The Bill before the House is one which has aroused a certain degree of controversy in the country, and I think it is evidenced from the speeches made on this side of the House that we support this Bill in principle but have certain reservations in regard to its administration and the way in which Coloured youths should be canalized into these training centres. Last night when the debate was adjourned the hon. member for Piketberg was dealing with the question generally. I do not intend replying to the points he raised. I would, however, like to indicate that we on this side have shown that we have certain reservations concerning the implementation of this Bill, and I hope the hon. the Minister will allow a certain period of time to elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of the Bill so that he will have time to consider the amendments we want to place on the Order Paper.

Now, we believe that this is a constructive step in the socio-economic programme for the Coloured community, but we believe that it must be an integral part and a factor in bringing about the general upliftment of the Coloured people as far as their sociological problems are concerned. I mention this point because we know that there are certain provisions for the Coloured youths under 18 years of age, and consequently a programme should be devised whereby the training centres will form part of that upliftment programme for youths between 18 and 24 years of age. I believe it is important that the sociological preventive measures should be taken by the Department of Coloured Affairs, particularly in regard to the behavioural deviate type of youth who, when he reaches the age of 18, no longer falls under the protection of the Children’s Act, which is only applicable to persons under 18 years of age. Therefore I believe that the Minister would be going a long way towards solving the sociological problem which obviously does exist, particularly in the Western Province, if greater attention was given to the provisions of the Children’s Act and the implementation of those provisions. The Children’s Act is looked upon as a children’s charter and it has been amended from time to time, but it includes an important definition of a child in need of care. There are nine grounds on which a child can be declared to be in need of care and then committed to a children’s home or some form of institution. I believe that a great deal more can be done where these young teen-aged Coloureds are found to be developing behavioural difficulties, and that they could be brought before a children’s court, and if they are found to be in a state of physical or mental neglect, or they have no visible means of support, those are grounds on which these youths could be committed to an industrial school where they could obtain guidance and learn a trade. In reply to a question in the House recently, the Minister said that there was only one school of industry catering for Coloured boys, namely at Ottery, with 631 pupils. It does appear that in respect of this particular aspect, the Minister’s Department could do a great deal more research to see whether it is not possible for the provisions of the Children’s Act to be more fully utilized, so as to prevent these persons developing more serious behavioural difficulties. Therefore I believe that as far as the training centres are concerned which are provided for in this Bill, they should merely form part of the programme for the general uplift of young Coloureds, for the mutual benefit of the Coloured community itself and the country. I believe that with a programme to bring about the upliftment of the Coloured community, it is first of all important that the provisions of the Children’s Act should be fully utilized and, if necessary, further welfare officers should be appointed to undertake the necessary field work which is required to implement the provisions of the Children’s Act.

Together with that programme we believe that it would be in the best interests of the Coloured community and of the country as a whole if compulsory education could be introduced for the Coloureds. We in Natal have such compulsory education for the Coloured community. It is a position which was taken over by this Government when they took over Coloured education from the provinces, and I am pleased to say that the Government has maintained that position.

I think it is indicative that as far as the Coloured community in Natal is concerned there seems to be very little of this problem of the behavioural difficulties of the Coloured youth, particularly as far as going into employment is concerned, due to the fact that there is compulsory education. I believe that this is a step which should be extended throughout the country and not merely restricted to the province of Natal. Therefore it is almost uncommon to hear of the term “skolly” in Natal unless the person is referring to a Coloured in the Western Province. Therefore I believe that this programme should also bring about compulsory education for all Coloured children and that this aspect can then be dealt with also in terms of the Children’s Act where we find that behavioural difficulties are developing amongst those persons under 18 years of age. Then steps can also be taken in terms of the Children’s Act because as far as a child in need of care is concerned one of the grounds for committal is also that he is an habitual truant.

In regard to the position as far as the industrial schools are concerned I believe that the Minister will be doing a great service to the Coloured community if he could have more schools of industries created for the Coloured males in particular. As regards the other institutions administered by this Minister and his Department concerning the children under 18 years of age, it is a question of reform schools. It is interesting to note that there are far more reform schools than schools of industry. There are three reform schools. It does appear that as far as the reform schools are concerned they are the last resort because those are persons who have committed an offence and who are juvenile delinquents in the true sense of the word. However, I believe that these preventive steps are most important so as to bring about this general upliftment and the better equipping of the Coloured youth to face the future. As far as the other provisions contained in existing legislation are concerned I want to say that if one refers to the last annual report of the Department of Coloured Affairs you will find that page 12 deals with the question of youth camps. Here I think that the hon. the Minister could perhaps give some indication as to whether there is to be any connection between these camps and the training centres. The report reads as follows—

When the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill he used similar terms to those in this annual report. It would therefore be interesting to know whether the training centres are in any way to be based on a similar system as he had intended in the case of the youth camps dealing with the 16-17 age group. In respect of that programme of the general upliftment of the Coloured we come to the group for which this Bill provides, namely the 18-24 year olds.

Here the same problem exists to a certain extent amongst white youths but the provision of military training, etc., certainly has shown that where such youths have been developing behaviour difficulties, a term in the army has been of great benefit to them. It would appear that although the Government does not at this stage intend having military training introduced for these young people it does se_gm that it intends having a programme of discipline and training for these people. It is interesting to see what provisions already exist for the over-18-year-olds. We know that the old Work Colonies Act was amended in 1963 and replaced by the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act which does make provision for a certain type of person to be committed to a rehabilitation centre or a retreat. I particularly mention this point because the hon. the Minister was most desirous that these training centres should not develop a stigma and that they should not merely be regarded as a camp for skollies and loafers—that was I think the expression which the hon. the Minister used.

I hope that the hon. the Minister can give some indication to show that that element can be dealt with in terms of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act which would then allow these training centres to develop as true centres without necessarily gaining a stigma. I think that the stigma will be greatly obviated if the hon. the Minister can give the Coloured community an assurance that these training centres are not for that type of person but that he has the necessary powers in terms of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act to deal with these people.

If one looks at the basis upon which a person may be committed to such a rehabilitation centre, one finds that the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, Act No. 86 of 1963, does not indicate the purposes for which persons are detained in retreats and rehabilitation centres. In terms of section 4 (b) they might receive “training in habits of industry and work”. Then it deals with the type of person and the procedure which can be adopted before a person is committed to such a rehabilitation centre. Section 14 (d) of that Act provides for a person who “has no sufficient means of honest livelihood; or (e) leads an idle, dissolute or disorderly life”. These are provisions that already exist in legislation. I do hope that the hon. the Minister can give an indication of a programme for the greater utilization of existing statutes to bring about an upliftment of the Coloured people so as to see that we have a Bill which will bring into existence a training centre which will in the true sense of the word be able to deal with that group of persons who fall outside the provisions that already exist so that they may be trained to be of more benefit to their community and to themselves.

The question of dealing with these people and the provisions in this Bill calls for a certain degree of comment. I mentioned at the outset that this side of the House intends moving several amendments to various clauses in this Bill. I do not wish to waste the time of the House by dealing in any detail with these clauses as they can be dealt with at the Committee Stage. There are however a few comments which I should like to make. First and foremost, one of the reasons for the initial reaction to this Bill when first published was I think that in some quarters it was labelled as a forced training camp and various other definitions were given to this Bill. I might say that they were completely false definitions on closer examination of the Bill. Reading through this Bill it is obvious that there are severe punitive measures to be taken against these people. It would appear that if certain of these measures as they stand now were carried out it could be said that this is a piece of legislation which would be detrimental to the Coloured people as far as their rights and freedom are concerned. However, we try to view this Bill in a constructive light. The suggestions that we make are made in the hope of being constructive. Firstly, as far as the boards of management which are to be established are concerned, I think it would be in the interests of the Coloured community if the hon. the Minister would make provision for a suitably qualified welfare officer to be included on such boards of management. I think that that would be of great benefit to the Coloured youths themselves and also to their parents. Another aspect is the question of Coloureds living outside the Western Province.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that the first training centre is to be established in the Western Province but the Bill lays down that every Coloured person shall be liable for registration for such training. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister can give us an indication as to what extent it will apply in any of the other provinces. This is important because there are many Coloureds living in other parts of the country who sometimes find it a great disadvantage when such institutions are situated over a thousand miles away from their homes. The question of carrying proof of registration is I believe unreasonable if the hon. the Minister intends to implement that provision; the trainee should be allowed a reasonable time to produce such proof of registration. As the Bill stands at the moment he can be arrested. The important clause dealing with exemption will be dealt with in more detail by other members of this side of the House.

However, Sir, it is an important aspect that the Minister must clearly define as to which type of youth he intends to place in such training centres. The nature of the training is another important aspect because the main basis of training relates to training for any kind of employment. In this regard we should like some more information from the hon. the Minister as to what is to happen to the trainee once he has completed his 12 months’ training at a training centre. Will he then be free to find his own employment, will there be liaison between the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Labour to see that that person is placed in employment after his training has been completed? This is an important factor because we know, in dealing with other organizations and institutions, that invariably, where a person has undergone a period of training, particularly if it is of a type which brings about a degree of discipline, unless the after-care of that person is maintained and unless some other organization or other machinery exists to ensure that that person then goes into immediate employment, much of the good that has been done during the 12 months training could be undone. I realize that the Bill does provide for the re-committal of those persons to such training centres. However, I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give us some indication as to the type of training that these people are to receive and what provision is to be made for their placement in a form of employment.

The other important aspect which I think the hon. the Minister could reply to at this stage during the Second Reading Debate, is in regard to clause 26. In this clause it states: “The provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Apprenticeship Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, and the Wage Act shall not apply in relation to cadets”. I am particularly concerned because the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not apply in this case. We are anxious to know what provision will exist for these cadets, should they suffer any injury during the period that they are in training at the training centre. While they are undergoing the 12 months training, or the initial three months training and then a further nine months, which, I think, was what the hon. the Minister had in mind, it is possible that some of these cadets could receive injuries. Some provision should be made whereby they will be able to receive some form of compensation. We know that as far as the Whites are concerned who undergo Citizen Force training, they are able to claim under the War Pensions Act, if they sustain any injury whilst undergoing such training. However, these people are not on the same basis as a Citizen Force trainee and therefore, they will obviously not be entitled to claim any form of compensation under the Military Pensions Act. Therefore I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, could give some indication as to whether any provision is to be made for compensation to these people, should they suffer any injuries or loss of life.

I have mentioned that the first reaction to this Bill of certain people was that it was of a most compulsive nature. Naturally it has to be of a compulsive nature, but some of the provisions went a little too far. I should like to refer to one of those provisions, which provides for the forfeiture of one meal per day for not more than three days. Surely some of these punitive measures that are provided for in this Bill are not really necessary. It would appear that if the Minister does not intend to place at these training centres the skolly and the loafer, as he indicated that he would not like the training centres to be known as plces where the skolly and the loafer were accommodated, it is perhaps not necessary to have such severe penalties provided for in terms of the Bill as it now stands before this House.

I believe that this Bill can be of great benefit to the Coloured community, provided that its implementation is such that these youths will receive training which will be of benefit to them and whereby they will be able to play their part in the economy of the country and become better equipped citizens, and more purposeful in their ou look in life. That is why we hope that the hon. the Minister will give very serious consideration to various amendments that will be moved by this side of the House, to ensure that we will have training centres of which the Coloured community itself can be proud, which the cadets themselves will be proud to have attended, and of which this country can be proud because they are beneficial to the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo will pardon me if I do not follow him in his argument, because he did not object to the Bill. He put certain questions and requests for explanations to the Minister, who will in fact reply to him. While listening to previous Opposition speakers, I recalled a rugby match in which I once played under the captaincy of Boy Louw. In the opposing team there was a flank-forward who was constantly off-side. Even before the ball emerged on our side of the scrum, he was standing next to our scrum-half. Like Nelson, the referee saw nothing and did nothing about the matter. Boy then decided that he himself would do the necessary. When the loose forward appeared behind the scrum again even before the ball was there, Boy grabbed him by the neck and pushed him in on our side of the scrum, and told him: “See here, chum, if you want to play on our side you must also push on our side of the scrum.” After listening to the Opposition speakers in this debate, we can say the same to them: If you want to play on our side as far as this Bill is concerned, you should at least help us push. The Opposition did stand behind our scrum; here and there one tried to get his head into the scrum, but there was not a sign of pushing. The Americans say that the gangster is not the greatest criminal in the States. This doubtful honour, they say, falls to the lot of the work-shy citizen of the country. That may be a bit drastic, but it contains some truth, because the gangster at least risks his life and his liberty and devotes his energy to obtaining his livelihood, whereas the work-shy citizen relies entirely on the efforts of his fellow-men and the assistance of the State to provide in all his needs. As dodder parasitizes on lucerne and hampers the growth of the lucerne, so the work-shy member of society parasitizes on his fellow-men and also hampers the development of the community in which he lives. A good farmer takes steps to remove the dodder from his lucerne fields. Similarly, a government worth its salt must take steps to remove the work-shy members of our society from our midst. Unfortunately it has now happened that this evil has reared its head in the ranks of the Coloured community. It is not only the Government that is concerned and disturbed about this unfortunate state of affairs. The hon. member for Houghton admits that that is the case. The United Party agrees. But over and above that, the Coloured community themselves feel concerned about this state of affairs.

We find this position not only in the cities but also in the rural areas. Scores of young Coloureds lounge about the streets without work. And yet, if a farmer comes along and offers them work, they refuse bluntly and say that they are not interested. What do these people live on? They live on allowances and pensions received by their parents or other relatives. The Coloureds themselves are alarmed at this. They complain to one and say: “Sir, we do not have the power to combat this evil. If we do not give them what they ask, they take what they want.” The Whites are also alarmed by this. They say—and quite rightly, too—that they grant pensions and other State assistance to those who deserve it, but if such assistance is used to keep idlers alive, the Whites say, the matter should be taken into review. Because, Sir, it may lead to friction between White and non-White, and in this country it is our aim to reduce points of friction as far as possible. In view of the fact that we are the guardians of the non-Whites in South Africa, and because this evil prejudices the sound development and good name of these decent people—and there are many Coloureds who are good members of our society—something has to be done about it.

Coloured leaders welcome this measure. I want to quote what appeared in the Evening Post, in which several Coloured leaders were quoted. They say—

That is what those people said, people who have the interest of the coloured community at heart.

On behalf of the Opposition, the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) told us that they supported this measure. But as I said earlier, Opposition speakers who followed him really made one wonder what the Opposition’s real attitude to this measure was. I am not the only one who is unsure about that. The Eastern Province Herald, a Port Elizabeth newspaper, said the following on 21st February—

Apparently the Opposition’s principal objection is the fact that the legislation is too wide. They want to know why all coloured men have to be registered. Well, I would ask. why not? Why do all white children have to be registered? Secondly, if one makes a law, one provides the necessary machinery to implement and enforce that law. The task of the people who have to enforce the law must be facilitated as much as possible. That can be done only if there is full registration. The registration of all coloured youths will not harm or hurt anybody. It will not cause suffering to any innocents. If I may use the example of the dodder again—if the dodder is removed from the lucerne one may affect the lucerne, but the inconvenience suffered by the lucerne cannot compare with the benefit it derives from that.

The second charge of the U.P. is that the Government was instrumental in this state of affairs, because we had supposedly not spent enough on coloured education.

Hear, hear!

I want to tell the hon. member who said, “Hear, hear!” that the necessity for regular school attendance and training can be brought home to a child only by its parents. The parents will do so only if they themselves received school training. The parents of the children lounging about on the streets to-day were children under the U.P. Government. Had the U.P. done its duty at that time, the position would not have been so bad to-day. [Interjections.] The Opposition blows hot and cold. They allege that we are not spending enough on Coloured education. But do you know, Sir, that during the past election they alleged in the rural areas that the National Party was spending too much on Coloured education?

Who said that?

I shall tell you. It was said in the Graaff-Reinet constituency, and I shall read to you from a pamphlet circulated among voters in that constituency. Under the heading “Whose guardian is Dr. Verwoerd?” the following appeared amongst other things (translation)—

[Interjections.] In my constituency, in Aberdeen, they used it against me. They said the following, according to the pamphlet—

That was the charge, the platform used against me and against other hon. members in the rural areas. [Interjections.] That is what they used against us, and now they have the temerity to allege here that we are spending too little. That reminds me of the man who was sitting at the breakfast table and saw that there was no butter. He asked the servant what had become of the butter that had been there the previous evening. The servant told him that the cat had eaten the butter that morning. He had the cat fetched, put it on the scales and saw that the cat weighed one pound. Then he told the servant: “See here, if this is the cat, where is the butter? And if this is the butter, where is the cat?” Now I ask the Opposition: What is your policy? The cat or the butter?

A third objection raised by the hon. member for Wynberg was that we could have used the money we are going to spend on camps to much better effect on the establishment of schools for Coloureds. I ask the hon. member: Are we to leave the existing sore to fester, or should we look after the people who are in this position now? Of course the hon. member for Houghton is opposed to this Bill. I presume she agrees with the chairman of the Black Sash, Mrs. Barbara Wilks, who wrote the following in the Cape Argus of 20th February this year—

Sir, anyone who writes that about the South African police can have no claim to the name South African. It is aimed solely at presenting our police in a bad light, not only locally but also abroad. I say that in future South Africa cannot tolerate having any citizens who will not work, whether White or non-White, and for that reason I welcome this Bill, because in our country of the future there is no room for people who do not want to work and through this Bill the Government will strive, to the best of its ability, to change this type of person into a useful citizen.

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow the arguments used by him, save to say to him that he has fallen into the trap which so many new members have fallen into, and that is to start a political fight between the Government party and the Opposition when the Government introduces a Bill of this nature which is intended to do something good for the Coloureds. Sir, it is to be deplored. The Opposition has indicated that it intends to support the principle of this Bill. It should be accepted at face value. The hon. member for Peninsula has already indicated that our group will support the principle of the Bill and he has dealt with certain aspects of the Bill.

Sir, I want to deal with this Bill in three phases. In the first place I want to deal with the most unfortunate statement in the local newspapers attributed to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. This statement has caused a lot of trouble in connection with this legislation. The hon. member for Houghton, as she was entitled to do, was not slow to grasp the opportunity of using that statement …

No, I used what he said in this House, as it appeared in Hansard.

The hon. member for Houghton used that statement as one of the reasons for opposing this Bill. Sir, I intend to show in a few seconds that it was completely unfortunate and completely wrong to connect this legislation with the removal of the Bantu from the Western Province. I considered it my duty—because I had some doubts about it— to go to the people who could put me right on this matter, that is to say, the Department of Coloured Affairs and the hon. the Minister, and I want to say that the information which I received and which I accept without any doubt, is that as far back as 1962 this question was discussed by the Department of Coloured Affairs because the Department believed that the time had come when something had to be done with regard to the Coloured youths of this country who seemed to be wandering in the streets without employment. As far as my memory serves me, the question of the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape had either not been thought of in 1962, or if it had been thought of, the idea was in its infancy, and I believe that this idea which came from the Department of Coloured Affairs was in no way connected with the policy to remove the Bantu from the Western Province. I think that statement was misleading therefore. It has caused the Coloured people quite a considerable amount of concern …

Why?

Because they believed that what the hon. the Deputy Minister meant …

You are talking nonsense.

Sir, I have no desire to discuss that statement. I merely want to say that it has been implanted in the minds of the Coloured people that in fact this Bill will make labourers of the Coloured youths to take the place of Bantu labourers. I say that having regard to the fact that the Department of Coloured Affairs started giving this matter its attention as far back as 1962, there is no connection between this Bill and the policy to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape. Sir, I hear the hon. member for Houghton saying softly, “how naïve”.

Would you like me to say it aloud? How naïve?

I have never been naïve in my life and I am not being naïve now. Sir, I represent the Coloured people because I am interested in them. I do not represent them in this House merely for my own political purposes, as the hon. member for Houghton is doing. I say that we have no right to connect these two matters, because as far back as 1962 the Department of Coloured Affairs decided to do something about this matter and we have no right to cause this unfortunate impression in the minds of the Coloured people. Sir, if I could send out a message to the Coloured people as one of their representatives, I would say to them that they must discard the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. I want to issue this warning to the hon. the Deputy Minister: If he dares to use this legislation in connection with his policy to remove the Bantu from the Western Province he will not only be doing a disservice to the Coloured people but he will be sabotaging an earnest attempt on the part of the Coloured Affairs Department to do something for the Coloured people. May I express the hope that he will leave the Coloured Affairs Department to get on with their work.

Then there is a second aspect of this Bill which was raised by the hon. member for Houghton. She suggested that these camps would be forced labour camps. I understood her to say that the recruits or the trainees, or whatever you may call them, would be taken into these camps and trained and then sent into kraals to be farmed out to farmers as and when they wanted labourers. Sir, I was rather concerned about this aspect so I went to the Department and the Minister, and I say that there is no truth in that either; there is no reason to believe that that will happen. I say—and the hon. the Minister will no doubt confirm this statement—that when a trainee has completed his training he will have a free and unfettered choice to seek whatever employment he wants. There will be no interference with his choice, so that if a trainee wishes to join the Army, the Navy or the Police Force, or he wants to go into any other form of employment, he will be free to do so and will be encouraged to do so. If that is so, it is certainly not a forced labour camp … [Interjections.] I want the Coloured people to know that if their sons go to this training centre, they will be able to choose a career for themselves; they will be given that right. I asked the hon. the Minister of Defence why there could not be co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, to have these Coloured boys registered for military training like the Whites. The Minister of Defence gave reasons. He said, firstly, that he would have to consider the question of expense because it would cost a lot of money, but he said he hoped that from these training centres would come the people he wanted for the Coloured Navy and the Coloured Army, and it was hoped that they would join the Police Force. The hon. member for Peninsula said that the heads of these Departments have said that they would increase the wages of these people to encourage them to come. So I cannot see that this will in any way, having regard to that unequivocal statement of the Minister that there will be a free choice for the cadets to choose their own line of employment, be a forced labour camp. [Interjections.]

That does not make it law.

Let us be quite frank about this. This is not a perfect Bill, but the principle is good. I believe that there will be a lot of growing pains in regard to this Bill. We cannot expect it to run smoothly right from the start. I can see the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs coming here with amendments, in the light of the experience gained, so that they can get a perfect set-up for these people. And already they have some experience. I have here a booklet dealing with the voluntary camp at Wellington. These people are doing very well there. They have a large number of boys between 13 and 18 years of age who have gone there voluntarily, boys whose parents could do nothing with them. When they went there they were not good boys, but when they came out they were excellent, and some of them have obtained excellent employment. If the thing is handled correctly, as I believe it will be, and with sincerity. I think it will be a good thing. We want to assist them.

I want to deal now with one or two aspects of the Bill which were not dealt with by the hon. member for Peninsula. I take it that these forms will be easily obtainable and that they will not have to go to the police stations to get them. That is one thing that the Coloured people do not want to do. to go to a police station for anything at all. I hope some recruiting place will be opened for them. Then, in regard to clause 19, I want to say, as others have already said, that the penalties are completely excessive and out of all proportion to what the Coloured people can pay. There is reference to a fine not exceeding R200 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. If the Coloured people can save R200, their children will not have to go to these camps, because then they would come from decent homes. Only the thrifty Coloured people can save R200. Where will the others be able to get R200 for an offence they may commit under this Bill? I hope the Minister will introduce an amendment in conformity with Judge Tebutt’s statement the other day that Judges should have greater powers to impose suspended sentences. This is an excellent piece of advice he gave, and I support it. I believe the Minister will have to amend this clause. That is, the fine for a first offence. If he does so, the Minister will be surprised at the response he will get. If a child knows he has a suspended sentence hanging over his head, he will not do anything wrong. No good purpose will be served by imposing a fine of R200 on poor Coloured people. After all, you are going to deal with uneducated people, people whom you want to bring back from almost a wild state and whom you want to turn into a better class of person. They are bound to contravene some of these provisions. Then I want to ask, if these people contravene these provisions and an inquiry is held, will they get legal aid? I hope the Minister will consider giving them free legal aid. Will they be able to be legally represented at any of these inquiries?

Then in clause 20 it says that no cadet shall without the approval of the principal of a training centre cede his pay. I think that is wrong, to prevent a youth from giving some of his money to his parents. Then it says in clause 24 that any policeman or any officer employed at the training centre may without warrant arrest any person who is discharged from prison after having served any sentence of imprisonment. You do not want to arrest a boy after he has come out of prison. He should simply be taken back to the centre. You do not want him to be arrested a second time. These are the little pin-pricks in the Bill which cause irritation. I have already dealt with the excessive penalties and there are other matters with which I will deal in the Committee Stage. Having said all that, I now want to deal with what I think is an important aspect of this legislation.

This Bill is a means to an end. But what is going to be the end? Will the end for the Coloured people be a cul-de-sac? All the training they will get, and all the upliftment we hope they will get, the treatment they will receive to make them better citizens who can rise in the world and become better workers, will that be a dead end for them? I want to refer to this article which Professor Cilliers dealt with in The Cape Times, a most excellent article. I make no excuse for quoting him rather extensively. This learned professor said—

Tn dealing with the colour bar, or “job reservation”. he states—

So it will. I ask the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs whether he can give us some indication as to whether there will be some relaxation in order that South Africa, not only the Coloured people, will gain the benefit of the training of these people. Will they find that avenues which are now closed to them will be open to them? I hope so. He goes on—

In this regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us whether these people will have the opportunity to advance in spheres which at the moment are closed to them. It is in regard to this latter part which I have quoted that doubts and fears have been expressed by leading Coloured people. It is this type of Coloured man who has been seriously prejudiced by the powers under this Act. They are the people who object and they want to know what is going to happen to their children. The writer continues—

I believe the Government will be forced, if a success is made of this experiment, as indeed I hope and am sure will be the case, and these aspects concerning the Coloured people will have to receive serious consideration. I feel that it is necessary to continue to quote Professor Cilliers—

We know the reason why there are skollies. The hon. member for Houghton will forgive me if I "efer to her again but she seems to be disappoined that this Bill is not completely a skolly Bill.

I said that the Minister denied it. He said that it was not a skolly Bill and that the only people who speak in favour of it are those who want a skolly Bill.

I want to say that I regard this as a Bill of dual purpose. It deals with the skolly and it has. if one reads the Bill properly and if we want to understand what is behind this Bill, the additional outlet of trying to prevent the ranks of the skollies being swelled by people who are not skollies at the moment. Before they reach the stage when they should go over to the ranks of the skollies they are being saved and being trained for some useful purpose in some sphere or other. It therefore has a dual purpose. I do not want to see this a skolly Bill. I do hope, as I am sure the hon. member for Houghton hopes and we all hope, that it will be able to solve or reduce the skolly question in this country. I do not want to discuss the reasons why we have skollies because it may not have much to do with this Bill. The hon. member for Houghton quite rightly pointed out that many of them leave school far too early. They become frustrated people. Their fathers and mothers have to work and there is no parental control. They run wild. It is a large and difficult problem. We who represent the Coloured people and who meet them often can bring a message to this House by saying that the leaders of the Coloured people are as concerned about their people and the progress of their people as anybody else in South Africa. We know that compulsory education may be one of the saviours of the Coloured people. We hope that it will come. We hope that it will not be long before it is introduced, but until that time let us give this experiment, as I call it, our full support. I want to pay tribute as far as it is allowed by the rules of this House, to the Department of Coloured Affairs, and particularly the Secretary, for what I know to be a sincere desire to uplift the Coloured people. It is my duty, and my colleagues will support me, to do everything possible at all times in this House to support them in their fight to uplift the Coloured people. We say: “May they succeed”. I hope that the experiment in terms of this Bill will have the fruitful results to which we all look forward.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that people who always have so much to say about the democratic system of government should always abuse this fine system for political purposes and, as here in South Africa, for disturbing race relations the way it has been done in the case of this measure. Wherever we read about this Bill in the English-language Press, it was usually presented as an oppressive measure. Speakers of the opposition parties were quoted as having branded it a purely oppressive measure. Of necessity that must have had an effect on the Coloured community, for whose benefit this Bill was introduced. It is therefore surprising to hear that the Opposition supports the principle of the measure but that they merely have certain misgivings about certain clauses. If that is the case, it is surprising that the impression has been given to the outside that this is an oppressive measure and that the Coloureds are to be subjected once again to unfavourable measures which will make life very difficult for them. [Interjections.] That impression has been created and there has been no mention of the fact that the principle of this Bill holds something good for those people and that it is actually aimed at the upliftment of the Coloured community. That is my objection to the fact that this fine democratic system is exploited to do those things in order to aggravate the existing problems instead of ameliorating them. But those people are making a mistake about this National Party Government, which is in power in the Republic of South Africa. I may give them the assurance that this Government appreciates its responsibility. This Government has given certain assurances to the various race groups inside the Republic. This Government has also given the Coloured population the assurance that their interests are safe in the hands of the Government. This Government will not be forced by the hon. Opposition to depart from the road it has taken to honour the assurance it has given the Coloured population. I want to assure them that this Government will see to it that everything that is possible will be done to secure for the Coloured population a proper existence here in South Africa and also to secure their future and their livelihood, and to make it possible for them to develop to a state of true maturity and into a nation which will also have a national pride, into people who will not always have to bow their heads in shame. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton knows that she is out of step, and with the very object of being in step with the outside world. She does not actually represent a group in this country in the House. She represents the outside world here. The hon. member will most certainly not force us off our course. We have so much confidence by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs that we know that he will not only pilot this Bill through Parliament, but that he will see to it that this Bill is enforced for the benefit of the Coloured population. He will also see to it that this Bill is enforced on an equitable basis. If the Opposition had any misgivings about this Bill, it merely revealed a lack of confidence in the hon. the Minister because they thought that the hon. the Minister would abuse certain rights conferred on him in this Bill. I doubt whether the hon. the Minister will ever abuse his powers. The powers conferred on him in this Bill are aimed only at making it possible to implement the Act effectively. If he did abuse them, surely the Opposition would have the right to object in this House and to criticize him.

I want to state emphatically that I welcome this measure. It is just a pity that the ambit of the measure is to be so limited, that it will not be possible to implement it throughout the country. Here I am thinking in particular of a large and growing Coloured population on the Rand, and particularly in Johannesburg itself. It is an environment which lends itself pre-eminently to this type of young Coloured boy going astray, to their being lost to the Coloured population. For that reason I should have liked to see a place established in Johannesburg as well, where these young Coloured boys could be admitted. Surely it is a fact that productivity counters unemployment. If we can train these Coloured boys properly in order that they may be productive, it would counter unemployment among our Coloured population. I hope and trust that the necessary funds will soon be found for these training facilities to be extended throughout the country, because I am convinced that it will only be for the good of the Coloured population.

Another aspect I should very much like to mention here, and which I am very pleased about, is the disciplinary aspect of this training. I think it would have been most salubrious if all colour groups in South Africa, including the Whites, had undergone military training for a certain period, with the simple object of becoming disciplined. There is perhaps nothing that has such a salubrious effect on one’s life as to be disciplined. It is in the character of modem society that young people are no longer naturally disciplined. Their parents are powerless, due to circumstances, to bring them up in a disciplined fashion. The only real way of disciplining them is by way of such training centres. Let us call them what we like; I say it does not matter where we are trained, or under what circumstances, but training that disciplines a person is purely to his own advantage, particularly with a view to his future.

In the past the Opposition frequently criticized what the Government did for the upliftment of the other race groups, and in order to help them to develop to self-reliance, and in the past it became apparent so frequently that they had been wrong. Afterwards they had to admit that it was a good measure and that that population group welcomed it because they saw that it was in their own interests. We believe that will happen in this case as well. We are convinced that in a few years’ time the Coloured population themselves will ask that these facilities be expanded, because it will then have dawned on them that what is being done is done for the upliftment of their own people, and to make them independent and to enable them to find a livelihood of their own.

I want to ask the Opposition not to be like bantam cocks, always kicking left and right and then running off terrified before they know whether they have hit anything. The Opposition’s problem is that there are still elements in the Black Sash and the Liberal Party and certain groups of the Progressive Party whom they need desperately in certain constituencies in order to be able to sit in this House. That is why they have such a, I would almost say hypocritical, attitude as to say: We support the principle, but …

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “hypocritical”.

I withdraw it, Sir. They have such a funny attitude. They say that they accept the principle, but they run away from certain clauses in the legislation. We hope and trust that they will cooperate with this Government to win the goodwill of the population groups for the benefit of whom these measures are before the House, for this type of measure. If they did that they would be doing something positive. Then, I believe, the Minister would have a much more sympathetic ear for Opposition members when they express well-founded criticism in the event of his abusing certain powers conferred upon him.

I want to conclude by saying that we are grateful to have these measures before the House. We are convinced that they will be passed and we know that in future this legislation will yield results for which the whole country will be grateful to us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte, who has just resumed his seat, started off with the audacity— and I repeat the word, with the audacity—to attack the Press for the doubts they had expressed about this measure. He had the audacity to attack them because they described it as a repressive measure. I do not know where he gets this from. But I do know where the Press got it from. They got it from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, from the hon. member for Piketberg, from the hon. the Minister himself, and from the provisions of the Bill. That is where they got it from. That is what makes them describe it as a repressive measure. With all the assurances that have been given, I think that until such time as these assurances are written into the Bill, the Press and, shall I say, a certain section of the Coloured people will continue to consider this a repressive measure. I do not want to follow what the hon. member has said. He spoke a lot of other nonsense which, of course, is not really pertinent to this debate.

I want to get back to the hon. member for Piketberg. He gave us the history of the Coloured people. He mentioned that they were originally from a rural background where they had a certain amount of self-discipline applied to them by themselves. He said that they had now become city-dwellers, and I think his phrase was “with a resultant fall-off in this discipline.” Unfortunately the hon. member is not here, but I want to ask him, and other hon. members on that side, to ask themselves why there is this lack of discipline. Have they tried to find the root cause for this lack of discipline? Have they tried to tackle that root cause? As was said by the accepted leader of the Coloured people, Mr. Tom Swartz, himself, this is a sociological problem, and until we recognize that fact, we cannot make progress. We are now treating the symptoms, we are not treating the cause of this problem.

I should like to put a certain question to the hon. member for Piketberg. Surely all his comments also apply to the other groups in this country? They do not apply only to the Coloureds but also to the Bantu and even to the white people as well. Why have the Coloured people been selected, why have they been chosen to have this measure applied to them? Perhaps the answer lies in the statement made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. Perhaps the answer lies further in another statement made by the hon. member for Piketberg where he said that the Western Province is the natural work area of the Coloured people, that the Bantu did not belong here. He went on to urge that Coloureds be trained to work in the Western Province. He pointed out that there were 50,000 Coloured men in the country who do not work—he did not use the word “unemployed”, he used the term “do not work”—and he suggested that these 50,000 were sufficient to replace all the Bantu in the Western Cape.

These are some of the reasons why the Opposition now consider this measure with a degree of suspicion. We have admitted that we accept the principle of this measure. This, the leader of our group has told this House. Now, what is this principle? As we see it, this principle is to establish training centres for Coloured youths and to provide for their registration and training in those centres. What is the aim of this measure? Its aim, as we see it, is to create new opportunities for the Coloured people, to endeavour to instil in the Coloured people a sense of discipline, a sense in pride in their race, to try to take away these irresponsible elements which exist amongst the Coloured people, and to endeavour to raise their standard of living. If this is the principle of the Bill and if this is its aim then we accept it this far. We also believe it to be the responsibility of this Government, and in fact of all the White people in South Africa, to advance the welfare of the Coloured people, to assist the under-privileged who are in that position, I might say, because of factors beyond their control. However, there are the other factors which I referred to earlier, which give rise to suspicion that this Bill goes beyond that.

You are suspicious about everything.

I think that the history of this Government is such that we have justification for being suspicious of any measure which they want to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, this measure could be used— and I use the word “could” intentionally—as a means of obtaining forced labour. It could be used, in the words of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, “as a means to obtain complete control enforceable by penal sanctions over the daily lives, the pursuits and the employment of all Coloured males between the ages of 18 and 24 years.” We sincerely hope that this is not the intention of the Bill, and it is in that belief, in that hope, that we on this side support the principle of this Bill. However, as I said, there are these statements that have been made and which have aroused our suspicions. In addition to those that I have mentioned was the statement made by the hon. member for Malmesbury who, unfortunately, is not here now, during this debate, when he said that if 20 per cent of the Coloureds in South Africa were trained they will be sufficient to replace all the Bantu in the Western Province. When I referred earlier to the Minister also rousing our suspicions, I referred to a report in The Cape Times of 16th February under the heading, “Bill aims at Coloured discipline”, where the hon. the Minister made this statement—

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that—until you go into the Bill.

Why then do you hammer the point?

As I say—until one goes into the Bill. I will get around to that later.

We accept that this is a sociological problem, that it should be tackled at its roots by family guidance, by enforcing compulsory education, and by giving, as the hon. member for Karoo requested, greater opportunities to the Coloured community for advancement.

However, we also face up to the fact that a problem exists here and now, namely the problem of these undisciplined youths that are here now. We must do something about them. This was put quite clearly by Mr. Tom Swartz, the Chairman of the Coloured Affairs Council. His statement was repeated by the Minister in Hansard Col. 1555 on the 20th February, where he said—

The hon. member for Langlaagte, who has just sat down, accepts this statement by Mr. Swartz as a blank cheque for this Government to do as they please and, because of this, he will not tolerate any criticism of this measure. However, I am sure that the council, when they accepted this statement of Mr. Tom Swartz, did not anticipate the supreme powers which the Minister is taking under this Bill, and the extreme and punitive provisions which are provided. When these provisions are read together with statements, such as I referred to earlier, we become extremely suspicious. For instance, clause 2 refers to the establishing and maintaining of “training centres for the training of cadets for any kind of employment …” In terms of the provisions of this Bill the recruit has no choice as to the type of employment for which he wants to be trained, and clause 15 goes even further and provides that this training will include the performance of any kind of work. This makes one become really suspicious. What sort of work will they be required to do—pick and shovel work, farm labourers’ work? Will they be used as shunters’ mates; will they be used as postmen; will they be sent to the docks to be trained as stevedores? They might even be seconded to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and sent off to do soil conservation or soil reclamation work.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Who will decide what kind of work they will do, and on what basis will the authorities decide what type of training they will be given? Will the trainee be consulted? No, not in terms of this Bill. Will he be given a chance to state in what sphere or field he wishes to be trained? Will these trainees be required to work in any area where there happens to be a labour shortage occasioned by the policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration? Sir, these are questions to which we want answers and we want provisions written into this Bill to guarantee those answers. When we look further into the Bill we find that the training will not only take place at training centres, but at such other places as the committee may determine. Where will these other places be? How will they qualify as places for training? Sir, I do not want to repeat what I said earlier …

Order! The hon. member is repeating statements made by other hon. members. There is a great deal of repetition in this debate and it is becoming rather tedious. The hon. member may continue.

Dealing further with these centres for training, the hon. member for Umbilo, the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Boksburg all mentioned this particular point and I want to clarify it: where will these centres be established? The hon. the Minister told us that the first two will be established in the Western Province. However, the Bill applies to all Coloureds throughout the country. The hon. member for Langlaagte said that unfortunately it could not be applied to the country as a whole; the hon. member for Boksburg, in the course of his speech, made a plea to the hon. the Minister to establish training centres in other parts of the country as well. I want to associate myself with that plea by the hon. member for Boksburg, and I want to ask the Minister for some clarity on this point when he replies to the debate. Will there be training centres in other provinces? There are large numbers of Coloureds in the Transkei. Will there be training centres in the Transkei? If these training centres are only going to be in the Western Province, then, of course, our suspicions are strengthened even further.

Sir, I want to deal with a matter which I do not think anybody has dealt with so far in this debate and that is the Minister’s statement that the Coloureds will be trained to replace the Bantu in the Western Cape.

Order! That point has been made already.

The Bantu who are to be removed from the Western Cape are unskilled contract workers and labourers. Employers who are to be compelled to dispense with a certain amount of their labour, are going to start with those who hold the least responsible jobs, especially if there is no guarantee that those workers will be replaced by others. The workers who are going to be discharged are those who do the most menial jobs carrying the least responsibility. Sir, I have always considered the Coloured a cut above the Bantu in intelligence and capability, and now we are told that they are to be trained to replace these Bantu who are doing the most menial jobs, the jobs at the lowest level, that these Coloureds need training so that they can replace these Bantu. Sir, as I said earlier, we accept the statement made here by the hon. the Minister; we accept his bona tides, but this is a legislative body, and what we legislate here will be executed by others. They will execute what is written into this Bill; they will not give effect to statements made by the Minister unless they have been written into the Bill, and therefore I ask the hon. the Minister please to consider the amendments that we will be moving in the Committee Stage and to consider them in the interests of South Africa, not to consider them on party political lines. We on this side have no intention of introducing party politics into this matter. The hon. member for Wynberg has mentioned the amendments that we are going to move in the Committee Stage.

How do you define “party politics”?

Order! The hon. member is now giving the House a resume of all the points made by other hon. members in their speeches. The hon. member must advance new arguments.

Sir. I want to deal with one particular amendment which I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will accept and that is an amendment that we will move to clause 14, the exemption clause. We have the principle that Coloured youths shall be required to register for training and that training centres shall be established, and then this clause provides that certain youths may be exempted. Sir, we feel rather strongly about this, and I want to say that the hon. the Minister stated in his introductory speech that this Bill was not aimed at Coloured youths who were in full-time employment nor those who were full-time at school. This clause, as it now reads, says that they may be exempted. We on this side feel that, as it is not the Minister’s intention to call up these youths, the Bill should provide that these youths shall be exempted on compliance with certain conditions laid down by the board. We are not asking for a blanket exemption for these people; we are not asking that they should not register. We accept that they should register. This is a principle of the Bill and we accept it.

Will you vote against the Third Reading if the Minister does not accept your amendment?

I think that will depend on circumstances.

We will make up our own minds.

I submit that the amendment that we propose to introduce will not compromise the Minister in any way; it will not derogate from the powers he is taking in terms of the Bill and it will not affect his expressed wish to rehabilitate the won’t-works and the idle, but his acceptance of such an amendment will satisfy those Coloureds who have expressed doubts, will allay the suspicion of the Opposition and others and, most important, will satisfy all critics and will establish the bona fides of the hon. the Minister and of the Government.

Before calling on the next speaker, I wish to point out that I have not yet heard one new argument advanced in this debate this afternoon. If hon. members keep on repeating themselves I will have to ask them to resume their seats.

I was just going to say that I do not want to say much about the Bill, because apart from an amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton the Bill has been accepted by the Opposition. I was struck by the fact that things have been said here over and over again, and I am therefore not going to try to advance any new arguments, but I want to reply briefly to some statements which I cannot allow to pass because they put this debate in the wrong perspective.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) described the Bill as a repressive measure, and he then said that the Minister’s speech indicated that it was a repressive measure. He quoted the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and said that the Bill itself was the third proof that it was a repressive measure. That was a wide statement which was made by the hon. member, that it is a repressive measure. If it is really a repressive measure, what right have the Opposition to support the measure? Surely one dare not support repressive measures. [Interjections.] The hon. member said it in so many words.

When did I say that?

The hon. member does not even know what he said. That is why I am trying to set it right.

On a point of explanation …

Order! The hon. member may raise that point as soon as the hon. member has finished his speech.

How can it be a repressive measure if it proposes to provide training for people? I just want to read these few words to him: “training of cadets for any kind of employment.” If it is a repressive measure, how dare they support it? The hon. member should tell us. I found that the entire speech by the hon. member was a typical United Party speech, a suspicion-mongering speech. Clause 2 makes it quite apparent that that is not true.

Now I just want to refer to another minor point raised by the hon. member, before I deal with the hon. member for Boland. The hon. member said he wanted to know where these institutions would be erected. Sir, I have heard people ask ridiculous questions in my lifetime, but this is an empowering act, this is the first phase of the matter, and the Minister says he wants to erect institutions. Now the hon. member wants to know where. Surely circumstances will determine where the institutions are to be. If the Minister were to get up to-day and say that he is going to erect institutions here and there, I would say he is most unwise. Surely that hon. member is not so unwise as to expect a Minister to be so naïve as to say at this stage that as the years go by and as South Africa develops, he will commit himself now by saying where the institutions are to be. No. I really think it reveals a lack of commonsense.

Another objection raised by the hon. member was that we want to replace the Bantu in the Western Cape by Coloureds, and that would mean that they would be trained for inferior work. I want to ask the hon. member, since when has work been inferior? I do not know of any inferior work. A man who performs his work devotedly and who gives his best in his vocation, for him I have more respect than for a man who blunders in the House of Assembly. A man who does his work with devotion, be it the most humble work on earth, deserves the respect of the whole world, and no stigma attaches to his work. I think it is an extremely weak argument with which the hon. member seeks to deter people, namely that the Coloureds will have to do the work when the Bantu leave. I have never been deterred by the fact that the Whites will have to do all the work in the country, provided there are enough Whites. Why should the Coloureds be deterred by the fact that they will have to do certain kinds of work? No, I think it is a very weak argument.

But I want to come to what was said by the hon. members for Boland and Pietermaritzburg (District) with regard to the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I really do not think that was a correct account of what the Deputy Minister said. The Deputy Minister made the statement that this is the natural homeland of the Coloured, and in order to protect the Coloured the Bantu has to be removed from here to draw that unfair competition away from the labour market. I think the Coloured population should collect money to erect a monument to the hon. the Deputy Minister for what he said. He never said they would be labour camps, as those hon. members tried to represent it. When he was asked where the labour was to come from, the Deputy Minister said that this Bill provides to make that labour available. He did not say that they would be labour camps. This Bill will help those people to be serviceable. It will attempt to solve the problem. If we were to establish technical instituions and say that in a few years we would no longer need immigrants to do that work because we would train our own people to do it, would that mean that we were establishing labour camps? What nonsense! The Miniter said that this Bill sought to prepare the Coloureds for doing the various kinds of work. What is wrong with that? I just want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that by the year 1980 there will be plus-minus 800,000 Coloured labourers in the Western Cape for whom work has to be provided. Now those hon. members say: “Where are those people to get work?” and pretend that it is a terrible crime which the hon. the Deputy Minister committed when he said that this work should be reserved for those people. I want to ask the hon. member for Boland, and fortunately he has returned to his seat, whether he would deny that there is a certain section of the Coloured population who are not contributing their fair share. Would he deny that there is a section of the Coloured population who are not taking their proper place in society? Why, then, does he object to the fact that those people will be trained to do their fair share along with the good people who are already doing theirs? It is absolutely the correct principle to qualify people to pull their weight in society. Why should he now accuse the hon. the Deputy Minister of having made a terrible misrepresentation when he said that this legislation would help to prepare those people for work, for doing their proper share? I deplore that, and I am grateful that the hon. members support this Bill.

He did not say it in that context.

He most definitely said it in that context. He said that the hon. the Deputy Minister had made that allegation and that he should reconsider his statement and repudiate it. I say the hon. the Deputy Minister has been accused of saying things he never said. They are taken out of their context for malicious political purposes. I was present when the hon. member said that. The hon. member made a second statement. He said that he regarded the fine as unfair because the people affected by the legislation would not be able to pay that fine. My contention is that this is not class legislation. I do not know who the offenders are going to be. It may be a very well-to-do man who is too lazy to work, because then he will also have to work. We cannot make class laws here. This legislation is not placed on the Statute Book for “skollies” or good people. It is placed on the Statute Book with a view to the upliftment of the Coloured population as a whole. One does not like all those little frills and fripperies.

Where were you when I spoke?

I was here in the House, and I listened to every word said by the hon. member. Now I want to tell the hon. member that the Coloured leaders themselves are concerned about that section of their people who are not doing their share and who are not doing their work as it should be done.

That is exactly what he said.

The hon. member objected to that fine. He said that in his view that fine was proportionately too high. Those who would have to pay the fine would be people who could in any event not afford it. Neither the hon. member nor I know when we shall need that fine. The Coloured population welcomes this Bill. I am glad that the hon. members welcome it, but I do not like the reservations and the objections they are raising, because that gives me the impression that this is not the true reason for their objection. Finally I want to say that I congratulate the Minister and his Secretary and the staff of his Department on this piece of work they have submitted to Parliament for its approval. I think it is a Bill which really deserves the praise and gratitude of this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation, I want to say that the hon. member who has just sat down alleged that I referred to this Bill as a repressive measure. I did not refer to this as a repressive measure at all. I used the term which was used by the hon. member for Langlaagte in his attack on the Press.

The hon. member must not make a speech now. He must merely say what the hon. member said.

What I said was that the Press had referred to it as a repressive measure and I gave the reasons why. I did not refer to it as a repressive measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namaqualand gave us a fine example this afternoon of imputing to a person a statement he has never made and subsequently using that as a starting point for a speech. He has done that to me once and this afternoon he did it to the hon. member for Boland time and again. The hon. member should prepare his speech in advance and then make it in this House and not look for material in this way. It is nothing new in this House for a debate to be held on a matter such as the one we have before us at present and for hon. members to rise and make speeches either in favour or against that matter, speeches from which it becomes apparent that such members know very little about the topic under discussion. There is a difference between a member who knows little about a topic but who nevertheless wants to make a contribution. and a member who knows little about a topic and then proceeds to make outrageous statements which, seen from my point of view as a Coloured Representative, can only be prejudicial to the attitude adopted by the Coloureds in regard to this Bill. It was with the greatest respect that I want to refer to the statements made by the hon. member for Houghton. Mention was made here of forced labour and passes.

Remember that I modified both.

Now the hon. member informs me that she modified it, but if the intention had not been there, those words would never have been uttered. A certain section of the Press has begun to do the same thing. I am speaking now from my nine years of intensive experience of the Coloured community and my experience in this House of measures introduced in connection with the Coloureds from time to time when I say that this is the sort of attitude, press report and press comment which condemns a matter long before there is any opportunity of discussing it, which incites people and which causes them to come under the wrong impression and which arouses fears which ought not to exist. This has already happened on several occasions to the detriment of those very people the legislation in question was meant to benefit. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to an example. A few years ago when a group areas proclamation was made in respect of District 6—and I should like the hon. member for Houghton to listen to this because it is the same sort of case—the Mayor of Cape Town at that time had a long interview with one of the newspapers in which he expressed his fears about the poor people who would be evicted from their homes, the flower sellers who would be chased from Adderley Street, and the poor people who had fruit stalls on the Parade, all of which was of course untrue. That action that was taken caused the establishment of organizations which were quite unnecessary and which were born out of fear and concern; it also caused Coloureds to make comments which were quite unnecessary and which led to their being paid a visit by the Security Branch, which was also unnecessary. The same sort of thing is now happening here. Here we have legislation before the House which I am convinced is in the best interests of the Coloureds. It is something which should have been introduced here long ago. An hon. member rises here and a certain section of the Press blazons out what he said. Now, as a result of this Bill every Coloured youth between the age of 18 and 24 has to run for dear life at the sight of a policeman. That is the impression which is being created. We experienced the same thing in connection with the Coloured-Persons Education Act. The scare-mongering we had on that occasion was the same as we are experiencing now. That was also reported in the Press. This matter was commented and elaborated on even further. The effect was that as regards that legislation which was the best yet in the history of Coloured education, there was fear and a lack of co-operation among a certain section and among certain teachers. This fear and this lack of co-operation not only perplexed the Department, it was to the detriment of the Coloured child, and also those teachers because disciplinary action had to be taken against some of them. It is as a result of intensive experience gained over a period of nine years that I am able to talk about the problems of these people I represent. I have been living in Cape Town since I was nine years of age, I am conversant with the Coloured’s circumstances and I see what is happening here, namely that when a measure is introduced which I am convinced is right and should have been introduced a long time ago, this sort of attitude is being adopted and this sort of fear is being stirred up. Here I have a petition which was handed to the Minister. This petition was drawn up by educated people. Paragraph 9 of this petition reads as follows—

Can one blame these people if this sort of thing is dished up to them, as has been dished up in this debate, and if the Press elaborates on it further and lays down the law to them? This legislation and the attitude adopted towards it by certain people is a repetition of what we had in connection with the Coloured Development Corporation Act. Let somebody rise now and tell me that the Coloured Development Corporation Act was not the best thing that ever happened in the entire history of the economic life of the Coloureds. I mentioned the example of the Coloured-Persons Education Act. It is without any trace of uncertainty that I say that that legislation was the best thing that ever happened in the history of the Coloureds as far as their education is concerned. In the past year things were done for Coloured education which have never before been done in history. It is my duty to see to it that the first and the highest priority is given to the housing, the educational and the economic progress of the people I represent, because their entire future and the part they will play in South Africa as citizens of South Africa depends on that. That has also been neglected shamefully over the years. Now that something is being done about those matters, it is my duty to support every possible step in that direction.

Don’t worry. Your seat is safe.

That is the sort of remark one gets. Now it is being said that my seat is safe. I can give the hon. member the assurance that my representation of that seat is much more valuable to the people of that constituency than is the case with her representation or that of Mr. Hamilton Russell. When I rise here to speak I do not detract from and condemn everything that takes place here. I know from experience what is good for my people. This legislation which we have before the House at present, is not an attempt on the part of the Minister to seek powers. This legislation is the result of advice that was given and research that was conducted by officials of his Department. As far as I know, this research was carried out over a period of years. I may add to that that the research was carried out by officials who were devoted to their task. They are seeking the solution to a problem The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City said that this Bill dealt with the symptoms and not the causes. Let us take as an example people who worked in mines and who contracted phthisis. Precautionary measures were not only taken in the mines themselves, but a study of phthisis was also made and a method of treating it was found. That is precisely what we have done here. We know what the cause is. The hon. member for Houghton was quite correct when she said that the cause was the fact that there was no compulsory education. But when legislation was introduced in terms of which compulsory education became a possibility, it was opposed. Another statement was made and it was claimed that there was no sign of compulsory education. Quite a number of additional districts or areas have been delimited and compulsory education is now applicable to them as well. The statement was also made that the money should rather be used for introducing compulsory education. How can the Government be expected now to introduce compulsory education within a short time, within a period of a few years’ time, when there has been nothing like it before?

The hon. member has digressed very far from the point now. Compulsory education is quite irrelevant here.

Sir, I put it to you in all courtesy that the major argument which is being used on the part of many a member in this House, and which is to a certain extent a sound argument, is that this legislation is unnecessary and that compulsory education should be introduced. I am only trying to tell this House and those members, for their information if they are not aware of it themselves, why it is that there cannot at this stage be compulsory education throughout the country. The reason is that all the schools cannot be used overnight. All the money for that purpose cannot be found overnight. All the training facilities for teachers cannot be created overnight, nor can the teachers be found overnight.

You can make a start in just one area.

Adding them all together, I think the hon. member for Houghton has already had about ten turns to speak. I think that is enough in one debate.

Mr. Speaker, this time she made a good speech. She said that it would be a good start to apply compulsory education in one district. I leave it to the Minister to tell her in his reply how many districts there are.

Six.

No, she is quite wrong. I shall leave that to the hon. the Minister. I want to point out further that I see no danger in a registration certificate having to be produced. There was a very great deal of scare-mongering and a lengthy debate was conducted in this House when the Population Registration Act was introduced. I received my identity card approximately eight years ago and I have never been asked for it yet. Nobody has ever asked me for it yet. It has already come in handy on a few occasions, but nobody has asked me for it. No policeman has ever asked me to produce my identity card in the street. According to the law my 17-year-old son may be asked to produce his identity card as a citizen at any time, but I have never heard of a case where that is being done. However, if that is not laid down, what purpose does it serve? What purpose does it serve if a person has to register and he is under no obligation to have and produce that certificate? That is the only reason for this provision. If a person drives a car and there is a reason for his being asked to produce his driver’s licence, and he does not have it on him, the Act provides that he may produce that licence within 21 days. If a person says that he has been registered, he can be given time to Droduce his identity card. I am not at all concerned about the danger that students and trainees may be sent to training camps or to these cadet camps. Surely that will be senseless. Why should a student, or a trainee or apprentice for any occupation be sent? Exemption from military training is being granted, just as exemption has to be granted for these purposes. But it will have to be proved first that the person is entitled to such exemption or may apply for such exemption. This is scare-mongering and I believe that it is entirely unfounded.

I admit the validity of the argument that the future solution to the problem is to be found in compulsory education, but let us accept now that this will only apply then. What then has to become of the thousands of people who are now between the ages 18 and 24? We cannot introduce compulsory education now and chase those practically grown-up people between the ages 18 and 24 back to school. Nor can we allow those thousands to become a loss to themselves and to society. Coloured leaders who have experience and who work amongst their own people, have told me that there is only one thing they are concerned about, and that is that the age group is not from 16 to 24. I can understand that fully. Although youths between the ages of 16 and 18 present a major problem since there is no compulsory education and because of that they can leave school at any time and loaf in the streets, one can appreciate the fact that 16-year-old youths and 24-year-old men should not be grouped together. I accept that those youths fall into another category, and other provision ought to be made for them.

Unfortunately, this Bill is coupled with the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape. However, I fail to see any danger or humiliation implied in the fact that Coloureds will have to do the work which is at present being done by Bantu. I see no humiliation in that. For instance, there are many coloured petrol attendants. I fail to see why they cannot be petrol attendants. If one’s training is such that one is suitable for that work, what can be wrong with it? I can give you the assurance that in the developing coloured townships in my constituency, for instance in Bonteheuwel and Heideveld in Cape Town and also in Gelvandale in Port Elizabeth, it is literally a nightmare on Friday evenings for a decent man to go from the station, where he has alighted from the train, to his home in an attempt to reach his home safely with his money in his pocket. There is a ten to one chance of his reaching his home with his money intact in his pocket. It is simply taken from him, and if he dares to open his mouth, he is in for trouble. I should like to quote a case which was tried in court a few weeks ago. I know the person concerned well. He left his home in Bishop Lavis and when he wanted to get into his car which was parked in front of his house, he was jerked out of the car, stabbed in both hands and received a glancing stab wound over the eye, he was robbed of all his personal possessions, and after that the criminals drove off in his car. The police caught the persons concerned two days later—five of them. They got off scot-free. The magistrate had to acquit them because among the dozens who had seen it all, there was not a single person who dared indentify one of the accused, because if a witness identifies somebody, the rest of the gang settle the score. Should we not protect these people? The hon. member for Houghton says that there should be more and better police protection. It is, of course, essential that there should be police protection. But how many thousands of policemen should be maintained to keep these people who do not want to work in check, these people who live on the proceeds of theft and robbery? The solution is rather that such people should be taken and set on the right road. Because—who knows?—perhaps we shall succeed in rehabilitating them to such an extent that they may even become policemen themselves!

There is another aspect which very few people take into account. That is—and here I have to refer once more to the Bantu in the Western Cape—that there is dissatisfaction amongst the Coloureds themselves because the Bantu have been allowed to flock into the Western Cape in such an uncontrolled manner. Depriving the Coloureds of their work was not the only thing they did. What also happened, was the following: Before we had the present strict control over wages, the Bantu set the trend as far as wages were concerned, because they were prepared to work for lower wages than the Coloureds. The result is that when a coloured takes over the work of a Bantu, the employer is inclined to pay the coloured the same salary he had paid the Bantu. The Coloureds cannot live on such wages. We find a good example of this phenomenon in the Railways.

I can give this House the assurance that since 1958, when I became a member of this House, I have literally been asked on hundreds of occasions whether the Government could not do something about solving the problem of these loafers, the problem of these idle young men in the age group specified in the Bill, by taking them in hand and doing something with them. I have been asked that by Coloureds at public meetings and also by coloured organizations. I can call as witnesses dozens of people in my constituency to whom I said that, if the Government were to undertake something of that nature, some criticism would be levelled against it. That is precisely what has happened. I told them that, if the Government came forward with such a measure it would immediately be exploited and construed to be a coercive measure, and that the criticism would be of such a nature that it might be seized upon abroad for the purpose of making propaganda against South Africa. And, indeed, there you have it! That is precisely what is happening. Even at Mossel Bay, a small town, I was approached about this matter. I have even had requests from parents to help them. They asked me what they could do with their children, 17-year-old youths who did not want to go to school, who did not want to work and who were getting out of hand. I feel sure that, once this legislation is being implemented and the centres have been established, the parents themselves will approach the Department to have their children admitted to those centres with a view to their children’s future.

I have here the minutes of a meeting of the National Council for Coloured Affairs which was held from 1st to 4th October, 1963. Here is a point for discussion which was adopted unanimously and which stands in the name of councillor C. U. R. Fortuin. Quite a number of the hon. members of this House have already met Mr. Fortuin. I think that I may say with certainty that he is a man of integrity, of great competence, and that he is a man who has a great deal of experience of what is happening amongst his own people. In addition to that I may say that he is not one of those prominent Coloureds who consider themselves to be too good for their own people and who seek refuge amongst the Whites. He confines himself to his own people and he dedicates his services to them. The following point for discussion was adopted unanimously by that meeting—

It appears therefore that as early as 1963 the Council for Coloured Affairs, under the guidance of this competent man, wanted this sort of measure. If the Coloureds themselves feel that such a scheme is necessary, what right have people, such as the hon. member for Houghton, to speak against it in this House? My feelings about this matter are so strong that I almost want to say that the hon. member is abusing this House in making the statements she did in fact make here. Because her accusations to the effect that they will have to carry “passes” and that these centres are merely “forced labour camps”, will now be used by a certain section of our Press, that section which is only too glad to make use of these words and to send them overseas for consumption there.

If there are certain aspects of this measure about which I am not quite satisfied, there will be sufficient time during the Committee Stage for the hon. the Minister to explain those points and to consider possible amendments. But in principle I support this legislation whole-heartedly. In addition, I want to say that I am not alone in my support of this measure. I want to refer to the petition which was handed over to the hon. the Minister. One of its paragraphs explains the conditions very well, and the other paragraph reads as follows—

I agree with that one hundred per cent. The paragraph reads further—

Therefore the petitioners themselves accept the principle.

I want to assure this House as well as members of the Press who will report my words—as a matter of fact, I shall be glad if they would do that and not merely report the matter as they see it—that I shall not violate my conscience here by supporting a measure which I know will not be in favour of and for the good of the people I represent. That is why I simply find it impossible to understand how such action can be taken that before certain people—such as my colleagues and I in these benches, we who know what our voters’ problems are—have been afforded an opportunity of studying and considering a Bill, prejudice has already been stirred up and has caused people to panic. I also want to suggest for consideration by the hon. Minister, that great care be taken from the outset as regards the appointment of the board for which this measure makes provision. I feel that it is absolutely essential that sociologists, as well as other experts, should also be included, experts who can render the necessary assistance in determining for which work a cadet has the most aptitude. I sincerely hope that the training in these centres will be along military or semi-military lines. In the entire world there is no other disciplinary system which has been tested and found to be better. That is why the system of military discipline is applied to those organizations which are most essential to a country, i.e. its army units. I feel that it will be possible to make a sound start on this basis. As far as the principle of registration is concerned, I feel that we have here the beginnings of a system which we are going to introduce for the Whites as well next year, i.e. the principle of general conscription and compulsory military training for all able-bodied men. I feel that everybody in this House will agree with me when I say that this principle is generally welcomed. I feel that these training camps for Coloureds should be cast as much as possible in the same military mould so that when it is possible to introduce military training for Coloureds in general, the foundations will have already been laid.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Houghton is not in the Chamber at the moment. I simply cannot understand the hon. member. She takes the floor here, with outrageous statements, against training and preparation for the civilian life, but in the same breath states that she is not against the Coloureds being trained for military service. In other words, she is not opposed to them being trained for warfare which is of a temporary nature, but she is opposed to them being trained to participate in normal civilian life. How can one tolerate such nonsense? But of course, if the hon. member for Houghton says something of that nature in this House, then it is blazoned out for overseas consumption. When she pays another visit to overseas countries therefore, she can expect to be welcomed because she has said things here that suit their purpose admirably.

I just want to refer to one little point raised here by the hon. member for Salt River. The hon. member said that one of the aspects of the Bill which he was not in favour of, was the fact that the registration should take place at a police station, and he said that after he had emphasized at the beginning of his speech that he was not in favour of labour camps. They should not be labour camps but training camps. The hon. member then went on to say that the registration should not take place at a police station but at a labour office. Mr. Speaker, if the registration should take place at a labour office then one is immediately facing a stigma on the persons who is registering there because the impression is immediately being created that it is a labour matter. In addition, it is impracticable. I do not know whether the hon. member knows how many labour offices there are in the country. I know of one in Cape Town and another in Port Elizabeth; I do not know how many there are in between. Sir, a white boy must, in the year in which he turns 16, register at the nearest police station which is within easy reach, and I feel that this should also apply in this case. There should be no discrimination between Whites and Coloureds in this respect. The objection is also being raised that a Coloured does not like visiting a police station. I hope that that objection will fall away entirely as a result of the training which our police are now receiving in the training colleges where part of the lectures are being devoted to race relations and to how the various races should be treated. In conclusion, I just want to say that I welcome this Bill.

Having listened to the debate in this Chamber and having noticed the reaction outside, I suppose one could sum it up by saying that reaction has varied from enthusiastic approval of this measure to violent opposition. Apart from the contribution made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the Bill itself as published lent itself, as far as certain aspects of it are concerned, to interpretations which are at variance with the Government’s intention, as explained by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech. I want to say, having listened to the Minister’s Second Reading speech, that we unreservedly and categorically accept his assurance as to his intentions with this measure and we have consequently approached this debate in the light of those assurances. Sir, the fact that training facilities for Coloureds are necessary is an undisputed fact which has emerged throughout this debate, but while we lack complete and adequate facilities for Coloured education, this Bill can only be a palliative. Sir, I am not one of those who believe that education is the sole answer to the problem, because one only has to look at the report of the Education Council for Coloured Persons for the year 1966 to find what they say about the schoolgoing Coloured children, apart from those who are not attending school. In discussing the reason for the poor senior certificate examination results in 1964, this council made the following observations, amongst others, in paragraph 9—

In addition, the comment was made by the council that the home conditions of the pupils are often deplorable and consequently retard their progress at school. I must therefore differ with those who believe that education is the sole answer to this particular problem. The need for disciplining a section of the Coloured community, particularly the young ones, is a self-evident fact, and I believe that we in this House owe it to the thousands of respectable, decent Coloured people to protect them from these won’t-works and the younger undisciplined persons in their midst. Sir, it is a shocking condemnation of the situation that exists in the Cape when one finds that the casualty department of the Groote Schuur Hospital, for instance, in the year 1963 handled 3,473 stabbing cases, 3,143 the following year and 4,166 during 1965. Admittedly these are not all Coloureds but a very large percentage of them were. This again is merely an illustration of the necessity to take certain steps. I want to say to the hon. the Minister, and I am sure he will agree, that what is being done to-day in regard to this particular measure is merely one step which, as he has indicated, will probably touch about 1,000 of the Coloured population in its initial stages, and I do hope that he will be able to unfold to us that the principles contained in this Bill are to lead to further developments in the future and that there will be long-term planning which we will be able to consider in this House. Sir, there have been bites at the cherry before. There was the half-hearted attempt to establish youth camps for the 16-17-year-olds. I do not believe that they have been the success that was hoped for. I believe that there must be deeper thinking as to how we can tackle the problems which the decent and responsible Coloured people themselves want us to tackle in this country. If that is done by this Government I think it is obvious from this debate that the Minister will have the fullest support from this side of the House. Sir, we Whites know the value of citizen force training for our own sons who have attended training courses and I believe that it would be an admirable thing if at some time in the not-too-distant future a similar facility could be made available to Coloured persons. There has been a suggestion that something along the lines of the old Special Service Battalion might have been introduced at this stage, but when one looks at the proclamation issued in April, 1933, one finds that the Special Service Battalion was established to meet an entirely different problem, an economic problem. It was necessary to provide occupation and employment for the white youth of this country and the scheme was able to function on a voluntary basis. At the present moment the problem is not so much an economic one as a social one, and voluntary enlistment would inevitably result in a failure of the scheme. The hon. the Minister took the Press to task for describing this system of social aid to the Coloured people as a system of forced labour. He rejected the charge as completely and utterly false and said that it was aimed at discrediting the social aid to the Coloured people. As I say, we on this side of the House accept the Minister’s assurance, and that is obviously one of the reasons why we are supporting the principles of this Bill. Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not be prepared to give consideration to the question of granting wider exemptions or providing for more definite exemptions. He himself has made it clear that it is not his intention to waste the energies of his department or the money of the country on the recruitment of Coloureds who are at school or in regular employment; he has no intention of bringing them within the net of the training centres. If that is so. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not be able to meet some of the criticisms of the wording of that particular provision in the Bill by amending it to provide for something more definite than merely permissive powers of exemption.

The other matter that I want to touch upon and which I referred to earlier as a matter of drafting, is the description of the training that these people are to undergo. I do believe that a great deal of misunderstanding would be removed and legal differences and arguments would be dissipated if it were clearly enunciated in this Bill that the undertaking of work would be incidental to the training which the cadet was undertaking, in other words, that he can be sent to do work which is incidental to his training. I think that is what the hon. the Minister has in mind but unfortunately the Bill does not say so categorically. The hon. the Minister referred to the boy who shows aptitude as a motor mechanic and who might be sent off to a garage to learn the trade of a motor mechanic. I believe that is his intention and I believe that we should make it quite clear at a later stage that there will be occupational guidance and that the work to be undertaken will be work which is incidental to the cadet’s training. I think it might also be of interest, and I would welcome it, if the hon. the Minister could indicate whether his intention is to continue, while this training is going on. with the agricultural centres at Komme Rhee and at Pacaltsdorp where Coloured youths are being trained in the maintenance of tractors, the shearing and the care of sheep and so on so that they can be of use to the farming community not merely as labourers but as aids and assistants to the farmers.

Then I want to come to two other points. The first one is the question which has already been raised by the hon. member for Umbilo in regard to clause 26 and that is the non-application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Apprenticeship Act, and so on, to these Coloured trainees. One would like to know in what manner compensation will be paid or provided should one of these cadets or trainees suffer injury during the course of training. The hon. the Minister would be aware that so far as the Citizen Force is concerned, the War Pensions Act applies. I can see the difficulty of applying the existing labour legislation, even legislation such as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, to these trainees. The Minister’s hands would be tied in the determination of the compensation to be paid.

I wonder whether the Minister does not feel that he should consult with his colleagues about ex gratia payments, and whether the Minister should not now take power unto himself in this Bill, in consultation with the Treasury, to arrange for compensation on a reasonable basis for any injury sustained by a cadet while on training. I think it should be included in this Bill. Perhaps the Minister could give consideration to that aspect.

Then I want to come to the final provisions of this Bill, and that is the power the Minister takes to extend this Bill by way of proclamation by the State President to apply to South-West Africa. I want to ask the Minister whether that is necessary at this stage, and for this reason. First of all, the definition of a Coloured is as provided for in the Population Registration Act, but although there is provision in that Act for it to be applied to South-West Africa it has never been applied there. One wonders why we must put into this Bill a provision that can only be carried out provided some other Act happens to be applied to South-West, which would have to be done before this Bill has any practical effect there. I go further and suggest to the Minister that the five Coloured groups in South-West can only come within these provisions if again the ethnic groups are provided for in the Population Registration Act. I believe that the need for this legislation does not exist in South-West at present. The need really is here, in the Republic, and particularly in the Western Cape. I wonder whether the Minister will not give consideration to the deletion of this provision from this Bill so that the Bill may not be applied to South-West by proclamation. I put these considerations to the Minister and I hope he will be good enough to give them some thought, and I wish to conclude by saying that the assurances the Minister gave us in the Second Reading did much to dispel many of the misgivings there were in regard to the Bill as printed, and I hope that with the amendments we may make in the Committee Stage the Bill will be generally acceptable not only in this House but outside it.

In this debate we heard many interesting and valuable contributions in regard to the social position of the Coloureds. I want to thank my side of this House for its positive contributions which bore testimony to an exceptional interest in the weal and woe of the Coloureds. I also want to express my appreciation to the Coloured Representatives who, from their first hand knowledge of the problems of the Coloureds, not only gave their support to this measure, but also made really positive contributions.

The Opposition, too, made contributions. Its contributions were really responsible for the very strange pattern followed by this debate. Different Opposition members, especially members of the United Party—when I refer to the Opposition I am referring to the United Party—were actually instrumental in giving this debate an unusual character. Although they expressed their support for the principles contained in this measure as such, most of the members of the Opposition really competed with one another to see who could raise the largest number of objections to this measure. I want to suggest to the Opposition that if I should introduce a similar social measure at some later stage, it should perhaps consider reversing its approach. That may enable them to approach the well-intentioned aspects of such a measure with a larger degree of appreciation and objectivity. I shall come back to a few of the Opposition’s statements. Although I shall do that in a moment, I nevertheless think that I may be able to give the best reply to this debate by dividing the criticism which came from all sides into three groups.

It seems to me that the negative criticism of this measure was really based on three fundamental misconceptions. In the first place it seems to me that the people who criticized this measure in this House could not, or would not, realize one thing, and that is that the training centres are not intended only for the weakest element in the Coloured community. It seems to me that for some reason or other the severest critics of this measure do not realize that that is not so and in that they are not alone. They have that in common with the Black Sash and they have that in common even with a few Coloured leaders, to whom I am going to refer, who laboured under the same misconception in their petitions to me, namely that this measure is intended only for the very weakest element in the Coloured community. It is a fact that there were appeals in the past from the Coloured leaders that we should fight the skollie menace, as they themselves called it, through the establishment of centres. I said in my introductory speech that these centres would not be skollie camps. I still adhere to that, and I shall make it my business to see to that. These centres have a far nobler purpose than being skollie camps. These training centres are intended for the average Coloured youth of between 18 and 24 years, and although these centres will include mainly Coloured people in this age group, who are not engaged in work or study, they will not be confined to skollies for the simple reason that every person who is not engaged in study or work is not a skollie. This notion amongst the critics that these centres are intended for the very weakest element, is rooted in another fundamental misconception which I have observed amongst many people, not only amongst critics in this House, but unfortunately amongst the Coloured leaders as well. To me this idea that one only has to look after the weakest element, is rooted in a disregard of a basic need existing amongst the Coloureds, and that is the need for group responsibility and group consciousness. It is certainly a proven sociological fact that no nation can prosper or become great, and that no nation can become a proud nation if it is not prepared to accept responsibility for all its nationals. Make a study of history and sociology and nowhere will you find that a nation succeeded in becoming great without having recognized its obligation and accepted its responsibility towards all its people. It is in this regard that I turn to-day to the Coloured leaders in the country. They must realize that they must accept responsibility towards the very weakest element in their ranks. In the same way as the Whites accepted their responsibility in respect of the ducktails by letting our good children serve in the same military units along with children of a weaker type, the Coloureds have to accept the same social responsibility by letting their good children be disciplined along with children of a weaker type in certain units. We as Whites could not flinch from that responsibility and if the Coloureds in this country want to become what I wish they would become, namely a proud people, they too must not flinch from this responsibility. This is a group responsibility which each nation must accept. For that reason I find it a pity that there is an attitude amongst our more well-to-do Coloureds that they want to detach themselves from any group responsibility and that they want to cast from them the task of rehabilitation and upliftment. On to whom? On to the State which has to accept the sole responsibility for uplifting those who are not so good, the so-called skollies. No, in view of this measure which is before the House, which will require an initial expenditure of more than R1 million and may require an annual expenditure of R380,000, I need hardly say that the State is prepared to do its share in this regard, but then it ought to be equally unnecessary for me to tell the Coloured leaders that they, too, should accept co-responsibility for their own people. The State cannot and is not going to perform this task by itself, because then it will not succeed. The good ones amongst the Coloured population group, like the good ones amongst any other population group in the world, must be prepared to hold out a hand to those who are less good, and should not look down on people of their own race. If that were not the attitude we adopted, if that were not our approach to this social problem, then we need not have introduced this measure which calls for an initial expenditure of R1 million. Then we could have enlarged the reformatories or could have established more of them. But then we would not have been assisting the Coloured people to become a proud people. No, the State is prepared to do its share, but I repeat that the Coloured population must also be prepared to do its share, because nowhere in the world can people be uplifted by means of outside action only. One cannot uplift the Coloured people by means of State action only. One can only uplift a people if it is also prepared to uplift itself, and that is what we want to do by means of these training centres.

The second misconception has a connection with a term used by a certain section of the English Press and by the hon. member for Houghton, and that is the term “forced labour camps”. Just as these camps will never be skollie camps, they will as certainly never be forced labour camps. The hon. member for Boland was correct in his analysis that this matter had a voluntary basis, in spite of registration, and therefore had no element of compulsion whatsoever. However, I always find it astonishing to see how much pleasure critics like the hon. member for Houghton derive from describing any measure introduced by this side of the House for the upliftment of non-Whites, especially the Coloureds, as being suppressive and oppressive. I shall shortly address a single word to the hon. member for Houghton in regard to her amendment. In connection with the aspect of compulsion, I just want to repeat what I said at the beginning, and that is that no-one will be forced to go and work in a factory or on a farm. During the three months in which these cadets will receive disciplinary training, they will be drilled and disciplined, but they will also be tested technically, and the hon. members who pleaded here for technical and social assistance need not have any fears. The Department of Coloured Affairs will see to it that while those cadets are in the camp they will receive the best expert assistance to test their aptitude. After they have been given those aptitude tests, and after they have completed their drilling period of three months in those reception centres, it will be possible to determine which of them may become apprentices and which of them have to be sent to another centre for further training. If some of them show that they will be able to derive benefit from further study, it goes without saying that the opportunity for them to do so will be created. If it appears that some of them have the aptitude to qualify themselves for a particular avenue of employment, it will be made possible for them to do so. But that will happen on the basis of their own free choice. I want to repeat that, especially for the information of certain people who are prejudiced to such an extent that they describe every measure proposed by this Government as being oppressive and suppressive. For the sake of that type of person I want to repeat that no force will be exercised—they will not be forced to the factories or to farms. After they have been tested and after that period of three months has expired, they will be directed to places where they will fit in on the grounds of their natures and talents. They will, however, not be forced to move in those directions. Those persons who will not be prepared to take up employment in a sphere where they will fit in on the grounds of their natures and talents, will have to complete the remainder of their training period in the second training centre. There they will certainly have the opportunity of becoming more skilled in some type of work and to develop their proficiency. Consequently the allegation that we are concerned here with forced labour camps and enforced labour does not even deserve any further reference.

There remains, however, a third misconception in regard to this measure. That has a connection with our attitude towards labour itself. Here I have to say that I gained the impression from some of the speeches in this House as well as from outside criticism that it was something terribly disgraceful to work. Is a desire and an ability to perform labour no longer one of the most important determining factors of a nation’s level of development and civilization? Does that no longer constitute one of the most important standards in determining a nation’s level of civilization? For the sake of those people who may perhaps still not have clarity on this point, I should like to refer to one country which has always impressed me, namely Switzerland. Switzerland is a small country with about 5_½ million people only and it does not have minerals as we in South Africa have. But yet Switzerland is the banker of the world. When I recently asked a Swiss minister to what he attributed their financial and military power, he replied, “labour is our strength”. Labour is the strength not only of Switzerland, but indeed of any nation. For that reason I find it a great pity that the impression was created here that if the Coloured youth performed any labour in the training centres or subsequently, it would be something disgraceful for them to do; something which would detract from their dignity. Let me say that the critics concerned are not doing the Coloured any service by creating that impression. By doing so one is not doing a service to the Coloured, because by doing so we are depriving the Coloured of the place of honour which labour ought to occupy in their lives and minds. I also find it a great pity that it was attempted time and time again to drag my colleague, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, into this matter by connecting this measure with the Government’s policy to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape. Let me tell those hon. members in no uncertain terms that I have no fault to find with the line of thought of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I have no fault to find with that.

I want to ask hon. members who made such a fuss and other people outside this question: What is wrong with doing work for which one is suited? What is wrong with the Coloured who does not have the aptitude to do skilled or semi-skilled work, doing unskilled work if his talents and aptitudes are such? What then is wrong with that? What is morally and economically wrong with his doing unskilled work in this country of his fathers and of his existence? To my mind it is better for a person to do unskilled work than to do no work at all and so become a burden not only on the State but also on society. To argue in that way is to indulge in politics, and not to promote the welfare of the Coloured. Those people prefer these Coloureds who cannot do skilled or semi-skilled work to lie about and become a social problem. I want to ask those critics, those people who have such strong objections to the Coloured in the Western Cape doing unskilled work, whether the Coloured here should differ entirely from the inhabitants of Europe or from the British nation? Must they be completely different to the Whites in Europe or in Britain? Who does the unskilled work in Europe? Who does the unskilled work in Britain? Is that not done by the people of those countries, by the Whites? For what reason should the Coloureds in our country be different to those people in our countries of origin?

I have already said that people who wanted to make a political issue of this matter do not have the welfare of the Coloured at heart. Is the Coloured who is now going to do unskilled labour, going to do so simply to please the National Party? Is he going to do so to please us, or is he going to do so to serve his own cause? Is the object of this removal plan not to safeguard the Western Cape, which is the traditional home of the white man and the Coloured man, for the future of the white man and the Coloured man? And if the Coloured can assist through his labour to safeguard the Western Cape for the future of the White man and the brown man, he will surely be making a mighty contribution to his own chances of survival. Fortunately there are numerous responsible Coloured leaders in this country who feel this way. The name of Mr. Tom Swartz was occasionally mentioned. I want to refer to two other bodies. There is the Republican Coloured Party which addressed a communication to me that this measure had their full support. The other body is the Federal People’s Party.

Last week I met the executive of that party in Bloemfontein to discuss various administrative matters. After we had completed the deliberations they told me that they wanted me to know, and that I must convey that to whomsoever it might concern, that this measure had the full support of the Coloureds of the Free State. They said that we as the Government must pay no attention to the critics because those critics did not know what they were speaking about. The executive of the Federal People’s Party told me that they were the representatives of the Coloureds in the Free State and that they were familiar with the needs of their people. They realized how essential this measure was and they wanted the Government to proceed with that measure and to place it on the Statute Book for the benefit of their own people.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal with a few individual matters. It is not expected of me to reply to every matter raised here— for that we have a Committee Stage—but I am nevertheless going to reply to a few of the most important matters. I shall start with the hon. member for Gardens. The matters to which I shall reply here are the following.

The hon. member asked me questions in regard to the selection board and the committees of management, and asked whether Whites only would serve on them. I can give him the assurance that there will not only be Whites on that Selection Board and those committees of management. Our plan is to appoint one or two Coloureds to that selection board and those management committees who will be able to cope with that work under the chairmanship of, say, a white expert. Then the plea was made here whether we should not change the designation “cadet” to “kwekeling” or “trainee”. This is a matter to which attention was given. The pros and cons of various names were considered. The terms “trainee” à la “kwekeling” were also considered, but were rejected for the simple reason that we shall not be engaged in training people for any specific work. These centres differ from the training centres for adults of the Department of Labour where people are trained, whether as a plumber or a fitter and turner, for a specific work. That is not the nature of these centres. The nature of these centres is actually, in the first place, to discipline people. In the second place the nature of these centres is to make them ready for work, to make them work-conscious, as it were, and not to train them for any specific kind of work. The term “trainee” is therefore not applicable, because the training in these camps will to a large extent be of a disciplinary kind, hence the uniforms and badges. The approach is that one should give that training a disciplinary, actually semi-military character, in order to instil in those people a feeling of pride and to strengthen that feeling. On that account we felt that the description “cadet” would be more suitable and would really contribute more to instilling in them that becoming feeling of pride. In this regard I want to assure the hon. member for Cradock, who made a plea for uniforms which would grip the imagination, that we will see to it that they do receive uniforms which grip the imagination so that their pride may be strengthened by those means.

I now come to the question of general registration which was raised by the hon. member for Peninsula. He in point of fact argued that we should not have a general registration; that one should only register the “won’t-works”. That is what it amounted to. The hon. member for Gordonia pointed out in his contribution how impracticable it would be to restrict this registration to a certain group, say for example the “won’t-works”. Do you think it is likely that those very people who are the most aimless—i.e. that group which is the most difficult to reach, the group which needs discipline the most—would come forward to be registered? I am afraid that that is a totally impractical suggestion. I say in anticipation: If this were an amendment in the Committee Stage I would most definitely not have accepted the suggestion in this form. The ideal situation would of course be if we were able to give training to the entire number of 90,000 to be registered this year. That, however, at this stage is as impracticable as it would be to expect those aimless persons to come forward to be registered. It is my personal desire that these training centres should be extended gradually. The hon. members for Malmesbury, Langlaagte and Boksburg pleaded that we should extend these training centres. It is my desire that that should happen. I also expect that to happen. These training centres will first be established on the Cape Flats. I may as well say it: We are contemplating the establishment of these training centres in the vicinity of Faure, where there already is a trade school for Coloureds. I trust that that will only be the beginning, that we shall be able to establish similar centres in the Transvaal at some later stage, because this type of training, which is intended for disciplining the average Coloured person and for making him a better person through the agency of labour, will prove to be such a valuable means of education that I think that Coloureds will in due course ask for it to be extended.

I now come to the question of the production of the certificate which the Coloured must have to prove that he is registered. There are some speakers who raised serious objections to the possession or the production of that card. To my mind there is nothing basically wrong with that. We are living in an orderly and well-ordered state in which one has to set about things in an orderly fashion. I want to announce here, however, that I am prepared to receive an amendment from the hon. member for Wynberg, who raised the matter, in this regard. If she wants to propose that the production of that certificate must take place within 48 hours, I am prepared to consider that proposal. This measure has its disadvantages and I am going to mention them here and now, because it may perhaps be necessary in future to come back to this matter. If one were to see those extremely aimless persons in the streets and asked them for their certificates, they would simply say that they did not have them on them. If one were to ask them where those certificates were, they would simply reply that they were at home. Those persons might then be instructed to produce those certificates the next day or the day after. They are not the type of customer who may put in an appearance the next day or the day after. One must accept that. But, because I, and I take it all persons who have this matter at heart, do not want to see that any stigma of “forced labour camps” or whatever might attach to this measure, I am prepared to consider such an amendment with a view to preventing that any such stigma be attached to this measure. However, if it appears, and I am saying this so that it may be placed on record, that this concession which may be made, if the hon. member wants to propose it, does not work effectively and hampers the implementation of this measure to such a serious extent that we feel that it is undermining the object of this measure, hon. members must take cognizance of the fact that I shall move an amendment in this regard in the future.

Mr. Speaker, a plea was made in regard to favourable wages which persons ought to receive if they are placed in employment with employers after having spent three months in the first training centre. It was pleaded that if it appeared that the wages paid by that employer exceeded those paid by the training centre, such persons ought to receive the better wages. I want to tell you that this is a reasonable request and I am prepared to move an amendment to that effect.

The question of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund was also raised here. In that regard I am also prepared to come forward with an amendment. As this measure reads at present, persons are excluded from the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and a number of other labour measures while they are in training centres. The amendment will be to the effect that if that person leaves the training centre, is placed in service with an employer, and sustains an injury there, the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act will in fact be applicable to him. I shall move an amendment to that effect. However, while he is in the training centre, the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act need not be applicable to him, because according to government practice such a person is compensated according to the provisions of and the scales prescribed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act if he sustains any injury while he is in a Government institution. Therefore he will not have the bad end of the stick.

I now come to a clause which, as far as I can remember, was not raised in the course of this debate, but which I nevertheless intend amending on the basis of representations and petitions I received from the religious leaders of the Coloureds. I am referring to clause 23, which really amounts to this, that while a Coloured cadet is in an institution, he will be removed from parental care, supervision or responsibility. I have received representations in this regard from various Coloured ministers of religion in which they pointed out to me that that was unbiblical and I obviously took notice of that. I may just mention that this provision corresponds to a large degree to a provision contained in the Children’s Act. Then there is also clause 19 which provides that discipline may be exercised. That really was the chief object of that provision. There must be authorization for discipline to be exercised. Whereas that may be covered by clause 19, I am prepared to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 23 in order to meet these objections.

The hon. member for Houghton moved an amendment. It is unnecessary to say that the amendment is unacceptable, because it contemplates the destruction of the entire measure. I do not want to devote too much time to the hon. member for Houghton. I just want to say the following: It really is a great pity that the hon. member for Houghton views every measure of this nature with the largest degree of suspicion of which she is capable. Measures such as this one are intended to establish something really positive for the Coloureds. But measures which can really be to their advantage, are condemned here in the harshest terms, so much so that one often gets the impression that the hon. member is not really addressing us who sit in this Chamber. For that reason I do not deem it necessary to give any further reply to that. I do not regard myself as being obliged to give any further reply to that, because the hon. member did not speak to me in the first place—she spoke to people far removed from this Chamber. For that reason I really do not intend to go any further into that matter. I just want to say that I find it a pity that the hon. member always employs her talents in this negative fashion.

The hon. member for Umbilo also asked a few questions. He, like the hon. member for North Rand, made a most constructive contribution, for which I am very grateful. I am really very grateful for the contribution made by the hon. member for North Rand. He is one of the men who was in the S.S.B. in his young days, and from that experience he gave us a very good picture of the value which these training centres may have in the education of the Coloured youth. The hon. member for Umbilo spoke in the same vein and asked me whether there was any connection between these training centres and youth camps. As far as age groups are concerned, the connection is really this. In the youth camp at Wellington—the first of its kind—we have a number of 16-year-olds, i.e. persons under the age of 18 years. As funds become available we shall gradually extend the youth camps. Something with which I definitely cannot associate myself is the plea made by the hon. member that we should rather commit the weaker types amongst the Coloured persons to rehabilitation centres instead of to these training centres. I spoke about that at the beginning when I discussed one of the fundamental misconceptions—something to which I do not want to revert now—namely that the Coloured population as a whole must accept responsibility for both the better and weaker types, and therefore we shall not be helping them by placing the weaker types in rehabilitation centres. The better types must make their influence felt amongst the weaker types.

The hon. member also asked me what would become of the cadets after they had completed their training. I think that is one of the matters about which the hon. member and I need not concern ourselves. After he has been trained he will be snapped up by employers, and also by the State, at a faster rate than that at which they will be able to leave the centres. I recently visited the Porter Reformatory—the reformatory for Coloureds at Constantia. I asked the principal what the position was in regard to the employment of Coloureds who had spent two years or so at that school. His reply was that no difficulty was being experienced. He said employers phoned him daily to inquire whether they could not have Coloureds from the schools. As a matter of fact, he could not keep up with supplying the demands. Now we can imagine how much greater the demand will be for the products of these training centres.

I therefore conclude by expressing the conviction that this measure will supply a heartfelt want of the Coloureds. I have no doubt that this measure will prove to be a very important social contribution towards the uplifilment of the Coloureds. I also have no doubt that this measure will contribute its share— and in no immodest fashion—to making of the Coloureds that proud people we want them to be.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz., Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill contains no drastic new principles. It is aimed merely at helping to promote the clearance of slum areas under certain circumstances. Clause 1 (a) of the Bill is aimed at helping local authorities in whose areas conditions exist for which provision was not originally made to clear those slum conditions. It has now become apparent that in some areas in the Western Cape certain Coloured people were years ago given rights of occupation on a community basis on pieces of town land which had previously been commonage. These people did not receive proprietary rights over the land. They were only given the right to erect little hamlets on that land. Now, it is obvious that without proprietary rights these occupiers had no security with which they could acquire funds in order to maintain the hamlets in a proper condition, with the result that terrible conditions of decay set in. As the Act reads at present, however, it has always been impossible for the local authorities in whose areas such conditions prevail to apply the Slums Act to such properties, to have them demolished, and to re-plan and re-develop the areas in a proper, modern way. This proposed amendment is now making it possible for such local authorities to take steps in cases where rights of utilization or occupation only exist, and all the provisions of the Slums Act, including those which deal with compensation, will now apply in respect of such rights. I may just mention that one of the places where such a situation exists is in the town of Worcester. There we have a striking example of this type of case.

Subclause (b) is intended to bring the definition of “local authorities” into line with the amendment proposed in subclause (c). It is therefore merely a consequential amendment. As far as subclause (c) is concerned, I want to say the following. When a local authority requests that its name be included in the Schedule to the Slums Act, the permission of the Administrator of the province in question is obtained in the first instance. The amendment which is now being proposed in subclause (c), is merely to facilitate the inclusion of the local authority’s name in the Schedule, which is already generally agreed to, and to eliminate the need for a proclamation by the State President. In future the inclusion in the Schedule will take place by notice in the Government Gazette, placed there by the Minister, instead of it having to be a proclamation by the State President. The reason for this is that a start is at present being made with slum clearance on a large scale. Local authorities are making more and more applications for their names to be included in the Schedule to the Slums Act. The number of cases which now have to go to the State President for his signature are becoming so numerous that it is felt that this is the kind of case which could be dealt with by means of notice in the Government Gazette instead of by way of proclamation.

Clause 2 of the Bill contains the following. As the Act reads at present it is not possible for a slum clearance court to amend an order for the restoration of a dwelling which has been declared a slum once such an order has been issued. It is only human for the owner of a slum property to petition that he be afforded the opportunity of restoring the property instead of demolishing it. He obtains such an order from the Slum Clearance Court, but once he has received an order from the Slum Clearance Court to restore the property then that order, as the Act reads at present, cannot be amended, and it often happens that such an owner, once he starts renovating the property, finds that it is totally uneconomic for him to restore the property. He then returns to the local authorities or to the Slum Clearance Court and asks to be allowed to demolish the property instead, but that cannot happen in terms of the present provisions of the Act, and the intention here is merely to empower the Slum Clearance Court to convert a renovation order into a demolition order where the owner has requested that that be done. This will help owners out of the difficulties in which they could find themselves in terms of the Act as it reads at present.

I come then to clause 3. According to legal opinion a local authority in whose area a property is declared to be a slum, and which naturally brought the matter of the existence of the slum before the court, is responsible for the payment of the costs in connection with the notice which has to be published in terms of the Act after it has been declared a slum. The notice is placed in the Government Gazette by me, but I do so at the request of the local authority. I am actually in that capacity an agent of the local authority, but I have no power to recover the costs of the notice from the local authority. Up to now it has not really been a problem. What it amounted to in practice was that the notice was placed in the Government Gazette and that the Government Printer was then instructed to recover the costs from the local authority. That is what has happened jn all cases up to now, but there is no specific provision made in the Act for that to be done. Although the legal opinion is that it is in fact the responsibility of the local authority, we just want to state it clearly in the Act that there is a right of recovery against the local authority in respect of those costs. It is not a new principle. The intention here is only to clarify the legal position and to make provision for a local authority which may perhaps unwittingly have neglected to make provision for those costs and then subsequently finds that problems arise when it is asked to pay the costs. I want to repeat that this is not a new principle. The intention is only to clarify the existing position and present it in legal language.

Then clause 4 still remains to be dealt with. A local authority can, in the implementation of a re-development project or a slum clearance project, with my permission, obtain land which, in the first place forms part of a slum and in the second place adjoins or is situated close to slum land, by means of agreement or alienation. In the case of land adjoining or situated close to slums they can only acquire the land if it is necessary to carry out or finish off the re-development project on the slum land. It is obvious that the owners of land which quite by chance adjoins or is situated near to slum property, played no part in the creation of the slum condition and are being affected quite coincidentally and innocently. The position may arise that such an owner, after the local authority has planned its re-development project and before the local authority has taken transfer of the land, may be quite prepared to develop the property or have it developed in accordance with the redevelopment plan of the local authority. It would be wrong to penalize such an innocent owner by refusing him permission to develop, on his own account, the property within the framework of the local authority’s plan, and in the case of alienation, to let that alienation proceed. That is why this proposed amendment is now authorizing me in such a case and upon the joint request of the owner and the local authority to give my consent for the alienation of such land be withdrawn so that it can be returned to the owner who will then be able to enjoy the benefit of the development on his land. This is done where the owner did not himself play any part in the deterioration of an adjoining property. Since it was only recently that the re-development of slum properties on a large scale was tackled, the provisions of this clause are being made retrospective with effect from 1st October, 1966, in order to state the benefits which it affords owners of adjoining properties as widely as possible. Actually the first cases of this nature which came to our attention were cases where alienation orders were issued after 1st October. Transfer has not yet been taken of those premises and we should like to afford those owners the benefit of these provisions. As I have already said, they are owners who have themselves not allowed slum conditions to develop on their properties, but whose properties ought to be included in the entire development project. We would like to afford them the benefit of the development on their land and that is why there is this proposal to make the provisions of this clause retrospective.

We on this side of the House accept this Bill and will support it. It is not a long Bill. It is purely administrative. There are one or two aspects, however, that I would like to touch upon in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister has dealt with this Bill very fully and touched on every clause and sub-clause. That is the way we like Bills to be presented to us.

We accept that clause 1 will in fact speed up the administration of the Slums Act, and if it will speed up the administration and result in the provision of new and better housing for people and in removing some of the red tape that has bedevilled this work, then we will support it to the hilt. We believe that this will speed up the administration and we believe that most of the provisions removed by this clause are in fact in the nature of red tape which have slowed down the process of dealing with slums and the re-establishment of good living areas in those slums.

The hon. the Minister dealt with the question of certain Coloured homes where the Coloureds have “woonregte”, as he put it, in certain areas. Whilst I do not fully understand why he wants this, I accept that he cannot redevelop that land unless he has the right to take that land back from them.

It is a question of the definition of “land”.

The definition now includes that land and brings it under the provisions of this Act, which is acceptable to us.

When we come to clause 2, I do not know whether I can quite agree with the hon. the Minister’s explanation. He says that where the court believes that the person who is instructed to undertake repairs or to put his slum property into good condition, cannot do so, he can then come back to them and they will give him a demolition order if it is not economical to repair it.

At the request of the owner.

The Act provides that they must first of all serve an order upon him to repair the property or to put it into good condition. He is informed that it is a slum property and he is then instructed what do do. I do not know what the procedure is for coming back to the court to tell them that he cannot in fact do this.

If he finds that it is uneconomic for him to repair it, he cannot come back, but this gives him the opportunity to do so if necessary.

I do not see how he can come back. Surely he has to make this request at the original hearing? That is how I read the clause, but the Minister can deal with this in his reply. To me it appears that this has to be made in the first order of the court, and that there is no provision even now for him to come back to the court to explain that he cannot in fact carry out the terms of the order. I should like the Minister to clarify that position for me. As it is, and without the Minister’s explanation, I was a little critical of this because obviously if the court considers that a building should be repaired, in these times of housing shortages, surely if the owner just says he cannot afford to do so, then they should not just have a liveable property demolished because he says he cannot afford to repair it. Whilst I agree that the words “is satisfied” are included in the original wording of the clause, I have some doubts about the value of this clause as it is amended now.

Clause 3 is one which I do not understand. It does not materially affect the Bill, but the Minister is legislating for the recovery of the cost of publication of notices in the Gazette by local authorities. I think this is quite a petty approach. I accept that we must have it, I suppose, somewhere in the Act, but whether the cost of recovery would not be greater than the cost of the notice, I do not know.

It is purely a formality.

It is not even a formality; it is legislating for the improbable, because a local authority is more likely to pay the cost of the notice than not. I am glad the Minister has dealt with the reasons for the retrospectivity of the next clause which I believe is a good clause, because obviously without it, when a man’s land is to be expropriated for the furtherance of a slums renewal scheme— it is mostly in connection with renewals schemes, where the shape of the land or the proximity of something is going to stop the redevelopment of a slums area—that will happen. But of course when that plan is changed for some reason, I do not think there is any provision in the Act as it is, for that man to have his land freed again, so that he can put it to normal use again. This clause in fact does it. The Minister says the only cases they have, occurred after 1st October, 1966, when they wanted to free this land again and have it released. This is a very good provision, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will apply it to any other properties which might come to his notice and which might have occurred before 1st October, 1966. We on this side of the House accept the Bill.

It goes without saying that when we discuss slum legislation, we have to be in agreement as far as possible, and we are therefore grateful that this Bill enjoys the full support of the United Party.

This Bill as a whole is a relief measure. I call it a relief measure and not a relaxing measure in that offences which could be controlled under the old Act can still be controlled to the same extent under this Bill. What will now happen in practice, however, is that it is provided that people who were not accomplices in the creation of slum conditions will not incur undue expense and suffer inconvenience. The principle contained in clause 1 is by no means new, as the Minister has already explained. It merely means that the definition of land is now improved in order that it may also include quitrent-tenure land. It is our experience that it is on these very quitrent-tenure lands that slum conditions of the worse kind originate. They originate for the very reason that the owners who have dwellings there—if one could call them dwellings—are not always in a financial position to effect improvements which can clear up those slum conditions. Therefore it is only fit and proper that we should be able beyond all doubt to control this, which is sometimes the most vicious sore in our communities, in terms of the existing act.

The hon. member for Umlazi has no reservations about clause 2 in the actual sense of being opposed to it. We see this as a relief clause too, in the sense that the owner may go back to the slum clearance court and have the directions in his notice amended to his advantage. Now it may be, for example, that the directions were to the effect that the owner had to repair that slum property. Once he commences repairing it he may find, for example, that the woodwork is beetle-infested, which means that it is not a paying proposition to repair the building. He may then submit reasons to the court why he would like to have the directions changed to a demolition order. I do not believe it will affect us in the sense that properties will be affected, as the member for Umlazi envisaged, which are quite habitable at present, and that the man will ask the slum court to have the property demolished purely on the grounds of cost, because further clauses in the Bill provide that if that dwelling cannot quite be described as a slum, it may be excluded. We believe that this concession will be generally welcomed by the affected persons, particularly where one tries to save the roof over one’s head and discovers afterwards that it is not practicable.

As for clause 3, it is clear that the cost of recovery is now merely being cleared of all doubt. I feel that clause 4 is probably the clause effecting the greatest relief, but at the same time it tightens up the practical implementation of the Slums Act. In dealing with this clause, I do not want to do so on juridical premises, but you will permit me to judge the clause in the light of a practical test with which we have to do in the Florida Coloured area which is situated in my constituency, and the problems we have to face there. I also believe that those specific problems probably gave rise to a large extent to this clause in the Bill. As background information I may just mention that part of that Coloured area was declared a slum area in 1965. We now find that within the boundaries of that demarcated area which has been declared a slum area, there were also dwellings of a fairly good quality, and there were premises on which no slum conditions existed. Some of those dwellings are also situated on large undivided sites, some of them as large as 40,000 sq. ft. Even after notice have been served on those owners some of them erected new dwellings. There were about 30 cases where dwellings were erected with a municipal valuation of approximately R8,000. During August, 1966, the Minister consented to the expropriation of that area. In effect the provisions of the Act meant that the municipality had to expropriate those sites with dwellings, on which there were no slum conditions. They simply had no option; in terms of the Act it had to be expropriated. Subsequent to that the owner could buy his own dwelling back from the local authority, but from the nature of the case it entailed expenses which in the case of a dwelling of I R8.000 came to about R250. We feel that it was most unfair to the owner who was innocent of the creation of slum conditions. The alternative, of course, would be that the local authority could resell the property to the original owner at the purchase price minus the transfer charges. But that would also have meant that the local authority had to incur those transfer charges, which means in effect that the State would have had to defray that R250 for which there was actually no justification.

The provisions in clause 4 of the Bill obviate suffering on the part of such innocent persons. The fact that the local authority may now, with the permission of the Minister, exclude such properties from expropriation, naturally means a saving in costs and also the prevention of frustration, etc. It facilitates the procedure for the local authorities a good deal and it eliminates a good deal of bitterness. In the case of the large sites I have mentioned, it is naturally not very easy, because the local authority cannot apply subdivision until it has received transfer of those sites. If there had been no slum conditions on the large sites, the owner is nevertheless free to ask for subdivision himself within the framework of the planning pattern of the local authority, and then he may keep his property in the same way as the others. A very positive effect of this clause is the fact that the owner of property within an obvious slum area is now encouraged to keep his property clear of slum conditions without being penalized ultimately in consequence. In the past the local authorities frequently also hesitated to declare an area a slum area purely in view of such good properties which were still left in a particular area and with a view to the eventual financial implications involved.

Seen in this light, we support this Bill, and on behalf of my constituency, where we have to do with this problem in practice, I want to convey our special gratitude to the Minister and the Department for having made this amendment available to us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for having participated in these discussions and for having expressed their support in this regard. As regards the few questions that have been put here, I may just mention, in the first instance, that clause 4, which deals with the recovery of costs, is, in fact, more of a legal matter, namely the granting of the necessary authority to be able to recover the costs. As the law stands at present, my Department or I act as the agent of the local authority to have the advertisement published. The local authority is legally compelled to do so, but that is not how it is laid down in the Act. This is merely to put it beyond all doubt. As the hon. member for Umlazi has pointed out, if legal proceedings had to be instituted-— something I accept will not happen in one single case—the cost thereof might be more than the cost of the advertisement. I doubt whether there will ever be a case like that. The only reason why this is being done is that one should have legal authority to be able to recover the costs. If a case does occur where the cost of litigation exceeds the amount that is due, one will consider the matter on its merits. One may then decide to drop the case and to write off the amount. One will not spend a larger amount in order to recover a lesser amount. After all, it is necessary that the position should be set out clearly in the Act, as it ought to be.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I may just mention that it is not a case of a person simply being allowed to demolish a habitable dwelling which may be repaired at a reasonably economic cost. As the Act stands at present, one is compelled to repair a dwelling, irrespective of the cost, once the slum clearance court has issued an order for repair. We know that many of the buildings have been in existence for many years. We often do not know of what material the walls are built. When one starts to demolish and to make changes, one discovers conditions which make it quite impossible to carry out repairs, as the Act stands at present, the owner cannot go back to the slum clearance court to have the order altered. We are now only giving him the right to go gack to the sum clearance court and to apply for the order to repair issued to him under sec. 5 (1) (a) of the principal Act to be amended to a demolition order. But then the owner has to satisfy the slum clearance court that the order has to be amended for economic reasons and that it will not be worth while to repair the building. After all, one does not want to repair an available dwelling at such a high cost that it will subsequently be a unit which will have to be let at so high a rental as to make it impossible for the tenant to occupy it. That is the intention of this clause. If the owner finds that he is not in a position to carry out the original order owing to circumstances beyond his control, the court now has the jurisdiction to amend such order upon receiving representations from the owner. That does not mean to say that the court will grant an order arbitrarily in each case. The owners will have to satisfy the court of the necessity thereof.

Under this clause, does the necessary machinery exist for him to go back to the court?

Yes. That is precisely what is intended. I am informed by the law advisers that, as the clause now stands, the owner will be able to go back to the court, something he could not do before. I think that is the entire background to the matter. I just want to add that although local authorities have progressively become more interested in the clearing of slum areas in recent years, there are still some local authorities which are somewhat reluctant to tackle slum clearance seriously. If one sees the conditions prevailing in some parts of our country, I think it will be clear to every hon. member that we cannot leave it to the discretion of city councils in future to clear slum areas if, in our opinion, they do not give the necessary attention to the matter. Conditions prevail which we simply cannot allow to continue. If hon. members care to travel along Roeland Street and to see for themselves the conditions prevailing there, they will realize what kind of conditions exist in our country. When I say this I do not want to suggest that the Cape Town City Council is unwilling as far as the declaration of slum areas is concerned—on the contrary, they are giving their full co-operation. However, there may be city councils which are unwilling or which employ various methods to delay certain areas being declared as slum areas. For that reason I now want to make an earnest appeal to local authorities to co-operate in order to combat this serious problem, seeing that we are now tightening up the machinery and facilitating the procedure. If we do not get the necessary co-operation on their part, they must not blame me if I on my part take steps to force them to tackle and remove the evils which prevail at some places.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a short Bill and it does not contain any new principles. I shall therefore proceed immediately to explain briefly what the effect of the clauses of this Bill will be.

Clause 1 amends the definition of “dwelling” in the Housing Act. The object of this is to make it possible also to finance the erection of after-care hostels out of the funds of the Housing Commission. As the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1963, reads at present, the erection of such hostels may be subsidized by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as far as the maintenance and running costs of such hostels are concerned. There is, however, no provision for the Department to assist with the procurement of funds at a reasonable rate of interest for the purpose of establishing this kind of hostel. Neither was this possible in terms of the Housing Act, because the definition of “dwelling” did not cover hostels of this kind—hostels which, in fact, provide after-care to alcoholics who have to be kept in an after-care hostel, after being discharged from a retreat, until such time as they can be placed back in society. The object therefore is also to finance the erection of this kind of hostel at a reduced rate of interest out of funds belonging to the Housing Commission. I hope this proposal will meet with general approval, because the establishment and maintenance of these hotels is an important task which welfare organizations are voluntarily undertaking in connection with the rehabilitation of alcoholics, and so forth. This proposal will encourage them to make this kind of hostel available.

Clause 2 deals with the utilization of profits from housing schemes in cases where the period for the redemption of the loan has expired—in other words, in cases where the housing scheme has been repaid in full as far as capital and interest are concerned. Sub-economic housing schemes will continue to exist, while economic housing schemes will be sold to individuals in the normal way. Loans in respect of sub-economic housing schemes are rapid at some stage or other. The local authority concerned, however, continues to collect rental. What we intend doing here is to lay down how the profits derived from the continued letting of such housing schemes are to be utilized. It is now being laid down that local authorites—and I want to emphasize this—must utilize those profits in a manner approved by the Housing Commission in consultation with the Treasury. I want to emphasize that local authorities must utilize the profits, because I have had representations from the United Municipal Executive asking that it should be made very clear that any income derived from housing schemes which have already been repaid in full must be used by local authorities for housing schemes within their own areas. In the proposed sec. 75A it is laid down that local authorities may utilize such moneys in such manner as the Housing Commission may, in consultation with the Treasury, determine. A local authority is authorized to spend money only within the area of its jurisdiction. For that reason the profits derived from a housing scheme within the area of one local authority cannot be utilized in the area of another local authority. I do not want to make it a statutory provision that such monies must be utilized specifically for housing purposes only, because such a provision may be interpreted as meaning that the money may be used for the erection of additional houses. This is of course one of the purposes for which the money may be utilized, but it may also happen that profits may accrue at a stage when additional housing is not required. In some local authority areas there may be two or three schemes, schemes which have been built at different stages and in respect of which the rental formulas are therefore different. For example, a scheme which was built many years ago will have a lower rental formula than the scheme which was built at a later stage when building costs were much higher. It is now felt that if profits are derived at a stage where there is no further need for additional housing, such moneys should be used for subsidizing the rental of those schemes with a higher rental formula, or to improve the facilities for the residents of the housing schemes concerned. For that reason I do not want to restrict the utilization of any funds to the provision of additional housing only, but at the same time I do not want local authorities to use these funds for any purpose whatsoever. Hence this clause. Although I do not want to dictate to the Housing Commission, I nevertheless want to point out that if profits are derived from a housing scheme for, say, Coloureds, such profits should be utilized for the benefit of the Coloured community concerned and not, for example, to effect improvements to a housing scheme for Whites.

I do not think there will be any problem, because I do not think there will be any profits.

There will be profits—there is no doubt about that. Our experience indicates that there will, in fact, be profits. In any case, that is the position as far as clause 2 is concerned.

As regards clause 3 the position is that, as the Act now stands, I have the power to delegate to the Secretary the authority to acquire land for the purposes of the Commission or of a local authority on which to start a housing scheme. All I am asking now is that I should also be allowed to delegate to the Secretary the authority to alienate such land. The reason is that an area for a housing scheme is often obtained either through negotiation or through purchase or expropriation. A start is made with the housing scheme, and then various denominations want certain sites within that area for the purpose of erecting churches. It may also happen that after the area has been planned a small piece of land is left which is not large enough for a dwelling to be erected on. Permission is then requested to use that small piece of land for beautifying purposes or for laying out a park or something of that nature, in other words, to use the piece of land for other than housing purposes. All such cases have to be submitted to me for my personal approval in order that the land may be alienated to, say, a church denomination. I really think that is unnecessary. There are so many obvious cases that I think the authority to alienate land may be delegated to the Secretary as well, seeing that authority for the expropriation or acquisition of land has already been delegated to him. I think that is obvious.

Subsection (b) of this clause has been inserted at the request of the various Administrators, because housing is becoming a larger and larger project in our country. Many more municipalities are undertaking with housing schemes. Consequently a greater burden is being placed on the Administrations, a burden which has to be carried by the Administrators in this regard. As the Act reads at present it is simply becoming physically impossible for the Administrators to perform all the functions assigned to them. They are merely being authorized now to delegate the functions assigned to them in terms of the Act to officials in their service. These are the provisions in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House will support the Bill. Clause 1 in particular has our full-hearted support. But, despite the hon. the Minister’s explanation, we are not quite happy about clause 2. Obviously the authority concerned here is the local authority, and from the Minister’s comments apparently they are not entirely satisfied with the provisions of this clause. I understood the Minister to say that this would only apply to sub-economic housing and could not apply to economic housing.

I said it would mainly apply to sub-economic housing.

I am sorry. Let us then deal with the question of economic housing first. Originally for economic housing the funds were provided by the local authorities themselves. They used to raise these funds by virtue of the borrowing powers which they had. Subsequently these funds were provided from the housing fund by way of loans to the local authority. What was the position of the Government or its institutions? They lent the money to the local authority at economic rates. The local authority was responsible for the repayment of the loans for housing, and in effect the Central Government was only a conduit pipe. It borrowed the money at a certain rate and it then lent it to the local authority at the same rate. The Government was merely an intermediary. It took no risk in the matter, because basically not only was the municipality responsible for payment of the loan but in effect its rates and other income were security for that loan. So the Minister really had no problems in this matter at all. He was just a middle-man—he borrowed on the one hand and lent on very good security on the other hand.

The position of the local authority was very different indeed. It was fully liable for the loan. It had to pay interest and redemption charges on due date, irrespective of whether it collected or not.

You are wrong. At present there is a sliding scale in respect of economic housing.

Yes, that is right, but who was responsible for the loan for economic housing? The local authority was responsible for making the capital and interest repayment. That was their responsibility.

Not at the full economic rate.

I am not talking about uneconomic housing; I am talking about economic housing. I agree that as regards uneconomic housing it was a defferent story altogether.

Money for what is considered economic housing can be lent at 3 per cent, 5 per cent, 6¼ per cent or 8 per cent. It is a sliding scale. It is a subsidized scheme, even though it is called an economic scheme.

What happens when the full rate is charged?

It is part of the housing scheme.

That is right, but the municipality is responsible, for capital and the interest charges. It is its responsibility. But the municipality provides other things besides, because it has to use its own rates income for much of the housing costs because of the formula by which the charges for administration and rent collection expenses are formulated between the Minister and the different local authorities. In addition they have to provide all the services, the water, the light, the sewerage, and so forth. Usually the rates they obtain from economic—and certainly from sub-economic schemes—do not take care of these services.

The point in issue is this. We on this side do not object to the Minister or the Treasury having some say in how the local authority should utilize the excess. But, Sir, we do believe that specifically there should be provision in the Bill that the local authority should be consulted. We will move an amendment in the Committee stage to include after the word “Treasury” the words, “and the local authority concerned”. Because as regards economic and sub-economic housing, the Government and the local authority are one big machine that takes care of this, question of housing, and it seems to us that it is only right that the local authority should not be “directed”—as clause 2 provides—how the excess of income received by way of rentals over expenditure should be spent without the Bill making specific provision for it to be consulted. The Minister has told us that in a particular local authority or municipality the funds can only be spent there. I do think that he will strengthen his own case and I think he will make the local authorities much happier if he would agree to write into that clause the words, “and the local authority concerned”. Because then one ties up the different people that are, as a partnership, trying to solve this problem of housing. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage the Minister will accept this amendment. Because, Sir, when these loans were granted or arranged originally as between Government and local authority, there was no question of any clause or any agreement of this nature being in existence. There was a free arrangement between the local authority and the Government. Now it is being changed without the acceptance of the local authority. I presume that to be so. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the local authorities have agreed to this.

Yes, they have agreed to the principle.

Well, let us give them the protection of having a say in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister is going to agree to this small amendment, and therefore I will not take the matter any further.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. the Minister that the introduction of this Bill will be greatly appreciated outside. I do not want to follow the hon. member for Parktown in his argument in connection with the second and third clauses. I just want to ask for your attention in regard to clause 1, which deals specifically with the amendment being made in respect of approved hostels.

The difficulty with which we are faced is that in the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act mention is made of hostels, rehabilitation centres, certified retreats, retreats and approved hostels. We have here a variety of institutions dealing with a variety of people. Section 14 of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act refers to persons who are admitted to such centres or retreats and who are guilty of misconduct, squandering, gambling, begging, idleness or dissoluteness or who have no sufficient means of livelihood. Then there is subsection 14 (1) (b), which refers specifically to alcoholics. If we realize the implications of this amendment it appears that the approved hostels now being provided for by the clause actually have to accommodate persons who come from retreats, certified retreats and rehabilitation centres. Although alcoholism or liquor plays a very large part in the lives of the persons defined in section 14, it is obviously the Minister’s intention to provide mainly for persons who fall in the category of “alcoholics”.

Now I should like to point out that as yet we have no hostels under the Act concerned here. Nor are there any approved hostels. The reason for the complete lack of such institutions is probably the fact that the erection costs are extremely high. That, however, is not the only reason. There are a few institutions, which are referred to in the report of the Department of Social Welfare. A few of the hostels performing the so-called after-care work are the following: William Mitchell, Cottesloe and Staanvas. In actual fact these three institutions existed before this Act came into operation, and they are at present performing the functions of after-care hostels. In the relevant Act no definition of “after-care hostel” or “transit hostel” is given. Therefore I should like to mention to you, Mr. Speaker, that when this measure becomes law and is put into practice, there will be great appreciation for the fact that it will then be possible, with the aid of housing scheme loans, to erect institutions of this type as well. We already have the few institutions to which I have referred and which have been erected with their capital and which will not derive any benefit from this measure. There is a very great need for after-care hostels for alcoholics. There are. however, a large group of alcoholics who have not received treatment in “retreats”, “certified retreats” or “rehabilitation centres”, but in clinics.

Order! Is this matter relevant?

Mr. Speaker, what I want to indicate is that the hon. the Minister …

… should put something in the measure which is not included in it.

The hon. the Minister said that he wanted to make provision for after-care hostels for alcoholics. I should like to point out that there is a large group of alcoholics who do not fall in this category, namely those who are attended to by clinics and who do not fall under any of these provisions.

Order! I think the hon. member should discuss this particular matter with the hon. the Minister on another occasion.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the points touched upon by the hon. member for Westdene are concerned, I just want to say that the alcoholics who are not committed to a retreat for a lengthy period of time are usually persons who still retain their employment and their income, and are therefore not completely dependent upon State institutions. I shall go into this matter further, however, and the hon. member and I can have a friendly discussion about it, and perhaps we can take the matter further in this House on some other occasion.

As far as the hon. member for Parktown is concerned, I just want to point out that the hon. member must draw a clear distinction as regards housing schemes established by municipalities out of their own funds or funds which they themselves have borrowed elsewhere. Those schemes are not affected by this measure at all. Only schemes built with money provided by the National Housing Commission are affected by this measure. Other schemes are not affected at all. We have nothing to do with them—those schemes are their own affair.

As far as redemption is concerned, the hon. member said that those schemes are repaid up after the period of redemption. That may be true in respect of certain schemes for economic houses, but it is not true of schemes in general. For example, the total cost of erection of a sub-economic house, which is paid for over a period of 40 years at three-quarter per cent interest, is only redeemed by approximately 50 per cent over that period. After that it is written off. Consequently, if the housing schemes built with Commission money and situated within a municipal authority’s area are taken as a whole, and regard being had to the sliding scale which we have now introduced for the so-called economic houses as well—I call them “so-called” economic houses because for those houses we have the sliding scale of 3 per cent, 5 per cent, 6¼ per cent and 8 per cent—it is quite possible that, after the redemption period, they too have not been fully redeemed. All that is being provided here is that the income derived from a scheme built with Commission money must be utilized in that municipal area for the purposes determined by the Housing Commission after consultation with the Treasury.

The hon. member said they would move an amendment to make it clear, in the first place, that the local authority was to be consulted. I have no objection to that. I think it is only right that the local authority should be consulted. Consequently I shall accept such an amendment. However, I differ with the hon. member when he maintains that it is not clear from this that it is the local authority that has to spend it in its own area. I say that that is clear in the legislation.

I accept that.

I am glad the hon. member accepts it. Then the only question is the consultation of the local authority, and I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion. After all, it is completely in accordance with the spirit of this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

I should have liked to deal with this Bill, but in the time at my disposal before this House is due to adjourn it will not be possible for me to give a full explanation of the reasons for this legislation, and consequently I move—

Agreed to.