I move—

More than two members having objected, Bill to be read a third time on 11 April.

In dealing with this clause I do not want to move an amendment, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the possibility of the same principle being adopted for the payment of dues other than merely taxes or rates. It may well be that there are cases where deductions of this kind could reasonably be made but where it is not taxes or rates which are being paid. The system having been once legalized in this fashion in regard to taxes and rates, other matters might be dealt with in a similar manner, and I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has given any thought to that and whether he has considered this proposal.

I have given attention to this matter. I do not think it is desirable at this stage but I am quite prepared to go into the matter and, if necessary, to move the necessary amendment in the Other Place.

I would like to say a word or two about this clause. I am very glad to see that the hon. the Minister is now making regulations in regard to the registration of customary unions. This is something that has long been needed in this country. But I want to put it to the Minister that this does not go far enough; that there is such a state of confusion at the present stage as to the legal rights of African women, e.g. between common law and tribal custom and the effects of urbanization on African women. These confused aspects have become so apparent now with the added responsibility of these women who are now living in the towns, divorced from tribal custom, that although this measure will help the situation to a considerable degree, in other matters such as inheritance, custody of children and various other matters of that sort, the time has surely come for the hon. the Minister to give his serious consideration to the appointment of a full-scale commission to go into the full question of the legal right of African women. I want to take this opportunity of asking the hon. the Minister to give this matter his consideration.

I may say that this is a matter which I have very much at heart. The more I have gone into this matter in recent times, the more I have felt the necessity of doing this. I am very seriously considering at the moment whether we should not appoint a departmental committee to go into this whole matter so that justice can really be done to the Bantu women. It is one of those unfortunate things that in the past the Bantu woman has not been given her due place in social life, and the time has come when the status which she enjoyed in the old traditional Bantu life should be restored to her and when this whole matter should be placed on a sound footing. I am very seriously considering the question of appointing a commission ot go into this matter.

I want to move the following amendment—

I do not think the Minister will have to look far to realize why it is necessary for us to move this amendment. We have repeatedly asked him to give us some idea or a statement on his territorial claims in our part of the country, at any rate. For that reason, if for no other, we feel compelled to move this amendment. Sir, what is going on in that area is embarrassing everybody. There is clearly a state of restlessness amongst the farmers there. The Minister has already accused us of becoming agitators in respect of the purchase of land. I say that in the purchase of land in this particular area he is setting up a new principle in that he is buying in an urban area in the main. Once he has scheduled that area everything adjacent to it— and there are some 50 farmers involved— becomes a released area, and he can then start with his creeping paralysis and not only buy out that particular area but hundreds of other farmers in the surrounding areas. The Minister knows full well that particular state of affairs exists in the whole of the Ciskei area. There are 14 communal grazing areas there under urban control, but as the result of this amendment he can step in and purchase not only those areas but all the adjacent land which then becomes released areas immediately he schedules those areas as scheduled Native Trust Land. The hon. the Minister also knows that we have to protect those urban areas as much as we possibly can. Those areas are situated within the large river catchment areas of East London, King William’s Town and Stutterheim. If there is any extension of Native occupation into those, one might suggest that they are going to be removed. The Minister is well aware of what is happening on the mountain catchments behind King William’s Town which have already become ruined. If we are to have a continuation of that state of affairs, then where are we going to get our water from?

I would like to raise another point before the hon. the Minister replies to the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). In terms of this amendment to Section 11 the Trust will be enabled to buy urban areas. I wonder if the Minister will tell us what urban areas he intends to buy? For example, does he intend buying up for the Trust some of the villages in the Transkei?

The fear expressed by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) is entirely without foundation, and so is the fear of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). I explained at the second reading what was contemplated here. There are a number of Transkeian towns which have very big commonages, so big that they cannot make full use of them. These commonages are being let to the Bantu for grazing purposes. Many of the Bantu feel that this is rather unfair. The towns themselves do not use these commonages; they let them to the Bantu for grazing purposes. There are numbers of these town councils that were quite willing and still are willing to sell to the Trust those portions of the commonages that they do not need. We have already bought some of these commonages. We find, however, that is really in conflict with the existing legislation. All that is being done here is that we are now making it lawful for them to sell to the Trust those portions that they are prepared to sell. We are simply making sure here that it will be done in accordance with the law and that we do not contravene the law. There is no idea of forcing these people to sell those areas —not in the least. These things are done by way of negotiation. I want to say at once to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that at this moment I have no intention at all of purchasing certain villages in the Transkei. The idea has been put forward, however, that the Whites in some of those villages may possibly decide in due course that they no longer want to live there, and if such an offer is made to the Trust, we shall naturally be free to buy. But these are matters which are arranged by way of negotiation. I have no intention at all of proceeding by way of expropriation. Those people have no cause for concern therefore. This is a matter which will resolve itself in due course. I do not think there is any reason to feel perturbed.

Then I just want to come to another point that was made by the hon. member for King William’s Town. The hon. member is concerned about the watersheds of those places. I can only say to him again that this is a matter that I have very much at heart. I have challenged him already to come and see what is happening in his own area where we have restored watersheds much more effectively than many Whites would have been able to do. I am really proud of the results that we have achieved there. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, therefore, as far as his fear in this respect is concerned, that there is really no ground for fear. I am afraid that I cannot accept his amendment because if I did it would very soon bring us into conflict again with the relevant law.

I am sorry that the Minister will not make a statement in this respect. It is essential that the farmers surrounding these new areas which are going to be acquired should know whether those lands are going to be regarded as released areas or not for purchase by the Native Affairs Department when they want them. We know that the hon. the Minister wants a buffer land. Are these to form the released areas for his new purchases of land? It is not only the question of water. We know that the Minister is trying his best to protect those watersheds and we sincerely hope that he is being successful, but what we are particularly concerned with is the acquisition of land—how he acquires released areas. Immediately he has a scheduled area as Trust Land, land adjacent to that, or its perimeters, becomes released land. It cannot be sold to another European because it is released land. It can only be purchased by the Trust or a Native. Does the hon. the Minister realize that a sword of Damocles is hanging over the heads of every one of those farmers? Sir, we want a statement from the Minister in that respect. I think the Minister can tell us whether he is going to extend those areas or what he is going to do in the future with regard to the acquisition of land. We want a statement from the Minister as to what land he is going to acquire and to what extent he is going to encroach upon preserves that are definitely preserved for watersheds and water resources. I think it is the Minister’s duty to tell the farmers in the Cape Eastern area what his intentions are because a state of unrest exists there that is not at all pleasant.

The hon. the Minister has said that the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and I are suspicious of what he is up to in this Bill. The point is that with this amendment to Section 11 the Minister can acquire urban areas. He has said that he only intends acquiring commonages. I know he has been negotiating with certain villages with regard to the acquisition of commonages, but I know too that some time ago the Minister’s Department sent out a circular asking the villagers what they thought of his idea of amending the law to enable the Trust to acquire land in the villages for trading purposes. I think the Minister will remember that his Department sent out such a circular. Under a later clause in this Bill the Bantu Investment Corporation can invest money in urban areas, a power which the Corporation has not got at the moment. If the Bantu Investment Corporation is going to be given that power this clause empowers the Trust to buy land in urban areas, then I think I am entitled to ask the Minister whether he has any intention at the moment of buying land in an urban area for settlement by Native traders who will be assisted by the Bantu Investment Corporation. The Minister says that he has no intention of expropriating land, but that is not the point. He does not have to expropriate. If he finds somebody willing to sell and the Trust does buy, the Minister must know that it at once affects the value of all the other properties in that area. It has the same effect as buying a farm in a released area or land adjoining a released area. It at once affects the market value of all the other farms in the vicinity. The hon. the Prime Minister said the other night that he would look after the European in the Transkei. I want to know from the Minister—I have asked him on several occasions in this House but I can get no reply —whether he will give the assurance now that if the Trust does buy any land in a village without the consent of the majority of the residents of that village, the owners who do not sell to the Trust at the time, the first acquisition is made, will be compensated, because it affects everybody else who holds land in that particular area. I know that the Minister referred to commonages, but I want him to go a bit further and tell us that even if he does not expropriate, if he merely buys from a willing seller, he will take steps to compensate other owners who may be prejudiced thereby.

The point made by the hon. members for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) deals with the Transkei and the area down here in the Cape. But I want to approach the matter in a wider perspective. The Minister has been faced with a certain difficulty in connection with a certain area, as he mentioned at the time of the second reading debate. But now he changes the general law. This law that we are dealing with is not only applicable to the Transkei; it is applicable all over the Republic. It is just as applicable in Zululand, for example, as it is in the Transkei or in the Border area, and what is happening here is simply this, that the Minister, having a problem to deal within a limited sphere, in a limited area, is changing the whole of the general law applicable to such cases wherever they may be situated, in any of the four provinces. He is changing the status of land spread over the whole of the Republic. And what is the fact. Sir? The fact is, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has said, that as soon as this type of negotiation and sale and purchase between the Trust, the Bantu Administration Department, and a local authority here or a local authority there in respect of part of their commonage, or in respect of European-owned properties, commences, the flight begins. This, in blunt language, is merely the Kenya policy of the British Government now being applied to South Africa.

Nonsense.

Quite right.

This is the Government’s Kenya policy in South Africa, and the Minister knows that. He knows that in regard to the small towns and villages in Zululand, precisely the same conditions will apply. The status of the land is being changed in Zululand as it is being changed in the Transkei, if this clause as it is now before us is passed. Heaven only knows how many hundreds of thousands of acres of land are going to be changed; nobody can tell. The Minister least of all is in a position to tell us how many hundreds of thousands of acres will have their status changed. I say their status because to-day they are not released areas. To-day the Department of Bantu Administration cannot either through the Trust or through the Department itself purchase that land. To-day the Bantu Development Corporation cannot lend money in respect of the development of that land. The whole of that is changed by a stroke of the pen as soon as this clause is passed; the status of that land changes. The Kenya policy is applied to South Africa and the White people who are interested in those areas are simply being sold down the river. They are going to be disposed of, not by the direct means of going to them and saying to them, “We are going to buy you out; we are going to assess the value of your property and buy you out,” but by the back-door method of having the property declared a released area because it abuts upon the released area, and for the purpose of this clause now that land can be purchased, and once this creeping paralysis has started you will see the White man trying to get out, just as they are getting out of Kenya. The White man in these areas is now virtually being told that sooner or later he will have to get out. The Minister virtually admitted that just now when he was replying the first time to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, that when the time came for the European to leave these villages, so and so will happen. Sir, why is he forecasting that? He is forecasting it because he knows it is going to happen. He knows that they are going to be disposed of, that they are going to be sold down the river, in small groups here and there, and so they can be dispensed with. I think that this is very much more far-reaching than appears to be the case on the surface. It is applicable to the whole of the Republic, not only the Transkei. and it is the forerunner of similar action being taken in the other separate individual Bantustan areas, as the Minister and his Department turn their attention to those various areas. I think it should be resisted and it should be resisted now at once at this stage of the proceedings.

The matters raised here by hon. members opposite have absolutely nothing to do with this clause really. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) wants to know what is going to become of the farmers. But are there farmers on these commonages? There are no farmers there. There are a few people who graze cows there, as we found in the old days, but there are no farmers. As far as the farmers are concerned, the picture in the Transkei is perfectly clear. Many of those farmers have already prepared to sell their land, and they have done so already. That has nothing to do with this clause, therefore. Moreover, the guarantee for which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories asks, has nothing to do with this clause. The hon. member says that as soon as we buy a portion of the commonages it reduces the value of the land, but we have already bought portions of the commonages of certain towns. Those town councils were willing to sell and we purchased the land, and all we are doing now is to bring the law in conformity with what happens in practice. But what did we find in those cases? We did not find that it reduced the value of properties. We did not experience difficulties of any kind there. This clause only relates to certain portions of commonages; it has nothing to do with the villages. But in his traditional way the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) now comes along and raises a great alarm. Sir, I too am fairly familiar with the towns in Natal, and I know of no towns in Natal which have such big commonages that we are compelled to buy those commonages from towns which are anxious to get rid of their big commonages. Let the hon. member stand up and mention one town in Zululand which has a big commonage such as we find in the Transkei, for example. I do not know of any such town.

Where does this clause refer to “commonages”?

That is quite correct, because the commonages in Natal are small. We have no intention of purchasing land there. To say the least of it, it is very unfair to say that we are following the same policy as that followed in Kenya. I just want to say to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that I shall look after the interests of his Whites in the Transkei better than he is doing to-day.

But when will you do so?

The hon. member is frightening these poor people so much that they are fleeing when there is no reason at all to do so. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this clause relates to one matter only: In the Transkei there are numbers of towns which have big commonages and which are willing to sell a portion of those commonages to us. We are not forcing them; we have no intention at all to expropriate the land, but the legal position must be clarified, and that is all that is being done in this clause. All those arguments advanced by hon. members opposite therefore really have nothing to do with this clause.

Can the hon. the Minister deny that if he purchases such land it will become a released area immediately it becomes scheduled Trust land?

That question falls under another clause. There the hon. member might argue the matter, but it does not fall under this clause.

Will the hon. the Minister not make a statement to indicate precisely what the position is there, so that we can know? As I understand it, this clause can be applied to any of the communal grazing land falling under urban control throughout the Border areas. This is relevant to the question, Sir, and I want to assure the hon. the Minister that there are certain areas there that cannot be sub-divided. Now if the Minister wants certain land, he cannot buy it unless this clause is passed. That applies to many of these lands. The hon. the Minister cannot deny that becomes released land immediately he purchases that land and it becomes a scheduled area under the Trust Act.

May I ask the hon. the Minister why if this clause, as he says, is only going to apply to commonages, there is no mention of “commonages” in the clause! I have no objections to the Minister buying in certain villages if the villages are prepared to sell, but my worry is that if the hon. the Minister does not accept the amendment of the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), if he should buy a commonage, he can then by virtue of the 1927 Act creep further, and he can buy land abutting on the commonage and he can go further without the consent of the village at all. The position is that certain areas are excluded from the 1927 Act, but once this Clause 11 is passed, then urban areas will fall under the operation of the Act if alongside released areas. If an urban area is bought by the Trust, it then becomes the same as a released area, and the Trust can then buy land contiguous to that area which has been bought in an urban area. That is what we fear. This Minister may not do it, but the point is that the law will be altered and the Government could do it. This Minister may say that he is not going to do so, but another Minister might do so, and that is what is worrying us. If he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for King William’s Town, we will have a restriction and the Minister cannot then buy without the consent of the people concerned, or without coming to Parliament again. I want the hon. the Minister to give us this assurance that he will not buy in an urban area without the consent of at least the majority of the owners of property in that area.

I have already told the hon. member that there is not the slightest intention to introduce a new principle here and to enable me to buy land there without the permission of those people. Any sale of land must take place with the permission of these people. The hon. member himself will understand that those commonages belong to the town council itself, and when the town council is prepared to sell, then the land may be sold. It is not the intention at all to declare all these commonages released areas. The purchase of land is something that will take place by way of negotiation.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—36: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff. de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

NOES—79: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L, I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S.F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel. M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall. J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

On Clause 15,

I move as an amendment—

This amendment is merely designed to obviate the possibility of a wrong interpretation as the result of which White interests may be placed in jeopardy. I am simply making doubly sure that where there is any doubt the decision will rest with the Minister, so that White interests in the area concerned will not be endangered in the least. In other words, I want to make doubly sure that the interests of the Whites will not suffer.

I am not quite certain how the hon. the Minister intends to protect White interests by the amendment which he is now proposing. This provision means that the Bantu Development Corporation can invest money in European areas, or rather urban areas, once the Minister proclaims an area. I remember when the Bantu Investment Corporation Act was passed, I told the hon. Minister during the Committee Stage that in terms of that Bill the Corporation could not invest in a European area, such as, for instance, Umtata. The hon. the Minister denied that. I think it is quite clear that the hon. Minister now wants the power, or the Corporation wants the power to be able to invest in urban areas, such as Umtata. But I come back again to the difficulties or the damage which may be caused to the White interests in the villages. The hon. the Minister says that he wishes to protect White interests, and that is why he is moving this amendment. Sir, if the Investment Corporation is going to invest money for Bantu in villages or towns, it can have the same effect as I mentioned when discussing Clause 11. Again it can affect the interests of the White people in that area. To give an example: Suppose an African wishes to buy a business in a village and the Investment Corporation finances him, as it can do in terms of this clause (I think the hon. the Minister will agree), then it may have the same effect as the Trust acquiring land in that village. It is at once going to devalue the rest of the businesses in that village in the vicinity of the business to be acquired by the African. The hon. the Minister will see that. Will the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. Minister or the hon. Minister of Finance tell us how they intend to protect the White people in these areas where properties will lose value because of an African taking over a business in a particular area? If this clause is passed, the Investment Corporation will be able to finance a Bantu storekeeper, enabling him to buy property in an urban area and coming into competition with the White man on unfair terms. Now the White traders don’t mind competition, provided the competition is fair, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister now whether he will tell us how he is going to protect the White people in such an area, because he says that this amendment he now moves is intended to protect the White people. How? Does he for instance intend buying up all the European interests in such an area before the Investment Corporation invests money in such an area for Africans? Or what is his intention?

I think I set out the whole position very clearly at the second reading. I told hon. members that I was now finding that in the Transkei, for example in the Umtata location, we were unable to help the Bantu to do anything—and that is wrong. It is not the intention of this measure to assist the Bantu to develop businesses or to develop industries and things of that kind in any location in Cape Town, for example, or in Port Elizabeth or Johannesburg. That is entirely contrary to the law. But we do find that it is necessary in the Transkei because for all practical purposes those locations fall in one big Bantu area. Take Umtata, for example. There is a location there, and we found, even in the case of many building societies and other people who used to grant loans to the Bantu, that they suddenly put a stop to it. Many of these Bantu then came to us and said, “Look here, we feel that we should also be assisted; to-day we cannot really start any business.” That is why the Bantu Investment Corporation felt, after discussions with many of these Bantu, that there the matter should be tackled on different lines and not in the same way as in the White cities. It was felt that in those areas we should help the Bantu to develop their businesses in the locations concerned. I want to mention one example. There is a great need for a good hotel at Umtata, a Bantu hotel. It goes without saying that it cannot be established in the White urban area, because that is against our policy. But it can be established in the Bantu residential area. But in terms of the existing legislation we cannot help the Bantu to establish that hotel because that would be in conflict with the law. All that we are now doing here is to provide that in those areas it will be possible to help the Bantu, that is to say, in the Bantu residential area, to establish an hotel there, for example, or to start a business there. I have often said that I do not have this great fear of the Bantu trader. Moreover, my experience is that it was the Bantu in the Transkei in fact who in some cases asked that I should not take the Whites away there. The Bantu said that they needed the Whites and that they were co-operating well. Those representations were made to us by Bantu. But on the other hand there is a growing grievance because of this idea that the White man can be assisted with loans in his residential area while the Bantu cannot be assisted in his residential area. Building societies to-day are no longer prepared to help. That was the complaint that I received. As a matter of fact I want to go further and say to the hon. member that there are certain people who actually urged that even the Whites in their areas should not be helped either, and the names of certain banks were even mentioned to me; fortunately there are certain other banks who have denied that they are going to allow themselves to be influenced by this in any way. But all that is being done in the case of the Transkei is that in the Bantu residential areas we are going to give the Bantu the opportunity to develop their trade, tertiary industries, etc., in their own areas, and we shall now be able to help them there. If the Whites agree that a certain portion of a town, for example, should be zoned for the Bantu, it will also be possible to buy land there, but until such time as zoning has taken place—and here it stands to reason that it must be done with the cooperation of the Whites—that is a matter that cannot be considered. The main thing is that in the Transkei, in the Bantu residential areas, at Umtata and in the other smaller towns, we want to give the Bantu the opportunity of receiving assistance in his own areas. The position there is quite different therefore from that in the residential areas in Cape Town and in other cities. But the danger that I see is that in certain places where this measure is implemented it may happen that there is no logical demarcation in terms of the spirit of the Act; that the Bantu Development Corporation may then perhaps assist Bantu in a place where, according to our intentions, they should not really be assisted, and that I shall have to protect the White man there so that he will not be subjected to that danger. Hence the provision that I should be able to take this matter into my own hands, so that if there is any doubt at all the matter will first have to be submitted to me, or to the Minister concerned, to make sure that we do not act contrary to the spirit and the intention underlying the Act. In this way the White man is protected then.

I think the hon. the Minister is now painting a picture of what he would like to see to happen. He says that when certain difficulties may arise, he would be able to consult with his colleagues to see that a certain danger would not arise and that the White people would be protected. But he is painting the picture on much too small a canvas. He is painting it in respect of a particular area there and in respect only of that area and in respect of only what is called a Native location. He shows us a picture of a Bantu in a Native location getting help from the Development Corporation to assist him in building up a business. Mr. Chairman, that is not the picture. The picture is of the old-established businesses in these small towns and villages, which have been there for decades past. They don’t live on the White man’s custom. They have catered from time immemorial to the Bantu of the whole surrounding district, and the money that comes from the Development Corporation now is to establish competitors in business in the Native locations. So that you will be building up businesses there that will come in competition with the White businesses that have been established there in the past. Whom do the White business people go to? The hon. the Minister is keen to provide capital for the Bantu who are going to build up their own businesses in their own Native villages, in the locations. But who is going to provide capital for the White people if they fall on evil times? It has happened in Pondoland a few years ago. Who will provide them with capital? The hon. the Minister has said that they already find it difficult to get capital from certain financial institutions. So while the hon. the Minister is taking care of the Bantu and providing capital for the Bantu, no one is taking care of the interests of the European storekeeper who will find himself now with a halter round his neck. His business will depreciate in value, as is happening to-day. The hon. the Minister knows that not only in the Transkei but also elsewhere in areas where similar conditions appertain, businesses are depreciating in value, and the provision the hon. the Minister is making here now is going to hasten that particular process. It is true that we on this side of the House have no objection whatever to the Bantu in the location getting help, financial help. But the whole picture should be seen. If the Minister wants to help the Native in that location and provide certain financial support, he should say so in the Bill. But he comes in regard to this particular aspect of the matter, and again he generalizes, as he did in respect of the previous clause, and he provides for a complete change in the whole of the financial setup by taking powers in the widest sense, which are going to be applicable not only in the Transkei but elsewhere as well, and are not only going to apply to those businesses which are going to be established by the Bantu in the Native areas, but which can hereafter be extended. The ramifications of this kind of legislation are such that it inter-locks and it rides over the Group Areas Act and the lot, everything of that kind. The hon. the Ministers knows that perfectly well. It is therefore extraordinarily difficult to separate a measure of this kind from the rest of the mass of legislation. We have to do our best in this Committee, but we cannot get away from the fact that if the hon. the Minister wants to help the Bantu in a particular location, they may get financial help to establish businesses, and if that is so, the hon. the Minister should have said so in the Bill and he should have narrowed down the whole of this proposed Bill to just dealing with that particular group of people and no others. Otherwise the creeping paralysis comes in again. The European businesses are already, unfortunately, being very adversely affected by developments that are taking place. They will go further and further downhill. Now the Minister says that he wants to protect them here. He has given us no indication as to how he is going to protect them. We have not had one single indication of how the Minister intends to protect them. What protection do they want? They want the protection that when they want to sell they will get the fair market value at the current rate when depreciation started. That is what they want; they want a fair market value for their property. Then they may get out; they have been Kenyanized; they are expendable; they can go. That is the position, but they want a fair market value. But that is not what is happening. These measures are depreciating their property and to whom will they sell in the end? The Minister can step in and say this is only a little village and there are only a few of these people left and we will just give them some form of compensation and he will expect to be praised for it. He will expect to be told that he is being generous. Mr. Chairman, let the Minister come with his proposal to give financial assistance to the Bantu in their locations, as he puts it, and not take such wide powers as are provided for in this Bill. I think it is absolutely wrong; it is going to lead to more and more trouble. There will undoubtedly be certain areas where they will be glad to receive this financial assistance but what about all those other areas where no financial assistance will be forthcoming because they are White people? Nobody is going to lend them money and nobody is going to stand behind them because of the financial risks that they are running at the present time. They deserve precisely the same consideration as the Minister is prepared to give to the Bantu in the locations.

It is a great pity that a member like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) speaks about these subjects so heatedly. I do not think that the game is worth the candle to exaggerate to such an extent and to speak in this regard in such an inflammatory manner. What is actually the true position in this connection? I think that it ought to be clear after the very detailed explanation which the hon. the Minister has just given. Where there are European towns in the Bantu areas, the so-called White spot towns, you find that the Bantu, as the hon. the Minister put it, live in town locations. These are not what we would call homeland locations but town locations. This is a European area. The Bantu live there. Now, the Bantu who live there perhaps desire financial assistance for a shop which they may wish to extend or for some other business which they wish to put into operation. The hon. the Minister also mentioned a second example of what may happen in that European town. This is in cases where there are zoned areas in those towns. I do not know whether the hon. member for South Coast has much knowledge of the zoning system because this is actually a system which is applicable to the Transkeian Territories. The hon. the Minister also made it clear that a section of a town was only zoned in co-operation with the city council concerned, in co-operation with the local authority. A Bantu now comes into that zoned area, and he needs financial assistance. This provision then makes that financial assistance possible. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), who ought to have some knowledge of these things, ought to be able to reassure the hon. member for South Coast in this regard, namely, that the Bantu in Umtata or any one of those towns in the Bantu homeland will not be able to buy any plot in the White towns. He knows that. The Urban Areas Act makes provision whereby exemption has to be given specifically by the hon. the Minister in order to enable the Bantu to obtain title rights in those European towns. It is applied in exactly the same way if the demand comes from the zoned area. If a Bantu purchases property in the zoned township and he receives exemption, how is that Bantu to finance that home or that business of his? As the law now stands, it does not permit the Bantu Investment Corporation to finance that Bantu in the zoned area nor any longer in the location of the European town. I want to add that this measure is in fact one method of giving security to those Europeans in regard to whom the hon. member for Transkeian Territories as well as the hon. member for South Coast acted rather dramatically. If a Bantu owns property in the zoned area of a European town or in the location of a European town, and he does not have financial means at his disposal to develop his property, then this lowers the value of that property in the town; then the zoned area and even the European section of the town also fall in value. However, if there are financial resources to develop it, it is to the benefit to the whole area and it is a safeguard in respect of the value of European properties in the town.

The hon. member for South Coast, who speaks so often, asked what the protection for the Europeans was. He asked for some sort of a guarantee in respect of the value of European property. I want to tell the hon. member about a very interesting conversation which I had some weeks ago with business people in Umtata. Business people and professional people discussed these matters with me, and I am sure that these were people who give their political support to the party on the other side. There were two divergent opinions of which I could make very good use if I wanted to make political capital out of this matter. A section of those business people asked me, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories also did: What guarantees can the Government give; what value for the properties can be guaranteed so that, if they wish to sell them one day, they will know what amount they will obtain? The person who asked me this was strenuously attacked by colleagues of his, all of whom are business people of Umtata.

Can you give us their names?

I cannot mention the names of those people without their approval. There were business people who said to me: “Sir, I and my forebears who started the business came along here on a speculative basis; and if the Government now has to give us a guarantee in respect of a certain amount, this may perhaps be to my disadvantage, because I may perhaps sell the business to a Bantu at some later stage for a sum in excess of that amount. I am prepared to retain the speculative basis.” There are two opinions on this matter. I merely mention this to show that there are divergent opinions even among the business people of the Transkei. I say that this measure still has a security value for the Europeans, in that it makes financial resources available to the Bantu owner who buys there and wishes to develop, in order to develop those properties, and this will be in the interests of the whole public. I do not think hon. members should become so dramatic about these matters. Hon. members on the other side must also realize that the taking over of areas in those European towns is not something which can happen overnight. Just as European penetration has taken place gradually over the years, so the penetration by the Bantu will also take place gradually over a period. This is not something which will happen suddenly and create disruption. This development will come about as time goes by and it will become possible to replace one after another according to an evenly planned process of zoning, which must take place with the approval of the Minister, and for which the financial resources are being provided here.

The Deputy Minister has indicated that financial assistance will be given to Africans to buy businesses in zoned areas as well as in locations. He will know, Sir, that very few of the villages have been zoned in the Transkei.

Very few have not been zoned.

No, very few have been zoned. In very few villages have areas been put aside where Africans can put up a shop or other business. What they have been doing in some of the villages is to put aside an area where he can buy a place to reside. That was why the Department, through the Chief Native Commissioner, sent out that circular to six Native villages, I think, asking them what their reaction would be if the law were changed enabling the Trust to buy in certain areas. I asked the Minister just now if he had any intentions of proceeding along those lines. I wish he would tell us if he has, because we do not know what the Department intends doing in respect of these villages. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development have told us that gradually these villages will go Black and that, eventually, Umtata will go Black. I have asked this question on several occasions, and I want to ask it again: Is the Transkei going to be exempted from the operation of the Group Areas Act? Because, while the Group Areas Act applies, these villages cannot go Black. Certain areas have been zoned in villages where Africans can buy, but they cannot buy in the rest of the village. If the Minister is going to zone certain villages now and allow the Africans to buy in the zoned area, and assist them to establish businesses in that area, what must happen to the rest of the village? How are the people in the rest of the village going to live if that is to be the policy? I understood from the Minister that the policy was to allow the Investment Corporation to invest money in the locations—the location at Umtata for instance. I am pleased to hear that is the policy. But if the policy is going to be to zone villages into Black and White areas and then assist Africans to establish businesses in the area zoned for Africans, then I want to know from the Minister how he is going to protect the White people in the rest of the village. The Minister said that this amendment which he himself had proposed was in order to protect White interests, but he still has not told us how he intends protecting those White interests. Let me make this quite clear again. Sir: We, on this side of the House, do not object to financial assistance being given to the Africans. Not at all. We recognize that there is a necessity for it. As a matter of fact, one of our criticisms of the establishment of the Investment Corporation was that not enough money was being made available to it. After having listened to the speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister, I fear that African businesses will be started in these villages artificially by the Investment Corporation, and it must hit the other traders who only have the normal resources to rely on for capital assistance. The Minister himself has said that he knows that it is becoming difficult for White people to get financial assistance from financial houses in the Transkei because of their fear as to the future. I know that building societies do give loans to Africans to build houses. The Minister said they did not give those loans. But they do. They give loans in Umtata. The Minister knows that a previous Government set aside an area there where Africans can build houses, and they can get loans from building societies. But where an African cannot get a loan from a building society is in villages where the Whites cannot get loans either. Although the Minister and the Deputy Minister say that this taking-over will be a gradual process, the fact remains that future buyers or investors are worried about how slow this process is going to be. If a property is put up on a forced sale to-day in a village, you can find no buyer. If there is a buyer, unless he has the ready cash available himself—which is not probable in most cases—he cannot borrow the money from any investment house or financial institution. What we want, Sir, is an assurance from the hon. the Minister that, with the passage of this clause, Africans are not going to be given an artificial impetus in the zoned areas and allowed to compete on an unfair basis with the White traders. That is what we fear. That is why we want some sort of assurance from the Minister that he will protect the interests of the White people who live in those areas.

I must honestly say that once again this afternoon I cannot understand the logic of the United Party. Theirs is really a logic which goes along devious ways. On the one hand, they say that after all they are also in favour of it that the Bantu should be assisted at those places; and on the other hand, they ask what protection will be given to the White trader. They go further and say that if the Bantu trader were assisted the White trader should also be assisted. No, Mr. Chairman, we should be honest and sincere about this matter. Let the United Party tell us that their principle is that the White traders should almost be protected there, and protected artificially. Let them say that openly and also that they are not in favour of the Bantu being assisted there. It is no good their saying in the one breath that they too are in favour of it and to ask in the other breath how we are going to regulate things so that the Bantu will be assisted without endangering the position of the White man. I wish to say in the first instance that this party believes in this important principle that where possible the Bantu in the Bantu homelands should be assisted to develop in every sphere of life; also in the commercial field. That is the reason why we find that Bantu trade has developed and increased tremendously during recent times. This is really a matter of principle. We have found, however, that according to existing legislation the Bantu in these areas which I have mentioned, cannot be assisted. All we are doing here is to make the privileges which the Bantu enjoy in their homelands, the privileges which he enjoys outside, also available to him in the towns in the Transkei because we think that in most cases it would be foolish to establish completely new towns in the Transkei.

Take Umtata for instance. I think it will be completely foolish to develop a Bantu town some distance away from Umtata. We envisage that Bantu area of Umtata, the location, will develop into a big area in time to come. In addition, I have already said that it is our policy, where municipalities want it and where we can co-operate, to zone the villages and in that way too, give the Bantu what is due to him. A few of those villages have already been zoned and there is no difficulty. All we are doing here is to provide that the Bantu in those locations and in those areas which have been zoned, can receive assistance in the normal way. We are not giving him any artificial assistance. We should not forget that the whole matter is being conducted on business lines. Our experience so far has been—and I think the hon. member for Transkeian Territories will agree with me—that instead of this development affecting the White trader adversely, he has benefited by it. The hon. member referred to Pondoland. When we had the trouble in Pondoland, somebody there sent me a telegram asking me to purchase his hotel immediately because he would not make a living there. Shortly afterwards I received another telegram that he was withdrawing his offer unconditionally because he wished to retain his hotel. How must you get along with people like that, Sir? However, Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand the whole position. If I were to listen to the prophets of doom on the other side as far as the Transkei is concerned, I would be getting out of the Transkei to-morrow. Had the voters of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories listened to him, there would not have been a single White person in the whole of the Transkei to-day. They would all have fled the very next day. You see, Sir, it is supposed to be a second Kenya! Fortunately, however, there is a greater amount of clear thinking on the part of their voters than they think.

“Roses, roses all the way.”

Very few of those voters take any more notice to-day of those hair-raising stories which they are being told. I repeat that as far as this legislation is concerned, its object is to comply with the requests which have been received on a large scale from the Bantu. They said that certain companies which used to assist them in the past were not prepared to do so to-day. That is really a fact. We are now giving them this opening. That we will use this as a means of hounding out the Whites who are there— well, hon. members need not be worried about that in the least. I wish to repeat what I said at Lusikisiki. I personally am convinced that many of the White traders—I am particularly referring to the honest traders because there is a very honest type of trader in the Transkei— will continue to be there for generations. The experience at most places has been that as the Bantu develops the White trader himself benefits more and more. To create the impression that we are going to employ artificial means in order to benefit the Bantu trader at the expense of the White trader is something which simply cannot happen because that would not be according to business principles. That is no business principle nor is it a business-like spirit. I am convinced of that. I have had an interview with the traders there on this whole issue. They are quite satisfied that there is nothing for them to fear. The hon. member is at liberty to go back there and to spread his hair-raising stories—they will no longer have any effect. No, Mr. Chairman, once again I wish to assure the House that this is merely a principle which is in line with our whole policy. Instead of opposing it both sides of the House should welcome it. The hon. member for South Coast is one of the people who pose as someone who would like to see justice done to the Bantu. But when you come up against actions such as these, Sir, you have to ask yourself in which direction he is really pulling—his head is going in one direction and his heart in the other direction. That is always the difficulty when you suffer from a slightly split personality. The hon. member for South Coast ought to welcome this. I can assure hon. members that they need not be concerned about the interests of the White people.

Amendment was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill having been agreed to,

I move—

More than two members having objected, amendment to be considered on 11 April.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, as hon. members know, there has been a steady increase in the use of electricity for domestic and other purposes. Unfortunately there has also been a run quite recently of accidents caused through the use of electricity in South African households. I think in the Cape alone during the last few months there have been at least five fatalities. Of course this has caused a great deal of alarm and apprehension among husbands and housewives. I think, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it is imperative that in order to obviate even the remotest possibility of an accident, all wiring work should be done by persons who have the necessary knowledge and the necessary experience, not only of the task to be performed but also of the dangers which are inherent in electricity. I think it is quite possible for an incompetent workman to introduce a hidden danger into an electrical system which may remain undiscovered until an accident occurs. I think it is also general knowledge that accidents frequently occur because of bad workmanship. In 1960, for instance, no less than 45 persons, including 12 children between the ages of six and 18 years of age, lost their lives in accidents caused by electricity. In a number of these cases the loss of life was directly attributable to bad or poor workmanship. In addition quite a number of persons were injured in accidents caused by negligence or inefficiency on the part of the workmen by whom the wiring had been done.

The Electrical Wiremen and Contractors Act which provides for the registration of electrical wiremen and the control of the licensing and registration of electrical contractors was placed on the Statute Book as long ago as 1939 with a view to ensuring that electrical wiring would be done as far as possible only by qualified and competent workmen. I think hon. members will appreciate that mishaps will of course continue to occur no matter how stringent the precautionary measures are that have been taken. But it is felt that the present accident rate among the users of electricity could be reduced and that is why this Bill is now before the House.

In terms of paragraph (b) of the existing definition of “wiring work” the Act does not apply in respect of work on any wires, fittings or apparatus which are placed in or on or over any premises owned or occupied by the supplier of electricity. The effect of this exclusion has been that in determined areas, that is to say areas in which the wiring of premises has to be done by or under the supervision of registered wiremen, local authorities who also happen to be suppliers are at liberty to employ on the wiring of buildings erected as part of any municipal housing scheme, persons who have not satisfied the Electrical Wiremen’s Registration Board that they are competent to do the wiring work.

Clause 1 (c) of the Bill deletes the relevant paragraph from the definition and limits the exclusion to generating and distribution systems where the safety of the public is not likely to be endangered.

According to paragraph (d) of the definition I have just mentioned, the Act also does not apply in respect of wiring work done on any wires, fittings or apparatus connected or intended to be connected to a supply system, the pressure of which is normally less than 110 volts. But the modern engineering view, both here and overseas, is that electricity supply systems can be dangerous from 40 volts upwards. Inspectors of the Department have in fact come across cases where persons who touched or otherwise came into contact with apparatus connected to a supply system of between 40 and 110 volts, received shocks which necessitated medical treatment or they were injured because of falls, etc., resulting from these shocks. So that hon. members will see that Clause 1 (c) of the Bill suitably amends this paragraph so as to ensure that wiring work intended to be connected to supply systems of 40 volts and over shall be carried out by competent workmen and inspected, tested and approved by the supplier of the electricity before being connected to the source of the electricity supply.

Section 20 (b) of the existing Act stipulates that in a determined area no apprentice or improver shall do any wiring work unless he works under the continuous supervision of a registered wireman. In a recent case, however, the Court held that the phrase “continuous supervision” only meant that an apprentice could do wiring work on his own provided his place of employment was visited and his work inspected periodically by a registered wireman. But the original intention was that an apprentice, particularly during the early stages of his training, should work under the constant supervision of a registered wireman and the amendment contained in Clause 10 (b) of the Bill makes it quite clear that this supervision may only be relaxed in the case of an improver or an apprentice who has entered the final year of his training period. This will prevent comparatively inexperienced apprentices working on their own and will also serve to ensure that apprentices are efficiently trained during the initial stages of their apprenticeship periods.

A further amendment aimed at preventing inferior workmanship and its possible consequences to the public, is to be found in Clause 11 of the Bill which substitutes a new section for Section 21 of the Act. The existing section precludes any person from carrying on the business of an electrical contractor in any area in which a supplier has made a by-law requiring contractors to be licensed or registered, unless such person is the holder of an electrical contractor’s licence or is registered as such. The section does not make the licensing or registration of contractors obligatory on the supplier, and because some suppliers have made by-laws of the nature in question, while others have not, the position at the moment is that contractors are controlled in certain areas and uncontrolled in others. In the controlled areas, that is to say the areas in which contractors are required to hold a licence or to be registered in order to be able to carry on business, the supplier may refuse to issue the necessary licence or to effect the necessary registration, or he may cancel or suspended for any period or refuse the renewal of the licence or registration if. inter alia, the contractor—

1. (a) is not the occupier of premises which are suitable for carrying on the business of a contractor; or
2. (b) is not in possession of adequate equipment for carrying out and testing wiring work; or
3. (c) has done, caused or permitted to be done wiring work in a negligent or inefficient manner.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, as matters stand at the moment electrical contractors in the controlled areas are obliged to render work of a standard ensuring the safety of the public if they wish to commence or remain in business as contractors, while in the uncontrolled areas the public enjoys no such protection. The necessity for stricter control in this connection can be gauged from the fact that in the Cape Peninsula alone, which is a controlled area, no less than 22 prosecutions were instituted against contractors for allowing uncertificated persons to do wiring work during 1961. With a view to safeguarding the public against the possible physical consequences of wiring work executed in a negligent or inefficient manner, the proposed amendment places on all suppliers of electricity the obligation to licence or register, in their respective areas of supply, contractors who satisfy the requirements laid down in the Act with regard to suitability of premises, adequacy of equipment, efficient workmanship, etc. It also prohibits any unlicensed or unregistered contractor from executing wiring contracts. The amendment will not only afford the necessary protection to the public, but will at the same time eliminate the present unfair competition resulting from established contractors with suitable premises and equipment, being undercut by persons, often unqualified to do wiring work, who, in order to augment their earnings, undertake such work in their spare time without proper equipment and with no overhead expenses whatsoever. The areas in which the carrying on of the business of electrical contracting is still uncontrolled, are mainly country areas served by small suppliers who will in most cases be required to licence or register only one or perhaps two contractors each. The proposed amendment should, therefore, not burden suppliers unduly. Nor should it cause any undue hardship in so far as contractors are concerned if regard is had to the fact that any contractor who feels aggrieved by a decision of a supplier to refuse to licence or register him, or to renew his licence or registration, or by a supplier’s decision to suspend or cancel his licence or registration, may in terms of Section 24 of the Act appeal to the Electrical Wiremen’s Registration Board and thereafter, if necessary, to the Minister against the decision of the supplier. The Board or the Minister, as the case may be, may confirm the supplier’s decision or give such other decision as in the Board’s or the Minister’s opinion the supplier ought to have given.

Actually Section 24 of the Act does not specifically empower the Board to decide an appeal lodged with it by an aggrieved contractor, nor does it empower the Minister to decide an appeal from a decision of the Board. Clause 14 of the Bill, therefore, adjusts the defect and at the same time extends the period within which an aggrieved contractor may appeal to the Board against the decision of a supplier, from 14 days to 30 days of the date on which he has been notified of the supplier’s decision. The extension of the period allowed for appeals, is considered necessary in view of the time sometimes taken for postal matter from distant country areas to reach its destination. Here is, therefore, an increase in the time from 14 to 30 days.

The appeal provisions embodied in Section 12 of the Act relating to the registration of electrical wiremen, are similar to those contained in the section I have just referred to and for the same reason they are suitably amended by Clause 5 of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will note that the Bill will not be made applicable to the Government and its employees, and consequently wiring work done by or on behalf of the Government, if connected to the source of electricity supply by an employee of the Government, does not have to be inspected by the supplier before the connection is made. If, however, the wiring work is connected to the power source by an employee of the supplier, then, according to an opinion obtained from the Government law advisers, the supplier is in terms of Section 19 (1) of the Act as presently worded, required to inspect and approve the work before it is connected to the source of electricity supply. This does not, however, appear to have been the original intention of the Legislature because Government wiring work is subject to inspection by the Government’s own qualified inspectors irrespective of whether the work is connected to the source of electricity supply by one of its own employees or by an employee of the supplier. For the supplier also to inspect such work is, therefore, unnecessary, can merely cause delay at times and perhaps reflect on the competency of the Government’s own inspectors. Clause 9 of the Bill makes it clear that wiring work done by or on behalf of the Government need not be inspected by the supplier before being connected to the source of electricity supply. It also relieves the supplier of the responsibility of inspecting wiring work on lifts and escalators, such work being subject to inspection by qualified engineers appointed as inspectors under the Factories Act and dual control is considered unnecessary. This amendment will save contractors the expense of having to arrange for two inspections: one by an inspector of the Department and another by the supplier.

The Bill also provides for a number of textual improvements, consequential alterations and other amendments of lesser importance, which I do not propose to deal with at this stage. I shall, of course, be pleased to explain any of these amendments in the Committee Stage on the Bill if hon. members so wish.

I think it is proper for me at this stage to mention that when this Bill was discussed in the Other Place, I gave an undertaking to examine further three points. The first of these is that the definition of “premises” should be amended so as not to apply in respect of Clause 11 (b). I have given this matter very careful thought, but cannot appreciate why a contractor’s workshop should not be included in the definition of “premises”. The word appears, as hon. members will see, quite a few times in the Act and without a definition, nobody will know what it means. If it is borne in mind that the occupation of suitable premises is a prerequisite to the registration of a contractor in terms of the proposed new Section 21 (3) (Clause 11 (1) of the Bill), I think it seems to be clear that the word “premises” must have a meaning assigned to it. The second point was how the Bill would affect farmers who generated their own electricity. The position in this connection is. of course, that neither the Act nor the Bill will apply to farmers while they generate electricity for their own use. Immediately, however, they start supplying electricity to any other persons, they become “suppliers” as defined and will then have to comply with the Act. The third point I undertook to examine, is in regard to the proposed definition of “apprentice” and with particular reference to the type of person contemplated in line 29, page 3, of the Bill. What I had in mind there, was an individual who was employed for a probationary period with a view to apprenticeship, but I agree that the clause goes much further as it stands at the moment. It will, for instance, also include a registered wireman and will totally prohibit the employment for a trial period of a prospective apprentice as soon as any area has been determined for a period of three months. The idea was. of course, to permit of the employment of persons on probation for three months irrespective of when an area is determined in terms of Section 18 of the Act. I should like to inform hon. members that I intend moving a suitable amendment during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that every clause contained in the Bill now before the House, has the support and is, in fact, introduced on the unanimous recommendation of members of the Electrical Wiremen’s Registration Board. The persons directly affected by the Bill, that is to say, suppliers, contractors and wiremen, are all represented on this Board. This Bill has their unanimous support. As a matter of fact, the Bill is being introduced on their recommendation. I now move the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House intend supporting this Bill. We do so because there can be no doubt about the fact that it is in the public interest. There has, moreover, been a considerable increase, since the present Act was introduced, in the amount of electricity which is being used as well as in the number of domestic electrical appliances in operation. The hon. the Minister has explained all the important clauses of the Bill in considerable detail. It is not our intention, therefore, to have a lengthy debate at this stage, but rather to defer our comments on the various clauses to the Committee Stage of the Bill. At this stage I should, however, like to say that it is quite clear from what the Minister has said and from the contents of the Bill itself, that there is going to be a fairly considerable increase in the demand for fully qualified electrical wiremen. It is quite clear that once this Bill has been passed, its effect is going to be that those who are not qualified will be removed from their employment. This also will have the effect of increasing the demand for electrical wiremen who are fully qualified. The hon. the Minister will be the first to admit that this is, in fact, so. It is in this regard that I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the report of the Department of Labour for the year ending 31 December 1960. On page 16 of that report, applications for registration and examinations under the Electrical Wiremen and Contractors Act, 1939, are dealt with. In respect of examinations, the report says—

From this it does appear that the problem with which the hon. the Minister is going to be faced, is to obtain a sufficient number of qualified electrical wiremen. It also appears that since the Department of Education, Arts and Science took over the examinations, the number of passes have decreased considerably. In respect of registration certificates issued, the schedule in the report of the Department reveals that from 1940 to 1957 4,429 applicants passed their examinations. In 1958 361 passed their examinations: in 1959 339; while in 1960. i.e. the first year during which the Department of Education, Arts and Science was responsible for the examinations, only 147 passed. This points to the fact that there is a necessity for applicants to obtain technical education and practical experience before submitting an application for registration. In view of the serious position revealed by this report, I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that classes of instruction should be instituted and particularly in areas and places which are far removed from technical colleges. The hon. the Minister will agree that with the tightening up of regulations by this Bill, the smaller municipalities who employ an electrician in charge of their plant and to do their wiring work, will now not be allowed to do wiring work because he may not be qualified to do it. As I understand the hon. the Minister, such a person will in future be required to obtain such qualifications necessary for him to undertake wiring work as well, unless the municipality concerned is prepared to employ another person as a qualified wireman. In the event, however, of the electrician wanting to obtain the necessary further qualifications, he will not be able to do so by means of study at a technical college in the neighbourhood. I mention this fact because I do not want to see any delay in the application of the provisions of this Bill where they are in the public interest. It is, in other words, of no use to amend the present Act in this way if we are not in a position to implement our intention, namely that only fully qualified electrical wiremen should be responsible for wiring work. It is to this aspect of the matter that the Department should give its attention.

Another point I should like to raise is the danger inherent in the use of electrical appliances which do not fall under the Act at all, namely domestic appliances. Most of the accidents the hon. the Minister has referred to, took place as a result of the interference in homes with electrical appliances used there. There is nothing to prevent an unqualified person from effecting the necessary repairs to electrical appliances which are used in homes. I admit that this is a matter which will be extremely difficult to control, because in every household to-day not only the male member of the family, but also the female member regard themselves as being experts in repairing electrical appliances. They never think of obtaining a qualified electrician to do these things, like the putting in of a new plug for instance. I can recall an instance where the householder found three wires in the cable, but, as the plug had only two points, he accepted that the third wire was a spare one! The result was that particular appliance was not earthed and that somebody was due for a severe shock. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give this House an indication of whether his Department has given its attention to this aspect of the matter—an aspect which I regard as entailing more danger to the public than the issues dealt with in this Bill. There is a considerable variety of electrical appliances in use in households right throughout the country to-day. and yet the Bill does not deal with this particular danger. It does not prohibit unauthorized persons from tampering with them. The Bureau of Standards has done much to standardize many electrical components, but there are still many components which are being sold to the public and which are highly dangerous. I think, therefore, that this matter should be brought to the attention of the Minister under this Bill, so that he could tell the House what steps he intends taking to deal with the danger to the public from this source.

With these remarks, I want to repeat that we support the Bill in its second reading. We have a few points to raise in regard to its clauses, but that we will do in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I should like, in the first place, to thank hon. members for the favourable reception they have given this Bill. In the second place, I should like to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). In regard to the last point raised by him, i.e. the danger from household appliances, I want to say that I agree with him that this Bill does not deal with danger from the appliances themselves. I believe, however, that steps are being taken by persons interested in the supply of electrical appliances, to seek amendments to the Machinery and Factories Act, 1947, and that these amendments will deal with this very question. I have seen some of the correspondence that has passed between some of the suppliers and the Bureau of Standards in regard to this matter. I do not know, however, whether I will be able to introduce amending legislation next year. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that the matter is receiving very close attention.

Another point raised by the hon. member was the question of training facilities. I will look into this, especially as it affects platteland areas where training facilities do not exist because there are no technical colleges to provide such training. This is a matter which has already received the closest attention from the Electrical Wiremen’s Board from time to time. It is important that this Board should find some means whereby aspirant wiremen could be instructed in a proper manner. I may also say that since this Act came into force in 1939, there has always been a good supply of electrical wiremen, and we really do not anticipate that there will be any great increase when the provisions of this Bill come into force. But nevertheless I can tell him that the remarks made by the Department in their report of 1960 will be borne in mind and we will see what we can do about getting more passes from the apprentices. Something will have to be done to stimulate them in their teaching or perhaps getting a better type of apprentice, but I think the failures which he has mentioned show that the tests which are prescribed by the Department of Education, Arts and Science are fairly stiff tests, and of course I think they should be fairly stiff. If an apprentice after four or five years cannot pass the test in theory he still has an opportunity of passing the practical test, but I will also look into that matter in due course.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is a Bill which has come from the Senate and which was passed there in a commendably short time. I might say that here in the Republic of South Africa we have a highly efficient and a very detailed land registration system. This system of ours enables any interested party to tel at a glance from a title deed what rights a property owner enjoys, what restrictions may have been imposed upon his full ownership, or whether the property is subject to any encumbrances such as bonds or a servitude. By and large I may say that our system works very well, and any amendments which are being introduced are mainly aimed at the removal of anomalies and ambiguities. The large major amendment, not to the system as such but to ensure its uniform application throughout the four provinces, was effected by the Deeds Registration Act of 1937 which consolidated and amended the laws in force in the various provinces relating to the registration of deeds. Since 1937, that is to say, for a matter of 25 years, it has been found necessary to introduce only occasional minor amendments to the Act in order to deal with specific problems which arose from time to time. The remarkable economic and industrial expansion of the country, however, during the war years and in the post-war years and in particular the increased tempo of mineral development throughout the country, has brought certain registration problems in its wake and certain registration requirements which can only be met by a thorough review of the Deeds Registries Act and consequential amendments thereof to meet the new conditions.

The proposed amendments involve no change whatsoever in the principles of land registration in South Africa but are merely designed to meet modern developments, to remove existing ambiguities and uncertainties, and in many cases merely to simplify what experience has shown to be rather cumbersome methods of land registration. In June 1960, I appointed a committee consisting of the members of the Deeds Registries Regulation Board to consider and recommend proposed amendments to the Deeds Registries Act. Their recommendations were in due course made available to all possible interested bodies and Departments of State whose comments and criticism was then invited, and subsequent correspondence which we had with the various interested parties gave rise to many useful and constructive proposals, the majority of which have been incorporated in the present Bill.

Just to show what a wide field was covered by the Deeds Registries Regulation Board, I might mention that this Board, which was also the Committee, consists of the Registrars of Deeds of Cape Town, Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Pietermaritzburg and King William’s Town, the Rand Townships Registrar, the State Attorney, the Director-General of Surveys and four conveyancers who are appointed by the four provincial Law Societies, and two conveyancers who were appointed by myself to represent the country practitioners. I think it can be accepted that this Board represented all the different parties interested in deeds registration in South Africa and that these people, being members of the Deeds Registration Regulation Board, were extremely au fait with all the problems which had arisen from time to time and were perfectly capable of dealing with this matter.

I might also say that there are certain amendments which I intend to move in the Committee Stage. I have given these amendments to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), but for the convenience of other interested members I will have the proposed amendments printed on the Order Paper for to-day, that is to say, the Order Paper which will be made available to hon. members tomorrow. There will then be ample time before we come to the Committee Stage and they will have ample opportunity to consider the amendments. I wish to commend this Bill to the House.

I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister because I believe that there has not been a piece of legislation before this House of such a technical nature which had received more careful scrutiny from all the persons who are interested in it, and I am very glad that the hon. the Minister did follow this course because we are all very proud of our deeds registration system. This Bill was first introduced last year and there was an opportunity of studying most of its provisions then. I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for making available to me certain amendments which he proposes to place on the Order Paper and which I believe are further improvements to the Bill, so I do not think there can be any objection to that.

Our system of registration in this country, of course, goes back a very long way, but the present Act was put on the Statute Book in 1937. It has been amended on a number of occasions, and I would like to express the hope that once the present Bill has been passed into law, there will either be an immediate consolidation or, if further amendments are intended to be made in the not very distant future, that the Bill, which is one of very great importance to legal practitioners, to Government offices and to the Deeds Offices themselves, will be printed in consolidated form. I think it would be in the interest of all concerned if that was done.

It is quite unnecessary to traverse the various clauses. As far as I have been able to discover, there is no objection to any of them; they are all of a technical nature and most of them merely introduce improvements to the existing language. There are one or two, such as the provisions of Clause 15, dealing with the registration of title by other than the ordinary procedure, and one or two other clauses which are introducing something new, but again I must say that I think that what is new that is being introduced is entirely in accord with the principles underlying our system of deeds registration in South Africa and tend to improve it. In no respect do I see anything in this Bill which in any way breaks down the very splendid system of registration that we have and which to-day is regarded as something of a model for the world, a fact of which all South Africans can be proud. In these circumstances I do not propose to discuss the matter any further. This side of the House will support the Bill and will look forward to seeing it enacted into law in due course, and I believe that our system, with the improvements and amendments contained in this Bill, will continue to function even more efficiently than it has done in the past.

I would like to say a word in regard to the very distinguished Registrars we have had at all our various Deeds Registry Offices. Most of them have been persons who have grown up in the service, and I do believe that there is no Department of State in South Africa which is being more efficiently run and where legal practitioners and the public in general have been treated with greater courtesy than is the case in respect of our Deeds Registries. I have had a long experience of the Rand Townships Registration Office, and the calibre of the men who have been in charge of that office and of Deeds Offices elsewhere, has had a very great deal to do with the fact that our deeds registration system in South Africa stands so high in the esteem of all.

There are a few matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I do not wish to criticize the Bill; I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that we welcome the fact that this Act is being amended, as is done in this Bill. But when we look at the first clause of the Bill we find that Section 2 of sub-section (1) is being amended and that sub-section (2) falls away. But when the Act was amended in 1957 the proviso contained in sub-section (1) was converted into sub-section (1)bis. It is clear now that sub-section (1)bis also falls away. If it does fall away, then everything is in order but if it does not fall away, I wish to ask the Minister whether he cannot delete the proviso contained in sub-section (1)bis as well, because the effect of it is this: Every Registrar of Deeds in this country must have certain qualifications, but the Registrar of Deeds of Johannesburg, that is to say of the Reef towns, is excluded. As the hon. member for Germiston (District) has said that is one of our best Deeds Offices. It is one of the offices where the best work is being done in this country as far as deeds are concerned. I feel, therefore, Sir, that those people should fall under the same provisions which apply to all the other Registrars of Deeds; that is to say they should be similarly qualified and they should have the right, which they do not have to-day, to effect exchanges with other Deeds Offices.

The second matter I wish to raise is in connection with Clause 8. This clause amends Section 17 of the principal Act. It is very clear what the intention is. This clause provides that immovable property, bonds and other real rights may be transferred or ceded to or registered in the name of a woman married in community of property. But the difficulty is this: The object of such bequest or donation is that the woman should be free to deal with it. Legally she will now be entitled to have the right registered in her name in the Deeds Office but she cannot as yet deal with it and the object of such a donation or bequest is surely that the woman should be able to deal with it. Supposing a woman is married in community of property and that she has been separate a mensa et thoro and that a property is bequeathed to her in a will. In that case she cannot deal with that property unless she is assisted by her husband. In the case of a separation a mensa et thoro they are living apart and the woman is faced with this difficulty that she cannot raise loans on the property, no building society or private person will lend her money on that property because she is still a minor in the eyes of the law, and although the right is registered in her name, she cannot deal with it and she cannot raise a loan on it. Surely that was not the object of the donation. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will go into this matter so that we may discuss it further in the Committee Stage.

I wish to thank hon. members very heartily for their support of this Bill and I would also like to thank the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) for the compliment, the well-earned compliment, which he paid to the Registrars of Deeds whom we have throughout the country. I can say that there is probably no section of my portfolio where I receive so few complaints as I receive regarding the Deeds Offices and where I have so much proof of the good work which they are doing there. The hon. member is therefore not a voice crying in the wilderness. He has really expressed an opinion here which is held generally throughout South Africa by all people who have to deal with the Registrars of Deeds. I may also say that I am jealous of the system of registration which we have in South Africa. Where the hon. member said that we have one of the best registration systems in the world, I am not in a position to testify to this as an expert but I know that people who have come here from other countries to investigate our registration system in South Africa, or who have been interested in it, have all testified to the fact that it is one of the best in the world. I think that the actual reason for this is that we in South Africa are very land-conscious. I spoke with some of these people and it appeared to me that in those countries where there is the greatest desire on the part of the ordinary man to obtain title to a piece of land, the registration system is also the best; and here in South Africa, as we know, it is the desire of every man to obtain title to a small piece of land. He feels that he also grows in dignity if a portion of the land of his own country belongs to him.

As far as the question of consolidation is concerned, I would just like to say this. Since we effected the change in our Standing Rules and Orders in connection with consolidating legislation, a change for which I may say in all humility I was responsible, it is easy now, and because it is easy, it is also possible to put far more consolidating legislation through Parliament than was the case previously. I will instruct my Department to see whether it is possible to introduce a consolidating measure and, if not, to issue some document or other in connection with this which, while not drafted in the legal form, will at least reflect the contents of the consolidated legislation.

I would just like to tell the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) that Section 1bis remains. I will give my attention to the points which he raised. I will refer them to the people who have been primarily connected with the framing of this legislation, and when we come to the Committee Stage we will be able to go into detail and see whether a change should be effected or whether the position should remain unchanged.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

When the House adjourned before the recess, I was indicating the United Party’s very weak record as far as unemployment insurance is concerned. I showed that the United Party was continually trimming its sails to the wind. I quoted from the pamphlet entitled “ Workers’ Manifesto” issued by the United Party in the 1953 election campaign. In this pamphlet we read the following—

The pamphlet goes on to say this to the workers—

But in spite of this the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wrote as follows on 29 May 1959 in Weekblad—

How totally different the story has become within a period of six years! Sir, that is how the United Party issued guarantees and made promises to the workers of South Africa. The same thing happened to the guarantee, which was also given in this pamphlet, that the United Party would convert the Unemployment Fund into a Pension Fund. But in 1959 the hon. member for Umhlatuzana declared that the United Party had abandoned this plan to use the Unemployment Insurance Fund as the basis for a pension scheme. There again we had a complete change of front on the part of the United Party. But what did we get the other evening from the hon. member for Yeoville when in a touching speech he moved an amendment on this Bill? He almost shed tears about the terrible injustice that was being done to the workers of South Africa. The hon. member understands the art of exaggerating. He can elevate the most trivial matter to a major issue. The hon. member for Yeoville— and I am sorry that he is not here to-day— is the best blower of balloons that we have ever known in South African politics. He can blow a balloon higher than any other politician has ever been able to do before him. But, as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has said, he exaggerates everything and he usually blows up the balloon so high that it eventually bursts, without even leaving a “sap” spot. That is precisely what happened to the hon. member’s tirade when he moved this amendment. The hon. member’s speech might still have made some impression, his heart-stirring plea for the workers might still have aroused some feelings if it had not been for the fact that we know him so well and if it had not been for the fact that his basic approach to the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Fund was entirely wrong. Moreover, the hon. member knew perfectly well that his basic approach to this matter was entirely wrong. He based all his arguments on the erroneous assumption that the contributors to the Fund were buying certain rights for themselves with their contributions, and that these proposed amendments were depriving the contributor of those rights. The hon. member said that the Government was taking away rights from people who had bought them in good faith. He put it even more strongly; he said that insurance was a contract of the highest measure of good faith. However, since when has it been the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Fund that people should buy certain rights from the Fund by means of their contributions for which they must eventually obtain compensation? The Unemployment Insurance Fund is not a pension scheme from which people must obtain benefits. Neither is it life insurance that the contributor purchases; it is an insurance against unemployment, just as you obtain insurance for your motor-car against accidents. If you go through your entire life without a motor accident you are not sorry that you have not obtained benefits from the motor insurance policy which you have taken out. On the contrary you are pleased that you have been so fortunate that you have never been involved in an accident with your car. The same principle surely holds good for unemployment insurance. Or does the hon. member for Yeoville wish to tell me that a worker who has never been unemployed must be sorry because he has never obtained benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund? Take workmen’s compensation. The same principle holds good here. If a worker does not become injured or disabled he receives no benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, although employers are compelled to make regular contributions to the Fund on behalf of their employees. No, I say that the basic approach of the hon. member for Yeoville to this whole amending Bill and to this matter of Unemployment Insurance is completely wrong. The Unemployment Insurance Fund’s primary purpose is to pay unemployment benefits to contributors who are suitable and available for employment, to assist them financially for a time while they seek employment and at a time when they may perhaps become unemployed. Did the hon. member for Yeoville not know this? Of course, the hon. member knew it because it was no less a person than the hon. member who on 23 June 1959 stated in this House—

In temporary distress. Here the hon. member himself spoke about temporary assistance to people unemployed and to sick people, but now his standpoint, because it is more convenient for him to adopt this standpoint at this stage, is that the assistance which must be given must be more than merely temporary assistance; it must take the form of permanent assistance, and he even advocates that the Fund should take care of the chronically ill. Can the workers of South Africa take any further notice of the hon. member for Yeoville and of his party when they themselves see that he and his party want to make a political football out of this Fund, a political football which they wish to kick about when it suits them politically? Then the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and dares to accuse this Government of political bankruptcy in connection with this matter. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville and hon. members on the other side what political bankruptcy is. One is politically bankrupt when one acts like a cat on hot bricks in order to amend one’s standpoint on every occasion, as the United Party has already amended its standpoint in connection with this question of unemployment insurance, and if a party does not do what is really in the interest of the workers but always tries to feed upon dissatisfaction which they think will arise amongst a group or certain groups of people who are affected by legislation in some or the other manner, legislation which is in the interests of all, and in this case, is in the interests of the workers as a whole. That is political bankruptcy and that is what the United Party is now revealing. It is revealing its own political bankruptcy through the attitude which it adopts in respect of this Bill. The United Party wishes to curry favour with the persons who wish to abuse this law at the expense of the bona fide workers of our country, those people who are now being restricted by the hon. the Minister by means of this amendment, and in order to do so, the hon. member does not hesitate to throw his own standpoint in principle regarding the purpose of this fund completely overboard. He is even prepared to throw the interests of all bona fide workers in South Africa overboard. And then he has the effrontery to make himself out to be the champion of the workers of South Africa here! That is nothing less than political bankruptcy and I hurl the accusation which he made against the Government back in his own face. The United Party is to-day nothing less than a real vulture party which continually seeks to feed upon the supposed dissatisfaction because it has no clear course or policy which has been laid down by itself. As far as this matter is concerned too, it adapts its policy to every situation as it suits it politically.

What clause of the Bill are you discussing now?

If the hon. member had listened to the hon. member for Yeoville he would know that I am engaged in replying to him. In any case, it is not his duty to ask me what this has to do with the clause. The hon. member has apparently not read the Bill before. I can give the United Party the assurance that their often-changed standpoint regarding unemployment insurance has had disastrous results for themselves amongst the workers of South Africa. They could very well have listened to the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) who is not here to-day either, to know the confusion which already exists in their own ranks. For example, the hon. member accused the hon. the Minister of having taken away certain rights from the contributors but then immediately thereafter he stated “If these are normal times, one fears for the future of this Fund.” He is concerned about the deterioration of the Fund. He is concerned about the future of the Fund should bad times be forthcoming. However, if steps are taken as is now being done, to protect the Fund for the actual purpose of unemployment insurance, then he is the first man who together with the hon. member for Yeoville opposes this Bill. What does the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) want? Does he want the Fund to be protected? Then he must not oppose this amending Bill. Or does he want abuse to be permitted so that the Fund can become exhausted and disintegrate? The hon. member cannot have his cake and eat it. Then the hon. member said—

Why does the hon. member put the matter in this way, as though the worker of South Africa no longer has that security to-day? That is not correct. Why must the bona fide worker feel insecure to-day regarding the Fund? If he is a bona fide worker he will, as always, enjoy the covering insurance of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. On the contrary, the bona fide worker will feel safe now more than ever before and will feel more assured regarding the Fund and the use of his Fund because in these amendments he will see the efforts on the part of the hon. the Minister to safeguard the Fund for its actual purpose and for the day on which the worker may become unemployed. It is being ensured here that the Fund does not disintegrate before that time through abuses being permitted in that connection. Then the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) came to light with a very strange question—

Here the hon. member is really showing crass ignorance. Does the hon. member wish to come along and tell this House that he does not know that a contributor to the Fund, if he has become unemployed for a full year, cannot even live on the benefits which he receives from the Fund? The hon. member ought to know that a contributor, if he is unemployed, only receives benefits from the Fund for a period of 26 weeks; that is the maximum and it was also the position under the original United Party law. According to the view of that hon. member it was also a scandalous position under the United Party law of 1946.If he only receives benefits for 26 weeks, an unemployed person will therefore moreover live on charity for the remaining 26 weeks of the year! Why does the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) wish to suggest that this is a right which this Bill is depriving the contributors of, while he ought to know that they have never been entitled to such benefits? Have hon. members ever asked why a contributor only receives benefits for 26 weeks? The hon. member wishes to regard the benefits apparently as a pension. I cannot take it amiss of the hon. member because if he listened to the hon. member for Yeoville and believed everything that he said in this House about the workers, well, then the hon. member for Yeoville is able to confuse any hon. member on the other side. However, I want to tell hon. members on the other side that this Fund is not a pension fund. Benefits are paid to a contributor if he is unemployed in order to assist him financially while he is engaged in seeking employment. It is therefore not a pension but only an insurance against unemployment.

The hon. the Minister and his Department have five important duties which they have to fulfil in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. These are duties which they have to fulfil on behalf of the contributors to ensure that the Fund will remain an insurance against unemployment in the interests of the workers. These five duties have to tip the scale in respect of any change which is effected in connection with the Fund, as is now being envisaged in this amending Bill. Firstly, the primary aim must be the financial soundness of the Fund. In the case of this Fund it is vitally necessary that it should be maintained in a financially sound position. This is of great importance to the contributors because in time of unemployment the Fund is a guarantee to the worker that he will remain financially protected until he again finds employment. Neither may we forget that the contributors who are affected in this regard numbered 767,000 at the end of 1960. Where the Fund is falling at the moment and where there is a tremendous drain upon the Fund which is increasing annually, it is nothing more than the duty of the Minister to come forward with a measure such as this in order to ensure that the Fund is protected and that the Fund will answer to its primary purpose, namely, to be an insurance against unemployment.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister also has the important duty towards the contributors and beneficiaries of the Fund that the contributions which members have to nay will not be unnecessarily high and that the benefits will be as high as the strength of the Fund permits. It is true that under this amendment no new benefits are being granted to contributors but it is just as true that over the past years many great benefits have been given to contributors. Since 1948 benefits have in some cases been increased by 117 per cent while in some cases contributions, in the lower paid groups, have been reduced by as much as 85 per cent.

Thirdly, the hon. the Minister must allow himself to be led by the Unemployment Insurance Board which is entrusted with the task of making recommendations to the Minister. The Unemployment Insurance Board consists of representatives of employers as well as of employees. The representatives of the employees are there to ensure that justice is done to the contributors and that the workers do not suffer unnecessary privations. The amendments which are being proposed here, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, are the result of the investigation which the Unemployment Insurance Board made into the Fund, and they represent the unanimous recommendation of the Board in respect of this matter. The Opposition conveniently forget this when they accuse the hon. the Minister of taking away rights from the contributors and creating unnecessary suffering amongst the workers of South Africa. However, what the Opposition also forgets is the fourth task which the hon. the Minister has and that is to give effect to the resolution of the Select Committee on Public Accounts regarding this matter. Last year the Select Committee adopted a resolution which, inter alia, reads as follows—

The United Party was represented last year on that Select Committee, inter alia, by the hon. members for Constantia, Jeppes, Orange Grove, Benoni, Hillbrow and Bezuidenhout (at that time Mr. Miller). The resolution was adopted unanimously by the Select Committee. Therefore, the members of the United Party all voted that special attention should be given to the financial position of the Fund.

What is wrong with that?

Now that the hon. the Minister is giving effect to that resolution and moving amendments in terms of the unanimous recommendation of the Unemployment Insurance Board, he is being made out by the United Party to be a terrible tyrant who wishes to take away rights, while he is only engaged in preventing abuse in connection with the Fund so that the financial position of the Fund will again become sound, which was the desire of the Select Committee on which members of the United Party served.

The United Party always have a great deal to say about parliamentary control but now that parliamentary control is being effectively and positively applied, it is no longer a good thing and a fuss has to be made regarding the terrible injustice which is being done to the workers of South Africa.

Fifthly, and this in my opinion is very important, the Minister and his Department have to ensure that abuses in connection with the Fund are restricted to a minimum so that the Fund can be utilized for the purpose for which it was brought into being. In my opinion these are the five most important duties which the hon. the Minister and his Department have in respect of this Fund. With this amending measure the hon. the Minister is therefore complying fully with the five requirements which I have stipulated as his duty towards the Fund. The maximum benefits have already been given with minimum contributions; further abuse of the Fund is being eliminated by means of this Bill, in terms of the unanimous recommendation by the Unemployment Insurance Board, with the purpose of keeping the Fund financially sound, and this in its turn was once again the desire of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I have already mentioned the primary purpose of the Fund, namely, temporary assistance in times of unemployment for the bona fide workers while they are seeking employment. It is necessary that everything possible should be done to conserve and protect the moneys in the Fund for the primary function of the Fund. This principle of the primary function of the Fund ought in my opinion never to be forfeited. If it has to happen that the other benefits which are given under the Fund jeopardize this primary purpose, there should preferably be a curtailment of or increase in those benefits rather than that the primary functions should be permitted to suffer ha.mr

The hon. member for Yeoville said that Clause 2 (a), because it will be applied to contributors of long standing, means a reduction in the rights of those contributors. However, the hon. member ought to know that it is wrong to say that this means a reduction in rights. The credits which these contributors of long standing built up with the Fund between 1 January 1950 and the date of the coming into operation of this amending Bill, remain unchanged. In other words, they are retained on the basis of four weeks’ completed service. For the future it does not mean a reduction of rights in respect of the bona fide worker either because he has already built up so much credit over the years that the fact that he will now build up more slowly, build up his credits more slowly in the future, will simply not affect him. All that will be affected here are those persons who are continually changing their employment, who have continual breaks in their working period, and the married women who return periodically to the labour market. I say that it is in the interests of the bona fide workers and that it is in the interest of the primary purpose of the Fund that the Fund shall be protected against abuse by this type of person. It is true that in respect of the new contributors to the Fund it will mean that they will build up their credits more slowly but this was also the position under the United Party law of 1946 until the law was amended in 1949. Therefore, there can be no question of rights being taken away from the new contributors here. However, if the new contributor is a bona fide worker, the slower building up of his credits will not affect him detrimentally either. He will be able to build up sufficient credits to obtain protection from the Fund when he desires that protection—on the day when he becomes unemployed.

As far as Clause 2 (c) is concerned the hon. member for Yeoville says that this amendment perpetrates an injustice upon the sick people of South Africa. But that is untrue. This is a provision which seeks to protect the primary function of the Fund against exploitation. As the hon. member himself stated in 1959 it is “to assist people who are ill in a temporary state of need”. The Fund is not intended for chronically ill people. The hon. member actually comes along here and without batting an eyelid he tells this House that he thinks that it was probably the intention initially to make provision for the chronically ill. The hon. member knows that is not so. He knows that he is not probably but definitely wrong in making such an allegation. The then Minister of Labour, Mr. Ben Schoeman, said the following when these sick benefits were introduced under the Fund—

I think this was the then Labour member, Mr. Hepple—

But the hon. member for Yeoville comes along here and actually states that the intention with this Fund was to cover chronically ill people when the sick benefits were instituted in 1952. Since the institution of sick benefits in 1953, a total of R12,144,000 was paid out in sick benefits up to 1960; the amount increased from R239,000 in 1953 to R2,890,000 in 1960. Therefore, it increased 11 times over what it was originally over a period of eight years. I think that this was the largest single increase of all the benefits under the Fund.

Now the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and says that Clause 2 (e), in connection with maternity benefits, is the worst injustice that can be committed. We are all aware of the tremendous abuse which the paying out of maternity benefits led to and therefore it is no more than right that the law should be improved to ensure that bona fide female workers will receive the benefits of it. We must remember, and the women of South Africa must also remember, that a woman’s contribution to the Fund is the same as the contribution of a man. In other words, she does not pay an extra contribution to be entitled to maternity benefits. Therefore, the disbursement of maternity benefits must also be brought into line with the qualifications which also hold good for the other benefits, namely, that she must be a bona fide worker. Since the maternity benefits were instituted in 1954, an amount of R12,277,000 was paid out in maternity benefits up to 1960. From 1954 when R294,000 was paid out in maternity benefits for that year, the amount rose to R2,467,000 in 1960.

Now we come to the question of short time. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) will probably tell us again this afternoon that the United Party has changed its standpoint on this matter. It is always left to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to announce the policy changes of the United Party on labour matters. The hon. member for Yeoville said, as far as this matter was concerned, that the hon. the Minister was not prepared to subsidize firms which placed their workers on short time, but was quite willing to give the employers a motivating reason for dismissing their workers. However, when this law was amended in 1959 to introduce shorttime benefits, the United Party opposed it. In other words, if the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville is correct now, then in 1959 the United Party was quite prepared that a motivating reason should be given to the employers to dismiss their workers. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana must tell us what has since moved the United Party to change its standpoint on this matter. At the same time the question may perhaps be put in a completely different fashion to-day: Can the payment of short-time benefits not serve as a motivating reason for employers to allow their workers to work short time when this is not absolutely necessary? Cannot short-term benefits is abused in this way, which can have as its result an unnecessary draining of the Fund? [Time limit.]

This type of legislation and the type of speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) do not inspire one with much confidence for the future. Nothing that the hon. the Minister has told us in his second-reading speech, nor anything that the hon. member said who has just sat down, gives us any clue whatsoever as to how to combat the unemployment situation which has developed during the years. The way to keep a fund steady is not to penalize people who are unemployed, but surely it is to make sure that there is no unemployment. Those are the basic facts. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has no sympathy whatever for anybody, apparently, that gets ill. A person who is working and gets ill must only be ill for a very short period—otherwise he classifies him as a chronically ill person and should not receive any grant or benefit in respect of his illness. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has got no sympathy whatsoever for an expectant mother, none at all. As far as he is concerned, any woman who falls pregnant should get out of work immediately That is his attitude.

Nonsense!

The hon. member can say “Nonsense!”, he can deny it, but that is the attitude that he takes to people who either fall ill while working or towards women who become pregnant.

You have misunderstood him.

No, I listened to every word he said very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back then to these two most important points that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) had so much to say about, and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Labour will be good enough to take note of what I have to say. The first thing is that I do not think that the abuses that have been played up so much by the Minister’s side of the House are anything like what they are made out to be. They are the people who tell us that we are exaggerating the position. They are looking for excuses for the fall in this Fund. If the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) or the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) know of any abuses, why don’t they report them? The hon. member for Pretoria (West) in his speech, if I remember rightly, had something to say about doctors and he mentioned young doctors who issue certificates very readily for illness.

I did not say that.

He will deny it now.

Read my speech, as reported in Hansard.

I have looked at his printed Hansard speech, but I cannot find any sign of it, but he made that remark here.

Order! What does the hon. member imply?

I say that as far as I can recollect, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) said that young doctors are willing to give certificates for illness …

I did not say that.

Order! The hon. member must accept the hon. member for Pretoria (West)’s word.

I accept his explanation, Sir.

The hon. member said that he did not find it in Hansard. What is his insinuation?

Order! The hon. member must accept the speech as printed in Hansard.

I do, Sir. I want those two hon. members to be careful of the references they make in regard to the issuing of certificates. I want them to know that it a grave offence for any doctor to issue a false certificate. If during their work or during their investigations they should come across such certificates it is their duty to report the matter immediately to the Medical Council. I am telling them that here.

I am one who deals with working class people who get ill. I am one who knows how difficult times are for those people who get ill whether they are employed or unemployed. I want to tell hon. members on that side of the House that it is a terrible state of affairs for an unemployed person to get ill—a terrible state of affairs. At least he does know now that he has the right to get something back. It has to tide him over his period of illness, it has to help him pay the doctor’s and chemist’s bills and it has to feed the family. Can you imagine the state of mind of a person who is unemployed and who realizes that he may not get any contribution whatsoever from the Unemployment Insurance Fund? No benefits will come to him. The hon. members on that side of the House have the idea that this fund is a Holy of Holies; that it must not be touched except in extreme cases and the extreme cases that they give are short-term illnesses, the acute illnesses. It is to tide the person temporarily over a difficult period. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) repeated time and again that it was only a temporary allowance. Let me say to the hon. member that his knowledge of illness must be nil and his sympathy towards the sick person even less. I want to give the hon. the Minister just an example of what may happen to a person who gets ill and he might quite easily be disqualified from any benefits in the future. Say a man has been working for years; he has been a regular worker and a hard worker and he gets an attack of coronary thrombosis. He may be an office worker, a white collar worker. This attack disables him not for a short period, not for a temporary period, but for a long period. It may be, Sir, that just as he is recovering from his illness, just as he is ready to return to work he gets another attack. This may keep him out of work the whole year. What does that mean when the following year comes? Although he has credits which have accumulated over the years through steady and diligent work, when the following year comes he has to return to work for 13 weeks before any benefits can accrue to him. Is that fair, Mr. Speaker? Not only that, but there is no provision in the Bill as it stands at the moment for the case to be reviewed. Nothing at all. There is no tribunal that will sit and judge the case, there is no opportunity for a doctor to issue a certificate to the effect that this man is genuinely ill with an acute illness; but it may take him a long time to get better. Cannot that person also be given some benefits? Why should he be excluded, and he is going to be excluded in terms of this Bill. The Minister must give this thought. The Minister must find ways and means for these people to receive benefits, not charity, the benefits which have accrued to them because of their diligent work during previous years. When the hon. the Minister spoke about chronic illnesses he indicated that he was not in favour of giving benefits to the chronically ill. In answer to an interjection he said that they should go to the Social Welfare Department for help. A man spends 40 years of his life working diligently and if he starts to get ill in his sixtieth year he has to go to the Social Welfare Department of the town or the city in which he lives to look for help! In spite of the fact that his credits have accumulated over the years. Who are these credits for? Surely they are for these cases. If the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) wants to know what I think of the chronically ill, I say that they must get help from the fund because it was during their working years that they have become chronically ill. There is no workmen’s compensation for them. There is no Act which will help them; this fund must help them. Does it mean that if a man goes to his work and suffers an accident like a broken leg for example, and is not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act and has to stay out of work for a year, which is a common occurrence, that he will receive no compensation at the end of that year? Does it mean that he must return to work on crutches? The hon. member for Welkom will know that these things happen. Must they go back to work? How are they going to go back to work? What happens to a man who has a leg amputated? Is it unusual for a man to be away from work for a year? And when the year is over there is no compensation for him. He must go back to work again. I feel that the advice which the hon. the Minister has received on these questions has not been of the best. I ask him to give it serious consideration and see whether or not he can devise some amendment to give these people some right of appeal against the decision of a claims officer.

I now want to say a word or two about the expectant mother. Does anybody here think, Sir, that an expectant mother wants to go to work? I do not think any reasonable person expects an expectant mother to go to work. The only reason why she goes to work is because she has to go to work, because of the economic position of the people in this country to-day. It is not only the position in this country; that may be the position throughout the world. I am not saying that position obtains only in this country: all countries are in the same position. I feel that when a young woman gets married there is no greater problem for her than to start building a home. She has great difficulty in building a home and going to work at the same time. I for one would like to see young married women stay at home. build up their little nest and make sure that their future is secure. It is during the first years of married life that the foundations for a successful married life are laid. And we have to help them. In terms of the Bill as it reads at the moment, a young married woman who falls pregnant will receive no benefits whatsoever if she is not in employment at the time when she falls pregnant. If she gets married after she has left work she receives no maternity benefits. She has to be in employment. In nine cases out of ten she is working because she has to work for financial reasons. But surely the time has come that we should not penalize these people purposely, but say to them: “Look, if you do not have to work, very well, stay home; build your home; look after your nest. If you do happen to fall pregnant during the first year or two of your married life we will see that you receive your maternity benefits.” That is what I would like to see. I do not want to see these people bound by law to have to have a baby at a certain time otherwise they receive no benefits. That is what this Bill is doing. The State is forcing a woman to fall pregnant at a certain time.

That will be a good thing to control the population.

The State should join with us and say that it is a wonderful thing for women to have babies and we, the State, are going to help them. But what is happening now? The State is going into reverse. The State is not going to help them any longer. Have your baby, but do not have it out of time. It is becoming ludicrous Sir. I am sure the hon. the Minister feels a bit awkward about it himself. I know that if he gives it ample thought he is going to help to see that these women who have credits due to them will receive their maternity benefits.

What I cannot understand in this Bill is its pessimism. It is a pessimistic Bill. I do not know whether the other members of the Cabinet have taken the hon. Minister of Labour into their confidence. We have heard from the hon. the Minister of Defence that he is going to spend R120,000,000. He did not tell us how much of that money is going to be spent in South Africa but I am hoping that a large part of it will be spent here. And if a large part of it is going to be spent here does it not mean that the unemployment position is going to be eased? Is the hon. the Minister of Labour expecting greater unemployment here? Is that why he is taking these precautions? Or does it mean that the whole R120,000,000 which has been voted for Defence is going to be spent overseas? Every rand that is spent in this country will give work to somebody. It will help to give work to somebody. The same applies to the Orange River scheme. Why all the pessimism? Why this sudden fear that unemployment is going to soar? Why make provision to-day for something that may not even happen? It should not happen. If this money is going to be used wisely why be afraid of unemployment? Why introduce this Bill at all? Surely the hon. the Minister should have confidence in his Cabinet and say “This is only a temporary position. There is no need to panic. We have R120,000,000 in the kitty for use. By the time the position reaches danger level all of us will be working and not only will we all be working, but we will be able to bring in more immigrants for employment as well.” No, the Minister does not do that. He says: “In the far distant future I can see a danger sign and therefore I will lay down these restrictions now.” And who suffers? Not only the unemployed person but the employed person as well. I repeat that it is a very pessimistic outlook that this Minister is taking. It is a pity that he should be burdened with this type of legislation. I want the Minister in his reply to tell this House how much of this fall which has taken place in the fund has been due to abuse. What percentage of this fall has been due to abuse on the part of the unemployed in respect of the fund and how did he measure it? Where did he get the information from? Did he discuss the matter with the Trade Union Council? Were they asked for their opinion in this matter? Did they give him any hint as to how many won’t-works there were in their ranks? As far as I know, Sir, they were not asked their opinion and they were not asked any advice. Perhaps he got his information from somewhere else, but whatever his source of information was, there can be no proof that abuse has played any serious part in this fall.

I now want to suggest the obvious to the Minister. I want to say to him that he must stop this tickey snatching from the worker and that he must realize that this fund has three partners, the State, the worker and the employer. Each of these three partners must play their role in seeing that the fund stays at a satisfactory and safe level. No partner shall be penalized more than another partner. If the Minister is going to penalize the worker then he and his Cabinet must get together and say: “Right, the worker is going to contribute so much towards the fund and the State will do likewise.” I ask him to go back now and give the 50 per cent contribution which the State gave in the past. If he does that, if he returns to the 50 per cent contribution, there is no need to panic. We will have a sound fund. These petty restrictions which he is putting on the worker, especially on the sick person, will disappear. They will not come into play at all. It is a pity, Sir, that the hon. the Minister has played so great a part in restricting the benefits of the worker and not doing anything to ensure that the State plays its part in this fund which he says is reaching a dangerously low level.

Mr. Speaker the hon. gentleman who has just sat down is under the impression that he has the biggest heart of all the Members of Parliament for the poor people and the mothers of the country. If there is one thing in regard to which he is certainly making a very great mistake, it is in imagining that he is the only man whose heart bleeds so much for those people.

No, there are many on this side.

The remarks which the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) made in respect of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) were as undeserved as any I have ever heard in this House. He stated clearly that these two hon. gentlemen had no feeling at all for those people when they are sick and unemployed. That is the most unworthy remark that I have ever heard here from any side—and he makes that remark when he ought to know that those two gentlemen have been particularly active throughout their lives in applying themselves in the interests of those people in respect of whom the hon. member has tried to indicate this afternoon that they have no feeling. His accusations were most undeserved.

Furthermore, the hon. member went on and tried to make a plea to the hon. the Minister for a matter in regard to which no right-thinking person in the world would agree with him. However, the hon. gentleman was knocking on the wrong door. There is not a single member in this House, in any case not on my side, who would not wish to give the greatest possible benefits to potential mothers and people who are ill. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will not understand me. If you have a hungry calf, you do not allow that calf to be suckled by a ewe, you do the proper thing. I merely wanted to make these few remarks at this stage. The hon. member made a plea here which was completely unnecessary. Therefore I think that in order to bring the debate to the correct level—I will not deal any further with his speech because I want to come to the Bill and to what I really want to suggest should be done—I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 11 April.