I move—

In the last stage of this legislation I should just like to say a few words of blessing for this Bill. There are amendments which the hon. the Minister has not granted us. But it still remains, in essence a good Bill. We send him off to the Other Place with our Bill in his pocket in the hope that the arguments we have raised here will be reconsidered and will weigh with him more seriously in that Other Place. The content of this Bill relates to road safety. One of the methods of producing greater safety is greater control of ingress to and egress from national roads and throughways, both as regards the location of these inlets and outlets and their number. It also permits the board to use their funds to partake in the prior planning of throughways and to enforce compliance with their plans. I have every hope that in future, through the use of these powers, many of our throughways will be safer and that the Board will be able to carry out the objects of this Bill effectively. If that is so, I am sure that many a costly mistake or experiment will be avoided. The hon. the Minister probably knows that in the case of our own Settlers’ Way and its junction with De Waal drive a strange muddle has taken place. When coming in along Settlers’ Way from Caledon or the Strand or Hermanus a car or an ambulance cannot turn off the road conveniently to go to Groot Schuur Hospital. It has to go on right through into Woodstock, then turn round and retrace its way back to Observatory. If you want to go out from the Hospital to the same destinations I have mentioned you have to make for Mostert’s Mill, then down through Mowbray before you get on to Settlers’ Way. Now those are faults in planning which I think the Minister had in mind when this Bill was drafted; those are the things that he is trying to avoid in future, if it is at all possible. I see from the Press that the Minister has other suggestions for increasing road safety and reducing accidents on our roads. His idea is to limit speed and use speed traps to eliminate accidents on badly constructed curves such as that one near Groote Schuur Hospital. I hope that he will implore those in charge of the administration of this new scheme of his to instruct the traffic and speed “cops” to trap the biggest road hogs of all; to trap, without fear or favour the greatest speedsters of all; to enforce the law against those people who simply shoulder other drivers out of the way and off the road as they shoot along in their luxurious monsters of cars. I refer, of course, to Cabinet Ministers’ Cadillacs. They are the greatest offenders of our speed laws and should be corrected and controlled. I hope the Minister’s own trapping plan will apply to them also.

Since the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has spoken in this way about speed, I just want to refer him to a statement which appeared in an edition of the Rand Daily Mail: “Speed is not the only killer on the road, says AA.” He need not be so concerned therefore about the big Cadillac cars which travel so fast. It is stupidity on the road that causes all the accidents—and perhaps slow United Party cars as well.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is really the basis of road safety. It makes provision for through-ways. I want to ask at once whether the time has come when it is necessary in the Republic of South Africa to make national roads subject to the requirements for throughways and to make them comply with those requirements. I think it is definitely necessary. We must remember that our national roads are really the road arteries for the whole of our transport system. When the arteries of a person become clogged up, he dies. In the same way any country whose road traffic arteries become clogged up, whose road traffic arteries are not planned judiciously, with the result that those arteries become clogged up because of the obstruction caused by injudiciously planned accesses to such roads, finds that its transport system is paralysed.

Order! The hon. member should have raised that point in the second reading debate.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the point I want to make is that this Bill is the basis of road safety. With this basis for road safety. the possibility is created of eliminating these things. I am talking about the effect of this Bill in this connection. In planning our roads we must take into account our heaviest and constant time-saving traffic.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the contents of this Bill.

I just want to say that this Bill makes provision for those things. As far as the contents of the Bill are concerned, we come to the crossings, thoroughfares and accesses over and to these roads which can be controlled under this measure. From the point of view of road safety it is essential that they should be controlled so as to obviate head-on collisions at intersections where roads cross one another at the same level. Those are things that we want to eliminate. The accesses to throughways should be rendered safe so as to facilitate the turning in and out of vehicles on those roads. That is what this Bill provides for. I believe that this Bill will to a large extent eliminate the accidents which continually take place, because this Bill practically complies with the requirements which experiments have already proved necessary in the United States of America, where they ensure safety by means of a traffic island of 150 yards in width in the middle of the road so that approaching vehicles cannot blind the motorist.

In the second instance this Bill provides that there shall be no thoroughfares cutting through the traffic island. In that way it will control the traffic. I say it is essential that we should have the control which is provided for in this Bill. I should like to tell the House why it is essential that there should be control. We find in the report of the S.A. Road Safety Council that there has been an enormous increase in the number of accidents. Let us look at the figures for the past two years. We find that from 1958 to 1959 there was an increase of 6.3 per cent, and from 1959 to 1960 there was an increase of 7.7 per cent. The number of accidents was 116,688; the number of persons killed was 3,051. During the last year there was an increase of 7.4 per cent. The number of persons injured was 39,365, an increase of 9.9 per cent. The number of motor vehicles damaged was 183,965, an increase of 7.8 per cent. This Bill will put an end to that state of affairs to a large extent. It is a measure which is necessary because we must take into account the enormous cost in human lives, in repair bills, etc. Mr. Speaker, when we analyse those accidents …

Yes, but I do not think it is necessary to analyse the accidents. The hon. member must come back to the contents of the Bill.

In conclusion I should like to make this point in connection with this Bill. This is a measure which is designed to promote safety and to save human lives. It is designed to reduce hospital expenses and doctors’ fees and to alleviate pain and to reduce the number of persons maimed. That is what this Bill deals with. We find that when one person is caught by a shark, all the newspapers are full of it. But nothing is said about it when numbers of people are slaughtered on the road. I do want to point out that this Bill does not provide for the farmer to receive compensation. That was really the great point which the United Party made yesterday. But that is not a matter which should be provided for in this Bill. I shall very much like to associate myself with other members in supporting this Bill.

Since this Bill makes provision for greater safety on our roads, we all welcome it and we welcome it most heartedly. This Bill is going to affect more people than we think, as far as their livelihood is concerned, and at this late stage I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to remember, when it comes to the implementation of this Bill, how many people will be affected in their livelihood inasmuch as we are now going to prohibit businesses and the sale of products on our main roads.

We all admit that the main roads of our country are not placed where there should be trading. It is entirely wrong and it also leads to accidents. But there are many of our people, particularly owners of smallholdings living next to main roads who have been selling their products for years along those roads. For years it has been part of their means of livelihood. Many of them have bought pieces of land along main roads with the object of selling what little they produce—and it is not much—along the roads so as to augment their income. All those people are going to be affected.

There are, of course, people who have grossly misused this privilege. We find that they have erected unsightly structures which to a large extent have blotted out the view of motorists. There are others who have erected small buildings at suitable places, on their own land adjacent to these roads.

Order! This matter was dealt with in the Committee Stage and the hon. member cannot discuss it again.

Yes, it has been dealt with, but I just want to point out to the Minister again the hardship that will be caused by the implementation of this Bill. I want to ask him to implement this measure in such a way, if possible, that these people who sell their products along the roads, as I have described, will be affected as little as possible.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which deals with evidence is not a contentious measure. Moreover, it has been drafted perfectly clearly, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be heartily welcomed by hon. members on both sides of the House, and particularly by the lawyers. I believe that it will be welcomed, ‘ firstly because of the fact that this Bill will facilitate the proving of facts. I believe that it will be welcomed because of the fact that, like the previous Bill that we dealt with here, it will also have the effect of reducing the costs of litigation. And at the same time we will have this assurance, as far as this Bill is concerned, that it will in no way prejudice the fair administration of justice.

This Bill, Mr. Speaker, must be seen against the background of our general rule of law, which, of course, runs like a golden thread through all civilized legal systems, that any person who has knowledge of a fact, must give personal testimony in court about that fact before the court can take cognisance of it. We and the courts are not concerned with how difficult it is and what costs it will involve to bring that person before the court. However indisputable the fact may be, that individual must appear in court personally. It is perfectly clear, of course, why that rule of law exists, and that is that it should be possible to question and, if necessary, cross-examine the person who possesses this knowledge. I say that is the general rule of law. There are exceptions to that rule, as hon. members know, but it is against that background that this Bill should be seen.

As far as this measure which is now before the House is concerned, there is a history attached to it. The principles involved in this measure have been discussed for years in legal circles in South Africa, particularly since 1938 when the British Evidence Act was passed by the British Parliament. As far back as 1953 the Bar Council recommended that the provisions contained in this measure should be submitted to Parliament. The Bar Council’s recommendation, which, as I shall show later on, went further than this measure that we have before us now, was referred by the then Minister of Justice to the Law Revision Committee. That Committee considered and debated this matter from all angles, and agreed with the Bar Council that this was a good, sound Bill. It is perfectly clear therefore that the initiative, as far as this Bill is concerned, came from the Bar Council, and the Law Revision Committee also went into it very thoroughly. In 1955 the then Minister of Justice introduced a Bill in this House as a result of the recommendations of the Bar Council and of the Law Revision Committee. Hon. members who were in this House at the time will recall that Bill went further than the present Bill, because for the greater part the present Bill only applies to civil actions, while the 1955 Bill, if it had been passed, would also have been applicable to criminal matters. At that time the Bill covered both civil and criminal matters because that was the attitude of the Bar Council at the time. The matter was then debated here and in the course of the second reading debate it became evident that the Bar Council had changed its attitude and that it was then of the opinion that it would not be advisable to make it applicable to criminal matters as well but to confine it to civil cases only. It is some consolation to us as Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only politicians who change their views, lawyers also do so. We have the position therefore that the Bill with which we are now dealing, except for two small exceptions to which we shall come later on, is only applicable to civil matters and is similar to the British Evidence Act of 1938. Hon. members are aware, of course, that our Act, as far as evidence is concerned, follows the English law, and since our whole system of evidence follows that of the British law, it is not wrong on our part to accept the British lead in this respect as well.

After the debate of 1955 this Bill was again referred to the Law Revision Committee and to the Bar Council. Once again this Bill which is before the House to-day is the product, on the one hand, of discussions held by the Bar Council and, on the other, of the deliberations of the General Law Revision Committee.

The most important provision of this Bill is Clause 2. As hon. members will see when they read this clause, it radically amends the hearsay rule. The hearsay rule, for the information of hon. members who are not lawyers, is of course the rule which provides that the person himself must come and testify and that second-hand evidence cannot be adduced. It is perfectly clear why that should be so. We older people have come to realize that “van hooren en zeggen liegt men veel” (The repetition of hearsay leads to many lies). It is necessary therefore to hear first-hand evidence in connection with the case. It is clear from this Bill that there are certain departures, and my attitude is that one can have those departures provided there are sufficient guarantees, where it only concerns formalities and facts— I say again, provided there are sufficient guarantees—that there will be no misuse and that no injustice will take place. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill contains sufficient guarantees. In the first place it provides—that will be found in Clause 2—that the statement sought to be admitted must be one in respect of which the person concerned has personal knowledge, or it must be a statement made by a person in the performance of his duty. Here we are concerned only with formalities. May I give an example. Let us assume that it becomes an issue in a court of law as to whether an hon. member was paired in this House on a certain day. One would then have to follow the very cumbersome procedure of making use of the evidence of the Whip to prove whether the person concerned was in fact paired off or not—and one is perhaps a little sceptical sometimes about calling in Whips to come and testify in court! In these circumstances it will be possible simply to produce the pairing-off book as evidence to show that the person concerned was in fact paired off. The book will not, of course, be evidence as to whether the member concerned went where he said he was going. That is a different matter or a different aspect which will not be covered. It will only serve as evidence as to whether he was paired off on a specific day or not. The position is that the person concerned must be called unless he has died or unless he is insane, or unless he is away and cannot be found, or unless he is outside the borders of the Republic. Sub-clause (2) gives the court the right, on application, to admit a statement even if the person concerned is in fact available. If there is any difficulty in connection with the relevant sub-clause, I would suggest that we rather discuss it in the Committee Stage, because we can then have a much more fruitful discussion.

Thirdly, there is the guarantee that the statement must not emanate from a person who had an interest in the matter himself. Fourthly, it must be in that person’s handwriting or signed by him. Fifthly, this Bill provides that the court shall have a discretion as to what inferance to draw from such a document.

Clause 3 speaks for itself. It provides how the court is to determine the weight to be attached to such a document. The advantages of that are self-evident, and I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily at this stage by enlarging upon the advantages. One sees immediately what the advantages of this Bill will be inasmuch as it will make it possible for post mortem reports, log books, meteorological records—not the prophecies but simply the records—and other technical reports to be produced much more easily before the court.

Clause 4 is self-explanatory. I would just point out to hon. members in passing that it is not applicable to wills, for very good reasons which hon. members will understand. Clause 5 is also applicable to criminal law and it deals only with documents which automatically prove themselves after 30 years, if I may put it that way, and the period is now being reduced to 20 years.

In the main these are the provisions of the Bill which I confidently recommend to this House.

We welcome this Bill, and particularly do we welcome the fact that on this occasion we have before us a piece of legislation which certainly cannot be said to have been rushed. The hon. the Minister has told us that it is now no less than seven years ago since a similar Bill was introduced in this House, and before that and since that time the contents of the Bill have been under consideration from time to time by the Law Revision Committee and through the Bar Council. I would like to express the hope to the hon. the Minister that he may be successful where we have failed in persuading his colleagues that if you want good legislation it is a very good thing not to have rushed legislation. The Bill, as the Minister said, deals with a very important matter. We have the advantage of the English precedent and, as the hon. the Minister says, our law of evidence is based upon the precedent of the English law of evidence, and it is logical, therefore, that we should have regard to the experience in England of a law of evidence which is the same as our own. It would appear that the Bill takes proper care of any possibility of a miscarriage of justice arising, but there are certain points upon which in the Committee Stage we will discuss certain of the provisions of the Bill in more detail to examine whether or not an amendment might be advisable. It is really on this point as to where the person who has signed the document or is a party to it is readily available, the other parties to the case cannot insist on that person appearing as a witness in a case where he queries either the authenticity of the document or the correctness of the information contained in it, which has been certified by the person concerned. Apart from that, we can see only good in this Bill, and as I have already said, it has been the subject of very careful consideration by persons whose whole lives are wrapped up with the question of evidence and the weight to be attached to evidence. In so far as the Opposition is concerned, we therefore welcome this Bill. We believe that except possibly in the one respect I have mentioned, there are, as the Minister has said, adequate safeguards, but we will discuss that in the Committee Stage. But I would say that on the face of it this Bill seems to be a step in the right direction. It will in many cases, I think, save a great deal of unnecessary trouble and thereby cut down expenses and we therefore welcome this legislation.

I only want to add one very small point to what the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has said, and that is that I particularly welcome the fact that the Minister has worked very closely with the General Bar Council in this matter and, indeed, has allowed himself to be guided by that body to the degree he has mentioned in this House. We are hopeful that not only with the General Bar Council but with the Law Society and other similar bodies he will work closely to the profit of all.

I cannot join with the other hon. members who welcome this Bill, as I believe that it is dangerous to make it easier for evidence to be brought before the court on documents, because the best evidence must be produced and that rule should be maintained in our courts of law.

You are now practising hearsay.

I believe that it will be open to abuse. There will be very little opportunity of cross-examination as to where these documents come from. We have heard of forgeries in the past. If a document is put in and purports to be signed by certain persons, what evidence will there be that was in fact the case? I have known of many cases where documents were in fact put in in court cases and the witness who put it in before the magistrate swore that it was signed by certain people, when in fact it was not so signed, and the opportunity was afforded to prove that it was not so signed. I do not understand the necessity for this amending Bill at all. I believe that time has tested the way in which evidence is given in our courts of law. I oppose any change from that tested procedure to which we who have practised for many years have become accustomed. Any deviation from our present system is dangerous and will react to the detriment of the poorer people, who in many cases cannot afford legal representation. They do not know about documents being put in. They do not know their rights and unless the Minister will, in addition to changing this law, also make it a rule that people who cannot afford legal representation shall be given legal representation in order that the import of this type of law should be made clear to them by their legal representatives, I am afraid that many of the people who cannot afford legal representation will experience great difficulty.

How many times does that happen in a civil case?

Many times. You see, we do not all come from the Transvaal, or from areas where people can afford legal representation. I have been practising in the Cape for a long time and it has happened on many occasions, but even if it is only a few cases, these people must be protected and I am afraid, unless the Minister is more convincing than he was, I will have to oppose this Bill.

I do not want to waste the time of the House since we are all more or less ad idem in connection with this Bill, for the introduction of which I should like to congratulate the Minister most heartedly. I should just like to point out one thing to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). He says that he is not keen to accept this Bill because he is not keen on anything new and because he likes to stick to those things which have stood the test of time. I submit that it is for that very reason that the hon. member should accept this Bill, because this Bill is the outcome of the findings over a period of time of people who are concerned with these very matters, the Bar Councils and the Law Revision Committees, on which judges also sit. These are the people who have experience of these matters and they have found over the years that it is necessary to introduce a Bill of this nature. It is for the very reason that it has withstood the test of time that I am in favour of these provisions and I want to ask the hon. member for Boland, since that is also his attitude, to give his support to this Bill.

Mr.

Speaker, firstly with regard to the observations made by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) in connection with my relationship with the Bar Council, it is perhaps not inappropriate that I should repeat on this occasion what I also said on another occasion, that as I see it, one of my duties, inter alia, is to be on the most cordial footing with the Bar Council and to attempt to obtain their co-operation at all times. In my discussions with the General Bar Council I made that perfectly clear to them. I also went further, and I feel that I should say this here with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member. I said to the General Bar Council that I should like to co-operate with them at all times and that I should like at all times, if the time and the circumstances permit, to consult with them in respect of all matters which affect the profession directly or indirectly. But I went on to add—and the Bar Council understood and appreciated this—that naturally I could not allow the Bar Council to dictate to me. Because the responsibility is mine, the decision must also be mine at all times. On that basis I do co-operate with them and I propose to continue to do so.

As far as the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is concerned, this Bill, as I said by way of interjection, only relates to civil cases, of course. While the hon. member was speaking I could not help thinking of one of his constituents who found himself with us in the Transvaal. He was always in trouble and he always defended himself—and with great success. Probably those are the cases which the hon. member had in mind. But one day he got into serious trouble; he then engaged an attorney to act for him. While the attorney was arguing he noticed that things were going wrong. He then tugged at his jacket and said to him, “You had better sit down; you are getting me convicted.” In all fairness to the hon. member, I think that is what would have happened to him in this case if he had stated his case as he did here. But to satisfy the hon. member, I can say to him that a very great authority on the law of evidence, Lord Maugham, had this to say in respect of this specific matter—

These particular provisions of the Bill have been in force in Britain since 1938, and I have read or seen nothing which induces me to believe that the provisions of this Bill are unfair or that they will promote injustices of the kind visualized by the hon. member. Like the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouche, Jnr.) I believe that we should accept the provisions of this Bill as they stand, and I thank hon. members on the other side for their co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move—

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this motion. There are two points here, the removal of members of the Executive Committee, and their resignation. May I deal with the last point first.

It is rather curious that, as far as I can remember, provision is made for a member of the Provincial Council to resign. A member of Parliament may resign and provision is made for that. A member of the Senate may resign and provision is also made for that, but there is no provision for the resignation of a member of the Executive Committee. It is quite clear that a member of the Executive Committee is entitled to resign, and the usual procedure is for him to send his resignation to the Clerk of the Provincial Council concerned. Sometimes he sends it to the Chairman, but it is suggested that he might send it to the Administrator as being the best method of dealing with the matter. But what I suggest is necessary is that we should be clear on the point and that proper procedure should be laid down providing for an M.E.C. to resign.

Then we come to the first part of the resolution and that is the removal from office of an M.E.C., and here I want to make a special appeal to the Minister because he obviously in the second reading realized that there was a hiatus in the Bill in regard to this particular matter, and he expressed the hope that members of the Executive Committee, if they ceased to represent the majority of members of the Provincial Council concerned, would as honourable men resign, a very fine sentiment, but we are living in a hard, cruel world. These feelings, which do the hon. the Minister credit, perhaps do not go outside the walls of this Chamber. The truth of the matter is that it is a fact that a member of the Executive Committee having been elected, as the law stands and as it is contemplated in the amendment in the Bill before us, it makes no provision for a member of the Executive, having been once elected, to be reduced to another status either as a member of the Provincial Council or as a member of the public (because a member of the Executive is not necessarily a member of the Provincial Council). Under those circumstances it seems to me that it is quite possible that there may be a very small majority for one political party in a Provincial Council, perhaps a majority of just one or two. A by-election takes place and there is a changeover in the majority by one or two. On the principal of winner take all, a party with a majority of one in the Provincial Council will have elected all four members of the Executive, and if as the result of a by-election or for some other reason the majority shifts to the Opposition party, then the members of the Executive having been elected, as the law stands and as it is contemplated in this Bill, those members cannot be unseated. In other words, the majority party brought about as the result of by-elections are not now in the position to take their reward, i.e. to take the four executive seats. It is perfectly true that if parliamentary procedure is to be followed, the Executive Committee could be placed in the position that the Provincial Council concerned, because the Opposition is in the majority, could refuse to vote supplies. But that is not the complete answer. We have had such a proceeding in the history of South Africa. We have had an Administrator who was the sole representative of the Government of the day, and all four members of the Executive, as well as all the members of the Provincial Council, were against him, and all sorts of financial difficulties were placed in his way. But the Government of the day is never likely to be thwarted in carrying on the services of the Province and providing the necessary financial means to that end merely because of what would be looked upon as obduracy on the part of one side or the other in the Provincial Council. When all is said and done, as the law stands to-day. Provincial Councils are creatures of statute and they are limited by the statutes which create them. Sovereignty vests in this Parliament and not in the Provincial Council, and no Government is likely to be thwarted in the financing of the Province by the obduracy of a political party. But there should be no question that when once the majority group in a Provincial Council which has elected the members of the Executive Committee is no longer the majority group but has become the minority, the minority group now having become the majority group it should have the right to insist upon the four members of the Executive getting out and making room for the members to be elected by the new majority. I think provision for that should be made in the law so that the matter will be put beyond dispute and we do not have a fresh kind of trouble developing where members of the Executive Committee may refuse to vacate their seats unless the majority group refuses to vote supplies, with all the troubles that flow from that. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this motion and to allow us in the Committee Stage to move an amendment which can then be dealt with on its merits.

I second. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this very carefully and, indeed, to give it his blessing. I think he will remember that the main argument from his side in regard to the second reading of this Bill was that the present arrangement was something of a constitutional monstrosity. We on this side certainly do not agree with that approach, but at any rate his intention was to tidy it up from the constitutional point of view, and I think most of the hon. members who spoke from his side of the House very definitely emphasized the need to have the Executive Committee responsible to the Provincial Council. That is the very purpose which this motion seeks to achieve, and I therefore hope very much that hon. members opposite will find it possible to support this motion. Naturally one could make more extensive suggestions in regard to improvements or changes in the present arrangement, as now modified, but this is a limited one, it is a simple one, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept it. I appreciate that he and his party may feel this difficulty that they stand to lose—as time passes and as our members grow—in three provinces and that they have merely the opportunity to gain by such a change in one. but I am sure he will not be deterred by that, and I hope sincerely that he will find it possible to accept this.

At first glance this seems to be a very reasonable and perfectly logical request, as a result of the amendment brought about in this Bill, but it is not as simple as that. Hon. members may regard it as reasonable and they may think that it flows logically from this amendment, but if I were to accept what they are asking for, I would be doing precisely the opposite to what hon. members would like to see, and that is that there should be no interference with the inherent system of provincial government. I think I stated that perfectly clearly in reply to the debate. In Section 84 of the Constitution, as hon. members are aware, a summary is given of the functions of the Provincial Council, and we must not forget that the Provincial Council is not absolutely sovereign in respect of its actions, even under Section 84. I just want to remind hon. members of that fact. For example, it is provided in Section 85 of our Constitution that an Ordinance passed by a Provincial Council is only of force in and for the province as long as and to the extent that it does not conflict with a law passed by this Parliament. I want to show hon. members what their whole argument amounts to. But then the Constitution goes further and under Section 89 even a proposed ordinance passed by a Provincial Council must be submitted by the Administrator to the State President for approval, and subject to certain conditions. I mention this specifically in order to show what this request on the part of hon. members on that side amounts to and that is to convert a system which is not a sovereign federal system into a semi-sovereign system. The three entities in provincial government are entirely separate. The Administrator, who is appointed in terms of Section 66 of the Constitution, is called a chief executive officer who is appointed by the State President—in this case by the State President-in-Executive-Council. The Administrator, as the chief executive officer, is entirely separate therefore; the Executive Committee is chosen by the Provincial Council, in terms of Section 97 (1) of the Constitution, to represent the Provincial Council really, together with the Administrator, in the implementation of ordinances. What do hon. members want to achieve? As soon as there is any possibility of its having to be removed in case of a change in the majority, it goes without saying that the Executive Committee is made responsible to the Provincial Council for its work; it is given Cabinet status. It does not became an executive officer. It is really only an executive officer to-day when sitting together with the Administrator. The Administrator-in-Executive-Committee is only charged with the carrying out of the functions entrusted to it by the Provincial Council, and there the Provincial Council’s mandate is not that it can call the Executive Committee to account. The Constitution is perfectly clear on this point; and if we depart from the Constitution then I want to sound a warning note here to-day that we are going to meddle with the provincial system and that we are going to convert our provincial system into a semi-federal system and place it on the road towards federalism. In my reply to the second reading debate I stated that was by no means the Government’s intention. The Government is not adopting this course to grant more powers and responsibilities, in the first place, to a Provincial Council, which will now have a responsible Executive Committee, and, in the second place, more powers and responsibilities to the Provincial Council than it had formerly. The only reason for these changes is the untenable position in which we place people who have to carry out the decisions of the Provincial Council. And what are the decisions of the Provincial Council? They are decisions of the majority. A majority decision is taken in the Provincial Council. The Provincial Council is not in session and the majority decision has to be carried out by the Executive Committee. How can we expect it to be done in this way? It cannot. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has only quoted half of what I said. He says that I stated that Executive Committee members were decent people and that they would feel that they no longer fit into the picture and that they have to clear out. But I said that there were sufficient checks and balances to keep these people in check so that the situation will not get out of hand. Hon. members can argue as much as they like but let me say unambiguously and very clearly that if we yield here, we shall be yielding to the idea of federalism, and I challenge hon. members on the other side to prove the contrary. If hon. members on that side suggest that federalism is to be the road that South Africa is to follow, after all the blessings that we have had arising from the unity of Union, blessings which we shall continue to have in the Republic, then they are repudiating the whole of our system. I want no part of it, and I shall oppose it with all the strength and power at my command. In the second place it must be perfectly clear that this amendment, as far as the Executive Committee is concerned, represents an improvement from the point of view of the practical working of the Committee. It has nothing to do with the system as such. The cry which has gone up on that side that the minority will no longer be represented, is nothing more than a slogan, but in actual fact this slogan has not even been taken up by the public or by the newspapers. This so-called representation of minorities in a democratic state, or representation of minorities on an executive authority, is something that we find nowhere else. It is a monstrosity, and all that we are doing here is to remove a monstrosity. I can only say with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) that I wish them every success. If they can succeed I hope that they will take over the Executive Committee, and I want to give them the assurance that if there are four National Party Executive Committee members then, they will resign and make room for the others. The hon. member for South Coast says that the first part of his motion seeks to make provision for the resignation of Executive Committee members; he then goes on to mention how members of Parliament resign and how Senators resign, while no opportunity is given to an Executive Committee member to resign. The Constitution does not prescribe how a Minister is to resign. The hon. member should at least compare comparable posts and officers with one another; he must not say that on the one hand a Senator may resign and that a Member of Parliament may resign but that no provision is made for the resignation of an Executive Committee member. These are not comparable things, and that portion of the motion does not carry much weight as far as I am concerned therefore. Mr. Speaker, I remain unconvinced. I have given very serious thought to all the implications, and I think it is as plain as a pikestaff that to yield on this point would only mean a retrogressive step in our actual system, as it has existed for 50-60 years, and as praised by hon. members on the other side. I want to ask that we should not meddle with our system but that we should make it practicable for Provincial Councils and for Executive Committees to do their work properly, and that we should create a better opportunity for a responsible Opposition to judge provincial matters properly, without a member of the Executive Committee belonging to the Opposition having to be afraid to take part.

I wish to give the hon. the Minister the very definite assurance that this motion moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is not a very well-covered plot on the part of the United Party to introduce the first leg of the race federation which in the end is going to be the system of government in this country.

You are being optimistic.

I would like to come now to the Minister’s arguments and I would like to say that it is very seldom that I have been able to say of this Minister that his argument is completely illogical. The hon. the Minister was at great pains during the second reading to make it clear to the Opposition that the reason why he was proposing that the election of the members of the Executive Committee should be on the basis of “winner take all”, was that experience had shown that the system of allowing a minority to be represented in the Provincial Executive Committee led to a completely untenable position, which was not in the interests of the Provincial Council or of the province concerned. The hon. the Minister argued that most earnestly, that it was not to be thought of that you could have a position where an Executive consists of three members from one party and a minority from the Opposition party in the Provincial Council; that it was essential for good government that all of them should come from the governing side, from the side that has the majority. There we disagreed with the hon. the Minister. We said that we believed that the present system had worked well for 50 years. No system can work perfectly. The hon. the Minister has the power to bring about this change because he has the majority of votes behind him, and he made it perfectly clear that the Government was quite determined to bring about this amendment because it was unthinkable that you could allow the existing position to remain in the Transvaal where the United Party minority is represented on the Executive Committee. What we wish to do is merely to carry that to its logical conclusion. Accepting that this is to be the system for the future in South Africa, the object of the hon. member for South Coast is that we should then be consistent and ensure that will be the case throughout. Sir, there is the very famous case which I would like to refer to again—I mentioned it earlier—of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal where there was a Labour member, one Frank Shaw, I believe, representing the constituency of Krugersdorp. He held the balance of power in that Provincial Council. He was expected to sit with the one group but he did not; he went and sat on the crossbenches and when asked why, he said, “I am the Provincial Council.” There was a case where the vote of that one person might easily have thrown to the one side or to the other side the majority of the Executive Committee. But suppose that in that case, having been working with one side for a while, he found that he could not hold his allegiance, and he then decided—this is an actual case—that he wished to support the other side; assuming that he was a member of the Executive Committee on the one side or the other, you had the position that he himself carried the balance. That was the situation in the Executive at that time; that his vote would vitally change the complexion of that Council. The complexion of the Council can be changed by by-elections—and we tend to have a lot of Provincial by-elections in this country. As we know a large number of members of this House have come originally from Provincial Councils; having gathered experience there they have come to this Chamber and there are constantly by-elections after Provincial elections, as we have seen in the past week, and as we will continue to see.

The hon. member is going beyond the scope of this motion. He must confine himself strictly to the terms of the motion.

With respect, Sir, I am seeking to show that there can be a change in the control in the Provincial Council and consequently the situation which the Minister has not envisaged but which we have envisaged could very easily eventuate; it could enable the Provincial Council to change the situation which the hon. the Minister is seeking to obtain through this Bill; it could bring about the situation that even if the one side which had control loses it, it would still control the Provincial Executive, a state of affairs which the hon. Minister said would be most undesirable. There is the case of a person changing his political allegiance. Assuming that the party in control of any particular province had all the Executive Committee members, which the hon. the Minister says is desirable, and one of them then changes his political allegiance, it is quite illogical for the Minister to suggest, if you once grant his initial premises that all of them should come from the one side or from the other, that it is wrong to achieve that during the life of a Provincial Council whereas it is right to achieve it at the birth of the Provincial Council immediately after the election. I submit to the hon. the Minister that it is perfectly clear from what he has said here this afternoon that he is, if I may say so with respect, somewhat obsessed with the idea of federalism. I saying to him in all earnestness that this has nothing to do with the question of federalism. It is a question of taking the hon. the Minister’s own arguments at the second reading and say that if that is to be the system in future, let us see that system will apply throughout the life of a Provincial Council. I do most earnestly hope that the hon. the Minister is going to be prepared on this occasion to agree that this motion can go forward, so that this matter may be debated fully at the Committee Stage, when I hope we will be able to convince him. I can only say that if the Minister is not prepared to do that, then it is obvious that the race federation plan has made a very much bigger impact on the Minister than he would have us believe.

Let me commence by saying that the Opposition should not think at all that they have already made such progress with their race federation idea that they can advance it as an argument for or against the particular motion of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). It is something which is still beyond the horizon. Let us start with the hon. member for South Coast. He has made two points. The one is that no provision is made for resignations and he says that provision for that should be made because there is similar provision in the Constitution for members of the House of Assembly and Senators.

Let me tell him that there were sound reasons why provision was made in the Constitution for members of the House of Assembly and for Senators to resign. The reason is that in those days they were not allowed to hold office under the Crown: a similar provision operates in the House of Commons. Up to to-day there has been no provision in the British system for a member of the House of Assembly or of the House of Commons to resign. But because he cannot hold an office of profit under the Crown, he is appointed to one or other post and the post for which he comes up for consideration is the Chiltern Hundred and I believe he receives one or three pennies per annum. That post has already been in existence for a few hundred years. As soon as he is appointed he loses his constituency. But he is not expected to remain long in that post; he has to vacate that post soon so that it may become available for another member of the Commons who wishes to resign, because the theory is that when your constituency has sent you to Parliament you must do your work. You simply cannot resign. We do not have Chiltern Hundreds in this country, but here too the intention was that once you have been elected you may not resign. That was why provision for resignations had to be made in the Constitution. But that is not the position in the case of the Provincial Council.

As far as the other part of his motion is concerned, I think there is room to differ from the Minister on the question of whether or not it would promote federalism. I can well imagine why the hon. the Minister says that he does not want to effect too many changes to the system at this stage: that one blow is quite enough. During the second-reading debate I said that if it did not happen to-day, it was bound to happen at a later stage and I want to repeat that. I can well imagine, however, why the Minister says that this is an academic matter. Perhaps that is the reason why I like the idea and he does not, namely because it is an academic matter. There are so many factors that can promote what hon. members opposite want, that even though the Minister were not to make the changes, they would still get their way if they were to be privileged in future of winning more elections than they have won hitherto, of if they changed their habit of losing elections, as was their habit last year.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you why hon. members will get their way even if this amendment alone is accepted and not what they want. The reason is this: the Provincial Council have to provide the money and if they are not satisfied with the Executive Committee who draft the budget proposals via the Administrator, they refuse to give the money. Furthermore it is also customary that once you have lost the confidence of the Council which has to provide the money, or which has to pass the measures which you have proposed, it is unbecoming to try to keep the reins in your hands. Take our own Constitution. There is nothing to compel Ministers to resign when the governing party loses an election. There is no such provision in the Constitution. But respectable and decent people resign of their own accord. Perhaps it is not so much a question of decency because they know that they will be unable to continue. They will find it impossible to achieve anything, hence they resign. They make a virtue of necessity. The hon. Opposition will therefore get what they want even though the amendment does not go through; even though it is logical what they say namely that the power to appoint also embraces the power to resign. It is true that if the body or the party which gives you the authority to act, falls away and no longer has the right to confer that authority upon you, it simply means that the Executive Committee member who sits there has no authority.

I now visualize the situation where the National Party has a majority, say, in the Free State and where the Provincial Council majority in the Free State appoint an Executive Committee consisting of Nationalists. They take their authority and title from the National Party majority. If the United Party gets into the majority that Executive Committee no longer has any title or authority. That means that they will not be able to carry on and it also means that just as in the case of the House of Assembly, a convention will come into existence according to which members of the Executive Committee will resign of their own accord when it appears that they no longer have a majority in the Council.

Then a final remark. I think the hon. the Minister is far too scared of a federation, or let me rather put it this way that I think the fear which he harbours is without foundation, because where the Administrator is appointed by the Executive authority …

Order! We are actually not discussing the federal system. The hon. member should confine himself strictly to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. I merely want to say that if we are not discussing the federal system, there is even less ground for the Minister’s fears.

I should like to thank you, Sir, for bringing us back to earth. This motion does not ask us to discuss the question of applying for the Chiltern Hundreds, as we have heard this afternoon, or the merits of the motion. What the hon. member for South Coast is asking in this motion is simply that the House should give leave to carry on the debate which certain members here have initiated. We do not wish to debate it now. We are asking for the permission of the House to debate it. The hon. the Minister has commenced the debate and the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has carried it on. But this motion does not ask for that, and that is why I am so grateful to you, Sir, for your ruling that we must get back to the motion. This motion simply asks for leave to consider the advisability. At this stage we are simply asking for leave to consider it and not to debate it. We are not debating it now. When the time comes to debate it, then I think these arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister will be relevant. But at the moment they are not relevant. At present we are simply discussing whether we may debate the merits of a very good suggestion made by the hon. member for South Coast.

I want to emphasize what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has just said, and I appeal to the Minister to let us have a full debate on this question in the normal course in the Committee stage where we can move amendments to the Bill. You, Sir, quite rightly call members to order when they depart from this motion. They are therefore restricted in this debate in fully stating the case for the necessity of amending this Bill. If the Minister will allow us to move our amendments to this Bill, we could then go into this very question fully. As I say, at the moment, we are restricted in our arguments. Sir, the Minister who has built up a reputation as a logical debater, has fallen down badly to-day; his reputation has been ruined. The Minister has dammed everything this afternoon that he said in support of this Bill at the second reading.

Order! The hon. member himself is going too far now.

Sir, the Minister was allowed to deal with this point and I am only replying to the Minister. Surely you are not going to deny me what you allowed the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House.

Am I not entitled, Sir, to reply to the points raised by the Minister?

No. We have a motion before the House and the hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Well, then I would ask the Minister to act as the hon. member for Standerton says the members of the Executive Committee would do, that is to say, to act decently, and to allow us a debate so that we can reply to the points raised by him.

Before I call upon the next speaker, I want to warn hon. members that they must confine themselves strictly to the contents of the motion.

I should like to give one reason as to why the House should not grant the leave which is sought in this motion and that is that I think the change which is asked for cannot be reconciled with the Constitution as it stands to-day, and that creates a whole set of problems. I want to refer hon. members to sub-section (5) of Section 76 of the Constitution. It is in pursuance of that sub-section that I maintain that if leave were granted to effect this change, it would be necessary to effect a number of other changes to the Constitution. That is the reason why I submit that the House should not grant leave because it is irreconcilable with the remainder of the South African Act. The relevant section to which I am referring reads as follows—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we could not discuss details. Those can be discussed in Committee.

I do not know exactly what the hon. member’s argument is leading up to.

The Provincial Council sits for approximately one month a year.

The hon. member may not go into the merits of what is proposed to be discussed in Committee. This motion only seeks leave to discuss certain matters.

My argument is that leave cannot be granted because if a vacancy should occur in the Executive Committee the procedure to be followed is laid down in the section to which I have referred. The Constitution provides for that and we cannot now change the legislation. If the Provincial Council is not in session the appointment is made by the Executive Committee.

Order! The hon. member is again discussing the merits, and that is not permissible.

On a point of order, I want to point out with due respect that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has probably, not deliberately, misled the Chair. We are now dealing with a motion and that motion says that leave should be granted to the whole House to consider the advisability of making certain provision in connection with provincial executive committees.

Order! The hon. member does not know what proposals will be made. We are dealing with a motion that leave be granted to the Committee of the whole House to consider a certain matter and the discussion is confined to the granting of that leave.

With respect, Mr.

Speaker, I want to point out that further under my point of order, it says here “that leave be granted to consider the advisability of making provision therein for the removal from office of and resignation by members of provincial executive committees”. All the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) wants to do is to put it to the House why this instruction cannot be given.

Order! I have given my ruling and hon. members should abide by it.

I merely wish to point out to the House that the leave to make such provision, which is asked for here cannot be granted and in this connection I want to quote from the South Africa Act in an attempt to show that if the House should grant leave, it would give rise to a ridiculous situation because when a vacancy occurs while the Provincial Council is not in session …

The hon. member is again discussing the merits of the case.

Order! The hon. member is going outside my ruling.

I move—

In regard to this Bill now before the House, I want to say that the position is that the only protection of names, uniforms and coats-of-arms was afforded by the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act of 1935, which is the only South African legislation in regard to heraldry which has hitherto been passed by our Parliament. The above-mentioned Act is limited to the registration of the names, uniforms and coats-of-arms or badges in respect of associations and institutions (and under the last-mentioned should be understood educational institutions like schools, technical colleges and universities) and it leaves out of account the large sphere of official, municipal and private coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems. In order to bridge this gap, liberal use was made in the past of the services of the College of Arms (also called the Heralds’ College) in London.

In order to find a way out what was regarded as an unsound state of affairs, die SuidAfrikaanse Akademie vir Kuns en Wetenskap appointed an ad hoc committee, with Prof. G. H. T. Malan as convener, which reported on 4 May 1951 and in which it was recommended that South Africa should have its own authoritative Office of Heraldry. This standpoint was fully supported at a conference at which the Akademie vir Kuns en Wetenskap and all interested Government Departments and the four Provincial Administrations, as well as the Administration of South West Africa were represented, and which was held under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science at Pretoria on 12 September 1955. Thereafter the then Minister of Education, Arts and Science appointed a committee, under the chairmanship of Prof. A. N. Pelser, to investigate the basis on which the Office of Heraldry should be established. This committee submitted its report to the Minister on 27 December 1956 in which they came to the conclusion that it was inconceivable and untenable that a sovereign independent State like South Africa (including the Territory of South West Africa) should be dependent on foreign channels in regard to heraldic matters, and it recommended that as soon as circumstances allowed of it the Government should establish a Bureau of Heraldry and that the necessary legislation should be passed by Parliament. The present Bill is intended to give effect to the recommendation of this last-mentioned committee. From the very nature of the case, the matter has become even more urgent since we became a Republic on 31 May 1961.

The object of the Bill is to provide for the approval, award, registration and protection of coats-of-arms, badges, flags, penants, banners and other matters of an heraldic nature. The provision being made is not only for official purposes, but also for purposes of local Government bodies. For the sake of brevity I shall in future refer to these local Government bodies, jointly or individually, as municipal institutions. The proposed provision is being made also in respect of associations and institutions and includes historical and other family badges.

The Bill further aims at amending the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act of 1935 in order to fill gaps which were left in that Act and to bring it into line with the provisions of this Bill and with present-day changed circumstances and requirements.

In the final instance this Bill affects the terrain which, until the date of our becoming a Republic, belonged to the prerogative of Her Majesty the Queen. These prerogatives passed over to the State President when we became the Republic of South Africa in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1961, Sec. 7 (4) (Part III) which reads—

Closely connected to the afore-mentioned prerogative powers, sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of this Bill clothes the Head of State with the higher heraldic powers, viz. the grant or amendment of official coats-of-arms, badges, and other emblems, due consideration being had to the legal provisions in regard to the grant or amendment of such coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems.

In terms of sub-sec. (3) of the same section, similar powers are placed in the hands of the Administrator of any Province, including South West Africa, acting on the advice of the Executive Committee, in respect of the grant or amendment of municipal coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems, all of a local nature.

Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 2 contains a very important provision, which reads as follows—

I shall revert in a moment to this provision in regard to the Council, to wit, the Council of Heraldry.

In connection with the Bill, I shall first deal with the establishment of the Bureau of Heraldry. Before South Africa became a Republic the prerogative powers in regard to heraldry rested with Her Majesty the Queen, and such powers were exercised by Her Majesty on the advice of her Ministers in the Union through the medium of the College of Arms in London. The last-mentioned royal institution also played an appreciable role in other respects in the history of coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems in South Africa.

In Sections 3 and 6 provision is now being made for the establishment of a Bureau of Heraldry, which will be assisted by a Council of Heraldry, to handle all the matters in respect of heraldry which were formerly handled for South Africa by the College of Arms, and to perform all the other duties entrusted to it in terms of this Bill.

I should like to state that it is envisaged that sound relations will be maintained as far as possible with the College of Arms, and the establishment of maintenance of good relations with The Lord Lyon King of Arms of Scotland, the Hoge Raad van Adel of Holland and other heraldic institutions on the Continent of Europe. I want to emphasize that now that we have reached our majority we do not consider that we know everything, but that we would still like to have the closest relations with these world-famous institutions.

The main object of the Bureau of Heraldry, assisted in the way I have mentioned, will or should at all times be not only the faithful observance of the general rules and principles of the heraldic signs when carrying out the various duties and activities entrusted to it in terms of this Bill, but in their application, as far as possible, to develop in a direction of our own which will breathe a genuine South African spirit. For that we need, in the first place, a State Herald.

Section 4 provides for the appointment of a State Herald as Head of the Bureau of Heraldry.

Apart from the fact that the candidate must be well acquainted with the general principles of heraldry, particularly as applied in the United Kingdom and on the Continent of Europe, he should also have a sound academic training, and not only will he have to have a sound knowledge of both official languages and in addition he should have a sound knowledge of Nederlands, German, French and Latin. We hope to be able to find such an eminent person. It is essential that he should be an eminent person and a very educated man.

Then we have the Council of Heraldry. Section 6 provides for the institution of a Heraldry Council, consisting of the State Herald and at least six other members.

In terms of the recommendations of an ad hoc committee which was appointed some years ago to report on the desirability of the establishment of a Bureau of Heraldry in South Africa and its composition, it is intended to nominate members of this Bureau on the basis of their particular knowledge and experience of and their interest in heraldry, whilst at least one of the members should be an experienced historian, one should be an art connoisseur and the other should be a lawyer.

Pargraph (b) of Section 25 provides that such allowances will be paid to members of the Bureau who are not in the service of the State, as may be determined in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

As already stated, no coat-of-arms, badge or other emblem shall be granted or amended by the Head of State or by the Administrator concerned, as the case may be, and the adoption of a coat-of-arms, badge or other emblem or an amendment of it in terms of an Act will not be approved before the design or amended design thereof has been approved by the Council of Heraldry. The Bill contains more or less similar provisions for the registration of all coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems, including historical and other family coats-of-arms, but suffice it if I quote Section 6 (2) (b)—

Here we undoubtedly are dealing with the most important function of the Council. Another function is the giving of advice in connection with heraldic and related matters to the Minister and to the Administrator of any Province or of South West Africa, as provided in paragraph (a) of the above-mentioned sub-section.

The other functions of the Council are clear from the relevant provisions. Mention need only be made of the provisions contained in Sections 9 and 11, in terms of which the Council is authorized to investigate and to decide on any objections lodged against any decision by the State Herald, or which are lodged in connection with the registration of any coat-of-arms, badge or other emblem.

Appeal can be lodged—this is important— against any such decision with the Minister or, in the case of South West Africa, with the Administrator, and the decision of the Minister of the aforesaid Administrator is final in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 13.

The most important part of the functions of the Heraldic Bureau is undoubtedly the registration of coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems. In the first place it comprises the entries in the register on request, as provided for in Section 5 (a), namely—

If they comply with the heraldic laws.

The coats-of-arms, badges and emblems prescribed by law are entered into the register just like that.

My question to the hon. the Minister is whether those coats-of-arms, badges or emblems must comply with the heraldic laws?

I say very clearly that when an amendment has to be made, and if the State Herald says that the heraldic laws are contravened by these coats-of-arms, badges and emblems, flags or banners, then they must be amended, but he is compelled to register them as they stand in the laws. To mention one example, take the orange tree of the Free State. The Free State says it is an olive tree; it is nevertheless registered as an orange tree. It may be amended, but until such time as it is amended we accept that it is an orange tree. It is depicted there with oranges on it.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I should mention the registration of all coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems to which the Heraldic Council has given its approval, to wit, the following categories—

1. (i) Official coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems granted or amended on request by the Head of State in terms of the legal provisions regarding the granting or amendment of such coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems (Section 2 (1);
2. (ii) Municipal coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems granted or amended on request by the Administrator of any province or of South West Africa, acting on the advice of the Executive committee concerned, in terms of the legal provisions affecting the granting or acceptance or amendment of such coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems (in terms of Section 2 (3));
3. (iii) Coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems registered on request in terms of Section 5 (b), (c) and (d), which include also those of associations and institutions, and historical and other family coats-of-arms.

We can now pause for a moment to deal with the provisions in regard to the coats-of-arms, badges and emblems of associations and institutions, and then we can deal with historical and family coats-of-arms. In regard to associations and institutions, the present Bill in this respect replaces the provisions contained in the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act, 1935 (Act No. 23 of 1935), and the latter Act is accordingly amended by Section 26, which at the same time provides for any necessary adaptations and additions. The attention of the House is directed particularly to the provision made in terms of paragraph (e) for a transfer under certain circumstances, as is customary, of certain ministerial powers under the old Act to the State Herald. In this way a very serious hiatus, to which Act No. 23 of 1935 was subjected, is now being filled. It was just an impossible task. Nothing happened; there was no person responsible. Departmentally and administratively nothing could be done and consequently the registration or the amendment of any emblem of an association or organization, of schools, for example, and of educational institutions simply was not done.

The second matter concerned historical and other family coats-of-arms. I think this Bill now supplies a need which has long been felt. I hope that we shall now in future be able to put a stop forever to that unhealthy practice of the hawking of family coats-of-arms, just as in years gone by we had the hawking of photographs. Hon. members will remember how in years gone by photographs were sold at high prices on the platteland, photographs which were not always even a good likeness of the relative concerned. In the second place it will serve to preserve the cultural value of our old historic family coats-of-arms—those of Dutch, German, French, British and other origins—for the present and for future generations by providing that they can be registered and duly protected, for which this Bill makes proper provision.

The Bill refers, in para, (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 8, and in para, (b) of Section 14 to “an historical or other family coat-of-arms”. Now, by “other family coats-of-arms” we understand a family coat-of-arms of more recent or modern origin. The requirements of modern society make such a provision necessary. Without it the Bill would be incomplete in this respect. In determining the tariffs of fees for the rendering of services, which is provided for by Section 25 (f), care will be taken as far as possible. This provision is not abused.

I also want to draw attention to another aspect, namely the inheritance of family coats-of-arms. After mature consideration it has been decided that in view of the heterogeneous nature of historical and other family coats-of-arms in our country, the system of inheritance, as practised on the Continent of Europe, should be regarded as the most acceptable to South Africa, including South West Africa. Consequently Section 14 (b) provides that—

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Many of our Afrikaans surnames are to-day spelt differently from the original spelling. Will a person who can prove that he belongs to a certain family, despite the fact that he spells his surname differently, still be entitled to use the family coat-of-arms of that family?

Yes, that is quite clear. If he can prove that he is related by lawful blood relationship, descent, marriage or adoption and that he bears the same family name, he can use the family coat-of-arms. The spelling does not matter so much; of course, we have simplified everything.

Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned the fees which will be payable for purposes of registration. Complete tariffs of fees to be levied by the Bureau of Heldry for the rendering of various services are in the course of preparation. The drafting of the necessary regulations is also receiving the attention of my Department, and these regulations, including the tariffs of fees to be levied, will be tabled in due course.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the fact that all coats-of-arms, badges and other emblems registered with the proposed Bureau of Heraldry in terms of the provisions of this Bill will be thoroughly protected by way of civil as well as criminal legal procedure. Section 21 provides for civil cases and anybody who makes misuse of any coat-of-arms, badge or other emblem which is registered in the name of an official or municipal authority, association, institution or person can be sued in a court of law for a maximum amount of R50, or for damages or an interdict, or for both damages and an interdict. Section 22 provides for a penalty in respect of the misuse of an official or municipal coat-of-arms, and on conviction such a person is punishable by a maximum fine of R400, while Section 23 provides that anyone who deliberately makes himself guilty of fraud in respect of any registration with the Bureau of Heraldry can be punished on conviction by the imposition of a maximum fine of R200, or on default of payment by imprisonment to a maximum of one year. I think we have all had experience of this. I am thinking, for example, of my student years, when I regarded my property as my own and it could not be touched by anybody else. Here we now have an attempt to deal with those who contravene the law. I am convinced that the passing of this Bill will be rendering a great service to our country in the sphere of heraldry, and that thereby we shall also give further proof of our independence, and that we are not shouting “Bravo!” and in our inexperience trying to do everything ourselves, but that we will make use of the good services of the heraldic institutions of the United Kingdom and of the Continent of Europe which always assisted us in the days when we did not as yet have our own institution.

I want to say right at the outset that we on this side of the House welcome this legislation. To South Africa this is an entirely new subject. It is a subject of very wide scope but also one of very great importance. In my opinion it will have a great influence on our national life and on our awareness of nationhood. I am pleased therefore that the hon. the Minister has devoted his attention more particularly to the South African circumstances; that he has viewed and approached this matter in its broad outlines in so far as it affects our country. Since this is the first time that a Bill such as this is placed before the House and before the people of South Africa, I think we should consider it both from the National and international angle. With your approval therefore, Mr. Speaker, I propose to approach this matter from a somewhat wider angle than the Minister did.

There are many people in this country who say that this Bill and its aims smack of snobbery. They say that we are trying to prove that we are the descendants of great figures of the past or of prominent leaders of the past. As one scoffer put it, “this kind of snobbery has kept heraldry alive”. Here we might also refer to Grey’s Elegy where he says—

While that is how some people feel, I must say at once that I do not agree with them. It is said that we are tending more and more to demonstrate our own dignity, our own importance. The mocker also likes to point out that while we have abandoned the titles of “Sir”, “Lord” and “Baron” in our country, the number of people with the title of “honourable”, “right honourable”, “advocate ”, and “doctor” is steadily growing. That reminds me of the story which the late Mr. Langenhoven told of the occasion when he was walking up Adderley Street and spotted a friend across the road. When he called out “doctor”, half the people in the street looked around! It is said that we are not satisfied with this either and that we now feel that we must again introduce something else to prove precisely who and what we really are. That is alleged to be the reason why we are introducing heraldry! It may be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to tell you the story about a typist, just to show how little our people know about heraldry. When something was dictated to her recently about “heraldry” she wrote “Harold” and then “dick”. She thought that some person was being discussed.

As the hon. the Minister has so clearly explained to us, associated with heraldry there is all the machinery of it, namely the herald, the Heraldry Council and the granting and refusal of coat-of-arms, badges, etc.; but whatever the position may be, in South Africa heraldry is a limited science. It is practically an unknown science, and in my opinion the Minister will have difficulty in appointing even his council of “at least seven members” from the ranks of qualified people with sufficient knowledge. I personally know of only half a dozen of our people who are acquainted with heraldry, who know the science, but at the same time I want to add, as he himself also indicated, that he will have no difficulty in appointing his Director or Chief Herald. He has sufficient experts from whose ranks he will be able to make his choice.

I have no great knowledge of the science itself but I have some knowledge of its history. Coats-of-arms, badges and emblems originated in the early years as practical symbols or signs in the struggle or battle, and it was only as from the seventeenth century that we began to fit in and to adapt heraldry to modern life and brought it under control. Heraldry formed part of the civilization of the Middle Ages and the pre-Middle Ages, in Western Europe and in England and particularly after the fall of the Roman Empire, and was, and still is, known particularly in countries like England, France, Holland, Ireland, Scotland. It also spread to the East, as the hon. the Minister probably knows, to India and recently even to Japan.

As far as its aims are concerned, it is interesting, Mr. Speaker—and you will permit me to refer to it—to hear what the old writers said in connection with this matter, and here I should like to quote from Sir William Dug-dale’s book, “The Ancient Usage in Bearing of Arms”. In this book which was published in 1681 he says the following, amongst other things—

There we have the basis for the origin of coats-of-arms. Another writer poses this question “Why were coats-of-arms conceived or discovered?” He then replies to the question himself: “It is to be able to distinguish one man from another”. That was practically the basis of what we have here to-day.

A word or two now about granting coats-of-arms. The Minister has pointed out that, because we are in such close touch with England, Holland and other countries, but particularly with England, and because such a large section of our population still has close cultural links with England and also originates from England, it is necessary for us to see how the control over the acquisition of coats-of-arms originated, particularly in England. On that point historians are not clear at all. The Minister has correctly said that the ruler or the King could award coats-of-arms, and that he alone could do so, but then we also read in other historical works—

It is clear therefore that arms could also be granted under other circumstances then we also read the following in other old writings—

A person who defeated another in battle could take over his coat-of-arms and appropriate it for himself.

The Kaffirs do the same thing.

I am not dealing with “Kaffirs” now.

Then we come to a fourth possibility—and these are all things with which the Minister and his Council will have to deal—and that is that there was also a fourth category as far as coats-of-arms are concerned, that is to say, those who simply awarded themselves a coat-of-arms. At that time it was recognized by law because they said that if one could choose a name for oneself, why not also a coat-of-arms which goes with that name? What I am trying to prove, however, is that there were different ways in which coats-of-arms could be granted, and in the main it amounted to this that it was done for practical purposes, but not only for practical purposes. It was also done to obtain booty or status, and it was only later on that the whole procedure in awarding arms was placed under strict supervision. That is why it is necessary to refer to the College of Arms of London, which was established as far back as 1484. But in France there was a College of Arms as far back as 1407 and that is why so many of the names, to which I want to come back later on, to be found in heraldry are French names. I should like to urge upon the Minister at this early stage that he should change those terms and words and that we should use present-day English or Afrikaans terms.

It was only in the fifteenth century that the heralds were converted into a college, the College of Arms of London and others, and that the necessary control could be exercised over coats-of-arms. And here I come back once again to England. Although there had been confusion previously, as I have already shown, the system which the Minister has set out here gradually developed; in other words, the control was transferred entirely into the hands of the ruler or King. This is what James Frere of the London College of Arms wrote in 1954 in a letter—and this is important because I think the Minister has to some extent followed what he says in our legislation, but not entirely—

In England the State is entirely divorced from heraldry, and so is politics, and that is why I want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that in Clause 2 particularly, as well as in other clauses, he is placing the control in the hands of the President, who has now taken the place of the King in South Africa.

But there is another thing I have noticed. In Clause 13 this Bill gives the right of appeal against a decision of the Council to the “Minister”. Here the hon. the Minister is introducing the “Minister”, and it is precisely in this respect that he is departing from the system as we know it and from the system from which he has borrowed so much.

Heraldry no longer has the practical value to-day that it had formerly and to-day the main duty, the main function, as the Minister put it, of the herald or of the Council or, in this case, of the President—I hope that the Minister is going to delete this provision for an appeal to the Minister and I shall not mention his name therefore—is not so much the granting of coats-of-arms really but rather, firstly, to ensure that one person does not take another person’s coat-of-arms, that he does not appropriate another person’s coat-of-arms for himself; secondly, to ensure that coats-of-arms are correctly designed and, thirdly, that coats-of-arms which are wrongly designed are put right, and then there will be a fourth function in this country and that is to ensure that coats-of-arms which have not yet been granted may be awarded to individuals or families.

Together with the herald, there came into being the family tree, particularly in Ireland. Since the Minister is now introducing this Heraldry Bill, an excellent Bill, I am very sorry that he has not made use of this opportunity to make provision also for the institution of a family register or a family tree.

Are you referring to that little orange tree of yours?

No, I am thinking more of a family tree of families, of individuals, such as the genealogical register of the Vosters. Why should the Vosters have a coat-of-arms only? Together with the coat-of-arms there should also be this family register. I went through one the other day, the family register of one of our Members of Parliament dating back to the fifth century and giving the history of each of his forefathers. That is what we want here. That should be accompanied not only by the person’s coat-of-arms, but also the history of his forefathers. It is that sort of thing that will make us proud of our forebears and of our past. And the Minister must not ask the question that I can see he wants to ask! Leave it alone! [Laughter.]

Heraldry, as the Minister has also said, only began to be valued in Europe and in our country with the growing awareness of nationhood, and it is because we in the Republic are also beginning to realize the value of what is our own and developing the idea of honouring and retaining as a treasure everything that is our own, that this legislation is so very necessary.

May I put a question? Why did you oppose the establishment of the Republic?

I am dealing with something entirely different now, and you, Sir, would rule me out of order if I replied to that question.

A coat-of-arms is a symbol of which the individual and the family, the business undertaking, the city or town and particularly the nation can be proud, and it is a symbol that will form part of its sense of nationhood.

In connection with this matter it is interesting to read what the practice was even in the eighteenth century. Now that the Minister of Justice has interrupted me he will forgive me, if I may use an anglicism, if I pull his leg for a moment (“sy been effens trek ”)! It was laid down even in the eighteenth century that no attorneys or lawyers could wear arms, or that arms could not be granted to them, because they were regarded as “rascally”. [Laughter.] But here the Minister of Education can make an exception so that in the future we can honour even attorneys!

In my opinion this Bill is defective in a few respects that I should like to deal with, but before doing so there is something else that I want to say. I have said that under this Bill coats-of-arms will have to be given to people who have no coats-of-arms at present, and it is a good thing that we should give them coats-of-arms so that their descendants in 100 or 200 years’ time can have coats-of-arms of which they will be proud, particularly when it is accompanied by the family tree. I should like to discuss a few other aspects with the Minister. I should like to deal firstly with coats-of-arms which already exist and which are wrong heraldically. The Minister mentioned one such coat-of-arms, that of the Orange Free State. Everybody has accepted that it is an orange tree, but it should be an olive tree. What are we going to do about it? In my opinion, we would be doing the wrong thing if we changed it. By prescription it has acquired the right to exist. Heraldically it remains wrong, but historically it is acknowledged as the coat-of-arms of the Free State. Similarly, you will find hundreds if not thousands of coats-of-arms which pedlars sold to families and which are wrong heraldically.

Correct the design.

If we want to correct the design, very well, but it will take years before we shall be able to correct the designs of all of them.

I have already referred to the names which are used in heraldry. The Minister knows that in the English heraldry, for example, “sable” means black. In Netherlands it is “sabel”. “Ore” or “yellow” means gold. “Argent ” or “white” means silver. “Azure” means blue, and “Vert” means green, etc. I repeat that I trust that the Minister will replace those names with typical English or Afrikaans names so that we will all be able to understand them.

Then another matter. I think we in South Africa are not sufficiently proud of the deeds or the positions of our great men. We do not give sufficient recognition in South Africa to the rank of our prominent men, men who have played some role in South Africa. I am thinking of our President, for example. He occupies a very important position and he should receive recognition for it, and his family or his descendants ought to receive recognition for the exalted position occupied by this forefather of theirs. We shall have to think of something that can be inscribed on the arms of our President or of a prominent person like the Prime Minister so as to indicate that he occupies a certain position in society. This is a matter which will have to receive our serious attention. Another matter for which the hon. the Minister’s Bill does not make provision is a combination of coats-of-arms. As you know, Sir, a man’s coat-of-arms is on a shield, but a woman’s coat-of-arms is depicted in the shape of a diamond. There are cases where families desire combinations of coats-of-arms, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will make provision for such a combination of coats-of-arms where a husband and wife would perhaps like to leave their family and their descendants a combined coat-of-arms.

Before I come to the final point that I want to deal with I want to refer to the seat for the Bureau. The Bill does not provide where this seat of this body, this College of Heraldry, will be. Cape Town is our oldest city, but I realize that it may prove to be impracticable to have the seat of the Bureau in Cape Town. I would also suggest that in a vast country like South Africa there should not be one herald only but that we should also institute provincial heralds who can deal with all the cases in a province before they go to the Central Bureau.

Another thing that is lacking in South Africa is that the granting of arms is accompanied by too little ceremonial. When arms are granted to a city or to a person I should like to see that it is accompanied by due ceremony and not only a registered document. I should like to refer here to what happened in Cape Town on the occasion of the granting of the first coat-of-arms to a local authority in South Africa. This happened in 1804. Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I first read out the description that was given in English in 1900 and then the original description in 1804. This document is to be found in the Archives and in the library and there is also one in the archives of the City Council. In the year 1900 the then mayor has this to say about it—

What is interesting is the description at that time of the handing over of our first coat-of-arms to our capital. I now quote from theKaapsche Courant of 7 July 1804—

What now follows is priceless—

That is what I am pleading for, that in granting these arms to our cities and towns, it should be accompanied by the necessary ceremony and that we should be proud or these arms not only as individuals but where they are granted to our towns and to our cities.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steen-kamp) whole-heartily on the excellent speech he has made on this subject, because when I rose in this House years ago and pleaded that such a Bureau of Heraldry should be established for our fatherland, I was ridiculed throughout the country; and now we have the Bill before us and I am grateful for the manner in which the Minister has explained the Bill and for the manner in which the Opposition has taken part in the debate.

I just want to say a few words but I should like to have them on record. The position is not, as some writers maintain, that heraldry is a form of snobbishness; that is not so. When you buy a race horse you want to know its pedigree; when you buy a merino ram or a karakul ram you want to know its pedigree. When you buy a Friesland bull from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) you want to know its pedigree. It is not snobbishness therefore. The truth of the matter is that the Afrikaner nation—and I am talking about the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner in particular—place great value on their family, on their descent, on their land or origin. You can enter practically any humble home in the bushveld to-day, it makes no difference whether the man’s surname is Koekemoer or Van der Bijl or Van der Merwe or Vermeulen, and you will find that he has a coat-of-arms; and that is the product of hawking. Those products do not even conform to the most elementary rules of heraldry. Our people have paid pounds to the hawkers, for those, and yet those coats-of-arms are absolutely worthless because history teaches us that very few of our forefathers who came to this country were entitled to have a coat-of-arms. Some were entitled to it, but very few. But practically every Afrikaner has a coat-of-arms in his home to-day, and that is why I welcome the Bill as much as I do, particularly Clause 14 (b) so that we can have finality on the matter, and I shall be grateful if the greatest possible publicity could be given to this matter so that the people will know and realize it, because the word “heraldry” is more or less foreign to the Afrikaner. If we publicize the fact that a law has now been passed entitling every father of a family in South Africa to register a coat-of-arms at the Bureau of Heraldry, say for instance after all the nephews of a family have met and agreed upon it, it will then be a coat-of-arms of their own creation and they will be proud of it because they themselves have created it and every subsequent generation will be proud of it; the further that generation is removed from the date of its creation, the prouder will that generation be of that coat-of-arms.

There is one point on which I do not agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow. He says that we should just accept the old coat-of-arms which are in many cases completely wrong from a heraldic point of view; we should just accept that orange tree of the United Party instead of the olive tree; the olive tree has now become an orange tree and we should just accept it as such because that has been their coat-of-arms and has become traditional. Mr. Speaker, talking cannot right anything that is wrong. Talking won’t make a coat-of-arms right if it is incorrect from a heraldic point of view, neither on the basis of history nor on the basis of logic, nor on the basis of heraldic, and I say that once this Bill is on the Statute Book we should draw a line through everything that is wrong from a heraldic point of view and we should give coats-of-arms to this young Republic of ours, to the coming generations, to our descendants, because our families are proud of them, coats-of-arms which are absolutely right from a heraldic point of view, and we can do so if we get the right people. I want to make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister that he should ask the Government for permission to subject the flags and emblems and coats-of-arm which are to-day used in the Republic of South Africa, to the test of the heraldic rules. I wonder whether our National Flag will stand the test, because it does not conform to those rules. In carrying out this law I should like to see the Government set the example to municipalities and other bodies who also wish to have emblems of flags or anything else registered; it should set the example, and before it goes any further it should subject those emblems that it itself uses to the test of heraldric rules.

This is a family Bill and we must keep it a domestic one. We welcome this Bill to because through heraldry we have an outward expression of a country’s dignity provided that it is not tied up with legal technicalities which only restrict natural human reactions. Now that we are a Republic this Heraldry Bill is necessary too, and if carefully drafted and administered it must add to our prestige. This is only possible if we keep it outside Government control or interference. We have an analogy in the administration of this House which frames its own regulations and in which you, Mr. Speaker, are in supreme control without interference from any outside authority. As regards the administration of heraldry we must rather narrow down the authority and not extend it to those who are not qualified. In Great Britain, over hundreds of years, no one has questioned the decision of the heraldry authority there, and so it should be here. No responsibility should devolve on the State and no money should therefore be wasted on appeals. As this House of Parliament is wrapped up in ceremonial procedure and control, outside legal interference, so should all ceremonial regulations be the responsibility of the Heraldry Council in keeping with the tradition of heraldry. The State herald should be allotted a place at all ceremonial functions attended by the State President, so that he will be in evidence before the public, otherwise he may become of no importance whatsoever. Naturally the State President will be the supreme authority; it cannot be otherwise, and I feel that all appointments should be gazetted only through his office, outside the control of Government departments or of the Public Service Commission, in the same way as the administration of this House. The Heraldry Council must be the final authority, and if its decisions become flexible, it is all to the good. It should not be subject to appeal to other unqualified authorities. The Heraldry Council should exercise all authority on all matters of ceremony, and I think it would be of very great benefit in this country to have an authority here that lays down everything that applies to ceremony, to procedure, at functions. This Council should be the authority in that regard. Regional representation in heraldry has been the procedure over the years in other countries, so if we have provincial representation on the Heraldry Council, that will be all to the good, quite regardless, of course, of whether the representatives are domiciled in that particular province, because all applications for heraldry are made in writing. That is the practice in all other countries of the world, so it is not really necessary that a member appointed to represent one of the provinces should actually be domiciled in that particular province. But I think it is all to the good to have provincial representatives on the Council.

Sir, I have not very much more to say. The field has been covered widely by the Minister and other speakers. I feel that perhaps the Minister may reconsider the regulations in this Bill which apply to appeals and give the matter a little more consideration, because the administration of heraldry is, as I have said, almost a domestic affair, and I have no doubt that given the authority, we will have the same dignity associated with our Heraldry Bureau as is associated with this House of Parliament. I myself have always been an admirer of the ceremonial in this House under your control, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that the principal heraldry officer should be the great authority under the control of the State President. I think in developing heraldry in this country we should take advantage of what has been experienced in other countries of the world. I think that we should follow in their tradition and that we should develop something peculair to South Africa and something of which we will always be proud. I think through this particular Bill we will develop a national tradition for heraldry in this country. I very much welcome the Bill. I think it will mean a great deal to us and I appreciate the fact that the Minister has introduced it early in the history of our Republic.

I do not want to follow the arguments and questions of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker); the hon. the Minister will probably deal with them.

I notice that this Bill has two predecessors. The first is the Patents, Designs, Trade-marks and Copyright Act of 1916 and Act No. 23 of 1935 to which the hon. the Minister referred in his introductory speech. The 1935 Act deals with the registration of names, coats-of-arms, uniforms and emblems of certain institutions and societies. “Institutions”, of course, means schools, technical colleges, universities, university colleges, training colleges, old-students unions etc. Except that it offered protection to those badges, there was no provision at all to indicate that those badges had to be heraldically correct; there was no provision that they should conform to the heraldic rules. As a matter of fact, in the definition clause of Act 23 of 1935 a “badge” means—

Not the slightest attempt was made, therefore, to apply the science of heraldry. In the new Bill preference is given to and emphasis placed on the heraldically correctness of a coat-of-arms against registration.

According to the Bill “coat-of-arms” means—

The fact that before such a coat-of-arms may be registered it must be correct according to the rules of heraldry, is a tremendous step forward. It can be generally accepted that few coats-of-arms that were registered in terms of the 1935 Act are heraldically correct. As a matter of fact, how many people with a knowledge of heraldry were there who could be approached? Where could you find such people? They simply did not exist. In most cases when a coat-of-arms was designed the people who were approached were those with a taste or a sense of a feeling for art, and as long as the symbolic representation on the coat-of-arms was correct, as long as the form and the arrangement of the colour was correct, they did not worry about anything else.

I am pleased that those coats-of-arms that have already been registered under the Badges Act of 1935 and which have been used for years and which have not only been designed on material but engraved in metal, will be protected although they are not heraldically correct. There I cannot agree with the hon. member for Karas unfortunately. As I interpret the Bill those coats-of-arms are protected under Clause 26 which inserts 9bis into the 1935 Act as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased about that protection and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for it. If any institution or body realizes subsequently that the badge is heraldically incorrect and wishes to change it, I take it that such an institution will be at liberty to do so. It is a well known fact that there are numbers of institutions, particularly primary and secondary schools and probably also training colleges of which the existing badges have never been registered. Those badges have been used for may years, although they are heraldically incorrect. How will this measure affect them? According to Clause 26, which inserts Section 11bis into the 1935 Act, it appears to me that those badges are not covered. It says that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to any badge not entered in the register on or before the date of commencement of the Heraldry Act, 1962. Is it possible to meet such institutions in some way or other, even though their badges may not conform to the heraldic rules? I, of course, also regard the position to be that if an institution applies to the Bureau of Heraldry for the registration of a badge which it has used for a long time and which is heraldically incorrect, and that badge is turned down, it means in any case that no other institution can register that badge or the same type of badge, and hence that badge receives protection in any case.

I consequently want to thank the hon. the Minister for the protection that this Bill affords badges and I think in particular of the hundreds of school badges. Sections 6 (1) (2) and (3) of Act 1935 only provided that a person who is or was not a member of a specific institution or association was not entitled to use the name, uniform or badge of such institution without the consent and authority of such specific institution or association. And in the event of a person using such uniform or badge unlawfully, such a person may be sued in the magistrate’s court for an amount not exceeding £10 and in addition be ordered to pay the costs of the action. To my mind that fine was too low. It is being increased under this clause. This Bill lays down the damage that may be demanded in case of the misuse of badges and emblems. Any person who wears, misuses, sells, barters or trades with such a badge, may be sued in a court of law for an amount not exceeding R50, and such a court may in addition to the costs of the action, award an amount not exceeding R50 to the complainant. In other words, the amount of the damages to be awarded to the complainant is being increased from £10 as it was in the past to R50, which to my mind affords greater protection to those institutions which have officially registered badges. Institutions such as schools and universities will heartily welcome this protective measure.

Clause 22 also affords additional protection. Apart from the increase in the amount of damages, Clause 22 lays down penalties, as the hon. the Minister has called them, for the misuse of official and municipal coats-of-arms, badges or other emblems. Anybody who, without written permission, sells, barters or uses for gain or trades in such articles shall be guilty of an offence and be punishable. To my mind this Bill embraces this new principle, which does not appear in the old Act, that persons who sell such badges may also get into trouble. Those were the people who could not be brought to book in the past. We had the position, for example, where certain firms sold university colours or school colours, firms which did not have the right to do so, or where a person sold an old blazer to a person who was not entitled to wear it. It lowers the standard of that institution to which that person belongs. In future any person who barters that article, albeit a firm which sells it or a person who sells a uniform with a badge on it to another person or hands it over to another person who is not entitled to wear such uniform or blazer, will be prosecuted. I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much for these measures that are now being taken and which were not included in the old Act.

I want to conclude by giving as an example the numerous cases where Bantu wear the blazers of certain institutions. Those Bantu really do not always know that they are guilty of an offence. The people who sold those badges to those Bantu are really the people who should be punished. We know how scholars very often mob such a Bantu where he is often innocent, and we are grateful for the protection which is afforded in that persons who sell those uniforms or blazers may in future be prosecuted.

I just want to raise this one small point with the hon. the Minister. The registration fee has not yet been laid down in the Bill. Provision is made that the amount will be prescribed by way of regulation as well as the annual amount payable in order to retain such registration. Formerly the amount payable against registration was £5 and the annual amount payable 10s., to revert to our old monetary system. I want to put forward a plea on behalf of schools and similar institutions that these amounts should not be made too high.

Furthermore, I just want to refer to Clause 24 in connection with annual reports. It says—

I want to make this friendly request that the report should also be laid upon the Table of the House so that persons who are interested may read it, particularly in view of the fact that it is something quite new and everybody would like to see what progress is being made as far as our heraldry is concerned.

I want to reply at once to the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto). I do not know which copy of the Bill he has, but the copy I have is the one which has been amended in the Other Place in accordance with his request, namely, that within 14 days of the date of commencement of a parliamentary sitting the report should be tabled. That amendment has already been made in the Other Place.

I want to express my appreciation and my gratitude to hon. members for having taken part in a debate on such a highly technical subject, a subject which is foreign to us in the Republic of South Africa and I want to mention the name of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and express my appreciation to him for the great trouble he has gone to. He has probably done a great deal of research and put in a great amount of study, which, if it means anything, means that he is interested and I think all of us appreciate that very much. I also think that the House has approached this question which is on innovation correctly, both the Opposition via one of our older members, the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), inter alia, and the two speakers who spoke from this side of the House. Nothing destructive has been said and I want to place my appreciation on record. I must admit that one is loathe to raise a subject which is indeed foreign. For example, recently I had the privilege, that is to say yesterday, of receiving a book from Mr. C. Pama, an author’s copy, in which the whole heraldry of one Rietstop, a Dutchman, has practically been re-written as a standardized work. He did us the great service of taking it very far and he has actually brought to fruition the idea of the hon. member for Hillbrow that we should not only get the French names but that we should get the French, English and Dutch equivalents. I do not think the book is on the market as yet. But I do want to say that although we are a young country in the field of heraldry and are making a start with legislation, we have at our disposal the able services of a few very capable men. The hon. member for Hillbrow has already referred to that and he has mentioned about six of them, but I want to mention the names of Mr. Pama and Dr. Coen-raad Beyers in particular. They are dealing with this matter at the moment. As I have said I want to thank hon. members most heartily and I do not think there is really anything to which I have to reply. I would, however, like to record a few things very briefly. Firstly, I want to deal with the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Hillbrow, ideas which I support fully, namely, that when anything has gone wrong heraldically with a flag or an emblem or badge which makes it heraldically incorrect, it has eventually obtained a heraldic right to exist. I personally do not agree with the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) who wants those defects to be put right. When I served on the Select Committee which dealt with the Constitution under the chairmanship of the Minister of Lands we were given a description, a heraldic description, of our flag. The chief legal adviser read it out to us. It would be worth anybody’s while, if he wishes to treat somebody to a good joke, to memorize that and to try to recite it. It was simply incomprehensible and unintelligible. But it is there and if it is incorrect, we have to accept it. Historically it has the right to exist. I am in favour of that and we also provide that it should remain as it is. Once you start tampering and say: “The one stripe should be a quarter of an inch shorter than the other one, or a little more blue should be added to the colour or a little less blue, I do not know where we shall end. You will really be on a witch hunt, and surely that is not the intention. The intention is that when something has been accepted, and it is sufficiently pure, it should be left as it is, if there is nothing to prevent that. We do not want to become legal; we merely want to pass legislation to prevent chaos.

The second opinion that has been expressed here is perhaps something that I could put right. The hon. member for Hillbrow, who was supported to a certain extent by the hon. member for Albany, said that heraldry was a matter of prerogative and that politics do not come into it at all. We should remember that prerogatives are in respect of undefined things, rights that have existed throughout the centuries. Most countries do not have heraldic rules either. Those things have simply developed, but in a young country such as ours, with all the difficulties that we have here, we throught it advisable to draft legislation on the subject, and where we make provision for appeal to the Minister it is only as far as design is concerned and not in respect of the granting thereof. There may be rules governing the design which make it impossible for the board to approve of it and in that case the right of appeal is provided for in Clause 13.

The hon. member for Albany has once again asked that the State President should should have sole say. That would make the position somewhat difficult. Nowhere else in the Constitution is there provision for anything like that. The hon. member even wants to exclude the Public Service Commission when it comes to appointments. The State President has to do everything and the Public Service Commission etc. must not be taken into account at all. I want to say this: Certain machinery exists to do these things and I really do not think that it will be the wish of any Minister or anybody else to try to intervene in a highly technical matter such as this. I think we should accept it as it is and I want to assure hon. members that the authorities which we do have (they are not public servants, because I think my officials and I know about equally much about this matter and it is too dangerous for us to try to speak on it with any authority) are of the most capable people available. We have had their services and what is more, a great deal has been said: many designs were submitted and every bit of criticism we had and every idea that was expressed was referred to the Heraldic Societies in England, in Scotland and in Holland, and where corrections were made they were made in consultation with them, because we want to start with the right foot forward, in the right way, without trying to drag in politics or anything else. We want to give real service and I want to say this in regard to the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Hillbrow: Where it may perhaps be impossible to incorporate some of his ideas in the Bill let us rather control the matter by way of regulations and where we notice anything that is not right, legislation can at a later stage be introduced in this House. Then we can say: Look, that is what we have learned under our own steam, and these are the defects that should be put right. I agree with him on many points. I am one of those who will really struggle and plead for it, even if it is by way of regulation for example, that when a grant is made it should be accompanied by some sort of ceremony. We delved into a beautiful piece of our history when Cape Town was granted its coat-of-arms and there will be similar instances. We are far too cold, I agree, and to-day it is being done by way of letter, officially, and I suppose a clerk sometimes writes the letter. We should really make it more of a function and a ceremony. There have been many more wonderful suggestions by hon. members which I can accept, but I am afraid we should not at this stage pin ourselves down by legislation. We as novices who are interested in this, I am one of the novices, should allow ourselves to be guided by those persons who have more knowledge of the subject, let us develop and when we are more mature, when we have become of age, let us then be as proud as that old College of Arms and others are of what we have brought into existence in the year 1962. Once again I thank hon. members for their suggestions. I am tempted to say that we should regard their suggestions as suggestions are regarded in the budget debate where the promise is made that every suggestion will receive attention. I do not discard one of them except that one suggestion of the hon. member for Karas. All suggestions will receive attention and we shall introduce whatever may appear to be necessary by way of regulation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.