Mr. Chairman, this Bill deals mainly with expropriation, and the department has taken two Acts, the Railway Expropriation Act of 1955 and the Expropriation Act of 1965, and combined the two. In clause 1, in the case of the definition of “owner”, they have taken the definition as given in the Expropriation Act of 1965; they have not followed the definition as given in the Railways Act. Sir, we prefer the definition given in the Railways Act, which has certain additional words. The definition used here reads, inter alia, as follows—

The definition in the Railway Expropriation Act goes on to say: “or if there is no executor, the Master”. Similarly, in the case of a trustee, the Railway Expropriation Act adds the words: “or if there is no trustee, the Master”. The Minister has followed the later Act, the Expropriation Act of 1965, but I submit that the definition in the Railway Expropriation Act is more suitable because there can be cases where there is no executor in the estate. I see the Minister nodding his head; as a lawyer he will know that there are such cases. There may also be estates where there is no trustee. Does the Minister accept that too? If he does, I shall not address him further. There can be insolvent estates where there are no trustees. In fact, the Insolvency Act specially makes provision for this. Section 54(5) reads as follows—

So there may be a case where no trustee is appointed, and I submit that provision should be made in this Bill as to the person on whom service is to be made if there is no trustee. I therefore ask the Minister to accept the following two amendments, which read as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the Master of the Supreme Court is the official responsible for the administration of the Estates Act and also of the Insolvency Act, and where provision is made in this Bill for expropriation, it goes without saying that there must not only be service, but that there must also be an actual transfer of the property. Consequently it also goes without saying that if there is no one who can give transfer of the property such a person must be appointed. I can imagine that where there is no executor in an estate the Master will have to be approached, and the necessary arrangements will have to be made for the appointment of an executor dative to give transfer of the land to Iscor, after an agreement has been reached. Under the circumstances I doubt whether it is at all necessary to insert the words proposed by the hon. member, for in my opinion, and also as indicated by the latest legislation, to which the hon. member referred, namely the Expropriation Act of 1965, it was omitted there because it really goes without saying. But, Sir, if the hon. member will feel happier if we follow the wording used in the Railway Expropriation Act, I have no fundamental objection to it. Under the circumstances I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendments. I just want to add that we are acting in some haste here, and I should just like to discuss the actual wording with law advisors. If it is necessary a correction can then be made in the Other Place, if, in the opinion of the law advisors, the wording is not quite correct.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Sir, I too want to express my thanks and appreciation for this great project in the North-Western Cape which is now going to be realized, but still I should like to express a few thoughts in regard to this clause. The first part of subclause (1) reads—

Subclause (2) reads—

This line is going to cover a distance of approximately 880 km, and of these, 380 km will pass through my constituency. With the prospects of development in this area which the landowners had they were of course prepared to do everything to assist Iscor, because they were under the impression that it would be a general service line. Of course, they expected compensation, in any case, for land that was to be expropriated. But, Sir, I am not so sure whether these people are still prepared today to sacrifice everything with an open heart, since this line is now going to be a single-purpose line. We have had the experience that the building of the new railway line from Prieska to Copperton has affected the farmers very detrimentally in many respects, and there is some dissatisfaction because our farmers are now committed and have undertaken to practise soil conservation to the best of their ability. Apart from the land that is to be expropriated on either side of the line over the long distance it covers, the farmers have learnt from experience that a much larger area of their land is damaged than just the part which is expropriated and in respect of which this Bill makes provision for compensation. This damage is caused by the fact that vehicles are not only used within the strip that has been expropriated, but also beyond the boundaries of the expropriated strip. Tremendous damage is done to the farmers’ soil conservation scheme as a result of this. Sir, we want to express the hope that the farmers will be protected from this damage. I am not a lawyer, but I want to hope that provision will be made in the Bill for this damaged land to be restored to its original condition. My experience has been that a strip of land approximately 150 yards wide is cut off over a distance of a mile or three-quarters of a mile for the purposes of a railway line. Consequently that land is of no value to the farmer. He does receive compensation for that land according to the value of the land, but he does not only lose the land expropriated by the Railways or by the Corporation; the value of the land adjoining the expropriated land is also tremendously reduced. In other words, a large part of the farmers’ land becomes uneconomic after a part of his farm has been expropriated for the building of such a line. I hope that the hon. the Minister will look into this matter and see to it that the farmers are compensated for the damage that is done to their economic units, so that we may not create problems here which need not have arisen.

Sir, the hon. member for Prieska has read out subclause (1) of clause 7. In subclause (1), in line 42, there are, inter alia, the following words: “or any other loss or damage”. Those words must also be taken into consideration. When I met the economic group on this side of the House last Tuesday, the hon. member for Paarl asked whether compensation would also be paid in this case for inconvenience caused to the farmer. My reply to that was “Yes”, because in my opinion it was implied in the words I read here a moment ago. But I do feel that there are certain hon. members who feel somewhat unhappy because it is not spelt out in this legislation, and therefore it is my intention to introduce an amendment, or rather an addition, to this clause in the Other Place which will make it clear that compensation will be paid for inconvenience as well. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the amount that is claimed for inconvenience must be within reasonable bounds, of course. Compensation will not be paid for inconvenience as a matter of course, either; it will only be done where the owner has in fact been caused inconvenience, and then compensation can be paid up to a certain percentage. I think the percentage we have in mind is 10%, with a specified maximum. I undertake here to make provision in the Other Place for compensation also to be paid for inconvenience that is caused. The hon. member pointed out that when such a railway line is built it will probably happen that not only the strip of land that has been expropriated will be used, but that other land beyond the expropriated strip may be used for access, etc. Under those circumstances it goes without saying that Iscor will not have the right to use that land without having obtained the necessary rights from the owner concerned, and after those rights have been obtained, it will have to be provided that if any damage is done to the land it will have to be restored to its previous condition. I want to tell the hon. member that Iscor gave me the assurance in my negotiations with them that they want to cause the least possible inconvenience to the farmers in the vicinity over whose land the line is going to pass, and that they will pay compensation to the farmers for any damage they may suffer as a result of the expropriation of their land.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Sir, on this clause I wish to move the following amendment—

As the clause now stands, it provides that if a dispute with regard to the question of compensation arises between the owner of the property which is expropriated and the Corporation, then the dispute is to be determined by action to be instituted in the magistrate’s court in the district in which the property is situated, if the amount is less than R2 000. If the amount exceeds R2 000, then the action is to be instituted in the Division of the Supreme Court within whose area of jurisdiction the property in question is situated. The position in this case is that land will be expropriated from a number of people owning small farms, people who are not versed in the intricacies of law and who do not come into contact with the problems that one often faces in the larger cities. These people will find themselves faced with an action in either the magistrate’s court or in the Supreme Court. The question of costs is often a very frightening thing to a private individual, more particularly a farmer who, as I say, does not know a great deal of the litigious life of the average city. It is in his interest that we feel we ought to quiten his apprehension and allay his concern about large costs. If he prefers to proceed, in a matter where the amount claimed exceeds R2 000, in the magistrate’s court in his area, it means that he has sufficient confidence to have his case heard there. Therefore we think he should have that right of election. Furthermore, I would like to point out, and the hon. the Minister is very well aware of this himself, that in these country districts it is only the local attorney who will act for the person claiming compensation, the farmer or other small landowner, but if the matter is to be heard in the Supreme Court he will be obliged to instruct an attorney in one of the bigger towns, such as Cape Town or Kimberley, in which case he will have two attorneys handling the matter, plus the other concurrent costs that accompany such a matter, and two bills of costs will eventually have to be taxed. If the unfortunate claimant finds himself with an award of costs against him, he can be heavily involved indeed. It is in order to give a sense of confidence to people who will be deprived of this inherent right of ownership that I feel it might be wiser to allow the choice of a court to be a matter which the person claiming compensation should be able to enjoy.

Sir, I should like to call in the aid of the lawyers here. The position today is that an action involving an amount of less than R2 000 can be instituted in the magistrate’s court, and a claim involving more than R2 000 in the Supreme Court. That arrangement most certainly does not exist without a reason. There are most certainly very good reasons for the fact that one can only institute an action in a magistrate’s court for a limited amount, and that, when the amount exceeds that limited amount, one must go to the Supreme Court. I think one may then draw the inference that because of the way in which it is composed and everything which that involves, the Supreme Court is better equipped to handle large claims and large actions than magistrate’s courts, especially those in small towns in the country, as against the cities, where the more senior magistrates are. Therefore I have serious doubts about the desirability of such an unlimited power being given to the magistrate’s courts. In terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member, an amount of more than R50 000 or even R100 000 may be at stake here, and then it would mean that if the claimant should prefer it he could force Iscor to go to the magistrate’s court with such a large amount. For that reason I feel that the hon. member should think twice about this amendment. I think it is unwise. If we should consider it desirable to go higher than R2 000 in this instance, merely because it concerns expropriation and its implications are perhaps more limited than the implications of an action of another kind, then I think he has a point to argue. But if you phrase it in terms as wide as those used in the hon. member’s amendment, I think there are great risks attached to it and it is doubtful whether the claimant who wants to institute the claim can force an important procedure such as this upon the man who has to oppose that claim. I should like to hear the opinion of other lawyers on this, but under the circumstances I really do not feel inclined to accept this amendment. In my opinion we should rather think about it. If I can be convinced I may introduce something of this nature in the Other Place. But I certainly do not think the terms should be as wide as those proposed by the hon. member.

I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s difficulty. This matter has not been canvassed either with the officials or with himself. That is one of the difficulties we have when matters of this nature are brought to us at such short notice. But I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are the normal rules of court. He has referred to the fact that a limit is placed on the jurisdiction of the magistrate, but in the rules of court there is provision that the parties can consent to have a hearing in the magistrate’s court where the amount involved is above the jurisdiction of the court. But there is no such provision here. The Minister being an attorney will know that there is great complaint today by the ordinary man in the street, the man in the middle income group, that they are handicapped when facing litigation against large corporations because these can afford to go to the Supreme Court and brief barristers, whereas the ordinary man in the street cannot afford to do so and therefore is at a disadvantage. With regard to this Corporation, it is in the same position as one of the big financial institutions. It can afford to go to the Supreme Court and to employ the best barristers. The ordinary farmer whose land is going to be expropriated here, may not feel himself to be in a position to be able to contest the matter in the Supreme Court because of the financial implications. It may break him if he loses the case. Therefore we felt that in this case he should be given the choice to go to the magistrate’s court. He will know how competent the magistrate in the area is, and if the corporation is dissatisfied it always has the right of appeal. If we merely make an amendment to this Bill here allowing the parties to consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court, again the corporation may refuse to do so knowing that it can afford to go to the Supreme Court whereas the other man cannot. We appreciate the Minister’s difficulty and I am sure my friend will agree to withdraw this amendment and allow the Minister to consider it in the Other Place.

I merely want to add to what the hon. member for Transkei has said that perhaps the hon. the Minister might give consideration to increasing the amount of jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court on election. Let us say that he can elect, if the claim does not exceed R5 000. But under the circumstances I will withdraw the amendment and leave it to the hon. the Minister to turn it over in his mind.

Amendment with leave withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Subsection (1) of this clause deals with the question of costs and as the clause now reads the claimant for compensation is in this position that if he claims R2 000 and the Corporation offers him R1 000 and he is awarded R2 000 or more, then the claimant can get costs; costs will be ordered against the Corporation. But under (b) if he claims for R2 000 and he is offered R1 000 by the Corporation and he gets R1 000 or less, he has to pay the costs; the costs will be awarded against him. The position under subsection (c) is that if he claims R2 000 and is offered R1 000 by the Corporation and he gets R1 500 awarded, he gets no costs awarded at all. We submit that this is not fair. The ordinary rules applicable in courts of law should apply. If a claimant gets more than the amount offered, he should get his costs. It is quite unfair to award costs against him, or not to allow him any costs, if he gets more than the amount offered by the Corporation. I accordingly move as an amendment—

1. (a) exceeds the amount last offered by the Corporation before the commencement of the proceedings, costs shall be awarded against the Corporation;

I want to quote clause 10(1) as it stands at the moment—

1. (a) is equal to or exceeds the amount last claimed by the plaintiff before the commencement of the proceedings, costs shall be awarded against the Corporation.

The effect of the amendment is that the existing words will be deleted and substituted by—

1. (a) exceeds the amount last offered by the Corporation before the commencement of proceedings, costs shall be awarded against the Corporation.

Accordingly, if the plaintiff gets more than the amount last offered, he will get costs. Paragraph (b) will remain as it is, i.e. if the plaintiff gets less than the amount offered by the Corporation or an amount equal to the amount offered by the Corporation, then costs will be awarded to the Corporation and the plaintiff will lose. The amendment also seeks the deletion of paragraph (c) which at present reads:

1. (c) is less than the amount last claimed by the plaintiff but exceeds the amount last offered by the Corporation, no order as to costs shall be made.

I think this provision is most unfair.

The effect of my amendment will therefore be that the ordinary rules applicable to courts will apply, i.e. if a plaintiff is awarded more than the Corporation offered, he will get his costs. If he is awarded less or an amount equal to the amount offered by the Corporation, costs will be given against him.

Mr. Chairman, let us state clearly and in everyday language, without reading the provision, the position as set out in the Bill at the moment. The position as it stands is that when a person is not satisfied with the amount that is offered, he has the right to institute an action. If the court awards him the amount he claimed or more than that, the Corporation has to pay the costs. In the second place it is provided that if he is not awarded more than the amount offered or does not succeed in any part of the amount he claimed, he has to pay the costs. We realize that there is a gap in between and that anything may happen in between. The Corporation may have offered him R10 000, but he claims a further amount of R10 000 because he wants R20 000. However, the court does not award him R20 000, but only R12 000. So het gets R2 000 more than he was offered by the Corporation. It is in regard to amounts between the amount offered and the amount claimed, in respect of which an order may be made, that we want a decisive ruling as to which party is to pay the costs. The effect of the hon. member’s proposal is that the moment the plaintiff gets more than he was offered by the Corporation, even if it is only R1 more, the Corporation has to pay the costs of the action.

That is the rule in the courts at the moment.

No, that is not quite correct. After all, the hon. member should not look at one man only and ignore the others. He is aware of the fact that in accident cases …

I am not talking about accident cases.

Why does the hon. member not want to talk about accident cases? I want to talk about them. In accident cases where a claim is instituted as a result of an accident, the court has the right—I think it is a comparable example —to decide, if the damage amounts to, say, R1 000, to what extent the plaintiff or the defendant was responsible for the accident. In the light of that the court can also award the costs. If the hon. member should suggest something to that effect it would be a reasonable suggestion. Consequently I want to say straight away that I would accept such a suggestion. I am aware of the fact that the hon. member felt unhappy about this provision. I have not explained yet what the third provision involves. It has the effect that where the amount awarded is more than the amount offered by the Corporation, but less than the amount claimed by the plaintiff, no costs are awarded. In other words, then each party pays its own costs. That is the provision in paragraph (c) as it reads at the moment. The hon. member does not feel happy about that. He says that if the plaintiff has been awarded part of the amount claimed the Corporation must pay all the costs. I say that if the plaintiff has been awarded a part of the amount he claimed, the Corporation must pay the costs in proportion to the success he has achieved in the action. In other words, if he has succeeded in part, the Corporation does not only have to pay its own costs, but also a part of the plaintiff’s costs. For that reason I shall move an amendment to that effect in the Other Place. I should prefer not to do it here, because I just want the law advisers to formulate the amendment correctly before it is moved. Subsection (1)(c) will then read as follows—

Well, this is legal language again and it is rather complicated, but I have explained what I mean by it. In other words, if the plaintiff succeeds in part, the Corporation must pay his costs in part. I think that is fair. If the hon. member is satisfied—I think this is what he had in mind too—I shall introduce the amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I must say I am very much surprised. Where are all the friends of the farmers? They are sitting here, but they are not saying a word. Why do they not lend a hand? I do not know how the Minister can apply apportionment of damages in a negligence case.

But it is easy.

Sir, the position is quite different here. The farmer is not being negligent in any way. He has not asked Iscor to construct a railway line across his farm. I submit that the ordinary rule of law should apply. We have to cut out negligence cases. The principle here is quite different than where both parties are at fault. Here the farmer is not at fault. He values his farm at a price and he has a particular attachment to the farm. After all, he may be moved from his farm because it may become quite useless to him. If he can satisfy the court that he should have got more than that offered to him by the Corporation, I submit that he should get his costs. Here again I want to stress the fact that it may be a Supreme Court case. The corporation can much better afford to go to the Supreme Court and to pay the costs. After all, the costs may very well equal the amount awarded to the claimant. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Prieska said. Where is the member for Prieska?

He is not a person who cheats the farmers.

So if I plead for the farmers, I am a person who cheats the farms? That’s a nice kettle of fish. Cheat the Government yes.

He is not an attorney.

I am not going to withdraw my amendment. I wish to leave it on the Order Paper as it is. If the hon the Minister will undertake to give my proposal further consideration before he goes to the Other Place, then I will withdraw it. If he does not then I would like it to stand.

There is just something that I would like to add in an attempt to convince the hon. member that he is going a little too far. This provision which I am now proposing and which I am going to move in the Other Place is the same as the provision in the Expropriation Act of 1965. In other words, it is not new to expropriation. The same provision exists in the Expropriation Act in more or less the same wording. If I were to introduce something different now, it would consequently be a deviation from the procedure followed in terms of the Expropriation Act. It would be easy for me to say that I shall give further consideration to the hon. member’s amendment, but I feel so strongly about it at the moment that I cannot accept it. So I do not want to bring the hon. member under a false impression now.

Mr. Chairman, it has just been suggested to me by a non-lawyer that it could perhaps be left to the discretion of the courts to order costs. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to consider that? We will then make no rule here but leave the matter in the hands of the courts.

That I will consider.

Therefore, if I withdraw my amendment his amendment will be brought up during the Report Stage. I take it that in the Report Stage I could then move another amendment. Is that correct?

I do not have the amendment before me yet; the amendment as such has not been moved. It can, however, be moved during the Report Stage.

I thought the hon. the Minister moved his amendment.

No, I have not. I said I would move it in the Other Place.

Can’t you move it during the Report Stage?

The hon. the Minister can move it during the Report Stage.

Then I withdraw my amendment.

Amendments, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I just want to make it clear that a provision is also being inserted here similar to the one contained in the other Bill. This only applies to clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the Committee Stage, we listened to the most unconvincing replies on the part of the hon. the Minister in regard to the amendments which we proposed to clause 2. While we would like to support the Third Reading, we on this side of the House regret that under the circumstances we are unable to do so. The hon. the Minister was unable to convince us why he was not prepared to accept the amendments of the Opposition. This legislation is legislation which should really receive the unanimous support of the whole House. In the first place the definition of “vocational education” in clause 1 is being changed and in the second place Coloured persons are now legally entitled to receive their training at a training-college, even those who do not possess a senior certificate. This is in fact something which is already being applied by the department in practice. The same applies to clause 3 which now makes it possible to provide financial assistance to Coloured students attending a university college or university. After all, there should be no objection to a matter of this kind. On the contrary. There should be unanimity in this House on this matter. The same applies in respect of clause 2. If it is the attitude of the hon. the Minister that private schools should be registered, and that he should have the right to cancel that registration under certain circumstances, then in this case, too, there ought really to be no dispute or dissension in this House. But the point I wish to make is that if the hon. the Minister proceeds with clause 2, it would mean that it would then be more difficult for a Coloured parent to arrange extramural tuition for his children in certain subjects to enable them to improve their grades in those subjects at school. It will only be possible for these parents to obtain such tuition for their children from a person who has had himself registered at a private school, i.e. if they want to pay for that instruction. I think the opposition of the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House to the view of this side of the House is totally unjustified and unfare. If we on this side of the House did not want to support the hon. gentleman and if it was his opinion that we wanted to make it more difficult for Coloureds to receive that kind of tuition, one would be able to understand the attitude of that side of the House. But in fact it is the hon. the Minister who is making it progressively more difficult for Coloured children to receive extra tuition of that kind. I think that he is doing a disservice to that education which is so urgently required and in respect of which everyone will have to do even more among the Coloureds. I believe that this is a sphere in which we may act, not only in the interests of the Coloureds, but also in the interests of White civilization. The more and the better the tuition among those people, the better the training of Coloured persons will be and the more productive they will be able to become in the economic sphere. The better they are trained and the more they understand the views of the Western world, the better it will be for White civilization in this country. Surely there should be no argument about that. If we look at the present situation, we see that it is estimated that there are more than 100 000 Coloured children who should be receiving an education, but who cannot owing to the fact that there is insufficient classroom accommodation and not enough teachers. For the same reasons the teachers have to work double shifts. There is just not enough classroom accommodation and there are also not enough teachers. In other words, the field is still open; the field is still wide open. A great deal can still be done to provide these people with training and education. This is all that we on this side of the House want to do, namely to help his department, to help the hon. the Minister, and in so doing also to help the Coloureds, and to help the whole South African society. But the hon. gentleman regards our conduct as a way of allowing people to provide Coloured persons with education without his having control over it. Sir, should the amendment of the United Party be accepted, then the moment something of this kind were abused, the department could surely act and request such a person to register at a private school. But I do not believe that that would happen, for the simple reason that it is happening today among the Whites, and those people do not register at private schools. The conduct of the hon. the Minister in this respect is therefore quite inexplicable to us. Therefore we have to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. We regret to have to do this, but the hon. the Minister could have been more approachable in this respect; he could have listened to the reasonable request of this side of the House. Therefore I say that we shall vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are really sorry that the United Party could not see their way clear to supporting the Third Reading of this Bill, which is of such great value and importance. I think they see ambiguity and spectres in this Bill which, with the best will in the world, one simply cannot read into it. We are in full agreement with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat when he talks about how important it is that Coloured persons should receive further training, and that the majority of them should receive an education on a general basis so that they can be geared to the Western way of life and get to know more about it. On that point there can be no difference of opinion. But if we look at the conduct of the United Party during the discussion of this Bill, then I must say that they have been left leaderless since the hon. member for Wynberg left their ranks as far as this field is concerned. We would like to have had her in a debate of this kind because on this subject she normally makes a good and constructive contribution. However, she has now left their ranks, and we can see that the United Party really feels her absence here in the House. In the field of education, at the moment, they have been left leaderless.

You are talking nonsense!

Sir, when I talk about the United Party, I could perhaps be talking nonsense. But rather than devote the time at my disposal to the United Party, I should prefer to deal with the positive aspects of this Bill, and the effect which it will eventually have on the Coloureds, because this is a fitting subject at a Third Reading. If one takes any community, whether a White community or a Coloured community—and in this instance we are dealing with a Coloured community—and one tries to analyse the composition of that community, one will very quickly find that a certain section of that community has a technical aptitude. Suppose only 3% of them have a technical aptitude. They, then, will be the people of that community who will do the technical work for that group. Perhaps the percentage is higher than the one I mentioned here. Another section of the group will have a scientific aptitude; one will also find a group who are, for example, suited to becoming medical practitioners, and if one goes further one will also find a group who are thoroughly suited to and have the talent for providing education. If one looks at the percentage of the Coloured community which one would expect to have an aptitude for becoming teachers, then, after a thorough analysis, one would soon find that only a small percentage of that number is really being utilized.

In other words, there are far more Coloureds who do have the qualifications for becoming good teachers than there are those who are completing their studies at the moment and qualifying as teachers. I think that this Bill will go very far in filling that void which exists in the Coloured population, where Coloureds are available who are capable of becoming teachers, but do not eventually become teachers in practice. This measure will be a great help in encouraging those people, by means of bursaries, to enter the teaching profession. In particular, I want to express my great appreciation for what is being done, by means of this Bill, to make bursaries available to Coloureds who have the necessary aptitude to become teachers and eventually enter the teaching profession in the interests of their own people. There will probably be other reasons as well why many of them do not become teachers, but we know that as far as teaching is concerned any group can easily be handicapped by a lack of funds, and we know that today the Coloureds do not always have the necessary funds to study further.

This Bill now makes provision for that, and I want to predict that for the Coloured population in particular this will mean a great deal as far as teaching possibilities are concerned. If one considers the structure of Coloured education in the rural areas today, one comes to the conclusion, after only a cursory inspection, that it is the White woman who is really carrying Coloured education in the rural areas today, and I believe that the percentage of Whites who take part in Coloured education has recently increased. If one talks to responsible Coloured leaders concerning this matter, they make it very clear to you that if the Whites were to be removed from Coloured education today, it would collapse, and there is great appreciation on the part of the responsible Coloured leader for what the Whites are doing in Coloured education today. I want to repeat that Coloured education without them is in fact inconceivable, at any rate in large areas. This legislation should have the effect of eventually diminishing the percentage of Whites who are participating in Coloured education instead of its increasing, as is the case at the moment, with the result that the Whites, who are often required to teach White children, may again be made available to White education. Sir, we believe that this Bill will in essence make a real, positive contribution to Coloured training and education, and I want to wish the Minister and the department everything of the best with its application.

Is there nothing you can say about clause 2?

Mr. Speaker, the mountain created by my hon. friends opposite concerning this matter, has delivered itself of a mouse. They used many words to say very little. I am sorry, but I have to accept that the hon, member for Newton Park sounded just as unconvincing this morning as he did yesterday and the day before yesterday. I am not going to attempt to convince him. I can forget that idea. There is no convincing a person who refuses to be convinced. That was clear to me from the start. After I had explained to him yesterday and told him that he need only read the proposed amendment to see that he was proposing a half-baked amendment which would only leave the door wide open to the private education of Coloured children being exploited; exploitation by a good salesman who then need not subject himself to control. It would have left the door wide open to harm being done in that way to ordered and controlled education.

Again this morning he came here and talked around all this and came back to the same story. No new arguments were advanced. He talked even more and said even less. I can understand that he is disappointed. He is disappointed because a show must be put up so that in one way or another they may to a large extent hide the embarrassing position which exists in other places in the Opposition. But I do not think he should have chosen Coloured education for that purpose, because that was not necessary. This entire Bill is a positive measure. Precedents exist for every one of the steps which are being taken here. Measures identical to this clause 2 and the control which is being exercised over private schools, have been introduced by the Department of National Education concerning White education. To talk about the numbers at this stage, whether they are less or more, is irrelevant.

The fact remains that it exists and it is working well; there are no abuses. Never yet has misuse been made of the fact that, as in provincial education, the number is five. Why should one, because one is the Minister, and has control, make misuse of it, if such a person has to register if he has three or four children? We have to protect Coloured education, and if he thinks that he can force me into a corner this morning with a lot of hollow arguments, and force me to give up my steadfast intention to ensure that control be exercised here just as in White education, then I think that he is backing the wrong horse, and in that case I am very sorry, but I am unable to help him. The fact is rather that I have sympathy with him, since all these measures are positive and there is only the one single semi-negative measure where one has to exercise control. Therefore I have nothing more to say. I think that all educated and well-meaning Coloureds and Whites are quite certain that this legislation can only be beneficial to them and will only result in the improvement of Coloured education.

Motion agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

With the introduction of this Bill we have reached an era in our history where we have to take leave of an institution which is probably one of the oldest and most well known in the annals of the Cape municipal area. I am referring here in particular to what is commonly known as the Cape Board of Aid.

The inception of this board can be traced back directly to the emergency which developed during and after the influenza epidemic of 1918. In fact, this board was granted recognition by the Poor Relief and Charitable Institutions Ordinance, 1919.

During the 54 years of its existence this board has rendered a valuable and valued service to the community of the Cape municipal area, and the fact that we are engaged here today in writing the last chapter of the story of this board, does in no way derogate from the good services rendered by this board to our people over so many years.

But, as it is with all good things, this too, is coming to an end. The steps taken here by us today, are definitely not unexpected or rash. To tell the truth, back in 1967, in the course of a debate on a Bill which amended the Ordinance to which I have already referred, the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions envisaged the steps we are taking here today.

Now, six years later, one is nevertheless filled with a feeling of awe in having to take leave of an institution which has stood the test of time for more than half a century. Therefore I want to avail myself of this opportunity, in the first place, to convey my personal and sincere thanks, as well as those of the Government, to the present members of the board as well as all the past members. Their personal contribution and unselfish services through all the years have not passed us by without being noticed. We and all the generations assisted by them in times of need are paying homage to the men and the women who, when the need existed, gave of themselves in order to be of service to their fellow human beings. It is charity of this order which has made South Africa the country it in fact is.

The question which at this moment is most likely crying for an answer in the minds of hon. members, is probably why we now want to dissolve the board which has been rendering such good services for so many years. The answer to that was in fact furnished as far back as 1967, when we informed the hon. House that of all the places in the country Cape Town was the only place where distress relief was provided by an institution such as this one. Hon. members are probably aware that the provision of distress relief passed over from the provincial administrations to the Central Government as long ago as 1st April, 1940. What is more, since 1st January, 1950, the State has accepted full responsibility for the financial obligations of the Board of Aid. Since then the municipality of Cape Town has stopped its contributions to the funds of the board, and today the board is being subsidized by the State to the amount of approximately R108 000 per year.

At present the provision of distress relief in the Cape municipal area is completely out of step with the provision of distress relief elsewhere in the Republic. Moreover, there is no sound reason why this state of affairs should continue any longer. In fact, to my knowledge the provision of distress relief elsewhere in the Republic leaves nothing to be desired and has proved to be effective and adequate even in times of extreme distress, such as the Boland earth tremor and several flood disasters in the Eastern Province. There is therefore no reason whatever for thinking that the inhabitants of Cape Town will be worse off when distress relief in that area is brought into line with the services in the rest of the country.

When a board such as this one is dissolved, there are of course more aspects to be considered than the mere termination of the continued existence of the relevant institution. In this regard one thinks in particular of the future of the staff employed by the board and also of the continuation of continuous services, such as charitable institutions for White and non-White children, a matter dealt with by this board.

As far as the staff are concerned, I want to reassure the hon. members by saying that negotiations are in progress through my department in consultation with the persons concerned for making satisfactory arrangements for them. I believe that this aspect of the matter will soon be solved by us in a satisfactory manner.

As regards the charitable institutions for White children as well as those for non-White children, I should like to give the hon. House the assurance that the indications are that satisfactory arrangements will soon be made in this regard as well. To be specific, negotiations have been entered into with a welfare organization with a view to carrying on with the charitable institution for White children, and in the same way the Administration of Coloured Affairs is engaged in making similar arrangements in respect of the charitable institution for non-White children. There is therefore no risk of any inconvenience being caused, after the dissolution of this board, to those persons who have been dependent on the assistance of the board up to now.

Finally, I should just like to inform hon. members that the municipality of Cape Town was notified quite some time ago of my department’s intention to dissolve the Board of Aid, that it took cognizance of that and raised no objection to it. The Bill now before the House was also submitted to the Board of Aid, and the members of the board who were present at the meeting in question, decided unanimously to accept the dissolution of the board as envisaged by the Bill.

Having said these things, I think we should accept that this board too, which has rendered valuable services over a very long period, has now completed its term of service.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, that the effect of the Bill will be that the Cape Town General Board of Aid will cease to function. The contents of the Bill indicate that all assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Cape Town General Board of Aid will now pass to the Central Government. In addition, the hon. the Deputy Minister has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the legislation which was passed in 1967, is to be repealed in terms of the legislation now before us.

We on this side of the House do not intend opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. It has become evident over the years that this type of organization, whose function has been quite unique in the welfare services being rendered in the Republic, would eventually have to pass to the Government or to other welfare organizations. I say this because the 1967 debate in this House revolved round the reconstitution of the Cape Town General Board of Aid. That discussion indicated that the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions at that time had in mind the eventual abolition of this particular Board of Aid. Indeed, in his speech in 1967 he indicated that the reconstitution of the board, in terms of that legislation, was the first step towards the eventual abolition of this particular board. On that occasion we did request the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions not to be over-hasty as regards the complete elimination of the work of the General Board of Aid in its separate identity. I must say that that appeal does appear to have had some effect, as the Government have not been over-hasty in taking the final step.

However, I think it is appropriate on an occasion such as this, that this House should pay tribute to the work that has been undertaken by the Cape Town General Board of Aid. After all, they have a record of 54 years of service in rendering what was then termed “poor relief”, but is now generally termed “public assistance” or “social assistance”. They have been rendering a completely essential service in view of the type of relief they afforded to the people concerned, the very needy and indigent, and in many cases the families of which the breadwinner has been either deprived of employment or has come into conflict with the law or, due to ill-health, is no longer able to provide for his family. Consequently, before these persons receive some form of assistance in terms of other legislation, it is necessary that they should have immediate relief as far as food, blankets, the paying of rent and other matters that affect social relief in time of temporary but urgent, need are concerned.

It is interesting then to look at the functions of this Cape Town General Board of Aid. One realizes that they have received a full subsidy from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions which has enabled them to continue with their work. In the latest report available from the board, it is indicated that since about 1966 there have always been more than 2 000 persons receiving poor relief through this board of aid in any one year. Of that number, if one looks at percentages, it is evident that the Coloured section of the community received the greatest assistance, namely to the extent of 68,7%, while the percentages for the Whites and Bantu are 24,2% and 7,1% respectively. This indicates that the work of this particular board has mainly been with three racial groups. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that as far as the Whites are concerned, there is another welfare organization which will undertake this work together with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. As far as the Coloured community is concerned, it is assumed, too, that a welfare organization may be caring for the Coloureds and will undertake this work which has become the responsibility of the Department of Coloured Relations and the Coloured Representative Council. As far as the Bantu are concerned, one can assume that the work will be undertaken by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

Mr. Speaker, the important matter before us is that work which was undertaken by a particular board—I understood it to be a recognized welfare organization—is now to be abolished. We must therefore take into account the fact whether this urgent and vitally necessary welfare work that the board has undertaken in the past will be adequately undertaken by other organizations and the departments concerned. It will be a great pity if in any way the excellent work by this Board of Aid over a period of half a century is adversely affected by virtue of this proposed legislation.

The first item concerns the question of the continuation of the work. Where aid is required urgently it should be ensured that that aid is rendered immediately. Here I think there is a big difference between the work rendered for social relief by welfare organizations and that rendered by a Government department. In many cases the welfare organization is able to go perhaps beyond the necessary memorandum that is applied in considering applications for social relief. Consequently they are in some instances able to render a service a little beyond that which is available through the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. The issuing of blankets, clothes, food rations and in cases of urgent necessity, the payment of rents, are services which these people have rendered in the past. They had the funds to do so by virtue of the fact that the Government subsidizes this work to the extent of 100%.

Clause 1 of the Bill clearly indicates that these assets are now to be passed to the Central Government. In this connection there is one aspect which I would like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely whether these assets that have passed to the State will be made available in turn to the welfare organizations that will continue to render this work. Let us look at these assets. It was mentioned in 1967 that there was a trust fund amounting to approximately R25 000. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply could give some indication as to what is to become of this trust fund, moneys which have been collected over many, many years. The Board of Aid as I said has a history starting from 1919. I should therefore like to know what steps have been taken in arranging the future administration of this particular trust fund. There are also various properties that stand in the name of the General Board of Aid. There is a crèche which renders services to the Coloured community, the old-age home for Coloured persons and also a hostel which provides an additional service. These I understand are all assets of the General Board of Aid which will now pass to the State. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to indicate whether these welfare organizations which undertake some of this work will be able to have these facilities made available to them. The other aspect of their work which I believe is important as far as the continuation of the work is concerned, is that of rehabilitation. This type of work is undertaken when persons are discharged from prison or a State institution where they have received rehabilitation services. It is important that the after-care of these people from such rehabilitation centres is given full attention. Here too the Government’s policy is one with which we have agreed in the past and still agrees with today, namely that welfare organizations must play an important role in any of the welfare services that are being undertaken in the Republic. It is therefore an encouragement that the main object of this Bill is that services will be undertaken by other welfare organizations where possible. Then there is the question of the staff which is presently on this board of aid. This is another matter which is of great importance in the continuation of the excellent work which has been undertaken in the past by this board. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that where possible staff will be absorbed in the various departments. I do hope, when one takes into account the fact that these people have had experience in dealing with other racial groups—in fact three racial groups—that they will be given posts where their talents will be exploited to the full in the rendering of welfare work and welfare services. The protection of the rights of the staff is another important aspect. The Bill indicates that the obligations that are vested in the Cape Town Board of Aid are being taken over. Consequently they do have obligations to the staff. If one looks at the position of the staff there is the question of their being offered suitable appointments in Government departments if possible, and the consequences of accepting such posts in Government service. We have had legislation covering the transfer of persons employed by local authorities, such as the Durban Telephone Service. We also have legislation dealing with the transfer of the staff of local authorities to the Dpartment of Bantu Administration and Development. In accordance with such legislation the pension rights of these people were protected as well as other rights which they had enjoyed as members of the bodies and organizations where they had been employed. Here I understand that the staff are members of a provident fund and that these persons were under an obligation to contribute to this provident fund up to the age of 60. Now, it they are taken up in Government service they become members of the Government service pension fund whereby the retirement age now becomes 65. Consequently there are certain rights that I believe should vest in the staff in regard to pensions should they transfer to Government departments.

There are other aspects such as the possibility of transfers to other centres and the question of accumulated leave standing to the credit of certain persons when they are absorbed into the Government service. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to give some undertaking to the House today that these matters will receive due consideration by his department to ensure that these persons are not adversely affected by the passing of this legislation which in effect brings about the abolition of the Cape Town General Board of Aid. I believe that it is vitally important in considering legislation of this nature, not only to ensure that the work is continued but to see that those persons who have been rendering the service, some of whom have been in the service of the Cape Town Board of Aid for many years, are afforded some protection. As I indicated earlier, this side of the House is supporting the Second Reading. We pay tribute to the work that has been done in the past by this organization and we do ask that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give consideration to some of the points that I have raised concerning the staff and the continuation of this work. We would like to wish those welfare organizations and the various departments that will continue this work the very best of luck. We would also like to express the hope that the work will continue to be of the high standard that it has been in the past.

Mr. Speaker, with the disappearance of this Board of Aid on the passing of this legislation, an interesting bit of history from our welfare development in this country will disappear. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate more fully on the reasons for the disappearance of this board. However, there is one important point to which I want to draw the attention. This measure is to a large extent the result of a very satisfactory development in our welfare work. This Board of Aid has been occupied to a large extent with the distribution of poor relief, in other words, with the provision of temporary means only. During the past few years there has been a very satisfactory development in our welfare work, one in which the accent falls on expertise in welfare work, expertise which goes hand in hand with the distribution of charity, poor relief aid, or whatever its nature may be. I believe that with the disappearance of this board, we here in Cape Town will also progress more strongly with regard to the development of expertise in the welfare work done by the State on the one hand and the voluntary organizations and the churches with their organized poor relief services on the other hand. We appreciate what this board did during the difficult years. One especially has appreciation for those who were at the head of this board and in charge of this particular work when there was great need here in Cape Town. Now that direct material aid no longer constitutes such an actual problem, I believe it may be a very good time for this board to disappear. I expect that the various organizations will be able, without further ado, to do more effective work in co-operation with the State than the work which was done in the past.

Another matter with regard to development, is the fact that we are now able to distinguish here between aid to Whites and to Coloureds. On the one hand it also accentuates the development which has taken place in the field of welfare services and social work for the Coloureds. In view of the fact that the Minister concerned said in 1967 that he would gradually move in the direction of the disappearance of this board, we are pleased that the Department has awaited the time carefully and that there has been proper consultation and deliberation with the people who have been dealing with these matters up to that time. For that reason I think that this Bill is very timely at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, as a member who has been closely associated with the work of this particular board, it is with regret that one sees it falling away. As has been said over and over in this House that it was a unique institution. At the outset the hon. the Minister said that the City Council of Cape Town had no objection to its demise. I should like at this stage to pay tribute to the City Council and all the people who were instrumental in establishing the board in 1919. As you know, Sir, it came into being after the flu epidemic when it became essential to provide some form of relief. The citizens came together with the local authorities and started this board. The board has continued to exist; its first jolt was when the Bill was passed in 1967 which announced its possible demise. As was said by the hon. member for Umbilo, this board which has been operating for 54 years, has done wonderful work. Welfare officers and trainees have passed through that board, some of whom have risen to very high positions in this country, which they still hold at the present moment. They did wonderful work for this particular board. However, we have got to the stage where he who pays the piper calls the tune. I think that all of us in this country must realize that poverty recognizes no colour; when we pass on, colour is not recognized; and when people are down and out, as can happen to anyone here, colour is no longer a consideration. This particular board of aid was jolted out of existence by the first apartheid Acts of this Government, which brought about the necessity of dividing Whites from Blacks. Notwithstanding what the Deputy Minister tells us today. Most hon. members have had the experience where they have had to deal with persons who for various reasons —perhaps they have just come out of prison—unable to pay their rents, and unable to help themselves. They will now have to go to the Department of Social Welfare and make out an application, and maybe in three months they will receive something, but by that time they have probably starved to death. Otherwise they have to go from one person to another; maybe even end up with the mayor of the town for help. In the case of this board which may be unique in South Africa, immediate assistance could be rendered. I am not so sure whether we are not killing something which should be established elsewhere, because although we are living in prosperous times, we should not leave this type of service to be undertaken by charitable institutions. This is a responsibility of the Government.

I say that the small amount this board was paid every year was just a drop in the ocean when you take into account what was spent by the board in poor relief and the wonderful work it did. One just has to see the case history files it has built up and the areas covered by its social welfare officers to realize this. Its officers operated throughout the city and into the Cape Flats, amongst the Coloureds and the Bantu; thousands of people were attended to. I know of no occasion where a person, right down on his luck, could not get a parcel of food, not tomorrow or the next day, but immediately. I know of no occasion where a person’s rent was not met, or where a man who had lost his tools and could not carry on with his work, did not receive money to buy tools. It is all very well to say that we have become more sophisticated and that the Social Welfare Department will deal with these matters, but it cannot do this sort of thing; it cannot pay out money without authority. It cannot give help immediately. The hon. the Deputy Minister laughs, but he knows very little about it, I am afraid. He laughs; he thinks it is a bit of a joke, but it is no joke, Sir, when you come up against this sort of thing. You see, in his constituency he probably does not have any poor people or people who are hard up.

You are being very unfair, do you know that?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a laughing matter. I am sorry the Deputy Minister sees it as such. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad occasion when something which you have seen built up is kicked down. You can easily break anything down, but it has taken years to build up this institution.

You are talking nonsense if you think that I am …

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says I am talking nonsense. He does not even know where the Board of Aid is; he does not even know where it is located. He knows nothing about it other than from the pieces of paper that have been put in front of him. I know what I am talking about. He must not tell me I am talking nonsense because he does not even know where it is. He sits there laughing; he thinks it is a joke. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should be a little more responsible, Mr. Speaker. He has been given a portfolio where he has to deal with people who may be going through a bad time. He thinks everything is a joke in this House, Sir. Maybe he has a prosperous constituency where there are no poor people. Unfortunately, however, many of us have constituencies where people are hard up, and there are occasions when we have to help them. So, Mr. Speaker, do not let us get away from that.

To return to the city council, I want to say that we must not forget it was the city council which loaned this particular board money. As the board is now established, it has certain buildings and I am pleased to say that the council has now forfeited its right to any claim on those buildings. Those buildings do represent a certain value. They also have a trust fund. They have collected money from various people, and I hope that this money will be placed with the Social Welfare Department in Cape Town so that it can be handed out in poor relief.

As I have said, Sir, I would like to pay tribute to the people who run this particular board, the staff. You can go along to them at any time, and you will find that they are most helpful; they understand the needs of people as far as social welfare is concerned; they understand what poor relief means. There is many a magistrate in this town who has had the greatest difficulty in assisting these people. He has come to this board and they have helped him. There are people who have been affected in various ways. There are people who have been put out of their house and on the streets, and this particular social welfare section of the department, this Cape Town Board of Aid, has been able to help them. They have done great work, and I do not think they can be replaced. Churches and other organizations do a certain amount of this type of work, but they do not do it on an organized basis like this particular organization. This is the sort of organization that we should not allow to disappear; we should encourage the growth of organizations of this kind in the rest of the country because we never know when we are going to be hit by some unfortunate catastrophe like an influenza epidemic, or something like that, where we will require the assistance of such an organization which can help the people immediately. That is what is lacking. Sir, you cannot do anything for a man when he has an empty stomach. But if you give him a full stomach and a bed, then you can do something for him. The Social Welfare Department cannot give that immediate help. I am sorry to see this organization going. We support this Bill and we sincerely hope—I certainly do—that the Minister will make arrangements to see that this type of poor relief is carried on. We would not like to see these destitute people going from pillar to post to apply for assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate myself with hon. members who spoke before me on this Bill and also to pay tribute to the work which has been done over many years by this Board of Aid here in the Peninsula, Furthermore, I am speaking as the representative of one of our constituencies in the Peninsula which is highly appreciative of the work done by this Board of Aid. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Salt River, this work commenced on account of the problems which existed after the 1918 influenza epidemic. I am referring here to people who were in need of care, the dependents of deceased who were in need of care as well as other people who were suffering. The work of this Board of Aid was mainly limited to welfare work in the Cape Town municipal area. We are grateful for the work done by this Board. You will also be aware, Sir, that the work was undertaken here mainly in an area generally called District Six, where severe poverty prevailed and where there were conditions of destitution. One of the reasons I want to suggest why the activities of this Board of Aid have to be taken over by the State in future, is that a large group of those people who were assisted by the Board of Aid in the past, i.e. the Coloured population living in District Six, are now moving to other parts of the Peninsula, within the municipal area of Cape Town and elsewhere. We have heard it being said here by the hon. member for Umbilo that approximately 68 % of the assistance rendered by this Board of Aid in the past was handed out to members of the Coloured group. To the same extent as this group moves from District Six so the activities of the Board of Aid are being curtailed. However, there is another important reason why the responsibility for this work should be completely transferred to the State, and that is that, in our welfare work, we should get away from the thought expressed here by the hon. member for Salt River that this merely constitutes the handing out of alms to the indigent. This is no longer our approach to welfare work today. Our approach to welfare work is to help a person to help himself and however useful this might have been in the past to provide people with a bed for the night or a morsel of food or to provide a person with tools if he had lost or probably pawned his own, I want to say that assistance of this nature is not true uplifting welfare work. The welfare work which is being undertaken by the State and by the Department of Social Welfare in respect of both Whites and Coloured people, is to help people to help themselves by uplifting them in this way.

You will be aware, Sir—and this was also mentioned here by the hon. the Deputy Minister—that there the responsibility of the State in respect of this Board of Aid has increased over the years. Originally this Board was established with the idea that one-third of the funds of this Board of Aid would be contributed by the Cape Town municipality, one-third by the Provincial Administration, while one-third would be collected from the public. But as long ago as during the 1920s this one-third contribution was no longer forthcoming from the public and the Board of Aid was practically dependent on the Cape Town municipality and the Provincial Administration for its funds. As we have heard, the obligations of the Provincial Administration were subsequently, during the 1940s, taken over by the State. And more recently, during the 1950s the responsibility of the Municipality was taken over as well. We have therefore had the position for a considerable time of the State bearing full responsibility for these activities. In 1967 the State therefore took over complete control of this organization. At this stage it is merely a further logical development for the Department of Social Welfare to take over the responsibility for conducting the welfare services for the Whites in this area, the welfare services which were conducted by the Board of Aid, and for the welfare services in respect of the Coloured people to be taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs. This is a logical development. This is also in accordance with the pattern of the granting of greater responsibility to our Coloured population in respect of their own people. In this respect we also welcome what is to be done. I also welcome the remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the fact that arrangements are being made with certain welfare organizations to take over the existing services in respect of Coloured people and Whites, for example the crèches for Coloureds and Whites. I believe there is also a hostel for Coloured people. This will then be taken over and, as in the past, be conducted in so far as this may be necessary.

But I should like to say something about the so-called trust funds of this organization on account of what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member for Umbilo mentioned that this trust funds amounted to R25 000 in the year 1967. At present these trust funds amount to R48 084. But these trust funds came from an investment of approximately R13 000 they had as far back as 1962. Since 1962 very little was added to this trust fund by means of public contributions. As a matter of fact, as far as I was able to ascertain there was only one sizeable request of approximately R1 600 in all those years from 1962 up to now, so that the increase in this amount from R13 000 to R48 000 between 1962 and 1970 is really attributable to the accumulation of interest. This indicates to me that there was really no need to spend these trust funds otherwise they would not have accumulated the way they did. When looking at the figures for the year 1972, I find that the balance at the beginning of that year was R46 305 and that at the end of the year it was R48 084, whereas only R2 495 was spent. More than R4 274 was collected by way of interest. It therefore means that the Board of Aid was unable even to spend the interest on capital on this essential work referred to by the hon. member for Salt River. That is why there is no longer a need in this respect either.

I foresee that, because practically 68% of the funds of this Board of Aid was used for poor relief among Coloured people in the past, provision will now have to be made in the estimates for welfare services for Coloured people for this poor relief to be undertaken by that department. I shall be glad if the authorities concerned with this matter will see to it that the welfare services of the Administration of Coloured Affairs will receive its fair share by virtue of the fact that the Board of Aid is no longer able to use its funds for the Coloured people. I welcome this legislation and I support it.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Umbilo that he is supporting the Bill. In the second instance I want to thank him for bringing certain very important points to my notice. I concede immediately that those points which he has seen in the Bill are important. I intend dealing with them. As far as the assets, the trust moneys are concerned, they will simply go over to the department because the department has been giving an adequate subsidy to this particular organization. Under the circumstances it is felt that the money should really be returned to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. That does not mean that the money will merely vanish from the health and social welfare scene. It will simply mean that the money will be used in a general scheme to assist organizations and people who require assistance when and where it is required.

It will not be earmarked for social relief?

No, it will not be specially earmarked for social relief in Cape Town as such. The department is simply taking over the whole organization to form part of the larger organization. Wherever relief is needed it will be given. I think the hon. member will agree with me that at the time of the Boland earthquake the Government gave adequate relief. The Government intends giving relief in the same fashion in Cape Town itself.

I agree that it is very difficult in the case of such an organization which has been in existence for more than 50 years to unwind the ramifications which have occurred over the course of years. We shall go into the matter very carefully. I do appreciate the hon. member’s questions and I want to assure the hon. member that notwithstanding the fact that my department has already gone into the matter, I will see to it personally that all the aspects which he has mentioned will once again be considered.

The hon. member mentioned the rehabilitation work which is being done by this organization. The hon. member will know that the department has its own rehabilitation schemes. However, the department will go into the particular work this organization is doing in this field to see whether it can fully be taken over by the department.

The hon. member also referred to the provident fund. The department intends ascertaining what the scheme provides. It may well be that the scheme provides for refunds plus interest to the members who contributed to the provident fund. The hon. member will realize that the members who will be transferred to the department will become members of the pension schemes of the department. My personal opinion is that the amounts which the provident fund has paid into the scheme, will be refunded to them in terms of the scheme. If it is possible to pay that money into our pension scheme, it will be done. However, if the provident fund scheme does not make allowance for that or if our scheme does not make allowance for such action, the money will obviously be refunded. There will obviously not be any loss.

The problem will be with the older person.

Yes, there will be a problem and we shall give special attention to that. As far as accumulated leave is concerned, I have just ascertained from the department that we intend paying the staff out for any leave they have not taken. It will not be possible to incorporate leave which they have accumulated into the leave benefits of the department. We may be able to pay them out for leave which they should have taken but which still stands to their credit. I think that answers all the questions of the hon. member.

As far as the hon. member for Salt River is concerned, I intend ignoring the insulting and childish insinuations made by him. I do not think it was worthy of him at all. I may tell him now across the floor of the House that I neither smiled at him nor laughed at what he was saying. I take a back-seat to no one when it comes to feelings for poor people. I want to make that point clear to the hon. member. I think that was a very insulting insinuation he made to me. I have never acted in such a way towards anybody on the opposite side of the House. I have always accepted the bona fides of the United Party when it comes to poor people and social welfare. I have said that on occasions. I therefore take exception to what the hon. member did.

I do not think there is anything else to be said. I want to thank the two hon. members on this side of the House who assisted in two very able speeches. I want to concede immediately, also to the hon. member for Salt River, that I do not know as much about this organization as the people in Cape Town would know. I do not know as much of the work that this organization has done, because at the time when I took over the portfolio, we were already winding up the affairs of this organization. Although I have had the opportunity of seeing a lot of welfare work done by the department in various parts of the country, I simply did not investigate this particular organization because I knew that it was going to pass away. Therefore I concede straight away that I do not know about all the work. From what I have heard, from what the department has told me, they have done a considerable amount of good work, and I have already expressed my appreciation for it in introducing this debate. I want to repeat it now. While I am on my feet, I would like to tell the organization and the members that belong to it that I can see, from the time and money they have spent on poor relief, that they have done a magnificent job, and I want to thank them again. I think that deals with all the questions that have been raised. If there are any more questions, I would be glad to answer them.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I would like at the outset to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s remarks. As far as I am concerned, if I have upset him in any way, it was not intended, and I hope that he will accept my apologies. I was not reacting to him personally, but to the attitude he took up. I am sorry that he is upset about it. I do express my apologies to him.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, subject to Standing Order No. 49, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provisions of this Bill amend three Railway Acts and I will set out briefly the implications of the various clauses.

In so far as clause 1 is concerned, I should like to explain that in terms of section 3(2) of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, the maximum penalty for the contravention of the regulations promulgated in terms of the Act, is a fine of R100 or, in default of payment, imprisonment for a period of six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. As matters stand at present, the maximum punishment which can be imposed in the case of a person who has been found guilty of reckless or negligent driving or driving a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor on railway and harbour premises, is much more lenient than that imposed in respect of persons who have committed such offences outside railway areas. Since there is no reason why persons who violate traffic regulations on railway premises or a harbour area should receive less stringent punishment than offenders on public roads, it is the intention to rectify matters by omitting from section 3(2) of the Act any reference to the punishment that may be imposed, and to amend the General Railway and the Harbour Regulations to provide for punishment more in line with modern penal norms.

In terms of section 36(i) of the Consolidation Act it is a punishable offence to throw objects which are likely to obstruct or injure anyone working on or near railway premises. No provision is, however, made for the prosecution of persons who dump waste material or refuse on railway premises, unless it can be proved that it was the intent to obstruct or endanger an employee in the execution of his duties. Unauthorized dumping on railway premises is increasing, and the amendment envisaged in clause 2 of the Bill should assist in combating this evil.

The amendments proposed in clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 8(b), 9, 10 and 13 of the Bill arise from the fact that the functions of the Railway Police are not fully described in section 57 of the Consolidation Act. In terms of this Act, a member of the Railway Police shall be capable of exercising all such powers and shall perform all such functions as are by law conferred on or are to be performed by a member of the South African Police.

In cases where the functions of the Railway Police are disputed in court, the Police Act of 1958 often has to be consulted; a procedure which is not only time-consuming but also delays court proceedings. To remove any doubt about the rights and duties of the Railway Police, it is considered expedient to incorporate certain sections of the Police Act in section 57 of the Consolidation Act. The amendments to the Service Act of 1960 are of a consequential nature.

As hon. members are aware, Railway servants are employed either in a permanent, temporary or casual capacity. In terms of section 4(2) of the Service Act the employment of a casual servant shall be regulated exclusively by the conditions agreed upon at the time of his engagement or, to the extent to which such conditions have not been expressly agreed upon, by such conditions as may from time to time be laid down by the Administration. Any change in the service conditions of casual servants, even those to their benefit, has no legal validity unless the staff concerned agree to such change. The proposed amendment in clause 7, therefore, is to provide for changes to be brought about in the service conditions of casual servants, as is done in the case of servants in temporary or permanent employment, without their prior approval having to be obtained.

In terms of section 7(4) of the Service Act it is a punishable offence for a member of the Railway Police to abscond, but this applies only to members of the Force in permanent or temporary employment and not to casual and non-White servants. Similarly, section 28bis which prohibits railway servants from striking, does not apply to casual servants. The amendments proposed in clauses 8(a) and 12 are, therefore, aimed at ensuring that the provisions of sections 7(4) and 28bis of the Service Act also apply to casual staff.

The purpose of clause 11 of the Bill is to make it a punishable offence for a servant to perform certain duties under the influence of dependence-producing drugs. This is considered necessary as a result of the increasing use of such drugs.

The aim of clause 14 is to provide for the application with retrospective effect from a date not earlier than 1st April, 1971, which is the operative date of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971, of pension regulations promulgated in terms of the Act.

Clause 15 provides for the admission of locally-recruited overborder staff being admitted to membership of the New Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund.

With the continual expansion of the S.A. Airways international services more and more use in being made abroad of the services of locally-recruited staff and in the 23 foreign countries where SAA operates, the staff establishment provides for some 600 units.

The overborder labour market is most competitive and, in order to recruit and retain the services of personnel there, it is imperative that such staff be accorded conditions of service at least equal to those enjoyed by their confrères employed by other international airline operators. The lack of adequate pension and other retirement benefits is causing dissatisfaction amongst S.A.A. overborder personnel and pressure is being brought to bear on the department to provide these benefits.

The pension schemes operating in foreign countries are not ideally suited to the department’s requirements and, consequently, the possibility was examined of admitting S.A. Airways locally-recruited overborder personnel to membership of the fund. Since the S.A. Railways also employs locally-recruited staff in foreign countries, it is the intention that such staff should be treated equally.

The Joint Committee on Pension Matters has unanimously recommended that membership of the fund be extended to S.A. Airways and S.A. Railways locally-recruited overborder staff whenever it is considered practical and justified to do so. Any additional costs that may be necessary by virtue of legal or other requirements in foreign countries, will not form a financial burden against the fund but will be borne by either S.A. Airways or S.A. Railways as the case may be.

In order to safeguard the considerable investment held in trust on behalf of the members of the Railways superannuation funds and at the same time to facilitate the realization of other investments, it is considered that the time is opportune to separate pension fund investments from those representing the balances in the other funds controlled by the department, and also to credit the actual amount of interest earned by the investment of pension fund moneys to the funds.

To conform to legislation in certain overseas countries where it is compulsory for the pension contributions of employees and of their employers to be invested locally, it is also necessary to amend sections 10 and 19 of the Pensions Act of 1971 to provide for the contributions in question to be invested in the countries concerned.

Under this new arrangement the funds’ income from their proportion of existing investments, will be not less than the interest presently credited to the funds on the basis of the average rate of interest earned by the department on all its permanent investments. The object of clauses 16 and 17 is, therefore, to amend Act 35 of 1971 to permit of the foregoing arrangements being implemented.

In clause 18 provision is made for the validation of certain changes in conditions of employment of railway staff. The operative date of any such change must be concurrent with, or subsequent to, that on which it is communicated to the staff, and Executive Council approval must be obtained within three months from the date of notification to the staff. For various administrative reasons it is not always possible to observe these conditions, and it has been necessary on occasion in the past to obtain validation of the action taken The changes in question relate to one specific case where the approval of the Executive Council could not be obtained within three months of the date on which the staff was advised of the revised conditions.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which can more appropriately be discussed at the Committee Stage, because it deals with a large number of matters which are only related in the sense that they deal with Railway matters in the broad sense of the word. However, I shall now make a few comments on it and, in particular, put a few questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to say immediately that the Opposition is unfortunately unable to support clause 1 of the Bill, but this is the only clause of which this is true. We shall be obliged to speak against it and to vote against it at the Committee Stage. As the Act reads at present, the Railways have the power to make regulations in order to impose certain penalties, but in the Railways and Harbours Control and Management Act a maximum penalty has been laid down, namely a fine of R100 or, in default of payment, imprisonment for a period of six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. Now it is being proposed to abolish that restriction on the powers of the Railways and to provide the penalties by way of regulation. To us it seems wrong on principle for Parliament to allow any State department to impose criminal penalties without any restriction being imposed and without its being incumbent on the State department concerned to come to the House with clear proposals and details if it should be necessary to exceed those penalties.

The second clause which I should like to raise, is clause 4 of the Bill. I want to link this with all the other clauses which have to do with the Railway Police. We are pleased that any obscurity concerning the powers of the South African Railways Police vis-à-vis their counterparts in the South African Police are now being cleared up and explained. It is time that this was done, because all the information at our disposal indicates that the Railway Police are doing exceptionally valuable work, not only in the narrow sense of protecting the property of the Railways and its users, but also in respect of much more important matters such as the prevention of crime and the safeguarding of the State where the necessity for this arises on railway property or in connection with railway activities. Therefore the hon. the Deputy Minister may rest assured that we shall support these clauses. I am particularly grateful—it happens so seldom that I can pay tribute to the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister—to see that the Railways pay the Railway Police much better than the Department of Police pays the S.A. Police. I want to congratulate the Railways on that. This is a very wise thing which they are doing, and they are doing it for people who really deserve it. I wish this were an opportunity for complaining about what is being done for the ordinary Police, because I want to make a plea on their behalf, but that will have to wait until later in this session. In the meantime, our thanks and appreciation to the Railways Administration for their fair treatment of the Railway Police, which is a very valuable service.

I should like to ask something in connection with clause 7 of the Bill. These casual workers, whose conditions of service can at present only be changed with their consent, will now lose that particular privilege. Now, like other servants of the Railways, they will find that their conditions of service will be changed without their having been consulted. One can see that this is necessary for reasons of discipline and good administration. What I should like to hear from the Minister—and I apologize for being ignorant in this regard—is what protection these casual workers will enjoy should their conditions of service be altered to their disadvantage. Are they being represented by some staff association or other? When the conditions of service of all other Railway officials come under discussion, they have the advantage that their case may be presented by a staff association. I should like to hear from the Deputy Minister what is being done to grant these people the same kind of protection. Then I want to say something about clause 8. The restriction on members of the Railway Police who wish to resign during the first three years of their service, is also being extended now to members of the Railway Police Service employed in a casual capacity. This seems a little strange to me, and I should like to have more justification for it than the Minister gave us in his introductory speech. From the nature of the case people who are casual workers are usually not bound to work out a long period of notice, as is the case with people who do contract work or are on the permanent staff. A casual worker can usually be got rid of by giving him 24 hours’ notice and he can also resign at such notice. To impose a restriction on the casual worker by requiring him to work for three years before he can resign, sounds unreasonable to me. If these people have to accept the strict obligations which temporary and permanent members of the Police Service on the Railways have to comply with, they ought also to enjoy more of the privileges of their more permanent contemporaries in the Railways, something of which they are deprived at present.

Then I want to say something in connection with clause 16. I just want to say that it is a good thing that the investment moneys of the Superannuation Fund and the Widows’ Fund are being separated from the other funds. That is more orderly and will ensure that all interest earned on these funds will in fact be credited to the benefit of the servants of the Railways. But in clause 17 there is something which is not clear to me, namely the words which the hon. the Minister proposes to add at the end of the new clause 19(1) of the Railways and Harbours Pension Act, 1971. Here the Minister proposes that the moneys may also be paid over now—and I quote—

What does that mean? This aspect has not been explained by the Deputy Minister. Does it mean that these moneys may be used by way of investment in foreign deposit-receiving institutions in the normal course of conducting the affairs of the Railways? Or will this only be done in instances which have to do with the protection of the pension privileges of people who are serving abroad, as the Minister explained to us in connection with the preceding clause? If it is in fact the case that they may be used by the Railways for the promotion of its normal affairs, then I think that Parliament should have the assurance that these moneys, which should really be applied solely in the interests of its employees, will be invested on conditions which are not less favourable for the Superannuation Fund and the other funds than are the conditions which may be negotiated for in South Africa itself, and also that they will be available should some circumstance or other arise making it necessary for the Railways to make use of part of these capital moneys which have been so invested, in the interests of the pensioners of the Railways.

Sir, I should be very grateful if the Deputy Minister would give us detailed replies to these questions, which we ask in the interests of greater clarity in the public mind and in the minds of those people in the Railways who are involved in the matter.

Sir, at the outset I should just like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister and the responsible officials for the explanatory memorandum which gives a very short but very clear exposition of the Bill we have before us.

Do you think it is a good memorandum?

Yes, it is a very good memorandum indeed, as the hon. member would have known if he had read it. I also want to say that if only the hon. member for Yeoville had read the memorandum, he would have made a much better speech than he in fact did. He struggled a great deal to take up ten minutes. The hon. member raised certain points of criticism and said the Opposition would oppose clause 1 in the Committee Stage. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister gave a very clear explanation of the provisions of clause 1. It deals with penalty provisions.

The hon. member, if I understood him correctly, objected chiefly to the fact that the penal provisions were to be contained in the regulations, but what objection can he have to that? After all, it is much easier to amend or to adapt a regulation than to bring an amending Bill to this House every time. What is more, hon. members of the Opposition have sufficient time to discuss the application of the regulations should they wish to do so. The principle of the promulgation of regulations is, after all, something which has been laid down in our legislation for many years.

Sir, the principal Act provides for maximum penalties. That Act was passed as long ago as 1957. I refer to Act No. 70 of 1957, section 3(2). In that section it was provided at that time that the penalty for certain offences might not exceed a fine of £50 (R100) or imprisonment for a period of six months. This existing maximum penalty no longer conforms to present penal norms, and the matter is simply being rectified now by means of this Bill. In this connection I should just like to mention an example. When an offence was committed by a motorist in that he exceeded the speed limit on railway property, for example, the magistrate was bound to the maximum penalty prescribed here. A person might have caused a serious accident through negligent driving, but the magistrate would be obliged to impose the maximum penalty as prescribed in the principal Act. If that person had committed that same offence on a public road, he would possibly have been subject to a more severe penalty. It has happened before in court cases that a magistrate has said to an offender: “Had you committed this offence on a public road, I would have imposed a more severe penalty on you, but I am bound by this maximum penalty and I am therefore unable to impose a more severe penalty on you.”

I see in this a very important measure in that this is being brought into line with the penalties applicable in the public sector. I see in this a safety measure for servants of the Railways, but also for people who use the premises of the Railways. It is very important that this adjustment be made because this has been the position for many years and it has been found that this does not always operate in agreement with the penalties applicable in the public sector. I see in this Bill still further general safety measures. As far as I am concerned, the principle of the guarantee of safety shines from this legislation, in the first place for the public who make use of the travel facilities of the Railways and the Airways, but in the second place also for those people who enter the premises of the Railways, Airways and the Harbours or make use of them. But in the third place provision is also being made for the safety of the servants of the Railways. This legislation contains a number of clauses dealing with the rights, the duties and the powers of the Railway Police, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Yeoville as well. These are clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13.

These clauses set out the powers of the Railway Police and their rights. These powers are being defined more clearly and are also being extended. The rights and powers of the Railway Police are being set out very fully. It is very necessary for these powers of the Railway Police to be brought into line with the powers of the ordinary police. In the past, much time was lost and many delays occurred because the Police Act and the Railways Act did not correspond exactly in regard to the offences and the penalties to be imposed and in regard to the rights and powers of the Railway officials themselves. By means of these particular clauses in the amending Bill any doubt as to the specific rights, duties and powers of the Railway Police are being eliminated. The principles contained in the Police Act are being incorporated into the Railways Act as well, and now the Railways Act itself makes provision for the rights, powers, duties and functions of the Railway Police. On the strength of the provisions concerning the rights and duties of railway servants, one may come to the conclusion that this will also ensure the safety of the public and of any person who uses this means of transport, as well as the safety of the servants themselves. It is very necessary to place a very high priority on safety, as the Railways have done in the past. This legislation extends those safety measures.

Clause 11 also introduces greater safety for the user of the services of the Railways. In this clause section 23 of Act 22 of 1960 is being amended and made more comprehensive. Section 23 of Act 22 of 1960 refers to servants who perform their duties while under the influence of liquor and narcotic drugs. This clause 11, which amends section 23, is an extension of the existing section. The term “intoxicating liquor” is being replaced by the more definitive term “alcoholic liquor” while “narcotic drugs” is being replaced by the term “dependence-producing drugs”. Sir, it is very necessary that this new clause be extended in this way. This wave of abuse or use of dependence-producing drugs, or drugs as they are generally known, has unfortunately also spread to the S.A. Railways. Already there are servants in the railway service who have transgressed in this regard, and servants under the influence of these substances are a threat to public safety, and particularly to the safety of people who use the means of transport offered by the S.A. Railways. I say that to me this, too, is a safety measure. There is another lesser principle, but to me, and I think also to others, it is an important principle.

This legislation envisages the cleanliness and neatness of railway premises and other properties. It has already occurred in many instances that people have dumped litter and rubbish on railway premises, sometimes open and sometimes enclosed premises. Every now and again accusations are received from the public that the premises of the Railways look untidy. By means of this legislation the kind of substances which may not be dumped, are being extended and provision is also being made for applicable penalties in this connection. This is a measure which will in the first place be welcomed by railway employees who must see to it that these places look clean and neat. It will, however, also be welcomed by the public and particularly by people who live near such premises. I myself have received complaints from my constituency concerning unsightly railway premises on which rubbish has been dumped. Nobody seems to be responsible for the removal of such rubbish or for the prevention of the dumbing of rubbish there.

Everyone who takes an interest in keeping our country clean, will welcome this measure. I think the Railways has performed an exceptional task in this connection. When I made a speech during the Committee Stage of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill, I thanked the Railway Administration for having installed plastic bags in express trains which resulted in the area along the railway lines being much neater than before as rubbish used to be thrown next to the railway lines but was now deposited in these plastic bags. This measure will bring about further improvement in the position.

On many premises belonging to the Railways, there are no notices for warning people that they may not dump rubbish there. I want to request the hon. the Deputy Minister to see to it that where there are no such notices, notices be put up so that the person who dumps rubbish there and is not aware of the fact that it is railway property, will not be punished without prior warning. Sometimes it is a little difficult to put up an effective notice, because I read in a recent newspaper report that people even made use of helicopters to dump rubbish on premises. I do not believe that it will be possible to put up notices which can be read from the air. Therefore I am only referring to people who dump rubbish on premises in the normal way.

The hon. member for Yeoville discussed and agreed with other amendments as well. This is a consolidating measure aimed at effecting the smoother operation of the Administration.

Business suspended as 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport must be a very happy man today because he is piloting a Bill through this House which has not raised any opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville did, however, say that we would discuss certain matters in the Committee Stage. I want to say that we welcome this Bill, although I must confess that when I read through it, I was absolutely astounded to see that the South African Railway Police had, to this stage, not yet enjoyed the powers and the protection this Bill now gives them. After all, the Police Act of 1958 had already given the South African Police these powers and this protection. It had already defined the functions of the South African Police. That Act specified their duties and indemnified them under certain circumstances. I was surprised that after 15 years of Nationalist rule the Railway Police had not yet been protected in this way.

Twenty-five years.

It took them 15 years from 1958 to 1973 to think it out. Where the fault lies I do not know, but, as I have intimated, this measure is long overdue and we on this side welcome it. After all, Mr. Speaker, the White Paper says, inter alia, the following—

It took this Government 15 years before it dawned on them that they had to do something about this matter. I quote further from the White Paper—

Order! Is it necessary to read the whole of the White Paper?

No, Sir, I am not reading the whole of the White Paper but it appears that certain members have not cottoned on to these provisions. Their reflexes are somewhat slow and they need a little bit of help. Sir, I am on their side in this connection; I am trying to help them! [Interjections.] At any rate, this Bill is now before the House in order to remove these doubts and we welcome it.

The South African Railway Police have come a very long way since they were reorganized some 40 years ago by an ex-chief of the Criminal Investigation Department, Col. Abe Cilliers, a character who was loved in the South African Police. He reorganized the Railway Police in the early 1930s, and since then they have come a long way. I should like to pay tribute to the Railway Police for the way in which they have progressed since those days. I may say that although I refer to this person as “Abe Cilliers”, I was only a young man. Col. Abe Cilliers took with him into the Railway Police some very fine, young and upcoming members of the South African Police who, had they remained in the South African Police, no doubt would have reached the top. With that core he formed the Railway Police as we know them today. They have a bond of esprit de corps which is known only to servicemen and whatever one may say about the Police, the police throughout the world speak one language. They speak one language whether they are Railway Police or not. The co-operation that exists in connection with that force is of the highest order and, as I have said, they have that feeling of esprit de corps which exists amongst policemen. You have to live with it, Mr. Speaker, to know what it is. I am glad to see that the hon. the Prime Minister is here, because he knows what that esprit de corps is like in the South African Police. I hope that the Railway Police, now that they will have this protection and now that their duties will be specified, will go from strength to strength.

Referring to this matter of co-operation, I want to say that when the sabotage campaign was at its height in South Africa in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, the Special Branch of the Railway Police, as it is now known, worked in close co-operation with the Security Branch of the South African Police. As a result of that co-operation we stood shoulder to shoulder against the onslaught of sabotage in this country, and made South Africa safe so that we could still be sitting here today. I pay tribute to those men; I give them all the homage that is their due. South Africa will never know what debt it owes to those men.

Clause 3 of the Bill gives us a new definition of “Policeman” which more or less corresponds with that in section 1 of the Police Act. Clause 4 explains the composition of the Force and what is required of it.

That we have heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Sir, people do not understand. Now we come to the functions of the Force which are to be found in clause 5. They are precisely the same as those of the South African Police, upon Railways and Harbours property. In this connection I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether something cannot be done in the interests of saving manpower. One finds at our airports that at certain gates a South African policeman and a railway policeman are present, on opposite sides of the gate. For the life of me I can never understand why members of both police forces should be present at these gates. Surely, now that we are giving the Railway Police these extended powers and duties, the South African police can be withdrawn form the airports so that they can return to their stations and to their beats. I am not talking about the CID and the Security Branch now, who must be there always; I am talking about uniformed personnel. I would like to ask the Deputy Minister to give this serious thought, because this airport duty makes serious inroads into the manpower of the S.A. Police. After all, the S.A. Police usually have a charge office at these airports; why, I do not know. These charge offices could be manned by Railway Police with ease and certainly with more efficiency from the point of view of uniformity.

I am pleased to see that, in terms of this Bill, the Railway Police have been given immense powers of search on Railways, Airways and Harbour property. But it is gladdening to see, too, that there is a safeguard. If a policeman stops a person who is carrying a parcel he should not be carrying—we know what pilfering goes on— that person can request to be taken to a sergeant. This provides a check on the constable whom may be over-zealous.

Clause 5 also makes provision for the insertion of the proposed section 57B, according to which anyone who assaults or resists or wilfully obstructs a member of the Force, is guilty of an offence. This also is embodied in the Police Act under the heading “Interference with members of the Force” in their lawful pursuits. I am glad to see that the fines specified in this Bill are the same throughout as those inflicted in terms of the Police Act on people who interfere with the Police in pursuit of their lawful duties.

The question of the wearing of uniforms, badges, etc. of the Police Force is an important matter, because the impersonating of police is a crime which is being committed to a greater extent than most people realize and the Police Force are paying for what goes wrong. I am also glad to see that this clause makes provision for people who pretend to be members of the Police Force and for the R100 fine or six months’ imprisonment. These false representations of so called association with the Force is also an important matter. One will find people pretending to be acting on behalf of or in association with the Force, particularly when it comes to collecting money for so-called “charities”. I am glad to see that the Railway Police will be protected to this extent.

Man being what he is, a vain animal that likes to dress nicely, also likes to wear medals and decorations. Provision is also being made here for those people who wear decorations or medals to which they are not entitled, thereby detracting from the value thereof. We know what it is. We have seen it. It happens.

The proposed subsection (6)(a), which provides for the exemption from tolls, absolutely astounds me. I have always thought that the Railway Police were exempt from tolls or fees required at ferries, bridges or any other obstruction of that nature but it is gladdening to see that the authorities have now made provision for it, so that the Police can do their work more efficiently. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and give you other examples.

It is good to see that clause 8 imposes a limitation of right to resign, and provides for the retention of a member in war time when his period of engagement has expired, as well as in times of disturbance of the public peace, riots or other emergency or apprehended emergency. This is a very important provision and it is only right that it should be incorporated in the Bill. I have gone into this matter, because I have listened to previous speakers who have somewhat glossed over the powers of the Police. Believe me, the powers of the police are important to each and every one of us here, and they are important for the security of the State.

The other clauses dealing with the police are purely administrative. It is noted that the Railway Police Force will now be known as the South African Railways Police Force, which I think is a very good idea. After all, the ensign bearing the initials “RP” or “SP” does not have any meaning to anybody. The insignia “SARP” or “SASP” gives the men a sense of regimental pride. The hon. the Minister of Defence knows what regimental pride means to men.

Does he?

I am glad to see that this psychological aspect has been put right at long last. Now that the duties of the Railway Police have been defined and now that they have been indemnified of certain acts, which are done in good faith, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will see to it that the training of the Police is in accordance with their duties. I am not criticizing the training we have at present, but we are now in the jet age where we have to do with kidnappers …

Hijackers.

Sophisticated electronic equipment is now being used. I hope that the S.A. Railway Police Force will intensify its training and will bring it up to date so that it can be a model to all other Police Forces and so that it can give us that service which the public of South Africa so richly deserves. I hope they will also maintain the traditions in that niche which the Police has in the society of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for the lunch hour, the hon. member for Yeoville made a very commendable speech; even if this is not true in respect of the contents of his speech, it is nevertheless true in respect of its scope under the special technical circumstances which prevailed on the board at that stage. The hon. member for Yeoville is not present in this House at the moment, but he put certain questions to me. For the sake of the record I am therefore obliged to reply to them.

The first objection raised by the hon. member for Yeoville was in respect of clause 1, in terms of which certain penal provisions are now going to be prescribed by way of regulations and are therefore being removed from the Statute Book. I want to state the practical problem in this regard very clearly to the House. As explained in the White Paper that was tabled, this matter deals chiefly with traffic offences on railway premises and in harbour areas. On a certain occasion a magistrate stated in his judgment, and I think the hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to it, that the accused could deem himself lucky to have been charged on railway premises and not outside, for then the penalty would have been much more severe. This restriction, this maximum penalty, has been on the Statute Book for quite some time. It is principally as a result of the inception of the National Road Safety Council that we in this country are in the process of amending certain traffic ordinances passed in the course of years. I have been given to understand that provincial councils will in the course of this year drastically amend their ordinances in respect of certain traffic offences. If the matter were therefore to remain in the Act, it would mean that this hon. House or Parliament as such would have to pass amending legislation from time to time in order to bring our penal provisions into line with ordinances passed by the various provincial councils. If hon. members on the other side of the House were to consider the implications this might have, they would agree with me that this would not be a practicable procedure and that we should rather prescribe those penal provisions by way of regulations, so that when ordinances in respect of traffic offences are amended, it will be possible, as far as railway premises and harbour areas are concerned, to bring them into line merely by way of regulations.

I was grateful to hear that the hon. members opposite were supporting the major part of this Bill, as we were informed through the hon. member for Yeoville. He put certain questions to me; the first one was in respect of clause 7 of the Bill. I should like to give the House the assurance that in respect of clause 7, which deals with the conditions of service of casual staff which are now being brought into line with the conditions of service of the temporary staff and the permanent staff, no distinction whatever is going to be made, that the possibility of discrimination against casual staff does not exist, and that in practise they are going to receive the same protection the temporary and permanent staff are receiving at the moment.

In connection with clause 8 the hon. member asked me why certain restrictions were being introduced in respect of the resignation period of members and the way in which they may resign. The fact of the matter is that in the South African Railways Police Force we have non-White police servants who are being employed in a casual capacity. It is essential that they, too, be included in the scope of this particular provision in order to bring them into line with it.

In connection with clause 17 the hon. member asked me what the investment in foreign countries meant and what it included. It has come to the notice of the Railways Administration that there are certain countries where especially the South African Airways, but in some cases the South African Railways as well, has servants in its employ, and that those countries require certain pension contributions of servants to be invested locally. This is a request, a requirement laid down by the countries concerned. In order to bring our pension scheme into line with the wishes and the laws of those countries, it is therefore necessary that certain funds be invested in those countries.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort replied very effectively to some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. For that reason I do not wish to elaborate on them. He put this question to me: What about the notice-boards on railway premises? Most railway premises and harbour areas in South Africa are well known, have been demarcated and have been fenced in; they are bounded in some way or other. There is therefore no problem in identifying that kind of property. From the speech made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort I conclude that he is concerned about certain scattered properties of the Railways, such as a residential plot or a residential area belonging to the Railways. If any dumping of waste were to take place, the person concerned would expose himself to penalties prescribed by the law. The reassurance is to be found in the fact that the person does in any case have the right to state his case before the magistrate should he be charged with an offence. There is absolutely no question of tampering with the discretionary powers of the magistrate trying such a case. It is simply not practicable to put up a notice board on every piece of railway property, for in practice the Railways own odd pieces of property all over the country. Owing to the deviation of railway lines and the changing of certain areas odd pieces of property are scattered all over the country. It is necessary for them to be protected against pollution, the dumping of waste, etc., but unfortunately it is not a practical proposition to put up on each of them a notice board to the effect that such premises are in fact railway property. We believe that the tendency to pollute our country, and also our railway premises and the strips of land on both sides of our railway lines, is a process which must be checked. I think the hon. member for Koedoespoort submitted a very sound plea in this regard. This measure is an attempt to take up, at least in respect of such premises, stronger measures and to stop that process. And if our people do not voluntarily want to keep our country clean, we must take measures to compel them to do so. The hon. member for Koedoespoort mentioned the interesting incident of a helicopter which dumpted rubbish, and that happened in the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, no less. That merely goes to prove that the legislature is saddled with an impossible problem. When the measure was drafted, the legal draftsmen did not think of the possibility of waste being dumped by helicopters, and I am afraid that if this process continues, we shall have to effect a statutory amendment at a later stage.

I am grateful for the friendly words addressed to the South African Railways Police by the hon. member for Umlazi. He is an ex-police officer who has a great deal of practical experience of this matter, and I am grateful that he, with his many years of experience of the practical problems experienced by these people, could take up the cudgels for the South African Railways Police. We are always grateful to hear that there is appreciation for a task executed with promptness and also with great distinction, for which these people probably do not always get the credit they deserve. For that reason I am grateful that a good word is being said for these men here in this House. I want to reassure the hon. member for Umlazi in respect of the training aspect. The South African Railways Police are receiving exactly the same training as do members of the South African Police, but in addition they also receive training in certain subjects which have a specific bearing on their activities as railway policemen. One may therefore justifiably say that they are in every respect on a level with the South African Police as far as their training is concerned, but that they also acquire additional knowledge which is applied in the specific task they have to perform. As regards the hon. member’s question on two kinds of police at our airports, I may just tell him that the position up to now has been that the airport area falls under the Department of Transport and is therefore not railway property but ordinary State property. Now that this legislation will appear on the Statute Book that position will be remedied, and whether we shall be able to remove that dual control will be a question for practical negotiation between the Railways Police on the one hand and the South African Police on the other.

In this regard I could perhaps conclude by telling an interesting anecdote. This anecdote illustrates the position as it used to be. A railway policeman heard about a murder that had been committed somewhere on railway premises. With great difficulty he followed the railway line and eventually found a corpse on the railway side of the fence. He realized that it would be a most difficult case to investigate and then he simply threw the evidence over the fence. Next he telephoned the local sergeant and told him to investigate the case. With great difficulty the local sergeant drove through an area covered with thorn bushes, and having arrived there, he similarly realized that it would be a very difficult case. And so he in turn threw the evidence over the fence again. I suppose this is just an anecdote, but a situation of that nature is now being eliminated. I believe that we are now putting the South African Railways Police in a position to perform their task very efficiently, also in respect of the problem of hijacking, which was mentioned by the hon. member. I do not wish to dwell at length on this topic, and I just want to reassure him and the House that everything humanly possible is being done to extirpate this devilish evil which is being found in the world today. I want to tell him that in so far as it is in the power of the South African Railways Police, they are mindful of all these aspects, that they are keeping themselves informed of what is being done elsewhere in the world, and that they will do everything in their power to keep that sort of thing away from us in South Africa.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The registration of trade marks in South-West Africa is effected in terms of the Patents, Designs, Trade Marks, and Copyright Act, 1916, which was made applicable to South-West Africa by Proclamation 17 of 1923. The administration of the affairs of the Territory relating to trade marks was conferred on the Minister of Economic Affairs in terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969 (Act No. 25 of 1969), and is at present being carried out by the Registrar of Trade Marks in Pretoria.

It is in the interests of South-West Africa that its legislation in regard to trade marks, in the same way as that of the Republic, be adapted to present-day requirements, and brought into line with present legislation in the Republic.

The legislation of the Republic relating to trade marks cannot be made applicable in South-West Africa in its entirety, because certain provisions in that legislation relate to the Republic’s position as member country of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, in terms of which certain reciprocal international recognition is granted in matters concerning trade marks.

Although South Africa may apply in terms of the Convention to have South-West Africa declared to be a member country, such a step is not deemed advisable under prevailing international circumstances. Consequently these provisions were not being included in the Trade Marks in South-West Africa Act. Trade marks which were registered in South-West Africa may, however, be registered in any other country, but without the advantages of the preferential treatment with such registrations which member countries accord one another applying to registrations made on behalf of South-West Africa.

There is no provision in the South-West Africa Proclamation for the registration of a person other than the proprietor of a trade mark, or for the transmission and assignment of a trade mark. Clauses 48 and 49 of the Bill now make provision for these contingencies, with retrospective effect.

The proposed Trade Marks in South-West Africa Bill corresponds in almost all respects to the existing Trade Marks Act as it is applicable in the Republic, except in respect of the following matters—

1. (a) The reference to the place where the present office for the registration of trade marks will be situated, as well as the existence of the previous office where such registrations took place. The Bill, however, now makes provision to the effect that, if the Minister deems it expedient, the said office may be established outside the territory, at a place determined by him;
2. (b) no trade mark agent or patent agent, except for an attorney or advocate, is registered in South-West Africa who may act on behalf of an applicant for the registration of a trade mark. As a result provision is being made in the Bill for the appointment, by the Registrar, of agents who shall perform this function;
3. (c) provision is being made for the appointment of a Registrar of Trade-Marks in South-West Africa in such a way that there is no reference to the Republic;
4. (d) the provisions in the South African Trande Marks Act, 1963, making provision for international recognition of trade marks registered in a so-called Convention country is being omitted in its entirety. Under prevailing international circumstances it is not desirable to obtain recognition of South-West Africa as a Convention country in terms of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, although this is of course possible;
5. (e) the power to make regulations and prescribe tariffs is being conferred on the Minister instead of the State President. This provision facilitates the administration of the Act, since the functions of the South-West Africa Proclamation have already been entrusted to the Minister of Economic Affairs in terms of the South-West Africa Affairs Act;
6. (f) the provision to the effect that the Senate or the House of Assembly may within 30 days after any tariff or regulation has been laid on the Table in accordance with law disallow such tariff or regulation, is being omitted. The proposed Bill now provides that the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may prescribe tariffs. This provision is considered to be adequate for the control over the tariffs which are prescribed from time to time. With regard to the disallowance of regulations which may be made in terms of this Act, it is considered unnecessary to make express provision in this Act to entrust this task to the Senate and the House of Assembly; and
7. (g) other less important amendments with regard to changes which had of necessity to be effected in order to make the Act applicable purely and solely to South-West Africa.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has correctly stated the important differences that exist between this Bill and the existing Act on trade marks but it is interesting to note that in the S.W.A. proclamation itself there are only four clauses which deal with this whole question, and obviously with the development of South-West Africa and its industries, mining and commerce, it was necessary and essential to update and bring into operation a much more modern concept of the registration of trade marks and services. The House will remember that in 1971 the Trade Marks Act was amended to include the registration of trade marks for services. This was quite an important amendment and brought South Africa right up to date with other countries of the world, and this particular Bill is as modem a concept as one is able to apply with regard to the registration of trade marks and services.

There are one or two aspects which I think call for certain comment. One aspect is this, that although the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that sections 48 and 49 now deal with the question of registered users and the use by others of already registered trade marks and also the question of assignments, one must note that it has been made retrospective to the 1st January, 1948. I think this requires some explanation, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give it to us. Furthermore, on this question of the opportunity afforded to both Houses to raise any issue with regard to the tariffs and the regulations which are laid on the Table, I think it is a pity that that is being omitted from this particular Bill. This is a custom, in fact a provision in most statutes on our Statute Book, a tradition which has prevailed over many years, and one which is more accepted in the breach than in its observance, because except in certain ministeries these regulations are never debated or discussed. But nevertheless there remains always the protective influence of Parliament in case either the organizations which are particularly interested or else the practitioners themselves feel that some injustice may have been done and cannot be rectified. As it is a matter of regulation I think it is an important principle which should continue to be observed, because there is one thing that this Bill seems to indicate, and that is the trend, which is not particularly confined to South Africa, for the continuous spreading of bureaucratic control. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister would be the last person to propagate that particular trend at all, but I think it is the duty of Parliament to watch, in the interest of the citizen, that bureaucratic control does not become sufficiently overbearing so as to take complete control and charge of the administration of the affairs of the country outside the right of the elected representatives of the people to voice their opinions and give vent to their thoughts on the matter. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give that some thought when the Bill reaches the Other Place, as to whether it will not be wise and advisable to reintroduce the section which we find in the Republic Act and which, as I say, is one that is more observed in its breach than in its observance.

The other matter I wish to raise is this question which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned, namely that there are no trade mark agents as such in South-West Africa. But the term “trade mark agent” has a specific connotation, just as a patent agent has a specific connotation. It is the connotation of an individual who has been trained and who has passed examinations in these particular professions and has practised as such. Now paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Bill deal with this particular aspect. A very simple amendment could, if the hon. the Minister thought it fit, and I would strongly recommend that it be given consideration, be introduced in line 7 of paragraph 9(1) on page 8 where instead of using the qualitative words “trade mark agent” these two words, “trade mark” could well be left out. It will then deal with an agent “for the purposes of this Act”. That will be sufficiently descriptive, because the definition will then cover the matter and the application of the definition in clause 8 will then make the matter perfectly clear, because clause 8 provides that an agent is a person who is permitted to carry out services on behalf of another person and who is registered on a particular register maintained by the registrar of trade marks in terms of the Bill. I do not think it will then be necessary to use the qualitative description “trade mark agent” because it could lead to confusion. South-West Africa and the Republic are so allied that it could lead to confusion. If it is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s purpose to apply this Bill specifically to South-West Africa, because of the reasons he has given, and not to extend any form of bilateral understanding between the two countries, for the purposes which he has mentioned, then this type of confusion should be avoided.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Bill itself shows certain differences if it is compared with the legislation which is applicable to South Africa. These differences are mainly found with regard to the question of providing an address—that is to say, by the representative of the applicant for a trade mark. In the legislation of the Republic an address within the Republic of South Africa must be given. In this Bill it is not specifically prescribed that an address within the territory of South-West Africa should be given. There may be reasons why this is the case and it may well be contained in what the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated in the course of his speech. Nevertheless, this is a matter to which I merely wanted to draw his attention.

Outside these points one can only look with approval at any effort which is made to encourage the situation in South-West Africa. The number of trade marks which have been registered has grown. I think during 1972 they have reached the 400 mark. They will obviously continue to grow in number. The number registered there is approximately 10% of the number registered in the Republic per annum. If one takes the economies into account by way of comparison, it is quite clear that it is necessary that a much more modern concept should be applied to South-West Africa as encouragement to a territory which is developing. For these reasons, as far as the Opposition is concerned, we view the Bill with a great deal of approval.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the representatives of South-West Africa in this House, I want to welcome this legislation. As you know, South-West Africa is on the threshold of tremendous industrial development. It is not necessary for me to give a description of the development that is going to take place in the industrial sphere. One need only refer to the tremendous electricity scheme which will result in electricity being fed from the Kunene to the southern regions of South-West Africa, and one need only refer to the water of the Okavango which will be fed right across the area. It is enough for everyone who knows South-West Africa to realize that we are today on the threshold of tremendous industrial development, not only in the White areas, but also in the Bantu areas in South-West Africa.

For this reason it is today very fitting for this legislation to be introduced at this stage. In fact, it shows again that this Government has tremendous confidence in the future of South-West Africa. Therefore I want to welcome it on behalf of South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I immediately want to say thank you very much to the hon. member for Jeppes, who spoke on behalf of his side of the House and supported this legislation. Quite rightly, with reference to what the hon. member for Middelland said, the primary objects of this legislation are also, in respect of the registration of trade marks, not only to bring the legislation in respect of South-West Africa in line with that applicable to the Republic, but also to have it comply with modern-day requirements. It is quite interesting to refer to the number of applications for registration of trade marks in the specific area. For the information of the House I just want to point out that during 1971 there were 538 applications for the registration of trade marks from the South-West Africa area, and that during 1972 there were 499 applications. I agree with the hon. member for Middelland that with the development of the area and the fine potential that exists, there will be increasing activity in the business world, and consequently also a greater number of applications for the registration of trade marks.

The hon. member for Jeppes referred to four aspects which I want to deal with quickly. I think that to a large extent he has already supplied the answers to his own questions. The hon. member is aware that I explained that in the light of the delicate circumstances and reasons that apply in respect of South-West Africa, it is not advisable to make the provisions relating to our international ties and conventions a part of the legislation.

The hon. member referred to clauses 48 and 49 and asked why they must be made retrospective in effect. I want to explain immediately that registrations have already taken place in South-West Africa in terms of the existing proclamation that makes the old Act applicable. It is only fair that these bodies should have the continued benefit of the registration, i.e. by being included in the A list. Clauses 48 and 49 are therefore being incorporated in the Bill with retrospective effect for the reason I have just mentioned. This step ensures that a person other than the proprietor, i.e. the registered user, will also have the benefit of the use, assignment or transmission of the trade marks which are at present registered in terms of the South-West Africa proclamation. It is, in other words, a protection of an already existing situation. The South Africa Act contains this provision, and I think the hon. member will concede that it is only fair that we have the same position apply in South-West Africa.

The hon. member referred, secondly, to the question of the tabling of the regulations and tariffs issued in terms of the Act. I want to tell him immediately that this is actually an administrative measure to facilitate the application and the effect of the Act, and that it is in no way intended to create bureaucratic control at a specific point or to sidestep Parliament in respect of the implementation of this specific legislation. There is a provision in the Interpretation Act—this is important—that regulations that are promulgated in terms of a legal provision must be tabled in the House of Assembly and the Senate.

Can that be discussed?

The hon. member will always have the opportunity to discuss it. The same procedure is also adopted when tariffs are published in the Government Gazette. As a result of this prescribed procedure, it is not regarded as being necessary specifically to make provision for the tabling in the Bill. The hon. member says that they do not have the right to discuss it then. However, it is true that hon. members always have the right to discuss here the provisions of any regulation or the promulgation of any tariff. I want to tell the hon. member at once—and he will also understand this—in this particular pattern there are also considerations that apply which I think make it beneficial to our country …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Although it must be tabled in terms of the Interpretation Act, section 80(3) of the present South Africa Act makes specific provision for it to be discussed. It is specifically laid down in the Act. That is the point.

I have already tried to indicate that in respect of legislation for South-West Africa we have motivated reasons why we do not also want to have the existing procedure that applies in the Republic to be applicable for South-West Africa. I think the hon. member will understand it as such.

The hon. member also referred to the definition of “the trade mark agent” and I would very much just like to explain that. It is stipulated who may act as an agent, apart from an attorney or an advocate. This power is being left to the Registrar. Here there is also a specific reason which makes this position exceptional in comparison with what applies in the Republic. Therefore the definitions of “trade mark” or “patent agent” have been deleted and are being substituted by a new definition of “agent”. I should like to explain to the hon. member why this is now necessary. There is no trade mark agent or patent agent registered in South-West Africa. I want to reiterate that there is no trade mark agent or patent agent registered in South-West Africa who can act on behalf of an applicant for the registration of a trade mark. Any reference—and this is in reply to the question of the hon. member —to these persons can again result in reference having to be made to the Republic.

That is why I suggested the removal of the words “trade marks” …

I do not think that is necessary. The existing definition accommodates the problem situation that applies here. As I have said, any reference to these persons will again result in our having to refer to the Republic, and that is specifically what we are trying to avoid in these particular circumstances. The same also applies to the question of the address to which the hon. member referred. I think I have now answered all the hon. member’s questions.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we lodge our protest against the motion that the House be now adjourned. We have completely exhausted the Order Paper, with the exception of one Bill, and that Bill only appeared on the Order Paper this morning. We cannot possibly be expected to discuss the Bill when we only received it during the course of the day. The Minister has done his best to get his colleagues to cooperate, but he has not had the co-operation of his colleagues. Legislation is not coming forward and the time of the House is being wasted as the result of legislation not coming before the House. We think that the introduction of legislation should be better planned and that the Minister should have ensured that his various colleagues who had legislation to bring forward this session had done so earlier than they have. For that reason we oppose the motion asking for the adjournment of the House and will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange that the Chief Whip on the Opposition side suddenly objects every time there is a motion for the adjournment of the House.

Because the other Chief Whip does not do his work.

No, who draws up the Order Paper? Who is responsible for the Order Paper?

The Government.

You know the Leader of the House does it. Through the years we have had several leaders of the House who have dealt with the Order Paper, and I think the best Leader of the House we have ever had is the Minister of Transport. What the hon. Opposition forgets is that it is not merely a matter of the drawing up of the Order Paper, but also of implementing it and carrying it through.

In doing that the responsibility does not only lie on his shoulders and on the shoulders of the Government, the responsibility also lies with the Opposition and that Chief Whip. If legislation comes before the House here, we want alternative debating, but what do we find the position to be? In connection with certain Bills I have to do everything in my power to calm hon. members on my side of the House when they insist on having a turn to speak; I must hold them back.

Old joker!

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that a few days ago there were such Bills; only one or two of the Opposition members took part in the discussion of them. Today there was a similar need; eventually they virtually could get no more speakers. The entire political balance in this Parliament has been disrupted. It cannot be otherwise: If an Opposition has been condemned for 25 years to political impotence in the Opposition benches, they must suffer from frustration. Then they can no longer make a positive contribution. They actually look forward to this wonderful opportunity to demonstrate and to chatter for popularity. We do not, after all, chatter merely for popularity in Parliament! The Opposition did so the other evening. They want to use the evening hours for that purpose; after they have had a delicious meal, they come along here and tremble with an air of distinction to lodge pleas for the dignity of this House. That is the difficulty we are faced with. Instead of opposing the adjournment of the House, the Opposition should rather take a look at the Order Paper. What a fine Order Paper it is! Surely, it is not only the Leader of the House who is responsible for that; it is the Government that must look after the programme, and what a wonderful programme it is! It is a feather in the Government’s cap because it comes along with legislation that is so unassailable that the Opposition members only have to open their mouths when they are yawning. That is all! That is the difficulty we have. What is Parliament? Parliament is not there to unleash a cat and dog fight. These are not the days when the hon. Opposition ruled; those days are far back in South Africa’s history! Mr. Speaker, you still remember those stormy incidents. That was in the days of contentious legislation. Then one did not need preparation; there was emotion and every motion resulted in a fight. Now this Government, which like its Chief Whip is an advocate of peace, has created a peaceful atmosphere in the House. But now, when we want to adjourn after having done a hard day’s work, the Opposition comes along and puts a spoke in the wheel. The Opposition side’s Chief Whip surely knows that he, too, has a function to perform as far as this Order Paper is concerned. Does he know what the function of the two of us is? We must co-operate harmoniously! But he does not want to cooperate; he does not want us to adjourn this debate. We must co-operate well and have been doing so throughout the years, but now quite suddenly the Chief Whip has undergone a metamorphosis. Every day when the Leader of the House moves, in a well considered and friendly manner, that the House should adjourn, the Chief Whip seizes the opportunity, not to debate, but to do some political play-acting. He may be a wonderful Chief Whip, but he is really not graced when it comes to acting. We cannot repeat this kind of thing every day. I want to tell hon. members: Come, let us at least keep the dignity of the House high; let us not play-act and let us not think that the galleries are here to see a cinema show. Take me as an example, as Chief Whip and an old Parliamentarian who came to this House with you, Mr. Speaker, years ago and who did so in a dignified manner. Come, let us elevate the tone of the House somewhat; let us enhance the dignity of Parliament and agree with me. If hon. members were to do so, it would be unnecessary to oppose such a motion for adjournment.

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked by the hon. the Chief Whip talking about enhancing the dignity of Parliament after listening to the speech he has just made. It was a shocking speech for a Chief Whip to make! He is reducing Parliament to something ridiculous. He made a joke of the whole issue. The only true thing he has said was “elke dag as die Leier van die Raad voorstel dat die Raad moet verdaag” we make a speech. He said it was happening daily. Is it becoming a habit to introduce a motion daily that the House should adjourn early? He with all his experience of Parliament has never had so many early adjournments as we have seen this year. It is happening weekly, almost as he has said, every day. The hon. Chief Whip is thankful for these motions moved by the hon. the Leader of the House to adjourn because it gives him a chance to speak, otherwise he does not speak in this House. The only time we hear him is when a motion for the early adjournment of the House is moved, and then we have to listen to this nonsensical stuff he uttered today.

The hon. the Leader of the House knows very well that Parliament is not doing its work properly now. With his experience he knows that we should have work before us. It is not his fault that the administration is falling down. It is caused by the other Ministers. Why are they not bringing their Bills forward? I understand that the hon. the Leader of the House earlier in the session gave a long list of Bills which are going to be introduced during this session. Where are those Bills? Why do we have to wait for them? There is nothing on the Order Paper; this has never happened before. Who is responsible for preparing the Order Paper? The hon. Chief Whip says that the Leader of the House is responsible for the Order Paper. He is but he can only put on the Order Paper what the Ministers give him. The Ministers are not bringing in the Bills. When a week ago it was proposed that we adjourn early—and we have had two early adjournments since then—I said that never in all my experience over 25 years in this Parliament had I seen so many early adjournments proposed. I suggested to the hon. the Leader of the House that perhaps we should meet a month later, towards the end of February or beginning of March. He agreed; he said that was what he would like to do but that we could not do so because of the financial measures which had to be passed before a certain date. In view of what is happening now, during this session, I want him to consider whether it is not advisable to do what the hon. member for Kensington suggested the other day, namely that we have two sessions of Parliament, so that we could deal with the financial measures first. Let us have the Budget debate during the first session and then deal with the other measures afterwards. However, we sit here day after day wondering what is happening to the Order Paper. The hon. Chief Whip says he has to keep his members quiet.

Yes.

That is not true. This morning when I was pleading for assistance to be given to the farmers, that they get their due rights under the expropriation measures, not one word of support was heard from that side. [Interjections.] Where are the farmers? Nobody came forward to assist. The jokes of the hon. the Chief Whip do not excuse what is happening in this House today. I am sure that the hon. the Leader of the House will agree with me. I do not blame him, as I have said. All he can do is to put on the Order Paper the measures his fellow Ministers have prepared for him, but they have not prepared their Bills.

It is the Opposition.

The House cannot go on and has to be adjourned so early this afternoon because there is no work for us to do. Therefore we have to adjourn. Therefore we protest against the lack of work on the Order Paper, which is not sufficient for us to keep us going.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the hon. member for Transkei, I can agree with everything that he said, except for one thing, and that is when he says that he cannot blame the hon. the Leader of the House for the motion which he has brought before the House this afternoon. Do you know, Sir, that I am very seriously tempted to propose an amendment to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House, namely to add at the end of his motion the words “for one week”. In other words, Sir, he should move that we should adjourn this House for one week, because this is going on too much. I am a new member in this House; I have only been here a little while, but look what is happening. We are prepared to work. The hon. the Chief Whip on the Government side said this afternoon that this Order Paper collapsed because of the inefficiency of the Opposition, because we were not prepared to debate matters. He knows in his heart of hearts that that is not true. He knows why this Order Paper collapsed; he knows that it has collapsed because his members are not prepared to speak.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that I know in my heart that what I said was not true?

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that.

Withdraw that.

Order!

I withdraw it, Sir, but may I put it this way. The hon. the Chief Whip ought to know that what he has said is untrue because, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Transkei, when the opportunity was given to the farmer members on that side this morning to sustain the debate, where were they? How has it gone over all the weeks of this session? Over the weeks we have pleaded with members on the other side to debate measures with us. I want to say of the hon. the Chief Whip’s speech that I believe that that hon. member protests too much. He stands here, trembling with righteous indignation, and accuses us of not carrying out the functions of Parliament. What are the functions of this House, Sir? This is a debating chamber. But where is the debate today? There is no debate; it is a one-sided argument because hon. members on that side will not debate matters with us.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you. You know that this is the position, and so does the hon. the Chairman of Committees know that this is the position, namely that there is a one-sided argument in this House. It is no longer a debate because hon. members on that side will not debate with us.

What happened just now with the Bill of the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions? They were not prepared, to debate. This is a one-sided matter, Sir. On the other side we have a rank of “Jabroers” who are so under the domination of this hon. Leader of the House and his Cabinet that they dare not get up and speak. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister of Finance to say, as he did during the recess, that he does not need an Opposition. That is the attitude of that side. He says that he gets all the opposition from the caucus of the Nationalist Party, in their secret sessions upstairs. That is not the place where this should take place. This is the place where it should take place, so that the public can see that a debate takes place.

What is the position with this Order Paper the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side is so proud of? What do we have, Sir? We have eight items on this agenda. Item 1 first saw the light of day, as far as we in the Opposition are concerned, on Wednesday; we saw it for the first time on Wednesday morning. That side wanted to debate and finish all stages of that measure by this afternoon. When have we had a chance to look at it? Is this the way to conduct the affairs of Parliament? Is this the way the hon. the Chief Whip wants to see affairs conducted? Is this the way in which he believes Parliament should be run? Item 2 we also saw on Wednesday morning for the first time, and it has been forced through this Parliament. It has gone through all its stages already, and it is now Friday afternoon. In other words, it has taken two days. What about item 3, Sir,? Item 3, I must admit, has taken a week to pass from the time when we first saw it. I do not know when members on that side first saw these particular items of legislation. But whenever they saw these Bills, they did not speak on them in any case. They still did not conduct a debate with us. Item 4 we saw for the first time on Monday, and it has gone through all its stages by today, Friday. Then hon. Chief Whip must not say that he is getting no co-operation from this side. We are prepared to co-operate and we are prepared to debate the legislation which is placed before us. Sir, item 5 came before us on Monday, and item 6 we saw on Friday of last week. Item 7, the matter which has just gone through this House, we first saw at midday on Wednesday, and it is a Bill which is almost half an inch thick. We were asked to debate it and we were prepared to debate it, and we did debate it, but what did we get from the other side? Nothing whatsoever, Sir. Only last week the hon. Chief Whip referred to a “skyngeveg”, a sham fight, by this side of the House. I want to say here and now that this is no sham fight. We are serious; we are here to do a job of work and if we can only get the foil on the other side, we are prepared to do that job of work.

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the Opposition in the least for protesting. If I had been sitting on that side, I would have done the same. In fact, I am one of those who sat on the Opposition side for five years, and in those days, before any of the hon. members opposite had ever been in this House, we also objected strongly when the Government of the day introduced a motion like this. [Interjection.] But we objected far more effectively than do those hon. members. We were a real Opposition, and we could fight. But today hon. members on that side are spiritless and spent. They did jump up and protest a little, and I do not begrudge them that; I do not blame them for doing so. For they have so many difficulties, so much unsavouriness in their own ranks, that they must at least give the outside world the impression that they still have a fighting spirit.

You are always saying that.

Sir, one of the reasons for our having disposed of the Order Paper so quickly is in fact that the Opposition does not wish to speak. Let me furnish hon. members on that side with a few figures. We have so far, since the beginning of the session, disposed of 46 Bills. [Interjection.] That hon. member must keep quiet now and give me a chance to speak. We have up to now disposed of 46 Bills. During the corresponding period last year, we only disposed of 40. In other words, we have so far this year disposed of six more Bills than during the corresponding period last year. Sir, it is true that some of the Bills were uncontentious; many of them were supported by the Opposition. But surely that always happens; it is therefore no new phenomenon. Every year there are certain Bills which the Opposition supports, but the fact remains that I have never encountered an Opposition which had as little to say as this Opposition did during this session, and I am pleased about that for I do not want them to waste the time of this House. But they had little to say, with the result that the Bills were passed rapidly.

May I ask a question?

That hon. member talks so much nonsense that we are all tired of listening to his voice. Sir, in ten years’ time, after the hon. member has acquired a little experience of Parliament, I shall gladly listen to him.

Sir, the hon. member for Transkei has asked why we cannot have two Sessions of Parliament. I shall give him the reasons. I have already stated why we have to begin early in February. What is the normal procedure? First we have the debate on the motion of no confidence, which usually lasts for a week. Then a Part Appropriation Bill has to be piloted through Parliament, so that the Government may have enough money to proceed with the administration of the country. Then there are the Additional Appropriation Bills. After that, the Railway Budget and the Post Office Budget have to be passed before the end of March. By then, two months have elapsed. Before the end of the financial year my colleague, the Minister of Finance, also has to introduce his Budget; after the Budget Speech there follows the debate on the Budget. One cannot then adjourn Parliament for three or four months and only then begin the Budget debate. Immediately after the Budget we have to dispose of the Votes. By that time we have come to the end of May. We cannot do it earlier. Hon. members know how many hours are allotted for that purpose. In other words, even with very little legislation we must remain here to the end of May. According to the hon. member Parliament should then adjourn for two or three months and then meet again simply to deal with a number of Bills. Surely that is not practicable. It is true that certain of the Bills that we would like to pilot through this year, have not been submitted to the House. But there is another reason as well. Year after year the contentious Bills become fewer. Hon. members know how many contentious measures there were in the past, those dealing with colour relations in the country. Those measures are almost all behind us. In other words, the work of Parliament is in reality becoming less because there are fewer contentious Bills, and this will continue, and we are all pleased about it. We would very much like Bills to be of such a nature that we are able to deal with them well and quickly and get done with them. Then, Sir, there is another difficulty. None of those hon. members have had any experience of ministerial responsibility in regard to the administration of the country, they do not realize that when a Bill is drafted by a department, all parties concerned first have to be afforded an opportunity of making representations to the department. When those representations have been heard, amendments may perhaps have to be effected. After that the Bill has to go to the law advisers; then it is sent back to the department and after that referred to the parliamentary legal draftsman. That procedure has to be followed with all Bills. Let me mention one example: There is a very important Bill which still has to be piloted through this House during the present session, the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Bill, with which my colleague is going to effect certain amendments to the existing Act. That Bill has already been drafted, and is being published in the Government Gazette today, to afford all the parties concerned an opportunity to present objections if they so wish. They have an opportunity for three weeks to submit objections; then the Bill will come back and be referred to the law advisers after the department has dealt with it, and only then will it come before the House. I should very much like to see a list of Bills which have to be piloted through during any specific session being submitted to the House, but it simply cannot happen. I must also say that this is not the first time that the House of Assembly has adjourned early. It has happened frequently over the years. Hon. members know that they have frequently objected to this over the years. They also know that on other occasions they have themselves asked me whether the House of Assembly could adjourn early; it happens; it is the normal parliamentary procedure. I agree that there has been less work during the past few weeks, and the fact remains that if there is no work for Parliament, I shall adjourn Parliament, and I can assure hon. members, who are so eager to work, that I am, without doubt, still going to give them a lot of hard work to do before the end of this session.

Question put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.