We have the power to detain him and to implement any sentence imposed by the court. This clause provides for the detention of an unsentenced citizen of another State. The agreement we enter into with other States can only deal with their citizens and our citizens in our respective territories.

I just want to mention an example to illustrate what this clause is actually intended to do. Suppose A commits a crime in Bophuthatswana. However, Bophuthatswana has only one prison and this is situated very far from Pretoria. The borders of Bophuthatswana are very close to Pretoria, however. The person is caught inside Bophuthatswana. The people in Bophuthatswana now tell us that they do not have a prison nearby and ask whether we cannot, in terms of the international agreement between us, detain the man in our prisons until they are able to try him, because they have only one judge at the moment. So we detain that unsentenced person, a detainee. When the hon. member for East London North used the word “detainee” the hon. member for Houghton nearly had a fit again.

The authorities in Bophuthatswana may also say that the man has been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, but that they find it inconvenient to transport him to their distant prison. Then they ask us to detain him in terms of the agreement. It is also possible that they may catch a South African citizen in Bophuthatswana and that we may find it more convenient for him to be detained there. This is why the agreement is useful. In other words, this is simply a mutual arrangement which we have with the various territories. There is nothing sinister about the matter; it is simply intended to perpetuate an existing situation when certain States have become independent.

The hon. member for Umbilo says that he will support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. that the maximum age of persons subject to corporal punishment be reduced to 30 years. The Viljoen Commission accepted the recommendation of the prison authorities in respect of corporal punishment for the purpose of disciplinary measures. The memorandum submitted to the Viljoen Commission was accepted. It was accepted that as far as prisoners in prison are concerned, it should be a minimum of 40 years instead of 30 years. I just want to give the hon. member full satisfaction on this point. I refer him to page 130 of the report of the Viljoen Commission, where the commission sets out the position. It says the following—

This is said as a factual statement. This is the present position. In the following column the Commissioner of Prisons says—

The following words are now applicable—

In other words, the commission gave us the green light there to impose an age limit of 40 years. The reason why we have made 40 the age limit, and not 30, is that we find that a person is not too old at the age of 40 years. He is still young. We find that the ringleaders are always a little over 40 years or close to 40 years old. In other words, in contrast to the position outside, the old people in prison exercise a negative influence over the young people. The young people in the prisons are influenced by the older people to become stubborn and to do certain things. The man over the age of 40 years who is still in prison is usually an experienced criminal. He knows all the tricks and he tells the young men what to do. Therefore he is actually the ringleader who should be whipped. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Houghton wants me to have the young men whipped and to let the real ringleader go unpunished. In cases such as this, this kind of punishment is very often the only one which has any meaning for these people. This is the reason why we arrived at the age of 40. I want to express the hope that the hon. member for Umbilo will not support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, but will accept that we have to set the age limit at 40.

I want to point out that when the prisons authorities impose corporal punishment, we are limited to six strokes, not seven. In any case, when the prisons authorities impose corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure upon the person who has been sentenced to it in terms of the Act, it is subject to review by the Supreme Court before the strokes are inflicted. Hon. members will find this in section 56(3) of the Prisons Act.

The hon. member for Umbilo also spoke about the difference between parole and probation and about probation officers. The hon. member knows that the person who goes out on probation has no conditions to comply with. There are no conditions as there are in the case of parole. In the case of parole there are certain conditions which he must comply with, and if he does not comply with those conditions, the Commissioner of Prisons can have a warrant issued for his arrest. But when someone goes out on probation, he goes out unconditionally and he is handed over to a probation officer. A probation officer does not actually keep a direct watch over him, but occupies a supervisory position in respect of the prisoners.

The hon. member asked me quite a number of questions in connection with probation officers. However, this is something which does not concern my department. Basically I agree with what the hon. member said. I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister concerned. However, when a prisoner is released on probation, a probation officer is appointed to look after him. That probation officer falls under a different department, however. A prisoner who is released on probation is handed over, as it were, to the Department of Social Welfare. The training, the qualifications, the number and the quality of probation officers—in fact, all the things which worry the hon. member for Umbilo— are matters which are handled exclusively by the Department of Social Welfare and therefore have nothing to do with the Department of Prisons.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred in the debate last night to what my department allegedly told him. I now want to talk to the hon. member in a very friendly spirit. I am sorry—and I am sure that he is sorry too—that when we were debating the matter and I asked him where he had obtained certain details, he said that he had obtained them from my department. I put my department at the disposal of the Opposition. I did it in this case too. The people of my department are at the disposal of the Opposition, to explain to them what the department intends to achieve with its legislation. The hon. member for Johannesburg North will forgive me if I put it to him that although he is an old gentleman—if he does not agree with me, he can just nod his head—he is still a young gentleman in this House. He is still a young member of the club. I want to put it to the hon. member that it is simply not the custom in this House, in whatever debate, to refer in any way to officials of the department who have furnished certain information or who have tried to help an hon. member. The reason for this is very simple. It may happen that an hon. member may say something in the heat of a debate which may cause a member of the department to say under his breath: “But you are lying now.” Members of the department sit in the officials’ benches. They have no right whatsoever to take part in a debate. They also find themselves in the unenviable position of not wanting to cross swords with a member for Parliament in aby case. They are members of a department, people who have nothing to do with politics. It is extremely unfair to refer in any way to what officials of the department are supposed to have told an hon. member. [Interjections.]

I say this to the hon. member in a friendly spirit. I hope the hon. member for Johannesburg North will not misunderstand me. I just did not like to have my department referred to. I request the hon. member for Johannesburg North in a friendly spirit to ensure that this does not happen again. If it does happen again, I shall not be able to make that facility available to them any more. That would be an unfortunate state of affairs, because I would like us to make full use of this parliamentary custom so that we may conduct fruitful debates.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to clause 18 of the Bill. If I understood him correctly his argument was that the difference between prisoners in isolation and segregated prisoners was being blurred by the specific amendment we wanted to make here. That argument really surprises me. I shall tell the hon. member why it surprises me. I advise the hon. member to have a look at these two kinds of cases. All he has to do is to read section 78 of the principal Act. This is a section which deals with the segregation of prisoners. It is a matter for the Commissioner of Prisons. The commissioner deals with cases of segregation. It is clearly laid down in the principal Act in what cases the commissioner may segregate prisoners. Section 79 of the principal Act deals with isolation. There are also provisions laying down when a prisoner may be isolated. One of those provisions is to the effect that a prisoner may be isolated in compliance with a court order. In such a case it is beyond the control of the commissioner. When one looks at the preceding section, i.e. section 77, one finds that these people have to do some work. It is compulsory that they be given some work to do. However, we find certain cases where there simply is no work for a prisoner to do. There is no work for him, because we have no work to give him. I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North what a commissioner is to do when the Act tells him that the prisoner has to work while the commissioner has no work for the prisoner. Therefore the amendment is quite innocuous and it is only being made to legalize the position of the commissioner, so that when there is no work for a segregated prisoner the commissioner may say that the person concerned need not work. If the hon. member would see where the amendment fits in, he would find that it forms part of the provisions relating to segregation and that it has nothing to do with isolation. I must be quite honest and say that I do not understand the hon. member’s argument at all. Unless the hon. member can adduce other evidence during the Committee Stage, I cannot for the life of me see how the difference between the two cases can be blurred so that they can become the same. We are dealing here with two separate cases which have nothing to do with each other. This is the way it has been laid down in the Act as well.

† I now come to the hon. member for East London North. He, too, dealt with clause 4. His argument was that as a result of the wording of the clause, the Commissioner of Prisons would be put above the law. This is simply not correct, as other hon. members have already pointed out. The wording confines the particular subsection to the subsection which precedes it. Perhaps I should quote it to the hon. member—

1. (a) grant such privileges and indulgences as he may think fit to any prisoner …

This is the basic action that can take place: He can give such privileges—

1. (b) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law …

This is merely a blanketing exclusion just in case there is something else. The whole idea is that the Commissioner should be empowered to withdraw the privileges he has granted. I have consulted the law advisers about this and they agree that this is the position. The hon. member is entirely wrong when he says that this now puts the Commissioner above the law. It does not put the Commissioner above the law. Nobody is above the law. That is actually the answer to the hon. member’s query.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand the hon. the Minister clearly then that subsection (2)(b) only applies to the privileges and indulgences which the Commissioner may have granted in terms of subsection (2)(a)?

That is correct.

Is that the intention?

It is not merely the intention, but actually the meaning of the provision.

I do not read it that way.

What is more, the amendment which the hon. member will probably move during the Committee Stage has that very effect. I want to tell the hon. member now, just to set his mind at ease, that I shall consider his amendment. I have an idea that his amendment will be superfluous, but if he would feel better if the amendment is brought into the Bill, I would be quite prepared to have it included. It really does convey my intention.

It would be appreciated.

I think the acceptance of the amendment could also obviate another portion of his argument, since it will make it clear what the hon. member has in mind.

The hon. member also asked me about clause 5. He says that this clause removes the necessity for inspection in the police cells …

By the Commissioner of Prisons.

By the Commissioner of Prisons, that is quite correct. In actual fact, however, as one can quite well appreciate, it is very difficult indeed for members of the Department of Prisons to do inspections at the police cells. In the first place it is an intrusion on another department’s territory, not that the police would really mind, but the Department of Prisons feels that it has no right to go there, and its members find it difficult to go there because they have other work to do. So in actual fact, at the moment, the police are doing their own inspections and they are doing it properly in terms of regulations. I give the hon. member my assurance that I certainly want inspections in the police cells. I have already placed this amendment before the Commissioner of Police, and he has assured me that they do carry out inspections at the moment and that they do them properly, and I shall see to it that there is a proper regulation to that effect. There is no sense at all, however, in making one department inspect another department, or the people in the care of another department.

Has it not been done in the past?

No, it was done in the past. It has been done all along. The police have been doing their own inspections.

No, by the Department of Prisons.

By law the Department of Prisons had to do it and I presume the department did do it. I know it is very difficult, but I know for a fact that the Department of Police has been doing it in any case in the police cells and it has been done in terms of regulations.

I do not think there is anything else, unless there are any questions that certain members might like to ask me.

*I do not think I can say any more at this stage. We can fruitfully continue the debate in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

After having introduced legislation last year to amend the Companies Act of 1973, I received certain representations suggesting further amendments to that Act from several interested bodies, organizations and persons. As is customary, I submitted these representations to the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law for its consideration and recommendations.

Furthermore, the advisory committee also received proposals from the Registrar of Companies for the possible simplification of the administration of the Act. All the amendments to the Act which were unanimously recommended by the advisory committee have been embodied in the Bill which is now before the hon. House.

I may just mention in this connection that the advisory committee itself, or its subcommittees, meets about once a month to discuss proposals referred to it and that certain further proposals for amendments to the Act are still being considered by the advisory committee. In spite of this, a Bill containing certain proposed amendments to the Companies Act was published in the Gazette on 14 October 1977. The representations which were received in consequence of the publication of the Bill were also considered by the advisory committee, and they resulted in certain amendments being made to the published Bill to which I have referred.

I have mentioned the preceding facts to explain why certain proposed amendments to the Act which were contained in the published Bill have been omitted from the Bill which is now before this hon. House. Furthermore, I want to discuss briefly the four main proposed amendments to the Act which are embodied in the Bill.

It is an undeniable fact that certain information concerning the affairs of companies established in South Africa or having a place of business here is being used by people hostile to our country to damage our country as well as those companies. Let me just emphasize in this particular connection that we must not underestimate the extent of the economic action against our country from hostile quarters. In fact, it is well-known that the economic sphere has been identified as one of the sensitive areas in which South Africa may be vulnerable according to the evaluation of our enemies. Since our Companies Act is based on the assumption that full disclosure of the affairs or business of a company to its shareholders is in the best interests of the latter, the Act contains detailed provisions regarding the information to be disclosed by a company and to be stated by it on or in certain of its documents. I do not think that anyone could argue with the principle underlying the Act, i.e. disclosure for the information of shareholders as well as creditors. On the other hand, we shall be blamed if we fail to take effective steps to prevent the information which has to be disclosed in terms of the law from being used for purposes other than those it is actually intended for in terms of the Companies Act.

Furthermore, the Act also provides that companies should lodge certain returns with the Companies Registration Office. The returns to be lodged with that office from time to time can be lodged by anyone upon payment of a small fee and a certificate in respect of its contents or copies of it or extracts from it can be obtained.

In order to combat the problem I have referred to, i.e. the potential abuse of this information, it is being proposed in the Bill that the responsible Minister, or the Registrar of Companies, if authorized thereto by the Minister, be granted the power, firstly, to prohibit a company by written notice from disclosing particular information concerning its affairs or business or stating a particular fact on or in any document of the company, and, secondly, on the written application of a company to the Registrar, to exempt the company from the obligation to disclose particular information or to state a particular fact on or in any document of the company. Such a prohibition or disclosure will only relate to information or a fact which in terms of the Companies Act has to be disclosed or stated on or in any document of the company.

† Information or any fact which a company would be required under the Companies Act to disclose or to state on or in any of its documents, could of course also be contained in certain returns which the company has to lodge with the Companies Registration Office. The object of any prohibition on or exemption from the disclosure of particular information or the stating of a particular fact on or in a document could be defeated if such information or fact were to be available from the Companies Registration Office.

It is therefore proposed in the Bill that provision be made for powers under which the Registrar may refuse the facilities of the inspection or obtaining of a certificate as to the contents of or copies of or extracts from any document in the records of the Companies Registration Office if the Registrar is satisfied that the document in respect of which such facilities are asked contains information of a fact which the company has been prohibited or exempted from disclosing or stating on or in any of its documents. The provision in question would only apply in respect of such portions of a document as do contain or refer to or give an indication of the information or fact which the company has been prohibited or exempted from disclosing or stating in the manner to which I have already referred.

The Companies Act was amended during 1977 so as to make provision for the responsible Minister to make regulations, among other things, providing for the reproduction of any records in the Companies Registration Office by microfilm, microcard, miniature photographic process or any other process deemed to be suitable by the Minister. Representations have now been received from certain companies in which it was asked that companies should also be allowed to keep their records by means of microfilm or some other suitable process.

I do not believe that it is necessary for me to state the obvious advantages which it is claimed can be obtained from the keeping of records by means of some sophisticated modern process. I must also point out that the Act already provides that a certain portion of the register of members of a company may be kept by microfilm, microcard, miniature photographic process or other process which accurately reproduces and forms a durable medium for recording and reproducing the particulars in regard to members as prescribed by the Act.

Where records are not kept in the conventional manner, a suspicion as to the correctness of such records could arise. It is felt therefore that companies should be granted permission to keep their records by any sophisticated process on a selective basis. For this purpose it is proposed in the Bill that the responsible Minister be empowered to make regulations prescribing how records required under the Act to be kept by a company shall be maintained and the circumstances under which such records may be destroyed.

The Companies Act provides that a company may in certain circumstances be deregistered. Presently, there are some 200 000 companies on the register and nearly 9 000 of these companies are in the process of being deregistered. Although additional staff has been allocated to the section of the Companies Registration Office which deals with the deregistration of companies, the number of companies which are in the process of deregistration has been increasing steadily since the commencement of the Companies Act, 1973.

It is therefore proposed in the Bill that the process of deregistration be somewhat simplified. Firstly, the number of notices which in terms of the Act has to be sent to any particular company and to its directors, officers and auditors will be reduced and, secondly, the period between the final notice to a company that it will be deregistered and the point in time on which the registrar has to decide whether or not the company should be deregistered will be decreased from three to two months.

Although a company may be in the process of deregistration, such company will still be liable for the payment of annual duty. However, it has proved to be a futile exercise to obtain payment of annual duty and the penalties from a company which is in the process of being deregistered, because in those circumstances the company has invariably been stripped of its assets. It is therefore proposed that provision be made that, if any company is deregistered, such company shall cease to be liable for the payment of annual duty which was owing at the date of its deregistration.

*The Van Wyk de Vries Commission recommended that provision be made for the introduction of a central register of directors by means of an electronic computer in which all the directorships held by a person and any changes to these from time to time should be recorded. In order to give effect to this recommendation of the commission, a central register of directors and officers of companies was established in the Companies Registration Office, consisting of the written consent of persons to act as a director or an officer of a company.

In practice it has been found that the central register of directors and officers really serves no useful purpose because the register is almost never consulted by the public and the information is almost never used. The existing register is being maintained with great difficulty and to very little purpose as far as the use of the information is concerned. I mentioned last year that a computer was to be commissioned in the Companies Registration Office. The commissioning of the computer has reached an advanced stage and all the information which can at present be obtained from the central register can also be obtained from the computer.

For this reason, it is now being proposed in the Bill that the existing register of directors and officers be abolished. The abolition of the register means that several sections in the Act have to be amended. Since these amendments can be conveniently and more effectively dealt with in the Committee Stage, I do not intend to discuss them in detail at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the Companies Act is certainly one of the cornerstones of our legislation, especially of that part of it which controls our economic life. It is therefore fitting that there should be an advisory committee and that the hon. the Minister should receive representations from interested parties and experts from time to time and that the Act should be revised from time to time in accordance with those representations. We are therefore quite satisfied to have the existing Act brought up to date in this way. There are quite a number of amendments in the legislation which is before the House, and they are not uncomplicated. Many of them, I think, need not be discussed in this House. The need for them is obvious and I need not take up the time of hon. members by referring to them.

However, there are four aspects I should like to mention in this connection. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to answer the House on these points when he replies to the Second Reading debate or perhaps on another suitable occasion. The first aspect I want to raise— this was also the first aspect discussed by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech—deals with the question of secrecy where this is necessary. The old section 310, which is now being repealed, empowered the Minister either to exempt a company from the obligation to furnish information, or to go further by prohibiting a company from doing this, if he deems it necessary. As the hon. the Minister said, section 310 is now being repealed by clause 19 of the Bill, and it is being replaced by the proposed new section 15A, which confers similar powers upon the Minister.

The hon. the Minister also explained that this should be read in conjunction with the proposed new section 9(4) which is being inserted by clause 1(b) of the Bill. In my opinion, there just remains some cause for concern about the effectiveness of subsection (2) of the proposed new section 15A contained in clause 3. This must also be read in conjunction with the proposed section 9(4), as I have just said. Subsection (2) reads—

As the hon. the Minister said, we would have been in the position, if the matter had been left as it was, that hostile elements would have been able to go to the Registrar’s offices and to obtain the information we did not want them to obtain. For this reason the hon. the Minister has provided in the new section 9(4) that the Registrar may refuse to furnish such information to people who have requested it if the Registrar is satisfied that it is information which the hon. the Minister does not want to be disclosed. This is all very well and no reasonable person will have any objection to the Registrar or his staff having access to confidential information which has to be kept a secret. Nevertheless, one wonders whether circumstances may not arise in which some person in the service of the Registrar’s office may commit an error of judgment. After all, it is not easy for a junior official to ascertain in every case whether information obtained from companies and presented by the accountants, often in a rather obscure form, may be furnished to a member of the public who has paid the prescribed fees. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider amending the legislation on a suitable occasion so as to provide that in those cases where he deems it necessary to enforce stricter secrecy, it will not even be necessary for such information to reach the offices of the Registrar. This may be going very far, but as the hon. the Minister also said, there is reason to be very careful, for strategic as well as commercial reasons, with information of this nature.

The second point I want to mention is perhaps far less important. I am just a little concerned, with respect, that the Bill may have been badly drafted in this respect, and I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this.

† I am dealing now with clause 13 of the Bill which substitutes a new section 211 which makes provision for the sending of consent in certain instances to the Registrar, i.e. when people are appointed as directors of companies. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section 211 makes provision for the sending to the registry office of the names and particulars relating to people who are to be directors of a new company, prior to the issue of the certificate enabling that company to commence business. This provision does not seem to me to alter the present situation in any substantial way, although I am quite happy that it also does not alter it in any undesirable way. The proposed section 211(3) relates to the ordinary situation of a man being appointed a director of a company that is already a going concern. Here there is a change in the existing procedure. In terms of this Bill the onus is placed upon the person appointed a director that he should lodge with the company his written consent. Previously the company had to advise the Registrar of the consent given by the director proposed to be appointed. If we look at subsection (6) of the same proposed section, we see that it provides that any person appointed as a director who fails to comply with the applicable provisions—that includes lodging his consent within 28 days—is guilty of an offence. Unless I am misreading the Bill, the situation may arise where a man is appointed a director and does not get to know about it. This may sound far-fetched, but I can assure the House that it is not. I shall not go further than saying that I think I know what I am talking about In the circumstances it can happen in certain parts of our business life in this country that an error may occur and that, while a man’s name may be placed on the list of directors of a company, information to him that this has happened may not reach him within 14 or 28 days.

In these circumstances, if I may use what I believe is known as an Irish phrase, the director may be innocently guilty. Perhaps I am misreading the Bill, but if I am not, I think the matter ought to be altered in some such way that the onus for providing the information rests on the company rather than on the director, because companies have secretaries whose job it is to see to it that pieces of paper are filled in in the proper way and kept in proper files. There are quite a number of directors who are not as good with that sort of thing as they should be.

My other two points are both concerned with clause 15 of the bill which is inserting a new section 216 into the principal Act. I just want to get the one point out of the way because it is quite trivial. The proposed section 216(4) reads as follows—

A representation has been made to me by certain company secretaries that it would improve the wording of this subsection if instead of “the date” we use the word “receipt”, because it may happen that there is a postal delay as a result of which the company does not obtain the letter until a week, two weeks or more after the date which appears on the letter. I say this with great respect for the post office. I know how much postal deliveries have been speeded up. However, the secretaries concerned who have spoken to me are experienced people and, I am sure, not biased. They asked that consideration should be given to employing the word “receipt” rather than “the date”. Finally, I want to refer to the proposed section 216(3)(c) which deals with women who are appointed as directors. Reference is made in this paragraph to section 218(1)(b) which is amended by clause 17 of this Bill. The proposed section 218(1)(b) seems to me to be quite clear. It refers to—and I quote it—

In other words, a woman whose marriage has taken place on legal terms so that she is subject to that marital power, may become a director upon being given consent thereto by her husband. That is what we all understand the situation to be. However, I now want to refer again to the proposed section 216(3)(c). The wording there is different and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is a satisfactory explanation for it or whether possibly this is something that should be looked at. It reads as follows—

I am sure it is intended to refer to any woman who is under the required marital power but it does not say so and on a very superficial reading it almost looks as if it applies to any woman at all who is appointed as director.

The link is still section 218.

Provided this is so, provided I have an assurance that it is so, I can accept it. I did not dream for a moment that the hon. the Minister was intending in this day and age to take away rights from women. However, I thought it was worth drawing attention to this fact in case some printer’s devil or gremlin had crept in. I may be permitted to say that I should not like to face my colleague, the hon. member for Houghton, if I slipped up on a matter of that kind if it had been correct.

Is that why you sent her out?

I thought it was best that we dealt with it amongst ourselves.

*These, in brief, are the points which we on this side of the House want to raise. Except perhaps in respect of the first matter which I mentioned, we welcome the Bill as a whole. The process of adjusting an Act such as the Companies Act from time to time is a sound one. It should always be watched and amended where necessary. We are happy to take part in that process of amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Parktown that what we have before us today is not only the corner-stone but to a large extent the backbone of the control, the management and the administration of our economic life with regard to companies. That is why this Companies Act is such an important piece of legislation. It is of course a most difficult Act and very technical. Because it is so technical, a standing advisory committee was set up to consider the previous amendment Bills and the original legislation of 1973. The committee is continually looking into the Companies Act. The advisory committee, which derives its legal authority from section 18 of Act 60 of 1973, is very thorough. For general information and for the purposes of the record, I should like to point out that the committee consists of three accountants, two attorneys, one member of the Bar Council, one member of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and two professors from different universities, while the following bodies are represented on the committee by only one member each: the Institute of Secretaries, the Shareholders’ Association, Assocom, FCI, AHI, the Office of the Chief Master, Railway advisers, Seifsa, the banks and the Office of the Registrar of Patents. In addition Mr. B. J. Gelderblom is at present an ex officio member. That gives a total of 20 members who serve under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Margo. This committee, as the hon. the Minister has said, convenes once a month and the people do their work very thoroughly. As the hon. member for Parktown said, this matter has to be looked into continually. We are very grateful for that. I think it is also time for us today to convey the gratitude of this House to the hon. the Minister, the department and the committee for continually looking after these matters concerning the Companies Act so consistently. We are also grateful that they put forward amendments such as the one we have before us today.

I come now to the first point which the hon. member for Parktown raised, in connection with secrecy. I agree with him. In the circumstances in which the world finds itself today, we can never do enough to protect certain confidential information and to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy, enemies that not only want to harm South Africa, but our companies as well. We have seen what happened to some of our British companies a year or so ago and how the people were victimized and blackmailed. I do not want to mention names now; hon. members probably know what I am referring to.

In the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Companies Act, viz. the supplementary report and draft Bill, R.P. 31—’72, the danger is pointed out and it is stated that we should have this secrecy—

That was recommended by the commission as long ago as 1972. The commission also stated—

That was the recommendation at the time and I think we are today living in times which are far worse than they were in 1972. Not that we have to be frightened by it, and we need not run away from anything, but now is the time to revise this Act well in advance and give the Minister the necessary power and the department the delegated power, to act as and when certain things crop up. Therefore we fully support the amendment contained in this Bill.

I should now like to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Parktown, in connection with clause 13. I just wish to point out to the hon. member—I did not go into the matter very thoroughly—that this clause refers to the issue of a first certificate when there is as yet no company. I agree with the hon. member when he says that when an existing company entrusts the new director with the task, there is something fishy. If any person is newly appointed as director of a company and the onus is on him to inform the Registrar of Companies, it is not fair. It should be the task of the liaison officer of the company secretary. It is a good thing that we just take note of that in the passing. We ought to look at this again during the Committee Stage. When the certificate is issued with the very first appointment, all the people find themselves in the same position. It is at that stage that this requirement applies. What the hon. member referred to we actually find in clause 13, in the proposed new section 211(3) which reads as follows—

We must emphasize this once more. I think that that should solve the problem of the hon. member for Parktown, at least I think so.

Furthermore I am of the opinion there is nothing in this Bill which should cause us any concern. The hon. member for Parktown referred to two further aspects. Those are things we can have a look at again during the Committee Stage. I am delighted however— and I should like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister—that he has decided to abolish the central register. It was something which I had misgivings about at the time, although I conceded that I might have been wrong. In public life, as well as in the auditing profession, we have found that these things are not always used. Since it is a fact that a lot of time and energy, and a great deal of work is required to keep such a register, I believe it is high time the register was abolished. Therefore I am very glad to notice that the Bill makes provision for the abolition of the central register.

I want to refer next to clause 18. This clause seeks to amend section 275 of the principal Act. I just want to point out that I am very glad that the word “employee” is also being inserted now. This amendment has been brought about as a result of a recommendation by the National Council of Chartered Accountants. The reason for that is that previously a lot of uncertainty existed, because it was not stated beyond any doubt who may or may not be a director of a company.

I should also like to refer briefly to clause 7 of the Bill. This clause seeks to amend section 130 of the principal Act. In terms of the amendment information or copies of documents will be obtainable from the office of the company at 25 cents for each page, and no longer for every 100 words or a part of it, as was previously the case. It was senseless in any case to expect anybody to count the words in documents and information sheets. Nobody has time for that; nor are people geared for that. Therefore I believe that this amendment is a definite improvement.

Finally, I just want to say that we on this side of the House regard this as a very good piece of legislation and shall therefore support it whole-heartedly.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will also support the passage of the Bill, a Bill which we believe to be a genuine improvement on the situation, as well as on the Companies Act of 1973. Like the hon. member for Sunnyside, I should also like to refer to the work of the advice committee that considers various aspects of company law. This is now the fifth amending Bill we have had to the Companies Act since 1973. That means that we have had one every year. Moreover, we have heard only today from the hon. the Minister that there are further aspects being considered right now.

We believe that this is as it should be. This is what one can term living legislation. It is legislation that has to grow and alter with the circumstances. There are one or two points, however, on which we would like to raise some questions with the hon. the Minister. The first one to which we should actually want to move an amendment during the Committee Stage is clause 5, which amends section 73 of the principal Act. In the proposed new section 73(c) and (e) there arise certain problems as far as we are concerned.

I want to quote the proposed new section 73(c)—

Now, from the proposed new section 73(a) it appears that the registrar first has to send a letter to a company in connection with its registration. We believe that this letter should in fact be sent by certified post. I appreciate that it might be the practice at this stage to send the particular letter by certified post. We believe, however, that it would be better to have it inserted in this Act, and we therefore propose that the word “certified” should be inserted there, as well as in clause 5(e). This involves the follow-up letter which we believe should also be sent by certified post. We hope that the hon. the Minister will see fit to accept this amendment in the Committee Stage. In the interests, perhaps, of brevity and the time of this House, if he would indicate that he would accept it in the Other Place, this would also be perfectly satisfactory as far as we are concerned.

We can discuss that in the Committee Stage.

I believe that this principle is not a new one because clause 25, which refers to external companies, does mention “certified post”.

The second minor point, which I wish to raise, relates to the fee of 25c which a company may charge for making a copy of any page of its records available. Obviously any company will provide this type of service for its shareholders, I would imagine, at no cost whatsoever. There is no doubt, however, that people could make a nuisance of themselves as far as a particular company is concerned. I am not necessarily referring to shareholders. People can, however, make a nuisance of themselves in calling for all sorts of information, and we believe that to provide this information would cost the company a lot more than 25c. We are not going to propose an amendment, but we would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider putting the maximum chargeable fee per page up to R1.

Up the pages!

Yes. The Page in front of me thinks it is a very good idea. R1 per page, we suggest, would be a more reasonable amount.

Clause 23, on page 19 of the Bill, is a clause which somewhat puzzles us, and we should like the hon. the Minister to react to our question. Clause 23 amends section 330 of the principal Act. Clause 23(2) states—

In other words, this is predating this particular bit of legislation. In terms of this backdating it would, in fact, appear as if certain external companies could find that they are actually in conflict with the law in this particular case. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some sort of answer on this. I imagine that what has happened is that they have been asking external companies to do this in the meantime, but I would like a reaction to this, from the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate. I think that is all that we on this side of the House wish to say on this matter. We will support this Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North made a few interesting remarks. I must say it is the first time that I hear that hon. member and his party actually advocate an increase in fees, an increase from 25c to R1 for obtaining a copy of a page. I assumed that the hon. member would in fact have wanted to reduce the cost. The hon. member for East London North has also stated quite rightly that the Companies Act is “living legislation”, as he called it. During the four years in which the present Companies Act has been in operation, it has been amended repeatedly, but more amendments will become necessary from time to time because the rough edges of a piece of legislation such as this are rubbed off in actual practice. Therefore the legislation should repeatedly be measured against practical experience.

What is important, as the hon. member for Sunnyside rightly pointed out, is that what we actually have in the form of the Bill now before us, is the result of representations from interested parties together with considered recommendations from the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law as well as the commentary of interested parties after the proposed amendments had been published in the Gazette and the advisory committee had effected a few amendments and adjustments.

I should like to refer to two aspects affecting this legislation. One of them is concerned with clause 3 which probably contains the most important provision in the Bill. The clause seeks to insert a new section 15A in the principal Act. According to the existing section 310 the Minister has the power to exempt certain information from being disclosed or to prohibit the disclosure of it. However, the Minister exercises this power only at the request of the company when the directors feel that the disclosure of certain information would be harmful to the business of the company. The proposed section 15A now empowers the Minister to prohibit a company, by means of a notice in writing, from disclosing certain information pertaining to its business or from stating certain facts in any document. In other words the Minister may now take the initiative with a view to such a prohibition. In terms of the proposed section 15A the company itself may still request the registrar to exempt the company from the obligation of stating the particular information in a document of the company. Fundamentally, therefore, the proposed section 15A is merely an extension of the existing section 310 in that the Minister is being empowered to take the initiative himself with such a prohibition. That is, consequently, why section 310 is being repealed in terms of clause 19.

I believe that this amendment was very necessary. Our adversaries have singled out the economic field as the one where we are most vulnerable. It is important that we should continue to take and keep the initiative and be able to come up with a counter strategy. I believe that this clause is pre-eminently such a measure.

The second matter to which I should like to refer concerns the deregistration of companies. Firstly I want to say that the simplified procedure of deregistration as contained in clause 5 is welcomed. In the first place the number of notices is reduced and in the second place the period between the date of final notice to a company that deregistration is envisaged and the moment when the registrar has to decide whether the company should be deregistered or not, is being reduced from three months to two. In my opinion clause 5 brings about greater legal security as a result of its amendments to the provisions of the present section 73. In this regard I am referring in particular to subsection (1).

The proposed section 73(5) inserts the words “good cause” in the legislation and as a result of that the company may submit such reasons against the proposed deregistration of the company if the company is no longer doing business and has no assets or liabilities. The words “good cause” is also being inserted by means of the proposed section 73(3).

I am of the opinion that there are quite a number of quiescent, or as they are called, dormant companies without any assets or liabilities which would certainly qualify for deregistration but which the shareholders or directors would indeed like to use in future. I am thinking specifically of the case of a father who owns a farm or piece of land which he may not subdivide because it would be an uneconomic unit. He cannot therefore bequeath it in a will but he would still like to retain it as a family unit or leave it to his two sons. In such a case the father would probably prefer a quiescent company in order to bequeath the farm to the company. The shares in the company he would then allocate to the family or his sons as the case may be. I trust that such motivation will be adequate reason for preventing the deregistration of such an inactive company without assets and liabilities.

Finally it is a fact that the legislation is of a very technical nature throughout, but I believe that it will bring about welcome improvements in practice.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to respond to the hon. member for Klerksdorp …

Oh no! You should be ashamed of yourself.

… because I think the hon. the Minister must respond to him so that he can earn his keep this afternoon. Because the advisory committee is so well represented in its composition and because, before legislation is brought before us dealing with the Companies Act, the advisory committee consults with commerce and industry so thoroughly, we have found in the past that legislation of this nature has had a very easy passage, a far easier passage, indeed, than legislation emanating from other sources who can perhaps learn from this particular advisory committee.

In view of the very essential part companies, both private and public, play in the commercial and industrial life of South Africa, it is vital that amending Bills be introduced from time to time. This amending Bill will in fact strengthen the present Act and it endeavours to retain the orderly state of affairs existing in the commercial life of South Africa. This Bill came as the result of representations from various persons and, as we have heard, all the clauses have the approval of the standing advisory committee.

Information can at present be obtained from the Registrar of Companies and this information can be used by the enemies of South Africa to the detriment of South Africa. This is obviously a state of affairs that cannot be tolerated. The Minister or the Registrar can prevent or exempt disclosure in certain circumstances. These powers may seem excessive at a glance, but it must be borne in mind that there are economic saboteurs operating inside and outside South Africa. It is in the interests of every South African that we afford companies whatever protection we can against these saboteurs. The welfare of the country is dependent on commerce and industry operating without the sword of Damocles hanging over its head. In the circumstances we of this party will not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has already been said about this Bill before the House. There is only one point which has perhaps not been realized, and that is that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has today taken over the mantle of Santa Clause from his colleague, the Minister of Finance. If one looks at the provisions pertaining to the repeal of section 217, in terms of which the central register was established, and one ascertains precisely what these entail, it is not always easy to realize what large sums of money are taken from the private sector in small amounts. The CM 27 form, on which the particulars of directors and officers of companies are supplied, is subject to a stamp duty of R2 per form. This form has to be submitted to the Registrar of Companies annually by every director. If one notes further that in our country there are approximately 200 000 registered companies and that a company probably has at least two directors on an average and one then makes a calculation, one finds that approximately a million rands per annum is being spent on stamp duties only. This is money which is being drawn from the private sector and transferred to the public sector. By repealing section 217 the private sector is now being left with a further amount of approximately a million rands per annum. If one also notes that the costs connected with the preparation and the submission of these forms, which are usually done by an auditor or attorney, probably amount to an average of approximately R5 per form, and then makes the calculation which I have just made, one finds that an additional R2,5 million per annum is being left in the hands of the shareholders of the company and taken from the hands of the attorney and the chartered accountant. I feel very sorry for them, but I think it is a good thing that we should simply take cognizance of what the hon. the Minister is doing for the private sector in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise only to thank hon. members for their co-operation and for their support for the principles contained in the legislation. I should also like to indicate what the possibilities are as regards my being able to accept amendments. I immediately come to the first statement made by the hon. member for Parktown with regard to the question of the disclosure or non-disclosure of certain documents oz information or the submission thereof to the office of the registrar. The hon. member mentions the fact, to my mind quite rightly, that certain documents which would otherwise be prohibited or from which companies would be exempted, depending on the circumstances, are nevertheless in the hands of the Registrar of Companies. He mentions the possibility— even though it may be only a theoretical possibility—that someone who is not trained or is unable to gauge the intrinsic value of information in documents, can furnish information from the office of the registrar in a moment of thoughtlessness, in a proper or even improper manner, which would frustrate the aim of the prohibition or the exemption. In these particular circumstances I am quite prepared to effect an amendment and I suggest that such an amendment to the proposed section 15A(3) be effected. The amendment already appears in my name on the Order Paper. I think the hon. member will find that it should give satisfaction in this particular regard.

The hon. member also refers to clause 15, to the steps to be taken after the date of notice. He suggests that it would be better if one were to speak in terms of “after the receipt” of the notice. If one were to do it in this manner—and I have no fundamental objection to its being done in this manner— one experiences a problem with the onus of proof as to whether the documents have been received or not. It appears as if one would have to do more than simply refer to the date of receipt of the letter and would have to provide that the letter be sent by registered post so that there would be proof of the receipt of the letter, otherwise the companies concerned will deny that they have received the letter. I think the hon. member will understand that this is a consequential amendment. I am prepared to consider this in the Committee Stage. But I first wish to see what the implications of the amendment will be.

The hon. member also referred to clause 17, which deals with the position of the wife who is subject to the marital power of her husband. He asked whether there is not a conflict between this clause and the other. The hon. member will see that the clauses do not conflict with one another, because the other clause refers to section 208 of the Act. Therefore I am quite satisfied that there is no conflict between these two clauses.

The hon. member for Sunnyside pointed out the necessity of maintaining situations of confidence as far as the companies’ activities are concerned as regards their agreements with other companies. He pointed out that we have to guard against the possibility of weakening our position by making information at our disposal available, on the basis of the principle of disclosure, to other people who are not entitled to or ought not to be entitled to the information. He asked that we prohibit the disclosure of such information. The legislation does what it says, and I think that this is important. The hon. member and also the hon. member for Randburg referred to the central register. They approach the matter from a very realistic viewpoint of the saving of costs. At this stage I cannot say whether the savings are of the magnitude that he spoke of, but I accept his calculations in this regard.

The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to clause 7. The aim of this clause is not to reduce the prescribed fees. It is only aimed at substituting a page for the 100 words because this is really a more practical method. The hon. member for East London North will understand that I do not wish to introduce cost-increasing elements in the legislation, but would prefer to apply practical methods. Therefore I will be grateful if he would accept my explanation in this particular regard.

The hon. member says, quite rightly, that various amendments have been effected since the promulgation of this legislation in 1973. The whole idea behind the introduction of the standing advisory committee is that there should be an on-going process of re-evaluation of the efficiency of the legislation in the light of changing circumstances we encounter from time to time. To my mind no one can argue about the fact that circumstances have changed so drastically that an on-going process of evaluation, the introduction of new processes and new development necessarily also result in our amending the measures from time to time. Such action also entails another important principle, viz. that where one accepts legislation which influences institutions, companies or on the people who have an interest in them—whether they be shareholders, creditors, or others—it is necessary that we maintain a process of constant consultation and that we negotiate with the people affected. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter of principle, not only with regard to legislation, but also with regard to administrative decisions on policy which I have to take from time to time. I then try to consult on as broad a basis as possible and to have discussions to ensure that, although people do not always agree with the decisions which we take, they are at least reasonably well-informed as to the basic motivation for those decisions.

The hon. member also referred to clause 5 and requested that, with regard to the sending of the notice, we should rather do it by way of registered post. This seems to be a reasonable request; I am prepared to consider it and if I experience no practical problems, I will gladly do so.

I have already spoken about the increase of fees. I do not think the hon. member expects me to take the matter further.

The hon. member also wants to know why clause 23 is made retrospective to 7 October 1977. The reason for that is actually anticipatory. It is being suggested here that the provision will be applicable as from 7 October because the new form for companies—CM23—was introduced on the abovementioned date. Therefore I must have retrospective authority to cover this. I hope this explanation satisfies the hon. member.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp referred specifically to the new element introduced by clause 15 of the Bill, viz. that the Minister or the registrar—on the authority of the Minister—can act on his own initiative. I agree that the provision fills an important gap because in many cases it is true that the Minister of Economic Affairs and his department are aware of certain events or certain threats long before the private sector. Therefore he would be shirking his duty if he should wait for an application, which perhaps may not even be lodged—before taking steps to introduce a prohibition of the nature to which the provision refers.

To my mind the legislation effects a general improvement in the procedure with regard to the deregistration of companies, especially in the light of the time limit allowed and the routine work involved. However, the hon. member raised a legitimate point in respect of the question of a dormant company which has to be maintained for sound reasons. When such circumstances arise, provision exists in the legislation for the people affected to submit their reasons. Then we can consider whether they are sufficiently valid enough to stop the company from being deregistered. I have already referred to the question of the cost, and as the hon. member for Walmer also supports the legislation, it is, to my mind, not necessary to spend more time on this.

The acceptance of directorship had in the past to be submitted when business was commenced or, if the company was already doing business, at the first appointment of a director of the company. In the past it was the position that the acceptance of the appointment had to be submitted to the Registrar of Companies. The amendment now being effected provides that the acceptance has to be submitted to the company itself. The reason for this is clear. We have decided and agreed that we are going to abolish the central register.

Therefore there is no longer any need to submit the acceptance to the Registrar and to swamp him with a mass of documentation which is actually of no use or value. On the other hand it is necessary that we understand that it has happened in the past that people’s names have appeared as directors of a company whereas they were unaware of this. Therefore there is a need that people should agree to be a member of the board of directors of a company. This provision maintains that principle, and in this particular regard we do not have to be concerned that this will cause a problem, because directorship is no longer a unilateral action but a multilateral one. There is no question of directorship before the person concerned has submitted his acceptance. In these circumstances the problem to which the hon. member referred, lapses.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether this means that the onus is essentially on the company to see to it that the director gives his permission?

The onus is on the company to obtain the permission if the company wishes to ensure that the person becomes a director. The person is not a director before the notice reaches him.

Therefore the director cannot be penalized unless he has given his permission.

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have covered all the aspects to which the hon. members referred.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill is comparatively simple and largely self-explanatory. It is therefore not necessary that I should elucidate every provision.

In the first place, provision is made for the Minister to authorize a person to control a community school on behalf of a school board when a school board cannot be properly constituted, or when a school board has failed to perform the prescribed duties, functions or activities. This provision arises from problems which were experienced in large townships last year, when school boards resigned because of threats by intimidatory and the activities of a number of boards were consequently disrupted. For the sake of clarity it must be mentioned that Black school boards have more extensive powers than, for example, school boards for White schools. Teachers are in the service of school boards and if a school board does not function, appointments cannot be made, and it may also mean that the salaries of teachers who are already employed may not be paid. It is essential that there should at all times be proper control over schools. It is the intention that a person who is empowered by the Minister to manage a community school should only do so until the school board can resume its functions.

Although section 15(1)(d) of the Act provides for regulations to be made in respect of courses, such regulations have not yet been promulgated. Promulgation of regulations for this purpose would mean that the contents of a great number of courses would have to be published in the Government Gazette. Because the contents of certain courses are subject to continual adaptation, it would entail a considerable amount of administrative work every time when such adaptations have to be effected. Provision is accordingly being made for the Minister to introduce courses. At the same time, provision is being made for the taking of examinations for such courses and also for fees payable in that connection.

The Bill provides for the examination board, which has been in existence for a number of years and performs very important functions in respect of courses, curricula and examinations taken by the department, to obtain legal status. I want to add that there is no reference here to the matriculation examinations. Those examinations are still being arranged by the Department of National Education or the Joint Matriculation Board.

The provision whereby the Minister may make regulations about courses—section 15(1)(d)—is no longer necessary, in the light of the proposed provision in regard to courses, and is being replaced by a provision concerning the examination board. The power to make regulations about examinations is being re-worded for the sake of greater clarity.

The penal provisions which are prescribed for non-compliance with regulations are outdated and no longer serve as an effective deterrent. It is alleged that forged examination certificates are sometimes sold at amounts which are higher than the prescribed maximum fine. It is now being proposed that the provision whereby imprisonment may only be imposed in the event of non-payment of a fine should be deleted. The intention is that it should be possible to impose imprisonment without the option of a fine.

The proposed amendment of the Bantu Special Education Act, 1964, makes provision for the training of mentally retarded children. Those are children with an I.Q. of approximately 30 to approximately 50. These children cannot benefit sufficiently from the ordinary education programmes. But they are capable of being trained and can be helped to use their defective abilities profitably. The idea is to leave the initiative for the training of mentally retarded children to private organizations, such as welfare organizations, and a system of subsidizing, more or less on the same basis as is applicable to institutions for persons with impediments of hearing, sight or speech, is envisaged.

As a result of the change in the denomination of the department, the expressions “Minister”, “Secretary” and “Department of Bantu Education” are being replaced in all statutes.

It may perhaps rightly be asked why amendments are not being effected on a broader basis. I wish to reply by pointing out that the long title of the Bantu Education Act, 1953, states the basic intention of this Act as follows—

Although the Act has several times been amended since it was passed in 1953, to make provision for matters which were not originally foreseen, it contains, as an education Act, basic shortcomings which could not easily be rectified by amendments. It is my considered opinion that no further patch-work should be done to this Act. It is therefore intended to replace the Bantu Education Act by a new one.

My department will prepare the draft Bill as soon as possible and publish it for comment. It is essential that the Black people, whose secondary education is the subject of the measure, should also have the opportunity to make comments. Furthermore, it is essential that Black educational leaders, and especially the advisory council of the department which consists of Black people, should be properly consulted in connection with this step. If everything goes according to plan, the Bill will be submitted for consideration during the next parliamentary session.

In view of the intended new measure, it is not considered necessary to change the title of the Act at this stage in order to replace the word “Bantu” by a more acceptable word. Because the word “Bantu” appears in many Acts administered by the Department of Plural Relations and Development, it is advisable in any case to replace it uniformly and throughout. In the nature of things, it is a matter which falls under my hon. colleague, the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, and I therefore do not wish to say more about it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first piece of legislation the hon. the Minister has introduced since his appointment. Firstly, I very sincerely wish him well in and congratulate with his new appointment. It is a very difficult and far-ranging job. We also congratulate the Government with its decision to have a separate portfolio for education and training because of the magnitude of the work involved. One already sees evidence of a new thrust in this direction.

The views of this party with regard to education are well known. I know the hon. the Minister himself will appreciate when I say that it is still our view that one Department of Education could do this work much more effectively. I can foresee a time when a Minister of the calibre of the present hon. Minister and the hon. the Minister of National Education, will together do a first-class job. I hope this is also something which will happen in the future.

I immediately want to react to his last comments by saying that we are pleased to hear that a very thorough piece of legislation is being contemplated regarding education for Blacks in South Africa and that we look forward to see the legislation in draft form towards the end of this year. We are also glad that the hon. the Minister has specifically stated that an opportunity will be given for direct negotiation with those who are affected in the main by the legislation, viz. the Black teachers.

Anything related to the education of any person in this country is obviously of great significance. This Bill is no exception, particularly as some of the amendments flow quite directly from the recent unrest in the townships of our country. One therefore looks at such legislation with considerable care. I think the hon. the Minister would be the first to agree with me when I say that the answer to the unrest and the disturbances which have been taking place is not going to lie solely in amending legislation, but much more in a new attitude and approach. I therefore want to say that we also are pleased with the change of name. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, one of the clauses, viz. clause 5, makes specific reference to this. We believe the new name is much more acceptable to the people concerned.

I want to refer to the other clauses of this Bill. Clause 1 amends the Bantu Education Act of 1953. If one looks at the original section 12 of the existing Act, one sees that the duties, powers and functions referred to in that section are not spelt out, but are to be found in the regulations. Therefore one cannot be specific. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that when we come to the Committee Stage, he may well consider a very minor amendment to clarify the issue. It concerns line 14 of clause 1 of the Bill where it reads—

While one appreciates that it is always difficult to find the exact words, one would think that in this case an improvement would be to change the wording to “may authorize any suitable person” instead of it being simply “any person”. I appreciate that in the final analysis it is the hon. the Minister himself who will decide who that person is and should be. I also appreciate that it will be a person who will in any event be suitable in the hon. the Minister’s eyes. I nevertheless think that point should be made, because it is a very important undertaking.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister a question regarding section 12(4) of the existing Act. In this subsection the hon. the Minister is given the power to consider, if it is expedient to do so, disestablishing any regional, local or domestic council, board or any body or school committee established under subsection (1) or (2) or to withdraw the control and management of any community school from any regional, local or domestic council, board or other body, etc. The hon. the Minister now has the power to do that. He does this only after an inquiry to make sure that it is necessary to do so. I assume that in the same way the power he now seeks because of the prevailing climate and situation, will also be exercised only after an inquiry has been held to make absolutely sure that the control is not being exercised. I say that because this is a very sensitive and difficult area and one wants to try to handle it as sensitively as possible. I ask the hon. the Minister to give us some assurance that when he decides that such person should be appointed because the necessary work has not been done, this will only be done after very careful inquiry to ascertain the facts.

Before we had some consultation, clause 2 gave us a little cause for concern. The hon. the Minister has made reference to the fact that this is not simply replacing the present structure, but is rather legalizing an existing situation. When one realizes just how important this advisory board is and that the Director of Planning, many of the Regional Directors, White educationists, Unisa and many other people are represented on it, it seems to be right that this ought to be so legalized rather than continue acting as it has done up till now. I gather that this also means that there will be a short circuiting of procedure, which will save time and money. This is always important in such a vast undertaking. This, too, therefore has our support.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned that in so far as the matriculation examination is concerned, no change is envisaged at this time and that the Joint Matriculation Board and the Department of National Education will continue to function.

It has been brought to my attention, and probably to the hon. the Minister’s attention as well, that even under the existing system there are a number of people directly involved in Black education who are not happy with that situation. I hope that when new legislation is being looked at and prepared, some thought would be given to that as well.

Apart from the greater executive power being given in this clause to short-circuit the necessary changes which have to be made from time to time, there is specific reference to adult education. Whilst one knows that this is an on-going matter, I nevertheless want to underline, during this Second Reading debate, the absolute importance of adult education. I want to encourage the hon. the Minister and his department in the work they are doing. I want to say once again that one can express some disappointment that private enterprise, when given the opportunity and tax concessions, has not always been so ready and forthcoming in doing their share of the work. This is a job in the whole area of the developing of standards in Black education which simply cannot be left merely to the department and to its officials, no matter how hard they can try. One hopes that the work they are doing, as it grows and develops, will also be shared by private enterprise as well, which stands very often to benefit. Again and again, people are leaving the education profession and moving into other fields. Therefore I think they should bear some of that responsibility as well.

Clause 3, which provides for the amendment of section 15, is consequential, as I understand it. However, I would like to say that although the hon. the Minister has referred to the seriousness of the situation where examination certificates, for example, are fraudulently issued, and money is being made at the expense of the people, the amendment to subsection (3), which provides for penalties, entails a very, very large increase from a fine of R100 to R500. This is a very large jump. There is also a doubling of the imprisonment period from six to 12 months. One accepts that in the light of the present situation this may well be necessary, but I would ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to amplify his remarks a little in regard to the regulations as they are being transgressed, which makes it necessary to have such very high penalties imposed. The code of discipline for teachers which it refers to and the conduct of examinations, etc., must, I assume, have many, many ramifications and therefore one can understand the need for a penalty clause. I am just a little concerned at the very high jump from R100 to R500.

Clause 4 inserts a definition of “mentally retarded child”. I am not going to say a great deal about this. The definition as outlined here makes a great deal of sense to me. I understand the hon. the Minister has plans in the future in this regard. I believe that in every educational institution and in every area of education those people with special needs and special handicaps need special care. Provision is being made for this and, more specifically, I believe this is to be welcomed.

Finally, in relation to clause 5, I have already commented on the fact that we now have a new Minister, a new department with a new name, and obviously one with new zeal and determination. In supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, we would want to wish the hon. the Minister and his department well in the very, very large job which awaits them.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a rare occurrence when a person can speak immediately after the hon. member for Pinelands and agree with a great deal of what he has said. There are numerous matters he has raised today with which I am able to associate myself. In the first place I wish to associate myself with his congratulations to the hon. the Minister on the first piece of legislation he is piloting through this House in his new capacity. I want to associate myself with that by saying to the hon. the Minister that I think it is a privilege for a Minister to be able to introduce such a positive piece of legislation as that which is before us today. In the second place I also want to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Pinelands that there could be no doubt as to the importance of this new Department of Education and Training. I think everyone in this country, White, Black and Coloured, who takes an interest in education, will agree that this is a particularly important step, and also a step in the right direction. I also have no doubt that the hon. the Minister is most definitely the right person in this new department to perform this important task.

However, I want to comment on a few things raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. In the first place, he referred to clause 1 and expressed the idea that “any person”, “iemand”, possibly ought to be further defined. The proposal which he put forward was that it should possibly be amended and that the expression “a suitable person” should be used. I have two problems with that. In the first place, it immediately devolves on the Minister to determine who the suitable person is. I am not a legal man, but in the second place I have an idea that it would create somewhat of a problem to define “suitable” from a legal point of view. To me it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister, because he realizes the importance of the matter, will not appoint a person to act as a substitute for a school board who is not equipped in any way for that particular task. Consequently I want to disagree with the hon. member for Pinelands in that I do not think it is essential for us to change this. I think it may create problems in the subsequent application of this provision.

The hon. member for Pinelands also mentioned that he hoped that the hon. the Minister would conduct a thorough investigation prior to his appointing such a person. Surely that goes without saying. I think the legislation as a whole is aimed at creating better conditions for education, and I can readily imagine that any honest, right-minded persons who find themselves in that position, will most certainly investigate the matter first before they take the step of appointing a person to perform the work of a particular council.

The hon. member expressed concern at the drastic intensification of the penal provision. The hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech that malpractices did occur in respect of the issuing of certificates and diplomas. It is quite clear to me—and I am convinced that the hon. member for Pinelands is also aware of this—that these malpractices which occur are normally accompanied by the payment of money. If it is so that a forged certificate will be issued for a payment which is higher than the fine which is provided for in the old Act, it is no penal provision at all. I therefore wish to express myself in favour of such an intensification of the penal provisions being effected so that they may indeed serve as a deterrent. It is also clear that if a person receives such a forged certificate and takes it along with him to an employment situation, it can ultimately cause such a person nothing but inconvenience and embarrassment if it is subsequently confirmed that it is a forged certificate which he has in his possession. To protect such a person from such an embarrassing situation, in which he may subsequently find himself, I think it is essential that we should even go so far, as is being proposed in the Bill, that imprisonment should be imposed in lieu of the fine if the court should find that necessary.

When I think of the legislation in general, I can only typify it as a particularly positive piece of legislation which we are dealing with, which is in the interests of the Black parent community, the teacher and also the pupil. If we think—and the hon. member has himself made mention of that—of the circumstances which we experienced recently, inter alia, in Soweto, where the work of the community schools was brought to a standstill as a result of the riots which took place there, I ask myself: Who is the suffering party?

Perhaps it is essential now that we should just point out that we are dealing on the one hand with the community schools controlled by the school commissions and the school boards on behalf of the parent community, and on the other hand the so-called Government schools. Here we are dealing with the community schools. Now it is clear that in this legislation an effort is made to obviate possible embarrassment when circumstances force a school board into a position where it is unable to perform its functions, where it becomes incapable of performing its functions or where it simply does not function any more, or it is perhaps not even possible to get a school board constituted any more. In terms of this legislation it will then be possible to appoint somebody who will act in the interests of these three groups. I can well imagine in what difficult position a parent will be if a school is no longer able to function owing to a shortcoming on the part of the school board. Such a thing will surely also have an effect on the child. It will also have an effect on the relationship between the parent and the child. It is therefore something about which each parent should definitely be very concerned.

In the second place, it is in my view also very important that the teacher—because he is responsible for the tuition of pupils—may experience a problem in that, as a result of a situation in which the school board no longer functions, he is temporarily unemployed. We must bear in mind that school boards also have a duty to perform in connection with salaries. Therefore, if the school board no longer functions, it creates a tremendous problem for the teacher himself.

Last but not least, I want to refer to the pupil himself. I am convinced that it creates a very unhappy situation when it sometimes happens that pupils who are eager to study and to increase their knowledge, have to go without education as a result of circumstances beyond their control. It is therefore very important to me that we are discussing legislation of this nature here today, and I wish to support it wholeheartedly. It is legislation which provides that there will be the least possible embarrassment to the parent, the teacher or the pupil.

I should also like to refer to clause 2 of the Bill; a clause which has a bearing on the courses presented in schools. In this respect, I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Pinelands has said, that what is really involved is not a change in the course itself, that the courses are still the same as in the past, and that there is no need for us to concern ourselves about the matter. All that is involved, is the manner in which the courses will be presented. In my view it is important that we should realize this.

As regards clause 4—the clause relates to the training of retarded children—I also agree with the hon. member for Pinelands, and want to convey my personal thanks to the hon. the Minister for having introduced this provision into the legislation. By this, provision is now also made for Black pupils who are so unfortunate as to have an I.Q. of only between 30 and 50. To my mind it is very important that such pupils should also be cared for. Although it is true that this work is actually done by subsidized welfare organizations, it is also a fact that the organizations concerned are sometimes tardy in doing their work. I nevertheless think it is important that the instruction and care of retarded children should also be included in this legislation. The result is that the department itself is able to ensure that retarded children receive instruction and care. On behalf of this side of the House, I have great pleasure giving this legislation my full support.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have already, on a previous occasion, congratulated the hon. the Minister on his appointment in his new post. However, I should like to do so again. I should like to wish him well, but to tell him at the same time that unless we in the NRP can get his clear undertaking that he will see to it that active negotiations take place in order to get school boards to function properly once again, and unless he introduces, say during the Committee Stage, an element of limitation on the period during which a person can be appointed to carry out the functions of a school board, he will find that we in the NRP will be opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. Instead of doing what we should have been doing—and we should have been doing what is, in fact, intended in clause 5— namely, to bury one of the spectres of apartheid, we are now dealing with an amending Bill which is, I am afraid, bound to introduce, if it is executed in an unaltered form, a potential—and I underline the word “potential”—point of friction. Should this legislation be executed in an unaltered form, it will undoubtedly give rise to the building up of a greater sense of frustration on the part of the Blacks as regards the system of Bantu education. It will definitely not help us to try to run away from that reality. We will have to face up to it.

It is ironic that, although by changing the name of the department it can be said that an attempt is being made to reach some settlement, just the opposite will be achieved by the provisions of clause 1 of this amending Bill. That is completely clear if one really takes note of the provisions of the said clause.

In clause 1 the hon. the Minister seeks the power to appoint one person to carry out the functions of a school board for an unspecified period of time, a period which could even be indefinite. Clause 1 envisages the insertion of a new section 4A into the Act. The proposed new section 4A reads as follows—

The hon. the Minister can appoint such persons if he is satisfied that the bodies referred to here do not function properly or cannot be made to function properly. Those are the conditions and I will deal with them again later. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, this in fact means that he wants to have the power to appoint one person to perform the duties and functions of a school board.

I believe that I should remind hon. members that the overriding principle which gave rise to the establishment of school boards is contained in section 12 of the principle Act, and I am quoting that here—

Thus, the whole purpose of the principal Act is to allow for the active participation of a Black community in the education of its children. A school board therefore is the vehicle by which this active participation can be achieved. These are noble and commendable purposes which section 12 originally sought to fulfil. We support them. However, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with a particular piece of legislation which was drafted 25 years ago. The system of school boards has been functioning for many years, and apparently quite successfully, until a year or two ago. Participation by the community through the school board system has in fact been a reality.