I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. Speaker,

The Electoral Laws Amendment Bill [A.B. 77—’62], submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time.

When we adjourned last night I was commenting on the reply which the hon. the Minister had given me to the question I had put to him on the classification of families. As you know, Sir, under Section 20 the hon. the Minister can by regulation allow for the classification of families and has in fact done so and under Section 9 he can get particulars furnished for families. I think the position has become very much clearer in the course of this debate. The hon. the Minister, ably assisted by the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke), is making it absolutely clear to this side of the House that the purpose of this clause is to get the children; that is the answer. It is to classify the children; to get the children in the same way as the Pied Piper of Hamlin got the children. You see, the hon. the Minister obviously does not mind the odd adults getting through the net of his classification, but if he gets all the children he is set on a course for the future which will ensure that his Population Register works. And this is how it is going to work, Sir. At the present moment under the definition of a “White person” he is having the greatest difficulty in classifying people, especially members of family groups. That is where he is running into difficulties. So in this clause he has introduced this last “sting in the tail”, Sir, which will assist him in sorting out the position of families. Now I have wondered why recently I have heard of so many cases where people who have been left alone by the Population Register are now being called in, and I am beginning to see quite clearly why this hon. the Minister won’t give us any assurance (a) about the reclassification of those people who have already been classified under the old definition as a White person and (b) no assurance about those people whose applications are before the Population Registrar at the moment, who in other words are awaiting consideration. Because the position is quite simple: Some “eager beavers” in the Department, in anticipation of this Bill have now started to issue the already well-known notices to a group of people whom the Minister expearienced the greatest difficulty in classifying before. I quoted one case in my second reading speech, where the husband for example is obviously European under the old definition, where the wife possibly is not, and the Minister’s difficulty has been to sort out the children. But here with this new definition, where he can get a family group in for inspection and classify one, either the father or the mother, under this clause “but does not include any person who admits that he is by descent a Native or a Coloured person”, he has got every child of that family within his net. This is the key to the whole of this clause. This hon. the Minister does not mind, as I said before, that he misses a couple of adults. That does not matter. It is the children he is after, and this unveils for the House to see the whole spirit in which this clause was designed.

What is your argument?

The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) is chipping in now. He also chipped in last night and gave us the key and said: If that child is born of a Coloured parent what grouse has he got? But the hon. the Minister has moved an amendment which will not necessarily ease the position, but make it worse, because under his amendment to this particular clause, when once the investigation designed by Clause 4 to take place in cases where such an admission had been made, has taken place, what then is the position? No wonder the Minister is not prepared to confine himself “to where an admission has been made”, because by the time his investigation is complete that child has a big a chance of getting out of this classification under this little sting in the tail as an ox has of getting through the keyhole of a door. By the time a child, not knowing what has happened to him, has been classified in the family group, it will take more than I know to ever get him out of this classification. Because the hon. the Minister is going to investigate every one of these cases where such an admission has taken place on the part of a parent, not with the object of getting them out of it and making it easier, but to make sure that admission for the children, on behalf of the children, who are minors, is watertight. When once that admission has been made and it has been investigated by the hon. the Minister, it is then a classification which it will take the cleverest legal brains for that child to ever apply with any reasonable chance of success to be reclassified as other than the group to which he has been classified. Now we are beginning to see why the hon. the Minister does not want to give these assurances to the people who have already been classified and why he does not want to give assurances to the people who have already made application to be classified, and why he won’t accept the rest of the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). I think this is a shocking clause, and it is no wonder that the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) last night tried to stop this debate on a point of order. He tried to stop it because he was afraid that this thing would come to light in this House. He knows what it means, the same as the hon. member for Karas knows what it means.

I won’t be drawn.

Now we are beginning to see exactly where this clause is leading us. I think it is a shocking clause and it is a shocking Bill and I think it reflects now the true approach of this Government to this question of dividing the races up in watertight compartments. Where they have failed under the old definition to classify adults into watertight compartments, they are now setting out in the manner which we know from previous experience, to take a child and put the child into a watertight compartment and to try and make the apartheid laws work on that basis.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE: If the hon. member who has just resumed his seat had not mentioned my name, I would not have participated further in the debate, because I think it has been exhausting. But I now want to ask that hon. member what he has really advocated in his ten minutes. He pleaded for the tainting of White blood in South Africa and for the creation of loopholes. His speech will be reported in Hansard and I challenge him to prove that he advocated anything other than that. I asked him in English, “Are you standing for the miscegenation of blood?” He then said, “That man must keep quiet.”

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Yes, Sir. Now he accuses the hon. the Minister and he accuses me and he accuses the hon. member for Standerton of being wrong in saying that when parents stated years ago, before this Act was on the Statute Book, that their children were of mixed blood, that was not unreasonable. Does the hon. member now want to blame me or the hon. member for Standerton for the fact that the parents themselves did so, when they did it voluntarily, and when it was the truth, without any pressure being exerted on them? Whose fault is that? What are hon. members talking about now? We have now been discussing this clause for a long time, but what are they really advocating? I shall be glad if one of them will get up to tell us on this side what they are advocating and what they are discussing, and whether they want miscegenation and whether they want to open up loophopes, yes or no.

I would like to bring the Committee back to the clause as printed, and I will not answer the hon. member for Karas, who makes use of every opportunity to bring racialism into these discussions.

I asked the hon. the Minister last night to give us a clear picture. I realize that last night there was a barrage of amendments, and the hon. the Minister found it perhaps somewhat difficult, but I am sure that he has had a very good night, and that he is in a better frame of mind.

Don’t worry about me.

I am not really worried about the hon. the Minister. I am just worried about his frame of mind. But I would like to ask the hon. the Minister for clarification. No person will walk into an official’s room, his office, and say “I admit I am Coloured.” No one will walk into that official’s office and say “I admit I am a Native”.

Order! That point has been raised by the hon. member himself and the hon. Minister has replied to it.

Mr. Chairman, may I say that I read the Hansard report of my speech and I have not received an answer from the hon. the Minister.

You got that last night.

I must say that I have no recollection of receiving a reply, but if that is your ruling, I am prepared to accept it.

And you were satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Minister.

That is not so. Hon. members should also abide by the ruling of the Chair. The hon. the Minister has brought in two amendments, the one is that he has added “unless it is proved that the admission is not based on facts”. Now a man comes in and says “I am White”. Now it can be proved that the admission he has made was not based on facts. In that case I would like the hon. the Minister to assure the people that no evidence which exists in the Minister’s Department will be used other than evidence which that applicant has himself given.

I have given that assurance too.

Then I am doubly sure now and I am satisfied on that point. If the Minister gives me the assurance that the words “any person who admits” only covers the person concerned, the applicant, then I am certain that the same procedure which obtains at the moment in regard to dealing with these people will be continued, but I am glad that we have it on record.

I want to take up the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis). It is quite clear that in the case of parents who have already got their classification in terms of the existing Act, a child of theirs becoming 16 years of age must be classified. If this Bill is passed and the definition is altered in terms of this Bill, the child will be dealt with and classified on a different basis (because of the different definition) to that upon which the parents were classified. I think the hon. the Minister will accept that.

Are you talking about minor children?

I am talking about children who are not yet 16 and, therefore, they are not yet classified for the purpose of getting a card under the Act. The parents are classified and have their cards. The parents have been classified in terms of the definition in the existing Act. Any child under the age of 16, not yet called upon to bear a card, if it becomes 16 years of age, is classified, and if there is any question in so far as that child’s classification is concerned, the child will be classified under this definition and not under the definition of the original Act. So that the child is classified in terms of the new definition, whereas its parents were classified under another definition. I hope the hon. the Minister will agree that this is a material point. He is changing the definition, for whatever the purpose may be, but it must be an important purpose, because otherwise he would not change the law. He won’t come in a capricious manner to Parliament to change the fundamental basis upon which classification takes place. So the children will be classified on a basis different from that of their parents. Now under Section 20, as the hon. member mentioned, the question arises of the Minister’s right by proclamation to establish family registers, and I want to ask the hon. Minister quite frankly whether it is his intention by regulation to now establish these family registers. Because, quite obviously, then the position of the children, vis-à-vis their parents, in terms of this new definition, is going to be seen in its proper setting. I do not want to pursue the matter, but I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us quite frankly if that is his intention that those family registers shall be opened so that the parents, the children, and so forth, as provided in the Act, can then be embodied in a special register showing the genealogy of that particular family. We will have to deal with it when we come to Clause 4 from another angle, and that is the angle of search, because particulars can be required for the purpose of that family register under Section 20, so that it is material to this particular point, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us that information.

A child is classified at the registration of its birth, but he only receives his identity card when he becomes 16 years of age. So there is no difficulty. If the parents were classified under the old definition, all the children were classified in the same way, and if there are children presently awaiting classification they will be classified according to the new definition after this Bill becomes law. But the main points remain, that is “appearance” and “acceptance”. Those are the points that they are classified on, and it was exactly the same in the old law.

Surely at birth a child cannot be accepted by anybody else but its parents.

The child is registered at birth, but the child receives its own identity card when it becomes 16 years of age.

I wish to address myself to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Zululand, where he seeks to insert a proviso in regard to the application of the classification the hon. the Minister is introducing now. The matter has assumed considerable importance, and I hope that the hon. the Minister, after the example I am going to give him now, will reconsider his decision, or his attitude in respect of the amendment. I do not want to use the example that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) used last night when she referred to the case of Mr. David Song, who was classified as White whilst his family, in terms of this amendment, will remain classified as Coloureds. Since the Minister made his statement at the introduction of this Bill, he has suspended any further classifications until this Bill will have been placed on the Statute Book. He virtually placed many thousands of people in a sort of racial no-man’s-land, and if I give the hon. the Minister an example which deals with White people, I hope he will reconsider his attitude in respect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Zululand.

What part of the clause are you speaking to?

I am speaking to the proviso. If the hon. member for Standerton has not taken sufficient interest in this debate to know what the amendment is, he should not make silly interjections like that.

The example I want to give to the hon. the Minister concerns a family in respect of which I have had considerable negotiations with the Minister’s Department. The matter of the race classification of this family first came to the attention of the son who, having got married, had to register his child, which was as snow-white as any child of hon. members on the Nationalist Party benches. He then discovered that there was difficulty in registering his child because one of his parents, apparently at the time of the 1951 census, had indicated that he was of mixed birth. In any case, under the procedure that the hon. the Minister himself laid down under the old definition, the son of this family was classified as White. The difficulty then arose in respect of the parents, both the mother and the father, and, because the parents were completely and absolutely accepted in the White community, in their social clubs, in their churches, in their work, in terms of the old definition they were classified as White. But there was one other member of the family who was not available at the time when the classification of the son and the two parents took place. She was not available at the time to obtain the correct classification. Her classification is now pending. The necessary affidavits have been made. Now the point arises that this Minister suspended that one member of a White family, and she has now been placed in a sort of racial no-man’sland, and if that one member of the family, the daughter, whose application for classification as a White person is now pending, but which is now suspended by the Minister, if that daughter admits in her application that one of her parents was of mixed blood, in terms of this definition, that daughter will be classified as Coloured.

Another hard-luck case.

The hon. member should realize that we are dealing with people and not with cattle. We are dealing with human beings, their whole future, their happiness. Sir, it is beyond my comprehension that hon. members on the Government side adopt this inhuman attitude when we are discussing the life and future of thousands of people who are now in this racial no-man’s-land pending the passing of this Bill. It does not affect one or two people. Mr. Song is one. But there are lots of other White people who are being affected by this. I am giving the case of a family of which one member’s classification is now in jeopardy under this new classification. If she admits that one of her parents was of mixed descent, then, in terms of the definition that we are called upon to accept here, she must be classified as Coloured. So you will have the ludicrous situation that the father and the mother and the son and the daughter-in-law are all classified as White, but the one daughter will be classified as Coloured. And the tragedy is even this that this woman I am talking about wishes to get married to a White man, a man who is classified as White. That is her position at the moment, and the matter of her classification, for her own happiness, is a matter of urgency. That is why it has come to the notice of the Department at this stage. But because of the statement of the hon. the Minister in the course of this debate, the marriage cannot take place, and this woman now is in the dreadful position that she does not know what her future holds for her, in respect of her own future, her job and her own family relationship. This is the story of a White family accepted for years in the White community, accepted in every sphere of their daily lives, in their religion, in their play, in their business, and because of the attitude of the Minister, these people have to sit in this dreadful position that they do not know what the future holds for them in terms of the classification under the new definition that the Minister has presented to us. For the sake of humanity I would plead with the Minister. There are hundreds of people who find themselves in a most difficult position. The Minister should at least accept the safeguard contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand.

It seems that the further we go in discussing this definition, the less the Opposition understands or wants to understand it. There is absolutely no difference between the old definition and the new one in regard to the classification of people. The old definition classified people on the principle of appearance and acceptance, and practice has proved that the emphasis has been shifted from appearance to acceptance—not that a person is White, but that he is treated as a White. That is the difference in the classification, and all the new definition does is to ensure that a correct classification is made on appearance and acceptance. That is all The definition wants to close the loophole so that it will not be possible for people who are treated as Whites to be classified wrongly. I will accept that this Mr. Song was treated as a White. They were accepted as such. But these people do not say that he is a White person, because he is not White. But in terms of our present definition he can still be classified as a White, not as an Asiatic who is treated by people as a White, but as a White. Surely that is ridiculous. The hon. member for Turffontein has now given an example. This woman, or whoever it is, will be classified according to the same principles which applied under the old definition.

Why did you stop all the classifications?

I will tell the hon. member: Because we would have been swamped with applications from other Chinese seeking to creep through this loophole, and we would have been swamped by applications from other persons whose appearance and whose acceptance would not be able to comply with the strict tests of actual appearance and acceptance. That is all. But in principle there is not the least difference. There is not a tittle of difference, but that hon. member opposite will not accept it. Those hon. members simply believe that there is a sinister motive here, that we are now causing unhappiness in families. Assurances do not help, nor is the legal language in which it is couched evidently understood. Mr. Chairman, I just got up to say this. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) are now very frightened of these family registers. We have not yet started drawing up a family register. I just want to tell hon. members that much water will still flow under the bridge before the family register can be established under Clause 20. There are a tremendous number of things which have to be smoothed out before that can be done. One would really say, according to what was said here, that these family registers have already been established; we are already busy doing these things, and we are busy classifying people. One child is White and the other is a Coloured person, although they have the same father and mother. It is the greatest foolishness to advance such arguments and make such accusations against us. I simply cannot understand it. Now I just want to say for the last time, in regard to Clause 1, that this clause was drafted and worded expressly in order that the same principles according to which race classification has taken place since 1950 may still be valid, so that it will still be done on those principles, the only difference being that appearance and acceptance will now be given equal weight. The one factor is not given priority over the other, but appearance and acceptance really constitute a concept which is indivisible. I said very clearly that before accepting a person one first has to see him. He makes an impression on one. No one will be accepted—with the proviso we have attached to (b)—if he frankly and voluntarily admits that he is a Coloured person or a Native. The person who admits that, we say, cannot be accepted because he is classified differently. But all other cases where the person objects to his classification are still judged, just as in 1950, under this new definition, on precisely the same principle as before. I now want to ask the House, Sir, not to accept these assurances but to show some co-operation and to prove that, although they do not vote in favour of it, they at least understand it.

Before I call upon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to address the Committee I just want to point out to hon. members that I have allowed a very wide discussion on the main clause and on the different amendments. I have also permitted a number of examples to be quoted to demonstrate the different points which hon. members wanted to make. I must really ask them now to confine themselves strictly to the clause and to the amendments and not to repeat. The hon. Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I had had no intention of taking part in the discussion on the Committee Stage until the hon. the Minister made the statement which he had just made. He has told us that the effect of this amendment is to give equal weight to appearance and acceptance and in fact the general principles as applied in the past continue to apply. The old definition defined a White person as one who in appearance obviously is or who is generally accepted as a White person, but does not include a person who, although in appearance obviously a White person, is generally accepted as a Coloured person. That means that the dominant test was general appearance and even if a man appeared to be Coloured, if he was generally accepted as a White person, he became White. The Minister himself admitted, when I was speaking—as he had done previously in this House—that it was possible for a person to be correctly classified as Coloured but because he was accepted by Europeans as a European in the passage of time his classification would change. That cannot happen under this Bill. The second thing that cannot happen under this amendment is that where a person is generally accepted as a White person, if he looks Coloured, then he is Coloured. That was not the position before. That will be the position under this amending Bill. That is not necessary for Mr. Song or anybody like him; it has got nothing to do with them. That is a brand new innovation of the Minister’s.

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must realize, of course, that he is really speaking on the principle.

No, Sir. What I want to get is clarity. Here we are in the Committe Stage, voting on a clause in respect of which there is still a difference between the hon. the Minister and this side of the House as to what it means. It seems to me, Sir, that is a most unsatisfactory situation. Can I just put this to the Minister, Sir? I have no intention of going into arguments for or against the clause. The Minister has told us that practically speaking there is no change. Surely we must get agreement on this; we can fight about the effects later. What I want to get agreement on is what this means. Surely if words have any meaning, this new clause means that where a person looks like a Coloured man, where he is obviously a Coloured man in appearance, it does not matter if he is generally accepted by the White community, he is a Coloured man. That was not the position in the past.

There is one other change, Sir, if I read this Bill correctly and that is this that it does not matter whether he is generally accepted, it does not matter whether he has not one drop of Coloured blood in his veins, if he looks like a Coloured person, then he is a Coloured person, no matter what the general acceptance is. If we can get agreement that is what this clause means, then we are getting places. But so far we have been arguing as to the differences in meaning in this clause and it seems to me that the Minister is putting the thing in a way which, quite frankly, does not coincide with my reading of this clause or my understanding of it.

One other point. The Minister says a person is classified at birth but gets his identity card when he is 16. Now, Sir, if he is classified at birth, how is he classified? By general appearance and association? If general appearance and association is the test and not what the pedigree of his parents happen to be, then it seems to me that the Minister is facing us with the fact that you can never change the classification which was done at birth, whereas in the past you could, because general appearance and acceptance was the test. If the hon. the Minister can clarify those points for us we will know exactly where we stand.

Mr. Chairman, out of courtesy to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I rise again in an attempt to put the matter even more clearly. The proposition I state is in the first place that appearance and acceptance have since 1950 always been the principles according to which a person should be classified. The ordinary cases, the 98 per cent of cases, afforded no difficulty at all. The only difficulty arose in the 2 per cent of cases—I am giving the percentage approximately—which are borderline cases and where a decision had to be given in terms of the definition. Then the tendency developed—as the Leader of the Opposition correctly stated, the Act did not give the right, but the tendency arose—that in such cases acceptance would be the decisive factor. The hon. the Minister who put this Act on the Statute Book—hon. members can read the Hansard reports of his speeches—definitely said that appearance and acceptance were the two decisive factors. I accept acceptance, and I said unequivocally that the public, public opinion, is and always remains the best judge. That is so. Now I can tell the Leader of the Opposition this: Who will come and say that a person who is accepted as a White looks like a Coloured person? That will be very difficult. But it is easy to state the contrary. There is a Coloured person, and how is it possible for him to be accepted as a White? Then appearance enters into the matter. But who will be the person—there I have always agreed with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—who will say: That person is accepted as a White, but to me he looks like a Coloured? There we will not deprive the man of his classification. We cannot do so. It is a subjective test which must be applied, and I am convinced that any person who in this way loses the classification he prefers and takes the matter to court will win in every case.

Why?

The Leader of the Opposition should not ask me why. I have stated that clearly in two speeches, why it is necessary to make such a change. I can only say that what we are trying to do now, because loopholes have been discovered—just let me repeat this—is that there are actually people who for reasons of their own, of which I do not want to accuse them now, are busy in a subtle way making this legislation ridiculous, and all we are trying to do here is not to do an injustice to people by classifying them wrongly, but to put a stop to this thing so that it cannot continue any further. That is all we are doing, as I have now explained once more. We differ on several points, but I think we should abide by the old English adage that the proof of the pudding lies in the eating thereof. Let us see what happens in a year or two, and I am almost tempted to issue a challenge that hon. members will then realize that there was no substance in any of the bogies they conjured up.

Can it happen, according to your interpretation, that an individual who is without a drop of Coloured blood can be classified as a Coloured because he looks like a Coloured and is not accepted by the Whites?

Definitely not.

How then?

I have said hundreds of times that Coloured blood has nothing to do with it, and if the Leader of the Opposition uses the word “looks” I do not know what he is referring to, whether it is his colour or whether it is his eyes or whatever else it might be. That is not relevant at all. What is relevant is that his appearance and acceptance must both pass the test. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is talking about here is a hypothetical case which cannot happen in practice.

The Minister seems to be in trouble because of the lack of a definition of a “White” person. It says here—

I would like to know who is a White person. That is the crux of the whole matter. I think Parliament should be very clear on that subject. We should not leave it to outside people to interpret who is a White person. When we think of the various races who come here as immigrants, who are we going to classify as White and who are we going to classify as Coloured? I go further, Sir, and ask what is the definition of a Coloured person? I think that is the crux of the whole matter. But let us keep to the White person under 1 (a). Who is a White person? Is he an Argentinian, is he a French North African, is he an Egyptian or who is he? Let us be quite clear on this subject, Sir. We have these people who members of the Government might think Coloured, but would be generally accepted elsewhere as White. Don’t let us generalize; let us be quite clear on this. “In appearance obviously a White person” means nothing. I think we should be very much clearer in this definition, it is far too loose. You cannot expect the officials in the Minister’s Department or other individuals who are going to deal with these cases, to be compelled to use their judgment. The one says: “I think this person is a White person” and the other one says: “I think he is Coloured”. Who is a Coloured person and who is a White person? That is the crux of the whole Bill. We have no clear definition here. Just to say a person is obviously White, and not define what a White person is, is where we fall down in this Bill.

Sir, if the hon. the Minister is serious I want to deal with that matter in relation to my amendment which I moved yesterday, to provide that persons who are already classified shall not hereafter be re-classified. This lends great support to the view that this amendment must be accepted because under the new definition, if this Bill becomes law in the form in which it is now, hundreds of people, who have not and who never have had one drop of non-European blood in their veins, who by descent are pure Europeans (if one can use that expression in this country) will become non-Europeans overnight in terms of Clause 1 (b). The test before was in relation to general acceptance.

Order! Will the hon. member please come back to the Bill. In deference to and respect for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I have allowed the discussion between him and the hon. the Minister, but that is really touching on the principle which has been adopted, the principle of appearance and acceptance. I said that there had been sufficient discussion to clear up the matter and that I could not allow further discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I want to urge upon this Committee that the amendment which I moved yesterday should be accepted because there are a number of people who would otherwise suddenly, overnight, become non-Europeans with disastrous consequences. In terms of the law, not through any action on the part of the Minister or his Department, they will overnight become non-Europeans in terms of this definition. And that is why this was moved and that is why I am so upset that the hon. the Minister has deliberately avoided the amendment which I have moved into this Bill, and that is to give the people who have already been classified the certainty that they will not be affected by this Bill.

The hon. member has made that point before.

The hon. the Minister went on to say that if a child is registered at birth that was the end of the matter and that therefore the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) has no substance. But that is clearly not so. In terms of the clause before us that is not so. With respect, Sir, if you consider this point in relation with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), you have the situation that we have an assurance on the part of the hon. the Minister that he is not going to re-classify certain people. The hon. the Minister says they have been classified but they have not received their classification cards. Do not let us pretend in this Committee and let the hon. the Minister not pretend to this Committee that re-classifications do not take place. There are a number of people today, Sir, who have put in their application forms years ago who have not yet been classified. The hon. the Minister himself gave us the figures. He has shown us that over the years, ever since the principal Act was introduced, there are still thousands of people who have not yet been classified. And there is no doubt that amongst them there are also thousands of children, and those thousands of children will have to be classified in terms of the new definition because if the hon. the Minister does not accept this amendment, he cannot classify them in terms of the old definition. And in terms of the new definition thousands of those people will be Coloured and in terms of the old definition their parents will remain White.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

Sir, it does not seem that it was appreciated by the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member cannot continue on those lines.

The hon. the Minister has not indicated what is meant by the words “who admits that he is by descent a Native or a Coloured person”. In this regard the hon. the Minister referred us to the case of Rex v. Gill where reference was made to “preponderance of blood”. Will the hon. the Minister tell us what “preponderance of blood” means? Will the hon. the Minister tell us how far back one must go in order to be, in terms of this definition, a Native or a Coloured person by descent? Does it mean that if one’s ancestors came to this country during the first 150 years of its existence one is not all right, but if one’s ancestors came to this country after the first 150 years one is all right? I do not know what it means. I think the hon. the Minister owes this Committee an explanation of what this term does mean. What does “preponderance of blood” mean, Sir? On what side must you have preponderance of blood? Is it to be left to the genealogists, to the anthropologists and the the medical men to determine what “preponderance of blood” means; what it is and how it comes about? How can the Government pass legislation like this if the ordinary man in the street does not know where he stands? How does the hon. the Minister expect the courts of law to determine what is a preponderance of blood? How is that to be determined? Must expert medical evidence be called in every case which comes before the board and before the courts?

I move—

That the Question be now put.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F.H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; 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 Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

NOES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior in line 14, put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman dropped.

Remaining amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and the Committee divided:

AYES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

NOES—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G.F. H.; Bekker H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; 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 Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Cadman put and the Committee divided:

AYES—46: Barnett. C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

NOES—84: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; 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 Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—83: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; 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 Spuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

NOES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 4,

In its present form we find paragraph (b) of Clause 4 of the Bill objectionable, but a large part of the sting has been taken out by the hon. the Minister himself, who indicated that, if we requested him to do so, he would introduce an amendment here which would ensure that any person appointed by him to do such investigation would, in fact, be somebody in the employ of his Department, which I will ask him to do on behalf of this side of the House. In addition to that, during the course of the second reading debate, the Minister indicated to us that he would only use this particular power given in Clause 4 where an admission had been made in terms of the last part of Clause 1 as to descent. The amendment which I propose to move merely writes that into this clause. My amendment reads—

I think that is quite straightforward, and the Minister has a copy of this amendment.

I want to keep my word, and particularly as the result of the request now made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis), I want to move the following amendment to Clause 4—

In line 30, to omit “appoint any person” and to substitute “designate any officer in the public service”.

I do that particularly because there was, perhaps, reason for thinking that any person can be appointed for the purpose of this investigation. I also thought that the correct thing to do was to nominate an official of the Department of the Interior, but having investigated the matter, it appears impracticable to limit it to officials of that Department. There will probably be cases where we will have to make use of a magistrate in places where there are no officials of the Department of the Interior. If this is accepted, I just want to say that the investigation is now beyond any doubt in this case being limited to public servants. Hon. members know that all public servants are subject to a disciplinary code; they may, therefore, not make themselves guilty of malpractices, and, if they do, they may even be dismissed from the service. I therefore think hon. members need have no fear.

I would just like to say how we, on this side of the House, appreciate the fact that the Minister has moved that amendment.

I would like now to move on to one other thing in regard to this clause as it stands. The clause, of course, gives powers of investigation, and one sort of case that could be investigated is that of a child and its classification. Here I want to follow up what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his remarks to the Minister when he entered the debate some time ago, because we are under the impression, or I am at any rate, that the Department will to some extent be guided by the speeches in this debate and mainly by the speeches made by the Minister in their administration of the Act. I understood the Minister to say that a child gets his classification at birth, but he gets his card at 16. I may not be aware of the provision under which he gets it at birth, but I think possibly what the hon. the Minister has in mind there is the fact that at birth his parents, of course, indicate his race. And if that, in fact, is the case, then it seems to me that it would still be necessary for that child to be classified at 16; it seems to me that his parents, by indicating his race at birth, are not classifying him as that word is used in the Act, but are merely indicating their view as to his race. When the question of any admission by the child comes into play, or rather when any question of admission at all comes into play, I think there can be no doubt that it must be an admission of the child itself. I would like to be certain that is the case, and that, in fact, the true classification in terms of the Act does take place normally at 16 and not at birth.

Perhaps I should just analyse the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) as I see it. The object of this clause is not for descent to be investigated. The investigation of descent only enters into the picture when somebody admits his descent. It does not come into the picture in an ordinary investigation. But general acceptance is one of the grounds for classification, and it becomes necessary to institute investigation as to whether in a special case there is actually sufficient evidence of a person’s acceptance; that is the important thing. There are of course other matters also which must be investigated, and matters which may perhaps require investigation are matters such as citizenship, the marital status, etc. The hon. member now moves the addition of the words “where there has been an admission in terms of the provisions of Section 1 hereof”. The object of this is that the investigation instituted deals only with what the person has admitted, and that is certainly not the intention of Clause 4. The intention of Clause 4 is this: Take the case where a person submits his proofs for acceptance. The Song case is a typical case, and there the decision of the Appeal Board was that all the proofs submitted to it were in favour of Song’s acceptance as a White person. The Department and other persons outside it were powerless to adduce other proof to put the Appeal Board in the position to decide between the two sets of evidence. I do not say that the Appeal Board would have decided differently; I merely mentioned it as a typical example. Here the departmental officials will now be given the right, when such proof of acceptance is submitted, if they consider it necessary and practicable, to adduce evidence that the person concerned is in fact not generally accepted. I still say that Durban, which accepted Song, did not accept him as a White person, because he himself says that he is a Chinese; they accepted the fact that they treated him as a White person; they let him enter their homes, etc. As the result of the loophole in the Act, this person has now been classified as White. He did not need to be classified as White; he could still have been treated as a White person by those who preferred to do so. I have no objection if people want to do that. I think the hon. member for Umlazi is now, with good intentions, spoiling this whole section. His intentions are good; I grant him that. He wants the investigation to be limited, but if he limits it to persons who make a voluntary admission, then we can only investigate that voluntary admission. Now, what must really be investigated? If that person claims a certain classification, one just wants to make sure that all the data are placed before the people who have to decide, whether it is the Appeal Board or the court, so that they can make a proper decision. I think the lawyers present here will agree that where a person claims something, one wants to make sure that all the information is placed before the body making the decision. With the amendment we have now made to Clause 1, I think the hon. member for Umlazi should not insist on his amendment, seeing that he now has all these assurances. That is how I see the matter.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) stems from exactly the same source as that which motivated me to move the amendment which I moved to the first clause, namely the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister during the second reading. He said then that he wanted these powers of investigation and that they would only be used where somebody makes an admission in terms of Clause 1. That is why this amendment has been moved, Sir. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has forgotten what he said in the second reading, but most certainly the explanation he has given to-day for rejecting this amendment does not accord with what he said earlier.

Surely that was never said. The Minister said just the opposite a moment ago.

Yes, we know that. That is why I suggest that the hon. the Minister has forgotten what he said at the second reading.

I was just trying to help him.

You can’t help somebody who forgets what he says. The Minister now says that he rejects the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. the Minister says that the purpose of this amendment is that they may investigate whether a person is generally accepted or not. I am sorry I cannot accept that is the reason why these powers of investigation without any qualification are necessary; otherwise I am sure the hon. the Minister would put that in and say that they have powers of investigation in that respect. Sir, I am reinforced in my suspicion, because if one looks at the section of the Act which is being amended here, Section 12, one finds that it reads—

Clearly then the director has the same powers as any court; he has more powers than a court because a court must accept what evidence is placed before it, but the director, the secretary, has more powers than that because he can say, “I do not like the evidence that has been given to me. I want more”, and he can demand all the proof as to whether someone is accepted or not. He has the power to call people to give evidence; he can get everyone in the neighbourhood to come and give evidence, and I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi, or if the Minister really means that this is only going to be used for the purpose specified, I hope he himself will introduce an amendment to limit it in accordance with his intentions.

The hon. the Minister said just now that we are virtually making the sub-clause of Clause 1 of no effect if we are going to investigate the case of a man who admits, for the purposes of Clause 1, that he is a Coloured person.

If it is a free and voluntary admission, what is the necessity for investigating it?

That is the point; I am glad that the Minister has put it so clearly. Sir, let us face it that human beings are activated by all sorts of curious motives. It is quite amazing how often people will take a certain line and will even make a declaration for their own purposes. It may well be that you will have people who will say, for their own purposes, that they are members of a Coloured race. They may say it for purposes which are not immediately apparent. But how far is that going to prejudice the children? I am afraid that the question of the children is constantly in our minds on this side of the House. It may seem to ordinary, sane-thinking people that no man who is White is going to stand up and freely and voluntarily say that he is Coloured, but that does not follow. I have seen much more curious things than that made the subject of a declaration. I have seen a man going along to the Valuation Board and asking the Valuation Board to increase the valuation of his property, and he therefore has to pay a higher rate on his property. You wonder why a person would do a thing like that, but there was a very good reason for it. Sir, one man’s admission, standing alone, that he is Coloured should not be deemed to be sufficient to prejudice the classification of the children.

I want to move on now to another point and that is the point that the Minister makes now which we contend is contrary to what he said in the second reading speech, and that is the ambit of the investigation. As we understand the Minister he said quite clearly and unequivocally that the inquiry was for the purpose of judging those cases where a person has freely admitted that he is a Coloured or a Native; that is how we understood him. Now the Minister says that his officials must have the right—or a magistrate if there is no other official in that locality—to investigate the acceptance of that person by the community of which he claims to be a member. I understood that was the Minister’s point.

Under the new clause as amended now you have the right of investigation already. You can prove the contrary if somebody admits that he is a Coloured or a Native.

Who can prove the contrary?

Anybody. The clause has already been amended to that effect.

I am sorry, that does not give the Minister the right to appoint the people who carry out that investigation. That law case still stands until Clause 4 is passed. The point that the Minister made was that the purpose was to investigate association. In other words, if a person claims to belong to a certain race group, the Minister wants to have the power to appoint officials to investigate the question of association, but I do not think the Minister can do that. This clause quite clearly says that the investigation can be in respect of any particulars required to be recorded in the register, but those particulars to be recorded in the register are defined in the Act and they have nothing to do with association. You cannot record the question of association in the register. There are certain particulars which the Act lays down can be recorded, and association is not one of them. All that can be investigated are those matters in the Act which have been particularized and in respect of which the Registrar can take cognizance for the purpose of recording it in the register. As has been said in the past, that information is supposed to be based on the census, birth certificate and other records such as marriage certificates, etc. But there are other records, and that I think is the point in that judgment. But acceptance is not a thing that can be decided by any standards that can be laid down; it is not something that can be written into a set of regulations. What does acceptance mean? I go so far as to say without any shadow of doubt that a particular person will be acceptable to one group of White people and the same person will not be acceptable to another group of White people. You cannot lay down standards for acceptance.

Order! That is not under discussion.

Sir, it is under discussion as far as our amendment is concerned.

The admission referred to in Clause 1 relates to an admission by a Coloured or Native person; that is not a matter of acceptance.

With due respect, Sir, I want to put it to you that this clause as it is being amended provides for an investigation into matters in respect of which particulars are required to be recorded in the register, and those are the matters laid down in a statute, and when the Minister says that he wants the investigation to cover matters other than that, matters which he has specified, I am entitled to show him that he is wrong and that he cannot hold an inquiry into the matter that he has specified, which is the question of acceptance. I say that acceptance is indefinable. May I proceed?

The hon. member may proceed.

I say that this question of acceptance cannot be defined for the simple reason that there is no Coloured man or any other person who is acceptable to White people. He may be acceptable to one group of White people and not acceptable to another group; that is my point. You cannot write that into the law. You cannot have an investigation into a matter of that kind. I submit that the Minister is wrong. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter in terms of his own Bill before us and to realize that is not a matter that can be investigated. I therefore ask him to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi.

I want to refer the hon. member to Section 13 (2), which deals with race classification—

1. (a) his name and sex;
2. (b) his classification in terms of Section 5;
3. (c) his citizenship or nationality;
4. (d) his identity number;
5. (e) a recent photograph of himself; and
6. (f) the date of issue of the identity card.

These are all things in regard to which investigation can and must be made.

That is not what you said.

There is reference here in (b) to the person’s classification in terms of Section 5. If there is an objection to a person’s classification, surely there must be an opportunity to investigate it; or if X is classified as a Coloured person and X says that he is not a Coloured person, and that he wants to be classified as a White person, and he mentions various reasons why he considers himself to be White, and according to all the information available to the Secretary it appears to him that he should investigate the matter, surely he should have the right, if the person says that he has always been accepted as a White, to see whether he has submitted valid facts and proof; and that is the intention in this amendment, to make that change so that the officials can scrutinize the proof submitted. The hon. member says it is not necessary to investigate thereafter; of course it is necessary if one has to determine the person’s classification in terms of Section 5.

I have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), but with respect I do not think that is the answer. The point of the hon. member for South Coast was this, that the reason given by the hon. the Minister for the necessity for the amendment which is being introduced in Clause 4, was to investigate the question of acceptance.

Inter alia.

Inter alia, yes, and the hon. the Minister referred the House to Section 13 of the principal Act, sub-section (2) in particular, but the requirements set out in subsection (2), which the hon. the Minister referred to are not requirements required to be recorded in the Register, and that is the point—they are merely requirements which are recorded in respect of the issue of an identity card. There is no reference in Section 13 (2) to the question of the Register; the Register is dealt with in Section 12. So the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast stands as a perfectly valid criticism, and nothing that the hon. the Minister has said relating to Section 13 is, I suggest, an answer to that point.

I must apologize. I am now referring to Section 7 (1) and (2), and that contains everything, precisely, and still more than is contained in Section 13 (a) to (f), and those are the details which must be entered in respect of every person whose name is entered in the register. Section 7 (1) and (2) give a long list of details.

For the sake of the record and to refresh the hon. Minister’s memory a little, I just want to say that when the hon. Minister mentioned this clause in his second reading speech, he said first of all (according to my notes) that it was necessary because of incorrect or false information which came from the census and so on, and then he said that the main purpose of Clause 4 was to deal with those who know they are other than the group by descent, and that is why the word “admit” should come in here, and that there would be no other inquiry into descent, except on a voluntary admission. Sir, you will remember that to illustrate his point, the hon. the Minister quoted here the case of Mrs. Singh. The hon. the Minister said: Why should Mrs. Singh be allowed to admit that she is an Asiatic for the purpose of putting her marriage right?

No, that was in regard to Clause 1.

He wanted the power to investigate an admission by Mrs. Singh if she admitted that she was an Asiatic to get out of a deadlock.

I there referred to Clause 1.

No, Sir, I have got my notes here which I took when the hon. the Minister was speaking. I want to make it quite clear why I introduced this amendment. Listening attentively to the hon. the Minister—I have not had the benefit of seeing the Hansard report—I gained the impression that he gave the undertaking when introducing Clause 4 that he would use these powers only in cases where an admission had been made under Clause 1.

I made the same note.

That was the impression he gave us when introducing this Bill and from our point of view he must also understand now, that the explanation he has given now, which is entirely different, is a complete about-face in respect of what I understood the Minister to say when he introduced the Bill. I introduced this amendment in all good faith. It is based almost word for word on what the Minister said. But now the Minister has come with an entirely different explanation, I will not go into merits of that. It has been well argued. I only want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister why I introduced this amendment and why it is worded in the particular manner it is, because it is entirely in line with the undertaking he gave us when he dealt with Clause 4.

Unfortunately I cannot leave it there. I have here my written notes, and these are the precise words I used—

I think hon. members really misunderstood me.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Lewis put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—80: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; 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.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton. Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Clause 5 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—80: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; 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.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

NOES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton. Clause accordingly agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time. This amending Bill of which I have just moved the second reading deals with the smartening up and modernizing of a very old and well-known and every-day practical matter, namely fencing. In South Africa, as in other countries which were only thinly populated by non-White races in the early centuries, there was, after the advent of the White man, generally speaking, no established farming industry for many decades which justified fencing. As we all know right up to the nineteenth century farm boundaries and areas in the more thinly populated areas of our country were very vague and boundaries were often established on the basis of so many hours on horse-back in the various directions, from a certain point. The control which the authorities exercised in distant parts of the platteland was such that for all practical purposes land could be freely used.

As the population increased and as the position became more stable on account of industrial and other development the increased demand for agricultural products induced farmers to farm more intensively on farms which were continually getting smaller and to have their borders more clearly defined. The continual increase in land prices emphasized the importance of land with the result that it was recognized that farms should be accurately surveyed and their boundaries clearly defined. That gave rise to a need for legislation to govern the question of fences.

We find, therefore, that laws operated during the time of the previous republics and colonies, which suited the needs of those republics or colonies. With the establishment of Union attention was given at an early stage to the introduction of comprehensive and uniform legislation in regard to fencing, namely when the present Fencing Act was passed in 1912. That Act placed the position in regard to fencing on a firmer basis and provision was made for matters such as (a) the proclamation of areas within which it would be compulsory for adjoining owners to contribute to the costs of erecting or repairing a fence along common boundaries; (b) the erection of quarantine fences in order to combat the prevalence of stock diseases. This section was subsequently incorporated in the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act of 1956; (c) a penalty was provided for in connection with trespassing such as malicious injury to fences, leaving gates open, climbing over fences, etc.; (d) for the settling of disputes by way of arbitration in connection with dividing fences, as for example, the specifications, the usefulness which an owner derived from a fence, or any other aspect in regard to which there was a dispute between the parties.

That Act was of great importance to agriculture in view of the fact that it encouraged the erection of effective farm fences by a more equitable division of the costs of erecting such a fence.

In 1922 another forward step was taken, when the Fencing Amendment Act No. 11 of that year was passed according to which the major portion of Act No. 17 of 1912 in respect vermin resisting fences applied. That Act was of great significance to the sheep farmers inasmuch as the control and extermination of vermin were made compulsory.

The question as to whether or not the provisions regarding a compulsory contribution to the cost of erecting and maintaining a common dividing fence (both stock resisting and vermin resisting) are to be applied in any area, has always been and still is a matter of free choice on the part of the owners concerned; that is, the divisional councils in the Cape Province, or elsewhere the majority of landowners in the area concerned have to apply to the State President through my Department in conformity with the procedure prescribed, for an area to be proclaimed in terms of the Fencing Act concerned. One hundred and fourteen districts in respect of compulsory dividing fences and 69 areas in respect of vermin resisting fences have already been declared in the Republic, which proves the scope of this legislation.

Later on two lesser important Fencing Acts were passed, namely Act No. 24 of 1934 which dealt with the construction of motor gates and Act No. 11 of 1940 which repealed certain obligations in view of the circumstances which prevailed at the time, particularly as far as the provision of fencing material was concerned.

As circumstances gradually changed during the past half century from 1912, it was found the original Fencing laws could be improved upon in certain respects. Furthermore, it is definite policy to consolidate the older laws, particularly those which were passed prior to 1926 and which are in Netherlands instead of Afrikaans, seeing that the younger generation of to-day generally do not understand Netherlands. In the case of the Fencing Act it was decided that it would be preferable to introduce a separate amending Bill first and to introduce a consolidating Bill at a later stage. The present Bill, therefore, is the first step towards the attainment of this dual purpose.

I want to explain the most important amendments. Firstly, we have the definition of the word “holding”. This is being changed so that it will no longer refer to Native locations or reserves but only to land which is held in terms of the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 or to land which falls within a Coloured trust area. Where the Minister or somebody else holds land in trust for a Bantu, a Bantu tribe or community the latter are regarded as the owners for the purposes of the Fencing Act. The idea is to hold those people who benefit by the fence responsible for contributions towards the costs.

Secondly: When it comes to the definition of the word “owner” or “eigenaar” as the Dutch text reads, in Clause 1, the idea is to include the usufruct where the property is subject to a usufruct. A usufructuary, therefore, in terms of these amendments is also deemed to be an owner when it comes to compulsory fencing. In many cases the usufructuary has full use of the land and therefore enjoys the full benefits of the fence.

There are cases where it is not even known who the ultimate owner will be—it may be a great-grandchild who has not even been born—or a surviving spouse. The usufructuary must therefore be in a position to fulfil the obligations which are placed upon him by the Fencing Act.

It is a general principle that a usufructuary need only incur expenditure essential to maintain the property. The Fencing Act can, however, place obligations upon him which he cannot avoid—even though they cannot be regarded as essential.

As you know, Sir, in terms of Section 3 of the existing Act the Land Bank may grant loans to persons who wish to fence their property. That applies to a person who on his own accord wishes to fence his property in and also to the person who is compelled by his neighbour to contribute towards the fencing costs. As far as this is concerned, a practical problem has come to light in the proposed amendment in the Bill as it reads at the moment.

A Land Bank loan for fencing is recorded as a burden on the title deed of the property and the outstanding balance must be taken over by the next owner. It now appears that the same procedure will apply in the case where a usufructuary erects a fence on his own accord. In other words, he is burdening the property, without the owner’s consent, in respect of expenditure which a usufructuary or his estate normally cannot ultimately recover from the owner. For that reason, when we come to the Committee Stage, I will move an amendment so as to make it clear that a Land Bank loan will only be available to a usufructuary where he is compelled to incur expenditure in terms of the Fencing Act, and not where he does so on his own accord. Nevertheless, the Land Bank will still be at liberty to grant a loan to the legal owner, because it will be granted to him. In other words, if the usufructuary negotiates with the owner and obtains his permission to erect the fence and to burden the property, the usufructuary may apply to the Land Bank for a loan on behalf of the owner and with the latter’s consent. He has the right to do that. But it does not apply where he does so on his own accord, without the permission of the ultimate owner.

Hon. members will notice that Clause 17 lays down the procedure which the usufructuary, or his estate, must follow in order to recover the costs from the owner which he was obliged to incur under the Fencing Act. Reference is made to a percentage which has to be deducted annually. After further consideration, however, I felt that a definite percentage cannot be prescribed, because humidity and other circumstances vary in our country from area to area and because fencing material lasts much longer in one area than in another area.

For that reason I shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage which will amount to this that the amount which the usufructuary or his estate can recover from the ultimate owner, can be determined by means of negotiation, and if no agreement is reached it can be determined by means of arbitration. We are therefore observing the old principle which has applied all along in the old Fencing Act. I think an amendment along those lines offers the most practical solution to this little problem.

Thirdly: Clause 5 simplifies the procedure to be followed to have districts proclaimed more expeditiously. It has always been a defect in the law that when it comes to considering objections which are lodged against such a proclamation, it has not been possible to judge what area of land belonged to the person who objected to the proclamation and what area to the person who was in favour of it. According to the proposed amendment this information will in future have to be submitted. We are compelling divisional councils, and where there are no divisional councils, the authorities concerned who call a meeting usually under the chairmanship of a magistrate, to provide that information in the application, not only how many are in favour of it and how many are against it, but how the property is divided between the two parties. I think this is a big improvement.

Fourthly: Clause 8 contains a new principle namely that members of registered hunting clubs and officials in the employ of a divisional council and/or provincial administration, may in the course of a hunt, go through a fence in pursuit of vermin, subject to prior notice having been given. Openings have to be guarded and the fence restored to its original condition later on. The last-mentioned provision in this clause gives the necessary assurance to farmers that their fences will not be damaged.

We are affecting these amendments at the request of organized agriculture and they are also supported by the provincial administrations. Actually some administrations wanted us to go much further and do away with the necessity of giving prior notice. I did not see my way clear to accede to such a request and I therefore rejected it, because in view of the fact that practically every farmer has a telephone to-day, it should not be too difficult when a hunt is being organized by a club to notify the owners concerned. I may just add that provincial ordinances generally provide that clubs which organize a hunt may enter upon property without having obtained the owner’s permission, but the problem, of course, is this that they are not allowed to go through a fence because of the provisions of the Fencing Act. If they may only pass through gates may mean a great loss of time and may even mean the escape of the jackal or other vermin. That is why this clause has been inserted. All we ask jackal clubs to do, which after all consist of the farmers themselves, is that they will act responsibly so that they do not damage their fellow farmers’ fences unnecessarily.

In this connection there is a very useful provision in the Free State ordinance, which provides that a jackal club may instruct owners in its area to erect gates in the fences so that when a hunt is on, it will be easy for the members to pass through the fence, provided such a gate is not closer than 1,000 yards from another gate. I think this is a very practical arrangement and it is something which the other provinces could perhaps follow, particularly in areas where vermin have to be hunted often.

Fifthly: Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the principal Act provides that gates across roads should be affixed to the posts with hinges or pivots so as to facilitate the opening and closing of the gate.

The proposed amendment in Clause 13 provides that gates should be constructed in such a way that they swing about freely above the ground.

The second proviso in sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the principal Act provides that the said sub-section will not be applicable in an area where “Act No. 15 of 1897 of the Cape of Good Hope” applies. The reason why we are repealing this, is that the Provincial Road Ordinances already provide that in general there should not be any swing gates across public roads. That also applies to Oudtshoorn, while the old Act is still referred to in the existing Fencing Act. That old Act is therefore no longer serving any purpose. That is why we are repealing it.

The remaining amendments are introduced in order to improve phraseology and definitions to suit present-day circumstances, and do not really entail any important changes in principle.

I want to assure hon. members that all the bodies concerned, such as the S.A. Agricultural Union, the S.A. Railways, Provincial Administrations, and the Government Departments concerned, have been consulted on various occasions. The recommendations which we received from the S.A. Agricultural Union and other bodies have been accepted as far as possible and incorporated in these amendments. Some recommendations, unfortunately, could not be accepted by the Department or by the legal advisers. I move.

We on this side of the House support this Bill and we give it our wholehearted support. As the hon. the Minister rightly said this was a smartening up of the old Act which is already very old, and it has consequently become necessary to smarten it up. Fencing is one of the things which has greatly contributed to the success of farming in South Africa, it has in particular been in the interests of stockfarming. I remember the days when there was no fencing in certain areas and we know the bad friendship which that caused between farmers. I think few things have contributed more towards creating peace between the people than fencing. I remember the days when one farmer used to send the stock of another farmer to the pound. In those days pound masters made a good living. Fencing is one of the things which has created peace amongst the people, and as the hon. the Minister has said, it has helped us to combat pests and vermin. Consequently fencing has been one of the things which has greatly contributed towards the promotion of the farming industry in this country. We support the Bill. There are a few points here and there to which other hon. members may perhaps refer more particularly.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all welcome this Bill very much. Farmers throughout the country welcome it. In view of the fact that organized agriculture and the South African Agricultural Union have approved of it, I think we ought to thank the Minister for having introduced this Bill. This Bill is bringing about a number of good improvements. The first is the provision in connection with usufructs. In the past a great deal of difficulty was experienced where the younger people had not had the opportunity of developing the land. In future, in terms of the provisions in respect of usufructs, it will be possible to improve the position considerably. I wish to add that where we have to destroy jackals, because they are a very great danger to the sheep farmer and cause a great deal of damage in South Africa because they destroy thousands of sheep, I think the Minister is doing the right thing by making it possible for us to destroy them. I hope that in future fencing will be so effective that pest will be completely destroyed. With these few words I welcome this Bill on behalf of the farmers.

I should like to say that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. We realize that it does tidy up the position and that it will make the administration of the Fencing Act easier. There are certain aspects which, as the hon. the Minister has said, can be debated when we come to the Committee Stage. I refer, for instance, to Clause 8 where a vermin club is given permission to cut a fence or remove a gate or part of the fence provided it is adequately guarded and repaired within seven days. That is something which we will have to debate. Fences are sacred. We quite understand that members of a hunting club should be allowed to creep through and over a fence. That is only natural; they have to follow the dogs. It is not always necessary for them to get through with their horses in such a hurry that they should destroy a fence. It is almost impossible, once a fence has been cut, to repair it and to bring it up to the standard it was before it was cut. We could make provision perhaps, as they do in the Free State as the Minister has said, for special gates, particularly where areas are badly infested with jackal. I agree that where gates are necessary they should be inserted, but the powers which are granted under Clause 8 seem to be quite unreasonable. I think the Minister must provide for something that will not create antagonism amongst the farming community. This can easily be done. We know there are places, Sir, where a farmer is unpopular and a vermin club may exercise the powers which they are given under this Bill, which I think will be rather unfortunate.

The circular which we have received states that the Minister is amending this Act with the intention of consolidating the fencing Acts next year or in the near future. As this is the case, I should like the Minister to give consideration to what constitutes vermin. In this Act which he is now amending vermin, as regards jackal-proof fencing, seems to apply only to jackal. But it does not state what kind of jackal. There is the jackal which they call the “bakoor” jackal. Some farmers say those should be killed and others say they should not be killed, but it is a jackal.

Rooi jackal.

Yes, but the Act says nothing about the rooi jackal. The Act refers to jackal-proof fencing. Under the heading “vermin”, which appears frequently in these Acts, reference is only made to Jackal. But there are other vermin as well. The lynx, for instance, is a vermin. Jackal clubs spend a great deal of time on trying to eradicate the lynx. In many areas they constitute a far greater menace to the sheep farmer than the jackal. Even the kudu was declared to be vermin in the Cape Province for three years some years back. When we consider the clause of this Bill I would like the Minister to consider what can be done to control the kudu adequately. As the Minister will know, the kudu conveys tick-borne diseases it conveys TB to a very large extent in some areas. As regards the kudu-proofing of fences the Minister will find all the information he requires in South West Africa where all areas of land under cultivation are kudu-proof. Even if the kudu-proofing of fences is introduced into this Act it will be no hardship, because it will only apply in those areas where the overwhelming majority of farmers ask for that provision to be implemented. The Minister is also concerned with soil conservation, and soil conservation in the kudu area… [Interjections.] I did not hear the hon. member but he may ask a question.

What are the specifications for kudu fencing?

Where the kudu predominate fence conservation and pasture conservation is quite out of the question. In any part of our country where there are kudu you will always find the kudu creating sanctuaries in areas which are spared and where stock are not allowed to run. Kudu travel very many miles, Sir. Distance means nothing to a kudu. There are farms in the Albany constituency which have 600 to 700 kudu on them. When they were declared vermin 700 were shot on one farm.

Disgraceful!

The hon. member says “disgraceful” but if he knew what the infestation of tuberculosis was at that particular time and how that shooting out eased that position, he would not say “disgraceful”. There is no danger whatsoever of the kudu becoming extinct.

I wish to ask the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) in regard to his remarks, whether he is suggesting that the kudu should be declared vermin?

Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to suggest that at all. I was trying to indicate that, in the interests of the kudu, it is essential that their movements are controlled and you can only do that by provisions in the Fencing Act. It is something entirely in the power of the Minister. Control of kudu by adequate fencing will encourage its preservation and it will control its movements in areas where soil conservation is impossible to-day on account of their presence. It will only be in very limited areas where this control will be exercised. Perhaps the House would like to know more about the kudu, Sir; it is very interesting. You know, Sir, in 1907 in the southern area of the Cape Province there was only one small farm, owned by a Mr. Tomlinson, where kudu were preserved. Mr. Tomlinson created a sanctuary and from that sanctuary kudu spread over an area of thousands of square miles.

Are they still a problem to-day?

The kudu is not a problem, but, if it can be done, the movement of all animals should be controlled; that is essential to the farming community of South Africa. The farmers do not want to eradicate the kudu. They want to preserve them. As this control can be brought about under the Fencing Act, I think I am quite in order to appeal to the Minister to give this matter his consideration. It will not mean any hardship to anyone; it will only apply to specified areas where the overwhelming majority of farmers asks for this provision to be implemented. It will be a hardship to no one; it will be in the interests of soil conservation; it will control tick-borne diseases and it will be in the interests of controlling tuberculosis. Hon. members opposite who have interjected do not realize that one some farms where there is a large population of kudu, the cattle are so infected with tuberculosis that they can only be sold to the abattoirs; the farmers cannot sell them on the open market, they will not get a bid. And, at one time, no one would consume the flesh of a kudu on account of the bad report which the Veterinary Department gave in tuberculosis infection.

The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the liberty you have given me to stress my point. I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to provision being made in the Fencing Act for the control of kudu. It can very easily be done by simply adding “or kudu” after “jackal” in a certain clause. However, I do not want to rush the Minister into anything of this nature. I would like him to give it consideration. We realize, of course, Sir, that though the Minister has consulted the Agricultural Union and other authorities, this Bill does not comply entirely with the recommendations made by those bodies. We appreciate though that there is consultation. We know that the Minister does not have to act in conformity with the wishes of the South African Agricultural Union and other interested bodies, and that is how it should be. But I would appeal to the Minister to give this request of mine some consideration especially in view of the fact that he intends consolidating the Fencing Acts. Once those Acts have been consolidated we should not wish to amend it to any considerable extent. I think this is a matter which deserves the Minister’s attention and I feel he should consider it.

Before I say anything else I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for having given notice of the two amendments which he intends moving in the Committee Stage of this Bill, particularly in respect of the manner in which the ultimate owner will have to pay for any fencing which is erected. I think that the percentage basis, as the Minister has said, will have landed us in a very difficult position. I think the idea that it should be done on the basis of valuation and by agreement, and if that does not succeed by arbitration, is the right course to adopt.

Your entire life consists of boundaries and fences, Sir, and that is why the Fencing Act is a very important Act to us. As a practical farmer, Mr. Speaker, you yourself know that if you pull the wire very taught and it breaks every now and then because somebody had twisted it in a few places, you immediately get hot under the collar—you become dissatisfied. There is nothing more unsightly than an unsightly boundary fence, than an untidy and loose wire. But, on the other hand, nothing is more pleasant than to erect a neatlooking fence and to pull the wires taught. That evidences the proper human attitude because there are boundaries between one farm and another and between one human being and another. That is why we regard this as a very important Bill.

I regard a few of these amendments as important and I want to deal briefly with them and draw attention to them. As regards land-ownership we are effecting a change in this Bill in respect of Native locations in Coloured communities, to bring the position into line with the Native Trust Act of 1936. As I read it, it will be possible in future to call upon the Bantu authorities in the new developing Bantu homelands to pay the amount which is levied here for the necessary fencing. The Minister of Coloured Affairs also appears for the first time in this Bill as owner or trustee—as owner in his capacity as trustee of the Coloured communities.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with Section 3 of this Act. In the first instance the amendment provides that it will be R20 in future and not £10. The question immediately rose in my mind why it was not R40; why is reference still made to pounds and why does it not say R40? There is another amendment which I think is important. We have the following in the old Act in Section 3—

It is clearly stated in the new amendment that the owner will be entitled to the loan with this proviso: “subject to the provisions of the Land Bank Act, 1944 (Act No. 13 of 1944).” My argument is that the old Act did not refer to the Land Bank Act of 1944, and in terms of the old Act anybody who applied to the Land Bank for a loan was entitled to that loan irrespective of whether or not the Land Bank regarded it as an economic investment and irrespective of whether or not the Land Bank took the security into account. The Land Bank was compelled to grant the loan. My interpretation of this proviso “subject to the Land Bank Act of 1944” is that in future the Land Bank will be able to determine whether there is economic security for the loan. Otherwise I do not know why this has been added. I will be grateful to the Minister if, when he replies, he will tell me whether my interpretation is correct. I think it is essential that my interpretation be the correct one, because we amended the Land Bank Act two years ago and authorized the Land Bank to issue debentures in order to obtain money and it is obvious, therefore, that persons who lend money to the Land Bank will expect the Land Bank to grant loans against proper security and consequently we should not tie the Land Bank down in this Bill to grant a loan without security. I will be pleased if the Minister will tell me whether that is correct.

I now wish to deal with Clause 8, which I regard as important. The old Act only provided that a person could be prosecuted for trespassing but here properly registered hunting clubs are protected. I am very pleased that the Minister is providing a great measure of protection to the farmers, because he provides that jackal clubs must first give notice to the farmer, but it does not say in what form that notice should be given. They can also give notice by telephone. The difficulty may arise that the farmer denies having been notified by telephone or that a registered hunting club may say that it did give notice by telephone but that it cannot prove it. Perhaps the Minister should consider stipulating more clearly in what form notice should be given so as to avoid any difficulty. I am pleased, however, that the Minister has provided that if a jackal club has given notice and finds it necessary to cut a fence, it should place a guard at that opening until the fence has been restored. It is also provided that the fence should be satisfactorily restored to its former condition. That is a great measure of protection because in the past many jackal clubs did not afford this protection to the farmer. They simply cut a fence or flattened it down and went through with their horses and only repaired it a week later after the stock had already passed through. It should be possible for jackal clubs to go over these fences in pursuit of a jackal because a jackal is very wily and travels a long distance. He does not hunt where he lives, but 20 miles distant. I have already seen it happen that when you hunt him on horseback and with dogs, you have to follow him for 20 miles, and he then turns around and returns along a river. He is as wily as some party politicians.

Order!

I am pleased that the Minister is placing the obligation on the clubs of placing guards and of restoring the fence. I am greatly in favour of the system which operates in the Free State, namely, that gates should be erected. That will perhaps solve the problem of the farmer in keeping his fence in good condition.

I now come to Clause 13 which deals with gates. It provides that gates should swing clear of the ground. I think that is very important, because I have often experienced it that when you travel and your wife has to open the gate, she cannot drag that gate along the ground. This is a difficult problem which should be considered. What happens if a person erects a gate in terms of the Act and a number of Bantu children who pass through it on their way to school ride on it? How does the prosecution take place? I think a good idea is to span barbed wire along the frame. That, however, is a problem which we should take into account.

There is one other thing which I want to raise with the Minister. The law provided previously that a person could clear bush for a distance not exceeding five feet on each side of a fence, but Clause 15 clearly states that this is only applicable to dividing fences. Is this amendment necessary? In practice, if a farmer erects a fence on his farm and he finds it necessary to clear bush along that fence, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. I ask this question because in those areas where they grow wattle trees, they plant the trees right up against the fence, often on both sides. I should like to have this stated very clearly.

With these few words I wish to say that I am very pleased that this Bill has been introduced and I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the Consolidating Act will shortly be translated into Afrikaans.

The Bill has already had its blessing from this side and we all agree with the Minister that good fences make good neighbours, but I want to put one aspect to the Minister, to which I do not think he has given sufficient thought. We have neighbours at present who are going to become neighbours living in a different state. I do not think the Minister realizes what a bad state of affairs exists where there is contact between the White areas and the Bantu areas. The Minister makes provision in Clause 2bis for us to call upon the Bantu Affairs Department through the Chief Bantu Commissioner of the area. Will that gentleman be responsible, should he be called upon, and have we any certainty that he will make a contribution towards erecting that fence which has been broken down? That is not our experience. Having told the Minister of the state of affairs existing on the borders and the fact that we are getting new neighbours, who will be more uncontrollable than they are at present, where fences have been erected they are cut and the material is stolen. There is continuous trespassing and hunting by those people, so much so that there are possibly hundreds of miles of those borders that remain unfenced. I would like to give one example. In 1907 when there was an encroachment of East Coast fever into the Transkei, the Cape Government, in an endeavour to control the disease, decided that it would use the Kei River as a border and fence it, and they put guards there as well to arrest the disease. All went well up to that point, but immediately the disease was isolated and the guards were removed the fence began to disappear almost instantly. It was being stolen and transported miles into the Native reserve, and that is what is happening to the fences of farmers also. I have photographs here that I am prepared to produce to the Minister, of fences that were cut and removed within the last six months, so much so that the Government put the whole of that fence up to tender and it was sold. How does the Minister expect farmers to cope with such a position, which is no different to-day than what it was then? I can tell the Minister that when the new Bantustans in the Transkei are set up it will be decidedly worse. The Minister’s predecessor, with a view to controlling diseases which all came down the East Coast, undertook to go into the matter of fencing that area as a protection against diseases. I want to know whether the Minister has pursued that matter any further.

Then I want to come to Clause 8. Surely that clause perpetuates something which is antiquated in the Ordinance and in the Act. While I agree that it is necessary under circumstances to cut a fence to allow dogs through to follow up vermin, surely the idea under present circumstances, with modern conveyance—it is not necessary to do things like that. However, I accept that it should be done in an emergency. But surely the Minister will not allow people to cut a fence and leave it there for seven days. I accept that he makes provision for a guard to be put on the fence, but will the Minister, tell me, in our country, how long the guard will be there? It is impossible to depend on those people who will be put on as guards to remain there for two days, let alone seven. I think the Minister must move an amendment in the Committee Stage to give them a restricted period of time in which to repair the fence.

Then I want to come to this clause which I regard as dangerous, this clause which deals with the usufruct. Now farmers may be called upon to erect vermin-proof fences, to which they must contribute, but that is not the only item in regard to which a usufructuary can be called upon to do something which may cost a lot of money, and for that reason I say that this may create a precedent. Supposing that particular farm over which a usufruct is held, possibly by a woman, has a dairy which existed before the usufruct was taken over. It supplies milk to a local authority. That local authority can come along and demand the building of a new shed, or new refrigeration, which may cost a lot of money, and it is that or no licence, and the usufructuary dare not let that asset lapse.

I do not think that is a good analogy.

That does not matter. It is still a parallel which createst precedents which might be carried further. However, where I do agree is that when a usufructuary has had the benefit for a long time of that property, he or she should contribute, but when it comes to the cancellation of the usufruct, a year or two before it is cancelled by death or otherwise, then I think some consideration must be given. Beyond that the Bill has our blessing, and I sincerely hope the Minister will give some consideration to the Transkeian Territories, which is the biggest breeder of our vermin, plus the Forestry Department, and that he will approach his colleague to have a No Man’s Land established between the two boundaries, because that is the only amicable solution to the problem, failing which it will have to be fenced in a manner and protected in a manner which will not bring about the irritations taking place at present.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has said, when you think of it that this legislation, the principal Act, has been in existence since 1912, it is clear how well that Act was drafted at the time, at a time when there was great difficulty in respect of fences and boundaries. I think, after water, fencing is one of our greatest problems. That is why it is that throughout all these years few amendments have been effected to this Act, and with a view to its consolidation, something which the Minister is contemplating, we are pleased that he is smartening up the Act. When you study these amendments, Sir, it is clear that the object is more to smarten up the Act than anything else, except for Clause 8, where a new principle is introduced, and the question of usufructs is also being cleared up. I am convinced of it and know that as far as boundary lines are concerned, usufructs often cause great difficulty. That is why I am pleased that we are now providing by law what steps should be taken.

As far as Clause 8 is concerned, which gives hunting clubs the right to cut fences, we have to ask ourselves whether or not it is necessary to exterminate vermin. It is correct to say that every farmer is proud of his fence, and when you cut a fence which has been properly constructed, it is very difficult to restore it to its former condition, but you have no option because the hunters and their dogs and horses have to get through and they cut the fence.

In regard to what the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has said about the seven days, to which he obviously objects strongly, I just want to say that I think that is why the Minister places the responsibility on the club and why he says they should place a guard there. I do not think any club will be so irresponsible as to wait seven days before they restore such a fence. They usually do it immediately. Because the Minister places the onus on the club to place a guard there it will effect the repairs as soon as possible; they will not wait seven days. I am also pleased to see that the Minister provides for an alternative in respect of advertising that a hunt is to take place. He provides that it should be published in a newspaper circulating in the area or that notice should be given to the owner. It often happens that the owner cannot be traced, very often they see to that deliberately, and that is why it is essential to publish it in a newspaper. I am convinced that the Minister has considered this matter very thoroughly, in consultation with the Agricultural Union, and I think it is an essential concession to clubs to be able to cut fences. We are grateful to him for having taken this step. In the past the fact that owners did not want to give their permission to the clubs to hunt on their farms constituted a great defect. As a result when they pursued vermin and they came up against a fence they could not go any further. But the Minister is, however, now giving them the right to do so.

I am a little perturbed about what the Minister said in connection with gates, because if you erect various gates and they are not kept locked you are confronted with the danger of stock theft and if you keep them locked they are of no assistance to the clubs. The Minister will probably say that on such an occasion the gates should be opened, but you never know in which direction the vermin will be pursued, they are often pursued for a long distance and many of those gates will not be open. I think the Minister should give serious consideration to that matter before he makes it compulsory. We are pleased that the Acts are to be consolidated and I think that will be very favourably received.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this Bill deals with fencing and not with the destruction of fences, but I want to take up the point made by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) in connection with our boundaries with the reserves. This is not growing into an important issue; it has become one already. If the Minister is considering a consolidating measure, I hope he will make it an amending and consolidating measure and deal with this question of the destruction of our fences, and not only with their construction. Under the provisions of this Bill, quite frankly, speaking for myself in my personal capacity, I can tell the Minister that I would have to be fencing my boundaries at least every three months. I would like the Minister to make the position quite clear. In terms of Clause 2bis, it is merely sufficient now for us to give notice to the Native Commissioner after an area has been proclaimed. If the area is a proclaimed area under the Fencing Act, there is a compulsory contribution towards the cost of a fence. We do not know what to do about it. We are in this difficult position that those of us who have border farms have reached the position to-day that we do not even report to the police such serious matters as the destruction of our fences be cause of the situation that is created immediately between those Bantu and ourselves. The destruction of the atmosphere between the Bantu and the Whites—we are not willing to destroy that atmosphere even for serious misdemeanours like the destruction of our fences. If we go back to the Native Commissioner and ask for the fence to be reconstructed—as I say, I would be doing it every three months. We construct the whole fence; it is not just putting in a pole here and there. If the Minister can give us the assurance that there will be an immediate reaction and that we will get immediate approval for the reconstruction of the fence from the Native Commissioner, and that they will stand the racket for their share of the fence—unless they are themselves witnesses to the destruction for which they have to pay,—we will get no redress at all. It is only in the case where the fence is destroyed and you can go to the magistrate and say you want to rebuild the fence and you serve notice on him in terms of the Act that the Minister must accept the responsibility and agree to pay, and then the new fence is constructed, and in three months’ time it is destroyed again and you serve notice again, and when you have done that five or six times in the course of 18 months the Native Commissioner says this will not do and we must do something about it. It is a completely impossible situation. I have had cases where a sledge has been brought in, all five strands of the fence cut, the fence carted off on the sledge and every standard is pulled out for half a mile, which is as much as eight or ten oxen can pull, and then they drive off and when the police come along the Natives sit there and tell you to identify that wire. The cases have gone to court and the magistrate says he cannot convict because you cannot identify the wire as your own. What can we do? We can only notice again. Until that problem is tackled, this provision has no value. We must know that the Native Commissioner will act immediately and will agree to pay half of the next fence, and in three months’ time we will build another one, and in another three months we will build another one, because that is what is happening. My farm is virtually to-day without a fence for the five miles which is the border between me and the Bantu, and I cannot kick up a row and go to the police and cause trouble and come into conflict with the Natives on the boundary. I am down here in Cape Town, Sir. I cannot have all the people on my farm left at the mercy of the hostility of those Bantu, because I am going to fight them for having destroyed my fence. This is an important matter to every border farmer in the Republic, and I hope the Minister will apply his mind to tackling that problem.

I want to say a word or two on this question of vermin, and here I will follow the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). Sir, vermin is not defined here. I think the Minister said that vermin was defined mostly in provincial ordinances and, of course, what is vermin in one province is not necessarily vermin in another province. The term is a colloquial term but it is also a legal definition in terms of certain provincial ordinances, so what is vermin in one province at a given time, may not be vermin in that same province at a later period. Not only may it not be vermin in another province, but may I give an example in the case of leopards. In Natal leopards were regarded for many years as vermin and there was a very substantial fee paid for their destruction. Today they are not only not vermin but they are very strongly protected because of the fact that it has been found that they prey on baboons and on jackal as well as on dassies, so as to get the natural predator for the baboon and the jackal and the dassie we now preserve the leopard.

The hon. member for Albany referred to the kudu and the fact that in certain districts they were proclaimed vermin. I do want to put this to the Minister that in certain animal-borne diseases, the kudu is a very dangerous animal; he is in regard to nagana as well as bovine tuberculosis. When the big anti-nagana campaign was under way many years ago in Zululand, a wounded kudu would travel for 20 miles sometimes out of the area in which it had been wounded, and it would take the tsetse-fly with it, and you could almost follow its trail some few weeks later by the outbreak of nagana that took place along the spoor where that kudu had travelled. The fly dispersion, as they called it, from the areas—the Minister will be informed on this point through his veterinary officers—the fly dispersion was activated to a greater extent by kudu than by any of the other animals that we had to deal with. The kudu is not an animal that tends to remain in its own territory. A kudu can be proclaimed vermin—and for the purposes of this Bill they are vermin—in an area where due to their increased numbers they have to be destroyed, but you cannot be certain that every animal that is shot at will in fact be killed there; in other words, the wounded animal will always tend to get away, and nothing more than a kudu will travel for long distances when once it has been shot at under those conditions. Many animals, particularly the antelopes, have got what is called territorial sense, and they will stay in an area of 300, 400 or 500 acres; they will go round more or less in a general circle and remain in that territory, but that does not apply to the kudu. The kudu is not an animal with a territorial sense. The kudu naturally under ordinary circumstances will go 15 to 20 miles from one grazing ground to another, and apart from the eland, there is probably no jumper to compare with him; so if, for example, there was to be an outbreak of disease, not necessarily nagana or bovine tuberculosis—it might even be foot and mouth disease—in a certain area, and there were kudus there that had to be destroyed and they were proclaimed vermin and therefore came under the bann of this Act, then there is much to be said for the argument put forward by the hon. member for Albany, because those animals will never be stopped by an ordinary fence. They are an extremely dangerous factor to take into account with regard to the question of the conveyance of disease to domestic animals from and by means of livestock when once the vector is there.

Although I welcome this Bill, I hope I will be allowed to try to get an explanation from the hon. the Minister, because it is a small matter which has, nevertheless, caused me a little concern. I refer to 21bis of this amending Bill and to sub-section (a) as well. It deals with the right of persons in command of clubs to cross certain fences either by climbing over them or crawling through them, etc. The first point I wish to raise in this connection is this: I believe the term “climb over and crawl through” would have been quite sufficient to enable any hunter to pass through a fence quickly. There is something else which worries me, and that is the reference to the damaging of fences. I think it is somewhat redundant to provide in this Bill that a fence can be damaged because we know that once a vermin-resisting fence has been damaged it will be very difficult for the club or anybody else to restore that fence to its former good condition. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not in this Bill restrict the right of entry to climbing over and crawling through, and delete the rest, because the damage may be of such a permanent nature that the fence cannot be properly repaired.

That brings me to the question of the concession to a club to pass through fences in the areas in which it is registered and within which it operates. I welcome this, but I, nevertheless, feel that, when vermin are being pursued, practical experience has taught us that the vermin do not know where the boundaries of that area is. They simply cross the boundaries. Where we border on to Natal and our hunting areas consequently border on to that province, however, I should like to know whether this clause affords sufficient protection so that prosecutions cannot be instituted against a hunter thus employed if he is obliged to cross the Drakensberg range in pursuit of vermin, where he has to damage or remove fences in order to go through, naturally with the idea that such opening will temporarily be placed under guard until such time as it is repaired. If that fence is a vermin-resisting fence, I think that he will hardly be protected in an area outside an area which is regarded as the hunting area of such a hunter. I should very much like the hon. the Minister to explain that little point to me so that I can support this Bill 100 per cent and not only 95 per cent.

I wish to refer to another matter in connection with Section 28 (2) which contains certain provisions in respect of the erection of gates. Section 1 (2) of Act No. 24 of 1934 says this—

In the Netherlands text they refer to “toestellen” (contrivances) and with the little knowledge which I have of Netherlands I would say that “toestellen” refers to the motor-gates which we have to-day. I wish to say this: We will not serve any purpose whatsoever if we amend the other provisions of the Fencing Act so as to solve our problems, if we do not amend this as well. I contend that an ordinary motor-gate, irrespective of what make it is, does not remain vermin resistant for a long period of time. I would, therefore, very much like the hon. the Minister also to introduce a provision in this respect on a later occasion when this Fencing Act is reviewed, to the effect that where a vermin-resisting fence crosses a certain road, the gate which is erected there should also comply with all requirements for a vermin-resisting gate. According to subsection (2) it is permissible to erect a gate which will only prevent livestock from crossing. I think I am correct in saying that this refers to the motor-gate, the grid-iron gate, and I say, without fear of contradiction, that it has been found that the motor-gate does not remain vermin resistant very long.

Having raised these two points, I wish to thank the Minister for this Bill as far as the other clauses are concerned, and I hope the points I have raised will enjoy his attention.

I can see the reason why the Minister is giving clubs the right in this Bill to damage fences in the pursuit of vermin but I feel very unhappy about that clause. I do not know whether I can suggest anything to improve the clause. There is no doubt about it that a farmer who has erected a vermin resisting fence, usually erects an outstanding fence. For example a good fence is a 3 foot sub-fence with five barbed wires above. If you cut that fence in the pursuit of vermin, my contention is that fence can never be restored to its previous condition; it simply cannot be done. It means that the whole section from anchor to anchor which has been cut must be taken down and re-erected, because the moment the wires are cut the iron posts are pulled over and they hang. Nobody on earth can pull that posts into its former position unless he loosens the wires, takes the post out, straightens it and replants it. The result is that unless you break down that fence completely you will never restore it to its former condition. What is the solution? I want to suggest to the Minister that bridle gates should be constructed in such fences. When vermin is pursued and they jump over the fence or crawl through it, a dog or a few dogs can be thrown over and even the hunter can jump over. If you erect a 3 foot bridle gate in every second or third section, i.e. every 1,500 yards, through which a man on horseback can go in pursuit of vermin, it will not be necessary to cut that valuable fence. Those gates can be constructed in such a way that they will always be vermin-resistant, and the costs involved are not very high either, because a small 3 foot gate costs approximately R2.50 or R3; that is what it costs together with two straining posts. This to me is a serious matter because if you wish to erect a fence which is worth while calling a fence, you do not want to have it cut and unless it is defined in the Bill how that fence should be repaired, I foresee a great deal of difficulty. If it has to be restored to its former condition, that can only be done by pulling down the entire fence between the two anchor posts and re-erecting it. I should like the hon. the Minister to think about that. I do not suggest that my fence should not be cut when a jackal or other vermin are being pursued because I know what damage those vermin cause; I have experience of that. But ways and means should be found whereby it will be possible for the hunter to pursue those vermin properly.

I do not wish to say anything further. This is the only point in the Bill which worries me. For the rest I support the Bill because I want the vermin exterminated.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member who has just sat down and say that anybody who calls himself a farmer, takes meticulous care of his fences, particularly his boundary fences. I think we are giving too much power to members of a jackal club in this Bill. If the hon. the Minister can give me the assurance that every member of that club is a responsible person…

They are farmers.

They are not all farmers. Numbers and numbers of young people join jackal clubs for the sake of the sport and they are not all responsible people. I would have felt easier in my mind had this clause provided that a jackal club should appoint two or three or four responsible people who must decide whether a fence should be cut. It should not be left to every member of that club to cut fences to his heart’s content. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that there are responsible and also very responsible people. There will be cases where members of a club will simply cut fences left, right and centre because they have a grievance against somebody.

There is one other little point which I do not understand. Why, in the case of vermin-resisting fences, should that fence be repaired the same day whereas in the other case, where it is not a vermin resisting fence, seven days are allowed within which the fence can be repaired? I think that in that case too the fence should be repaired the same day; in that case jackal clubs will not be so quick to cut fences.

I merely wished to raise these two points. For the rest I think everybody welcomes this Bill. We all realize how essential it is to have jackal clubs but we do feel, however, that they should act in a responsible way.

I am very pleased that this Bill has been generally welcomed by both sides of the House and that there are no major objections or differences of opinion as to the principle. I just wish to say that many matters concerning specific clauses have been brought to my attention, of which I have taken notice but I do not think, however, that this is the time or the place to deal with those matters. I think the best place to discuss those problems and difficulties in regard to certain specific provisions is the Committee Stage.

I wish to assure the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), however, that I will give attention to the suggestions which he has made, but I think I should tell him at this stage already that as far as kudu are concerned, it will simply remain a question of giving attention to it, because we are not dealing with vermin in this Bill. This Bill deals with fences which have to keep vermin out and I am not laying down the specifications for those fences. That is something which the neighbours themselves have to agree upon. If it is kudu area and they wish to keep the kudu out and various farmers want to erect a fence according to certain specifications I think they will decide on those specifications and then submit their application. It will have to be a fence which will keep kudu out. I spoke to a national parks warder in one of our northern areas for instance, and he gave me his personal assurance that he had seen with his own eyes a kudu jump over a 9 feet wire fence without touching it. I myself have seen him clear a 7 feet 6 inches fence as easily as some hon. members drink a cup of coffee.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) raised a point to which I feel I should reply at this stage. He wanted to know what we intended doing in the case of those gates which have to swing clear of the ground and which are damaged by Bantu children coming from schools and swinging on them. I want to give him this advice: We cannot provide in this Bill what should be done, but I think there are only two ways of stopping that: You should either educate them or give them a hiding, or both.

As far as the clearing of bush is concerned we are dealing here with boundary fences; you and your co-owner should come to an agreement in which he is compelled to contribute towards the cost and that is why we are only making provision for the clearing of bush as far as boundary lines are concerned. There is one other point to which I want to refer and that is the point raised by the hon. members for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in respect of boundary fences along Native areas. Hon. members must realize that these amendments are making the position easier than it was, because I think as the law stood, it was not clear, in the case of a person whose farm is situated in a proclaimed fencing area which borders on to a Native reserve, who he should hold responsible or who he should ask to contribute towards the cost of erecting the boundary fence, whether it be a vermin-resisting fence or otherwise, because who is really the owner? An entire Bantu tribe may own it jointly. I am not in a position to give assurances as to the policy which the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will follow in the areas which fall under it as trustee. I do believe, however, that because the principle, namely, that it should be determined who will enjoy the benefit of that fence, contained in this Bill was arrived at in consultation with them, Bantu Administration will be in a position to collect that money from the tribes whose land borders on to the fence or who enjoy the benefit of that fence, in such a way that good relationships will be maintained and that you will develop in them a sense of responsibility on account of the fact that they have contributed towards the cost of that fence. That is a matter, however, which will have to be taken up with Bantu Administration.

I shall in the meantime consider all the other very important matters which have been raised and the fears which have been expressed, and reply to them during the Committee Stage.

Are you prepared to give consideration to the establishment of a noman’s land as is provided for in every other reserve, between the farming section and the Native reserves?

I shall give consideration to it and give my reply when we come to the Committee Stage.

Will you discuss it with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development so that you can bring in an amendment to that effect in your consolidating legislation?

Yes, but I must also go into the legal aspects to see whether I have the right to demand such a no man’s land or no man’s zone from him. I cannot commit myself as to what will happen as the result of consultations that I may have with the Department of Bantu Administration, because to a certain extent the position is the same here as it would have been had we been dealing with a foreign power. I am prepared to consider the matter but I am not prepared to give the hon. member any promise at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

A few weeks ago this House passed a Bill dealing with the registration of deeds of transfer, a Bill which was aimed at effecting a number of improvements, not so much to the system, but to the way in which the system is carried out in South Africa. The Bill which we have before us at the moment is to a large extent complementary to the other Bill because this Bill deals with the survey side and is an attempt to bring about an improvement in the framing of diagrams which accompany deeds of transfer. I said at that time that one of the great benefits which we enjoyed in South Africa was our sound system of registration. A sound system of registration affords protection to those people who are parties to land transactions. It affords protection because if you have a proper system and somebody buys land, he knows what he has bought; he knows where his land is situated, where his beacons are and what burdens, servitudes, etc., are registered against the land. It is necessary for him to have all the information so that he knows what he is buying. The information must be readily available to him and he must be able to acquire it cheaply, under a cheap system. We are of the opinion that our system of registration in South Africa is probably the best in the whole world and. if not, then one of the best. What is very necessary if you wish the diagrams which accompany deeds of transfer under our system of registration to be correct, is a complete cadastral system; that facilitates the attainment of the above-mentioned objectives. After 30 years of experience the object of this Bill is to effect certain technical improvements as far as the duties imposed upon land surveyors and the carrying out of those duties are concerned. As I have already said the basic principle of any registration system, is cadastral surveying which is the easiest and most accurate way of identifying a piece of land, as well as for determining boundaries, particularly where those boundaries are unknown, that is where there are no visible beacons, and to place the precise situation of that piece of land beyond any doubt. In most countries the cadastral system is nothing more than a graphic representation of the boundaries of that land. In other words it is shown on the diagram and that is all, whereas the system we follow in South Africa is, in our opinion, a great improvement on that, in that under our system, the numerical data have to appear on the diagram; the position of the beacons and the situation of the land is shown more clearly than it is when you only have a graphic representation of it.

I wish to say a few words in connection with the most important changes we are affecting. What we are doing in this Bill is to modernize the methods and the requirements which have been laid down after the old Land Survey Act of 1927 has been operation for 30 to 35 years and our aim is also to effect those improvements which time has proved to be necessary.

In the first instance there is a small amendment in connection with the Regulations Board. The profession of land surveying and its accompanying activities falls under the control of two boards, namely the Regulations Board which consists of all the Surveyors-General, the Director of Surveys, and the second is the Registration Board which consists of two land surveyors appointed by the Government and five elected by the land surveyors themselves. The Registration Board is concerned with the registration of all land surveyors; a land surveyor must satisfy the board that he has the necessary qualifications in order to practise; the board looks after their general interests. This is also a disciplinary board and it deals with any land surveyor who has done anything wrong in the execution of his duties. The Regulation Board, on the other hand, is there to ensure that the regulations which it itself has compiled in respect of the activities of land surveyors are carried out in a proper manner. The only change contemplated in this Bill as far as these boards are concerned, is in respect of the Regulation Board. There used to be one member representing the Cape Province on the Regulation Board and it is now proposed to put two members on it for the Cape Province, one to represent the Western Cape Province and the other the Eastern Cape Province; there is one member for every province on the Registration Board plus one for the Eastern Province. This change will therefore bring the Regulation Board in line with the Registration Board inasmuch as the Eastern Province will also be represented on it.

I am only dealing with the most important amendments, because the other amendments are of a technical and administrative nature. Section 14 of the old Act is being amended and the Minister will now have the right, where his attention is drawn to contraventions which have been committed, to refer those contraventions directly to the Central Land Survey Board, the body which exercises discipline. Formerly when anything came to the notice of the Minister where he though that disciplinary steps should be taken against such a land surveyor, there was no machinery by which it could be brought to the notice of the board. The Minister is now given the right to refer all misdemeanours or contraventions to the Central Land Survey Board who then deals with the matter.

We are also amending Section 3 of the Land Survey Act of 1927 in that the Surveyor-General is prohibited from approving a diagram unless all statutory requirements in connection with the sub-division of land have been complied with. That will prevent a diagram which really cannot be registered, from being approved. In other words, he may only approve a diagram which is in order and which can be registered. I think this is an important improvement and will protect parties to a transaction.

Disputes often arise when it comes to the framing of diagrams. Under Section 16 of the principal Act it will be possible in future to settle disputes by way of arbitration much more easily and much more cheaply than was the case previously.

Then we have the question of amending title deeds. We are amending Sections 21 and 40 of the Act so as to provide for a simple and more effective method of amending a title deed where it is found that the land was originally incorrectly surveyed. The way in which it is done is of a technical nature, but I think the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). will realize that the method to be followed in future will be a fairly big improvement on the old method.

There have been new developments recently in connection with the hydrographers of the South African Navy who survey the coast line. You can say, Sir, that the difference between a hydrographer and a land surveyor is that a land surveyor surveys land and the hydrographer surveys the sea; he does the same work which a land surveyor does, but his field of action is the sea and the coast line. The position is that when a land surveyor wishes to determine certain beacons or if he wishes to determine the boundaries of a certain piece of land, he had the right of access to private property, something which is absolutely essential for the performance of his work. Because hydrographers only came into the picture after the Land Survey Act was placed on the Statute Book, hydrographers who are surveying the coast line have no right of access to land in order to do their work. The result was that they sometimes experienced great difficulty. There are obstreperous land-owners who refuse to allow such a hydrographer to enter upon his property in order to carry out his duties, and this Bill gives him the rights which the land surveyor has.

That is the most important amendment. The other amendments are all less important and administrative in character. I am introducing this Bill as complementary to the previous legislation which I introduced in connection with the registration of title deeds. The object of this measure is to make all the information available to people in the easiest and cheapest way possible when they are dealing with deeds of transfer. It will greatly facilitate the work of land surveyors in that connection.

We on this side of the House approve of this Bill and shall give it our support. The land-surveying profession on the whole also approve of this Bill; the Survey Regulation Board have approved it, and the Cape Institute and the other institutes also welcome the amendments in this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has rightly said, it is a Bill which improves the old Act and facilitates the administration of the Act, and facilitates the position also for the practising surveyor.

The survey profession on the whole acts in close harmony with the Surveyors-General of the four provinces. I have had the privilege over a long period of 40 years to be closely connected with the Surveyor-General’s office during my private practice, and during that period I had nothing but help and co-operation in every respect from the officials in that office, and I think I can say that the same applies to the other offices. On the other hand the surveyors have worked closely with the Surveyor-General’s office and have done their best to assist so that the whole surveying profession has run as smoothly as possible. I think that is also one of the reasons why the hon. the Minister has been able to come with this Bill, as a result of the co-operation of the two sections, the administrative side and the surveyors. The Surveyors-General have never applied the old Act in any way to the detriment of the surveyors and I hope that this co-operation will continue.

There are perhaps one or two little clauses that may require amendment in the Committee Stage. Clause 3 (b) for instance, which refers to the appointment of five surveyors on the Survey Regulation Board instead of four. It says here that of those to be appointed “two shall normally practise”. The surveyors would like to substitute for the words “normally practise”, “who have a registered address”.

It says here “and reside”.

Yes, that of course still applies. In the past they have had the experience that a very outstanding surveyor was barred from serving on the Survey Regulation Board on account of the interpretation of the existing section. This surveyor was a man with a long experience as a private practitioner; he was subsequently appointed to the professional staff as a professional assistant and he represented the surveyors on that Survey Regulation Board; when he retired, he was appointed on the computing staff and because he was on the computing staff, it was held that he was not “normally in practice” because he was not holding a professional position and that barred him from serving on the Survey Board. The surveyors would like a small amendment there. I hope the Minister will consider that. It would be an improvement.

A very interesting amendment is brought on here in what is known by surveyors as one point one value. As the position is at present when a surveyor surveys a property, he surveys all the beacons and signs the diagram “surveyed by me”. He has to survey all the beacons. If a subsequent surveyor comes along and surveys that property for subdivision and so on, he has to resurvey all those beacons, because he again has to sign “surveyed by me Provision is now made that the Surveyor-General may assign co-ordinates to those beacons, which shall then be fixed and all surveyors shall adopt them. This will improve the whole position. As the position is to-day different co-ordinate values are assigned to those beacons because surveyors in surveying a beacon may find small differences in their survey. It will also lessen the fees because they won’t have to resurvey them and the survey fees will be less as a result. This is an improvement and in spite of the fact that the surveyors’ fees will probably be less in future, they nevertheless welcome this as a step in the right direction.

The hon. the Minister did not make any reference to the change in connection with the reference marks. I think that is a very important amendment. In the past reference marks were erected by local authorities. Provision is now made that the State shall erect reference marks. At present all your trigonometrical survey beacons in your rural areas are erected and surveyed by the State, by the trigonometrical survey department. It is in the public interest that it should be so. Therefore it is in the public interest that reference marks should also be erected by the State. They are now erected by local authorities. These reference marks don’t cost much, about R6 each, whereas the survey of them costs about R20 or R30 and that is already borne by the State. It is a step in the right direction that the State should take the responsibility for the erection of these reference marks. Up to now very few reference marks have been erected, probably owing to the cost, but mainly also because the local authority, usually laymen, do not know what the real value of reference marks is. Reference marks are accurate survey marks on which all surveys are based, just as the trigonometrical surveys in rural areas are accurate surveys on which all surveys are based. The hon. the Minister made reference to our system of good registration in this country. Good registration depends upon good surveys, and good surveys depend on good reference marks and on good trigonometrical stations. Therefore I am very pleased that the State is taking over this responsibility. It is not a very big one. I only hope that the rate of establishing these reference marks will be increased. Local authorities, as I say, are not really interested, because they don’t understand the value of these reference marks and they have been establishing them at a very, very slow rate. It is only your bigger towns, your cities, where probably the city engineer understands the value of these reference marks, which have erected these reference marks. Otherwise very few local authorities have gone over to the erection of reference marks, and only about 100 a year have been erected throughout the Republic. I hope the hon. the Minister will prevail upon his colleague to supply the means of increasing the rate at which these reference marks are established. They are necessary for good surveys and for good registrations.

That also brings me to the erection of trigonometrical stations at a greater rate. I repeat, the cadastral surveys of your rural areas depend on trigonometrical surveys. There are still large parts of the Republic where no trigonometrical stations have been established, and particularly along the borders of the country. The result is that there is no mapping of those areas, and mapping is one of the essentials for your country; your development depends on it, and as things are now, mapping has become far more essential. We are now spending large sums of money on the defence of the country, and the mapping of your country has now become of primary importance under the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The mapping of this country should be speeded up, and it can only be speeded up if you have the trigonometrical stations, because aerial photography is also dependent on fixed marks on the ground, on which they entirely depend. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will prevail upon his colleague to provide the means for a greater extension of the trigonometrical surveying of this country so that the mapping can be dealt with at a much faster rate than is the case at present.

I should like to raise one other matter. There was a time when there was a shortage of land surveyors in this country. But now there are sufficient land surveyors. There is a tendency in Government Departments to employ members of their staff for land-surveying purposes. We have no objection to the employment of land surveyors in different departments to do the administrative work and the necessary planning. But I think it is not right that they should be sent into the field to do the work that should be done by the private practising surveyors. The hon. the Minister of Justice at the recent conference said that he deplored the fact that inroads were being made into the attorneys’ practice, and I hope that the Government will not continue to make inroads into the survey profession by using land surveyors and sending them out into the field to do survey work, as for instance they are now doing in regard to Native and Indian housing. Let them do the planning and look after the administrative side, but let the practising surveyors do the work in the field. The Government I know believes in private enterprise and this is one of the things where they should let the practising land surveyor do the field work. I don’t believe that the State can do it any cheaper than the practising surveyor can do it. The practising surveyor is used to work far longer hours and he can do it cheaper. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to stop the tendency of State Departments to employ professional surveyors to go out into the field to do housing schemes, etc. where the practising surveyors should be employed.

I would like to support the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) in regard to the various points that he has made. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I am very glad that he has come with this Bill. As he has said, this is a fundamental part of our deeds registration system in this country. Obviously you can only have a first-class deeds registration system, if you have a survey system which in itself is as near perfection as you can get it, and I believe that we are very fortunate in that regard. I would like to pay tribute to the land-surveyors through the years for the remarkable accuracy of the vast majority of the surveys with which modern surveyors have to do when sub-dividing, and so forth.

But I rise mainly to raise more particularly the effect of two provisions and to say to the hon. the Minister that perhaps in the Committee Stage we can examine these two provisions more closely. I refer to the provisions in Clause 11 of the Bill which substitutes a new Section 21 the marginal note of which reads: “Replacing existing diagram by new diagram after re-survey” and Clause 24 also which introduces a new Section 40, dealing with “rectification of overlap of diagrams”. Looking at these two clauses, I think that perhaps we might test whether the safeguards contained in these clauses are adequate when we come to discuss this measure in the Committee Stage. Sir, we must remember that in many of these surveys, although an error may be comparatively small, it involves land of very great value in many cases. There is of course the famous case in the Transvaal where on a number of owners claiming re-survey of their land—not it is true under the 1927 Act but under the Act previously in force—the new surveys actually carved up between them a farm which lay between three adjoining farms, and the diagrams were duly approved, and under the provisions of the Transvaal law as it then stood, there was provision for a confirmed diagram; the new survey was duly advertised; objections were invited and none were made, and when in due course the owner found what had happened and sought to have the matter rectified in the court, it was held that he had no remedy. That situation I believe has been put right and in that particular case the judgment was I believe subsequently overruled by the Appellate Division. But looking at these two clauses, it does seem that we should very carefully consider whether greater safeguards should not be put in by providing perhaps for advertisements and notifications to all persons who might possibly be interested. In the ordinary case, the error may be one which is simply in error in the length of the boundary of a particular farm. I know of a case outside Johannesburg where on a resurvey some ten years ago, there was found to be an error of some 30 feet in the length of one boundary; it terminated on a river and it therefore did not affect anybody. But very often an error of that sort might have very far-reaching consequences, and I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister would consider whether further safeguards are not required in these clauses by providing for wider publicity of the fact that here has been a re-survey. Perhaps that matter can be tested a little further at a later stage.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has raised two points. The one is the effectiveness of the rectification of faults, and the other is the necessity to advertise any alteration that has been made to boundary lines. As far as the second point is concerned, I am not able to give him any reply now. I will go into the question and to-morrow when we are in Committee, we can deal a bit further with the matter. With regard to the first point, the physical rectification of boundaries that are wrong, I am assured that the system which is now proposed is more effective and is also at the same time simpler than the original system was.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) raised four points, two of them really administrative points. The last one that he raised was the question of the State employing surveyors in full-time capacity, and he argued that these men should not be sent out to do the field work, the ordinary surveying work and that should be left to the private practitioners. That is a question I can go into, but it is a question that works both ways, as I see it. If we do not use them to do that work, we will require less land-surveyors, and the position remains more or less the same. Whether we are paying Mr. A to do all the work, or we are paying Mr. B, makes really very little difference, whether Mr. A or Mr. B is employed by the State. But I will go into this matter. The other question he raised was an administrative question, namely the trigonometrical survey and its importance to the mapping of the country. We fully realize that for military purposes especially we have a long way to go to have a complete system of mapping of the Republic. I have as a result of representations that had been made to me, speeded up very considerably the mapping of the country, and in speeding up the mapping of the country we also had to speed up the trigonometrical survey, because as the hon. member put it, if you are mapping from the air, you have got to have your fixed points from which to work, otherwise you will be working as it were in a vacuum. So we are doing administratively a lot to speed up the work of the Sub-Department of Trigonometrical Survey.

Then he raised the question covered by Clause 16, the erection of reference marks, and the advantage of having local authorities erecting reference marks. He put it quite correctly that the reference marks in the large towns, where they have good engineering works and where there was more necessity probably to have these reference marks with regard to water being laid on and various other amenities of the towns, have received quite a lot of attention, but that it is not being done sufficiently by the small towns. I am not a professional in this particular job, but I take the hon. member’s word for it. But one thing that we deleted from this Bill in the Other Place was the sub-section which provided that should a local authority fail to maintain any such reference marks…

“Maintain”. I was referring to the erection.

Yes, but still it is in the direction pleaded by the hon. member. If a local authority should fail to maintain any such reference marks, the Director of Trigonometrical Survey may undertake any such necessary work at the expense of the local authority. That was deleted from the Bill. We will now be able to do that maintenance work ourselves and the State will pay for it and not the local authority. That, I think, meets the hon. member halfway. It is at any rate in the direction in which the hon. member pleaded. The hon. member raised another point in regard to 3 (b) with regard to the Board, that under this Bill a member of the Board must “normally practise and reside within the area of jurisdiction of the Eastern Cape Division”. The hon. member wants that altered, if I understood him correctly, to mean “resident” only. I would like this matter to stand over. It has already been discussed with the law advisers and they are of the opinion that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gardens should be left until next year when it is intended to amend the Surveyors Registration Act, 1950. When that is done, we will incorporte in that Act what the hon. member is asking for now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill consolidates in one measure all the laws relating to the brewing, possession and use of Bantu beer so that in the future it will not be necessary to refer to the Liquor Act, in some cases, or to the Native (Urban) Areas Consolidation Act, 1945, in other cases, for particulars regarding the control over Bantu beer. Another, and even more important, reason for the introduction of this Bill is the fact that the provisions relating to the possession and supply of Bantu beer are being brought into line with certain provisions of the Liquor Act. As hon. members are aware we still intend to bring the provisions of the Liquor Amendment Act of 1961 into operation in the course of this year. That will mean that a Bantu, without any restrictions, will be able to buy alcoholic liquor at a bottle store for consumption at home. In these circumstances it would be senseless to adhere to the existing provisions of the law in connection with the brewing and possession of Bantu beer in terms of which a person may only be in possession of Bantu beer or brew it for domestic purposes when authorized thereto by permit. It is clear therefore that a drastic amendment of the existing laws is necessary to rectify the position, and this has been asked for by local authorities on more than one occasion. I do not doubt for one moment that the Bantu will welcome this Bill. Many of them are very sensitive about the fact that their traditional liquor is subject to so many control measures that they are precluded from possessing it freely. For that reason alone I believe that the vast majority of the Bantu people will welcome the abolition of the restrictions in connection with Bantu beer. The fact that they will soon be able to obtain alcoholic liquor in terms of the Liquor Amendment Act naturally plays an important role in this connection. There are other reasons as well, however, why the proposed Bill should be welcomed generally. This Bill will also greatly facilitate the task of the police. In future the distasteful and unwelcome raids which often had to be carried out in the past will no longer be necessary since it will no longer be an offence to be in possession of Bantu beer. In exceptional cases, however—and hon. members must note this—the police will still have to take action and that is why the same powers are being conferred on them in connection with Bantu beer as those granted by the Liquor Act in respect of alcoholic liquor. Briefly these powers deal with: (1) the entering of premises where Bantu beer is sold in order to follow up suspected contraventions; and (2) the right to demand the names and addresses of certain persons. Hon. members will concede that these powers are certainly necessary, for otherwise it would be impossible to institute investigations into the sale of Bantu beer where it takes place in conflict with the provisions of the Act. It may be assumed, however, that the police will very seldom exercise these powers. Another aspect which has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in the past amongst the Bantu, and particularly also amongst the traders, is he control that local authorities have been able to exercise over the sale of sprouted grain. This right was granted to local authorities which had the exclusive right to brew and sell Bantu beer. In terms of these powers they were able to control and even limit the sale of sprouted grain within the urban area if a notice to that effect was promulgated in the Government Gazette. This could even be enforced in an area up to five miles from the boundaries of the local authority concerned. This frequently led to great dissatisfaction, particularly amongst traders outside the urban areas, and urgent representations in this respect were made to the Department on more than one occasion. I am convinced, however, that irrespective of the legal position in this connection, those Bantu who wanted sprouted grain in the past were able to obtain it in various ways and did in fact obtain it. Be that as it may, there seems to be no further necessity for control in this regard, and it is accordingly being abolished. The existing provision in the Urban Areas Act is therefore being repealed and will not be inserted in the new Bill. I am convinced that this particular aspect will meet with general approval.

In this connection, however, there were certain further requests to which the Department was unable to accede. I just want to refer to one such request. It was argued by certain bodies that the brewing of Bantu beer by private enterprise for re-sale to local authorities or employees should be allowed. The Department very carefully considered the desirability of this. We feel, however, that it cannot be allowed at this stage. In the first place, the existing system of brewing beer has worked very well in the past without this concession. Where local authorities have not brewed beer themselves, it has been done in many cases by the occupiers of houses and everybody’s needs have been met. Various preparations have appeared on the market recently which make it possible to brew Bantu beer without much difficulty. Inquiries were addressed to me just recently by a firm in connection with the marketing of a liquid as the base for the easy manufacture of Bantu beer without the necessity of a brewery. In principle there is no objection to preparations of this kind provided certain standards are complied with. After all, it is still not Bantu beer; it only becomes Bantu beer once the local authorities have processed it. I mention these cases only to illustrate that it cannot be contended that private enterprise will have no share at all in the brewing of Bantu beer or that the smaller local authorities will necessarily be forced to embark on heavy capital expenditure in order to supply Bantu beer. It can also be done in other ways. Provision is being made for instance for various local authorities to supply Bantu beer on a cooperative basis. In this way it will be possible for a smaller local authority, which does not see its way clear to incur heavy capital expenditure on buildings, etc., to come to an agreement with a neighbouring local authority which does have a brewery to supply it with Bantu beer for sale to its Bantu. Bantu beer cannot, however, be bottled and stored like other liquor and this does create a problem. After its manufacture the process of fermentation continues up to a certain point and thereafter the beer turns sour. The longer it stands, the stronger it becomes. If private enterprise manufactures a quantity which exceeds the demand, we may find that this continuous process of fermentation will eventually impair the quality of the beer and that a product of poor quality will appear on the market. After all, the local authorities know precisely what their market is and they know exactly what quantity is required. Moreover, local authorities are not actuated by the profit motive, and the danger of over-production of a product of poorer quality, as far as the local authorities are concerned, is not as great as in the case of private enterprise. In any case the Department has such a measure of control over local authorities and mutual co-operation is of such a nature, that the existing machinery is adequate to ensure that Bantu beer of the necessary quality will be supplied and that it will be supplied in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law. If private enterprise is given the right to brew Bantu beer for the market, it will be necessary to create special machinery to ensure that these requirements are complied with—as far as strength, quality, etc., are concerned. It is for these reasons that we are not prepared at this stage, when nobody knows what place Bantu beer will occupy in a White market, to allow private enterprise to enter the brewers’ field. In fact it will be to the advantage of private enterprise to wait and see first to what extent this new commodity appeals to the Whites. I want to point out that this Bill does away with the existing and absurd position under which only a Bantu may brew or possess Bantu beer. This Bill will apply to all races. There will be no differentiation on a racial basis therefore in applying the provisions of this Bill. The right which is granted to one racial group will also be enjoyed therefore by the other racial groups, and similarly the prohibitions applying to one group will also apply to the others. The question may arise therefore whether this legislation, which will in fact apply to all races, should be administered by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development rather than by another Department. That question can be replied to fairly easily. In the first place Bantu beer is regarded by many Bantu not only as a staple food but also as their traditional beverage, to such an extent that there is great doubt whether the Bantu who has retained his tribal connections will ever give it up and turn to White liquor to any appreciable extent. That remains to be seen. At this stage we can only surmise in that regard. Similarly it remains to be seen whether Bantu beer will appeal to the White population group. The all-important fact remains, however, that in those urban areas where local authorities are selling Bantu beer to the Bantu, the profits have been used with great success in the past in the interests of the Bantu themselves. Here I am thinking, for example, of amenities such as facilities for social intercourse and recreation—something which is indispensable in the bigger centres. The profits on Bantu beer have played a great role in the provision of these amenities to the Bantu in the urban areas. That is why it is fitting that this legislation should continue to be administered in the future by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. In the main it relates to something which is peculiar to the Bantu, and in view of the fact that the implementation of this legislation affects the Bantu in particular, it falls more appropriately perhaps under the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Before I deal more specifically with the provisions of this Bill, I want to acquaint hon. members first of all with the present position and the present legal provisions in respect of one particular aspect concerning Bantu beer, and that is the “exclusive right” or, as it is also known, the “monopoly” which local authorities enjoy in terms of Section 34 of the Urban Areas Act. There are 59 local authorities to-day which have the exclusive right to brew and sell Bantu beer in their respective areas. In these areas nobody except the local authorities concerned are entitled to brew and sell Bantu beer. It is not even possible to issue a permit to the occupier of a house to authorize him to brew a small quantity of Bantu beer for domestic consumption. These local authorities which have the exclusive right to brew and sell Bantu beer have incurred great expense in erecting large beer halls and breweries. Their main object was not only to brew Bantu beer on a large scale but also to supply a product of good quality. Experience has shown that these aims have been achieved and that the system has been so popular with the Bantu public that there are local authorities to-day who argue that it will not affect them detrimentally if the Bantu are allowed to brew Bantu beer freely at home. The quality of their product is so outstanding and the price so reasonable that many a Bantu prefers to buy his beer from the local authority rather than to brew it himself at home. Where local authorities have this exclusive right, the Bantu either has to go and have his beer at the beer hall or obtain a permit from an official of the local authority to purchase a certain quantity of beer at the beer hall and to take it home with him. As I have already pointed out, he is not allowed at present to brew it at home. This exclusive right system which has been in operation since 1945, will be retained under this Bill, although local authorities will naturally still be at liberty to apply for permission to change over to the system under which they themselves will brew and sell beer, while Bantu home-owners will also be allowed to brew freely. In other words, this is the dual system, that is to say, brewing by the local authority and brewing by the home-owner. It will be possible to introduce this system in areas where it does not exist to-day, if the local authority concerned submits an application to that effect. Provision is made for that in this Bill. Having regard to the heavy capital expenditure that has already been incurred by certain local authorities in erecting breweries, together with the fact that this system has worked excellently, we have considered it advisable to allow this position to remain unchanged and to let the local authorities themselves decide whether they want to switch over to the dual system and, if so, at what stage, or whether they want to retain the exclusive right system. I should point out here that the latter system only applies, of course, to the brewing of Bantu beer. There are various local authorities today which are already applying the dual system, and it works satisfactorily. It is true that there are not many of them, but some of the larger local authorities such as Durban, Kroonstad, East London and others are already doing so. We are still considering a number of applications for the implementation of this dual system. I think it can be said therefore that this is a system which is being applied to an ever-increasing extent. Here I want to add, however, that even in centres where the exclusive right system is in operation, it will no longer be necessary for a Bantu in the future to obtain a permit every time he wants to buy Bantu beer in order to take it home with it. He will be able to do so freely and there will be no limitation on the quantity that he will be allowed to buy. I believe that the Bantu in the bigger cities will welcome these measures. In many cases the time on both the husband and the wife is occupied fully by duties away from their home, and the wife in particular cannot find the time to brew beer. What often happens is that she has no desire to do so. The permit system that obtained in the past, together with the limitation placed on the quantity, was very unpopular in certain circles therefore because the Bantu were unable to obtain sufficient beer for consumption at home. These restrictions now fall away, and I think that this is something which will be welcomed by the Bantu.

Mr. Speaker, I should like now to give the general picture as to what is contemplated. It must be remembered, of course, that this is subject to what I said a moment ago with reference to those centres where the exclusive right prevails. Where large numbers of local authorities have applied recently in terms of the Liquor Amendment Act for permission to sell White liquor to the Bantu, my Department has recommended that the conditions be imposed in each case that Bantu beer must also be sold by the local authorities concerned. We want the principle to be accepted that where the Bantu is able to buy alcoholic liquor, his traditional beer containing alcohol should also be placed at his disposal. This arrangement will, of course, involve no change for local authorities which are already selling Bantu beer, but it will involve a change for those local authorities who have not done so in the past and who now wish to sell White liquor. In this connection I should like to state two points clearly. In the first place, these local authorities, because they sell White liquor, will automatically have the right in terms of this Bill to sell Bantu beer also. No separate application will be necessary therefore to acquire that right. If there are local authorities which have not sold Bantu beer in the past, it goes without saying that they will have no breweries. As I have already pointed out, however, it will not be necessary for local authorities to incur heavy capital expenditure for the erection of breweries in view of the fact that this beer can either be made from commercial preparations or obtained in cooperation with a neighbouring local authority which does have a brewery. Such local authorities will be able to purchase Bantu beer from another local authority without any prior authorization and without any restrictions. It will be possible in the future therefore to brew Bantu beer freely, subject to the restriction that may exist in an area in respect of which an exclusive right obtains in this respect. For the rest any person will be allowed to brew Bantu beer. An employer, for example, will also be able to brew it for supply to his employees as part of their rations. It will not be necessary for him to obtain a prior concession to acquire this right. For the sake of clarity I want to add that White persons will also be able to brew Bantu beer in areas where no exclusive right is held.

Where will the Whites be able to buy it?

They will be able to buy it at their bottle stores, because every bottle store will be able to sell Bantu beer in the future. As I have said. Whites will also have access to this type of liquor. In urban areas where the exclusive right system does not prevail, the brewing of Bantu beer is still subject at this stage to the permit system or to restrictions as to quantity. These restrictions, however, will fall away now. In the future there will only be one restriction under this Bill and that is that the possession of Bantu beer on a private site will not be permitted without the permission of the owner or occupier of the site concerned. It is not necessary for me to mention the reasons for this because they are obvious. A very important provision in this Bill is that nobody will be allowed to sell Bantu beer unless he has been specifically authorized to do so. There will be no free trading in Bantu beer, therefore.

Who is the occupier?

I am aware of the hon. member’s problem in this connection and I shall deal with that in the Committee Stage. Under the existing legislation Bantu beer may only be sold therefore by three categories of bodies or persons, namely: (1) A local authority where the exclusive right or dual system is in operation; (2) by a Bantu who has been authorized to do so in terms of Section 25 of the Urban Areas Act—it is interesting to note that at the moment there is only one Bantu who has such a concession—and (3) persons who are authorized in terms of Section 127 (2) of the Liquor Act to sell Bantu beer at mines and works in Natal. At the moment there are 11 persons who are authorized in terms of this section to sell Bantu beer. As I have already explained, local authorities will still be able to sell in the future, but as far as the other two categories are concerned, it is not regarded as necessary or desirable that concessions should he granted to new applicants. The rights of persons who enjoy that privilege at present will not be taken away from them. In the future, however, there will be three further categories of persons who will be able to sell Bantu beer, firstly, all persons who are allowed to sell alcoholic liquor. That means that any bottle store or hotel will be able to sell Bantu beer which, in terms of the relevant legal provision, must be obtained from a local authority. Whether sales in this connection will assume considerable proportions only time will tell. We are nevertheless creating this opportunity. Secondly, persons who are allowed in terms of Section 100bis of the Liquor Act to sell liquor to the Bantu, will also be allowed to sell Bantu beer. Here I have in mind mine compounds in particular where Bantu beer has been supplied to the compound residents in the past as part of their rations. The Department is in favour of the proposition that it should also be possible to sell alcoholic liquor at such a mine so that the large numbers of Bantu employed there will not have to go to the bottle stores in the city for that purpose. If alcoholic liquor is sold there, it goes without saying that apart from Bantu beer, which is made available as part of the rations, the sale of Bantu beer will also be permitted. The necessary provision is being made in that regard. Control will only be exercised as far as the price is concerned. The Minister already has the power to do so. In the third place there are those persons who will only act as agents of the local authorities. This includes employers, industrialists, businessmen, etc., who will be able to obtain beer from the local authorities in order to make it available to their labourers. The employer will not act as an independent seller therefore but as an agent for his local authority. In order to make Bantu beer available to his employees, therefore, he will buy the beer from the local authority concerned, supply it to his workers, collect the money for it and hand it over to the local authority concerned. I do not mean that these employers will serve Bantu beer in bars; it will be supplied as part of the ration. Representations have been made to us repeatedly in the past with reference to beer halls in the cities. On the one hand strong representations have been made that the beer halls should be closed; on the other hand the employers contend that is the place to which their Bantu workers go during the midday break and that if the beer halls are closed it will hit their workers very hard. If employers are enabled to make available Bantu beer on their premises, the argument in this connection will fall away as and when the employers are in a position to provide Bantu beer to their employees under the procedure that I have outlined here and the time may come—we would like it to come—when it will be possible to abolish all the beer halls which give so much offence and cause so much disturbance in the urban areas. The objection of the employers that their workers have no place to which they can go during their midday break to go and have a pint of beer would then fall away. Beer is already being sold in plastic bags so there should be no insurmountable problem in this connection. I understand that the City Council of Pretoria has already made great progress in this respect. In the past only those employers who had more than 25 Bantu in their employ and also housed them, could acquire the right in terms of Section 127 of the Liquor Act to brew Bantu beer and to make it available as part of the rations. In those areas where the local authority has the exclusive right, this position remains unchanged, but for the rest any employer will now be able to brew Bantu beer and supply it free of charge to his employees, irrespective of the number and irrespective of whether he houses them or not.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill as it now reads is not precisely the same as the measure that was published earlier and subsequently withdrawn. Quite a few changes have been made in the present Bill as far as wording is concerned, but these changes do not affect the principle. A few other amendments have been brought about, however, which are of a more far-reaching nature. In this connection I want to refer to Clause 3. In the first Bill it was provided that the alcoholic content of Bantu beer, wherever and by whoever it may be brewed, may not exceed the strength of 3 per cent by weight of absolute alcohol. This provision now applies only in respect of local authorities and employers and no longer to individuals. In order to understand the position fully, it is necessary to look first of all at the provisions of the present legislation. There we find that local authorities which have the right at present to brew Bantu beer are limited in terms of Section 34 (4) of the Urban Areas Act to an alcohol content of 3 per cent by weight. However, where a local authority has no right to brew Bantu beer and the Bantu within that urban area are allowed to brew beer themselves, they are not subject to any restriction now as far as the alcohol content is concerned. That will be the position under this Bill. The position that obtains outside urban areas is governed by the Liquor Act, of course, and in terms of that Act the alcohol content of all Bantu beer is 2 per cent by volume, which, I understand, is equivalent to 1.6 per cent by weight.

We are, therefore, doing away with the position where the provisions governing different Bantu groups differed, and there are very good reasons for it. You will see, Sir, that as the position is at the moment, the quantity is restricted outside urban areas, whereas elsewhere that is not the case. Firstly, no Bantu—and I take it no White person either—can easily and accurately determine what precisely the alcoholic content will be of the Bantu beer which he brews. It is not as easy for the individual who brews it to determine that as it is for the big concerns which control the alcoholic content scientifically, and if we were to lay down a limit, he will never know whether he is contravening the law. According to the C.S.I.R. Bantu beer which is brewed according to the ordinary recipe of the householder may normally have an alcoholic content of 4.5 per cent in weight, provided various ingredients are not added to promote the process of fermentation. Such ingredients as sugar or syrup can be added which cause the alcoholic content to rise to about 12 per cent. That is a good deal higher than we would care to have it, but we should remember that it is no longer necessary for that Bantu whom you may suspect of brewing Bantu beer with an alcoholic content of 10 per cent or 12 per cent, to obtain that alcoholic strength in Bantu beer, because other alcoholic liquor with a much stronger alcoholic content is now available to him. I do not think, therefore, that there is any great danger that they will brew Bantu beer with a high alcoholic content in view of the fact that strong liquor with a higher alcoholic content is available to them. The Bantu who brews for ordinary home consumption, is in any case not inclined to add other things to assist fermentation. We know which persons add other things in order to produce “kill-me quick” and similar concoctions. It may be asked why local authorities and employers are restricted to 3 per cent. They were restricted in the past and the system operated reasonably well. There is one very good reason, however, why the restriction should remain, because if it does not, people may possibly think that if the alcoholic content is increased there will be an increase in sales. Others may think that if they increase the alcoholic content slightly, the beer will sell more readily. For that reason as well I think it is just as well that the alcoholic content of Bantu beer is controlled. If we adopted that attitude certain dangers might arise in the big cities, because as I said a moment ago, we want to leave the door open to employers who want to make Bantu beer available to their employees; and it is a very good thing that as far as its alcoholic content is concerned the beer which is supplied by local authorities should be subject to this limitation.

There is another very important aspect to the amended Clause 3. As it read originally it would have meant that the White bottle store owner who purchased Bantu beer from a local authority, would be contravening the law if he kept Bantu beer with a higher alcoholic content than 3 per cent. I think that would be unreasonable because we know that when a bottle store owner buys beer which has an alcoholic content of 3 per cent the day he buys it, the beer ferments and that means that the 3 per cent beer, which the bottle store owner bought bona fides, will become stronger on his shelves.

Till the corks pop.

No, they make a little hole in the corks so that they cannot pop. It would mean that the bottle store owner will unwittingly be committing an offence and that is why we have changed it and why we have deleted the words “sells and supplies” from the original clause; the bottle store owner will therefore be in a safer position.

Clause 6 (3) has also been changed because as it read originally it may have been interpreted to mean that a local authority which operated in an area where it had the monopoly, did not have the right to brew beer, which would naturally be wrong. Clause 10 has been amplified in order to make it clear that the Bantu beer which is sold by the nominee of a businessman, must be obtained from the local authority or may be brewed by the employer. That is added only for the sake of clarity.

Amongst others, Clause 15 gave authority for regulations to be framed in respect of the right to be in possession of Bantu beer. Except for the provisions of Section 13, possession is nowhere prohibited and the word has consequently been deleted. Another small amendment which must still be effected to Clause 1 is the deletion of the following words in lines 43 and 44 “and includes for the purpose for which it has been so designated”, the reason being that they have become redundant in the general context.

In conclusion I wish to summarize the provisions and implications of the Bill in the following few sentences. Firstly, except in an area where a local authority has a monopoly, anyone may be in possession of or brew Bantu beer for domestic use or in the case of an employer for the purpose of supplying it to his employees. Secondly, nobody may sell Bantu beer unless he is specifically authorized to do so by law, and thirdly, no permit whatsoever is necessary, not in an area where there is a monopoly either, to be in possession of Bantu beer. He can buy and be in possession of it and if brewing is allowed, he may brew it. In conclusion I wish to point out that the Act does not apply to the separate Bantu areas or to the released areas, the so-called Bantu homelands. The existing provisions will continue to apply to those areas and Bantu beer can be brewed in terms of the regulations under the Native Administration Act of 1927. I wish to draw attention to the further fact that the Act will come into operation from a date to be announced by proclamation and the intention is to make it applicable on the same date as the date on which the Liquor Amendment Act of 1961 will come into operation. I may perhaps have taken up too much time but I think it is clear from what I have said that this is a measure which both sides of the House ought to welcome and which is not contentious, and I am looking forward, therefore, to the co-operation and support of both sides of the House.

Last year this House passed an amendment to the Liquor Act which had the effect of freeing the supply of liquor, known as “White” liquor, throughout the Republic. That law did not apply to the Transkei, but I understand that an amendment is going to be made to the Liquor Proclamation of the Transkei, bringing it into line with the liquor laws for the rest of the Republic. The effect of this Bill will also be to free the manufacture and supply of Bantu beer, and as the Minister has explained, Bantu beer also contains alcohol. It has been the policy of the United Party always, in discussing the free supply of any alcoholic beverage, that members of Parliament should be allowed a free vote. That has been the traditional policy of this party, and I think that with the exception of last year’s amendment of the Liquor Act, it was also always the policy of the National Party. We are being consistent again this year, and as far as the United Party is concerned this Bill will be treated on a non-party basis and each member will be allowed to speak and vote as he thinks fit.

The Deputy Minister has explained the contents of the Bill to us and has made it quite clear that it will have the effect of making Kaffir beer—now known as Bantu beer; I do not know why; I do not know whether representations were made to him by the Bantu themselves—available to all sections of the population. He was at pains to tell us that there was no racial discrimination in regard to this Bill and everyone will be able to get it freely. In considering this Bill we must remember that last year, whether we liked it or not, and whether we opposed or supported the amendment of the Liquor Act which more or less had the same effect of freeing the supply, that Bill was passed and is now law and is to be applied to the country quite shortly, I believe. Those of us who may have objected to the free supply of “White” liquor have to face the fact that it is now going to be in more or less free supply although there is control of the places of supply. In considering this Bill, it is important to remember that. I myself am prepared to support this Bill, because I think we should encourage the Bantu to drink their own national drink rather than to buy the White liquor, because although this Native beer has an alcoholic content it must be admitted, too, that it is at the same time a food. It has very high nutritional value and I admit that the alcoholic content may not always be able to be controlled, as the Minister himself has pointed out, and we know that there will be a tendency to lace the liquor, or to leave it to stand to get stronger, but we must bear in mind that it must be preferable to have the Bantu drink their own national beverage than “White” liquor. [Interjections.] The Minister has pointed out that the alcohol content of the beer is laid down in the Bill as being 3 per cent by weight of absolute alcohol. He has pointed out that this new Bill differs from the Bill which was withdrawn a few months ago. Fortunately it is not only the beer which is brewed by the local authority which is to be 3 per cent by weight of absolute alcohol, but also beer brewed by the employer for his employees. I consider that this is one of the saving graces of the Bill, one of the factors that makes me more inclined to support it, that where the beer is manufactured by the local authority, or by employers the alcoholic content is restricted. I understood this provision to refer not only to employers who employ more than 25 workers, but to any employer, e.g. a farmer, who manufactures the beer himself for supply to his employees, and he will also be bound by this 3 per cent limit. I mention that because the Minister only mentioned local authorites.

No, I mentioned the employers.

I am sorry. I have no doubt that we will find that the beer which householders will brew, unless they live in an urban area where the local authority has exclusive right to make beer—will be stronger beer than we would like it to be, but I do not see how the Legislature can control that at all. The Minister himself has said that it is very difficult for the householder who makes his own beer to know of what alcoholic strength it is. But in terms of this Bill, we will be, at any rate, controlling the source of supply as far as we can, and that will facilitate control and ensure that the beer sold will not be too strong. I do not agree with the Minister that the duties of the police will be any easier, and the fact remains that although the police may have less work in the urban areas they will still have trouble in the rural districts, where the property-owners have difficulty with their Native employees brewing too much beer over the week-ends. But the police will be relieved of many duties in the towns, because the Minister will make regulations empowering a police officer or an official in the employ of the local authority to do the inspection and to have the right of entry into and of search, with or without warrant, on premises where it is suspected that Bantu beer is being brewed, supplied or sold in contravention of the law. I am positive that we will find that where the municipality has the right of exclusive supply you will still get, as you have to-day, the ordinary householder in the location brewing his own beer, and you will still have the municipal officials—if not the police—going to inspect the premises to see whether this beer is being brewed legally or not. I ask the Minister, in giving the authority to the officials of the local authority to enter and search with or without warrant, not to give those powers too freely. I would like to see them curtailed as much as possible and I would only like to see the right of entry or search without warrant given to a police officer of the rank of sergeant or above. I know that under the present law all the police can enter premises with or without a warrant, but I hope the Minister will take particular care to see that any official of the local authority is not allowed to enter premises without a warrant.

This Bill does not apply to the Bantu areas and so the position as it is there to-day will continue. I only want to ask the Minister this. Is it certain that the provisions of this Bill will apply in the White areas in the Transkei, where, as the Minister knows, the Transkei has its own liquor proclamation and the Liquor Act does not apply? When I asked him where the Whites would get their beer, I was thinking of Clause 11, which refers to Section 69 of the Liquor Act which deals with licences to sell liquor. I only wanted to determine that there would be some provision that beer would be sold in the urban areas in the Transkei in terms of the liquor proclamation. [Interjection.] The Minister says I will be able to buy it in Umtata, but I am not thinking of myself, but of the Bantu. Under the existing law, the brewing manufacture, introduction, sale and supply of Kaffir beer in any urban area is controlled by Sections 32 to 36 of the Native Urban Areas Act, and in terms of that Act householders were allowed to brew unless prohibited by the local authorities under the Urban Areas Act. I am also glad that this Bill consolidates to a certain extent the liquor laws as they apply to Kaffir beer in the Liquor Act and in the Natives Urban Areas Act. One of our difficulties in considering Native laws is that we have to refer to so many laws which apply to Natives; even in regard to Kaffir beer we have to refer not only to the Liquor Act, but also to the Urban Areas Act. I welcome this Bill too, because now we have the position of Bantu beer contained in one Act. Although Clause 4 permits anyone to make beer for domestic consumption, or any employer to supply his employees, and although that clause makes the brewing and supply free, the following sections provide, as the Minister pointed out, certain exceptions, notably in the urban areas where the local authorities may be given an exclusive right to brew beer, so that in the urban areas at any rate, the beer is not going to be as freely brewed and supplied as may be thought. But in the rural areas, of course, there will not be any of this control and you will find that beer can be brewed freely. Section 13 provides that no person may be in possession of Bantu beer on or in any private site or premises without the consent of the owner or of the lawful occupier of the premises. I read that section now with particular reference to the rural areas, and the smaller local authorities where the local authorities themselves will not undertake the brewing of beer, because the restriction on the brewing of beer by the ordinary householder will not be removed by this Bill, and a Native employee or Coloured employee or Asiatic living in a town where the municipality has not the exclusive right to brew, or on a farm, will be allowed to make as much beer as he likes, and if the employee is given a hut on the farm or a room in the urban area on the employer’s premises, he will be able to have as much Bantu beer on the premises as he likes. I have discussed the point with the Department and I will move in the Committee Stage an amendment to this clause which will read as follows: “Provided that for the purpose of the application of this sub-section any person occupying any such site or premises on any land as an employee of the owner or lawful occupier of such land, shall not be deemed to be a lawful occupier of such site or premises.” This amendment will assure that the employer will control the amount of beer in possession of his servants on his premises. In the Schedule of the Act there is an amendment to Section 96 of the Liquor Law, and that deals with the tot system. Section 96 prohibits the supply to any Native or Asiatic or Coloured person of any liquor or Kaffir beer by the employer, and sub-section (2) provides that in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope employers may give their employees 1 ½ pints of unfortified wine or Kaffir beer. That is the tot system. Now in the Schedule to this Act that Schedule is amended so that although an employer cannot supply “White” liquor, he will be able to supply as much Kaffir beer as he pleases, and in the Cape the farmers will be able to supply to their Coloured employees as much Kaffir beer as they like, although they cannot do that with wine. I know that amendment may be the subject of a lot of criticism. It may be regarded as the extension of the tot system. Employers who give more beer may find it easier to get employees. You can only give a certain amount of wine to a man, but you can add to that wine as much Kaffir beer as you like, not in lieu of wages, but free, and it may of course be an encouragement to certain farmers to give more beer to get employees. I see the dangers in it, but the difficulty is that I do not see how you can control it. As I pointed out earlier on, with the amendment of the Liquor Act last year and the free supply of “White” liquor, we must provide now for the free supply of Bantu beer, and if the Bantu is going to be allowed to make as much beer as he likes, the farmer will find a way to overcome restrictions by giving them the facilities for making beer. I only ask that if the Minister finds that the law is abused by the farmers, the Government will not hesitate to bring in an amendment next year to control the position. At the moment I cannot see any way of controlling it, but it may be that the law advisers can think of some way of doing it.

I say that everybody must have some misgivings about the consequences of the freer supply of alcohol to the lower income groups, and the most backward group of our population. We must all have some misgivings as to the wisdom of doing it, but again I say that we must bear in mind that ordinary “White” liquor will be in free supply. That Bill was passed last year and we cannot go back on it now. I am prepared to support this measure which I hope will result in encouraging the Bantu, and even the Coloureds, to drink this national beer of the Bantu instead of “White” liquor.

I agree with the last speaker. I think the whole approach to the supply of liquor to Natives has changed materially since last year, since the Malan Commission submitted its report. Prior to that, and before the legislation of last year, the attitude that was adopted throughout the country was to withhold alcoholic liquor in general from Natives, and, as far as Kaffir beer or, as it is now called, Bantu beer is concerned, to control it very strictly. But in view of the new approach adopted last year, it goes without saying that if we are going to allow the Native to have alcoholic liquor it is altogether unthinkable to withhold from him his natural beverage and food, because Bantu beer is not only a beverage to him but also food. We cannot allow the Native to obtain White liquor more easily than Bantu beer, and that is why we welcome this idea and this legislation and the various steps which are being taken to abolish the stringent control that was exercised in the past. If it was difficult in the past to withhold alcoholic liquor from the Native and if we could not succeed in doing so, I think there are very good grounds for saying that we will never succeed. We have not succeeded in the past nor will we succeed in the future in withholding his natural beverage, kaffir beer, from the Native, because he regards it not only as his traditional liquor but also as food. One of the chiefs said in his evidence that his people drank kaffir beer just as Whites drink coffee. In Native villages and in the reserves you will always find Bantu beer. In the past we tried to control this and we applied very stringent measures. The question now arises, firstly, whether we succeeded. According to the evidence that was given as recently as last year, we did not succeed as far as White alcoholic liquor is concerned. It appeared from the evidence that 60 per cent of that liquor reached the Bantu unlawfully through the black market. As far as the control of the traditional liquor of the Native is concerned. I think it is even more impossible to exercise effective control. That is why we welcome the relief which is being granted here in the cities. The Whites give parties or receptions where liquor is used freely, and it is unthinkable that on similar occasions we should withhold his natural beverage from the Native. We also welcome the abolition of the limitation placed on the quantity.

There is another aspect also that we must not lose sight of. I think the municipalities are having consultations in an attempt to avoid the development of the bar system in Native areas in the future. I understand that plans are being devised to make available liquor to the Native under more favourable circumstances or to develop a beer garden system. We still do not know to what extent they will succeed in doing so. It is unthinkable that we should take the Native away from his family and expect him to go and have his liquor every evening of the week in a beer hall or in a bar while his wife and family remain at home. Would we as Whites be satisfied with such a system? Would our families be satisfied with a system of that kind? The system of control that we have had hitherto whereby raids have been carried out and various control measures applied, must have given rise to serious grievances in the minds of the Natives. Here I want to add that whatever we may do, beer is a natural food to the Native and whatever measures we may apply, I do not believe that we will ever succeed in withholding his beer from him.

We also have laws which are designed to prevent murder, but they are of no avail.

I accept that we shall never succeed in wiping out all murderers. But we will have even less success in preventing the consumption of liquor by Natives. We shall not succeed, because we will then be trying to withhold his natural food from him. The next point is that we will never succeed in getting the Native to believe that when he drinks beer, his traditional liquor, he is committing a crime. Now that we are going to allow the Native to purchase White alcoholic liquor and now that he will be able to enjoy his own traditional beer freely in the future, we will certainly succeed by means of this legislation in banning the other concoctions that he has been using hitherto, because the question is whether he will still find it necessary now to resort to those concoctions. In the past the Native, out of fear that the police would trap him, has always consumed the liquor on which he has been able to lay his hands as quickly as possible. We know that in the past thousands of gallons of beer, according to reports, have been destroyed weekly by the police. I think this has been one of the greatest grievances of the Bantu in the past, and that grievance is now going to be removed by this legislation.

We are also very pleased that home-brewing is also going to be allowed in the urban areas, of which there are 550 at the moment, but only 59 of them have had the exlusive right to sell beer. We hoped that the hon. the Minister would see his way clear to allow home-brewing there also, because we are convinced that the exclusive right system which has been in vogue up to the present moment in those 59 areas has not entirely met the requirements of those areas. A little while ago, as the hon. the Minister has said, a system was introduced whereby the Native was allowed to take away four gallons to his home. That was a big concession already. The fact that the Minister is now allowing the Native to buy as much as he likes, is a further concession that we welcome. Judging by the reports, however, I am convinced that generally speaking the municipalities have not in the past made adequate provision for the supply of kaffir beer; that they have not met all the requirements.

Then we find that the prices in the various areas vary a great deal. The price of beer per gallon varies from cents to 20 cents. It has been proved that one can brew a very good beer at an average price of 9 cents. This tremendous difference in the price has encouraged illicit home-brewing and the sale of all sorts of concoctions to the Native. Let me say here clearly that generally speaking the farmers welcome the system of beer halls. These beer halls are provided by the municipalities; they meet the needs of the young Native particularly and, as the Deputy Minister has said, the needs of those families who cannot find the time to brew beer. They are now being given the opportunity to obtain beer at the beer halls. At the same time I must also point out that the Native woman, as everybody who knows the Native will know, is proud to be able to brew her own beer for her family. The fact that the Native will now be allowed to brew his own beer will help to keep the Native family to gether. I hope that the step which is being taken here will convince the municipalities and the city councils that an additional homebrewing system will not harm their own beer hall system. On the contrary, I think that this dual system of home-brewing and beer halls will work very well, particularly in view of the fact that alcoholic liquor will now also be made available to the Native. This dual system will meet the needs of the Natives in the urban areas. We hope that in due course this system will work well and that the municipalities will be convinced that home-brewing can be allowed without detracting in any way from their beer hall system. I do not want to deal with the question of financial benefits. We know that the profits which are made are to be used for the benefit of the Natives. I think the question of supplying beer goes much further than the question of making money. I think the most important factor is what is in the best interests of this country and what is in the best interests of the Natives, without making concessions which may prove harmful. If I knew that these concessions would do any harm I would be the first to oppose them. I am convinced, however, that these concessions are in the interests of the Natives. This section of the community has laboured under very great grievances in the past and here we are doing away with those grievances.

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the last speaker where he said that this Bill will bring about a happy situation in this country. I am opposed to this Bill, just as I was opposed to the Liquor Bill last year. I believe that we will never counter the evil, which we committed last year, by making it possible for liquor to flood the Native residential areas or any area inhabited by the Natives. I think that the Government also realizes that as guardians of the Native people they slipped up last year by introducing the Liquor Bill. They now hope that, by making kaffir beer available to the Natives, they may counter excessive use of alcoholic liquor by the Natives. I have no doubt that this is a vain hope. I speak of experience as a farmer who has had to control the use of beer by Natives throughout my whole life. I have seen the evils of excessive use of Native beer as allowed by certain individual farmers. We all know what happens over week-ends in almost every town—fighting, knifing and that sort of thing. Is the Government now going to encourage that? They are, by allowing unlimited drinking of beer by the Natives. The Government will not be able to prevent them for fortifying it by the addition of honey or even by the addition of alcoholic liquor. They can drink both now. And then we regard ourselves as the guardians of the Native people! And we allow legislation of this nature! These people have inherited a craving for liquor: they can hardly resist the urge to drink. We as the White guardians of the Natives are now throwing the entire responsibility on to their shoulders. And it is not as though we have not had examples. We know what the tot system has done to the Coloured people here in the rural areas of the Western Province. We know that we have undermined their constitutions and their health. We had to import the Bantu to do the heavy manual labour down here because the Coloured man was unable to do that work because of what liquor had done to him. We are now going to apply the same system to the Native. I would say that as far as manual labour is concerned, our Natives rank among the best in the world. I do not say that they are not lazy and that they do not try to avoid work, but if they are given the right inducement and the proper care and feeding, I have no doubt that no race in the world is able to perform sustained labour like our Natives do. We are now going to undermine their health. We cannot do anything else. We hope that their earnings will increase and we are now going to allow them to spend more money on liquor and less on food. The profits which the licensees and the Government will make out of liquor will be countered by what we will have to spend on health services. TB will be aggravated. We know from experience and research which has been carried out very extensively in America that people who drink to excess bring unhealthy children into the world. They produce children without any natural resistance, even to disease, apart from the resistance to the urge to drink alcohol. That is what we are going to do. We are going to lower the vitality of the Native people of this country, and that is our responsibility. I think this is the most wicked thing I have ever experienced in my life, this Bill on top of the Liquor Bill of last year. I have no doubt that a reason for this Bill is that somebody said: “What is going to happen to our liquor? We must provide drinking places; we must induce the Native to drink, not only to satisfy an urge, but we must induce them to drink.”Licensees are going to provide facilities to make it easy for them to drink and to let them enjoy the pleasure of drinking with others. They will be following our example, Sir, and we have not been setting them such a wonderful example. I think this is tantamount to providing facilities for children to drink. The Act says that liquor cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 18 years. But many of the mature Natives have the mentality of a child. Everyone knows that.

And you want to give them the vote!

I do not like the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) interjecting, Mr. Speaker. He will be given an opportunity to speak. We know the trouble farmers have to control the excessive use of liquor. Not only in the area where I live but everywhere. When I was directing a 1820-settler farm in the Cradock district it was impossible to have the milking done on Sundays so I immediately ordered a milking machine. The servants were so incapacitated on Sundays through the use of liquor that they could not be relied on to milk the cows. That is the nightmare which farmers experience throughout the country over week-ends. But now with this legislation the whole week will be a week-end for the Natives. We farmers do allow Natives to brew a limited amount of beer, we confine it to the weekends, but in future they will be able to drink as they like throughout the week. The free brewing of beer is now allowed to everybody—Natives, Whites and everyone else. I do not think that the Native has advanced to such a stage of civilization that he can enjoy equality with the White man as far as the facilities to obtain liquor are concerned. Do people honestly believe that, Sir? I definitely do not. I honestly do not believe that the Native has attained a stage of civilization that he should be given the free use of liquor. I think we owe a greater sense of responsibility to the Native families and children. They are going to suffer. They will have less food and consequently less resistance against disease and we will have bigger health bills. We will have to spend very much more on health services. I know even the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), who is supporting this Bill, hopes that next year, if things do not go too well, the Government will come with amending legislation. I know how deeply that appears in his mind, but will there be amending legislation? When you have once let loose a flood it is not so easy to build a dyke. I appreciate that this Bill does not apply to the Transkeian territories. I have no doubt that the Natives in the Transkei themselves, with the powers they have been given, will exercise a much stronger control over the use of beer there than we are exercising here. That is the only inspiration of hope that I have for the Native people namely that in the areas which are controlled by Natives there will be stricter and better control over the use of liquor. I know the Natives will do that. But we know the type of Native we have in our urban areas, Sir. We know what their morality is. We know that 60 per cent of the children born in the town locations are illegitimate. We know all those things. And those are the evils which we as Europeans have brought upon the Natives. We have taken away their tribal control and have put nothing in its place. Now, in spite of all that, we are going to give him liquor. Liquor can be used to any extent regardless of his children of whom we are the guardians too. I am shocked; I will never forget it and I feel ashamed to be a member of this Parliament. I was ashamed last year when the Liquor Bill was passed to have been a member of this House and I am ashamed to-day to be a member of this House, with this Bill which we have before us.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the two previous Opposition speakers. In many respects I agree with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), particularly in regard to the point which was also made by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel), that Bantu beer is the natural drink of the Bantu. It is a food for the Bantu. I must, however, say that one will find it difficult to become accustomed to the word “Bantu” beer, but I suppose we will become acustomed to it. It reminds me of the old Native who said: “This Government is a good one; it does a lot for the Bantu but not so much for us Kaffirs”.

I am also glad that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories raised a point which I also want to make, viz. that this legislation is now being consolidated in one Act It is now no longer necessary for us to look up the various sections in the Urban Areas Consolidation Act, No. 25 of 1945, in regard to the application of these regulations. Nor is it necessary any longer to look up the Liquor Act.

I should like to deal with what was said by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). I cannot agree with him. I might have agreed with him had I not had some experience. For quite a few years I was chairman of the relevant committee of the Pretoria City Council which dealt with this matter. Therefore I gained quite a lot of experience in this regard. The hon. member stated that drinking beer undermined the constitution and the health of the Native. He also said that we were the guardians of the Bantu. He said, further: “It is to lower the vitality of the Native people of our country”. But just let me tell the hon. member this, in view of the fact that he said that the Native of eighteen years of age or older is really a child and still immature. I find it peculiar that he supports a party which is willing to give that immature Native the vote. Therefore that argument of his does not hold water.

May I put a question? You have so much knowledge of Natives drinking beer. Do the Natives drink beer because it is food or in order to become intoxicated?

I should like to reply to that question, Sir. I say definitely that the working Native drinks that beer because it is a food to him. When he comes home from work he enjoys that pint or two of beer because it is nutritious. If the hon. member for Albany had perhaps drunk a pint of Bantu beer to-night he would not have become so excited about the whole matter.

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects of this Bill in regard to Bantu beer. The first aspect is where it covers and maintains the existing position, in other words that a certain status quo is being maintained. The second aspect is the additional provisions which cover the changed circumstances, and I shall return to that later. There are various clauses, as I have already stated, which were really taken from the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945. Here I refer to Clauses 5, 6 and 8, which were taken from the old Sections 33 and 34. Clause 6 refers to the exclusive right, as already mentioned by certain hon. members and also by the hon. the Deputy Minister, granted to local authorites to provide beer. One can criticize that, but I should like to say that I am very glad that the existing provisions are not being repealed or curtailed; in other words, that the local authority still has the right to brew beer for the areas falling under its jurisdiction, and to sell it. I want to emphasize that the local authorities incurred heavy costs in connection with the brewing itself, for the machinery, the equipment of the beer-halls and the training of the brewers, the refrigeration, and the enclosed vans to deliver the beer. May I also say that costs were incurred in training people scientifically. The hon. member for Christiana has said that the prices charged by the various local authorities for Bantu peer differ greatly. But I can tell the House that congresses and conferences were held regularly to discuss this matter. In most cases, I think, the prices were brought into line. The prices of the various local authorities are already much more uniform to-day. I want to emphasize again that I am very glad that this position, viz. the exclusive right given to the local authorities, is being retained.

The profits made on Bantu beer are used by the various municipalities to render services to the Bantu community. Formerly the position was that in the locations and Native townships one found the so-called “skokiaan queens”. They were the persons who brewed the beer and sold all kinds of brews to the Natives. I want to point out to the hon. member for Albany that as the result of this scientific brewing which takes place, healthy beer will be brewed, which complies with certain requirements. This beer will not have a high alcoholic content. These beers have already been given various names by the Natives. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned one, viz. “Kill-me-quick”. There is also “Barberton”, and a few other names which I do not want to mention across the floor of the House. To this beer was added carbide to increase the alcoholic content. It was very unhealthy. Those brews in fact undermined the health of the Natives.

I want to state that the municipal brewing of beer in the first place greatly facilitated the work of the police, because the alcoholic content of that beer was not so high. As the result of the limitation and as the result of scientific research, the alcoholic content of that beer is not so high. It is also cheaper for the Native to drink that beer. As the hon. member for Christiana has indicated, many of the Natives no longer have the time to brew beer themselves and therefore prefer the beer brewed by the municipality. I want to tell the hon. member for Albany that the Natives, as the result of this good beer which is brewed, have cultivated better drinking habits. Formerly they drank to excess. But as the result of the healthy beer they can now obtain they have developed the right drinking habits.

I again want to emphasize the profits made by the local authorities are used for the benefit of the Bantu community in general. I think hon. members who have served on city councils will agree with me that formerly the Native Revenue Account was carried by the White taxpayer. Ever since the brewing of beer has been controlled and the supply of beer by the so-called “beer queens” has been stopped or controlled, that money has come to the city councils and they have spent it in the right way. Before these beer sales became the monopoly of the local authorites, the White taxpayer had to provide the facilities which sometimes had to be provided in the locations; he had to pay for those. The Bantu Beer Account has to pay the expenditure incurred in making and delivering the beer, which is quite understandable, but the profits are devoted to the provision of recreational facilities in the Native townships, which also promotes social welfare. Later on we went still further. City councils were allowed to use the beer profits to defray the losses incurred in providing housing schemes for the Natives, and the losses incurred as the result of reducing rentals in the locations, for general capital expenditure on housing schemes or works or services in connection with Native townships, for interest and reduction of capital.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 4 May.

The House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.