Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House I just wish to point out that on Monday the House will proceed to deal with legislation. On Tuesday the hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill. According to our established practice this will be followed immediately afterwards by the discussion of the first two Votes. On Wednesday, 23 April, the Manpower Utilization Vote will be discussed. For the remainder of the week we shall follow the Order Paper, as printed.

The Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister will come up for discussion on Monday, 28 April.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

14h15 to 18h30; and

20h00 to 22h30.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned yesterday afternoon I made the point that the hon. member for Sea Point had done himself a disservice in raising in this House the problem concerning the children for whose education the Department of Coloured Relations is responsible—the problems here in the Cape Peninsula. I also pointed out that the Government was sincere in giving the best education to all communities in South Africa, education by which they can benefit. That holds the key to a peaceful future for South Africa. It also holds the key to progress with the change in the quality of the way of life of these people as far as is necessary.

I think I should now devote some time to the details of the wild allegations, the unsubstantiated allegations, which the hon. member for Sea Point made. For example, he simply made the wild statement—with reference to the education of Coloured children—that we had learned nothing from the report of the Cillié Commission. Did the hon. member read the report of the Cillié Commission and see what was stated in it about Coloured education in the Cape Province? There was not a single word of criticism. On the contrary, it expressed appreciation for the position in regard to education in the Western Cape. The Cillié Commission expressed criticism of other things, but not of education. However, the hon. member for Sea Point is dragging the Cillié Commission into the matter without even knowing what is in the report of that commission. He is doing so in an effort to confirm something that is not true in any event. So now hon. members must judge for themselves what value one should attach to such a speech.

The hon. member further stated that nothing had been done in the field of education to eliminate the just grievances of Coloured scholars. What were his words?: “That nothing was done to remove the just grievances of these people.”

I did not say that.

He does not even know what he said any more.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point did say so. I shall show it to him in his Hansard. [Interjections.]

He did not say so.

Do go and ask McHenry. [Interjections.]

Now, I just wish to explain to hon. members what the position is with regard to these so-called grievances of the Coloureds. Their major grievance concerns the quality of their education. I had the courage to state in public on television that there were indeed snags with regard to the quality of the education of Coloured children. That is attributable to historical causes. When I was a child, Coloured education was not the responsibility of anybody, apart from a few mission schools. In my own little town, there was a little mission school which Coloured children attended. It has only been in recent years that the State has accepted greater and greater responsibility for Coloured education. What have we achieved? I have said in public statements that during the past ten years alone, the number of Coloured teachers has increased from just under 15 000 to more than 25 000.

So, it could not be said that we are not giving attention to the problems. I have also pointed out that a great number of teachers were not really properly qualified. There are some of them who have progressed only as far as Std. 8 at school, which means that they do not comply with the requirements we set for teachers in other communities. However, whereas a few years ago there were between 400 and 500 first-year students at training colleges who had only passed Std. 8, this year the number of students with Std. 8 qualifications has decreased to only 224. The position has now already been reached that no male person is appointed in education if he is not matriculated. Only a few women are still being allowed. It is our intention to stop this finally as soon as possible, perhaps as early as next year. Notwithstanding the fact that the number of people with Std. 8 qualifications is being curtailed, the number of teachers has increased from 15 000 to 25 000. Despite this, the hon. member for Sea Point makes those allegations.

I also wish to point out that during the past ten years the number of children attending school has increased from under 500 000 to approximately 0,75 million. That is a mighty achievement because teachers, books, facilities and schools have to be provided for them. But the hon. member takes no notice of that at all. I pointed out that up to now the problem had been that there were still too few children attending secondary schools, because children were leaving school too early. The number of children attending secondary school increases by 10% to 12% every year, however, whereas the population increase is only approximately 2,7% and the number of primary school children increases by only 3%. There is an increase of 3% in the number of primary school pupils, but the number of secondary school pupils is increasing by 10% to 12%. That is a mighty achievement. I could just tell the hon. member that during the past ten years we have spent R974 587 804 on Coloured education in South Africa, and this does not include the cost of school buildings. The hon. member then made an attack on the hon. the Minister of Public Works and accused him of not building schools. However, what are the facts of the matter?

I said they were not repairing the existing ones.

The hon. member is saying that we are not effecting repairs to the schools. He criticizes the hon. the Minister of Public Works. However, during the past ten years we spent R125 million on school buildings for Coloureds. Last year alone, we spent R24 million. Does that look as if we are not doing anything? I wish to ask the hon. member to state what should receive priority. Where there is an acute shortage of classrooms, with the result that children who are compelled to attend school, do not have classrooms in which to attend school, should I first build those schools, or should I continually effect repairs to schools that are continually being damaged? This year alone there have been more than 800 cases of vandalism, and the damage amounted to R0,75 million. I cannot continue repairing those schools and then building fewer new classrooms and fewer new schools for which there is an urgent need. However, I can assure hon. members that the repairs will also be undertaken, but not at the cost of the building of new schools. That is the correct policy to adopt.

Very shortsighted.

I shall come to that hon. member shortly. Mr. Speaker, I think I have indicated that to any person who takes an objective view of the problem which we have in regard to Coloured education, it will be clear that if the whole truth is told to these people, if they are made to understand what the true position and the actual achievements are in Coloured education, then this type of thing will not happen. I now ask the hon. member for Sea Point what he did in order to bring the full facts to the attention of the people concerned, in a situation which he himself described as explosive and dangerous. Did he do anything to minimize the danger, to allay the misunderstandings, to remove the misunderstandings? Not a word except to accentuate and to criticize and to damn without knowledge and without facts.

I want to know what the hon. member is trying to achieve. I happen to have in my possession a pamphlet which is being distributed from outside the Coloured teaching community. It comes from the Harmonial Theological Students’ Organization, whatever that may be. I have never heard of the organization before. It is a pamphlet advertising a mass meeting which was to be held yesterday, and who was to be the speaker? The speaker was to be a Mr. Kirkeson Condor, who is not a Coloured man and who, as far as I know, is not from Cape Town. He is a former president of the Azanian People’s Organization and chairperson of the Soweto Teachers’ Action Committee. He comes from the Transvaal to incite people here in the Cape Province. He has all sorts of other qualifications, which shows that he is a member of organizations which are out to bring disruption and disorder to the life of South Africa. This is a man whose propaganda gets support from an ex-leader of the Opposition, a responsible member of this House, in a speech that he made here yesterday. What does this pamphlet say? I am going to read a few extracts from this pamphlet to hon. members. It says—

Agitators are making use of the propaganda which is being made for the release of Nelson Mandela to support riots and unrest in South Africa, and that is my answer to the hon. member for Pinelands. He is one of the 25 000 referred to here. They say in this pamphlet to incite unrest and disorder—

That is a lie. Where are the strikes on a daily basis throughout the country? This is the sort of propaganda of which the hon. member speaks with sympathy yesterday in his speech in this House.

You dodge the issue.

I am not dodging the issue. [Interjections.] The pamphlet says further—

This is the type of thing which is used to encourage Coloured children to conduct themselves in the way they have conducted themselves. But what is the truth? There are hardly any desertions from the South African Army. The few who are absent without leave usually do so for reasons concerning family and other problems involving considerations of compassion. But these cases are investigated. So this statement is nothing like the truth.

You will never learn.

Mr. Speaker, I have limited time, and my time is limited for the convenience of the Opposition. I want hon. members to appreciate that what we are dealing with here is not a problem of education. We are dealing here with children, and these children are being influenced by the type of propaganda which I have just read out to hon. members. Hon. members of the Opposition do not assist in bringing the truth to the nation. There is complete division in the party opposite. The hon. Leader of the Opposition does not know where to move, because he gets one set of advice from the hon. member for Pinelands and another set of advice from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The Leader of the Opposition—he is not here today—and his party must please make up their minds where they are going in South Africa. [Interjections.] Are they on the side of law and order or are they in sympathy with those who want to destroy order and society in South Africa? [Interjections.] I want to suggest that the time has come for that party to do a little bit of introspection and to ask themselves, quo vadis: Where are they going in South Africa? [Interjections.] I will tell the hon. member now where the NP is going to.

Backwards.

I say this in the same spirit in which I started yesterday, namely that to the Government in power in South Africa education is the key to the future of peace, happiness and advance in South Africa.

We agree.

We are doing everything in our power to advance education for all communities. We are breaking records; we are destroying …

The life of the community.

We are destroying the unfortunate situation that obtained in the past and we are giving people a new deal in education. One cannot do it overnight; one cannot build hundreds of schools in a day or educate thousands of teachers in a week. But it is being done as fast as our ability to act makes it possible. I demand that hon. members who speak in the House should observe the facts—that is all I ask—and not come with propagandistc statements to support violence, as we had it from the hon. member for Sea Point.

I want to make an appeal to certain newspapers, especially the two English-language newspapers in Cape Town, that they should not act as propaganda agents for these people who are causing this unrest and trouble in South Africa. I do not say they do it wittingly, but by the publicity they give in advance to the intentions of these people by front-page stories everyday, exaggerating the effect of this thing by, for example, talking about general strikes and other things which are not true. I say that they should please consider whether they are acting in the interest of law and order and peaceful change in South Africa, or are they perhaps trying to appeal to certain non-White people over the head of our parliamentary and democratic institutions in order to create a situation in South Africa which will bring about the sort of change which neither they nor my hon. friends of the Opposition, nor we, nor any non-White person in South Africa, would like to see. I think the time has come that we should all accept some responsibility for order, peace and for the propagation of truth in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the very limited time at my disposal I unfortunately cannot comment in detail on the points made by the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

You are very wise.

What I would like to place on record, however, is that even today there are expressions of concern from members of the Coloured community about the question of Coloured education in South Africa.

What I would like to talk about is some of the financial points raised by the budget. Recently some of us were fortunate enough to visit some of the Iscor operation in South Africa. This was indeed a most enjoyable and enlightening trip. One was struck by the determination and dedication of the staff of Iscor, who are working long hours under extremely difficult conditions. One of the things which emerged from that trip is that there is a critical shortage of skilled labour in South Africa. It did not matter at which level one was talking to the managers. The message they came back with to the politicians is that we must do something about the shortage of skilled labour. Various speakers on this side of the House have pointed out that the eventual solution will be a long term one, because eventually we are going to have to involve the Black community of South Africa. They will have to be trained to provide the necessary skills to run the South African economy. There are, however, some things we can do in the short term, and I would like to comment on these.

A point I have already raised is the question of the aged in South Africa. There is a tendency, and this applies to the whole of the South African economy, both the private sector and the public sector, to believe that once a man has reached the age of 65 or a woman the age of 60, they are no longer capable of being usefully employed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization to look into this question because these people can still make a tremendous contribution to the development of South Africa’s economy. In the United States of America, for example, they have introduced legislation which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees on the grounds of age before they are 70 years old.

Those of us who went on the Iscor trip will also have noticed the very important role being played by women on the actual factory floor. One of the disappointing things about this budget relates to the question of married women. The crucial point is not the actual tax legislation or whether it is fair or not. The crucial point is that women who could be working and who could be contributing to the South African economy feel that they are being discriminated against.

How many?

There are a large number. If one travels around one’s constituency and reads the newspapers, one will find that there are a large number of highly skilled women who say that they do not work because they feel that it is not worth their while to do so. Some people have, in fact, suggested that the hon. the Minister has something against married women, but this is not correct. I am, however, inclined sometimes to think that he has something against marriage. No less an authority than Prof. Aubrey Silke has pointed out that the present system of taxation does very little to encourage marriage and families. For example, at a taxable income of R10 000 the tax reduction for a single person is R572 p.a. and for a married person with two children it is only R321.

However, what concerns me is that given the shortage of skilled labour in South Africa the budget will encourage businesses to rationalize and to become even more technologically oriented. The substitution of men by machines will continue and the dilemma of South Africa is that while we have a shortage of skilled labour we have a surplus of unskilled labour. This budget will do nothing to solve that problem; indeed it will aggravate it. Business will have to become even more machine and technologically oriented. We will continue to encourage the pre-occupation with size and “big” will be equated with “better”. The idolatory of bigness will continue. When will we realize that bigger businesses will not solve one of our major economic problems, namely massive unemployment among unskilled workers? This budget, by stimulating growth without providing the necessary skilled manpower to handle such growth, will lead business to become even more technologically oriented. When will we realize that there is nothing in the history of the past quarter-century to suggest that modern technology can solve the problems of unemployment? Indeed, if one looks at the records of some of the developing countries one notes that unemployment was higher at the end of five-year economic programmes than it was at the beginning. This was the case in countries like India and Turkey. The reason is partly attributable to population growth but, more important, there is the fact that the economic growth that took place was biased in favour of technologically advanced industries.

One of the things that one learned from the Iscor trip was that one can spend a great deal of money and, in fact, provide relatively few job opportunities. What is more, the job opportunities that are created are for skilled labour, of which there is a shortage in South Africa, and not for unskilled labour of which there is a surplus in South Africa. I am not suggesting that bigness per se is bad. There are times when size in modern technology is very appropriate, just as there are times when a pre-occupation with size is inappropriate. What I am saying, and let us give credit where credit is due, is that I welcome the R10 million which has been allocated for small businesses.

The time has come for us to recognize the importance of small businesses in South Africa. There are tremendous benefits to be derived from small businesses. Technological innovations are often created by small businesses, but the important thing for South Africa is that small businesses tend to be labour-intensive rather than technologically oriented. Dr. Anton Rupert has pointed out that in Japan small businesses comprise 80% of all businesses and they provide employment for 80% of the people working in Japan.

Also, small businesses help to encourage a belief in the free enterprise system. In South Africa it is particularly important that we encourage the development of small businesses, particularly amongst the Black population, because we must allow the Black population also to enjoy the benefits and opportunities of the free enterprise system. If one looks at economic history, one sees that, where the free enterprise system is unable to solve the prevailing bread-and-butter issues of the day, there is a tendency to revert to some sort of socialistic system. What we have to do in South Africa is to fully incorporate the Blacks into our free enterprise system. There is a labyrinth of legislation affecting the status of Blacks in the so-called White areas which prevents this. We must also realize that, if Black small businesses are going to develop, they will develop in the urban areas, because that is where the people have the skills; that is where the market is, particularly the large market which allows diversification. Small businesses rely on a diversified market.

There is something we can do for all small businesses. In view of the limited time available to me, I cannot comment in too much detail on this. There are, however, three problems all small businesses face. Firstly, there is the need for medium-term to long-term finance. Secondly, there is the need for training, and this training must not be of a theoretical or technically advanced nature, because what small businessmen need is practical training in subjects like bookkeeping and business arithmetic. Thirdly, we must concentrate on providing services that reduce risk and disseminate information about managing small businesses. A lot is already being done in this sector, for example by Potchefstroom University. It seems to me that there is tremendous scope for rationalization of these activities. What we need is some sort of body which will be able to act as a clearing ground for what is being done for small businesses in South Africa. What we need is some sort of body that can co-ordinate the activities. We must, however, ensure that that body does not become institutionalized. I would ask for it to be centred in the private sector. When one institutionalizes such a body, one in fact destroys the qualities on which small businesses thrive.

These qualities were pointed out by Schumpeter in The Creative Response in Economic History when he defined the qualities for entrepreneurship as “the ability to perceive new opportunities that cannot be proved at the moment when action has to be taken, and the will-power adequate to break down the resistance that the social environment offers to change.” In conclusion, let me say that I believe that the promotion of small businesses is essential for the healthy economic growth of South Africa in the future.

Mr. Speaker, once more we have come to the end of a long debate in this House. As a matter of fact, I am exactly the 50th speaker in this debate which has now extended over more than four days. We have had the privilege of listening to a number of very valuable contributions in the course of this debate. I may perhaps be accused of being one-sided if I say that as far as I am concerned, the contributions from this side of the House to this debate, which is basically a financial debate, were in general the best that I have yet heard in the time that I have been in this House. [Interjections.]

†I certainly do not wish to be unfair and therefore I want to say that there have been some very useful contributions also from the side of the Opposition, although indeed very little from the official Opposition, which in my opinion is rather unfortunate. There has been very little said about finance, about basic financial policy, economic policy, from that particular quarter.

Before I proceed, however, to make a few very brief remarks, I should like to refer to the impending departure from this House of the hon. member for Parktown. He has shown himself to be an eloquent member of this House, and I should like to wish him everything of the best in the very important spheres of activity to which he will now be giving his full attention. I am sure that the House as a whole support me in this.

I think that the hon. members of the official Opposition, in particular, have missed what I would like to call the grand design of this budget. There is indeed a grand design. We have given a great deal of attention to this. They have missed it, however. Let us look, for example, at the speech of the chief Opposition spokesman, the hon. member for Yeoville. He spoke for an hour. He read his speech, uninterruptedly and at speed, for an hour and dealt with a whole number of generalizations. I listened carefully, made many notes and have also studied his speech. One can nevertheless not get to grips with any facts, any factual substantiation, in his speech. For example, he says that we have done very little for the poor, something the hon. member for Sea Point also said yesterday, completely dogmatically. He said this budget was doing nothing for the less privileged.

I said there was no direct relief.

No, he said we had done nothing. That is an extraordinary thing to have said, because apart from the fact that the budget itself is there and can be analysed, I also have here the Financial Mail of 4 April. In other words, the hon. Opposition had the benefit of this remarkable article, “Rich man, poor man.” They had it before them. It is an absolutely devastating repudiation of that dogmatic statement by the Opposition …

By whom?

… which is the only sort of criticism they hoped could be of any substance in this budget debate. It fell absolutely flat, however. [Interjections.] We had all sorts of tear-jerking protestations on behalf of the poor. I think this has been rather unfairly put, because I say again that if one analyses the budget objectively, one will find that we have done a very great deal for what I would call the less-privileged members of our society, a very great deal indeed, more than ever in my experience.

Like increasing the bread price.

The bread price? Let us talk about the bread price for half a minute. I shall be coming back to it later. We did not put up the bread price. The Government did not put up the bread price. What did the Government do? The Government prevented the bread price from going up another 10 cents. That is what the Government did. If the hon. member for Yeoville has any regard for the market system and private enterprise, he has to say that somewhere along the line one has to look at market tendencies, at supply and demand. How can the Government continue to subsidize any price of any commodity, to this extent?

Bread is basic.

If we had not allowed the price to increase by four cents—I am talking of brown bread—we would have had to find millions of rand more in subsidies, and already the subsidies on food, including bread, are the highest in our history. Somewhere one has to draw the line, because if one does not, the simple fact is that the evil day will catch you out. One cannot go on living in a fool’s paradise. If costs are rising, one of the inescapable results is that prices go up. The Government can do its best to give alleviation as a short-term expedient. We have done this year after year for as long as this inflation has been serious. This year we did so more than ever. However, I am then accused of raising the price of bread. We did nothing of the kind. We have actually prevented the price from going very much higher, something that market forces would have dictated.

The hon. member for Yeoville reminded me of a little story I heard of an old lady who went to church and listened to the sermon. When she came out, the parson said to her: “I hope you liked my sermon.” The old lady then replied: “Well, I have listened very carefully to you and as far as I could see, you tried to make three points. But I have three points of criticism. Firstly, you read your sermon from beginning to end. Secondly, you read it rather badly and, thirdly, it was not worth reading.” [Interjections.] I did not say it; the old lady said it.

On that high note, Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Prior to the commencement of the National Roads Act, Act No. 54 of 1971, the National Transport Commission was a statutory body without corporate personality. That implies that prior to 1 October 1971 the NTC was not a road construction authority, and consequently the acquisition of land for national road purposes was, inter alia, done by the Provincial Administrations in terms of their respective ordinances. The expenditure incurred by an Administrator in this connection was in fact defrayed from the National Road Fund, but since the NTC was not yet a body corporate at that stage, transfer of the land could not occur in its name. It was the responsibility of the provincial administrations to register the land thus acquired for specific purposes in the name of the State, but as a result of unforeseen problems, it was not possible to dispose of all the registrations. Consequently a large portion of the land is still registered in the name of the original owners.

Since 1 October 1971 the NTC has been vested with corporate personality and is empowered, inter alia, to own, acquire, hire, let and dispose of land. To be able to dispose of all the portions of the land acquired from the National Road Fund prior to 1971, but at present still registered in the name of the original owners, it is essential that they now be registered in the name of the NTC. To give effect to this it is necessary for me to designate the land thus acquired in terms of the provisions of section 3(2)(a) of the Act.

At present section 3(2)(e) of the Act provides that written information of such a designation shall be delivered or sent by registered post to the owner. In practice the prescribed manner in which the designation notice shall be served frequently causes problems, particularly in the immediate vicinity of cities where properties change hands rather frequently and the present address of the original owner is not readily ascertainable. These problems can be eliminated if the serving of a designation notice takes place on the same basis as in the case of the expropriation of land as prescribed in section 8 of the Act. If the owner of land cannot be traced, or his address is not readily ascertainable and the serving of the designation notice in the prescribed manner will consequently serve no legal purpose, a designation notice may be published once in the Gazette and once a week during two consecutive weeks in an English and in an Afrikaans newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated.

The amendment contemplated in clause 2 arises from the need which exists for the creation of effective stopping places with service facilities for long-distance traffic. In the ’sixties the NTC formulated a policy in respect of the provision of stopping places at traffic interchanges, which was aimed at the eventual development of such a stopping place as an integral part of the national freeway. The initial development of the stopping places consisted of the levelling of the site, the planting of grass and shrubs and, in some cases, the construction of concrete tables and thatched shelters. It was hoped that private enterprise would gradually develop service facilities, such as filling stations and restaurants, adjacent to the stopping places.

The low utilization figure of the stopping places at which amenities have been provided, in contrast to the large number of motor travellers who, in conflict with the provisions of the traffic ordinances of the provinces, stop under bridges and in other convenient places on national roads, compelled the NTC during 1976 to reconsider its policy in respect of stopping amenities for motor travellers. Arising from this and from representations received from time to time, the NTC agreed in principle to an inquiry being instituted to determine the desirability of stopping places between interchanges with direct access to the national road.

An in-depth inquiry was made and the NTC decided, on the basis of the proposals submitted to it, that the provision of a prototype service amenity, adjoining and with direct access to the national road, should be proceeded with. For the provision of such amenities the NTC laid down the following guidelines—

1. (a) The services provided should in the first place be aimed at the long-distance traffic and the needs arising from such traffic. For this reason the service stations will preferably not be constructed near cities or developed urban areas, because that could entail that local traffic could be attracted to the freeway and the traffic pattern on short sections of the freeway could be disrupted. Furthermore this could also have a prejudicial effect on the existing business undertakings within the urban areas in question.
2. (b) Such a service station is only permissible next to a dual carriageway road in order to prevent the right turns which would occur on a single carriageway road. Consequently it is preferably that the necessary amenities, which include the provision of fuel and lubricants, a mechanical emergency service, a parking area for vehicles, refreshments, meals, telephone and toilet facilities for the motor traveller, as well as a picnic site, be developed jointly on both sides of the road more or less opposite each other in order to obviate median crossings by vehicles and pedestrians.
3. (c) The location of service stations in respect of existing and future traffic interchanges should take place in such a way that there are adequate distances between interchanges and service stations for the application for effective geometric design standards and the spacing of road traffic signs.

Although benefit may be derived from overseas experience in regard to the layout of such service stations, there are after all unique circumstances in the Republic of South Africa, particularly in respect of traffic requirements, travelling and driving habits, as well as the population structure, which make further experience in the practical application thereof desirable. It is as a result of these facts that the NTC has granted approval for the development of a prototype service amenity, in which these and other factors may be tested in practice.

Since the use of land for commercial purposes and the transaction of business itself is involved, it is an obvious prerequisite that the determination of the position of the individual service facilities shall be done in the first instance by the NTC, in consultation with the controlling authorities involved, such as the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy, the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the Provincial Administrations or Councils. Subsequently the expropriation of the piece of land will be carried out by the NTC. Next the providers of services will be afforded an opportunity, by way of public tender, to participate in the provision of the necessary services at these approved points. I wish to emphasize that the NTC will under no circumstances be personally involved in any transaction of business which may be undertaken at the service facilities. I consider this to be the exclusive function and task of the private sector.

The Act does not empower the NTC to acquire land for this purpose adjoining a national road. This is now being done by clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the explanation of this Bill given by the hon. the Minister. It is a short, three-clause Bill. As the hon. the Minister has said, clause 1 supplements the manner in which information shall be passed on to the owners of land which is designated land in terms of section 3(2)(a) of the Act. This alteration of the modus operandi which gives landowners a greater opportunity to be informed of what is going on, is a definite improvement and has the full support of the official Opposition. We therefore go along completely with clause 1. The publishing of that information in the Government Gazette once and in both English- and Afrikaans-speaking newspapers, can only be of advantage. It is generally an improvement and we are very happy with it.

I want now to deal with clause 2. The hon. the Minister has quite rightly described what I think in America are called “comfort stations”. There is a need along our national roads to have facilities available to motorists for their general comfort. Toilet facilities, garage and repair facilities, petrol pumps, refreshments and picnic spots are all necessary.

I just have some misgivings about the phrasing of this particular clause. I was glad to hear the hon. the Minister’s explanation, because it put my mind at rest on aspects about which I did have certain misgivings. However, possibly the wording of this clause could be generally improved so as to indicate more clearly what the hon. the Minister wants to achieve by moving this amendment. He said—and I was very pleased to hear him say it—that there was no intention to compete with private enterprise. This, of course, is the crux of any misgivings I might have. We do not want a situation in which the National Transport Commission will become a landlord and go into competition with private enterprise. The hon. the Minister must understand that there are already many existing amenities and facilities for motorists. Even if the National Transport Commission were to erect a new comfort station, if I may use that phrase, and make it available to private enterprise, he might still be putting himself in a situation of providing competition to existing enterprises.

But is that not the essence of private enterprise?

To a certain extent, but then, if that is the essence of private enterprise, the Government must keep well out of it. A situation might well arise in which a landowner who owns land adjoining a national road will want to develop his own operation. Provided it meets the requirements of the planners and the local authorities concerned, I see no reason why that private owner should not be allowed to go ahead with it.

There is no restriction on him at all.

There is no restriction at all. Obviously this amendment has come into being because these facilities are not available in certain instances. It is a very praiseworthy object of the hon. the Minister to encourage private enterprise to provide these amenities and services for motorists.

At this stage, in the Second Reading debate, I have to say that we accept this in principle and go along with it entirely. I find it a little difficult to work out an amendment to this clause. I was considering proviso’s of one nature or another which would make it impossible for the Government to compete with private enterprise. I am not happy with the phrase “donate such land” and I am not sure that it is in the best interests of anybody at all for the National Transport Commission to have the right to “donate”. This is always open to abuse and even if it is not abused, allegations of abuse can always be made in this sort of instance. So the idea of “donating” such land would certainly not meet with the approval of hon. members in these benches. However, at this stage I should like to say that we support this in principle, but we shall be moving an amendment to clause 2 during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove has indicated that, for the most part and subject to certain conditions he supports the proposed legislation on behalf of his party. He also indicated that a suitable amendment might be considered during the Committee Stage, on which occasion we may then debate such amendment. I think I would be neglecting my duty if I did not say, just in passing mind you, that this conditional support by the hon. member for Orange Grove, also on behalf of his party, is exceptional support, if one takes note of the fact that the hon. member and his colleagues will probably never quite enjoy the privilege of using the National road, because, as you know, as political travellers to nowhere, they strayed a long time ago into the little side street where they have become utterly lost.

Where is your road leading to?

Just remember that the road to hell is paved with intentions just like yours.

I shall leave it at that. Admittedly this legislation is contained in a relatively short Bill, yet it is legislation of a very, very important magnitude. On the one hand an attempt is being made to facilitate the acquisition of title by the NTC and, on the other hand, as the hon. the Minister explained, provision is being made for the creation of improved facilities for the travelling public. In other words, we are dealing here with legislation concerning a national institution, an institution which belongs to everyone, an institution in which every citizen of South Africa has a real interest.

And because this is so one shall, in the assessment and evaluation of these two new principles, which actually have a prelude in existing legislation in respect of procedure, although they are new principles in respect of our principal Act, have to consider not only our principal Act, but also those things that preceded our principal Act. In its day our principal Act was in fact the codification of the transport legislation as it existed at that stage.

It is interesting to note that the first National Roads Act, Act No. 42 of 1935, was preceded by the very important commission of inquiry of 1925. This technical commission of inquiry was announced in the then Union Government Gazette, No. 146 of that year, and very important findings were made.

What is interesting is that in one’s assessment of the legislation we are dealing with today, one could just mention that at the time they found that South Africa had 69 000 miles of main roads. What is of importance, however, is that in debating the First National Roads Act which followed, ideas were expressed of which one could take note. At the time it was said, inter alia, that that legislation was the most important legislation of that year. It was also said that the builders of main roads were actually the builders of a nation as well. Furthermore, it was said that facilitating transport from one area to another contributed to creating an awareness of unity in a nation. What was important to me, personally, in that legislation which served as a prelude to the legislation before us today, was the participation of the late and unforgettable Dr. D. F. Malan. He made the statement that our national roads, and the task of administering them had simply become too great for our provinces. Consequently we should remove them from that cadre and regard them as a national asset and treat them and deal with them as such.

When we come to the legislation itself, it is very clear to us, as the hon. the Minister put it, that we are dealing here with two very important facets. Firstly, as far as the acquisition of title by the National Transport Commission is concerned, a new procedure is being created in order to facilitate such acquisition. This is very clear. The second aspect then is concerned with the creation of machinery to enable the National Transport Commission to take the relevant legal steps towards establishing better transport facilities for the travelling public.

The hon. the Minister explained the guidelines to be followed by the National Transport Commission in establishing such facilities very well. It is, however, a fact that in the modern free world these facilities along the major roads are almost taken for granted. It is a fact, too, that if one looks at the prelude to the legislation, i.e. the 1935 debates, one notices that what is meant by a stopping-place and so on is very neatly elucidated. Unfortunately our forefathers erred by referring to a stopping-place or such amenity as merely being a place which has to have a tree to which one could tether one’s horse. Actually the outspans of the old days are a historical institution in the legislation of South Africa. My hon. colleagues in the House who deal with these matters will realize that one will still find deeds of transfer today in which reference is made to outspan No. 1, 2 or 3. They were merely pieces of land intended for use by the farmers along the trek roads. Subsequently smaller outspans followed and the need, which we are dealing with today, was defined by the speakers participating in the debate at that time, as a place where firewood, fuel, water and a camp site had to be available. These almost resemble the fine guidelines set out by the hon. the Minister today.

I am particularly grateful that the legislation has come in time. If we take into account that it is our ideal to double our tourist figure during the next year or more, and that within five or six year’s time this could become two million visitors, and if we consider that our own South Africans will use our major roads in their thousands, then it is obvious that these important facilities for our travelling public can no longer be excluded.

However, it is important to note that as time passes and the facilities become available, those who use them should leave these places with the important knowledge that the users of the facilities belong to a nation in whose set of values the concepts of neatness and cleanliness enjoy a very high priority.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that our original intention, when we first saw this measure, was to oppose it. In fact, we still feel very, very strongly about one of the clauses in the Bill. Having heard the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, however, we wish to discuss his speech, together with the Bill, with him now because we still feel there are areas lacking sorely.

We are very, very concerned—it has been mentioned this morning—because there is the possibility that free enterprise is not being allowed the latitude it should enjoy. We are very concerned that there is also an impingement on the rights of the property owners who actually own land adjoining national roads. Equally, we want to express our concern in respect of consultation and coordination with provincial authorities, town and regional authorities and local planning authorities, and one may say, too, with the relative Chambers of Commerce in the various local authorities that adjoin or are near to national highways. We are concerned because we understand and accept that South African highways need what is envisaged here. When one travels on the continent, one sees many of these comfort stops or comfort stations. Some of them are very elaborate. I must say that I particularly like the ones that are found in Germany, where there are filling-stations, restaurant and toilet facilities on either side of a double highway and a bridge which spans the entire highway to allow pedestrians to move from one side of the highway to the other. These are, as I have said, sorely lacking on our South African roads, and it is a pity that we do not have them. Therefore, I welcome any move that is made towards establishing something of this nature. However, it is the method that disturbs us.

In order not to take up too much time of the House, I will merely say that we accept clause 1 of the Bill, but clause 2, whereby the hon. the Minister seeks to purchase, hire or otherwise acquire land adjoining a national road for the provision of the comfort stops he mentioned in his Second Reading speech, disturbs us. The clause goes on to talk about erecting and providing and includes the word “hotel”, which the Minister has not mentioned in his Second Reading speech.

[Inaudible.]

That is the point. That is in the Bill, but there is a lot which is not in the Bill, and there lies our concern. The hon. the Minister talks about the donation of such land with or without any buildings or structures thereon. The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading Speech indicated that the Government does not want to get involved in a trading undertaking, but I submit that he is, in fact, involving himself in a trading undertaking. He is involving himself by the very nature of this clause. He is saying that they want to acquire this land, that they want to erect buildings and they want either to sell, hire or donate them. This automatically places him in a situation where he is competing with free enterprise. We cannot interpret this otherwise, and I do not think the hon. the Minister can blame us for that. I appreciate that the hon. the Minister interjected when the hon. member for Orange Grove was speaking by saying “After all that is what free enterprise is all about”. Well, let us talk about private free enterprise, not about free enterprise with the State taking part in it, because I think the competition then becomes a little unfair and weighted in favour of the State.

I said that we originally intended opposing this measure. During the Committee Stage we are going to discuss the possibility of the incorporation into this Bill of something that will show John Citizen that we want to protect his rights and we also want to protect the rights, as I said earlier, of the local authorities, as well as of the provincial town and regional planning authorities, etc.

If one takes a stretch of highway such as that which runs from Pietermaritzburg northwards …

Through Mooi River.

… through Mooi River to Estcourt—we will keep it all within the constituency of the hon. member for Mooi River—we probably …

It is a beautiful part of the country.

It is a beautiful part of the country, but it also needs a comfort stop, believe you me! If one establishes one of these comfort stations it is going to have a very serious effect on traders in the villages of Mooi River, Estcourt, Ladysmith or whatever, because these facilities are going to draw a tremendous amount of traffic away from the local communities. We are concerned about planning, the hon. the Minister told us in his Second Reading speech that he will consult with regional planners. In the case of Natal will he consult with a body known as the Town and Regional Planning Division of the Natal provincial authority? We would like to see this embodied in the Bill. Also, we should like to see embodied in the Bill the fact that, whatever is done with a certain piece of land which is bought by the State, expropriated or whatever, it should be put out to tender and that once the most suitable tender—I am not saying the lowest tender—has been accepted, the persons concerned should be able to acquire the right or title over that land, which may or may not include any buildings such as filling stations or whatever may be erected upon it.

Having said that, let me say that in the Committee Stage we shall seek to have introduced into the clause concerned principles—and we ask the hon. the Minister to discuss with us now the possibility of accepting them—which will do three things, viz. ensure the rights of the property owners, ensure that free enterprise is not interfered with by the State in any way, and ensure that the relevant provincial planning authorities, local authorities, etc., will have a say in the decision in respect of the acquisition of the affected land.

That sounds like a Second Reading amendment.

The hon. member for East London North knows full well, or he should know, that we did not originally intend supporting the Bill.

He has a very short memory.

Yes, he has that. I notice that he has also again changed his opinion. Again his principles seem to have changed. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has convinced me in the Second Reading.

I think the hon. member should go and sit in his bench when he makes interjections.

Why?

Because that is the way it is.

Anyway, having said that, let me say that we will support the Second Reading and will be moving amendments in the Committee Stage by which method we will seek to do the things I have discussed across the floor with the hon. the Minister this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Newton Park, who actually dealt with the historical development of the subject of the legislation as the transport system changed. I should like to thank him for an interesting contribution in this regard.

It seems to me we have reached the stage where all the parties agree on certain things. The hon. member for Orange Grove should now pay attention, because I am talking to him. It seems to me we agree, firstly, on the necessity for creating the particular facilities. I am pleased that I was able to convince hon. members in my Second Reading speech to change their standpoints on principle and to support the legislation. Secondly, I think that hon. members will agree with me that a mechanism should be created for acquiring a particular property which is needed for the establishment of the particular facilities. Thirdly, we have reached consensus with regard to the standpoint, to which I subscribe, that the State or the National Transport Commission itself should not be the operator of the facilities. The question now arises: How do we ensure that the objects, which we all endorse, can be achieved without the dangerous situation arising that people may be tempted to deviate from the declared standpoint which I am adopting this morning?

†That seems to be the essence of the problem of the hon. members for Umhlanga and Orange Grove.

I am also worried that you might give one of them to me because you like me.

They are against donations under these particular circumstances. I do not believe and I do not subscribe to the principle that under these circumstances the State should interfere with the private sector. However, on the other hand hon. members will understand that the National Transport Commission in this particular case, as an agency of the State, has particular responsibilities. It has to ensure that the users of our roads have access to facilities of this nature. I wish to be quite candid with hon. members. In view of the composition of our population there is added reason why these facilities should be made available, and I think hon. members will agree with me. They will understand, as I have explained, that it is not the intention to have these facilities established near towns because that would defeat the objective we have in mind. We want to space them inbetween towns and not take business away from already established businesses in these towns.

Between Durban and Johannesburg you need only stop once for petrol.

That is right. We all agree therefore that we need these facilities. Hon. members must also keep in mind the fact that there are certain limitations in respect of the subdivision of rural land. Therefore, although private enterprise might accept the need for facilities of this nature, it may not always be possible for them to acquire land because of the prohibition on the subdivision of agricultural land. For that one needs the permission of the department. The test for subdivision agricultural land applied by that department is completely different when it considers an application of this nature, namely, whether that land is an economic unit from an agricultural point of view. This measure can therefore be used to assist the private sector in the acquisition of the land that is required for the provision of this facility.

The question is how it is going to be distributed fairly.

I am coming to that. I understand the problem hon. members have as regards the question of who is going to be the operator. Hon. members agree with me that it should not be the Commission or the State. I understand their reservations because the Bill does not make provision for the principle I have expounded, namely, that it should be the private sector. I wish to put a question to hon. members in this regard and they must tell me what they think about it. If the private sector does not provide any facility at all—this is not a catch question but a serious one because I would like to know their attitude—what should be done then? I know it is a difficult question.

The private sector must have the first opportunity.

Good, now we understand each other. We are agreed that the land must be acquired. We also agree that the private sector must have priority in acquiring that land from the Commission on either an ownership basis or on a lease basis. But let us assume that when the land is put out to tender no tenders are received, although the need still exists. Would that hon. member then argue that it is incumbent upon the commission to provide those facilities themselves?

Yes I think they should be encouraged to do so.

All right, we shall encourage them, but the commission might also in turn buy vacant land, erect a building on it and then lease it. In such a case they are not operating, but just providing the land and the building. I think that the hon. member will agree that this is also part of it. I am quite prepared to discuss, between now until the Committee Stage, an amendment to the clause with the hon. member, so that in the clause as such the principles which are accepted by all of us can be incorporated as far as possible into the relevant section of the Act. However, hon. members will understand that it is much easier to declare an intention than to frame a provision in order to accommodate sentiments which we all subscribe to.

We shall try.

We shall try, and if hon. members have ideas in this regard, I am quite prepared to listen to them.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before dealing with the provisions of the Bill, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my personal gratitude and appreciation to Dr. D. J. Coetsee, Deputy General Manager of the Railways, who retires from the employ of the Railways with effect from 1 May, for the faithful and meritorious service which he has rendered during a distinguished period of service of more than 45 years. As an executive officer of the Railways, the contribution of Dr. Coetsee to the development of our national transport organization in various spheres was extremely valuable and his name and person is held in high esteem in all sectors and to the furthest comers of the Railways organization. He also made it his task to promote the use of Afrikaans in the Railway service, an ideal which was crowned with so much success that he is known far beyond his sphere of activities. However, he was also just as enthusiastic about the logical and pure usage of both official languages, and today the Railway service can boast of being completely bilingual. The retirement of an official with the mature experience and ability of Dr. Coetsee is indeed a great loss to the Railways, and I wish to express the hope that he will employ his remaining years productively in the other directions in which he is exceptionally qualified, to the benefit of our country and its people.

Similarly, Gen. J. J. Jansen van Vuuren, Commissioner of the S.A. Railways Police, is retiring on 1 June after a career of more than 39 years in the employ of the Railways. Hon. members will perhaps find it interesting if I just mention in passing that, for the first time since the establishment of the S.A. Railways Police Force, this force participated in the opening of Parliament this year. Railway policemen formed part of the forces lining Adderley Street, something which was to them the achievement of a long cherished ideal. During the period of service of Gen. Van Vuuren as Commissioner of the S.A. Railway Police he strove in particular for the proper schooling and training of the Railway police officer for his task. His success in this sphere is of exceptional importance in the times in which we are living, and not only redounds to the credit and benefit of the Force, but indeed comprises a great service to the country. In addition he played no mean part in the admission of women to the Force and the establishment of a Railway Police Reserve.

The administration is very grateful for the selfless service which these officials have rendered and we wish them a long and happy retirement.

The Railways and Harbours Act Amendment Bill is actually a dual-purpose measure.

In the first place it is deemed desirable for certain provisions in the existing Republic of South Africa Constitution Act which regulate Railway activities and are strictly speaking not of a constitutional nature to be included in the relevant existing Railways and Harbours legislation. At the same time certain consequential amendments arising from these provisions are being effected in related legislation, and obsolete provisions and terminology is where necessary being amended to comply with modern requirements.

In the second place this Bill seeks to effect certain other amendments in existing Railways and Harbours legislation pertaining to the day-to-day activities of the department.

Clauses 1 to 5, 10 and 11, 13 and 14, 15(b) and (c), 17, 18, 20 to 23, 25 and 27(a) of the Bill deal with the sections which are being eliminated from the Constitution Act and transferred with suitable amendments to existing Railways legislation. The amendments in clauses 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15(b) and (c), 17, 18, 20 and 27, however, are merely of a consequential nature.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, section 103(1) of the Constitution Act provides that the railways and harbours of the Republic shall be administered on business principles, with due regard to the development of agriculture and industry in the Republic, and the promotion, by means of cheap transport, of the establishment of an agricultural and industrial population in the inland portions of all the provinces. Now, it is true that with Union there were very few developed areas in South Africa. The only really appreciable development was that in the coastal cities, and on the Witwatersrand. Consequently it was necessary to develop the inland portions further, particularly as far as industries and agriculture was concerned. Hence, too, the instruction to the Railways in the Constitution Act itself to operate on business principles, with due regard to the development of agriculture and industries in the inland portions of the country.

To carry out the abovementioned instruction the Railways established a differentiated rate structure—high rates for goods of higher value and low rates for goods of lower value. High rates were made applicable to manufactured goods, and low rates to minerals and agricultural produce. It is interesting to note that the rate structure and the philosophy of the Railways was related to and synchronized with the economic development and changes which took place in the country.

Because almost no high-value goods were manufactured in South Africa itself at the time, and most of these goods were imported, the high rates on imported goods and the low rates on minerals supplemented and encouraged industrial development. In this connection the Railways really carried out its instructions effectively, in the sense that it was one of the first instruments which, through the employment of rates, succeeded in stimulating and encouraging industrial development in the country. Consequently the Railways was in fact the first to initiate the concept that we should manufacture and use South African goods.

This industrial development took place at the largest markets in the interior in particular. To accelerate this process special low rates for South African products were introduced in the distant past, rates which were far lower than those on similar imported goods. In addition distribution rates were introduced to promote development in certain regions of the country.

The low rates on agricultural produce encouraged the development of agriculture even in areas far removed from the central markets. The low rates enabled many producers to convey their produce from remote areas to the markets at low cost. This incentive measure and the general economic development in our country resulted in agriculture and mining in the inland portions of the country increasing in magnitude. To a great extent the statutory instruction in question was carried out. However, because the need for them disappeared, the special incentive rates such as the South African produce rate and the distribution rate were abolished in the ’fifties already as a result of the Newton report.

As far as the Constitution Act is concerned, a gradual shift in emphasis occurred with the result that the Schumann Committee subsequently found that the business principles which had to be applied were in fact paramount. Moreover, the need emerged for other areas, such as those along coast, to be developed as well, something which strictly speaking is in conflict with the existing provisions of the Constitution Act. Of course there are other sectors as well, such as mining and commerce, which are not referred to in the development instruction of the Constitution Act. The proposed amendment consequently embraces the total transport requirements of all the economic sectors of this country.

Section 106 of the Constitution Act provides that if the Railways is expected to offer services which are not in accordance with business principles, any such losses which may arise shall be made good to the Railways. Hon. members are aware that in respect of the conveyance of passengers at rates which are lower than the recovered costs, the principle has already been accepted that such losses will be made good to the Railways.

In view of this and mindful of the fact that the Railways is to an increasing extent being expected to act as a business enterprise, and in view of the fact that the Railways has already carried out the development instruction in respect of the specified sectors of the national economy, and has for years now been concentrating on the interests of all sectors of our national economy, it is being deemed necessary now for the aforesaid instruction to be spelled out in more general terms to include the other sectors, without excluding the existing sectors. The contemplated amendment makes provision for this and for the insertion of the said provision as section 1A in the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act 1957, while clause 25 seeks to insert section 106 of the Constitution Act as section 2D of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977.

I now wish to deal with clause 5. The provisions of section 105 of the Constitution Act in connection with the construction of railways, harbours and harbour works is being inserted as a new section 3A in the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, in the chapter dealing with the general powers of the Administration. However, it is also being provided in the contemplated new section 3A(3) that when the construction of a railway line is in conflict with the advice of the Railways and Harbours Board and the board is of the opinion that the operating revenue from the line will be inadequate to defray the working and capital costs, not only the initial estimated operating loss but in fact the actual loss suffered from year to year shall be recovered from the State.

Clauses 6 and 7 deal with packaging certificates on packs, packaging and containers. In the past it was the policy of the Administration to consider certain goods to be high-rated traffic and to classify these as Railway high-risk traffic, while other goods such as station-to-station traffic was considered to be low-rated traffic, but could also be conveyed at Railway risk if a surcharge was paid on the railage.

During the late ’fifties and early ’sixties organized commerce and industry objected to this arrangement, as a result of which it was decided to draw up a packaging code and to link this to the high-risk conditions of conveyance. Goods packed according to the packaging code would in future be conveyed at Railway risk. To be able to identify the packaging which complied with the prescribed requirements a certificate was designed which could be affixed to such approved packagings by the manufacturers of packaging material.

However, the packaging certificate was never official registered or legalized, and consequently the Administration is not able to exercise any control over the use of the certificate or take legal steps to prevent its being misused. Numerous cases occurred where the manufacturers of packaging affixed this certificate to packs which did not comply with the requirements of the Administration. Written requests addressed to manufacturers to cancel certificates or to remove those affixed to packs which do not comply with the requirements are being disregarded and ignored.

The object of the proposed statutory amendments is to restrict the misuse of the Administration’s certificate of compliance.

The proposed amendments in clauses 8 and 9 arise from the amendment of the Police Act, 1958, by the Police Amendment Act, 1979. I should like to draw hon. members’ attention specifically to the proposed section 57A(6) of the Control and Management Act, which entails that in case of certain emergencies the Railway Police may be placed under the control of the State President and other authorities, which may include the Defence Force.

With a view to uniformity it is intended to bring sections 57A and 57C of the Consolidation Act in regard to the activities of the Railway Police Force into line with sections 6, 7 and 34A of the Police Act, 1958.

Clause 12: A departmental committee which was appointed to inquiry into the disciplinary system of the Railways recommended, inter alia, in its report that a servant should be paid for a period of suspension if he is found not guilty of the charge for which he was arraigned or if it is decided not to charge him. This recommendation is acceptable to the staff associations of the Railways and was approved by me. I decided, and I hope the House agrees with me, to make this concession applicable with effect from 15 February 1980. In order to implement this decision, it is necessary to amend section 19(3)(c)(ii) of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1960, as I have proposed in this Bill.

†I now refer to clause 13. This clause provides for the repeal of sections 99, 102, 103, 104, 104A, 105 and 106 of the Constitution Act, the relevant provisions of which are now to be incorporated with the necessary amendments in extant Railway enactments, as I have already indicated.

The purpose of clause 14 is to incorporate section 102 of the Constitution Act, which provides, inter alia, for the appointment, terms of office and salaries of members of the Railways and Harbours Board, in the Railway Board Act, 1962. At the same time provision is being made for the salaries of Railway Commissioners to be determined henceforth by the State President and not by Parliament, in order to obviate practical difficulties in connection with the adjustment of their salaries when general salary increases are granted to Railway servants, especially when Parliament is not in session.

Clauses 15(a) and (d), 16, 19, 24, 27(b), and 28 to 30 pertain to the appropriation of funds for the Administration’s capital programme. The capital programme of the Administration increased dramatically over the last number of years. In 1965 the total of this programme stood at some R200 million only whilst the figure for 1980-’81, which has been approved by the House and provided for in the budget this year, is R1 600 million. To assist the Administration and the Treasury in arranging the necessary funding of the capital programme, an amendment to section 16 of Act 48 of 1977 was introduced allowing the Administration to operate in its own name in the capital markets as from 1973. To date operations were, however, restricted to the foreign capital markets only. As the value of the assets is increased by the net investment portion of the capital programme, the total asset values also increased considerably and stood at the value of approximately R10 000 million at 31 March 1979.

On account of the magnitude of the Administration’s assets, the accrued depreciation as reflected in the Renewals Fund also increased considerably and already stood at some R1 700 million at 31 March 1979. As it is not the policy to redeem the loans received from the Treasury, the balance of the Renewals Fund reflects the amount of the original financing recovered by means of depreciation and which is available in cash or investments. To enable the Administration also to make use of these funds approval was obtained in terms of resolution No. 3 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts, 1977, to utilize them for the financing of the capital programme. Up to the end of the current financial year, appropriations were also made out of revenue towards two funds, namely the Betterment Fund and the Sinking Fund, the moneys of which were used to either redeem loans by means of the redemption portion of the Sinking Fund or to finance new investments by means of the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund and the Betterment Fund. As the moneys of these two Funds are basically utilized for the same purposes and are obtained from the same source, i.e. appropriation from revenue, it was decided to consolidate them into a single revenue reserve, the moneys of which will be used to finance the capital programme.

The changes in the arrangement with regard to funding of the capital programme, as explained, necessitate restructuring of the capital budget. It has also become unfeasible to couple specific investments in assets with specific sources of finance, as was previously the case. To illustrate this point let me explain that it was the practice in the past to earmark loan funds and the funds of the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund for the financing of additional assets whilst improvements to existing assets—which in fact also increased the total asset value—were financed from the Betterment Fund only. To facilitate the financing and handling of the capital budget, it was decided to introduce an integrated capital budget of which the most important characteristic is that the type of asset is no longer linked with any particular source of finance, an arrangement which is, I believe, a logical approach if cognizance is taken of the fact that all funds required for the capital programme are deposited into the same bank account out of which all payments in respect of the capital programme are made.

Section 5 of the Public Debt Commissioners Act, 1969, has reference to the investment of the fund balances of the Railways. To remove any possible doubt which may exist in the interpretation of the provisions of this Act, read in conjunction with the corresponding provisions in the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977, it has been decided, after consultation with the Treasury, to amend the definition “deposits” in section 1 of Act 2 of 1969.

The adoption of the integrated capital budget system, together with the concomitant latitude for utilizing the funds at its disposal, requires certain changes in terminology by the Railway Administration in its Finances and Accounts Act, 1977, and the relevant provisions in this and certain other enactments are being amended accordingly. As section 4 of the Railway Board Act, 1962, and section 27 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, are directly connected with the Finances and Accounts Act, 1977, it is necessary that the terminologies thereof be amended accordingly.

Clauses 21 and 22 provide for the incorporation of the provisions of sections 99 and 104 of the Constitution Act, with appropriate amendments, in the Finances and Accounts Act, 1977.

In so far as clause 23 is concerned, the changes provided for are to give effect to the consolidation of the Betterment Fund and the Sinking Fund into the Revenue Reserve. Moneys for the Revenue Reserve will be appropriated from revenue and will be used for the financing of the capital programme.

Clause 26 is the last to be elucidated. In terms of section 3(2) of Act 48 of 1977, amounts which had in the first instance been advanced from revenue for services for which the Railway Administration is responsible and for which amounts had been voted by Parliament, must be accounted for and repaid to revenue before the close of the financial year concerned. As all moneys received, including loans, are deposited into the Railway and Harbour Fund, and all payments, including payments in respect of the capital programme, are made out of this Fund, it is not possible at any given point in time to distinguish between revenue and capital funds. It is consequently not possible from a practical and accounting point of view to give effect to the present stipulation of the section, and the amendment proposed has, therefore, become necessary.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset and before discussing the Bill before the House, I would like to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Minister directed to the retiring Deputy General Manager and the retiring Commissioner of the Railway Police. Personally I have known Dr. Coetsee for as long as I have been associated with Railway matters and have found him to be of the highest grade of public servant. There are very few people who can look back with pride on the sort of outstanding record that Dr. Coetsee has got. He has had 45 years in the service, not 45 mediocre years, but 45 years during which he gave of the highest quality service to South Africa and to the Railways. I know Gen. Janse van Vuuren less well, but his reputation is well known to me. He too has, over a period of 39 years, given immense service to the Railway Police. I can only join the hon. the Minister in wishing both of them a very prosperous and happy retirement. It is not often that one sees such selfless devotion to service from people in the employ of the State or anywhere else.

As the hon. the Minister has said, many of the clauses of the Bill before us are devoted to the technicalities in removing Railway matters from the Constitution Act, 1961 to the relevant Railway legislation.

I was interested in the discourse of the hon. the Minister on the use of the tariff structure towards the development of South Africa. In years gone by, this was of course of great importance. The encouragement of local industries and the encouragement for outlying areas of the country as far as agriculture is concerned has contributed a great deal towards the development of our country, but as the hon. the Minister quite rightly said, much of the country has now been developed and we are almost in a different situation. Perhaps by removing the relevant provisions from the Constitution Act and including them under the Railways legislation, we are actually underlining the fact that the Railways should be run as a commercial operation, and that much of the task that it set out to fulfil in its early years, which was to develop the country, has now in a measure been completed. It is now more incumbent than it probably was in the past that it should be seen as a commercial operation operating on a commercial basis.

The principle that the Railways should be indemnified by the Treasury for the rendering of socio-economic services in running services which they would probably not have considered in the normal course of events because they could not really be seen as a commercial proposition is also underlined by separating this from the Constitution Act. Certainly, this has the approval of the hon. members in these benches. We have over the period of time I have been in Parliament pleaded that as far as possible the Railways should not be made responsible for services which are really the responsibility of the central Government because they are in pursuance of the policy of the central Government. For instance, we talked about the uneconomic passenger services. I think we have to realize that in any of the passenger services provided by the Railways might not have had to be provided if Government policy had been different. It is however not my intention to go further into that at this stage.

That is not true.

The hon. member says it is not true. I do not know what he means by that. It is so patently obvious that it is true that I do not think he is aware of what he is saying.

There is one small point I should like to raise at this stage. In this regard I need the attention of the hon. the Minister. I should like him to look at the wording of the proposed section lA(2)(a) in clause 3 on page 5 of the Bill and compare it with the wording in the Afrikaans text. The Afrikaans reads—

The English text reads “so far as may be”. That is a lovely phrase. It could mean a multitude of things. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether perhaps a word has not been left out and it should for instance read “so far as may be possible” or something of that nature. I really cannot believe that in a Bill of this nature phraseology like that would be allowed at all. I am sure it must be a misprint of some kind. Words must have been left out.

“So far as perhaps.”

The hon. member for Umhlanga suggests an improvement might be “so far as perhaps”. That is equally ridiculous, if I may say so.

We have no objection to clauses 6 and 7 on packaging certificates. They have our total support. When it comes to clauses 8 and 9, which brings the Railway Police provisions in line with the Police Act, we have a reservation. The hon. the Minister may remember that in the debate on an amendment to the Police Act last year we objected to the fact that the Police as such could be placed in a situation where they would come under the command of the military—obviously through the State President. We felt it was the function of the Police to keep law and order within the country or close to the country’s borders—we accepted the possibility that it might be necessary on occasion to cross the country’s borders. We felt that the Police should be seen as the internal arm of law and order. Even more so it is our belief that the Railway Police should be seen as the men responsible for a particular job, which is that of looking after police affairs to do with the Railways Administration. Situations of emergency may of course arise, when all sorts of things have to be done. However, we believe the hon. the Minister should come back to Parliament if he wants to use the Railway Police for something of that nature. Their powers are fairly broadly defined at the moment.

But that might be very impractical.

The hon. the Minister says it may be impractical. We believe that Parliament must have a say in these things. I know that in this regard there is a difference between this side of the House and that side of the House in that on occasions the Government has done things which we believe we should have been consulted on but on which we were in fact not consulted. This is in line with much of what the Government has done in the past. It is giving the Government the legal right to act in this manner. We cannot go along with that and I shall accordingly be moving an amendment in the Committee Stage.

Clause 12 deals with the disciplinary code and the question whether or not public servants who have been suspended for a time should have their salaries withheld if they have been cleared. I approve entirely of this clause. It is a definite improvement and we shall support it.

Then we come to clause 14, which has to do with the Railways and Harbours Board and, inter alia, with the salaries of Railway Commissioners. We have always considered the Railway Commissioners to be almost the servants of Parliament looking at Railway affairs. As such, Parliament has in the past in terms of the Constitution Act determined the salaries of Railway Commissioners. In terms of the clause before us, the State President would determine Railway Commissioners’ salaries. I am afraid that we do not support this provision, because we believe that it should remain within the power of Parliament to decide on these salaries. I hope the hon.

the Minister agrees with me—I do not know if he does—that Railway Commissioners are in a sense the direct representatives of Parliament in the Railways Administration. It is their job to see that the policies set down by Parliament are carried through to the Railways Administration. Accordingly, in the Committee Stage we will move an amendment.

I am not going into any detail at this stage, because this Bill is primarily a Committee Stage Bill. I hope, therefore, the hon. the Minister does not expect me to go in depth into the various matters I am raising.

No, as long as you give me a few indications of what you wish to discuss during the Committee Stage.

Certainly. I will make sure that the hon. the Minister has my suggested amendments before him before the Committee Stage. At this stage I am just giving him an idea of what we agree with and what we do not agree with.

When it comes to the whole question of the capital programme, my contention, as the hon. the Minister well knows, has been for a long time that Railway finances are far too complicated. They have been unbelievably complicated, and some of the measures in this Bill are obviously aimed at simplifying the whole capital structure of the Railways. It is moving into the field of an integrated capital structure. The intended combination of the Betterment Fund and the redemption portion of the Sinking Fund can only be to advantage. It is quite ridiculous that we should have had the situation where these Funds were separated. It places an unnecessary onus on the whole Administration to have to separate these into the various Funds, when all that is involved in so doing is expense. It is far more convenient to have the capital structure of the Railways simplified, and this is something which has our support. The greater flexibility given in this Bill to the use of the Railway capital also has our support. We do not believe that this detracts in any way from the powers of Parliament. Any modern and efficient business undertaking has to be in a situation where there is a considerable degree of flexibility. There are such fluctuations in the capital market, both in South Africa and overseas, at the moment that we believe that the Railways Administration should be in a position to take advantage of that. In terms of existing legislation they cannot, but in terms of this provision they certainly can.

I think this is all that I want to deal with at the Second Reading. There are no major matters of principle involved and it is therefore our intention to support the Bill at Second Reading. I must say that my heart sank when I first saw the Bill. It was only after I started going into it in detail that I realized that the vast majority of the clauses had to do with the constitutional turn-around. So we will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure and a privilege to make my contribution to the debate after the hon. member for Orange Grove has spoken, since he said that there was not much in the Bill with which his side of the House did not agree. I want to thank the hon. member for the fact that his party does not object to the principle of the Bill.

I should like to associate myself with the friendly words which the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. the Minister addressed to the outgoing officials, Dr. Coetsee and Gen. Van Vuuren. Since the ’forties, as a young man on the Rand, it has been my privilege to get to know both personally and still today to have them as personal friends and acquaintances. It has really been an inspiration for me to be able to co-operate with these two gentlemen in various spheres because they have always inspired confidence.

Taking into account the streamlining which was the aim behind this legislation, and the endeavour to rationalize and simplify Railway legislation and the control and management of the organization with a view to greater efficiency, it is with some sadness that one thinks back to the old days. The fine, modern trains conveying coal to Richards Bay and ore from Sishen to Saldanha, with their uniformly painted trucks and non-soot producing locomotives, are really symbolic of the change that has occurred. This is particularly significant when we recall the days when the first railway line was opened on 26 July 1860 at the Point in Durban, and the one from Cape Town to Eerste River. The opening of these railway lines was followed by the opening of the railway line between Delagoa Bay and the South African Republic and the one from Walvis Bay to Swakops River on 1 August 1915. Those were the days when some of our Black people stood at ordinary crossings and farm gates with hollowed out calabashes and half a dozen eggs, packed in mealie meal or grass, and a bundle of sheepskins on their heads. The donkey cart, containing a tin of cream or milk, usually stood to one side. This same streamlined railway system of today began in that way to serve the economy. A tickey’s sugar was bargained away for the six eggs and a piece of material, for example a dish cloth, was exchanged for the sheepskins. That is how we started in this country, and it is therefore with great pride and appreciation that we want to convey our thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Administration, because they have once again given evidence of the skills, the insight and the will to make an organization like the S.A. Railways serve our development in the national sense of the word. What I find particularly impressive is the approach, also reflected in this legislation, of looking at the concept of transport in South Africa as a whole. As I know this hon. Minister, we can expect interesting announcements within the foreseeable future and we shall be seeing developments relating to the development of this concept, namely that one will have to see the organization with its various facets in its entirety. Then one will be able to control the organization more efficiently and approach the question of tariffs more scientifically.

It is a great pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I just want to make a few remarks relating to the financial arrangements incorporated in this legislation, as seen against the background of the existing Act. They involve, to begin with, the deletion from the Constitution of the provision relating to principles, as the hon. the Minister indicated, which affects the management and operation of the various transport and related undertakings of the Railway Administration, and the insertion of the provisions in question, in some cases in abbreviated but also improved form, in the more relevant Railways and Harbours Act. This is to be welcomed.

I should also like to speak about clause 3, which introduces a new section 1A(1) after section 1 of the Control and Management Act of 1957, and which provides that—

Section 103 of the Constitution, which is to be replaced by the above-mentioned legislation, reads as follows—

Here we have an element of this, as I indicated at the outset, namely that originally, the whole Railways set-up was somewhat more provincial than is the case today, when it is far more nationally orientated.

In effect, the proposed section provides that the same factors be taken into account, but it is taken further, to include the interests of the total economy and the total transport requirements of the Republic. As an example of this, we need only consider the large-scale exporting of coal and other raw materials through the Richards Bay harbour and the transportation and exporting of iron ore and other mineral wealth from the North-Western Cape. In both cases the transportation and exporting is in the economic interests of the Republic and not in the interests of specific provinces or separate geographic regions. Therefore the cost of exporting and ore transport costs are levied by way of tariffs which make it possible to maintain export prices at a competitive level on the world market. The point of departure is still one of service to the nation in the interests of the country as a whole.

However, the total implementation of the terms of reference contained in section 1(a)(1) of the principal Act is still, as in the past, subject to the judgment of the Railway and Harbour Board. If the latter board does not recommend that a railway line, a new harbour or additional facilities be constructed at a harbour, or that a service be rendered at a loss, but is obliged by a directive from the State President in Council or by an Act of Parliament to provide the facilities, it is still entitled by law, in terms of clauses 5 and 25 of the Bill to recover from the State Revenue Fund the audited losses suffered on such a service. This right of recovery has existed since 1910 and was contained in sections 105 and 106 of the Constitution. The same provisions are now incorporated in the Bill under discussion, viz. in clauses 5 and 25 thereof.

In this regard it is of importance to draw attention to the fact that the principle of the right of recovery from a body which calls for facilities or services is not limited to the central Government alone. The principle has been applied in several cases since 1910, on the advice of the Railway Board, that a new railway line only be built, or services only provided, if the applicants, who in most cases are from the mining industry, provide a guarantee and make up the losses on the railway line or harbour or services for a specific number of years; viz. until the undertaking becomes profitable.

As is evident from clause 5 of the Bill, the control of Parliament over the building of railway lines and harbours and new works at harbours is retained in full, thus perpetuating the position that has obtained since 1910. The principle that the Railways and Harbours Board must consider a proposal to tackle a construction work and publish a report on it in which it recommends that the work must be carried out, is still fully recognized in the Bill under discussion as has been the case over the past 70 years. The basis on which revenue is to be obtained—a basis previously contained in section 103(2) of the principal Act—is now contained in clause 3 of the Bill, in terms of which a new envisaged section 1A is inserted after section 1 of the Control and Management Act. The envisaged new section 1A(2)(a) reads as follows—

These are therefore fixed expenses, viz. interest, depreciation, contributions for higher replacement costs, etc. They also include contributions to the revenue reserve which is being introduced in terms of clause 23 of the Bill. The latter reserve, viz. the revenue reserve, has an interesting history.

As the hon. the Minister indicated, it arose out of recommendations made over a number of years by the Select Committee on Railway Accounts. In the original provisions in the South Africa Act relating to the basis for the determining of earnings and the outlays that could be met therefrom, apart from provision for operating costs, interest and depreciation, provision is also made for an item termed “Betterment”. The Betterment Fund arose from these provisions, and its principles and method of operation has always been subject to parliamentary control through the Select Committee. The Fund obtained its moneys from amounts voted by Parliament from earnings on the basis of the estimated needs for the year in question. The money in the Fund was utilized by vote of Parliament, firstly, for the provision of additional assets with a limited value and, secondly, for the improvements of existing assets, in particular ground works and concrete works, etc. For the most part the latter improvements involved maintenance.

Up to and including the insertion of section 104A in the Constitution in 1966, the purchase of additional assets of a limited value from the Betterment Fund was the only way in which earnings could be utilized for the provision of capital assets. Section 104A of the Constitution, a section passed in 1966, provides for the appropriation by Parliament of amounts from earnings to a Reserve account which could be utilized for purposes as provided by the Railways Board and approved by Parliament. Over a number of years moneys derived from earnings have been appropriated by Parliament for this account and the moneys have been utilized by Parliamentary appropriation for capital programmes. By virtue of the fact that there were two appropriations from earnings that could be utilized for the capital programme, which created an undesirable situation, in its first report of 1980 the Select Committee recommended that in the first place the Betterment Fund be done away with and that the two expenditure groups respectively be rearranged as expenditure on the capital programme and maintenance expenditure. In the second place, the committee recommended that the Reserve Account, from which moneys could not be utilized without further appropriation, should be done away with. Thirdly, it was recommended that a revenue reserve be created which could be utilized directly without further appropriation in terms of the proposed section 2B of the Finances and Accounts Act, for the capital programme alone. The way in which the amount is transferred annually from revenue to the Revenue Reserve is therefore fully subject to Parliamentary control.

The continued existence of the Railway and Harbour Fund and of the principle that moneys may not be withdrawn therefrom except by Parliamentary appropriation is ensured by section 2(1) in Chapter 1 of the Finances and Accounts Act. The position which has obtained since 1910 is therefore unchanged. In the same sense, section 2A of the Finances and Accounts Act also safeguards the old concept of the Rates Equalization Fund.

In conclusion, there is a suggestion which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Over the past number of years the administration has been given greater mobility and freedom in entering the capital market for the acquisition of loan capital. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister for his consideration—I hope and trust that the Select Committee will give more attention to this in future—that for the sake of sound business management the Railways should be modernized not only with regard to the acquisition of loan capital but also with regard to the expenditure of capital over shorter bridging terms. It has occurred—and we know this from experience—that the Public Debt Commissioners have often had difficulty, as regards all the available capital in …

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the Bill before the House I, like my colleagues in the House, should also like to extend to Dr. Coetsee and Gen. Van Vuuren our very best wishes on their reaching their retirement after some 45 years, as has been said, in the case of Dr. Coetsee, and 39 years in the case of Gen. Van Vuuren in the service of the S.A. Railways Police. It is not often that one hears of people going into retirement with this length of service and, as has already been said, this is indicative of their loyalty to the service. The fact too that they reached such high positions in the Railways Administration does give some indication of their value and worth not only to the Railways but to the State as a whole. However, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that whenever I hear of men or women who retire after so many years in the service of their employers, I always feel that it is a great pity, when one considers their experience and all the knowledge which they have of that particular business or institution, that their retirement often means that this information and experience goes with them. Therefore I should like to make the suggestion to the hon. the Minister that possibly he could talk to these two men and perhaps by assisting them in some small way—by giving them some sort of secretarial assistance—he might be able to persuade them to write their memoirs. I say this because I am quite sure that the memoirs of a Commissioner of the S.A. Railways Police after 39 years’ service could be a great inspiration and stimulation to younger recruits joining the Force. I think the same applies to Dr. Coetsee. It is just a thought. I know the hon. the Minister remembers my former leader in Natal, Mr. Douglas Mitchell. Recently a book on his experiences has been published. I know that this is an inspiration to a lot of South Africans.

I have a standpoint. I am not going to write my memoirs. Things are changing too quickly.

Anyway, I hope the hon. the Minister and these two gentlemen who are retiring will consider what I have said because with them is going a wealth of experience in the history of the S.A. Railways.

In studying this Bill I feel that clause 13 is possibly the most significant clause in the Bill because it is this clause which removes from the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1961 sections of Part III which refer to the S.A. Railways. As the hon. the Minister has said, there are a number of provisions that are now being repealed. I believe that this action on the part of the hon. the Minister has some historical significance because we are altering the South African Constitution here today. I wonder how many hon. members have really stopped to think about this Bill in this context—that we are going to remove from the Constitution all references to the S.A. Railways. To me it would appear that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet are possibly preparing the way for even more significant changes to the Constitution.

You have a sinister mind.

The hon. the Minister says I have a sinister mind. Not really, because I hope that this is the start of changes to the Constitution which are going to open the way for a new political dispensation in South Africa which will bring all of us together to build a greater South Africa. I only hope that the choice of the number of the clause—clause 13 in this particular case— deleting references to the Railways from the Constitution, does not bode ill for any future constitutional changes. I am quite sure that if any future changes are debated and carried out in the spirit in which we are changing the Constitution in respect of the Railways today, South Africa is in for a very happy, prosperous and peaceful future.

This change to the Constitution will now require that numerous amendments will have to be made to other existing legislation which affects the Railways, as the hon. the Minister has said. For the most part, this Bill is devoted to altering existing legislation in order to accommodate the sections which presently exist in the Constitution Act. I do not intend to deal with each clause one by one because the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Orange Grove have already done so, but I would like to refer to just two or three clauses.

In the first place, I want to refer to clause 3 which provides that the South African Railways shall be required to be administered along business lines or principles, and to the proviso in the Constitution Act that this be done with due regard to agricultural and industrial development within the Republic. In the proposed new section we find that this has been broadened, as the hon. the Minister has said. The proposed new section 1A(1) contains the words—

I think that this broadening of the scope of this provision which, after all, governs the activities of the Railways, is most acceptable and desirable today. The hon. the Minister has elaborated on the reasons for this but I think that in these changing economic times and with the development that is taking place in South Africa, the role of the S.A. Railways is changing. Therefore this amendment is required and we will support it.

In clause 5 we find provisions regarding the construction of new railways and harbour works and so on. In the proposed new section 3A(3) there is the provision whereby Parliament shall meet any shortfall in revenue resulting from services or railways which have been provided or constructed without the agreement or approval of the Railway Board but which have been provided or constructed at the request of Parliament. As the hon. the Minister has already stated, this is strengthened by clause 25 which makes provision for the subsidization of these services. I think clauses 3 and 15 have cleared up a matter which has often been debated in the House. I recall that the hon. member for Durban Point when he was chairman of the transport group of my previous party—the United Party—over the years repeatedly asked that the necessary legislation be passed which would enable the Railways not to have to carry this heavy burden of providing socio-economic services which they have had to do in the past. I believe that this provision is very positive. It is unequivocal and it is very clear now what the intentions are. We in these benches look upon this provision as being something we have often asked for and we would like to thank the hon. the Minister for finally making it so clear.

I do not intend to go any further in regard to the provisions which, as I have said, are included in the Constitution Act at present, but I would like to refer briefly to clauses 6 and 7, which concern the Railways packaging certificates which are issued to the manufacturers of packaging material used to package goods transported by the Railways.

In this provision now we find that if these people do not maintain the standards which are laid down by the Railways, they run the risk of having their certificates withdrawn. I think this is a very, very good provision because packaging is a very important aspect of transportation. I would, however, like to just suggest to the hon. the Minister that packaging is only one side of the coin. The other side is the handling of the goods. One can pack an article in the best packaging material, but if the person who is moving that package around tends to overabuse the package, damage could still be done. I feel there is a need on the part of the Railways to exercise reasonable care in the handling of goods. I speak with a little bit of feeling on this because when we, who come from Natal, return there at the end of the session with the assistance of the Railways, we like to take back some of the good wines from the Cape. But recently my heart bled when I received a nice case of Constantia Cabernet which had been dropped during transit. One of the bottles was broken.

Only one?

Fortunately it was only one, but it happened despite the fact that it had been very well packed. I hope the hon. the Minister and the officials of the Railways will take note of what I have said in this regard so that I will not suffer a loss when I return home this year.

Clauses 8 and 9 deals with the Railway Police and the Police Reserves and has already been dealt with by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Orange Grove. The provisions of these clauses bring the Railway Police into line with the S.A. Police, and we go along with this. There is a provision which requires members of the Railway Police Reserve to keep the Railway Police informed of their change of address. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that in a short, precise memorandum the obligations which Railway Police reservists now have to comply with, should be made extremely clear to them. Often we pass laws and we expect that those who are affected by them will automatically become aware of them. I think a very nice note from the Commissioner of Police advising the reservists that they are now obliged to meet these requirement, would be good exercise in public relations on the part of the hon. the Minister.

Finally, there is clause 12, which seeks to amend section 19 of the Service Act in so far as servants of the Railways who have been acquitted by a court of law are concerned. I am very pleased to see the removal of the discretion of a superior officer to decide to what extent the penalties should be removed. I think this makes it a lot clearer. I do not think that we like to hand out discretionary powers if we can help it, and therefore I think that this provision is a great improvement, and we are very pleased to see that this has now been included in the Bill. Of course we also find that this has the approval of the Railways staff associations, and we are pleased to see this.

Much has been said about the Reserve Fund, which now combines the Sinking Fund and the Betterment Fund. I think this is also an improvement. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that capital has been, as he knows, a great interest of mine in the debates on the Railway budgets.

I have observed some of your comments during the budget debate.

I think these provisions in the Bill are an improvement.

With these words I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we will be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively comprehensive Bill and it affects a number of principles which have applied to the Railways up to now. I shall so far as to say that the legislation will probably create an entirely new philosophy as regards the operation of the Railways. It is probably impossible to discuss and elucidate the majority of the principles in a limited space of time. In any event, this has already been done at this stage. I therefore want to confine myself today to a few of these principles, in particular those which will result in the prescriptive sections being removed from the existing constitution and adapted in this umbrella legislation.

The whole method of operation of the Railways has up to now been regulated in terms of the provisions of section 103(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which I want to quote briefly. It reads as follows—

In the budget debate of 1978 I attempted to analyse this situation in an effort to determine, on the basis of four aspects, to what extent this was true of the railways. In the first instance, I asked what the terms of reference of the Railways were in terms of the Constitution. I think that by quoting the article in question I have indicated what the terms of reference in fact were. In the second place, I want to know whether the Railways carried out those terms of reference. In the third place, I wanted to try to determine whether those terms of reference were still valid at that stage.

The Railways could never get away from the terms of reference laid down for it by the Constitution as I quoted them here, even if the prevailing conditions were entirely different to those originally foreseen when the Constitution was drawn up. At that time South Africa was primarily an agricultural country. There was no question of export. Accordingly, at that stage we were for the most part import-orientated. True to its terms of reference, the Railways has played an exceptional role in the economic development of South Africa. It succeeded in doing so because to a large extent it served the secondary aim of the Act by means of its tariff policy. In the course of this process implemented by the Railways, South Africa developed into a industrial country, in contrast to the historical situation.

The secondary purpose of the Act, viz. to develop agriculture and industry by means of cheap transport and to establish the agricultural and industrial population in the interior, has in my opinion been achieved at this stage. The primary aim of the terms of reference was, however, that the Railways should be administered on business principles.

Since the first part of the terms of reference, viz. the section relating to development, has now in essence been put into effect, conflicting elements are occurring in the process of complying effectively with the other part, viz. the business-oriented part. I recall that at the time I came to the conclusion, and advocated, that very serious consideration should be given at Government level to the terms of reference of the Railways. I think that this legislation gives effect to that idea not only because the sections in question are now being deleted from the Constitution, but also because further provision is being made in this Bill which will enable the Railways to operate on business principles to a greater extent. Here I refer in particular to one such provision, viz. that contained in clause 25, in terms of which services that must be operated on a non-profitmaking basis, must be paid for from the State Revenue Fund. To assess such a Railway operation, one need only look at the passenger transport service as it is operated today. There one finds a steadily growing imbalance between capital assets, viz. capital investment, by the Railways and the supply of passengers. The outcome of this imbalance is that the Railways find itself in a situation of having to provide these services on an uneconomic basis and to operate them at a vast loss. However, in terms of the Constitution, the Railways has an obligation, and that obligation has come into conflict with the directive that its operations must be administered on business principles. Therefore it was encouraging that already in this year’s budget, amounts were reflected which did not come from the State Revenue Fund as subsidies, but were in partial compensation for these uneconomic services. It is only logical that this should not be a non-recurring payment, but that this should occur to an increasing extent. To me it is only right that clause 5 of the Bill makes provision not only for the initially estimated operating loss, but also for a loss which may be suffered from year to year.

The terms of reference embodied in the Constitution further required of the Railways to bring about a distribution of industrial population in the inland areas. On the other hand, as a sound business principle, the Railways must attempt to bring about the distribution of its freight across its whole system. Particularly over the past few years with the coming of containerization, further imbalances have occurred in that imported goods have for the most part been channelled through the Durban harbour. This has occurred particularly as a result of the fact that it was more profitable to use that harbour, since the goods traffic at the Durban harbour was only really transferred to the City Deep container terminal on the Rand.

However, the Railways is now again in the position that tariffs, and block train tariffs in particular, can be manipulated to bring about the distribution of freight across its whole system. In the latest budget it was clear that Table Bay Harbour can now become a paying proposition again with regard to imports and exports so that a better distribution across the whole Railway network may be obtained.

That something dramatic will have to be done to bring a larger amount of traffic back to the Cape Town-Johannesburg railway line is probably not relevant at this point. However, new measures can now be adopted since section 103(1) of the Constitution which I quoted is now being rewritten in clause 3 of the amending Bill. I should like to quote it to give hon. members as an indication of how it, too, reflects a new spirit. It reads as follows—

This amended directive could certainly usher in a new and exciting era for the Railways. I therefore wish the hon. the Minister and his management every success with this new instrument we have put at their disposal to enable them to administer the national carrier of South Africa in the interests of our own prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support of the Bill. However, certain hon. members had reservations about certain provisions of the Bill, and these I shall deal with in due course. However, to begin with I want to refer to a subject which came up for discussion during the budget debate, viz. the development in the Railways with regard to the conveyance of passengers, particularly at greater speeds.

With reference to my statements in the course of the Railway Budget debate concerning high speeds and technically highly developed passenger services, I should now very much like to inform hon. members about tentative development programmes that are soon to be introduced. I want to deal with them in terms of the various phases of the development as we see them provisionally.

The first phase of this specific activity has now been completed and that, in fact, was the purpose of the study group to which I referred earlier. They ascertained what the limitations of our existing rolling stock and railway lines are. The investigation related to the wagons, vehicles, locomotives and the railway lines themselves. Their recommendations are being implemented in regard to certain trains, for example the Jacaranda Express, which is now no longer on the Natal line, but operates between Johannesburg and Cape Town. However, it is clear that the improvements we can effect with the existing equipment are limited. That is no surprise since our equipment was manufactured for specific purposes. It is our aim to continue with the second phase with as little delay as possible.

During the second phase the intention is to achieve a significantly high speed at the earliest possible date. It is envisaged to introduce two passenger trains drawn by locomotives. These trains will consist of rolling stock which will be of our existing design but which will be adapted to be capable of a speed of up to 150 km per hour. These pilot trains will be tested on the Pretoria-Johannesburg line in the course of 1982.

The envisaged train services will provide operating experience with rolling stock, power supply methods and signalling equipment at a reasonable cost. These test schemes will also meet an existing demand for shorter travelling times—that is in fact the essence of the matter—and to begin with will supplement the existing suburban express trains and eventually trains like the Jacaranda Express.

I now come to the third phase. When the 150 km per hour pilot trains have been technically successfully tested, the services will be gradually extended to full inter-city services from Johannesburg to places like Durban, Pietersburg, Klerksdorp etc. These inter-city services can be operated with adapted rolling stock of the existing design, but drastic modifications will have to be effected to the railway line and related equipment. The sequence and timing of these services will of course depend on certain factors. The first is the passenger demand, the availability of capital, and of course, labour.

Phase four involves a demand for high-speed inter-city trains of international standard which will quite probably be introduced if the 150 km per hour service is accepted and is economically viable. It is therefore the intention to lay down system criteria for air conditioned rolling stock with a maximum speed of approximately 200 km per hour, by 1982. Where practicable, the requirements for the high-speed equipment will be incorporated in all new rolling stock, although initially these vehicles will not be operated at the high speed. In conclusion, I just want to say that the cost of this programme is difficult to estimate, but the estimated cost of phase two is approximately R5 million, R450 000 of which may be financed from the 1980–’81 item for experimental work. The balance can be included in the capital budget for the financial year 1981–’82. I am pleased to give hon. members this information because I consider that it is important information which they, too, ought to have in the first instance.

Various hon. members have referred to the fact that the legislation we are at present considering spells at the end of a specific era in the history of the railways and ushers in a new era. It was in particular the hon. members for Tygervallei, Witwatersberg, Amanzimtoti and Orange Grove who pointed this out. It is true. It is perhaps just appropriate that we should understand that what this legislation really means is that the terms of reference of the railways, as contained in the old section 103, are being extended. In this way, one specific facet is being stressed. It is that the economic life, the economic development and growth of this country are largely reflected by the history and the development of the S.A. Railways. This emphasizes one important thing, and that is the cardinal role which the S.A. Railways has to play in the achievement of the national aims of the country. What we sometimes perhaps fail to bear in mind is that the Railways, as an operating organization which must be administered on business principles, is the only undertaking of its nature which derives its articles of association, if I may call it that, from the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Because this is the case, it is very clear to me, and presumably to hon. members as well, that the Railways can never detach itself from the circumstances of our own country, and that depending on the circumstances, it must always remain an instrument with which to serve the country. The fact is—and the hon. member also referred to this—that the railways’ terms of reference is now being broadened, in the sense that its secondary function, viz. to assist in the development of agriculture and industry, is being envolved into a total directive that it should take into consideration the country’s economic development as a whole. This fact stresses even more the importance of the Railways as an instrument for the strategic achievement of the national objectives. Hon. members have quite rightly said that what we are in fact doing in this regard is changing the constitution of the country. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti put it in those terms. He said that he hoped that this was the precursor to other amendments to the constitution. He also said that he hoped that those amendments would be effected in the same fine spirit as that in which these amendments are being accepted. He and his hon. colleagues will indeed be given the opportunity to give practical effect to these sentiments— those of consensus and co-operation—in the Constitutional Committee on which they serve. I promise that I shall give the necessary guidance in this regard as well, if he will only try to follow what I am trying to say.

The hon. member for Orange Grove quoted examples of the provisions relating to the task of the S.A. Railway Police. As regards the amendment of the legislation relating to the S.A. Police, I just wish to point out that they have only extended an existing power. The hon. member will recall that in this specific instance they are only extending the right of the S.A. Police to cross the country’s borders. Previously the distance was one kilometre. This has been extended to 10 km. In other words, this is not a new principle. It was only a practical measure in order to increase the efficiency of the S.A. Police.

Allow me just to dwell on this for a moment. I do not wish to waist the time of the House. The hon. member argues—and quite correctly—that the task of both the S.A. Police and the S.A. Railway Police basically involves the maintenance and preservation of internal order and justice. I think I understood the hon. member correctly.

†I have no argument with this particular point of view. The hon. member will, however, understand that the internal peace and security of our country is being threatened to a very large extent by sources beyond the boundaries of the country. Therefore, what the hon. member suggests is primarily the task of the S.A. Police and the S.A. Railway Police, a task which could best and most effectively be executed by preventing those sources which threaten the internal security and safety, peace and order, from entering the country.

*Accordingly I just wish to argue briefly with the hon. member and put it to him that what we have here is not a new concept with regard to the responsibility of the Police. However, it is my submission that it is to a large extent a primary requirement for the Police forces, the Security forces, to act beyond the national borders in order to ensure security and stability within the borders of the country.

†The hon. member also made another point in this particular regard. I should like to refer to that as well. According to the hon. member it is for Parliament to decide on certain actions. What he implied was, I presume, that when our forces—whether they be the Police Force or the Defence Force—should operate beyond our borders, Parliament should take that decision. I should not like to discuss the merits or demerits of his argument at this stage, because I submit that they are not relevant right now. If the hon. member should, however, refer to a particular clause of the Bill, I would appreciate it. The clause in question here is clause 8, which seeks to amend section 57A of the Control and Management Act I refer to the proposed new section 57A(6), which is the relevant provision in this instance, especially where it deals with the question of the State President placing the S.A. Police Force under the control or command of some other body. This is important. For the sake of the hon. member I quote—

In other words, we must already be in a state of war.

An emergency as well.

Yes. We must be in a state of war or other emergency before this measure can be applied; in other words, before the State President can in fact place the S.A. Railway Police under the orders or directions of a person on whom he might decide. There is thus a condition precedent to the performance of the particular act to which this subsection refers.

[Inaudible.]

The only point I am trying to make is that that state must already exist. That is the only point I am trying to make. Once that state does exist, it is not wrong for the State President to apply the powers that are being given to him in terms of this provision. However, I want to suggest that we discuss this more fully in the Committee Stage. I merely wanted to explain this point to the hon. member. It is not an arbitrary power that is being given to the State President at any particular point in time.

It is a question of the function of the Railways.

That is so.

*Gradually we are making progress and the hon. member is already helping me a great deal.

He also referred to the provisions contained in clauses 5 and 6. The hon. members for Witwatersberg and Tygervallei also referred to them. There is a second important principle which is very clearly being stressed in the Bill before us. When the Railways undertake specific tasks against the advice of the board, e.g. the building of railway lines, harbours or harbour works—this basically means one thing and one thing only and this is that it is not an economic undertaking—the State must accept responsibility for the specific service thus undertaken. I can imagine that such occasions will crop up in the future. However, I just want to explain that we are not dealing here with a clash between the Railways and Harbours Board and the Government, but with the fact that it is the task of the Railways and Harbours Board to assess the economic viability of an undertaking, while the State has other responsibilities and must do certain things to other than purely economic grounds, as is indeed reflected by the whole history of the S.A. Railways.

An hon. member also argued about the question of who should determine the salaries and conditions of service of the Railway Commissioners. He argued—I think it was the hon. member for Orange Grove—that the members of the board are in fact officials of Parliament who have to see to it that the decisions of Parliament are carried out by the S.A. Railways. I can understand this on the basis of his definition, but I do want to ask him to listen while I expound the situation logically. The fact is that the salaries of members of Parliament were formerly determined by this House itself. However, the House then decided that the remuneration and conditions of service of members will in future be determined by the State President. Now I find it strange, on logical grounds, that the remuneration of members of Parliament, who are in fact the principals of the Railway Commissioners, can be determined by the State President, while the salaries of their agents, their representatives, do not have to be determined in that way. I think that as a reasonable man he will concede that point.

The hon. member referred to the issue of the amendment providing that the salaries of officials who are suspended and are not prosecuted or declared innocent, be paid. I am pleased that hon. members support me in this particular regard. I therefore wish to suggest that we can discuss those things about which we differ during the Committee Stage. Basically they consist of these two aspects, the position of the S.A. Police and the question of the payment of the salaries of the Railway Commissioners.

To the hon. member for Witwatersberg I want to convey my sincere thanks for his contribution. They tell me it is always good for the future to take a walk down memory lane. There are so many things one can take from the past to good effect. The hon. member referred to what we have done at Richards Bay and Saldanha and we must understand clearly that in a period when this country was really struggling in the economic sphere, an amount of R1 600 million was spent here over a period of two years, or a little more, on the construction of two harbours and two railway lines. We must make no mistake. There has been a structural change in the country’s balance of payments. Whereas formerly our economic Achilles heel was the state of the current account of the balance of payments—over the years this account traditionally used to show a deficit— this year that position has changed totally. On the current account of our balance of payments, there is now a surplus. It is estimated this year that our balance of payments will show a surplus of R3 000 million this year. We must make no mistake about this. The ability of the S.A. Railways to transport our export products and to do so at competitive tariffs has contributed significantly to the structural change that has taken place in our balance of payments, but has also made a significant contribution to the economic growth of our country. I think this is important. I want to praise them for this. The hon. member also said that we should modernize a little as far as the expenditure of our fund is concerned. This includes the investment thereof. We shall consider that.

I think I have already replied to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

To the hon. member for Tygerberg I want to say that we share the standpoint and sentiment of the hon. member, namely that as far as the Railways are concerned, we should also achieve a geographic distribution in the loading of the Railways. This means the utilization of that capacity. On that basis we have reduced the tariffs on container traffic in unit trains for the Cape Town/Durban line, which is fully in accordance with my standpoint.

I think that in general I have thereby answered hon. members’ speeches.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

The proposed subsection (4)(a) will automatically be numbered paragraph 1. In terms of this provision the increased tariff of fees will be submitted to the Minister for approval. In order to eliminate any fear of the Minister filing the tariff of fees and forgetting about it, this amendment is now being proposed. This compels the Minister to inform the Registrar about his decision on the tariff of fees within three months from the time it is submitted to him. The prescribed period will enable the Minister to consult with any person he may deem suitable and to obtain information from him.

The amendment has been discussed with the Medical Association and copies have also been distributed in advance to the other parties concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask your indulgence this afternoon if I deal at some length with this clause because I think the history of the legislation we are discussing, and the next Bill on the Order Paper, warrants a certain amount of general discussion, some of which was dealt with in the Second Reading and which I shall attempt not to duplicate. I think we should look at the whole clause in the light of the fact that it really is the crunch, if one could term it that, of the Bill, especially when it is read in conjunction with clause 1 of the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me in passing to refer to the two in conjunction because, taken together, they clearly have a meaning that is far wider and far more important than when looked at on their own in isolation. I think one could in some regards almost call this the “Hydra” clause of the Bill before us, because it has many heads. I think if one chops off some of the heads, or one of the ugly heads, other heads will raise themselves.

The background to the clause is the fact that the hon. the Minister had the unfortunate experience of coming to Parliament, of being elected, at a time when there was considerable public controversy around the question of the fees and tariffs applicable to medical practitioners. At that time, the fact that doctors were wanting a 52% increase in their fees looked like a horrific increase, like something that would clearly act to the detriment of the general public and something on which every effort should be used to stamp it out and to reduce that increase to something which I think the hon. the Minister had in mind as being more reasonable.

Circumstances have changed quite considerably since then and I think it is relevant that an increase of 52% for the medical profession seen against the background of the fact that they had not had an increase for some years must today, also be seen against the background of the increase which this budget that we have been discussing this whole week will be allowing a 39% increase in the allowances and salaries of hon. Ministers and a 43% increase for hon. Deputy Ministers. So I think that puts the whole thing very much more in perspective.

[Inaudible.]

I think it does. The hon. the Minister does not agree with me.

You did not mention the rationalization of the Public Service. Why did you not mention that as well?

I think that one must see the increase which the doctors applied for, and which they really felt was due to them, clearly in the same light as the increases we are now voting for the Cabinet and the Deputy Ministers, because it puts that apparently very large increase in perspective. It makes it very much more relative to the whole matter, because the doctors’ fees have not been increased for some time and we know that the country was losing medical practitioners, who are highly trained people, because they could earn very much better salaries overseas. We know that over a period of two years we lost something like 400 of our best doctors and specialists.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister to consider this aspect because he made it perfectly clear in his Second Reading speech and in his answer to the Second Reading debate—and I have read his Hansard—that he was opposed to the socializing of the health services in the country. I could not agree with him more. The hon. the Minister also, partly apologetically I feel, if one can read that into his speech, said he did not really want to show up against the medical profession like this, but one must understand that public opinion at the time was such that he as the new Minister had to show that he had some sort of control over the affair. I think that comes out very clearly from a reading of the hon. the Minister’s Hansard. From the point of view of the NRP we regard this as an unfortunate way for the hon. the Minister to begin his second term of office in this House. I think it will be seen by many, and it has certainly been seen by us, as a threat of “kragdadigheid” whereby the hon. the Minister is going to show the medical profession who is the boss in this game. We do not agree with the underlying philosophy of that approach. We believe that the medical profession in this country has, over the years, shown the utmost responsibility, at times in the face of great provocation, difficulties and a tax structure which did nothing to enhance their after-tax earnings at the end of a month. The medical profession has been very patient, and I think it is extremely unfortunate that the hon. the Minister should have shown up in this way against them. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he published draft Bills which were totally rejected by all the bodies representing the medical people. They were rejected to such an extent that there was an outcry the like of which I do not recall having seen made by medical people in this country over a period of many years. But what happened? We had a statement by the hon. the Minister in this House on 15 February, and if I may say so, I think it was a masterpiece, but it was clearly open to a difference of opinion. The statement conveyed a very clear intention which gave one meaning to the five points, but in practice a very different meaning is going to flow from the implications of those five points. The hon. the Minister knows that he is dealing with professional people who are not politicians, while we in this House have to look at it as politicians. I think the hon. the Minister will realize that we would be failing in our duty if we were not to take that statement and dissect it very thoroughly and look between the lines for what it really means. When one does that and looks at the two related Bills, it is quite clear that, although the hon. the Minister says he is going to restrict his powers to those fees which apply to members and dependants of medical schemes, at the same time, in another Bill, he is taking the power to prevent medical practitioners from opting out. That in effect means that the hon. the Minister will be forcing the medical profession to accept the tariff of fees, because if he stops them from opting out, he in effect makes it compulsory for all of them to accept the tariff of fees.

That is nationalization for you.

Precisely. It is as the hon. member for Durban North says and as he very clearly set out in the Second Reading as our reason for opposing this Bill. I think we were quite correct, and I think the official Opposition will now be coming with amendments which will show that the official Opposition originally missed the implication of these two Bills, when taken in conjunction. I think we were quite correct to oppose the Bill at Second Reading and to highlight the possible consequences of the implications of this clause and clause 1 of the next Bill. Subsequent to his statement, which was a major change of heart, the hon. the Minister placed further amendments on the Order Paper. The amendments in themselves are a watering-down of the powers which he originally wanted to take. I want to put it to him in all honesty, because I think he is a reasonable person, that I think he will consider this and take what we have to say to heart. If he cannot see his way clear to accepting amendments in the House to take the situation back to what it was …

We want the amendments accepted now.

We would like to see amendments accepted now, as the hon. member for Umhlanga says, but it may be necessary for the hon. the Minister to go back to his advisers, to look at the Bill again and, if necessary, to amend it in the Other Place. Therefore I want to leave that open to the hon. the Minister and appeal to him to consider it, because I think it is going to be, as the hon. member for Durban North says, the start of the road to a national health service if these two Bills, and particularly this clause of this Bill, go through as they are printed, even with the hon. the Minister’s amendment. He has made it clear that he does not want socialized medicine in this country, but if this Bill goes through and this clause is accepted, he is in fact creating a situation where we will have a national health service without using that particular name for it. The attitude of the hon. the Minister to the medical profession so far has, I think, been one of “I want to show you chaps who is in charge of the show”, or “Me Tarzan, you Jane” or in modern parlance “I am the Minister, you are the medical profession: You listen to me.” [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister will have gathered from the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Berea, who has dealt with it adequately, why it is totally impossible for us to support this clause and, in particular, the proposed new subsection (4)(a) in which the Minister takes unto himself the new power to reject the tariffs, despite even the hon. the Minister’s amendment to introduce a levitation period of three months. The consequences of the new insertion contained in this clause which gives the Minister the power after a period of three months, or six months, to determine by decree what the tariffs are going to be, go beyond the scope of the Bill and the intention of the Minister to protect the public interest. That is what legislation is all about: It is to protect the public interest. I say this because in terms of this power the Minister is taking unto himself in this clause he will find that inevitably he will have to determine tariffs by decree and not by negotiation. Eight years of experience have shown us with all the different systems proposed by the Minister for establishing tariffs that ultimately agreement was not found. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that even under the new system proposed by him in this clause he is not going to find parity and consensus with the medical profession. Then he will have to evoke the powers given to him in terms of this clause. We believe this will be a severe interference with the autonomy of a vital profession in South Africa. In fact, it will mitigate against the maintenance of the quality and quantity of the service the public of South Africa are very fortunate to receive from the general practitioners.

The hon. the Minister maintains that, if this is not done, if parity and consensus are not found on the tariff of fees and the fees are too high, not only will the medical aid schemes suffer but people will flock to the provincial and State hospitals. The hon. the Minister used in his Second Reading speech that motivation for wanting to control tariffs. I should, however, like to point out to the hon. the Minister that there are many fundamental structural and functional differences between the services provided by the general practitioner to the private sector and the services provided by the State and provincial hospitals. If one analyses the case book of a general practitioner in any suburban area of South Africa, or in any medical centre, one finds that the crux of the matter is that the general practitioner is involved in preventative medicine to a greater extent than he is involved in curative aspects whereas—and I am going to motivate it in a minute—the institutional hospital system in South Africa is curatively and therapeutically orientated. The hon. the Minister will agree with me, because research has shown that over 70% of the cases that come before private practitioners in their surgeries are cases of people suffering from psychosomatic diseases. That requires a very important doctor-patient relationship. In the formalized institutional hospitals of any country, and not only of South Africa, it is almost impossible for the patient to develop the very specific relationship required between doctor and patient. That is not the fault of the institutionalized hospital services. In fact, to a large extent it is not their function.

Their function is therapeutic and curative. Compared with that, the function of the general practitioner is essentially preventative and curative, especially in respect of psychosomatic diseases. The hon. the Minister is a medical man himself. If he examines the research work and thinks of his own experience, he will find that that vital relationship is essential for that type of function.

To take this a little further, I think that if one brings in a mechanical process for restricting or suppressing tariffs in respect of that particular general practitioner/patient relationship, something will have to give somewhere. In the long term the hon. the Minister will find to his consternation that whereas he thinks he is starting out trying to protect the public interest, exactly the opposite is going to happen. What is going to give, is not only the quantity of doctors available in South Africa, but also the quality of the service. We in this party feel so strongly about this clause that we will definitely be voting against it. I am afraid there is no way in which we can aid and abet the hon. the Minister to diminish the medical service of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of the very first legislation which the hon. the Minister dealt with in this House, we told him that he would find that the Opposition spokesmen on health are an amicable group of people and would gladly co-operate with him in the public interest. It now appears to me as though I only spoke on behalf of the official Opposition at that stage. However, I do not want the hon. the Minister to be under the impression that when at any time something appears in legislation or in his department which we do not regard as being in the public interest, we will not criticize it sharply. The specific legislation before the committee at present, particularly clause 8 of the legislation, is supported by this side of the House. We accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment, and we do so for very good reasons. During the Second Reading debate we also took the opportunity to give a clear explanation of the reasons why we support the legislation. We also expressed very clear reservations and very clearly brought it to the attention of the hon. the Minister that we will pay very close attention to the manner in which he implements this legislation. We shall do this to ensure that the public interest and that of the profession will be duly considered at all times and that this legislation will not be used to prejudice those interests in any way. The reason is clearly the unfortunate history of the constant confrontation, irritation and frustration as a result of the inability of the profession on the one hand and the Government on the other to come to an agreement about tariffs. The NRP should bear in mind that the agreement reached by the hon. the Minister and the Medical Association was only possible after a long process of negotiation, and that the negotiation did not always take place in the friendliest of spirits. In spite of looming confrontation, however, negotiations took place, which resulted in the hon. the Minister reporting to us that he had reached agreement with the Medical Association. The PFP sounded out members of the Medical Association to ascertain precisely what their feelings were about this matter. We put our standpoint to them clearly, while they put it clearly to us that they accept the agreement with the hon. the Minister and go along with it. I want to put it very clearly that this is not, of course, not precisely what they would have liked to have had. But this is a compromise between the hon. the Minister on the one hand and the Medical Association on the other hand. In those circumstances, and with the reservations which we explained clearly during the Second Reading debate, we therefore support this legislation. What is also important to us at this point in time, is that a commission has now been appointed with the instruction, amongst other things, to study this matter in depth once again. We want to appeal to the medical profession and the Medical Association with all its ramifications to take this opportunity once again to make representations in an effort to establish whether another type of negotiation can perhaps be introduced, for example another negotiating body in respect of the determining of and agreement about tariffs. We hope that something can be agreed upon at some stage in the future which will, in the first place, satisfy the profession completely, in the second place, will always have the interests of the public at heart and, in the third place, could be implemented effectively by the Government.

I just want to mention once again the reservations which we also debated during the Second Reading debate. These are that in implementing this legislation, we made a clear and definite appeal to the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that the status of the profession as a whole, with all its ramifications, will be improved in future. We have pointed out how, as a result of various factors, there has been a decline in the status of the medical practitioner over the years and, along with that decline, there has also been a decline in his remuneration and standard of living. We are convinced that an hon. Minister who has the interests of the profession at heart, as ought to be the case, and who also has the interests of the public at heart, will regard it as a matter of priority to see what can be done to reinstate and improve the status of the medical profession and to see to it that members of this profession receive their due.

The second reservation concerned the remuneration of members of the profession. This remuneration must always be acceptable and justified in respect of the services which they render to the public, while taking into account all the other factors which we have mentioned. The third reservation is that the hon. the Minister must not use this legislation to exercise his position of power at any time in order to undermine the profession or, as has been said on this side of the House, to put members of the profession in their place. I hope I am right and this is not the hon. the Minister’s intention and will not be his intention in future, for I think the hon. the Minister realizes that if he makes any use of this legislation for that purpose, he will not achieve anything by doing so. In other words, he will merely bring about further confrontation, and neither the interests of the profession nor that of the public will be served in any way. I want to put it very clearly that we support the hon. the Minister’s proposed legislation. We also accept his amendment under clause 8 with those clear reservations, and we really want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will implement this legislation in such a manner, and that the profession will co-operate in such a manner, that their interests and the interests of the public will be borne in mind at all times and that we shall now show progress in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a very interesting position in the House this afternoon.

You have strange bed-fellows. [Interjections.]

There is a certain long-established expression in politics, but all along I have been thinking of the one which goes: “Bring together that which belongs together.” I now find myself in the interesting position that the hon. member for Bryanston associated himself with me this afternoon. Here and now I wish to thank him most sincerely for his party’s support. He said that the official Opposition’s spokesmen on health were pleasant people. Recently I have been compelled to accept this. The hon. member is being accused of acting in some strange way in this House. As far as I am concerned, the hon. member acted with great circumspection and responsibility during the Second Reading as well as in the speech he has just made. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member made one very important statement.

That was his application speech to the NP. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to come now to the hon. member for Berea and to the hon. member for Durban North. I want to point out that I went out of my way to meet members of the medical profession. During Second Reading I even read out a letter here in the House which bears out the fact that I accepted the fact that certain measures had to be introduced. I met them on various occasions. Now, the hon. members blame me for not going through with the original Bill that was published. In fact, I get the impression that these hon. members regret the fact that I decided not to proceed with the Bill in its original form. [Interjections.] The reason why they seem to regret it is because, as far as I can gather, they were filled with forebodings. They probably expected I was going to threaten the profession by telling them I was going to put the crunch on them. Words to this effect were used by hon. members of the NRP.

*I believe that I am a relatively mature person; otherwise the hon. the Prime Minister would not have appointed me Minister of Health. Surely I cannot put the screw on at will when I am dealing with people in the medical profession. I have to co-operate with those people. However, if there are things which are wrong, I have to say so. I am, after all, the responsible Minister. Neither can I bow to public opinion. Hon. members will recall that people in the medical profession accused me of speaking too soon—I spoke just after the decision had been made—and of having made the statement that 52,2% was too severe an increase. However, I still say so today. I say this in spite of the fact that the salaries of Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members of Parliament had been increased. That has nothing to do with this argument. I think the hon. member tried to advance a petty argument here. [Interjections.] However, I wish to point out to him that we are rationalizing the Public Service. Salaries are being adjusted upwards in order to allow those on the bottom rung of the ladder to come into line as well. Now, however, the hon. member reproaches me because my salary has been increased. He links this to his allegation that 52,2% is enough, merely because my salary has been increased. I have never yet asked for a salary increase. I do my work. If the hon. member for Berea does his work, he will find that the medical profession supports me entirely in this action, with perhaps one or two reservations. I will tell him why this is so. The Medical Association has been in session during the past few days. One of the members introduced a motion, and what it amounted to, more or less, was that I should be condemned for this amendment of the Act which I am proposing. The hon. member knows about it.

However, what happened to that motion? That motion was rejected. I think the result of the voting was 22 against and 10 in favour. Therefore the motion was rejected. Therefore I am not condemned by the Medical Association. [Interjections.]

Order!

A majority of 22 members said by implication that they approved of my action. [Interjections.] I conducted one interview after the other. I was originally requested to publish the proposed legislation. Negotiations followed. During the negotiations I explained my problem. My problem is that the public will in future no longer be able to absorb an increase of this nature. I repeat this in this House, with all the responsibility at my command. I also said that the more tariffs are increased, the more people will stream to provincial hospitals, and the larger the danger of a socialized system of medicine. The more people come to the provincial hospitals, the more facilities the Government has to provide. If one wants doctors to compete according to the free system of the private sector, one cannot simply continue to increase tariffs. This must of necessity lead to crowds of people eventually flooding the provincial hospitals.

†I believe I should take the hon. member for Durban North to task. He said the prime task of the general practitioner was that of preventive medicine. I was a general practitioner for 12 years, and my main task was curative and therapeutic medicines. In my opening address to the congress of general practitioners the other day I put it to them that the time had come for the general practitioners to form part of the team in the field of preventive medicine, because they had never been part of that team. I put it to them that the only ones who had been part of that team. I put it to them that the only ones who had been part of that team were those in official positions, for instance medical health inspectors of cities and district surgeons. They are the only ones who were ever in the field of preventive medicine. The others are in the field of therapeutic medicine. I think the hon. member should realize that when one deals with a Bill of this nature one should remember that it takes protracted and very circumspect discussions with the people concerned before such legislation can be introduced. We were worlds apart when discussions were initiated. This particular amendment which I have now introduced, in this particular clause, was one which the Association asked me to introduce.

But it was a compromise.

Of course it was a compromise. There is nothing one can reach without compromise today.

It was not by consensus.

And consensus. However, I did not need a national convention to achieve that. [Interjections.]

I want to look at some of the points hon. members have raised. The hon. member for Berea raised quite a number of points with which I have already dealt. He made one very good observation, a very sober-headed one. Apparently the hon. member also has his soberheaded moments. He said that the statement I issued was a masterpiece. I should like to thank the hon. member for that and express the hope that in the time he gets to know me, I shall produce a few more masterpieces.

The hon. member complained about the fact that there was a watering down of the original. There was no watering down. The original was published according to the normal procedure followed by the department. If one publishes something, one has something to discuss. It is no use publishing it in a wishy-washy way. One must first determine the total effect a Bill will have and then realign it and discuss it with the various bodies involved.

Shoot first and ask afterwards!

I want to look at the other arguments which have been raised. The main object of this clause is to ensure that in future order will prevail when it comes to the raising of the tariffs. The hon. member seems to have no faith in the Medical and Dental Council. He has said that what will in effect happen in future, is that I will be the one who will decide about the tariffs and publish them. Three months ago the Medical and Dental Council voted 22 to 9 in favour of their retaining this special function, but a few days ago they voted that they did not want to retain this function. They are beginning to confuse me. However, they will retain that function as long as the law says they have to and as long as there is no change in the Act. However, in the meantime they have all the power to do all the research they want to do, to obtain all the evidence and then to decide on the tariffs, in exactly the same way in which they have decided on them recently. No change has been made to that mechanism, except that before they can publish it in the journal, it will have to make a detour through my office so that I can see what the extent of the changes is.

That is the crunch.

If they increase it by another 52% in two months’ time, they can be quite sure that I will turn it down.

You are prejudging the issue.

I am putting it very mildly. When one looks at the whole idea behind it, one sees that it is only done to create some order and to ensure, as the hon. member for Berea has said, the protection of the public. Every time I have had discussions with the medical practitioners, I have told them that as long as I am the Minister and have these powers, they will be assured of a proper income. I have no hang-ups about seeing to it that they receive a proper income.

*Full-time medical practitioners will be able to tell hon. members how I, as a member of the executive committee and also as Administrator, was in the forefront as regards seeing to it that they received proper remuneration. It is very strange that the reasons that practicing doctors advance today as to why they want a higher income, have to do with the very fact that the full-time practitioner now receives a good income. With the help of MPCs, Administrators and members of the various councils I saw to it over the years that these people received good salaries. I have nothing to hide, and I have never left doctors in the lurch. I do not see why I should do so now. For that reason I welcome what the hon. member for Bryanston has said.

That is your personal guarantee. What about your successors?

I would not talk so much about successors if I were the hon. member of the semi-official Opposition who has just interjected. He himself might even have a successor in a short while. There is so much activity going on in his party that of one thing he can be sure … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not quite sure what the hon. member is getting at. He has enough time to speak if he wants to. He still has the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has given a guarantee as to his personal intent. I want to ask him how he can guarantee the intentions of his successors. [Interjections.]

The reply to that is the reply I was starting to give to the hon. member for Bryanston, and that is that everything I or any of my successors will do in this regard, will have to be reported back to Parliament during the debate on his vote or during any other discussions here. It would be a rather silly Minister who stands up here year after year, after putting the crunch on the doctors, and he cannot tell Parliament why he did it or he has no good reasons for doing so. Why should anyone think that my successors will be less reasonable than I am? [Interjections.]

*To conclude, let me thank the hon. member for Bryanston sincerely for his support. I should very much like them to keep a careful eye on what I do in future, for I think it is the duty of the official Opposition to do so. If I do make mistakes, I will be prepared to admit it in this House.

Mr. Chairman, we are now at an interesting stage in this debate and I cannot help thinking that the point of view of the official Opposition would be a very different one if we had that famous heart specialist here as their health spokesman. I think he personally would see things in very much the same way as we are seeing them and certainly not as the hon. member for Bryanston sees them.

Would you like to take a bet on that?

I still think the official Opposition have missed the whole point of this legislation. Although we have had a courteous and detailed reply from the hon. the Minister, and I thank him for his point of view, he has only confirmed our suspicions as to the intentions of this clause. If one goes through this clause and its subsections carefully it is quite clear that the situation is now that the hon. the Minister is taking away certain powers. It is a vote of no-confidence in the medical associations and in the Medical Council. When I said that this was a hydra clause I meant that exactly because each one of the points contained in this clause does something different. It is, as I have said, a vote of no-confidence in the medical associations and the Medical Council. It is going to force maximum charges on doctors without giving them the opportunity to decide what the market will bear. It is also going to encourage mediocrity.

I shall come back to these points and I shall motivate each one of them. The most important thing is that it goes against the whole principle of free enterprise in the market itself. I find it strange that after so many years during which the bodies associated with medicine have conducted themselves, as I said earlier, with the utmost responsibility, it should now be necessary for the Minister to be the final arbiter of the fees that the doctors themselves can charge. I am now referring to the proposed new subsection (4)(a) which states—

We object to that. We do not believe that it should be necessary for the Minister to take it upon himself to approve those fees.

We also object to paragraph (b) of this subsection because it states there—

This is relevant because that section of that Act which we shall be amending is the one that takes away the rights of medical practitioners to opt out. Seen in that light, one is then forcing maximum charges on all the doctors. That is what we object to there. We also object to the inclusion of the new words contained in lines 53 and 54 to the effect that the fees shall “be binding on every person”. That is another head of the Hydra. What that addition is in fact going to mean is that one is going to encourage mediocrity in our medical services. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that if one makes the tariff of fees binding on every member of the profession one is going to encourage mediocrity.

That can only be if they stop contracting out.

I am glad the hon. the Minister admits that because that is the critical issue.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member is advancing arguments with regard to contracting in and out which is contained in the next Bill. He is dealing with the wrong piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. the Minister, I am trying to point out that that reference is in the clause we are discussing. We cannot discuss this clause in isolation when we say that it is subject to the provisions of section 29 of the Medical Schemes Act. I pointed out in the beginning that it is impossible to discuss these matters in isolation. I think the hon. the Minister has now realized that we have seen through his statement that was so masterly. I was going to say that it was a masterpiece of deception but I realize, Mr. Chairman, you would not allow me to say that.

Why did the hon. member say it then?

I did not say it, Sir. [Interjections.] I said it was clearly open to various interpretations in this House and that the implications of that clause were open to other meanings but that I did not want to go too far. The hon. the Minister has now in fact ratified our objections to this Bill by saying that doctors can still opt out of medical schemes. That is our objection. In the next Bill we shall be discussing the hon. the Minister is taking the power to stop their opting out of medical schemes and that is why when we read this clause in conjunction with that power we say that we object to all those portions of this clause to which I have referred. So I think the hon. the Minister realizes now why we are suspicious.

We cannot go along with the official Opposition who say that they will watch the situation closely. I cannot see the logic or the sense in that argument and I cannot see any merit in such a situation. If in six months’ or a year’s time we have another Minister of Health who decides to stop practitioners contracting out and who decides that he is not interested in entertaining any more increases in medical fees, however justified they may be, we will then have a situation where the official Opposition will have made themselves irrelevant because those powers will have been taken and it will then be beyond our rights to discuss the matter and be beyond the power of the House to change it, unless the hon. the Minister at that time introduces a further amending Bill.

Clearly, if the hon. the Minister has used those powers, those two overlapping powers, he is not going to introduce an amending Bill to take away those powers. So I just want to come back to the argument that what we are in fact doing here is showing a vote of total no-confidence in those very people who have co-ordinated the affairs of the medical profession in this country over a long period of time and who have done their best to see that the tariffs charged by medical practitioners are in relation to the market. I think we touched the hon. the Minister on the raw when we mentioned the increases for Ministers and Deputy Ministers because this puts the situation absolutely into perspective again, with respect. When everyone else is getting an increase of 10%, an increase of 52% seems very high, but where one’s Ministers and Deputy Ministers are getting an increase of 39% and 43%, it puts that 52% very much into perspective and I am sure the hon. the Minister realizes the strength of that argument. [Interjections.]

There is another point which the hon. the Minister made which I feel I must come back to. He said that if the fees which medical practitioners demanded were too high, there would be a run on provincial hospitals. I agree that that is a distinct possibility. I think that there are already sectors of our population who cannot afford the fees charged by doctors but let me put this alternative point to the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister exercises too much control over the affairs of the medical profession in this country I predict—and I am quite positive that I shall be right in the long run—that we will have a mass exodus of medical practitioners from this country to countries abroad where they can earn salaries in relation to the skills that they have and the hours that they work. Under those circumstances people will not even have the option; they will be forced to go to provincial hospitals for their treatment because there will not be enough practitioners in private practice to service the population of the Republic. So it is merely a question of seeing which is the lesser of two evils in this particular case. As far as this party is concerned, we see the lesser of two evils— and we want to make another plea to the hon. the Minister in this regard—as being the Minister’s leaving the situation as it was and having confidence in the elected bodies. The hon. the Minister nominates a large number of people to the Medical Council. He referred to the vote of that Medical Council and said that so many of them supported him. It would be interesting to look up the records of the voting to see how many of the nominated members supported the hon. the Minister on that particular issue. I do not wish to cast aspersions on anybody but I must make the point that a number of those people are nominated and under those circumstances it would be natural for them to support the hon. the Minister. However, I want to put it to him that it is not too late for him to realize that he has in fact gone too far in his showing against the medical profession and that he should leave the situation as it was and negotiate with the profession and their bodies behind the scenes … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that we in the NRP feel very strongly about this particular clause and we are not going to let the hon. the Minister get away with vague references to personal guarantees and a modus operandi where we have now reached the stage, in terms of the provisions of this clause, where we are governing by ministerial regulation and decree. I will come to the hon. member for Bryanston in a moment but first of all I want to comment on what the hon. the Minister said to us in his earlier reply. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he considers to be a proper income for a doctor? The hon. the Minister said that he would see that the doctors receive a proper income, but what is a proper income? Having derived that proper income, what is going to happen to merit, as the hon. member for Berea asked? Is the hon. the Minister going to force uniformity on the doctors? What happens to merit then? The NP talks about meritocracy and private enterprise in all other aspects of life in South Africa, but when we come to a vital practice such as the medical profession they want to govern by ministerial decree in terms of the powers given to the hon. the Minister through this clause, and meritocracy goes out of the window. I am afraid we cannot accept those glib answers as a justification for this. I want to ask the hon. Minister and the hon. member for Bryanston who both stated, as we did, that they welcomed the forthcoming investigation of medical tariffs, why is it that we are putting the cart before the horse? In terms of this clause we are going to give the hon. the Minister powers before we know what the outcome of that investigation into tariffs is going to be. Why is it necessary for him to have these powers? It can only be because he anticipates conflict on tariffs with the medical profession. That is why he wants this power before the recommendations of that investigative commission come out.

I believe that the hon. member for Bryanston and his party have shown a disservice to their own supporters, the medical profession and South Africa because they have failed in their duty as an official Opposition. [Interjections.] I must point out to the hon. member for Bryanston, and I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton is not in the Chamber, that I believe that they have transgressed two of their fundamental principles in conflict resolution. This applies specifically to this particular aspect of the Bill which is contained in the proposed new subsection (4)(a). I ask the hon. member for Bryanston and his colleagues whose whole philosophy is based on achieving consensus at a national convention, if one does not find consensus what does one do?

Consensus was achieved in this particular case.

It was not. That is why this Bill is before the House. [Interjections.] We are giving the hon. the Minister the power to run the country by regulation. I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston and his colleagues, if they cannot find consensus with other parties on any regulation, are they going to give their chairman the right to rule by decree and regulation? Because that is exactly what they are going to allow the hon. the Minister to do. I want to ask the official Opposition: Since when do they allow Ministers to run this country by decree and regulation? The hon. member for Houghton has spent years in this House talking about the consequences of giving Ministers this kind of power and here, in a vital profession in South Africa, the official Opposition comes and allows the Minister to do so. I believe the official Opposition should be more consistent in their application not only of parliamentary procedure and democracy but their own principles as well. I believe this clause is the crossroads in the history of the medical profession in South Africa and that the hon. the Minister should rather wait for the result of the committee which is going to investigate tariffs. He must not do what the official Opposition is going to do. They are going to close the stable door after the horse has bolted and the hon. the Minister wants to put the cart before the horse. Let us stop horse trading and let us wait for that committee’s recommendations before we accept this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot quite understand the arguments advanced by the hon. members of the NRP. They have made much of the battle they have started here on behalf of the medical profession, but what are the facts in this regard? The hon. the Minister had legislation published for the information and comments of everyone. The purpose of this was specifically to try to achieve consensus. After having received representations—this is in fact another reason why he had it published— he re-examined the legislation. Then, by way of negotiation with the medical profession, he reached an agreement. This is the point the hon. member for Durban North is overlooking completely. The Minister did in fact achieve consensus. For that reason too he made his statement which, in my opinion, cleared up many of the problems that existed. In the second instance he came forward with amendments. After all, the members of the organized medical profession are the people to whom we must listen and they expressed their satisfaction with the way in which the hon. the Minister was handling the affair. Why then are hon. members coming forward histrionically and saying that they are the champions of the medical profession?

If the Minister achieved consensus why is this provision necessary?

The medical profession can speak for itself and it is satisfied. Why then are hon. members trying to put another standpoint here?

After all, we have also taken cognizance of the fact that the hon. the Minister has appointed a commission in regard to this matter. This provision can be seen as an interim measure until such time as the commission has submitted its report.

It is permanent.

During the past week the Medical Council itself, through certain of its members …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether I heard him say: “Dit is net ’n tussentydse reeling hierdie?”

In the nature of the case this must be an interim measure. Otherwise the hon. Minister would surely not have appointed a commission. If the commission submits certain recommendations and these are approved by the Government and the legislation is then amended, it will be obvious that this was an interim measure.

Neither can I understand the other aspect of the matter. Surely the hon. member knows that for ten years now we have had problems finding a system that works properly. During the past week certain members of the Medical Council have said that they do not believe that the Medical Council ought to have the final say as this would detract from the status of the council. It is true that we may also have to examine this aspect. However, meanwhile we shall have to accept the fact that the best arrangement is that, if problems arise, there will be a higher authority which will have the final say. It is not the Minister’s intention to use those powers injudiciously. In a great deal of legislation passed by us in this Assembly the principle has been accepted each time that a higher authority, i.e. the Minister, must be in a position to make the final decision. In the light of this we must accept that the clause is quite correct as it stands there and that the objections of the NRP are in fact invalid.

Mr. Chairman, you will realize only too well that it is rather difficult for me to have to fight on the side of the National Party in respect of this matter. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not to be found anywhere in the amending Bill.

I just want to give an undertaking that I shall not make a habit of it. The poor members of the NRP…

The “hon.” members.

The poor hon. members of the NRP have no idea what is at issue here. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that there is only one parliamentary way of addressing members and that is to call them “honourable” members.

I prefer to address you, Mr. Chairman, because I think you will have a better understanding of what I want to say. The hon. members of the NRP stated that a compromise had been reached between the Minister and the Medical Association and that that was not consensus. The first lesson I want to teach them is that, in order to reach consensus in respect of any matter being discussed, there must be a compromise between the people reaching consensus. This cannot take place in any other way. [Interjections.] I do not want to elaborate on this. I do not want to exhaust myself today in trying to teach hon. members of the NRP something they do not want to know and most probably never will know. However, I want to make it clear that if there had not been a compromise and consensus had not been reached between the hon. the Minister and the members of the Medical Association—who have the responsibility of looking after the interests of the whole profession—we would not have supported the Minister now. This is fundamental to our standpoint in this regard. I also want to make a second point. Hon. members of the NRP made a great fuss here this afternoon about the rights of the profession. They said that the provision was an interference in private enterprise, etc. However, this fell flat completely because no one gave any attention to it. There are many professions in South Africa that are under statutory control. They are under statutory control to enable them to maintain their statutory rights and so that their interests as a profession can be protected. I want to ask those hon. members how many professions in South Africa are under statutory control where control is not also exercised over their tariffs? [Interjections.]

Not by the Minister.

And there is, after all, always a measure of statutory control over their tariffs. This is the pattern that has been followed in respect of all professions in South Africa that are under statutory control. I really think that the hon. members of the NRP ought to think about this a little further and also go into the matter a little deeper. They should really try to take the interests of the public into account as well. I find it rather fishy … [Interjections.] Sir, when one is working with poor fish like these, one cannot help finding things rather fishy. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.]

“Honourable” poor fish.

“Honourable” poor fish.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. I have a beautiful goldfish at home and I do not want to associate it with the members of the NRP. [Interjections.]

Order!

I withdraw that as well, Mr. Chairman. I still have to catch a ’plane and consequently do not have much time at my disposal. I gain the impression that the NRP is unfortunately trying to follow in the tortuous, faint footsteps of the United Party and is consequently trying to grasp every possible piece of legislation to see whether it can make some political capital out of it. In its standpoints that it adopted here this afternoon the NRP gave absolutely no attention to the real interests of the public of South Africa. A large section of the public are experiencing difficulty because of the rapidly rising tariffs that have to be paid by them. Not only the interests of the profession but also those of the public are important and ought to be taken into account by the representatives of the public when matters of this nature are discussed.

I want to say finally that if hon. members of the NRP feel so strongly about this matter, they should make meaningful representations to this commission that has been appointed. It will be very interesting to see whether they are not simply all talk this Friday afternoon and whether they will make meaningful representations to that commission in order to improve the position for the profession and for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am slowly starting to smell something fishy about the hon. member for Bryanston. In the course of this debate he has made himself guilty of a great deal of politicking. The hon. members of the NRP who spoke in this debate have now even had a quarrel with the official Opposition. The national convention was dragged in as well. That makes me think that this debate does not concern tariffs and medical practitioners at all.

It concerns the principle.

The hon. member for Berea is a young member, and initially I gave him a chance because he does perhaps still have a future, although it is not in that party. He did a very snide thing when he said that he should like to know how many of the nominated members had voted for the Minister. Surely this is a snide remark with regard to professional people of high calibre, not only medical practitioners but advocates and members of other professions as well. Will they simply vote for me if I pull the strings? I did not even know that the motion was before them and I think it is reprehensible to discuss their integrity in this House in view of the Press and others present. Those people vote in accordance with their own thinking. On other occasions they have voted against me. The hon. member for Durban North is an expert in the field of horses that enter and leave stables. He said that the hon. member for Bryanston had closed the stable door after the horse had already bolted. However, who has more experience than the NRP with regard to horses bolting out of stables? [Interjections.] The hon. members for East London North and Pietermaritzburg South bolted and even now the door is not closed. The hon. member for Umhlanga does not know that I read the newspapers of other provinces as well.

†Just after the crunch originally with the 52,2%, it was reported in The Star in Johannesburg that the hon. member for Umhlanga had said that he thought that the hon. the Minister was quite right and that he would have to come with legislation.

Produce it!

I shall give the hon. member the cutting of the report in which he said that the Minister would have to introduce legislation. This was also during an election. I shall personally hand the report to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister prepared to state categorically across the floor of this House that I made that statement to the Press?

I said that it appeared as a newspaper report and the name of the person mentioned is Page. Surely that is the hon. member for Umhlanga. [Interjections.] I thought that that hon. member was the NRP’s spokesman on health matters. At that moment I did not know that it was simply something that he had said, but I shall give it to him. He must accept it. I do not say he said so but then he must clear the matter with the newspaper.

Will the hon. the Minister be prepared to apologize to me across the floor of this House if he is proved wrong in that regard?

The hon. member is a very reasonable member. I shall give him the cutting. He may then do with it what he likes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask another question if I may. My last question has not been answered. Will the hon. the Minister apologize to me across the floor of this House if he is proved wrong? [Interjections.]

I have given my reply to the hon. member. I shall give him the cutting.

I have not finished with you yet.

I shall hand the cutting to him. Then he will have to stand up in this House and tell us whether he did say so or not. We shall still have enough time for that later. [Interjections.] I now want to raise another matter. The hon. member for Berea is clearly trying to make political capital out of this whole matter. I reached an agreement with the medical profession. The hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Durban North are now speaking as though they are acting on behalf of the medical profession. With whom have I still to negotiate? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban Central should rather confine himself to education matters. He understands them better. He knows nothing about the medical profession. He knows even less about politics. Perhaps he should rather remain silent. [Interjections.]

He cannot think because Vause is not here. [Interjections.]

Order!

He should rather confine himself to the hon. member for East London North. That is just about the highest level at which he can debate. [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon. member for Bryanston that this is an ideal opportunity for everyone, particularly now that I have announced the appointment of the commission. I also have pleasure this afternoon in announcing here that I approached Mr. Gerald Browne, the former Secretary for Finance, to make himself available as chairman of the commission. I shall now submit his name to the State President. Thus there is now a golden opportunity for hon. members of the NRP, as a party or as individuals, to submit a memorandum or to testify before that commission. Those hon. members were apparently so surprised at the fact that the hon. member for Newcastle had ostensibly alleged that I had said that it was a temporary measure. I did say so. I said so to those medical practitioners.

I said in this House too that it was a temporary measure. However, I also said that I could allow the possibility of the tariffs being increased again even before the commission had met. Surely I dare not allow this to happen. If I did do so, I would be shirking my responsibility. If the council does not change the tariffs in future that is, of course, all well and good. However, hon. members should bear in mind that when I introduced this amending Bill, the council had already decided that it would revise and perhaps further increase the tariffs this month.

Hon. members of the NRP do not even know what is going on in this council although the sittings of the council are public. These things are not being done because I want to tread on any ones’ toes. However, I must protect the public. The hon. member for Bryanston said so too. But not only do I want to protect the public; I also want to protect the Government. Furthermore I want to protect the medical practitioners themselves. If I am able to protect all three simultaneously, I will have fulfilled my task and will have done what I really had to do. However, I do not think this is the place for hon. members to make such a fuss about these things.

†The hon. member for Berea kept on referring to the free enterprise system. Did he say the same thing when there were five commissions appointed under a judge? Was that also the end of free enterprise? Apart from a few members of the Medical Council who practise as doctors, that body is not a free enterprise undertaking. If the members of that council were to determine the fees it would evidently be all right. Why then, if it is taken a step further and the Minister becomes involved, should it be viewed as the final blow to free enterprise?

*There were all those commissions. Nobody ever complained then that the system of free enterprise was being threatened. Now, since free enterprise has become a kind of fad, it is also being dragged in here by the hair.

The hon. member for Berea said another very snide thing as well. He even had to withdraw certain words. Then, of course, he denied having said them. However, he did say them. He said my statement was a masterpiece … I would rather not use the words that were used by him subsequently. However, if this is the way in which we have to debate in this House, I really do not know. I made this statement in this House—I have just looked it up in Hansard—and just after that the hon. member for Berea spoke and tried to create the impression that I was misleading this House. Hon. members will yet see that in future I shall give less attention to some of the things said by the hon. member for Berea. The way in which he speaks is not the way in which we conduct a debate in this House.

You are paid to listen to what he says. [Interjections.]

No, he is being paid to listen to me. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, our opposition to this clause and to the Second Reading we base on a fairly simple principle. Because we have made our opposition fairly vocal and because we have put our case with a certain degree of forcefulness, we have been accused of bringing politics into it. The debate has in fact veered right away from the original consideration.

I want to begin by reacting to the hon. the Minister’s statement in relation to the Medical and Dental Council. I thought I made it clear that I was not in anyway reflecting on the integrity of the Medical and Dental Council. I said so, and I am quite sure my Hansard will show that. I just want to reiterate that what I said was that under the circumstances of that particular discussion, it would have been natural to accept that the members appointed by the Minister would have supported him on that particular aspect. I do not think that is a reflection on their integrity. I want to make it clear that I am not reflecting on their integrity.

I want to say further that I have not used the words “masterpiece of deception”. I specifically said to hon. members that I would not use the words “masterpiece of deception”. I made it absolutely clear that I felt that the meaning which the hon. the Minister attached to it could have very different implications when the legislation was finally put into effect. That is very different from saying that the hon. the Minister has attempted to deceive the House. I want to make it clear that that was not my intention. Moreover, I have certainly tried to keep this debate on a level of principle. We have made it absolutely clear.

What is in effect going to happen after this debate is that the hon. the Minister and the official Opposition are going to vote for the Minister to have the final power and say over salaries …

Order! The hon. member has made that point already.

I think we have made it very clear. I must point out that at this stage we are standing alone against this particular clause.

Order! The hon. member has said that too.

I want to come back to the fourth point on which we oppose this particular clause. I intimated—the last time I did not get the chance to motivate it—that from line 57 onwards, the new words to be inserted will in fact give rise to a situation that will encourage mediocrity in our medical services. If one forces the most junior medical specialist to accept the same tariff of fees as a person who has been in the game for a long time, one is going to encourage mediocrity in the profession. If the senior man is not able to charge higher fees, he will be discouraged from studying further in his profession. I think that is the very clear implication of the lines which are to be inserted at the end of this clause and to which we are objecting. I think that, on the basis of all the principles we have discussed, we have made absolutely clear that this measure is a new incursion by the hon. the Minister in a field that previously was the prerogative of the profession and the bodies that are elected to represent it.

The hon. member has made that point already.

I am just summing up all the points we have made as this is my last opportunity to speak.

Although the hon. the Minister has not indicated any intention of giving way at all on this issue, I nevertheless want to make a request to him. He has advanced three points. He has said that his intentions are in the best interest of the medical profession, the public and the various bodies concerned with medicine, and we have tried to show him that there are other ways in which the whole problem can be seen. I finally want to appeal to him not to be totally committed to all these points. It is interesting that the hon. member for Newcastle has said that this could be a temporary measure. I think the hon. member for Newcastle would find it most enlightening if I were to go with him to the doctors in his constituency, in the town of Newcastle, and were to ask those doctors whether they approve of this right being taken by the Minister, because I am quite certain that they would say very clearly that they do not approve of it. It is very significant that the only support for the hon. the Minister on his side of the House was that very muted comment by the hon. member for Newcastle. I think they, too, realize that they do not have a strong case in respect of this particular matter. I think we have made it absolutely clear that there are grounds for a further investigation before the hon. the Minister finally takes these powers and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister again in all earnestness to have a look at it again, because I believe that he will be doing the profession a disservice if he goes ahead with this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is much for me to reply to. The hon. member reiterated again and again what he had already said at the outset. The hon. member for Newcastle was not the first person to say that it was a temporary measure, simply in the sense that if the commission were to make other findings, I, as I have already pledged, will have to amend the Act at that stage. However, I am not prepared to leave the Act as it stands, for if the commission were to sit for 12 months— and it could easily sit for 12 months—next year’s session would also have passed by then. Then we could get tariff increases in the next month or two in any event.

At this stage the public can no longer tolerate these tariff increases. Perhaps the time would be more suitable for increases in 12 months’ or two years’ time. I do not know. The commission itself will have to reach finality in that respect. However, hon. members may make representations to the commission. They can submit all these things they have now stated to the commission, but I just want to emphasize one thing very clearly. The hon. member was caught in the trap again by saying that during all the previous years the profession had regulated its financial affairs itself. It did not do so. Five commissions, which were appointed by the Minister, with a judge as chairman, regulated the tariffs. Consequently the profession did not regulate the tariffs itself. On the last occasion the Medical Council regulated the tariffs and therefore the professional associations once again did not do so. The Medical Council is a statutory body which is autonomous to such an extent that it is subordinate only to Parliament. This Parliament fixed the tariffs. As Minister surely I can say if I do not approve of the level of the tariffs. After all, I must act in a responsible way and say when I think the tariffs are too high. Surely it cannot be held against me if, in the position in which I find myself, I have to protect the public. I do not want to elaborate today on the nature of the tariffs. Nor do I want to discuss my medical colleagues across the floor of this House. We settled matters by discussion as people are able to do with one another. They accepted this. They accepted that my statement was necessary. The statement I made was after an interview I had had with these people. They too asked that I should put it in this way so that they could have an opportunity of putting their own house in order, specifically with regard to contracting out, the level of tariffs, people who charge too much and people who exceed the tariffs. I said that I would allow it. Let us pass this legislation as it reads at present. After that further amendments could be affected.

I am completely surprised by the attitude of the hon. members of the NRP this afternoon. They are backing a horse which simply cannot run. The medical practitioners and I are at this moment on a very good footing. We accept one another, we know and trust one another. If the NRP has backed its argument as its political horse, it is as dead as a doornail even before it has begun to run.

Amendment agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 9:

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

In terms of the provision of the amending Bill the Minister may, after consultation with the executive committee of the council, amend or set aside the fees on which the council decided, and substitute a new decision for the decision of the council. Such a provision does not guarantee any say for the interested party in the decision-making process of the Minister. The amendment is being moved in order to clear up the shortcomings. It will mean that if the Minister differs from the council on the extent of an increase in the tariff, the Minister may refer the matter to the council. The interested parties will then be afforded a further opportunity of consulting with the council, after which the matter will be considered by the Minister. In this way a method is being created for the interested parties to have a say. The amendment has been discussed with the Medical Association as well, and copies of it have been made available to the other interested parties.

Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister for the reason that, as he says, it is part of the compromise reached with the Medical Association and, broadly speaking, for the reason that this is a temporary amendment. The whole set-up is temporary and furthermore, since the commission has been appointed—and we welcome the announcement made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon with regard to the chairman— we support it. However, I have two amendments to move on behalf of the official Opposition. The first one is in fact an amendment to this amendment which the hon. the Minister has just moved. The proposed subsection (2A)(a) reads—

Now, instead of “may” refer it back we do feel that in this particular case the “may” should be replaced by “shall” and therefore the amendment which I want to move is to substitute “may” by “shall”. So if the determination by the council regarding an increase in fees is specified, the Minister “shall” refer the decision or determination back to the council. I think that will meet the case because, as it stands, the discretion is left to the hon. the Minister in that he may or may not refer the decision back. We think it is essential that the decision be referred back, and therefore perhaps the hon. the Minister will accept our amendment in this regard. Consequently I move as an amendment to the hon. the Minister’s amendment—

The second amendment I want to move concerns the proposed new paragraph (c), in lines 23 to 26. The amendment I wish to move is to omit all the words after “determination” up to and including “council” in line 26. The proposed paragraph (c) will then read—

The reason why we propose that the balance of the present paragraph be deleted is because once the hon. the Minister has made that decision, it is his decision. I think it must stand as his decision and not be deemed then to be the determination of the council. It is not the determination of the council and we do not think it is correct or fair to make it the determination of the council when it is in fact the hon. the Minister’s determination. Consequently I move as a second amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Hillbrow still do not lessen the implications of this particular clause and I regret, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s obvious expectations, that we will not be able to give our support to this particular clause. Again, the reason for this is in regard to what is being done by the introduction of this particular provision. All that is going to happen is what has happened in the past. The history of tariff setting in the medical profession has shown over the past 10 years that the hon. the Minister has consistently stated that the tariffs were too high. And this is going to happen again. There is no doubt about this at all. Although this amendment is an improvement upon the original provision, it still transgresses the basic principle and this we object to very, very strongly indeed. Therefore, despite the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow and despite the amendment of the hon. the Minister whereby paragraph (c) is substituted, we just cannot accept this particular clause and we will be objecting to it very strongly.

Mr. Chairman, in the same cordial spirit that has prevailed between me and the hon. member as his party’s chief spokesman on this Bill, I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that I am prepared to accept his first amendment. I am quite prepared to accept it if the hon. member feels strongly about it being stated that I shall refer it back instead of being able to refer it back. I think this may indicate that I am in earnest in respect of this matter and that I do not simply wish to put it away in a drawer, leave it there and take my own decision.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s second amendment. The hon. member is a lawyer and will consequently understand my explanation. The existing Act stipulates that the Medical Council will determine the tariffs. When the council determines the tariffs and I am in agreement with that decision, I return it to the council and they cause it to be published. Therefore the tariffs that are determined by the council are published. But if I do not agree with the tariffs, and we have already gone through the procedure, but remain at loggerheads and the council no longer wishes to negotiate with me, I may proceed and have the tariffs published as if it were a decision of the council. This is merely a legal technicality. It is not a case of my wanting to go over the head of the council.

†The law advisers have pointed out to me that if we should reach a position of stalemate, I cannot ignore the profession and not publish anything. I must publish something or else I must amend the other Act as well. This is the way to do it so that the least number of amendments are necessary to the Acts. All that happens now is that either I accept the council’s tariff and it gets published by the council as such, or I can, after consultation with the association, and the hon. member has just moved an amendment that it must be referred back to them within a certain period, go ahead and publish the tariff as if it was published by the council. There is nothing funny about this.

*Hon. members need not be suspicious. This is merely a legal point, and I accept that the law advisers gave me the correct information in respect of this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for accepting my first amendment. As far as my second amendment is concerned, I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation as to the legal niceties of the legality of the final determination. I therefore withdraw my second amendment.

Second amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Widman, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Widman to the amendment moved by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could explain to us the reason for the insertion in line 9 of the words “is in private practice and”. Those words are repeated lower down in line 16 and I should just like to know the reason behind the insertion of those words in this clause.

Secondly, I should like to say that we shall be voting against this clause for the reason that this is the clause which, seen in conjunction with the Bill we have just discussed, will give rise to conditions which we regard as not in the interests of a secure future for the medical profession and as not in the interests of the best deal regarding medical services for the citizens of the Republic. That is, of course, because the proposed new subsection (5) contains the provision which empowers the Minister to withdraw the right of a practitioner to contract out or to set the conditions under which a practitioner may contract out. We made it clear in our arguments previously—and we do not intend to repeat those arguments—that we do not regard it as being in the best interests of the medical profession or of the public for the Minister to arrogate this right which he has not had before.

I am quite sure that medical practitioners in this country would not choose to contract out unless they felt there were very good and important reasons for them to do so. I do not believe that the history of the past few years has shown that medical practitioners have abused their right to contract out in any way. There may be occasions when they wish to protest on a particular issue and it may relate to the fees which are decided upon. I believe there are, however, other reasons why medical practitioners might decide that they wish to contract out and I believe it should be their sole prerogative to make that decision. If that decision is not made by the members of the medical profession themselves but by the Minister in the context of the two Bills before us, we have said—and we mean it—that what one in effect has is a national health service in South Africa, because one is then forcing the doctors to stay contracted in and one is forcing them to accept the fees the hon. the Minister has determined. One can say what one likes, one can duck and dive and one can advance all sorts of arguments, but in practice the effect will be that one will have a national health service. The final arbiter over their affairs will then not be the medical practitioners themselves or their statutory body but the Minister.

Although the hon. the Minister has averred that it is not his intention to have socialized medicine, this could in fact be the very first step along that road. We see it as such. We have made our point absolutely clear in this regard and I believe that if the hon. the Minister looks at the arguments we have advanced and considers them in conjunction with one another, he will realize that our suspicions are well founded. He may have had a certain amount of consensus from the Medical Association and the Medical Council—I do not doubt that he has. The point I should like to make, however, is that I believe they were so shell-shocked by the original gravity of the draft Bill the hon. the Minister put before them that when there was a slight decrease suggested in the powers awarded to the Minister they were inclined to look upon that as a tremendous improvement. Then when the hon. the Minister made his further statement in this House they were inclined to regard that as another significant improvement.

A four-pound hammer.

Yes, it is a well-known tactic. You take a four-pound hammer and hit someone with it. You then help him up and say that you did not really mean it like that but some other way. Then later when you have hit him again and you say that you did not mean it that way but some other way, he is so shell-shocked by that time that he would accept just about anything provided he is not hit by the four-pound hammer again. The way things have gone we see it happening that the people concerned will be prepared to accept almost anything because they do not want another hit on the head by the four-pound hammer. Basically the medical profession is there to get on with medical matters. If they can enjoy a reasonable salary and the rights which they have had up till now they are not going to give the hon. the Minister a great deal of trouble.

Our opposition to this clause is total. I believe it is absolutely unnecessary for the hon. the Minister to create a situation where he will be able to make regulations that prevent practitioners from contracting out. If he goes ahead with this the stage may well be reached where he is absolutely fast up against the medical profession. There could well be unpleasant scenes in that confrontation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to state briefly the view of the official Opposition and its attitude towards this particular Bill, the gist of which is contained in the clause before us. We support this clause for the reason that initially the hon. the Minister announced that he was going to prevent practitioners from having the right to contract out. A compromise has been reached on the basis that they still have the right to contract out. What he has done is to reserve for himself the right, the prerogative, to prevent them from contracting out after he has consulted with the various bodies listed in the second part of the paragraph and to notify them. We accept that because this is the result of negotiations with the Medical Association which we regard as a responsible body of professional people. As they have accepted the compromise it would be hard for us to reject the compromise they have accepted as it would virtually mean a vote of no confidence by us, the official Opposition, in the ability of the Medical Association to make judgments and decisions. For that reason we support the clause.

In addition to this we have a situation whereby medical fees have been increased by, I think, 52,4% which have been effective since 1 November 1979. Every practitioner and dentist I have consulted tells me that he has contracted out, but there is obviously a large number of people who have not contracted out. Recently I had the opportunity to talk to a very experienced surgeon and he pointed out a very useful point to me, namely that if fees and tariffs are sufficiently inductive and attractive to the medical and dental professions they will remain contracted in, because it would then be acceptable to them. I am sure the hon. the Minister is fully aware of the fact that a balance must therefore be struck so that the medical and dental professions will be kept happy with tariffs to meet the rising costs of rentals, services, equipment, salaries, medicines, staff, etc., while at the same time a service will be rendered to the public of South Africa at a cost which they can afford. In this particular case we are dealing with medical schemes. Doctors will then be confident that having rendered that service they will not have to worry about their fees. Their fees will be guaranteed because they will be paid by the medical schemes. This is a comforting thought to them. I have often tried to collect fees on behalf of general practitioners which often proved to be a very difficult task. I think many of them will be quite satisfied to know that their fees will be guaranteed by medical schemes.

The other part of the balance is to ensure that the medical schemes, which do provide medical services to a large percentage of South Africans, will be able to maintain themselves and to supply the services; in other words, that these medical schemes can continue to operate. Therefore, unless we provide the balance for the medical schemes to operate so that the public can get the benefit of being members of medical schemes and doctors can simultaneously get a decent tariff on which to operate, the whole thing will be unsuccessful. I think the hon. the Minister should bear this in mind when he approaches the matter as far as tariffs are concerned as far as he has the right to do so. I think the hon. the Minister would also bear in mind that if it should come to pass—and I imagine it would only come to pass if there was a distinct danger of medical schemes collapsing—that he may have to withdraw the right of a private practitioner to opt out, and I sincerely hope that he will never reach that decision. I am sure that the medical profession also hopes that he will never take that decision. However, if we maintain that balance, he will not do so, because we do not want to get to the position where they will all opt out, that the medical schemes will, in fact, collapse, and that we will then drive the doctors to the extent where they would not want to remain in this country. If we should reach that position, we would in fact destroy the very foundations of what we are trying to create. I therefore think the hon. the Minister is aware of all these factors. Particularly in view of the fact that there is a commission of inquiry, I also hope that evidence in this regard will be submitted. As regards this commission of inquiry, I believe that a firm solution will and should be found to satisfy those who administer the medical schemes, with the particular difficulties they experience with the medical profession and the public at large.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply to the view points that were raised and the questions that were asked. The hon. member for Berea asked me why in clause 1 of the Bill the words “private practice” have been inserted. My reply is that they have been inserted for the very reason that those in full-time practice cannot contract out or in, because they are not allowed to take fees from anybody else. They are paid by the Government, the province, or whatever the case may be. Only those who are in private practice are able to contract in or out. That is the reason why those words have been inserted.

*The second point I wish to make, is that I had lengthy discussions with the Medical Associations and that at the meeting which took place on 14 February this year, this very mechanism was suggested to me by the Medical Association. I did not force this onto them. It is stated here in the letter I received. I have already quoted this on another occasion, but perhaps I should just refresh the memory of the hon. member with regard to what they wrote at the beginning of the letter. I am thanked for the friendly welcoming of the delegates, for the patience and understanding I displayed in respect of the problems of the MASA, and for the spirit of co-operation in which the discussions had taken place. I could not have written a more appreciative letter myself, except if I had addressed it to myself. I asked them to write to me and to state their view on the few things on which we had agreed, because I did not want a misunderstanding to arise on that I should carry on with something while they had something else in mind. They wrote in paragraph 2 of the letter, and this concerned this clause—

In other words, they write here that the way it is put in this legislation, is in accordance with our agreement. This was not forced onto them with a ten-pound hammer as the hon. member would like to make out, although the hon. member has now given me a very good idea. The hon. member said if one hit somebody with a ten-pound hammer and then made a concession and later approached him with a four-pound hammer, he would submit even before one had reached him because he would be afraid one would also hit him with the four-pound hammer. However, that was not the way in which we held discussions.

The Association, through its secretary, confirmed that this was precisely what we had agreed to. I just wish to refer to the closing part of my statement. The Association requested me not just to prohibit people from contracting out. They requested me to give them a chance to put their own profession in order. At this point I do not wish to advance arguments to justify my concern over this phenomenon of contracting in and contracting out. Of course, it could be used as a coercive weapon. However, against whom would they use this power? Surely not against me. It could do nothing to me. However, as soon as they contract out, it is duly recorded in the books of the scheme and the scheme pays the patient, and no longer the doctor himself. Then there is a major change in the whole set-up of the scheme. At the end of my statement, I said—

This they also suggested themselves. They requested me to give them a chance and not to prohibit this now. They requested me to create the relevant mechanism so that there could be certainty that action could be taken when a problem arose.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, in what he stated here this afternoon, hit the nail right on the head.

†Of course it is the ideal situation if a single tariff could be established. South Africa is the only country in the world where the fees of medical practitioners are guaranteed by legislation if they are contracted in.

*This is the only country in the world where that is the case. How much fairer could one still be towards doctors? The medical schemes are placed under certain obligations by legislation. After all, one could not allow these schemes to go under. I believe that if these schemes were to go under, thousands of doctors would leave for overseas. They would not be able to make a living here. If things were to go wrong, if there were again to be an economic recession, where would they obtain a guarantee for their income? If the medical schemes were to pay money to the patient and the patient were to first pay for his groceries and other things instead of settling his medical account, where would the doctor obtain his money? Therefore we have here a guarantee. I believe it would be ideal when an equitable tariff is determined, because then it will not be necessary for the doctor to contract out.

I should like to quote a short extract from the Medical Journal of 8 March this year. This was what the chairman of the Medical Association wrote—

I feel it is necessary to point out that the time is past when a medical scheme could maintain a fixed prescribed tariff and limit its patients to that whereas patients, if their medical expenses were to exceed that tariff, would have to pay the difference out of their own pockets. That would make a farce of the whole medical schemes set-up. The patient should know that if he is taken ill, he will be fully covered. However, the tariff he must pay for that coverage should be fair. Of course, that will indeed be the case in future. But then, of course, members of the medical profession should not threaten to contract out every time they do not agree. Order will have to be created in this system.

That is also why I have set it out clearly and with circumspection in this legislation that I shall again negotiate and hold discussions with the members of the medical profession. Moreover, the people in the medical profession have themselves undertaken to report to the Medical Council cases where it appears that people in their ranks have acted unethically with regard to the tariffs. Only the Medical Council could then take disciplinary steps against such suspected offenders. After all, one does not wish the matter to go so far. If everybody were to display fairness and reasonableness and accept this legislation, order could be created —and I do not wish to anticipate the findings of the inquiry—and we could be assured of a well-ordered system of medical schemes and equitable tariffs, while doctors would contract in without exception. I really do not know for what reason other than monetary reasons a doctor would contract out. No hon. member has dealt with that. I do not know whether there could also be religious reasons or whatever which could cause a doctor to contract out. After all, it is only a matter of the tariff. There was concern in the profession about the older doctors with more experience who could charge higher tariffs because they had contracted out. However, that is their own affair which they must thrash out among themselves. After all, I should not be burdened with that, too. If a doctor has 10 or 20 years’ experience, they could allow him to charge more for the work he does. If they think he is more competent than the doctor who has just qualified, they should allow him to charge, say, five more units for an appendectomy. That is something they should thrash out among themselves. I do not wish to get involved in the question of whether the more senior doctor should be better remunerated.

I just wish to state that I appreciate the support of the PFP. This is no political measure. The aim of this Bill is to create order in a profession, the medical profession, which has unfortunately landed up in the market place in the recent past. Every second newspaper published a cartoon about a doctor, a plumber or an electrician. After all, that is mocking at a profession which does not belong on the market place. The hon. member himself referred to the status of the profession. The status of this profession lies in the hands of these people themselves and depends upon their own conduct. I shall do my best to restore the status of the profession, but I can only do as much as is in my power to do.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has put forward a reasonable case. I think we must grant him some of his points. However, I want to point out one of the snags in his argument. Towards the end of his speech he referred to the more senior and experienced practitioners with many years of service. In my experience it is some of the more senior people who are amongst the first to contract out. The reason for this is that they feel that they are entitled to better remuneration. Many of them are elderly people and are not as active as their younger colleagues. They feel that they do not want to run a sausage machine practice, if I may put it in common terminology. They would prefer to spend more time with their patients, because they themselves have found that their activities have slowed down. They prefer to be more thorough and to offer a more comprehensive service. In my view the snag is that if one takes away from these people their right to contract out without—and the hon. the Minister has made this point— having previously made an arrangement whereby they are allowed to ask a higher tariff to compensate them for the extra time they spend and for the better service they are perhaps able to offer because of their experience, they will start to work half day or retire altogether from practice. I believe it is terribly important that the public enjoy the best possible medical service they can get. By this we might create a situation in which the older people are not going to find it worth their while to work and will therefore retire, with the result that they will be lost to the profession, while the services available to the public generally will become less and possibly less efficient, because for every doctor who retires, a bigger load is placed on those remaining.

I think that is accepted, and I think it is also accepted that our medical profession is operating under a significant amount of pressure and that we could certainly do with more practitioners in all fields that one cares to enumerate, from the dentists right through to the specialist physicians. If they decide, because they cannot opt out for a higher tariff, to retire, the overall quality of the service available to the general public will inevitably deteriorate. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is an important consideration, and this is why we feel it should be within the right of those doctors, particularly the elderly that he referred to and who constitute in terms of numbers a very significant proportion of our medical professions, that if we created the situation where they do not feel it is worth their while working and they retire, we are not going to have the standard of medical services that we would like. The hon. the Minister is obviously determined to go ahead with this and obviously what we say is not going to cause him to change his mind. However, he should think very, very carefully before he creates a situation where the doctor no longer has the right to contract out, because I believe that ultimately medical services will suffer and because of that, the public. If we truly have their interests in mind, not just in the sense that they can afford to pay for the service, but in the sense that the service is there for them to be able to afford, because if the service is not there, it does not matter how much they can afford, and if they are frightened or chased away and a significant proportion of the practitioners have no service to offer, whatever price the people are prepared to pay, I believe it is terribly important that one strikes a balance there and that one is able to offer the service at a price that the majority of the public can afford. I think I have made it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that it is a very serious decision that he has to make before he decides that a practitioner is not to be allowed the privilege of contracting out.

Clause agreed to.

Claused 3:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to subsection (3), right down at the bottom of the page, starting in line 49, where a change is being effected in the cycle time for accounts to be paid by the medical aid schemes from 30 days to six weeks. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this change in the cycle time is as a result of consultation both with the medical aid schemes and with the profession. I ask this particularly because I think the medical practice as such is going to find that its whole cash flow programme is going to be upset quite considerably by this change. No doubt the medical aid schemes themselves were pretty anxious to get this change in the cycle time. It adds on an additional two weeks to the cycle time between when an account is submitted and a doctor gets paid. When one does that, a straight-forward economic exercise in cash flow, indications are that the medical profession as such can expect at least a 50% rise in its outstanding debtors in any one particular cycle time. That will no doubt cause some considerable difficulty for the doctors. In addition to that, one would have expected the contrary to have occurred and that it would not have been necessary to introduce this amending clause. I think that just about every reasonably-sized medical aid scheme today operates on computers. Why has it now become necessary for these medical aid schemes, which do operate very efficient and expensive computers, to ask for an extension of cycle time from 30 days to six weeks? If one bears in mind that all South Africans spend six times as much on alcoholic drinks than on medical services, it gives one some idea of the amount of cash involved here. I find it strange that, in this high technology age of processing accounts, it has now been found necessary to extend the 30 days to six weeks. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether that six-week extension has the active support of the medical profession itself.

Mr. Chairman, not all these amendments were specifically requested by the medical schemes or by the doctors, but in our discussions we noted certain problems that the one group or the other had, and arising out of that we devised amendments to this Act. After we discussed the letter which I received from the Medical Association there was a certain amount of misunderstanding. This is purely an administrative problem, and altering it to six weeks does not make any difference in the length of time for payment and no difference to the cash flow, because obviously it is not a new practitioner who is just starting. What actually in effect happens, and which pertains to a few of the other amendments, is that the practitioner can immediately send his account, which was not previously allowed. We had the problem that in certain holiday towns—I presume Durban is the same—the practitioner might see the family once only. Previously the practitioner had occasionally to send the account to them before the time was up, and only then could he send it in. Now he can send the first account directly to the medical scheme, because he may never see the people again. It is an administrative alteration, and the time limits were all worked out in such a way as to try to improve the administration. It was not requested by the schemes or the doctors. But they know about it and have not objected. In fact, the Medical Association is in agreement with it. I had no letter of objection after the Bill had appeared in its changed form. It was mentioned to the schemes and they had no objection.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation to a certain extent, but I would just like to get clarity on the question I put to him. I am not concerned about the submission time for the doctor. That is no problem. The problem refers to—

There is now a six-week cycle time before that account has to be paid, and there must have been a good reason why the medical aid schemes wanted an extension of the current 30 days to six weeks for the payment of an account to a doctor. This is my concern, because I think any economist will tell you that if you extend your debtors time from 30 days to 42 days, one can expect one’s outstanding debtors to increase by approximately 50%. That is an awful lot of money which the doctors are going to have to find to finance outstanding debts.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this is an administrative problem that was being experienced. The hon. member knows that schemes close their books on certain dates. If payments have to be made within a month only, then one has this problem. But this is a clause which provides that they have to pay him within the period specified. There was a problem with the receipt of accounts where an account was possibly received a week or so before the end of the month, whereas the time for payment was perhaps the last week of the following month. So this is a purely administrative measure. We discussed it with them, but I repeat that this was not requested by them. We picked it up during discussions. This merely constitutes an improvement of the administrative aspect of getting accounts through more rapidly in the end and of dealing with them more efficiently.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. the Minister has seen the point raised by the hon. member for Durban North. The actual point which the hon. member was trying to make is in line 49 viz. that formerly—it does not matter when the medical aid received the account; that is not the point at issue—they had a period of 30 days within which they were required to make payment to the person who had rendered the service. With this amendment we are increasing that period by 50%. The point of the hon. member for Durban North is that if we increase this period from 30 days to six weeks what in effect is happening is that a doctor at the end of every month might have an average amount of R10 000 outstanding to him. This is the amount of credit that he is carrying, that he patients owe him and he is paid within 30 days the amount that relates to the medical aid fees. So his cash flow is within a period of 30 days, but if we pass this amendment and increase that period to six weeks, one can expect that the amount the doctor is personally carrying, his cash flow will be such that he is now carrying an amount owing to him of roughly R15 000, instead of the R10 000—just to take a figure. One is going to find that this is going to create problems, particularly for practitioners who start a practice, because whereas previously they received their money within 30 days from the time the account was submitted, they will now have to carry the account with the medical aid for 42 days. It is not only doctors who are concerned here. Pharmacists are also affected, if one looks at it in that way. A pharmacist carries a tremendous amount owing to him by medical aids, and if this period is increased by 50% one is going to find that the people who are carrying this money are going to have to find facilities, such as overdraft facilities on which they will have to pay high interest rates. I see the hon. the Minister is shaking his head, but I can assure him that this is the case. I have received representations directly in this regard from people who say that they will be unable to carry an extra 50% on top of the amount that they are already carrying. With respect, I do not think the hon. the Minister has given us any real reason at all why it is necessary to increase the period in this age of the computer. I believe it is perfectly within the capabilities of medical aids to pay those bills within 30 days, and I believe one is going to give rise to a lot of hard feelings amongst those who are carrying the amount due to them for their services if the period is increased by 50%. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at this again in the light of the fact that he is going to create problems, not administrative problems as far as the medical aids are concerned, but problems as far as the people who are supplying the services are concerned. That is the point at issue. It is those people who are going to encounter the problems and not the medical aids.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few final words on this matter. I have already told the hon. member that this is an administrative problem. However, he keeps on talking about computers. There are small computers and there are large computers, just as there are large medical schemes and small medical schemes. If a scheme is unable to cope with all the work, some of the work is going to stand over in any event. During the negotiations we had, it became clear on the part of the schemes that they were experiencing problems with processing and that they were not always able to manage. That is the reason for the insertion of this provision. The hon. member’s statement concerning overdrawn accounts and the like is merely hypothetical.

†If it were going to affect a doctor’s cash flow we would surely not even have thought of including this provision in the Bill. We discussed it with the medical schemes, and they felt that it would be of great help to them. The amendment will have the effect that a doctor can actually now receive payment after six weeks. Hon. members will note that the proposed amendment provides that within six weeks after having received an account, the registered medical aid scheme shall pay the amount mentioned in the account directly to the person to whom the amount is due. Previously a doctor had to send his account to the patient first and from the patient it eventually went to the medical aid scheme; so it actually followed a much longer route. Where it is now directly submitted to the medical aid schemes, payment must be effected within six weeks. In cases where it reaches the medical aid scheme quicker than the six-weeks period, it must also be paid within six weeks. I think hon. members must accept that this is an administrative problem which we are trying to solve. I cannot explain this matter any further as we seem to be talking in circles.

Clause agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we have chewed on this very thoroughly. The hon. the Minister has heard that we in these benches feel that if one looks at the total effect of these two Bills, it is going to be prejudicial not only to the medical practitioner, but also to the public as a whole. I do not think that there is any point in going over the same arguments again. I believe that we have done the right thing to point out to the hon. the Minister and the official Opposition what the dangers are of passing these Bills. What is happening is that a total change is being brought about in the relationship between the State and a professional service, a service which intimately affects the wellbeing of every South African. The hon. the Minister may well have had a twinge of conscience during the discussion of the previous Bill, when he disclosed here, under a little pressure, that he was introducing certain measures only as temporary measures. I certainly hope that that will be the hon. the Minister’s attitude in respect of the opting out clause in this Bill as well; in other words, the right of a doctor to contract out. If there is one particular profession which is of vital interest to every citizen, it is the profession which renders medical services. Therefore the payment for these services is vital as well. The career of a medical practitioner is an arduous one. It takes intensive study, a long period of internship, dedication and loyalty to the well-being of people, often without remuneration. I therefore believe that the principle we are adopting in this Bill of allowing the hon. the Minister once again powers by regulation to prevent the free discretion of the medical practitioner is a very serious change in direction by the Government. We can only hope that the effects can be minimized and that, if the hon. the Minister or those people in his department who monitor the medical profession and the quality of service, will be sufficiently sensitive and interested to realize that if what is being done here detrimentally affects the medical services in South Africa, the hon. the Minister must be brave enough— and we shall definitely encourage him then— to come back to this House and say that they have made a mistake and that they want to change it. I also hope that the hon. official Opposition will fulfil the promise which they have made to this House, viz. that they too will monitor this matter very carefully and that they will assist us when we come back to this House to prevail upon the hon. the Minister to bring about certain constructive changes. In that spirit we should just like to say that we are most unhappy with the direction now taken in the relationship between the State, the public and the medical profession. Therefore we shall be voting against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The most important provision of this relatively simple and self-explanatory Bill is contained in clause 6, which provides for Black teachers to become members of the Government Service Pension Fund. At present, the teachers are members of the Temporary Employees Pension Fund. Before 1 October 1979, Black teachers contributed to the Government non-White Employees Pension Fund. In terms of the provisions of the Temporary Employees Pension Fund Act, members of the Government non-White Employees Pension Fund became members of the Temporary Employees Pension Fund on 1 October 1979.

Although the benefits of the Temporary Employees Pension Fund are better than those of the old Government non-White Employees Pension Fund, the unfortunate situation arose that a Black teachers who had been appointed on a permanent basis was a member of a pension fund which had been intended in the first place for temporary employees. In order to rectify the position of the Black teachers, it is being provided in clause 6, firstly, that Black teachers appointed as from 1 January 1980, the date of commencement of the Act, are obliged to become members of the Government Service Pension Fund, and secondly, that teachers who were already employed at this date are given the opportunity to elect, before 31 March 1981, to become a member of the Government Service Pension Fund or to remain a member of the Temporary Employees Pension Fund. The choice is necessary because it entails greater financial obligations for the teachers involved, i.e. 7% of their salary instead of 5% in the case of men, and in addition, compulsory contributions are payable in respect of previous non-contributory uninterrupted service. Of course, the admission to the Government Service imposes greater obligations upon the State as well. The expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer will be spread over a number of years.

This measure will place Black teachers on an equal footing with teachers of the other population groups as far as pension benefits are concerned.

The most important other amendments are the following:

Clause 1:

The definition of “calendar month” is being inserted for the sake of clarity.

Clause 2:

This clause provides for the payment of allowances to committees of the Education and Training Council as well.

Clause 3:

With a view to simplifying administrative procedures, provision is being made for allowances payable to members of bodies established for State schools and community schools henceforth to be determined instead of prescribed by regulation.

Clauses 4, 5 and 9(B):

These clauses contain provisions regarding retirement ages and provides that teachers who at the date of commencement of the Act have already attained the prescribed retirement age will be deemed to have been appointed on a temporary basis. Furthermore, provision is made in terms of clauses 5(b) and (b) for termination of services upon attainment of the retirement age, as prescribed in or under the Pension Act applicable. The retirement age in terms of the Government Service Pension Act is 65 years for men and women. The Temporary Employees Pension Fund does not prescribe a retirement age, and therefore it is necessary to provide for this in the present Bill, viz. 65 years in the case of a man and 60 years in the case of a woman.

†Clause 7:

Until now the appointment and promotion of teachers in posts at State and community schools are on probation with a view to eliminating incompetent teachers at the earliest possible stage. It is now proposed that this condition be extended to cover State-aided schools as well. Section 19(3) of the Act prescribes that all appointments and promotions of persons should be subjected to a period of probation. This is not deemed necessary in all cases as a teacher, who has already proved himself by rendering years of satisfactory service and is then promoted, surely need not necessarily be subjected to a further probationary period. The same principle applies in the case of a teacher who is transferred from another department where he has already served a probationary period. The Public Service Act, 1957, determines that appointments and promotions need not necessarily be on probation. It is now proposed that the same principle be made applicable in that probationary appointments will only be effected in such cases as determined by the Minister.

Clause 8:

The need does arise to appoint a person for a limited period only, for instance where a person has to be appointed as a substitute for a teacher who is on sick leave or study leave. In these cases the normal conditions of service cannot be applied, e.g. in the case of the termination of service. It is therefore proposed that the Minister be empowered to appoint a person on contract for a fixed period on a basis and on conditions as determined. Such an appointment is also made when a person does not comply with the requirements for appointment set out in section 19 of the Act, i.e. when that person is not a South African citizen or a citizen of an independent State or possesses qualifications obtained overseas which are not recognized.

Clause 9(a) contemplates to provide for the appointment of a board by the Secretary for Health at the request of the department whenever the health of a teacher has deteriorated to such an extent that he is unable to carry out his duties satisfactorily.

Clause 10:

Section 22(o) determines that a teacher is guilty of misconduct if he is on conviction of any offence sentenced to imprisonment without option of a fine. As serious offences can be committed for which fines without imprisonment may be imposed, for instance in the case of fraud, misappropriation of school funds or wilful damage to property, etc., it is deemed necessary to frame this paragraph in such a manner that a teacher is guilty of misconduct if he commits an offence. The procedure to be followed, as set out in section 23 of the Act, however, remains the same. This amendment brings the Education and Training Act in line with the Civil Service Act and the Acts concerning other education departments.

*With this, Mr. Speaker, I have explained the major objectives of this Bill, which in any case is largely self-explanatory. I shall be glad to explain anything that is not clear in the course of the debate or in the Committee Stage.

Finally, I hope that hon. members will support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I immediately want to say to the hon. the Minister that we shall be supporting this Bill through all its stages. There are a number of comments I should like to make and perhaps one or two questions I should like to ask. In particular I want to raise one specific matter with the hon. the Minister, a matter which I shall discuss in more detail in the Committee Stage.

Those of us who last year had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on the whole question of education and training and new education legislation, will recall that we debated a number of issues which it was then decided to leave over for further consideration. Obviously consideration has now been given to it. A number of very interesting, and I think far-reaching, points which were made during the Select Committee proceedings, have now been dealt with by the department and are now being introduced here by the hon. the Minister in the form of a Bill.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that clause 6 is obviously the most important clause in this Bill before us. Clause 6 provides for the moving away from the temporary pension scheme to the Government Service Pension Act. That does away with an anomaly which the hon. the Minister has, quite rightly, described as being unfortunate and the history of which we do not have to go into. The fact is that improvements are being made. As far as we are concerned, we warmly welcome this. We believe it puts Black teachers on the same footing as teachers who are covered by other Acts. I note that this provision is to be made retrospective to 1 January 1980 once it becomes law. This too we welcome, because we believe it is very positive.

The other point which I think is worth underlining, is the fact that the teachers concerned are given a choice. The fact that they are having to pay more than they have been paying, obviously means that some may not make the decision to become subject to the Government Service Pension Act. However, I should like to make an appeal to all Black teachers. One appreciates that difficulties may be experienced by those who are nearing the end of their time and who simply cannot afford this. Yet I would hope that as many teachers as possible will move away from the pension fund for temporary workers to the Government Service Pension Act. I stress this because very often people seem to believe that in the short term there may be a benefit for them to stay because they do not have to pay an extra amount, but in the long term it would obviously be to the advantage of all teachers who are concerned with this piece of legislation to move over to the new arrangements. I hope that that will happen.

I would say that also clause 7 is of great significance. Not only does it include State-aided schools as well as community schools; it also gives the hon. the Minister the opportunity to determine whether or not the teachers concerned should be on probation. This makes it a much fairer scheme. I remember raising this matter in the Select Committee last year. We could not make such a provision at the time. I believe that this provision was necessary in the initial Act. But now we are making the necessary amendment and allowing for the discretion to be given. I note that the word “Secretary” is being deleted and the hon. the Minister himself is now going to accept that responsibility. Under normal circumstances and particularly in the light of a debate earlier this afternoon, one would have raised the question very strongly as to why it was necessary for the hon. the Minister himself to be involved. But when we bear in mind the difficulties we have been experiencing in education, in the townships in particular, the troubles, the boycotts and the disturbances that we have, it is my belief that the hon. the Minister should keep as close to the situation as possible. Whilst Black schools have in the past, particularly in 1976 and 1977, held the threat of disorder, I believe, as I have stated on more than one occasion in this House, and I am sure the hon. the Minister believes, that Black education holds one of the central keys to peace, development and orderly change in this country. Therefore I am certainly not going to take exception to the fact that the word “Secretary” is being deleted and that the word “Minister” is being inserted. We did make the point that it was unfortunate that in previous times Ministers were perhaps not as aware of the climate as they ought to have been. I do not want to hark back to those days. I believe there has been a change, that a new awareness has come about in the department as a whole and in the hon. the Minister in particular, and I am very grateful for that.

A very important change is also being made in clause 8. It seems to me that this is a much fairer arrangement. We could not understand this when we debated it at the time. I think the hon. member for Durban Central will recall it as well that it did not seem fair to us at the time that if someone assumed a post, even on a temporary basis, it was not possible for him to be rewarded accordingly. We made that point as strongly as we could. At that time the Secretary of the department agreed to look at it and to find a way to resolve this, and now I believe that this clause does. I welcome the fact that this does enable the hon. the Minister himself to appoint a person for a fixed period to a teaching post, so that on the return of the teacher, the principal or the vice principal whose place he has been taking, he is not faulted in any way. He has accepted the further responsibilities and he gets the necessary reward. I assume that this is what the hon. the Minister has in mind in this particular clause.

The one problem I have with the legislation before us is in clause 10.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 22, the House adjourned at 5.30 p.m.