I move—

1. (1) That this House at its rising—
   1. (a) on Tuesday, 26 February, adjourn until Thursday, 28 February; and
   2. (b) on Thursday, 28 February, adjourn until Monday, 4 March:
      Provided that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Prime Minister, that the public interest or public business requires that the House should meet on some other day, Mr. Speaker may give notice accordingly to members of this House and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and on the day stated in such notice;
2. (2) that in the transaction of business at meetings of the House after the adjournment, notices of questions and motions and orders of the day upon the Order Paper in the name of private members shall be considered in the order in which they would have been taken had there been no adjournment; and
3. (3) that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 248 leave be granted to Select Committees to sit without the consent of all their members on days over which this House has adjourned during the present Session.

I second.

I move—

I second— Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I hope that the hon. the Minister of Justice is not going to leave the Chamber. The amendments which I have on the Order Paper concern the Minister of Justice rather more than it does the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs who is introducing the Bill. I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

The position is that this Bill has been introduced after consultation with the Department of Justice, according to what the Deputy Minister said yesterday to provide for increased penalties in regard to certain offences relating to explosives. As the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) pointed out, we are in principle entirely in favour of this Bill because if ever there was a Bill which specifically dealt with saboteurs and sabotage it is this. It is very evident, most regrettably, that it is extraordinarily difficult to define “saboteurs” in the Act and it is very difficult to convict saboteurs of sabotage. But the State certainly can do something in all the important ancillary matters relating to sabotage such as the manufacturing of explosives, the keeping of explosives and the possession of explosives. Here apparently is the first opportunity which has presented itself for the amendment of the Explosives Act. What is being done here is to increase the penalties for being in possession of explosives, for manufacturing explosives and so on, and we are wholeheartedly in favour of it. If there is one thing which we are in favour of it is that sabotage in all the forms in which it has manifested itself in this country, should be stamped out root and branch. People found to be in possession of explosives should be dealt with very severely in the interest of the maintenance of law and order, so we have no objection to an increase of the penalty, but as the Act stands at the moment, and even as it will read after it has been amended by this Bill, a court would have no option but to fine someone who is found in possession of explosives. At the moment the Act says that a person found guilty of having been in possession of explosives shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or in default of payment, to imprisonment for a certain period. The fine and the period of imprisonment are now being increased, but as that reads, quite clearly the court would have no option but to sentence such a person to pay a fine, albeit increased; in other words, the court would not be able to impose a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine even where the man was obviously in possession of the explosives or manufactured the explosives for the purpose of committing sabotage, or even in circumstances which are highly suspicious which in the opinion of the court would warrant a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine and the object of my amendment is that the court should be given the direction to impose a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine if the circumstances warranted it and, again if the circumstances warranted it, to impose a sentence of imprisonment plus a fine. Indeed, if the amendment were to be accepted by the Minister, the court would still be in a position for a simple technical offence to impose a fine and would be entitled under the general law, without further statutory enactment, to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine. I am disappointed that the hon. Minister of Justice has not availed himself of this opportunity. After all, the Minister of Justice has said as to how tough he was going to be with saboteurs and where the Minister of Justice or his Department could have taken some practical step in that direction, nothing has been done. I say with all due respect, that I do not think the hon. the Minister of Justice could have seen this; is that due to a lack of liaison? I do not mind the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs not having taken this opportunity; he is not the one who has said how tough he was going to be with saboteurs. The Minister of Justice’s Department should have seen this. I must say, Sir, that in the circumstances, in view of the hon. Minister’s approach to the question of sabotage and what he is going to do about it, this reflects very sadly upon the competency of his Department to do something about what the hon. the Minister says is the policy of the Government. In the circumstances, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs will accept this amendment.

This clause deals with the prohibition of the manufacture of illegal explosives. It provides for increased penalties that can already be imposed. In fact, with this amendment, even imprisonment without the option of a fine can be imposed. That is the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). He said that they supported the principle that action should be taken against any form of sabotage. If even an act such as described in the said clause is sabotage, it is completely covered by Section 21 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1962. These penalties covered by the clause are applicable to cases of a less serious nature; it does then not amount to sabotage, because a person who contravenes this clause, and the contravention is of such a nature that it falls under the Sabotage Act, may be accused and convicted of it so that the increased penalty may apply even in such a case. I am quite prepared to accept this amendment because I do not think it derogates from the principle that it should be regarded as a serious offence for which a more severe penalty should be imposed than is the case at present.

The amendment which I wish to move is in identical terms to the one which has just been moved and accepted. I feel certain that the hon. the Minister will take up exactly the same attitude, and accept my amendment; and I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the Committee. I move—

Unfortunately the previous clause was passed before I had an opportunity of replying to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). If the hon. member wants us to pay attention to what he says, he should be au fait with the facts on which he talks in this House. The hon. member cast a reflection on me for not having taken action in regard to this matter, which is supposed to prove that I am powerless or unwilling to take action against saboteurs. The fact is that I do not need this clause to do so. If the hon. member would just take the trouble to read Section 21 of the General Laws Amendment Act he would see that I specifically provide therein for this type of thing.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. the Minister deal with the previous clause?

With all respect, Sir, this clause is identical to the previous one and I am talking to this clause. I just want to make it clear that I have already dealt with that situation referred to by the hon. member. But the further fact is that when I dealt with that situation that hon. member not only spoke against it but voted against it. That is the fact of the matter. If the hon. member for Durban (North) and the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) would refer to Section 21, they would see that any person who is in possession of explosives in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member must be given a minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. So what the hon. member said to-day is merely to put up a smokescreen; it is meaningless. I was quite conscious of the provisions of this Bill. It was done with the full co-operation of the Department of Justice.

The subject which the hon. the Minister has just raised is very fresh in all our minds. We all remember the debate we had last year on the sabotage clause of the so-called Sabotage Bill. But we are not discussing that now, Sir. [Interjections.] Apparently the hon. member did not hear what the hon. Minister said. Under that clause you have to be charged with sabotage. Under Section 21, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out. there is a minimum sentence. We are not in favour of minimum sentences. Sir. All this clause does is to give to the court, the rightful person, the complete discretion whether to sentence to imprisonment or to impose a fine. It does not bind the court’s hands as to any minimum sentence.

Let me say this to the hon. Minister: If the evidence is that a man is in possession of explosives and that there is no evidence that he is guilty of sabotage then I think it is improper that he should be charged with sabotage. It would be improper to charge him with sabotage and to put him through the machinery of Section 21 of that Act. I think it would be more proper to deal with him under this section, and if the circumstances warranted it the courts would be in a position to deal with him severely.

I just want to read to the hon. member again what is contained in this clause. It contains just these words—

In other words, if a person is in possession of explosives he can be charged with sabotage. The mere possession of it is sufficient for a charge to be laid. And let me tell the hon. member that I will not hesitate in the least to have a person charged under that Act if necessary. Now that I have pointed this out to the hon. member, he has posed, during the discussion of the previous clause, as a person who wants to take action against saboteurs. But now that I have pointed out to him that we have already taken steps against them, he objects to the minimum penalty.

What the hon. the Minister of Justice has just said is a very serious admission. He has said that if he finds a person in possession of any explosives he will not hesitate to charge him with sabotage. *

If necessary.

Yes, “as dit nodig is” …

The hon. member is going too far. He cannot discuss the question of sabotage now. I have given the hon. the Minister the opportunity of replying to the hon. member for Durban (North) but I cannot allow a discussion on sabotage.

On a point of order, can the hon. member for Pinelands not reply to what the hon. the Minister has just said?

I have given my ruling;

I cannot allow a full discussion on sabotage.

Sir, may I in this connection just point out that the hon. the Minister is now saying that a person in possession of explosives can be charged both under this clause and by the mere possession of explosives, with sabotage. I suggest that that makes very plain that the allegation which we made earlier that the whole question of the intent to commit the crime was overlooked by the Minister at the time when he introduced the question of sabotage, is well founded.

Order! The hon member cannot discuss the question of sabotage.

This clause deals with the prohibition of the manufacture of an authorized explosive except in a factory making explosives. If a person manufactures such an explosive in a factory with the object of committing sabotage, he can be charged under Section 21, of the General Law Amendment Act of 1962, because Section 21 provides that any person who commits a malicious and deliberate act which is in conflict with any legal provision, or who possesses any explosives or firearm, may be charged. The hon. member surely knows that a person may be charged in the alternative, or he can be convicted of a lesser offence. This clause does not deal with cases of sabotage, but merely with cases where an authorized explosive is manufactured in a factory not licensed for it. Seeing that an alternative is provided by this amendment. I am quite prepared to accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name—

This is a similar amendment to the previous two which have been moved and both of which have been accepted by the hon. the Minister. I do not wish to detain the House in this regard save to say that I feel sure the Minister will in this instance also accept the amendment, because we are here dealing with the prohibition on storage save in licensed premises. This is an instance where you could have cases of a more serious nature, if anything, than in either of the previous two.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

I do not wish to address any argument to the committee in support of my amendment because it is in similar form to the three other amendments which have been accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I would suggest, Sir, that in this instance also the hon. the Deputy Minister accepts the amendment because the section of the principal Act deals with the prohibition of storage or possession of unauthorized explosives save in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. It is therefore also a section which deals with a matter of some importance.

Sir, I am prepared to accept that amendment for the same reasons as the previous ones.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

It will eliminate a minimum penalty in relation to the offence which is there created. I think we have indicated that in the first place we are not averse to persons being severely sentenced in respect of offences relating to explosives. But what we have indicated is that we think the courts should be given a greater discretion than that given in the Act. To provide for a minimum penalty is to completely tie the hands of the court in relation to circumstances which this House cannot possibly foresee. It is impossible for us sitting here to anticipate all the circumstances which human nature can provide, or such a concatenation of circumstances which will arise. There are such circumstances where the court will say: “Although this is a serious offence the circumstances are such that we think a nominal sentence should be imposed.” On the other hand, Sir, I think the courts have already indicated in these matters relating to explosives, in matters relating to sabotage certainly, that they are not averse to giving very high sentences. There have been several cases where sentences of upwards of ten years have been imposed. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will once again regard this amendment in exactly the same light as he has regarded the other four amendments which have been moved from this side of the House and which he has accepted. The essence of those other amendments was to give the court a discretion. The essence of this amendment is to do exactly the same. I would say to the hon. the Minister that if he were not to accept this amendment he will be saying that he has no faith in the ability of our courts to impose a proper sentence. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs would not say that he had no faith in our courts to impose a proper sentence in those circumstances. I am much surer that the hon. the Minister of Justice would not say so. He justifiably has all the faith in the courts of this country. And to tie their hands in this way, to force them to impose a minimum sentence would not be doing justice to our courts; it would not be doing justice to the people who sit on our benches. It is true that a minimum sentence may be suspended. It may be a minimum sentence of imprisonment which may be suspended but that is not the point. It may be suspended upon certain conditions which can be broken by a very minor offence and in those circumstances the person will be obliged to go to gaol. I feel that if the hon. the Minister will reconsider this clause in the light of what I have just said he will ask himself whether there is any evidence whatsoever that the courts’ hands should be tied in cases of this sort. I submit, Sir, that the evidence suggests, if one were entitled to regard such evidence, that the courts have laid a fairly heavy hand upon those persons who have been responsible for doing damage and causing injury by means of explosives.

I wish to raise a point of order in regard to the amendment which has just been moved. I want to ask you, Sir, to consider and to decide whether this amendment is acceptable on the basis of the argument that it affects a principle which has already been accepted at the second reading. Surely it is common cause that during the second reading we discussed the various principles contained in a Bill. In this case it was accepted in principle in Clause 13 (c) that there should be a minimum penalty. The attempt being made here now is to remove that minimum penalty completely. I feel that this is a principle which has already been accepted and that the amendment is out of order. If the hon. member had tried to reduce the minimum penalty it would have been a different matter, but I do not think its total abolition is permissible. I should like to have your ruling in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that point of order?

I have considered the point and the amendment is in order.

The hon. member for

Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), inter alia, argued that we in this House cannot foresee what matters will all come before the court. If I now tell the hon. member that what we propose here is sufficient justification for having that minimum penalty, I hope he will agree with me. I should like to compare these different sub-sections with one another. You will see that in sub-section (a) of the existing section which is now being amended there is reference to negligence. There is no minimum penalty. In sub-section (b) there is also reference to negligence and no minimum penalty is provided either. In sub-section (c) there is reference to intent, if an act is intentionally committed or if there is deliberate delay in not doing something. That is the great difference. That is the main reason why there is justification for a minimum penalty. Sir, there are various degrees of negligence. If a person through his negligence has committed some act which perhaps damages property or endangers human lives, that negligence may be of different degrees. It may be slight negligence or very serious negligence. If it were slight negligence I would say that it is quite correct to impose a very light sentence. If it were serious negligence one would say that it is just and fair to impose a heavy penalty. For that reason it is quite understandable that in the case of negligence a minimum penalty is not provided for, thereby leaving it to the magistrate or the Judge to impose any penalty up to the maximum. But in the case of a deliberate act, the position is quite different. I want to ask the hon. member who moved the amendment particularly to study the words of this sub-section. It reads—

I want you to note, Sir, that it is not only the act or the delay which constitutes the offence; it is not only the act or the delay which must be deliberate. I take it that if someone were to ignite a fuse to which a detonator is attached, he would be committing a deliberate act. But when one qualifies that act by saying, “which endangers life or property”, it goes much further than intent. Then the intent is not only confined to the actual act committed, but the intent also refers to the motive behind the act. In other words, we can infer nothing from this sub-section but that the person committing the offence not only commits that deliberate act by lighting that fuse, but it is also deliberate in the sense that he assumes that property will be damaged or that he will endanger human lives. I want to tell the hon. member that I regard this as the great difference between the other subsections where there is no minimum penalty and this sub-section where there is in fact a minimum penalty. Where a person has the motive of damaging property or endangering human lives, it is an intent which cannot possibly be regarded as petty. As soon as that intent is present, it is a serious offence and the justification exists for providing a minimum penalty because we know now—it cannot be said that we cannot foresee it—that if that person is convicted of a deliberate act it is a serious offence. Therefore I feel that the minimum penalty is necessary.

I think, with respect, that the point raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) is met in this way. Where there is an inclination to lay down maximum sentence, it is done, I think, in order to impress upon the court the serious view which the legislator takes of the offence. The hon. member for Ceres will remember that we have in fact only moved an amendment which deletes certain words and leaves in that it may be to a maximum of 15 years. I think he will concede that this legislature will have made its meaning clear to the court, namely that it can be regarded as a sufficiently serious offence to justify 15 years. Having said that what more does this House want to say to the courts? It says it can be 15 years and surely we can leave it to the courts to decide whether in particular circumstances it does not perhaps only merit six months’ imprisonment. But the seriousness is brought home to the courts. If, as the hon. member argues, there might be an intention to injure life and property, then I say to him if that were the intention that would justify a charge of attempted murder. If the explosive was used with the intention of doing harm to life that is very much a case for a charge of murder. So, that aspect having been covered, we get back to the cases which are much less serious. Having left in a possible sentence of 15 years, let us leave the hands of the court untied. So on that basis, together with what the hon. member for Durban (North) has put, I ask the hon. the Minister to accept that this is a case where one could delete the minimum sentence as prescribed by the Act.

Let us at least retain our sense of proportion when discussing this clause. We have quite a lot of legislation on our Statute Book providing for a minimum penalty. I am thinking, for example, of stock theft. Is stock theft a more or less serious crime than the one we are dealing with here? I do not believe any hon. member will deny that the particular offence we are dealing with in this clause is much more serious than stock theft. But in order to cope with stock theft, this House applied a minimum penalty. Let us retain our sense of proportion and also retain a minimum penalty in the case of this serious offence.

I come to another point, Mr. Chairman. A very obvious game is being played here this afternoon by the United Party. They now pretend that they want to combat sabotage in this country and hence we have these amendments to impose heavier penalties. But now the United Party is trying to sit on two chairs. They want to pose as the people who protect the court, so that the court should retain its discretion. They would like to combat sabotage, but on the other hand, under this guise …

The question of sabotage is not relevant now.

But that is the implication of this matter, and it was in fact said in this Committee this afternoon. It was discussed in this Committee.

Order! I have told hon. members to stop. I have allowed the hon. the Minister to give an explanation.

Order, order!

Somebody must be out of line. I am quite in order. Here they now want to do away with the minimum penalty on the basis of the principle that there should be no interference with the discretion of the court. My submission is that we must say so under these circumstances. We cannot sit on two chairs. We must combat these serious crimes which border on—I have really become afraid to use the word—sabotage; it is so serious that one can almost call it sabotage and therefore I say that in this case we should not allow the court to have a discretion if we are serious in regard to this matter.

Our standpoint is that it is a reflection on the courts to put a provision of this sort in a statute. It is all very well the hon. member for Ceres referring to “danger to life ”. That is a very serious matter. But we have full confidence in our courts that they will impose a proper sentence. We disagree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that the standard of our magistrates is such that they would not regard it as serious and that they would not impose a proper penalty. We regard the laying down of a minimum which the court cannot depart from, as being utterly wrong.

But this clause also covers damage to property. and it might very easily be that the potential damage is of such a nature, in the circumstances of the particular case, that a sentence of three years would be quite unrealistic.

If it is wilfully done?

If it is wilfully done, and the circumstances are such that the potential damage is minor, we believe that it is right that the courts should have a discretion to impose the proper sentence, and that it is utterly wrong that we should in the way provided in this clause, and in other measures we have on the Statute Book, limit the discretion of the courts. We have full confidence in our magistrates and in our judiciary and we believe that they can well be trusted to do the right thing.

As the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) has clearly explained, there is a great difference between the previous clauses and this one. We have been asked not to distinguish, and that we should have the same approach, but when one considers the nature of this offence we are certainly entitled to distinguish between the seriousness thereof, particularly where this clause deals with an Act of omission or commission which may deliberately endanger life or property. It is a very serious offence and therefore we cannot accept this amendment that there should be no minimum penalty. Now it is argued that because we accept a minimum penalty, it shows that we have no confidence in the courts. The principle of a minimum penalty is, however, nothing new in our legislation. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) referred to the Stock Theft Act. There are also other classes of offenders. There is for instance the case of the national parks. If anybody shot an elephant or a rhinoceros or a hippopotamus, originally according to the 1926 Act, the minimum penalty was a fine of £50 or three months, but in 1961 it was amended and a minimum penalty of R400 or one year was provided. That also applies in respect of certain game ordinances, where there is a minimum penalty. In regard to similar legislation, it was already accepted in 1950 and amended in 1962. I refer to the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act. A minimum penalty of one year’s imprisonment was provided and last year in the General Laws Amendment Act, the so-called Sabotage Act, a minimum penalty of five years was provided. Therefore the principle of minimum penalties has already been accepted. The same arguments were advanced here last year and the question was asked why it should be provided for by legislation. During the debate on this legislation last year, when it was also argued that it should be left to the courts, the hon. the Minister of Justice said this—

Then he gave his reply to it—

Hon. members opposite intimated that they regarded it as a very serious crime, and I cannot but agree that where this offence falls into the same class as the offences under the Suppression of Communism Act and the Sabotage Act, it is justifiable to apply the same principle here also.

In connection with this clause I merely want to express the hope that more and more Government Departments will accept this modern and very useful method of keeping old records.

Clause put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 4,

I move—

I move—

8. Section 59 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) after the word “shown” of the words “and upon payment of the prescribed fee

Agreed to.

On new clauses to follow Clause 11,

I move—

12. Section 92 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution in sub-section (2) and in sub-section (3) for the words “one shilling” of the words “twenty-five cents ”.

Agreed to.

I move—

13. The Third Schedule to the principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of item (2) of the First Table and the addition to that table of the following item:

“(15) For extension of time in terms of Section 59 (1) (c) … 10/-.”.

Agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill having been agreed to, House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Just before calling upon the hon. the Minister of Transport, I would like to remind hon. members that on the motion for the House to go into Committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, as well as during the later stages, the debate should be limited to the subjects appearing in the Estimates and the reasons for the increased expenditure. The questions of principle concerned when the amounts were originally voted should not be discussed again.

I move—

From the documents tabled earlier it will be observed that expenditure to be defrayed from revenue for the current financial year totals R471,59I, 200. In consequence an additional amount of R20,881, 384 must be voted from Revenue.

The following are the main reasons for the increases:

Hon. members will recall that I mentioned in my Budget speech last year that the additional expenditure arising from the consolidation of the non-pensionable allowance (1958) into basic salaries and wages would approximate R3,000,000 per annum. As the Main Estimates had then already been printed, the necessary adjustments are incorporated in the Additional Estimates now before the House.

The additional cost arising from the wage improvements granted the staff with effect from September 1962 is expected to amount to R12,250,000 in the current financial year.

The amounts relating to improved wages and service conditions are distributed over most of the heads under which additional funds require to be voted.

Under Head No. 17, Railways—Net Revenue Account: Miscellaneous Expenditure—an additional amount of R128,000 is required in respect of special contributions to the Benevolent Fund to provide for a rise in expenditure occasioned by the increase in the number of pensioners and widow pensioners.

Under the item Bad Debts and Sundry Items, an additional amount of R47.130 is required to cover items of expenditure such as irrecoverable damages, fruitless expenditure and ex gratia payments. The largest single item is in respect of accumulated expenditure incurred since 1954 in safeguarding the railway line from the effects of a fire in an abandoned coal mine at Witbank. The recoverable expenditure recorded up to 1962 amounts to R17,366. In the light of legal opinion obtained no further attempts are being made to recover this expenditure from the owners of the adjoining properties.

Losses incurred on the realization of investments during the current year necessitate a further appropriation of R536,946. The new stocks purchased will yield R650,000 more interest per annum than the stocks sold and the transactions will therefore in the long run be of considerable financial advantage to the Administration.

Under Head No. 30—Airways: Miscellaneous Expenditure—an additional amount of RI57,500 is required. In 1957 an agreement was concluded between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and Central African Airways, in which South African Airways acquired a 50 per cent share. This resulted in B.O.A.C. and S.A.A. becoming the Central African Airways’ sole instrument for the operation of air services between the Federation and points outside C.A.A.’s area.

The agreement also provided for Central African Airways to carry coach-class traffic until June 1962. B.O.A.C., however, subsequently arranged to take over the coach-class traffic during the period 1 October 1960 to 30 June 1962. South African Airways, as a member of the Springbok Pool, agreed to share with B.O.A.C. the costs and benefits of this transaction. S.A.A.’s share of the costs amounts to R157,500.

Then I come to Expenditure from Loan Funds. An additional amount of R13,341, 800 requires to be voted to cover expenditure from loan funds during the current financial year.

The following are the main items:

Under Head No. 1—Construction of Railways—an additional amount of R948.000 is required to cover the estimated additional expenditure arising from the acceleration of the construction programme for the new lines to serve the non-White residential areas at Duff’s Road and Kaalfontein and the mining interests at Phalaborwa. It might interest hon. members to learn that the Phalaborwa line will be opened for traffic, under certain restrictions, with effect from 1 March 1963.

The additional funds, totalling R2,612,000, under Head No. 2—-New Works on Open Lines—are required in the main to provide improvements necessitated by increased traffic demands. The following are the more important items under this head:

The doubling and deviation of the Natal main line between Umlaas Road and Pentrich were scheduled to commence during 1963-4, but on reviewing the matter it was decided to embark upon the project during the current financial year.

At Oudtshoorn the facilities proved totally inadequate for handling the present volume of traffic and early commencement of the remodelling of the yard therefore became imperative.

At Danskraal the marshalling yard is being extended in order to meet traffic requirements. Originally it was the intention to hold the commencement of the work over until 1963-4, but it was subsequently deemed advisable to make an earlier start.

Arising from the acceleration of the programme for the elimination of level crossings, it is proposed to withdraw an additional R800.000 from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund. As the available balance in the fund is sufficient to meet this expenditure it will not involve additional contributions from either the Railway Administration, the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the National Roads Fund.

In order to provide adequate facilities for the export of deciduous fruit, the building of pre-cooling chambers in Nos. 3 and 4 sheds at South Arm, Table Bay Docks, was put in hand as a matter of urgency. Expenditure for the present financial year is estimated at R50,000.

Under Head No. 3—Rolling Stock—cash provision of R6,634, 800 is required for 1,600 goods vehicles, the cost of which had previously been authorized to be financed from the General Renewals Fund. In this connection I want to explain that it is the practice, when introducing new rolling stock items into the Brown Book, to consider firstly what items can be financed from the Renewals Fund in order to keep the amount to be borrowed from loan funds as low as possible. When estimates are compiled it is not always practicable to determine exactly how deliveries will fall. Consequently, the position has continually to be watched in order to ensure that the amount available in the Renewals Fund is not exceeded.

In the case under notice it appeared that on the basis of anticipated deliveries there would likely be an over-spending by the end of the financial year. Hence, in order to meet the situation, it became necessary to re-allocate the expenditure involved.

Under Head No. 5—Harbours—R100,000 is required to start work on the new tanker berth at Table Bay Docks, consequent upon the proposed establishment of an oil refinery at Cape Town.

The expenditure connected with the ore-loading appliance at Port Elizabeth has up to now been accounted for under Railways. It has since been decided to classify it as a harbour asset and the major portion of the additional amount of R1, 903,600 required is merely in respect of the re-allocation of the expenditure.

Concerning Head No. 8—Working Capital —the increased monetary resources of building societies and the lowering of their mortgage interest rates on domestic dwellings has resulted in an increased number of applications from the staff for loans under the Assisted House Ownership Scheme. In order to enable the staff to avail themselves of the lower interest rates it has been decided to increase the existing appropriation by R340,000 and at the same time to provide more funds for the sale of departmental quarters and the House Ownership Scheme.

It will be noted from the first page of the printed Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, that sufficient savings have been effected under certain items authorized by the Second Schedule to Act No. 37 and the First Schedule to Act No. 70 of 1962, to meet the major portion of the amount now to be appropriated. The balance will be obtained from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund, to which I have already referred, and from an adjustment of the Working Capital Account. In the circumstances, no additional loan funds will require to be obtained.

In conclusion I wish to state that I intend introducing my Budget for the financial year 1963-4 on 6 March when I will give hon. members a full account of the working results of the current financial year.

I second.

I would like to thank the Minister for sending me a copy of his speech just before he got up to make it. Such gestures are always appreciated although we have but little time to absorb what it says. At the outset, Sir, I would like you to allow me to make a protest, in the cause of good management and the proper conduct of proceedings in this House, at the manner in which these Additional Estimates were presented to us yesterday evening. The Minister was good enough to warn me last week that these Additional Estimates would be coming before the House some time this week—and I am sure that what happened is no fault of his. None of us here expected that the estimates would be flung before us, as they were, yesterday evening just before we adjourned. In many cases members had the Additional Estimates put on their desks after the House was adjourned because no other Minister was ready to proceed with the work of Parliament. I think we should know that this sort of thing does not make for proper examination, particularly of financial measures. It has been clear for some time that the Order Paper would collapse even before the final procedural fiasco in connection with the Transkei Constitution Bill …

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

Irregularities such as these do not help the proper consideration of Bills. The affairs of Parliament have been allowed to deteriorate to a condition where we have no proper time to consider financial measures. The business of the House this Session has been more than ordinarily muddled, and that is saying a lot. We must protest, from our side of the House, against the fact that we are compelled to over-hasty consideration of important matters. In our opinion the making of laws is not necessarily the most important function of this House. The proper control of the financial affairs of the Executive is an equally important and time-honoured duty of Parliament. That is the way in which we control the Executive. Again I do not blame the Minister, but I blame his party for letting things deteriorate to that extent that Parliament cannot consider legislation in the way it should …

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Motion.

I have made my protest and I thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity of doing so because you must be just as perturbed as we are at the way things are being run in this House at present.

This time last year on this occasion I said this, and I quote it, because nothing seems to have been altered for the better in the meantime—

Exactly the same thing has happened in this case. The figures were published in Railway News in December. As the Minister knows, at one time we used to have the weekly figures given to us, but that has been discontinued. I wish the Minister would tell me in his reply why they have even ceased to publish the figures as far as they know them, and although they are clearly out of date in the Government Gazette …

Order! I gave my ruling in the beginning as to what can be discussed here and the hon. member must obey my ruling now.

I was just quoting what I said last year in the same debate and naturally thought that would be in order.

You cannot make the same speech twice.

I hope the Minister will not always put us off as he did to-day in introducing the measure by saying that when his Budget comes along he will give the up-to-date figures.

I am bound by Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

The Minister is not bound by Mr. Speaker’s ruling in this respect …

Order! The hon. member cannot tell the hon. the Minister what he is bound by.

Can I not try? Outside this House the Minister can give us, as he has given us in the past, more up-to-date figures than he has …

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling now, or else resume his seat.

Well, I presume that the Minister will not slide out of this when the Budget comes along on 6 March and will then give me the correct picture for the current year.

Last year at this time the Minister asked us for an additional R4,300,000 in his Second Additional Estimates and savings covered that amount. He had already obtained in the First Additional Estimates the sum of R56,500,000, which, with savings of R50,000,000, called for R6,500,000. This year the Estimates of Additional Expenditure will be about R21,000,000.

Are you referring to capital or revenue?

He does not know.

I am referring to revenue funds. This year he asks for about R21,000.000—R20,800,000 to be exact—to be defrayed from Railway Revenue Funds, and Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works of R13.300,000. The additional amount to be voted from Revenue Fund is mainly caused, as he explained to us, by an increase in the wages and salaries granted to railwaymen during the recess. Let me say that if anything in our opinion was justified, it was this increase in the salaries and wages of the railwaymen. We have made our position quite clear on that. We have always taken up the attitude that the first charge on any business, and the first charge on this enormous undertaking, the Railways, should be a fair and adequate wage for the worker. We think that their increased production over the years and the efforts they made to rescue the Railways from serious deficits deserve that reward. The question is whether these increases could have been given without any increase in rates. That is something we will discuss at greater length on 6 March. But let me say that I believe from the figures the Minister has given me that the cost of the wage increases will be about R12,250,000. but that the extra revenue from raising tariffs has come to over R 13,000,000, and when he produces his surplus, usually much greater than estimated, we will probably find that this increase in wages could have been met without increasing rates. The proper time for discussing the details of these Additional Estimates will be when we go into Committee, and I hope that in a few minutes in the Committee Stage, the Minister will give us more detailed information.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting these Additional Estimates, the hon. the Minister referred to one or two items in connection with harbour expansion in various ports of the Republic. It is covered mainly by three items, under Capital and Betterment Works. Head No. 5. the three main items being the two new berths in Port Elizabeth for which an increase of R 1,900,000 is asked for, and the development of the new tanker berth in the Cape Town Docks, a new item for which no previous provision has been made, and the re-building of three berths at Maydon Wharf in Durban. In each of these items—leaving out of account the tanker berth for the moment —a fairly substantial increase is now being asked for, which is probably due to the work having advanced faster than was anticipated when the original Estimates were framed, but even so it does seem that in dealing with the item at Port Elizabeth there must have been considerable advance planning and preparation beforehand, and it does seem a bit difficult to understand why a greater increase in cost was not foreseen when the Estimates were framed and for which an additional R1,900.000 is now being asked for.

You did not listen to my speech when I explained why this amount is so large.

I did, but I say it is difficult to understand why portion of this at least should not have been foreseen.

I said it was mainly a re-allocation.

Well, that may explain some of it. One is not querying the necessity for the work. It is good work, probably being well done.

But I want to come back to the tanker berth in Cape Town, which is a new item and for which no previous allocation was made, and therefore I think Mr. Speaker’s ruling does not apply so tightly to it. The total estimate for that work has been put down at R9,400.000, of which as a first provision this year we are providing R 100,000, obviously for preliminary work. We are thus going to launch most important improvements to the harbour facilities of the whole of the Republic, an item which undoubtedly by the time it is finished will have cost well over R 10,000,000, and one wants to be assured that in a new item of this nature where we are now authorizing work to be commenced, we have examined the project and made certain that what we are going to embark upon is going to be of a nature which will meet the future requirements of this port. I would like to ask the Minister in his reply to give the House information as to whether in the planning and the final decisions regarding this scheme advice has been taken from overseas experts who are conversant with the peculiar responsibilities, the dangers and the needs of a tanker berth such as this. It is something entirely new as far as we are concerned. Has advice been obtained outside our own country? We have not had much experience of work of this nature yet, and where we are embarking upon something new in harbour development, apart from the expansion we had in Durban Harbour, we should be sure that we are doing the correct thing. We are going to deal with tankers of a limited size in this new harbour but almost every week we get evidence of the growth of this type of marine traffic, oil tankers, many of which are passing our shores.

Whether they feed our refineries or not, they pass us, and they may ask for port facilities at any time. 1 feel that whilst we are developing this harbour, we should take cognizance of that fact and see that facilities are provided, not only for the service here to feed this refinery, but also for the type of vessel which is passing round the Cape regularly and which at any time may require such services. 1 believe it is an important feature in our development. I am not criticizing the Railways for the limits they are working to. They are undoubtedly having to consider the amount of money which can be spent at any particular time, but this is a project which, once started, cannot be gone back on; it cannot be expanded afterwards, except at a considerably enhanced cost, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that he is satisfied that it will deal with the port requirements for tankers for a number of years after its completion, not only in respect of the vessels which will use it as a matter of routine servicing the refinery but also other vessels which are likely to require port services.

I will not keep the House long, but I would like to discuss with the Minister a statement he made in his opening remarks in regard to Head No. 2, New Works on Open Lines, for which he is asking the amount of R2,612,000. The Minister said the additional amount was required in the main to provide improvements necessitated by increased traffic demands. Then he mentioned three new items, the remodelling of the yard at Oudtshoorn, the doubling of the line in Natal, and the marshalling yards at Danskraal. All three of these are new items, and the sums required for them are comparatively insignificant in relation to the total estimates, but when one examines the Estimates as a whole the bulk of this money we are asked to vote is in regard to items which have been approved of by the House over a period of years and upon which we were not called upon to vote any money when the Main Estimates were before us. Therefore I cannot understand the Minister’s statement that this money is in the main to provide improvements necessitated by increased traffic demands. That is not correct according to what I have before me. Most of the money asked for is to continue with the complete works which have already been approved by the House. I would be very grateful if the Minister in his reply would clarify this statement, because I find very few new items here. Let me take as an example the one item the Minister mentioned, the remodelling of the yard at Oudtshoorn, for which an amount of R157,000 is being asked. That can hardly be related to the statement that such an amount is required to provide improvements necessitated by increased traffic. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether it would not have been more correct to say that the moneys now being asked for are to bring to completion works that have been in progress for some considerable time and for which the Minister was not able, because of the financial position of the Railways, to ask the approval of the House When he presented the Main Estimates about nine months ago. I would be glad if the Minister could give us more clarity on this point, because when we come to discuss the main Budget proposals we may have to discuss this matter further, and by the rules of the House I am prevented from doing so now.

I would like to refer to Head No. 3 of the capital expenditure, and I refer to items 158,159 and 160, the construction of fruit wagons, iron ore hoppers, etc.

I think it would be better to discuss that in the Committee Stage.

I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) that I have every sympathy with hon. members if they receive important Bills and financial measures only a short time before they are introduced, but in regard to the Additional Estimates hon. members know that in the main these items have already been approved by Parliament. It is merely a question of an additional amount being required, and consequently they do not require much study. I am sure that after the hon. member has been dealing with railway matters for so many years he can become perfectly aware of all the implications of this measure within half an hour.

Will more additional items be put before us?

These are the last for the present financial year. For the new financial year the Brown Book will be placed before the House, together with the First Additional Estimates, towards the end of the Session.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) wanted to know whether we obtained overseas advice for the construction of the tanker dock in Cape Town. I can give him the assurance that we obtained all possible information relevant to the project. It is not a very complicated matter to construct a tanker dock. It has been done in conjunction with the oil company which is establishing the refinery here. The dock is being mainly constructed for their use. It is being constructed to accommodate two tankers, and it will be of the necessary depth stipulated by the oil company. Several schemes were investigated, but it was found that the scheme for which provision is now made is the most acceptable of all those investigated. That is all I can say about that.

Do you envisage other companies using it also?

Well, it is extremely doubtful that any other company will establish an oil refinery here. Two companies have refineries in Durban and another company, B.P., has a refinery at Lourenço Marques, and the fourth company, Caltex, is establishing a refinery at Cape Town. So there is really no other company that can establish a refinery here and consequently it will be mainly for the use of Caltex. I also believe that the oil companies have come to some arrangement in regard to establishing a distribution pattern. In other words, there will be no overlapping in the distribution of their products. Of course the tanker dock can also be used by other companies, if necessary.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is quite right that the additional amount required is not for the sole purpose of constructing new works resulting from increased demands of traffic. I think I should have made that more clear in my speech. There are several new items that have been introduced now, e.g. the doubling between Pentrich and Umlaas Road, mainly on account of the increased demands on that line, but as the hon. member correctly stated, the majority of the items have already been approved by Parliament and merely additional amounts are now required.

Motion put and agreed to.

House iu Committee:

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds.

On Head No. 1.—“General Charges—Railways,” R245,870,

I would like the Minister to explain to me two items of “Travelling Expenses ”. The increase of R 10,000 in the one case and of R35,000 in the other. How did these come about?

The first increase is mainly due to the purchase of new motor-cars. Under the Head “General Manager, Office and Travelling Expenses”, the additional amount is required in respect of travelling expenses, office equipment, stationery and car expenditure.

I see there is an item of savings under another Vote, where bicycles had been provided for the maintenance staff. I was wondering whether luxury bicycles should not also be provided for all Cabinet Ministers. It is high time they got on to their bicycles…

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 2.—“Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works—Railways,” R1,753,699,

Will the Minister give the Committee the actual details of the contributions to the sick fund in Item 241?

I have not the actual amount of the contributions ttr — the sick fund.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3.— “Maintenance of Rolling Stock—Railways,” R3,275, 210,

I will be glad if the Minister would give us some information in regard to Item 263, coaching stock, direct expenses. The original Estimate was for R594.000, and on the revised Estimates it is R 1,060,000. It would seem a big difference.

This increase is mainly due to items manufactured in the mechanical workshops and the necessity to replace inter-pole coils and brush-boxes in main motors of type 2.M.I. motor coaches.

Perhaps I should be more pertinent. It seems to me a great underestimate. I would like to know why it is such a large amount. It is nearly 100 per cent increase.

I will obtain that information and let the hon. member have it.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 30.— “Miscellaneous Expenditure—Airways,” R173.396,

Could the hon. the Minister give us some information in regard to item (b), “bad debts and sundry items including ex gratia refunds”, where the original Estimate was R1,050 and the revised Estimate R14,734, an increase of R13,684.

The increase under this item is due mainly to (1) the writing off of an amount of R9.006 in respect of customs dues and consumer taxes levied by the Belgian Congo authorities on aviation fuel and oil uplifted by S.A. Airways aircraft at Leopoldtville during the periods April to November 1957 and 1 May 1960 to 7 July 1960 on which day the Congolese army mutinied and our services were withdrawn. Although repeated requests were made for the refund, it is considered improbable that the administration will ever succeed. Secondly it is due to further bad debts to be written off in respect of cost-of-living allowances amounting to R 1,097 which was overpaid to a former driver of a motor bus or lorry, a certain A. P. S. Fouché, during 1952 to 1957. Mr. Fouché has since resigned and all efforts to recover the amount has proved unsuccessful.

Head put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

On Head No. 2.— “New Works on Open Lines,” R2,612,000,

There are two new items here. The hon. the Minister referred to one of them in his speech just now when he introduced the Estimates. I refer to two items under the heading “Natal System The first is Item 29, “Danskraal: Extend marshalling yard and deviate main line …” and the second is Item 28, and then there are a few other new items too. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give us some idea as to when this doubling of the line and the programme of development on the Natal System will be completed. We have had before us now for a number of years section by section. There has never been an Estimate, to my knowledge, of the total costs of doubling the line. We are faced every year with new items of this nature in the Estimate, and since the Minister now has a planning section in the General Manager’s office, which I assume deals with this type of development, is it not possible for the Minister to give us some picture as to when this whole programme will be completed?

When any big new work is decided upon it is always done in different stages. In other words, if it was originally decided to double the line from, say, Volksrust to Durban, provision will not be made immediately in our Estimates for the doubling of the whole section; it is done in different stages. The same is applicable to the building of new marshalling yards. Provision is made separately for the different stages. The hon. member will realize that with the passing of time wages and costs increase. Consequently if provision is made in the Estimate for the whole work to be done, which would be spread over a period of ten years, that Estimate would be quite unrealistic. In regard to the Natal main line, the original programme for the doubling of the line between Durban and Ladysmith except for the short section between Pentrich and Umlaas Road, where there are two lines in existence, was left in abeyance and when that was completed further provision was made for the next stage of the doubling between Newcastle and Glencoe. That has now been completed, and a further stage is for the doubling of the line from Glencoe to Ladysmith and the doubling of the line which almost means the building of a new line, between Umlaas Road and Pentrich, and when that has been completed there will be a double line from Durban right through to Newcastle. That will be the end of the doubling, because between Newcastle and Volksrust it would be an extremely expensive undertaking to double the line through the mountains, and therefore the intention is to introduce C.T.C. between Newcastle and Volksrust. The position will therefore be that we will have a double line from Durban to Newcastle and C.T.C. in operation between Newcastle and Volksrust. Of course, as the hon. member knows, the line between Volksrust and Union is being electrified and will be completed next year. That is the programme. The C.T.C. will probably be completed in two years’ time and the final doubling will also be completed between Pentrich and Umlaas Road in two years’ time probably. If the carrying capacity of that line has to be increased further—it will all depend on the amount of traffic offering—then block sections will have to be introduced between Durban and Newcastle; in other words, subdividing the sections to increase the carrying capacity of that line. One of the reasons why I have decided to have the oil pipe-line built is to give further relief to the Natal main line.

In regard to Item 5, last year, if I remember correctly, an amount of some R650,000 was paid as compensation for loss of profit in respect of coal that could not be exploited as a result of building the Oogies-Van Dyksdrif line. I believe it was paid to the Transvaal Consolidated Land and Exploration) Company. I wonder if the Minister can tell us more about this other item to-day which relates to Oogies-Broodsnydersplaas. It must be in connection with the same line of railway …

It is the same line.

Is it to be paid to a different company or the same company? Does this represent extra compensation? Or part of the old agreement?

The hon. member will remember that we dealt with this matter fully last year. The Railways had to pay compensation to this company because they were unable to exploit the coal reserves under the railway line. This is payment for the claims that have been made in that regard. I also explained last year that the amount of which Parliament was approving was not the final amount; that there might be an additional amount.

As there likely to be any more additional claims?

It is possible.

There are two other items on which I would like to have some information from the Minister. The first is Item 20, “Kamfersdam-Koopmansfontein: Replace steel sleepers with wood sleepers over insulated track sections on sharp curves adjoining stations ”. Will the Minister indicate the reason for such replacement? Sir, this is a new item and I ask the question for this reason: I understand that at certain level crossings where lights have to be introduced it is necessary to replace the steel sleepers with wood sleepers. Is that one of the reasons for the replacement of the steel sleepers on this section of the line? The other item on which I would like the Minister to give us some information is Item 123, “additions to and replacements of mechanical handling appliances”. From the way in which this item is set out it would appear to be a new item for the purchase of this type of equipment. The estimated total cost is given as R266.800. As I understand the position, judging by what the Minister has said in former years, the Administration is following the policy of mechanizing the handling of goods on platforms to an increased extent, but the amount we are called upon to vote here is only R38,100. I shall be glad if the Minister can explain what he means by asking us to approve of a new item, the estimated total cost of which is R266,800, on the basis of a 1962-3 allotment, when we are only called upon to vote R38,100.

I wish to refer to Item 65 on page 8: “Durban: Clear site and move buildings preparatory to provision of new bridge and pedestrian subway and rebuilding of existing bridge, Old Fort Road bridge. The additional amount to be voted is R8.080. These works which are being undertaken in the centre of the city have caused a tremendous disruption of traffic and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister can give us the reason for this additional amount.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) referred to Item 20. He wanted to know the reasons for the replacement of the steel sleepers with wood sleepers over the insulated track. As the hon. member knows, C.T.C. (Centralized Traffic Control) is in operation over this section, and before C.T.C. can be introduced the sleepers must be insulated. Steel sleepers are insulated with insulating pads, but over sharp curves the locomotives tend to push the rails away from the pads; consequently it is better to replace them with wood sleepers on the curves. That is why the steel sleepers are being replaced with wood sleepers.

May I just ask whether the steel sleepers referred to here are the new type of concrete sleepers?

No, these are the original steel sleepers that were laid. There is a difference between a concrete sleeper and a steel sleeper but they all require insulation pads where you have an electrified signalling system or C.T.C.

In regard to Item 123 the hon. member wanted to know why only R38.100 was being voted. Well, it is the usual practice to make an allotment with regard to the purchase of certain equipment. An allotment is also made for the building of departmental houses, but the amount that is allotted is not spent in one year. It depends on deliveries; it depends on whether it is possible to obtain all the mechanical appliances in the one financial year. But that is the amount actually set aside for this particular purpose. It is spread over a number of years and every year a certain amount is utilized for this purpose.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) wanted to know what the additional amount of R8,080 was required for. This is to prepare for the construction of the bridge, which was authorized on the 1961-2 Unforseen Works Vote and which could not be completed by 31 March 1962 as anticipated.

I would like to ask the Minister if he could give some indication as to what progress has been made under Item 153. “Pretoria: Experimental work in connection with pre-cooked deep frozen meals in dining saloons ”.

The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

Can the Minister give us some information in regard to Item 153. “Experimental work in connection with pre-cooked deep frozen meals in dining saloons ”? It seems that the experiments were suspended; there was no expenditure in 1962-3.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

Then I must ask the Minister what the reason is for the increase. Then I should like to know in regard to Item 182 whether the Minister can give us any information in regard to additional passenger seats for aircraft.

Order! That item is not under discussion now.

In regard to Item 153 this additional amount is required for the purpose of determining the practicability of new assets and the possible improvement of others. In regard to the additional amount for increased cost of gas and the cost of railing equipment, the work has taken longer than anticipated and provision is required to complete the experiment.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3.— “Rolling Stock”, R6,687, 400,

I would like to ask the Minister whether the increased amounts under Items 159 and 160, “600 Bogie iron ore hopper wagons, type AZ-4” and “1,000 Bogie dropsided wagons, type DZ”, are in connection with the iron ore trade with Japan.

The hon. member did not listen to my speech and he had a copy of it in front of him.

You should have supplied it to me before.

Good heavens, the hon. member was listening to me and reading my speech at the same time when I was talking. 1 gave the reasons for this amount. It was originally decided to finance it out of the Renewals Fund—the accrued depreciation—but we found that the renewals from that particular section might be overspent, so now we are taking the money from capital funds to purchase these trucks. These are not new amounts. They were already provided for last year. This is in connection with the increased activities of Iscor. Iscor requires more iron ore from Postmasburg and consequently we have to purchase additional iron ore hopper wagons.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 4.— “Road Transport Service ". R63.100,

We are being asked here under Item 165, “provision of tachographs on passenger vehicles”, to vote an additional R40.000. This is a new item. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether these tachographs are devices which are now going to be fitted as a matter of policy?

They are recording speedometers.

I believe that a great number of vehicles in the Road Motor Services are fitted with governors so that certain speed limits cannot be exceeded at certain loads. I take it that these tachographs are a security check on the driver himself in respect of his speed and braking in connection with accidents and so on. They will record the speed of the vehicle, I take it.

Yes.

What is the purpose? Are these tachographs being installed as an additional check on all the Administration’s vehicles?

Passenger vehicles only.

I should like the Minister to give us a full picture because I understand that there is a feeling amongst quite a number of drivers that these tachographs are being installed by the Administration as a sort of security check on their activities. I think it is right that if that impression does exist, as I know it does, the Minister should make a statement as to the policy being followed with regard to the installation of these tachographs.

The management maintains that this will be an economy measure and that it will ensure better control of all the passenger vehicles. I have had no complaint from the drivers through their staff organizations in regard to this matter, so I must accept that they are quite satisfied with the installation of the tachographs. It will improve control of the vehicles; the speed will be recorded, amongst other things, and the management also maintains that it will result in economies.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 5.— “Harbours”, R2,230, 800,

I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to give us some information in regard to Items 174 and 175 where we are asked to vote additional amounts of R3,160 and R3,050. The latter amount is in connection with portable V.H.F. radio sets at the Durban harbour, and the former amount in connection with the same item at Table Bay Docks.

These portable V.H.F. radio sets are a safety precaution for the handling of large vessels. They are utilized between the tug and the harbour and between the boats themselves and the harbour.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 7.— “Airways”, R100,500,

In regard to Item 182, “additional passenger seats for aircraft”, will the Minister kindly give the Committee more information about this item? Is this for the replacement of existing seats or are some of the planes to be converted from two seats to three seats, or what is the position?

These are seats to increase the capacity of the Boeings and Viscounts when required. As the hon. member knows the Boeings have a number of first class seats. It might be necessary to convert all these seats in the Boeing into economy seats; to remove the first class seats as a temporary measure. On the other hand, it may be a permanent measure. The same will be applicable to the Viscounts. If you want to increase the capacity then you must have additional seats.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 8.— “Working Capital”, R700.000,

In regard to Item 188, “Sale of Departmental Dwelling Houses: Approved by Parliament R1,500,000; additional amount required R200,000”, I should just like to know whether that money is required for the building of new houses.

Order! The hon. member may only ask what the reasons for the increase are.

Then I should like to ask what the reasons are.

In the first place R 160,000 is being asked for in connection with the home ownership scheme to enable the Administration to grant more loans to officials to build their own houses. The second is the assistance scheme where additional funds are also asked for so that more officials may make use of this scheme. The assistance scheme, as the hon. member knows, is the one in terms of which building societies advance 90 per cent of the purchase price and that is guaranteed by the Administration. Ten per cent is advanced by the Administration, and the security is the pension contributions of the official. Because they are now charged a lower rate of interest by the building societies, more of the officials want to make use of this scheme, and that is why provision is being made for this additional amount. The last amount is also an additional sum to enable more officials to purchase departmental houses. A number of the departmental houses built in recent years have already been sold to railway workers, and this additional amount is being asked for to enable more railwaymen to buy these houses.

Will the hon. the Minister indicate whether this additional provision will eliminate the backlog in waiting applications?

No, I am afraid not.

I just want to point out that the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) seems to be the only member on the Government side who has taken an interest in this debate.

Order!

I move—

1. (3) Compensation (the amount whereof shall be ascertained mutatis mutandis as provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 7) shall be paid—
   1. (a) to the owner thereof, for any vertebrate exotic animal destroyed in terms of this section; and
   2. (b) for any damage caused to any property by the exercise of any function which an officer is empowered to perform in terms of this section, but no compensation shall be paid in respect of the loss of any invertebrate exotic animal so destroyed.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as has been repeatedly stated world trends are of such a nature that preparedness on the military front should be one of the chief aims of the Republic. One of the major steps taken in this connection by the Government was to extend the period of compulsory military training of Citizen Force members from three to nine months so as to have a well-trained force at its disposal in times of emergency.

As the morale of troops whilst undergoing training or whilst rendering service in terms of Chapter × of the Defence Act, 1957, should not be impaired, the decision was taken during 1960 to give moratorium protection to those who were called up for duty during the riots. Subsequently it was decided to introduce the Moratorium Act, 1962 (Act No. 53 of 1962). Since the introduction of this Act I have received strong representations from various quarters for the consolidation of the Act and also as a result of certain shortcomings in the Act—I want specially to refer to the question of moratorium protection in the case of hire-purchase agreements, which I shall explain later—it was generally agreed that it would be in the interests of those undergoing nine months’ compulsory military training and those rendering service in terms of Chapter × of the Act, to refer the matter back to Parliament for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to refer to the provisions of the Bill which is in possession of hon. members.

Clause 1 contains two definitions. The definition in respect of a “citizen” is necessary in view of the fact that only South African citizens are liable to undergo compulsory military training. From the second definition, namely “compulsory military training”, it is immediately evident that this Bill is only concerned with citizens undergoing nine months’ continuous training in the Citizen Force as contemplated in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Defence Act, 1957; in other words, only those whose names have been balloted will be entitled to moratorium protection. It does not apply to persons who voluntarily undergo training in the Citizen Force in terms of Sections 23,24 and 25 of the Act.

It is, furthermore, clear that “compulsory military training” also includes, apart from the nine months’ compulsory training—

1. (a) any period of service rendered by a citizen during his nine months’ training, under Chapter × of the Act, and
2. (b) any period during which a citizen is being treated in hospital for sickness or for injuries if such injuries were sustained as a result of his training.

The provision in (a) above is necessary because it cannot be said that a citizen, rendering service under Chapter X, is at the same time undergoing nine months’ compulsory training as contemplated by Section 22 of the Act. If, therefore, the concept of compulsory military training is not thus extended, it would mean that a citizen is not covered by the provisions of this Act in respect of any period, falling within the nine months’ training, during which he is rendering service under Chapter X.

By further extending the concept as in (b) above, it is contemplated to afford additional protection in the case of a citizen, being treated in hospital during any period extending beyond the nine months’ compulsory training period, provided, however, that the treatment commences at any time during the nine months. This, for example, means that a citizen who has been discharged from hospital, on a date six months after his nine months’ training would normally have been completed, is deemed to have completed his nine months' training on the date of his discharge from hospital.

The provisions of Clause 2 (1) are substantially the same as those contained in the existing legislation except that for obvious reasons, the phrase “wholetime service by a volunteer” has now been substituted by “compulsory military training” as defined. It is pointed out that debtors under hire-purchase agreements are also now covered.

In regard to hire-purchase agreements I wish to say that when the 1940 Act was passed the duration of the war was unknown and the likelihood of serious prejudice to the creditor was far greater than in the present case where the protection is limited to the nine months’ compulsory training and three months thereafter. Another salient point to be borne in mind is that those who enjoyed the protection of the 1940 Act were all volunteers who were well aware of their commitments under hire-purchase agreements at the time of enlistment.

Mr. Speaker, the volume of trade will not be affected to the extent that the number of trainees enrolled for training each year might seem to indicate. The vast majority of them are from 17 to 19 years old and have not been in regular employment prior to being enrolled for training. It is of course foreseen that when traders become aware of the protection it is proposed to grant to trainees in respect of hire-purchase agreements, they will be reluctant to extend hire-purchase facilities to youths in the 17 to 19 years age group. But, Sir, this can only be regarded as a beneficial result of the proposed Bill since persons of that age all too often avail themselves of hire-purchase credit to incur debts they cannot hope to meet and with which they should not be saddled at such an early date. The refusal of traders to give them credit will be a more effective deterrent than the knowledge that they can be sued in respect of hire-purchase contracts while undergoing training. If a trader, well knowing that a debtor undergoing nine months’ compulsory military training is protected in respect of hire-purchase agreements, sells goods under such an agreement to a youth likely to be enrolled for such training, he obviously does so at his own risk.

The provisions of paragraph (a) of sub clause (2) of Clause 2 are the same as those contained in the existing legislation. The suspension of legal proceedings does not apply to proceedings against a partnership if any member of the partnership is not a citizen undergoing compulsory military training at the time the proceedings are instituted.

Regarding paragraph (b) of sub-clause (2) of Clause 2, the provisions thereof are substantially the same as those contained in the existing legislation except that the proviso in the existing legislation, prohibiting the institution of an action for the recovery of rent in respect of immovable property, which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, is not retained because the necessity for it no longer exists. This proviso was brought in by an amendment to the Defence Special Pensions and Moratorium Act, 1940, by Section 22 of Act No. 45 of 1941, with the obvious intention of protecting volunteers who, before they went on service, had bought a dwelling house on a hire-purchase system. It is pointed out, however, that the latter Act also amends Section 9 (1) of the Defence Special Pensions and Moratorium Act of 1940 by substituting for the word “property”, the words “movable property ”. The effect of this amendment was to return immovable property to the ambit of the general protection given by Section (5) (5) (a) of the Public Welfare Act of 1914. In view of this the necessity for the proviso I have mentioned fell away and it has consequently been omitted.

The provisions of sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of sub-clause (2) of Clause 2 are also substantially the same as those contained in the existing legislation.

Regarding the recovery of the price of actual necessaries of life and board and lodging referred to in sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) I have to state that the reason for the exception is to be sought in past experience by my Department. If shopkeepers and hotelkeepers were not allowed to sue for necessaries of life or board or lodging supplied to a member or his dependants after he had commenced training or had assumed duty in terms of Chapter X, they would be inclined to refuse to sell necessaries of life to him on credit or to give him or his dependants board and lodging.

The provisions of sub-paragraph (e) are self-explanatory. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will agree that it is equitable to make provision for a trader to be protected against the actions of those who, on receipt of notification to undergo training or to do duty, mala fide enter into hire-purchase agreements.

The provisions of sub-paragraph (f) are also substantially the same as those contained in existing legislation except that the wording of the proviso, prohibiting civil imprisonment, has been changed to include orders made in terms of sub-section (9) of Section 65 of the Magistrate’s Court Act, 1944, because, strictly speaking, such orders do not amount to civil imprisonment in its ordinary meaning and their application has the same effect.

I now come to sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Clause 2.

The provisions of these sub-clauses are also substantially the same as those contained in existing legislation.

Sub-clause (5) is also a repetition of existing legislation and this sub-clause contains provision to prevent those undergoing compulsory military training from abusing the protection given them. The provision lays down that, even in those cases to which the moratorium would otherwise apply, if the creditor of a citizen undergoing training makes application to the court for leave to sue a person who is undergoing training, the court, if satisfied that such citizen is taking advantage of the suspension of civil legal remedies against him to carry on any trade or business without paying his creditors or to dispose of his assets to the prejudice of his creditors or to evade his responsibilities and lawful debts, may allow the creditor to proceed with his action and may make an order granting him leave to do so. The court will not make such an order merely on the allegation of the creditor: it will only make the order if satisfied that the above named facts exist and after taking all the circumstances into account. If the creditor obtains judgment in the action, it will be possible for process for the execution to be issued and carried out. But even if the court grants leave to a creditor to proceed with his action, it may at any time on application made to it, if it thinks just and equitable to do so, order that further proceedings in the action be stayed for such a period or on such conditions as it may think fit.

I come now to Clauses 3. 4, and 5. Mr. Speaker the provisions of Clauses 3,4, and 5 too are substantially the same as those contained in the present legislation.

Clause 3 deals with the suspension of prescription. It is considered reasonable that those who are forced by law to undergo compulsory military training or those who are required to render service in terms of Chapter X, should also be protected against the loss of their rights under certain laws owing to their failure to do certain acts within the time prescribed. Thus, if a trainee holds a licence under a certain law and is called up for compulsory training or duty he will be entitled after completion of his training or duty to renew the licence within a fixed period.

Clause 4. This clause entitles a trader to claim interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount due to him and which he was unable to collect during the period of suspension of payment, in terms of the Act.

Clause 5. In terms of this clause any statutory officer or other statutory authority whenever he is satisfied that any trainee was prevented from doing any act, or making any application or lodging or transmitting any document within a fixed period by reason of such trainee undergoing compulsory military training he may, unless the statutory rights of any person will be detrimentally affected, extend the validity of such document for such further period as is deemed fit or as may be equitable in the circumstances.

Clause 6. The protection envisaged in this clause is for those members of the South African Defence Force and the Reserve who are called out for service in defence of the Republic, in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Republic or in the preservation of life, health or property or the maintenance of essential services. It is felt that such a provision is necessary to provide preliminary protection for those members concerned. Although the protection envisaged by the Bill may not fit all the circumstances in times of emergency for which these members are called out, it is, nevertheless, felt that as an interim measure it will suffice. It is pointed out that during the state of emergency in 1960 when the Moratorium Act, 1960, was passed, provision in terms almost identical to the present Bill was considered adequate to meet the situation. Mr. Speaker, I want to give the House the assurance that the proposed provisions will not be applied arbitrarily when a state of emergency arises. The application of the Act in this particular instance will be given due consideration in consultation with authorities concerned and will not be applied unless sufficient justification for such a step exists.

Clause 7. As is presently the case, the Act will also be applicable to the territory of South West Africa.

Clause 8 repeals the existing legislation, viz. the Moratorium Act, 1962, which is also applicable in the territory of South West Africa.

Clause 9 gives the short title.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has made the purpose of and the necessity for this Bill quite clear. This is in a large measure both a consolidation of existing Acts and a clarification of the position which hitherto has been governed by a number of separate pieces of legislation, legislation which has been difficult and cumbersome to administer, because of cross references in so many parts. This occasion has been used to bring those various Acts together in the form of one Moratorium Bill which deals with the subject as a whole. In accordance with the policy of this side of the House when dealing with this particular type of measure, we shall not oppose the second reading of this Bill. We shall support it.

At the same time there are questions arising from the Bill. Some of them have already been clarified by the Minister in his introductory speech but in respect of others we would like some further clarification. The hon. the Minister has rightly said that the necessity for a moratorium flows to a large extent from the fact that a much larger number of people are being called up and also from the fact that the times in which we live necessitate the more frequent use of our defence organization to deal with localized cases of internal disorder or storm damage, threat to life and things of that nature. All these facts of themselves have taken the orbit of a moratorium considerably outside of what has hitherto been the accepted limits of this particular type of measure, which has in the main been largely applied to wartime conditions. As a matter of fact, I believe the Moratorium Bill which we passed in 1962 was the first peacetime Moratorium Act passed in the country, or rather the first Act which gave moratorium protection in peacetime. That was also necessitated by world conditions which affect us both internally and externally. Those conditions probably have had a full bearing once again on the new Bill which is before us.

There are one or two aspects of the Bill which I propose to deal with as we come to the relevant clauses but the Bill as a whole marks yet another stage in the application to the peacetime life of the Republic. From what I would call an economic point of view restrictive laws usually only applied in wartime. The economic life of a country is always very, very finely balanced and it can very, easily be upset. Hence any Government, the present Government included, is very chary of introducing any type of legislation which may have an unsettling effect on that balance. The hon. the Minister in his opening remarks referred in one or two instances to steps which would protect both the debtor and the creditor. That in itself, as he has pointed out, may mean the tightening up of the facilities granted by hire purchase to the younger age group.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that not only have world conditions which necessitated a moratorium changed but world conditions governing the lives of the younger people have also changed. You find it is a world characteristic that young people of to-day set up their own homes at a much earlier age than they did previously. Many of them set up their own homes when they have not yet reached an age when they are in a position to incur heavy financial liabilities. Concurrently with that, the business of hire purchase and the facilities of obtaining money on loan from the various institutions which specialize in that type of service, have also developed. Many of the young people who are being called up and whom both the Minister and myself may probably regard as much too young to indulge in that sort of luxury, are getting married and setting up their own homes and they are helped in doing so by virtue of the facility which is granted them by the hire-purchase system and by the various financial assistance systems. This has become part of the pattern of modern life. Sir. Therefore, we must be careful of anything we do which may upset the balance in that particular regard. I am prepared to agree with the hon. the Minister that in some cases a little bit of financial discipline might be all to the good. There is a certain section of our young folk who perhaps rightly take advantage of these facilities. But there is also a very large number of the more responsible type who take advantage of these facilities of necessity and who are seriously enough minded to take advantage of those facilities correctly. I have no doubt, and I think the Minister has no doubt, that the very fact that this restriction is now being placed on a section of the hire-purchase agreement system, will mean a tightening up in regard to the case in which people, particularly the young people who are liable for military service, can obtain those facilities.

But it does not mean that we are stopping those facilities.

It does not mean stopping them. Perhaps I should make it clear: The hon. the Minister stated that it would give certain protection to the creditors as well as to the debtors. The Bill itself, in the section dealing with hire purchase, makes provision that once an individual has received notice that he is to be called up and he fails to acquaint the firm with whom he is entering into an agreement of that fact, that firm has legal redress against him. The moratorium, in other words, does not apply in that case. That is one of the cases—I think the Minister has referred to it in his own speech—where if the lad concerned fails to acquaint the person from whom he is raising funds, or from whom he is purchasing some item under hire-purchase agreement, of his liability to military service he is not then protected by the Act. I think it is a fair proposition. But that protection in itself, I think, will be carried a little bit further by the firms themselves. It would not surprise me if I find that they include a condition—in the case of a particular age group in any case—to the effect that the debtor must state whether he is liable for service or whether he has completed his service.

I accept that.

I am not saying that it will not do a little bit of good but it has got an unbalancing and an unsettling effect on the economy of the country because the big institutions which have developed to a large extent as a result of making funds available on fairly reasonable terms have become part of the economic life of this country. Therefore one has to be very chary and very careful of doing anything that will upset the economic balance in that respect. Because it does not stop at the selling of a particular item; it goes back to the people who manufacture the item. It has a chain repercussion all the way through —right from the production of the raw material to the time the man takes the finished article to his own home. One has to be careful of those things. As I say a moratorium has been made necessary by the increasing number of young people who are brought into compulsory service. I am not sure what the figure is; it has not as yet been released but 1 know we were aiming at plus/minus 10,000 at the beginning. In the later clauses of the Bill the moratorium protection is under special conditions, extended to other specialized services in the Defence Force so the numbers will grow. So you see, Sir, quite a large number of people will be eventually affected. It is something which must have an impact upon the economy of the country.

Another aspect of the Bill on which I should like to touch is this. A distinction is made between the protection afforded to the man who is called up by ballot, i.e. compulsory service, and the man who volunteers for service. I can appreciate the Minister’s and the Government’s view in regard to the fact that in the one case the volunteer goes in with his eyes open and he should know what liabilities he is likely to incur whereas the man who is drawn by ballot has no option at all. He has to go by compulsion. You know, Sir, the greatest glory of the South African Defence Force was earned during the time it was a volunteer force. It does seem a pity to me that the number of volunteers who are selected for training is getting smaller and smaller. Again I do not know what the figures are; they have not been released for the past year. But the number of volunteers is getting smaller and smaller and the number of ballottees larger and larger.

We have 500 posts for volunteers.

The actual figures accepted are, of course, getting smaller and smaller. The ballot system has been introduced so the man says: If I have to be ballotted for I'll take my chance and not volunteer. It does seem a pity that we have to distinguish between the two. In the later provisions of the Act, where you apply it to those serving under Section 10 of the Defence Act, you apply the protection of the moratorium under certain conditions to the Defence Force as a whole. I take it I am correct in assuming there that that protection then would be afforded to men of the Permanent Force called out under Section 10 for one of the duties enumerated by the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister and the authorities decide that the length of the service warrants it, they get the protection.

Sir, when you examine it, there is not much difference between a volunteer and a man of the Permanent Force. The men of the Permanent Force in a large measure join the Permanent Force of their own free will. Once they are soldiers, they do as they are told, they act under orders, naturally. One can say that they are compelled to do this job or the other job, but they initially join of their own free will and take this up as their profession.

Yes, but they get a much better salary than these other chaps.

Does that not react rather against the moratorium being applied in that case—the fact that they get the better salary? Is not the reason for the moratorium urgent in the case of the volunteer due to the fact that he comes in on such a small salary scale that he cannot afford to meet his liabilities? I am not suggesting for one moment that the moratorium be not granted to the Permanent Force. What I am suggesting is that second thoughts might be given to the exemption from the protection of the man who volunteers freely, the man who thinks enough of his country to volunteer for service in a time like this and does not wait to be compelled by ballot to join the service. The numbers involved are so small in the long run that I do think the hon. Minister might give second thoughts to that aspect, and see if it is not possible to meet the spirit in which these young fellows—they need not be so young even—do volunteer. Because that individual once he volunteers, although he does so with his eyes open, lays himself open to the same penalties as his comrades who are called up under ballot, inasmuch as that where say the majority of Government employees, or many of the employees of big businesses who are called up under the ballot system do receive either all or a portion of their wage difference between defence pay and their civil pay, this being made up by the firm or by the State, you do find still a proportion including the volunteers who are not so favourably treated. There are firms which for one reason or another are not able to meet that liability; you get small concerns, or one-man concerns who cannot face that extra liability, and you do have a proportion of men called up who get no compensation at all in respect of the difference of the military pay and the civil pay. The man who volunteers just the same as the ballottee falls under the same treatment there. I therefore would ask the hon. the Minister to give the most sympathetic consideration to that aspect of the case and see. particularly in view of the relatively small financial impact that it would make, if that assistance cannot be given.

I said just now that the economy of any country is so delicately balanced that one must endeavour to try and avoid a moratorium if it is possible to do so. One way to avoid having a moratorium is not to deal with the effects but also to deal with the causes which make a moratorium necessary, the cause which makes it necessary to call up men for this extended training, to use the defence organization as a whole for the services for which they are called up. Certain of them are causes over which nobody has any control: Gale damage, flood damage, that type of thing, over which none of us has any control. But there are other things. To a large extent a moratorium has become necessary due (a) to the call up of a much larger number of young fellows, and (b) to the fact that it is necessary to use them in growing frequency to deal with sometimes what is very much localized unrest in the country, disorder in the country. I think if the Government sets out to endeavour to remove the causes of this as far as it is humanly possible to do so, something might be achieved. True some of the causes come from overseas, but inside our own country there are causes which a responsible Government might be able to cope with, and as a result it would not be necessary perhaps to have the country’s defences brought up to such a high pitch as far as internal security is concerned. It cuts both ways, because to do this also strengthens our defence organization. We have not got to keep one eye inside as well as an eye outside the country. I would commend that to the hon. Minister also, that consideration be given to the removal of causes which in the end call for a moratorium, as well as to deal with the effect of the job after it is too late, after you have had to carry out your mobilization, after which you have to find a means to protect the people you have called up, from financial hardships by imposing a moratorium. You see. Sir, the moratorium in a sense does not solve their difficulties; it merely postpones the evil day.

The hon. member is now bringing it onto the political field.

No, it is not political. These are plain, hard facts. A moratorium does not solve the difficulties of the trainee by any means; it merely postpones the evil day when he has got to pay his liabilities. After nine months training, particularly these younger people, who are unable for nine months to follow any vocation, to a large extent they come back into the labour market as “greenhorns ”; they cannot command any big wage or salary then. Such a man, three months after his training period is over, except the unfortunate ones who have had to undergo hospital treatment, has to face the withdrawal of the protection of the moratorium, and then of course his creditors who have been waiting naturally come along and ask for their pound of flesh.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two points with regard to the extent of the protection. You see Clause 2 (1) says—

“All civil legal remedies.” Now there are many civil legal remedies which do not altogether flow from getting into debt. I just cite one instance that perhaps the hon. the Minister can deal with: If a trainee, a ballottee, who is protected by the moratorium, during the time he is in training—maybe during one of his leave periods—is involved in a motor accident, as a result of which he does grievous bodiy harm or injury to some other person, what will be the position? Normally there would be civil legal action available to that injured person to remedy the disability that he sustained as a result of the accident; he could get recompense in respect of losses incurred. Would those particular remedies be debarred him under the moratorium? Would a man or people injured in a motor accident of that nature, or any other accident for which a trainee was responsible, have any redress in law? There is the one later clause, which the hon. the Minister himself mentioned, which lays down that under certain conditions access to the courts is available. Would that access apply in such a case? This again might affect a large number of people, and also big business institutions, big insurance companies, who in the motor world at any rate are heavily implicated in compensation claims in this type of accident. Would they also be debarred from taking any action at all until the moratorium period has expired, in the case of an individual involved like that?

The hon. the Minister has referred to the recovery of rent under Clause 2 (2) (b). There also I see that the Bill, I think very wisely, makes provision for the fact that rent or various other charges incurred with regard to personal living—food, necessities of life—incurred after the trainee has commenced his training operations, are not protected by the moratorium. I think that was one of the things the hon. the Minister meant when he referred to the fact that the Bill grants not only protection to the trainee, but also, where it is possible, gives protection to the person with whom he has business dealings. There I think the Bill has gone a long way perhaps to even out the balance between the two. But there are those other points, as for instance with regard to an accident on which we would like a little bit of clarity.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE; I will go into that further.

There is the other clause which lays down that the individual concerned (Clause 4) who is debarred as a result of the moratorium, from obtaining payment of any money due to him, shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6 per cent during the time that he is unable to get his payment. Now, Sir, with the state of the financial world, the economic position we are just passing through, rates of interest have been very high, and it is quite possible that trainees who are going in now, may have entered into commitments which commit them to pay a rate of interest considerably in excess of 6 per cent. Under the Moratorium Act all that the individual concerned would be able to recover in respect of any money owing over the moratorium period, would be 6 per cent, which in certain cases may be lower than the rate of interest guaranteed under the transaction.

It was laid down at 6 per cent under the old Act last year and interest rates are coming down.

They are coming down now, but I am not so sure that they are coming down in all cases. But there are other commitments that people may have incurred, for instance under hire-purchase agreements which involve considerably, more than a 6 per cent return, and I can hardly conceive that it would be fair to lay down the condition that during the moratorium period the accrual of interest should be lower than the rate for which the individual contracted. It does not seem fair and reasonable. But at any rate, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to look into that and see whether that aspect also could perhaps be elucidated.

I have said in the beginning that as far as we on this side are concerned, we appreciate the position, we are supporting the Bill but we ask that every possible action be taken to limit the need for a moratorium as much as possible—it is not a good thing for the country to have a law such as this in operation, and also ask that we should get rid of it as soon as possible; it may be unavoidable at the moment, but there is the need to limit its application to an absolute minimum. We will support the second reading of the Bill.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) makes the point that in the circumstances they support this moratorium Bill, but he says that they do ask that the necessity for this moratorium protection should be reduced. I cannot agree more with him. But about two weeks ago the hon. member for Simonstown himself said in this House that the pincers movement out of Africa, for example, was in the process of encircling South Africa, and that we must therefore be on our guard. It is precisely because the world is in that situation that we introduced this legislation so to be able to train more young men and to train them for a much longer period, and it is precisely because we have to train more young men and train them for a longer period so that they may be properly trained, that this moratorium protection has become necessary. I cannot say therefore that this measure will help to reduce the necessity for moratorium protection in a world which finds itself in the position in which the world is to-day.

The hon. member goes on to say that in the past moratorium protection was only given during periods of war. I admit that, but this is the first time in our history, as a direct result of these world conditions, that our men are undergoing such a long period of training. Hon. members are well aware of the fact that when South Africa decided to enter the last World War it took 18 months before it became necessary for South Africa to fight on the battlefields. We had time to train our men, but I do not believe that there is anybody in this House who, having regard to present-day world conditions, would expect us to continue to give only two months’ training as in the past to our Citizen Force which is as far as our army is concerned is in fact our only real fighting force. I personally feel that it is tantamount to murder to go onto the battlefield with persons who have had only had two months’ training. They are not ready for active military service and in point of fact they cannot take part in modern warfare. It has therefore become necessary to give our people a much longer period of training. I also believe that in other respects this will benefit South Africa. I am sorry I do not have it here with me, but I received a telegram this week from the Rector of the largest university in this country who says that he has many young men at the university who have undergone their nine months’ training and that he is so pleased with them that he wishes he can get many more of them. I think this training is good for our young men, and since it is essential in these times. I also accept that it is essential to give these people this protection.

The hon. member goes on to say that there are many serious-minded young people who do need the hire-purchase system to help them to make a start in life. I admit that, but I do not believe that the hire-purchase system will come to an end for this type of young man because the seller is entitled to 6 per cent on the money which he is unable to collect. The hon. member objects to the fact that we have fixed the interest at 6 per cent. I want to ask him whether he is prepared to make this rate of interest higher? I know that the hon. member did not really mean it in that sense, but last year we decided on 6 per cent and both sides of the House were satisfied. Since last year rates of interest have dropped; they have not risen, but we are still leaving it at 6 per cent. If we are erring therefore, we are erring in that we are leaving the guarantee at 6 per cent which is too high having regard to the drop in the rate of interest since last year.

May I put a question, to the hon. the Minister? Would it be possible to amend this clause or to insert another clause to provide that where an agreement already makes provision for a rate of interest in excess of 6 per cent, that agreement will be honoured?

If we were to make provision for it, we would be encouraging certain unscrupulous traders to enter into hire-purchase contracts with these young men and call upon them to pay a higher rate of interest. We would then be playing into the hands of the unscrupulous person. I do think that generally speaking 6 per cent is a fair, average rate of interest in South Africa. There are certain times when it is perhaps slightly lower; at other times it is higher again, but I think 6 per cent is a fair, average rate of interest, and after all we cannot amend the legislation every year. We cannot continually examine all agreements entered into between the seller and the hire-purchaser to see whether they are fair agreements.

The hon. member has again made the same point which hon. members of the Opposition raised last year, when they put forward the plea that volunteers should also be included under the moratorium protection. But I think there the hon. member for Simonstown was rather illogical in his reasoning. He emphatically issued the warning that moratorium protection should be applied as carefully as possible because it must have an effect, he says, on the business life of this country. He warned us time and again that moratorium protection should be granted as carefully as possible. But a moment or two later he put forward the plea that moratorium protection should also be allowed in those very cases where it may be abused—I do not say that it will be abused. I want to tell him again that last year we left open 500 places for volunteers for Citizen Force training. There were only about 100 applicants and they were all absorbed. There is a small percentage of people therefore who do fall under it in these days when we are training so many people. Training is provided at our gymnasiums, and over and above that there is only a small percentage of people who still join voluntarily, and if I were to allow this it would not amount to very much financially but it would create an opening for abuse. That is how I see it. The young man who is unable to check himself and who contracts debt which he knows is going to get him into difficulties might then volunteer for training and seek protection in that way. I do not think it would be a good thing to leave such an opening for this handful of volunteers because we would only be opening the door for abuse. I naturally take off my hat to the man who comes forward voluntarily. To my mind he is the sort of man who wants to serve his country. In the same way there are perhaps thousands of these people who are balloted who would have come forward voluntarily if their names had not been drawn in the ballot. But the man whose name is not balloted and who comes forward voluntarily wishes to serve his country. He comes along with his eyes open and if he has financial obligations which he is unable to meet then he ought to meet his financial obligations because he is under no legal compulsion to join the army.

The hon. member also talked about civil actions against people—the Bill talks about “all civil legal remedies ”—and he wanted to know what the position was with regard to certain types of civil actions which may be brought against people who are involved in accidents, for example. I have received a note from the Department to the effect that in such cases summonses can only be issued when the moratorium comes to an end. That is understandable, but 1 myself had some doubt about it yesterday evening when I read through this measure again, and this morning I have been so busy that I have not been able to discuss this point with my Department. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, however, that I shall go into this matter further before we come to the Committee Stage.

I move—

I feel that the provisions of this Bill will be heartily welcomed by hon. members on both sides of the House. I do not think there is a single Member of Parliament or a single social worker who has not had to deal at some time or other with this thorny problem. I refer to maintenance orders made in favour of mothers where endless trouble is experienced in recovering the amount awarded as maintenance from the person against whom the order was made. I think there are few cases where so much misery is caused as in those cases where maintenance obligations are not discharged. Hon. members will also probably agree with me that there are few obligations which are so often evaded as the obligation to pay maintenance. I think hon. members will also agree with me that whenever a husband and his wife quarrel, it is the children who suffer because, as the result of the quarrel, the maintenance order is not carried out or the maintenance payable in respect of the children is withheld. This is a problem therefore which for many years has been engaging the attention of social welfare societies and all those who are interested in these matters, and an attempt is now being made in this Bill to do away with the state of affairs that we have had in the past and to do away with it by means of a procedure which in the first place is cheap, which is simple and which is also very practical in coping with these problems.

The way in which this Bill approaches this problem is to establish a maintenance court which can then deal with and settle all maintenance cases in terms of the procedure prescribed in this Bill. Firstly therefore this Bill contains the principle that a maintenance court is to be established, and hon. members will see from Clause 2 of the Bill that every magistrate’s court will become a maintenance court in terms of this Bill. The Bill also provides for a maintenance officer, and in practice it will amount to this that the various prosecutors will become maintenance officers in terms of this Bill. The Bill further lays down the procedure to be followed by the maintenance courts. I propose to deal with a few differences but in the main the procedure to be followed by these courts is simpler to the procedure followed in the ordinary courts.

In terms of Clause 4 of this Bill there is one departure to which I want to draw the attention of hon. members and that is that the person who is really before the court because he has failed to carry out a maintenance order, may be compelled, contrary to our ordinary rules, to give evidence in that action. The necessity for this provision is obvious. He is very often the only person who knows, and in any case he is the person who knows best, what his income is, and in the nature of things the presiding officer cannot come to a correct decision and issue a proper maintenance order unless he knows precisely what the circumstances of that person are and what his income is. One can understand therefore that there is no alternative but to force him, contrary to the ordinary rules of procedure, to go into the witness box and to say what his financial position is. A person against whom such an order is made is not without remedy according to this Bill if he is dissatisfied with the order. Clause 7 provides that he may appeal to a higher authority if he is dissatisfied.

Hon. members will find the most important provision of the Bill in Clause 5. I shall deal with it more fully later on. In the first place I just want to refer the hon. members to Clauses 12 and 14. The big problem—and it is dealt with in Clause 12—that we have experienced in the past is that when a maintenance order is made against a person, the person in whose favour the order is made— in most cases his spouse—experiences the greatest difficulty in getting the money out of him. In our civil law there is a procedure in terms of which, if a debt cannot be recovered in any other way, a garnishee order may be issued against such a person’s salary. There is such a procedure in respect of ordinary debts for groceries, etc. But hon. members will recall that when we dealt with the Children’s Act of 1960 it was pointed out that while this was the case in respect of trade and other goods, this procedure was not of force and effect under our maintenance laws. In 1960 we made it applicable with very great success to maintenance orders in respect of committed children. We have had the opportunity of seeing how this works in practice. I promised hon. members at the time that I would make representations to the Department of Justice to make this applicable also to ordinary maintenance orders. Hon. members will find that provision has been made in Clause 12 for orders of attachment, and if an order is served on an employer and the person concerned, as often happens, has changed his employment, it is provided in Clause 7 that the order may be served on the new employer and that the money may be recovered from him in favour of the beneficiaries.

Another problem that wives experience in this connection—and hon. members who are interested in welfare organizations will know how much trouble and misery this causes—is that the person from whom maintenance is desired, against whom an order of maintenance has been made, is very prone to disappear. Clause 14 makes it obligatory for a person against whom such an order has been made and who changes his address, to notify his change of address, and if he does not do so he is punishable. I have every reason to believe that this provision will give great satisfaction to hon. members and to welfare organizations.

As I have said, Clause 5 is perhaps the most important clause of this Bill. Clause 5 (2) provides that any person against whom an order may be issued in terms of this clause may be represented by an advocate or by an attorney. In practice the position will be that the maintenance officer will appear on behalf of the plaintiff while the defendant will be at liberty to be represented by a lawyer. There was a proposal that not only the defendant but also the plaintiff should be represented by a lawyer. That proposal was rejected because, as I said at the beginning, it is up to us to devise a procedure which is as cheap as possible, and as a rule the people who will appear in this court do not have the necessary funds at their disposal to be able to afford the services of a lawyer. But if people do want to institute an action through the medium of their own attorney or advocate, they are free to do so through the usual channels, because the ordinary course of instituting a civil action against a defendant is not excluded, of course, by the acceptance of this provision, and if therefore a person can afford the luxury of making use of the services of lawyers, he is free to do so.

I would also refer hon. members to the fact that in Clause 5 (3) it is provided that no person whose presence is not required at such an inquiry may be present except with the permission of the court. In other words, these maintenance cases, unless the court orders otherwise, will be heard in camera. The reason for this is obvious, and that is that in 99 out of 100 cases we are dealing with young children and with intimate family history. I make no apologies for this provision therefore.

Then I want to refer too to Clause 5 (4), in which it is provided that any maintenance order—and any “maintenance order” necessarily also means Supreme Court orders—may be varied by this maintenance court. I concede at once that to a large extent it is an innovation to give a maintenance court the power to vary a Supreme Court order. That is a principle that one does not like to introduce, but I think if one weighs up the principle on the one hand against the circumstances on the other, and if one bears in mind that this has nothing to do with the merits of the case but purely with the factual situation, that it is just an inquiry into the person’s financial circumstances, and if hon. members bear in mind the speed at which orders of divorce are issued in the courts, with the result that there is little or no time to go into the financial circumstances of the respective parties in any detail—there is simply no opportunity to have the sort of inquiry that one would like to have under the circumstances—very often the question of maintenance does not even arise because a certain amount is decided upon between the parties by way of agreement; the amount is therefore not in issue when the divorce is granted—I say that when one bears all this in mind, then I believe that the practical advantages of giving the maintenance court the power here to amend orders of the Supreme Court do weigh up against the violation of the principle. But the person concerned is not without a remedy because in terms of Clause 7 he can again appeal to the Supreme Court if he is not satisfied with the order made by the maintenance court.

Hon. members will also find that under Clause 5 the person to whom the maintenance is payable may be designated. I believe that this will be a good thing because in practice we find that that is very often where the difficulty arises; that when the maintenance is paid directly to the other party there is always a quarrel as to whether in fact it has been paid, whilst if it is paid to an official or to an organization, this quarrelling is automatically eliminated because it is then possible to determine precisely whether or not the maintenance has been paid.

I would also refer hon. members to Clause 5 (7) which provides that a person need not appear in court but that with his consent judgment may be given against him by default. In other words, if he agrees to pay maintenance in a sum which satisfied the plaintiff and the maintenance officer, he can sign an order of consent and then he need not waste time by appearing in court.

Those, in the main, are the provisions of this Bill. Since this is an innovation to a certain extent, I shall not be surprised if we find in practice that certain things have been omitted for which provision should perhaps have been made in this Bill, or that we have inserted certain provisions, the effect of which is perhaps not what we foresee in theory, but I believe that in the main this Bill will bring about a very great improvement in the existing position, and I believe that from the lessons we learn in practice we shall eventually be able to introduce a maintenance system which will satisfy the parties concerned and which will be a great asset in the social sphere.

I would like to say immediately that we on these benches support the second reading of this Bill. We welcome the fact that we have here a measure which consolidates and makes available on the Statute Book for this year the various laws which have been passed over the past two-thirds of a century. I do not think anyone will deny that there is a case to be made out for bringing up to date our maintenance laws and trying to eliminate the unsatisfactory situation which exists at present. There are many points which will be raised, but I believe that many of them can be better examined in detail when we come to the Committee Stage. I think all of us have experience of the misery caused by “dodgers”, and we know of the tragic situation of many wives whose maintenance is not paid. The innovation to which the Minister referred, to give a magistrate’s court the right to overrule or vary an order of the Supreme Court, is certainly an innovation and it will be interesting to see how it works out in practice. With the Minister, I must say that it strikes me as being quite contrary to my conception of things that such a power should be given. There are. of course, exceptional circumstances. That is a matter about which we can have a further debate at a later stage of the Bill.

The provisions in relation to payments of maintenance to institutions certainly seem to be a good thing, but I would like to make this plea to the Minister. I have seen these maintenance courts in operation and I have considered it very tragic to see these people queueing up in order to see whether their maintenance has been paid. I think the Minister would be doing a real service if he saw to it that the unfortunate persons who have to go to a court such as this to enforce maintenance will be able to wait in privacy before their case comes along. I have seen wives standing in queues with children, and that is quite wrong, and something should be done about it.

As the Minister said, this is experimental legislation. We will watch it with great interest, and we can only hope that it will contribute something towards the solution of the many problems resulting from the fact that wives have been deserted and their maintenance is not paid. We can only hope that the Bill will be successful. At a later stage we will be able to go into details more fully. I know of other hon. members here who have made a close study of the Bill, and who will draw the Minister’s attention to some points so that he can give them thought and be ready to deal with them in the Committee Stage. But in general we believe it is right that a measure of this sort should be before the House and that it should find its place on the Statute Book in the appropriate form.

We on the Government side are very grateful to the Minister for having come forward with this Maintenance Bill. Almost every Member of Parliament, as the Minister has correctly pointed out, has to deal with maintenance cases at some time or other. I had a case myself where a woman asked me to help to trace her husband who was no longer paying maintenance for her and her children. We are all aware of the fact that a maintenance order can be obtained very easily from the court, but it is not such an easy matter to enforce the order. When an order is made in a divorce case, which can only be heard by the Supreme Court, and the order is not carried out, then an action has to be instituted in the Supreme Court, usually for contempt of court, in order to compel such a person to pay maintenance. I am pleased that provision is being made in this Bill that such a maintenance order made by the Supreme Court can now be varied by the maintenance court. What has struck me particularly is Clause 5 (3), which provides that no person whose presence is not required at a court inquiry, may be present except with the permission of the court. These cases will now be held in camera. I want to go further. I shall be glad if the Minister will consider the question of further tightening up the provisions of this section by forbidding the publication of anything that happens in such a court. The Press makes money out of the sorrow of people who appear before such a court. to-day it is still within the discretion of the magistrate to allow persons to be present in court but I would like to take that discretionary power out of the hands of the court entirely and ask that no person other than those concerned with the case should be allowed to be present.

Then it would appear from Clause 11 (a) that the Press may be admitted to the court because it says that no person may publish the name or address of any person under the age of 18 years who is concerned with such an inquiry. It would appear therefore that the Press will have the right to be present at such an enquiry, and I shall be glad if the Minister will give his attention to this and, if necessary, forbid the Press entirely to attend such court proceedings. I have been advocating for a long time that the names of persons giving evidence at a preparatory examination should not be published until such time as the accused has been found guilty.

Clause 4 15) is also a good clause which we welcome and which will facilitate matters for the courts themselves. The court will not be loaded with the additional burden of collecting the money itself, because it will now be possible to hand over the court order to any person or to any welfare organization or attorney who can then see to it that the money is paid every month. There will also be proper control then and it will not be necessary for the court to review these orders constantly. This is a very welcome clause.

Clause 12 is also very welcome. I had a case of this kind in my constituency—and here I refer to 12 (2) which says that any notice under this section shall have precedence over any order of court requiring payments to be made from the salary, wages, remuneration or allowance aforesaid. As it is stated here, an order made by the Maintenance Court will constitute the first claim on a person’s salary, but recently I had a case where a man had been married twice and had children with both wives, and he neglected to pay maintenance to all the children. What would happen in such a case? Which order would have precedence; or would his whole salary be attached and divided pari passu between the two? I shall be glad if the Minister will go into that. Clause 14 (1) and (2) in terms of which a person who has to pay maintenance will now be obliged to notify his change of address, will be greatly welcomed by Members of Parliament, because to-day we have to help these people to trace their husbands. We know how difficult it is to trace such persons. The police are unable to do so; the court does not have the necessary staff, and that is why these people are able to evade the obligation to pay maintenance. This clause is a very welcome one therefore. Generally speaking this Bill will be a great blessing to women who find themselves in the difficult position of trying to get maintenance for themselves and their children out of a husband who refuses to pay.

Mr. THOMPSON; I think we all welcome this Bill, and I think it is a very enlightened measure. Apart from some criticisms, some of which are of a serious nature, we do welcome the Bill.

I think it is important to appreciate exactly what it does. It deals with two classes of cases. Firstly, where there is no maintenance order in existence; and secondly where there is a maintenance order in existence which has to be varied. As far as the first is concerned, this Bill is consolidating. It gives us one clear Act in the place of all the old Acts and it further repeals Section 110 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1935. Not only does it make things clear, but it advances uniformity in the various provinces, which in this instance is an advantage. A man who has to pay maintenance does not always remain in one province and it is good that the procedure should always be the same.

In regard to the second type of case, where there is a maintenance order, it cuts through a lot of the obscurity we have had, and it introduces valuable innovations. It deals with the main class of maintenance orders, those where a variation is required. It will be cheaper and speedier, and it will be welcomed by those who deal with these matters and who hitherto have had to go to the Supreme Court at great expense to obtain a variation. It will be welcomed by lawyers, because no one knows better than they how often people with little money have to go to great expense to attain their objectives. I am sure it will be welcomed by the Judges, because although it introduces the innovation that an order of theirs may be varied by the magistrate’s court, it will take work from them and leave them time for more important tasks. I think in this regard the Minister made out a strong case for accepting this variation by a magistrate of a Supreme Court order. I think one must remember that in a case of this kind the facts will have changed since the Supreme Court order, and in any case there is an appeal from the magistrate’s court to the Supreme Court. But the variation can only be made following new facts which have occurred.

On this point, however, I would have been glad to know what attitude the van Winsen Commission adopted. I personally feel it is justified in the interests of speed and expense, but we are at a disadvantage in not knowing what the attitude of that commission was. The Minister will forgive me if I remind him that he had this report in his hands in February last year, and I think this commission must have dealt with the whole question of the Bill before the House, because it has a bearing on the high cost of litigation. We really would welcome very much the knowledge that that was supported by the commission, as we believe it must have been, and above all we would like to have a sight of this report at the earliest possible moment.

I think that a side-effect of this measure will be that the maintenance officer is going to be a very busy man. The hon. the Minister has said that in most cases the public prosecutor will take this task upon himself. I think it is going to be a new and interesting branch of work for him. I think he will find that he will have a terrific amount of paper work on his hands. However, that is all in the interests of a good cause, and I have no doubt that he will be given the necessary clerical backing to discharge his duties properly. He will be taking over the task that attorneys have discharged with credit for many years.

There are many provisions of this Bill— indeed a whole mass of the provisions—which meet with our favour. There is the right of appeal, there is the right to legal representation. The framework of our present procedures is, subject to what I shall say later, retained, and I fully agree with the Minister that a lot of thought must have gone into this measure. I feel that it is therefore a practical one which will work.

One could dwell more upon other points of procedure which are satisfactory but I choose to draw attention to one or two points which are not entirely satisfactory. Firstly, unlike the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) we do not like Clause 5 (3) at all. This is the clause which says that these maters shall as a general rule not be heard in open court. The general rule under the existing Acts is that these matters shall be heard in open court, and exceptionally they may be heard in camera. This Bill reverses that position. I must say, with respect, that I do not think the hon. the Minister brought powerful arguments to substantiate that. The hon. member for Prinshof did say that there was a lot of publicity in the Press. My own experience is that it happens very rarely that these maintenance cases are reported in the Press; indeed even in divorce matters it is rare, but particularly in the case of maintenance matters the Press is very astute to leave them alone, save in very rare cases where the parties are extremely well-known people. In such cases, if the position were left as it is, it would be open to the magistrate to impose a ban, if necessary, where there are young children involved or where there are particular circumstances. But I suggest that to depart from what has always been a rule of procedure in our courts, that as a general rule they are open to the public, and to substitute the exceptional position as the general rule, is wrong, and we do hope very much that the position will be restored to what it had been all these years.

Another clause to which the hon. the Minister did not direct himself very greatly, as far as I recall, is Clause 15 (a). It provides;

We have no objection to his prescribing the rules of procedure, but I suggest that it is a very, very far-reaching change for the Minister to be able to prescribe the rules of evidence. Indeed I do not know what rules the Minister has in mind; but I suggest that he would be embarking upon a thankless task and a very vast one if he sought to lay down the rules of evidence which shall apply. The various Acts, where inquiries of this kind are set up, do indeed allow rules to be made regarding procedure, but not so far as evidence is concerned. I refer in this connection to two which I have just quickly glanced at, namely the Mines, Works and Factories Act, No. 22 of 1941, Section 51 (m), and the Railways and Harbours Service Act, which is the recent one. I cannot give the actual section there, but I am quite certain that there is no provision there that rules of evidence may be laid down by regulation. I do not know at all what the Minister has in mind in coming with that suggestion, and I would remind him that the matter may go on appeal to the Supreme Court. I cannot see any reason for disturbing the ordinary rules, beyond what he has done in the Act, and which we have accepted.

The last point that I would like to touch upon in this connection is the position of the person against whom an order may be made. This Bill is being introduced primarily for people who are the recipients of maintenance, and who are perhaps not being paid their maintenance punctually or indeed at all by the person who should maintain them. But it is important to remember that, as I read it, it is perfectly open to, for example, a husband who is under order to pay maintenance to take advantage of these provisions and to apply for a reduction in maintenance; and he would probably be very wise to do so. But the particular point I make is this: The present position is that any maintenance order made by the Supreme Court may be varied only in the court where it was made. In other words, if there is a divorce action in Cape Town, the Cape Provincial Division makes the order of divorce and lays down the amount of maintenance. Any variation must come to the Cape courts. Now the position is being altered; and if the wife, for example, who receives maintenance moves to Durban, she may institute an inquiry in Durban, and the husband will then be obliged in defending his case to go up to Durban. Well, somebody has to go to a place where they can both meet; and I am very glad in that connection that the Bill provides for a certain allowance to be paid to such a person. At the same time I think it might have been considered whether perhaps a fuller allowance should not be paid to such a person. It is true that it will still be open to a husband in that position to approach the Cape court for a variation without being obliged to go to Durban, because his wife happens to be living there.

I have raised a few points of criticism, and there are one or two other small points which I think should properly be raised in Committee. But I repeat that we feel that this is a measure which cuts through a fairly tangled area of the law and substitutes a good procedure, and one which will be of great value to those who must try to obtain the maintenance which is their due. I am sure that this measure will therefore be welcomed not only by the public but by lawyers as well.

I should like to express my thanks to hon. members on both sides of the House for their support of the principles of this Bill and join them in expressing the hope that this Bill is going to bring about a new dispensation. I have noted the observations made by the hon. member for Germiston (District); I fully agree with him and I shall certainly see to it that what he has suggested is carried out in practice to the best of our ability.

As far as the attitude of the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) is concerned, the record of this inquiry will, of course, be a public document in the same way as all other court records, and even if the person should not be allowed to be present at the actual hearing of the case in terms of Clause 5 (3), it naturally goes without saying that because it is a public document he will still be able to peruse it later on. That is why it was necessary to insert the other clause to which he referred in order to protect young children.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) adopts the attitude that he does not like the provision that persons may only be present if they are allowed to be present by the presiding officer. His attitude is that he would prefer persons to be allowed to attend until such time as they are excluded from the court, and in this connection he referred to certain provisions in the old legislation. May I point out to the hon. member in passing that when those provisions were enacted, we most certainly did not have the situation that we have to-day; at that time we did not have as we have to-day, cheap newspapers and magazines which took a delight in this sort of sensation—the sorrow of mothers and children. Since the effect of our legislation, as far as children are concerned, is to protect those children at all costs against unsavoury publicity and since we are dealing here with very intimate domestic affairs, where in practically every case the interests of children are at stake, I do think that this House owes a duty to those children to protect them in this way. I honestly feel that this is not a matter in which the general public has an interest or ought to have an interest, and I feel therefore that it was the right thing to do to insert a provision of this nature.

The hon. member also wants to know from me what the attitude of the van Winsen Committee is in respect of this specific matter. This specific matter, as far as my memory of the report goes, was not mentioned in the report because it really had nothing to do with the substance of the report and because this Bill was drawn up, of course, after the report had already been framed. Amongst other things, the hon. member also made inquiries about that report. I can only inform him that the Judges’ Conference which sat here in Cape Town towards the end of January had the opportunity of discussing this report, amongst other things, and that that Judges’ Conference, with a few minor exceptions, accepted that report; that certain amendments will have to be made to the law before we shall be able to give effect to the recommendations contained in the report. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that that will be done as soon as possible, and that I submitted this report last year already to the Bar Council and the Side-bar Council so as to obtain their comments in this connection. [Interjections.] The hon. member and other hon. members will receive that report in due course, of course. I cannot say precisely how long it will take but it should not take very long before hon. members will be placed in possession of this report. I think, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) has said, that most of the other matters which have been raised here can be discussed more easily and should rather be discussed in the Committee Stage; we can then look at the matter objectively from all angles and see what amendments can be accepted to make this a better Bill. I say that in advance because we are breaking new ground here, and in this connection I should like to receive suggestions from hon. members on both sides so that we can launch this legislation in the best possible form. With those words I thank hon. members for their support as far as the principle of this matter is concerned.

I move—

This Bill has already gone through all the stages in the Other Place and, as in the case of the previous Bill, I am convinced that this Bill will be heartily welcomed by hon. members on both sides of the House. The main principle of this Bill is embodied in Clause 3 which increases the jurisdiction of our magistrates’ courts in respect of causes of action. Clause 3 provides that magistrates’ courts will have jurisdiction in respect of causes of action in—

1. (a) actions in which is claimed the delivery or transfer of any property, movable or immovable, not exceeding R 1,000 in value.

As hon. members are aware, of course, the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts in respect of (a) has been limited hitherto to the sum of £200 or R400. Hon. members are also aware of the fact that this amount of £200 or R400 was fixed in 1917. All that we seek to do in this Bill, having regard to the decline in the value of our monetary unit, is to bring the jurisdiction of our magistrates’ courts into line once again with what it was in 1917. I went to the authorities of the Reserve Bank in order to determine what the value is to-day of £200 in 1917, and the assurance was given to me that R400 in 1917 is equivalent to-day to R926, but it is impossible to fix the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts at R926 and we are therefore fixing the amount at R1,000. I think that will give general satisfaction to the public. It is annoying in these days in which we live to have to make a claim for £250, when there is no intricate legal principle involved, to the Supreme Court with the great expense that that involves, and if it was correct, as we all believe it was, to fix the jurisdiction at £200 in 1917, then I think we are all agreed that the amount ought to be increased now to R 1,000. The Bill does not deal with causes of action in that connection only; in the second instance it deals with—

1. (b) actions of ejectment against the occupier of any premises or land within the district: Provided that where the right of occupation of any such premises or land is in dispute between the parties, such right does not exceed R 1,000 in clear value to the occupier.

I think hon. members who have experience of cases of this nature will agree with me that it is a good thing to increase it to that amount. Thirdly, it deals with—

1. (c) actions for the determination of a right of way, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 46.

Fortunately fewer and fewer of these actions are instituted nowadays, but it is nevertheless a good thing to make the necessary provision in this Bill. Then hon. members will see that the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts in respect of liquid documents is being fixed at R2.000. In most cases there is no principle involved in claims arising out of liquid documents and there is no necessity whatsoever to go to the expense of going to the Supreme Court where a claim based on a liquid document does not exceed R2.000. Fifthly, provision is being made for actions arising out of the sale of goods sold under the Hire-purchase Act and for any other action for which specific provision is not made here where the amount in dispute does not exceed R1,000. The Side-Bar. which was consulted in this connection, wholeheartedly agrees, of course, that the jurisdiction should be increased. The van Winsen Committee also consulted all other interested parties in this connection. It goes without saying that this is one method whereby we hope to reduce the cost of litigation and, as I think will happen to a large extent, to keep unnecessary work away from our Supreme Courts which, in the circumstances, are already overloaded with work.

As I have said, these are the main principles of this Bill. As far as the majority of the clauses of this Bill are concerned, we need not deal with them therefore. We must give our attention at this second reading, however, to Clauses 18,19 and 20. In the first place I draw hon. members’ attention to Clause 18. As our law stands at the moment the position is that when a case is taken on appeal and the magistrate’s reasons are asked for, those reasons have to be asked for by the court. All that we are now doing in this clause is that we are giving the presiding Judge the opportunity, even before the sitting of the court, to ask the magistrate concerned for his reasons. That will save a great deal of time, of course, and this is a clause which can be welcomed therefore.

Then we received a request from the Transvaal Bench to include Clause 19. Hon. members who are lawyers are aware of the fact that it is already an accepted principle of our law that no person shall be entitled to prosecute in person any appeal before the Supreme Court unless he is in possession of a certificate from a Judge to the effect that there are reasonable prospects of his appeal being successful. At the present time, however, our law does not contain this provision as far as reviews are concerned. Now that that loophole is being closed, the Transvaal Bench, which has been unnecessarily burdened, will be given some measure of relief. What happens at the present time is that prisoners note an appeal, and they do so so as to be able to get out of prison for a day. Hon. members will notice that this has nothing to do with people who are not in prison. They can still prosecute their appeal in person if they wish to do so. This clause relates only to persons serving sentences of imprisonment. When they note an appeal, it enables them in the first instance to get out of prison for a day with all the adventure that goes with it, but unfortunately it also gives them an opportunity to escape, and that is in fact what happens in some cases. They lodge an appeal, not because they expect to be successful or because they have a real grievance, but they do so for the reason that I have mentioned, and unfortunately they do so on the advice of our unfortunate brothers in the profession who have also landed in that institution and who then give them the necessary advice as to what they should do. Since this request emanates mainly from the Transvaal Bench, I have not the slightest hesitation in asking hon. members to give their support also to this principle of the Bill.

Clause 20 of the Bill is also important. Hon. members will recall that we inserted the provision, one with which I agree, that a decision by a magistrate shall not be set aside unless the reasons of the magistrate as to why he came to that decision are available. In that connection certain judgments gave rise to dissatisfaction, and I think it is only right and proper, before a magistrate’s judgment is set aside, that the reasons for his decision should be ascertained from him. But it may happen that the magistrate’s reasons are not available immediately. He may be ill or he may be away on leave or there may be other reasons as to why his reasons are not available immediately, and in those circumstances it is not really fair to a convicted person who is in custody to keep him in prison, and that is why provision is made in Clause 20 that such a person may be released on bail by the magistrate of the district in which the person who has been convicted is in custody. He can be released on bail if it appears that the Judge before whom the record has been placed has not endorsed his certificate thereon in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 98. This will ensure that, under those circumstances, people are not kept in custody unnecessarily.

This is another Bill with which we agree in principle and we shall not oppose the second reading. It is a Bill which deals with a large number of matters relating to the administration of justice. There will no doubt be considerable discussion when we come to the later stages of the measure. I do wish to refer to some of the matters which have been dealt with by the hon. the Minister. In the first place I would like to refer to the increase in the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court. We have been told that the provisions contained in this Bill are in accord with the provisions of the report of Mr. Justice van Winsen. I would say, Sir, that I believe that for a long time it has been felt that it was time when the jurisdiction of our magistrates' courts should be brought in line with the reduced value of money compared with the position as it existed when the legislation was originally introduced.

I know that one of the problems which has disturbed many of us in the legal profession is whether this would in any way detrimentally affect a very important section of the legal community, namely those young men who have qualified and who have gone to the Bar and who, of course, in some measure—certainly in their earlier years—have to rely of necessity on work in which the amount involved is not unduly high. It is very important, Sir, that we should have that class of persons, that group of persons, in our legal system, namely the young advocates. It is very important that we should have a plentiful supply of them because it is from those young men that in the due course of time our senior advocates and in due course our Judges are drawn. All of us are tremendously proud not only of the very high traditions of South Africa so far as the judiciary is concerned, but also of the very high standard of our magistrates and the very high standard of those who have to appear before them, whether it be in the lower or the higher court. For the moment, Sir, I am talking more particularly of the half of the legal profession to which I do not belong, namely the advocates. I would say this, Sir, I believe it is absolutely vital to the continued health of our legal system that there should be attracted to the legal profession the best men we can possibly get, so as to fill up from below the gaps which will come in due course of time. I know that there has been a feeling in some quarters that the proposals made by Mr. Justice van Winsen. now accepted by the Government for which we in this House bear the final responsibility, have caused a measure of concern as to whether this would not have a deleterious effect. I am hoping, Sir, that it will have the exact opposite effect. I believe that one of the main training grounds for the young advocates should be the magistrate’s court, whether it be in criminal matters or in civil matters. I hope very much indeed that the increase in the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court will lead not to a decreased use of our young junior advocates in the magistrates’ courts, but in fact to an increased use of them in that field. I rather believe. Sir. that that will be found to be the case. Accordingly. Sir, I think that this particular provision is one of very great importance. I hope it is not going to prove to be something which will detract from the very splendid system of administration of justice which we have built up but which will in the early years give even wider opportunity and greater experience to our young advocates, because that can only be to the good of South Africa in the maintenance of the really outstanding services in many fields of members in the legal profession in preserving the integrity of our courts and the integrity of our legal system. I must say that for myself, I believe that the very foundation of civilization is the rule of law and I hope these young men will get full opportunity: I believe they will. I do not believe it is going to react against them.

It is true that in respect of these matters there will also be lower costs, i.e. in respect of some which would have fallen outside the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court but will now come within it. I would like to say this to the hon. the Minister that I believe that in the proposal which he has submitted to this House, he is supported by commerce. It is no secret that in respect of transactions which normally would fall outside of the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court, it has become relatively common that there shall be the inclusion of a clause which, in terms of the magistrate’s court, gives jurisdiction to the magistrate’s court to decide cases arising from the particular contract. Such a provision will be found in most hire-purchase agreements, in many mortgage bonds and in a whole host of different types of contracts in the field of commerce. I believe that the reason that that is so is because there has been an undue delay in the civil field, so far as our administration of justice is concerned, in taking matters to the Supreme Court and the longer proceedings which that results in. I am hoping that this will be something that will remedy that to an extent. I personally believe that it is likely to prove something which will help in that regard.

There is a large number of other matters in this measure to which one could refer. There are ever so many provisions which are of importance. Some are of an experimental nature but there will be another opportunity of dealing with those. Hon. members on this side will deal with certain aspects of them to-day. When we come to the Committee Stage there will be a full examination. I would conclude, Sir, by saying that, just like the previous measure with which we have dealt, this is a measure where we believe—at this stage there is no ground for opposition—when we come to the Committee Stage, where certain difficulties will be offered, we may be able to find common cause with the hon. the Minister, because I believe all of us can best discharge our responsibility by ensuring that the measures which we put on the Statute Book are the right measures, and I hope, as far as possible, measures which enjoy the overwhelming support of this Chamber.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.): I merely rise to give our blessing also from this side of the House to this Bill and to express our gratitude to the Minister for it. I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that this Bill will in two respects particularly benefit the legal set-up and the legal profession and that is, in the first instance, that this increased jurisdiction must of necessity lower legal costs. In the second instance there will be opportunity for these cases to be heard much sooner, for the simple reason that the Supreme Court rolls are so full that it often takes months before a case is heard.

I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) when he said that this increased jurisdiction would be to the advantage of the young advocates at the Bar. I only have experience of one Bar and that is the one of which I was a member, namely the Bloemfontein Bar. There it has in any case become customary for attorneys to brief counsel’ to appear in the magistrate's court. It simply means that those young advocates, because it is usually the young advocates who are briefed to appear in the magistrate’s court, will in future have more work to do. Thus they will gain the very necessary experience to which the hon. member has referred.

I think there is another section of the profession that will benefit by this Bill and that is the section of the profession to which the hon. member for Germiston (District) belongs, namely the attorneys’ profession. I think that if we can do anything to give the country attorney more work and to give him a greater opportunity to earn a decent living, we ought to avail ourselves of that opportunity. The country attorney either means nothing to us in which case his profession must disappear, or he means a great deal to society in which case we must look after him. I definitely think that he does mean something to the South African nation and that he has an important function to fulfil. That is why I think we should look after him. It so happens that in the ordinary course young advocates—unless it is a very important case—are not briefed to appear in the magistrate’s court in faraway country districts. Due to this increased jurisdiction there will be more work in the country districts and the country attorneys will have a greater opportunity to earn a decent living. That is why I also want to give our blessing from this side of the House to this Bill.

Let me say at the outset that I fully agree with and heartily endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I agree with him and the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) and I do not think for one moment that this Bill will adversely affect junior counsel for the reasons expressed by these two hon. members. I do not know what the position is in Cape Town but I think the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) will agree with me that it is practice in Johannesburg where we both practised, to brief junior counsel in magistrate’s court cases. Attorneys are too busy and it simply does not pay them in most cases to hang around the magistrates’ courts for a day. I think that junior counsel will find that they will get more instead of fewer briefs if this Bill is passed.

*In those circumstances I also wish to associate myself very heartily with what the hon. member for Smithfield has said in regard to the attorneys’ profession. I have on a previous occasion stated it repeatedly in this House, and ( wish to repeat it, that while I agree heartily with the hon. member for Germiston (District! that we can only have a sound legal set-up if we have a sound Bar, it is abundantly clear that you cannot have a sound Bar and a sound legal set-up if you do not have a strong and sound and independent Side-Bar which has to carry everybody. I, therefore, wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Smithfield in that regard. I wish to thank hon. members for the support they have given this Bill. If there are legally trained members on either side of the House who wish to make suggestions when we go into Committee, hon. members know from experience that I have an open mind as far as these matters arc concerned and that I will discuss their suggestions with Them on their merits.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to say very little about this Bill because it is a Bill which should really not have been discussed in this House. For 90 per cent this Bill is merely a translation of an old Act which is partly in Dutch and in other parts only in English because it dates from the previous century. I say it is mainly a translation and a consolidation of existing measures and that is why it is not necessary for me to deal with it in detail.

The first part deals with justices of the peace. Clause I of the Bill simply brings about a change in the existing position in so far as the last words of the clause are concerned, namely in the English text “or may declare any such district to be a ward” and in the Afrikaans “of kan so ’n distrik tot in wyk verklaar ”. We are merely adding those words because the position was not clear as to whether a district had of necessity to be divided into wards or whether a district itself could also be a ward.

Clause 2 provides for the Minister to appoint as many justices of the peace as he deems desirable but not more than six in respect of any ward. The position, of course, remains the same that a justice of the peace who has thus been appointed only occupies that position as long as it pleases the Minister. The provision is the same as that in the old Act. It will interest members to find that reference is still made to field-cornets in Clause 3. We, of course, no longer have that word. We do no use it to-day, but it appears in this clause be cause it has been taken over from the old Field-cornets Ordinance of 1848 and reference has to be made to them here because certain duties are placed on field-cornets in terms of that Ordinance in connection with shin wrecks and ships’ goods which are washed ashore and so forth.

The second part of this Bill deals with commissioners of oaths. In the main, as I have said, we are dealing here with a consolidation and a translation of the existing law in respect of this matter. The only thing hon. members will miss in this Bill is the very long schedule—I think it consisted of something like 30 to 40 pages— which was attached to the old Act. It is not attached here but it is laid down in Clause 6 that the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, designate the holder of any office as a commissioner of oaths for any area specified in such notice, and may in like manner withdraw or amend any such notice. That of course, is also the position in respect of the old Act, except that there we had Schedules I and II. For the sake of convenience Schedules I and II have been done away with and in future the Minister will designate the various positions which will mean that those who occupy those positions or practise those professions are appointed as commissioners of oaths., I think the Bill states the position very clearly and is in the main the same as existing legislation. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for me to say anything further. I move.

This Bill which the hon. the Minister has placed before us to-day is another measure in respect of which there will be a great measure of unanimity in this House. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very glad that this opportunity has been taken to consolidate our Acts which are difficult to lay your hands on; some date back as far as 1914 and even further. I think it is desirable that those Acts should be consolidated. We have no objection in principle against this Bill and this side of the House will, therefore, give it its full support.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, if ever a measure has been introduced in this House in respect of which there has been the greatest measure of discussion and consultation, then it is this Bill. These discussions and consultations took place over a long period of time. There has, therefore, been ample opportunity to consider it thoroughly. On 6 June 1957 the Cape Provincial Council requested the Administrator to make urgent representations to the Central Government to take over Coloured Education. Pursuant to that I appointed a departmental committee in 1959 of the Department of Coloured Affairs to investigate the matter and to report in connection with the implications involved in the transfer of Coloured education. This committee negotiated with the four provincial administrations and in consultation with them made a very thorough study of the implications. The report of this Departmental Committee was then made available to the Schumann Commission which was investigating the financial relationship between the Central Government and the province and in its report the Schumann Commission paid tribute to the work done by this Committee. On page 10 of its report the Schumann Commission says this—

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of also expressing my appreciation to this Committee and of associating myself with what was said by the Schumann Commission.

Subsequently there were consultations with numerous school boards in connection with the matter. Furthermore there were consultations with church bodies or individuals from various churches who had expressed the desire to discuss the matter, with the Department or with me as Minister: It is a fact that the great majority of approximately 10,700 Coloured teachers in the Republic are not organized in any teachers’ association. Not one of the associations which exist to-day can therefore speak on behalf of the Coloured teachers in an organized way. The great majority of them do not belong to any association. Before it was decided to continue with this measure, therefore, I instructed the Secretary of Coloured Affairs and the under-secretary, who is himself an expert, to afford every teacher, by way of a series of 40 regional meetings, to air his views on this matter and to gain first-hand knowledge. The Secretary and under-secretary addressed between 6,000 and 7,000 Coloured teachers in all the four provinces at these 40 regional meetings which were held throughout the Republic. This series of conferences was concluded towards the end of last year by way of a large conference, representative of every region of the. Republic, on the 14 December here in Cape Town.

For the rest there have been consultations with the Union Board of Coloured Affairs which appointed a special teaching committee and their views were taken into full consideration in respect of these steps. Furthermore during the 1962 Session of Parliament, when my Vote was under discussion, I already announced, on behalf of the Government that it had been decided to take over Coloured Education. Ample notice has therefore been given to the public and to the country. The interim report of the Schumann Commission was at that time already at the disposal of the Government and was subsequently released. It is very clear from this report that the Cape Province, where approximately 90 per cent of the Coloured people live, can no longer carry the big financial burden of Coloured education. The Commission also states on page 91—

And on page 89 they say—

They are referring to the Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State. I think, therefore, that on the strength of the Schumann Commission’s finding, I am entitled to state that, from the point of view of the provinces, and from the financial point of view, it will be to the great relief of the provinces and particularly to the Cape Province which has to carry the largest section of this national group. The Schumann report also proves, particularly on pages 136 and 138 that no additional expenditure worth mentioning will be incurred by this transfer. I refer hon. members specifically to the Schumann report in connection with the capital and current financial implications connected with Coloured education in respect of each province and in the event of it being taken over by the State. There are many interesting figures. I do not want to weary the House by quoting all of them. I merely wish to refer to a few. According to this report the position is that, without compulsory education, which they only have in Natal and partly in the Cape Province in terms of an Ordinance which does make education compulsory provided certain conditions are complied with, the total current expenditure amounted to R22,196,000 in the year 1961-2. The commission estimates that in 1970-1 the current expenditure will be R44,144,000. With compulsory education it will rise from the present figure of R22,196,000 to R47,922,000. Capital expenditure, without compulsory education, will rise from the present figure of R2,094,000 to R2,900,000 and, with compulsory education, from R3,272,000 to R6,138,000. The grand total, therefore, without compulsory education, will rise from R24,290,000 to R47,044,000.

Without compulsory education we have a total of 347,730 Coloured children at school in the Republic and 10,793 teachers. Furthermore we have 13 teachers’ colleges. While the average annual increase in students has risen from plus/ minus 5 per cent to plus/minus 7 per cent during the past 20 years, the increase in the number of students at mission schools has remained more or less constant at plus /minus 3 per cent per annum, while the percentage growth in Government schools has risen from 7 per cent to more than 10 per cent per annum. I want to express the conviction this evening that the State will not be able to evade undertaking this ever-growing task nor will it be able, in the long run, to place it on the shoulders of others. It follows logically, therefore, that the Department of Coloured; Affairs which is geared to the social and economic upliftment of the Coloured people must also exercise control over the education of this national group. As progress is made with the social economic policy of upliftment, and there is tangible proof of progress, the Coloured people will to an increasing extent be able to s make a direct contribution to their education and the costs connected with it. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, the Department is already controlling vocational education, special schools, as well as industrials schools and reformatories for Coloureds. The administration; and control of the Cape Western University College have also been entrusted to the Department since the 1 April 1962.

No proper socio-economic upliftment plan can be properly carried out in respect of this i national group and its legitimate frustrations remedied, unless its education is undertaken with this object in view. Education is not, after all, only a means of gaining knowledge. It; is i the road along which the child is trained to serve his community, his people and his country to the extent to which he has been endowed with talent.

, Ever since the earliest days of, the settlement, at the Cape the tendency has bjleen to create, for the Coloureds in South Africa their own, parallel training facilities. Since 1893 the Cape Education Department made definite attempts to establish separate schools for Whites and non-Whites. That was laid down in legislation in 1911. In the Transvaal the principle was laid down in Ordinance No. 7 of 1903. This policy has already been followed for many years in the Orange Free State; in Natal, in particular, since 1900.

What we are suggesting here to-day, therefore, is in conformity with South Africa’s traditional policy; it is another step in the application of the Government’s socio-economic upliftment policy; it is in conformity with the principle which the lagger Commission already pleaded for as long ago as 1916 as l far as education was concerned; and it is an effort to remedy the defects which the Hofmeyr Commission pointed out as long ago as 1924. This step must of necessity bring about considerable financial relief to the provinces, and particularly to the Cape Province.

Along this proposed road education will be planned as an undivided whole so that proper provision will be made for every group from the creche to the university college, and in respect of the most academic courses on the one hand to the most practical courses on the other hand. This urgent and necessary differentiation must become a reality, and as soon as possible.

That this is true has been strongly emphasized by important employer organizations in numerous discussions which I have had as recently as a week ago They have appealed to me to take positive steps and to take the power whereby this process could be started.

Whatever we achieve in the form of success for the Coloureds in this way and in other ways, will also benefit South Africa and the White section Of South Africa which has to live with the Coloureds in a spirit of good neighbourliness in our country and to make this country safe for the generations to come.

In this regard I wish to refer to a few very interesting extracts which have come into my possession, firstly, from a few theses for the M.Sc. degree, as well as from a work by a lecturer at a well-known college. I quote from Baer, who wrote the following in his thesis for his M.Sc. degree—

Then I wish to quote what Marais said when he wrote the following for his M.Sc. degree—

I wish to quote from another writing—

The person, whom I have just quoted is an inspector who has particular knowledge of this subject. 'J'

As far as this point is concerned, therefore, suffice it to say that apart from the financial aspect which has become a matter of urgency as far as the province is concerned, and in respect of which the Government had to make a quick decision, a decision which it made last year, everybody who had anything to do with the promotion and development of the Coloured people, is becoming more and more convinced that it is of the utmost importance that their education should form part of the whole idea of the socio-economic policy of upliftment which has to be followed in respect of the Coloureds if they have to play their part in South Africa in future in the interests of the country and in their own interests, and consequently also in the interests of White South Africa.

I now wish to deal with a few provisions of the Bill itself. I do not think this is the occasion on which to go into the details of all the clauses. I wish to confine myself to the clauses of the Bill which give direction and which are positive.

This Bill provides that even when transferred Church schools will continue to exist. Government assistance will, however, in future be given by the Department of Coloured Affairs and no longer by the provinces once it has been transferred.

During the negotiations and consultations Church institutions as well as individuals indicated that for various reasons they wanted to transfer their schools to the State. That is why provision is made for that in Clause 5 but we also added the provision that that will only take place after there has been proper consultation between the two parties.

I wish to refer hon. members to the provisions of Clause 21 which ensures that proper standards of education will be maintained. I can answer to the fear which is sometimes expressed, more particularly by malicious elements, that the standards will be lowered, by saying that the same accusation was made when institutions such as the Cape Western University College, the industrial schools, the technical schools and the reformatories were transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs. I do not wish to express any opinion nor do I wish to make any promises but the best I can do is to invite those critics to go and ascertain for themselves what standards are being maintained at those institutions which are already under the control of our Department.

As is the case in the education ordinances and education laws which the Department administrates, the Minister is also empowered here, in Clause 34. to issue regulations. It must be borne in mind particularly that at the present moment each province has its own set of regulations and that fact will have to be considered when new regulations are made, intet alia, to protect as far as possible also existing! rights which may exist in a certain province. 1

I also wish to -refer hon. members to the! provisions of Clauses 12 and 13 which were drafted in consultation with the provincial administrations and the Department of Pensions. I think that everybody will be satisfied as far as the pension rights of Coloured teachers are concerned.

Another provision which is of importance is to be found in Clause 32. It provides for the parents to have a proper share in the new setup. and nobody disputes their right to that share.

Attention is also drawn to Clauses 30 and 31 in terms of which an education board will be established to advise the Minister. This board will consist of Coloureds with the exceptions laid down in the Bill. This board will also be in a position to consult with the National Education Advisory Board and I think the fact that this opportunity is being given to the Coloured educationists in the county is an important step forward.

As hon. members will have noticed certain provisions in this Bill are of a consolidating nature, in this sense that certain clauses deal with vocational education and special education for Coloureds, education which the Department already administrates. A number of Clauses deal with the rights and privileges of teachers as well as with the disciplinary code. The provisions dealing with the rights of teachers and the disciplinary code have been formulated the way they have after very thorough consultation. I think if there were one outstanding thing in the discussions which took place at all the conferences it was the problems which confronted the Coloured teachers to get a proper basis for an effective disciplinary code. If there is one burden which well-meaning and enthusiastic Coloured teachers have to carry to-day, it is the burden of being the victims of elements which want to use education and the schools for something other than those well-meaning teachers want to use them for.

I just want to say this evening that those teachers who devote themselves to the task of educating the youth have nothing to fear from the Department and myself. I assure those who render devoted service, and I think they constitute the greater majority of these 10,000 teachers, that the Department will encourage and assist them wherever possible.

I want to appeal to hon. members to regard this measure as a step forward but I want to go further and say that it must also convince the public that the Government is serious in laying a sounder basis in future on which the Coloured section of the South African nation will be able to make its contribution in its own way, towards the building up of South Africa. May I ask—I know that my request will not be in vain—that we discuss this Bill in a spirit of self control. The example set by the numerous conferences held by Coloured teachers in connection with this matter, conferences which were attended by between 6,000 and 7,000, can well he emulated by us when we consider this measure.

In conclusion I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the provincial administration for what they Have done in this field, often under difficult circumstances. I also wish to express my gratitude to the various Church organizations who have done such a great deal in the field of Coloured education, also under very difficult circumstances. I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to all other institutions and bodies who have so readily assisted us in order to enable us to come to a final decision. In particular I wish to express my gratitude to the Schumann Commission who made the facts available to us in such an effective and efficient manner and so quickly.

I want to start by expressing my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the calm and composed manner in which he put his case this evening. I will try to deal with the problem in the same way. We have to deal here with a matter which may have far-reaching results, and which, as far as South Africa, her society and the composition of her national groups are concerned, may bring a new set-up into being, a new set-up which will not only affect the Coloureds but which will also affect the Whites, a set-up which may be to the advantage or to the detriment of our country and of the national groups in our country.

It is our duty therefore. I think, to approach this matter objectively and of course, positively as well, and with a full sense of responsibility. Then we will do no harm to the cause which we are trying to serve, namely, education. The hon. Minister said that he hoped that we would exercise self-control. That will be so. But then I also want to express the hope that my hon. friends on the other side will also give me the same opportunity and will do me the honour of listening to me while I discuss this matter.

In considering this project, 1 want to go back into our South African history, and particularly into the history of the education of our Coloured people. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we had to deal with the Coloured people of South Africa from the first days of our existence. They were found here at the Cape when Jan van Riebeeck landed here, and shortly afterwards slaves were imported. The first school at the Cape was established in 1658 with a comforter of the sick (sieke trooster) as the head of that school. The second school was established in 1663. just after Jan van Riebeeck had left, and our information is that there were 17 pupils in that school, 12 White, 4 slave child-en and. as we are told. “een Hottentoosje ”. But the State as such, the Government as such, the Dutch East India Company, the authorities, were little interested in the education of their subjects, whether Coloured people or slaves, and soon this question of the education of both Whites and Coloureds and the slaves was left in the hands of the religious organizations. The religious societies taught the children of our Coloured people and their parents with a certain purpose in mind. This aim was of course to prepare them for the church, to enable them to read their Bible and to sing—in other words, to become members of the Church. Here I would like to quote what Professor J. S. Marais has to say in connection with this matter—

Although this education was apparently superficial, we are grateful, as is the hon. the Minister, to these religious societies, which were actually the forerunners of our present-day education in this country, and we are grateful to them in that when others failed to look after the education of our national groups, they stepped into the breach and, directly and indirectly, played a tremendous role and had a salutary influence particularly upon our non-White people. I think that this is also one of the reasons why our Coloured people are to-day so religious—because the religious societies looked after their education for such a long time.

Before the freeing of the slaves, the Coloured children also attended what were known as “State-aided schools for slave children and for White children ”. These children attended school together at the Cape. The State itself, however, as I said, took very little interest in education and—as the hon. the Minister also said—it was only in 1807 that the State established a school for slave children here in Cape Town. In 1823 and 1826 a proclamation was issued to -the effect that slave owners living in the vicinity of what was then known as a “free school” were compelled to send their slave children to that school. The slave owners, however, paid little attention to that proclamation. In the rural areas themselves, not only here but throughout South Africa, the education, even of the White people, was very sketchy indeed, and where a farmer was able to afford his own teacher, very often a migrant sailor, to teach his children, he was not inclined to allow his slave children to be taught with his own children in the same building.

After the freeing of the slaves the slave schools of course disappeared and the missionaries became practically completely responsible for the education of the non-White section of our population in South Africa. Firstly, as I said. Coloureds and Whites attended the same schools and sat together there, but slowly but surely the tradition developed throughout South Africa that these groups should be separated, and separate schools were established, or rather let me say. schools for the Whites were established. At that time little attention was given to the interests of the Coloured child. Here I want to quote what Dale said in connection with the matter. Langham Dale was Superintendent-General of Education in the nineteenth century and in one of his reports he indicated why so little attention was given to the education of Coloured children. This is interesting, particularly in the slight of the prejudice which still exists in South Africa to-day—

He wrote this in 1889, and one can therefore rightly say that in the nineteenth century, as somebody else expressed it in some document or other, education envisaged “the prevention of illiteracy and total educational destitution amongst the European population ”. They were not interested in the non-Whites but only in the Whites.

This then was the position prior to Union in the Cape Province, and although the Union Government accepted financial responsibility for education in South Africa from 1924, the Coloured people were still neglected. There was no equal treatment for them as far as education was concerned and for many years thereafter they were still unfortunately dealt with in a step-motherly fashion. In 1924. however, we find that the Union contribution in the Cape Province was as follows: for a White child £15 per child per year and for a Coloured child only £5 5s. per child per year. While the population of the Cape Province in 1935-6 was Whites 791,394, and non-Whites 681,834, the contribution in respect of the White school children amounted to £3.000,000 and was only £500,000 in respect of the non-Whites. Although matters have greatly improved over the past few years, the provision for Coloured Education in all the provinces, as I will show further just now. still leaves much to be desired and the education of the Coloured is unsatisfactory. The question accordingly arises: Who is responsible for the fact that this aspect of education has been so grossly neglected—the Provincial Council, the Provincial Administrations or the State? Why too have the provinces not received the necessary funds? I am not speaking now about a specific Government but about the State. After Union, the State failed over the years to make sufficient funds available to the provinces to place education on a satisfactory basis.

At the moment it is estimated that in respect of the Cape Province alone there are between 60.0 and 100.000 Coloured children of school-going age who are not at school. The question now arises as to what improvement one can expect under the new regime, the regime contained in this Bill, and whether an improvement has not been or is not also possible in respect of the Coloured children and their schools under provincial control?

But before I come to that and to my amendment, I would like to point out a few other aspects of this question. Towards the end of 1961 there were 1,618 Coloured schools in South Africa. As the hon. the Minister also said, there were 10,059 Coloured teachers at these Coloured schools and more than 330,000 (at present 347,000) school-going children. Of this number, the Cape had 90 per cent of the schools, 84 per cent of the teachers and 86 per cent of the pupils. Of the 1,456 schools for *Coloured children in the Cape, 1,257 were mission schools and only 199 were undenominational or State schools under school boards. The large number of mission schools will perhaps create trouble for or give the hon. the Minister a headache as far as their transfer is concerned. The salaries paid to teachers both at the mission schools and the undenominational schools are paid by the province.

Before coming to the Union itself I would just like to refer briefly to the Transvaal and the other provinces. From 1860 a start was made with Coloured education at mission schools in the Transvaal, firstly, by the Dutch Reformed Church and afterwards also by the Wesleyan Church, the Berlin Church Society, the. Hermannsburg Church Society, the Anglican Church, the Swiss Mission Society and* so forth. There too, Coloured children were admitted to White schools, but the subsidies to this type of school were soon stopped with the result that they ceased to function. The Whites did receive their education but very little was done for the education of the Coloured children until 1902 when the subsidy system was introduced and State schools for Coloureds were started. In 1907 they were all taken over as State schools and dealt with in the same way as in the case of schools for Whites. In 1962 the following was the position in the Transvaal: Purely Coloured schools, 42—I hope that in his reply the hon. the Minister will give me some information in regard to the following point and the way in which he is going to approach this matter—and mixed schools for Coloureds and Asiatics, 38. There were 1,086 teachers and the number of pupils was 31,659. In Natal we find just about the same position. There too the children attended school together at the start and sat together in the same benches in the same schools until such time as a change was effected and the schools were separated. For example, in 1854 the position in the Verulam school—Verulam was at that stage a leading town—was that there were 14 Coloured children out of a total of 50 pupils. There too the two groups attended the same school. At the moment in Natal, where all schools are State schools, there are 13,0 pupils.

In the Free State we have more or less the same position as well. I do not want to deal any further with this point but merely want to indicate what the position was at the end of 1962; There were 39 Coloured schools, 164 teachers and 4,594 pupils. That is briefly the background of our educational facilities for the Coloured children throughout the Union up to the present, and two main points are in my opinion apparent from this exposition. These are, firstly, the role which our religious societies played and are still prepared to play, and secondly, the neglect of the education of the Coloured child due primarily to a lack of funds to which I shall return later. In this connection the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Provincial Council had the following to say last year. Referring to the financial question, he stated in a motion—

We find this in the debates of the Provincial Council for 1962. That is in this Province. The second reason for the lack of education for these people is the economic value which so many Coloured children still have to their parents. Thirdly, there is the fear on the part of the Whites that an educated Coloured is a danger to South Africa.

Nonsense!

The next reason is perhaps the most important reason for this lack of education and the fact that there are still so many Coloured children who do not attend school, namely, the fact that insufficient funds are made available to the provinces. Thirdly, in my opinion, there is the neglect on the part of the Central Government to make adequate funds available to the provinces in order to allow full justice to be done to the education of our Coloured people. It may perhaps not be inappropriate at this stage to give a broad outline of the recent expenditure on the education of the White child in relation to the expenditure on education for the Coloured child. I want again to take the Cape Province as an example in order to put this matter in its most favourable light and I want once again to quote Mr. Venter—

But they only receive 31 per cent of the expenditure on education in the Cape Province. [Interjections.] I blame no one, but I think that we should all be ashamed of ourselves! The present figure, which is an improvement upon what it was last year and the year before—and the Provincial Council is to be congratulated in this regard—is that for 1962-63 an amount of R48,000,000 has been voted for education in the Cape and of this amount R21.000,000 or 39 per cent has been earmarked for Coloured education. We are grateful to the Province and if the hon. member wants me to thank the State in this regard, I; shall do so because this is a step in the right direction. We may not and cannot blame the provinces for this unhealthy state of affairs throughout the country. In the circumstances it is to their credit that they have done so much good work. The fault must be found in the policy of the State as-such and in support of my contention I want once again to quote Mr., Venter, M.P.C. He moved this motion in the Council last year—

If this is not criticism of us as a Parliament which has to vote those funds, then I do not know what it is. Under the most difficult circumstances the province has carried out the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, but, according to Mr. Venter is no longer able to provide adequate education facilities for our Coloured oeonle. It must be clear to everyone that if sufficient funds are allocated to the provinces by the Central Government, they will be able to look after the education of Coloured children well and also far more cheaply than will be the case if this education is transferred to the Central Government, because the taking over of this education by the State will not only lead to the duplication of administration but also to increased expenditure. If we can do this work more cheaply and better under the present circumstances, why should there be duplication? I find that the hon. the Minister has already appointed a Director of Coloured Education. We now have two Directors of Education at the moment in the same province and I imagine that this will also happen in the other provinces. This is duplication and leads to increased expenditure. At this stage I would like to introduce the Administrator. They will not believe me but hon. members will believe their own Administrator. In 1960, when the same matter was under discussion, he said this—

He then asked this question—

It was the Administrator who said this, arid he was not talking politics. He has the interests of education in his province at heart. And what does the Government’s own Commission, the Schumann Commission, have to say in its’ excellent report? I quote from Tepa, the organ of the Coloured Teachers’ Union. This is not what they say but they quote from the Schumann Report as follows—

Mr. Speaker, these facts are so obvious that 1 would be insulting the intelligence of hon. members were I to elaborate upon them any further.

Transfer will further fragment the Education Departments of the provinces and lower their status accordingly without our having any guarantee that the transfer will improve the standard of education of our Coloured children. Indeed, the general feeling is that the standard will suffer under the new regime, particularly at the start. The Education Departments all have more than a century of experience. Particularly at the start, before the new regime and the new Department get into their stride, the schools must suffer because of this fact, and the question is whether this is necessary. The Education administrations in the provinces are far better equipped than this new Department can ever dream of being equipped for this task for the next ten to 20 years.

A very important consideration in this connection is the rights and privileges given to the provinces under our Constitution. To meddle with those privileges and traditions cannot do otherwise but yield withered fruit. Not only will the removal of Coloured education detrimentally affect the status of the provinces but it will also deprive them of a very important function. Take the Cape Province. Take more than half of its pupils away from the Cane Province … [Interjections.] No, the hon. the Minister was not listening when I quoted Mr. Venter. Mr. Venter said: We are relinquishing it because you do not want to give us adequate funds. He went further and said: Give us 80 per cent and we will continue, because then we will have adequate funds for Coloured education. Not only will their status suffer because of a transfer, but they will also be deprived of an important function. Their status particularly that of the Cape Province, must be detrimentally affected when 290.000 pupils are taken away leaving about 280.000.

Mr. Venter will not thank you for that quotation.

Did he speak irresponsibly then? I quoted from the Hansard of the Provincial Council. I think Mr. Venter will take it amiss of the hon. the Minister for making that interjection. But the hon. the Minister told us that he had an interview; he met many teachers and addressed them, but he neglected to tell us that he did not address one single organized Coloured teachers’ union.

I did. I met Tepa.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has said that because then I have the wrong information. But I hope that it will become known that the hon. the Minister said that he consulted Tepa.

Yes. and personally; not through my officials.

Did the hon. the

Minister meet the Executive Committee of Tepa? There are five teachers’ unions amongst the Coloureds and the hon. the Minister says that he consulted Tepa. [Interjections.] But my hon. friend also referred to the Union Coloured Council. He said that he also met them and that they also approved of the transfer, but he did not tell us under what conditions. He did not say that those people laid down certain conditions. I have their report here and I want to quote from it as follows—

1. (a) Application of compulsory education on the same basis as applied to White children;
2. (b) salary adjustments;
3. (c) no curtailment of syllabuses;
4. (d) the creation of an inspectorate from among the Coloured teaching staff;
5. (e) the extension and improvement of medical services;
6. (f) extension of school hostel facilities;
7. (g) re-introduction of the school-feeding scheme; and
8. (h) the extension of avenues of employment for Coloured clerical, administrative and professional personnel in this field.”.

They go on to say—

I will be pleased if, in his reply, the hon. the Minister will tell us how far he is going to give immediate effect to these promises.

The question therefore arises: Why then the transfer? The Government and its commission admits, as does Mr. Venter, M.E.C., that if adequate funds are made available to the province, they will be able to look after Coloured education well. My question then is: Why the transfer? I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not give us a full explanation of this. In this case of course the Government is influenced by its ideological policy of apartheid, or, as it is known, separate development. The Schumann Commission fully realized this when they said—

In other words, the Government has decided to take this step, not for financial reasons, but purely to satisfy itself in connection with its apartheid policy, and the commission says this after it has emphasized in its report that possible financial relief for the Cape, for example, may not be used as an argument in favour of the transfer of Coloured education. No, the interests of the provinces and of the education administrations and the interests of the taxpayers and the interests of the relations between White and non-White must be sacrificed on the altar of apartheid, apartheid which has already created so much misery and suffering in our country on the way to its fulfilment. Under these circumstances I say that this side of the House is not able to go back on its word of honour and to repudiate its promises to our non-White community and for that reason I move—

1. (1) Diminution of provincial power;
2. (2) lowering of the status of the provincial education Departments;
3. (3) unnecessary additional costs in connection with and the duplication of the ad ministration of primary and secondary education; and
4. (4) further estrangement between the White and the Coloured population groups.”.

I second.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), one would swear that at the forthcoming Joint Sitting, the Coloureds were again to be placed upon the common voters’ roll. The hon. member made some strange allegations. He contended amongst other things that the Whites in South Africa fear the educated Coloured. It is not true. It most certainly does not hold good for this side of the House and our actions bear witness of this fact. There was a time when the position in South Africa was such that the Whites feared the educated Coloureds, and it was when that side of the House was in power. At that stage there were school facilities for the Coloureds and they could acquire learning, but why did they acquire that learning? All doors were closed to them when that party was in power and the result was that those Coloureds who were educated up to matric and further became a threat to the White people because even with their learning they found that all doors were closed to them and so they became receptive to Communism and they became communist agitators. That is the only fear on the part of the Whites of which I am aware.

But the hon. member also spoke about the way in which the Coloureds were treated unfairly by the State over the course of the years. Amongst other things he said that he based his facts upon figures which he gave. I do not know how he arrived at that conclusion, because the figures which the hon. member gave us were rather out of date. There are figures available which are far more up to date than the figures which the hon. member used. Amongst other things he said that he estimated that there were between 60,000 and 100.000 Coloured children in the Cape who were not attending school. That is a big jump. Why not say 60,000 to 70,000? But he spoke about from

60,0 to 100,000! I want to give him the latest figures available. In 1950 there were 179.986 Coloured children at school in the Cape but last year, in 1962, there was a tremendous increase to 297,919, an increase of more than 100,000 in 10 years. I want to assure the hon. member that the figure of 60,000 to 100.000 is not correct, and his figure in respect of the money spent on Coloured Education in the Cape is just as incorrect. He said that he estimated it to be 39 per cent.

That is not my guess; it is the amount in the Estimates.

Yes, but those Estimates do not indicate, amongst other things, the part of Coloured education which is integrated with White education. There is no separate inspectorate for Coloureds. There are no separate officials who are debited against Coloured Education. The estimate of the hon. member gave this House a completely wrong impression.

Mr. Speaker, to us on this side of the House this is a happy occasion. The legislation which is now before the House embodies what we have been striving for many, many years. We are convinced in our heart of hearts that this new arrangement will bring about a further measure of racial peace in South Africa. A great change has come about—I am speaking about the feelings here in the Cape between the White and the Coloured—since the time the Coloureds were removed from the common voters’ roll. There is a completely different relationship and feeling, a feeling of sympathy on the part of the Whites and a feeling of wanting to help since the Coloureds can no longer be used by the United Party as a football in White politics. Let me say this. This measure will assist that feeling because there is a feeling, particularly in the Cape Province amongst the Whites, that the Provincial Administration cannot give the White child what is his due because it has to bear that great burden of Coloured education. I say that this measure is going to promote racial peace between the Whites and the Coloureds, and that hope was strengthened last year when the hon. the Minister announced in this House under his Vote that the Government intended taking over C61-oured Education. The fact is that on that occasion the Coloured Representatives in this House stood up and welcomed the fact. They said that they fell in with the wishes of the Union Coloured Council which asked for the takeover and they said that they welcomed it. and we had the right to believe that this would also be the attitude of the United Party, because on that occasion they were as silent as a grave. Not one single speaker opposite stood up to oppose that announcement. As usual— and one cannot but notice it—it appears to me that the United Party again sees an opportunity here to stir up racial friction. One of their newspapers, the Cape Argus started the movement last night. The following was a front page report in that newspaper last night—

They were dealing with the race definition in this Bill. But only yesterday another Bill was approved of in this House, namely the Rural, Coloured Areas Bill. That Bill contained precisely the same definition contained in this Bill which we are discussing now. But nothing was mentioned of it then and we heard not one word about it from hon. members opposite.

It is a question of the child.:,

I will tell you why it is being raised in regard to this Bill. The Rural Coloured Areas Bill was not a sufficiently important measure in the eyes of the United Party on which to raise this matter: it was not sufficiently important for world consumption. Education on the other hand is important, and so the-racial drum is again being beaten on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been the aim and the striving of this side of the House to place Coloured Education under the control of the Central Government and we have not made any bones about this aim and striving of our’s. On the contrary. This was our standpoint in the days when we were still in opposition and the United Party formed the Government Party, and it has remained our aim and object. The fact that that step is only being taken now….

After 15 years!

Yes, after 15 vears … proves to us how sensible this Government is. The machinery has first of all to be created to make a transfer possible. The accusation has been made here in connection with the fact that a Director of Coloured Education has already been appointed. Of course we have a Department of Coloured Affairs at present. First of all it was a sub-department, but it was gradually built Up by giving it work to do from time to time. In this way it took over one education institution after another—technical education, special schools, reformatories and eventually higher education. I am referring here to the University College of the Western Cape.

This is not a Government which seeks to destroy but one which seeks to construct. Nobody on this side has for one moment the idea of destroying what the Provincial Administration has built up. On the contrary; it is our wish to build this up further in the interests of the Coloureds. The fact is that the Coloureds are mainly settled in the Cape. Then there is another fact, namely, that this province can no longer carry that burden. This is one of the reasons for the transfer. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked for reasons and I will give him reasons. It has always been our conviction on this side of the House that a system of differentiated education—I want this to be very clearly understood; I do not say “inferior education”, but “differentiated education”—for the Coloured with a view to the circumstances in which he finds himself, is the best.

Let me return now to the funds which the province cannot find. The hon. member for Hillbrow wants the Central Government to make the necessary funds available to the province. I will tell you why this should not be so.: I personally am opposed to this in principle because it. is an unsound principle that one body should vote money while another body spends that money.

Is that not the case with White education?

In the case of White education we have an arrangement in existence to-day with every province …

Is it not true that subsidies are at present being paid to the provinces by the Central Government? How can that fact be reconciled with the hon. member’s statement that it is an unsound thing for one body to spend money while another body votes that money?

If The hon. member had only listened, he would have heard me explaining this point. A Rand for Rand arrangement exists with all the provinces in connection with White education. What the hon. member for Hillbrow is actually asking for is more money, not on a. Rand for Rand basis but more money for Coloured education. In principle we are opposed to one body collecting taxation while another body spends it. The arrangement in regard to White education is an old existing arrangement—it existed under the South Africa Act but is not one which should be extended. It will be a bad day for Coloured education if the system is extended in that direction.

But there is another reason why we do not want to leave Coloured education in the hands of the provinces. We hold the view that the body which controls White education should not also control Coloured education. I will tell you why we adopt this attitude. We find that comparisons are continually being made by members opposite. Because the education of the two groups is vested in the same authority, we find that comparisons are continually being made by people, and mostly by hostile people. As soon as something is done for the White child but not at the same time for the Coloured child, the accusation of race discrimination is made.

There is one fact which we cannot avoid and that is that the Coloured is in a special position: as far as education is concerned, the Coloured is still far behind the Whites. To treat Coloured and White education in the same way is one of the most unfair things that can happen in South Africa. It is not necessary at all. The hon. member for Hillbrow quoted a long extract from history to us this evening from which one thing appeared clear to me, namely, that although Coloured and White were originally in the same schools, this state of affairs was terminated in due course. A start was made on White schools in 1893 and in 1911 they went so far as to forbid White children to attend Coloured schools and vice versa. This then became the tradition in South Africa, the tradition of apartheid, and it is on this tradition, which, as I say, received its foundation in 1911, that the National Party’s policy is based. It is on that tradition of the White man that the National Party’s policy is based.

I have here a pamphlet which was issued by the National Party in 1947, that is to say, just before the election of 1948. In this pamplet we find—

Let me quote to you the attitude which was adopted at that stage in respect of Coloured education. This is an interesting document. It envisages a Department of Coloured Affairs and population registration, the Coloured Representative Council. Coloured representation by Whites in Parliament and in the Provincial Council, separate residential areas, separate housing, commerce and management, social arrangements, travelling facilities and education. The following is said in regard to education—

This was given effect to by the National Government. Not only did this Government give the Coloureds education, but it also opened doors for him, amongst other things, by means of the Department of Coloured Affairs. This document continues—

This promise made by the National Party in 1947 was also implemented.

Mr. Speaker, this step, that is to say, the transfer of Coloured education, is not taken lightly by this side. On the contrary. Various commissions were appointed from the ranks of this Party to go into the matter. Amonest others there was a commission—I have the names of the members here but I do not want to bore the House with them—which sat from 1954 to 1956. This commission eventually brought up a well-considered report on which the Congress of the National Party in the Cape based its policy in 1956. namely, that the Central Government should take over Coloured education. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked when the Provincial Council in the Cape also adopted a resolution of this nature. In 1957 the Cape Provincial Council resolved that the time had come for the Central Government to take over Coloured education. But what was the resolution of the Council in 1962? The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to it. From the nature of the case an M.P.C. cannot summarily ask: “Come and take over Coloured education.” The appropriate portion of the motion reads as follows—

Why did the hon. member for Hillbrow not also read this portion of the motion?

I referred to it. In any case, a conditional transfer was requested. Conditions were stipulated.

The hon. member accused the hon. the Minister and said that Mr. A. P. Venter, M.E.C. who is also the leader of the National Party in the Provincial Council in the Cape, did not agree with him, that is to say, the Minister. Therefore, he did not read the last portion of the motion which I have quoted. He omitted to do so.

I did not.

The hon. member omitted to do so. I have already pointed out that the Government has already taken over all the other categories of Coloured education. There were storms at the beginning as a result of the incitement which arose from that side of the House. In the initial states I will admit that we did have unrest and dissatisfaction, but you can take it from us when we say that that is no longer the case. Gradually a feeling of confidence in the Government on the part of the Coloured even though hon. members opposite do not want to admit this fact. At this stage it appears to me as though the Coloured people are more sensible than the United Party. The Coloured people are prepared to give this Government a chance so that they can see what the Government intends doing with them. The Government has seized this opportunity and it is winning the confidence of the Coloureds.

We are not so interested in the vote of the Coloured. [Laughter.] Indeed, we have never been interested in it. That is why we removed him from the common voters’ roll after a great struggle. We were and are not interested in his vote. We are only interested in his welfare. Mr. Speaker, you know and all the hon. members know the ominous predictions which have already been made in the past when the transfer of Coloured education to the Central Government has been mooted. We have been accused of wanting to give the Coloureds inferior education. I think that this Bill is very clear, to the disappointment of the United Party. The fact is that less is being hidden and less is being held over to be prescribed by regulation than in the case of any other legislation. The Coloured teacher and the official retains all the privileges that he has at the moment; his salary is retained on the same basis; he also retains his pension rights and so forth. Another thing that this Bill is doing is creating opportunities for the Coloured but while it is doing this on the one hand, on the other hand it is imposing greater responsibilities upon the Coloured.

We can rightly ask and the Coloureds can rightly ask the United Party why they are not prepared to give the Coloured an opportunity of bearing responsibilities. The Coloured parent is for the first time receiving the opportunity under this Bill to have a say over his child by way of school boards. They have never ever had that privilege. We had school committees in the past but no school boards. This is the first time that they are receiving this opportunity. With the establishment of the 12 regional boards which are envisaged in the Bill, further opportunities for employment will be created for the Coloured because from the nature of the case these boards will be manned by Coloured officials. There is a further privilege which the Coloured is receiving under this Bill and that is the privilege which the Whites only received last year, namely, an Education Advisory Council which will make its contribution towards their education. This Government is prepared to give that to the Coloureds immediately.

A great deal is said about the question of compulsory education and the United Party can be expected to beat heavily on this drum during this debate. But everyone knows that it was only recently that the White people received compulsory education. We want therefore to ask hon. members opposite in a very friendly fashion please not to continue harping on this note. It will not be to the benefit of the Coloured. It was only recently that we had very poor relationships between Coloured and White and the good relationships which exist to-day must not be disturbed by political prejudices. We hold the view that a community must receive what it deserves. The White man, and particularly the Afrikaner, earned his education dearly. We paid very dearly for it. It is not very long ago, indeed, it has only been since recent times that the State has paid for the White child, for the Afrikaner child.

I want to say something further on the question of divided control. The United Party tries to suggest that divided control is a bad thing. But South Africa is not the only country where divided control exists. This will be found in the education system of all the most important Western countries, for example, like the United States. Divided control does exist there and this has been the case throughout the years. They see no disadvantages in it at all. This is the case in England where there is apartheid between the Scots and the English as far as their education is concerned. But in our country the United Party sees in this an opportunity to stir up racial feelings. Educationally, this transfer is not wrong but the hon. member for Hill-brow did not speak as an educationist. He spoke as a politician seeking to scratch in the garbage heap of race relationships. We acknowledge the Coloureds as a Western group but not as a part of our nation. As people we want to treat them in a human and Christian fashion. Indeed, this human and Christian treatment runs throughout our history like a golden thread. As far as the past is concerned we have nothing on our consciences in this connection. On the basis of separate development we, the Whites, are prepared to do everything for the Coloured but we want absolutely nothing to do with integration.

I want to make this next point, namely, that over the past five years more good has been done for the Coloureds than during the previous 50 years. That is why the Director of Coloured Education was able successfully to meet Coloured teachers and Coloured education bodies; for this reason there is no storm brewing amongst the Coloureds and that is why we have a very disappointed United Party to-day.

I do not propose to follow the hon. member who has just sat down. We are facing a situation where many figures have been given to us—by the hon. the Minister himself, by the hon. the member who just sat down and also to some extent by the hon. member for Hillbrow. These figures are very interesting and have an important bearing on the subject which we are discussing. But this issue. Sir, is not an issue which should be decided by way of arithmetic; it is not something which can be dealt with by way of figures. How much money has already been spent on Coloured or White education, what the Coloured population of this or that province is, and other figures are, although interesting, not the real issue when we discuss this Bill.

We on this side of the House have learnt that if the Government in pursuance of its policy of fragmentation of our population, has decided on a certain course, then it does not have a lack of imaginative excuses to support such decision. It takes a decision on ideological grounds associated with its own particular party political policy and then comes with all sorts of imaginative reasons as to why it is a good policy and deserves to be followed. We have to listen to such reasoning when we come to discuss the second reading of the Bill we have before us now. The truth of the matter is—and we should not blind ourselves to it; we should be realists—that the Government has made up its mind to take over Coloured education for its own purposes. That is the truth of the matter. This being the case, I do not propose to follow the line of reasoning of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow, who was inclined when allocating blame to the Government and to the hon. the Minister, to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. Because he is a fair man who likes to see both sides of the picture he thought that a certain amount of blame could also be laid on previous governments. But, Mr. Speaker, I will have none of that. This Government has been in power since 1948, and what have they done for Coloured education during the time up to the present? What have they done? [Interjections.] They have had 15 years during which to show what wonderful regard they have for the education of the Coloured people. It is all very well for the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) to say that it was necessary to have a time of preparation before the Government could come with a practical application of its policy. But how long did it take them to put other measures on the Statute Book in connection with their ideological plans for the fragmentation of our population? They in fact started off with that within 18 months of coming into power and they have been at it ever since!

The truth of the matter is that the Coloured people's education is virtually the last thing to which they have to apply their minds after having been in power for 15 years. This is the tail end of it, so to speak. They have done everything else, but now as an afterthought at the end of their imagination, somebody has thought of the idea of doing something with the Coloureds as well. Are they doing something for the Coloureds this time with altruistic motives? Never on your life! There are no altruistic motives behind this Bill and the hon. the Minister knows it. Why was it necessary to have 15 years of preparation whereas they needed only 15 months or 15 days? They could have left it with those institutions which have been running it for over 100 years. Why not leave it with them? My hon. friend, the member for Hillbrow, has dealt with some aspects of that particular matter but I should like to go further into it at a later stage. In the meantime let me look at one particular angle of it. The hon. member for Malmesbury said something to the effect that the most unfair thing to happen was for Coloureds and Whites to get education out of the same pot and that the right thing to do was to discriminate—that was the word he used—to have discrimination in regard to education. Where does the fairness come in, Mr. Speaker? Is it supposed to be self-evident, i.e. that there is a fairness in discrimination between the education of the Coloureds and the Whites?

That was not the word he used.

Yes, he used precisely that.

The word he used was “differentiation ”.