Mr Speaker, the Bill we are going to debate is the Road Traffic Bill. On the way back from Pretoria to the meeting at which the voting on this Bill was done, a shower of rain fell on the Ben Schoeman highway. While this shower of rain was falling, a heavy motor vehicle went out of control, virtually demolishing approximately 22 motor vehicles. I think there has seldom been a more striking example of the necessity for road safety than this incident.

The CP says that road safety must be a priority in South Africa. To promote road safety, personal dedication and effective law enforcement are essential. Although the Road Traffic Bill mentions a number of innovative methods of better law enforcement, the way in which those methods are to be implemented has not been well-considered, in the CP’s opinion, and in consequence there could be considerable problems.

Problems we envisage are related, inter alia, to the privatisation of certain law-enforcement functions such as the testing of vehicles and the issuing of roadworthy certificates. In terms of the Bill the Administrator can even register private bodies as testing centres for drivers’ licences. Private sector inspectors of licences, private sector examiners of vehicles, private sector testing officials for drivers’ licences and even private sector traffic officers can technically be appointed in terms of the law.

The CP is of the opinion that law enforcement, as envisaged in the Bill, should remain with Government bodies. The danger of malpractices in a privatised system is too great. I want to make it clear that in saying this I am not denying that there is no danger of malpractices in Government institutions too. I think that yesterday’s debates, in particular, have indicated this very clearly. In the case of a private institution responsible for law enforcement, however, the fact of the matter is that the private body has a conflict of interests in the process of law enforcement, whilst in the case of Government bodies that implement laws, no such conflict of interests arises. In our opinion the chances of malpractices are therefore slimmer.

We are also saying that because of the privatisation of the powers to test motor vehicles, there could be a complete stranglehold on testing stations in smaller local authorities. What is more, there is no guarantee that the private sector will, for example, accept the risk in civil claims by themselves running testing stations to which members of the general public have access. This could have extremely adverse cost implications for existing Government testing stations owing to the possible loss of large transport companies’ vehicles which would be tested privately.

The creation of an inspectorate of testing stations to monitor the functions and standards of the much larger number of testing stations also imposes an additional financial burden which will be passed on to the consumer.

Other provisions, for example those laying down maximum driving hours and minimum rest periods for drivers of certain heavy vehicles and the compulsory installation of equipment to record driving times and vehicle speeds are aspects we welcome, however.

Seen as a whole, in our opinion the shortcomings of the Bill weigh too heavily, and we can therefore not support it.

I shall now refer in more detail to the report of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, as printed in the Minutes of the House.

Firstly the committee states in its report that there was a discussion about whether driving and rest periods should be specified in the Bill or not. As I have said, this is one of the innovations we welcome. We think it is a good thing to have maximum driving times and minimum rest periods prescribed, and it has now been decided to prescribe the specific rest periods in the regulations, even though the relevant enabling provisions are contained in clauses 50 and 51 of the Bill.

Secondly the report states that the committee recommended that the driver’s licence be separated from the identity document. There was considerable discussion about this, and I should like to state that during the discussion I recommended to the committee that the Cabinet and/or the Department of Home Affairs be asked to give evidence before a final decision was taken about whether the drivers’ licences and identity documents should be separated or not. The reason for this is that we were informed that on a previous occasion the Cabinet had expressed its opposition to such separation of the documents, although the evidence before the committee was that strictly from a transport point of view it would be much better if the two documents were, in fact, separated.

When voting took place, there were unfortunately only two members of the CP, one member of the House of Delegates and one member of the House of Representatives who saw their way clear to giving the Cabinet and/or the Department of Home Affairs an opportunity to put their case. The remainder of the committee decided against that, and hence the recommendation that the separation should, in fact, take place.

Thirdly the committee recommended that the minimum depth of tread on tyres should be one millimetre over the. whole width of the tyre, in contrast to the previous 80% of the width of the tyre. We think this is an improvement and we wholeheartedly want to endorse that standpoint.

Fourthly the committee recommended that road traffic signs should be standardised as far as possible so that they conformed to the international conventions on road traffic signs. One can very clearly see the benefits involved, in the sense that visitors to South Africa from overseas would much more easily be able to adapt to the traffic conditions in South Africa if road traffic signs were standardised.

Fifthly, there was a reasonably penetrating discussion about the question of cameras that are used to observe speeding offences and the prosecutions resulting from this. Our standpoint in the CP was that one should guard against this measure getting out of hand. We have reason to believe that in certain circumstances there are already signs that the use of cameras for observing speeding offences or alleged speeding offences has got out of hand. I discussed the matter with the Attorney-General of the Witwatersrand Division of the Supreme Court, and he also intimated that he was aware of problems and that he did not deny that interests should be weighed up, one against the other.

One must acknowledge that the motorist who has allegedly been guilty of a speeding offence—as determined by the camera, linked to some measuring apparatus—is in the difficult position of not being stopped immediately and being informed that he has just passed through a speed trap and is entitled to inspect the apparatus—in contrast to the situation in regard to the old so-called gatsometers.

I am aware of one case in which an offence was allegedly committed in July 1988, with the alleged offender only being given a ticket a month later. The eventual summons was only issued in December of last year—approximately five months after the alleged offence had been committed. On the relevant notice and summons it was not stated where specifically on the road the alleged offence took place. There was only the name and the code of a road many kilometres in length. This proves that the motorist finds himself in a hopeless position when it comes to defending himself against an allegation made against him.

We feel that this matter needs to be reconsidered. As I have said, the Attorney-General of the Witwatersrand also confirmed that it was a problem. He indicated to me, for example, that signboards are posted warning motorists that speeding offences are being recorded by means of cameras on the roads on which the apparatus has been installed, but as I pointed out to him, this does not eliminate the problem. One also has a situation such as that—I want to mention a specific road in this context—on the N13 at Johannesburg. When one takes the turn-off from the so-called cement road to Germiston, there is no indication of the speed limit on that road. For a stretch of many kilometres there is no indication, and then use is made of a camera to trap people for alleged speeding offences and tickets are issued to them.

Some distance further along this road, just beyond the Camaro East turn-off, there is suddenly an indication of a 100 km/h speed limit on the left-hand side of the road, with a warning that there are dangerous curves ahead. If one travels the road through these so-called dangerous curves, one sees that each is approximately one kilometre in length. I am therefore saying that they are not dangerous curves. On that piece of road offenders are also subjected to scrutiny by a camera. Then, some distance further, without any further sign to indicate that the speed limit is now no longer 100 km/h, but 120 km/h, one finds a traffic sign that indicates that the speed limit of 120 km/h has been lifted. The signs themselves therefore indicate that somewhere between the speed limit of 100 km/h and the lifting of the speed limit of 120 km/h, there should be a sign indicating a speed limit of 120 km/h, but there is no such sign. All these facts indicate that a complete injustice is being done to the motorist, something which I do not think is in the interests of proper law enforcement.

I merely want to emphasise that our bona fides should not be questioned in this regard. As I have said, road safety is a matter that is dear to our hearts. This is emphasised by the fact that in the joint committee we recommended, inter alia, that a new clause 87 be inserted in the draft Bill. It makes provision for the fact that in certain heavy vehicles measuring instruments should be installed with a view to recording the speed of those vehicles. The law-enforcement officers can therefore be very certain of the fact that the CP does not unilaterally want to remove certain mechanisms at their disposal, but that we are in earnest about maintaining a sound balance between the law-enforcement officers and the rights of the road users.

In dealing with the Bill itself, I want to refer at once to clauses 57 and 58,62 and 63, which should be read jointly and which deal with the privatisation of testing stations, ie testing stations where vehicles are examined with a view to the issuing of roadworthy certificates.

Clause 57 reads:

Clause 58 goes on to state:

The importance of clauses 62 and 63 lie in the fact that these are the clauses that clearly indicate that one is not allowed to bring a vehicle onto a public road unless that vehicle has a roadworthy certificate issued by a registered testing station.

The result of this is that testing stations for the issuing of roadworthy certificates are now being privatised. An interesting article in this regard appeared in the January-February 1989 issue of Die SA Transporter. Let me refer briefly to the front-page article which, inter alia, reads as follows:

There is also a statement by Mr André Jacobs, chief executive officer of NAPTO, which reads:

This is already an indication that we cannot rely on the replacement of State-controlled testing stations by privatised testing stations. In our view we have well-grounded fears that the civil testing stations are going to be unreliable. They may perhaps initially register themselves and test vehicles, but as soon as they encounter problems, such as civil claims arising out of their testing procedures, they can simply cancel their registration. Then we would find ourselves in precisely the same situation as that in which we now find ourselves before the commencement of this legislation, ie that there are too few properly equipped testing stations with properly qualified testing officers. This is only going to exacerbate the problem if we have initially come to rely on these private testing stations and they summarily, and without warning, withdraw from this function.

The extra inspectorate of testing stations which is being established in terms of clause 61 to monitor these testing stations means an extra financial burden which will eventually have to be borne by the consumer.

Particularly in the smaller towns, the existing testing stations—in the article I quoted there was a reference to Beaufort West—are simply going to have a stranglehold placed on them. If large private-initiative testing stations were to register themselves and take over the functions, there would be no indication or guarantee, for these smaller local authority testing stations, that they would survive. We see this as a very real danger. We are of the opinion that the existing testing stations should first be brought up to the required standard, and if there is then still a need for extra testing stations, one should rather plan from scratch to see how this problem can be addressed. Whilst existing testing stations are so far below the required standard, we are saying that those existing testing stations should rather first be brought up to the required standard.

Fourthly we are of the opinion that one should not transfer law enforcement to the private sector. This Bill is bursting at the seams with provisions for the transfer of law-enforcement functions to private bodies. I should like to refer to the definitions clause in this Bill, a clause in which reference is made to a registering authority. In terms of this Bill a registering authority can, for example, register testing stations, have officers in its employ, etc, but in the definitions clause a registering authority refers only to the registering authority referred to in clause 2. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Roodepoort, in particular when he spoke about prosecutions by means of cameras. This is one of the few matters regarding which the joint committee was unanimous. If we had had a solution for this, we would have inserted a clause in this Bill to address this matter, but because we did not have a solution for that problem we assigned it, in the memorandum, to Parliament and the respective Houses specifically to investigate the problem of camera prosecutions further and to see whether we cauld not find a solution to this. The way in which it is being implemented at the moment was unacceptable to everyone on the joint committee. In the documents submitted to us this was one of the burning questions existing at present with regard to traffic control in the Republic.

At the outset I want to convey my sincere thanks to the members of the joint committee and to the Department of Transport for their co-operation in getting the Bill to this stage. If one sees how many amendments there were and for how long this matter was debated one can understand why I am expressing a particular word of thanks to the members of the committee and to the department. I also want to express my thanks to the industry for the wealth of information we received. I want to express my thanks to the people who submitted memorandums as well as those who gave evidence before the joint committee.

This Bill must be read in conjunction with the White Paper on the National Transport Policy. The two cannot be separated from one another. This Bill stems from what was recommended in that White Paper—as do other Bills which will follow later. The long-term goal is to create a safe transportation sector, which is deregulated, for both passengers and in this case, goods. This Bill we are now dealing with concerns mainly the goods side of transportation in South Africa.

The implementation of the national transport policy has laid down 16 prerequisites which are important and which must be complied with when we make an analysis of the transportation sector in South Africa. I do not want to dwell on the 16 prerequisites. I merely want to refer again to the 16 prerequisites by mentioning that they have so many things in common which must be pursued in the final analysis. When we come to the standpoint of the Government on this matter, it is that we must try to make progress. We have made a great deal of progress in that there are already the 300 km exempted areas around certain main metropolises. What we are going to do in this regard, is to take a further step arising out of the 300 km. At the end of the day this Road Traffic Bill, which forms part of a package of laws, is probably the most important of all of them. This, together with the legislation we dealt with a few days ago in connection with the SATS, will make it possible for the consumers of South Africa to have a greater degree of freedom of choice regarding who and under what conditions they want to use something.

The crux of the matter is the road transport quality system which the Government has set as its goal in respect of the entire deregulation programme. As regards this road transport quality system, there is the problem of its implementation. At the start of my speech I want to ask the hon the Minister to tell us more or less, according to his calculations and those of his department, what the costs of the implementation of the new system are going to be. We must realise from the outset that this system is going to result in expenses for everyone who participates in it.

It is a good thing that by means of this Bill we are trying to achieve a uniform road traffic system in South Africa. To date road traffic has been controlled mainly by four ordinances of the four different provinces. This worked well, but I do not think it worked to the optimum. It will be better if we have a single uniform system in future. I hope we will reach the stage, when this Bill has been passed, when all the independent countries, the self-governing states, as well as the BSL states and eventually Namibia will participate in terms of an Act similar to this Bill.

The drafting of these road traffic ordinances is only the starting point for this legislation. This Bill is combining the present four road ordinances into one. This Bill can be divided into two important subsections. The first subsection concerns the amalgamation of the present road ordinances and the second subsection concerns the new road transport quality system. It is a good thing for us to consolidate and develop and encourage this in Southern Africa. This Bill is only as good as its implementation. No Act, no matter how good it is …

Like the Group Areas Act.

… is worthwhile if it is not implemented correctly. In this case the success of this good Bill lies in its implementation.

Like the Group Areas Act.

The hon member for Bethal does not know much about transport either. He will keep on whining. Ignore him. [Interjections.]

Order!

When we deal with this Bill, there are a large number of participants. There is the State, the transporters, the user of transport and then there is, as the hon member for Heilbron said, the “speed-cops”. I should like to compare the “speed-cop" with someone who gave evidence before us and said the following about them: “Please see to it that that ghost in the Sierra parked under the tree enforces the law.” That is the crux of this Bill. We will have to train “that ghost in the Sierra”, as the relevant person said to us. We will have to get everyone’s cooperation; otherwise this Bill will serve no purpose.

This Bill has so many participants that at the end of the day every participant will have to play his rightful part to implement it successfully. It is not only the role of the State or the Traffic Department, but also the people undertaking the transportation, because at the end of the day …

You must switch on your lights.

Mr Chairman, may I request your protection against that whining from that side?

Order!

Thank you. Sir, because that whining is deafening. I should like to ask the hon the Minister that when we come to drafting the regulations, the participants in this Bill will all be given the opportunity to make an input in the finalising of those regulations, because in essence this Bill is enabling legislation.

The details of this measure are embodied in the regulations. When we say this we are also saying from the outset that this legislation is not the alpha and the omega. It is only the beginning. We shall have to amend this measure again within the next year or two owing to changed circumstances, and as the measure is amended, problems are going to crop up which will have to receive the attention of this Parliament.

I want to say at the outset that this was the point of departure of the joint committee. We must get hold of something which we can start working with. We can fix it up as the legislation is being implemented. The implementation of the measure under discussion and its success will depend on whether all the parties who are going to participate in it are going to co-operate with one another. At this stage I also want to lodge an appeal. We made certain proposals in connection with certain aspects, for example, driving hours, to which the hon member for Roodepoort referred. I can say that the concept “driving hours" is still going to cause us many problems. The end of the problem in connection with driving hours is not yet in sight. However, when driving hours are eventually to be specified in the regulations, let us allow everyone to participate before the final decision is taken. That is my appeal.

The same applies when we prescribe certain instruments and certain other measures. Let people who supply it, people who are going to use it, people who are eventually going to utilise it to implement the legislation, as well as the courts which are, in the final instance, going to use it as evidence, the SA Bureau of Standards as well as the CSIR, participate in the formulation of the specifications of those instruments and everything associated with this. Let them all participate with a view to promoting safety.

Once we have prescribed all these things, I want to address a further request to the hon the Deputy Minister. I want to ask that existing instruments and existing systems only be phased out once their economic lifetime is finished. Let us not start loading additional costs onto the shoulders of the transportation sector overnight. Recently, particularly since the beginning of this year, a large number of reports have appeared in the Press regarding the position of the road transportation sector in South Africa. I have only two of them here with me. One of these has the caption “Costs of trucks and trucking”, and it appeared in Business Times on 26 February of this year. According to this report the costs of the road transportation sector have risen by R2 billion during the past year. The other report I have here says that the small hauliers are battling. This is the style in which it is written. That is why I feel, considering the astronomical cost increases in the road transportation sector during the past year, which in the long run are going to devolve on the consumer—that sector cannot bear the costs alone in any case—that we must try not to further increase the costs abnormally. Instead of that I feel we must implement what we want to do gradually in order to prevent the costs rising too much, while at the same time continuing our endeavour to achieve absolute safety in the road traffic sector.

The final objective is after all in the first place to bring about deregulation in the road transportation sector. Secondly, and this links up with the foregoing, there is the improvement of safety at the same time as the process of deregulation. We have enough experience of what happened with deregulation abroad. We can think for example of Australia and the USA. Deregulation, when it is not handled correctly, results in one of the following two things—or even a combination of both. It leads to chaos in the industry. It leads to an increase in costs for the user of transport. In the long run it forms monopolies. In this case, based on the experience we have gained, we must try to prevent these aspects or at least keep their influence down to a minimum.

This legislation is being introduced on the first tier of government. The second and third tiers of government are going to implement it—not the first tier. I should like to ask the second and third tiers to set their machinery in motion now to implement this measure correctly and as soon as possible. I should also like to see the hon the Minister using his influence and the powers of his department to get the relevant people prepared. If we go ahead with deregulation without introducing the high-quality system, we are heading for further accidents, deaths and other dangers on our roads. These matters go hand in hand.

I think the Transport Advisory Council has a particular role to play in this regard. When this council comes into operation one day I hope that among its priorities will be firstly to monitor this legislation and secondly to come back to this Parliament to make recommendations on possible amendments which will improve this legislation.

Since this legislation affects every road user in South Africa, I want to request the hon the Minister to make funds available and appoint people to go ahead with an information campaign on a very large scale. I think it is absolutely essential for every road user—it does not matter what size vehicle he uses—to be acquainted with the new circumstances and the new legislation. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to go ahead and start making arrangements for launching an information campaign aimed at each and every person on our roads.

A further point I want to touch on in connection with the road transport quality system is that when it is compiled in the regulations, a very close look will have to be taken at the regulations before they are promulgated. Not only us, but everyone will have to see to it that we achieve our objectives. We did not effect those changes in the legislation; we asked that this be done in the regulations, so that the hon the Minister could effect certain changes in the regulations as and when necessary within weeks and not within months.

I have two requests I want to make at the end of my speech. The one is that I want to ask the hon the Minister to take another look at vehicle lengths. The debate on vehicle lengths taking place inside and outside Parliament justifies further investigation. The former reduction from 72 ft to 20 m took place under specific circumstances. In the meantime international standards have changed. When we talk about the increase or decrease in vehicle lengths, we have problems because this is an emotional matter. I am therefore asking the hon the Minister to appoint a task group—or whatever he wants to call it—to take another look at the entire matter of vehicle length. It is essential for us once and for all to find a solution regarding vehicle length.

I take pleasure in sharing the joint committee’s standpoint on drivers’ licences. It is essential for us to look at drivers’ licences again. In certain reports it is said that there are up to 100 000— some people say 300 000, and others even say 0,5 million—forged licences in South Africa. The latest report I have seen, mentions that a certain insurance company claims that there are as many as a million forged drivers’ licences in South Africa. I should like to ask that we separate the motor vehicle licence from the identity document so that we will know precisely what is going on. I hope that this matter will receive attention as soon as possible.

I know that there are also problems in other areas. We need the co-operation of other people outside South Africa to implement this successfully. I am asking that we get those people to support this so that we can solve this problem and get death off our roads.

In conclusion I want to say that the Road Traffic Bill, which will establish uniform standards in the Republic and neighbouring territories and facilitate law enforcement, will hopefully be introduced as soon as possible, and that the road transport quality system which is the prerequisite, will be implemented along with the deregulation of road traffic. I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the White Paper on National Transport Policy which was tabled at the beginning of 1987 was the foundation stone for a whole series of Bills directed toward the implementation of policy laid down in that White Paper. The Bill before us today is part of that package.

The hon member for Primrose is quite right when he describes this as enabling legislation. He is also correct in saying that the second and third levels of authority must now get into gear and as fast as possible put the basis which is embodied in this Bill into action. I can only agree with this.

I think the hon member for Roodepoort made a very thoughtful speech and I certainly had some sympathy with him with regard to the difficulties that are evidently being experienced with camera trapping and the inequities that definitely exist in this type of enforcement.

Possibly the most important aspect of this Bill is that it consolidates the four existing Road Traffic Ordinances into one national Act. We believe this standardisation is desirable and long overdue and although certain responsibilities such as registration and licensing—in fact, almost all aspects concerning the implementation of this legislation—still rest with the provincial administrators and through them with the various local authorities, generally speaking the uniformity imposed through all four provinces will facilitate improved traffic control. It should also reduce road casualties, should enable the authorities to deal more adequately with the problem of unlicensed vehicles on our roads and will certainly make it easier to deal more expeditiously with the deregulation process.

Of particular interest to me is a point raised by the hon member for Primrose and that is the serious problem of unlicensed drivers. I too saw the latest estimate of the approximately 1 million unlicensed drivers who are using our roads. Many of these people seem to have forged licences and I believe some of the forgeries are very skilfully done and very difficult to detect. Our climbing accident statistics seem to indicate that many of these untested drivers lack competence. Quite horrifying are the unbelievable statistics on kombi accidents. These kombis seem to be particularly accident prone. The result for the man in the street, apart from the threat to his safety, is that he has to pay unbelievably high insurance premiums, and the cost of using our roads and driving a vehicle has become very high indeed.

With regard to enforcing traffic laws, I believe there should be a legal requirement that drivers carry their licence with them at all times. When a driver is in control of a vehicle and is required to produce a licence at the request of an inspector, the failure to do so should constitute an offence. It should be everyday practice for traffic inspectors to demand production of a licence and from time to time checkpoints should be established where all licences can be examined. This could be a great nuisance to legitimate road users but it would undoubtedly be of great benefit to all motorists with regard to reducing the accident rate and thus insurance premiums. One knows that in many other Western countries this principle is part of their law. They are required to have their licences with them at all times and I believe this example should be followed in South Africa.

This is a very long and comprehensive Bill and there is not time to talk about all aspects of it. A particular aspect of driving in South Africa, the overtaking of vehicles, is dealt with in this Bill in Chapter VII, governing rules of the road, in clause 91. Drivers on double carriageways in South Africa habitually pass on the left hand side of traffic moving in the right hand lane. Frequently this is because slower vehicles stick to the right hand lane. How often it happens that one is confronted with two heavy vehicles, one in each lane, effectively blocking faster moving traffic, much to the frustration of its drivers. Frustrated drivers are drivers who take chances and drivers who take chances are drivers who have accidents. I have yet to hear of any major action taken by the authorities which deals with slow driving in a right hand lane.

I believe it should be illegal to pass on the left hand side, except in exceptional circumstances.

It is always illegal to be on the left!

In this country it has been tough to be on the left. It has not been illegal but I sometimes think that the Government and certainly the verkrampte members to my right would like to make leftwing views illegal. [Interjections.] I would like to tell hon members that driving on the left hand side in South Africa is the only way to follow and following a leftwing policy is going to be the safe road. [Interjections.]

Order! Let us rather stick to the Bill.

Yes, Sir, I believe it should be illegal to pass on the left hand side but this can only be reasonably enforced if slower drivers in the right hand lane are prosecuted. South African drivers are notoriously selfish, so a more disciplined approach to driving in the correct lane should be adopted.

From my personal experience, heavy vehicle drivers are the worst offenders and I believe that legislation restricting the use of the fast lane by heavy vehicles should be imposed. Drivers from other countries are frequently scared witless by vehicles overtaking on the left because it is just not allowed in most other countries.

Another particular hobby-horse of mine has to do with noise pollution, covered in this Bill by clause 103 which reads as follows:

1. (1) No person shall operate and permit to be operated on a public road a vehicle causing noise
   1. (a) in excess of the prescribed noise level; or
   2. (b) resulting from the use of methods, accessories or appliances the use of which is prohibited by regulation.

In the past, control of excessive vehicle noise seems to have been observed in the breach and I think that this is probably because it is a very difficult provision to enforce. Living very close to a major road as I do, inevitably the comparative peace will be destroyed by a passing vehicle which seems to have no silencer and an engine which sounds as though it has been designed to destroy one’s eardrums. I believe that traffic authorities should be equipped with portable testing equipment which will check the decibel level of vehicle noise and that prosecutions with heavy penalties should follow. Many offending vehicles appear to be motorcycles or souped up vehicles where the noise is wilfully induced rather than being the result of a broken silencer. It seems to give some people a great deal of pleasure to drive noisy vehicles but noise pollution is one of the greatest problems of our age and much more attention will have to be paid to it in the future.

Another point has to do with pedalcycles. Provision is made in the Bill for how people riding pedalcycles shall ride that cycle but the hon the Minister has the responsibility eventually after consultation with the Administrator as to what lights and reflectors should be required for the bicycle itself. It should be a requirement that bicycles should be fitted with either lights or reflectors making them more visible at night. At present regulations governing bicycles are inadequate and I believe that stricter regulations should apply and be enforced.

Finally, in the time I have available, I have a question for the hon the Deputy Minister and this has to do with the transporting of people in vehicles which are not passenger vehicles. One frequently sees bakkies or trucks loaded with workers, perhaps going to a building site or something of this nature. I have been approached fairly consistently by somebody who feels that this is a highly dangerous practice and should be forbidden by law. I wonder if the hon the Deputy Minister could tell us just how dangerous this is considered to be. I do not know but presumably there are statistics. If it is a dangerous practice, is it the intention of the hon the Deputy Minister to make it illegal by regulation? I have reservations about this myself because one does not want to see unnecessary regulations introduced at a time when we are actually deregulating but I would like to hear an opinion from the hon the Deputy Minister on this matter.

Other hon members of my party will deal with other aspects of the Bill but overall the Bill has our support.

Mr Chairman, I would like to follow the hon member for Bryanston and I must agree with the hon member that the overloading especially of bakkies in the building trade on Friday afternoons when they take their workers back to the bus stations or terminals, is hazardous. They overload the trucks and these people are not protected in the event of an accident. It is difficult to control an overloaded bakkie. When it is overloaded at the back, the front end lifts up and one does not have much control over the vehicle.

*It has basically been a fairly peaceful afternoon, and one hopes that the other hon members’ lack of interest in this debate is indicative of a motion of confidence in the joint committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Primrose and of the fact that we have done a good job. I am sorry to learn from the hon member for Roodepoort that they do not intend supporting the Bill. I cannot fully understand why they do not want to support this legislation, because the testing of vehicles and the testing of individuals with a view to issuing drivers’ licences, and what he calls privatisation, which only entails measures enabling private organisations and private individuals to be licensed too, he calls the privatisation of law enforcement. I find this difficult to understand, because I cannot see that a testing station has a law-enforcement function.

We will explain it to you later.

I am talking to the hon member for Roodepoort. I should like him— I do not think the other hon CP members, with the possible exception of one member, can understand what this is all about—to write something down for the next hon member who is going to speak on behalf of the CP so that we can at least understand what he means by this. Incorporated in this system is the provision that the SA Bureau of Standards will assist in the setting of standards and that an inspectorate will be appointed to investigate, from time to time, private testing stations and officers who will issue drivers’ licences in the future.

As the hon member rightly remarked, such a person’s licence may be withdrawn when there are repeated transgressions of the standards. Then he said that such a person could suddenly simply close down his testing station and stop operating. However, as we established in the joint committee, it would cost quite a few rands to erect such a testing station which complies with the standards which are to be set. If I am not mistaken, there was talk of a minimum amount of R1 million. I do not think it is likely that a person would allow his standards to slip to such an extent that if he were guilty of a contravention and then a further contravention he would simply close that station down, because there is a large amount of capital invested which one would not simply throw away.

†Although the Bill before us is mainly a compilation of the existing road traffic ordinances of the four provinces—I think we were told that 78% of this Bill is derived from these provincial ordinances—the introduction of the recommendations of the White Paper on National Transport Policy puts us firmly on the way to approaching the ideal of greater road safety. The Bill also incorporates the deregulation of transport.

The incorporation in this Bill of the road transport quality system brings us much closer to the ideal I have just mentioned. The fact that the owner of a vehicle which is used for public transport will now have to register as an operator implies that he must now take full responsibility for the actions of the driver at all times, and the driver himself will have to abide by strict standards regarding the conditions of the professional driver’s permit. This will make it easier for law-nforcement officers to bring offenders to trial.

The hon member for Bryanston also touched on the problems of the kombi-taxis. East London is in close proximity to an independent country with a large city just next door to East London, and the law-enforcement people in East London have difficulty prosecuting those who offend and successfully bringing them to trial. In practice, when a law-enforcement officer suspects a vehicle of not complying with the regulations, for example if the vehicle is unroadworthy or overloaded or the driver has committed some other offence such as jumping a robot, and stops that vehicle, he does not arrest the driver because he would then have to leave the whole kombi-taxi standing next to the road. Instead he issues a summons instructing that person to appear in court on a certain date, but that person simply disappears. Next time the law-enforcement officer spots that very same vehicle and stops it, he finds that it is being driven by a different person, and the offending driver cannot be found.

Under the new legislation, where the operator has to register, that operator will be taken to task. I would urge the hon the Deputy Minister to try to expedite the co-operation between South Africa, the TBVC countries, etc to also implement this kind of legislation. I know that as from today, our law-enforcement officers in East London will be able to take the operator to task as soon as this has been implemented. I would like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister when can we expect to start with this procedure.

Yesterday!

I just want to say that I agree with the hon member that yesterday is not soon enough either. We also said this to one another last year. I should like to quote from the Daily Dispatch of 27 February 1989.

Three die, 8 hurt in Minibus accident.

That was in East London alone. I quote further:

That was over one weekend. It goes on to state:

We are told that an estimated 100 000 of these kombi-taxis are on the road in South Africa, only 50% of which comply with the specifications of existing legislation; in other words vehicles which are registered and have permits from the Road Transportation Board. We no longer have any problems with those individuals because there records on them and they will eventually be dealt with by law-enforcement officers. Those individuals have to bear the brunt for the other 50 000 people who operate illegally. It is absolutely vital for the regulations in terms of this legislation to be implemented as soon as possible in order to put an end to all this.

There is another matter I should also like to deal with. I do not know how many of my other hon colleagues will look into this matter, but it relates to the proposal to establish 28 heavy vehicle control centres in South Africa, which will be provided with scales and other testing apparatus to make it possible to test the roadworthiness of vehicles. I believe this is tremendously important. These stations should be put into operation as soon as possible, not only from a safety point of view, but also to clamp down on those 16% of overloaded vehicles that cause 57% of the damage on our roads. If we do not clamp down on these people—I do not know what the figures are at present—they are going to do the taxpayer even more harm. If one looks at 1987 in order to determine what damage these vehicles have caused to our road surfaces in monetary terms, one sees that an amount of R120 million is involved. With the increase in prices, it must now surely be about R140 million, if not more. We must clamp down on them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in deference to my colleagues’ ears, I will speak a little more quietly than I did earlier today. [Interjections.] I would like to agree with the hon the member for East London North. I think that the problems that he is experiencing in the East London area with regard to kombi-taxis are those that we experience on the highway in the Natal area, namely the problem of taxis from both the KwaZulu area and also particularly Transkei. However, I will deal with that in a little while.

The first point that I would like to raise is that of drivers’ licences. A point that has previously been made and one which I would like to emphasise—and I refer here to clause 24(7) (b) of the Bill—is in regard to the following:

Here we have a quite specific legislative demand that the driver’s licence will be included in the identity document.

Now, the hon the Deputy Minister will be aware that there has been an increasing call from traffic authorities, particularly those who have to enforce these laws, that the driver’s licence be separated from the ID document. The proposals that have come from the Natal local authorities which, I know, be coming to the hon the Deputy Minister—if he has not already had it—is that the driver’s licence take the form of an identity card type document, which will have the photograph and the requirements on it and which will have to be held at all times by the driver to be produced when necessary. It cannot be falsified, which again is an issue that has already been touched on by my colleagues.

We are aware that changes have already been made. We are aware that changes are in the pipeline but certainly, from conversations I have recently held with traffic authorities in Natal, these are not deemed to have done sufficient. I would appeal to the hon the Minister, if it is the intention, as the hon member for Primrose indicated, to make amendments to the Act once it goes through in the coming year, that this clause 24(7)(b) be altered and that drivers’ licences be separately issued and held.

Secondly, I would like to focus on the fitness of the vehicles. The hon member for Roodepoort and I must have good minds—we obviously got the same press cuttings which people sent to us. I will not repeat the quote that he gave concerning the problems of the testing of vehicles, beyond quoting from the end of that article, which continued:

Now we certainly hope the hon the Minister can give us a comprehensive response to that particular point raised by the hon member for Roodepoort and added to by myself.

There is, however, an additional point. The hon the Deputy Minister will be aware that we amended in the joint committee on the province of Natal last year the Road Traffic Ordinance as it affects the private testing of vehicles and gave authority to organizations such as the Durban Municipality, the KwaZulu Transport Corporation, Unitrans and Huletts Transport to do their own testing—to, in fact, be private testers of vehicles. There again, we would like to know whether that provision, which has already been granted, will in fact be carried forward in regulations which this hon Minister will be proposing under this coming Act. Again the question is raised of legal liability. Does private testing imply a legal liability on the tester if an accident should take place involving that vehicle subsequently?

I move away to a particular aspect under this Bill, clause 132(1)(b)—I cite it since you, Sir, are probably going to look very carefully at what I have to say—and I want to talk briefly about toll roads—not toll roads per se, but the alternative roads. If we have a look at clause 132(1)(a), it states that the hon the Minister has responsibility etc and may make regulations for and with respect to—

I have a particular problem with toll roads in general but that is not the issue before us today. Of particular concern is the use of the alternatives, where tolls exist, by the very vehicles which should be using the toll roads, and here I want to cite the example of both the Mariannhill toll and the alternative, which is Fields Hill, and the Mooi River toll and its alternative road.

In particular, Field’s Hill has still not rid itself of the problem of heavy vehicles and heavy vehicle accidents. I know that the hon the Deputy Minister, like his predecessor Mr Schoeman, will now be heartily sick of Pinetown and Kloof’s problems with Field’s Hill. However, those problems are not going to go away unless some restriction is placed on the use of Field’s Hill by heavy vehicles. I believe that that can be done under clause 132(1)(a) and I would believe that the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister under whom the Act will fall, have a responsibility to ensure that that alternative route is so used.

Similarly with Mooi River. The Toll Plaza exists, but the alternative route we all know is not designed to take the load which is already making use of it. Here again I think that the hon the Minister can well impose restrictions on the use, if necessary, by selective heavy vehicles of that alternative toll road.

I turn now to clause 132(1)(d) regarding the overloading of vehicles. The question of the maximum load and the regulations which this hon Minister may impose on the loading of vehicles in terms of this Bill is an area which we really need to explore a lot more carefully. I am well aware of the large amount of work being done by the CSIR and other bodies concerning the loading and the axle load of vehicles in South Africa, but I must express my great concern, as a user of the main and certain of the provincial and unpaved roads of Natal, as regards the loading of the vehicles. The problem here does not lie with the loading per se, but with the number of staff who are available to test vehicles. The question of weighbridges and traffic staff to ensure that those weighbridges are correctly used, is one which I believe needs attention focused on.

As my colleague has indicated, we will be supporting this measure, but the hon the Deputy Minister will be aware that those of us from Natal who have to endure, day in and day out, the traffic which runs from the main port of South Africa up to the Reef, are very concerned that there be the most stringent enforcement of these road traffic regulations.

Mr Chairman, I should like to endorse what the previous speaker had to say on certain aspects, and we thank him for his support of the legislation. The matters he touched on are matters that have been discussed on the joint committee, and I shall not react to them any further at this stage.

I should like to follow on the hon member for Primrose who referred to the importance of this legislation. He said that we should view it as a package of laws aimed at significantly changing and deregulating road transport in South Africa with a view to improving it and making it more productive, and particularly to making the road traffic system and the road network as safe as possible.

It is important for us to take a brief look at certain statistics, provided by the Traffic Information Bureau, which indicate to us that every year accidents on South African roads take an unacceptable toll in this country. In 1987 this cost the Republic R5 013 million, as against the R2 478 million in 1984. This represents an increase of 101%.

If we make a projection with regard to the use of South African roads and how this use will increase, we see that the number of licensed vehicles increased by 49% between 1977 and 1987, while the number of kilometres covered in the corresponding period increased by 86,23%.

Against this background I thought fit to refer briefly to only a few aspects of the legislation in this debate. I believe that we can evaluate the various clauses in the proposed legislation against the background I have just sketched.

All of us in this House agree that traffic control can at times be one of the most irritating experiences for motorists and for drivers of vehicles, and in the debate it is therefore necessary for us to refer to the proposed measures and to how we expect them to be received by the road users. Linking up with what the hon member for Primrose said, I think the acceptability of this legislation for road users is of the utmost importance. We should therefore examine certain aspects of this matter. I just want to refer briefly to two matters in my particular field.

I find it interesting—and here I agree with the hon member for East London North—that the CP specifically does not want to support this legislation. I would have thought that they would want to take this opportunity to make political propaganda, but they have never said a single word about the problems this proposed legislation poses for agriculture. During our discussions with the South African Agricultural Union serious concern was expressed with regard to how the proposed legislation would affect agriculture, and the cost implications it would have for the industry. In the interests of road safety in general there was a strong endeavour, on the part of the farmers themselves, to help improve the quality of road traffic. I therefore have no doubt that we shall obtain the full co-operation of agriculture with this Bill. I venture to say, although I have no statistics to back me up, that agriculture is without doubt the largest user of the country’s transport infrastructure. It is therefore logical to argue that legislation which has certain implied cost effects will be regarded with a critical eye by the industry.

However, to assist in ensuring the success of a quality transport system it is very important not to have any possibility of excluding any organisations and industries from the measures contained in the Bill. We are aware of the fact that individual farmers are not major road users as far as goods traffic is concerned, but that the industry itself is a major user.

In order to comply with the wishes of this sector, and to prevent the sector from being saddled overnight with a cost problem which it cannot deal with, clause 154 provides that various clauses and regulations of the Bill relating to categories of goods or persons and types and classes of motor vehicles may, after consultation, be phased in at different dates by the authorities concerned.

We know that agriculture has problems. Their problems, which have been spelt out, relate to aspects touched on by the chairman of the joint committee. Because of the time factor I cannot deal with this in detail now. I merely want to mention it. Agriculture is not happy with the provision in the Bill relating to the suitability of a vehicle because farmers use their vehicles seasonally and do not always cover long distances. Furthermore, agriculture is not happy with the provision relating to the suitability of drivers, since agricultural drivers sometimes fall into categories other than those of normal commercial drivers. Agriculture has a problem with the hours one is permitted to drive, because very often they have to cover short distances over long periods. This makes their circumstances unique and in future we shall have to examine this when the regulations are implemented.

Furthermore agriculture is unhappy about the registration of operators. Reference is also made to this. I again want to point out to agriculture and to hon members this afternoon that clause 154 was inserted with the specific object of creating an opportunity to examine these regulations and to phase them in in such a way that the industry can cope.

The next matter I should like to refer to briefly is the question of animals on roads, a matter which is dealt with in clause 107 and clause 108, which deals with animal-drawn vehicles. This is a serious issue. I have here screeds of submissions made over the years by the Association of Divisional Councils of the Cape Province. I well remember that discussions were often held about the danger of animals on roads, and particularly about the danger of animals on roads at night. We even received suggestions about putting reflectors on donkeys—a nice big Ted one in the middle at the back, and a snow-white one on the front of its head. We were advised to put an indicator on each ear, but we have a problem, because the person driving the vehicle cannot always operate the switches.

What about the tortoises?

We must note that there are thousands of kilometres of road surface in the country which have been graded as public roads and which are not tarred. People who travel daily in the cities, on tarred roads and on highways, are not always aware of the conditions on these other roads. The provisions of this Bill also apply to those roads because they are public roads.

Over many years representations have been made to have animals removed from the roads at night—draught-animals as well as other animals. The problem we have is one of law enforcement. I want to put it to the hon the Minister for his consideration this afternoon that we examine this matter. I know that it is problematical to make use of outspans again where people can get their animals off the roads at night and keep them in enclosures. However, this seems to me to be the only solution, because catching someone and locking them up does not constitute effective law enforcement. Apart from anything else, he cannot pay the penalty because he cannot afford the fine. We really have a problem here. In the years to come this problem will have to be dealt with more effectively by again examining the regulations and possible amendments to the legislation.

The negotiations with the TBVC countries on these aspects will take place as soon as the Bill has been passed by this Parliament. I also want to point out that we are not only dealing with draught-animals here, but also with stray animals which wander onto the roads at night, animals that often walk in groups. I should like to bring this to the attention of the Official Opposition, with their notions of a volkstaat. Think of all the Coloured people who will have to move from this proposed volkstaat with their donkey-carts—the bucket, the little basket under the wagon containing two chickens, a cage and a little donkey behind on the left. They would have to move out of that part of the world in which they have been living for years because much of their land would be taken up by this volkstaat. They would even have to pass the tortoises in their trek. I foresee tremendous problems with bottlenecks on our roads when this trek gets under way! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Aar referred to many aspects of this Bill that I will refer to later. He mentioned quite a few aspects about animals. The hon member must realise that the human being is also an animal, homo sapiens, a thinking animal. I think the weakness of this Bill is that so few of us think while we are on the road.

I am very grateful for an opportunity to speak on this Bill because as a medical man I see the failure of what we are trying to do here. I see the death and destruction caused by the failure of drivers and other people to adhere to what we are trying to do here today. I have some statistics about the result of these accidents in South Africa. I would just like to mention the statistics for 1988. There were 418 484 collisions resulting in 126 983 casualties—10 691 people were killed, 31 135 seriously injured and 58 157 slightly injured. A total of 702 681 road vehicles were involved. The hon member for De Aar has given us the financial result of this—R5 billion worth of expenses. The estimated cost of the collisions is: fatal. R1 797 million; serious injury, R735 million; light injury, R620 million; and damage only, R1 861 million.

In terms both of money and the loss of life and limb, this is a price which South Africa certainly cannot afford. I want to warn the hon the Deputy Minister, before he even begins to reply to this debate, not to use the argument that replacing the current ID book with a new document will be too costly. I do not say he is in fact going to use this argument but if he did that argument would not be valid in view of the total costs involved.

When we talk about people being injured and killed on our roads we do not realise exactly what it means. We should visit the casualty wards at our hospitals in order to witness the pain and the suffering of people, many of whom lie there unconscious. We should see with our own eyes the loss of limbs suffered by so many. All this damage, we must realise, is the result of what people do on our roads. Therefore, Sir, I believe I have to say that in South Africa people do not drive their cars; they aim them. [Interjections.] They aim their cars very accurately at one another. One only has to travel on our roads daily to witness the total disregard of people for all traffic laws and regulations. That is why I should like to support the hon member for Primrose in his argument regarding the empowering measure we are dealing with here and the regulations which will flow from it later. If this legislation is not applied very strictly the current situation is going to remain unchanged.

*The hon member for De Aar also said that the legislation would have to be enforced, otherwise it would serve no purpose. No matter how many laws we have, if they are not properly enforced, the carnage on the roads of South Africa will not end.

†Therefore, Sir, I should like to share with hon members a few of my experiences behind the Iron Curtain, where I worked in Rumania. When in South Africa people go to parties at night they do not hesitate to drive their cars home irrespective of their condition. In Rumania no one will get into his car if he has had as much as one mouthful of alcohol. In terms of the measure we are dealing with now it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle if one’s blood alcohol content exceeds 0,08 grams per 1 000 ml. What does this help if nobody knows a person is driving his car while totally under the influence of alcohol?

Therefore we must see to it that this legislation is enforced as strictly as possible. That is what I plead for here today. We must see to it that the person who sits behind the wheel of his car while under the influence of alcohol is punished instead of enabling him to aim his car at other people, killing them in the process. If in Rumania someone is caught with a blood alcohol level exceeding 0,08 grams per 1 000 ml he loses his licence. That is what I plead for today. We do not do what drivers fear most, that is to deprive them of their licences. That is what we have to do in South Africa. People do not mind being fined. They do not even seem to mind going to prison. Losing one’s licence, however, is very uncomfortable. It is not nice.

*It is not pleasant. One suffers great inconvenience. When a person cannot drive his car to work in the mornings or use it to go on holiday, that is a very serious matter. People will be careful to avoid that.

†I was in Australia. There the same thing applies. People who drink at parties take taxis home. What they do in Rumania is that one person goes to the party but does not drink at all. He then drives all the others home. Otherwise people use taxis to get back home, but they do not drive under the influence of alcohol. In South Africa, on the other hand, the appropriate legislation is not sufficiently enforced. People overtaking recklessly on our roads, people failing to keep a safe following distance, people who do not seem to care at all how they behave on the roads— these things are the order of the day in South Africa. I believe we can safely say this Bill represents one of the best pieces of road-traffic legislation in the world as far as the control of traffic is concerned. However, unless it is properly applied it is not going to help us one bit.

What concerns me most is that we do not seem to see nearly enough traffic officers on our roads. We see them, for instance, in Johannesburg, parked by the roadside in the shade of a tree, but we do not see them in action on our roads. As far as I can see there are one or two things lacking. Firstly, there are not enough traffic officers on the roads of South Africa to enforce existing legislation. Secondly, if there are enough, they do not seem to care.

Over the past four or five years I have not been stopped once by traffic officers to be tested for alcohol. Not once. There do not seem to be enough traffic officers to do this job. There should be many.

Another thing I want to point out is the roadworthiness of cars. In Brazil I saw depots with mechanics of the traffic department along all the main roads. They were trained mechanics who could pull cars off the road and inspect them on the spot.

[Inaudible.]

No, no! I will be only too happy. As I said before, I am privileged to take part in this debate because I see what is done to human beings. Just watch a paraplegic, a young man of the age of 18, who can no longer use his limbs all because we are not enforcing these provisions. I support the hon member for Primrose in that we should make the people who disregard this Bill and cause death and destruction, pay for it by means of strict regulations. I would plead for more traffic control and stricter regulations. I want to plead that a person should lose his driver’s licence if he commits a traffic offence.

Mr Chairman, I cannot find much wrong with what the hon member for Parktown said. On the contrary, I want to agree wholeheartedly with much of what he said.

This debate is really a historical debate, because after so many years we have managed to combine the four provinces’ ordinances in one Road Traffic Bill. In the past it was said that there were many differences in the ordinances. That is not quite true, because over the past few years there have been a variety of organisations which linked the provinces very closely, and all amendments or new ordinances were identically worded because it was possible for them to be discussed properly by the respective provinces.

With the exception of the road transport quality system which is being built into this legislation, there is no real change in the ordinances of the provinces, and consequently there should not be any serious problems with regard to the implementation of this legislation.

As the hon member for Primrose said, any legislation can be only as good as its implementation. One must not expect, therefore, that as soon as this legislation is implemented, road accidents and traffic offences will suddenly disappear.

A great deal has already been done to improve the enforcement of the law. There are all kinds of electronic apparatus such as cameras, gatsometers and scales, but at most this apparatus can assist in combating contraventions of the speed limit and the overloading of vehicles to some extent. Speed is only one of the factors that contribute to road accidents. There are many other causes which can be checked or controlled only with extreme difficulty.

According to the National Institute for Transport and Road Research, the human factor is the greatest contributory factor when it comes to road accidents, viz 90,6%. The other two, viz road and environmental factors, contribute by only 7%, and vehicle factors by only 2,4%.

What I want to say, therefore, is that traffic laws can be only as good as the implementation thereof. Consequently we shall have to lay much more emphasis on the improvement of the implementation of our traffic rules. We shall have to work towards a change in attitude among our road users. That is very important! There will have to be greater mutual respect among road users.

There was constant reference to Black taxis in this House today. I want to say that we cannot wish away our Black taxis in this country, because they are performing an extremely important function in the economy of our country. This is one of the private enterprises that has developed into a giant almost overnight.

There was a very interesting article in Die Burger this morning. The following statement was made:

Not only do they fulfil a very important role in transporting commuters inter alia, because it is no longer necessary for the State to subsidise that section of the commuter services, but they and their method of transport have come to the South African community to stay. What we shall have to do now is to improve the quality of that taxi traffic, as well as the quality of heavy vehicles. Both these methods of transport, viz heavy vehicles and Black taxis, are going to increase immensely in future, and I think we must take cognisance of that. That is precisely what the road transport quality system that has been built into this legislation wants to achieve. I almost want to say that that is what it must achieve.

I do not want to deal with the Bill clause by clause, but hon members would do well to read clauses 41 to 49 of this legislation, which deal with the professional driving permit. Hon members can also take a look at clauses 50 to 53, which deal with driving hours. In clause 74 in Chapter V of the legislation, hon members can also read about operator fitness. If these clauses in the Bill can be implemented properly, there should be a considerable improvement in the quality of our traffic.

In addition there must also be greater control over the issue of driver’s licences. On previous occasions I have referred in this House to the large number of forged driver’s licences. The hon member for Bryanston referred to this as well. There was an interesting article in one of our Afrikaans magazines recently. Just listen to what they said:

A difference of 400 000, and that was in 1976! They go on to say:

Furthermore they say:

This is an iniquity that we have to eradicate completely. This alarming position cannot be allowed to continue.

There can be control only if there are better records of details. It should not be possible to forge driver’s licences so easily. It is important that these driver’s licences should have an expiry date. As the hon member for Bryanston has mentioned, people should be compelled to carry these driver’s licences, but then—other hon members referred to this, and I have appealed for this on a prior occasion—the driver’s licence must be separated from the identity document. That is the only way in which this can be done.

If it is not possible to separate the driver’s licence from the identity document, I want to make so bold as to say that the carrying of driver’s licences with an expiry date should be made compulsory in any case. There can be a driver’s licence in the form of an adhesive strip, pasted into the identity document, but there should also be a driver’s licence in the form of a card, which one has to carry with one. This will also make it possible to keep proper records of details, supplementary to the existing records at the transport information bureau. In addition it will be possible to renew the driver’s licences when they expire without there necessarily having to be any retesting. It will be very easy to trace and check up on them by means of microfilms, which exist already in any case.

I am afraid that unless we ensure that we have proper control and records concerning driver’s licences, accidents and road traffic offences, we shall be able to improve the legislation on a daily basis without obtaining the necessary results. I want to appeal to hon members to do something positive, especially with regard to the driver’s licences over which we have no control. I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I want to thank the hon members for the contributions they have made. They have elicited a wide-ranging discussion and I do not think there is one hon member here who has not made a contribution in his own particular way, and I want to thank them for that. I am certain that I shall not be able to reply to everything here today, because it would be impossible to do justice to all the contributions which the hon members have made. I am sure the department will take note of them and that it will bear the hon members’ viewpoints fully in mind, particularly with a view to the drafting of the regulations.

To begin with the hon member for Roodepoort, I think he advanced what I and most other hon members found a strange argument. He said that road safety was important and that it was a good thing that this legislation would be promoting this, but that the way in which it was being done had not been well thought out, because the hon member’s chief argument was that we were now going to privatise the testing of vehicles. The hon member’s argument is that the enforcement of laws is the province of State institutions. Of course the enforcement of laws is the province of State institutions. Surely there is no argument about that, but the hon member must surely also bear in mind that there are simply not enough officials in the local authorities and provincial authorities for the large number of testing stations which we shall create in South Africa. Those people will be registered. They will not be able to do as they wish. There will be certain prescriptions in terms of which they will have to do the testing. It is merely in order to make provision for decent vehicles on our roads in the future that we now wish to leave this to the private sector as well.

Now the hon member says that if the inspectorate for these testing stations is created, this will be an extra expense. Who is overseeing the application of this today? Who is seeing to it that there are roadworthy certificates for vehicles today?

[Inaudible ]

Yes, exactly. They are seeing to it. That is quite correct. There are people who are responsible for ensuring that the testing and the issuing of roadworthy certificates, and so on, is done properly. If one wishes to have one’s lorry tested, what does one do? Firstly, one takes the lorry to a garage and has it checked. Thereafter one takes it to the place which must issue the roadworthy certificate. There is some or other form of control over those people.

What is it?

By way of the provinces and the local authorities. In terms of this Bill there is no reason why a testing centre should be excluded from the regulations so that this would not be done. It is simply aimed at obtaining additional establishments at which lorries, and so on, may be tested.

And if they back out?

What the hon member has said about backing out, is strange. My information, and that of the department, is that the private institutions are actually very interested in this situation. They are interested in taking part when it comes to the erection of the private testing stations. The hon member should therefore rather tell us what his problem is. His problem is that the hon members on that side of the House are opposed to the principle of privatisation.

No, that is not true.

Of course it is true. If that is not the reason, then the hon member will agree with me that the private sector also has an important role to play in this respect.

One cannot simply start up a testing station without there being proper control over it and without certain prescriptions being followed. Surely provision has been made in the legislation for this. [Interjections.] The hon member thinks that these testing stations are now going to shoot up like mushrooms and that there will be a lowering of standards. The entire legislation is aimed precisely at raising our standards, particularly when it comes to the roadworthiness of our vehicles. The other principle contained in this legislation is that the person who is in control of and who drives that vehicle, will be thoroughly tested from time to time.

I am very sorry to say this, but I think the hon member for Roodepoort is out of his depth with regard to this entire matter and that he does not quite understand it correctly. [Interjections.] The hon member said he would have liked the department and the Cabinet—just imagine, the Cabinet—to also have come and given evidence before the joint committee as to why they were not in favour of separating the two documents.

[Inaudible.]

Let me tell the hon member what the real state of affairs is. This is not the first time that representations have been addressed to the department that the two should be separated from one another. That is why the members of the joint committee also recommended this, and they had good reasons for doing so. As the hon member for Bethlehem has just said, it has to do with the falsification of drivers’ licences. If the two were to be separated, one could curb this and the application of the law would also be able to take place far more easily and more efficiently.

It is a fact, however, that it was decided at Cabinet level in 1987 that the two documents were not to be separated, but the heads of the various State departments, that is to say the Departments of Transport and of Foreign Affairs, will have to go into the matter again with a view to its possible reconsideration by the Cabinet. However, that is why it is also necessary that a thorough investigation should precede this.

In this regard we know that the professional driver’s permit will still be a separate document. These large trucks are regarded by the public as monsters which pose a danger to them, and when we have a situation in which the professional driver has to produce his permit whenever he drives that truck, this will already be a very important step forwards.

The hon member also made mention of the question of the use of cameras. One could discuss this at very great length, but I think the joint committee made the right decision and the right recommendation, namely that this matter would have to be looked into again.

I am very sorry that the hon member for Roodepoort and his party do not see their way clear to supporting this legislation, because it really and truly is in the interests of road safety and also of the process of getting more people to enter the transport market. If the hon members do not wish to support us in this respect, then I will find it strange if they do support us one day with regard to something worthwhile.

The hon member for Primrose, as chairman of the joint committee, as usual made a good contribution to the debate and showed us that he had an exceptionally good knowledge of this subject. The hon member expressed the hope that the neighbouring states would co-operate. I share that sentiment of his in this regard. The hon member also asked what this new approach was costing us and whether it would not place a great burden on the people. The hon member also asked certain questions with regard to the length of vehicles. With regard to the question of the length of vehicles, I just want to tell the hon member this. We established as early as 1972 what the lengths of vehicles should be. These were recommended at that time by the Cloete Committee. It was recommended at that time that the maximum length for articulated vehicles should be 17 metres. A maximum of 20 metres was recommended for combination vehicles. Previously, in the case of articulated vehicles, it was 15,25 metres and 22 metres for combination vehicles.

The reasons why they changed at that time was because the maximum length of the articulated vehicle was extended so that they could carry the standard 12 metre containers. The combined length of the combination vehicle was reduced to bring it in line with international practice. This was done particularly with a view to those instances where one finds one road crossing another and particularly also with regard to where one vehicle has to pass another.

†This was part of a trade-off for improved safety and the vehicle operator received advantages of an increase in overall height, maximum total mass and maximum axle-mass loads of the vehicle. So, when we examine the permissible length allowed in other countries, then I think we are in line. The length of articulated vehicles in the RS A is 17 metres and combination of vehicles 20 metres. In the USA it is 15,24 metres for articulated vehicles and 20 metres in the case of combination vehicles. In Australia the articulated vehicle varies but the combination vehicle is 17,5 metres. In West Germany it is also 15 metres for articulated vehicles and 18 metres for combination vehicles. There are of course, in the USA, when it comes to inter-state toll roads, different lengths allowed and exempted.

In 1972, and I would like to point this out to the hon the member, many operators were compelled to shorten their vehicles at considerable expense. It cannot therefore be recommended that maximum overall lengths be adjusted at this stage. The Public Carriers Association were approached for comment on this issue but no recommendation was forthcoming from them.

I want to say to the hon the member that I am not rigid in this regard and neither is the department rigid in this regard. I will therefore recommend to the department to have a look at this issue again.

It should be a matter that warrants further investigation. To lengthen a vehicle means that the operator-owner must apply his discretion and no compulsion is applicable. It is a matter of economics but we must bear in mind what our roads can take and at the same time promote road safety.

*That is my reply to the hon member. I am pleased that he raised the matter, because it is apparently not a contentious question, but rather a matter which is under discussion.

He also asked what the costs involved in this road transport quality system were. I want to say that it is going to give rise to costs for certain authorities, because after all, deregulation of the transportation of road cargo and the partial deregulation of passenger transport entails great benefits for the economic development of the country. One of the benefits involved in this is that we shall be saving at least R60 million per year in reduced administration costs with regard to cargo and passenger permits.

Furthermore, there is an increase in the consumer surplus of approximately R1 600 million as a result of more efficient use of road transport. So, not only is greater safety on the roads envisaged through the traffic quality system, but the following direct benefits could also ensue.

Firstly, there is the effective framework of law enforcement together with an effective information system to track down traffic offenders, which the hon member for Bethlehem also spoke about. Today we are suffering great losses in respect of fines because offenders cannot be traced. With this system we will, in fact, be able to trace them.

We shall also have many savings as a result of fewer collisions and less overloading. I am pleased that the hon member for Parktown mentioned those figures, and the hon member for De Aar also said that we were suffering losses as a result of collisions in South Africa.

These are therefore the indirect advantages which we shall receive as a result of the expenses we shall incur. I say that there are costs related to this new system, but it also has to do with the upgrading of the present system. Costs are also partially recovered from the operator. At one stage or another the costs would in any event have had to be incurred by local authorities or by provincial authorities.

That will also serve as my reply to the hon member for Roodepoort, who says that these things are going to cost us a great deal of money. They would have to do it in any event. So, whether we do it now in this manner or whether the authorities had done it under a different system, at one stage or another they would have had to incur the costs.

It was recommended in 1974 that our provincial authorities should have heavy vehicles tested periodically. As early as 1972 it was recommended that testing should also include a braketesting machine, and this was not done. Therefore, what is being done now is something that has been needed to be done for a long time.

Another reply to the hon member for Roodepoort relates to the vehicle testing stations. There are 344 of them in the country, 154 of which could be upgraded to a high level at some RIO 000 per station. He says the things will go to ruin. Approximately 100 of them will cost some R150 000 each—a total of R16 million. In the case of the driver testing centres there are some 302 of these stations in the country. Not all of them can be upgraded—that is quite correct—but to upgrade those stations which can in fact be upgraded, will cost some R4 million. The information system will cost some R16 million. If one takes everything into account, then over a period of five years there will be a total capital investment in vehicle and driver testing which will cost R36,54 million. As far as the authorities are concerned, the annual amount, when it comes to the operator and driver registration, will be R21,18 million, and here I am also including the amount in respect of roadworthy certificates. I have already told hon members that we spend R60 million annually on road transport permits. This will now be eliminated and there will therefore be a direct annual saving of approximately R40 million. In this regard I want to tell the hon member for Parktown that he is correct in asserting that it does not matter what it costs us, because if we can eliminate the loss of life, this is an exceptionally important objective.

†The hon member for Bryanston spoke about the overtaking of vehicles and he said that it should be illegal to pass on the left. I had a question the other day about the yellow lines. They are there to indicate where the end of the road is. One is not supposed to drive on the other side of the yellow line, but obviously if someone wants to pass and one has to move over to the left, or one has a puncture and the vehicle has to stop, no traffic officer is going to tell one to move away, except if one were to drive to the left of the yellow lines all the time or stop indefinitely.

The hon member asked me a question about bakkies. Whether one transports people or freight and one overloads the vehicle, be it a bakkie or a three, four or five ton truck, one will be breaking the law. That is my attitude toward this matter. No person should overload, whether he is transporting people or freight.

They can take half a ton of people as long as they are not overloaded.

Any traffic officer will see that a bakkie transporting more human beings than it should, is overloaded and he will stop that vehicle. There is no reason why he should not. I do not think that the hon member need have any fear that bakkies overloaded with people are exempted from the application of this particular legislation.

The hon member for East London North and others spoke about kombis. Once again we have the question of overloading, but we hope that with this legislation we will be able to stop it.

*The hon member for De Aar also raised a good point with regard to animals on our our roads. He will also see that no one may permit animals— there is a specific definition of an animal—to walk in the road wherever they will pose a danger to the public or to vehicles. The problem will, however, have to be thoroughly addressed. I am convinced that the department and the provincial authorities will have to pay attention to this.

Finally, I want to tell the hon member for Bethlehem that his summary of the object of this legislation is entirely correct.

We have made great progress in obtaining the co-operation of the other provinces in this regard. I think it has really been an achievement that we have been able to get the four provinces to go so far as to consolidate their ordinances and to achieve this in the interests of traffic safety in South Africa. The information system which the hon member mentioned, will receive adequate attention.

I just want to close by saying that the upgrading of this permit system, which amounted to uneconomic control and which gave rise to a great deal of expense and unhappiness, is essential if we wish to make the deregulation of the transport market an accomplished fact. However, safety on our roads cannot be forfeited; that is why the acceptance of this legislation must precede the abolition of the permit system. Furthermore, the road transport quality system cannot be introduced overnight; it must be phased in, and I believe the hon members will understand the necessity for this. I believe that this legislation is in the best interests of our country and all its people.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to arguments from the Government side and in particular to that of the hon the Deputy Minister. I must say that I am not convinced at all.

In the first place the hon the Deputy Minister referred to the great expense which in his opinion private organisations would have to incur to provide testing stations which they would then have to register in terms of the Bill. The hon the Deputy Minister is forgetting one matter, however, and that is that in the main these facilities already exist in large transport organisations. They do not have to incur such great expense to convert them into testing stations. Consequently this will not be a factor in their consideration of whether they should ultimately refrain from becoming or withdraw from being a testing station if they see for instance that they are starting to have civil claims filed against them as a result of this activity. Then that facility merely becomes a workshop again and that is the present situation.

Secondly, the Government depends on private organisations to make this system work but, as we saw from quotations which I presented, the private sector itself already says that it has its reservations on the suitability and the feasibility of this system. Therefore the Government is unsure of a factor on which it is pinning its hopes because those people say they are not certain that the system can work.

Thirdly, the inspectorate in charge of testing stations is an entirely new authority which is being created to police a policeman. Under the current dispensation in which the granting of roadworthy certificates is in the hands of governmental institutions one does not require this. One can merely single out a segment of those officials to monitor testing stations. That is where our argument comes in that it will cause an increase in costs.

Fourthly, if one is to permit private organisations to test their own vehicles and issue roadworthy certificates, one will have a conflict of interests. We put this earlier in the debate. For the sake of interest I wish to point out that my colleagues on the Joint Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal informed me that, when this aspect was discussed in that joint committee, the majority of NP members on that committee agreed with us that it was an unacceptable principle. The principle was negatived in that committee. The NP has therefore been landed with a problem because it is very clear that there are hon members in those benches who do not agree. Consequently it is not as easy as all that to say that we snatched our arguments out of thin air.

To summarise, we say that the privatisation of law enforcement functions, as set out in the Bill, is undesirable in our opinion. The danger of abuses and the disadvantages that it will hold for existing testing stations in the public sector and the consumer for instance make it impossible for us for support the Bill and we shall vote against it as a result.

Mr Chairman, we will be supporting this Bill. We regard it as an improvement on the present situation in that it consolidates the four existing Road Traffic Ordinances into one national Act. This standardisation is desirable and I believe it is overdue. Much of the follow up work still has to be done in terms of regulations which will be brought about by the hon the Minister together with the provincial administrators.

As the hon member for Primrose said it is an enabling Bill and much still has to be done. We have certain worries about certain aspects ofthe Bill but all in all it is an improvement. As the hon member for Primrose said it is a first step and it will need amendment from time to time, probably sooner rather than later. We will vote for it.

Mr Chairman, an urgent need has existed for years to have a national road traffic Act in South Africa which will link the four provinces. They must enforce it jointly and, if alterations are effected in the Act, they must become operative in all four provinces immediately. If this Bill is passed today, it will permit this.

I hope in addition that this Bill will be adopted by areas surrounding South Africa so that we may have Southern African traffic legislation.

It is essential that the quality system be introduced as soon as possible and be implemented and enforced strictly. At the end of the day the object must be to phase out the quality system over a period so that conversion from the old system to the new one and the regulations as well will not make it possible for the economy of the transport sector to be disrupted further in any way. I hope that the transport market will be disrupted as little as possible in the long term and that the Bill will also lead to savings in costs and greater safety on South African roads. That is why we on this side of the House will support the Bill.

The House divided:

AYES—102: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Barnard, M S; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Blanché, J P I; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma. M C; Brazelie, J A; Burrows, R M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Dalling, D J; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Eglin, C W; Farrell. P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Gastrow, P H P; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham. R W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hulley, R R; Hunter. J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel. H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Lorimer, R J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Soal, P G; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Streicher, D M; Suzman, H; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen. G v N; Vilonel, J J; Walsh, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Golden, S G A; Kritzinger, W T; Maree, M D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—20: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

During division:

Order! It has been brought to my attention that the hon member for Welkom entered the Chamber and took his seat while the votes were being counted. Would the hon member confirm whether that is true?

That is true, Mr Chairman.

The name of the hon member is then to be deleted from the Division List. [Interjections.] Was his vote not counted? [Interjections.]

Order! I have been informed by the Whips that the hon member for Welkom’s vote was not counted.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the CP will support the Mineral Technology Bill and we welcome it. As it is a fairly long Bill, we shall comment on only a few aspects of it.

The functions of Mintek are aimed at using the means at their disposal to achieve their objects, which are the improved utilisation of the mineral resources of the Republic, promotion and expansion of existing industries and founding of new industries in the sphere of minerals and mineral products. The CP welcomes this because we said two years ago that more should be done to process our minerals and precious stones in South Africa. In addition, researchers and technical experts will be provided with training, as will artisans for whom there is a crying need in South Africa.

The control and management of Mintek affairs will be carried out by a board which will consist of a chairman and a deputy chairman who will be appointed by the Minister. There will be a minimum of six members and a maximum of nine on this board. These people will hold this position for three years. These members of the board, including the chairman and all other persons, must be persons who have distinguished themselves in science, engineering or industry, or who possess exceptional knowledge or experience as regards some aspect or other of Mintek’s functions. This is welcome too.

This board will also have the power to appoint committees which may investigate matters for instance but they will not be able to relieve the board of its functions. They will have to be able to continue.

The board is also to appoint a chief executive officer who will be known as the president. He will report directly to the board and the position will demand that he be a member of this board too.

The board will also be able to appoint its own personnel and formulate conditions of service.

The financing of Mintek is set out in clause 13(1) to (5). This contains an explanation of how Mintek will obtain funds to ensure its continued existence.

There are further clauses to which I should have liked to refer, that is those covering the regulations, transfer of functions and provisos but I cannot elaborate on those aspects now. The CP wishes Mintek every success in the functions that it wants to assume and we therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in thanking the hon member for Carletonville. I am pleased that the CP supports this legislation.

This legislation provides for the continued existence of the Council for Mineral Technology and for its management by a board. The Council for Mineral Technology, instituted in terms of section 2 of the Mineral Technology Act, 1984, continues to exist through this legislation as a persona known as Mintek.

Mintek promotes mineral technology by means of research, development and the transfer of technology as well as by the establishment and expansion of industries in the sphere of minerals and mineral products. Mintek can help in improved utilisation of the mineral resources of the Republic, the improvement of technical process and methods to improve mineral production, the promotion and expansion of existing industries and the establishment of new industries for minerals and mineral products.

Mintek can also utilise or make its technological expertise generally available, grant study bursaries and loans and create facilities for the collection and distribution of information on research. In addition Mintek can create and control facilities in those fields of research which the board approves from time to time and promote cooperation between the Republic and other countries in matters of research.

Mintek has to undertake investigations or research which the Minister instructs it to carry out and advise him on research in the field of mineral technology. The Minister may also request Mintek to undertake research, development and the transfer of technology in any area outside the Republic.

Mintek is managed and controlled by the board. The board consists, as already mentioned by the hon member for Carletonville, of a chairman who is appointed by the Minister after consultation with the board; a minimum of six but a maximum of nine other members who are appointed by the Minister; and the president who serves on the board by virtue of his position. The board appoints the chief executive officer of Mintek and he holds the position of president of Mintek.

I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, there is not much to add about this short Bill after the previous two speeches.

It is a rationalising measure, which we are happy to support. We also welcome the amendment which brings it under the aegis of the Auditor-General.

We shall support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in thanking the hon members for Carletonville, Maraisburg and Constantia for their support of this legislation.

†I want to thank them for their support. I shall not say much more about it.

*I want to thank the hon member for Carletonville for his good wishes to Mintek. One day I think we shall have to tell the House during the discussion of my Vote about the good economic results which Mintek research has achieved in beneficiation technology. It is really something to be proud of. Thank you once again for your support.

Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the CP is in the fortunate position that it does not have two leaders that it has to consult about its standpoint. [Interjections.] The standpoint of the CP is that we support this legislation.

I should just like to single out one point in particular. In the memorandum pertaining to the Bill the following is said:

The CP is not in a position to support or refuse to support the correctness or otherwise of this standpoint of the Law Advisers. Nevertheless we support this legislation, because it is our policy to promote the development of the infrastructure of the national states.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased the hon members of the CP support the Bill. On the joint committee they abstained from voting and we did not know what their standpoint was. In any event we are pleased they have now come round. [Interjections.]

Order!

The measure was accepted without any difficulty by the joint committee. The hon the Minister has already delivered his Second Reading speech in another place this afternoon. Perhaps it is just necessary to outline three points.

Basically this measure brings legal security and for this there must naturally be support. There is some doubt among the State Law Advisers as to whether, in regard to clause 3 as well as clause 1, the State-owned land in scheduled Black areas and released areas which was transferred to the Trust does in fact include land which was vested in the Trust after the commencement of Act 18 of 1936. That is why this amending Bill ensures that such State-owned land has in fact been vested in the Trust after having been added to a released area. This will eliminate any uncertainty and we are grateful that this amendment can be accepted in this way.

Secondly, on clause 2, doubt exists whether a tribe, community or a Black person retain their rights in respect of land held in trust for them after the transfer of such an area to a self-governing territory. All that this amendment now provides is that upon transfer of land which is at present held in trust by a Minister in the RSA, the rights of the tribe, community or Black person in trust are also vested in the self-governing territory. This means that the tribe or Black person do not lose their rights, but simply that they are held in trust for them by another authority.

In clause 4 there was a problem in respect of servitudes on existing trust land that was being developed as townships, and it was not taken into consideration that those servitudes had not been recorded in the title deeds. This measure merely enables the hon the Minister to cancel or suspend such servitudes and restrictive conditions.

Finally, a very important aspect in regard to which we are very pleased that legal security has been obtained is that Trust land may in terms of Act 18 of 1936 be leased only to persons other than Blacks. However, when it comes to disposal or alienation thereof—it is allocated, sold or disposed of—this may only happen with the consent of Parliament. Doubt exists among the law advisers in regard to the question of leasehold to township developers, and since leasehold is of a more permanent nature than leasing because leasehold is considered to be disposal of land and not merely the leasing thereof, legal security in this respect is also necessary.

This simply means that when private township developers acquire such land in order to develop it, they may acquire it in the form of leasehold. In other words they receive real rights to the land and they may subsequently dispose of the land.

With these few words we on this side of the House want to say that we are grateful for the support, because this measure ensures legal security in regard to a few outstanding matters, and we gladly support the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I follow on the hon member for Turffontein and wish to say again that as chairman of the joint committee dealing with matters relating to this portfolio, he has proved to be a better chairman than he is a predictor of election results.

I want to say how pleased I was that he provided the committee with the documents he did. I found them very informative and a great help in finding my way through this Bill. [Interjections.] Somebody has a problem over there.

Order!

Chronic!

Yes, I will get my friend, the hon member for Parktown, to attend to him if he does need help. [Interjections.] The fact that we were presented with these documents which provided in an easy readable form, the Acts that were being amended, was of great help and I appreciate that very much.

In a comprehensive speech this afternoon in the House of Delegates the hon the Minister dealt with the Bill in great detail and I am grateful to him for having gone into that detail. I am also pleased that we were provided with copies of his speech because it explains fully the detail of the Bill.

The Bill is of a technical nature and clarifies certain matters relating to Trust land. As the hon member for Turffontein said, it deals with land belonging to tribes and with the question of servitudes. Most importantly, however, it allows for the registering of leasehold to non-Blacks in Trust areas. We accept that all these amendments are necessary and we will be supporting the Bill.

Finally, I want to appeal, as I have on previous occasions both in the joint committee and in this House, to the department to organise a workshop on the whole question of the workings of the Trust. I hope the hon the Minister will in due course attend to that, so that those of us not intimately involved with the workings of the Trust as hon members on the Government side are can be brought up to date with what is happening. I would appreciate that very much.

With those few words, I would like to express our support for the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members sincerely for their support in respect of this legislation. It is so complex and complicated that one is not certain whether the short debate is due to real support or due to dizziness caused by the complexities of the Bill. Whatever the answer is, we are grateful for the support.

†With reference to the hon member for Johannesburg North, I would like to say that last year we arranged not only a workshop on the workings of the Trust but in fact a travelling workshop through the Trust areas in Natal and KwaZulu, and the members of his party were conspicuous by their absence. It is a pity that such occasions do not always enjoy as much support from hon members as one would like, especially in view of the tremendous amount of trouble that the officials of the Trust take to give a really broad and penetrating insight into the work being done there.

We were not invited.

Of course you were invited.

We will try again and send a special invitation to the hon member or at any rate to the members on the joint committee concerned. We hope that we will persuade him then. We will even ask him to a special meal to see whether that will help persuade him.

’With reference in particular to the usual exceptionally skilful contribution of the hon member for Turffontein, the chairman of the joint committee—I want to thank him for it—I just want to emphasise the importance of the contribution of the private sector to township development and in particular to housing development for Black towns in the Trust as well as elsewhere. As hon members pointed out, the legislation opens the way to the smoother functioning of township development initiated by the private sector.

I should like to emphasise one point, namely that the town developer usually makes a reasonable profit on houses of an average cost of not less than R30 000, but the real housing needs in the Black communities are actually on a lower cost level. Because their profit per unit will be so much less—it is an understandable reason—the private sector is hesitant to take responsibility for this lower price housing. They then leave it to the informal sector, to the informal initiative of the occupant of the site himself, or to the State, to be of assistance there.

I want to plead with the private sector, in the interests of the general development of this country, to constitute their portfolio in respect of township development in such a way that provision is not only made for housing at middle-class costs,—as one may call it—but also for low-cost housing, and if they make more profit on the one they will perhaps be prepared to pinch off a smaller profit on the other.

If, however, we promote housing in general for all levels of the community, the middle-income as well as the lower-income level, needs are going to be generated purely through the establishment of housing, for example needs for furniture and other equipment in the home, and improvements and extensions to these houses. All these things are going to be a spur to activity and productivity and will be a general stimulus to the economy, because even the needs of the lower income groups is an extremely important element, I think, in the creation of a general economic demand and a climate of need, which is a stimulus to economic growth.

I hope that I can freely make this appeal to the private sector, while at the same time expressing appreciation for the scope of the development they have already undertaken.

In the speech to which the hon member for Turffontein referred—I made it in another House this afternoon—I pointed out that during the past year almost 25 000 sites had been made available on a leasehold basis for developers in towns in the Trust area, and that 76 developers, of whom 24 were Black developers, were involved in this. We appreciate that and we hope that the measures contained in this Bill will be a further spur to that development.

Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, in the Bill before us two cases in regard to the supplementation of pensions are being dealt with. The first case has already been considered by the committee for the second time and after new evidence emerged the committee decided to propose it. The second case is that of Mrs Rudman who was employed by the Port Elizabeth provincial hospital.

This case was also supported by the department because it was clear that this woman had wanted to antedate her pensionable service before her retirement, but as a result of a misunderstanding on the part of her employer and also because it was only two months before her retirement, it was not allowed.

It gives me pleasure to support this Bill, but I want to point out to the hon the Minister that this case dates from as far back as July 1987 and that the pension was approved on 24 August 1988. It is being antedated to September of last year but I want to plead that cases of this kind in which relief is being granted should not drag on for such a long time. The hon members know that the cost of living is high these days. I want to advocate that they be disposed of sooner. With these few words we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member, who has just sat down, for his Party’s support of this supplementation of pensions. These are really cases which give us problems when making an initial decision, but finally we have decided, with the wisdom we have at our disposal, to grant these supplements. That is why I thank the hon member for their support.

I wish to apologise for the Chairman of the joint committee, the hon member for Wellington, who could not be present due to unavoidable circumstances. We apologise for that.

Mr Chairman, firstly I wish to welcome this Bill from the hon the Minister and his department. This hon Minister is not really known for bringing many Bills to Parliament. We are very glad that there has been at least one so far this year and we hope that there are more to come. My first point therefore is to congratulate the hon the Minister on having attained finality on one matter pertaining to health and pensions.

Secondly I should like to express our gratitude towards the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Pensions. He performs his task very well indeed and all of us in this joint committee have great admiration for the way in which he manages and finalises what are often difficult tasks. I want to ask the hon the Minister, when the joint committee decides on a supplementation of pensions and the department agrees, whether the department withholds it. I want to know what happens to it and why they withhold it. Does his department have the right to withhold it? If so, for what reason and for how long is it going to be retained? I mention this because this committee considers these applications in great depth and if the recommendation is there it seems as if the hon the Minister goes too far if he has to deal with it and does not approve it. We agree on this Bill and support it.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to reply to hon members, especially the hon member for Pietersburg. I agree with him that this matter could have been dealt with earlier, but he knows very well why it could not have been dealt with earlier. At least it is being done with retrospective effect and I think that is important.

I thank the hon member for Parys, who stood in for the hon member for Wellington, the chairman of this committee, who does very important work. I want to thank the committee members for the manner in which they dealt with these difficult matters.

The hon member for Parktown has an inborn snideness which is very strange. He refers to this measure as a piece of legislation and says that he is glad that a bit of legislation has come through. I want to point out to the hon member for Parktown that the administrative law says that any administrative action follows a law, but good administration does not follow many laws. The hon member might know something about lungs, but I do not think he knows very much about administration. He thinks that administration implies the more laws, the better the administration. I think I shall take him for a private lecture on that, if it will help, but I doubt that it will.

He comes here and he asks why we did not agree to everything. The hon member for Parktown has been in this House much longer than I have, but at this stage he still does not know that it is an advisory committee. It gives advice. One proposal, for example, would have cost the Government R256 million had we agreed to it. However, the poor hon member for Parktown does not realise it. [Interjections.]

I feel terribly sorry for him, but I think that we shall work and work and see if we cannot improve him. At least he improves slightly every year. [Interjections.] In any case I am very grateful that he supports the Bill. That is already a great effort in the right direction, but we shall keep working on him. We shall not give up because we think that there is still hope. I almost gave up, but I am still hopeful.

Debate concluded.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the letter I want to read to this House deals with the decision of the House of Representatives on 10 February 1989 in which the hon the Acting State President acknowledged receipt of the letter explaining the resolution concerning the continuation of the negotiating process. The letter reads that the hon the Acting State President took cognisance of the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on 10 February. The hon the Acting State President requested that the House of Representatives be informed that it had already been agreed that there should be a forum for negotiations to assist the process of reform and that the assistance of members of the House of Representatives was needed to get this forum off the ground. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must come to order. There is no time to discuss the matter now. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member must come to order. [Interjections.] That hon member is not the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Leader of the Official Opposition is speaking to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr Chairman, firstly, on behalf of the committee, I wish to congratulate our chairman, the hon member for Mamre, and the Leader of the House, the hon member for Toekomsrus, on their appointment as Deputy Ministers.

Hear, hear!

We want to wish them the best of luck for the task that has been entrusted to them, and assure them that they can depend on our co-operation and wholehearted support. They can rest assured that we will back them in the same way as we do the other Ministers in the House.

To come back to the Police Amendment Bill, Bill No 12 of 1989, I can inform the House that the greater part of this Bill deals with the fact that the penalty clauses have been removed from certain sections and included in a common penalty clause to facilitate future changes to the penalties.

Fines have also been adjusted in accordance with the Act, namely Act No 32 of 1944. A number of clauses deserve specific mention, namely clauses 1 and 8. Clause 1 defines the concept of “strike’’ for the purposes of clause 8 which makes provision for the summary dismissal of a striking member of the Police Force. This summary procedure is necessary to prevent a strike, especially group strikes, from disrupting the activities of the SA Police.

The community has the right to depend on the SA Police every hour of the day to investigate and prevent crime and to preserve law and order. A policeman who strikes disrupts this community service and harms the community which has to be served. The task of the police official is a necessary service and any interruption or disruption creates an opportunity for crime.

The hon members in this House and the general public will blame the hon the Minister of Law and Order if any of their wives, loved ones or family members are raped, murdered or robbed as a result of a policeman or police force striking while they could have prevented such a crime from being committed. Therefore it is in the interests of an orderly society that strict measures be taken against striking police officials. It must also be emphasised that these sections create an opportunity for representations to be made by a striking member who has been dismissed and that if it should be discovered that he has been dismissed unfairly, he can be reinstated as if there had been no dismissal.

In clause 2 provision is made for the functional powers of the Commissioner of Police to be delegated firstly to members of the Force, secondly to other persons in the service of the Force, for example professional advisors, and thirdly to councils or bodies established in terms of the Police Act. Such persons or bodies exercise the delegated powers subject to the regulations.

Clause 4 allows police officials to be seconded for essential services elsewhere. This clause also determines the functional status of such members.

I now come to clause 6. Previously members of the Force only had an opportunity to have legal representation at an investigation into alleged misconduct. It has hereby been extended to departmental investigations in which the liability of a certain member of the Force for damages or loss is being investigated.

Clause 7 states the existing section of the Act in clearer terms and draws a clear distinction between criminal charges and alleged misconduct.

Finally, I shall discuss clause 20. The first part of this clause establishes the general penal provision which has already been referred to and is therefore self-explanatory. The second part makes provision for the entering into of agreements with other police forces with a view to universal standards of policing and the effective investigation, combating and prevention of crime in Southern Africa. To achieve this objective of co-operation of all those involved and reciprocal assistance is of cardinal importance.

My party supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to touch on certain clauses of this Bill, in particular clause 8, which the hon member for Riversdal also referred to. I have to disagree with him on the following basis. First of all I believe that the right of the individual is paramount and that the State exists to serve the individual. I also believe that instant dismissal is contrary to natural justice and that the audi alteram partem rule has been disregarded in this case. The reason why I differ with the hon member for Riversdal is because he has portrayed a point of view as seen by the Police. I am portraying the view as seen by the individual. As I have already stated, I believe the right of the individual is paramount. Why must an individual be dismissed if the Commissioner, according to the legislation, has reasonable grounds to believe that the member of the Force strikes or conspires with another person to strike? The Commissioner may, without hearing any person, summarily dismiss such member from the Force.

My point of departure is that the right of the individual is paramount, and consequently that individual—whether a policeman or not—has the right to be heard before he is dismissed. Only if it is found that he is guilty of the offence of which he is accused can he be dismissed. The hon the Minister should address this point. Why must we take away the right of the individual and give it to the State when we all—that is the majority of the people sitting here in this Chamber—believe that the right of the individual is paramount and that the State exists to serve the individual?

*Most hon members believe that the rights of the individual are all-important and that the State was created to serve the individual. However, the provisions of this clause signify the opposite. The individual—the policeman—is denied his right to be tried before he is dismissed. He is dismissed first, and certain steps are subsequently prescribed to him, as set out in clause 8 (a), (b) and (c).

Why can that individual not be tried before his dismissal? I registered my objection to this in the joint committee, and the hon the Minister is aware of this.

The second aspect I want to refer to is contained in section 16 (2) of the principal Act which will henceforth read as follows:

A person appears in court and is found to be innocent. The hon the Minister has the power to try the same person again on the same charge on which he has already been found innocent. Would the hon the Minister please look into this.

The third aspect I want to refer to is a bit further on in the legislation, namely section 34G, as amended by clause 20. With regard to this agreement which the Minister may enter into with other states or territories, I want the hon the Minister please to give particular attention to the following, and I quote from the English version of clause 20:

The hon the Minister will remember that I have already had occasion to send him a letter as a result of the actions of the Ciskeian police. As the hon the Minister knows, the Ciskeian border is 12 kilometres away from where we live, and there is a road known as the black road which runs past that area. Many of our people go to the Amatola Sun in King William’s Town and then pass this area when returning at night. It is in the Republic of South Africa. There are constant road-blocks set up by the Ciskeian police just at the point where people turn to get to the black road. Some of our people travel along the black road at one or two o’clock in the morning on their way to East London. They then drive past that border post. Believe it or not. those policemen very often charge off from the post they are manning in the Ciskei, to pursue our people who are actually in the Republic. They are then stopped and assaulted for no reason. Some of them have been assaulted a mere two kilometres from their homes in Buffalo Flats.

My question is therefore whether our people who live in that area will be protected when this agreement is concluded. This is not the first time that this has happened. I have had occasion to write to the hon the Minister before. The hon the Minister referred the matter to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I furnished the date on which the individuals were assaulted, and the names of those who assaulted them. Members of the South African Police appeared on the scene while the assault was taking place, but took no action.

I have personal experience of the actions of the Ciskeian police. Most of the time they are drunk. Rifles are pressed against one’s head. On occasion I have had to have my wife and son get out of my car as a result of the actions of those policemen, because they wanted the young girls who were travelling with us to climb out. I refused to comply, and consequently had to endanger the lives of my wife and my son, and urged them to get out so that we could protect these young girls. I shall never condone that kind of behaviour, and when this agreement is concluded, our people’s rights must be protected.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Riversdal, and thank him for the congratulations and the assurance that hon members of this House would give us the necessary support. By this time we are probably already known as a group of people who stand together. I believe that during this time it has been shown once again that the LP is a close-knit group and that our members stand by and support one another.

It is also true that the SAP is a close-knit team, which has a particular responsibility towards the entire community. This legislation is necessary when seen against the background of the fact that the Police are responsible for the safety of our community. The legislation cannot be separated from the responsibility of the Police. What is in fact so important in the legislation, is that it now addresses the policeman in terms of his greater responsibility and his sense of duty with regard to the oath which he takes when he enters the service.

The legislation ensures that the South African community will never have illusions with regard to the task of the police. The legislation makes it clear that the Police are there to fulfil their role.

Reform in South Africa is a difficult task. Reform elicits different responses from different quarters. We have already seen what response reform has elicited from the right-wing group. For that reason we have this legislation to frustrate attempts by the right-wing, the left-wing or whatever group, to obstruct positive reform. Domestic security is of paramount importance for the creation of a stable community in which the individual can be secure. Every policeman therefore has a responsibility towards the community to create a peaceful environment by means of the investigation into and the fighting of crime and the maintenance of law and order, in which everyone will feel free and secure and in which we can proceed with the necessary reform which will lead us to the new South Africa. However, it is true that the policeman’s right with regard to his function, and his individual right to go on strike, are is being addressed. I believe, however, that in the spirit of the legislation and in the spirit of dedication in which he, as a policeman, takes the oath, he accepts this service in the form of a responsibility and that he will not let the public down and place the South African community in an unsafe situation by insisting on exercising his rights.

Here, the policeman takes second place to the safety of community. The safety of the community is of primary importance. Law and order is of primary importance. The same applies to the environment in which people live. The policeman who takes the oath of service to the community, places his own personal interests after those of that oath and that task. That is what is taking place here.

Nevertheless, the policeman who is indicated in clause 8 of the legislation, can demand those same rights which he had in the police service, within 70 days. He has the right to demand them. He can then submit representations for his case to be considered.

What is important, is that once again it is not primarily the right of the policeman to strike that is being protected here. It is the right of the individual in the South African community to live in a safe society. It is true that a policeman on strike is an inactive policeman. He would be failing in his duty towards the community and he would be a risk for that community. A policeman on strike creates the false image of a safe environment and for that reason it is important for the Police Force to know that at all times it will have people from across the spectrum in service who regard the maintenance of law and order and the safety of South Africa as their primary task.

Clause 4 is an extension of section 6(A) of Act 7 of 1958, in which it is considered necessary for police officers to fulfil a function in another service as well. In accordance with the LP’s policy of a federal system, it is in the wider interests of Southern Africa that a foundation is now being laid for the SAP to be able to perform an active function in various other forces as well. With the demarcation of borders as well as the inclusion of the greater South Africa it is once again true that an active function must exist between the various police forces. This legislation is an improvement on the previous legislation in this regard. It is important that the policeman is not being undermined in any way with regard to his status or his privileges. However, if the policeman infringes on the stability, trust and recognition of individual rights, he will not be able to rely on those benefits contained in the Act with regard to his protection as a policeman. Therefore, the effectiveness of the SAP as guardians of our community may not be jeopardized. Effective legislation is a necessary point of departure in the creation of an effective police force as well as the safeguarding of effective law and order and safety.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the hon member for Toekomsrus on his promotion.

He will be sworn in as Deputy Minister tomorrow and we are pleased that he will fill that senior post. Of course, his difficulties will also begin now. [Interjections.] They will definitely not become fewer. He can be sure that there will be more of them.

I also want to sincerely congratulate the hon member for Mamre, who will be inaugurated as Deputy Minister along with our colleague. We are very proud of that hon member, who did very good work as Deputy Chairman of our Joint Committee on Security Services. I am very pleased that he is now going to occupy this senior post and receive an increase by doing so. Of course, I feel that we in fact contributed a little towards his promotion. He did good work with us and as a result, he is now being promoted. He was noticed and we are proud of him. We wish him everything of the best. [Interjections.] However, difficulties await him, too, and we therefore wish him everything of the best in this new capacity.

WP is tops!

Yes, Mr Chairman, we have now come to the WP again. Let us just ask where the Curry Cup is. [Interjections.] We are not talking about cricket now, but rugby. [Interjections.] I want to thank the committee of which this hon member and the hon member for Riversdal are respected members. We thank them for the work that they have done in the joint committee. We have found over the years that the committee and these hon members are very well disposed towards the police. I should also like to thank the hon member for Mamre, who is going to leave our committee, for the very valuable work which he did in the joint committee.

The hon member for Mamre and the hon member for Riversdal summed up the crux of the Bill nicely and succinctly explained exactly what it was about. I am therefore not going to take up the House’s time by going into that again. They understand the Bill, they worked through it properly, they came together on various occasions, they were given guidance and in, my opinion, they ultimately approved a Bill which we needed very badly and which we will put to good use.

The hon member for Mamre made a very important point which I briefly want to highlight, namely that the safety of the public—the safety of our people—is important. The hon member for Riversdal also referred to this. We must not shy away from saying this to one another. The hon member for Border also referred to this. I want to tell the hon member that the right of the individual is, of course, important.

†The hon member for Border said that the right of the individual was paramount.

*Of course it is important. However, we must not run away from the fact that the rights and interests of the individual must take second place when the interests of the community are at stake. That is how we see the matter and that is also the principle which applies in this case. If we allowed policemen to go on strike, a situation could arise in this country in which a policeman could go on strike without our being able to dismiss him. Who would look after our people then? Who would then look after the interests of the public? In other words, one must be in a position to solve the situation quickly if a group strike were to take place so that one could employ people who would effectively accommodate the interests of the public.

As the hon member for Mamre and the hon member for Riversdal correctly said, the situation of a striker is, however, not lost at all. The Bill makes provision, in particular, for the way in which his situation can be dealt with. The important point is that he can be reappointed if he is treated unfairly, without compromising him in any way. In my opinion this is an important provision in the Bill which creates a balance between the protection of the rights of the individual and the dealing with the highest public interest, namely their safety.

I want to thank the hon member for Border for his contribution. He said that he did not agree with the provisions of clause 8. I appreciate and understand that. However, I want him to consider the fact that if the striker be summarily dismissed, one can obtain a clear ruling and force him, for example, to vacate his official place of residence. Hon members must remember that it can take a long time if he is suspended and he must be tried while he is still occupying accommodation which should be available to other policemen. The matter can therefore not be dealt with quickly. For that reason it is our view that he must be dealt with in this way.

However, I understand the hon member’s point of view. Lawyers like ourselves understand one another when it comes to these matters. He would like to hear the other side of the story first and it is possible to understand that. However, when everything in South Africa is taken into account, it is in the best interests of the community that we deal with the person concerned—the striking policemen whom we do not want in any case—in this way while at the same time we do not do him an injustice. In any case, we do not want to do that.

The hon member also referred to clause 7, which amends section 16. What is being dealt with here is a policeman who, for argument’s sake, has already been tried and found innocent in a court of law but against whom we want to take action in terms of regulations and of the Police Act. At the moment this is a fact of which hon members are aware—they have already asked questions in this regard on various occasions—namely that the question is being asked as to whether departmental action has been taken against a person after he has been found innocent by a court on the grounds of certain facts. We are therefore not adding anything which is not already possible. It is merely being stated more clearly so that there can be no doubt in that regard. I must tell hon members that we are dealing with the situation with a great deal of caution. During a departmental inquiry we look at the same facts as the court. However, in court different test applies with regard to finding such a person guilty or innocent.

It is very important that we should be in a position to take the facts into account from a departmental point of view in order to establish what action should be taken. Yet we must act differently to the courts. For example, there the person is found guilty and sentenced. Departmental action is entirely different and provision must be made for this. However, I want to give the hon member the assurance that we are applying the provisions very carefully. We are not reckless in our actions with regard to policemen. The Commissioner and his people as well as myself ensure that these people are not adversely affected. However, we need the instrument to be able to take action when we consider it to be necessary.

The final aspect that the hon member for Border mentioned, was the question of the agreements with other states. It is precisely to try to deal with this type of thing more effectively and to place it on a healthy footing that we need this clause. It did not always work very well in the past. I want to point out that the agreements with Ciskei have already been entered into. The hon member mentioned that we had referred the matter to the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is in fact a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I shall obtain a few more details from the hon member so that I can investigate the matter, because we cannot allow the sort of thing he is complaining about. We must try to live together in peace, because unless we do so we are going to start shooting one another and, after all, we do not want that either. We will be able to deal with the matter more effectively in terms of this provision. Naturally we are still going to enter into agreements with our neighbouring states in the future and then I will make thorough use of these powers which I am now being given in order to clear up these matters so that our people will not have to deal with irritations like these.

I want to thank hon members for their contributions, as well as the joint committee for having disposed of the matter so quickly.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the LP will continue relentlessly to fight all forms of racial discrimination which undermine the civil liberties and social rights of the individual. We are convinced that the rights of the individual must receive the highest priority and that the State has been created to serve the individual instead of discriminating against him on the ground of the colour of his skin.

We are born South Africans and therefore we demand that we share in the same privileges as our blood brothers. The apportioning of land tenure and the removal of measures which undermine the personal pride and feeling of worth of the oppressed, are the practical challenges with which I want to confront South Africa today.

Order! I want the hon member to help me. We are now discussing the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust Amendment Bill and I should like to know what bearing the hon member’s speech has on this measure.

It has a bearing on it, Sir. You will see.

As a result of the permit system our Coloured farmers cannot farm where they want to. Furthermore we do not receive the same financial assistance as the White farmers.

The fraternal quarrel in the NP must cease and the reform process—in the agricultural sphere as well—must be speeded up. We are here in Parliament to abolish apartheid and to fight for the rights of our people. That is why we cannot support the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust Amendment Bill. In terms of this amending Bill, which we reject, the South African trustees are authorised to assist persons of British birth to come to South Africa from any place in England and to settle here as farmers or market gardeners.

It is ungodly, inhuman, unjustifiable and indefensible that people who have been born and bred in this country do not have the right to farm where they please. [Interjections.] In terms of this amending Bill persons of British birth can farm in any place in the Republic and receive advances from the trust fund. [Interjections.] We shall forgive the injustice we have been made to suffer but we shall never forget it. That is why a person will never forget that the apartheid laws were placed on the Statute Book under the British regime.

Today I want to say unequivocally to the hon member for Durban Suburbs, who is not even present and who supports this amending Bill, that he is a supporter of apartheid.

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

No, Sir, I am not prepared to answer a question from that hon member because we shall soon be rid of him when the Government calls an election. [Interjections.]

Our Coloured farmers are being wronged in the land of our birth because they do not enjoy the same privileges as White farmers. We can no longer allow our farmers to be handicapped. That is why we must first sweep before our door before we sweep before the door of persons of British birth. The LP will not rest until our people are allowed to purchase agricultural land for farming purposes anywhere in the RS A. Why can White immigrants buy a farm in any farming area and settle there without any restrictions?

Our economy must be liberated and the quagmire of Acts which restrict our progress must be eliminated. Our country’s economy is in a mess as a result of its policy of apartheid. [Interjections.] Economic stability will lead to political stability if we repeal all restrictive measures which impede our Coloured farmers. Our people are restrained from making a meaningful subsistence by means of farming. Today I want to make an urgent appeal for all restrictive measures which impede our farmers to be repealed.

I want to emphasise that we cannot support the amending Bill. In conclusion I want to quote for the hon members from “Ou Gryskop” as my friend, Mr C Reid from the Southern Cape, called this poem:

Mr Chairman, allow me to paraphrase my statement with a bit of background sketching. Mr Herbert Ainsworth, who was a well-known citizen in Johannesburg in the 1900’s, died in 1920. He left a will under which certain legacies were provided for and directed that the residue and remainder of his estate, after payment of these legacies, should be converted into money and paid into a trust. Trustees were to apply the capital amount of the sum, together with any interest that may accrue, in assisting such men of British birth as they thought fit, who would like to settle here as farmers and market gardeners.

Now I would like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the provisions in the will were quite emphatic that these persons had to come from the United Kingdom. The aim of the Bill is to extend the powers conferred on the SA Trustees of the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Fund by the will of the late Herbert Ainsworth as amended by the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust (Private) Act, 1934, and Amendment Acts of 1953 and 1964.

I am of the opinion that, as Mr Ainsworth made his money in South Africa, he or his trust is responsible to a large extent to the inhabitants of South Africa. When I speak of the inhabitants of South Africa, I do not just mean a certain section of the population. I do not mean—as is so often taken for granted—White South Africans. I mean all South Africans.

However, what do we see here? Money that most probably was made through the exploitation of cheap Black labour is to be used to bring persons of British birth to South Africa to be ensconced in the agricultural world—a typical action of the protagonists of colonialism—namely to exploit the people and raw materials of a land or colony in order to bring more people from the mother- or fatherland so as to further exploit the resources of a land. This was well illustrated during the age of slavery.

For whom does the original Act cater? Who are these persons of British birth? Let me tell hon members. They are none other than Whites. If this were not so, let me know how many Black persons of British birth were assisted by this fund. I am sure that the answer is none. This being so, I can only describe this Bill as being racist and not fit to be discussed in non-racial circles.

*We really feel sorely offended and our dignity dishonoured. As the majority party in this House we have been treated with contempt because someone from a smaller party, perhaps even an independent, is requested to deal with legislation here. Is that what the parties in the House of Assembly think of us? If that is so I want to warn them that if they ever want to get anywhere, they will have to change their attitude.

†Extension implies that the trustees be given powers to invest and re-invest the funds of the trust in any securities or investments, including specifically a unit trust scheme which the trust did not allow before.

However, the principle remains the same, namely to generate funds so as to bring more persons of British birth to South Africa to enjoy the privileged life that is afforded here for Whites. Because of the discrimination built into this Bill we cannot support it.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed an honour to follow on the hon the Chief Whip of the LP.

I must say I am really amazed. I cannot believe that the hon member for Durban Suburbs is absent from this Chamber while he has placed this Bill on the Order Paper. I cannot believe that he would have asked the House to support a piece of blatant racist legislation. However, I know that he is looking for a new political home and that he is being used. Therefore I want to warn him by means of the following Dutch adage: “Wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreek.”

I want to remind him in his absence that the majority of South Africans are by law prohibited from farming where they would like to do so. Yet he asks us to support legislation enabling British subjects to come to the Republic from any place in the world and settle here as farmers. I would like to tell him that that is completely unacceptable to the majority of deprived people in this country.

The economic disparity between White and Black South Africans is most visible in the agricultural sector. The commercial sector is dominated by Whites, while the subsistence sector consists mainly of Black families subsisting on traditional communal holdings.

*The Bill before the House is aimed at extending the powers of the trustees of the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Fund to assist persons of British birth to come to South Africa from any place in the world to settle here as farmers or market gardeners. Advance payments are being made for this purpose. I do not know what the advance currently amounts to, but as long ago as in 1964— a quarter of a century ago—it was R20 000. [Interjections.]

British immigrants may, without any restriction, obtain a farm in any farming area in our country and settle there. South Africans of colour are denied the right to farm where they want to. We are subjected to a permit system which is extremely discriminatory and restrictive in a free-market system such as that in South Africa. We believe that this trust fund should be used to assist deprived agriculturists so as to ensure that the country’s maximum agricultural potential is realised.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp said—and I want to support him in this—that it was the British colonists who introduced segregation here at all levels of society. The Afrikaner merely perfected it and entrenched it in legislation. We on this side of the House refuse to support the Bill under discussion before these disparities have been eliminated.

We are building a new South Africa. Therefore we will have to look at the mistakes of the past. The Bill currently before the House forms part of those mistakes. Therefore we want to reject it with the courage of our convictions.

Debate concluded.

Bill rejected.

Mr Chairman, the amendments to the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, contained in this Bill, can basically be divided into three categories. The first category deals with the acquisition of land, the second with its transfer to self-governing territories, and the third with the administrative problems associated with township development.

The proposed amendments set out in clauses 1 and 3 deal with the first category, clause 3 being the most important. It amends section 6(1)(b) of Act 18 of 1936. In terms of this section all State-owned land within the scheduled and released areas vests in the Trust. An opinion has been procured that this section can be interpreted as referring only to State-owned land within these areas as at the date of commencement of Act 18 of 1936. If this is the case, it would mean that all State-owned land which had been included in released or scheduled areas after 31 August 1936, the date of commencement of the Act, did not automatically vest in the Trust. The result will then be that certain legal acts performed by the Trust on such land may be declared null and void. Therefore subsection 1(b) is amended to ensure that all State-owned land which has been added or will be added to released areas shall automatically vest in the Trust.

Clauses 1(b) and (c) are consequential amendments resulting from the proposed amendment of section 6(1)(b). These clauses amend section 2(2)(b) and 2(3)(a) and (c) in order that the State-owned land added to released areas in exchange for Trust-owned land excised from released areas, vests in the Trust without further ado, and an additional act, namely the issue of a deed of grant to be performed by the State President, is not required.

Clause 1(a) amends subsection (1) of section 2.

Although not really resulting from the amendment of section 6(1)(b), it is in a way also connected with that amendment. This section 2(1) gives a description of released areas while section 6(1)(b) provides that all State-owned land within these released areas vests in the Trust.

Section 36A(3) of the National States Constitution Act, 1971, among others, also gives the State President the power to declare released areas. Therefore it is necessary that provision be made in section 2(1), also for areas declared as such in terms of the National States Constitution Act, and for the resulting vesting of State-owned land in such areas in the Trust in terms of section 6(1)(b). This is a rather confusing and complicated argument, but I hope hon members will be able to follow it.

The second category, namely the transfer of land to self-governing territories, is dealt with in clause 2, which amends section 4bis of the principal Act, Act 18 of 1936. In terms of section 1 of the National States Constitution Act, 1971, the State President may, after consultation, establish a legislative assembly for a Black area and he may, again after consultation, amend such Black area. The land in that Black area does however not mero motu vest in that legislative assembly but must be transferred to it in terms of section 4bw of the Act. There is no problem when Trust land as such is transferred to self-governing territories, but in regard to land which is held in trust for a Black person, Black tribe or Black community, it was always intended that when such land is transferred to the government of a self-governing territory, it should still be transferred in trust for such Black person, Black tribe or Black community.

The purpose of the amendment of section 4bis (c) is to provide beyond doubt that the land described in that section does not vest in the government of the self-governing territory in its own right, but in trust for such Black person, tribe or community.

It is further recommended in this clause that section 4bis of the principal Act be amended to make provision for the transfer of a right, obligation or the land as such to a person or body within a self-governing territory other than the government of such self-governing territory.

The third category of amendments deals with administrative and development problems in connection with the establishment and development of townships and is found in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. Clause 4 inserts section 1 IB into the Development Trust and Land Act to provide for the lifting of restrictive conditions at the opening of township registers. Existing Black townships were generally established on land belonging to the Trust and no permanent rights were given to residents in the townships.

However, with the new legislation and policy, the expansion of rights to Black persons in the townships by 99-year leasehold and deeds of grant, but especially because of certain proclamations issued by hon the State President in 1988, by virtue of which Blacks can procure full ownership in the townships, it has now become necessary to open township registers also in the case of Trust land towns.

In order to open these registers it is necessary to consolidate the land and steps have also to be taken to remove restrictive conditions on the titles which are incompatible with the establishment of townships. In Black townships, where full ownership was formerly not envisaged, the necessary permission from the holders of mineral rights was mostly not obtained. Likewise rights of way and thoroughfare of stock to, for instance, watering places, were never repealed.

In order to prevent the Trust or a township developer from having the impossible task to endeavour registering such title conditions on the title deeds of the different sites or taking timeconsuming and complex steps for the lifting of such restrictions, it has become necessary to provide for an easier and faster method to lift such restrictions, especially in the light of the urgent need for housing for Black communities in these towns.

Ample provision is made in the recommended section 11B(2) for compensation of persons whose existing rights are affected, as well as for the speedy settling of disputes arising from such a lifting. This amendment gives powers with regard to Trust land which are similar to those given to the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning by section 4 of the Black Communities Development Act of 1988 with regard to townships established in terms of that Act.

Finally, clause 5 deals with the proposed amendment of section 18(3)(a) of the principal Act so as to enable the Trustee—in this case the Minister of Education and Development Aid—to grant rights of leasehold to non-Blacks in the Trust areas.

The granting of rights of leasehold to non-Blacks in Trust areas forms an important part of the Government’s urbanisation policy. A considerable number of non-Black developers are already involved in providing internal infrastructure and housing in Black towns and it is part of the Government’s policy to involve the private sector in this. Houses thus erected by the developers are sold to Blacks, either under full ownership or leasehold or in terms of deeds of grant. I would like to mention that from 1983 to date, rights of leasehold in respect of 24 572 stands have been granted in Trust areas to 76 different developers of which 54 were non-Black.

Initially it was accepted that granting rights of leasehold in terms of the Development Trust and Land Act, as in the case of the lease of land to non-Blacks, could be approved by the Trustee. The reason for this understanding was regulation 6(1) of the Regulations for the Administration and Control of Townships in Black Areas promulgated by the former proclamation R.293 of 1962.

This regulation provided that a site may be leased or otherwise made available to a township developer or any other institution, body or person specially approved by the Minister for this purpose. This proclamation of the hon the State President was, however, repealed in 1988 and replaced by new proclamations and Government notices in which the provisions of the said Regulation 6(1) were not re-enacted. In other words, there was no provision for the Minister approving the grant of a leasehold to a non-Black person.

Legal advice has in the meanwhile indicated that Parliament must approve each grant of leasehold as in the case of the selling of land to a non-Black in terms of section 18(3)(a). However, Parliamentary approval for each grant of leasehold will cause a tremendous delay in the whole housing action. Legislation is therefore urgently required to provide beyond any doubt—as it has been assumed all along—that the trustee, that is, the Minister, may approve of leasehold grants to non-Blacks without referral to Parliament.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not limit the granting of leasehold to non-Blacks to sites in townships. The trustee will also be empowered to grant such rights of leasehold in respect of other trust-owned or rural land. However, the scope of this power is limited in that section 18(3) stipulates that grants must be for the support, advantage or well-being of Black people.

The proposed amendment of section 18(3)(a) will have retrospective force as from 14 October 1983. This is necessary, because a considerable number of grants of leasehold have been made since that date without obtaining the approval of Parliament in each individual case. The only way to rectify this effectively is by the proposed piece of legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has given us a very detailed resumé of the Bill that has been discussed at the standing committee. I agreed with him when he read part of his speech and said that it was a complicated procedure. It is confusing. However, after having listened to the hon the Minister hon members should have a better indication of what the Bill is all about.

Do you mean you did not understand the Bill before?

I am talking about hon members who were not in the standing committee. The hon member for Reservoir Hills has a habit of putting his foot in things. One of these days he will find it difficult to get it out!

When this Bill was considered in the joint committee, consensus was reached within minutes and this made it a rare occasion. This does not imply that the provisions of this Bill are trivial and unimportant. On the contrary, the fact that the officials of the Department of Education and Development Aid prepared and submitted a very detailed explanatory memorandum to committee members, helped a great deal. The memorandum was detailed in the sense that it dealt with each clause separately, explaining.all the implications of the measures that were contained therein.

Hon members who served on the committee expressed their gratitude to the officials of the department. I too would like to record our thanks to the officials for having provided us with this memorandum. This is a very progressive amending Bill. The Group Areas Act and other related statutes that regulate the occupation of land in South Africa, are the creation and responsibility of the Government. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government to ensure that whilst these much detested Acts remain on the Statute Book and these so-called Black areas exist, the Government has to ensure that the situation which prevails, is monitored. When and where necessary, the Government must introduce measures that will assist in the development of these areas.

The purpose of the Bill in the main is fivefold. Firstly, it will give a more distinct description of released areas. Secondly, it will provide that when the rights or obligations on land or even land held in trust for a Black person. Black tribe or Black community, are transferred to a self-governing territory, they shall vest in the government of such self-governing territory in trust and not in its own right. Thirdly, it will ensure that all State-owned land in the released areas vests in the Trust. Fourthly—and this I find very interesting—the Bill will provide for the cancellation of restrictive conditions in respect of the opening of township registers and fifthly, it will provide for the allocation of rights of leasehold to persons other than Blacks in the Trust areas.

As I have said, I found the last two clauses very interesting, namely the cancellation of restrictive conditions experienced with the opening of township registers and the allocation of rights of leasehold to persons other than Blacks in Trust areas. Both these purposes are connected with the urgent need for housing, not only in the Trust areas, but in South Africa as a whole.

In respect of Black townships in the trust areas it has become necessary to expedite the development of these townships and even to establish new townships. These townships were established on land belonging to the Trust.

In the past it has been erroneously assumed that in accordance with their culture Blacks do not wish to have individual property rights on land, but prefer to live in a clan or a chief-subject community centre. The realisation has dawned— rightfully so—and it has become abundantly clear that individuals, no matter who they are, prefer to own homes and property.

Provision was thus made by way of a number of proclamations and Government notices issued on 9 March 1988 to inter alia make provision for individual property rights registered in a deeds registry, as opposed to deeds of grant or 99-year leasehold registered in the office of the regional representative of the Department of Development Aid. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a great pleasure whenever we have to make a contribution in respect of this particular department; a department which has demonstrated its honest intention with regard to development in this country. Therefore this Bill before us this afternoon naturally gets our full support.

I would like to start with clause 5 to show the golden thread, aimed at the development and the protection of rights of the inhabitants of the Trust areas, which is woven throughout the clauses in this Bill.

Clause 5 proposes to give the hon the Minister the power to grant rights of leasehold to persons other than Blacks, enabling the private sector, and in particular big developers, to alleviate the problems experienced with the shortage of housing in South Africa. The amendment of section 18 of Act 18 of 1936 will facilitate the speedy development of these Black areas.

The hon member Mr Seedat mentioned the Group Areas Act. This in actual fact represents an advancement and progress with regard to the Group Areas Act.

Clause 4 adds a new section to Act 18 of 1936 which will enable the hon the Minister to lift the strictest conditions, which is compatible with township development. The underlying reason for this amendment is clearly to facilitate the development of Black areas without resorting to time-consuming and tedious steps and procedures to lift such restrictive conditions which particularly the non-White community in South Africa has been subjected to. Ample provision is made in this clause for remuneration of persons whose existing rights are interfered with, as well as for the settling of disputes which might result from the lifting of the restrictive conditions.

Clause 3 makes provision for the amendment of section 6 of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, to ensure that all State-owned land which has been added to released areas since the inception date of Act 18 of 1936, vests in the Trust. Although it is less obvious, may I say that the golden thread is also visible in this clause. The result of this amendment will be that the rights transferred by the Trust to Blacks in these townships will be protected, even in the unlikely event of a court of law ruling that a township has been established on land not belonging to the Trust. This perhaps serves as evidence of the intentions of great leaders like my hon colleague.

I wish to say in conclusion that clause 2 makes provision for the amendment of section 4bis of Act 18 of 1936, so as to provide, in the first instance, that land which is held in trust for a Black tribe or Black community does not vest in the government of a self-governing territory in its own right, but is transferred to such a government in trust for such Black tribes or Black communities. Firstly, this amendment is aimed purely at the protection of the rights of the inhabitants of the Trust area where such land is transferred to the ownership of self-governing territories. Secondly, the clause provides for transfer of the land to another person or body in the self-governing territory and not necessarily to the government of such a self-governing territory. This will have the advantage that prime agricultural land can be transferred directly to, for example, agricultural corporations in the self-governing territories for the development and control of that land to the best advantage of the inhabitants of the self-governing territory. The principal aim, namely to develop these areas, is clearly visible in this clause.

In view of these factors as stated, I again want to place on record my full support of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Bill now before us, amends several provisions of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. As can be seen from the date of the Act it is one of the oldest Acts on the Statute Book. It therefore goes without saying that it is necessary to amend the Act from time to time to make provision for changed circumstances.

As is apparent from the hon the Minister’s speech, the amendments are, in the first place, in accordance with the department’s mission and objective, namely the development of the areas under its control. Secondly, it is the objective of this legislation to facilitate the administration of the areas and to eliminate unnecessary red tape.

†Clause 1 makes provision for three amendments to section 2 of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. Section 2(1) of the Act of 1936 gives a description of released areas, whilst section 6 of that Act provides that all State-owned land within these released areas shall vest in the Trust free of charge.

Section 2(1) of Act 18 of 1936 is, however, not the only piece of legislation that provides for the defining of released areas. In terms of, inter alia, section 36A (3) of the National States Constitution Act of 1971, Act 21 of 1971, the State President may, by way of proclamation in the Gazette, also provide for other land to the released areas. Provision is thus made in clause 1 (a) for the amendment of section 2(1) to provide for the released areas defined in section 36A (3) of the National States Constitution Act of 1971.

Subsection 2(b) and subsection 3A (c) of section 2 of Act 18 of 1936 provide further that if land which vests in the Trust is excised from the released areas or withdrawn from reservation for the occupation of Blacks, such land shall become State-owned land, while the State-owned land added to the released areas in return shall be transferred to the Trust by way of deed of grant. Such deeds of grant have, however, never been issued and will mean unnecessary administrative work.

Subsection (2)(b) and section 2(3A)(c) are thus amended by, respectively, clauses 1(b) and 1(c) to provide for the vesting of such State-owned land in the Trust without further ado.

*Clause 2 makes provision for the amendment of section 4bis of Act 18 of 1936 in order, firstly, to provide that land which is held in trust for a Black person, a Black tribe or a Black community shall not, when the land is transferred, vest in the government of a self-governing territory in its own right, but shall be held in trust for that Black person. Black tribe or Black community. It seems to me that the amendment to section 4bis is aimed solely at protecting the vested rights of inhabitants of the Trust areas when land which is registered in the name of the Minister or another person in trust for Blacks has to be transferred as property.

Secondly, it is provided in the clause that land which belongs to the Trust, as well as any right or obligation of the trustees or the Trust, may also be transferred to another person or authority in the self-governing territory and not only to the government of that territory.

This amendment is aimed more at the administrative process and will make it possible for the relevant land to be registered in the name of a tribe or that tribe’s captain, for example, in trust for that tribe. It may even be registered in the name of the Minister of that self-governing territory in trust for that tribe or community.

†Clause 3 makes provision for the amendment of section 6 of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, to ensure that all State-owned land which has been or will be added to released areas since the date of commencement of Act 18 of 1936 shall be vested in the Trust. As a matter of fact, all State-owned land in released areas is administered by the Trust for the benefit of the Blacks in those areas. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to conclude what I was saying and coming back to clause 4 of the Bill, I find it interesting in that it deals with the granting of the right of freehold to persons other than Black people. I interpret this as a realisation on the part of the Government that the policy of compartementalisation of people on the basis of colour has failed.

The business entrepreneur who would inject capital and offer job opportunities in these so-called Black areas will help stimulate the economy, benefiting not only the region but the country as a whole. Money and opportunities, as we know, speak all languages and have no specific colour. Groups cannot exist in isolation, divorced from each other. We need each other. Just as the entrepreneur needs the labour offered by the worker, businessmen need the consumers. If one of these is taken away, one has the debacle we had in Boksburg and Carletonville.

And in Kraaifontein.

Unfortunately this hon Minister is not responsible for the portfolio of constitutional development. However, he is in the hon the State President’s executive Cabinet—I see two of his colleagues here who are in that Cabinet as well. We appeal to them, when it comes to the question of discussions in regard to land for the Indian community—especially concerning the Windmill Park—Boksburg area—to give us the support we need. The actions being contemplated by the CP town council must be stopped at all costs.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by thanking hon members for supporting this Bill and for the useful contributions they made. It is clear that all the hon members did their homework very well.

†This must have been a hard homework project because, as hon members indicated, it is a pretty complicated piece of legislation. However, I think the way in which hon members have unravelled these complications and have tried to make them intelligible in their presentations deserves to be highly commended. I think the legal ability of non-legal hon members might in due course become a serious threat to those who try to earn a living by unravelling legal complications. [Interjections.]

*I want particularly to thank the hon member for Actonville for his contribution. I should like to point out that towards the end of last year that hon member accompanied a group of very important Parliamentarians on a visit to the trust areas and self-governing territories in Natal.

†This visit in which the hon member for Actonville took part has enabled him, I am sure, to acquire a more thorough understanding of the development work taking place in those areas. I would like to thank him for his interest and also for the understanding which I am sure he is spreading on the strength of the experience that he gained and the observations that he made on this visit to the Natal trust and self-governing territories.

I would like to thank hon members, and in particular the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and also the hon member Mr Seedat, for their positive comments addressed to my Department of Development Aid and its officials in regard to the way in which they are handling this development task. Especially at a time when the department has been enduring quite a lot of criticism it is invaluable to have this support. The important work that the department is doing may not be allowed to suffer from unfortunate events that have occurred with regard to a few of the officials.

I would like to refer in particular to the very important contribution that private sector development is making in the Black townships in the trust areas. Such township developments as in Soshanguve north of Pretoria, in the vast Inanda area near Durban and in Botshabelo in the central Free State could not have happened if the old policy that all housing should be provided by Government and taxpayers’ money, still obtained.

The new policy whereby the Government provides the basic infrastructure and also a certain amount of loan assistance for the very low income groups has left a vast area of activity to the private sector in which to do business—and they are doing good business. I would also like to emphasise that they are making an invaluable contribution to the progress of housing in these areas.

I would like to make an appeal that when the private sector is making a good profit in providing what one could call middle-class housing—say housing from R40 000 upwards—they should not forget that the greatest need is really for lower-cost housing. The vast majority of the Black people cannot afford the more expensive middleclass housing. They can, however, start contributing towards more modest housing. Unfortunately the profit to be made on this lower-cost housing is much lower per unit and therefore the private sector is not so ready to involve itself in this area.

I hope that most of the private sector developers will be able to put together a mix in which they make the necessary profits in the middle-class or slightly more expensive housing while also being able to add some lower-cost housing where the profit per unit may not be quite as big as in the case of the others.

By promoting housing for all we are promoting stability in the community. If a man has started with a house, however humble and low-cost it may be, he will develop and expand that house. He will use his savings to improve that house. He will need furniture, linen and appliances. All this is a stimulus to good business. In this way I am sure that the private sector, in providing not only middle-class housing but also lower-cost housing in the Black areas, is contributing to the overall growth of the economy from which all of us, including these developers, will benefit.

In conclusion I would like to thank this House again for its support and to give the assurance that the Department of Development Aid considers housing and land development as one of its highest priorities and will make use of the additional facilities and powers provided in this Bill to the benefit of the people concerned in those areas.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, from time to time applications are received from State and provincial employees, either for consideration of pensions—and I think many of the hon members in this House qualify for pensions—or increased pensions, or pensions and allowances by certain aggrieved persons formerly employed by the State and provincial departments. These applications are referred to the Minister of Health and Population Development for consideration regarding the attainment of such pensions and allowances. Such applications are placed before the committee on pensions for consideration. Each application is treated on its merits. The Pensions (Supplementary) Bill of 1989 has considered the application of Jacobus Cloete, formerly a sergeant in the SA Police. His pension is to be increased to R6 000 per annum retrospective to 1 September 1988 by virtue of the Pensions Act of 1979 and Act No 10 of 1979. This was treated as a special case.

According to the Government Service Act of 1973, Act No 57 of 1973, increased pension allowances amounting to R2 736,15 per annum, retrospective to 1 September 1980, were granted to Mrs Johanna M Rudman, formerly a housekeeper in the service of the Provincial Hospital in Port Elizabeth. Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in support of the pensions afforded to Mr Jacobus Cloete, I want to say that when he joined the Police Force in 1949 his salary was only R29.34 per month. After deductions, he received only R18per month. Therefore it was not advisable to join a pension fund. Later, as his wages increased, it was explained that one day there would be two kinds of pension funds, one for which he had to pay in and another for which he did not have to pay in. He was asked to sign a document stating that he did not want to participate in the scheme for which he had to pay in. Many others also signed the document. Thereafter, when his wages increased, he asked that R102 be deducted from his monthly salary as a contribution towards a pension, but he was turned down. At the age of 59 years and 10 months he retired due to injuries. Thereafter he wrote to the committee on pensions to increase his pension from what it was when he was earning R4 516 per annum to what he earned at the time of his retirement—R6 000 per annum.

The hon member for Phoenix mentioned the case of Mrs Rudman. She started her career as a housekeeper, as the hon member has mentioned, at the Provincial Hospital in Port Elizabeth. She retired on 31 July 1987. It was established that she was anxious to buy back pension two months before her retirement, but, due to being given an erroneous impression by her employer, was under the impression that she could not buy back pension at that late stage in her career and she was prevented from doing so.

Order! The hon member for Phoenix has broken the line.

My apologies, Mr Chairman.

At that stage the committee recommended that she be given an increased pension of R2 736 per annum. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon members for Phoenix and Newholme for their contributions to this debate. As a matter of fact, I think what we see here this afternoon is the epitome of democracy in the parliamentary system. Hon members of Parliament brought forward cases concerning which they thought—and rightly so in many cases—the discretion of the Department of Pensions was not properly applied. I would like to thank these two hon members for highlighting the cases before us.

There is no doubt in my mind that this particular Act, as far as pensions are concerned, is most important for Parliament, because here hon members have the opportunity to bring forward cases where they believe there has been an indiscretion. For that reason I would like to thank hon members of this House who were on the committee and I would like to thank the hon members for Phoenix and Newholme for their contributions. Again, I would like to reiterate that this is, in my opinion, the epitome of democracy.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I would very much like to thank the members of the Joint Committee on Education for their support for this Bill. I must also express my appreciation for the fact that an appropriate formulation for clause 4 could be found, to amend section 34 of the principal Act.

The Bill amends the Education and Training Act, 1979. In the first place it inserts a definition of “subsidy” in order to provide that assistance to a State-aided school need not only be in the form of money but may also include school furniture, equipment, stores, stationery and other assistance in kind. In the second place it provides that the department may organise its activities or any part thereof in areas in addition to regions and inspection circuits. In the third place it brings the Act in line with the transfer of the responsibility for the rendering of school health services from the Department of National Health and Population Development to the provinces. In the fourth place it authorises the Director-general: Education and Training to refuse, on the recommendation of the controlling body of a public school and after an inquiry, any person admission as a pupil to the school concerned if such person’s presence at the school would be detrimental to the interest of the school or the provision of education.

The first three matters that I have just mentioned, namely the insertion of a definition of “subsidy”, the establishment of areas and the adjustment of the Act in accordance with an existing arrangement for the transfer of the responsibility for the rendering of health services, are not contentious measures and should not encounter any opposition.

The definition of “subsidy” is necessary to remove all doubt that the Department may provide furniture and other assistance in kind. According to the usual meaning of the word “subsidy” it only refers to assistance sounding in money.

The amendment relating to the establishment of areas reflects the present organisation of the Department which has been changed geographically to make provision for the division of regions into areas in respect of which area offices have been created.

The next matter, namely that relating to the rendering of school health services, is merely a consequential adjustment. It results from the transfer of the responsibility for the rendering of school health services to the provinces which took place as far back as 1 April 1988.

Regarding the last matter, that is the refusal of admission to a school, this measure is solely intended to protect the vast majority of pupils who do want to study against a small minority of intimidators and perpetrators of violence, whose sinister motives have nothing whatsoever to do with the promotion of education. It is the intention to state beyond doubt that the Department possesses the power to refuse undesirable persons admission to public schools.

That the communities afflicted by these persons have now had more than enough of lawlessness, violence and intimidation, is apparent from many press reports in the possession of the Department and I would like to quote a few extracts to prove this statement. I read the following from Business Day of 18 January 1989:

These are not my words but those of Business Day. I quote from the Sowetan of 19 January 1989:

I read the following from the Sowetan of 20 January 1989:

I quote the following from City Press of 22 January 1989:

The necessity of this measure as contained in clause 4, is clearly apparent from what I have just quoted and therefore I trust that hon members will support it.

Mr Chairman, the Education and Training Amendment Bill amends the Education and Training Act of 1979 which Act pertains to Black education.

I must qualify my participation in this debate, particularly where it concerns Black education. I would have been far happier if Blacks made their own decisions. Unfortunately this is not possible, because they are not given the opportunity to be present in Parliament. This is regrettable. However, decisions have to be taken in the interest and welfare of Black education. Progress must be made and that is of concern to me.

I now wish to refer to the Bill. This Bill was extensively canvassed at the joint committee. I have no problems with Clause 1 and Clause 2. They are merely administrative matters which cater for the welfare of education in the Black sector. I have abstained from voting on Clause 3 and Clause 5 which transfer school health services from the State to the provincial administration. Whatever merits they may have, it is against my conscience to support fragmentation of health services. I am against the provision of health services along ethnic lines.

Clause 4 is most controversial. This gives the Director-General of Education and Training the right to refuse admission to any pupil if the Director-General is of the opinion that such person’s presence at a school will be prejudicial to the interest of the school or the provision of education. Here the Director-General is being given unlimited, uncensured and autocratic powers. This amendment to the Act is unprecedented in the direction and control of education in South Africa. It does not apply to Whites or any other groups.

We were given to understand that there are disruptive elements in Black education which are causing instability in the orderly control of education in that sector, as the hon the Deputy Minister quite rightly pointed out. It was also stated that the department was powerless to eradicate such troublesome elements. I am aware of the very good work that has been done for Black education by this department. However, I am also given to understand that the Black education authorities were consulted and that there was agreement to adopt such a law. We were assured of that.

Hon members who served on the joint committee were not happy with the extraordinary powers conferred on the Director-General. Clause 4 was accordingly amended to allow for parents, council, committee, board or any other body to recommend to the Director-General that the presence of a defaulting pupil is undesirable. Only with this recommendation can the Director-General act. He may then institute an inquiry, giving that pupil—if he is a minor—the right to have a parent present. He would then be given ample opportunity to be heard.

I believe that the amendment to the original clause has merit in that there will be more than one party present. This will ensure that a fair and unbiased decision will be taken in the interest of the school and the community. I particularly want to emphasise the fact that the parents concerned in a particular environment or a particular school have a right to make recommendations to the Director-General. Also, the amendment provides an opportunity for the pupil to be present.

I just want to refer to counter-amendments. These have been regarded as being redundant, to some extent but I accept the amendment as suitable because it allows for democratic privileges. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must say that I am utterly taken aback by what I have heard from the hon member for Merebank. Whilst he has agreed that he abstained from voting on Clause 3 and Clause 5, he also abstained from voting on Clause 4, which is the most contentious one. He is now giving us the impression that he is supporting that particular amendment. [Interjections.]

“The best-laid plans of mice and men gang oft a-gley.” Those were the words of Robert Burns and today I am for the first time going to renege on a decision which I was a party to; for I believe that if I did not, it would not be democratic in that it would not give this community a democratic hearing where no other people could influence them in that decision making.

I am not going to labour the point. Brevity is the soul of wit and I am going to be as brief as possible because I realise that there is only one clause which is very contentious. This Bill in the main is not controversial except for that one clause.

The definition of “subsidy”, as the hon the Deputy Minister had explained, was inserted to allow for the provision of furniture, equipment, stores, stationery and other incidentals. The Bill further provides for the transfer of health services from the State to the various provinces in consultation with the Administrator. The State will, however, still monitor this.

Clause 4 is the contentious one. The original clause was rejected and the amendment approved, and I want to read the approved amendment which states:

As I said at the outset, I supported this at that stage. Another amendment was proposed and rejected, however, and I was also party to this, at that stage rejecting it. Having thought the matter over, I am of the opinion that the second amendment should have been accepted as it allows for a more democratic approach. The emphasis of this second amendment is:

This would have a deterrent effect on any victimisation or coercion and as I said at the outset, the hon member for Merebank abstained from voting on all those clauses and it surprises me.

Pupils should nevertheless not be given the short end of the proverbial stick, no matter what race or group they belong to. This Bill in its first amended form could lose the intellectual support which once buoyed this Government. I am prognosticating that militancy and boycotts could arise out of this and if this second amendment— which will be in keeping with the audi alteram partem rule to use the expression my hon colleague normally uses—is not accepted, then there could possibly be bloody chaos.

I can, therefore, not support this Bill and request that, should it at all be possible constitutionally, it be resubmitted to the joint committee. I would certainly be happy with that.

Mr Chairman, I commend the hon the Minister, for whom I have great sympathy as regards the manner in which he has set about performing his task in providing education for our Black community.

However, in his opening remarks this afternoon, the hon the Minister indicated when he read from certain reports in the newspapers that there was lawlessness, vandalism and thuggery in our Black schools. I accept all of that. What I would like to ask the hon the Minister, however, is this: Surely if these things do occur and are in fact occurring, then it is for our Department of Law and Order to handle that effectively. If that is not done, it is an admission that the hon the Minister who is responsible for such functions is in fact failing in his task. I know that the hon the Minister believes, as we do, in the inalienable right to education of all individuals in this country. I know that the hon the Minister in fact believes this. Not only does he believe it; he has demonstrated his belief.

The Bill as we see it before this House represents an admission on the part of the hon the Minister and the Government concerning the provision of a system of education that is unacceptable to the Black people of South Africa. I say to the hon the Minister that it is also an admission of failure to run schools without resorting to arbitrary and authoritarian measures. It is an admission of failure to ensure that children have adequate protection against victimisation.

I do not want the hon the Minister to misunderstand me. I do not believe that there should not be a procedure to exclude from schools those who continually and deliberately seriously disrupt effective education at schools. In that regard my hon colleague, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, proposed a certain amendment to which the hon member for Allandale referred a moment ago.

I should like to explain once again to the hon member for Merebank the difference between the clause which was accepted by the committee and the clause that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens had proposed. The difference lies in the fact, as the hon member for Allandale quite correctly indicated, that in the first amendment proposed before this committee, a committee, council or board may recommend to the Director-General that the presence at the school of any person who applies for enrolment as a pupil would be prejudicial. At that stage, such student or his parents or legal representatives are not afforded any hearing. We thought that we should remedy this by providing that at that initial stage, that individual should be afforded the protection of a hearing. That, really, is where the difference lies. I am sorry that the hon member for Merebank has not understood that very simple distinction between the clause that was amended and the clause proposed by the hon member for Gardens.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member says to me that he has understood. If he has in fact understood, then I would say to the hon member that he certainly does not believe in giving an aggrieved party the right to be heard. That is regrettable, because I have always heard that hon member espouse such values in this Chamber before.

I would merely like to say something about Black education generally. As I indicated earlier on, I have great empathy for the hon the Minister, because it is indeed a difficult task. The difficulty that the hon the Minister is encountering and I am sure will encounter in the future, is not a difficulty that can be traced directly to the functioning of his department. I want to submit this afternoon that the difficulty the hon the Minister has, is in fact one that arises because of the political problems we have in this country. I would advise the hon the Minister to ensure that that problem is seriously addressed in the committees and the Cabinet in which the hon the Minister serves.

The hon member for Merebank alluded to this fact and I want to say that for as long as we have a differentiated and a different system of education for Black people in this country, we will not have their willing participation in Black education. That is the crux of the problem. However, it is not the problem of the hon the Minister. It is the problem of the Government of which he is a part. I believe that is an issue the hon the Minister must address very seriously.

When one talks about Black education in general, there is no doubt that this is the key to the future peace in this country. It is the key to not only the political peace in this country, but I believe it is also the key to the economic advancement of this country. I believe that Black education should be at such a level that not only should pupils, parents and entire communities actively participate in that system, but that system should also prepare each of those individuals for taking their rightful place in the nonracial democratic future, which is inevitable in this country. In that regard, I believe a very onerous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the hon the Minister and I believe that that hon Minister is not beyond solving those problems. I would commend that to the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I am greatly surprised and disturbed by the speech of the hon member for Allandale. Indeed his decision not to support the second amendment proposed in respect of clause 4 of the Bill is a great tragedy. I wonder if the hon member understands the meaning of that Latin phrase he uttered, the audi alteram partem rule. If he had any real knowledge of that he would have fought and voted for the second amendment. [Interjections.] Having thrown out a reasonable and most logical rational amendment, he has the audacity to come here and say that, on second thoughts, he supports it! He rejected an amendment which rightfully deserves to amend this clause 4 of the Bill, which is highly contentious. It is not the first time that hon member has dealt in double standards. I suppose he is playing for the gallery as he has been doing for the past 41/2 years when making “loyal speeches".

It is a tragedy that that clause has not been accepted because I know from experience of an Indian child who was viciously assaulted by a class teacher—it is not a Black child I am talking about. However, when the inspectors came to investigate that matter, the principal of the school stared at the child and the child then told the inspector: “My teacher never hit me.”

Some 12 to 14 years ago there was a story concerning a school where I come from. It made headline news in the newspapers under the heading: “Teacher batters child with a piece of wood.” What happened during the inquiry? The inspector who investigated the incident came to the school, called in the principal, the teacher who was the culprit and the child victim and asked the latter if the teacher had assaulted him. While the inspector was questioning the child, the principal stared at the child so that he would not open his mouth. That stare was enough to make the child deny being assaulted.

I tell this to illustrate my point. I feel sorry, and I see it as a tragedy, that the second amendment moved by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens was not accepted. I am not convinced that any person who is a victim of an investigation will have a fair hearing. There will be a certain amount of apprehension instilled in a child, regardless of his background, character or misdemeanour. To have an inquiry in the presence of a departmental official will instil fear in a victim. Nobody can claim that it will be a fair and square hearing.

I do not want to overlap with what other hon members have already said with regard to clause 4.1 am not happy as it is but I will accept what was accepted by the component of this House.

I would now like to go back to clause 1 of this Bill. I welcome the improvement in State aid to schools, especially the Black schools. The vast majority of Black pupils have to walk many kilometers to school. I remember seeing children in the rural areas walk 15 km or more to school.

The children have to do this on an empty stomach. If the department could see its way open to establish a soup kitchen as another form of assistance, of which the provision of stationery and other equipment form part, these unfortunate children who come to school on empty stomachs could be given a cup of soup at playtime … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the quest for education in any form must not be curtailed. I have no problem with the Bill in principle—it is only clause 4 that is a contentious clause. I did make an input in the joint committee with regard to that clause. We re-examined the whole matter in our caucus and it was decided on principle that we cannot support this because we believe that by engaging the officials of the Department of Education and Training it would prejudice somewhat the case of the pupil.

We on this side therefore cannot see our way clear to supporting the Bill. We would like to record our objection to this Bill and we want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister, if it is at all possible, to recommit the Bill to the joint committee so that we can take a fresh look at it.

Mr Chairman, after listening to the hon the Deputy Minister I felt that there was not much need to advance reasons for opposing this Bill. The hon members who endeavoured to oppose this Bill found it extremely difficult because they really had no case.

The stating of the definition of “subsidy” in relation to any State-aided school to include school furniture and other items is acceptable. There must of course be a clear understanding that this provision will not lead to abuse. The Black schools must not become a dumping ground for used or unwanted furniture from White educational institutions.

I can recall my own experiences as a pupil, when Indian schools in the province of Natal were for many decades the dumping ground for the furniture from White schools. I am sure this kind of practice will not be repeated in future.

I now come to clause 4, which has become somewhat contentious. I must indicate that after giving consideration to the earliest of viewpoints on this delicate issue, and after weighing up the pros and cons, the committee decided to make provision for the aspect of refusal of admission. In consideration of this issue, adequate precautions were found necessary. These were entrenched in the clause. Only after an enquiry at which the person concerned, and—if necessary, if he is a minor—his parents are present, shall the child be refused admission, if necessary.

The facts must be admitted. In addition to what the hon the Deputy Minister quoted, I would like to quote an article from the Sowetan, dated Tuesday, 17 January, 1989:

Mr Chairman, we must be practical and realistic when we discuss an issue such as this. There are forces that want to wreck education at schools. They want to stir up trouble. Their actions spell disaster at schools. Now my colleagues, the hon member for Allandale, the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Lenasia Central have advanced a very fickle argument. They advanced that argument because an official of the department was present. Therefore they were not prepared to support the Bill. I have not seen anything more lame than that. The presence of the department should be welcomed by both parties. The official of the department is not going to take a partisan approach. He as the departmental representative must see to it that justice is done to the teachers and the administrators of the schools on the one hand and to the community, the pupils and their parents, on the other. What is their fear? If they are adults they can fend for themselves and stand on their own feet. However, if the person involved is a pupil, his parents are present. Therefore, what is the argument? I sometimes wonder if my colleagues, the hon members, are trying to actually support the perpetrators of the demonic activities at schools.

That statement is not becoming of you!

They made allusions to political, social and even economic impingements on education.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, I am not taking questions. We have a problem in South Africa. We all know that there are abnormal race relations which have to be corrected. I am happy that in this day and age there are movements and organisations in all communities, including the White community, which are trying to correct the situation. However, the house is on fire, and my colleagues want us to go to the soothsayer to find out whether it is an opportune time to apply these measures. I say that it must be applied now, because if we go to the soothsayer, the house will burn down, the schools will burn down, the teachers will be attacked.

Therefore, without saying much more, I have pleasure in supporting the Bill, because it will benefit the majority of the children—99,9% of the pupils. I am somewhat taken aback as well, as my friends are taken aback. They have become completely oblivious to the interests and betterment of 99,9% of the pupils. They are just worrying about the one or two persons who are causing mischief, who have taken the law into their own hands. That kind of situation can never be tolerated and I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with one fundamental point, which is the following. We have declared in this House—and the hon members for Stanger and Glenview supported me when we did this—that if there is any measure which will benefit the Black people of South Africa, we will support it, notwithstanding that we do not represent them and do not dare to claim that we represent them. However, if at any time any measure seeks to take away any right which the Black people enjoy at the present time, we will oppose that vigorously. Unfortunately the hon member for Glenview is not here, because he supported me very strongly on that.

Clause 4 of this Bill seeks to take away a fundamental right which Black parents and Black children enjoy at the present time. I think it is the height of audacity for any hon member of this House to dare to say that those rights should be taken away from those people. The right to be educated is a fundamental right. This clause would give a school committee an opportunity to make a recommendation without giving the child or its parents an opportunity to make representations before the recommendation is made. That constitutes taking away a right. Even if the hon the Minister takes away that right after giving those concerned a hearing, he is still taking away a right. I would dearly love the names of those who support this clause 4 to be recorded in print, so that all the people of South Africa can see exactly who supported and who opposed it.

We know that some people forget principles, simply because they have certain personal ambitions. If supporting this Government gives them an opportunity to promote their personal ambitions, this is what they do.

The hon member for Allandale was honest enough to say that in the committee he supported the clause, but later, when he realised that he was wrong in giving it his support, he changed his mind. That is the attitude of an intelligent, honest person.

I would like to say that we oppose this clause vigorously. We think the hon the Deputy Minister is completely wrong in wanting to pilot this measure through the House. That does not detract one bit from the great respect we have for him. Actually, I will go one step further than the hon member for Springfield: We do not merely have sympathy and empathy with this hon Deputy Minister and his colleague, the hon the Minister; we have admiration for them. They have done excellent work. I have said this before and I will say it again. I say to them: “Do not damage that excellent work with this clause.”

A similar clause does not exist in the Indians Education Act. In 1980 we went through the turmoil of boycotts in Indian schools, organised by the Natal Indian Congress and other groups. We had violence perpetrated in Indian schools. We did not ask for a similar clause. Why does Solidarity now want to impose this kind of thing upon the Black people?

Where was this violence?

The violence? I witnessed violence in Indian schools in Durban. The hon member must have been sleeping.

Mention the time it occurred.

It happened nine years ago in 1980. Maybe the hon member was living on the moon at that time but we were living here.

Was it the same type of violence as in Soweto?

Yes. Two schools were set alight and one library was burnt down completely. The motor car of the principal of Reservoir Hills High School was seriously damaged by pupils. Part of Durban Girls’ High in Carlisle Street was set alight. All of this happened during the 1980 school disturbances and I would like to see any of the hon members in this House asking for a similar measure to be introduced into the Indian Education Act. If they tried that they would hear from the voters in their constituencies. No Indian parent will tolerate a measure like this. Why should Black parents have this thrust down their throats? That is the reason why we oppose this Bill. [Interjections.] We know about school terror. I personally patrolled a particular school with other interested parents to keep away hooligans who were causing violence in that school.

However, what is the reason for the political agitation? Why was 14-year old Stompie, who was murdered by some persons who will obviously be tried—I cannot talk about that—the leader of a children’s army? The reason for that is the political disadvantages and deprivation suffered by that community. We must get rid of the cause of the disease. Trying to apply Draconian counter-measures is not the real remedy.

What is the reason? One thousand mainly Black South Africans were detained. It has been proved that 280 of them were completely innocent of any crime, because under coercion the Police released them. Yet those 280 people were kept in gaol. That is why we have agitation in these schools.

The parents themselves have not been fully consulted. If there were a referendum among the Black people and if a simple majority of Black parents nationwide were prepared to support clause 4,1 would be quiet. However, their opinion has not been asked. They are not represented in this Parliament. I repeat that it is wrong for this birthright to be taken away.

I want to conclude by saying that the Black people in this country are not as ignorant as some hon members seem to think. There are more educated Black people in South Africa than there are members of the so-called Indian community in South Africa. They are not stupid, and even if others may have been erroneously ignorant in 1923 when the Urban Areas Act was passed, which deprived the Black people of the right to own land in urban areas, it was because they were in fact buying land in urban areas. I want the hon member Mr Seedat to note the correction and to make that correction so that Black South Africans do not misunderstand anything said in this House and take it as an expression by hon members of this House generally. It was because they were buying that the Government of that time took away their right to buy.

Admittedly their tradition was to own land communally. The tradition in England—as distinct from Scotland and Wales—is still for land to be owned by the community. Most of the land is owned by the Crown and people merely lease the land from the State. Should we say that anyone was ignorant about the rights and the traditions of the people in England?

I am sorry that the hon member for Glenview is not here, because I intended to appeal to him directly to speak to the members of his caucus to get them to change their wrong views.

I like and respect the hon member for Merebank, but he clearly did not understand these fundamental principles to which I have referred. He clearly did not understand that we cannot take away rights held by Black South Africans at the present time.

There is no similar provision in the Act dealing with education for members of the Coloured, Indian and White community. There was no similar provision in any of the provincial ordinances dealing with education. Why must only Black people be singled out for this deprivation?

The clause dealing with subsidies is wholesome. Nobody has argued against that. I can therefore see no point in the hon member for Cavendish trying to make out that anyone misunderstood that particular aspect. I want to say that anyone in this House who supports clause 4 betrays the Black people of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would very much like to thank hon members who have participated in this debate. Of course, I do not agree with what everybody has said here. I think it has been a good debate and some very good contributions have been made.

I firstly want to react to the hon member for Reservoir Hills who has just sat down. May I start off by thanking him and the hon member for Springfield for their kind remarks. However, I do want to say that I do not agree at all with the hon member when he says that any hon member of this House who goes along with clause 4. betrays the Black people of South Africa. That is exactly the opposite opinion that I have of the matter.

I think I have made it quite clear what our perceptions are regarding what the Black community feels about this matter. It is also true that the Council for Education and Training which represents the Black community and which advises us on that matter, is in favour of this clause. This is a fact. In the second reading speech I referred to what certain Black papers had to say about this matter. I was not quoting from NP pamphlets. I was quoting from papers like Business Day and the Sowetan and other such papers. Apparently the hon member for Reservoir Hills is not in very close contact with what Black people are saying about this matter.

I want to say that when one or two or three students with ill intent go around and deprive other children who want to be educated of the opportunity, certainly it is not in the best interest of education in this country. A lot has been said about backlogs in Black education. I agree that we do face many backlogs in Black education. However, there are also some very interesting facts which we have to take into consideration. I want to give the hon member some examples of this. I want to ask him why it is that we have seven schools in the country which have a 100% pass rate as far as the matric results of last year were concerned? How did it come about that we had 26 schools that had more than a 90% pass rate in 1988? There are specific areas where we know that these people who are trying to disrupt education are more active. I am thinking of the Soweto area, for instance.

There we only have a success rate of 37% while in the Northern Transvaal area we have a success rate of 67%. That is surely an indication that there are people who are trying to disrupt Black education and I am saying that the parents of the majority of Black people of this country want their children to have a proper education. They do not want their education to be disrupted by these elements.

We know from experience that in the past there have been certain pupils who have disrupted their school and its activities through instigation and intimidation of especially the younger children at school. I have already quoted from newspaper clippings what is being said about this. I think that in such cases pupils who are not really interested in education are barring the other children from the classroom.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question. Is he not aware that there are people at universities whose main function is to try and create problems? If that is the case, should students be refused admission to universities as well?

Mr Chairman, we are now dealing with education at school-level and surely one cannot equate that with the situation where one or two children are intimidating smaller children in many cases, from attending that school. Surely we cannot allow that? When the hon member refers to the will of the people to be educated, that is exactly what we are trying to promote with this piece of legislation.

I think the whole argument is to give the large majority of children who want to be educated the right to be educated, instead of having their education interfered with by a minority. My perception is that the community feels itself unprotected against such persons, especially those who, although having a record of misconduct and malice against their own community, cannot be prevented from being admitted to a school of their community.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon member’s argument, and when he says that we want to take away the right of people to be educated, I want to argue that it is exactly the opposite. We are not trying to take away the right of children to be educated; we are trying to see to it that our children are provided with the best possible education. That is what we are trying to establish.

I want to say that children who will be refused admission to school will always have the right to attend centres for adult education where the best possible education will also be provided for them. It is therefore not true to say that we want to take away their right to education.

The hon member for Merebank made a very valid point when he said that parents will have the right to make recommendations. This is another very important argument and I think all of us who know something about education will agree that we cannot educate our children in this country without the involvement of their parents. With this piece of legislation we are trying to do just that.

We are trying to involve their parents and also the community to see to it that they have an influence in admitting and refusing pupils to schools. They will see to it that those pupils who want to use the opportunities which are being provided, are able to do so. I therefore fully agree with the hon member for Merebank.

I also want to refer to the fact that these measures will not be applied subjectively. The following guidelines will therefore be incorporated in regulations or specific departmental directives.

This is so because we believe that these matters should be dealt with. We agree that these are very delicate measures, and for that reason we believe that these measures should be dealt with objectively. For this reason the following guidelines will be incorporated: Management and governing councils may consider recommending refusal of admission of a person who, in or outside the buildings or on or off the premises of the school, conducted himself in a manner or there performed any act which, in the opinion of the management or governing council concerned, seriously prejudiced the maintenance of order or discipline or the effective provision of education in that school.

In other words, we are referring to proven misconduct, namely to those children who intentionally damage, destroy, abuse or appropriate property of the school or of any other person, who intentionally contravene any examination instruction, who have been convicted in a court of law of an offence which, in the opinion of the management or governing council concerned, seriously prejudiced the maintenance of order or discipline or the effective provision of education at such school, or who instigated a boycott of school classes or functions, or instigated protest marches, sit-ins or arty riotous action in relation to any school, or who possessed or used a habit-forming drug without a prescription from a registered medical practitioner.

Such refusal will thus only be considered by the department on the recommendation of a school management or governing council. The power to take the final decision—this is a very important point, and I should like the hon member for Springfield to listen to this, because I want to come back to it—will be delegated to the level of the chief director of a region. A person whose refusal of admission has been recommended will therefore have the right to present his side of the case in terms of the audi alteram partem rule. The person who has been refused admission to the school in the circumstances mentioned above will have the further right to request reconsideration by the Director-General.

In other words, the audi alteram partem rule will indeed be applied twice. This person will have the right to appeal to the regional director and still have the right, after that, to appeal to the Director-General.

Why not ab initio?

When the hon members say that these children will not have the right to be heard, that simply is not true.

Only at the second stage, after the recommendation has been put through.

But we are dealing with a governing council, and the governing council are the people on the ground. Surely they know what is going on.

They never give anybody a chance.

In addition, the governing council will certainly take the matter into consideration. After that there is an enquiry, and after that the pupil will still have the right to appeal to the Director-General. I therefore really believe that the joint committee has gone out of its way to address this problem. I want to congratulate them on finding this solution.

Is that an elected or an appointed body?

Of course it is an elected body. The governing council is a democratically elected body.

By whom?

By the parents.

No, I am talking of joint committees.

I am not talking about the joint committee here in Parliament, I am referring to the governing council.

Order! I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills should rather rise and ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question instead of having this crosstalk across the floor. The hon the Deputy Minster may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Allandale also referred to the fact that he supports the amendment which was rejected by the joint committee.

He feels that he has support for the contention that this first hearing should be in the absence of any departmental official. I must say that I do not quite understand this argument from the hon members who are opposing this legislation, because in the 4x/2 years that I have been involved in Black education one very strong argument has always been put to me: We must at all cost avoid involving law and order in the running of our schools. The hon member for Springfield is actually pleading for that today. I believe the schools should be run by the officials of the Department. It is an educational matter. How can one apply discipline in our schools if, in circumstances like this, an official of the Department is not allowed to be present? I really believe that this is a motion of no confidence in the officials of this Department. I really cannot agree with that argument.

I think I have dealt with most of the arguments of the hon member for Springfield. I think I have dealt with his argument that the right to be heard is not addressed in this legislation—I do not agree with that. To a certain extent, I do agree with the point the hon member made about the political situation in our country. Of course this is true and I agree with the hon member. I also think the Government is in a process of trying to address the political aspirations of the Black people in this country.

I also agree with the hon member when he says that education is the key to the future of this country. I fully agree with him. However, I can agree with him and still support this legislation, because I certainly believe that by supporting this legislation we are giving the majority of our children the opportunity of being provided with the best possible education.

The hon member for Camperdown and also the hon member for Cavendish referred to the subsidy. Personally, I think this is a very good arrangement. The hon member for Cavendish asked that we should try not to make our schools a dumping ground for second-hand equipment. I can say to him that this is certainly not the case. We only provide the children in our schools with new books which have been bought directly from the publishers. This year our expenses in this regard has amounted to millions of rand. I can assure the hon member that we will not make dumping grounds of our schools.

The hon member for Camperdown also referred to the subsidy and I think this is a very positive recommendation. I think it allows for the Department to ensure the same standards and uniformity of quality and of the equipment being purchased. It also aids schools, which are spread countrywide, to get books and furniture of the best quality. From the logistical point of view, suppliers are also able to supply all schools in a particular area simultaneously. Administration can be handled by the Department’s infrastructure and it also eases the workload of the individual schools. I certainly agree with the hon member in regard to clause 1.

The hon member for Cavendish also referred to forces that want to destroy our educational system. I fully agree with him in that regard. He also agreed with me that officials should be involved where educational discipline is concerned.

In conclusion I want to say that the refusal of admission of a person to a school will only be initiated by local communities, that is by a school’s management or governing council. The decision will be delegated to the level of a Chief Director and the individual will be denied neither the right of making a representation nor of requesting a reconsideration.

I think that in saying that, we have addressed most of the problems of the hon members who are opposing this Bill. I hope they will see their way clear to support this Bill. I believe that in doing so we will make a contribution towards the improved education of all our children and towards the future of this country.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Baig, M Y; Dasoo, I C; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, F M; Lambat, A E; Nadasen. P C; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Rampersadh, H; Shah, M S) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, in terms of the Status of Bophuthatswana Act, No 89 of 1977, the whole district of Molopo was included in the land ceded to Bophuthatswana at independence. A certain farm, Logaging, belonging to a Mr F Pretorius, formed part … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make an appeal to hon members. The hon the Deputy Minister is on his feet, but there is a great deal of noise and private discussion taking place. I think hon members should accord the hon the Deputy Minister the courtesy of listening to him. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

A certain farm, Logaging. belonging to a Mr F Pretorius, formed part of this district of Molopo but was erroneously not excised from the district, which was incorporated into Bophuthatswana. It was never the intention that the farm concerned would form part of Bophuthatswana and after the error was discovered, when Mr Pretorius applied for a bond on the property, Bophuthatswana, as a result of negotiations by the RSA, passed the Bophuthatswana Border Adjustment Act, No 25 of 1985, to excise the farm from its territory.

It will be clear to hon members that this Act has no effect on the RSA, however, and to see to it that the farm is formally re-incorporated into South African territory, an Act of the SA Parliament is essential.

The Bill before the House therefore provides for the farm to form part of the Republic and specifically the Cape Province district of Vryburg, retrospectively from the date on which the Bophuthtswana Act came into effect, namely 1985. This is embodied in clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill. Clause 2 is merely a technical provision. It is confirmed that existing charges and real rights in respect of the farm remain unaffected by this Bill. Clause 3 is a standard form of provision with regard to the incorporation of land and provides that existing treaties, conventions and agreements between the two countries in respect of the land area of the farm, will continue. The Bill was considered by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning on 1 March this year, when it was approved without any amendment.

Mr Chairman, I am sure that hon members are without exception convinced of the necessity for this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is quite true that, as the hon the Deputy Minister explained it, when land was ceded to the Bophuthatswana government in terms of the 1977 Act certain land was erroneously ceded. In order to restore that piece of land to South Africa, an Act was passed by the Bophuthatswana government. However, that was not sufficient and in order to restore the land to South Africa this Act is absolutely essential. I think there is no need for me to explain any further as the hon the Minister has explained everything. We therefore have no objection to approving this Bill in this House.

Mr Chairman, this is another of those pieces of legislation to which we have no objection. This particular Bill has been explained fully by the hon the Deputy Minister. It is merely a form of standardisation and it is one of those rare occasions where we take pleasure in supporting the hon the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman. I thank hon members for their support. I think it is quite clear why they support this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.