I move the following amendments—

These are minor amendments in context but important in words. I think when the select committee dealt with this particular clause their intention was that there should be set up the Advisory Committee on Motor Vehicle Insurance and the Premiums Committee, but on reading through the text again, it seems to me that the select committee was at fault in not amending the text before it came to the Minister and the House. The word “may” is used on page 5 in 1bis (1), in line 7, where it says “the Minister may establish a committee …” I think it is quite clear that the intention was that this advisory committee should be set up and that it should be obligatory on the hon. Minister to appoint this committee. The same position applies when we come to page 7 in 1ter (1) regarding the establishment of the Committee on Motor Vehicle Insurance Premiums. I know it can be said that reading the whole of the clause, although the word “may” appears, the other sub-sections make it obligatory on the Minister to appoint such a committee, because otherwise he cannot carry out the other provision of the clause. Again, I think it would be clearer if the word “shall” were introduced instead of the word “may”.

I have no objection.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

On Clause 4,

In dealing with the establishment of the Motor Vehicle Insurers’ Contributions Fund, I would like to get the Minister’s reaction on a recent development which has taken place as far as third party motor insurance is concerned. I refer to the fact that certain companies or a company, has seen fit to issue a directive that third party insurance shall not be granted to a certain section of our population unless roadworthy certificates are produced. If that is the case, it occurs to me that a large number of motorists on the road are going to be uninsured, because if they cannot get insurance through a particular company, we have reason to think that they will not get it elsewhere as well. Excuses will be made whereby the Bantu of this country will not be able to get third party insurance. If this practice is permitted, then firstly, I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether that is a legal procedure, and if it is legal in terms of the original Act, whether he thinks that this is a satisfactory feature of third party motor insurance, and whether he should not issue some form of instruction in this particular regard. But what is worrying me equally as much, is the results of this deprivation of the Bantu of our country of third party motor insurance, and the effect it is going to have on the Voluntary Insurers’ Contributions Fund. This is a body of insurance companies who have come together in a voluntary capacity and they are allowing compensation to be made available to innocent victims of hit-and-run cases and cars which are uninsured. If the Bantu, in this manner, is going to be deprived of third party insurance, a tremendous volume of claims is going to come onto this voluntary body and they will not be able to stand the strain. Already the claims outstanding against this group amounts to roughly R650,000 which they will make good of their own accord. They are not obliged to do it in terms of the Act. If this stipulation for roadworthy certificates has the effect of depriving certain sections of our population of the opportunity to get third party insurance, this voluntary body will have to go out of existence. They will not be able to take the strain of all these uninsured cases and the claims that are likely to be made against them. The result will be that we will be obliged, in terms of this Act, to form our own insurance contributory fund, and that may have the effect—I think it will have the effect—of still further increasing the premiums. That is something which I know the Minister and his Department want to avoid. Under those circumstances, I should like the Minister firstly, to give an indication to us of what his attitude is to a policy of this nature and secondly, to ask him if he has given consideration to the effects that such a directive as has been issued by a particular insurance company is likely to have on the motor vehicle insurance contributory fund.

I think the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) has created an impression which is not quite correct. The hon. member referred to a certain insurance company or companies which he said refused to accept third party insurance from certain people, or from a certain section of the community. I do not think that is correct. If that is what the hon. member meant, we must make it clear that that is not the case. As far as I know, the position in regard to one company is that that company demands roadworthy certificates in the case of certain vehicles in regard to which we know there is a very high accident figure. When a roadworthy certificate is demanded, it does not necessarily mean that the company will refuse to insure that vehicle. If the hon. member had any doubts in this regard, I think he should have made sure of his facts before making that statement. If this impression is not corrected, it will cast a very unjust reflection upon an insurance company which operates in this way. We know the feelings that exist between insurance companies but it is not necessary for us to create wrong impressions in regard to what is being done. But apart from this, the first statement that I want to make is that as far as I know no company has ever refused to undertake third party insurance although in certain cases roadworthy certificates have been required. Actually, the production of a roadworthy certificate is a matter which was discussed in a fair amount of detail by the select committee. The desirability of demanding roadworthy certificates or not was discussed and considered by the select committee. A very strong feeling exists that roadworthy certificates ought to be produced when third party insurance is renewed. I cannot see any wrong in this if it is done in the case of vehicles in regard to which we know there is a high accident figure. Indeed, it is a fact that third party insurance is not refused; it is only provided that a roadworthy certificate must first be submitted before such insurance is given.

But another aspect of the matter which the hon. member may care to consider in connection with his doubts in this regard is the fact that when the Minister approves of an insurance company for the handling of third party insurance, he can impose any condition he sees fit to impose and if any irregularities arise such as those which the hon. member for Springs has in mind, the hon. the Minister has the power, in approving of that company, to impose certain conditions which will prevent that company doing anything or refusing to do anything in regard to any matter about which the hon. the Minister has doubts.

I thought I had made it clear that my objection was to the demand for roadworthy certificates from a certain group of our population, and not the whole population, and in that regard discrimination might be shown against this particular section in demanding roadworthy certificates. I should like the hon. member for Ceres to know that my whole complaint is not based on this question of whether a company is right or wrong in demanding roadworthy certificates from a certain section. My plea in the second reading was that roadworthy certificates should be demanded from all people for all cars older than five or seven years. The Minister, however, gave his reasons why he cannot accept that. My concern is that if this practice is going to be pursued, we will have so many more thousands of uninsured cars on the roads, and when those uninsured cars are involved in accident, the burden of it will be carried by this voluntary fund. I am trying to save the existence of this motor vehicle insurance fund as a voluntary organization, and not to have in its place a compulsory body such as is envisaged in the Act if the contributory fund goes out of existence, as it can do at any time they so decide. They can dissolve themselves, and then make it obligatory on the State to establish a body in their place. That is my concern. I am not concerned so much with the principle of whether a company should have the right to demand roadworthy certificates or not. I am concerned that we should keep this voluntary body in existence for as long as possible, and that the claims against it should be limited to the absolute minimum possible. It is for that reason that I should like to get the reaction of the Minister.

I will reply very briefly. There is no provision in the Act for any discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. In terms of Section 3, the registered companies are obliged to insure, but under Section 6 there are certain circumstances justifying their refusal to insure, and in Section 6 (3) a company can refuse to insure a vehicle under this Act if the company has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is not roadworthy, or if the company doubts its roadworthiness. Then it may demand that the applicant submit the motor vehicle for examination. I think this is an excellent provision. On the one hand the motorist is compelled to insure, and on the other hand the company is compelled to insure subject to Section 6 (3). This really achieves the object which the hon. member had in mind when he spoke yesterday. He wanted every motorist to submit a certificate of roadworthiness. Well, it is entirely up to the company. They can demand a certificate of roadworthiness if they have any suspicion that the vehicle is not roadworthy. But there is no provision that any discrimination can take place on the grounds of race or colour. It is merely based on the question of the suitability or roadworthiness of the vehicle, and that is my policy too.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

(1) the customs duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased as shown:

(2) the excise duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased to the extent shown:

In moving the adoption of the customs and excise taxation proposals, I should like to inform the House that in addition to the proposals now before the Committee it has been decided to withdraw the excise duty of 2½c per pack on playing cards with effect from the date and time when the proposals now under discussion were tabled. The tax on playing cards yielded approximately R300 per annum. This amount does not justify the cost of collection. Some of the taxation proposals are merely adjustments in order to facilitate conversion of the present tariff to the Brussels Nomenclature form. In the case of acetic acid, for instance, the proposals represent a theoretical increase in duty on imported vinegar substitutes, and a reduction in duty on local acetic acid. The new duty formula in respect of motor cars was published for comment on 20 September 1963. No serious objections were received and it has been decided to apply this formula which entails increases as well as decreases in duty. The increases and decreases in duty are both effective immediately.

At this stage we do not propose to comment on the tax proposals. The Minister is deputizing for the Minister of Finance and we will deal with these in greater detail when the Bill comes before the House.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Resolution on customs and excise duties reported and adopted.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT brought up a Bill to give effect to the resolutions adopted by the House.

Hon. members will remember that when the second reading of this Bill was discussed on the first occasion, we discussed the clauses up to and including Clause 15. Hon. members will also remember that I was then dealing with the fact—and it is not only a fact which all hon. members should accept as such, but one which should not give rise to equanimity, but on the contrary it is a fact which should cause hon. members concern, whether they belong to the attorneys’ profession or not—that to an increasing extent during the past 40 to 50 years people have increasingly encroached on the terrain which originally was generally accepted as being the terrain of the qualified attorney alone. As I have said, this causes one concern, because if one regards the administration of justice in the country in a serious light, it is absolutely essential that there should be a sound Side-Bar as well as a sound Bar, and not only that, but that it should be made possible for them to make a decent living at all times. In that regard it is particularly interesting to consider the figures for the Cape Province which I have available here. We find that whereas in 1924 there were twice as many attorneys in the rural areas as in the cities, viz. 328 in the urban areas of the Cape, as compared with 671 in the rural areas, 40 years later one finds that there are 601 city attorneys as compared with 525 attorneys in the rural areas. In other words, the country attorneys have not increased, as one would have expected in view of the fact that the people have become more prosperous during the past 40 years and have also increased in numbers, but in fact their numbers have been reduced by 146; and that is not only the position just in recent years. On the contrary, there was a slight increase in recent years. Already in 1944 one finds that there were 523 attorneys in the rural areas, as compared with 671 in 1924, and since 1944 to 1964 the number of attorneys in the rural areas was increased by only two. Hon. members will immediately agree with me that this is an unsound state of affairs.

But if one has regard to the increase which took place even in the cities, one finds that in the 40 years from 1924 to 1964 the number of attorneys in the cities increased from 328 to only 601, while in the case of all the other professions the number was practically trebled or more. I think, e.g., of the advocates. There are many more of them, as compared with the attorneys.

While I am dealing with this aspect of the matter, I am increasingly becoming convinced, and I think there are many attorneys who also share that conviction, that one of the present defects in the attorneys’ profession is that there is a lack of disciplinary action on the part of the law societies as such, not because they do not want to take action, but because to a large extent they are hampered by their Act from taking action. I mention this here in passing because I want to state my standpoint in that regard, viz. that if the law societies feel that they, either by amending their own Act or through me, want to come to Parliament to obtain greater powers for themselves in that regard, I will not only be well disposed towards the matter but shall go out of my way to assist them in that regard. The reason why I say that, and hon. members are aware of this, is that if an attorney does not do his work properly there is little or nothing which the law society can do except to issue a warning and eventually to go to court and to ask that such an attorney be struck off the roll. Of course, that is not something one likes to do. One only does that when one is forced to do so. But there is a growing feeling that preliminary steps should be taken to remedy the position in order to obviate taking this drastic step of having a man struck off the roll. I am thinking, for example, of something which one finds in the English law, namely the refusal of a licence to such attorney to practise until such time as he complies with certain requirements. I mention this just in passing because I want hon. members to understand clearly that in so far as the attorneys’ profession is concerned they can never be accused of being loath or disinclined to put their own house in order when it is necessary to do so.

An aspect which should cause concern to hon. members who are not lawyers in regard to the fact which I have mentioned, that the attorneys are increasingly being squeezed out of their profession, an aspect which closely affects the ordinary man in the street, is that to the extent that attorneys are being deprived of work which traditionally has been regarded as being theirs, to that extent the attorney is compelled, and simply has no option, to increase his fees in regard to litigation. Because if that is all he can make his living from, it is obvious that the present fees prescribed for that work will not be sufficient to ensure him a decent living. But if eventually he has to rely only on that work, there will be no option but to increase the costs of litigation, and nobody wants that. In fact, we have done our best in past years to keep the costs of litigation as low as possible. I make this point because I want to make it very clear that it is in the interests of all of us as far as possible to ensure that the attorney will not be squeezed out of his profession. On the contrary, I want to make it quite clear that what the attorneys are asking for here is nothing extraordinary; it is not inspired by selfish motives. All they ask is that they should be given the same consideration as other professions, such as the medical profession.

That brings me to the next clause which needs explanation, namely Clause 16 of the Bill. Hon. members will see that in essence Clause 16 is the same as the old section, with the exception of the deletion of sub-sec. (b). That is of course being deleted because of the general standpoint from which we set out, that an attorney should receive his basic legal qualifications in his own country, and that is also the basis of this Bill. I do not want to say anything in respect of the other sub-sections, but I want to confine myself exclusively to sub-sec. (h). I want to admit immediately that this is a delicate clause and that it may perhaps be said that it is not a very elegant clause, to use the words of the hon. member for Standerton. But at the same time, I want to emphasize that this is a necessary clause, for the reasons I have given, and I will explain the reasons for the necessity of this clause, but I say the wording of this clause as it stands here is not the wording chosen by me or requested by me, but is the wording asked for by the Association of Law Societies. They are responsible for it, but I support it wholeheartedly as it stands here and recommend that it be passed as it stands.

It has happened through the years, as the result of the increase in the volume of State administration, that increasingly more quasi-judicial bodies have been established. Hon. members are aware of numerous boards which fulfil quasi-judicial functions. I believe that just as it is the exclusive right of the attorney and the advocate to practise in the courts of the land, so it ought to be the exclusive right of the advocate and the attorney to appear before these quasi-judicial bodies to plead the cases of persons and companies and interested parties. I believe, together with the Law Society, that we should put a stop to another problem, viz. the fact that an attorney is struck off the roll because of unprofessional conduct. One no longer wants him to be a member of the attorneys’ profession and one does not wish to give him the right to practise, but nothing prevents him from posing as a consultant in some sphere, and then he simply has free access to these quasi-judicial bodies. Hon. members would be surprised at the number of people who pose as consultants, not only attorneys who have been struck off the roll, but other people who should not be entrusted with such matters, often people who cannot make a living in any other way; they pose as consultants and help their clients from the frying-pan into the fire. It is also surprising how many clients such people are able to find before they have played out their role and the public discovers that they cannot really assist them in any way. I am concerned, although strictly speaking it does not fall within my functions, that people who are not attorneys—so I am informed and I have seen examples of it—even go in for conveyancing. People who are not attorneys at all prepare documents, which do not have to be certified by an attorney, in regard to conveyancing. I think hon. members will agree that it is not fair that attorneys should have to face this unfair competition, bearing in mind that the attorney is bound by certain ethical principles, that he cannot advertise, that he has to maintain a professional status, something which these other people do not have to do and which makes it increasingly difficult for him. Attorneys in the rural districts inform me that there are large areas of the platteland where an attorney dare not charge a fee for drawing up a will. He must simply do it gratis because there are so many other people who for the sake of other incidental business offer, and even advertise in secret or in other ways, to draw up wills gratis for members of the public, and then the attorney is also compelled to do so in order to retain his clientele to some extent. Hon. members will agree that it is not fair that the attorney should be faced with such competition.

Hon. members also know that a large proportion of the attorney’s income is derived from administering estates. I realize that I am treading on very delicate ground here, but I want to state the case very pertinently and clearly. It happens that too many other people enter this sphere without it really being their basic profession, or without it being an aspect of the activities from which they earn their main income. That is not a sound state of affairs. I fully realize that there are many organizations which have obtained vested rights in this sphere through the years. The attorneys also realize it, but I feel that the time has arrived that the interested parties should be brought together in order to demarcate spheres of activity; that they should decide where the work of the one begins and where the work of the other ends. Hon. members are aware of the fact that in past years much ill feeling has been engendered because of the fact that the one has encroached on the terrain of the other, and that happens because the various terrains have never been properly demarcated yet. It is true that very wide powers are asked for in this clause, not on my initiative but on the initiative of the Law Society. I intend, if these powers are granted to me, to exercise them in the closest collaboration with the bodies concerned; to give the fullest opportunity to all those affected, or who may or will be affected to study the draft regulations, to make representations in that regard and to consult with one another. Perhaps this is a matter which we need not debate fully in this second reading, but which should rather be debated in the Committee Stage. I am aware of the fact—and I want to respect it—that there are people who have obtained vested rights in this regard. I need not mention names on this occasion. Hon. members know those bodies just as well as I do. But in the past unfortunately we made no progress in all the attempts we made in that regard, for the simple reason that we had no authority to take any steps. This clause will give the Minister the authority necessary to put this matter on a sound basis. That is what I have in mind in regard to this matter.

The only other two things which I still have to explain in this Bill are, firstly, Clause 20, which only protects the rights of persons who are studying overseas at present. I want to confine myself to Clause 18, which contains the other main principle of this Bill, viz. the investment of the trust funds of an attorney. It is a lengthy clause and in the main, except for what I am going to mention now, it contains the same provisions as the old section. The deviation contained in this clause, and which I want to recommend to hon. members, is that every attorney, as hon. members know, must keep a trust account and a private account, but the trust account which the attorney has to keep at present is a dead account; the money in it is unproductive, and I think all hon. members will agree with me that if one can turn unproductive money into productive money it is not only in the interest of the individual but also in the interest of the economy of the country as a whole. Therefore in this clause we accept the principle of turning this dead money into live money, and of course the only way to do that is to invest that money. As soon as one invests these trust funds, the question of course arises as to who should receive the interest on that money. In this regard there are three alternatives. One can firstly take the standpoint that the interest should go to the various clients; one can adopt the standpoint that the interest should go to the attorneys, and there are countries—inter alia, Britain, if I remember correctly—where it goes to the attorney. Or else one can adopt the standpoint which is adopted in the Bill, that it should go to the Fidelity Fund. In our consultation we were confronted with these three ideas, and the Law Society and I came to the unanimous decision that the fairest thing was for the interest on this money to be paid over to the Fidelity Fund. Hon. members may perhaps ask me why it should not go to the client, but the reply to that is very simple. In the first place it cannot go to the client because it is almost impossible to allocate this money. All attorneys know—and I mention it only for the information of lay members of this House—that an attorney has to deal with the accounts of 101 different clients; in the one case he is dealing with an account of perhaps R10, and in another case with an account of R40, and in the third case with an account of R400, and it is an impossible task to allocate that interest to the various clients at the end of the financial year or at any other time. Secondly, it is a fact that the Fidelity Fund was established and is maintained by the attorneys for the very purpose of protecting their clients—not for the protection of the attorneys but for the protection of their clients. Every attorney has to make an annual contribution to that fund, otherwise he dare not practise. That contribution has increased over the years, with the result that at the moment it means that the attorney has to make an appreciable contribution to that fund every year. The present amount which the attorney has to contribute is a minimum of R60, for which the attorney receives absolutely nothing. But not only does he have to contribute this R60; he must further pay the bank fees in connection with that account of his own pocket, and he must pay the audit fees in respect of that account. Hon. members will therefore see that an appreciable amount has to be paid in this way by every attorney, for which he in fact receives nothing in return. If, therefore, we upset the principle contained in this clause, viz. that the interest of trust funds should be paid into the Fidelity Fund, we not only have the assurance that that fund will be fairly strong, but there is at least the expectation that as this fund becomes stronger in this way, the contribution of the attorney can be reduced pro rata. I think it is no more than fair that it should be done in that way. Hon. members will also see that such moneys can be invested in any bank, building society or other financial institution approved for this purpose. In the Committee Stage I will move an amendment to the definition of “banking institution” to include certain financial institutions which have brought it to my notice that they have been excluded from this definition. I want to make it quite clear that the institutions in which these investments can be made are the soundest financial institutions in the country, and that there is no chance of the clients’ money being speculated with, as the result of which the client will run the risk of losing his money. The institutions in which such trust funds can be invested are simply of such a nature that no risk is involved, because these institutions are properly controlled by legislation.

These are the main principles of this Bill. This Bill, as I explained in the beginning, really emanates from the Associated Law Societies. It is a Bill which I can confidently ask hon. members to accept as it stands here, because it is one which will not only greatly benefit the attorneys’ profession, but also the administration of justice in general.

The hon. the Minister has said that this is not a piece of rush legislation; that it is a piece of legislation which has been the subject of discussion between the hon. the Minister and the various law societies over a considerable period of time. We have had this Bill in our hands for quite a considerable period, since the hon. the Minister talked out time on this same measure some few weeks ago. Sir, I think this is a very important measure; there I agree entirely with the hon. the Minister. It is a measure which required the very close scrutiny of this House because our legal profession in South Africa is one which I believe we can proudly say stands as high as the legal profession of any country in the world. That applies both to the Side-Bar and the Bar, and above all, it applies to our magistrates and the judiciary of this country, who, I believe, have gained a reputation far greater in the affairs of the wide world than even the importance of this country of ours warrants. I want to say immediately that I agree with the hon. the Minister that this being a Bill which deals with a great deal of detail, the best opportunity of dealing with many of these matters will be in the Committee Stage, but I would like to say in general that we on this side of the House approve of the provisions of this Bill. There are exceptions which will be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I wish immediately to deal with a matter to which the hon. the Minister himself referred and that is the power which this Bill gives to the hon. the Minister to provide by regulations, “which act shall not be performed by any person other than an attorney, notary and conveyancer or an agent referred to in Section 22 of the Magistrate’s Court Act”. Sir, as a member of the profession I know that throughout the years during which I have been a member of the profession this has been a burning question as far as the attorneys’ profession is concerned. I accept the hon. the Minister’s statement that in respect of various matters there are established rights which must be taken into account. Perhaps it is a pity that a measure dealing with this matter was not introduced many years ago. It has, of course, always been a somewhat contentious matter. I would like to say at once that although this provision has been inserted in the Bill with the full approval of the four law societies, I as a member of one of those law societies regret that it was necessary in the end to include it in this measure in this particular form. I realize that there are very great difficulties attached to this matter and I realize that a Minister of Justice must on occasion accept responsibility.

It is a question of formulation.

It is a question of formulation and of consultation with the interested parties. But I believe that in the final result this House itself has or should have a responsibility in respect of this matter. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side are indebted to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) for designing an amendment which will be moved in the Committee Stage and which I sincerely hope will be accepted by the hon. the Minister because I believe that it will entirely dispose of the suggestion that arbitrary power is being vested here in the hands of the hon. the Minister, and through him, the Cabinet, without this House having any say in the matter. I believe that the amendment is merely designed to provide for Parliament to have an opportunity of dealing with the matter after the decision has been taken and, if it sees fit to do so, to reverse that decision. I feel that this is an amendment which should be seriously considered by the hon. the Minister. I would like to say at once that as a member of the attorneys’ profession myself I believe it would be in the interests of the profession and of the law societies, and it would certainly remove an onus from the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, which I do not think should be placed on his shoulders. I believe that in the final result it should be placed squarely on the shoulders of this House. I hope that when we come to the Committee Stage we will be able to convince the hon. the Minister that it is desirable to accept such an amendment.

Sir, I do not propose to traverse the detailed provisions of this Bill. The hon. the Minister has been good enough to deal with the various clauses. If I may say so, when he dealt with the earlier clauses on another occasion he did so in perhaps even greater detail than the hon. the Minister would normally have done. He was batting out time, and with a straight bat he succeeded in doing so, and carried off the honours of the day. Sir, the provisions of this Bill will have to be looked at very carefully because it is quite clear that it is very necessary to place on a proper basis the affairs of the second estate, if I may use that term, i.e. the attorneys, who form a very important part of the legal profession. I must say that I agree with the hon. the Minister that it is very necessary that the growth of quasi-judicial boards, in a society which has changed immensely in the light of modern development, should be looked at carefully. There may be cases in which there are established rights, and I am very glad that the provision which is before us makes it possible to take established rights into account, even if it involves the rights of a particular individual. I think it was a very wise decision to frame the provision in this particular way.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has referred to the question of trust funds. I would like to say immediately that I think that in conjunction with the law societies a very reasonable and sensible provision has been devised. I think anyone who has practised as an attorney knows that there is a certain amount of hard money, held on behalf of other persons, which sits in the account of the bank. I believe it is reasonable that the matter should be dealt with as it is dealt with here. I personally think it would have been quite wrong to have allowed attorneys to benefit directly from the interest earned on those funds. I believe that this provision, which will ensure an even stronger Fidelity Fund, is one which is in the interests of the public. I think it is a very reasonable solution of the whole problem. I happened, a while ago, to talk to a bank official and I said that only the bankers would lose as a result of the provision. His reply was: “Oh, no, we win both ways; you see, even if the money comes out of your account, it still comes back into the banking system so this does not affect us in the slightest.”

Sir, I do not propose to go through all the provisions of the Bill, but I would like to say that it is a good thing to find that there has been this tremendous growth of bilingualism amongst the attorneys of this country. For my part I believe it is reasonable, in respect of persons who qualify hereafter, to require them to have at least a reasonable basic knowledge of both languages. I believe that the provision here that they should have passed both English and Afrikaans in the matriculation examination is a reasonable one. I believe in the end this will be regarded as something which is of very great importance to the profession. I know that there will be difficult cases, and I wonder whether persons who already in the process of studying for their matriculation examination should not be given a period within which to qualify in the second language. Then there are also the cases of persons who obtain their qualifications overseas. I think that is a matter which should perhaps be looked at.

Then there is a further very important matter which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister and that is the question of attorneys who have been struck off the roll. I understand that the practice is that no further examination of the rights or wrongs of those cases where there have been breaches of our law in respect of trust funds takes place; that apparently no further action is taken unless there is a recommendation from a particular law society. I would like to say that I believe that where an attorney has been guilty of improper conduct …

Order! Is that covered in the Bill?

Sir, if you feel that I should not proceed with the matter further I do not propose to do so. There is a provision dealing with trust accounts, however, which makes this very relevant. I believe that there is a very heavy onus on the Minister. My belief is that in the vast majority of cases where there has been misfeasance there is a criminal responsibility. I believe that there have been far too many cases in which there has been a misfeasance and where persons have been struck off the roll, where there has been no prosecution. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can give us any further information in this regard. I believe it is in the interests of the profession that the highest standard should be maintained.

Sir, there will be a further opportunity of dealing with the provisions of the Bill in detail. I welcome this Bill very much indeed. I think there are certain provisions which will have to be looked after very carefully. I believe it would be advisable to introduce certain safeguards, but I believe that in conjunction with the law societies the hon. the Minister has produced a Bill, most of the provisions of which are entirely free from objection or even query. I can only express the hope that in respect of some of the other matters to which I have referred, better solutions will be found than those contained in the Bill. In these circumstances we on this side of the House support this Bill and will be happy to assist in its passage through this House.

I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister at the outset for having introduced this measure. I am very pleased to be able to rise and discuss this measure, because I have on two occasions already introduced motions on this matter in this House. We in South Africa are the only people in the world who apply the Roman-Dutch law, know that the golden era of Rome was the time when her legal profession flourished. We know also that the golden era of Holland was the time when her legal profession flourished. I feel that in South Africa there has been erosion of our legal profession, which started with the attorneys, and therefore I am so pleased that the hon. the Minister has taken the trouble to introduce this measure here, as he is now putting a stop to that erosion which began with the attorneys. I should like to emphasize that the profession of an attorney must be regarded as the broad basis on which the pyramid of the hierarchy of our administration of justice is founded. If this broad basis is unsound, then the entire hierarchy of our administration of justice is unsound, and then it will adversely affect our administration of justice in South Africa. Attorneys are responsible for initiating virtually all litigation in this country. All civil matters, whether in the superior or the inferior courts, commence in the office of the attorney. He initiates the processes which start the lawsuit; he guarantees the costs incurred in connection with the matter, and he in turn must recover those costs from his client. He briefs the advocate and the advocate looks to him for his fees. In other words, the advocate are also dependent on the attorneys. Without the attorneys the advocates cannot exist, and the Judges are drawn from the ranks of the advocates. If you do not have a sound body of advocates, you cannot have a sound judiciary. So you see that the broad basis on which everything rests really is a sound body of attorneys. If the attorneys suffer want, the advocates also will be affected adversely, and so will the judiciary. If the attorneys’ profession as such does not attract people of good character and calibre, those other orders in the highest courts of our country will also suffer as a result. For the attorneys’ profession to attract those good and honourable people, it has to offer its members a good livelihood. It is a fact that in recent times it has not offered such a good livelihood to all. In recent years I have complained about the lot of the attorneys’ profession.

I should like to show in broad outline from what the attorney really earns his living. Take firstly the legal work, that is to say litigation. There are not many civil suits in the rural districts. If an attorney in the rural areas had to make his living from civil work, he would die of starvation, for hardly 10 per cent of his income is derived from actual legal work in the rural areas. That is the reason why there is an increase in the number of attorneys moving to the cities, for at the present time you find most of the legal work in the cities. Because the attorneys are being compelled to an increasing extent to look to legal work for their living, it is a fact that the number of attorneys in the rural areas has decreased. I should like to emphasize that the rural areas cannot do without the attorneys. The attorney is a particularly important person in any rural town or district. He renders services to that community; he usually becomes the mayor; he serves on the town council; he serves on all the boards; he renders a public service to that town. He plays an important role in that small community. Because their numbers are now dwindling in the country districts, those communities are so much the poorer without them.

I come to the second source of income, and this is conveyancing. I am now speaking particularly as a rural attorney, and I am not referring to the urban attorneys. In the rural areas conveyancing has always gone hand in hand with the other remunerative work that goes with it, that is to say, the commission on the sale of property, etc. The sale of property has also gone out of his hands now, and he is dependent only on the actual conveyancing. But you have to remember, Sir, that he always has to share that income with his correspondent who has to do the actual registration work in the office of the Registrar of Deeds. In this respect also, therefore the rural attorney is limited as regards his income.

Thirdly there is the matter of administration of estates, as the hon. the Minister has said. In that respect also the attorney has to cope with great competition, and in recent years he has forfeited most of his income from that source also. Take the fourth source of income, such as insurance agencies, auctioneer’s work, and other agency work. As regards insurance work in the country districts at the present time, you hardly find a garage to-day which is not an agent of an insurance company. I know of many shops in the rural areas which are also doing insurance agency work because they then get cheaper insurance for themselves. So insurance work on the rural areas has gone out of the hands of the attorneys almost completely. Then most of the big companies, such as Sanlam and the Old Mutual to-day have their own offices in most of the rural towns. So as regards insurance work, it is no longer a source of income for the attorney either.

Then I come to his last source of income, namely the quasi-judicial work. We know that many people in the rural areas now also appear before road boards and other boards, whereas formerly only the attorneys appeared for them. Now any person appears before them as a consultant of a client. In respect of public auctions, the attorney also has to compete with auctioneers to hold that work in the rural areas.

What about the attorney’s farming activities?

If you wish to drag in the farming industry …

The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by interjections.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, there has been much erosion as regards the attorneys’ profession. I am pleased the hon. the Minister has now thought fit to come forward with this legislation.

As regards the trust fund, I am very pleased he has met the profession to this extent. That trust fund really places a very great burden upon the attorneys. I think it is the only profession in the country working with trust funds where the members have to guarantee that they will deal with trust funds in a proper manner. There are many other people who handle trust funds. I could mention them by name, but it is not necessary; we do not wish to poke each other in the eye. But not one of the other professions handling trust moneys has a fidelity fund such as that of the attorneys. The right to invest their trust-moneys is a tremendous concession to the attorneys. You know, Sir, that on every cheque the attorney pays into his bank to his trust account, he has to pay the commission. The client does not pay it. The attorney pays the banking fees. In addition, he has to pay R60 per annum to the guarantee fund. At first it was R20, and at present it is R60. I know of young men who came from Stellenbosch University to practise in the Free State, and who could hardly afford to pay that first R60 as a deposit in the trust fund in order to be able to practise. This guarantee fund will now be strengthened by the interests earned on that trust money. We should remember that that fund is not there for the benefit of the attorney. It is there for the client. And the interest that money will earn will indirectly go back to the client owing to the strengthening of the fund. In other words, it is not a security for the attorney, but a security for the people whose money is handled on trust. I am very grateful to the Minister for this provision.

I am satisfied with the provision in connection with quasi-legal work, but if improvements could be made, such as the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has indicated, I shall welcome them. I shall do anything to get together at a round table conference all the people who are interested in the administration of estates, so that we may discuss the matter. In the past the attorneys’ profession has always been in the unenviable position that it has tried to negotiate but the other people refused to talk to them. If only we could discuss the matter, I think the matter could be put right. I do not wish to say any more on this subject. I am very pleased about the reception this measure has had from both sides of the House. It is a source of great satisfaction to me.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has indicated that he also feels that the legal profession is very important. He said this Bill was important because it dealt with attorneys; that you had to have healthy attorneys to have a healthy Bar and that you had to have a healthy Bar to have a healthy Bench. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. gentleman. When he refers to the motions he has introduced on previous occasions into this House, one must remember that the hon. member also introduced a motion in which he asked for fusion …

Order! The hon. member must not discuss previous motions.

Very well, Sir, I will not do so. The hon. member, of course, was very much in favour of fusion of the Bar and the Side-Bar at one time. I am very gratified to find that the hon. member for Heilbron now no longer feels that there should be fusion between the attorneys and the advocates. I can merely put that down to greater wisdom which has now come to the hon. member since he has indeed left the ranks of the Side-Bar and joined the Bar.

Who lost and who gained?

No, I am not being nasty about it. I am never nasty towards my colleagues at the Bar.

I think the hon. the Minister has somewhat glossed over some aspects of this Bill. One of those aspects is the question of university education. As I understood the hon. Minister he said he thought it was a good principle that one should qualify in one’s own country. There is indeed something to be said for that principle. If the university education which is referred to in this Bill had anything to do with a legal qualification but it has not. In the Attorneys Act, the Act we are now amending, provision is made that if you have a degree then instead of doing five years’ articles you need only do three years. In addition, of course, you have to pass your normal professional examination and your practical examination. But if you have a university degree your period of articles is only three instead of five years.

Even if it is not a legal degree.

Quite so. That degree may be a B.Sc. or a B.Com. or a B.A. degree. It is also provided in the law as it now stands that in respect of certain overseas universities such degrees can be recognized and, if recognized, the person could be exempted from two years of his articles. That is now being done away with and I think it is unnecessarily being done away with. The hon. the Minister may have a good reason for it but he has not advanced it. When he introduced this Bill and on a previous occasion I heard no good reason why it is necessary to do away with this. The principle that is involved here is a very simple one. As I say, you can have a B.Sc., B.Com. or a B.A. degree but that is not a qualification for law. It is an element of education. Apparently the legislators felt—and this is the only reason I can find for this provision—that if a man were educated, if he had a B.A. degree from a recognized university, he was the sort of man you could exempt from two years’ articles. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if one has a degree from an overseas university, a university which is recognized by the Minister as a university of standing—and I am sure nobody will say there are not many such universities outside the borders of the Republic—then surely one is as educated as though one had a degree from a South African university, and perhaps more educated in many respects in the sense that one’s education is broader because one has had it amongst other people in different places. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not reconsider this aspect of the Bill or perhaps withdraw this aspect completely when we come to the Committee Stage. I shall anticipate what the hon. the Minister might say. He may not say it; he can stop me if he is not going to say what I am going to say then I shall not say it! If the hon. Minister is going to say that a person can get recognition from a South African university if he has an overseas university degree, then I say that is certainly not universal practice in South Africa. As far as I am aware it is not the practice of South African universities to say: “If you have such and such a degree I am prepared to give you one of mine; just come and register yours and I will give you my degree.” They will recognize that degree and perhaps admit you to status if you wish to proceed to a higher degree than the one you have. In that case you will get status and recognition. But I know that is not so in the case of a number of universities. I doubt very much whether that is the position in the University of Cape Town. None of the universities that I know do it. I think it is a universal law with universities that if you wish to take a degree they will give you credit for some subject which you took at another university or they will admit you to status to take a higher degree but that is as far as they will go. I regard this as a retrograde step because it has nothing to do with legal training whatsoever. If the hon. the Minister will confirm that that is so I hope he will delete this clause.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) has referred to the growth of bilingualism in South Africa and how encouraging it is to find this amongst attorneys. The hon. member for Germiston (District) expressed a thought, of course, which we all have. It is highly desirable that everyone in South Africa should be bilingual. It is highly desirable that members of the profession should be bilingual. But how do you achieve that?

By starting.

Where do you start?

Right now.

I appreciate that one can start right now. We start with Afrikaans and English in our matriculation certificate. I believe that every attorney in Durban, for example, has Afrikaans on his matriculation certificate but I do not believe every attorney in Durban is bilingual. I do not believe every attorney in Durban is going to be bilingual for a very long time, not because he never could speak Afrikaans, but even if he could speak Afrikaans there is so little opportunity for him to speak it that he does not become bilingual.

He can speak to you.

I am no exception, Sir. I live in Durban and we speak English most of the time. Occasionally one has to cross-examine somebody in Afrikaans. I will be quite frank, I am at a disadvantage when it comes to that compared with my colleague here, the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), who is a bad example because he is so highly bilingual, compared with most colleagues in other provinces. But this is a consummation devoutly to be wished for and one hopes that it will come. I wonder why—and I just wonder this because we have two Bills before the House although we are only discussing this one—it is matriculation English and Afrikaans for the attorney, whereas it is university English and Afrikaans for the advocate.

Some attorneys serve articles.

If that is the only reason I am indebted to the hon. Minister for his reply. I just wondered what it was that prompted the hon. the Minister’s mind to suggest one for the one and the other for the other. I do not think either is going to make anyone bilingual but, as the hon. Minister says, it does give them a basis on which they can proceed.

As far as job reservation is concerned the Minister has made out a case for the country attorney. There is no doubt that the country attorney must survive. I do not doubt that he performs all the services described by the hon. member for Heilbron.

But you are against job reservation.

I am against the clause as it stands at the moment. The hon. member for Germiston (District) indicated why we were against it, namely, that we did not know what jobs were going to be reserved. The hon. member for Heilbron said that practically every garage in the country was an agent for an insurance company. It seemed to me, listening to the hon. member, that if he were the hon. the Minister of Justice he would provide by regulation that only attorneys could be agents for insurance companies.

No. I did not say that.

Why did he mention it? It illustrates the difficulty that we have with this clause. If the hon. the Minister has a case, and he has made out a case for the country attorney, then surely we should be able to specify which particular jobs we are going to reserve for attorneys. If the Minister cannot do that then surely he cannot have any idea of which jobs are going to be reserved. In that case he cannot, in all fairness, ask this House to give him the power to make these regulations.

After I have consulted the various people who are interested.

Has he in mind the presidents of the law societies?

They must be consulted in any case. It will be after consultation with them.

They must be consulted in respect of most of the regulations the hon. Minister makes, not in respect of some of them.

In respect of all of them.

I do not think that is so.

That is my interpretation.

Well, I do not want a dog-fight about that. We can go into that and agree to disagree at another stage. The hon. the Minister is going to consult with the law societies. But who else is he going to consult with? Is he going to consult with the estate agent?

I shall consult persons who come forward as a result of this legislation and say they have vested interests.

Vested interests in respect of what? How is anyone to know whether or not the hon. the Minister contemplates affecting his vested interests?

They will see that from the proposed regulations.

Does the hon. the Minister propose to publish these regulations and just wait for representations?

I said so in my second-reading speech.

Yes. Is that all the hon. Minister proposes to do? You see, Sir, it is very unsatisfactory. We should surely be able to debate the matter here. This is the place which is representative of all those interests. Hon. members of this House are far better qualified to represent those interests to the hon. the Minister than most people are. It is their duty to do that. This is really the place where it should be done. The amendment which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) will move …

You are unfortunately talking about an amendment that I know nothing about.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) indicated what it would be.

The division of the Bar is, of course, a division between the Bar and the Side-Bar which also amounts to a sort of job reservation in the legal profession. Only advocates can practise in the Supreme Court; attorneys cannot go there. Only attorneys and advocates can represent people in the magistrate’s court. But there is a very good reason for that. The reason is that these people are qualified and trained and specialized to deal with Supreme Court matters. The same thing applies in the case of the magistrate’s court. But the basis of that job reservation is qualification. Indeed, I go so far as to say that the main reason for it, perhaps the best reason for it, is that it saves litigation costs in the end if you have an expert doing the job. Is that going to be one of the bases upon which the hon. the Minister is going to reserve work for attorneys? Is it that only they are qualified to do this work? Because I am quite sure there are many accountants in this House who will disagree that there are certain jobs which the attorneys are qualified to do and they are not. They disagree with that. They may be right. I do not know. I do not want to pass judgment now. But there may be such cases. Is that going to be one of the criteria which will guide the hon. the Minister in deciding which of the jobs will be reserved for attorneys?

The hon. Minister spoke about Clause 17 which deals with appearances before quasi-judicial bodies. As the hon. Minister has said there are many guan-judicial bodies. There is the Rent Board, for example. Does it not often happen that a group of tenants in a block of flats decide to bind together and go to the Rent Board and complain about the increase in their rent? They do not want to get involved in any expense so they delegate one of the residents to go to the Rent Board and argue their case for them.

There is nothing wrong with that. He is doing it on his own behalf.

There you are, Sir. How is one to know that the hon. Minister has not got that in mind? Take the Group Areas Board. It often happens in Durban that the Indian ratepayers in Durban delegate their chairman or their secretary or some other person with the gift of the gab to represent that community’s interests at the Group Areas Board. Does the hon. Minister intend to prevent that? The hon. Minister is silent, Sir, about that. Apparently if we are not going to have it for the Rent Board we might have it for the Group Areas Board. If the hon. Minister can say before which of these quasi-judicial bodies he is going to allow persons other than attorneys and advocates to appear, then surely they should be mentioned in the Bill; surely we should decide that here. I do not think it is something which should be decided by the Minister and his Department.

There is one other small matter which I want to raise with the Minister and ask him for his reasons.

I will send a copy of your speech to the attorneys of Durban.

My speech might be reported in the newspapers in Durban. I have a duty to perform in this House as a Member of Parliament. If it affects my practice in Durban—and Heaven knows, being in this House, does in any case affect one’s practice—then I could not care less. Let me tell the hon. member that the difference between him and me is that I am in practice as an advocate and the hon. member is not and he can afford to say that.

Order! I do not think the House is interested in the differences between you two gentlemen.

Sir, I am sure the House is not interested. But I was constrained to reply to the unfortunate, unnecessary and unhonourable remark of the hon. gentleman.

There is another matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. When the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill some time ago he spoke at some length about the various clauses in the Bill which he did not deal with to-day. One of the provisions was that advocates have to have a six-month period of grace before they practise as attorneys. That provision of course has always been in our law in relation to attorneys who are going to go to the Bar to practise. They have to have a six-months cleansing period (I use the word not in a derogatory sense at all). The reason for that is a very good reason. The reason is that that man has been working in an attorney’s office, he has been in daily contact with attorneys, he has been in and out of other attorneys’ offices, he has been dealing with other attorneys and if he then goes straight to the Bar it is felt that the influence he has had, and the friendship he has had with other attorneys, would influence a lot of briefs his way when he goes to the Bar. Indeed I think there is a lot of wisdom in that, and this has been the practice that you must have a sixth-month “cleansing period” as it is called. But now it is provided that there is going to be a six-month cleansing period the other way as well, and as far as I am aware this is something new.

It is a new provision in this Bill.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister exactly why this is so. Obviously the same reasons as apply in the case of an attorney going to the Bar do not apply in this case. An advocate who now decides to go to the Side-Bar is not going to influence any work to his firm by reason of that fact, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some explanation about that.

As one of the few practising attorneys in this House, I also feel disposed to say something on this legislation, but before doing so, I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). The hon. member has a way of rising and making his speeches with all kinds of motives and making witty remarks about others, but when something is said about him he is terribly sensitive, This is not the first time he has done so. He referred to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and said he had made a dishonourable remark here.

He ought to know better.

I was an advocate long before you. I was practising in 1935 already.

The hon. member for Durban (North) referred to an interjection by the hon. member for Heilbron as a dishonourable interjection. I do not think it is proper of him to use a word in respect of that interjection. If he is not anxious that what he says here should become known to the attorneys at Durban, I cannot see why he really became disturbed about it. If the hon. member is satisfied that all the attorneys should hear what he had to say here to-day, why is he worried? And if under the circumstances he ought not to be concerned, how can he possibly refer to the interjection of the hon. member as a dishonourable interjection?

Why was it necessary for him to say that?

That is a different matter. Many interjections are made here, and I think it is a good thing that, if the hon. member is proud of what he said here, the attorneys at Durban should know about it, and I hope the hon. member will not be prejudiced thereby. But what I should like to say now is this: With great pride he mentioned here how the advocate is protected because he may appear in the Supreme Court only. He is quite satisfied with that delimitation of work. That is correct and it ought to be so, and it should remain so. The hon. member will obviously object if the attorney were to suggest that he should also be given that right. He has the same academic qualifications; he holds the B.A., LL.B, degrees, but the hon. member will most assuredly object to the practising attorney also being given the right to appear in the Supreme Court. In South Africa we really have exceptional circumstances in respect of this dual system, and I should like to suggest that this dual system is in existence in order to protect the advocate, and not to protect the attorney. In most other countries of the world, there is only one lawyer and he appears in all the law courts, from top to bottom. The ordinary attorney will welcome it here, and what is more, academically he is as well trained in 90 per cent of the cases as the hon. member for Durban (North) who practises as a barrister.

Must we have that system here?

I do not wish to argue about that with him, as to whether it is right or wrong that we should have the other system. But the hon. member is completely inconsistent. He is satisfied with it, but when the hon. the Minister now seeks to put right what is wrong in respect of the attorneys, he objects to it. I shall try to show in a moment where it is wrong and why the attorneys also should be protected on the ground of the same considerations raised here by the hon. member as to why he should be protected in the Supreme Court. The attorneys, like the doctors, are usually called in when people are in trouble when they have problems. The doctor is called in when the man is ill, and the attorney is called in when he has some other difficulty and needs legal assistance. Generally speaking it is true that when people are sick and they can be cured, they do not mind what they pay for it. However, there is a different attitude towards the attorney. Because the client has problems which cost him money, the attorney, generally speaking, is less popular in the community. He nevertheless fulfills a very important function. As a practising attorney I know how often we receive telephone calls from rural towns, asking us to try to send an attorney to them, smaller towns where there are no attorneys, because the people need an attorney, because they require him and because they want to use him when they require his services. That is quite apart from the other prominent role the attorney usually plays in his community. I think it is common cause that the attorneys are essential not only in the cities, but in all the various rural towns. As I said earlier, in most cases the attorney is as well trained academically as the advocate. In general we find that the attorney holds the B.A., LL.B. degrees. What the hon. member for Durban (North) has said is true, namely that when he holds a university degree such as a B.A. or a B.Com. degree, he need to serve articles for only two years. But whereas an advocate can go into practice as an advocate after he has attained the B.A., LL.B, degrees, the attorney first has to serve articles for a period of two years as an articled clerk to an atttorney before he is admitted to practice as an attorney. In other words, he really requires seven years of study, five years at the university and two years as an articled clerk, and during that time he has to gain practical experience and he also has to attend classes and pass a practical examination. I am mentioning these things merely as a background to show what qualifications an attorney requires. After serving his two years as an articled clerk, he writes his practical examination for admission, and then he is admitted in the Supreme Court to practice as an attorney. But that is not the only qualifications the attorney possesses. In most cases he has to continue his studies and he has to pass a notarial examination, a very difficult examination, and then he is admitted to practice as a notary public, in the Supreme Court. This is an essential requirement in most towns where notarial work has to be done from time to time. Then there is another qualification the ordinary attorney has to acquire and that is conveyancing. It is not every attorney who can go to a deeds registry and sign his name as a conveyancer at the top of the certificate of a deed of transfer or a mortgage bond. All attorneys cannot appear before the Registrar of Deeds and sign a deed that the land has been transferred or that the mortgage bond has been registered. You first have to acquire the qualification of conveyancer. Those matters, in regard to conveyancing, are the very things in respect of which abuse is made to such a great extent. I shall try to mention some examples of that just now.

Notwithstanding all these requirements expected of a practising attorney, we find that the attorneys are disappearing from the rural areas to a large extent. As I have said, I think it is common cause between us that attorneys are needed there, and it is a healthy set-up that they should be there in the various towns. The hon. the Minister has referred to the decrease in the total number of attorneys in the Cape Province. As he has said, during the period from 1924 to 1964, during 40 years, the number of attorneys in the rural areas of the Cape has dwindled from 671 to 525. That is the rural area of the Cape, not including the big cities. I should like to mention a few places in particular. Take a place like Caledon. In 1924 there were ten attorneys, in 1934 there were 11, and to-day there are six only.

The farmers have become clever.

That may be so, but the fact remains that the number of attorneys in the rural areas is decreasing. I shall give you the true reason for that.

May I ask a question? Are there six firms or only six attorneys at Caledon to-day?

There are six attorneys, six registered attorneys and not six firms. Of course they may all be in one firm, but I happen to know this is not so. I mention the case of Calvinia. At Calvinia there were 13 attorneys in 1924, but to-day there are three; at De Aar there were 13 in 1924, the number having decreased gradually until to-day there are only five. At a place like Jamestown there were two in 1924, and to-day there is not one.

What about Robertson?

I am coming to Robertson. I am one of the few remaining there. At Robertson there were 11 in 1944 and to-day there are six; in Oudtshoorn there were 14 in 1924, and to-day there are only nine. That is the picture one finds in the rural areas all over, the number of attorneys is dwindling. I do not think it is because there is less business, for we have to assume that in the rural areas too business is increasing, and most of the rural towns are growing continually. In most cases farming has become more intensive and from the very nature of things, one would have expected the number of attorneys in the rural areas to have increased. But that is not so in fact. Our experience is that there is only one reason for this, and that is that much of the work which formerly was the attorney’s work, has gradually and to an increasing extent been taken out of his hands. The hon. member for Heilbron has referred to garages which are also doing insurance work now. In saying that he did not intend to convey that insurance work should be restricted to the attorneys. I am the last one to plead for that, and nobody will plead for it. The hon. member was merely pointing out that in the past this was the position, that the attorneys usually acted as insurance agents. He did work on commission to some extent. It is more especially commission work which has been taken out of his hands. Not the appearance in court. There is little interest in appearances in court. But the commission work on which the attorney in the rural towns was dependent to a large extent, as distinct from his purely court work, the remunerative work in the rural districts and that work has gradually been taken away from him, and not the less remunerative work such as appearance in court. This has never been remunerative. The collection of moneys was never remunerative either. The competitors of the attorneys in the country districts are not interested in this. They are interested only in the work which is remunerative to the attorney.

Sir, there have been black sheep among the attorneys in the past. We do not dispute that. But just look at the position in which the attorney is placed. It is a position of great trust. Having regard to that, I think we have to admit that the attorneys generally must surely be some of the most honest people on earth. An attorney is placed in the position that from time to time thousands of rand and sometimes hundreds of thousands of rand are entrusted to him by clients to handle on their behalf. I can bear testimony of a firm in the country districts which is well known to me, and which has developed in respect of the investment of funds for their clients, and at the present time they are in control of more than R2,000,000, which they invest on behalf of their clients in mortgage bonds and other investments from time to time. That shows the position of great trust in which an attorney is placed. Now we should remember that nobody can suffer any loss through an attorney. That has been mentioned here. In the first place the attorney is bound by a code and if he does not do his work well, the client may go to the Law Society which may take steps against him if the offence is of a major nature, and the attorney could then be struck off the roll. This cannot be done to the ordinary layman who appears before the Road Transportation Board or the Rent Board, or what have you, for somebody. The attorney bears a great responsibility to his clients. He must serve his client well according to his code. Over and above this, there is the Fidelity Fund, which ensures that the public cannot suffer loss in consequence of the acts of attorneys.

There is something else hon. members should take into consideration, something in connection with which the attorney in the rural areas frequently has difficulty, namely the question of advertising. An attorney may not advertise. I think that is proper. In recent times we have devoted much time to the question of whether there should be some form of comprehensive notification to the public of the work of the attorneys, for the very reason that the attorneys have in recent times had to face up to such greatly unequal competition. So we considered this matter. But the fact of the matter is that at the present time the name of a firm of attorneys may not even appear in bold type in the telephone directory. It has to be printed in small type, because otherwise it may appear to be an advertisement. I think it is a salutory principle, and for that very reason I feel that there should be a delimitation or reservation of work to a large extent, in the same way that the work of the hon. member for Durban (North) is reserved also. For that very reason I feel that the professional man, the attorney, like the doctor, should not have to contend with unfair competition on the part of people who are not subject to the same code.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. member not feel that the attorney’s charges are too high, and that for that reason people are going elsewhere with their work?

This is one of the few professions where, if the hon. member has been to an attorney and the attorney has registered a transfer for him in the deeds registry, or if he has acted for him in court, the hon. member may have the attorney’s account taxed. There are fixed fees binding upon the attorney. But now he may go elsewhere and think he is getting cheaper service, while what he is going to get is expensive service. When he is finished with the man who has given him service, he frequently has to go to the attorney again to help him out of his trouble. As I have said, the attorneys cannot advertise. But there are other factors too which are making the livelihood of the attorney rather precarious in the rural areas. The most important is the factor of financial influence. The attorney has to cope with unequal competition because he frequently has to compete with other parties where financial influence is brought to bear. That is why we feel that it really is desirable that there should be some degree of work reservation. I should like to mention a few examples of work which is done by people who are not qualified attorneys. We have referred to a few files in the office of the Law Society, in connection with experiences in certain towns. We found one instance where a bank charged a fee for a Section 62 (3) certificate. That is a certificate given in connection with a sale from an estate, to the effect that all requirements have been complied with. There is a tariff for this certificate, the deeds registry tariff and if an attorney draws up an account, he may charge that tariff and that tariff only. But here we had a case where the bank furnished such a certificate, and what is more, the bank charged nearly three times as much for that certificate as an attorney would have been entitled to charge. Another example is the Deeds Registry. There an attorney is protected only to the extent that certain documents lodged in the Deeds Registry must bear a certificate prepared by an attorney or an officer of the deeds registry. But other instruments not covered by that particular provision in the Deeds Act, do not fall under this. It appears now that documents such as group areas declarations lodged together with all deeds of transfer in the Deeds Registry, do not require a certificate, although it is part of the conveyancer’s job and forms a part of the transfer to be passed. Now we find that auctioneers, completely unqualified persons, are preparing those group areas declarations, and charge fees for doing so, while it really is the work of an attorney. And now I come to the point in respect of which I have the greatest objection, and where I think the hon. the Minister should do something for the attorneys. That is in regard to the Rent Board, the Valuation Court and the Road Transportation Board. It seems to me that in respect of those boards the hon. member for Durban (North) and I differ. Here in Cape Town we had an instance where a former chairman of a Rent Board, who was also a retired magistrate, appeared before the Rent Board after he had ceased to be chairman of the Rent Board. He established a business as Rent Board consultant, and he appeared before the Rent Board for clients in goodness knows how many cases, as ex-chairman of the Rent Board. We think that is wrong.

Did he charge fees?

Of course. I could mention numerous other things which we feel are not right. Now I should like to make a few remarks in connection with this trust account. I do not know whether hon. members are fully aware of what an attorneys’ trust account comprises. An attorney’s trust account comprises, i.a. the following: In cases where an attorney acts on behalf of his client in relation to the registration of a transfer, he drafts for his client a provisional bill of costs, and he asks the client to deposit that amount with him, because certain disbursements have to be made out of that sum in respect of stamps, transfer duty etc. and it includes among other things, fees also. That sum is deposited for the time being in the trust account, because it is not the attorney’s money until such time as it shall have been allocated. The same thing applies to collections. When an attorney makes collections on behalf of a client, those moneys are deposited in the trust account until accounts are settled. Similarly as regards transactions where certain moneys are paid to the attorney and he must in due course at a certain stage pay these over again. Every attorney is compelled to keep such a separate trust account, and the trust account is subject to a number of requirements of the Law Society, e.g. it has to be audited from time to time. However, it frequently occurs that there are substantial sums of money in the trust account. As you will see yourselves, there are numerous transactions which are handled by an attorney, and the various amounts in the trust account sometimes run to thousands of rand. These moneys have been lying idle there for years. The amounts vary, these sums in the trust account, and in this Bill we now merely ask that the trust moneys may be capable of being invested and earning money in the meantime. Now, it is obvious that an attorney cannot always exhaust his trust account. The amount goes up and down, and he will be able with safety to invest a certain amount in excess of the minimum amount which is required in his trust account. He could invest the other amounts for short periods. Now it is provided here that these moneys are to be invested with approved financial institutions and that the interest may be used for the Fidelity Fund. I am fully in agreement with that. I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) that it would have evoked criticism and in my view it would also have been wrong, if the interest on trust moneys, of which a part becomes the property of the attorneys, or at a specified time already may be the property of an attorney, should go to the attorney as the attorney earns the fees, he will not at once debit them in his books and transfer it from his trust account to his ordinary account, although it is already his. Frequently the money remains in the trust account for a long period. In spite of that, I agree that it would have evoked criticism if the attorney were to have had the benefit of it, and I think we are in agreement that the wise course for us to follow is rather to use that money to build up the Fidelity Fund.

We welcome the provision made here. I know the powers conferred here in this clause, have not been drafted very elegantly, and we may perhaps be able to improve on the clause, but generally speaking I think we welcome the fact that we are endeavouring to improve the position of the attorney in the rural areas.

I do not intend replying to the speech of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller). I am sure he will forgive me if I say that it sounded much like the lament of the lawyer. I accept that the problems of the lawyer, and perhaps the country lawyers in particular, are many, and that this Bill is designed to be of assistance to them. Whether the denuding of the country of attorneys is serious or not I do not know, but I think it is part of the general drift to the towns which takes place in any progressing country.

I want to confine my remarks to the principles contained in two clauses, Clause 16 (1) (h) which empowers the Minister to determine what acts shall not be performed by a person other than an attorney, and Clause 17 which empowers the Minister to designate which statutory proceedings shall be reserved for attorneys. The Minister has described the first provision as a delicate one and has indicated that it is perhaps not a very elegant provision. It does create problems in more than one direction, and I accept the Minister’s assurance that so far as he personally is concerned he intends to exercise the powers granted to him by that provision with caution and after consultation. But the principle which is really involved in both these clauses is the delegation by Parliament of legislative powers to the executive Government in the person of the Minister of Justice. I do not intend to traverse the oft-quoted arguments about the dangers and also about the values of conferring delegated legislative powers on Ministers and subordinate authorities, but I do want to quote once again the words of Sir Cecil Carr, who is, or until recently was, counsel to the Speaker of the British House of Commons. He used these words—

What I am particularly concerned about in regard to both these clauses is the preservation of the prerogatives of Parliament rather than the protection of the individual interests of the attorneys’ profession. I believe that Parliament owes a duty to the country to be jealous of its prerogatives and it must always surrender no more of its powers to executive Government than it can itself control. I intend, therefore, moving in the Committee Stage certain amendments which are designed to preserve the authority of Parliament but which at the same time, I believe, will not detract from the obligations of the Minister to administer the law in terms of the Bill. I agree with the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) in his plea that acts which are to be reserved for consideration and attention by the legal profession, that is by attorneys, should be inserted in the law itself. The Minister has quite fairly indicated that there are practical difficulties. It is a matter which will need consideration and consultation. I accept, therefore, that it will not be possible to be as exact as we would like it to be and to see that the actual acts are specified in the law itself. In that regard I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the comments of the select committee which was set up by this House in March 1959 to consider a Bill which was also designed to reserve certain functions to attorneys. The Bill under consideration at that time was the one to amend the Estates Act. The select committee came to this conclusion, that it would not be in the public interest to enact legislation which would have the effect of depriving the individual of his existing rights to make his own nomination of persons who shall undertake the administration of estates. I specially quote this because it is an authoritative view of a select committee of this House, and as far as I can remember I believe it was unanimous. It rather indicates what we on this side have been trying to indicate, that there is a great diversity of interests which will be involved when these provisions are put into force. There are private interests and professional interests and vested interests which have to be taken into account and these all, I say, make it necessary for Parliament itself to be very cautious in regard to the powers it is granting to the executive Government in terms of the Bill now before us. I hope, therefore, that the amendments which will be designed towards preserving the authority of Parliament will be acceptable to the Minister. He has not seen the amendment, but it will be put on the Order Paper, and I will make sure that his Department also gets an advance copy; because I think it is very clear that this is an instance where Parliament must be particularly jealous of its prerogatives and must be very cautious in surrendering those prerogatives it has. It is not only the legal profession which will be involved. The Minister has quite clearly said he would consult, and he rather indicated that he would consult the Side-Bar Association in particular, but I think from his own remarks he recognizes that the ambit of interests is much wider and that therefore the precaution which he will have to take will have to be very guarded and, therefore, he should welcome the opportunity of making sure that there will be a revision of the powers he has used to determine what acts shall be assigned only to attorneys and what type of statutory proceedings should be reserved to attorneys.

The ground covered by this Bill has been discussed very comprehensively by other speakers and so I only have a few words to say in this regard. In the course of my remarks I shall reply to what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. As one who has practised on the platteland as an attorney, I can state that the stage has been reached when something has to be done to protect the profession not only in the interests of the attorney himself but also in the interests of the public. It is a fact to-day that the more he is deprived of professional work, the more the attorney on the platteland has to concentrate on non-professional work such as estate agency work, auctioneering and so forth. It is obvious that the more an attorney has to concentrate upon non-professional work, the more the standard and the quality of his professional work suffers thereby. It may be said that a rural attorney’s professional work does not have to be of a high standard, but nothing can be further from the truth. It may be that the urban attorney or advocate is consulted in regard to involved legal opinions and the drawing up of documents in connection with legal proceedings, but the rural attorney has often to attend to matters which are of vital importance to his client in the sphere of contract work, notarial work and in many other spheres, work which is important to the client from a financial point of view. If mistakes are made by the attorney at that primary stage of negotiations, these mistakes can have very serious results. That is why I contend that it is in the interests of the public that the professional work of the rural attorney and the standard of that work must at all times be above suspicion. That is why I welcome Clause 16 (h), not because it is a particularly elegant clause but because it appears to me to be a clause which will solve a very difficult position in the most practical way.

Hon. members have expressed themselves against the delegation of powers. I contend that we must in the first place hesitate to delegate powers to a Minister in matters in which ideological or party political interests are at stake. But here we have a case in which no interests of this nature are at stake. The person occupying the post of Minister of Justice will probably always be a person with legal qualifications, but the Minister holds such an important position, a position which requires such a high degree of impartiality on his part that I cannot imagine his not acting impartially and fairly in regard to other vested interests. But I want to say further that if the Minister has to exercise his discretion in terms of Clause 16 (h), it will place a very great responsibility upon the legal profession as a whole because then the Minister will have a very good stick with which to beat the law societies in future if any serious complaints are made against the legal profession to the effect that attorneys are not doing their duty. Then he can tell them: You cannot expect my protection unless you put your own house in order immediately.

I also have a few remarks to make in regard to Clause 14 (b). Apparently—and I am speaking subject to correction here—Clause 14 (b) which makes provision for a practical bookkeeping examination, introduces a new provision as far as B.A., LL.B. students are concerned. In the past the only thing that was required of such students to enable them to practise as attorneys was that they had to undergo a two-year period of training and pass a practical examination in court work as well as in the work of a notary and conveyancer. In terms of Clause 14 (b) an LL.B. student will now also be required to pass a practical bookkeeping examination to comply with the limited bookkeeping requirements that are set. I say that I am speaking subject to correction. If this is the case, I welcome it. If this is not the case, I want to make a specific appeal to the hon. the Minister to introduce a provision whereby LL.B. students will also have to pass a practical examination in bookkeeping. I have always objected to the fact that an LL.B. student has to a certain extent too little practical training to enable him to practise as a platteland attorney, particularly as far as the bookkeeping requirements are concerned. Because he has a large amount of legal knowledge, the LL.B. student is in most cases in an attorney’s practice entrusted with court work and so forth, with the result that he gains very little bookkeeping knowledge, if any, in his two-year training period. When he himself then becomes an attorney he always suffers the disadvantage of not having had sufficient bookkeeping experience. That is why if this provision is going to be applied to attorneys, I wholeheartedly welcome the fact. In any event, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to introduce such a provision if this is not the case.

Yes, that is the case.

Then I welcome that fact most heartily. Indeed, I think that as far as the requirements for attorneys are concerned, we must proceed more and more in the direction of making compulsory those subjects which are required in practice. I think that in this connection far more attention can also be given to encouraging students who want to become attorneys to take B.Com., LL.B. course instead of the B.A., LL.B. course because, whether we want to admit or not, even on the platteland one’s life is becoming a business life more and more and it is very necessary for the practitioner there to have business experience as well. In saying this I do not mean that he should encroach upon the sphere of the accountant by so doing but the law and the business world are very closely connected with one another and it is highly desirable and necessary that the attorney on the platteland should also have a very sound business knowledge, no matter what his academic qualifications may be.

I can well understand the attitude of country attorneys in wanting to protect their position and I do not quarrel with that, but I think we should not lose sight of the fact that there are other professions which are qualified to do certain work which should not necessarily be the monopoly of the country attorneys.

I fully appreciate that position.

I am glad to hear that. I understand that representations have been made to the Minister by the Joint Council of the Society of Chartered Accountants, who are concerned lest the powers granted to the Minister under Clause 16 (h) will give the Minister the right to preclude accountants from undertaking the work of administering estates. As the Minister probably knows qualified accountants have to pass a special paper on the administration of estates. In my own experience, I have frequently been called in by professional firms to draft their accounts, particularly in involved estates, and it would seem quite unfair and unreasonable if the right of accountants to administer estates should be taken away from them by reason of the power the Minister has in terms of (h). I hope that in the Committee Stage we will be able to argue that in greater detail, and I hope that during the course of the Minister’s reply he will indicate that it is not the intention of his Department to take away from accountants the right to practise as administrators of estates and to frame estate accounts. Accountants must serve five years’ articles, the same as the members of the legal profession, and they are particularly qualified in work concerning the framing of accounts in insolvent and deceased estates and liquidations. They have particular qualifications in that regard. Both the Insolvency Act and the Companies Act require them to undertake this class of work, and it would be a pity if this class of work should be taken away from them by this Bill. It may be that the fears expressed by certain accountants are unnecessary fears, and I hope that the Minister in his reply will indicate the extent to which he intends, if he does so intend, to deprive accountants of this work. It seems ludicrous that in a small country town the attorney should now be required to do estate work, which was formerly done by his colleague the accountant. In fact, these professional men in all country towns are feeling the effect in that much of the work they previously did is now being done by big institutions, which in many cases undertake to do the work for no fee or a very small fee, as part of its services. But that denudes the attorneys of much of their work. The banks do certain work which they formerly did, and the building societies render certain services which were formerly rendered by the attorneys. One can well understand the attitude in wanting to ensure that they can make a living. The hon. member for Ceres has indicated how many attorneys have left the profession in country-towns, but I think that is a feature of all professions in country towns. As we have the movement of the population from the small towns to the big centres, so we also have the movement of the professional men to the towns, where they can make a better living and there are probably better chances for the education of their children. But I hope that the Minister in using the powers granted to him under Section 16 will not deprive the country accountants of the work they have done for many years and for which they are specially qualified.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) surprises me. You know Sir, there is an idiomatic expression which states: Shoemaker, stick to your last, but it appears to me as though the Opposition have either never heard of that idiomatic expression or are diametrically opposed to it. Not one of the speakers on their side, except for the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is an attorney. The others are all persons who have nothing to do with the Law Society. They are members of another profession because I consider an advocate to be a member of a profession different from that of an attorney. They are the ones opposing this Bill. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) has not yet spoken. I wonder whether he agrees with this Bill or not. He is one of the attorneys on the Opposition side. If the hon. member replies to my question, he will have to agree with every provision in this Bill. But he will not reply.

I come back now to the hon. member for Pinetown. He said that accountants have to pass an examination in the administration of estates. Attorneys will now have to pass an examination in bookkeeping but must we now say that attorneys may not keep their own books because there are accountants available to do this work? I think that that is quite wrong. I shall not object if the Minister prohibits auditors and banks from administering estates because I think that this is work which belongs to the attorneys because they are trained to do it. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) quoted from Section 62 (3) of the Administration of Estates Act which requires a certificate when a property in an estate is sold, a certificate which has to be obtained from the Master of the Supreme Court. The hon. member said that this certificate was obtained by the bank. Of course, the bank administered the estate and obtained the certificate but, knowing what happens in practice, I should not be surprised if the bank also had power of attorney to pass transfer. Once an attorney has been instructed, he will draw up the power of attorney and he will make the necessary arrangements for anything else that is required. That is why it is necessary for paragraph (h) to remain in this Bill so that we can be protected. I said just now: Shoemaker, stick to your last! Only advocates have spoken on the other side and it is they who condemn certain parts of this Bill. I know that the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is awaiting an opportunity to speak. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has now said that we must be fully bilingual. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) complained about this provision and said that it was wrong to compel the profession to become bilingual. Years ago I had a case between two farmers, both of whom were Afrikaans-speaking, in connection with certain farming equipment which was sold together with a farm. Certain difficulties a ose. The deed of sale was drawn up by a person who had nothing to do with the legal profession and because of this fact, the case went to court. The matter dealt with ploughs and harrows and so forth and the Judge—I do not want to mention his name but he was a Judge who was appointed by the United Party at the time because they wanted to get rid of him—was unilingual. When the evidence was heard in court in connection with harrows, he did not know what the Afrikaans word for it meant. It was almost impossible to go on with that case. It is not always so easy to translate these farming terms for a Judge. Dictionaries had to be used simply because the judge was not bilingual. That is why it is desirable to have bilingualism in the legal profession so that the time of the court will not be wasted. If the time of the court is wasted the case takes longer and the costs are proportionately higher. I want to say in passing that people say that this bilingualism which the hon. the Minister is now seeking to introduce is the thin end of the wedge. There is opposition to this provision. The objectors even say that the Government will introduce a measure soon which will require members of Parliament to be bilingual. Well, that is not a bad idea at all. We on this side are bilingual but I doubt whether all the hon. members opposite are bilingual and whether they are always able to follow what is said here.

I want to say a few words in regard to the investment of trust funds. The interest on these trust funds will now be deposited in the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. The Act was amended a few years ago to provide that when the amount in the Fidelity Guarantee Fund reaches R500,000, attorneys will no longer have to contribute to this fund. At the moment, as the hon. the Minister has already said, they have to contribute an amount of R60 per annum. When the amount in the fund reaches the figure of R500,000 that contribution will cease. I should just like to know from the hon. the Minister what will happen to the interest on trust moneys when the fund reaches that R500,000 level. Will the interest on the investment of trust funds with banks and so forth, then be paid over to the poor attorneys or will it continue to be paid into that fund indefinitely?

I do not have much more to say in connection with this Bill. I welcome the measure, particularly paragraph (h) of Clause 16. I hope that the rules which are going to be drawn up by the hon. the Minister will give adequate protection to attorneys both on the platteland and in the cities. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will not simply act on his own. The requests that certain work be reserved for attorneys will come from the Law Societies and after discussion with them, that work will then be reserved for attorneys. I thank the hon. the Minister for this measure and I am pleased that after all these years this measure has now been brought before Parliament in the interests of the Law Societies.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) feels that this is a debate which should be conducted not only by lawyers only, but by attorneys only. I should very much have liked to hear the views of farming members and other members representing platteland constituencies on the value of attorneys. I personally believe that it is a great and honourable profession, and some eloquent pleas have been put forward on behalf of the attorneys’ profession by country attorneys. But to me it would have been more impressive still, if support for their pleas had been forthcoming from persons other than attorneys living in the country. I say that the attorneys’ profession is a great and honourable and old profession, and we would all like to see that it remains an honourable profession. I believe that it is still very much an honourable profession in this country. I think the attorneys’ profession is thriving in general as much as one could wish. The particular aspect which is causing concern is the position of country attorneys, whose numbers have gradually dropped.

I think what has made the attorney’s profession such a respected one is largely the independence which its members have always evinced. The independence of the lawyer to whichever branch of the profession he belongs, is perhaps one of the attributes of the profession which is so highly respected. In this respect the position of the attorney differs from that of other professional men. I think the hon. the Minister as the custodian, in a broad sense, of the profession must be careful before he takes any step which will undermine the independence of the profession even to a certain extent. I am speaking of independence in the sense of independently making their way, wherever they happen to be in practice, without any protection other than that which is fully warranted.

Can you name a profession which is more protected than yours and mine.

I was coming to that point. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) in a sense suggested that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones and that in a sense advocates live in houses constructed entirely of glass, and the hon. the Minister rather agrees with that.

You can say that they live in a bottle for that matter.

Some of them do!

I venture to suggest that in so far as it can be said that there is any undue protection of advocates it is upon the only basis which is reasonable and permissible, and indeed upon a basis which gives protection not only to advocates but to many other professional people such as chemists, pharmacists, quantity surveyors, conveyancers, and so forth. In all these cases there are certain tasks that need performing and certain academic qualifications have been laid down which have to be complied with. In the case of advocates it has been laid down that they must have certain qualifications, and we are discussing one of those qualifications to-day. I do not think it can be said that advocates enjoy any special protection such as we are considering here. In this case we are considering passing a clause, Clause 16 (h), which would empower the Minister to introduce a new type of protection, a protection which I suggest does not fall into the other classes that I have touched upon, because here it has been realized that various institutions such as trust companies and banks and accountants administer estates, and from a technical point of view they apparently do it perfectly adequately. Indeed we must remember that the public has been turning to them for reasons best known to the public. One of those reasons possibly was the fear in the past that there may be defalcations amongst attorneys. There are naturally very few cases where there are defalcations, but the profession has had the wisdom to take steps to eliminate that fear in the minds of the public which caused the profession to lose further work of this kind. I refer here, of course, to the establishment by the profession of the Fidelity Fund. I do not doubt that the establishment of that fund, did to some extent stop the flow of work away from attorneys.

Sir, I do suggest that one has to be extremely careful when one attempts to strengthen the position of the attorney in the country. I think it was the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) who suggested that it might be the charms and the lures of city life, both for the attorney and his family which is partly responsible for the falling off in the numbers of attorneys in the rural areas. I am not certain that the profession may not have to reconsider some of its own rules in this modern age. The hon. member for Ceres touched upon the question of advertisement. One naturally recoils from the idea of an attorney advertising, but that is the type of thing to which the attorneys might possibly have to give careful consideration in order to meet the sort of competition that they are experiencing in the country districts. Therefore where we are presented with a clause such as Clause 16 (h) which simply empowers the Minister to lay down acts which shall not be performed by any person other than an attorney, a notary, a conveyancer, etc., one is very concerned at the possibility that such a clause might become law. It should be noted that this is a power which presumably will apply to work performed by attorneys throughout the country, including the towns. While a case may have been made out for the protection of country attorneys, apparently this will apply in the towns too. I personally think it is questionable whether there should be that protection in the country districts. I am well aware of the fact that there are fine men in the profession in all parts of the country, but I say again that if you give attorneys this type of protection, I do believe that they will conceivably forfeit a measure of respect among their competitors and it may possibly lead to a weakening of their own fibre. I do not wish to be dogmatic about that; but I think it is possible that it may lead to that, and I wonder therefore whether adequate consideration has been given to this very complicated matter.

Sir, I was saying that the hon. the Minister is seeking to take a power which will prevent persons, who have hitherto done certain types of work, from continuing to do so. He has indicated, very fairly, that this is a delicate provision, and I therefore regret the language of the hon. member for Prinshof who seemed strongly to resent the fact that anybody could share that view with the hon. the Minister and feel that there were two sides to this question, even perhaps in the interests of the profession itself. Sir, it follows therefore, that we on this side of the House would be extremely reluctant to give the hon. the Minister powers in such a blanket form.

Although the acts he has in mind have not been specified, he did in the course of his speech refer to the administration of estates, and I think he touched upon the question of conveyancing; but he said little else as to specific items of work contemplated. Here one must remember that wherever a specific measure has been introduced to deprive certain persons of the right to administer estates, there has been tremendous opposition from the persons concerned and this House has thought it wise not to press the issue. It is true, as the hon. the Minister has said, that there will be consultation; he has not said with whom there will be consultation except with the law societies themselves and presumably such other institutions as are referred to in the Bill.

I said with all interested parties, with the banks, the trust companies, etc.

I am very glad that that is so. Well, that is of some comfort but it is not a very great comfort since the Minister will then have the power simply to proceed in spite of any opposition that may be encountered.

For whom are you pleading?

So far as this particular clause is concerned I am not happy about it, both from the angle of the profession itself and from the angle that it may not have been adequately considered against the changing background of life, and from the angle as to whether it is truly in the interests of the esteem of the attorneys’ profession itself.

Sir, I would like to move on to other aspects of the Bill which certainly have my unqualified support. One of those provisions is the provision in regard to bilingualism. In order to be an advocate it has always been a requirement that you have to be qualified in Latin; that you should have taken at least one course in Latin, and I think both English and Afrikaans are at least as much needed as Latin. It is said that in order to be able to study many of our authorities one requires a knowledge of Latin since they stem from Roman law. Those authorities naturally are in the Latin language. That also applies to the works of many of the authorities on the Roman-Dutch law. If a knowledge of Latin is required, then it is even more important to have a sound knowledge of English and Afrikaans, the judgment of our courts being in English and Afrikaans and many of our text-books being in English and Afrikaans, not to mention the question of court work and the saving of the courts time by an adequate grasp of Afrikaans and English. I am very glad that the rights of people at present in the profession are being protected. I do not think more need be said in that regard.

I also support the provision in regard to the Fidelity Fund. Various arguments have already been advanced in support of this provision; but it seems to me that the effect of this will be that the public themselves will benefit to a certain extent because the costs of running an attorney’s office should be reduced, and since the fees which you may charge are related to those costs it is hoped that it will be possible to keep the costs within reasonable bounds. The hon. the Minister has said that in some countries they go even further, but I think the particular decision taken here is a highly commendable one.

I am sorry, Sir, that the Bill will perhaps have the effect of discouraging persons from studying outside our country. In the case of attorneys it seems to me that the odds are almost overwhelming against studying overseas because they must get their professional qualifications in South Africa. If therefore they do in fact spend some time overseas they will still have to spend a very considerable period here in order to acquire our own professional degree. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has touched upon this and has indicated that any degree, whether it be a legal degree or otherwise counts for the purpose of reducing the period of articles. That seems to me to be a further argument, particularly in this case. Sir, it is so widely accepted that travel broadens the mind and that meeting persons in other countries is a valuable experience, that one instinctively feels that it is a pity to depart from that. It has always been possible in the past and I do not believe it has done any harm …

It is a question of reciprocity.

Well, that is the point. One certainly would like to have reciprocity from these countries. I am not certain how that will work out, but one should give consideration to reciprocity even if it is not the fullest reciprocity. However, I agree that that is an aspect which has to be borne in mind. I do not know that there is any reference in this Bill to the question of reciprocity; but it seems to me that in most cases any study overseas is additional to the study undertaken here.

To sum up, Sir, this Bill in general will be of assistance to the attorneys’ profession. It contains certain provisions which deserve one’s full support. In other cases where we have certain reservations it seems from the hon. the Minister’s attitude that we may be able to bring about improvements in the Committee Stage, and I trust that that will be the case.

I shall not be very long because it seems to me that this measure, except for one or two small disagreements, is an accepted measure, and I do not think the Minister and I have ever heard so many attorneys talk for so long without a fee. I rise merely to say that any legislation which will assist legal men in their profession and protect them, as other professions are protected, should be supported. Sir, although this has no direct bearing on this Bill I do want to take up a few moments in drawing the attention of the hon. the Minister to the difficulty experienced by Coloured youths in becoming articled. I understand that only one Coloured lad has been articled in the past year. It seems that there are two possible reasons for that. The first is prejudice, and the second is that it was an accepted rule when I was a practising attorney that no one attorney may have more than two articled clerks, and in the majority of cases where you have a partnership of two men, each attorney already has his two articled clerks. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can make an appeal in this connection to the legal profession. Whether we accept the policy of separate development of the Government or whether we do not, the fact remains that it is intenteded by the Government to establish Coloured areas in which there will be courts which will probably be staffed by Coloured people. One finds that there is no opportunity for these people to qualify for the posts which the Minister himself will probably want them to occupy, that is to say, for the post of prosecutor and so on, unless we can remove what I believe is prejudice on the part of these people or do something about the fact that most firms already have their full quota of articled clerks. I am not going to deal with the question of the difficulty of the Coloured attorney practising in a White area. He cannot do it unless he gets a permit. It is unfortunate, but I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to-day to use his influence, in whatever way he can, to make it easier for Coloured lads to become articled. I was going to article a Coloured lad just before I gave up practice; I would have been very happy to article him. There are many matriculants who feel that they would like to become articled clerks but they have no opportunity to do so. Sir, I hope that any difficulties in this Bill will be ironed out, and I want to say to the Minister that if it is intended in the future to create separate institutions, the Government should take the lead and help these boys to receive training to qualify for the posts in which their services will be used in the future. I hope that plea will not fall on deaf ears.

I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the support which they have given to the principles of this Bill. Sir, it seems to me, if I may say so in passing, that we have now reached the stage in this House where we discuss Bills that we support almost at greater length than Bills which we do not support! However that may be, I am very grateful that hon. members have received this Bill in the spirit in which I presented it to the House, and on behalf of the law societies—because after all it is their interests which are at stake here; it is really their legislation which is before the House—I want to express my cordial and sincere thanks to members on both sides for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted here.

I want to reply very briefly to the points which hon. members have made here. Let me deal first with the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). I just want to say—the hon. member knows that that is so but I want to state it perfectly clearly for the sake of the record—that there is, of course, no legal obstacle in the way of any Coloured youngster who wishes to become an attorney. There is no legislation or custom which stands in his way; he is just as free as anybody else to become an attorney. For my part I would welcome it because I believe that every racial group should be given an opportunity to earn a livelihood. Personally I would welcome it if better facilities could be provided, as far as practitioners are concerned, to enable young Coloured men to become attorneys. I also want to give the hon. member the assurance that I shall discuss this matter with the authorities concerned and promote it to the best of my ability. More and more courses are being introduced at the universities to enable them to qualify as attorneys, and I shall use the necessary influence, particularly as far as the Western Cape University College is concerned, to see what headway we can make in that connection.

Then I come to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). I again want to point out to the hon. member that the profession to which he and I belong, whatever arguments we may advance, is better protected than any other profession as far as I know. We are not only protected in this sense that no unqualified person can enter our profession but we are also protected in the sense that we do not have any bad debts at all unless, of course, the attorney concerned becomes insolvent—and after all that is the most important consideration of all. What is even more important is that attorneys are under an obligation towards the hon. member and myself to pay our fees, whether they recover those fees from their client or not. That gives us even more reason to be much more indulgent when attorneys ask for protection and, note well, not for absolute protection. Let me also say this to the hon. member for Pinelands and to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) who also discussed this matter with me and who, like the hon. member for Pinelands is interested in this matter and has informed me of his interest, that what I am seeking to bring about here and what the attorneys want is not absolute protection for themselves; they are not seeking the total exclusion of other people who, as I have already said and as the attorneys admit, have acquired vested rights. Those vested rights have to be taken into account; the attorneys do want to take them into account and will take them into account. For my part I am obliged in any case to take vested rights into account. All we are asking for is an opportunity to demarcate the various spheres of work. Take the question of the administration of estates as a whole, for example. Hon. members will agree with me that there are certain aspects of the administration of estates which are peculiar to the one and not to the other. Take the question of trustees in insolvent estates, particularly where it is a matter of involved book-keeping, as in the case of insolvent companies. I readily admit that this is not work on which attorneys ought to have a monopoly. I readily admit that this sort of work falls within the scope of the functions of the accountant who is eminently qualified to do this sort of work.

Let me be very candid, gentlemen, in this regard. We have been trying to negotiate for years and years. Why did we fail in our negotiations? Because we were negotiating from weakness. We had no bargaining power. We could not negotiate as a matter of fact. We did not even know which people had vested interests and which did not. But if we pass this Bill then we will be negotiating from strength. That makes it a different proposition altogether.

*I want to make it clear that it is not a question of the attorneys wishing to develop a dog-in-the-manger mentality. They have never adopted such an attitude, nor will they ever adopt it in the future. But they are entitled to ask that their interests should also be taken into account. I cannot agree for one moment with the statement of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) that it will harm the profession if protection is given to it. Medical practitioners are in no worse position because protection is given to them. To me it seems that advocates become better and better the more they are protected. I do not believe therefore that we would be doing any harm to the profession. On the contrary, I believe I feel that we should help a profession which has gone out of its way in the past not only to render good services, but service for which in many cases they receive no remuneration. We must realize that the attorney, just like the general medical practitioner, is not only an attorney, just as the general medical practitioner is not just a medical doctor; he is a friend; he is a man who helps people in distress and trouble. The most important aspect, however, is that he first helps and then sees what money he can get for his assistance. He does not first lay down his price before he agrees to help. I know that there are some attorneys who do not do this, but the average attorney is a man who first helps and who very often first helps without having any guarantee that he is going to be paid for his services. There are many of us who were formerly attorneys who would have been much better off to-day if we had been paid for all the work we did. That is the position and we cannot get away from it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) says that we should under no circumstances interfere with the right of the individual to nominate the person whom he wants to act on his behalf.

That is what the select committee says.

Yes. I fully agree with that. I do not want to interfere with that right either. But if you look at this matter from the other angle, we are not interfering with the individual’s right when we say what work must be done by an attorney and what work must not be done by an attorney. On the contrary, we have already done that in the past; we have said that only attorneys and advocates may appear in court. We have already laid down such a demarcation, and in doing so we have not interfered with the individual’s right. In the same way we are not going to interfere with the individual’s right in this case either. I have admitted that Clause 16 (a) is not elegantly framed. Hon. members on the other side have referred to an amendment which I have not seen yet and which I have not had an opportunity of studying. I am quite prepared to listen to any arguments which hon. members may put forward in that connection. I am entirely in favour of it if they can improve this clause provided we do not violate the principle that attorneys are entitled to a certain amount of consideration.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) put a question to me in connection with the limit of the Fidelity Fund; he wants to know whether the interest will accrue to the attorneys once that limit has been reached. At this stage I am not in favour of the proposition that the interest should go to the attorneys at any stage. What I am in favour of is that the cost of auditing the accounts and the bank charges might perhaps be borne in the future by the fund, depending upon its strength. That, however, is quite a different matter and we can talk about it again later on. There would only be reproaches, which we want to avoid, if we agreed to the suggestion that the interest should accrue to the attorneys when the fund reaches a certain figure. In any event, that is my personal attitude at this stage. There may be other people who hold a different view.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has referred to the question of university degrees which are acquired overseas and to which no reference is made in the Bill. The hon. member is aware of the fact that there used to be reciprocity between ourselves and Britain as far as this matter is concerned. When we left the Commonwealth, the reciprocity which we enjoyed there was done away with, and it is because of that fact that we are doing away with the reciprocity which Britain formerly enjoyed in this connection. But that still does not alter the fact, as the hon. member himself has argued, that if universities recognize one another’s degrees, then official recognition may be granted to such degrees by the committee for the recognition of law examinations. We are obliged, of course, because of the principle of reciprocity, to take the same steps here as the steps taken in Britain as far as we are concerned. This was only a concession which applied, I would not even say while we were members of the Commonwealth, but while we were in the Empire. This is something which had its origin in those days. In saying that I am not suggesting that I do not want students to go and study overseas. On the contrary, one welcomes it if students want to go and study overseas; one welcomes it for obvious reasons which I need not enlarge upon. But the principle remains—and I think hon. members will agree with me—that one ought to receive the basic training which entitles one to become an attorney on one’s own soil, and since that is one of the aims of this Bill I wholeheartedly agree with it. The hon. member also referred to the period of six months, “the cleansing period”. I can only say to him that this is a matter which I discussed with the General Bar Council and they fully agree that what applies to the attorneys should also apply to the advocates. The reason for that is obvious. In the first place one does not wish to create the impression that one profession is inferior and that the other is a superior profession. In the second instance, the fact of the matter is that a person who practised at the Bar received greater publicity in his practice than the man who practised as an attorney. It is usually Supreme Court cases to which publicity is given and not cases handled by attorneys in the magistrates’ courts. The first man has an advantage over the second. The reason for adopting this attitude is to treat everybody alike.

The hon. member referred to the Rent Board and the Group Areas Board as far as the question of appearance before quasi-judicial bodies is concerned. It is certainly not the intention and I do not believe that there is any law which prevents an individual from appearing on his own behalf or which prevents a group of individuals from deputing a member of the group to appear on behalf of all of them. That is certainly not the intention. The idea is to prevent people who are not qualified at all from appearing before quasi-judicial bodies on behalf of other individuals without having any interest in the matter themselves apart from their interests in the remuneration which they can get of it. It is not possible at this stage to draw up a list, nor does one want to draw up a new list in this connection every year. It is not possible at this stage to give a list of all the quasi-judicial bodies. What will happen is that from time to time, as these things are investigated, one body will be proclaimed as a quasi-judicial body and another body will be deproclaimed, depending upon the circumstances. That is why it is felt that the clause should be framed in the way in which it is framed in this Bill.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) correctly referred to the responsibility of this House in connection with Clause 16 (a). I do not want to try to escape that responsibility, and I would therefore wholeheartedly welcome a discussion of this matter in the Committee Stage. The hon. member raised the question of attorneys who are struck off the roll and the subsequent institution of criminal proceedings. Hon. members are aware of the fact that when an attorney is struck off the roll it frequently happens that the Judge makes adverse comments and orders that the papers be referred to the Attorney-General for his attention. I want to go so far as to say that in most cases the law society concerned refers the case to the Attorney-General to decide whether action should be taken or not. In many cases action is taken but I think there are also cases where, quite correctly, no action is taken because the Attorney-General finds that it is not the type of case in which a prosecution ought to be instituted. After all, the mere fact that an attorney is struck off the roll is sufficient punishment. Any punishment which may be meted out to him thereafter is entirely secondary. The main penalty is the fact that he is struck off the roll. There are very few other professions in which a contravention carries the severe penalty that the offender is forbidden to continue to practise the profession for which he qualified. I do not think that a heavier penalty can be imposed upon a person than to prevent him for ever or for a certain period from practising the profession for which he qualified. I cannot imagine a more severe penalty. That does not mean to say that where moneys have been embezzled, particularly in those cases where the money is not refunded, the law should not take its course. It goes without saying that in those cases prosecutions will be instituted. But cases may occur—and I am aware of such cases—where the law society would feel quite correctly that no further steps should be taken.

The hon. members for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) outlined the principles of this Bill very clearly, and I thank them for their explanation of the terms of the Bill.

As hon. members on the other side have said, we can conduct a very fruitful discussion in the Committee Stage on many of these clauses. As far as that is concerned I am not wedded to any of the provisions of this Bill. If hon. members wish to move amendments I shall be very grateful if they will inform me of such amendments timeously so that I will have an opportunity of discussing them with the law societies, amongst others, before I come to any decision in that connection.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is an entirely non-contentious measure, on which there ought to be complete unanimity in this House, but that is no reason why we should debate this Bill at length! Hon. members will see that Clause 1 deals with administrative matters only. Then there are further clauses which are entirely consequential upon our withdrawal from the Commonwealth and the fact that we became a Republic. Hon. members will observe, amongst other things, that in the future the police will no longer receive “pay” but “salaries” and “wages”, because in the rest of the Public Service officials receive “‘salaries and wages” and not “pay”. Hon. members will also notice that in the future the official designation of recruits will be “students”. That is already the position in practice and this Bill merely confirms the existing practice.

There is practically only one new principle in this Bill and that is the principle contained in Clause 21, which provides for the establishment of a reserve list of officers. Unlike the army, which has a reserve list of officers, the Police Force has never had a reserve list of officers. Hon. members will realize of course that it can serve a very useful purpose in times of danger, when the police are called up for service, if one has a reserve of manpower in the form of retired police officers, men whose services can be put to very good use because of their experience. This Bill now makes provision for the establishment of a reserve list of officers.

For the rest I want to refer hon. members to the clauses which deal with the reserve Police Force and which bring them under the various regulations. Protection is also being given to the reservist who, without salary, serves as a policeman. In the future he will be dealt with for all practical purposes as though he is a policeman.

During the Committee Stage I intend to give notice of one amendment which will deal with the medical treatment of police who have already retired. This is a matter about which there have been arguments for years, and hon. members will be able to discuss it further in the Committee Stage.

The hon. the Minister can rest assured that we also regard this as an uncontentious measure. I can also assure him that despite that fact we shall not detain him very long with the second reading of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister has pointed to the only real principle in this Bill and that is the principle contained in Clause 21. It deals with the police reserve force of officers and the remuneration to be paid to members of the reserve. It is in regard to this remuneration that I should like to bring one matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister. These reservists have, of course, normal life assurance cover. Most of them have motor cars, that is one of their assets. As the hon. Minister knows they are required to use their motor cars for police reserve duty. This is the only way in which it operates efficiently as an emergency force, giving them immediate mobility. It has been brought to my attention that a number of insurance companies load these persons on their life assurance cover to the extent of about 10 per cent. And they are also loaded about 10 per cent in respect of their comprehensive car insurance cover if they use their motor cars for police reserve duty, which, as I have indicated, they have to do. I bring this to the notice of the hon. the Minister in the hope that in fixing the remuneration that will be paid to these persons in terms of Clause 21, this will be taken into account.

This is largely a measure designed to bring terminology up to date with the constitutional change of status of South Africa and also to place in statutory order various administrative changes that have been found necessary to introduce in the police department. I am particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister and the Police Force are reverting to the arrangement of dividing the country into divisional areas. I said at the time that I thought it was a retrograde step to adopt a change in terminology and to call sub-regions “police-controlled” areas. I was one of the persons who expressed regret at that change in the 1961 legislation and I am pleased to see that the conventional arrangement is to be restored.

There is a second provision in the Bill in respect of which I should like some information from the hon. the Minister and that is in regard to Clause 20. In this clause arbitrary powers are being conferred upon the Commissioner of Police in the new sub-sections (4) of Section 34 of the Police Act. Sub-section (4) of Clause 20 reads as follows—

I appreciate that the power is not a general one affecting all members of the force and that it is confined to the dismissal of either a special constable or a member of the Police Reserve Force. The point at issue, however, is the summary dismissal of an employee of the State. I think we should remember that in this situation the State is functioning in the capacity of an employer. In that capacity I do not believe it is either entitled or justified to assume to itself powers which are fairly and rightly denied to ordinary employers, the contractual employers. Whatever the terms of the agreement may be between the State and the special constable or the member of the police reserve it is basically an agreement of employment and in my view we should regard it as such. Just as I cannot justify a summary dismissal of a contractual employee without good and sufficient reason, so I cannot justify the summary dismissal of a State employee under some arbitrary powers granted by Parliament to a particular official. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that, whether in this case the special constable or the member of the reserve force is a contractual servant or a statutory servant, his rights and his tenure of office must, in the interests of good Government, be protected against arbitrary and even capricious dismissal.

As the hon. the Minister will know a State employee generally is safeguarded against dismissal by the provisions of the law under which he operates. Usually the grounds on which dismissal or discharge may be made are prescribed by law or there is prescribed by law the setting up of some suitable body to carry out a disciplinary trial or inquiry at which the official concerned may be heard or may be represented. In this instance there seems to be a complete departure from that salutory principle accepted throughout public administration. I cannot see why the provisions of Section 17 should not be applied in a case such as we are dealing with here. As the Minister knows in that case there is either a trial or a disciplinary form of inquiry which resolves the issue on which the official concerned acts. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain why there is this departure from what I consider to be a sound principle. Perhaps he can deal with this better in the Committee Stage, but I would like to ask the hon. Minister to go into this matter because as the clause now reads it simply amounts to what I have said is a summary dismissal, which introduces something entirely foreign into the Public Service Administration.

I thank hon. members for the brief and succinct way in which they conducted this debate and for the support which they have given this Bill. I must say in all honesty that I was perturbed by the disclosure made here by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), and I am very grateful for the fact that he raised the matter here. I was not aware of the fact that insurance companies acted in that way. Let me say at once that I regard it as very unfair in the first instance to load the premium which is payable on the personal life insurance of people and also to load the premium payable by them in respect of their motor insurance. I do hope that now that the hon. member for Durban (North) has raised the matter here, this practice will come to an end. I want to associate myself with him in making an appeal to the insurance companies, and I do so in all seriousness. They ought not to do this. Let us be perfectly clear on this point: These people do not do this work in their own interests; they do not do it because they have nothing else to do; they do it purely out of a sense of duty and love of their country; they want to render a service to their country. They do not do it in their own interests; they do it in the interests of all of us, including the insurance companies, and I honestly do not think that that is a fair approach; it may be a business approach but the attitude which they adopt with regard to this matter is not a fair approach. The consequences of this practice, which the hon. member has brought to my notice, will be gone into immediately, and I shall do whatever I can in this matter.

As far as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is concerned, the hon. member knows that there are two types of retired people who may be re-employed. In the first place, there are those people who do not have commissioned rank and, secondly, those who do have commissioned rank. This Bill now provides that people holding commissioned rank may also be employed in the reserve force of police officers. The hon. member will understand that it is not so much a question of employing the man; it is more a question of engaging him temporarily to take the place of an officer who is temporarily absent. If you first have to convene a council meeting every time you want to get rid of such a person’s services, it will take so long to get rid of him when his services are no longer required that it will not be worthwhile employing him.

Why this particular wording then?

If the hon. member has any objection to the wording, I am quite willing to go into it, because I do not want to create that impression, and I would be quite prepared to change the wording. The idea is simply to ask the man to come and help out temporarily. Unfortunately we cannot specify that it will be for a month or for six weeks because it depends entirely on the circumstances, on the nature of the troubles in the area concerned at that particular time, and that is why no specific period can be laid down. The ordinary man who is employed, is engaged for a specific period and in his case this question does not arise. In any event, I will go into this matter again and the hon. member can raise it again when we come to the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour?

The failure of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to prevent the South African Broadcasting Corporation from becoming a medium of propaganda for the Government and also of the Broederbond, has probably obscured the fact that he is also responsible for two large Government Departments, viz., the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department of Health. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs is under discussion this evening. I do not wish the hon. Minister to deduct from my words that we are not going to deal with the S.A.B.C. Indeed we will do so later. But I do feel that we should first of all deal with certain very important matters and call him to account for things he has done or failed to do in regard to the Post Office itself. Many of the things that have happened, not only in regard to the S.A.B.C., but also in regard to the Post Office and his administration, and I am sorry to say his inefficiency in regard to that administration, are so glaringly obvious, that I am sure hon. members will not be surprised to hear that I am moving the following amendment—

The effect of that if accepted, and I am sure it will be accepted by this House, would be to halve the hon. Minister’s salary. We are indeed being extremely generous to the hon. the Minister. Last year, we moved that the amount should be reduced by R3,000. The fact that we are now increasing the amount to R5,000 is an indication that the hon. Minister has not added lustre to his name as a Minister during the past year. Indeed we regard his views on everything, whether it be television, the S.A.B.C., or be it his role in respect of lotteries, as so outdated that I believe that the only appropriate thing the hon. Minister did during the past year was that when he addressed a meeting at Naboomspruit in the Transvaal, he entered the township on an oxwagon. And indeed the pace of the hon. Minister and the mind of the hon. the Minister is the pace of the ox and the mind of the ox.

The Post Office is a mighty and a great organization. It is asking us for no less than R75,000,000 on the Estimates on Revenue and R30,000,000 on Loan Account. It has an establishment of more than 36,000 able staff, well and truly represented by staff organizations which have indeed done a great deal for the Post Office employees. They deserve the gratitude of all interested in the Post Office.

You will not get a single vote from them.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) seems to be occupied only with the question whether we are winning votes or not. Sir, he is so irrelevant in the remarks that he is making that I think I shall refer to him in future as the hon. member for Ventersdorp, Mr. Cassius “Kleitrap”. During the past year these associations asked for certain important improvements in staff conditions in the Post Office. Though some of these were granted, I believe that not enough was done in regard to these very important requests which were made by the staff associations to the hon. Minister. Indeed many of the concessions were only made after there had been long and sometimes apparently fruitless negotiations by desperate people trying to do their best to help the staff in the Post Office. There have been meetings of protest throughout the country and very often there were frustrating delays while the matter was discussed and went from Post Office Staff Board to the Public Service Commission, to the Minister to the Postmaster-General—back and forth all the time. I believe that we in this country owe a debt of gratitude to the members of the Post Office staff, and I believe that the hon. Minister should give a more tangible sign of that gratitude. I think particularly of the hardworking people in the lowest grades in the Post Office. I think of the postmen and the post office clerks when they enter the Post Office service first of all, on those very low salary and other conditions which very often amount to real hardship for these young men. They deserve a better beginning in life in the Post Office. Mr. Chairman, resignations are to-day still on a high level, albeit that they have been decreasing slightly during the past year. Why have they been decreasing, even to this small extent? The reply is to be found in certain methods that have been adopted by the Post Office that I cannot deplore too much. Sir, actually a sword is being held over the heads of the post office employees, forcing them to remain in the post office, when the real thing that should have been done was to have kept them in the post office through improved conditions. Do you know, Sir, that the post office has gone and made a special arrangement with, inter alia, the S.A.B.C. and also a large bank in South Africa that neither would hire the others’ employees before six months have elapsed after that employee has resigned?

Quite right. I have done the same.

The hon. Minister of Transport’s agreement is not nearly as bad as the one made with Volkskas and with the S.A.B.C. He does not know about these other agreements. Why force these employees who want to change their jobs to be without work, unemployed, for at least six months? That is not the way to keep staff. The way to keep staff is to improve conditions. Sir, we are particularly concerned about the difficulties which the technical staff in the Post Office undergo at the present moment. We know that they have been desperate during the past months, how they were promised a commission, how that commission sat (the Rive Commission), and how it reported. Sir, if ever there was a case where a matter was badly and foolishly handled at ministerial and Cabinet level, it was the implementation of those aspects of the Rive Report that were acceptable to the Post Office people. Let us say first of all that many of those recommendations were unacceptable, but in so far as they did provide some form of improvement for the technical and engineering staff, much more could have been done to see that they were more efficiently implemented, that there was not this long delay, nor this uncertainty in the statements which were issued, statements so uncertain and so contradictory that a protest meeting was held at which certain rather dire and sometimes even irresponsible threats were made against the hon. Minister himself. Sir, when do we start to realize that the technical and engineering man is a specialist and that a specialist must be paid according to his merits, according to his talents and according to his worth. Why, Sir, in Great Britain there are at least five members in the Post Office Department who receive much more than the actual Minister in Britain himself. The Minister receives £5,000, but there are people receiving £8,000 a year in the Post Office Department in Britain. Unless we look after our technical people in the Post Office and elsewhere then indeed we are going to have the continual difficulties we have experienced in the past as regards lack of staff.

If there is one indication of how the chances in the Post Office are less favourable for the ordinary Post Office staff member than in any other Government Department, the following statistics prove it. Do you know, Sir, that the higher posts among the 36,000 posts in the Post Office Department number less than 2 per cent? It is the lowest by far of any State Department. The chances for advancement are the worst in the Post Office to-day. I know there have been some small so-called improvements for one can actually call them improvements when the percentage of higher posts, according to the Estimates on the Table, amounts to less than 2 per cent of the total of the staff? The percentage of higher posts in other State Departments is very much higher. They go from 8 per cent, 10 per cent, 13 per cent to 18 per cent in the case of the Department of Agriculture and to 33 per cent in the case of the Department of Information. So we have this difficulty in regard to the technical staff with the ordinary man in the Post Office looking for better chances of advancement. It is high time that there were better opportunities along the lines that I have suggested. Coming to conditions in the Post Office, Sir, the lack of accommodation apparently is growing worse instead of better throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. One need only look at the amounts which have been made available on Loan Account for Post Office buildings to see that year after year in the past four years these amounts from Capital Account have been decreasing. In an expanding Post Office with more staff the amount made available for expansion of capital works and buildings has actually been decreasing. I am referring to building and not to the general Capital Account.

May I ask a question?

Order! The hon. member for Wolmaransstad ought to know how to put a question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Orange Grove a question?

Mr. Chairman, my reply is “no”. We are now in Committee and the hon. member can rise and speak at any time. I shall be able to reply to him then. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. member has asked if he could ask a question. He has been refused. Are members entitled to say “hy is bang”?

I rule that an hon. member is perfectly entitled to say “hy is bang”. [See later ruling.]

In view of your ruling, Sir, I am prepared to allow the hon. member to put his question. I am certainly not afraid of that member.

Mr. Chairman, following on what the hon. member has said, does he wish to propose that the salary of the Chairman of the South African Broadcasting Corporation be increased?

I have no idea what that has to do with what I am saying now. My reply is quite obvious. I see no reason why the salary of the Chairman of the South African Broadcasting Corporation should be increased. I find very many reasons why it could be decreased, but the trouble of course is that we in this House, we who pay the licence fees, are not allowed to hear what the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. is.

To return to staff matters, I think the time has come again to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not reconsider his decision in regard to Post Office employees in the Transkei, who have been asking politely but firmly for a special Transkei allowance, which is granted to people in other Departments. Indeed, Sir, the position is so bad that the President of the Post and Telegraphs Association had this to say a few days ago—

The responsible person is not the Postmaster-General. The responsible person is the hon. the Minister himself. Regarding the Postmaster-General, I should like to say in passing that we understand he is going to Vienna for a very important postal conference. I am sure that he has the support of everyone on this side in any steps that he may take to strengthen our position in that international organization. I should also, however, like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a statement what the position is at present in regard to the other countries in Africa and the African Postal Organization, because there have been complaints that parcels to other states in Africa have been returned unopened and that the postal authorities in some other African states have refused to accept postal articles from South Africa.

Coming to the Post Office finances itself, we see that it has a surplus, and a splendid one, of R13,000,000. With a surplus such as that I think we can really claim that services should in many respects be improved. May I ask, for instance, why it was necessary to increase postal box rentals during the last year? Why was it necessary to increase them by R2, namely, from R3 to R5, bringing an additional increase of R260,000 to the Post Office—a quarter of a million rand—extra when there already is a surplus of R13,000,000? I say it was utterly unnecessary. That decision should be reconsidered. We should go back to the old Post Office box rental we had in the past. We should also like to have an assurance that when the proposed new coins are minted and when the tickey disappears—and it might happen—it will not be used as an excuse by the Post Office to increase the price of calls at ordinary call boxes.

There is another important matter which I feel I should raise. I have raised it by means of questions in this House. This is in regard to the naming of the Post Office to be erected in Rissik Street in Johannesburg. Apparently it has become a sort of tradition in South Africa for edifices, tunnels, dams, etc., to be named after prominent persons. Here, however, was a special instance of a name being given to a Post Office in Johannesburg against the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of the city. I asked that the hon. the Minister tells me which great organizations representing Johannesburg approached him to rename the Rissik Street Post Office the Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office. What he did was to give me a long list of names, namely, the A.T.K.V., the F.A.K., and other organizations, including, as he said, the three Afrikaans Churches, which are affiliated to the Federale Raad van Sakekomitees in Johannesburg. He gave me those names. One had the impression from his answer that they all approached him directly. I continued with my questions, and what did I discover some time later? I discovered that not a single one of those organizations had approached him directly to rename the Post Office, but that the request had actually come from one body only, namely, the Federale Raad van Skakelkomitees in Johannesburg itself. I am quite sure that that organization had not approached all the other bodies and had also not been approached by all the Churches in this matter. Who is behind this? The hon. the Minister said Johannesburg asked him. Let me tell him: Johannesburg did not ask for that name for this Post Office. The City Council of Johannesburg rejected it. The representatives of the largest political party in the whole of Johannesburg rejected it firmly and out of hand. The demand came from an organization which, together with the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings, bears the same post office box number and the same address and the same telephone number as the person who is also the General Secretary of the Broederbond. If you look at the address of his organization, you will see that it is Simmonds Street 95. You will notice that the post office box number is 8711—not to be confused with 4711. You will find that that is the post office box number of the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings and also the post box number of the Secretary of the Broederbond, who actually are behind this changing of the name. I am indeed surprised that a post office organization such as the Afrikaanse Taal-en Kultuurbond should be affiliated to this body and should, as a Post Office body have asked that the name of the Prime Minister should be given to this particular Post Office. It is entirely wrong that it was done. I believe that it was wrong too that the Chairman of the A.T.K.V., who is the Postmaster-General, should have been associated with a request of this nature. I, therefore, appeal to the hon. the Minister. We do not intend any personal slight to the hon. the Prime Minister, but I believe that, through the information the hon. the Minister has given to this House, he has embarrassed the Prime Minister, that he has given information to the Prime Minister which was not correct but which was untrue, and that on that account, he should avoid embarrassment to the Prime Minister by deciding that he will no longer give that particular name to the Post Office in Johannesburg.

I should like to say a few words—I am sure I shall have the hon. member for Vereeniging on my side in this matter—about the confiscation of lottery tickets. I am sure that I have the support of many hon. members on the other side of the House in what I am going to say now. It will be in regard to the confiscation of the lottery tickets and the keeping back of the money in the envelopes containing those tickets by the hon. the Minister himself. I am saying what I have to say without going into the question of whether lotteries are advisable or not. I trust that we shall not have a moral lecture from the hon. the Minister as we had last year on the Broederbond and on television. The fact is that 42,080 letters were kept back and that those letters contained R133,000 of the public’s money. Up to the present moment that issue has not been finalized, and tens of thousands of rand are being kept by the post office. They are refusing to pay back the money in hundreds of instances. They have changed their policy in regard to it. I have correspondence here from all over South Africa. I have cases where people applying for the money had to fill in special forms, and had to give the numbers of the counterfoils, and go before a Commissioner of Oaths. I have letters from other people indicating that they had written months ago and that they had received a reply from the post office that nothing had been done about the matter to finalize it yet. I have a telegram which was brought to my notice today from someone in Johannesburg who said that he had received a letter signed by the Postmaster-General which stated that the whole question of participation in lotteries was still under consideration and despite Press reports to the contrary that the orders could be returned at that stage. Some people have had their postal orders returned. Others have not. I have correspondence here on one case in which a first application was made on 27 January for the return of the money. On February 17 a form was filled in. On February 19 another form, giving all the particulars necessary, was filled in and then, after a wait of weeks, a letter arrived from the Postmaster-General regretting the delay and saying that no decision had yet been taken. The latest is a letter of 28 April, also from the Postmaster-General saying: “The whole question is still under consideration and I am afraid that it will be necessary to retain your postal order until a decision has been reached, when I shall write to you again.” Has there ever been a Minister so incapable of reaching a decision as this Minister? These postal orders and these letters were kept back four, five and six months ago and he is probably continuing to do so. He has not yet reached a decision on what to do about it. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of rand of the public’s money is being held by the post office and tens of thousands of people, among them widows and poor people, are wondering what has happened to the money. [Interjections.] I know this is a matter of small concern to members on the other side, but among the letters held back, there was an important letter containing a vital contract worth tens of thousands of rand which had nothing whatsoever to do with lotteries. It was held back and that contract with a Rhodesian firm was nearly wrecked. I know it is of no concern to members on the other side of the House that a certain home for retarded children lost R13,000 in income through the action of the hon. the Minister. I know it is of no concern to him. We can hear the laughter on the other side when they hear these things, yet these matters are of concern to poor people—to the sick and to the needy. I say that of all the petty deeds of the hon. the Minister, I regard this as the pettiest and of all his childish actions I regard this as the most puerile of them all. We adults do not need the hon. the Minister to look after our morals in regard to taking a ticket in a lottery. We do not need him to give us a lottery lecture. I wonder whether there is a single hon. member on the other side who in his own life, whether it be at a church lottery, a picnic or any type of lottery, has not taken out a lottery ticket. Is there one? I ask them through you, Sir. Not a single one. Are the 105 hon. members on the other side all guilty in the eyes of the hon. the Minister? Another point is that these postal orders do not remain valid for always. They become stale after a period of three months, I believe. What is going to happen to them? Is the post office going to confiscate them? Do not let the Minister come and tell us that he can do nothing in regard to this matter, because Section 35 of the Act empowers the Postmaster-General to return even such postal orders and such letters. We demand that the hon. the Minister should stop this nonsense and that he should return the money. The money is not his. Let him return the tickets. He has no right to them whatsoever. Indeed, speaking of tickets, I think it is time that the hon. the Minister got his ticket of leave, a permanent ticket of leave. We know that there are important Cabinet changes in the offing, and it may well be that this is the last opportunity that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will have in representing the post office in the rather inefficient way he has done in the past. I only hope he will not take the post office with him, too. In a Cabinet which does not contain many talents, he has shown a lack of talent in administration, a lack of consideration for the people under him, a preoccupation with matters utterly foreign to the post office and akin more to television and other evils, imaginary or otherwise, which the hon. the Minister sees. I hope that when the time comes the hon. the Prime Minister will see to it that we have another Minister of Posts and Telegraphs next year, and instead of having to ask for a reduction of R5,000 in the salary of the hon. the Minister, it will not even be necessary to pay him anything at all.

We have this afternoon again had the bitter experience of having to listen to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who tells us the same story every year, although his showing in the House this year was the poorest I have ever seen. We know from experience that if a man does not have a good case, he becomes insulting, and I really do not think that the hon. member for Orange Grove has done his party any good at all by addressing the hon. the Minister in such an insulting way. I think that the United Party will discover that the hon. member for Orange Grove may eventually do them the same amount of harm as that done them by Garry Allighan who wrote for the Sunday Times. When they discovered at a later stage, whom they were dealing with they dropped him like a hot potato. Unless I am mistaken, the hon. member for Orange Grove was also a member of the Press gallery but he was eventually forbidden ever to sit there again. That is his background and his history and I challenge him to deny it.

That is not correct.

The hon. member made a ferocious attack upon the hon. the Minister for agreeing that the new post office in Rissik Street should be called the Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office. He asked who had made that request. I do not know whether his information is correct or not but I want to tell him that it was the Federale Raad van die Afrikaanse Skakelkomitees in Johannesburg which made that request and that this Federale Raad covers the city of Johannesburg and all its suburbs. That Federale Raad has liaison with numbers of other associations. I want to mention a few of these associations and when I have done so I want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with me that this is an important body. That Federale Raad has liaison with the F.A.K. [Interjections.] The F.A.K. is the central body for all the Afrikaans cultural associations in the Republic. There is a branch of the F.A.K. in every one of those suburbs and throughout the whole of the Rand. Their members constitute the intelligentsia on the Rand. This body includes the A.T.K.V. I want to point out to the hon. member that there are thousands of railway officials, Afrikaans-speaking people, on the Rand. If he inquires he will find that they are all, almost without exception, members of the A.T.K.V. There is also liaison with the A.T.K.B., the post office associations of Afrikaans language and culture, the Voortrekker movement, the Afrikaans churches on the Rand, the Vrouefederasie of the Transvaal—there is a Vrouefederasie in every town—the Johannesburg Afrikaanse Sakekamer, the Kamer van die Transvaalse Onderwysvereniging, Johannesburg, the Musiekvereniging and numbers of other too numerous to mention.

Is there one single English-medium body amongst them?

No, there is no English-medium body amongst them. I am very sorry that the hon. member has asked that stupid question. I am really sorry to have to reply to it. No, there is not; nor are there any English-medium associations on the Rand which are interested in language and culture. Let him mention one to me. There is, for example, no English Federal Council for Language and Culture, and it is a great pity that this is the case. I think that I can quite rightly say that more than 50 per cent of the people on the Rand made that request.

That is absolute nonsense!

I want to help the hon. member to wake up to reality. He always reports to the Sunday Times simply in order to have his photograph published. For example, he let fall these pearls of wisdom—

Mr. Chairman, that is not so. The whole of the Rand is at present divided up into 36 constituencies, including Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Kempton Park and so forth.

But is it a Rand post office or a Johannesburg post office?

I am speaking of the Rand because it is a central post office for the Rand. The hon. member used the same argument in connection with the Johannesburg Advisory Committee on the S.A.B.C. I have it here in the Sunday Times. It was actually on that occasion that he said that Johannesburg was predominantly an English-speaking city.

It is true of Johannesburg.

The hon. member will have the opportunity to state his own case. I just want to point out to the hon. member that of the 36 constituencies on the Rand, 18 are National Party seats. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that after the next general election the picture there will be completely different. I want, once and for all, to deny here this afternoon that Johannesburg is overwhelmingly English speaking; that is not true. There may be small spots in Johannesburg like Houghton and a few other suburbs which are predominantly English speaking, but this is not true of Johannesburg as a whole.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that he has not insulted the hon. the Minister here by objecting to the fact that that post office will be called the Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office; nor has he insulted the hon. the Prime Minister. He has not insulted himself either because I do not think he can be insulted. Let me tell the House whom he has insulted. He has insulted the Afrikaans-speaking intelligentsia on the Rand. Those are the people whom he has insulted here. What is wrong with that post office bearing the name of Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd? This is not the first time something of this nature has happened in the Republic of South Africa. There are numbers and numbers of examples that I can mention in this regard to-day. I want to mention, for example, the Jan Smuts Airport. What is wrong with that?

Who asked for it?

The whole country.

General Smuts was a great man, an historical figure, and we do not begrudge his family the fact that his name is perpetuated in this way. We also have the Louis Botha Airport; we have the D. F. Malan Airport. Perhaps the hon. member will say that all these people are now dead; he does sometimes argue in that stupid way, but I just want to tell him that when the Jan Smuts Airport was put into operation, General Smuts was still alive. When the D. F. Malan Airport was opened, Dr. Malan was still alive. We also have the Strijdom Airport. We have also the Duncan Dock and the Sturrock Dock. What is wrong with that? There is another fact I want to mention for the hon. member’s edification. On 1 April 1955 the great bridge over the railway lines in Johannesburg was opened, the bridge at the lower end of Sauer Street, and the City Council of Johannesburg called that bridge the Queen Elizabeth bridge.

What does he have to say about that?

Whom did they consult? They did not consult the Johannesburg public. But I ask again, what is wrong with that? I do not object to the fact that the Johannesburg City Council of their own volition decided that that over-bridge should be called the Queen Elizabeth over-bridge. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has devoted the whole of his speech to a defence of the naming of the Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office, and in doing so he has completely missed the whole point. Nobody has ever objected to the Strydom Tunnel or the Hendrik Verwoerd dam. The objection is that at the request of a politically orientated sectional organization…[Interjections.] It is sectional. It represents only a section of a section of the people of South Africa. On a sectional demand the name of a living political figure is attached to the post office of the largest city of South Africa, Johannesburg. It is usual to name airports, dams and bridges after people but it is so ridiculous for people to give their address as p/o Hendrik Verwoerd. Johannesburg is known throughout the world. To most people it is synonymous with South Africa. People will now have to give their address as p/o Hendrik Verwoerd. People will say: “What is this? Is this the new capital of South Africa?” [Interjections.] Sir, the objection is firstly that a controversial political figure, whilst in office, is having his name attached to a postal address of a commercial centre, world known, and an area which, despite what that hon. member may have to say, does not want it and has not asked for it. This is not the Vereeniging Post Office or the Krugersdorp Post Office. The hon. member talks if the Witwatersrand asked for it: he says that more than 50 per cent of the Witwatersrand asked for it. That is not even true. Does he claim that the A.T.K.V. is the only intelligentsia. [Interjections.] I repeat this, Sir, so that it may be recorded. The hon. member for Brakpan says they are the only intelligentsia.

Some of the intelligentsia, I said.

He said they were the intelligentsia. I place that on record so that the rest of South Africa will know that this Nationalist Party, officially through a spokesman in Parliament, claimed to themselves the intelligentsia of South Africa. The other objection of the hon. member for Bethlehem was that we attacked the Minister. If ever a Minister deserved to be attacked, if ever a Minister deserved to have his salary reduced then this is the Minister who deserves it; this Minister of notorious assegai fame; this Minister whose thinking follows that direction in that he believes South Africa’s communications should be by tom-tom; this Minister who is holding back the communications of South Africa deserves the censure of this House, and I shall tell you why, Sir. Because he has not got the willingness or the ability to bring South Africa in line with the modern needs of a modern country. Anywhere you go in the world you feel ashamed of your own country when you compare its communications with others. We cannot have television because it is a little bioscope. What they are really afraid of is that on television the viewers will see the shame on the faces of the readers of the slanted news that is being put over the radio to-day.

Take our telephone communications of South Africa. That system is a disgrace.

The best in the world.

This hon. member has apparently never left Ventersdorp’s backyard. He says it is the best in the world! Compare our telephone system with that in any modern country, even with under-developed countries and see how it compares. It is a disgrace that South Africa, with all our wealth, with all our modern ideas in the sphere of commerce and industry, should have to live and struggle with the system we have to-day. There have been advances such as automatic exchanges in rural areas but that is completely negatived by the fact that there is no staff to man those exchanges. You can ring for 20 or 30 minutes before you can raise a rural exchange which is now connected with so-called automatic telephones. Take a city like Durban. You find that commerce and industry, the very life of Durban, is subjected to a telephone system truly in keeping with what I call the tom-tom ideas of the Minister. [Interjections.] The Durban City Council has the one telephone service where you can get service. If you apply to the Durban City Council for a telephone you can get it installed in a couple of days. But if you ask for one in Cape Town you are told the exchanges are over-loaded. Just try to get a telephone in Newlands if you are not a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I asked questions of the Minister in regard to the trunk service in Durban. He admitted in his reply that the delays from Durban to Johannesburg were sometimes from 60 to 120 minutes—longer than it takes to fly there. You can book a telephone call in Durban and be in Johannesburg before the call comes through. That is the position in which we find ourselves today. You can fly to a city 400 miles away and beat your own telephone call. But then you have to spend anything up to half an hour in getting the exchange first. It is all very well to say the delay is 60 or 120 minutes but what about the time you have to spend in getting the exchange? Sir, we are not all living on Government benefits; our time is not worthless. People in business place a value on their time. To-day you cannot conduct essential urgent business by telephone because you do not know how long you will have to wait for the call …

You are talking nonsense.

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about himself. Anybody who wants to use the trunk-call system from Durban to-day is afraid to book a call because, even if he has been told there is an hour’s delay, it may come through in half an hour or it may come through in an hour and a half. He is tied to his desk waiting for the call. You may have to wait for 24 hours for a trunk call. I had an example of this over the Easter recess of a person who was waiting for a call until the next morning. There was a 24 hours’ delay to get through to Lourenço Marques.

Where was the delay?

The delay was caused by the fact that they could not get through Johannesburg. They told him there was an indefinite delay and that the first time he could book his call would be the next morning. [Time limit.]

Order! Before I called upon the hon. member for Venters-dorp (Mr. Greyling) to address the Committee I want to revert to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). I find that, in similar circumstances, Mr. Speaker Conradie in a ruling pointed out that it was a privilege for an hon. member to get up and to ask the hon. member addressing the House a question and if the request was turned down by the hon. member addressing the House he should not be accused of being scared. I therefore consider myself bound by the ruling of Mr. Speaker Conradie.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.