I move, as an unopposed motion—

Unfortunately I have not had an opportunity of discussing this amendment beforehand with the hon. member for Transkei, but I now move this amendment as a result of an amendment which was moved by the hon. member. The relevant provision deals with a cadet to whom leave of absence from a training centre has been granted and who has then, in terms of the original clause, neglected to return to the training centre after his leave has elapsed. The hon. member for Transkei subsequently proposed an amendment which I accepted last night and which read, “until the contrary is proved”, but the legal advisers have now pointed out to me that the sub-clause, as amended by the hon. member’s amendment, means that the cadet must prove that he did not run away, and in order to achieve what the hon. member for Transkei had in mind, I am now moving that the amendment should read as I have just suggested, for the cadet must actually prove that he neglected to return owing to circumstances which were beyond his control. I should therefore appreciate it if the hon. member for Transkei would allow me to move this amendment as an unopposed motion, since in terms of the rules of the House it cannot be debated here. If the hon. member is not prepared to accept it, then I shall be obliged to move this amendment in the Other Place and then return to this House with the Bill again.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment in clause 29 put and agreed to and Bill, as amended, put and adopted.

I move—

All hon. members, or at least most of us, are in agreement that an experiment is being entered upon here for the upliftment of certain members of the Coloured community. It is of course very important that there should be as few difficulties as possible in this experiment, particularly in the initial stages. I think it is also very important that no stigma should attach to this experiment. It is important that these training centres should not get a bad name and become unpopular. It is also extremely important that the persons in control of the training centres, the members of staff who will come into daily contact with the cadets, should be of the highest calibre, people not only with high qualifications, but people who are dedicated to and who feel a deep concern for the welfare of the Coloured community.

Personally I do not entertain as many misgivings about this legislation as some persons do. It is indeed a pity that the hon. Minister did not see fit to accept all the amendments which we on this side moved, because if he had the Bill would have been so much the better, but that of course is what one gets from a forceful Government which cannot distinguish between forcefulness and obstinacy. Personally I am convinced that the hon. the Minister and his Department are honest in their intentions and that they will make every effort to make this experiment a major success. I myself do not believe that these training centres will succeed so much in training these cadets for some or other kind of work, but what I do believe is that they will succeed in showing these people the ropes and leading them in a certain direction. What I find particularly important is the rehabilitation of the people who will be admitted to these training centres. At one stage or another every person, whether he is a skolly or not, who is without work, who cannot get work or who is not suited to work which is offered to him, develops anti-social tendencies. That kind of person becomes a problem if work cannot be procured for him, and it is in those cases that this rehabilitation is so necessary. Personally I am convinced that it will be possible, in the year during which those trainees will spend at those institutions, to undertake that rehabilitation. It will afford those persons an opportunity of developing a different outlook on life altogether. They will be able to regain their personal pride, and they will realize that they will in fact be able to take their rightful place in society. If we could only succeed in doing that then this experiment would be worthwhile.

Certain hon. members pointed out that this institution should be one of which the cadets can be proud. I think that it will be possible, during that period, to succeed in doing this as well. When I think of the feeling of pride which was instilled into the members of the old Special Service Battalion, as well as the Pioneer Battalion, which we had before the last war, then I feel that that serves as proof that the Minister and his Department are not undertaking an impossible task here. One hon. member asked for the Minister to give some attention to a neat uniform. I want to support him whole-heartedly in his request. It would help a great deal if those uniforms could be designed in such a way that the people could wear them with pride. The neater the uniform the easier it is to make that unit a neat one, and I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.

But what those people need above all else is discipline. Discipline must be instilled into them from the day they arrive to the day they leave. I must honestly say that I am not entirely happy about this. I do not know how one can instill discipline in a civil organization. Personally I would have preferred this unit to be a military one. I think, for example, that it could have been an appendage to the Coloured Corp at Eerste River, an organization where the military authorities will be responsible for discipline and training, and where the Department of Coloured Affairs, together with the Department of Social Welfare, would be responsible for the small amount of vocational training which will be given there, and where they will also be able to co-operate with these persons, after they have received their training, in placing them in suitable avenues of employment. I think it will be possible, for example, to come to some sort of an agreement that the military authorities would be responsible for these persons in the morning, particularly during their free time, and that the other departments would be responsible for them in the afternoons.

Much of the criticism we have heard levelled at this legislation in the House, as well as outside, we would not have had if this was a military unit. That would have silenced the critics outside right at the outset. Even the hon. member for Houghton said that she would have no objection if it could be a military unit. Well now, if she would be satisfied with that, who would be unsatisfied?

I am making these suggestions to the Minister. Perhaps, if the experiment is not a complete success under these civil organizations, it is something which could be borne in mind at a later stage, and perhaps it could then be reorganized in the way I have suggested so that it would become a semi-military organization.

I shall let these few words suffice and say that I look forward in anticipation for this experiment to begin. We will note with great interest what progress is being made. We hope it will be a great success and that it will be an experiment which will lead to the upliftment of our Coloured population, particularly those amongst them who are lesser privileged.

The hon. member for North Rand has implied that I am very difficult to satisfy and that had this been a military measure I would have been prepared to accept it. But this is not a military measure. In fact, apart from wishing this experiment well, the hon. member has devoted his speech to telling the House what the Bill in fact does not do. I presume that he and his party are supporting this Bill at Third Reading because it does not do the things he wishes it would do. He hoped that this would be an excellent measure for bringing some discipline into the lives of people who badly need discipline, the “won’t works” and those who do not have suitable employment. Sir, this Bill is not aimed at those people. In the Second Reading the Minister made it clear to us, when he rejected the vital amendments to the two clauses containing the principle of the Bill, clauses 8 and 14, that this was not the idea behind this Bill. He said he had no intention of circumscribing the people to whom this Bill would apply to, the very people mentioned by the hon. member for North Rand. Therefore, since there have been no material changes made in the Committee Stage, and indeed, there hardly could be because the Minister stated at the outset that it was his intention to have a complete cross-section of the Coloured community in these training centres, and since this is my main objection to the Bill, I am not going to support the Third Reading. I said that at the Second Reading. I said that had there been any material changes, although I did not think there could be, I would be prepared to consider it, but there have not been any such changes. I must say that the hon. the Minister has accepted certain amendments. One in particular was an important amendment, namely the amendment that these Coloured youths will not have to produce their registration certificate on demand, but will be given a seven-day period in which to produce the certificates before arrest.

I am duly grateful to the Minister for accepting that amendment, and he has accepted one or two other amendments as well, including one which implied that he was going to include in the regulations a certificate of exemption which will at least release former cadets from the obligation to revert to recruits if they are still under the age of 24. For these small mercies, and particularly for the one big mercy, I am certainly very grateful, but as I say, it does not in any way remove my objections to the principles enshrined in this Bill. Those principles are that there is still compulsion which will be applied to every Coloured youth between the ages of 18 and 24 to register as a recruit, and thereafter all or any of that group may be liable to be sent to a training centre and may be directed to do any work which the Minister’s Board may decide, irrespective of the fact that they may be in full-time employment or that they may be at school or at university. The Minister has told us that it is not the intention to do this, but until those intentions are translated into the provisions of the Bill itself, I am afraid that I am unable to accept this Bill. I will keep the date I made with the Minister. I will be very glad to visit one of these training camps. I do want to say to the hon. the Minister that I never at any stage of this debate said that he was setting up forced labour camps. I never said that. What I said was quite different. Forced labour camps immediately implies people doing hard labour in quarries, etc. That vision is immediately conjured up. This is not what I said. What I said was that the provisions of the Bill implement a compulsory labour system. This is exactly what this Bill does do—it implements a system of compulsory labour.

As long as this Bill is not aimed at volunteers and as long as it encompasses all the youths of the Coloured population between the ages of 18 and 24 who can thereafter be directed into whatever form of labour the hon. the Minister or the board decide, this is a compulsory labour system. Nothing that anybody says can persuade me otherwise. These are the terms of the Bill and the hon. the Minister himself has said that it is his intention to use Coloured labour where there is a shortage of African labour, particularly in the Western Province. This was one of the main objections that the Opposition members had when they first discussed this Bill. They hoped that they were going to get assurances that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration had spoken out of turn. They have not had those assurances. On the contrary, the hon. the Minister himself has said that he has no fault to find with the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister and that Coloureds will in fact be used to replace Africans who are displaced from the Western Province. Then he went on to his glorification of unskilled labour but he does not of course point out that in other countries where unskilled labour is done by white people, the wage rates are of course considerably higher than they are here. He mentioned Switzerland as an example. I want to point out that the average wage rate for an unskilled worker in Switzerland is 60c an hour. He cannot tell me that the unskilled labour which is done in the Cape, by Africans or which will be done by Coloureds even at enhanced wage rates will be anything like 60c an hour. What he did say was that no white man in South Africa would do unskilled labour. That is absolutely true. The reason is of course that the wages are so very low indeed.

What was desperately needed was a real operation in depth and, for want of a better word, I will use the term used in the case of the Puerto Rican experiment, namely “operation boot strap”—something to really uplift the Coloured population out of the socioeconomic degradation into which so many of them have fallen through lack of education, lack of opportunity and lack of training. These are the factors that are really affecting the whole socio-economic set-up of the Coloured people. This Bill does not touch that problem at all. Finally I want to say that this Bill is a typical example of the sort of legislation that one can expect, and certainly has learnt to expect in South Africa, that is aimed at people who have negligible political rights. That is in fact the real truth of the matter. Politicians would not dare support a measure like this if they could be held accountable at the polls afterwards by the very people whose lives are so affected by this legislation.

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

Mr. Speaker, I am just saying that everybody in this House is supporting this legislation, but that I wonder if they would have supported such legislation if it had applied to white youths in South Africa. Would they indeed have supported this legislation if white youths between the ages of 18 and 24 were liable to such training? [Interjections.] It is interesting to note that we have never had such a Bill. The S.S.B. was not a compulsory labour system. The S.S.B. was never more than 2,000 strong.

Order! This is a Third Reading Debate.

Yes, Sir I am replying to an hon. member who said that this is like the S.S.B. I want to say that this is not like the S.S.B. The S.S.B. recruits had to have a Std. VI certificate which is only one difference. I might say that it is not like the Pioneer Corps either because the Pioneer Corps was also largely a volunteer corps and the Pioneer Corps, as I think the hon. member ought to remember, was seldom more than 400 or 500 strong. This is not even a civilized labour policy Bill because the wage rates are so low compared to the wage rates that are paid for civilized labour. So I say, and this is my last word on this subject—I am sure that hon. members are always very glad to hear my last word on a subject—that I repeat my contention that this Bill would simply never have appeared in this House had the people who are going to be affected by it still had meaningful political rights. I am quite sure that we would have heard a different tune from the official Opposition if those seats were going to be contested and I am sure that we would have had a different tune from the Coloured representatives here. I oppose this Bill at Third Reading as I opposed it at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Houghton has once again, as is typical of her, donned the mantle of righteousness as the high-priestess of liberalism. This legislation is, as has been explained here by the hon. Minister, an attempt to do something to uplift the Coloured population. The hon. member for Houghton is not interested in the upliftment of people. She is not interested in the upliftment of the Coloured population. She is only interested in their votes. The hon. member knows only too well—and so does her Party because the Whites have rejected them—that if this section of the population is uplifted, they will no longer receive their votes. The hon. member is terming this legislation “compulsory work camps”. I want to ask her whether she is not ashamed of herself. On whose behalf is the hon. member speaking here? She is not speaking for the Coloured population, because it is not true to make a statement like that. The Coloureds will not believe her. The Whites in South Africa will not believe her either, they have stopped believing her for quite some time now. She is speaking here for the world. It is this kind of speech which is used against South Africa at the United Nations. The hon. member stands up here with a hallowed expression on her face to preach to us on the upliftment of people, and all the time the hon. member is trying to drag people, and not only the Coloured population, but our beloved country, South Africa, into the mire. I do not think the hon. member has any love in her. She has no love in her for South Africa either.

Mr. Speaker, except for the hon. member for Houghton the tumult and the shouting in regard to this legislation are dying down. All that remains is for those of us who have the interests of the Coloured people at heart and want to see them progress in this country, to try and assist the Government in what I believe and accept without any doubt whatsoever is a sincere attempt to grapple with a situation which for years has worried not only the Whites of this country but I say has even been a greater worry to the Coloured people of this country, i.e. the trend of the Coloured youths to go into the ranks of what is commonly known as skolly-dom. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Houghton keeps on saying that the hon. the Minister does not say that this is a skolly Bill. In fact she says that the hon. the Minister has denied that this is a skolly Bill and I say that I agree with the hon. the Minister. This is not a skolly Bill but it will bring into those camps those people who for the reasons that the hon. member has given herself, namely the lack of education, parental control and other reasons, have drifted into a state where they themselves are no credit to the Coloured people, no credit to the European community and no credit to South Africa. If we can find or begin to find some means of arresting this trend and of taking these people out of the miserable conditions into which they have fallen—we know the reasons for this—we should work on such a measure.

Try a little education.

The hon. member is quite right about education. She is not the only or first one. As Coloured representatives, we pleaded for compulsory education years ago. It is enshrined in our law, not because of the efforts of the hon. member for Houghton, but because of our efforts. Sir, you will remember the Bill which was passed in this House.

She voted against the Bill.

Yes, the hon. the Minister of Defence was then the Minister. We know these things. We know what can help the Coloured people. When we find that there are hundreds, and probably thousands of young men roaming the cities, and if the hon. member is sincere in regard to the Coloured people and if she does not look at all legislation through Progressive-tinted spectacles, she will know that dozens and dozens of letters have appeared in the Press, written by Coloured people …

… saying: “We do not want skollies”.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton does not have the floor to herself.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask you not to stop her, because she gives me every opportunity to make a better speech.

There is plenty of room for improvement.

The hon. member says that there is plenty of room for improvement. I am very glad that she is helping me. I should like to remind her that when I assisted her when she needed a seconder and when I spoke in support of the Bill she was introducing, she told me: “You are making a wonderful speech”. I view this legislation in a very serious light. The problem of the Coloured people of this country is an immense problem. It is getting bigger and more difficult by the day. I think that this legislation is long overdue. Now that it has come, whilst we disagree with some of the clauses in the Bill, I think the principle is one which I can support, speaking as a Coloured representative, and speaking for many Coloured people in this country, and speaking for people I have telephoned and with whom I have discussed the matter—educated Coloured people—who said: “We welcome the principle”. The hon. member for Houghton keeps telling us to resign and fight this seat. I shall tell her now. I could not fight the Progressive Party because I do not have their money. Where they get it from, I do not know. If the question is one of principle as regards the Coloured people and the future of the Coloured people, and if we can fight it on that programme and on that programme alone, they will lose their deposits. The Coloured people are pleading and praying for the opportunity to be what they are—a proud people; a proud Westernized section in South Africa. They want to be what we all want them to be, namely good citizens. They do not want to have delinquency in their ranks. We as white people can help them and we are trying to help them.

The hon. member for North Rand says that he is sorry that this is not a military camp. I mentioned in my Second Reading speech that I spoke to the Minister of Defence about co-ordination. The Minister gave me his reply. It is merely a question of expense at the start, but this is the starting point. This Bill is a starting point to train people for good honest employment and to take them out of the morass into which they have fallen. Even if this is a “skolly” Bill, why must it be attacked if a sincere attempt is being made to help the skolly boy? Why should it be attacked? I want to say that the people of Bonteheuwel themselves have formed a police reserve in the area to try to overcome the danger of these people who roam around. We would be failing the Coloured people of this country if we did not do everything possible to assist. This may not be the complete answer. This may be a palliative action, but at least I do believe that it is an honest attempt to try to solve a problem in regard to which, unless it is arrested even at this late stage, we may find that we will have such a social problem on our hands that even we cannot solve it.

I also want to say to the hon. the Minister that we did our best to have amendments accepted by him. He did not accept all of them, but that does not mean that we must now, out of pique and spite denounce this effort, which, I have said, was an experiment. I do believe that the attitude which the Coloured representatives have taken up in regard to this Bill will be as correct as the attitude we took up some years ago on several occasions when we voted with the Government, despite the opposition of the hon. member for Houghton. I remember well when she sat proudly amongst the members of the United Party and how she once attacked us for daring to support a measure of the Government which had the effect of establishing a technical college at Athlone which is a showpiece. It is something which the Coloured people now welcome. We believe that under the Government’s present policy we must accept everything that we feel will tend to improve the position of the Coloured people. Although I do not believe in separate university education, I should like to mention as an example of how the Government endeavours to help the Coloureds, that we should be proud of the University College of the Western Cape. I have every reason to believe, from discussions which I had with the Department, that the camp—I do not quite know what to call it—which will be established under this Bill will prove to be a show window for South Africa. I wish to say, on behalf of the Coloured people, that we hope that success will crown the efforts of the Government to try to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, it was with particular interest that I listened to what the hon. member for North Rand had to say. I was struck by the fact that the hon. member really tried to make a positive contribution to this debate, even if it was, shall I say, towards the latter end of the debate. I think he has hit the nail four-square on the head when he said that what the people we had in mind here, whom we want to make into better people, really lack is self-discipline. I am certain that not only this House but the entire country and the Coloured population as a whole will also agree with that. This lack of discipline is something which one finds only too obvious in those people. The hon. member asked how we were going to succeed in disciplining those people. I want to concede that it is not an easy task to discipline people if the people in question are not accustomed to discipline. Even if we look at army training we know that it takes a long time to make somebody used to something they have not been accustomed to. Nevertheless I still believe that what disciplining a person amounts to is that he should be made used to some or other good habit. It does not really matter what it is. If one does not at the outset rise early in the morning but is then forced to rise early in the morning over a long period of time and subsequently becomes accustomed to doing so, then it can be said that that person has been disciplined to rise early in the morning. That is why I think that if these people who are going to undertake the training of these juveniles concentrate on cultivating good habits amongst those people, we will in time be able to say that they are disciplined. I do not believe there is any other way of doing so than to force them to do what they have to do over and over again so that when they are accustomed to it, it could ultimately be said that they are disciplined.

If one listens to the hon. member for Houghton one wonders why a person with such a fine intellect—I want to pay her this compliment—does not rather use her intelligence to make a positive contribution which would benefit those people instead of opposing the Government. How much greater would the benefit which those people would derive from the matter not be then? We must deplore the fact that when this hon. member rises to speak in this House she introduces a false note into this House. We have reason to be careful, we have reason to be suspicious of her on occasion—“A lady fair, but oh!—beware.” We feel that the direction she is advocating for these people amounts to granting them freedom and privileges for which they are in no way ready and which they will not know how to appreciate either. That is why we should like to support the Minister in his attempt to make of these people better citizens of our country.

Apart from the fact that this measure will mean so much to the Coloureds themselves, it will also, in our opinion make a major contribution to alleviating the manpower shortage in the country. There are hundreds of these people standing around on our street corners who, as soon as they see somebody coming up to them with an offer of work or to hire their services, would rather look the other way or depart in haste. If they were to be taken and trained for some occupation or other they would surely not only be worth more to themselves but also to the country as a whole, particularly its economy. I would also like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to the effect that the main emphasis in this training which these people will enjoy in the camps should fall on the preparation for some kind of work or other. It is essential for a person to be healthy, to take the necessary exercise, etc. But it is no avail a person being fit and healthy and eager for work if that person cannot do some or other kind of work well.

With your permission, Sir, I want to take one example and elaborate on it in order to show what I actually meant with the statement. I think we are all aware that there is a major shortage of mechanics in our country. There are simply not enough of these people to repair our tractors and motor cars which have broken down and need attention. That kind of work is of a highly technical nature and it is not everybody who can do it. I want to mention one example to illustrate how we can make use of these juveniles. This example can of course be applied to many other fields as well. If those of them who have an aptitude in that direction—and we know that many of our Coloureds possess a high degree of technical skill—undergo tests and are proved to be people who have an aptitude for this technical direction, after which they are subsequently trained in a kind of assistant’s course to be assistants to the schooled and trained technician, that kind of man who has experience, then we would be able in this field where there is such a great shortage of manpower, to supply a major deficiency. We can teach them, for example, how to loosen the nuts and bolts and how to remove a defective part from a motor car without at the same time doing too much damage. They will be able to repair, as it were, that part of the motor car so that the real mechanic can concentrate on the more specialized work. We will find that, by means of this legislation, we will be able to free many of our technicians for the more important work whereas the work which is not of such a highly technical nature can be done by these people. I think we can apply this example to all fields.

That is why, Sir, I want to tell the hon. Minister that we welcome this legislation. We hope and trust that it will be a great success. We are certain that it will mean a lot to the Coloured population, as well as to the country.

Arising from what the hon. member for Mossel Bay has just said I would like to take the matter a little further and express the hope that the hon. the Minister and his Department will also pay heed and see to it that more opportunities are created for Coloureds to be trained as mechanics. We know what the problem is at the moment; a Coloured youth cannot become a mechanic unless he is able to receive his training from a Coloured mechanic. There is a great shortage of mechanics, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, and we have more than enough Coloureds who could be trained in this direction.

To come back to the Bill, I am approaching this Bill in the same spirit in which the hon. member for North Rand approached it on two occasions here. The hon. member for North Rand spoke here from experience which he gained in the days when there was a need for a measure such as this one for the white population group. Sir, I remember a certain occasion in those years when I was standing on Bloemfontein station and a train pulled in with two passenger coaches full of recruits for the Pioneer Battalion. When I think back to those bitter depression years, their aftermath, and I remember how those boys were clad and how many of them went barefoot, then I can agree with the hon. member for North Rand, who also went through that depression, when he says that a positive attempt was made to solve that problem and to equip those people for their journey through life. I am aware of the fact that I will immediately be reminded that there was at that time no obligation to join the battalion. That is quite correct, but the circumstances were totally different. Those white boys who went through the depression years and their aftermath were not afforded the opportunity of receiving any education; they were not even able to remain at school until they had passed Std. VI; their parents did not have the money. They had to leave the country areas and move to the cities where they were thrown together and one had the same problems there that one finds to-day in the developing Coloured townships where people from all walks of life are thrown together with the result that one has tremendous social and sociological problems. In the case of the white boy in the depression years, we were dealing with people who were out of work and who, if they could get work were not trained to do it. In this case the problem is a different one, and that is why it is essential that there should be an element of obligation. There is no unemployment to-day; we are saddled with a manpower shortage problem while there are thousands of potential workers who can be set to work and trained in the interests of their own future and for the promotion of the interests of the country of which they are citizens. The Coloureds who are going to be trained under this scheme are not skilled workers, and most of them have had very little education because there is no compulsory education for Coloureds. They are so backward as far as their outlook on the future is concerned that they do not realize the need to equip themselves for the future. Under these circumstances it is essential therefore that there should be an element of obligation. I am in full agreement with the hon. member for North Rand that this is the correct measure as far as our Coloured population is concerned. Mr. Speaker, there are ample opportunities for work to-day; the employers are crying out for employees which they simply cannot get, although the manpower does actually exist. I agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that provision is being made here for the average Coloured. I feel that this legislation forms the basis for great future developments, but the immediate problem remains, which is that we have to make provision for a large percentage of Coloureds in the age group for which the Bill makes provision, who are of no use to themselves, their families, their dependants and the State as a result of their lack of responsibility owing to conditions which have developed over the years.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I want to make it clear that she is a member of this House who states her case ably and who has the ability to do so. I have nothing to do with her personal approach here. Her Party’s policy is no concern of mine. She is a member of this House and she has the right to state it here, but it is a different matter entirely when it comes to a statement in this House which amounts to a deception of the people with whose problems I have to deal every day of my life. The hon. member for Houghton said here that she would have adopted another attitude in respect of this measure if it had been a military measure. Whereas I would welcome general military training for the Coloureds, just as in the case of the Whites, it remains a fact that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, it is senseless and uninformed to approach their sociological problems from the same point of view as the sociological problems of the Whites. I am not a sociologist, but I have for many years been in the fortunate position of being able to gain practical experience and to have a wife who is a professional sociologist and who has had much experience of this problem. Any person who approaches the social problems of the Coloured from the same point of view as that adopted in regard to the white population is doing so simply out of ignorance. One has ducktails amongst the Whites, but they are young men who have been to school who have had an education and who have, as a result of parental neglect or other reasons, found themselves in circumstances which caused them to become ducktails. But amongst the Coloureds one finds the dissolute person or the loafer who has become a useless citizen as a result of lack of education. Some of them cannot even read or write. If a person has had no education, then he has not the vaguest notion of morality or of his responsibility in society. One cannot therefore approach the problem, as far as the Coloureds are concerned, from the same angle. This measure cannot therefore be seen merely from a military point of view, because if one is on the parade ground—and here I want respectfully to mention the name of a sergeant major with the nickname “Pappa Brits” who had me in hand—then your sergeant major has nothing to do with the question of which home you came from, he has nothing to do with how well your parents brought you up and he has nothing to do with whether you passed Std. VI or whether the person next to you has a B.A. degree. “Pappa Brits” spoke a certain language and everybody simply had to obey him. But we are not only dealing here with people who have to be disciplined. Sir, I said in the Second Reading Debate that the best system of discipline where one can be taught to obey commands without asking questions, was the military system, but in the case of the Coloured population we are faced with the problem which is a result of socio-economic and educational neglect in the past—and in this connection one party should not reproach the other as it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and in this case both are equally black—and which cannot merely be approached from a military point of view. An equally important aspect is the sociological aspect. I feel therefore that at this juncture it is best to leave the matter in the hands of the Department of Coloured Affairs, because the Department not only has at its disposal dedicated officials, it also has at its disposal the means and the ability to appoint suitable people to deal with this problem. Mr. Speaker, since yesterday I have been hearing a lot here about a certain “date” which the hon. member for Houghton has with the Minister for Coloured Affairs. The hon. member referred to it earlier on in the debate as well. Well, I hope that she and the hon. the Minister are going to meet one another. [Interjections.] It seems to me the hon. member for Wynberg is lurking behind the door.

Jealousy will get you nowhere.

I do not want to say anything more about what will happen at their rendezvous, but I gather that the hon. member for Houghton will on that occasion visit one of the training centres. If the hon. member for Houghton visits such a training centre, will she then return to this House, or if the House is not in sitting, will she issue a Press statement in which she repudiates this rash, irresponsible and inflammatory language which she used in the Second Reading debate? I think the hon. member for Houghton ought to give a reply to this question. I did not only have one inquiry but received various telephone calls and personally met many Coloureds I know in Cape Town, who asked me: “Where is the place where I should get my son a pass so that the police do not arrest him, because the child is still at school?” Was it necessary to panic and arouse fear in these people and instil in them a prejudice against a measure which I am convinced is aimed at their upliftment, and which is the product of years of research by officials and experts of the Department of Coloured Affairs, something which I have welcomed because the Coloureds have for years been asking me for such legislation. The hon. member for Houghton was guilty of this, and now I want to know whether she will return to this House and state that she was wrong and that she had frightened these people needlessly? If this legislation was needed for Whites, I would have supported it as whole-heartedly as I am now supporting it in respect of the Coloureds. But legislation such as that is no longer necessary in respect of the Whites. If it were necessary the Government would have come forward with such a measure long ago. The only difficulty is that this measure has come years too late, but, Sir, have we not had the years of step by step and Trap der Jeugd After all, everything does not come at once.

I do not have words enough to express my disapproval of this—I do not know whether I should say this, but I almost think that it is the case—wilfulness. The damage has been done. The question now arises how it can be undone. There is only one way of undoing it, and that is through the Press and through the efforts of the person who did the damage. On a previous occasion I also said that the ultimate solution to the problem we are dealing with here is compulsory education, but I have had a little experience, quite apart from what I have observed here in the Peninsula, or what I see when I take the national road to D.F. Malan airport. Just as at that township of Bonteheuwel, where 33,000 people are living, shot up, so the schools have also gone up. I have been in some of those schools, and J have visited the schools in my own constituency as well, and I am satisfied that the schools which are being built and the equipment which is being supplied is as good as that to be found in any white school. We are aware of the fact that compulsory education will subsequently place this Bill on the level where it will merely amount to citizen registration, and where what is now being envisaged will no longer be necessary, but we must also be reasonable. I have for my constituency a long list, with which I frequently visit the Department, of schools which are needed. But we must also admit that the taxpayers, who to-day are mostly Whites, must pay for that, and that the money for that must be found, and that apart from buildings, teachers are also needed. That is why these training centres must be developed.

My point of view in regard to this matter is that I hope I shall live to see the day when this registration system …—it sounds very drastic now to say that all people between the ages of 18 and 24 must register, but what it actually amounts to is that after this year only the 18 year-old Coloureds will have to register. That is all. Then everybody between the ages of 18 and 24 will have been registered already, and there will then be a record of their registration, there is a citizenship index of the manpower available, which may even be used in times of emergency when we need soldiers. Subsequently it will simply be a registration of 18 year olds. It will be the same as for Whites, except that the Whites must register when they are 16 years old and not at the age of 18. I want to conclude by saying that my knowledge of people I represent, my knowledge of the Coloureds, does not derive from an occasional party given by them which I have attended and where I have addressed them. Neither does it derive from the information given me by a handful of Coloured intellectuals, people who have progressed so fa$ that they no longer want to give attention to their own people but seek the company of Whites. My knowledge is derived from the fact that I have to journey more than 30,000 miles per year in my motor car over the length and breadth of my constituency. My knowledge derives from active experience which I gained in one place after another. The hon. member for Klip River can testify to the fact that I did not miss one sitting of the Separate Amenities Committee, of which he was the Chairman, which was held all along the coastline to beyond East London. That is how one gains experience, and not from the information which one obtains from a back room staff, and which they obtained from certain people only, with whom they are in contact. As a result of that I am in the position to say that I am absolutely convinced that this legislation is not only necessary, but that it should have been introduced years ago. I accept the bona fides of the Minister concerned with the matter. With this I am rejecting the suspicion which has been sown and the spectres which have been chased up here against the legislation. With this I want to congratulate the officials of the Department of Coloured Affairs for having, after so many years of research and experience, come forward with this legislation which is intended to raise the Coloured people, whom I represent here, to a level where I will not have to stand up here and make excuses for the behaviour of Coloureds in public outside this House, and for the assaults taking place in Adderley Street at night, where people are being robbed, but where I will be able to say that I am proud to represent these people, or to have represented them, as a worthy section of the population with full-fledged citizenship and well able to maintain that status.

I trust the hon. members for Outeniqua, Boland and Houghton will not expect me to join in the Boland or Outeniqua Stakes, which seem to be warming up. All I would do is to warn them that the field has not been announced yet and that the books have not yet been opened for those stakes.

This Bill has presented to this House a very rare opportunity to attempt to achieve the highest possible measure of agreement between the Government and the official Opposition in a measure which we accept is intended to be of assistance to the Coloured people of this country. The Bill has been debated at great length in the earlier stages, and the hon. the Minister took it upon himself to read a homily not only to us in the Opposition, but to the Coloured people and to everybody except the Government as to what their duties were in connection with this Bill. We have given our support to this measure for the following reasons. Primarily there is the fact that we believe that this Bill is a practical and realistic attempt to assist especially those classes of Coloured people whose social conditions and absence of education have made a course of discipline and training necessary. The second reason is that we as a white people accept the obligation of assisting the Coloured people because of the wider experience we as Whites have gained and on account of the financial resources which we have at our disposal and which the Coloured people do not have. We accept that there is an obligation on the part of us Whites to assist the Coloured people to equip themselves better in order to enable them to play a fuller part in the life of this country of ours.

In this connection I should like to refer to a certain comment made by the hon. the Minister yesterday and to say that one has grave doubts about the wisdom of the statement he made. He said—

I do not feel this is a justifiable approach. I do not think we can merely say to the Coloured people that they must accept full responsibility for those in their ranks who are referred to as the aimless, the workless, the work-shy, the “skollies”. We too I believe must accept a measure of responsibility because the problem of the non-working, aimless Coloured youth is not a problem which has arisen solely on account of indifference on the part of the Coloured people. As a matter of fact, I think it is a problem which should be on the conscience of every white South African. This particular problem has arisen due to various reasons. I need only mention some of these. For many years a settled home existence has not been available to all Coloured families. Many of these families have been placed in new environments and new surroundings with the establishment of new large Coloured townships. One of the problems which is repeatedly being brought to my attention is that in the resettling of Coloured families very little attention is given to the social standing, if I may put it that way, of those families who are housed in these areas. Hence one finds an established Cape Coloured family, a family of high standing and reputation, having housed next door to them a Coloured family the members of which may have amongst them Coloured youths of the type for whom this Bill is intended. Then there is the fact that so many avenues of employment are closed to the Coloured people. This leads to frustrations which in turn create this particular class to which reference has been made. Finally there is, in spite of everything that has already been done, the totally inadequate educational system for the Coloured people.

In supporting this measure I believe the Coloured people must be looked upon as sharing with us a common language, as aspiring to a similar culture as ours and to a similar way of life. For the most part they have a religion in common with us. To the extent to which this Bill will assist in achieving those desires and aspirations of the Coloured people—and I believe this Bill does assist—to that extent it has the support of the Opposition. There are many irritations and frustrations which must, of course, be removed if the Coloured people are to reap full benefit from this Bill. One is amazed at the achievement of the Coloured people in the field of literature, the arts, the sciences and of music—achievements in spite of the conditions under which so many of them have to live. This Bill I believe makes possible a wider field of achievement. Time alone can reveal the success which can be achieved by this experiment. But if the Minister makes it his first priority—as he has stated he would—to make undisciplined and aimless Coloured youths undergo training, and provides for simultaneous exemptions on registration—which the Minister also indicated would be the case—I believe this Bill can and will be of tremendous value to the development of the Coloured people. Personally I hope that this Bill will be a forerunner to the establishment of something on the lines of, although not necessarily identical to, the citizen force scheme at present applicable to white youths. I hope that this is something that may eventuate in future. If that is done, and if we set out on that road I believe this Bill will prove a move in the direction of the development of our country and of these people, a move which will never be regretted.

I want to conclude by mentioning again the existence of the other contributory factors, factors to which I have referred and which must also be taken into account. This is a palliative. In the words of the former Minister of Coloured Affairs when referring to the need for making provision for the Coloureds, “die tyd word min”. That is also the attitude of this side of the House in giving its support to this Bill. We hope it will achieve that measure of success which the hon. the Minister hopes it will achieve.

The good expectations which all responsible members of the House entertain of this measure will be good tidings to the Coloured population in this country. It will also be good tidings to them to learn that you, the Whites, who have made the legislation, have to-day taken the final step here. When I say “good tidings” then I also base my statement to a large extent on the numerous letters and communications which I have received recently from Coloured leaders. During the course of this debate on this measure I have already mentioned the petitions and letters which I received from them and as a result of which I have also proposed amendments here. What I found particularly striking, was the appreciation, which frequently occurred in these letters, appreciation for this step which we as legislators are envisaging. That is why I believe that this step being taken here to-day will be good testimony to the Coloured population of the goodwill of the Whites towards the Coloureds in this country. In fact, the same sentiment is expressed in a telegram I received this morning, a telegram from the chairman and secretary of the Federal People’s Party in the Transvaal. It reads (translation)—

It is good to hear such testimony from people for whom we are doing something, something which should be of assistance to them. It also does one good to learn that bodies outside the Coloured group also approve this step. This morning I received a deputation from the Federated Chamber of Industries under the leadership of Mr. Luloffs, in regard to this measure. Their actual purpose in coming was to testify to their appreciation of this measure. They conveyed to the Government their Chamber’s appreciation for this positive step we are taking here. As I have said, it does one good to learn that a measure such as this one is evoking such appreciation. We should also like this measure to be tackled and implemented in this same spirit.

I do not want to keep the House long. We have already thrashed this matter out properly. We accept that it is a measure which is aimed at disciplining the Coloured youth, of making them more ready for work and by so doing making of them a greater national asset. But I think this measure has another advantage too. I think it will contribute to improving race relations in our country. There is no doubt that the vagrancy amongst Coloureds is an annoying facet of society for us Whites, something which often perhaps stirs up bad feeling towards the Coloureds amongst the Whites. That is why I think that a measure such as this which is calculated to eliminate vagrancy can only serve to eliminate that annoying facet from our society. By that means it must of necessity contribute to the establishment of even better relations between Coloured and White in this country. Before I sit down, I want to react to a point of criticism raised by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Green Point took it amiss of me for saying that the Coloured leaders and the well-off Coloureds must assume responsibility for their own people.

For the weakest amongst them.

Yes, for the weakest amongst them. If we cannot adopt that attitude in regard to the Coloureds, in regard to ourselves, and in regard to any nation living, surely we cannot make any progress. We cannot merely be satisfied, in our own enlightened state, to ignore the rest of our fellow-citizens. That is one of the greatest needs existing amongst the Coloured population. This coresponsibility and group awareness is the greatest basic need the Coloureds have. They do not have any group awareness. They have no group responsibility. They do not believe that biblical saying that one is one’s brother’s keeper. That must still be brought home to them. It means that we, as the more privileged section, must stretch out our hands to the lesser privileged section. The state, with this measure which we all support, is taking a tremendous step. I have already proved it. I am not going to repeat the figures again. We are taking a tremendous step. We will make even more of our white manpower available to help where the necessary Coloured manpower is not available. But we cannot, of our own accord, try to uplift people by outside means. Not even this Government, whose “forcefulness’’ is time and again scoffed at, is able of its own accord to uplift the Coloured population without their co-operation. Without their own co-operation and contributions we cannot uplift anybody. I do not know of any upliftment attempts in the entire world which came from outside action only—whether or not it was action on the part of the Government. We can encourage and stimulate and we can create facilities, but the essential requirements must be sought in those people who have to be uplifted themselves. That is why we must bring it home to the Coloureds, mind and soul, that we will help them but that they must also fulfil their responsibilities. We can create facilities but they cannot shake off their responsibility of uplifting the weaker brethren in their midst. Here they are finding an opportunity to do so. If their children and the children of weaker brethren are to be found in the same centre, they will have the opportunity not of looking down on them, but of saying: “You are my brother whom I must take by the hand and whom I must accompany.”

I conclude by saying that we are greeting this measure with good expectations. Good expectations were expressed here to-day and I can only express my appreciation for them. That is why I am looking forward to the implementation of this measure with optimism, because I believe that it is going to be of benefit to the Coloureds and of benefit for us in this country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This House will recall that during its session of 1965 an item entitled “Secret services” was placed on the Estimates of my Department for the first time and that an amount of R500.000 was appropriated for those services in 1965 and again in 1966. The Bill now before this House establishes a special account to replace that item on the Foreign Affairs Estimates. Practical experience during the past two years has shown that such a special account is essential, firstly to make it possible to achieve greater secrecy. A further practical object of the proposed special account is to build up a reserve, if possible, from which funds may be drawn immediately in urgent cases. As is evident from the Bill before this House, it is the intention to ask Parliament to appropriate an amount for the special account annually. If granted, this amount will form a charge against the Treasury and will still appear on the Foreign Affairs Vote.

As far as the spending of the money in the Special Account is concerned, I want to explain that this money will be used under the circumstances and for the purposes outlined by me in this House during the consideration of the Supplementary Estimates for 1965-’66 in reply to a question by the hon. member for Constantia as reported in Hansard, Col. 7899, of 11th June, 1965. On that occasion I indicated that the Government had decided, in the light of events and of the special circumstances in which we found ourselves, to make provision for an amount which could be applied towards promoting the Republic’s foreign relations in an unorthodox fashion. In addition I stressed, which I now want to do once again, that the moneys for the Foreign Affairs Special Account would not be used for any form of espionage or undermining activities abroad. In other words, the motivation advanced by me for the provision for secret services on the Foreign Affairs Estimates in the previous financial year, also holds good for the Foreign Affairs Special Account provided for by the Bill before this House.

The emphasis falls on aid to and co-operation with other countries, in various spheres, under special circumstances, where such action is in our common interests, and where it is essential that such action should not be made public and the expenditure involved therefore cannot be appropriated from public funds in the usual way. Sometimes, as I explained on that occasion, there are cases in which it is not desirable and not in the interests of the Republic and other particular states to make known that the Government has received certain requests and what the Government’s response to such requests was. That is the result of special circumstances existing in some African states, something on which I need not elaborate any further. As is known, the Government constantly endeavours to achieve closer co-operation with the outside world. The establishment of the special account must be seen as a further attempt to promote our foreign relations.

Although the normal control of Parliament through the Controller and Auditor-General will not be exercised in the creation of a Foreign Affairs Special Account as, according to my information, is also the case in respect of other secret funds, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will annually provide the Controller and Auditor-General with a certificate which will meet his requirements. Moreover, in practice the account will be operated in consultation with the Treasury in order to comply with that Department’s requirements. Hon. members may therefore rest assured that there will be proper control over the Special Account and expenditure. That then is the essence of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that this Bill does not really provide sufficient matter for a hearty debate on foreign affairs. It is mainly an administrative measure. When the item in respect of secret services was introduced, this side had no objections. We are fully aware of the fact that circumstances are such that there has to be such an account. Consequently this side of the House has no reason to oppose the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The present military training system was introduced in 1961. It was introduced in very pressing circumstances and was aimed at building up the Defence Force of our country within the shortest possible period to the minimum strength which we regarded as essential in the prevailing circumstances. That objective has been attained only partially. It has become apparent that the system has shortcomings which could not be foreseen and which have had to be accepted as unavoidable for the while. The amendments now being proposed are aimed mainly at eliminating the shortcomings in the present training system and at effecting a few other improvements to the existing Act.

The present system is based on the ballot, a system of fortuitous discrimination. Although citizens are at liberty to apply to the Exemption Board for exemption or postponement of military training, the system nevertheless has the result that a large number of young citizens who find it difficult to meet their military liabilities and who can advance only inadequate grounds for total exemption or for postponement of their training are compelled in terms of the Act to undergo their training, whereas others who could have managed it more easily are exempted from all liabilities by the ballot. That applies particularly in the case of young citizens from homes where difficult personal circumstances prevail, and of prospective students in fields which demand many years of study.

Partly in view of the shortage of manpower and partly in view of the desirability of having trained troops under arms throughout the year, a system of quarterly call-ups was decided upon at the time. That means that half of the balloted trainees, approximately 10,000, can start their training only six to nine months after leaving school. This necessarily caused a serious disruption of the labour pattern of the entire country, apart from the inconvenience to the trainees themselves. I am now speaking of the present system.

The system of quarterly call-ups was introduced partly in view of shortages in the ranks of Permanent Force officers and non-commissioned officers. At the same time, however, it has had the result that the so-called Permanent Force units, because they are augmented by a new element from the basic training institutions every quarter, consist of three separate groups, each in a different stage of training. If there is a take-in every quarter, there are various stages of training. This, in turn, aggravated the problems of the existing manpower shortage because under these circumstances the limited number of Permanent Force instructors and officers cannot manage to finalize the training of each group separately and are therefore compelled to let the older groups share certain training with the youngest group by way of repetition. Although some repetition is in fact essential or desirable, this fact alone gave rise to serious and general complaints about time-wasting and boredom during training, and that despite the fact that nine months of uninterrupted training should in fact be regarded as inadequate.

I now want to say a few words about the losses after balloting. Practice has proved that except through mobilization we shall never succeed in building up our existing Citizen Force units to their full approved strength by way of the present system: still less will we ever be able to establish new units in proportion to our needs in peace-time. A large percentage of the losses result from medical unfitness, which in terms of the existing Act can be determined only after balloting. Further serious losses arise in the course of the four year period of liability for service, as a result of exemptions and postponements which, on the representations of the Manpower Board and employers in certain key industries, must unavoidably be granted by the Exemption Board to trainees who are appointed to key positions in course of time.

For its leader corps, in the ranks of both the non-commissioned officers and the officers, the Citizen Force has so far been totally dependent on volunteers who are prepared to sign on for extended service after their four year period of liability for service. Our country can never be too grateful to the large number of Citizen Force officers and non-commissioned officers who have always been prepared to render this important service to our Defence Force at the cost of great personal sacrifices. They are the backbone of our Citizen Force and the real striking power of our army. As a result of circumstances which became increasingly more difficult and the increasing reluctance of employers to release their employees for this voluntary military service, the officer and non-commissioned officer complements of the Citizen Force began to lag behind the increasing complements of other ranks, and it is now clear that we can no longer rely on voluntary service. Only this morning I received the latest quarterly statement, and I find it alarming. Apart from the shortages in the Citizen Force leader corps, the training requirements of the leaders of a modern defence force can obviously no longer be met on a voluntary and mainly random basis. It takes seven years and longer, for example, to train a Citizen Force officer to the level of a subunit commander or to the rank of major.

I should like to say a few words about the inadequate utilization of the existing manpower. In the past the premise was adopted that trainees were compelled by law to undergo only military training, mainly in combat assignments or with service units. The existing Act in fact consistently uses the word “training” with regard to military service during the compulsory training periods. Training on the task itself, however, has demonstrated that trainees may make a useful and constructive contribution to the amelioration of the manpower problems of the Permanent Force. The duties connected with a large number of Permanent Force posts are of an extremely routine nature and may equally well be performed by a trainee of minimum training. The employment of Permanent Force staff in such posts, with the concomitant incumbency to provide for reasonable career prospects, results in an uneconomic utilization of manpower which our country can no longer tolerate under the present circumstances. If trainees could be put at the disposal of the Defence Force for a few months more than the present nine months, the utilization factor of trainees could be raised considerably.

I now want to say a few words about the position of the commandos. In terms of the existing system commandos have to rely virtually preponderantly on voluntary service. Even the attested commando members are principally volunteers. It is not compulsory for the small number of ballotees who are assigned to the commandos every year to attend commando exercises and consequently they never actually form an integral part of the commandos. Seeing that the commandos form a full and equal part of the Defence Force, with a vital task in the security of our country, it is clear, as in the case of the Citizen Force, that we can no longer continue leaning on the number of loyal volunteers who shoulder their burdens year after year at great personal sacrifices while numerous young citizens are exempted by the ballot. In terms of the existing system it is not possible to ensure a reasonable annual increment of trainees as an integral and fully-fledged compulsory element in the commandos, and it is clear that there must be a change.

All these shortcomings, and even more, have been a source of concern to the Supreme Command of the Defence Force through the years. Most of them were insoluble unless there were a change in the existing system of liability for service. It was also a source of concern to my predecessor; it was a source of concern to hon. members in this House, and criticism was voiced from time to time. During 1965 my predecessor therefore established a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Groenewoud, himself an experienced Citizen Force officer, and principal of a well-known university, and including other capable and experienced persons in various military and other fields, to carry out a searching inquiry into the entire field of our military training and to make recommendations for its improvement. The Groenewoud Committee travelled all over the country and invited the public, including members of this House, to give evidence, and ample time and opportunity were offered for that. They took evidence at various training establishments of the Defence Force and also from a large number of expert officers of the Defence Force. They received some hundreds of memorandums from various sectors of the public.

The report of the Groenewoud Committee was referred to the Supreme Command for study and consideration. After a searching staff study by the planners of the Defence staff in consultation with senior staff officers of the three branches of the Defence Force, which included a study of other systems of liability for service in foreign countries as well as a special mission abroad to gain information, after we had received the report of the Groenewoud Committee, the Supreme Command submitted its proposals for the improvement of the present training system and the more effective utilization of trainees to me for my consideration. After some modification these proposals were accepted by both the Defence Force and the Cabinet Sub-committee on Defence, and were incorporated in the amendments before the House.

There are just a few fundamental principles to which I want to refer. The amendments in the Bill before the House are based mainly on the following principles: (a) that all medically fit citizens who are liable for service, except those who join the Permanent Force, the South African Police, the Railways Police or the Prisons Service, shall be made liable to military service and that the ballot system shall consequently be abolished; (b) that in total all trainees shall render an equal amount of service, (i) in the case of privates no more than approximately 12 months, and (ii) in the case of officers and non-commissioned officers no more than 15 months, provided that in my capacity as Minister I may, if circumstances in the country so require, direct an additional two months’ military service by way of an extraordinary formation or mobilization exercise. Hon. members will recall that this principle was advocated last year during the discussion on the Vote; (c) that trainees will serve on a unit basis for periods longer than the present four years, i.e. (i) for ten years in the case of the Citizen Force; (ii) for 20 years in the case of the commandos.

Then I want to say a few words about the practical application and effect of these principles. The wording of the Bill is wide enough to enable us in practice to meet citizens liable for service, as well as commerce and industry and other employers, to a much larger extent than in the past. For example, it is made possible for a trainee to choose, firstly, between service in the Citizen Force and in the commandos. If he chooses the Citizen Force there are two possibilities, i.e. 12 months’ uninterrupted service, which will conclude his liability, or 9 months’ uninterrupted service followed by one period of 26 days in each cycle of three years in the succeeding nine years. As an alternative he may serve in the commandos for an uninterrupted service period of no more than two months in the first year, followed by a total of no more than 19 days a year, to be rendered over 20 years. Even the 19 days a year may be worked off in various ways to suit the circumstances of a particular region or group of individuals. In this way it will also be possible to meet employers to a large extent, and the new system shoud have a less disruptive effect on the national economy.

As regards numbers, it is not the intention to call up a larger number for service in the Citizen Force than in the past; that is, approximately 17,000 a year. In the first place the number is restricted by the existing accommodation facilities and available training staff. In the second place it is not necessary to draw in a larger number in this regard, because the proposed extended service in the Citizen Force will ensure that it will in fact be possible to build up the desired battle order in the foreseeable future.

I now want to say a few words about the Army as such. As far as the Army is concerned, approximately 80 per cent of its Citizen Force element will still have to render a maximum of nine months’ uninterrupted service in the first year, just as in the past. It is the intention to call them up in only two overlapping groups, with possibly a small third leader-group of no more than 600 men, which will be less disruptive to the national economy than the present four call-ups. For the successive nine years only 26 days in each cycle of three years will be required from the large number of privates, i.e. a total of no more than 12 months’ service.

The division of the repeat training in three cycle periods will entail dividing the Army’s Citizen Force into three groups, so that the number called up for the annual repeat exercises will initially be considerably lower than at present and will ultimately be no higher than at present. The Army’s Citizen Force leader corps shall be required to serve no more than ten months in their first service period, and in the successive nine years the three periods of 26 days’ service together with their privates, as well as 12 days in each of the intervening years, i.e. a total of no more than 15 months. The number involved here will be only approximately 20 per cent of the Army’s total complement. Except for the three periods of 26 days each, the 12 days’ service in each of the intervening years should cause no serious disruption of the country’s labour situation. The commandos will absorb approximately 7,000 men a year. The first period of no more than two months’ service should cause no serious inconvenience to anybody, and the 19 days’ service in each of the successive years may be rendered in so many different ways that it will be possible to meet the problems of both employees and employers to a large extent. For that reason I think the Bill as proposed here provides for greater flexibility than there was in the past.

As regards the Air Force and the Navy, because these two Defence Force branches have to rely on Permanent Force staff to a large extent, the Citizen Force element is needed mainly to contribute, in the process of training, to the solution of their manpower problems. For that reason it is desirable that trainees shall complete their service in these two branches of the Defence Force by way of one uninterrupted service period of approximately 12 months, and thus conclude their liability. It is only approximately a month and a half longer than the total period required from them at present, with the advantage that they will not be called up again in the successive years.

All in all, it may therefore be expected that the new proposals will have a less disruptive effect on the manpower position of the country than the present system, and at its worst will not aggravate the position.

I also want to say a few words regarding the advantages to the Defence Force. Let me take the Army. With a view to the fact that the annual outflow from the Citizen Force of trainees who have rendered their four years’ service will be postponed to their tenth year, we shall be enabled as from next year to increase the Citizen Force complement gradually, and ultimately to build up a complement of approximately 100,000 men on a unit basis. In the prevailing circumstances this is not an unreasonable objective to aim for. By reducing the annual intakes from four to two, the task of training will be facilitated and it will be possible to build up a much better unit spirit in the various units.

As regards the Air Force and the Navy, by the nature of their technical tasks it is not possible to train trainees to an effectual state of training within the scope of nine months, in the case of many assignments to the Air Force and the Navy. The extension of liability for service to 12 months will enable the Air Force and the Navy to train a larger number of trainees in assignments which demand training for a period of more than nine months and thus establish a more effective reserve.

I just want to say the following with regard to the utilization of trainees. By calling up a number of trainees for 12 months’ service it will be possible to utilize them effectively in a large number of posts in all three branches of the Defence Force, and to train them in duties for which the Defence Force will in any event have to call them up during mobilization. In the Navy, for example, it will become possible to fill up to 60 per cent of the ship’s crew posts by trainees. It is estimated that the consequential abolition of uneconomic Permanent Force posts will bring about a saving of at least R2 million.

The leader corps: Practice has shown that it is not possible to train an effective leader corps of officers and non-commissioned officers in the limited period for which trainees are at present liable. Due to the lack of the necessary numbers it has also proved impractical to be dependent upon a system of voluntary extended service for the leader corps. We are therefore necessarily compelled to impose a higher liability on the leader corps than on the privates. A study of similar systems in other countries revealed that it is by no means an unusual principle which we seek to introduce here. In the Netherlands, for example, trainees in the ordinary ranks of the three branches of the Defence Force are liable for 18 to 21 months’ service, and officers and non-commissioned officers of the Army and the Air Force for three months more. In other countries it is even considerably more.

I now want to say a few words about the commandos. The training of trainees assigned to the commandos will be directed towards their particular tasks. An officer with the rank of brigadier has already been appointed head of the commandos. Once the new system is put into operation he will be invested with the disciplinary powers of an officer in charge of a commandment. He is responsible for their discipline, organization, training and administration. It is the intention to establish a commando combat school for training commando trainees and their leader corps. The commandos will be organized into urban and rural divisions, each with its specific task. Training will be directed towards these tasks. It will then be possible gradually to augment all commandos by a younger element and to supply them with a more effective leader corps. I have already announced that it is also intended in future to have the commanders of commandos appointed and no longer elected. In the meanwhile I want to express the hope that the loyal veterans on whom we have had to rely through the years will continue to render the selfless service which is indispensable to us.

There is some confusion about the future of the gymnasiums. As a result of the changes that have come about in our training system and the further changes contemplated now, the initial objectives of the three gymnasiums have fallen away to a large extent. Consequently applications for admission to the gymnasiums will no longer be called for in future, if this Bill is passed. In future the Army Gymnasium will be supplied with trainees selected for training as officers and non-commissioned officers in the Citizen Force, and therefore changes its status to that of an institution for higher training. The Air Force and Naval Gymnasiums will continue to handle the basic training of their trainees as well as the training of certain higher categories. For example, the Air Force Gymnasium will also handle the regimental training of their instructors and of the Air Force’s Citizen Force and Permanent Force officers, while the Naval Gymnasium will perform the corresponding task to a large extent.

Henceforth prospective university students and students at teaching colleges will have the option to continue their studies directly after leaving school or to fulfil their military liability first. Those who elect to continue their studies directly will be assigned to the commandos, in which case their military liabilities need not interfere with their studies or their careers in any way. With a view to the fact that students at the teachers’ colleges will be assigned to the commandos and will fulfil their military liabilities in that capacity, the necessity for the special Training Corps for Cadet Officers, the T.C.C.O.’s, falls away. Those who are appointed at high schools and who are prepared to serve as cadet officers will be trained for their task during school holidays and may work off their military liabilities by rendering service as cadet officers in the stead of service in a commando. In consequence the flow of teachers from the teachers’ colleges is not affected in any way by the new system. Because prospective students will be able to choose between the protracted service in the commandos and the shorter but more stringent liabilities in the Citizen Force, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, it is anticipated that a natural balance in numbers will arise, as a result of which the flow of first-year students to the universities will not differ materially from that of the past and universities will continue to make their contributions to the leader corps of the Defence Force.

Citizens who have already been balloted but who have not yet commenced their training will have to render their service in terms of the proposed new system of liability for service. Those who commenced their four years’ compulsory training and service in the Citizen Force and commandos before 1st January, 1968, and have not yet completed it, will be subject to the requirements of the longer periods of the proposed system of liability for service, but will receive acknowledgement for training and service they have already completed. For example, a Citizen Force private who has completed his nine months’ training and one camp of 21 days and who has served two years in the Citizen Force, will be liable for a further eight years’ Citizen Force service and will have to attend two more 26 day camps.

At present all the officers in the commandos and the large majority of the officers in the Citizen Force offer their services on a voluntary basis. That is, they are people who have already fulfilled their service liability but who continue serving for love of the cause. In the commandos many citizens attest as privates on the same basis, and in the Citizen Force numerous warrant officers and senior non-commissioned officers are likewise serving on a voluntary basis. These officers and senior privates form the backbone of our Citizen Force and commandos. I want to make a sincere appeal to these valuable and loyal members of the Defence Force to continue serving as long as circumstances allow them to do so. We find their experience, loyalty and enthusiasm indispensable, and the example they set to others is inspiring. They will continue to serve on the same basis as that applying to them at present, and the new extended periods of service will not apply to them.

The only part of the Bill which in effect proposes an increase in expenditure is that which relates to the adoption of the new system of liability for service. According to estimate Citizen Force and commando training will entail expenditure of R28,872,700 during 1967, i.e. while the present dispensation is of effect. According to estimate the expenditure as a result of the adoption of the new system of liability for service will increase by R936,589 to R29,809,289 in 1968. The expenditure will then increase by approximately R1 million a year until the maximum is reached in 1977. when it will total approximately R36,154,000, which will be R7.5 million more than in 1967. That is, within ten years.

I also want to refer to the proposed clause 57, which relates to the publication of military information. Since I became Minister of Defence we have taken special pains to keep the Press posted as far as possible on the doings of the Defence Force. The Press was invited to occasions where some branch or other of the Defence Force appeared. We had parents’ days and admitted the Press to those functions. Heads of the Defence Force and I myself were at all times prepared to make available any information which could be released. I repeat: We shall continue with that. The publication of certain information, however, may jeopardize the security of our country or may alarm the public or cloud our relations with other countries, i.e. injudicious publication. Sometimes this prejudices us in important trade transactions to be concluded between countries; consequently there has to be strict control over news reports of a military nature. Recently I had consultations with the South African Press Union. The consultations took place in a spirit of goodwill, and an agreement was reached. I am grateful for that. In terms of this clause the agreement with the Press Union will still be practicable, and for my part the relations which have been established will be maintained.

Finally I must emphasize that I am deeply aware of the great demands this Bill makes of the youth of our country and their parents. I believe that with this new approach in respect of liability for service we are entering an era which will not only enhance the security of our country, but will also contribute towards making our nation healthier both physically and spiritually. I want to conclude by saying to the parents of these thousands of young men: Through this Bill, in the form in which it will be passed, I shall ask nothing from you in which I myself am not prepared to set the example.

The attitude of the Official Opposition has always been that matters relating to defence should be matters upon which the greatest possible measure of agreement should be reached. We have also always taken the point of view that the security and defence of South Africa are one of our prime considerations and within the limits of what is in the interests of our country, should enjoy our support. It is again in this spirit that we approach the measure now before this House. It is a far-reaching measure, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I am particularly glad that it has been possible for the hon. the Minister to make his introductory speech at this early stage. Many of the things he said in his speech are somewhat different from the potential of the wording of this Bill. The Minister has sketched a different picture in regard to service periods. During a maximum of ten years, they will serve a full year, then 26 days in each cycle of three years, and five periods of 12 days each. It is therefore just as well that the country should at this early stage be informed of the background to the Minister’s and his department’s thinking. We on this side of the House will welcome an opportunity of studying this Bill and consequently welcome the Minister’s indication that he will agree that it be referred to a Select Committee. We feel that that is the correct way to deal with this measure. We feel that it should be dealt with clause by clause so that the fullest consideration can be given to every aspect and every implication. We must be careful that we are not panicked into taking decisions which whilst on the surface may appear to strengthen our defence, leave us with a nation armed but with an economy crippled behind a front of armour. Accordingly very careful consideration must be given not only to the detail of the Bill but also to its effects on South Africa and on our strength as a nation. In order that such careful consideration may be given to it and in order that this Bill may receive the attention of both sides of the House with the object of trying to find as far as possible an agreed measure enjoying the support of us all as well as international interest I wish to move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Yesterday the hon. the Minister indicated that it was his intention to consult the Cape Town City Council in regard to the appointment of the board, called the Cape Town Board of Aid. In the light of that assurance there seems to be no reason why the Minister should not accept this amendment. I know that there is an old adage: “He who pays the piper, may call the tune,” and that the funds of this institution are now going to be provided entirely from State sources. However, having regard to the history of this Board of Aid and having regard to the fact that it is an institution of the City of Cape Town, it seems to me that there is no reason why the Minister, whilst retaining the right to make the appointments, should not accept the suggestion that the City Council should be asked to nominate six names from which the Minister should accept three for appointment.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member. I gave the assurance before that when members were to be appointed I would ask the Cape Town City Council to submit a panel of names to me. However, I want to be under no obligation to appoint any of those members. I take this stand purely on the principle that the State has taken over the full responsibility of subsidizing this body. Consequently the local authority of Cape Town no longer has any other interest in this matter, apart from the fact that this Board of Aid happens to operate within its area of jurisdiction. As I said before, I am prepared to ask the Cape Town City Council to submit a panel of names to me, but because I do not want to surrender that principle, I do not want to deem myself bound to appoint some of those people. If one were to surrender that principle in this case, one would also have to do so in other cases in which bodies might have a direct or an indirect interest, as Cape Town has an indirect interest in this case. If we were to surrender the principle in this case, we would also have to do so in other cases. I want to point out to the hon. member, however, that what he asks for in his amendment is what will happen in actual practice, but I do not want to lay that down in legislation since it will create a precedent which other bodies and persons might want to follow.

I want to thank the Minister for his reply but I think he has missed my point. I made a special appeal to him on the ground that this is a unique statutory body established here in Cape Town as part of the City. As things developed this change in the method of its financing has of necessity come about. In any event, if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, perhaps he could indicate to us how he proposes constituting this board. Up to the present moment this board has dealt with aid to Whites as well as aid to Coloureds—75 per cent non-White aid as against 25 per cent White aid. In view of this fact there has been from time to time on the board a Coloured person. When there was a Coloured councillor suitable he was nominated and has in fact served on the board. This being a statutory body which has certain assets, applying to both White and non-White activities, what are the Minister’s intentions with regard to the constitution of this board in future? Is he going to make of it an entirely White board which will then also be dealing with Coloured welfare, or is he going to change the board’s functions? The board’s functions have not up to now been separated on racial grounds. Or is it the Minister’s intention to do what the hon. the Minister for Coloured Affairs has done so far as his Training Centre for Coloured Cadets Bill is concerned, namely that in the light of the particular circumstances of the case he is prepared to have non-White representation together with White representation on this board? I know difficulties did arise in the past in that the City Council nominated a Coloured councillor and then had its attention drawn to a departmental circular pointing out that a Coloured councillor would not be acceptable. It was required to make another nomination. Could the Minister be kind enough to indicate what his intentions are in regard to the constitution of this board and in regard to its statutory functions?

I want to support the hon. member for Green Point. The Minister has told us that the Government pays the entire subsidy to this board to enable it to carry on with its work. But I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that the City Council of Cape Town also has an investment in this particular board in that it has a mortgage bond on a property. This particular board owns quite a bit of property, very valuable property, and I see that the City Council has an investment of over R55,000 in a bond on one of their properties. It shows that over the years the City Council has assisted this board considerably, and I think that, in view of the board’s history and in view of the financial assistance that it has given to it, it should have representation on it as it was quite likely that a semi-charitable board like this would have the greatest difficulty in raising money in order to buy property. The City Council, in its wisdom and in appreciation of the very good work the board is doing, no doubt advanced the money to help the board acquire property. The assets this board has are substantial—the market value of their properties would run into a considerable figure, a figure far in excess of that which appears on their balance sheet I think the figures that have been taken are probably the cost figures. I know where their properties are located. They are on sites that have become very valuable. One particular site known as “Tafelberg House” is in District Six, which has been declared a White area, changes will take place there, and this will be a very valuable property. I am not asking that the Minister should get rid of this property. I just want to make the point that the Council has this investment, it has assisted the board, and I want to suggest that the Minister give consideration to this proposal. The board consists of nine members, rather large, but the board to accommodate the various interests at the time when it was formed, was made probably a little large to accommodate these interests. The Minister may consider reducing the size of the board. I should like the Minister, in view of the City Council’s financial interest in the board, to give it representation.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the Second Reading Debate and in my reply to that debate, I dealt fully with the constitution of the board referred to by the hon. member for Green Point, and made special reference to the appointment of Coloureds to the board. I said at that time that I thought that it was wrong in principle to appoint one or two, or even three, Coloureds to a board such as this, and to accept on those grounds that the Coloureds had been given a share in the welfare work amongst their people. I think it is a much more important and greater process which has to be developed to give the Coloured community an interest in welfare work amongst its own peoples. [Interjection.] To bring about the establishment of voluntary welfare organizations for doing welfare work amongst the Coloureds, is therefore the direction in which we should move. I said yesterday that for that reason I foresaw a time when the Cape Town General Board of Aid would reach the stage when its work in respect of Coloureds would be transferred to voluntary Coloured organizations and to the Department of Coloured Affairs. That time will arrive.

As regards the interim appointment of a Coloured person, the hon. member said that Coloureds had served on the board from time to time. As far as I know, in any event since this Government has been in power, Cape Town nominated a Coloured person as a member of this board on one occasion. That was in October of last year. Because there was no authority for prohibiting that, the Coloured nominee was appointed. I do not know on what grounds it was done, but after the publication of this Bill, my Department received a letter from the City Council in which the nomination of that Coloured person to the board was withdrawn and in which another person was nominated.

They were asked to do so.

No, they were not asked to do so.

They were.

Not by my Department. My Department sent a general circular to all charitable institutions in which it drew attention to the Government’s general policy and requested charitable organizations to cooperate along the lines of separate welfare organizations for the various races. If the City Council made another nomination as a result of that circular, it did so completely, off its own bat. As the Act read, it offered me no alternative—I had to appoint that person to the board, although I personally thought that it was wrong to do so.

I made it very clear that I was prepared to receive nominations from the City Council. The only thing I do not want to be included in this measure is a commitment to appoint some of those members, because to my mind that constitutes a principle. That will in fact happen in practice. I am quite prepared to give an undertaking that I will in practice appoint at least three—and I will even go as far as saying four—of the nine members of the board from the panel of names submitted to me by the Cape Town Municipality. That will of course happen if their nominations are persons who are generally acceptable. I take it that the panel of names which the City Council will submit will contain the names of acceptable persons, as was the case in the past. For that reason I foresee no problem in this regard. I do think, however, that it is wrong to lay that down in this legislation. For that reason I regret to say that I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister has given us further information regarding the constitution of the board. He has indicated that, according to the law as it stood, he was unable to object to the appointment of a Coloured councillor in previous years. I think that in 1964 and 1965 one served, and earlier on too Coloured councillors of Cape Town served on the board and did very good work. This was in the early days—I am not saying this happened in recent times. As I say, the Minister said that he could not object. Is it his intention to object in future to any Coloured councillor being nominated to serve and represent while the board is still dealing with Coloured welfare?

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday, I was dealing with clause 5 of this Bill which now makes it an offence of misconduct for any member of the Public Service to disobey or contravene regulations relating to the benefit society or medical aid fund. I said that we on this side of the House did not like a clause of this type which makes this an offence which could deprive the civil servant of his job; that is the worst that can happen to him, plus certain other penalties which could be enforced. This is a clause which we do not like very much but which we will go into in more detail in the Committee Stage to see if we cannot perhaps lessen the impact of this clause or perhaps persuade the Minister to omit it entirely.

Clause 6 enables the commission to recognize certain medical aid funds. We on this side of the House prefer the recommendations contained in the report of the Snyman Commission which, as the Minister will remember, favours for the Public Service the establishment of a medical aid mutual scheme of its own. We are in favour of that. We realize that under certain circumstances the hon. the Minister or the board might well want the power to recognize certain established benefit societies, but that is also a point that we would rather take up in the Committee Stage and go into it more fully there when we can discuss the details of this clause with the hon. the Minister and see if together we cannot get the position straight. Sir, we are prepared to support the Second Reading of this Bill because it is obviously designed to improve the administration of the Public Service Act, and we will deal with it more fully in the Committee Stage.

In the short while I have been a member of this House, this is the second time that I have had to speak after the hon. member for Umlazi in a debate on the Public Service Commission. On the previous occasion I started very modestly by telling the hon. member that in my opinion he adopted a somewhat negative attitude in respect of the Public Service Commission and also in respect of the Public Service as a whole. I think that on this occasion I want to add that the hon. member is not only a little negative, but also a little pessimistic. It seems to me as though he is always looking for a dark cloud within a silver lining. Unfortunately this speech of his was not a model of insight into and knowledge about the growth of the Public Service either, but really a sort of political concoction, if you will permit me to use this word, Sir. This reminds me of a type of beer which the Bantu brewed in the cities and into which they mixed a large variety of ingredients. The beer was known as “kill me quick”. I think that this type of speech which we heard from the hon. member will also kill our Public Service quickly. The hon. member mentioned certain objections. In respect of clause 3 he said that the Minister had almost made a mistake there. That is a very strange type of argument, surely. We are living in a time in which the Van der Merwes are also playing cricket fairly well, and I can imagine very well that if a man like Lawry or Simpson were bowled and on his return to the cloakroom made the excuse that the bowler had at any rate very nearly missed his stumps, he would not have got very far with that excuse. In respect of clause 4 the hon. member said, “Clause 4 contains a provision which quite frankly we cannot understand.” I do not know how many United Party members were included in this “we”, but to my mind the hon. member does not understand this clause, because he really does not have any conception of the place and the position of the Public Service Commission within the Public Service, since clause 4 does not contemplate any innovation; there is no question here of a new or a foreign principle. This is already being done in connection with many other matters. I should just like to read out to you a a single quotation from Republic of South Africa: Financial Handbook—

Responsibility for the expenditure from a Vote rests with the accounting officer, nominated by the Treasury (Section 1) and he must present an appropriation account for each Vote under his charge to the Controller and Auditor-General and the Treasury (Section 36). Internal control is superior to external control and it is incumbent upon accounting officers to exercise control, even before expenditure takes place by examination and criticism of the financial aspects of all proposals for expenditure. Control by the Treasury in approving expenditure and estimates submitted to it from time to time, is of necessity exercised in less detail. Parliament too, in granting supply, cannot exercise the control over proposals expected of an accounting officer. On the accounts side, accounting officers are responsible for the receiving, paying and accounting for all moneys administered by their departments and the exercising of the function of critical examination of all departmental accounts.

This clause deals with specific functions and is merely a continuation of section 7 (2) which the hon. member might just as well have read. If he had read that, he would also have understood it better. His objections in respect of clauses 5 and 6 once again amount to the fact that the hon. member had not read the two together, and if one had listened to him, one would almost have thought that this Bill sought to strike at the very existence of these medical schemes.

I think the hon. member will be taken to task further by the hon. the Minister, and we shall most probably find ourselves up against each other on this matter again at a later stage. This afternoon I only want to present to you two matters concerning these particular amendments in the light of the broader position of the Public Service, because every time closer attention is being given for a while to the discussion of any legislation or measure in respect of the Public Service Commission, one is being impressed once again by the multiplicity of the public institutions by which the modern community is being characterized. It is important to say this at more regular intervals, because to a very large extent the actions taken by every citizen during his entire life-time are being rendered possible, regulated or influenced by the activities of the many State institutions. In the interests of the individual in particular and the community in general it is therefore essential for every citizen to have a measure of knowledge of the system of government and the administration of his country. In the light of this the central administration and the Public Service Commission, which also falls under this, should therefore frequently be brought into sharp focus, because the maintenance of the modern Public Service, as forming part of the central administration, is an extensive and specialized task, and this facet of political order and government cannot function without a centralized staff authority. Therefore this Bill is important because it deals with the Public Service Commission, and although it is not contentious it embraces profound essentials, essentials such as the fact that this Bill bears testimony to the vitality and the growth of our Public Service, from which it is clear that the Public Service Commission and the Public Service take pains to ensure that its growth is always effective and adapted to the interests of our country. A further essential is implied, inter alia, in the delegation of the powers and functions of the Public Service Commission. This delegation of powers is another step forward because it does, on the one hand, allow the Public Service Commission greater freedom from functions which may more conveniently be carried out by persons specifically trained for that purpose and persons designated for that purpose by the Public Service Commission itself. However, this will be done in such a way that there will be no transfer of final responsibility at all. In this way, therefore, the Public Service Commission will be enabled to intensify the attention and direct energy it can devote to other more immediate tasks, without, however, forfeiting or neglecting its control. In addition it also has the effect that its stimulating powers will be brought into play more profoundly in our machinery of State. This intensifies the powers of the Public Service Commission, strengthens and stimulates the Public Service as a whole and reaffirms national stability. This Bill is instrumental in making it possible for me to conclude cordially with the following statement made by Dr. Steyn, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, who, on the occasion of special promotions, increases and bonuses being granted to officials of the Cape Provincial Administration, said the following in his speech—

I want to content myself by saying that the provisions of this Bill will benefit the Public Service Commission in particular and also the Public Service as a whole.

I think that the hon. member for Rissik has now replied in such detail to the question asked by the hon. member for Umlazi as to why provision is being made in the Public Service Act for the Treasury to delegate certain powers, that I do not wish to go into that particular aspect any further, except to say that I know that the Opposition, as well as the Government, always concerns itself with seeing to it that the delegation of such powers does not exceed certain limits, but that there are always sufficient safeguards against abuses or offences. However, I do want to reply to the misgivings the hon. member had in respect of clause 5. The objection raised by the hon. member is that an official may be found guilty of misconduct if he contravenes a regulation of which neither Parliament nor the official concerned knows anything. In my explanation I said that clauses 5 and 6 should be read together since they had their origins in the same need. For this purpose I want to point out that section 26 of the principal Act provides that the State President may make regulations with respect to a variety of matters. Clause 6 of this Bill extends the scope of section 26 of the principal Act so that the State President may make regulations with respect to the recognition by the Commission of a medical aid fund or funds, for the purposes of putting these compulsory medical aid schemes into operation. This regulation will, as any other regulation which is being made under the Public Service Act, be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. As early as 1963 Parliament did in actual fact approve an amendment of the law to the effect that the State President may make regulations. The proposal before the House at present is merely an extension of that in order that a specific, or an existing medical aid fund or funds may also be included. That is all it means. Officials in the Public Service will also be thoroughly conversant with the rules of the medical aid schemes with which they will have to comply in terms of the proposed regulations. These rules are already in existence and they were drafted by the governing bodies of these medical aid schemes in consultation with the Public Service Commission. It stands to reason that a contravention of these rules may only be regarded as misconduct once officials have been required, in terms of the contemplated regulations for which provision will be made under clause 6, to become members of a medical aid scheme and to comply with its rules; otherwise one will never be able to make this operate smoothly or to have control over it.

Organized officialdom is fully acquainted with the contents of these clauses of the Bill, and it is in fact eager for this to be introduced in order that a long-cherished ideal of a compulsory medical aid scheme may be realized. Being acquainted with the contents and the implications of this Bill, the Public Servants’ Association once again, as recently as 3rd March, made inquiries about the degree of progress which has been made in connection with this legislation. In a circular to all Departments, the contemplated changes were explained, and an appeal was made to serving officials to join the existing medical aid scheme voluntarily. As a result of the collaboration of various staff associations, the membership of the two medical aid schemes grew from approximately 22,000 at the end of 1965, to approximately 46,000 at the end of 1966. in the space of one year. Such an encouraging response shows that on the part of the officials there is not the slightest trace of suspicion against these schemes or these contemplated measures. Consequently I think that the hon. member’s fear falls away, namely that disciplinary measures will be taken against people because they will not know what is happening, and also that Parliament will not know what is happening.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill is primarily aimed at effecting increased benefits for workers. In addition it is intended to afford protection to certain workers who are at present excluded. I have already laid an explanatory memorandum upon the Table and I should now like to furnish hon. members with the further necessary particulars.

Clauses 1 (a) and (c) extend the existing definition of “workmen”. In terms of section 3 (2) (i) of the Act, persons who are employed in connection with digging for or winning alluvial diamonds, alluvial gold or corundum, or in prospecting therefor, are excluded from the scope of the Act unless such persons are injured in connection with the use of machinery or explosives. At present persons exploiting alluvial diamonds from the ocean bed are also excluded. In addition section 3 (1) (b) provides that persons thus excluded are only entitled to the benefits of the fund if the employer in question has made special arrangements with the Commissioner in this regard.

To an ever-increasing extent digging and prospecting is being undertaken on a large scale to-day by companies and syndicates and no longer, as was previously the case, by individuals. The reasons which previously existed for their being excluded, can therefore no longer be regarded as justified to-day.

The exclusion also impedes the administration of the Act, because employers do not know what wages they must enumerate for assessment purposes and cannot determine in advance what workers are going to be injured by power-driven machinery or explosives. A similar provision also applied in regard to agriculture, but the Act was amended in 1964 for the same reason so as to cover all farm workers and not only those working with power-driven machinery.

Clause 1 (b) is aimed at increasing the maximum wage limit to R5,460 per annum. At present employers whose income exceeds R3,120 per annum are excluded from the scope of the Act unless the employer has made special arrangements with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to cover such workers. The present wage limit was increased in 1956 from R2,000 per annum to R3,120 per annum. As a result of wage increases over the past few years there are now many employees who formerly fell within the scope of the Act but who are at present excluded.

In recent times it has also frequently happened that an injured workman did not fall within the wage limit because of a recent wage increase and that his dependants, in the case of death, received no benefits.

In determining a new figure, consideration was given to the possibility of doing away with a wage limit altogether. However, there were well-founded objections on the part of employers’ organizations on the grounds that many employers had entered into group insurance schemes with private insurance companies to cover highly paid employees on a 24-hour basis. Some of these schemes also included pension benefits. For practical reasons such schemes cannot be ended summarily, and compulsory coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Act would place a double financial burden on employers. In addition employees in the highest salary groups are apparently not interested in the benefits under the Act but are far more interested in the considerable sums of money for which they have been insured.

After considering the matter the Commissioner came to the conclusion that a wage limit would in fact be retained but that, in view of the fact that wages had increased considerably since 1956 the new wage limit would have to be increased considerably. The Commissioner also found that there are workers such as engineers, foremen, technicians, etc., who have incomes of between R5,000 and R6,000 per year and who are in many cases not covered by private insurance. In the circumstances the Commissioner recommended that the figure be increased to R5,460 per annum. It is based on a figure of R105 per week which is divisible by three, so that the monthly equivalent of 4⅓ does not result in a decimal fraction.

I now come to clauses 2 and 3. Sections 38 and 39 of the Act lay down the scales of compensation and pension for disablement in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. Since 1961 the maximum scale of earnings on which compensation and pension is calculated has been R120 per month. In other words, if a workman is at present on the maximum wage limit of R3,120 per year, the compensation and pension is not calculated on that full amount, but only on R 1,440 per annum, or R120 per month. That is also the maximum amount on which assessments are at present being levied. If a workman is therefore earning R200 per month, only R120 of that amount is taken into consideration for assessment purposes. The maximum periodical payment for temporary disablement, and 75 per cent of the workman’s earnings to a maximum of R20 per month, at present amount to R90 per month.

The proposed amendments increase the present maximum monthly wage on which compensation and pension is calculated, namely R120, to R150 per month, i.e. R 1,800 per annum. That means that the maximum periodical payment and pension which a workman will be able to receive is increased from R90 per month to R 112.50 per month. This increase will result in the maximum benefits to dependants upon deceased workmen also being increased.

The present maximum monthly pension of a widow without dependants is R36 per month. If she has a dependent child she receives R54; with two children she receives R72; and with three children she receives R90 per month. Under the proposed dispensation she will receive R45 per month without dependants: R67.50 per month with one dependent child; R90 per month with two children; and R112 50 per month with three.

The amendments in clauses 4 (a) and (b) deal with the amounts payable when a White, Coloured or Asiatic workman dies as a result of a compensatable accident. At present a widow of such a workman receives, apart from a pension, a lump sum equal to two months’ earnings, or R200, whichever is the least. In addition, funeral expenses up to a maximum of R100 can be paid. What is being envisaged is to increase the single sum of money to R300, and the funeral expenses to R150.

Section 40 (4) (c) of the Act provides that where a workman dies as a result of an accident, his widow receives a lump sum equal to 24 times her monthly pension as soon as she remarries. After that her pension falls away. The amendment in clause 4 (c) increases the maximum lump sum to 30 times the monthly pension. To the extent that this step will encourage re-marriage, it will result in a saving for the fund, owing to the termination of a payment of a monthly pension. All the present widowed pensioners will also, upon their re-marrying, receive a larger sum of money calculated according to the new formula of 30 times the pension which is already being received.

The amendments in clauses 5, 6 and 7 are aimed at introducing increased benefits for Bantu as well. In terms of section 84 of the Act, Bantu are entitled to compensation for temporary disablement, but if the disablement lasts for a period less than seven days, compensation is not payable. If board and lodging form part of his wages, no compensation is paid for 14 days. As in the case of the other race groups however, the periodical return amounts to 75 per cent of their actual earnings. up to a maximum earning of R120 per month.

In view of the fact that the scale of compensation for Bantu is already the same as that for the other race groups, and that the present provisions impede the application of the Act and cause hardships in cases where there are dependants, it is being proposed that Bantu be placed on the same basis as the other race groups.

The amendments in clauses 5 and 6 increase the maximum earnings on which compensation will in future be calculated for Bantu from R120 to R150 per month. In addition the provisions in terms of which no compensation is payable, are also being deleted.

Section 86 (2) provides that an amount of not more than R40 is payable out of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund for funeral expenses where a Bantu dies as a result of a compensatable accident. The amendment in clause 6 increases this amount to R75.

Clause 8 deals with the date on which the proposed amendments will come into operation. Just as on previous occasions the increased benefits, excepting those in clause 4 (c) which deal with lump sums payable upon remarriage, will only relate to accidents which take place after the date on which the amending Act has come into operation. Such a step is unavoidable since it would be unpractical to levy assessments with retrospective effect on employers each time increased benefits are put into effect in order to obtain the necessary funds for accidents which occurred before the date of commencement of the increased benefits.

As hon. members know, no contributions are made to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund by employees and the revenue of the fund consists of assessments which are levied from employers in accordance with the accident rate in each industry.

The increased benefits are not expected to result in an increase in assessment rates. On the contrary, the additional workmen who are now being brought within the scope of the Act, will result in employers paying larger total amounts in assessments, and will in that way strengthen the fund. Such a step, however, is inevitable. The increasing of the wage limit simply means that a group of workmen who formerly fell within the scope of the Act, but who are at present being excluded on account of wage increases, will again be included.

Since the amendments are primarily aimed at bringing about increased benefits for the workers, it is hoped that the hon. House will approve these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting since 1956 for this very important piece of amending legislation to be introduced into this House. As the Minister knows, this side has been asking for these increases for a long time and, consequently, we are naturally pleased indeed that at long last the Minister has seen fit to bring them about. It may therefore be pleasing to the hon. the Minister to know that we accept his Bill. We shall support him in his efforts to raise the levels of payment in Workmen’s Compensation Act cases.

Mr. Speaker, there are some general aspects of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which I think we must bear in mind. I shall take this opportunity of bringing one or two of these points to the notice of the Minister. Firstly, I want to say to the Minister that he must know of the hardships to the injured person’s family during a period of injury, especially when the workman is away from home. It not only causes a disruption in the household itself, but, because of the delay in the payment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act fees to the workman—it is not a wage but a fee which he receives during his period of illness or accident—we find that demands that are made on the workman cannot be met in many cases. Firstly, there is the payment of rental of his home. That comes to a standstill in the period he is waiting for his grant. He may be paying a monthly rental or he may be making payments to a building society. Then there is the question of hire purchase which he is unable to continue during this period of accident leave. It becomes very important for those reasons alone for the suspension of a demand by a landlord or a hire purchase firm to be granted to the injured person.

Does that matter fall within the ambit of this Bill?

It is very important, Sir.

It may be important, but does it fall within the ambit of this Bill?

Yes, because we are now dealing with payments to the injured person and whether they are going to be monthly or weekly payments. I want to point out to the Minister how important it is for these payments to be made as expeditiously as possible, so that there will not be a long wait for the cheque which arrives each week or each month. I should like to tell the House—and it is common knowledge—that unfortunately an injured workman sometimes has to wait unduly long for his cheque. Hon. members on the other side will agree with me that this is a definite hardship. We must try to help the injured workman to see that he is not penalized further.

I think the hon. member must find another opportunity to bring this matter to the notice of the House and the Minister.

I am sorry, Sir. If you do not wish me to discuss this very important matter this afternoon, I shall try to find another opportunity of speaking on it. I would have liked to go a little further into this matter. The next point I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is in regard to the conditions of treatment of the injured worker. This again is not contained in the Bill, but beside payments which come to the worker, it is important for the worker to go back to work as quickly as possible and his treatment becomes very important. If you will allow me the opportunity for a moment or two to bring to the notice of the Minister delays that sometimes take place in treatment. I shall be very happy. I should like the Minister to know that unfortunately, although injured workmen are very often treated very well indeed, the length of their absence from work is sometimes unduly prolonged. Whether it is the fault of the doctor or of the workman himself, I am not prepared to discuss, but I do say that there should be some method of control over the length of time that a worker is away from work. The hon. the Minister probably knows that in some countries the injured workman is entitled to go to his doctor for treatment and he will be admitted to hospital if necessary, but there is a rehabilitation centre to which the injured workman should go to once or more times a week if possible especially if he is ambulatory. At this centre he cannot only be examined to determine his progress, but he can also see an officer of the State, to whom he can put his difficulties. I would urge the hon. the Minister to bear that in mind when he brings in further legislation dealing with workmen’s compensation. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this as a reasonable request coming from this side of the House. I would also like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister that there is a possibility that the Workmen’s Compensation Act may be abused by certain persons who wish to establish a hospital, say, for the treatment of injured workmen, where there will only be control of treatment by those people interested in the hospital. It will deprive the general practitioner of the opportunity of treating his own patients and in many cases it will deprive the patient of the right to pick the doctor of his choice. I would ask the hon. the Minister to bear these points in mind when he considers the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are getting a little impatient with me, so I will leave these points there and go back to the Bill. But it is always interesting, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity of bringing some of our own observations to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I want to thank you for the opportunity you have given me. The Bill itself naturally is very welcome to us. We could easily criticize it by saying that the hon. the Minister should have raised it a little more, or should have been more generous in his apportioning of assessment of injury, but I will say to the Minister that I am satisfied with what is in this Bill as far as the payments are concerned, both in regard to the amount payable for injury and the payments during the time of absence from work. But there is always a “but” and I would say to the hon. the Minister that, in regard to the Coloured and Bantu worker, I think that the proportion of wages given to him during the time of absence, should be a little more realistic. Hon. members know that they pay the same for the loaf of bread, the bottle of milk and sugar as we do, and necessities eat up salaries very quickly. Perhaps he will have an opportunity later of reassessing the amount given to these people and see whether he cannot bring it a little closer to that which is given to us.

The amount of R36 a month that he now gives to the widow I think is low and I do not know whether it is a realistic amount and whether the hon. the Minister expects a widow to be able to live on R36 a month. There …

It is now R60.

Yes. We are talking about the R36. I want to point out the big jump from R36 to the present R45. The hon. the Minister must then have realized how right we were when we said that it is absolutely unrealistic to have the present figure, and it was difficult for these people to keep going. That is why I say that it is very pleasing for us on this side of the House, and, I am sure, for the widows more than it is for us, to find that there is going to be an increase of wellnigh 50 per cent on what they have got previously. That figure is very good. The difference between the cost of living for the widow and the cost of living for the widow with three children seems to be not quite what I would expect. A widow with three children is going to get R112 a month now. I would like the hon. the Minister in his reply to tell me how that figure was arrived at. Does he think that a widow with three children can live on R112 a month, bearing in mind that the children are schoolgoing children that must have books, that have to be clothed and fed and do not earn anything on their own? He must please, in his reply, let me know how this figure was arrived at.

I want to come back to the Bantu and the Bantu’s dependants. It is strange that in this clause there is no fixed sum that is going to be given to the Bantu. The White person has a fixed sum. Where there is one dependant or two or three dependants, the hon. the Minister puts down a fixed sum for the widow with so many dependants. But with the Bantu, it is left in the hands of the commissioner to determine how much he is going to give to the widow and to the dependants, and not only that, but he will decide also who is a dependant. If the hon. the Minister would look at clause 7 …

It is not amended.

I know that it is not amended, but I want to take the opportunity here of asking the hon. the Minister how does he expect an official to determine who shall be a dependant. Let us just read it.

Order! But is the hon. member dealing with the amendment?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. I am coming to it. I am sticking to this particular amendment in the Bill. It does amend the Act. I want to know how the hon. the Minister is going to have dependants determined. Will the hon. the Minister please reply to that later in his speech?

I think those are the only observations I want to make, except as regards the provision, in the case of the Bantu, where he has two or more accidents in two months. How is it that the Minister thinks that after the first accident during that seven days the Bantu should not receive any compensation? You know that there are very few Bantu, Mr. Speaker, who are able to save. Some of them do, but of those who work in factories, etc., very few of them are able to put anything aside. One can well imagine what difficulties they will have if the first accident, which only puts him off from work for seven days, is not compensated for. I should like the Minister to give this a little further consideration. Perhaps he may find ways and means of compensating the Bantu worker who is off work for seven days as a result of his first accident. I think he is entitled to some sort of compensation, and I would urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider that clause.

With those few remarks I want to say again that we on this side welcome this Bill and we will, naturally, support it.

Mr. Speaker, together with the hon. member for Rosettenville I should like to say that we are grateful that the hon. the Minister has seen his way clear to increasing the benefits. If one takes into account the fact that in 1965 almost 261,000 accidents involving workmen were reported to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, then one realizes what wide scope these increased benefits have and what good results they will have for our workers in South Africa. Although these benefits are being increased one still feels concerned at the fact that the benefits are steadily diminishing in proportion to the maximum wage of the people who are now being included in the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. It has been a long time since the highest notch was last increased. It is now being increased to R5,460 per annum. The last increase was in 1956. Since then the benefits, in proportion to the maximum notch, have increased considerably. But now the maximum notch is being raised considerably, and the benefits are diminishing proportionately. I want to point out that in 1949 the proportion was 30 per cent. According to the provision which is now being made the ratio is diminishing to 24 per cent. We know that our standard of living has risen. We also know that the cost of living has gone up. That is why one feels concern at the fact that the ratio has decreased.

There is a second aspect in regard to this measure which also causes me concern, and perhaps the hon. the Minister could reassure me. None of the amending measures, intended to increase the benefits, which have been introduced since the Act came into operation—this is the fifth time it is being done—were made retrospective. The people who were deriving benefits before the introduction of the measures and before they came into effect were not included under the increased benefits for which provision was made each time. The benefits which were being paid, say, in the year 1949, were much lower than they are at present. I think R50 was the maximum in 1949, whereas the maximum amount which is now being proposed in this measure in 1967 is R150 per month. That means that the people who are going to receive the new benefits will in reality receive three times as much as anybody who was permanently injured in an accident in 1949. Many of them are still living and draw a monthly pension.

I know that the measure provides that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner may make concessions to such people. I hope the hon. the Minister will satisfy us and state that these people will be compensated in this way, and that, although they were injured years ago and have, as a result of their accident had to struggle on, will now be given the assurance that they are also being taken into account. I do not know how many people are drawing such pensions to-day—that information is not furnished in the Department’s annual report—but one must assume, taking into consideration the large number of accidents each year, that the number must be considerable. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner will take into thorough consideration these people, people who have each time been excluded from the increases under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I hope that they will be assisted in as far as it is possible to assist them within the scope of the Fund.

The Fund plays a very important part in our industrial life. We know that a large number of workers are registered with the Fund. I think there are approximately 164,000 employers in our country who are registered with the Fund. As we all know the so-called National Occupational Safety Association has been established to try and prevent accidents of this nature. The Fund also pays a subsidy to that body. I do not want to elaborate on that. I do, however, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, want to make a certain point. According to the latest annual reports there are only 7,229 of our employers who belong to the Safety Association. One would therefore like to make an appeal to our employers to consider joining the Association in large numbers and helping to prevent accidents. One of the objectives of this Bill and of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund is to prevent accidents. That is why rebates are in effect being given to employers who have few accidents in their factories. As I have said, the number of employers who belong to the Association is, in my opinion, very low. I have here a report which appeared in The Star of 17th October, 1964, in which one of the organizers of this National Occupation Safety Organization is quoted. The report reads—

That gives one an idea of the ratio. I do not want to say that the large number of employers whom I mentioned earlier on should all join the Association. It may be that they join in groups. But where we have to take so much money from the pocket of the employers, and are now going to give increased benefits, one would like to make an appeal to the employers to join this Association and help in the attempt to prevent accidents. These accidents cause us to suffer major losses, not only as far as manpower is concerned, but also in the economic sphere.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support which this measure has received from all sides. This was no more than was expected, because it is a measure which envisages considerable increases for the workers.

In pursuance of the remarks made by the hon. member for Rosettenville, I want to reply to him on a few points. In the first place he referred to the financial problems with which injured workers are sometimes faced during their period of disablement. I want to reassure the hon. member by saying that there is an arrangement whereby the employer makes advance payments to the injured employee. This is in due course settled with the Fund. The Fund then reimburses the employer. This is being done precisely so as to deal with the same problems which the hon. member had in mind.

The hon. member also made a plea in regard to the widows’ pension which, to his way of thinking, is not high enough. But that will, alas, be a plea which one will always be able to make in such cases. A fund such as this one, just as in the case of pensions, does not envisage giving people an income equal to their normal income. All that it sets out to do is to offer the greatest amount of relief it can offer. What this measure envisages is to give widows with children an increase which will bring her greater financial relief. But, alas, this fund which is being maintained by the employers, cannot exceed certain maximum limits.

The hon. member also asked how one determines who are “dependants”. That is of course a provision which occurred in the old Act; it is not something which is being inserted by this amendment Bill. If the hon. member were to glance at section 4 of the Act, he would see there a better definition of “dependants”. I can give him the assurance that the definition, as it is contained in the old Act, works very satisfactorily and that as far as I know no difficulty has been experienced in regard to determining who are “dependants”. Therefore I do not think that the hon. member need feel any concern in regard to that matter.

The question in regard to the payment being made to the various race groups was also raised. In this regard I can tell the hon. member that there is no discrimination in regard to the percentage payments which are made to the various race groups. Whether the person is White or non-White, it is determined on the same percentage basis, i.e. 75 per cent.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) made a plea in regard to a matter which also causes concern, i.e. that people who were injured in the past, should not be forgotten and that one should see to it that they, too, are fairly treated. It is a matter of deep concern to us, but the benefit introduced in terms of this Bill, are not retrospective. I said in my introductory speech that we cannot make these benefits retrospective. The fund is carried by the contributions of the employers. We cannot compensate persons who were injured years ago out of that fund now, no matter how sympathetic our attitude towards them is. These people will in fact receive compensation in terms of the provisions which apply to them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

As is indicated in the long title of this Bill this measure deals with the extension of Iscor’s borrowing powers. Section 10bis of the present Iscor Act provides, inter alia, (a) that Iscor may, with the approval of the State President and through the issue of debentures, raise loans not exceeding 40 per cent of its paid-up capital and that these loans may be guaranteed by the State without Parliamentary approval to an amount not exceeding R24 million—these provisions were placed on the Statute Book in 1942 and 1950, respectively—and (b) that Iscor may, pending the issue of debentures, to which I referred a moment ago, raise temporary loans with banks and so forth, not exceeding the amount to be obtained through the issue of such debentures and (c) that Iscor may from time to time and with the approval of the State President raise further temporary loans not exceeding its paid-up capital. Prior to 1962 these loans were limited by the Act to 50 per cent of Iscor’s paid-up capital. In such cases, too, the State may guarantee the loan concerned.

Iscor is expanding almost continually, and if one considers that only in relation to those major extensions envisaged at present, Iscor’s present paid-up capital amounts to only R50,800,000 and that in terms of the Act it may obtain only another R4,200,000 through the issue of the balance of its authorized shares to either the State or private individuals, it is clear that its borrowing powers will have to be extended considerably. The only other way in which Iscor can try to cover the expenditure for its expansion is out of its profits, and although this method has been used to a significant extent until now, this is not a sound way of financing expansion where large amounts are involved, as this may require substantial price increases. Hon. members will notice that although this amendment to the Act extends Iscor’s borrowing powers, it does not mean that the Corporation will be able to raise loans at will on the public money-market in future. Firstly, Iscor, as is provided by the measure before the House, will have to obtain the approval of the Ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance and, secondly, Iscor will, as in the past, have to motivate properly any of its plans for extension and have to get the Government’s prior approval therefor. I believe, however, that hon. members will agree with me that the present provisions imposed on Iscor as regards the extent of the loans it may raise, bear no relation to its status whatsoever. In this connection I may just point out that Iscor’s assets already amount to approximately R300 million. I am therefore of the opinion that the approval which this House is now being asked to grant is justified.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister presented this Bill, it sounded rather an innocent little measure, but in fact what he has said has confirmed my fears that it is very far from being an innocent little measure. He has made it quite clear that in introducing this Bill he is motivated by the idea that Iscor is going to have very considerable extensions in the near future, and that the provisions of the Bill are concerned with methods of financing those extensions and expansions. Sir, Iscor is a very big concern. It has grown into one of the biggest undertakings, if not the biggest in the country, owned by the State, and as the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, it is going to grow bigger. He has pointed out that whilst it has an authorized capital of something over R50 million, there is still unissued capital amounting to some R4 million. One would have thought that with the expansion of Iscor and the way it has grown, nobody would dream of saying that Iscor is over-capitalized to-day, and if substantial capital expansion is undertaken one would have thought that the normal procedure would have been to come to this House to amend the Act and to increase the authorized share capital of the company in the ordinary way. This Bill seeks to do two things. In the first place, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, Iscor at present is limited in its temporary borrowings, whether they are loans or debentures, to a maximum of 40 per cent of its issued share capital, which is a very big proportion of the share capital of any company to be covered by debentures. The proposal now is to do away with that and to set no limit on the amount which may be borrowed either by loans, overdrafts or by the issue of debentures.

The second point is that this Bill deals with the Government guarantees. At present, if Iscor proposes to borrow large sums of money or to issue debentures, it can obtain a Government guarantee both of the interest and the repayment of those loans or debentures. But in order to obtain that guarantee it is necessary to obtain the approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The second proposal of this Bill is to do away with that requirement. So, if this Bill is passed, we will have the position that there will be no limit to what Iscor may borrow in one form or another, subject to the approval of the Treasury, and the Government may guarantee any such loan off its own bat; in other words, the sky is the limit. It seems to me that that is a very drastic change in the policy which has been followed all along, and I think it is something which Parliament should consider very carefully before it agrees to it, because on both sides of the House for many years it has been a subject of criticism that State-owned undertakings have been subject to very little supervision by Parliament, representing the shareholders; that Parliament has had a very slight, if any, opportunity of obtaining information and being kept fully informed of what is going on, and just about the last opportunity which Parliament still has in regard to Iscor is that if Iscor wishes to increase its share capital, which is a very normal thing to do—I can remember personally bringing in an amendment to the Iscor Act substantially increasing its share capital—this is the last opportunity that Parliament still has, namely that Iscor has to come to Parliament to ask for an increase of its share capital, or if it wishes to issue debentures it has to ask Parliament to guarantee them. That is the last opportunity, the last remaining opportunity, Parliament has to ask questions and to keep an eye, such as it is, on the activities of this great undertaking. I think that is quite unsound, and it seems to me that it is quite unnecessary. If a company—and Iscor is a company, a very big and successful company, which is in a very strong financial position and with substantial reserves—wishes to expand, and we know that everybody is talking, including the Government, of the establishment of a third Iscor, it seems to me that it is a simple matter to come to Parliament and say: We are going to establish a third steel works which will run into so many millions and we want to increase our share capital to finance what will be a very big undertaking. That is perfectly simple and straightforward, and I can see no reason whatever for departing from the practice we have been following so far, and retaining the small remaining vestige of parliamentary control over Iscor. The Minister has made no attempt at all to justify such a departure from what is very well established practice and what, by common consent on both sides of the House over the years, has been maintained. As I say, for years it has been the subject of debate on both sides of the House as to how Parliament can best, without interfering in any way with the official running of these State enterprises, keep an eye on them in the interests of the shareholders and exercise some supervision.

Therefore I am sorry to say that we on this side of the House cannot support this Bill and we will vote against the Second Reading.

This is one of the rare occasions on which we have an opportunity to discuss these special State-owned undertakings. There are quite a number of them now. We have a wonderful opportunity to discuss the biggest State undertaking, the S.A. Railways. There the Minister, as the Chairman of the Board of Directors, appears before this House and gives a statement of the Railway finances. We have debates lasting several days on these finances. But the other great undertakings, of which Iscor is one, we never have an opportunity to discuss. As the hon. member for Constantia has pointed out, the owners, the shareholders, of Iscor are the people of South Africa, and we, as members of Parliament, hold their proxies. This is the only occasion when we can hold a shareholders’ meeting. We hold the proxies for the whole of the Republic of South Africa. Therefore it is our duty to examine very carefully what is being proposed here.

I should like to take the second part of this amendment first, that only two of the Ministers of the Government will give their consent in future. But it is not the members of the Government who should give their consent; it is for Parliament to do so. Here it says very distinctly in subsection (3) that Parliament’s consent will not be necessary. The Bill excludes Parliament by omitting “provided that until Parliament has by resolution of both Houses approved thereof, no such guarantee shall be furnished in respect of any debentures created and issued in respect of any loan raised by the Corporation after a loan of £12 million has been so raised”. That is now being deleted. Instead of that, we merely have to have the consent of two Ministers coming together and giving carte blanche to Iscor, South Africa of course being the guarantors and shareholders. On many occasions we have discussed in this House with the hon. the Minister of Finance, who was Minister of Economic Affairs previously, how Parliament could exercise a measure of control, not a strict measure of control but merely general control, and obtain information about State undertakings—not to the extent that we investigate the accounts of South African Railways and Harbours but to obtain information. It has been suggested in this House, I have suggested it from time to time, that we should have a special select committee, that the directors or representatives of these companies should appear before the select committee just as we have the heads of departments appearing before the Public Accounts Committee, not to give us all the details of the running of their companies but to give us an opportunity to obtain information. Most of the information is of course contained in the balance sheets and the profit and loss accounts.

Order! I hope that the hon. member will not take this point any further.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that this is the only opportunity we ever have to discuss Iscor, Sasol or any of the other great undertakings. I want to make this suggestion. There was a time when the public were shareholders of the ordinary equity and they were persuaded to accept preference shares. I think that was a very good suggestion. Now there are no ordinary public shareholders. I think the Government should consider very seriously at this time of financial stringency whether it would not be possible to give a share in the equity of Iscor to the general public, not only in loan finance as this Bill proposes but a share in the equity as well. Here it is said that the Government should have authority to guarantee any loan of Iscor. We know that is the modern method of financing, namely to finance on loan capital. It is a very good method of financing. That is what is being suggested but to suggest that this can be done without the consent of Parliament is undesirable. I would say that not in any circumstances can a member of Parliament who is proud of this great institution agree. That is what we object to. I quite agree that the old provision of the 40 per cent of paid-up capital is undesirable to-day. We cannot to-day have the 5½ per cent interest rate that was originally decided upon. But there is one thing we can have and must retain: the control by Parliament of the Government. That we insist on.

Mr. Speaker, this is a small Bill but all the Bills which became Acts which amended the original Iscor Bill of 1928 have been small Bills but they have had very widespread financial implications. In all these amendments to the Act since 1928 there has been one theme running through every amendment. Although additional amounts have been asked for by the Ministers for Iscor from time to time, it has always been left to Parliament to put a limit on the amount which can be raised and it has always been Parliament that has had some say in what amount Iscor may raise which would be guaranteed by the Government. Originally in 1928 the board of Iscor was obliged to raise R3,000,000 by way of debentures carrying interest at 5½ per cent. This was guaranteed by the Government provided that a sinking fund was formed and provided that the debentures were repaid within 40 years. In addition there was another proviso in section 11 to the effect that the board could in anticipation of debentures being issued borrow an amount not exceeding R2 million. This was changed in 1941. Section 11 was amended by section 1 of Act No. 34 of 1941 to provide that the R2 million referred to in this section was amended by the substitution of 50 per cent of the paid-up capital of the corporation. All the time Parliament put a limitation on what could be done without its authority. In 1942 a new section was introduced, namely section 10bis, which we are discussing now. This gave the board the power to raise further sums of money by way of loan which, including the R3 million provided for in section 10 (1) of the Act of 1928, would not exceed 40 per cent of the paid-up capital of the corporation and would carry interest at 5½ per cent. There was a limitation on the amount that was borrowed and a limitation on the amount of interest that could be paid. In 1942 there was an amendment again. Instead of being able to borrow 50 per cent of the paid-up capital of the corporation, the corporation was now given the authority to borrow up to R8 million. Again Parliament laid down what the corporation could do. In 1947 there was another change and a reversal took place because the capital of Iscor had been increased. Instead of giving Iscor the power to raise up to R8 million it was again allowed to raise 50 per cent of its capital. It is interesting to go back to this debate of 1947, because the then Opposition was the present Government. Their main speaker, the hon. member for George, Mr. Werth, said (Hansard, Vol. 60, Col. 2867)—

The first interesting thing is that although it was a fixed amount that could be borrowed, namely 50 per cent of the capital, the Nationalist Opposition at the time said: We will only allow this because there is control. I do not know where Mr. Werth got his information from, because as far as I know, there has never been control of Iscor borrowing by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That is not important. What is important is that in 1947 the Government of to-day, which is asking us to give them a blank cheque, insisted that there should be control by Parliament.

The next change was in 1950, when section 10bis was amended again. This gave the Minister of Economic Affairs, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, power to guarantee the interest and principal of any debenture, “provided that until Parliament has by resolution of both Houses approved thereof, no such guarantee shall be furnished in respect of any debentures created and issued in respect of any loan raised by the corporation after a loan of R24 million has been so raised”. Again there was control by Parliament. What Iscor could do was limited to an amount of R24 million. We have had these changes from time to time. A little later, as has been mentioned, the 5½ per cent interest rate was done away with. Then the 50 per cent limit of the paid-up capital was done away with. To-day we are asked by the hon. the Deputy Minister to say to the Government: You must allow Iscor to raise whatever funds they want. We, the Government, will guarantee those funds and we will not come to Parliament for its authority. We appreciate as much as anybody in this House the fact that Iscor has grown from a relatively small organization to a vast business undertaking. It is a growth which we have all admired. It is a growth which we hope will continue. But this growth has always taken place under a modicum of Parliamentary control. It is our belief that this control should continue. When a change was suggested in 1950, which in effect gave the Government the right to guarantee sums up to R24 million this side of the House objected then and voted against the Bill. We now carry on the same policy and we must vote against the Bill again. What are we asked to do? We are asked to give certain powers without any knowledge of what is going to happen. We have no idea of what amount of debentures might be raised. We have no idea of what the term of these debentures may be. We have no idea of what conditions may be attached to these debentures. We have no idea of what the rate of interest is going to be. In other words the Government is asking for power to guarantee something of which this House has no knowledge of whatsoever.

The situation could simply be that one day we could wake up only to find that a third or fourth or fifth Iscor has been established without this House having any knowledge of it whatsoever, except what it might find out from outside sources. Because there is no obligation any more on the Government to come and tell us that something is going to be done. That will be the position after this Bill has been passed. What we are being asked to do is to say to the Government, finally and once and for all, that we are prepared to deny ourselves in future any rights which we may have at the moment in so far as the extensions of Iscor and its financing are concerned. This is what this Bill means, nothing more and nothing less. It has been said that we on this side of the House have been perturbed for some time about the position of these Government institutions, institutions which are not subject to Parliamentary control. I know this is not really pertinent to this Bill. However, I think it is essential that before this House gives the Government carte blanche to guarantee large sums of money we should be told exactly what funds are to be raised, the purpose for which those funds are to be utilized, and what the conditions are to be. Otherwise, Sir, it makes a complete mockery of Parliamentary control. Surely Parliament’s paramount function is that of financial control over the expenditure of money paid by the taxpayers. If the Minister of Economic Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Finance can commit the entire wealth of this country to an unlimited extent, then one begins to feel that the authority of Parliament is being whittled away, something which the public will not want. Under the circumstances. Sir, we have no option but to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

I am rather surprised that the Opposition is so strongly opposed to this Bill that they see their way clear to voting against the Second Reading. One would have thought that they would rather have supported the Second Reading and that they would then have put their case very strongly when clause (3) came up for discussion in the Committee Stage. The principle of this Bill is that we want to grant Iscor greater borrowing powers. Its present borrowing powers are insufficient for financing its extensive activities. I may be wrong, but I do not think the hon. the Opposition have any objection to these increased borrowing powers being granted to Iscor. In my opinion they also want to see Iscor getting these powers. Of course, this does not alter the existing position in terms of which loans have to be raised with the approval of the State President, because that will be the case under the new set-up as well. The Opposition’s main objection is that Parliament will not receive proper recognition in this matter. According to them Parliamentary control is being watered down. Apart from that point, however, it remains a fact that there is sufficient Parliamentary control over these corporations if we only want to exercise such control. The opportunity to do so is afforded, inter alia, by the debates on the Estimates, the no-confidence debate and the debates on the various Votes of the Minister. The Reports of these corporations are tabled in this House. As a matter of fact, Iscor’s reports are tabled in this House every year. If those members of the Opposition who serve on the Select Committee on Public Accounts say that they want to examine the annual report of some corporation or other, and that they therefore want representatives of any such corporation to appear before the Committee so that they may thoroughly examine the affairs of any such corporation, their request will definitely be considered sympathetically. When the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is made available to this House, they will once again have the finest opportunity, an opportunity which is not afforded under any other rule of procedure of this House, of discussing that report and of conducting a full debate on the matter.

But the Minister says we are not allowed to do that.

I have no knowledge of the Minister ever having said that you are not allowed to do that. My view is that when the Select Committee on Public Accounts presents its report to this House it is placed on the Order Paper and may therefore be discussed. Until now these reports have gone through as they were without anybody saying a word about them.

Order! The hon. member is digressing very far from the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing Parliamentary control, control which, according to the Opposition, is not being, accorded sufficient recognition here. In any case, the debates on the Estimates and various other debates do afford an opportunity for that control to be exercised as it should. The Opposition want this clause or at least the proviso thereto to be deleted from this Bill—in other words, Parliament approves of this method of borrowing money. But if we agree that loans may be raised in this way and Iscor has to provide securities for those loans, why do we have to come back to Parliament every time to ask whether Iscor may furnish those securities?

Because it is the taxpayer’s money.

Surely it is obvious that such a body has to provide securities if it borrows money.

But the State provides the security.

The State guarantees those loans. The Minister of Economic Affairs, with the approval of the hon. the Minister of Finance, guarantees such a loan without the approval of this House. Is that correct or not? The Minister guarantees such a loan without the approval of this House. If Iscor issues debentures as security for a loan, why do we have to come back to Parliament every time? After all, Parliament cannot say “no”. In what other way must Iscor borrow its money if it cannot furnish the necessary security? What is the sense of asking both Houses of Parliament for a resolution every time? I concede that technically speaking this may involve a lessening of Parliamentary control. But practically speaking, I do not think hon. members can point a finger at us and say that we cannot honourably vote for this measure. I therefore want to suggest to the Opposition that they should allow this Bill to go through so that Iscor can get these borrowing powers, powers which it needs very badly.

Sir, I am surprised at the hon. member for Queenstown. It is obvious that the hon. the Minister looked upon this Bill as one which would get through without any difficulty in the course of this afternoon. So when he found there was some opposition to it he called in the hon. member for Queenstown to assist him. But it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Queenstown has not read the Bill. He did his best but one of the first mistakes he made was to suggest that the accounts of Iscor came before the Public Accounts Select Committee. He knows very well that that is not so. But what is more, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the chairman of that Select Committee. The advice I would give him is to keep quiet if he did not prepare his case. Otherwise he would only sully his reputation and that whilst he is aspiring to be Minister one day. But the hon. member has failed on this occasion. If the hon. member would read this Bill he would see that therein is provided for a limit of R24 million. That is the limit. That is the limit that is being removed in this Bill. Surely the Minister must realize that when the Bill is passed in its present form, which is in the form the Minister wants, there will then be no limit. Let us accept—even though it is not right, of course—the argument of the hon. member that this could come before the Public Accounts Committee. Surely the hon. member for Queenstown knows about certain people who signed guarantees in blank.

I concede that point.

I am pleased that the hon. member concedes that point. One or two people have been receiving some publicity recently because they had signed blank cheques or blank guarantees. They have been very embarrassed and look very foolish. The hon. member for Constantia has referred to the fact that the Iscor organization has a capital of about R50 million, with more shares still to be issued. However, if one examines the balance sheet, one finds that the total funds employed by Iscor—not only the capital and the various debentures—are R342 million. This organization is producing something like two million tons of steel products a year. This organization has agreements with overseas companies. It will be in a very interesting position should Britain nationalize steel. Some of the biggest companies in South Africa have arrangements with Iscor, and they will then be owned by a foreign government. They have entered into agreements with the South African steel industry. The South African Government will be placed in a very difficult position indeed. Here we find the position that Iscor, which is the only supplier of steel and which fixes the price of steel, is going to put itself in a position where the industry enters into consultations with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance and then are able not only to control the policy of this company but also to enter into an agreement for a long-term loan at a time when money is dear, and have a financing arrangement which might inflate the price of steel. Surely in these days we are particularly concerned about the whole question of inflation? The scheme and the policy for raising money might in the long run be an embarrassment. These are matters which should be referred to Parliament. We can then have a discussion, with both sides putting their point of view and suggesting difficulties that might be encountered. For many years the financing of long-term projects has been done with short-term money, and that is why the Government is in difficulties. However, we will not pursue that matter any further now. While we know of the Government’s past policy of financing long-term projects with short-term money, then whenever any Government institution is financing future debentures we should know the details of the financial scheme, so that we can examine it and, where necessary, criticize it. But under this Bill there is no limit—the sky is the limit, as the hon. Member for Constantia has said. There is no limit as far as guarantee is concerned. The sky is the limit as far as a guarantee is concerned, and also as far as finance is concerned. Yet the hon. member for Queenstown, who stands up as the expert on financial matters on that side, forgets that his predecessor, when that side was in opposition, took the very line that we on this side are taking to-day. But it was good then, because it came from the Nationalist Party. To-day, however, it is not good. They want all controls withdrawn so that the Government can do as it likes. When the hon. member for Constantia was the responsible Minister he accepted control. He realized that Parliament should have control. But now the new Deputy Minister, with limited experience of finance matters, as well as the new Minister of Finance—who also has limited experience of these matters—will now get together and discuss the future policy of Iscor and the future financing of Iscor without any parliamentary control whatsoever. They may on occasion be right, but surely there should be the opportunity for Parliament to have discussions on these matters.

What about Escom?

We are not discussing Escom.

Yes, but what about Escom?

Order! Escom is not under consideration now.

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that Escom cannot be discussed now. However, I want to point out that as far as Escom is concerned, the public have all the funds in Escom. The Government has no funds in Escom; it has no funds there at all. But this expert does not know that. The whole of Escom loans are public loans.

Order!

But here is a company in which the Government holds shares, all the shares.

Won’t these loans be public loans too?

Here is a case where the Government is trying to raise additional finance. In the past it has always come to Parliament, indicating the amount of the loan required and the guarantees required, as well as the limits required. The Government has always obtained this side’s approval after discussion. On no occasion over the past 19 years that this Government has been in office has there been opposition to raising additional funds for any debentures, provided satisfactory reasons were given. Hon. members will find that in no case has this side voted against a proposal for the raising of funds for these organizations, once a satisfactory explanation was given. But here the Minister is asking that there be no control whatsoever. No questions must be asked; there must be no discussion, either as regards the amount of the loan, how it is to be financed, or as far as guarantees are concerned. The Minister calls to his aid the hon. member for Queenstown who has been proved to be so palpably wrong in the arguments he has advanced in this House to support the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down spoke about limited knowledge of finance and referred to me and to the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is difficult to go into that remark of his. I should say, however, that it is not this side of the House which has a limited knowledge, but that it is most certainly that side of the House which has a much more limited knowledge of finance.

Sir, we have again to some extent experienced here to-day what was experienced in the twenties. It seems as though hon. members on that side of the House try to exercise a hampering influence as far as the expansion of Iscor is concerned. [Interjections.] It is said that history repeats itself. Hon. members on that side are ashamed of their actions in the past. If that is not so, if they are not acting in the same way to-day as they did in the twenties, it means that they have grown a little wiser and that they now admit how wrong they were at that time. But they are still wrong even to-day.

We know that Iscor is going to expand. Apart from a third or even a fourth Iscor which has been referred to, we know that Iscor needs to expand. The question is how that should be done. I am aware that various methods have been investigated to decide how these expansions should be financed. It has finally been decided that the best method of financing will be financing by means of loan funds. Now I do not understand the attitude of hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Constantia expressed grave doubts about this method. He expressed other ideas. The hon. member for Kensington, on the other hand, said that this was naturally the best method. Is that not so? Surely, if they differ so much amongst themselves, it is certainly not necessary for me to argue with them on that point any further. I am therefore prepared to accept the opinion of the hon. member for Kensington that this will be the best method of financing for Iscor.

I did not say that this was the best method; I said it was the modern method, a cleverer method.

Well, I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with that point any further.

Why not?

But the hon. member for Kensington agrees with me. I am satisfied with that. He has said it is a good method, it is the modern method, and in addition he says it is a clever method. [Interjections.] Yes, those are debentures which have to be issued. That is the modern method, and that is also what is being envisaged here.

The only remaining objection is that the hon. gentlemen opposite want an opportunity of discussing Iscor in this House. They say they do not get an opportunity from year to year to discuss this matter in this House in the normal course of events. [Interjections.] Well, I do not agree with them. I say that if they want to discuss Iscor they will get an opportunity to do so. They get various opportunities to discuss Iscor here if they want to do so. They get an opportunity every year of criticizing the Minister in charge about the way in which Iscor’s affairs are being conducted or about anything that is being done in connection with Iscor. The hon. members know that. But they do not make use of those opportunities. They want an opportunity to be given to them on a platter. They want an opportunity to be created for them to discuss this matter.

The hon. gentlemen have made a great fuss about the principle of discussion in Parliament, something which we do have here, but which we allegedly want to eliminate now. They say the reason for their wanting to discuss the matter here is not so much because they want to criticize the guarantee itself—they actually want an opportunity to discuss Iscor itself. For that reason they want the matter to come before Parliament. If one looks at the final portion of the section which is being deleted here now, it is quite clear that the matter in connection with guarantees has only on some occasions, under special circumstances, been referred to Parliament. In other words, the matter has not been referred to Parliament under all circumstances. It was never intended that Parliament should have the opportunity to discuss this matter. If that had been the case provision would have been made for the matter to be referred to Parliament whenever guarantees were involved, so as to afford hon. members an opportunity to discuss this matter in Parliament. The portion which is being deleted provides for the matter to be referred to Parliament only in cases where the loans exceed a certain amount. I see hon. members opposite are reading the measure now. I am glad they are reading it so fervently now. If they had read the legislation sooner they might have approached the matter differently. This section provides that the matter be referred to Parliament only in cases where guarantees exceeding a certain amount are furnished. What has happened now to the golden rule and to the principle to which they have appealed, namely that they must be given an opportunity of discussing the matter here?

The fact of the matter is that Iscor’s expansion has to be financed. After very careful consideration it was decided that this was the cleverest method of financing—according to the hon. member for Kensington. Iscor is an organization which enjoys special status. I said earlier that Iscor’s assets amounted to more than R300 million. Surely an organization which enjoys that special status can no longer be held to the restrictions which existed in the old Act at a time when Iscor was still a small organization, especially not when decisions are subject to the final approval of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs. [Interjections.] I want to draw the attention of hon. members to another aspect as well. The position was different when Iscor was still a small organization and when there was perhaps a certain measure of doubt about Iscor’s future—in the way that hon. members opposite did not have much faith in Iscor at that time. But to-day Iscor is a powerful and large organization with enormous assets and it is certainly not fitting for us to want to subject an organization of such standing to restrictions such as those existing in the Act at present.

Which restriction? The proviso?

The proviso does not alter the principle. The proviso was inserted when Iscor was only a small organization.

That is not the proviso.

The proviso was that the approval of Parliament was required when guarantees were being issued, when loans exceeding a certain amount were being raised. At that time Iscor was only a small organization. But to-day it is a large and powerful organization. Therefore that is no longer necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that if the hon. gentlemen want to vote against this measure there is nothing we can do about it. It is important that Iscor’s borrowing powers should be increased, and I therefore move that the Bill be read a Second Time.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—79: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt. J. W.; Carr, D. M.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning. J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan. G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel. J. J. G.

Tellers: J. E. Potgieter and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.