Mr Chairman, firstly I want to thank hon members sincerely for their interest and participation in the debate on the Post Office Appropriation Bill. Many hon members have given us sound advice, and I have duly taken note of this. I want to thank hon members who took the trouble to investigate matters relating to Posts and Telecommunications for the trouble they have taken and for their contributions. I intend to reply to hon members’ questions and views in as much detail as possible. If, in my allotted time, I do not succeed in replying to everyone’s questions, we can take matters further during the next stages.

†An issue which obviously concerns each one of us is the tariff increases. It is not only a matter of concern to the opposition parties but also to the Government. It is of vital concern to us because we must account for tariff increases as accurately as possible and motivate them in order to avoid making any significant contribution to inflation which we all want to eradicate.

The hon members for Ventersdorp. Wuppertal. Havenside, Groote Schuur, Bishop Lavis, Greytown, Merebank, Witbank. Mooi River, Vredendal, Durban North. Moorcross. Macassar, and Claremont, as well as the hon member Mr Thaver. queried these tariff increases particularly in the light of the sound financial position of the Post Office. It was also suggested that the operating surplus which is expected this year should be utilized to prevent increases next year.

The Post Office is not indifferent towards the users of Post Office services, especially the aged and underprivileged. They are very close to our hearts. For this reason we have succeeded, through concerted efforts, in not increasing tariffs for 21 months. This was done despite the fact that the Post Office experienced general price rises and cost increases of about 23%. The Post Office will again absorb a substantial percentage of inflation in the 1989-90 financial year and pass on less than one third to consumers.

The operating surplus budgeted for this year is essential to partially finance capital expenditure and cannot, therefore, be made available to defray the operating deficit which would result next year if present tariffs were maintained. In order to contain its level of borrowing for capital expenditure, it is necessary for the Post Office to have operating surpluses every year to contribute to its capital requirements. Without these operating surpluses the level of borrowing would soon necessitate much higher tariffs to finance the excessive interest payments.

It is important to note that only the tariffs of uneconomical services will be increased. It is essential to make the relative tariffs more cost related and to reduce cross-subsidisation as far as possible. Excessive cross-subsidisation leads to price distortion and creates an artificial demand for the subsidised services. I believe the tariffs are reasonable and should only marginally increase the cost of Post Office services to the average user.

I also want to say something in general regarding the currency losses. The hon members for Ventersdorp. Witbank. Springfield, Greytown and Durban North in particular referred to these currency losses. The actual currency losses sustained by the Post Office since 1981-82 amount to R194 million. This represents a very small portion of its total financing costs since that date. Forward cover has been arranged on 42% of our outstanding overseas loans. In addition, an annual provision to spread loan redemption and possible currency losses over a period of 10 years was instituted in 1986.

This in effect brings the portion of overseas loan commitments being covered forward at present to 57%. In the light of the recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts (On the Foreign Exchange Activities of the South African Transport Services) consideration is presently being given to increasing the forward cover to about 90%. This will be very expensive, therefore the matter will be considered very carefully. We will also enlist the services of overseas experts to advise us on our forward cover policy and on a future strategy in this regard.

The hon member for Springfield asked why we sent unqualified officials abroad to raise foreign capital in deadly foreign exchange markets where even the banks could not keep their footing. He should not believe everything he reads in the media. His reference to foreign exchange markets makes me think he is under the impression that our officials went overseas to speculate. That is most certainly not the case. I can assure him that highly qualified and competent officials were responsible for the negotiation of our overseas loans with international banks. This was the sole purpose and nature of our business overseas. They did not deal in the foreign currency markets at all.

He also asked how we proposed to repay our overseas debts. Loans presently inside the standstill net will be redeemed or rolled over in terms of the standstill agreements—arrangements agreed upon with these foreign banks. Loans outside the net will be redeemed from the provision created for this purpose when they fall due. I referred to this earlier.

The Post Office foresees no problems in meeting its foreign loan commitments. We are pleased that during the past two years we have been able to reduce our capital expenditure, to strengthen our capital structure and repay loans from our own funds.

*The hon member for Witbank put several questions concerning the criticism expressed by Dr de Villiers in his report. I want to tell the hon member that in assessing this criticism it is important to place it in the correct perspective. In his foreword Dr de Villiers himself mentioned that there were important basic differences between public and private undertakings. One of these differences was that a governmental commercial undertaking was geared to service rather than profit. In this regard Posts and Telecommunications has achieved great success over the years, and at a later stage I shall elaborate on that a little further.

I am really proud of the Post Office staff for their achievements in these circumstances. Dr de Villiers’ investigation should be seen, however, as a stock-taking exercise for the Government to determine whether the existing dispensation is still the best when it comes to dealing optimally with future challenges. The environment in which Posts and Telecommunications has had to operate in the past has been a reasonably stable one, but conditions have changed to such an extent that change has become part of the everyday existence of this type of organisation and also an everyday phenomenon elsewhere in the world. His criticism should also be seen from the point of view of an expert in the private sector, where other norms and values apply.

The positive way in which the management and staff adapted, as early as two years ago, to the changed management philosophy, in the light of the Government’s new economic strategies, is an indication of the quality of the staff of this department. The fact that adjustments are being made in many spheres, and that the development of new structures and systems are largely being dealt with by our own staff, is further evidence to indicate that with further private sector exposure, the department’s staff need not take second place to staff in the private sector.

The reasons for the increase in capital expenditure and the steps being taken in this regard I have already set out in my budget speech. To the extent to which capital expenditure could have been less at lower planning growth rates, it is true that foreign debt would accordingly also have been lower. Since then, however, the debt ratio has considerably improved, and this improvement will continue.

The hon member for Ventersdorp enquired about the recent opinion poll about the admission of other population groups to Posmed, a poll with which the department assisted. I want to remind the hon member that the Public Service Medical Aid Association was opened up to all population groups a few months ago. As a result of representations to the department that consideration be given to similar steps in regard to Posmed, in co-operation with Posmed it was decided to conduct an opinion poll amongst members of that association. The underlying reasons for the department’s involvement were, amongst other things, that the Post Office makes extensive financial contributions to Posmed by way of subsidies. I can mention, for example, that the amount for the present financial year is R61,6 million. The interests of departmental staff are at issue here. Three members of the board of directors of Posmed are also being officially designated by the department.

For the hon member’s information—perhaps also for his edification—I want to tell him that 44,4% of Posmed’s members voted; 57,4% of the votes cast were opposed to opening up Posmed to all population groups, and 42,6% were in favour. This cost the department approximately R15 000.

The hon member for Wuppertal congratulated the department on the successful trimming down programme and came to the conclusion that this would lead to a saving for the public. He is quite right. His speeches always attest to the sound research he has done, and notice is taken of his facts because they are normally reliable. I particularly want to thank him again for a positive and balanced contribution to the debate. I give him the assurance that the various campaigns to which he referred will be followed up as a matter of urgency.

Amongst other things, he also referred to the treatment received by pensioners on pension days, saying that delays in the payment of pensions were experienced on those days. The department is doing everything in its power to help the people as much as possible on those busy days. As a result of what the hon member brought to our attention, we shall again ensure that we treat the people with the utmost friendliness and give them the most efficient service possible.

The hon member for Wuppertal also spoke about the question of post offices being closed in the lunch-hour. The department has given urgent attention to this matter, and recently we have succeeded in keeping more than 100 post offices open during the lunch-hour. In the smaller places, however, this is not possible because there it is difficult to give staff members staggered lunch-hours. We are nevertheless looking into the matter.

The hon member also referred to client-centred training. I merely want to mention that a special course has been designed and developed to teach this art to officials who have dealings with the public, and this special course is being presented throughout the country. The hon member raised an important matter, ie that officials dealing with the public should do so with courtesy, friendliness and selflessness. The training to which I have just referred relates to human relations which are a very important component of the course as a whole. The hon member may be sure that we have taken note of the examples he referred to.

I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon member for Boksburg. He is the chairman of the NP’s Post Office group and is always available to assist me by word and deed. My sincere thanks to him. He quite rightly requested the Post Office not to lower its sights and also, where possible, attempt to advance the target date for the digitalisation of the network. The hon member may rest assured that we shall always have this thought in the back of our minds, ie that of reviewing the objective from time to time, in accordance with the prevailing circumstances.

The position of the economy and the future financial capabilities of the telecommunications undertaking will naturally play a decisive role in this regard. I believe that owing to this economic financial discipline we are now exercising in practice we should, in the foreseeable future, be in a position to review our target dates once again.

†The hon the member for Havenside always gives me a hard time, to put it mildly. I want to refer to a few points that he raised, the first being that a single staff association should be created. The department subscribes to the principle of freedom of association meaning that its officials have the right to organize and become members of a staff association of their choice. The department will not stand in the way of its officials should they decide to form a single association. Existing legislation does not prevent this. The initiative, however, must come from the associations themselves. I want to emphasize this. Staff members, irrespective of race, are at liberty to join staff associations of their choice provided that they are not at any one time a member of more than one association. An amendment of the Post Office Service Regulations for such an arrangement was effected during September 1988.

He also asked why Whites cannot be supervised by non-Whites. Once again there is no obstacle to Whites being supervised by other population groups. There are at least twenty centres in the country of which I know where this presently applies.

He also asked whether study loans were granted to temporary staff.

The bursary scheme of the Post Office provides for the specific needs of the department and is granted only in certain approved and appropriate fields. Temporary staff are not normally employed in posts where post-school qualifications are a prerequisite. It is not in the interests of the department, nor is there a need to grant bursaries to these groups.

The hon member also asked whether temporary employees qualify for pension and other benefits. As far as this is concerned I confirm that temporary workers become members of the pension fund for temporary employees immediately upon appointment. They also qualify for other service benefits, such as housing subsidies and membership of the medical fund.

Then the hon member referred to facilities at Liberty Square and asked whether they are available to all population groups. I have not visited that place and I shall ascertain what the position is and advise the hon member about that in due course.

The hon member for Groote Schuur referred to the new system of metering local calls and the effect it would have on social pensioners, the aged and the infirm. The hon member’s concern for social pensioners, the aged and the infirm is shared, and I agree with the hon member. In recognition of their plight the special installation charge of R25 has not been increased. The hon member’s proposal that a period of 15 minutes be allowed for a local call followed by a three minute timing interval I regretfully have to point out is not practical. I should like to give more particulars.

With the existing system a local call for which from one to five units is charged may extend over distances exceeding 60 km, while in other instances a call over less than 20 km is treated as a trunk call. I should like to illustrate these anomalies by way of a few examples.

The tariff for a call between Durban North and Mobeni Heights, extending over 12 kilometres, is charged one unit, that is 13,5 cents, while between Durban North and La Lucia, a distance of only 4 kilometres, the tariff is 2 units, namely 27 cents. A further example is the case of Hankey and Loerie, some 14 kilometres apart, where a call is treated as a trunkcall and charged 13,5 cents every 40 seconds while a call between Milnerton and Grassy Park, over a distance of 18 kilometres, is treated as a local call and a single unit is charged, 13,5 cents. Those are the anomalies, and that is what we want to improve.

Trunk calls of up to 50 kilometre distances will also be considerably cheaper. Instead of being charged at metering rates of 112 and 72 seconds for the 0-25 and 25-50 kilometres steps respectively, these calls will be charged at the 3 minute rate. Even some calls currently charged at the 40 second rate will be charged at the 3 minute rate as in, for example, the following cases. Pretoria to Kempton Park: the old rate, 40 seconds; the new rate, 180 seconds. Pretoria-Bryanston: the old rate, 40 seconds; the new rate, 180 seconds.

The system of local call timing involves a radical change to the whole call structure where all calls are charged on the basis of time and distance. This will remove the blatant anomalies to which I have referred. Many users will derive direct benefits from the uniform system and, provided calls between 7am and 6pm on working days are kept short when normal rates apply, and social calls are made during the evenings and over weekends when normal rates are reduced by 50%, clients’ accounts need be no higher than in the past.

The result of these anomalies is that certain clients pay too much, while others pay too little for their calls. Calls of long duration result in the congestion of the network, which in turn necessitates an increase in its traffic carrying capacity at a considerable cost. For this reason it is in the interests of the user, who in the end has to foot the bill, that the existing tariff structure be modified to optimise the use of the network and to generate revenue in a more equitable manner. The Post Office will market the particulars of this new system and all users will be informed in detail as to how it works. I would like to appeal to all for final judgement to be reserved until all these particulars have been fully absorbed by all the users.

I would also like to reply to the hon member for Groote Schuur on an issue which he raised during the discussion of the Post Office Additional Appropriation Bill. At that stage he asked me certain questions which I could then not reply to.

In the Post Office, as is the case in the Government service, staff are divided into two categories, namely officer, which indicates a permanent staff member, and employee, which refers to a temporary staff member. There is also a further category, namely that of casual labourers who are employed on an ad hoc basis for special tasks. The foregoing classifications are peculiar to the public service sector and are not, I believe, found in the private sector.

In the private sector workers are referred to as employees, and comparisons with outside concerns in respect of permanent versus temporary staff are therefore not possible.

Posts exist on the fixed establishment for both permanent and temporary staff, but naturally not for casual labourers. Of the 33 261 temporary staff members who are presently in the service, every one of them, Whites, Coloureds and Indians contributes to the Pension Fund for Temporary Employees. The hon member’s assumption that the staff involved do not enjoy the benefit of the pension fund is accordingly not correct. In addition, they qualify for other service benefits, namely housing subsidies and membership of a medical fund. There are at present only 2 130 casual labourers, not 33 000, who are employed for specific tasks and periods of duty and who naturally do not participate in the benefits mentioned. In order to grant more permanent status to temporary staff members and as already undertaken during the debate on the Post Office Additional Appropriation Bill I shall arrange for the matter to be investigated further.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis requested that other population groups also be granted the opportunity to occupy management positions. I want to state to the hon member that it is the department’s declared policy that no work sphere is reserved for any population group, but that candidates should have the appropriate educational and other qualifications that are required for appointment in any particular post. Officers’ qualifications, work experience, background and proven abilities determine their progression in the service. Coloured employees have already progressed to the rank of Postmaster grade one, which is classified as a senior position.

*I again want to appeal to hon members to use their influence to encourage our work force in all communities to qualify themselves to meet the modern challenges of our economy. Encouragement by hon members would exert a major influence so that more people obtained qualifications enabling them to occupy more senior positions.

†The hon member for Bishop Lavis also referred to the telephone service in Blue Downs. For the sake of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives, I admit to having a very soft spot for Blue Downs. Unfortunately that telephone service could not be attended to for economic reasons. However, I am pleased to be able to inform the hon member for Bishop Lavis that a site has now been acquired and that the provision of the basic infrastructure will be undertaken as speedily as possible, unless unforeseen problems arise—which I do not expect to happen. This will receive top priority. The installation of the service should commence in the very first part of 1990. [Interjections.] It should not take too long. The hon member must come and have another discussion with me and I will see whether we can jointly persuade the department to do something about it.

*The hon member for Umlazi made a valuable contribution and gave a particularly important perspective on the influence of the present state of the economy and other factors in the field of over-capacity. I want to thank the hon member for that perspective. It is quite clear that he has made a thorough study of the De Villiers report and that he gained experience, long before the publication of the report, which now made it easy for him to give us this perspective which is so very necessary when the report is being read.

†The hon member for Umzinto referred to the money collected for the Flood Disaster Fund and wanted to know if it had been distributed amongst the various population groups. To the best of my knowledge these funds were applied to the satisfaction of all the people concerned.

*The hon member for Greytown also referred to rental tariffs. It is with great compassion that I take note of the indigent and the aged. It required a great deal of consideration before this adjustment was, in fact, made, but the cost relationship must be brought closer.

†The hon member also dealt with forex losses. It is clear to me that he understands the basic causes of the losses. I am very pleased that he understands the Post Office’s position in the matter. I appreciate his contribution in this regard although I cannot agree with his reference to Rubicon rand and his other political conclusions. He would not want me to agree with him on that.

*The hon member for Opkoms advocated that all allowances, particularly camping allowances, be placed on an equal footing. It is a pleasure for me to say that all allowances, with the exception of these camping allowances, are on an equal footing. This disparity in regard to camping allowances will also be eliminated on 1 April. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Opkoms also referred to the question of stolen motor vehicles, and we want to give him the assurance that everything is being done to combat this as far as possible.

The hon member for Hercules very clearly highlighted the necessity for a separation between the postal and savings bank activities on the one hand and telecommunications activities on the other. He very informatively illustrated the possible tax revenue and proceeds from the privatisation of the Telcom undertaking, indicating the relative benefits that could be obtained from privatisation.

I should also like to emphasise the importance of the postal and savings bank undertaking and inform hon members of the fact that at the present moment the department and I are engaged in in-depth investigations aimed at focusing on the efficiency and profitability of these two important undertakings. I want to place it on record that the staff involved in these activities have an important role to play. I want to give them the assurance that we shall increasingly be making use of them in this important role.

†The hon member for Merebank stated that there is inequality in the salary structure of the department and that the other population groups are on the lower salary levels. Mr Chairman, it is the duty of hon members to plead for the elimination of discriminatory measures at all times when they think fit. I would like hon members to keep a bit of balance, however, and to give credit where credit is due at times because it is not the policy of this department to discriminate. It is the right of hon members to make allegations of discrimination.

However, it has to be done in a constructive manner. Hon members must never think that I do not want them to make these statements. I would like any discrimination to be pointed out to me because it is against our policies. Hon members must, however, assist us in giving us the correct information at all times.

There is no salary disparity in the Post Office. Many Coloured, Indian and Black employees are classified as semi- and unskilled employees who are remunerated according to the level of their qualification and work. The department has done much over the years to ease the plight of its personnel in the lower echelons. During the past two and a half years especially there has been an encouraging progress in our endeavours to establish a salary structure for lower-income groups which is not only based on the level of their work but is also market-related. The present minimum salary compares very favourably with the market.

The hon member for Merebank accused me and my department of dragging our feet with the implementation of the De Villiers recommendations. I would like to point out to the hon member that the report was only completed at the beginning of this year. As I indicated in the Budget Speech, major adaptations have already been implemented—we started about 18 months ago—or will soon be implemented. There is no question of delaying any actions in this regard.

The hon member for Merebank also said that the metering of local calls will discourage the use of the telephone and that people will give up their service. The use of the telephone is the one element that is under the control of the user who is able to decide on the frequency and duration of calls. As the present three-tier tariff structure will apply to all calls, it is not unreasonable to assume that the accounts paid by clients who make judicious use of this service will be no higher than is the case at present.

Hon members will be able to obtain at any post office the normal tariff and the dates and times of the normal tariffs. There is a somewhat cheaper tariff from Mondays to Fridays and an even cheaper tariff from Mondays to Saturdays and especially from Saturdays to Mondays. If hon members and other users avail themselves of these opportunities they should not experience any increase in their telephone accounts.

*The hon member for Witbank spoke about postal delays in the rural areas and referred to a report in a Transvaal newspaper in which the Postmaster General supposedly blamed the SATS for the delay. I merely want to have it placed on record that the Postmaster General issued two press statements about the matter and in both cases thanked the SATS for its cooperation and understanding of the problems of the Post Office. A little later I shall again be referring to the delays in the rural areas.

The hon member also raised the question of applicants waiting for telephones in the rural areas. Owing to the major capital expenditure involved in the provision of services in the rural areas, with the means at its disposal the department is unfortunately unable to carry out the work immediately. The department is nevertheless trying to provide services as quickly as possible in accordance with priorities. The hon member must remember that the Post Office receives no funds from the Treasury. We must generate our own funds. To provide for all needs that happen to crop up would mean that we would have to negotiate enormous loans or introduce major tariff increases. Would the hon member not please explain these facts to his supporters?

The hon member for Witbank also asked whether the department’s technical training was keeping pace with developments in modern technology. I want to inform the hon member that our technical training is amongst the best in the world. I want to give him the unequivocal assurance that we are definitely keeping pace with the modern technological development. On a selective basis our top technical people are consistently being sent abroad on an annual basis to gain further specialised training and experience.

†During the debate the hon member for Matroosfontein raised the question of the accuracy of the metering system. I want to assure him that the metering equipment is checked regularly.

The hon members for Mooi River and Springfield raised the question of services in the rural areas like KwaZulu as well as the unsatisfactory service provided by manual exchanges. I am aware of the urgent need for additional services in the rural areas and for converting manual exchange areas to automatic operation. Unfortunately in such cases the capital costs are extremely high. The development of the new party line system referred to by the hon member for Walmer will go some way to improving matters but there is no easy or cheap solution to the problem. In any event, it should be taken into account that 96% of all telephone services have already been automated.

The hon member for Springfield expressed concern about the large number of vacancies in the department and the inordinate number of resignations. The question was raised as to whether something was wrong. I want to assure the hon member that the number of resignations is not excessive if compared with any other year and there is nothing wrong with the morale of the staff. It should also be mentioned that during the course of most of the training programmes presented by the department, time is also devoted to morale building exercises.

The hon member also enquired about the Reservoir Hills post office. I am pleased to tell him that provision for the post office facilities there has been included in our major works programme and that the expected date of completion of the project is December 1990.

He also questioned the inefficiency highlighted by the De Villiers report. I have already referred to this issue in earlier replies. However, I would like to stress once again that these problems are receiving attention and that they should be viewed in the overall context. The morale of the staff is high, but is being addressed further by increased emphasis on internal communication.

*The hon member for Walmer made a well-prepared speech about training and technological developments in the field of telecommunications. I want to thank him and congratulate him on the interesting and informative facts he presented.

The hon member for Vredendal wanted to know how many temporary and casual works were in our employ at present. There are 33 261 temporary workers and 2 130 casual workers.

†The hon member for Durban North referred to the provision of non-metering numbers at Government offices. I am sure he made this remark with his tongue in his cheek. He certainly will not have to wait if he makes a call to the Post Office or the Department of Home Affairs.

He also referred to the sudden gross increases in telephone accounts and asked for assurance that such accounts be properly processed. A photographic record is kept of all readings and is used in the first instance when an account is queried. Highly technical tests are being carried out in this regard and I assure him that each case is considered in a very serious light. Sympathetic consideration is given to any client who doubts the charges raised in respect of calls charged.

I want to congratulate the hon member for Moorcross on the new political position he is now occupying. He delivered a good speech, referring to the reduction of the capital budget and other related matters.

*The hon member for De Aar referred to the delay in postal items. Postal delays unfortunately occur on certain routes as a result of the system of mini-containerisation introduced by the SATS as part of its rationalisation programme. The matter is, however, receiving the urgent attention of both the Post Office and the SATS. Work teams have been appointed in the various regional offices with a view to constantly monitoring the position. Let me just tell hon members that I personally receive a weekly report about this from the Postmaster General and that we are doing our level best to eliminate this problem. The hon member for Beaufort West also spoke about this.

Departmental road transport has recently been introduced on 47 medium-distance and longdistance routes, whilst a further 19 routes are being investigated. The department is taking special steps to make additional vehicles available for use on routes on which alternative solutions cannot be found. We are also making ample use of the services of private transport contractors for the transport of mail, and quite a number of new agreements in this regard have been negotiated or are being projected as possibilities.

I fully concede to the hon members for De Aar and Beaufort West that there ought not to be these delays in the rural areas. The matter is being dealt with as a top priority and we hope to correct the problem soon.

The hon member for De Aar also referred to the restoration of services during the floods, and I agree with him. I also thank him for having thanked the staff involved. I also want to give him the assurance that although the conversion of certain manual exchanges will not be possible in the near future, everything possible will be done to furnish a satisfactory service. Attempts will also be made to improve the service on overloaded farm lines as quickly as possible.

The hon member for Macassar wanted to know what the previous salaries were, before the 15% adjustment, of employees who are earning R700 per month at present. I shall now give him these figures. The salaries of the lower income groups have been adjusted as follows since October 1987: On 1 October 1987 it was R375 per month; on 1 July 1988, R412,50 per month; and on 1 January 1989, R522.50 per month. These officials can now progress to R1 207,50 per month.

The hon member also asked whether recreational facilities were available to everyone. No limit is placed on the utilisation of recreational facilities, and this applies to organised sport as well.

I want to thank the hon member for Beaufort West for having referred to the very interesting hobby of philately. I should like to encourage hon members to participate in this hobby. On a subsequent occasion they must again examine the question of stamps. It is an extremely interesting hobby, and I have learned that it can even be profitable for those who are not all that interested in the artistic aspects of this hobby.

†The hon member Mr Thaver wanted to know whether this was the last Post Office Budget Debate. It is my intention to submit a Post Office Amendment Bill in the course of this session. Depending on progress in this regard, and an early date of incorporation of the envisaged Postal and Telcom companies, it could well mean that this is the last Budget Debate. However, the Post Office and Telecommunications statements will at all times, as is the case with companies of this nature, be subject to debate and scrutiny by Parliament.

The hon member Mr Thaver also stated that the tariff increases were necessitated by the decreased mail volumes. However, that is not right. The number of postal items handled by the Post Office increased by approximately 2,4% during the past financial year. The recently announced increase in postal tariffs is still below the cost related level, and the increase is necessary to bring the tariff nearer to the actual cost of a standardised letter, which presently amounts to 28 cents.

The hon member for Claremont inquired about the repair of telephone services after hours. The department has been confronted for some time with the problem of classifying essential services and is investigating the possibility of rendering a repair service outside normal working hours on a paying basis. The resources required to render such a service are considerable and availability of manpower will be a deciding factor.

The hon member also referred to concessions for social pensioners and suggested that telephone rental be reduced for pensioners and that the new system of local-call timing should not apply to them. I have already pointed out that the new system may well be cheaper than the old system if properly used.

I am keenly aware of the plight of social pensioners, the aged and the disabled. Extending a concession to one group would inevitably lead to further equally deserving requests which would place the department in an invidious position. It is important to remember that any form of concession must ultimately be paid for by levying a higher tariff on other users. It is not technically possible to differentiate between client services in the metering of calls.

In so far as the quota system is concerned I would like to inform the hon member for Klipspruit West that, in essence, the quota system represents a projection of the department’s manpower requirement for one or more ensuing years in which staff turnover, expected growth and other relevant considerations are taken into account with a view to setting recruitment targets to ensure the filling of expected future vacancies. The same criteria are used in the selection of ail candidates. The quota system is not applied as a mechanism to limit the employment of the different population groups.

He also referred to the artisans in workshops. The department has a limited number of posts for artisans and the annual intake of apprentices is based on expected manpower requirements. No restrictions exist with regard to the population groups from which candidates are recruited. For the 1989 intake of apprentices 64 applications were received from Whites, while only 11 Coloureds, 2 Indians and 24 Blacks sought appointment. Of these applicants 32 Whites and 10 Coloureds were appointed. I wish to mention that we already employ a qualified Coloured bricklayer, a trained Indian electrician and a qualified Black cabinet-maker. In this regard I would like to repeat that hon members must use their influence to indicate to their communities what excellent job opportunities exist and that they should apply for them.

Personnel at offices in the larger centres, like Johannesburg, Cape Town. Pretoria and Bloemfontein, are predominantly White. Suitably qualified candidates from all population groups are considered when posts at those offices as well as at other offices are filled, with due regard being given to the requirements from both an official and a public point of view. I would like to inform the hon member that there are already 55 post offices situated in White areas where non-White counter clerks are also utilised.

In regard to effecting promotions, due regard is given to the comparative ability of those officials who are eligible for promotions or. in instances where their claims to promotions are equal in respect of ability, to their comparative seniority. Over the years formal systems of merit assessment have been developed for various personnel categories. The systems are applied uniformly to all population groups.

*The hon member for Smithfield gave a very balanced summary of the elimination of discrimination in the department. Over a broad spectrum he also made a positive contribution about the department’s training style, and I should like to thank him for this.

†I want to make one point in conclusion. [Interjections.] Success cannot be achieved without customer satisfaction playing an even bigger role in future. Greater emphasis on profitability, return on investments and the phasing out of crosssubsidisation has the danger of negatively affecting the needs of the small user, farmers and rural communities. The hon members for Ventersdorp, Groote Schuur, Bishop Lavis, Umlazi, Mooi River, Springfield, Vredendal, De Aar, Macassar and Claremont all mentioned one or more of these aspects as possible disadvantages of future privatization. I would therefore like to inform hon members that the Government is convinced that, by careful composition of the controlling board of directors, and suitably structured regulatory mechanisms, the provision and maintenance of less profitable services can be insured to the satisfaction of these customers. A combination of more cost-related tariffs and more cost-effective technological solutions is, however, important to regulate the allocation of scarce resources in the most equitable manner.

Debate concluded The Committee rose at 11h04.

Mr Chairman, at the end of this stage of the debate I wish to state the CP’s declaration of vote.

The CP objects most strongly to the fact that the hon the Minister has decided to announce certain tariff increases. We specifically object to the tariff increase of 20% in respect of the rental on automatic and non-automatic, as well as flat rate exchanges, and also party-line services, SOR-type services and extensions.

The tariff increase in the telephone rental will, without doubt, have an adverse effect on the indigent subscribers, especially the pensioners, and will impede the making of a decent living in the present economic situation even more. It is the CP’s standpoint that in the light of the fact that a surplus of R195,4 million is being expected, the tariff increase is totally inappropriate and unjustifiable.

It is the CP’s duty to protect the interests of the aged pensioner against the unfeeling behaviour of the hon the Minister in this regard. It is our responsibility to protect these aged persons against the irresponsible and unapproachable attitude of the hon the Minister, and we shall live up to this responsibility. That is why we shall not support the Post Office Appropriation Bill. Consequently we shall vote against it.

Mr Chairman, our opposition to this Budget must not be seen as a vote of no confidence in the Post Office; on the contrary, the Postmaster and his staff have over the past few years run the Post Office in a profitable and competent fashion when compared with most other Government departments. Given these strictures—the traditional lack of motivation and the administrative clumsiness which characterize most Government departments under this Government—and given the confines of the Government’s past and present ideological policies, it is commendable that any Government department can run on profitable lines.

Our opposition relates specifically to the policy decisions within the Post Office for which this hon Minister and the NP Government are responsible. I refer to the policy to increase tariffs. The tariff increases were not necessary. The hon the Minister’s reasons for this step do not ring true. He suggests that the operating surplus was required partially to defray capital expenditure. The hon the Minister must not lose sight of the fact that there was an anticipated operating surplus of just over R200 million, whereas the actual operating surplus was approximately R500 million. So there must have been a figure of close to R300 million which had not been destined for specific capital projects. All I asked was that that sum—and a very small portion of that sum, in fact one tenth of it—should have been used to meet the anticipated operating shortage. This was not done. Instead that anticipated operating shortage was used as an excuse for the increased tariff.

We are not satisfied with the hon the Minister’s explanation as to why the initial 15 minute period cannot be used. I am not suggesting the anomalies should not be done away with, but no explanation has been given as to why the initial period cannot be a 15 minute period as opposed to subsequent periods being shorter.

These are two major problems with this particular Budget and we will vote against it.

Mr Chairman, before making my declaration I would just like to compliment the hon the Minister on the trouble he took to give such a comprehensive reply to the First Reading debate. He deserves to be congratulated and one hopes that other hon Ministers may also take a leaf out of his book.

I shall oppose the passing of this Budget and I do so on the grounds that the department has, firstly, raised tariffs which I do not consider to be necessary; secondly, neglected to replace or improve significantly the outmoded telephone systems in the rural areas; thirdly, has failed to provide adequate telephone facilities in Black rural areas in Natal and Kwazulu; fourthly, has failed adequately to address the need to upgrade postal facilities in certain rural areas where communities have been detrimentally affected by factors beyond their control; and fifthly, because the comments in the De Villiers Report relative to the approximate amount of R1,9 billion spent on excess capacity during the past five years indicate deficiencies in the manner in which the assessments of priorities are made. This has inevitably been one of the reasons why the department now finds itself in the position of being unable to meet the deadline set some years ago for other important projects.

Mr Chairman, the NP will vote in favour of this Appropriation, not only because it supports the Government’s proposals, as embodied in the hon the Minister’s speech, but also because it regards this Appropriation as part of a long-term strategy to overcome existing financial problems.

We believe that the proposals in the De Villiers report will set the public debate on the future of Posts and Telecommunications in motion and that the Post Office, as well as the hon the Minister and the members of the joint committee, will participate in it with an open mind.

We believe that the announced tariff increases were reasonable and within bounds and that they will not be inflationary at all. Where possible, the hon the Minister also addressed the problems of pensioners and other indigent persons and met them halfway to the best of his and his department’s ability. Complaints regarding colour discrimination in the Post Office are, in our opinion, unfounded and must cease, in the interests of the good name of the Post Office. We believe that the strengthening of the capital structure and the implementation of the recommendations of the De Villiers report must continue. The repayment of the loan debt must also be finalised as soon as possible.

Lastly, we whole-heartedly support the proposal that the Post Office be converted into two separate organisations which will look after postal and telecommunications services separately. We take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Question put to House of Representatives: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Question put to House of Delegates: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—81: Alant T G; Aucamp J M; Badenhorst C J W; Badenhorst P J; Bartlett G S; Bekker H J; Blanché J P I; Bloomberg S G; Bosman J F; Botha C J v R; Botha J C G; Botma M C; Brazelie J A; Breytenbach W N; Chait E J; Christophers D; Cunningham J H; Dilley L H M; Farrell P J; Fick L H; Geldenhuys B L; Graaff D de V; Grobler P G W; Hattingh C P; Heine W J; Heyns J H; Hugo P F; Hunter J E L; Jager R; Jordaan A L; KingT J; Koornhof N J J v R; Kruger T A P; Le Roux D E T; Lemmer J J; Louw E v d M; Louw M H; Malherbe G J; Marais P G; Maree J W; Maree M D; Matthee J C; Matthee P A; Meyer AT; Meyer W D; Myburgh G B; Nel P J C; Niemann J J; Odendaal W A; Olivier P J S; Oosthuizen G C; Pretorius J F; Pretorius P H; Rabie J; Radue R J; Redinger R E; Retief J L; Scheepers J H L; Schoeman S J; Schoeman S J; Schoeman W J; Schutte DPA; Smit F P; Smit H A; Smith H J; Snyman A J J; Steenkamp P J; Swanepoel J J; Swanepoel P J; Terblanche A J W P S; Van Breda A; Van de Vyver J H; Van der Walt A T; Van Gend D P de K; Van Heerden F J; Van Rensburg H M J; Van Vuuren L M J; Van Wyk J A; Van Zyl J G; Vilonel J J; Welgemoed P J.

NOES—29: Barnard M S; Coetzee H J; De Ville J R; Ellis M J; Gastrow PHP; Gerber A; Hardingham R W; Hulley R R; Jacobs S C; Le Roux F J; Lorimer R J; Malcomess D J N; Mentz M J; Mulder C P; Mulder P W A; Paulus P J; Pienaar D S; Prinsloo J J S; Schoeman C B; Snyman W J; Soal P G; Suzman H; Swart R A F; Uys C; Van Eck J; Van Gend J B de R; Van Vuuren S P; Van Wyk W J D; Walsh J J.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a first time.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Communications, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support the legislation under discussion. This measure deals with a number of positive aspects, of which I want to mention only a few. In the first place there is the fact that legal representation is now also being granted to people who are involved in an investigation in which loss has been suffered. This amounts to an extension of the rights that are made available to people in the Police Force.

We also support the structuring of the penal provisions and the adjustment of the fines to make provision for depreciation. These are all very positive aspects, and we accept them.

In our opinion the provisions that members of the Force may be made available to other Government departments and that mutual assistance may be granted to other police forces, are desirable. We want to address one request at this point, however, and also sound a word of warning. That is that very careful consideration must be given to the conditions under which members of the Force will be utilized in this way, and that we should not have our policemen placed under authorities which are unacceptable to them as individuals or which can embarrass the Police Force as such. We issue this word of warning in advance, and request that the responsible parties should be very cautious in this respect.

We do regard one provision in this measure as cause for grave concern, however, viz clause 8 of the Bill under discussion. It is a very drastic provision, and we find it alarming. We believe that before such a drastic provision becomes law, we must take note of certain aspects. We must take note of the following aspects in particular. Had the positive aspects of this Bill not weighed so heavily, this clause might have forced us even to vote against this Bill. We are not going to vote against it, however, for the reasons I have indicated.

In the first place this provision is aimed at preventing strikes. We have sympathy with that; we understand it. According to the law advisers this provision was aimed chiefly at preventing group strikes or organised strikes, however. That is the background to this, and we have sympathy with that. Unfortunately, however, as it stands in the Bill, it is not a matter only of group strikes. It is clear that it is also aimed at the individual, because the legal provision says expressly that a member of the Force who strikes can summarily be dismissed. The intention may be to curb group strikes, but unfortunately that is not how it is expressed in the legislation.

Secondly, it was argued that a person who feels aggrieved should make representation to the Minister in a specific way in terms of the provisions of the proposed section 17B. We have many problems with this in practice. In practice such action by the commissioner would in all probability have preceded discussions with the Minister. As a result, it does not seem very meaningful to us to give him an opportunity to appeal to the Minister in the final instance.

It was also argued that in the case of such action, the court has common law powers of review in any case. We know that exists, but in the legal practice—lawyers know this—one finds that in order to have a case reviewed by the court in that way, certain requirements have to be complied with and this definitely handicaps the case. It is not easy to get a review, because there are certain regulations that have to be complied with. We know that it is a matter of mala fides and everything associated with that.

In order to justify the existence of the proposed section, it is also argued that a member has the procedure for the redress of grievances at his disposal. In my opinion that is an incorrect approach, because the redress of grievances is not at the disposal of a person who has already been dismissed from the Force. Those procedures are no longer at his disposal.

We really want to ask the hon the Minister, in view of all these factors, to give consideration to summarily suspending a person, instead of summarily dismissing him. It would be much better to remove that person effectively from the operation of the Force by means of suspension, and exactly the same objective would be achieved. The objective could be achieved just as effectively by means of suspension. Consequently we want to ask the hon the Minister to take a good look at this and to see whether it would not be better simply to suspend a person rather than to dismiss him summarily. At the same time I want to say that we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ermelo has, in fact, voiced the objections that we have to this Bill. However, unlike the CP we are going to record our objections when the Vote is put. In other words, we do not support the Bill.

We do not support it for the very reasons suggested by the hon member for Ermelo. In clause 8 there is a very objectionable provision and that is the provision that allows for the summary dismissal of a man from the Police Force without a hearing. To us that is a basic principle. It goes against the audi alteram partem principle. We believe that that is sufficiently important to lead us to voice our objections to this Bill.

We have no objections otherwise to the Bill. It seems to be merely a matter of departmental alterations and therefore we do not have any objections.

In the joint committee on this Bill I did try to move amendments to clause 8 which would then have made this Bill acceptable to us. I tried firstly to move for the omission of the words “without hearing any person, summarily” in clause 8. That did not receive the overall majority’s approval although some hon members supported me, notably the hon member for Ermelo. I then moved for the insertion of the word “suspend" in place of the word “dismiss”. In other words I did not want the finality of dismissal without a hearing. I tried to reach a compromise by this suggestion that would suspend the member instead of dismissing him as a member of the Police Force. The explanation given by the officials was that a suspended member still had the right to enter police premises, and if there was a question of somebody who was causing other members to strike or agitating in any way against the existing system, they did not want them on the premises. That too was turned down.

To us it was very important that a man be given a hearing before he was dismissed. It is a very serious matter to be dismissed from the Police Force.

It was pointed out in the explanatory memorandum that there is a regulation—the hon member for Ermelo mentioned this; I think it is regulation 74—which does provide for some sort of objection, the lodging of an objection—a grievance in other words. But the chain through which that is lodged is entirely too circumscribed and it is not a hearing. It simply means that a person who has been dismissed may lodge an objection, first with the immediate commanding officer, then with the Divisional Commissioner and finally with the hon the Minister himself. I do not believe that that is an adequate substitute for a proper hearing where a man may present his objections to a properly constituted commission of enquiry whereby he may offset the demand that he be dismissed from the service.

I think that these are very adequate reasons to object to this Bill along with the fact that although there is a common law right of appeal, which again was mentioned by the hon member for Ermelo, that is an expensive proceeding and I do not believe that the average policeman who is kicked out of the Police Force would be able to afford simply to go to law. For those reasons we object to this Bill and our hon Whip will record our objections at the right time.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow on the hon member for Houghton. The hon member followed on me when I made my maiden speech and she addressed kind words to me on that occasion. All I can say now that I am following on that hon member is that she always has specific standpoints, in the joint committee too, which one appreciates and which she stands by. It is a pity that they are not supporting this legislation.

I want to express my thanks to the hon member for Ermelo, who has pledged his support and that of his party to the Bill. With regard to standpoints one cannot say the same when it comes to the Official Opposition, because they did not at any time vote for or against any clause of this Bill. We are glad that they support the Bill. I can also understand that there are problems with regard to one clause, but I shall come back to this a little later. I prefer to discuss the Bill.

The question of the desirability of and the necessity for any legislation is decided by whether the objectives of that legislation serve the community. Reform presupposes stability, and the SAP is instrumentally responsible for the establishment of a stable community in which every individual can be or feel safe. When he is appointed every police officer declares himself prepared to perform a community service which makes great demands on him and is responsible to the community to perform his duty, so as to ensure a peaceful atmosphere in which a better South Africa for everyone can be built in a meaningful way.

The consideration of provisions in this Bill has been brought about by the fact that the penal provisions have been removed from the respective clauses and have been embodied in a general penal provision in clause 20. The respective clauses therefore merely create offences, while for the purposes of future amendments and penal limits the penal provisions have been embodied in a single penalty clause.

I want more specifically to say the following in respect of other clauses—particularly clauses 1 and 8. It should be noted that the task of a police officer is unique, and any interruption or disruption of it can be turned into a victory for crime. When the Bill therefore makes provision for the summary dismissal of a striking policeman, it is in the interests of the community which he promised to serve.

We have not yet had to deal with striking policemen. We are proud to say that our Police Force is disciplined and also loyal. However, provision must also be made for possible eventualities. Summary, severe steps against strikes are essential in order to maintain the effective unity of the South African Police.

As regards clause 2, provision is being made for the delegation of the powers of the Commissioner of Police to, inter alia, other members of the Force, other persons in the employment of the Force, for example professional advisers and boards or bodies established under the Police Act. However, these delegated powers are subject to the directions of the Commissioner.

Clause 4 elucidates the functional status of police officers who have been seconded in terms of the Public Service Act, Act No 111 of 1984, and also provides for the ad hoc placing of police officers at the disposal of institutions and police forces for special purposes according to the said member’s specific field of expertise.

The opportunity to have legal representation is at present restricted to internal investigations into alleged misconduct and investigations to consider a specific member’s fitness to remain in the Force or to retain his rank. Clause 6 creates the opportunity to have legal representation at enquiries held to determine a specific member’s liability for any damage or loss caused to the State.

Clause 7 clearly distinguishes between criminal charges and alleged misconduct in respect of consequential prosecution, whether in a court of law or departmentally, without encroaching on the principles of previous acquittal and previous conviction.

The first part of clause 20 contains the joint penal provision I referred to at the beginning of my speech. However, provision is also being made for agreements to be entered into with other substantive police forces in a foreign state, in order to promote functional solidarity and a co-ordinated fight against crime in South Africa.

It is clear that this Bill is essential to the effective performance of the task of the South African Police, and it is in the interests of every individual in this community.

I should also like to express my thanks to the legal team of the Police, who always perform magnificently in the joint committees. I think they deserve that honour, and on behalf of this side of the House it is a privilege for me to support this Bill without hesitation.

Mr Chairman, it is mainly as a result of clause 8 that I believe this Bill ought to be opposed, but clause 2 also causes great concern. It is the clause which now provides for the Commissioner to delegate his powers to other persons in the Force without the approval of the Minister.

It causes concern because it increases the possibility of power which has been delegated, being used in an improper way. As an example I wish to refer the hon the Minister to a leaflet which was distributed in the Clermont township two weeks ago. Similar leaflets were distributed in Kwandengezi and Dassenhoek around Durban. It is a leaflet which in effect said “Wanted”.

It does not say so in so many words. It is headed: “Combat violence", and I quote:

It mentions the Clermont Youth League as well as five names of individuals, says “Phone SAP Pinetown" and gives a number as well as the Flying Squad number. It states that it is issued by the Divisional Commissioner of Police, and an address is provided.

Any person who reads this document can only infer from it that the individuals and the organisation mentioned here are responsible for killings, burning of houses, people’s courts and troubles at schools. What happened three days after this leaflet was distributed in the Clermont townships? Two members of the Clermont Youth League were killed.

I cannot say whether this was directly related to this document, but what I am saying is that a document like this incites people to go headhunting. Not only does it refer to a particular organisation which, according to the Commissioner, is already classified as being responsible, but it also mentions the names of individuals.

In the unbelievably explosive position in the townships around Durban and Pietermaritzburg, this type of leaflet adds fuel to the fire. I believe it amounts to an improper use of powers if something like this is distributed. One cannot judge organisations and individuals and find them guilty in advance as far as killings, burnings and troubles at schools are concerned. If powers to issue documents like this were to be delegated to anyone lower down the line in Natal, one would have an even worse situation. It is against that background that I believe the powers granted in clause 2 go too far. The hon the Minister becomes even further removed from important functions that are being exercised by people who do not hold senior rank.

Mr Chairman, I wish to agree whole-heartedly with what was said by the previous speaker.

At a time when the state of emergency—which seemingly is going to be with us forever—gives the members of the Police Force extremely wideranging powers, which has already led to the widespread abuse of power. I cannot support legislation like this—especially clause 2. It provides that the Commissioner may delegate any powers vested in him by the Minister to any member of the Force without the permission of the Minister. This is outrageous.

You cannot say anything good about the police in any case!

There is an unmistakeable trend within the police for the police to be increasingly a law unto themselves, accountable neither to the hon the Minister nor to Parliament, the legislature. The need to stop this dangerous drift to lawlessness and therefore not to delegate powers downwards any further is vividly illustrated by the following example.

Forty policemen armed with sub-machineguns and wearing balaclavas and bullet-proof vests raided a church organisation’s farewell braai at the Dora Falcke Centre near Muizenberg. They held up and terrorized the church ministers and men, women and children present at gunpoint. When they spotted the person they were looking for—community leader Johnny Issel—they hunted him down like an animal, leaving no doubt that they would have killed him had they caught him. This is what delegation further down in the Police Force does.

Repeatedly, so-called crime prevention drives are conducted in the middle of the night in Black and Coloured townships such as KTC, Brown’s Farm, Bloekombos and Athlone, during which heavily-armed police invade and raid homes with no regard to the terrifying effect on sleeping people and children. Allegations of general abuse by police during such raids abound. The police merely say: “We have the powers; we can do these things. These powers have been given to us.”

Thirdly, four self-confessed ANC guerillas—

Obed Masina, Frans Masango, Neo Griffiths Potsane and Joseph Makhura—on trial in the Delmas 2 trial, were viciously assaulted on Wednesday this week because they insisted on seeing the head of the prison to lodge complaints. Their assailants kicked and punched them, and they slammed Joseph Makhura’s head against the wall, leaving him injured. He had to be taken to hospital, and the others had visible abrasions and bruises all over their bodies. I use these illustrations to make the point that the trend to delegate further down the line is a dangerous one.

*With all the criticism I have levelled at the hon the Minister in the past, I want to say one thing, namely that since taking over this post the hon the Minister has actually tried actively to clamp down on malpractices in the Police Force. That is why these powers must not be delegated.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Ermelo and Algoa sincerely for their support of the legislation. I also Want to thank hon members of the joint committee for having disposed of the legislation so expeditiously. We need that and I appreciate it.

The hon members for Ermelo, Houghton, Durban Central and Claremont chiefly objected to clauses 8 and 2. Let me say at once that clause 8, which deals with the strikes, is a far-reaching measure, and here I agree with the hon member for Houghton. I want to give hon members the assurance, however, that we examined this clause very thoroughly before we incorporated it in the legislation in this form. We would not like to tread on anyone’s toes, and we therefore gave this aspect careful consideration. Here we must also have the correct perspective, however, and that is that this clause does not deliberately set out to discriminate against any policeman. I want to make that point very clear! We are not trying to discriminate against policemen. There has …

May I quote the hon the Minister on that?

Yes, the hon member may quote me on that; I have no objection.

We have never needed to take any action against policemen in this regard, but as the hon member for Algoa rightly said, it is no use our waiting until trouble strikes and then trying to adopt certain measures. Then we are already saddled with a problem. A problem we have experienced in certain spheres in South Africa over the past two or three years is that large groups of people have become involved in strikes and that the necessary legislative powers were not available to take prompt action against them. That is why we are preferably coming along with a preventive measure to ensure that we can, in fact, take action if this should prove necessary. The interests of the community weigh very heavily with us. I state the following as our conviction. If the interests of the individual are weighed up against those of the community, those of the community must weigh more heavily. We therefore cannot relinquish that principle. I think that that is also the Official Opposition’s standpoint. They also see it in that light.

We agree!

All that actually remains is for one to say, as the hon member for Ermelo said, that the person concerned should preferably be suspended from duty. He should therefore be suspended from duty and only then given a hearing before he can be dismissed.

We must bear in mind, however, that strikes involving only one person do not actually take place. Normally a whole group of people participate in a strike. What is now going to happen in practice? If a few hundred policemen were to participate in a strike, and one were to suspend them from duty, they would still technically be employed. They would still be entitled to occupy their official dwellings. It is possible that there could be policemen staying in the barracks and that 100 or 200 of them could decide to strike. If we suspended them from duty, they would still remain in the barracks. Who is meanwhile going to look after the security of the community? That is how simple it is. Although there is quite a lot in what the hon member said, it could take quite some time to dispose of the matter if quite a few people were to go on strike—how can one give them a hearing within a reasonable period of time so that one can solve their problems and they can again resume their duties? Who meanwhile looks after the security of the public?

Surely, they would, in any event …

But according to the proposed provision they are gone and one can replace them. One thus gets them out of the system. They are gone from the premises and cannot still remain there.

That is one of the problems one of my colleagues had the previous year with others who were also in the service. They could not get them out of the hostels! There we learnt our lesson. Hon members must accept the fact that in my opinion it is in the best interests of the community and that we are looking to the interests of the community.

Nor are we negating the interests of the individual. What is the situation in which this person finds himself? If he is dismissed, he is not without a remedy. He can still say that he has been dismissed unfairly.

It is not a hearing.

It is important to note that such dismissal must be objectively justifiable.

*The Commissioner cannot simply dismiss someone. He must employ an objective test before he can dismiss a person who is engaged in a strike.

†A subsequent opportunity is created for presentation regarding the revocation of the dismissal. If it is found that the dismissal was unjust such a member may be reinstated without loss of any privileges.

Mr Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister. If a police officer were to be dismissed in terms of the amending provision and is no longer a member of the Police Force, are we therefore correct in saying that he is then no longer entitled to the assistance of the State Attorney and then has to appoint a private attorney?

That may be so, but the person concerned can make representations to the Minister, and hon members know, do they not, that the Minister is a reasonable man. [Interjections.] There is not a single hon member here who can doubt that. I am convinced of it. Even the hon member for Houghton agrees with that. The hon member for Claremont has just agreed. I must say that I am dumbfounded that he did agree.

What does the crocodile have to say? [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that this member of the Police Force is not deprived of an opportunity to state his case.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to call the hon the State President a crocodile? [Interjections.]

Order! I am not informed as to what the hon member had in mind when using the word “crocodile”. I have no comment on that. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I am informing the hon member for Houghton that the member is not deprived of the opportunity to state his case. The interest of the community is simply a higher priority and the opportunity for representation is deferred not denied.

*This is the important point. Although I appreciate the views of my colleagues who say we must first give the person a hearing, we are not depriving him of an opportunity to have a sympathetic hearing. If a mistake were to be made, it would be corrected and he would not lose anything in the process. I am glad the hon member for Houghton says that she is simply going to have her objection to this recorded and that the hon member who spoke on behalf of the Official Opposition supports the Bill, even though they did express the aforementioned concern. I have learned that solutions in such cases are never completely ideal solutions. Frequently one simply has to be satisfied with something that is only 50%, 60% or 80% acceptable or satisfactory. Here we must therefore simply weigh up the benefits and disadvantages, one against the other, and this is our view of the portion which must carry the most weight.

The hon member for Durban Central objected to the power to delegate in clause 2. The hon member mentioned an example of a pamphlet distributed at grass-roots level. I now want to ask the hon member whether he wants the Minister or the Commissioner to give permission for the distribution of pamphlets.

Yes, the Commissioner.

But how is it going to work if, at his level, the Commissioner has to give permission before pamphlets can be issued and he has to check on the wording of the pamphlets? Where would we then end up?

But he did so in this case.

No, the Commissioner of Police did not do so. The Divisional Commissioner did so there, at grass-roots level.

That is correct.

Here, however, it is a question of the Commissioner of the South African Police who is now obtaining certain powers. The hon member said he must no longer delegate and mentioned this example. Then surely the hon member has given a poor example. [Interjections.]

Let us look of the content of the pamphlet. The hon member was not being reasonable when he said that the pamphlet gave rise to people being killed. That is not true. I want to quote to hon members what is contained in the pamphlet. The heading is “Combat violence”, and the pamphlet goes on to state:

It is stated that these people “can possibly assist the police”. Surely that is nothing out of the ordinary.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must wait a moment. I listened quietly while he was speaking. I made enquiries about why we were looking for those people. We are looking for them to give evidence in certain cases. We are not looking for them because they are involved in these cases or because they have committed offences. Then one handles the matter differently. But this is normal procedure. Hon members regularly hear on radio, or see on television, how a certain Mr So and So, who could possibly assist in solving a case, is being sought. Must we simply omit the person’s name and then issue a pamphlet? That is surely being ridiculous.

I made further enquiries. Murders did take place, but I do not know whether those people who were murdered were involved with this organisation. That I do not know. The names of the people who were murdered are different to the names on this list. Two people have already been arrested for these murders. I therefore think it is unfair of the hon member to relate these pamphlets to the murders of certain people. If that is his standpoint, I think he is being unreasonable.

I also just want to refer briefly to the hon member for Claremont. True to form he again got at the police today. He mentioned an example of people who were allegedly assaulted by the police. I shall check the hon member’s Hansard and obtain the names of the people who alleged that they had been assaulted. I want to ask the hon member whether they are in detention, whether they are in prison or whether they are in police cells.

Under control!

Under control? Are they under the control of the Police or the Prisons Service?

They are under the control of the Prisons Service.

The Prisons Service? Well, why is the hon member then asking me? Surely I am not in control of the Prisons Service? [Interjections.] This hon member merely gets up and flings around accusations here. We are now discussing police legislation and he says that people have been assaulted. He has just said that they are under the control of the Prisons Service. He said that here, where we are now discussing police legislation. Surely that is not fair. I shall nevertheless have the matter investigated. I shall ask my colleague to have it investigated. If the hon member has any information, he must please give it to us.

The other example the hon member mentioned in connection with the powers of delegation was that of a certain Mr Issel. We are looking for him, and according to the hon member the way in which we are looking for him is unfair and unjust. I want to ask the hon member whether he knows where Mr Issel is? Has the hon member spoken to him?

Yes, I have already spoken to him.

Oh, the hon member has already spoken to him? Let me now tell the hon member what the situation is. Surely we cannot expect people at grass-roots level to obtain the Commissioner’s permission before we are allowed to look for such a person. Surely that is totally nonsensical. Does the hon member know why we are looking for Mr Issel? We have a warrant for his arrest. A magistrate’s court issued a warrant for his arrest, based on his promotion of the aims of a banned organisation. This warrant was issued in 1986. Since then he has been on the run.

He will have to say where he is!

The hon member has told us he knows where Issel is. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon member to accompany me in order to give us a statement about where Mr Issel is so that we can deal with him, because I have a warrant.

Does his wife know about this?

But the hon member knows.

He merely telephones me.

He merely telephones the hon member. [Interjections.] The hon member must know that this man is a fugitive and that I have a warrant for his arrest. [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member for Claremont wish to put a question?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether Mr Issel’s wife knows that a warrant has been issued for his arrest? [Interjections.]

I would not know whether his wife knows. How must I know? [Interjections.] The hon member is in contact with this man, and a warrant has been issued for his arrest. It is an ordinary criminal warrant.

His wife does not even know this. Nor do his lawyers.

He knows!

He does not know!

Why is he then a fugitive?

I do not know. [Interjections.]

The hon member is in contact with Mr Issel. I suggest that he advise his friend to contact the police as a matter of urgency. A warrant has been issued for his arrest on a criminal charge. The police are not looking for him for all kinds of things. We have a warrant for his arrest. I merely want to tell the hon member that he must help us.

He must concede that we cannot allow even the issuing of ordinary warrants to rest with the Commissioner of the SA Police too. That would be too absurd for words. [Interjections.] The hon member mentioned that as an example of something that should not be delegated.

But how was it done?

The police have a warrant, and they carry out their duty by looking for the people concerned. [Interjections.]

I can understand hon members saying that the strike provision is a drastic measure and that we should examine it. I really have a problem with those two hon members who objected to the delegation provision. They are altogether wide of the mark. They have again merely used this forum for political purposes by taking the floor and making a lot of propaganda.

Debate concluded.

Question agreed to (Progressive Federal Party, National Democratic Movement and Van Eck J dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the main objective of this Bill is to incorporate all aid schemes with regard to Whites in one Bill. In other words, provisions of the Social Pensions Act, 1973, the Children’s Act, 1960, the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1983, the National Welfare Act, 1978, and the Mental Health Act, 1973, are now being consolidated in this Bill so that all the provisions of these Acts, which have already been accepted in principle, will be administered in accordance with this legislation.

In my opinion, the only new idea or provision is contained in clause 6, which deals with financial awards to national councils, welfare organisations and persons. This provides that the Minister in charge of welfare matters, in the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly, may, with the concurrence of the Minister of the Budget and Works, out of moneys appropriated by the House of Assembly for that purpose, grant financial awards to, and I quote from the clause—

1. (a) national councils of welfare organisations or welfare organisations which undertake or co-ordinate organised activities, measures or social welfare programmes in respect of—
   1. (i) married life or family and child welfare;
   2. (ii) the welfare of the aged;
   3. (iii) the welfare of physically or mentally handicapped persons;
   4. (iv) the prevention of alcoholism or dependence on dependence-producing substances or the treatment of persons who are dependent on alcohol or any other dependence-producing substance;
   5. (v) blind persons;
   6. (vi) corrective services;
   7. (vii) social relief;
   8. (viii) the prevention and treatment of any other social-pathological conditions.

He can also grant financial awards to certain organisations which are registered as fund-raising organisations under section 4 of the Fund-raising Act, and finally to places of safety defined in section 1 of the Child Care Act. If a person in the opinion of the Head of the Department is in need of social relief, he may grant a financial award to that person. The specific grants in terms of this legislation are determined according to regulations, as indicated in clause 20 of this Bill, and can be amended from time to time by the Minister. As we see it, the specific state of affairs with regard to social pensioners at the moment leaves much to be desired, and this matter will no doubt be raised during the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote. We have no fault to find with the Bill itself, as it appears before us now. Those of us on this side of the House support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to speak after the hon member for Pietersburg, and I thank him for his support. To begin with I should like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to all those hon members of all the political parties who serve on the House Committee on Health and Welfare, for the pleasant and positive spirit of co-operation in which everyone approaches their task.

Even when we have differences of opinion, such as when the hon member for Parktown objects to the fact that the Bill only deals with Whites, these differences in standpoint are dealt with with the necessary degree of understanding. Thank you very much for the co-operation and help from the officials, Messrs Pines Pienaar and Fanie Louw, who were wonderful throughout.

The name of this department, namely Health Services and Welfare, already tells us what this legislation deals with. As has already been indicated, the proposed legislation which is before us, is mainly a consolidatory measure whereby the administration of all—hon members must now listen to these wonderful words—social security schemes which are administered by the department, will be simplified and improved. Instead of four Acts with three different sets of regulations, we are dealing with one piece of legislation and one set of regulations which may be made in terms of it. In a certain sense we are therefore also dealing with deregulation. In other words, we have less legislation and fewer regulations, which goes hand in hand with simplified, but more effective administration to the advantage of those people who are receiving these social security services.

Clauses 3,4 and 5 authorise the payment of social pensions and social grants. As hon members are aware, the term social pension is actually the collective name for all types of pensions and grants which are given to people who receive financial aid from the State. In the same way that many good things came in sevens in the Bible, we are also dealing here with seven types of social pensions, namely old age pensions, war veterans’ pensions, blind persons’ pensions and disability pensions, as well as maintenance, family and foster child grants.

The question now is how great and how important this matter is with which the legislation deals. After I had compiled my speech, I received new statistics this morning which indicate that the department estimates that it will spend the sum of—hon members must now help me to read this enormous amount—R2 234 700 612 in the present financial year on social pensions for all races. An analysis of this astronomical figure indicates that R583,8 million will be spent with regard to Whites; R551,2 million with regard to Coloureds; R140,3 million with regard to Indians; and R1,049 billion—the self-governing states are not included in this—with regard to Blacks, in the present financial year.

I also have statistics with regard to the number of Coloureds, Whites and Indians as well as the self-governing states, which I might use later in the discussion of the Vote. This means that, at present, there are no fewer than 1,3 million social pensioners in the RS A, who receive no less than R2,5 billion per year from the Treasury. I am mentioning these figures with regard to all population groups in order to give us a wider perspective and I trust that this will serve to relieve the hon member for Parktown’s disgruntlement a little.

I also have statistics—I will not get to them, because my time is running out—which indicate the following in the case of Whites: In December alone, the amount of R47,5 million was paid out to them, but more than 70% of the money went towards care of the aged, and more than 71% of the number of persons who received pensions, were aged persons. We regard this as a very important point. This tells us that we must convey the message very clearly to our people that if people are not going to provide for themselves, great problems are going to be experienced in the future with regard to the financing of social pensions. Unless this happens, we will have this wonderful piece of legislation in the future but we will not have the money to implement it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wonder if I should not rather give my time to the hon member for Langlaagte, because it seems to me that he would like to make my speech for me.

I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Langlaagte and thank him for being a chairman who, in particular, has given me many opportunities to state all my problems and to ask questions. I agree with him that the atmosphere has been genial, and I thank the department for answering questions so patiently.

†Mr Chairman, I would like to say that it is difficult for me to come out strongly in support of this Bill. Let me rather put it differently: I will say that I will not oppose the Bill.

I believe that the fragmentation of welfare services has been a longstanding problem for social workers in South Africa. For many years they have opposed this fragmentation. Therefore the promulgation of welfare legislation such as this, which replaces legislation applicable to all, such as the Act of 1973—and we can name all these Acts which it replaces—with legislation which applies only to Whites is obviously a matter of great concern to my party and, I believe, to most welfare workers. The fragmentation of welfare services is costly, inappropriate and I do not believe suitable to welfare at all. It is not compatible with welfare to have different racial groups. We have opposed the concept of own affairs right from the start and we will keep on opposing it. However, having said that, the principle of consolidation of financial grants, as contained in this Bill, is a good one and therefore I cannot oppose this Bill.

Coming to the details of the Bill, having read it again, I wonder whether the English short title, the Social Aid Bill, compared to die Wetsontwerp op Maatskaplike Bystand, is not inappropriate, patronising and ambiguous. This is a financial Bill. “Social Aid” gives me the impression of all types of aid. I wonder whether we should not think of replacing the short title with something that sounds somewhat less like we are just giving people aid. I wonder whether we should not try something like the “Social Welfare Finances Bill”, because this Bill deals with financial assistance to these people. It is not a very important point, but these are people who are disabled, old and in need of help. I would be very grateful if we could consider removing the word “aid”. It just does not sound like an appropriate title to me.

I would like to say that the majority of definitions refer to other Acts. I wonder, again, whether it would not be preferable to have these definitions in full in this Bill so that we know exactly what we are talking about.

I would like to refer the hon the Minister to definition (xi)—“family grant”. This definition refers specifically to “the father of a family”. We assume that this replaces the former family allowance. If I am not correct, the hon the Minister must help me. Family allowances were paid to families where the breadwinner’s earnings were less than what would have been received had the family been in receipt of a Government grant. My problem—and I did not mention this on the committee because I was not aware of it—is whether this definition excludes a single parent of a fatherless family? Is this only for a family where there is a father, and not a family where the mother is the breadwinner? I think it is an important point, and if I am correct in that, it should be changed.

I believe the word “entitle” in clauses 4 and 5 should be commended, because, as we agreed, the citizens have the right to claim these benefits and I believe it is important to have that right.

I would also like to refer the hon the Minister to clause 6(2) which delegates power to grant social relief to the head of the department. I think this clause is very vague and I would be very thankful if the hon the Minister could just give us more detail about this clause.

Clause 12(1) refers to social pensions and social grants as not assignable or transferable. I would just like the hon the Minister to help me here. In many cases such pensions and grants are administered by welfare organisations, not by the people themselves. I would like to know whether this clause affects such administrations.

Finally, I want to refer to something which is again something of a detail. The words “he” and “him” are no longer very appropriate in this world.

Many of the clauses contain these terms and I wonder whether this should not be changed. Let me use clause 4 as an example as it contains many “he’s” and “him’s.” Perhaps it could be worded as follows to bring it into line with modern usage:

I would suggest the Minister substitute “he” and “him” with:

1. (a) that the person is aged, blind or disabled …
2. (b) that the person is resident in the Republic …
3. (c) that the person is a South African citizen …

I think it reads better and I think that could be an advantage.

Having said this, my party and I are very concerned about the position of the aged, the disabled, children and all the people needing social help. I would commend to the hon the Minister that when he makes regulations, he will ensure that this assistance is fair and equitable. My party and I support any financial assistance to people who are in need. Therefore we will not oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to sincerely thank the hon members who participated in the debate for their contributions. I want to thank the hon member for Pietersburg for his support and also for that of the Official Opposition. I can well understand that the hon member for Pietersburg is able to appreciate a good piece of legislation.

I also want to thank the hon member for Parktown for his contribution and for the fact that he did not oppose the legislation, but supported it. It is good legislation. The hon member mentioned a large number of issues. He referred, inter alia, to linguistic aspects with regard to the legislation and to the title of the Bill. In particular he referred to the English title “Social Aid Bill” and specifically to the word “Aid”.

Initially, the Afrikaans title “Maatskaplike Bystand” also bothered me, but I was told that that was the title that was used in the social sphere. We can look into that and also into other matters that the hon member mentioned with regard to certain technical points relating to the legislation. If possible, we should refer this Bill back to the House Committee at a future sitting so that they can go into these matters which the hon member has mentioned. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Parktown also referred to the fragmentation of welfare work. It is true that for many years in South Africa we have had different departments for welfare work with regard to the different population groups. I think these are some of the oldest separate departments which exist in this country. I want to tell the hon member that although there is fragmentation—I know that many of the people who operate in this field do not like this—I can tell him something which I experienced personally. I can give the assurance based on the experience which I had in the former Department of Internal Affairs when I was involved with welfare work with regard to the Coloureds, and later in the Department of Constitutional Development, where I was also involved in welfare work with regard to the Black population groups, and at the moment, where I am more specifically involved with White welfare work, whether indirectly or more directly, that although fragmentation exists, the services which are provided in South Africa with regard to all the population groups in the sphere of welfare, are of absolutely excellent quality. I want to extend my warmest thanks to everyone who is involved in the provision of these services and who does this welfare work. It is not always easy work, but work that deals with problems, often with very complicated questions, and the way in which it is done, always commands a very high degree of regard and respect. The hon member for Parktown referred to family grants or family allowances, and I think that in this case this is determined by who the breadwinner is. If the father is deceased, and the mother is the breadwinner, she will receive such a family allowance. If the father were alive, he would, of course, be considered the breadwinner. That is more or less what the hon member wanted to know.

The clause says father.

Yes, the clause only says father. We will go into that, but the fact is that if the father is no longer alive, and the mother is alive, she will be accepted as the breadwinner of the family and that family will not be penalised, but will receive the family allowance.

The hon member for Parktown also expressed sympathy with regard to the aged, the disabled and those people who receive pensions and allowances. The hon member for Pietersburg also referred to this. I do not believe that there is any hon member in this House who is not sympathetic towards the aged, particularly those who fall into the subeconomic class—if I may put it like that— and who receive an income of less than R450 per month. I doubt whether there is anyone here who is not sympathetic towards disabled persons. If we had funds available, I should very much like to see pensions and allowances increase considerably. However, we must act in accordance with what is available from the Treasury. I therefore do not want to say that enough is being given, but I want to give hon members the assurance that when the Government has the necessary funds available, the pensions and allowances will be increased.

I want to express my sincere thanks to the House Committee on Health Services and Welfare, which dealt with this Bill under the chairmanship of the hon member for Langlaagte. They did a thorough and a good job of work and decided to submit the Bill to this House without amendments.

†I have taken note of the house committee’s recommendation that the department be requested to report on the question of making a contribution to the maintenance of a parent by his child. I want to confirm to hon members this morning that the department is already busy with an investigation in this regard.

*However, the members of the House Committee will understand that it would be an expensive process if it were implemented, but I do not want to anticipate it. However, the matter is being thoroughly investigated.

I want to conclude by mentioning that the Social Pension Scheme of South Africa was established as early as 1928 with the acceptance of the Old Age Pensions Act. This Act was implemented on 1 January 1929. Today, 60 years later, the scheme can therefore lay claim to so-called aged status. It is undoubtedly the case that the scheme has undergone considerable changes over the past 60 years, and has also expanded considerably, with regard to the means test and the costs of running the scheme, respectively.

However, I think we are all grateful that such a scheme has been in existence for 60 years. I do not think there is anyone in this House who will apply for a pension under this scheme in the future, but there are many South African citizens who have been forced to apply for it and who have to live off this scheme. We are grateful that it exists.

I want to give hon members the assurance that with regard to the White population of South Africa—I believe that the other administrations are also doing this with regard to other population groups—we will do everything in our power to help where there is distress, in order to relieve the distress.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, all the parties and individuals that represented the party in the House Committee of the House of Assembly achieved unanimity with regard to their recommendations. It was decided that the House would approve that certain capital and interest debt in respect of the Masalal, Toul, Selati River and Ritchie Irrigation Boards be written off.

Briefly I can say that the basis of this approval was that the circumstances applicable to these irrigation boards now differ completely from the circumstances that applied when loans were initially negotiated in order to erect certain irrigation works or to make certain changes at a later stage. There was an in-depth discussion in the House Committee with regard to these matters. Enquiries were also addressed to the department. At this stage it is a pleasure for me to recommend to this House that certain capital and interest debt be written off in respect of these few irrigation boards that I have mentioned.

Mr Chairman, the CP has no objection to the adoption of this report. However, I have a personal interest in it that I wish to declare. It is a possible potential interest and I shall abstain from voting on the matter. I shall explain in a moment what it is all about.

Before I come to that, I merely want to tell the House with regard to the Masalal Irrigation Board that this irrigation canal was built during the war years. At that stage that section of land on the Letaba River was used only for livestock. As a result of the far-sightedness and pioneering work of the farmers on the Letaba during the war years when this scheme was adopted, that part of the world, the 800 ha that we are talking about, actually became the winter pantry of that part of the Lowveld and actually also of South Africa. Since the forties the area has earned millions of rands in foreign exchange for South Africa through the cultivation of vegetables and citrus. In this connection I want to pay special tribute to Mr Kuno Venter who still lives in Tzaneen, but who settled in Masalal in the thirties, when it was still a rough and unexploitable area. However, that area has been built up, as I said, as a wonderful achievement for agriculture in South Africa.

There is an interesting anecdote about the canal that I experienced personally, and that is that when the canal was dug, there was a layer of rock in the Letaba River that had to be removed before the water could flow down the canal. Because of an optical illusion, it seemed to the Shangaans who were digging the canal that it was sloping upwards and they said it would quite probably be impossible for the water to flow along it. In due course, once the rock had been removed, the water flowed “upwards” along the canal. They were very surprised that this could happen.

They then decided to do the same thing on the other side of the Letaba River, which was known as Crown land at the time. If the water could flow upwards in South Africa, that should be possible in their area too. They dug a furrow with a 90 degree angle in respect of the river and with a 60 degree angle going up towards the banks. Disastrously the water did not flow upwards along that slope, and they felt that they were being discriminated against even from Above in this connection. [Interjections.] That is part of the history of that canal.

I myself decided that I wanted to abstain from voting. I would be pleased if that could be placed on record, because it is possible that as a landowner I had an interest in the matter myself at that stage. I want to declare my interest, even if it is only a potential interest, unlike the then Minister of Water Affairs who voted at the Injelel State Water Scheme for the writing off of a debt in which he was directly involved.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I must thank the House Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs, and in particular the chairman, for the attention they have given this petition. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Fauresmith, especially with regard to the first three irrigation boards in respect of which it was decided to write off debt as a result of the transactions that took place to buy out people in order to consolidate land. With regard to Ritchie, certain concessions were made to them in the past as well, but their problem arose mainly as a result of a drought which has now been relieved by means of the Sarel Hayward canal.

The House Committee judged that there was no justification for writing off debt with regard to Agterkliphoogte. I thank the hon members for their work and their support.

I thank the hon member for Brakpan for the sentiments he expressed. I think it is necessary that cognizance be taken of the contribution that such irrigation schemes made in the past—irrigation schemes that earned money for our country, but which also provided a living for a number of people in an exceptionally difficult period of our existence in agriculture.

I should like to ask the hon member how we in the Department of Water Affairs can get hold of the engineer who caused the water to flow along an upward slope. We really need such people.

I thank the hon member, and we respect his view concerning the interests he declared.

Debate concluded.

Report adopted.

Business suspended at 12h41 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, in my opinion people in South Africa are still not sufficiently aware of the importance of the rural areas in South Africa’s future with regard to the economy, the provision of work, the provision of food and security. As far as I am concerned, every Government department will have to take special measures to prevent the rural areas from depopulating and ultimately disappearing if the rural areas are to come into their own in these spheres. The norms and guidelines applicable in Government departments, for example in determining whether or not a school should continue to exist or a post office or telephone exchange should close down, cannot always be the same in the city and in the rural areas.

In view of this, I want to thank the hon the Minister for the decision not to close Amalia Post Office, for example, in my constituency. I also want to thank him for the new modern telephone exchange in Bloemhof. I had the privilege of attending the opening of this exchange and viewing it with the staff. I want to congratulate him on the professional staff of the Northern Cape region whom I met that day, as well as on the professional post office staff with whom I come into contact throughout my constituency every day. I also want to congratulate him on the new exchange, which is impressive and very modern. I wish to thank him very much for it.

I should also like to hear how much progress we have made in the automation of exchanges in towns in my constituency such as Delareyville, Sannieshof and Geysdorp. We shall miss the exchange staff and the excellent service they render, but to ensure that the rural areas have an equal chance of development—I am thinking of FAX machines and facilities of that nature, for example—these developments must take place as soon as possible.

The names of towns in the Western Transvaal are very few and far between in the memorandum on how the Post Office’s funds are to be spent this year. I am concerned about that in view of the development of the whole region.

In addition I must draw attention on behalf of the people in my constituency, and especially on behalf of the businessmen and professional people, to the significant postal delays we are experiencing in the Western Transvaal at present. I am also talking on behalf of my hon colleague, the hon member for Soutpansberg, who is experiencing similar serious problems in the Northern Transvaal. I am aware that the Postmaster-General issued two statements in which he thanked the SATS for the new service they were rendering. I am serious in saying I think he was under pressure when he made those statements. In my opinion the Railways has misled the Post Office as far as this so-called new service of theirs is concerned. If I am correct, the Railways charges R22 for transporting one post-bag. I think this comes into operation on 1 April.

When we look at the mini-container service, I begin to wonder whether the Railways is not trying to recover the R3 billion it has lost from the poor Post Office.

With effect from 3 April this year, post in minicontainers will be transported by the Railways, and this is supposed to be an improved service. We all want to see improvement. We all want to see progress, and I accept that this is part of the rationalisation programme in the Post Office, and ultimately part of the whole idea of privatisation in the Railways and the Post Office.

As I understand it, the purpose of privatisation should be ultimately to render a better service and levy better tariffs, because competition will be an issue. In that respect I am an ardent supporter of privatisation and rationalisation. However, the purpose should not be to sell capital goods so as ultimately to get rid of one’s debt, because then one is going to have the problem that instead of rendering a better service, one is rendering a poorer service. One will not have lower tariffs, but higher tariffs, because the purpose of privatisation was not correct.

At present our dilemma is that there appears to be retrogression. It is as if the service is getting worse. It is as if we have taken a step backward, instead of moving forward.

Permit me to mention a few examples. The postal service from Schweizer-Reneke to Bloemfontein is slower than ever before at the moment. A letter that was posted on 24 February—I can prove that here—had not arrived in Bloemfontein yet by yesterday, 9 March. Approximately 14 days have passed in the meantime. [Interjections.] I have evidence of a letter that was posted in Schweizer-Reneke on 4 January which reached Johannesburg only on 30 January.

Businessmen in Christiana telephoned me to tell me about losses they had suffered as a result of delays in the postal service in our region, the Western Transvaal. What is the problem? Obviously it is that we are no longer working with post-bags, but placing everything in minicontainers. On the surface, therefore, it sounds as if we are making progress and modernising. As far as I know, the containers are transported by goods train to Klerksdorp and Kimberley as the two offices of destination, in order to cover the rest of the Western Transvaal and to be sent on from there. From Johannesburg, for example, the post ends up in Coligny, where I understand it has to be reopened and resorted for Delareyville and Schweizer-Reneke, and each time there is a delay. A number of problems are experienced even in Bloemhof, which is on the main route to the Cape. Someone also informed me that there are thousands of these mini-containers at Kaserne Station in Johannesburg which have to be sorted out. I should like to hear whether or not this is true.

I must say that the hon the Minister responded promptly to some of our letters and that an investigation was initiated immediately and steps were taken. We thank him for that.

I understand, for example, that own transport is now being used in order to speed up the service on certain of the routes. As a result of the hon the Minister’s investigation and the use of own transport, the incoming post now reaches Schweizer-Reneke much more quickly, but it is still 24 hours slower than it was before this service was rendered. We are better off than we were at the beginning of January, therefore, but not as well off as we were with the old service.

Consequently it is relevant for us to ask certain questions. What do these mini-containers cost? Is it cheaper for the Post Office to use them and do we benefit from this, because at this stage we are paying a high price as far as time is concerned. If the Post Office is forced to use own transport in cases in which the Railways cannot render effective service, what is it going to cost us? Are we not retrogressing once again? No one in the rural areas can effectively operate a business in competition with an urban business when this kind of delay is involved. Eventually they have to close down, our towns and schools eventually deteriorate and the whole problem of depopulation in the rural areas is aggravated in the end, even though this may happen unconsciously. That in turn has an effect on the economy, on the provision of work, on influx to the cities and the security of the rural areas. If rationalisation means poorer service and higher tariffs, I am afraid our worst fears about it have been proven. I want to address a serious request to the hon the Minister on behalf of all the voters in South Africa, but especially those in my constituency, to give serious attention to this matter and, with his colleague the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, to find a solution in the interests of everyone in the rural areas.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on 70% or 80% of what the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke said in his speech. [Interjections.]

I should like to begin with the hon member for Groote Schuur. Yesterday we had to listen to arguments with reference to the proposed metering of local call units which will be implemented one of these days. Many of our voters have problems in this regard. I definitely also have respect for the problems that older people in particular have with the service, which basically has become a necessity.

Other hon members also referred to this matter. I cannot understand, however, that as a lawyer the hon member can argue as to how he believes the units should be dealt with in future. His point of departure is that the first 15 minutes should be metered as one unit, and that after that the units should be metered on a basis of three minutes per unit.

I said last year, and I am going to say it again, that the greatest problem—I am speaking on behalf of parents with teenage children—is that we cannot get our teenagers off our telephones. Exchange equipment is occupied constantly. A husband cannot even get through to his home to speak to his wife when it is a matter of urgency. Perhaps one can curb this trend among teenagers by means of the fact that the call units are going to be metered. If, however, the hon the Minister listens to the hon member’s proposal and counts the first 15 minutes as one unit, those teenagers will talk for 141/2 minutes, put down the telephone and then talk for another 141/2 minutes. This would give a child the incentive to speak for an hour, whereas normally he would speak for only 12 minutes. That does not hold water at all.

I think it is essential for those of us in this House to start moving away from the idea that every Government department must render social services. That is not a line function of the department we are dealing with at present. It is only a line function of the department of the hon the Minister who is sitting here in front of me. We should adopt the policy, when our voters have social problems, of taking these to the linefunction department. Ultimately the line-function department will take care of these people’s circumstances and help the people who cannot afford this service. In that way we shall ultimately be able to finance all our social services in one department, and it will be easier to quantify matters. I do not think this kind of action is correct, especially since the Post Office is moving towards deregulation and eventual privatisation.

I do not want to appeal for the benefit received by social pensioners with regard to the installation fee to be done away with. I do not want to appeal for that, but we shall really have to consider it in future.

There is another matter that bothers me somewhat and I felt I should broach it in this House this afternoon. It concerns parity. I am an emancipated man. I am not afraid of competing with women. [Interjections.] I want to make an urgent and friendly appeal to the hon the Minister to effect parity between male and female members of staff in his department in respect of fringe benefits. [Interjections.] No, there is no such thing; there are still problems. We know that officials in this department get certain fringe benefits. Women get them too—until they get married. As soon as they get married, they lose the fringe benefits. The officials know about this. Certain hon members have an excuse and say that if women get the same fringe benefits, men should get maternity benefits. [Interjections.] I think that is a ridiculous argument.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

I think that is a ridiculous argument. Were it not for the women, we as men would not be here. If we want to mock them about that important calling they have, and even want to penalise them, I really have problems with the hon member for Parktown. I shall go and tell the female voters in his constituency that he has no sympathy with them. [Interjections.] I request that parity be introduced.

You are a misogynist. [Interjections.]

I now come to a matter that I regard as very important. This department is taking the course proposed in the De Villiers Report. I appreciate what the Post Office has done so far to prepare its members of staff for the big step that is going to be taken.

I want to refer specifically to the articles that appeared in Postel. At least that shows the hon the Minister that I read the things that reach me and that I regard as important. I am referring to the good articles which were aimed at preparing the staff. I want to ask the hon the Minister, however, to give us an undertaking that they will now do something positive about more personal communication—I almost said mouth-to-mouth communication—between management and the members of staff about how this big step will affect them personally.

The staff of this wonderful department are concerned. They want to know what the nitty gritty is going to be; how it is going to affect their pensions. They want to know whether or not this is going to be to their disadvantage. I have something of a problem in this respect, because I do not see anything in the budget about provision for an advertising campaign of this nature.

In conclusion, just before I sit down, I want to take up a matter with the hon the Minister on behalf of my colleague, the hon member for King William’s Town, and that concerns the Cintsa East exchange. The hon member has the problem that many of his voters who live in the region are retired people who do not have a service as yet. We were informed that as soon as this exchange had been upgraded, attention would be given to this problem. On behalf of our voters, we should like to know when that will be. I should like to support this Post Office Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for East London North and I do, in fact, have quite a lot in common. We both grew up in Vryburg in the Northern Cape. Thereafter we both moved to East London. I left East London quite some time ago and I am sure that after the next election the hon member will also have an opportunity to leave East London. [Interjections.]

However, that is not the reason why I am pleased to speak after the hon member. I could not quite understand the reasons furnished by the hon the Minister with regard to the entire question of the telephones and the periods of 15 minutes and 3 minutes.

†The hon the Minister spoke about having to link time and distance, and he quoted various anomalies. I have no fight whatsoever with him on that score but I will deal with this at a later stage. What interests me now, is that the hon member for East London North has given us the actual reason why old people are to be penalised. The reason is so that his teenage children do not run up his telephone bill.

My kids are still too small.

If that is NP thinking, then I am very surprised. I would have thought that there more cogent reasons.

I am talking on behalf of my voters.

Yes, I accept that the hon member is talking on behalf of his voters. He is saying that the reason why the NP believes that the old people should be penalised, is so that the teenagers can be kept off the telephone and that the hon member and his voters can have an excuse to keep their daughters and sons off the telephones.

I am surprised at that but we will nevertheless accept it as the NP’s reason. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with certain other matters which the hon the Minister raised. He referred to the whole question of discrimination in staff benefits which I had mentioned during the discussion of the Additional Appropriation Bill. It flows from the disproportionate ratio of White to Black employees on the permanent and temporary staff on the one hand and the ratio of Black to White employees on the casual staff—the component that forms the casual labourers—on the other hand.

I have absolutely no fight with the hon the Minister over the principle that casual, shortterm, ad hoc labourers who are employed to perform a specific job where additional labour is required should be treated as casual labourers. Quite clearly they cannot be included in schemes relating to long-term benefits such as pensions and probably not even medical aid schemes because it simply does not tie in.

My concern was that according to the figures that were given to us at the end of 1987 we had 23 000 Blacks and 8 000 Coloureds who were employed on a casual basis. There were hardly any Whites employed. The hon the Minister shakes his head. With due respect, I want to say that I have the figures in front of me—they were given by his department which states: “The abovementioned figures reflect the position as at 31 December 1987.” I have a figure of 23 452 Blacks and 8 221 Coloureds. According to my arithmetic that gives a total of over 31 000 Black and Coloured people who were employed as casual labourers.

I explained their position to you. I can do so again if you want.

No, I am fully aware of their position. I am also fully aware of the fact that the hon the Minister said that this figure had now come down to 2 100.

My concern is that I believe that at any time in the postal services, if one actually gets to a stage where one can, at one point in time, employ 31 000 casuals, and from time to time during the year casuals are employed, one should try to create a permanent pool of labourers to do the various casual jobs that have to be done during the year. They can be seconded to do this job during a particular week or month and then move on to do some other job. One does not have to employ them casually for two weeks, dismiss them and then employ somebody else to do another job. Why not have a permanent pool of labourers who will have job security and who will have all the benefits of pension, medical aid and everything that goes with it? I am not suggesting that we should employ a pool of people who sit around doing nothing on the off chance that jobs will arise. However, let us try to identify the optimum size of a pool of labour, employ those people and give them permanent employment. I certainly do not believe that it is the intention of the Post Office to resort to this form of employment in order to avoid benefits. I do not credit them with that sort of mala fides. I just think it is short-sightedness. I would like to think that attention can be paid to trying to identify an optimum labour pool group.

There is one other aspect I would like to deal with, which is one of the matters that the hon the Minister raised this morning. This is the question of the medical aid schemes. I almost thought I heard the hon member for East London North saying something about centralising social services, thus having them all in one scheme. I want to say again that I do not believe, because I have seen figures that were produced last year, that there is much discrimination or adverse discrimination between the benefits received by the various groups. We have had the assurance from the Post Office that each one of these medical aid schemes receive the same State contribution, which is R2 per R1 that is contributed by a member.

Therefore there is no discrimination as far as the funding goes. It appears from the figures that were given to us that there is no marked discrimination although there are differences in the benefits received. Surely it would make more sense to have one medical aid scheme for all Post Office employees. I know there is a historical reason for this, but in this modern day and age we should have one scheme with one administration as this would definitely mean more benefits and better organisation in this particular field.

Can any hon member give me an example of an area of activity where people come into less contact with each other than by belonging to a medical aid scheme? I can tell the House right now that I have never in all my dealings with my medical aid scheme come into personal contact with any other member of the same scheme. Why then should people feel threatened? Why should those Posmed employees, of whom 57% voted against opening up their scheme, feel threatened? How is this going to harm them? In what way is this going to affect their culture and interests? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I accept, and have good reason to believe, that the hon the Minister will reply to the hon member for Groote Schuur’s speech and deal with him effectively.

I want to air a few thoughts in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank today. The Post Office Savings Bank, as all hon members know it, is one of the oldest savings institutions in the country and it is the little man’s bank in the truest sense of the word. There are approximately 1 740 branches in all corners of the country and it fulfils a social role of considerable value.

Before 1974 the Post Office Savings Bank was managed by the Post Office as an agent for the Treasury and subsequently it was operated by the Post Office for its own account.

The head office of the bank is situated in Bloemfontein where for many years it has provided an appreciable contribution to job opportunities in the city. The Post Office Savings Bank accepts deposits from the public but does not in turn lend money to the public in order to make a profit on it. All available funds of the Post Office Savings Bank are automatically invested in the telecommunications system of the Post Office. The Post Office Savings Bank therefore does not have the comprehensive organisation with staff and expertise which is involved in the running of the loans section of an ordinary banking institution.

The cost to the Post Office Savings Bank of funds which it could have put out on loan must be very high, especially because of its large number of branches in less profitable areas of the country. Consequently there is little room for profittaking in lending funds which the Post Office Savings Bank takes on deposit. One should also bear in mind that costs attached to the lion’s share of Post Office Savings Bank funds, that is savings bank certificates, are indirectly subsidised by the Government in the form of tax exemptions on investors’ earnings from interest.

A development which now poses a threat to the future of the Post Office Savings Bank is the decision to convert the Telecommunications Division of the Post Office into a company which will be privatised later. This means that the Post Office Savings Bank will not be able to depend automatically on the Telecommunications Company as a borrower of its funds. That company will necessarily have to be able to take up loan funds which it might require wherever they are cheapest.

If the Post Office Savings Bank together with the Postal Division is also to become a company which can be privatised later, it will of necessity have to be converted into a bank which functions like other existing banks in the private sector. It will have to compete with other banks to find borrowers for its funds from whom it can make a profit. To make the bank as viable as that will obviously demand a great effort. The question arises whether so much new expertise and capital will have to be poured into this that it will come down to the creation of a largely new asset.

In the light of great changes which are currently taking place in banking and building societies, the future trend is actually aimed at fewer such institutions. This makes it even more essential that it be carefully considered whether it will be possible to justify making the Post Office Savings Bank viable in the open market.

Alternatives to privatising the bank are, of course, to close it down or even to retain it as a Government institution, to transfer it to the Treasury again and to have it operated by the Post Office as an agent for the Treasury. It seems obvious that the entire matter requires in-depth investigation. It would be a pity if the Post Office Savings Bank had to be closed down.

The hon the Minister referred briefly to this matter in his reply to the debate in the Extended Public Committee this morning. I am grateful for the serious light in which the department regards this matter. Dr Wim de Villiers also mentions a number of requirements in his summarised report which will have to be satisfied before privatisation of the Savings Bank can be considered in any way. He proposed that a strategy study be made of the Savings Bank. I should very much like to support this idea of an in-depth investigation into this matter by the department.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member Mr Aucamp will forgive me for not replying to a very interesting subject which he broached but in the first place I want to refer to a speech which the hon member for Smithfield saw fit to make in the Other Place late yesterday afternoon. In fact, he wanted to make a certain announcement. I want to make a request to him. If he wishes to make any future announcements let him at least make them worthwhile. He made an announcement about some victory or other which the NP had achieved somewhere. I want to tell him that all 11 executive members of the SSTLA—that is the Society for South-Eastern Transvaal Local Authorities—who were elected yesterday are CP members.

Do they work for the Post Office?

Order!

It is situated opposite the Post Office premises. [Interjections.]

The school at Kriel held an election for their management board this morning and seven of the eight members who were elected are from the CP.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Germiston District who made certain forecasts in connection with a 15%-swing to the NP. Actually it is the other way around.

Order! I assume the hon member was informed of this by telephone or telegram. [Interjections] The hon member may proceed.

I want to tell the hon member that he should not pay too much attention to the hon member for Germiston District. About a year ago on the occasion of a by-election at Standerton he also ventured to make predictions. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that he came off very badly there. [Interjections.]

On the morning of 2 September 1988, a few months ago, a young Standerton post office clerk called Willie Coetzee walked around the post office. He had risen early that morning as befits a young Afrikaner. He noticed a suspicious-looking parcel up against the post office building. It appeared very suspect to him on closer investigation and he went to the post office superintendent, Mr Burger, and requested him to investigate this parcel. It was then established that there were two limpet mines in the parcel.

They called in the police immediately and the streets were cordoned off. As a result of the action of these two gentlemen only slight damage was done to the post office building and there was no loss of life. This was all attributable to the smart action of these members of the post office staff. I want to tell the hon the Minister that he may be proud of his Post Office staff throughout the country and especially those in my constituency. They are splendid people, people who do everything in their power for the Post Office.

And they vote for the right people.

Of course they vote for the right people. [Interjections.]

It is not enough, however, merely to thank these people. It is not enough merely to say: “Thank you very much for what you did. We are satisfied: You were very smart and observant.” We must also examine the working conditions of these people. We must also look at housing amongst other factors. It is very encouraging to see that provision is made in the budget for an additional R1,5 million as regards housing for Post Office staff.

More vigorous action is required in particular in helping these people when they apply for loans and housing so that they may be accommodated more rapidly and not have nowhere to go when they land in a strange place. This has a great deal to do with making people happy at places to which they are transferred.

Apart from housing, the working conditions of these people obviously count too. A high percentage of Post Office staff at smaller post offices in country districts are forced to work a six-day week through circumstances.

The officer in charge of the post office at Perdekop in my constituency is also in the position of having to be on duty every Saturday. These small places do not have outfitters’ shops, pharmacies, shoe stores, dry-cleaners, etc and consequently representations are made to the Post Office to close the office on certain Saturdays of the month or on one Saturday a month.

We cannot but support this type of representation from the staff—it is usually a woman who works there. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to examine these people’s problems so that they may be assisted in this regard too.

I also want to refer to a very great problem in my constituency in connection with the telephone supply. Standerton is a town which has seen sudden great development recently. [Interjections.] The hon member for Carletonville says that since the CP took over there it has developed splendidly. The exchange does not have enough lines and there are not enough telephones either.

I want to point out to hon members that there is a shortage of 518 telephones in the Standerton urban area alone. We are always being referred to as racists and as people who do not want to look after other groups but I want to appeal to the hon the Minister here today that the people whom I am about to mention now also be assisted. For example, 17 telephones are very urgently required for certain businesses in the Standerton urban area at present. The Azalia Coloured area requires 18 telephones, the Stanwest Indian area 32, the Sakhile Black residential area 462 and the Thuthukani Black residential area 25. This is a total of 518 telephones. [Interjections.] It is obvious that one must understand that bottlenecks arise in the areas mentioned where no service is furnished at present. We have been informed that telephone exchanges at Sakhile and Thuthukani have actually reached the planning stage but no specific date could be supplied when these telephone exchanges would become operative.

I note that the name of Standerton appears frequently in the hon the Minister’s capital expenditure programme. I want to tell him that I am very grateful for this. I do not know what the reason is for this. There are three possible reasons. One reason is possibly that they feel sympathetic because they held a by-election there when they should not have done so. I hope that is not the reason. [Interjections.] The second possible reason is that the hon the Minister was born in Standerton of course. He was born in that district and it may be that he feels very sympathetic towards us. I think that the third possibility is the most important, that is that they realise that there is a very real need for extensions.

Provision is made here for exchange cables for Standerton, for the extension and replacement of exchanges, as well as for the Evander-Kriel interexchange lines.

I want to point out that this need really exists. I note of course that the provision of these exchange lines will not necessarily take place in this financial year but I want to ask the hon the Minister to request head office to assist Standerton in particular.

I want to raise another aspect and this deals with the farmers in my constituency. There are large farmers in that district. I am thinking particularly of potato farmers who have to conduct their business on farm telephones. There are two of these large potato farmers for instance who have to use such a farm telephone to make at least 50 calls a day. It is absolutely impossible to furnish these people with good service. I have informed the Postmaster General of these problems and I want to request that they receive urgent attention.

To conclude, I want to link up with the hon member for Ventersdorp as regard pensioners and especially the subsidies supplied to pensioners. As he said, social pensioners are granted a subsidy and a contribution. In association with him I want to ask the hon the Minister to extend this to other pensioners too. I cannot see why a distinction should be made between social and other pensioners.

In conclusion, I want to request the hon the Minister to pay particular attention to a subsidy for the installation of these lines as well as their rentals.

Mr Chairman, like the hon member for Standerton who has just sat down, I am going to refer to constituency problems that I have. I want to pay particular attention to the position of the Harding exchange and I want to come back to the position of outstanding rural telephone exchanges still to be automated. I know this has already been a subject of discussion and that the hon the Minister has replied but I want to raise it again because I firmly believe that South Africa cannot survive without the rural areas and the farming communities.

What concerns me is that our rural towns are being denied the benefits of a modern service and therefore are being disadvantaged when it comes to the running of their businesses. To give but one example, let us look at the position of the facsimile operation at the moment. On an automatic exchange a businessman can receive fax at any hour of the day, regardless of whether the machine is manned or not. On manual exchange he can only receive a fax if the machine is manned. Calls are charged on a unit basis according to actual time spent on a call on an automatic exchange. On a manual exchange calls are charged at a minimum of three minutes, then at intervals of 1 minute rates thereafter. In the case of an automatic exchange there is no operator needed at the time of sending or receiving a fax. With a manual exchange, however, one has to have an operator.

Hon members can therefore see that in a rural area with manual exchanges there are major disadvantages, especially when one looks at the position of the economical sending of documents. There are grave disadvantages when the machine is operated through a manual exchange.

To come back to the position of Harding, I believe the time has come for this issue to be addressed a bit more seriously that it used to be. I believe that Ixopo is in the process of being automated. Questions are continually being asked by my constituents. Why has Harding not been considered?

Why was it not done when Kokstad, Cederville and Franklin were done? They were promised in 1985 that they would be considered for automation. It is now 1989 and I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he can give us a date. Once Ixopo has been finished I would like to ask whether Harding is going to be passed over again, once Okhukho is finished?

When one looks at the district of Harding, Weza, Nqabeni and Izingolweni I believe that it is a unit which could be automated. I accept what the hon the Minister has said, viz that due to capital requirements there has been a deceleration in the conversion of manual exchanges. I must ask, however, whether the rural areas are been denied the attention of the department because of pressures on the metropolitan areas? I am afraid that that is a fact, as I have here a letter from the department dated 20 October which says:

I think that the urban areas are being given preference over the rural areas. I would like to ask the department to consider taking a leaf out of Eskom’s book. When service or new infrastructure was required, Eskom originally started with an extension charge. That charge has now been turned into a capital charge. What I am pleading for is the acceleration of the conversion of the manual exchanges. Why should new services have preference over the older services? I believe that it is time the department took another look at how to capitalise and pay for the installation of these services.

I am very pleased to see from the hon the Minister’s speech that progress has been made with the possibility of farm lines, but can we wait as long as this? I do not know. I would like to ask the hon the Minister please to think of the rural areas and the farming community. We are having enough trouble in trying to stop the depopulation of the rural areas and I believe that we should put everything we have into keeping the people there and making them as happy as they can. As I said earlier, we cannot live without the farming community. With due respect, if the farming community goes, we cannot survive.

If time allows, I would like to ask one other question. I believe that investigations are under way into the replacement of the undersea cable with an optical fibre cable. May I inquire how far the investigation is and what the estimated cost of the new cable is? Furthermore, what is the future of the ship, the Cable Restorer? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for South Coast will forgive me if I do not follow on his line of debate. I have another matter which I wish to raise with the hon the Minister and that relates to the quality of service in post offices.

I can really only speak for the Eastern Cape, because that is the area where I use post offices most frequently. I believe that there is a lot to be desired in the service given by those post offices to their customers. I personally have experienced long queues and thus long delays in post offices, even if going along just to buy a few stamps.

At Kenton on Sea I once spent a full 25 minutes in a queue waiting to be served on a relatively small matter. In this particular instance there was only one person on duty in that post office. There was a manager sitting at the back. When I enquired as to why the manager could not open a second till as there was a long queue, I was told that because of its population, Kenton on Sea was only allowed to have one till. The manager had to sit at the back and do whatever it was that he was doing when, in fact, there were customers waiting to be served because the second till could not be operated. I would like to hear the hon the Minister’s comment on that.

Secondly, yesterday I was in an aircraft travelling from East London to Cape Town. I sat next to a person and I was telling her about the upcoming debate on the Post Office Appropriation Bill. She told me that she was living in King William’s Town and that she had actually asked her family not to send her parcels on her birthday for a birthday present, because it took so long standing in the queue at the King William’s Town post office in order to get her parcels, that she spent half her birthday in the post office! [Interjections.]

This is clearly an exaggeration, but she said that sometimes the queue extends right outside the door. One must therefore make some positive suggestions to the hon the Minister as to what should be done about this.

Firstly, I believe that the number of staffed counters at certain post offices should be increased at peak hours. There is no doubt that in the Post Office, as is the case anywhere else, there are certain hours that are busier than others. If they can bring staff out of the rear offices to increase the number of attended counters and thus provide a better service I think that would be advantageous.

Secondly, what is the position with stamp-vending machines? When one goes to the Post Office one very often only wants to buy stamps. Surely it is possible to put stamp-vending machines not only in post offices but perhaps in major shopping malls too. I would like to know from the hon the Minister what the Post Office is doing in regard to stamp vending machines. I seem to remember that there were some around some time ago. What has happened to them I do not know. I do not know why we have not got modern ones. I think this could help to improve the service of the Post Office.

Thirdly, I believe that all post offices should, in line with common practice in many banks and many other institutions today, have one-line queues. One very often finds when standing in a queue in a post office that the next queue always seems to be moving faster than your queue. One sees people shuffling backwards and forwards between queues trying to get the speed of their service improved. I think that if one set up a system whereby there is one queue in a post office and the front person in that queue went to whatever counter was available it would be a useful innovation.

In other countries in the world where people dial us one does have the advantage of off-peak hour use of the telephone system for international calls. This does not happen here and I should like to know why not. The net result is that despite the fact that generally our Post Office services are a lot cheaper than in other Western democracies, in regard to international telephone calls that is not the case. It is cheaper to phone South Africa from England, America or Canada than it is, for instance, to phone from here to there. Regrettably there are many South Africans who have children living in other countries with whom they like to keep in touch. Anything the hon the Minister can do to ensure at least an internationally competitive rate for international phone calls would be greatly appreciated.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will pardon me for not reacting to him directly. I would prefer to react to the hon member for East London North, especially to his appeal for parity in the salaries of men and women so that I may also curry favour with the hon members for Houghton and Edenvale. [Interjections.] I am sorry to have to leave my sex in the lurch.

I take pleasure in participating in this debate in the limited time at my disposal. I also want to pay attention to a few aspects of telecommunications. There must be few fields in which technology has developed so rapidly over the past few years as in this particular field. There are no spheres in which new facilities for daily use are as freely available now as specifically for the telephone user. It is common knowledge that the so-called cordless telephone for instance may be purchased reasonably freely on the SA market now. The receiver of this telephone is quite separate from the telephone itself and conversations can be conducted over distances of up to 100 metres from the instrument by means of a two-way radio. The receiver has its own dialling frame and need only be replaced on the instrument to charge the rechargeable battery again. I need not spell out to hon members how exceptionally valuable this convenience is to invalids and people with disabilities which affect their mobility. To my knowledge, the use of such instruments is still irregular—and not without good reason. There is also some form of prohibition on the import of such instruments.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister to have this matter examined. I should also like to hear from the hon the Minister whether such instruments cannot be legalised for the reasons which I have put forward.

Another development which has progressed phenomenally in recent times is the so-called electronic secretary. That is the term which I hear people use when they refer to their answering system on tape. Various Japanese manufacturers have recently developed answering systems which not only pass on or receive messages but, upon receipt of those messages, forward them to another telephone number wherever the recipient of the call may be. This system has been refined even further in that the subscriber can change his message by remote control or arrange for it to be put through to another telephone number so that he may respond to urgent calls immediately if he leaves for some other place. Codes have even been built into the system to ensure confidentiality. I need not spell out how exceptionally valuable this development is to the medical profession for instance.

The use of such instruments is obviously not illegal or contrary to regulations but, because they are imported in complete units, the instruments are still relatively expensive. I hope that the Post Office is paying continuous attention to technological development of this nature too and that local manufacturers will also make use of this market so that consumers are able to benefit from possible lower prices as well.

Such a wide variety of telephone instruments is available in the trade today, including the so-called decorative telephones, that this must be a saving to the Post Office. The question, of course, is whether this type of telephone complies with required standards. These instruments have to be purchased and maintained by the owner himself. In the case of such instruments, the subscriber has to pay an amount in addition to his rental. I wonder whether the hon the Minister would not consider making concessions in this regard.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon the Minister for concessions which have been made regarding social pensioners. These people are usually dependent on their telephones. They are frequently their only line of communication with the community and they cannot always afford this. It is their only line of communication to the doctor, police, and, if they are disabled, to their friends.

There are such communities in my constituency. They possess telephones one and all and I must add that new residents have received efficient service from the Post Office in the provision of new services so far. I am referring here to the Government village in Germiston and retirement resorts for senior citizens in Primrose and Westwood. The Telecommunications Division of the Post Office furnishes good service—an indispensable service—and I appeal to them to keep it up!

Mr Chairman, I shall get back to the hon member for Germiston District in the course of my speech. Permit me first to mention a letter which I received about four days ago from the hon the Minister arising from representations which I made to him on 22 November 1988. I do not think that the letter was delayed so long in the post; I assume that the hon the Minister first ordered a thorough investigation before he replied to me.

This links up with representations which were made by the hon members for Schweizer-Reneke and Springs and, to our surprise, also by the hon member for South Coast. We all request greater and improved service to our remote farming communities.

At this stage farming communities are really receiving unsatisfactory service. It is a fact that farmers—my comment arises from the hon the Minister’s letter—in the Dendron and Vivo, Munnik and Haenertsburg neighbourhoods for instance still have manual exchanges which, as the hon the Minister indicated in his letter, would not be included in its automation programme by the department even in the 1990-91 or 1991-92 financial year.

If we add to this that some lines are sometimes out of order for long periods because the routes in these areas are overhead routes in the main and from the nature of the case are exposed to natural elements, the situation is obviously unacceptable to farmers in that area.

When it comes to intensive farming practices in particular, such as are found in these areas—one thinks of potato farming in the Dendron area here—they cannot continue farming effectively without an effective telephone service. A farming enterprise, especially of such a nature, is an intensive business undertaking today. Can hon members imagine for a moment that a business undertaking could flourish with such communications problems! Continuous telephonic contact with vegetable markets is indispensable, for example, whereas farmers in that area are forced to do without modern communications facilities such as the fax machine until such time as an automatic system becomes operative.

In addition, many of those farmers experience exactly the same conditions as farmers in so-called designated areas where automation has progressed further already. I appeal to the hon the Minister once again that the upgrading of this service be expedited if this is in any way possible. Surely there is no fundamental difference on the one hand between a farmer whose farm borders on Venda or the self-governing state of Lebowa or on the other hand the one whose farm is situated immediately adjacent to the Bophuthatswana or Botswana border. They are people with exactly the same types of problems and the danger is equally great that depopulation of those areas could cause us great problems.

I have only the following comment in connection with the aged. We are very grateful that the rebate regarding the installation of telephones is being maintained. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Standerton’s plea, however, which is that there are many civil pensioners. I am not referring to all civil pensioners because I can hardly imagine that a pensioner like the former Minister of Manpower should also receive a rebate. Nevertheless the rebate is indispensable to a civil pensioner who for instance receives a pension of only a little in excess of the means limit, say R300 or even an amount of up to R800 or R1 000. The cost of living is of such a nature today that these people cannot manage without a telephone.

As rentals have now been increased by 20% in the case of manual and automatic exchanges, I really want to appeal to the hon the Minister to look after those other old people who are struggling in these times. As it is also particularly the policy to accommodate the aged independently and within the community for as long as possible, a telephone is one of the most indispensable articles to them. To many old people the telephone becomes the focal point of their entire existence because it is frequently the only contact with friends and relatives in their everdecreasing and isolating sphere of life. This facility must be kept within the reach of the average old person.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and his department to pay special attention to this. It will play a very important part in enhancing the quality of life of our community with its ever increasing life expectancy. One actually shudders in this regard. What is to become of this situation when privatisation takes place within Posts and Telecommunications? Will private companies also care for the aged?

In conclusion, I wish to refer to the reply which the hon the Minister gave this morning concerning the medical aid fund of the Post Office, Posmed, when he mentioned that a referendum had been held and that almost 57% of the members of that fund had voted against throwing it open. Despite that fact as well as an increase of R4,8 million which is being appropriated, the hon the Minister proceeds to open this medical aid fund to all.

I assume that this is in accordance with the general policy of the Government in regard to all spheres of life as well as all departments. Now I merely want to ask, taking into account the hon the Minister’s statement in the Other Place that there would be no discriminatory measures, whether it is also Post Office policy, as is the case in many private firms nowadays, ultimately to involve Whites, those of colour and Indians in relation to their proportion as part of the population in the service of the Post Office. I think that it is very important to receive a reply on this subject because to my mind the voters of South Africa want to know exactly Where they stand with the Government about this. If this were not to be the policy, questions would crop up when the next case had to be dealt with for instance.

I shall now return to the hon member for Germiston District. A few months ago he received a letter from the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in which he stated that the decision on Windmill Park had been announced and that there was no question of departmental reconsideration of this matter. Last night we were informed, however, that permission would now be granted for permits and that an investigation would take place with a view to making it a totally free settlement area in the end.

One can never believe them!

That is why it is very important that we receive clarity on these matters. We must also be told by the hon the Minister whether it is his policy to accommodate the various population groups proportionally within the Post Office milieu. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the hon member for Pietersburg, and he did not advance any contentious arguments in his speech. Furthermore, I think the hon the Minister will reply fully to what the hon member said, and I hope that the hon member will thereafter have greater peace of mind. [Interjections.]

I want to make use of this opportunity to mention certain aspects which are evident in my constituency and which are probably chiefly evident in the rural areas.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for South Coast’s appeal that in so far as telephone services in the rural areas in particular are concerned, we should look at whether we cannot provide better services there because this means of communication is so important to the farming communities in particular. [Interjections.] I want to make this appeal particularly with regard to the high-lying areas such as those in the Northeastern Cape, viz Barkly East, Elliot, Maclear, Ugie, parts of Dordrecht and Indwe, and that portion of Lady Grey which lies in the mountains.

With this conventional telephone system we no longer have a telephone service once the first snowflakes fall. It sometimes happens that we are without a telephone service for 14 days to a month. I want to ask whether consideration could not be given to better methods of providing the farmers of that area with adequate telephone services upon which they can always rely as a means of communication.

I also want to make an appeal with regard to our postal services. Whereas formerly we always had a speedy postal service when road-motor services were still available, what is happening now since these have been suspended is that whereas a postal article took two days to arrive at its destination between Barkly East and Elliot, it now takes 14 days to a month in view of the detour which it must now follow. I want to appeal to the department to look at whether contracts cannot be concluded with other road transport services which already exist in that area in order to reinstate a speedy postal service in that area. I was grateful to hear from the hon the Minister that this was already on the agenda and that the possibility was being investigated. We appreciate that a great deal.

In conclusion, I also want to make use of this opportunity to thank our technicians in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, who rendered wonderful service to us at the time of the floods at the end of 1987 and 1988 in restoring the telephone services to normal as quickly as possible.

On this occasion I also want to extend a word of thanks to those people who render one of the department’s services, namely that at the manual exchanges particularly in the rural areas. Those people really and truly render an excellent service to those communities and they are truly part of an institution about which we shall always speak with great gratitude and great praise.

With particular reference to those who have already been in the service of the department for 30 years and longer, who have already reached their highest salary notch and who will shortly have to retire, I want to ask that we should look at the salary and retirement package of those people. I want to make an appeal that we should not forget them, so that they too may look back with gratitude on the services they have rendered to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, as well as to the communities in which they serve. Many of them have a better knowledge of what is going on in the community than the family doctor or the minister of that community. [Interjections.] They treat it with love, just as well as a minister or a doctor.

Mr Chairman, during the course of my remarks I shall refer to the hon member for Aliwal’s concern—which I have—about the delay in the delivery of certain letters.

As usual I have a number of points I wish to raise with the hon the Minister. Firstly. I want to refer to the question of metering local calls and the hon the Minister’s reply to that issue during the First Reading debate. I believe that increase of the hon the Minister’s is a mean tax. It can be described in no other way—imposing that tax on the subscriber is a mean action on his part. He has announced many increases during the course of this budget. The Cape Times referred to it as a welter of Post Office increases and he has heaped these increases on the long-suffering consumers of the Post Office. It is obvious that the hon the Minister felt that he had to disguise one of the increases by attempting to cloak it in the apparently respectable clothing of metering.

It is not election time yet!

The hon the Minister has told me that there will be an election soon!

He could have fooled us!

It remains an increase and a mean one at that.

Mention was made yesterday of the fact that in many Western countries local calls are not charged, they are free. Subscribers only pay for long distance calls. I am aware of that as I have had personal experience of this arrangement. One would have hoped that the hon the Minister would have moved in that direction rather than increasing tariffs for local calls. I hope that the hon the Minister will not tell me that it is impossible to do this in South Africa because how is it possible that in the USA, where the service has been privatised, they actually manage to make money from the system although they do not charge for local calls?

Talking about the USA, I would like to speak to the hon the Minister about the introduction of cordless telephones. The hon member for Germiston District touched on this and I, too, am interested to know what is being done about the introduction of cordless telephones and whether all those many instruments that are in service within the country will be legalised. It is a modern tool and I just wonder why we are denied the use of them. I hope the hon the Minister will explain how and when the introduction of cordless telephones will be brought about. Why is there a delay and why can we not use the models that are available from countries such as Taiwan and Japan? Talking about foreign countries. I would like to raise my favourite subject with the hon the Minister.

Order! Some hon members are conversing so loudly that they do not need telephones!

My favourite subject, raised here today by my colleague, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, is the question of differential metering in off-peak periods for overseas calls. The hon the Minister has often advised me that the equipment is not available but I want to ask him what steps have been taken to obtain the equipment and when will it become available in South Africa so that we can have differential metering for overseas calls during the evening. I believe that if the equipment were to be obtained and installed, subscribers would be able to talk longer when they phone overseas. With businesses also using this service, the revenue of the Post Office will be increased.

While discussing off-peak period metering I want to say I hope the hon the Minister will clear up the possible misunderstanding which arose this morning during the course of his reply to the First Reading debate when he spoke of a 50% reduction being available at night. I think that is what he said. As far as I am aware, the tariff is reduced by a third between six o’clock and nine o’clock in the evening, and two thirds between nine o’clock at night and seven o’clock the following morning and over the weekend. I hope when the hon the Minister replies he will either confirm this or tell us that the metering discount period for evening telephone calls has been changed.

I want to raise another matter, namely the question of Christmas stamps. Many countries issue special stamps at Christmas time. I see no reason why we should not do so too in South Africa. We issue many stamps during the year both for our own use and that of the TBVC countries. In fact, the issuing of stamps has almost become a growth industry in this country.

I think it is totally inappropriate that one has to use ordinary stamps at Christmas time. Some years ago when I went to buy stamps to post my Christmas cards the only stamps available were those with the picture of Mr P W Botha. I feel that to post Christmas cards with the picture of Mr Botha, the leader of the NP, on the stamps is completely inappropriate.

The previous leader.

Yes, the previous leader or one of the many leaders the NP has at present. [Interjections.] There were no other stamps available at that time. I asked the attendant for alternative stamps, but he could not give me any. The only stamps available were those with Mr Botha’s face on them. As a protest I put the stamps upside down on my Christmas cards.

Last year when I went to buy stamps for my Christmas cards the only ones I could buy were those commemorating the Great Trek. I have nothing against the Great Trek, but it has nothing to do with Christmas. Nevertheless I had to send my Christmas cards out with the Great Trek stamps on them. I know this does not interest the hon the Minister because Ministers do not pay for Christmas card stamps. They send them post free.

Another matter I wish to raise is the question of express mail. A constituent of mine in Melrose, Johannesburg, advised me that an important business document was send, to him while on holiday in Plettenberg Bay and it was sent express mail for which more than R3 was paid in postage. This took ten days to arrive in Plettenberg Bay. On enquiry he was told that it was sent surface mail and not air mail.

My colleague, the hon member for Groote Schuur, told me that he had also had a business letter sent to him from Johannesburg and it was also sent surface mail and took ten days to arrive. Would the hon the Minister please tell us what provisions are made to ensure that express mail is delivered as quickly as possible because it is unreasonable to have people pay the extra fees required and then they still have to wait ten days before the letters are delivered?

Finally, I want to ask the hon the Minster a question regarding telephone tapping. Would the hon the Minster please tell us who controls telephone tapping? Is it the hon the Minister or is it the hon the Minister of Law and Order? Would he please tell us what procedures have to be followed before a telephone is tapped and what representations have to be made and to whom these representations have to be made, and who actually does the tapping? Is it the Post Office or is it the Ministry of Law and Order? When the tapping is done, what records are made and what details are kept of the conversations that are made?

If the hon the Minister is not able to reply fully when he does reply to this debate, his usual custom of replying by letter will be adequate.

Mr Chairman, I have very little time but there are two matters that I wish to raise. The first is the need to establish a post office at Boston. I am aware that this matter has already been investigated by the department which feels that this is not justified.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that I am not satisfied with this finding.

The reason is that factors connected with the unsuitability of the Elandskop post office as a result of political policies have not been taken fully into consideration. I want to ask the hon the Minister if he will give me the assurance that he will personally look into this matter again. It is one of extreme urgency for both the Black and the White communities who live in this somewhat widespread area.

The second matter that I wish to raise is the need to expedite the automation of the Ixopo, Donnybrook, Bulwer, Creighton, Underberg and Himeville telephone exchanges. Promises have been made in the past by previous Ministers who have indicated that this undertaking would be completed by 1991 or 1992. It has now come to my attention that the department intends to postpone this target date. I want to make it clear that the existing antiquated systems are not coping with the present demands of these communities.

Again I want to stress that this does not cast any reflection on the present operators of these exchanges who do sterling work with the inadequate facilities at their disposal.

What has become increasingly evident over recent years is that the general development that is taking place in these areas is gradually outstripping the ability of the present manual telephone system to cope with the requirements that this and future developments demand. I wish to stress that unless this problem is addressed immediately, natural development even faces the possibility of being stifled to a degree that will be to the ultimate detriment of the communities concerned. I look again to the hon the Minister to also give this matter his personal attention.

Finally, before I sit down, I just want to record the appreciation of my district for the excellent services that were rendered by the maintenance staff of the department during the heavy snowfalls that occurred in that area in July last year. Their response to the many calls for assistance always brought about immediate results. I am very happy to convey this message of thanks.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their participation in the debate. It was really not a boring debate. Every hon member spoke very convincingly about the various matters of interest to him. I thank hon members for the convincing way in which they put the cases of their regions. However, this leaves me with a tremendous obligation to comply with all the requests. I am now thinking of the fine representations we heard in respect of the upgrading of the services in the rural areas. I want to tell you I was very impressed with this. They came from every quarter. From the eloquence of the hon member for Mooi River to the other outlying districts of South Africa we had wonderful appeals and even threats for better services in the rural areas. I have very great sympathy for this. I am acquainted with the conditions in the rural areas. I myself lived in the country for a while. Of course I like the manual exchange, because then one does not actually need a radio. One can get the news by calling up the telephone operator and finding out what is going on.

That is cheating! You are not supposed to listen to other people’s conversations.

This is really a matter I want to put to hon members. I thought the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was my friend, but it seems as if I will have to think again. Let us consider the upgrading of services such as automation and the like in the rural areas.

Hon members must take my word as regards the costs involved in the upgrading of services in the rural areas. I have received the necessary information. It costs a lot more because it does not only involve the installation of the little apparatus which makes the telephone system automatic; it requires an expensive new infrastructure. Relatively speaking it therefore costs quite a bit more to make such a change in the rural areas than a new service in a new urban development area costs.

I think hon members will all agree that since we cut back on our capital expenditure almost two years ago, the Post Office’s capital structure has improved considerably. We borrowed less money to incur debts to purchase capital equipment. We really improved our debt ratio. Consequently fewer services must be rendered somewhere, and one must start considering priorities. I think I made that clear. If I did not do so in my speech I am quite prepared to do so now.

Of course we must see to it that services, such as the telephone services, are rendered thoroughly and well in the rural areas. We cannot allow an inefficient service. The consumers are entitled to expect us to take steps to undertake the necessary replacement of old material and still provide satisfactory services, even if they are not as good as the very modern services we have in the more developed areas. If it is, for example, necessary for security reasons, we must make an exception and start that automation replacement process. Every one of the hon members who spoke about automation in the rural areas did so very well.

†I have noted hon members’ appeals in this regard and I can assure them to the extent that it is possible we will have a new look at these things and try to assist them so that the service in the rural areas can be maintained as an effective service. I cannot reply to each and every one on this particular issue.

I would like to mention another point. So many questions have been asked and quite rightly so— that it would be impossible for me to have the answers immediately available to hon members this afternoon, so to the extent that I am not replying to them, I will address a letter to them and reply to them in full in this regard.

*Firstly, as regards the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, he also spoke very well about the automation problem in the Delareyville-Sannieshof area. I again want to give him the assurance that we will see to it that the service is still efficient and we will really go out of our way to ensure this. As regards postal delays, I want to tell all the hon members who spoke about this how sorry I am that the postal delays in the rural areas did take place. I spoke fairly extensively about this during the First Reading debate. I took cognisance of what hon members suggested and the ideas they voiced. I do want to make it clear that there is a good relationship between the Postmaster General and the General Manager of the SATS in this regard. I can really tell hon members—I think I did so this morning—that I receive a comprehensive report every week on what is taking place in every remote area in order to eliminate this delay in the delivery of post.

I believe we are on the verge of making a breakthrough. We are making use of all existing means and transport services. It would be unprofitable for the Post Office to purchase new vehicles for this, but we are using our existing fleet of vehicles and we are also entering into contracts on a large scale with other people to render the service and we are in the process of negotiating with the SATS. Hon members must please tell their voters that this matter is really receiving high priority at the Post Office and that we will see to it that we put matters right as soon as possible.

The hon member for East London North referred to the social obligation which the department has. I merely want to remind hon members that according to the Post Office Act the Post Office was established to be operated as a profitable undertaking, as set out. Historically the Post Office, telecommunications and the postal services, took many social tasks upon themselves in the course of time. Hon members can rest assured that this fact will be carefully considered before the final step of privatisation is taken. It is however a fact that these social services are rendered and if they are no longer rendered by the Post Office another organisation will have to render them. This is a matter I want to reassure hon members about. In the next couple of years we will gradually prepare ourselves to be in a position to privatise, if this is considered appropriate or desirable. Then we will take a decision with all the facts at our disposal.

As regards the very delicate matter of parity between male and female employees, I have received the following note from the Postmaster-General. He says that there is full parity between male and female personnel of the department, except that married women are excluded inter alia from housing subsidy, telephone and medical aid benefits. The reason for this is that as a rule the husband as the breadwinner gets these and other appropriate benefits from his employer, that may also be the department. This, in a nutshell, is the basic underlying reason why the married woman does not receive those benefits.

The hon member also referred to the preparation for privatisation. I thank the hon member for his reference to Postel. I can tell him that there have already been thousands of interviews, and that there have been information sessions and discussions in all the structures of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications regarding future possibilities. The hon member is quite right that the employees of this organisation must be reassured that their interests will be looked after at all times. From the first day that privatisation cropped up in this regard, I made it quite clear that no official of the Post Office’s position would be adversely affected if it were to be privatised. On the contrary, they should enjoy the advantage of privatisation.

We shall reply to the hon member in due course regarding his enquiries in respect of telephone exchanges. We shall reply to the other questions to which hon members referred in particular in due course.

†The hon member for Groote Schuur cannot understand my explanation about the metering of calls. I must say that this is something new. The final details have only been worked out recently. I have read some publications about it, pamphlets, and these are going to be distributed soon. It will give me the biggest pleasure ever to send personally to the hon member for Groote Schuur a copy of this and I would be very interested to hear his response after he has studied it. However, he must promise me …

Why don’t you give us the reason here?

He must promise me that he will read it and try to understand it before he finally criticizes it. I think it is a good system and I urge the hon member to have a look at it before he argues with me about it.

Can’t you first give us an explanation?

I want to tell the hon the member that it is most certainly not NP policy that old people should be penalized because young children misuse telephone calls. It most certainly is not. We in the NP have every sympathy for the fact that the elderly people want the use of a telephone. We feel exactly the same way as all hon members in this House.

I will attend to the hon member’s queries about casual labourers. I think I indicated this morning that I would look into the matter and I will let the hon member know.

*The hon member Mr Aucamp referred to the Post Office Savings Bank. I thank him for the fine way in which he dealt with it. I believe it has great potential. I think we must investigate all the possible ways to utilise this potential asset better to the benefit of the postal services as one of the two branches we are now going to separate from one another.

I understand that interesting findings in this regard were also made in West Germany. We are getting all the particulars from there and, as the hon member also suggested, we will make a thorough investigation and I shall also keep the hon member informed.

The hon member for Standerton is quite right. There are many advantages for Standerton in this Appropriation, but the reason for this is that I was born there. In any case good people live there. [Interjections.] I want to refer the hon member to the quicker action in connection with accommodation, particularly for people who have been transferred, because he also referred to that. We are going to give attention to this and we shall see what we can do in this regard. He also spoke about the great need for telephones there. We shall also look into this. We shall see to it that all these matters receive attention.

†The hon member for South Coast talked about the Harding exchange. On Monday we shall find out what the position is as of date, and the hon member will be informed that same day what the position is. I have noted his views in that regard.

As far as the undersea cable is concerned I have appointed a committee to investigate the financial viability and also all the technicalities of a second undersea cable. The route is to be determined and the investigation is under way. I shall in all probability have particulars in regard to costs and other technical issues within the next month or so.

We believe the time has now arrived to give urgent attention to the establishment of a second undersea cable.

As far as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is concerned, I undertake to make enquiries about the various problems experienced by him and others in various places. I have already received a note from my Postmaster-General to the effect that the regional director will be asked to investigate the position. It will be followed up.

As far as the stamp vending machines are concerned, I am told that a new generation of these machines has recently become available and it is the intention to review the basis for the provision of this facility. We will be taking this matter further.

That hon member and the hon member for Johannesburg North must please give me the opportunity to write them a letter in connection with international telephones. I will do so soon.

*The hon member for Germiston District as well as the hon member for Johannesburg North referred to cordless telephones. I questioned the Postmaster General about this recently. Of course they have not been allowed here thus far, because tests carried out on different types of instrument have brought to light that they have technical shortcomings. Thorough tests were carried out on the present generation of telephones and there were serious technical problems. There are quite a number of technical explanations for this and I shall gladly give hon members who want I know more about this full particulars in my off ce. However, the fact is that in contrast with the limitations of the present models, indications are that the models of the future which will work in high frequencies of the radio spectrum, will result in a vast improvement as regards quality and performance.

Will it not be more expensive?

It may be, but our experience thus far is that the new technology is cheaper, so we expect not to be affected by its being more expensive. We are very optimistic in this regard and we hope to know much more about this position by the middle of this year.

*I should like to tell the hon member for Germiston District about the electronic answering systems, a field in which there are also very interesting developments, later on. I fully agree with his standpoint in this regard.

The hon member for Pietersburg also talked about the matter of automation, but I now want to refer to the matter of Posmed because he said that this medical aid fund had been thrown open. Posmed is a body which is controlled by its members and they must take decisions. It is not for me to declare them open and to say that they must do this, that or the other. This has always been our standpoint. I was also asked this question by the hon member for Groote Schuur, or one of those hon members, when he asked us to form one fund. My reply to him is that it is not for the Post Office to arrange this. This is a matter for the members of the relevant firms. It is their business to give attention to this. This questionnaire has just been completed and we have not yet heard what they are going to do about it, but I accept that they will take their own decisions. However, it is not the task of the Post Office to interfere.

The hon member also asked me whether the Post Office staff ratios would be the same as the respective population group ratios. There is no suggestion of that. Appointments in the Post Office are made on the basis of the recognised principles of qualifications and experience. The hon member knows what the objective and recognised principles are. The matter of a man’s skin colour is irrelevant.

The hon member for Aliwal talked about telephone services in the rural areas. I took very thorough cognisance of that. The hon member also referred to the inadequate transportation of the postal services. He must realise that we will do everything in our power to put the matter right.

†I have answered the question that was raised by the hon member for Johannesburg North about the cordless telephones. As regards differential metering, I will address a letter to him. It is quite correct that there is a 50% saving on local calls. The hon member can phone to his heart’s content this evening. It will be 50% cheaper.

I would have liked to speak about telephone tapping, but my time has elapsed. I will write a letter to the hon member. [Interjections.] The position is that I decide about that. As Minister of Communications, the decision is taken by me. Permission must be obtained from other authorities if they want to use that particular method. However, there is no problem as far as that is concerned. It is in the Act itself and if hon members would care to look at the Act, they will see what exactly the position is.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister tell us whether, in fact, he has authorised the tapping of any telephones of hon members of Parliament?

To my recollection I have not authorised that at all.

Your predecessor tapped my telephone!

Well, I would love to know what the hon member talks about but not for any sinister reason! [Interjections.] I will give hon members an explanation and some more information. It can be done in terms of the Act and I will write the hon member a letter in this regard.

I now come to the hon member for Mooi River. I will personally look into the Boston Post Office affair and also the other promises that were made in the past. The hon member must please understand the position as I explained it regarding the capital reduction effort that we are dealing with. I thank the hon members.

What about express post?

Express post will be one of the issues. I have already received a note in that regard. The hon member’s complaints will be looked into.

Debate concluded.

Schedule agreed to.

Second Reading debate

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I wish to participate in the discussion at the end of the consideration of this Appropriation. I wish to draw attention to a few matters which cropped up yesterday in the debate.

In the first place I want to give attention to a few aspects of the speech of the hon member for Boksburg. Allow me to say that the hon member for Boksburg reminds me very much of the man who was so conditioned by force of habit that when, on his wedding night, he heard a knock on the door, he grabbed his trousers and jumped out the window. [Interjections.] Yesterday the hon member for Boksburg reminded me of that man, because when a member of the opposition said anything in a speech the hon member for Boksburg attacked that speaker purely out of force of habit. That hon member who pretends to be an authority on Post Office matters, succeeded very well in yesterday’s debate in displaying his ignorance to everyone who was prepared to take the trouble to listen.

That is not all, because he also succeeded in showing that, along with Dr Wim de Villiers, he has nothing good to say about the Post Office officials. He has nothing good to say about them because he implied that he agreed with what Dr Wim de Villiers had said. Yesterday the hon member for Boksburg made it quite clear by implication that he agreed with the criticism, the blows, and the rebuffs meted out by Dr Wim de Villiers to the officials.

In the hon member’s attack on my speech, especially the part concerning Dr de Villiers’ report, he also indicated that he did not know what it was about. He also indicated that he agreed with the statements of Dr Wim de Villiers and that he accepted them without further ado.

I want to make it quite clear that I very seriously doubt whether several of Dr Wim de Villiers’ statements in his report can be properly substantiated. The hon member for Boksburg is nevertheless quite satisfied with it and he is therefore participating gleefully in the meting out of unsubstantiated criticism to the officials of the Post Office.

Let us look at what the poor hon member for Windmill Park has accepted, inter alia. [Interjections.]

Order!

I apologise, Mr Chairman. The hon member for Boksburg.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

He speaks just like a windmill.

I must say that it makes me wonder whether the hon member ever took the trouble to read this report. On page 20 of the report Dr De Villiers says—hon members must remember that the hon member for Boksburg supports this report:

And what follows on this:

Now the question is how tariffs are negotiated. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that Dr Wim de Villiers and the hon member for Boksburg obviously spoke about higher tariffs which could not be negotiated, or which were negotiated but could not be applied.

It is a fact that tariffs are not negotiated; they are simply adjusted or increased. After all, the Postmaster-General can increase overseas tariffs, should he see fit to do so.

The NP speaker on Post Office affairs who holds himself in such high esteem is either very pleased with this statement made by Dr de Villiers or he has not even taken the trouble to read it.

That is not all. The hon member went even further and said in the debate that Parliament had requested the De Villiers report, whereas he should know that is not true. It is after all a fact that the hon the State President appointed Dr De Villiers inter alia to submit a report on the Post Office. It is therefore clear how precariously the hon member for Boksburg deals with the truth. This is probably also force of habit.

Last year when I said that Post Office officials did not receive increases, the hon member for Boksburg also told me that I was not speaking the truth because all Post Office officials received notch increases. Eventually this turned out not to be true. It is probably force of habit.

I accept that this is one of the reasons why the hon member does not see his way clear to saying a word about the unsubstantiated criticism levelled at the officials by Dr de Villiers, but prefers to agree with it. The hon member cannot criticise the De Villiers report now that the hon the State President has decided that he has not finished with the NP yet, because it is the report of the agent of the hon the State President which must apparently, at all costs, try to level as much criticism as possible at inter alia the way in which the officials handled certain matters, with a view to privatising the telecommunications department of the Post Office as soon as possible. [Interjections.]

The telecommunications department must apparently be sold at all costs and what is going to be done with the proceeds, is anybody’s guess. That is, however, not yet the end of the matter.

The hon member for Boksburg said that the CP had asked for increases for Post Office officials last year. That is correct, and he also said that we were grateful for the salary increases of 15%. That is also correct, but he then went on to say that we were complaining about the tariff increases.

Let us see what the real facts are, because owing to force of habit …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Must the hon member not confine himself to the second reading of the debate rather than the first? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Wake up, Sakkie! [Interjections.]

Order! I have already given my ruling. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. You will have to excuse him; I think he has bats in the belfry (’n klap van die windmeul weg). [Interjections.] It is probably due to the force of habit which the hon member for Boksburg has been conditioned to.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to say that another member has bats in the belfry (’n klap van die windmeul weg) which also implies that he is mad? [Interjections.]

Order! I am not quite sure what that means. What does the hon member mean?

Mr Chairman, I only mean that he is obsessed with Windmill Park (’n klap van Windmeulpark weg).

Order! This is a very technical point. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

It is true that a salary increase of 15% has been granted and that the possibility of increased tariffs …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it not a ruling in this House that when a point of order is taken, the speaker must resume his seat?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. To the hon member for Langlaagte I can only say: “Ou leë vat hou toe jou kraan; dalk sien iemand jou dan vir ’n voile aan”. [Interjections.]

It is true that a salary increase of 15% has been granted and that the possibility of the increase of tariffs is therefore not excluded. Let us consider what has really happened. In his budget speech the hon the Minister said that if tariffs were not increased, an estimated operating deficit of R26,4 million would develop. That is why certain tariffs must be increased. What is the expected consequence of the tariff increase? An operating surplus of R95,4 million is expected. That is why we are dissatisfied, because in these inflationary times a reserve is being built up at the expense of the consumer and especially the pensioner, who cannot afford this increased rental.

One thing is certain therefore, the hon member for Boksburg and the floundering, divided and directionless NP have no sympathy for the consumer because their point of departure would seem to be that the tariffs and the profit must be pushed up so that the telecommunications department, the department which is at present laying the golden eggs, can be sold as quickly and as easily as possible so that certain debts can be repaid.

While I am talking about the NP, the hon the Minister said last year that I should not drag politics into this debate. I think the hon the Minister will still remember that. However, what happened yesterday? The hon the Minister’s head boy, the hon member for Boksburg, delivered a political speech in the Extended Public Committee. He dragged politics into the debate and in his acknowledgements the hon the Minister said well done, a good speech! It is this conduct of the NP which borders on hypocrisy that is going to hasten the NP’s downfall.

The hon member for Boksburg also mentioned a certain CP supporter who was supposed to have written a letter to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in which he was allegedly said that he was a member of the CP and that he voted CP. However, the truth of the matter is that there are serious doubts as to whether this person, this businessman he referred to, really did vote CP. [Interjections.] The fact is that this businessman owns a hardware store in a White residential area, and has been trying to get rid of this business for the past two or three years. [Interjections.] There is basically no stock in that shop and he has basically no non-White clients.

Order! In the first place the hon member for Boksburg is making too many interjections. In the second place the hon member for Ventersdorp must get back to the Bill.

As you wish, Sir. This shop is apparently very far from the Post Office …

Order! No, that is no use. It can be right next door, but the fact remains that the hon member must return to the Bill.

I respect your ruling, Mr Chairman, but I am reacting to the speech of …

Order! No, that does not matter. The hon member must return to the Bill. If someone digresses from the Bill, it does not mean that the hon member may also digress from it. It is very simple.

Then I shall not pursue the matter. [Interjections.] The hon member for Smithfield also spoke yesterday, and he said that all races receive the same training in the Post Office. However, it is said that this is not true. It is maintained, inter alia, that Whites are discriminated against, and that is why I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s reaction to this. A form of alleged discrimination is that Black apprentice clerks have the advantage of one year’s college training before they start working, and immediately thereafter start working as counter clerks with the associated status and better compensation, as well as immediate contact with the public. On the other hand, the White apprentice clerks do not have the advantage of a year’s college training. They receive in-service training in the Post Office where they start working. They do not start at the counter; they start as sorting clerks and then work in all the other departments until they finally end up at the counter.

It is alleged that the Black apprentice clerks receive training which the White must forfeit, and they immediately start as counter clerks which the White is not allowed to do. As a matter of fact, the White must start in the sorting room while the Black clerk immediately starts working with the public. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have just listened to the hon member for Ventersdorp’s tirade against everything that has already been discussed and replied to in the First Reading debate. I am simply sorry to say that it is a pity that we have had to listen to a speech like that at this late stage. It was a really droll speech, like those which the hon member’s leader, Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche, gives from time to time. [Interjections.] I think we in this House today have seen the image of what is going on outside reflected in the example of the hon member for Ventersdorp. [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that, because I do not think he warrants having any further attention paid to him at all.

The crocodile does not eat small fry!

The most important point I wish to dwell on at this stage, is the exposure of the Post Office to foreign loans and the exchange rate. This matter has previously been referred to on various occasions. This matter was investigated and discussed in detail in the case of the SATS. Furthermore, I think it is necessary that we should dwell on this, because there is a certain exposure to foreign exchange here, too.

The book value of the Post Office’s foreign loans is at present in the region of R1 651 million. The potential exchange rate loss, including forward cover costs, is in the region of R1 736 million. This is a total accumulated figure of approximately R3 387 million. This is a fairly large amount to which the hon the Minister has already devoted attention in his Budget Speech and during the First Reading debate. This represents approximately 27% of the Post Office’s outstanding debt. This is the dilemma in which the Post Office finds itself. That is why this position in which the Post Office finds itself should be placed into perspective before any further debate takes place in the future with regard to why the Post Office did not do this or that in 1989. The problem, however, is that the profit and loss on exchange rates is in the region of R194 million at the moment, but the cost of cover that has been saved to date, is R500 million. Basically, the saving with regard to that aspect is therefore R305 million. If we had paid that R305 million and it had been a cost item, it would have had to be recovered from someone. There is only one person from whom it could be recovered, and that is the user. That is why we are telling the Post Office today that they have done well.

Today is 10 March 1989. We do not know how matters will stand in seven to 10 years’ time. The Post Office’s dilemma today is therefore what they should do in the future. Let us see where they stand at the moment. Forty-two percent of their foreign commitments are covered. That 42% costs R100 million to cover. If 100% cover were to be taken, it would cost approximately R240 million. With reference to the Cross Committee and what happened in the SATS, that joint committee recommended that the SATS should convert to 100% cover. Now we have the problem that if we were to decide on 100% cover today, we would have to realise that costs are going to increase. According to the provisional estimates, cover of 100% would cost some R100 million plus another R100 million plus a further small amount. We estimate it at some R235 million per annum. The question now is what we ought to recommend to the Post Office. That is the Post Office’s dilemma. It is making use of the available knowledge, training its people and making use of banking services. However, all this information which it has at its disposal still does not give it the final answer. At the moment a policy of forward cover is being followed and the aim of this is to create a separate reserve. That reserve shows that more than 50% of this uncovered portion is then covered. However, the question remains as to whether it warrants being pushed up to 100%. I do not want to answer the question, because there are experts outside this House who will be able to do so far better and who will be able to advise the Post Office. All I want to mention here, is the dilemma with regard to what they must do. Whatever they do, they will be judged later. Secondly, if they obtain 100% cover, we must remember that this entails certain costs.

I just want to dwell on this aspect for another moment by saying that I think that the provisional standpoint of deciding on 90% cover, is a good standpoint. I do not think there is a problem. In the final analysis, however, my standpoint remains, as I put it in the case of the SATS, that if the Post Office does take cover, this will unfortunately also have to be borne partly by the South African taxpayer if it is borrowed from the Reserve Bank.

Furthermore, my standpoint is also that the costs will in the long run have to be borne—whether it be the profit or the loss insofar as cover is concerned, and whether it be the profit or the loss with regard to the repayment of foreign loans— by the users of that service. In other words, I am in favour of the Post Office carrying this profit and loss itself and not shifting it to a third party such as the Reserve Bank.

In conclusion, I wish to say once again with regard to this aspect that in today’s circumstances the policy of forward cover is a very good one. Under changed circumstances it may appear tomorrow that today’s decision was incorrect. I hope that attention will be paid to this dilemma every year in future when we conduct the debate on the accounts.

At this late stage I should like to dwell finally upon one other aspect which has already been raised briefly, namely the long-term contracts which the Post Office has concluded. Long-term contracts have certain advantages, but they also have certain disadvantages. I do not wish to judge and criticise those contracts. I do not wish to say that they were good or bad contracts—time will tell us this. I just want to mention one aspect here, not only with regard to the Post Office, but also in a wider context. Let us say this here today: The Post Office may be regarded as one of the founding fathers of the electronics industry in South Africa—let us give the Post Office credit for that. In the long run there are certain problems with regard to long-term contracts for any undertaking, whether it forms part of the private sector or whether it is a part of the public sector. Whenever we do this, we must attempt to have these long-term contracts fit into the broad strategy of the industrial development policy of South Africa. The broad development policy of South Africa spells out certain objectives and is measured against certain sectors, periods, the activities of imports and exports, as well as employment. I just want to make a request, which includes the Post Office, that whenever consideration is given to these types of contracts, cognizance will be taken of the broad policy that is being pursued in South Africa.

Since I am the last NP spokesman, I just want to conclude by expressing my gratitude to those people in the management of the Post Office who were involved in the discussion of the appropriation by the joint committee. I want to thank them for their helpfulness and for the information which they made available to every hon member of this House and to those in the other Houses. I also wish to thank them for their willingness to keep furnishing us with information long after we had finished.

The hon member for Ventersdorp attempted to drive a wedge between the hon member for Boksburg and the Post Office workers. I think the hon member for Ventersdorp was entirely off the beam. That is the last thing that anyone attempted to do. Every spokesman who stood up here, thanked the hon the Minister and his staff— from the lowest post to the highest executive post—for what they had done. Some hon members singled them out for what they had done at the time of the flood damage. The little bit of cheap politics which the CP tried to engage in here, is not only bitter fruit, but in this instance it is also totally misplaced. [Interjections.]

As the last spokesman for the NP, I shall simply repeat what all the other spokesmen—not only those of the NP—have said, namely that we express our gratitude to the Post Office workers. I just want to add something which the other spokesmen did not say. I want to thank the hon the Minister, who received thanks only from the NP, for his willingness to allow the Post Office to be investigated by Dr Wim de Villiers so that we could obtain certain scientific standpoints. By so doing we were able to have the position with regard to certain aspects investigated scientifically, and this places us in a position to make certain decisions in the future. We therefore support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Primrose has referred in some detail to a memorandum which was furnished by the department in regard to the forex losses.

It is apparent, when reading this report, that the Post Office and other public corporations do face a dilemma in regard to foreign loans. While certain criticisms have been levelled at the Post Office for injudicious foreign borrowing and lack of foresight and expertise in providing forward cover, it nevertheless has a dilemma which is to a large extent not its own making. However valid these criticisms may be, it is apparent to me that the Post Office had little control over its own destiny in this particular field.

I think a certain measure of the criticism levelled at the Post Office for embarking on big spending is justified. If one looks at the comments in the summarised report of Dr Wim De Villiers one will see that there is a measure of criticism levelled at the Post Office for big capital spending on high technology when the bulk of the service they had to provide probably did not require this particular type of technology. That criticism aside, once the decision had been made to embark on this high technology capital intensive programme of expansion—to a certain extent that has characterised our telecommunications network over the past 10 years—the money had to be found, whether it was the correct decision or not.

The Post Office was instructed by the hon the Minister of Finance and the Reserve Bank to find this money overseas. They did not want the South African market to be overtaxed in this regard. It was not really the Post Office’s choice. The question of whether forward cover was available or whether it was a good or a bad risk would seem to be academic. The figures supplied by the Post Office suggest that the total losses would have been much of a muchness with or without forward cover. Like any other form of insurance one pays for the risk for which one is covered. In a country where international confidence in our currency is at a low ebb and still on the decline, forward cover will cost one plenty.

The reasons given by the hon the Minister for not raising forward cover are, first of all, that they received advice from overseas bankers and the Reserve Bank and they were at that time of the opinion that the rand would strengthen against the dollar. If one looks at the history as detailed in this document which has been given to us by the Post Office, one will see that 1981-82 and 1982-83 there were very modest losses on the forex market. In fact, in 1983-84 and into 1985 we showed profits in our foreign exchange dealings on the Post Office loans of R4 million in the first year and R28 million in the second year. But how was the Postmaster-General to know that Rubicon was about to happen? Immediately following Rubicon we showed a loss of R84 million. That was a change from R28 million profit in the previous year to a loss of R84 million in the following year. Thereafter annual losses became the pattern.

I really believe that there was a lot in what the hon member for Greytown said in the First Reading debate when he referred to the Rubicon rand. I am not suggesting that the Post Office is blameless. I am not suggesting that the Post Office could not have made wiser decisions but I am not to judge. I am no expert in this particular field. However, on the facts with which the Post Office has furnished us it would seem that it is actually not blame to be laid at their door but it is blame to be laid at the door of the Government as a whole and specifically at the door of a particular individual who should have made something of the opportunity given to him when attempting to cross the Rubicon. [Interjections.] Clearly, he did not do so.

That had nothing to do with it!

With respect, it had everything to do with it. [Interjections.] It is most unfortunate that departments like our postal services and the SATS which are in other respects exemplary, have to continually receive the flak on the foreign exchange dealings when the main culprit is in fact the NP with its policies and its reluctance to see the error of its ways.

The main culprit was Mr Butcher of the Chase Manhattan Bank! [Interjections.]

When one sees figures like this presented the picture is only too clear. I merely want to say on this issue that people must stop blaming the Post Office and actually look at the root problem in this country, namely the NP policies and the consequent international lack of confidence in the country. [Interjections.]

I would like to deal with one other aspect. I am afraid it is rather as though I have only one string to my bow but I am still very concerned about the possibility that the small man is going to lose out in our zeal to privatise and our zeal to have a more cost-effective service. As I understand it, that is certainly what the gravamen of the De Villiers report is.

I would like to illustrate why I am concerned about this. According to the figures which have been furnished in the De Villiers report we have approximately 2,5 million telephone subscribers in this country. Almost 50% of those subscribers are what can be classified as the small uneconomic subscriber who has a monthly telephone account of less than R40. If one bears in mind that their rental is R15, they are obviously very small subscribers. In terms of cost effectiveness these subscribers are actually a loss to the Post Office. At present they are being supplied with a service which is in the character of a social service subsidised by means of cross-subsidisation from the more profitable side of the Post Office. Over 90% of our subscribers have telephone accounts of under R200 per month. If one looks at the total spectrum, from the R40 up to the R200 per month accounts, one will probably find that a very substantial portion fall in the under R100 per month account bracket, which is probably not a particularly economic proposition either.

While the research in the De Villiers report does not give income breakdowns, it does show that domestic demand is substantially higher and growing at a faster rate than business demand. The demand amongst the population groups which, historically speaking, are predominantly in the lower income brackets—I refer to the Coloured. Asian and Black racial groups—has grown from 10% to 33% of the total demand in the last 10 years. The point I want to make is that we are not talking about an insignificant portion of our telephone subscribers. A very substantial portion—I would say well over 50%, and it will increase—will be people who use the telephone on a basis on which the Post Office makes no profit out of them. It is not a question of saying there is a small segment of the population we serve that will suffer if cross-subsidisation is done away with. The majority of telephone subscribers will suffer if cross-subsidisation is done away with. A substantial number of those subscribers will just not be able to afford a telephone at all. I have already made the point in the debate on the first reading that I regard a telephone—because of its historical use and because people have become used to the thing—as an essential to communicate. This is particularly so amongst certain sections of the population. All I ask is that when we are talking about doing away with cross-subsidisation and when we are talking about making things more cost-effective, let us at least look at some sort of a means test or some sort of gauge by means of which we can determine concessions on rentals. Forget about the installation concession, which is a once-off thing. The telephone account, however, comes every month. Whether we are talking about the little old lady or the little old man, each sitting in his own flat, that account comes every month. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of this debate. It has been a stimulating one. I should like to tell the hon member for Groote Schuur that I am taking serious note of the arguments he advanced here today. [Interjections.] However, I am not referring to the Rubicon issue. The hon member raised a definite point and he may rest assured that it is something that we must consider. Obviously we have the situation where many people have the facility but it is completely uneconomical as far as the larger system is concerned. This is a matter we must consider before we take the final step towards privatisation. I give the hon member the assurance that we will attend to the issue.

I would also like to tell him that if the PFP had been in charge of this Government, our losses would have been much higher than they are at present. [Interjections.] In fact I do not think we would have been able to conduct a debate in a civilised manner at this particular time. [Interjections.] Therefore the hon member must not be satisfied to sit on the sidelines and criticise the losses that we suffered.

*I now come to the hon member for Ventersdorp. I have received a note from the Postmaster General with regard to discrimination against non-Whites. The Postmaster General assures me that there are no disparities whatsoever in respect of any population group with regard to training in practice or in theory. He therefore confirms that both the theory and the practical instruction are the same for everyone. I hope the hon member will accept this, but if he wishes to state any further standpoints in this regard, I shall be very pleased to hold a private discussion with him. I also appreciate the note he has sent me with regard to this other matter, in which connection I shall also be pleased to furnish him with the details.

The hon member for Primrose dealt in his usual competent manner with the very difficult question of foreign exchange losses which have arisen in an organisation such as the Post Office and, of course, the SATS as well. I think he has set out the position very clearly. I think that after the debates that have taken place during the past two weeks with regard to the SATS, and now with regard to Posts and Telecommunications as well, all hon members will know precisely what this intricate subject is about and how we shall have to deal with it in future, because there is, of course, still no final answer in this regard.

I cannot but conclude by referring once again to the favourable operating results which the Post Office has achieved during the past few years, as well as to the good future which lies ahead for us. This can only, or mainly, be ascribed to the motivation, the expertise and the discipline displayed by the officials of the Post Office. [Interjections.] This is the case from the highest office of Postmaster General right down to the officials at the lowest level. During this debate over the past few days every hon member has referred to one of these officials at some stage or another. In the main, the commentary has been very favourable.

However, hon members have also quite rightly pointed out the deficiencies which still exist. Those members of management present here, have taken cognizance of this. The criticism is not going to be consigned to the wastepaper basket. It is going to be processed, and we are going to attempt to improve even further. I have no hesitation in saying, however, that given the attitude of this team of workers, the Post Office will continue to go from strength to strength.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon the Minister in the Main Chamber of Parliament. I asked him yesterday how many casual workers were currently employed in the Post Office. I heard the hon the Minister say that the figure was 2 130. I want to ask the hon the Minister specifically to examine the situation of casual workers who have been employed by the Post Office for more than a year now, particularly with regard to the question of an increase in their salaries and to how a small pension could be paid out to them if they were perhaps to work longer hours, and whether they could not be transferred into the other group of 33 000 who are already contributing to the pension fund.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that according to my information there are assistants in his employ who have been working as assistants for more than 34 years now. These people constitute part of that 33 000. I know of a specific case, a Mr Fredericks, in Vredendal. He is a man who is about to retire. I am glad the hon the Minister was able to tell us that those individuals who were temporarily employed could also contribute to the pension fund, and that at the end of a long period of service with the Post Office—as in the case of Mr Fredericks—something would also be paid out to them. On behalf of these casual workers I want to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that they can also contribute to the pension scheme.

I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that the residents of Steinkopf in Namaqualand have no mail delivery service. They have to collect their mail at the post office themselves. My information is that there is a postman who has been working for about 20 years as an assistant. Apparently the postal services do not deliver mail if there is no indication of street names or numbers on the houses. In these cases there are street names and numbers have been assigned to the houses. I should nevertheless like to ask the hon the Minister to request his department to look into that aspect.

While I am dealing with Namaqualand, I should like to thank the department and the hon the Minister on behalf of my colleague, Mr Friedberg, for the fact that approval was granted for the erection of a post office in Bergsig, Springbok. He would also like to know when that post office can be erected.

On behalf of my colleague, the hon member for Wuppertal, I also want to ask the hon the Minister to furnish us with some information as to when the automation of the exchange in the Clanwilliam area can take place.

Thank you very much for all these things. I now come to the White Book, the RP 15.

I should like to know how many senior officers share in the departmental motor scheme, since an amount of R2,3 million is being appropriated for this purpose. This represents an increase of R300 000 on the amount appropriated for this purpose last year.

Furthermore I want to know what the position is with regard to motor vehicles involved in accidents and whether these motor vehicles were not insured by the Post Office. Here, too, we are dealing with a large amount, namely R3,5 million. This also represents an increase of R300 000 on last year’s budget in this regard.

I also notice that the Post Office has incurred extensive losses, particularly as a result of theft, fire and accidents. The relevant amount is R6,1 million. I should like to hear more about this, for example where these thefts took place, what the circumstances were, whether those involved were arrested and, if it was money that was stolen, whether that money has been recovered. If other material was stolen, I should also like to know what the position is in that case.

With regard to the accidents, I should like to know whether it was staff members who were involved or whether they were accidents of another nature. I also want to know whether those accidents were included under the category of motor vehicles.

I should also like to tell the hon the Minister that during the past year I received letters from his department about the half-day service at certain post offices. After negotiating with the relevant bodies in my constituency and also obtaining their support in this regard, I agreed that the post offices, particularly those at Koekenaap and Trawal should provide only a half-day service and/or be open only every second Saturday.

It is also a privilege for me to thank the staff of the Post Office. During the past year I have written several letters to the regional directors. I am thinking particularly of a recent instance in which I had to help my sister, who is a diabetic, to obtain a telephone. I am very grateful to the regional director for being favourably disposed towards me and helping me by having the telephone installed in record time.

Mr Chairman, I shall not reject the question; I shall reject the question about the group areas. The LP has had the opportunity to reject it, but again they could not show their mettle.

First I want to thank the hon the Minister for expressing his concern and sympathy for the problems in Blue Downs. I shall make a copy of that reply and send it to them so that they see the seriousness with which the hon the Minister regards the problem. I must thank the hon the Minister very sincerely for this. It will assist in combating the frustrations which are very acute at present.

There is another matter to which I want to respond, namely that people have to wait until 1990 because too few telephones are available. The hon the Minister is aware of how rapidly the area is expanding and to what extent buildings are shooting up. I just want to ask for temporary coin-base services be introduced there if the normal services cannot be introduced yet.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister very sincerely for the way in which he responded to the questions we put to him. My party and I are happy about this.

I also want to thank him for something else. I understand that the mail delivery services in Blue Downs commenced only a week ago.

This shows that the Post Office is, in fact, giving attention to people’s problems as well as to the DRP.

There is one point relating to apprentices which the hon the Minister mentioned, and I should like to ask him how much recruitment is being done among the thousands of matriculants who are leaving school. The Post Office is one of those bodies that provides jobs, and when it comes to these situations in which our students can be helped, would it not be possible for more recruitment to be done to provide those students with guidance? There are many vacancies in the hon the Minister’s department. I am sure that the time has come for the Post Office to carry out more intensive recruitment in our schools and on our campuses, as is the case with student recruitment on other campuses. The opportunities are there, but I think the problem is only a lack of knowledge. However, if an official who could discuss the matter were to go out and advise them, they would see that the Post Office could also provide them with the jobs they need.

†I am very concerned about the question of the temporary workers. In the past we have debated this issue more than once, but now we would like to know what their position is in the light of the department becoming a public company. Are they going to be employed on a permanent basis now, because the moment this happens they will have the opportunity of qualifying for certain bonuses, housing subsidies and a number of other benefits.

I think the time has now come in the history of the department that people should be given the assurance that they are immediately going to become permanent workers, according to the figures supplied by the hon the Minister, which I unfortunately did not write down. The hon the Minister can at least bring home to the thousands occupying a temporary position that, according to the De Villiers Report, the department is becoming a public company and it will be an ideal opportunity for them to start thinking about building up careers in telecommunications. This is why I would like the hon the Minister to tell me what the position of those temporary workers is going to be.

I have already mentioned the question of housing subsidies. I repeat my request that the hon the Minister give me a reply as to whether the temporary workers are going to be accommodated or not.

Mr Chairman, this morning the hon the Minister gave me a reply regarding the metering service of the Post Office. I was not quite happy about that. [Interjections.] Hon members must not behave like children, because there is no Minister to defend them and if there were, I would see to him myself.

How many votes did you get?

How many votes did the hon member receive from his father?

Let me continue by saying that I am not here in this House by virtue of my father being a leader of a political party. My father was an ordinary labourer. I am proud of that fact. My mother was a servant girl. I am proud of that. I never came here through any family relations. I got into Parliament under my own steam. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must limit his remarks to the Schedule.

He was unemployable.

He was unemployable! He does not even have an unemployment insurance card. I can prove it. There are years of hard work I can show. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, may I please continue?

When it comes to Item No 1.8 regarding the printing of telephone directories, I wonder why we spend R40,5 million on the printing of telephone directories when we find that some people never even collect them. Is no survey undertaken whereby we can gauge a return rate?

If that has been done the hon the Minister could perhaps give me the rate of returns over approximately the last three years. Thereby we may be able to make some provision in line with that figure so as to reduce the printing order. We then may have enough copies left at any post office at any given time for the use of new subscribers as well as those who are late in collecting their copies.

Item No 1.12 is described as “Miscellaneous” and we did not receive much detail in the Schedule. However, under Subhead No 3.0, “Amounts to be appropriated from operating surplus”, we find No 3.1, “Provision to spread redemption of loans and effect of exchange rate changes over a suitable period”, and the amount reflected here is commendable. This has to be done and it has to be seen to from time to time. As regards Subhead 3.3, “Increase of standard stock capital", this is in line with the successful privatisation effort and it is very necessary, while we now have that surplus, to carry on and do so. We find a valuable service under Subhead 3.4, “Contribution to Saswitch”. Likewise we have no difficulty with the spending of R 10,4 million under Subhead 3.5, “Contribution towards the development of communication satellite systems”, because we must keep abreast with world communications techniques.

Therefore, unlike other hon members in this House we support this. If they want an early election, as they are bragging every day, then why do they not support … [Interjections.] Or do they love me so much that they do not want to get rid of me? [Interjections.] They obviously want to keep me here.

Mr Chairman, first I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the announcement made in the Main Chamber of Parliament relating to the equalisation of the camp allowance. This was one of the problems which really nettled our people. The fact that these allowances are being placed on an equal footing as from 1 April is, in my opinion, a well-chosen time. It will assist in improving relations between our people at this juncture.

Since we are in the process of changing attitudes in South Africa I want to thank the Minister and his department. Hon members should realise that in the future this is going to be a major factor in the upliftment of workers.

Furthermore, under “Cycle allowances” in the 1988-89 financial year I see … [Interjections.]

Order!

Will that hon member please come back? [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I see that the cycle allowance has remained unchanged. In the 1988-89 financial year R240 000 was appropriated for this purpose, and in the current financial year the amount is the same. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether there are fewer cyclists who accepted posts this year, or have some of these individuals perhaps been promoted? Why has this amount remained unchanged? Perhaps there has been a switch to other forms of transport to carry out these specific tasks.

I want to link up with what my colleague said about the question of car accidents. Last year I requested figures from the department so that I could identify the specific region which had the greatest problem as far as car accidents were concerned. After analysing these figures, I discussed them with the NRSC so that they could concentrate specifically on these regions and proceed with the training of the workers who drive the vehicles. With regard to the increase of 300 000—I know that more vehicles have been taken into service as a result of the expansion of the Post Office—I am still worried, because I believe that the situation can be improved.

I see that there was also a decline in the number of our people involved in stamp collection. This is particularly true of our agents overseas. There was also a decline in the number of stamp designers. Could the situation not be improved? Could more money perhaps be appropriated to improve advertising overseas, so that we can sell more of our stamps there?

I also want to know if any of our people are acting as agents overseas, because I believe our people should be encouraged to become stamp collectors. The industry will have to be expanded, because I know that there are many of our people who collect stamps on a small scale. If it were expanded, they would become more involved.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Matroosfontein said during the debate in the other place that we must reject the budget. If we reject the budget we must have an election. I have a problem: Will that hon member come back? If we look at the results of the municipal elections we have a new member for Matroosfontein. Did he know what he was saying when he asked us to reject the budget?

*The hon member for Bishop Lavis also said in the Transport debate that we should reject the budget. This implies that our workers are not going to get a salary and that our pensioners will not get any money either. This is also what the hon member for Matroosfontein says. [Interjections.] It seems that every time I speak, it upsets the hon member for Bishop Lavis. I do not know why that happens. He is, in fact, saying that our people should not get a salary, because he wants us to reject the budget.

†Although we differ in regard to many things within the department we cannot reject the budget because we have people working there. We will continuously come back here to speak to the hon the Minister and tell him. The hon the Minister denies that there is discrimination within his department, but we will continuously point it out that there is definitely discrimination. The hon the Minister might not be aware of it but if he will look deeper he will see that there is discrimination. Communication is an important link in our daily lives. If we do not communicate we are lost and we will have problems in our country. If we look at the increases in the tariffs that have just been announced we see that there is a increase of R15 in the tariff for the installation of a telephone. There is an increase in the postage and the telegram service too. All of this is taking away our link of communication. If we stop communicating our country will have problems.

I am surprised that the two hon members are quiet. I thought they would give me more points to speak on by shouting. [Interjections.]

From the hon the Minister’s speech it is clear that discrimination still exists, because he differentiates between the race groups for the installation of telephones. The hon the Minister should come along and tell hon members how many telephones were installed in South Africa and not how many were installed for Whites, Asians, Coloureds, Blacks and so forth. He can keep those figures for his own information, but when he speaks on behalf of the department he must provide the figures for telephones installed in South Africa and not differentiate between the different race groups. One must get away from differentiating between race groups on every issue. Even in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications one must get rid of anything pertaining to skin colour.

The department is to become a public company. The hon the Minister must please not make the same mistake as the SATS. He must not appoint a board consisting of members of the White community only. That will create problems and we will have to consider carefully whether we are going to approve such a piece of legislation in the joint committee. We will have to think very carefully because the SATS pulled a fast one on us and we are not going to allow it to happen again. We are going to use the hon the Minister’s piece of legislation to negotiate with the Department of Transport. We are going to use it in an attempt to get them to comply with our wishes. The hon the Minister must therefore be very careful when he goes about appointing members to the board. There are people of colour who are able to serve on that board. I am not only speaking on behalf of this House but on behalf of every non-White person outside who can and must serve on that board.

Mr Chairman, I wish to address a few constituency problems. Hon members are aware that there is a programme for a post office to be built in Ennerdale. The hon the Minister is aware of it because he has replied to many of my requests about the matter. I want to know what progress has been made, what the size of the post office they intend to build is and whether a “Coloured” postmaster will be appointed there. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

That is the way the hon the Minister reasons. He is going to appoint a “Coloured” postmaster. He has to appoint a postmaster and not a “Coloured" postmaster! The postmaster should not be graded as Coloured.

The opposition is not listening. Unfortunately the hon member for Matroosfontein woke up. He only does so when I am speaking. That is why we do not know whether we should call him the hon member for Matroosfontein or Kromtong. We do not know what to call him but we will still decide.

We have many areas in Ennerdale where the mail is not delivered. I do not know whether it is due to the fact that there are no numbers or street names but the mail is definitely not delivered in the larger part of that area. When new areas are planned the hon the Minister’s department must be involved. The department should not wait until the area has been developed and then come along and dig up all the roads again to put in their cables. It should form part of their planning. The departments involved should get in touch with the Minister’s department when they are about to provide housing in an area. A lot of delay with regard to the installation of telephones will also be avoided in this manner.

The hon member for Matroosfontein must listen as I am going to talk about him now. I want to ask the hon the Minister to look at all our areas. In some areas we still do not have post offices. The hon the Minister should look at the post-box system in some of the areas where one has a block with all the post boxes where people collect their mail. People cannot travel five to ten miles a day to find a post office. Noordgesig is an example.

I know about the plans to build a post office in Eldorado Park as well. I would like to know what progress has been made in this regard and what the date of completion will be.

Mr Chairman, this has been a very lively debate, not so much on postal issues but on other issues as well, and there was never a dull moment. I thank hon members for that.

Questions about details were asked. Some of them I cannot answer myself so I will have to rely on the notes of my Postmaster-General and his team. In respect of issues on which even they cannot remember details offhand, I want to say that we have noted them and that we will reply in writing to hon members. We will try to deal with as many as possible.

*The hon member for Vredendal asked how many officers may make use of the motor vehicle scheme. According to my notes there are approximately 160 officers who may make use of the scheme. The scheme is restricted to the post of Senior Deputy-Director and those above that level. This is a very high grading.

He also spoke about Steinkopf where there is no mail delivery although all the requirements have been met. We will investigate the matter thoroughly.

He also asked when the Clanwilliam exchange would be automated. Unfortunately a time has not yet been set, but we shall examine the matter again. The hon member has heard about our problems there. It is quite an expensive process and it will depend on what priority it is given. However, the hon member may rest assured that we will examine the case further after this debate.

The hon member also asked where vehicle theft took place and whether the thieves were ever caught. Most vehicles are stolen in the street while staff are working in the vicinity. Some of the criminals are caught and the vehicles are recovered. I understand that a fairly high degree of success has been achieved recently in efforts to clamp down on and catch the thieves. There have recently been fairly significant breakthroughs.

The hon member also asked when the post office at Bergsig would be ready. The department is currently negotiating with the management committee for the provision of more suitable accommodation, and the result of these negotiations will determine when it will be possible to provide a post office service. However, the negotiations are underway. It therefore looks quite promising.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis asked a question about recruitment at schools. This is a very important matter. I myself raised it at the beginning of this year because not enough young Coloured children come to work at the Post Office. I discussed the matter with the Postmaster-General and I know that a great deal is being done in this regard. A note I have here indicates that vocational guidance is provided at Coloured schools at their request. The regional office in the Western Cape would gladly help. Wherever they happen to be, hon members could perhaps assist by encouraging the Coloured schools to regard the Post Office as an important source of training. We have taken note of this and regard it as a matter of great urgency.

The hon member for Vredendal also mentioned losses as result of theft, fire and car accidents. He asked whether the people had been arrested. A note I have here indicates that the losses arise inter alia as a result of telephone and telex accounts that are not paid, and when it is not economically justifiable to take legal steps to recover the debts. This is when the amounts are very small and it would not be worth all the trouble. This also applies to the theft of equipment such as telephone cables when the criminals cannot be brought to book by the police, and to accidents involving departmental vehicles.

Since the Post Office is such a large organisation, its policy is not to insure its motor vehicles, but to carry the risk itself. All the Government departments follow this policy, because the premiums would be so expensive that it would not be worth insuring vehicles.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis inquired about additional coin-box telephones at Blue Downs. This is a very good suggestion. The Postmaster-General assures me that he will see to it that something is done about this.

†The hon member also asked whether temporary employees will become permanent staff members of the envisaged private sector companies and whether they will receive more benefits. We will watch these companies carefully, because they will be our creations, and we will ensure that the benefits of the employees are at least equal to those which they enjoy at present.

When we move into new issues, we want to improve their positions. That is the whole idea of privatisation. We do not merely want to move from one point to the next without gaining any advantage. So we will be watching the transition to a public company very carefully. It is in our hands, so we can ensure that the conditions relating to employees are beneficial to them.

As far as the private sector is concerned, we of course expect that, in line with the general practice in that sector, staff will not be categorised, as they are now, as officers and temporary staff when they join that company. Benefits will certainly develop further in line with the private sector.

Last year and before I gave the undertaking that, as we grow into privatisation, we will very carefully watch the situation. The worker must also benefit in the process.

*I want to tell the hon member for Opkoms that there was, in fact, a decrease in the sale of postage stamps overseas. He was quite correct. However, we will again make efforts to encourage our agents there—of whom there are a considerable number—to market the postage stamps. I am very glad the hon member raised this point. It is an important matter, and it will receive our attention.

The hon member inquired about the cycle allowances. I understand that we are now making greater use of motorcycles. This is the reason why the number of ordinary bicycles is not increasing, †I am sure the hon member for Klipspruit West will agree with me that we should all ensure that the board of directors attracts the most suitable talent in the interest of all the citizens of our country. Membership of a particular community should not be the deciding factor. The hon member must remember that we comprise various communities and obviously the community from which he comes will most certainly have representation in some way or another. However, we cannot give an undertaking to do so in a specific way. I can assure him that I have taken his point.

He also asked when a post office was going to be established at Ennerdale. I understand a post office is planned and should be ready by November 1991. Is that soon enough?

We shall see. [Interjections.]

The hon member also asked when a post office would be available at Eldorado Park. A post office building is being planned and should be ready for occupation by August 1990. That is even sooner. [Interjections.]

I thank hon members and those that I have not replied to will receive letters from me. I thank hon members for the spirit in which the debate was conducted. The Postmaster-General, his officials and I learnt a lot from the debate and I thank hon members for their suggestions. They must remember that we do not throw their suggestions into a wastepaper basket. We work on them and hon members must also know that our doors are always open during the course of the year and they must please make use of this.

Debate concluded.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, further amendments to the Police Amendment Bill were necessitated in order to reword certain sections of the original Police Act. The word “strike” is now defined for the purposes of clause 8. Being a Police Bill, this Bill defines the word “strike”, which was never defined before. It also provides for the summary dismissal of striking members of the SA Police, especially those that go on a group strike.

In the past if a policeman was on strike, he would have been charged under the police regulations and there would have been a disciplinary hearing by an officer. This means that if a hundred or more policemen went on strike at a particular police station the Minister would have to appoint a hundred different commissions or enquiries into the disciplinary action of these policemen. This is therefore a piece of legislation that simplifies the whole procedure.

We know the community has a certain right and we are dependent on the SA Police to maintain law and order in this country. If policemen go on strike we know that there will be no law and order. Any interruption of police functions would create a very good chance for people to commit crimes and it would be detrimental to the community. In the interests of the orderly maintenance of law and order in this country I think it is necessary to take action against striking policemen.

This provision also affords the policeman who has been summarily dismissed the right to appeal to the Supreme Court for his reinstatement, if he feels that he has been charged or dismissed unjustly. His dismissal can be reversed and he can then be reinstated as from the date of his dismissal.

The other provisions are actually provisions in terms of which the fines are increased for certain offences and we can say very little else about this Bill. We can only say that from this side of the House we fully support the amendments to the Bill. However, I want to take the opportunity here to say to the hon the Minister of Law and Order that we are very happy with what he has been doing lately, especially with regard to his policy as far as the detainees are concerned. I am deviating a little from the Bill itself and I hope the hon the Minister will not mind. The manner in which he has taken heed of the appeals made by community and church leaders and others, as far as detainees are concerned, is commendable. I think the hon the Minister knows and he has made it clear in many of his speeches that he has not done this out of weakness, but only as a matter of humanitarian need. I appeal to the hon the Minister always to look at the humanitarian needs of the community in taking such decisions.

However, the hon the Minister and all of us know that we need the Police. Especially in the South African context the community is very dependent on the maintenance of law and order by a very effective police force. In order for these particular amendments to be applied we are very happy to be supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to endorse the statement made by my hon colleague who spoke before me. I would like to draw attention to one or two points in order to emphasise what has been said.

The majority of the provisions contained in this amending Bill entail the abstraction of penalty clauses from specific sections and the inclusion thereof in a general penalty clause in order to simplify future arrangements. Certain fines are also adjusted in accordance with the Magistrates’ Courts Act, No 32 of 1944.

To my way of thinking this Bill will streamline the services rendered by the various arms of the Police in South Africa. The SA Police already carry out the duties of the former Railways and Harbours Police.

Then we have the traffic police who have already reached an advanced stage of development in the different provinces. We also have the military police who look after the interests of the armed forces. The municipal police, on the other hand, are primarily interested in the functions and the care of municipal properties such as city halls, beaches, and so on.

There is, however, a great need for co-operation and mutual aid between the SA Police and other police agencies. This Bill makes provision for consultation and agreement to make this possible.

We have never heard of a policeman going on strike, either singly or in groups, nor in my opinion are we likely to have this in future. Some reaction, however, is necessary to prevent and deter strikes, especially group strikes. That would have the effect that the functions of the SA Police, which provide a community service to all of us, would not be fulfilled.

We have had postmen striking and we have had dustmen striking. This has only lead to certain degrees of inconvenience. A strike by the Police, however, could be catastrophic and could possibly mean death and destruction. The community has a right, as was said by my hon colleague who was the previous speaker, to depend on the SA Police to prevent and to investigate crime in order to maintain law and order. A striking policeman has a disruptive effect on this indispensable service to the community and the country as a whole.

Clause 8 does, however, provide for subsequent representations regarding the revocation of dismissal. If it is found that a member was unjustly dismissed he may be reinstated without loss of any privileges whatsoever. Clause 4 provides for a police officer to be placed at the disposal of other institutions for necessary services. This is the crux of the amending Bill. Such an officer will be placed in these services because of his specific field of expertise. This clause defines the functional status of such a member during the performance of such duties in the interests of the community and the country.

I now come to clause 6. Previously a member of the SA Police had the right to legal representation at a trial or enquiry in connection with alleged misconduct or to determine his fitness to remain in the Force or to retain his specific rank. The right to legal representation is hereby extended to investigations to determine a specific member’s liability for damage or loss caused by him to the State.

There is therefore an urgent need for extensive co-operation and mutual aid between the SA Police and other substantive police forces in Southern Africa—not only in South Africa. This objective implies extensive negotiation and the conclusion of comprehensive agreements in order to assure universal standards of policing and the advancement of effective prevention and investigation of crime in our country.

I therefore take great pleasure in supporting this amending Bill without any hesitation whatsoever.

Mr Chairman, I will not bore the House, as the hon member for North Western Cape has done, by going through each of the various clauses of this Bill. I believe that hon members of this House understand the Bill that is before them. They have read the attached memorandum and I believe that this should not be my function here this morning.

I agree with the hon member for North Western Cape when he says that this Bill amends the Police Act in very many significant aspects. I merely want to say that we do not have problems with any of these amendments, save one. We have no problems with wanting to not manipulate but control the occurrence of strikes in the Police Force. However, our problem really lies in the manner in which strikers are dealt with, as set out in clause 8 of the Bill. What does clause 8 say? It merely says:

I cannot reconcile that with the memorandum which is attached to the Bill, wherein it states that the principles of natural justice are being followed. As far as natural justice is concerned, as I understand the term, it means just that. It means that the other person is given the opportunity of presenting his side of the story before a decision is taken. In legal parlance this is known as the audi alteram partem rule, unlike what the hon member for Isipingo keeps calling it—the “aaloo patata” rule. However, all of us espouse the principles attached to the audi alteram partem rule, and let us now apply this in this particular Bill. The hon member for Laudium, too, was entitled to natural justice when he was booted out of his position as a Minister in the administration of this House by the State President. It was I, on the basis of natural justice, who defended that hon member. I said he should have been afforded the opportunity of presenting his case before the decision to boot him out was taken. That hon member should understand the value of the audi alteram partem rule. I am a little disappointed that he does not believe it should apply in the case of those members of the Police Force who wish to strike.

Great play has been made of the fact that a striker will be afforded the opportunity of, in the first place, being notified, within 30 days of his dismissal, of the reasons for his dismissal, and the fact that he has been dismissed. Great play has been made of the fact that such a member, within 30 days after the receipt of the notice, may make representations to the Commissioner. Great play has also been made of the fact that the hon the Minister may, after having considered the representations, reinstate such a person who has been dismissed. The inference that has been drawn from this by the hon member for Laudium and the hon member for North Western Cape is that justice will be seen to be done. However, they have failed to understand that is not a mandatory requirement imposed on the Minister. The Minister may, but he does not have to. He shall not, and that is the difference. The difference, of course, between our position and his lies in the fact that we believe that a striker must be afforded the opportunity of being heard before he is dismissed.

This is our problem with the Bill. As I have indicated, we have no objections to the other amendments which have been included in this omnibus Bill, but clause 8 of course places a tremendous responsibility on our shoulders. For this reason we will not be supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, any law-abiding citizen depends on the South African Police to maintain law and order and to investigate crime. Any disruption in the South African Police Force will create loopholes and opportunities for crime in our community. Therefore strikes cannot be allowed. Provision is however made that if any policeman is unfairly dismissed, he can be reinstated without any loss of privileges. Therefore we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is clear that the proposed amending Bill contains provisions with a common element of necessity. The extension of the opportunity for legal representation at internal boards of enquiry to members of the SA Police is applauded, as members of the South African Police perform their duties under difficult conditions and circumstances without deviating from the expected code of discipline. Due to the nature of the policeman’s duty, the probability of loss or damage is more real where a specific member’s liability for loss or damage caused by him to the State is determined. He should be afforded the opportunity to legal representation at such an enquiry.

Provision for members of the SA Police to be placed at the disposal of other institutions in order to perform special duties, especially in the capacity of training officers of other police forces, will not only create a mechanism for conveying expertise, but will also enhance the quality of policing throughout South Africa. Similarly, the provision for negotiation and conclusion of agreements with other police forces will be beneficial to a much-needed unity in the national prevention of crime.

The summary dismissal of a striking policeman may seem to be an inappropriate encroachment upon the rights of the individual, but in comparison with the interests of the community and its right to be protected against criminal transgression, this summary action is indeed necessary. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that even a policeman is a human being, and it is wrong that any human being should be summarily dismissed simply because the Commissioner has reason to believe that he acted unlawfully. The Commissioner’s reason to believe this may be completely groundless. I therefore support everything my benchmate, the hon member for Springfield, has said, namely that if a policeman transgresses any rule, not only in the case of strikes, he must be given an opportunity of answering allegations before disciplinary action is taken. I repeat that we must see to it that the Police are protected, because the Police protect us.

Mr Chairman, I would like to start by saying that, as always, it is an honour and a privilege to come to this House and to pilot a Bill through this House.

*In Afrikaans we would say, “Dit is darem lekker om by die mense te kom." It is really a pleasure to be here and I would like to say, Mr Chairman, that you and hon members have always treated me in a friendly manner. There have been times when hon members have been rather angry, but they have always smiled at me.

†In the second place I would like to thank the hon member for Laudium for his valuable contribution, as well as for his support for the Bill. I would like to address the hon member, especially in connection with the remarks that he made with regard to my handling of the hunger strike. I really appreciate the fact that he has understood this and I also appreciate what he has said to me this morning. It is a very difficult situation. I want to assure the hon member that we are doing our utmost to ensure that we do not have a tragedy in this regard.

There are. however, organisations and people who want to try and make political capital out of this. I would like to say that this is a dangerous thing to do. They are playing with people’s lives. I would like to warn them to be careful. They should not carry on with this. I will handle the situation with interested parties, as well as detainees, in such a way that we can prevent a tragedy. However, we should maintain a balance in an orderly way. We should look at the interests of the community on the one side, and that of the detainee on the other. However, I nevertheless want to thank the hon member for his kind words.

I would also like to thank the hon member for North Western Cape, the hon member for Chatsworth Central as well as the hon member for Lenasia East for their contributions. I think they have summed up the contents of the Bill nicely. I want to thank them for that. I am grateful that they actually did this.

I now come to the hon member for Springfield, as well as his colleague, the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I would like to start off with the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

The terrible twins!

The terrible twins? No, I cannot believe that! [Interjections.] They are such friendly people. To me they have always been very friendly. However, I just want to address one remark to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Referring to the provisions of the Bill he said that the Commissioner of Police must have reason to believe that a person should be dismissed. I want to mention to the hon member that this creates an objective test in the decision that the Commissioner has to make. It has to be objectively justifiable. He cannot at random or as an alternative way of getting rid of a member say that this man should be dismissed. He must apply an objective test in the instance where he decides to dismiss a policeman.

Of course, we must also take something else into account and I want to put this on record. I would say that the correct point of departure is of the utmost importance when one looks at strikes. This section must not be construed—because it has not been construed from our point of view— as being one with an ulterior motive against any member of the SAP. As the hon member correctly stated, policemen are human beings. They are just ordinary human beings, maybe even more so than other people because they are working on the ground. They know what life is really all about.

We have nothing against policemen per se. It is indeed a drastic measure. I will concede that, but it was intended as an effective deterrent. When the safety and stability of our country or a specific community is at stake, hon members will agree with me that effective prevention is better than cure. It is necessary to have prevention and to take preventative steps. It has never been necessary to act against a striking policeman. I am proud to say that here, but it would be futile to apply preventative measures when a crisis is already a reality. In such an event one cannot come to this House to legislate. I know that hon members will help me quickly, but it may well be that Parliament is not in session and then we cannot come here and pass that law. We must therefore take preventative steps now to ensure that we will be able to act when necessary.

The task of a policeman is distinctive. When he enrols, he pledges responsibility to the country and to the community which he serves. Where the interests of the individual are in conflict with the interests of the community, the interests of the individual are of lesser priority.

The hon member for Springfield also mentioned the alternative. I want to say—and other hon members have already referred to this—that a strike is normally manifested in the form of a group strike. If for instance, 100 policemen were to strike, that would imply that while they are afforded the opportunity to state their case, the community must accept that the police function will not be maintained in that community for an indefinite time. This is unacceptable.

Dismissal is a drastic action and there is no doubt in my mind that the Commissioner would act with the greatest circumspection and responsibility when taking such drastic action. As I have pointed out, he must apply his mind to it and that is an objective test as far as I can see.

It is important to note that such a dismissal must be objectively justifiable and a subsequent opportunity is created for representation regarding revocation of the dismissal. If it is found that the dismissal was unjust, such a member may be reinstated without loss of any privileges.

The member is thus not deprived of an opportunity to state his case and this is the important point. The interest of the community is simply a higher priority and the opportunity for representation is being deferred, not withdrawn. I hope that hon members will accept this explanation and that in the end they will vote in favour of the Bill because I know that they are sensible people.

I want to say to them that I appreciate what they are trying to tell us, but we try to weigh up and to balance the interests of the community and those of the policeman. I am convinced that we will not discriminate against any policeman because we will hear him and I have all the sympathy in the world with policemen.

*I shall treat him well, Mr Chairman. I shall not treat him badly.

†The two hon members have my assurance on that. With these few words I once again want to thank hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I want to observe that this Bill has not been created by the PFP nor has it been sponsored by the PFP. All that the PFP has done is to accommodate a private trust in piloting this Bill through Parliament because of public necessity.

I want to say that in my opinion the Bill before the House is an innocuous and non-controversial one, but regrettably it has generated some controversy only because the Bill has not been understood. I say this with a great deal of respect.

The hon the Chief Whip of the LP gave the background to this Bill when he spoke in the House of Representatives the other day. He said that Mr Herbert Ainsworth who was a well-known citizen in Johannesburg in the 1900s and who died in 1920, 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. The trustees were to apply the capital amount of the sum, together with any interest that may accrue, in assisting as they saw fit such men of British descent who wished to settle here in South Africa as farmers and market gardeners.

As I indicated, this Bill has regrettably generated some amount of controversy, and this controversy really lies in four areas. The first area which I want to address is that in the opinion of some people, Mr Ainsworth made his money in South Africa and because of that he or his Trust is to a large extent responsible to the inhabitants of South Africa.

I indicated earlier that this was a private trust, and as a private individual Mr Ainsworth had the same right as you and I have, as individual members of the SA community, to do with our trusts and money as we see fit. Therefore if we expect such privileges I believe we should be prepared to extend similar privileges to the rest of the community.

It has been said that money that has most probably been made through the exploitation of cheap Black labour is to be used to bring persons of British descent to South Africa to be ensconced in the agricultural world. I do not know about the circumstances of Mr Herbert Ainsworth, nor am I aware that he made his money through exploitation. Exploitation, regrettably, is a very misused word in the South African context. All of us have at one time or another employed labour; all of us have had some problems with labour. However, it does not follow that we have exploited that labour. Of course, exploitation of labour in this country has been a theme focused on by Marxists in particular, since it is part of their ideology. Therefore I cannot say whether Mr Herbert Ainsworth exploited Black labour or not. All I want to say is that if Mr Herbert Ainsworth has been accused of exploiting Black labour, then all of us in this Chamber are also guilty of similar charges.

The question has been asked: Who does this particular Act cater for? It has been said that it applies to none other than Whites. It has also been asked: If this is not so, let me know how many Black persons of British birth have been assisted by this fund. This was asked by the hon the Chief Whip of the Labour Party.

I cannot say who has benefited from this fund. All I want to say, however, is that in my opinion this is not a racist Bill. It does not stipulate that it should only go to White, Black, Coloured or Chinese people. What it does say is that people of British descent should benefit from this fund. That is not racism, because I am aware that at the present time there are many so-called Black individuals who are British citizens. We have people who have gone there from Jamaica, Pakistan and India—from all over the world.

Would they be of British descent?

Such a person would certainly be of British descent. After he has attained citizenship, he would be of British descent. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a unique situation when we have a member of the PFP piloting a Bill through this House. Welcome to the Government!

Unfortunately not much has been left for hon members following the hon member in this debate to say, because the hon member for Springfield has summed up the Bill in his introduction. I would have preferred him to sum up at the end, but he has reacted to the speech of the hon the Chief Whip of the House of Representatives in his introduction, thereby making it somewhat difficult for us to make a contribution to this debate.

However, I agree fully with the hon member for Springfield that this is entirely a private trust, and nobody can really prescribe to them what to do with the money that has been bequeathed to that trust by an individual. In fact, this is such a short Bill that the memorandum is longer than the Bill itself. Therefore it is, as the hon member said, an innocuous Bill which has, however, generated so much controversy. I do not think this Bill really merits that much discussion.

I think hon members of this House would be pleased to hear at some stage from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who introduced this Bill as a Private Member’s Bill, just how many applications have been received from persons other than White persons who are British by birth. On the other hand, we would like to know what type of advertisements are placed and how the message is put across to people, so that all could apply for this facility to come to South Africa to become farmers.

With regard to the Group Areas Act, as my hon colleague has mentioned, anybody who wishes to come to South Africa would know the laws of the land and if one disagrees with those laws one would choose not to come. Nobody can pressurise trustees of a private trust to use the monies in a way that somebody else may deem necessary. What I find a little disturbing is that this Bill was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, was passed on to the committee that deals with Private Member’s Bills and thereafter was brought to Parliament as a Bill to amend the Acts passed previously. If there was as much controversy surrounding the trust and the provisions of this trust, I think the right place for debating it was there, before this Bill passed through the stage of the Joint Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals. Unfortunately this was not done and I think at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Home Affairs that dealt with this Bill, it was passed in a matter of minutes.

I do not see the difficulties that the hon members in the House of Representatives saw in this Bill. There are questions that may arise, but I do not believe that we are competent to deal with those questions. We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I support the observations made by previous speakers. The hon member for Springfield was quite correct in saying that this trust was established some time in 1920. This issue was raised previously in Parliament when from time to time the trust wanted an increase in the amount of allocations.

As I see it, there is no discrimination in this trust, except that it was launched to assist men only. This is interesting and I want to quote from the Senate Hansard (5 February 1964, col 460):

That is the only discrimination. I am pleased that there is no racial discrimination.

It sets the man as the head of the family.

Perhaps it was in that context but I am reading it as it appears here. It does not say ‘any person’, but specifically ‘men’. [Interjections.]

I agree with my colleague the hon Mr Seedat that Blacks should have been assisted by now. I would like the hon member for Springfield or the hon member for Reservoir Hills to tell us whether there is any evidence on record of Blacks having applied for or being assisted by this trust.

In regard to the other interesting matter I want to raise, I want to quote from Hansard again. In the Senate Hansard (5 February 1964, col 465), the then Minister of Immigration said of the trustees:

I am tempted to believe that at that time there was an increase in order to help farmers from Rhodesia. I am now tempted to believe that this time the increase has been made to help farmers from South West Africa.

Like Derby-Lewis!

Perhaps, but we do not begrudge him that. I think it is a very good thing. However, as my hon colleague indicated earlier, we would like to see Blacks being assisted here as well. We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, normally the will of a person provides for a trust to be established as part of a bequest for certain purposes. It is not necessarily so that a person who makes a will and creates a trust can foresee at the time the circumstances that will prevail in the years to come. This also explains why we now have the third amendment to this Act.

If the Act was not amended, the trustees involved in the administration of this trust would have experienced certain difficulties. For instance, the granting of a loan to persons of British birth to encourage and assist them to come to South Africa would then be limited in relation to the functions in this country where they would have to go to the Land Bank or to any of the other financial institutions for funds. Therefore I believe that the conditions as they first appeared in the Settlers Fund and as they were afterwards amended do make the necessary provision for a changing situation.

I am looking at this Bill very objectively. The aim is:

We can accept that in 1920 the intention of the late Herbert Ainsworth would have been to consider White British subjects. Today, however, Britain is no more the Britain of White people only. I would not even go so far as to say that they are of British descent because their British descent would go back many, many years and many generations.

The conditions of this trust fund refer to persons of British birth. For the past 40 years there have been people of colour in the United Kingdom and they are therefore people of British birth. How many of them will be accepted by the trustees of this trust is another matter. The issue that seems to have cropped up here in Parliament is that this is a racist Bill and a racist attempt to bring only Whites into this country. We realise that we, the people of colour, have limitations and impediments in this country. The Group Areas Act certainly harms us and it is to our tremendous disadvantage. Therefore the fear is expressed by our colleagues the hon members of the House of Representatives that this measure encourages only White British people to come to this country whereas we, the people of colour, are prohibited by law from becoming active in farming operations.

I do not think that the limitations expressed by the hon members of the House of Representatives should be looked at from the point of view of this Bill. I want to say that we as members of the South African Indian community have failed our community in the past. Our seniors should have established an 1860 Settlers Trust some years ago which would have encouraged men … Let me interrupt myself at this point. When the word “men" is used, it implies both genders, men and women. In legal jargon the word “men” is used to imply both. I am sure that hon members with legal expertise will bear me out. I support the Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, those who call this measure a racist measure are talking absolute nonsense. Clearly they not only did not understand the Bill, but they did not take the trouble to understand the Bill. It is a great pity that any MP should have misused the power and the privilege that accrues from being an MP simply to have done anything racist for unfounded reasons. Any person is entitled to bequeath his property to anyone or any group of persons—whomsoever he may choose to bequeath it to. Ainsworth did that. I am aware of dozens of wills in terms of which members of the Indian community in South Africa have bequeathed portions of their estates to benefit the descendants of persons who come from certain portions of India. Ramderoh, Rajkot or Surath, as the case may be. There have been dozens of such wills and I know of several trusts created by members of the Indian community designed to assist only members of the Indian community. As long as it is their personal money they are disposing of, one cannot call it racist. In 1954 Jawaharlal Nehru refused to intervene when there was an all-White club in India. He said as long as people were using their own money, they were entitled, in a democracy, to enjoy their prejudices provided the taxpayers’ money was not involved. That, I think, is the fundamental test. Palma Duth was of British birth and a member of the British House of Commons. He could have qualified. Obviously, being a barrister, he would not have wanted to come here as a market gardener. Whether the Herbert Ainsworth trustees are going to advertise extensively, I do not know. Quite frankly, I do not care. They are required to handle private money bequeathed by a private person and they must do it as they see fit. We in Parliament have no right to dictate to them when it comes to a private trust.

There is a trust created for the education of Indian children, the Rastindi Gorgolo Trust. I know that the trustees want to assist Black children. but they are inhibited because Rastindi, when he created this trust many years ago, did not think of the position that would prevail in South Africa at the present time. However, maybe if those trustees want a Bill piloted through Parliament, they should try that. There are Bills which provide for the support of Muslims who are destitute. I do not say they are sectional or racist, because if Ahmed, or whatever his name is, wants to leave his estate for the support of destitute Muslim children, it is his right to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as you well know, we had a time constraint on this debate and therefore I want to thank the hon Chief Whip of this House for affording me two more minutes to complete and round off this debate. I just want to thank all hon members who have taken part in this debate. I thank the hon member Mr Seedat, the hon member for Moorcross, the hon the Minister of the Budget and my colleague, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, for their support of the Bill.

The hon member for Moorcross raised a very interesting issue, which related to the question of sex …

Gender!

… and gender.

We must not talk about sex in Parliament.

My hon benchmate says that we should not talk about sex in these Chambers, but I want to say to him that in this Chamber sex does obtain; we all may. What a great pity!

I want to tell the hon member for Moorcross that this trust was founded in 1920, long before the women’s liberation movement of Emily Pankhurst came into being. Perhaps, if the trust had been formed later, we might have had it stipulated in the deed of the trust that men or women could come, provided they were farmers.

I once again thank all hon members for their support of this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.