Mr. Speaker, as far as the business of the House is concerned, I want to announce on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House that precedence will be given to Orders of the Day Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper. In the event of hon. members concerned with the discussion of Orders of the Day Nos. 3 and 4 not having returned, Orders of the Day Nos. 3, 4 and 5 will have to stand over until Orders of the Day Nos. 6, 15 and 17 on the Order Paper have been disposed of.

†As far as next week is concerned, we shall resume the discussion on the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill on Monday and then proceed with other legislative measures on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Bantu Education is at present engaged in a comprehensive industrial training programme for Black workers in the White area, i.e. the implementation of the recommendations of the committee under the leadership of the late Dr. Hen nie van Zyl which investigated this matter. This embraces the construction of various training centres. Eigth of these centres, which are to be constructed at a cost of R2 million, form part of the secondary education programme of Bantu Education while a further eight, which are being constructed at a cost of R1,2 million, form part of the project undertaken in cooperation with organized industry. I think it is important to put the aim and the multiple significance of this training programme in the correct perspective. It is important to emphasize that this training programme poses no threat to the White worker. The greater number of skilled and trained Black workers who will enter the labour market will definitely not cause the White worker to be crowded out. The fact is simply that a fast-growing shortage of skilled and unskilled workers is being experienced in various sectors of industry. As recently as 19 September, the hon. the Minister of Labour said the following at the opening of the Sabra Congress (translation)—

Then the Minister continues (translation)—

and that is just around the corner (translation)—

In a young country such as South Africa, which has a growing and vigorous economy as well as a very high rate of population increase, it goes without saying that the relatively diminishing number of Whites will not be able to meet the growing demand for skilled and semi-skilled labour. In the same speech the hon. the Minister went on to say (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, the important fact is that this training programme in the White area undertaken by the Department of Bantu Education is aimed primarily at meeting this shortage and at keeping a sound and vigorous economy going. This however is not the sole significance and the sole value of this training programme. Often, today, a very earnest plea is made, for very valid reasons, for people to increase their productivity. Salary increases, it is rightly said, should be linked to high productivity, otherwise those salary increases only lend more momentum to inflation. That is why training is so important. Training results in improved utilization of our labour force. Training results in improved utilization of labour potential and in this country the improved utilization of our labour potential—this applies to White and Black—is important as far as high productivity is concerned. It is often said that we in this country have a lot of so-called cheap labour, but labour which is not productively utilized, is expensive labour even though it may be so-called cheap labour. However, training and high productivity involve the necessity for realistic adjustment of the salary of the Black man. It has been repeatedly stated as a standpoint by this side of the House that the so-called wage gap has to be narrowed in a realistic way and that progress will have to be made in a realistic way in the direction of eventually having equal pay for equal work. When I say “in a realistic way”, I do not mean overnight, nor do I mean in a way that our economy will not be able to support. However, I do not mean, either, that the industrialist or the entrepreneur should think only of his profits, but rather that he should listen to his conscience too; in other words, that not only economic considerations are involved here, but justice and human dignity, too, should be taken into account. I believe that herein we have one of the special challenges in this country. Training will therefore imply that as the more highly-skilled worker progresses in a sound and orderly way towards higher categories of labour, his income and standard of living will improve accordingly, too. As far as this is concerned, this training programme, this further schooling and training, does not only result in higher standards of living, but is also the cause of a Black middle- and higher class being developed. This is of great importance for stability and for peace and quiet in this country. I do not like the concept “middleand higher class” but I use it for want of a better expression. A Black middle and higher class is not only one of the strongest bulwarks against communism but also creates the potential for teachers, entrepreneurs and other professional people who are the life-blood of separate development. In conclusion, it is vital, too, that every worker, and that includes every Black worker, should find personal fulfilment in his work through the full utilization of his abilities, his talents and his skills. Consequently training also results in a person taking pleasure in his work. The ability to achieve and make progress in one’s job in accordance with one’s abilities and one’s talents will contribute greatly towards bringing about stability and happiness in the ranks of our workers. Consequently it is important for the private sector to recognize their responsibility in this regard too and link up to the fullest extent with the programme of the department and make full use of these centres. This is not only to their own benefit and in the interests of the Black worker, but I believe that it will also serve the best interests of all of us in South Africa. I should therefore like to point out what the hon. the Minister of Labour said in his opening speech at the congress. He put it clearly that realistic wage adjustments would have to be made before dissatisfaction began to take the form of irresponsible actions, with or without the aid of inciters and exploiters. I think that in this respect, the private sector carries a very heavy responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg West made a speech which can really qualify as a fine United Party speech. Unfortunately he spoiled it somewhat by using concepts such as “apartheid” or “separate development”. I leave him at that.

†We have heard a lot in this House about the need for consensus in South Africa. In respect of African education, I believe it is a matter of the utmost urgency. In the first place, I believe that it is imperative that we as Whites should agree that whatever race policy is to be applied in South Africa, that the success or failure in the final analysis will depend on the level of education attained by the bulk of the population. This is true of our policy, of that policy of the Progressive Party and of the policy of the Nationalist Party. Experience in Africa has proved that wherever there is an imbalance between the political development of a nation and its economic or social development the establishment of an effective political structure based on democratic principles is totally impossible.

I believe the first point upon which we should agree is that as far as African education is concerned, we have entered a phase which can correctly be described as a state of emergency. I say this advisedly and I say it in spite of the fact that I am aware that progress has been made. The question is not just whether we have more schools this year than we had last year, or whether we have a higher school population today than ten or 15 years ago. The real consideration should be whether the provisions are adequate when measured against the needs of today and the needs of the future. To give one example: The increase in pupil enrolment today is in the vicinity of a quarter of a million. However, we must measure this against the output of new teachers, which is in the vicinity of 5 000. Without taking into consideration the loss of teachers on account of natural causes, such as retirement and being enticed away by other professions, we find that we can only aim at a pupil to teacher ratio of 50 to 1 and this is an adverse ration. It is not only the quantity about which we are concerned; we are also concerned about the quality. Ninety per cent of the teachers, including the newly-trained teachers, have a qualification which is equivalent to Matric—Std. 8 plus two years’ training.

I believe there are decided advantages to be gained if we can agree that we are facing a national problem and that Bantu Education is in a state of emergency. Far from being a step taken of panic it will be bold step of courage. If South Africa has to defend its borders it will have to do so with the maximum available manpower and we know we will do so with the maximum financial assistance. Once we can get the Government and the people of the Republic of South Africa to look at this problem of African education on a national level as something demanding urgent attention, then real progress will be made. Then only the real war against illiteracy in South Africa will commence and only then can we talk realistically of what the hon. member for Johannesburg West has said about the need for increased productivity.

Let me remind hon. members that the most essential weapon in our fight against inflation is increased productivity. However, the war against inflation will be lost and poverty will reign in South Africa unless we take steps now to turn our population, our human resources, into assets instead of allowing it to become a liability. In the field of education we can no longer afford to look at South Africa through fragmented glasses. We, especially the Whites, dare not adopt the attitude that “I am all right, Jack. I have enough facilities and enough schools.” A far greater united effort is required and I want the hon. the Minister to take the initiative. He must go to other education departments and ask them to help him. He must tell them that this task is far too big for his department to handle alone. This is a national problem. There are thousands of White teachers who, I believe, if sufficiently motivated will be prepared if it is made possible for them, to assist with Bantu education on a part-time basis. I am convinced that there are thousands of White teachers who, if they really know what is at stake in South Africa, will be prepared to make those sacrifices.

Thousands of African teachers today are involved in the system of double sessions. In the mornings they have to cope with a class of 50 pupils and in the afternoons with another class of 50 pupils and while this is happening the White teachers of South Africa are sitting back, are doing nothing about it, because they are not given the opportunity of assisting. No one is prepared to take the initiative to investigate the feasibility of allowing them to partake in this system. I am prepared to say that they will be prepared to come forward and make themselves available. There are White schools and Black schools wherever you go in South Africa in close proximity to each other, whether it is the smallest village or the largest city. Why can it not be investigated whether White teachers can also take part in this double session system so that they can teach at the White school in the mornings and at the Bantu school in the afternoons? Why can they not have that experience of having to face a class of 50 pupils and what it involves to teach throughout the day?

Let us look at another aspect, viz. the question of certain subjects which cannot be offered at Bantu schools purely because there are no teachers qualified in those subjects. Why cannot we appoint a teacher in a dual capacity, teaching at a White school on the one day and at an African school on the next day? Advantages are to be gained here not only for Blacks, but also for Whites. For too long the educational systems in South Africa have produced socially incompetent people, because we have never had a properly differentiated system of education. We are endeavouring to do this with the Whites, but we must do this for all race groups. We must have an effective differentiated system of education offering a wide range of courses and curriculums, catering for the diversities of attitudes, abilities and interests. We dare not allow those people who cannot be fitted into the society in which they live to be excluded.

I know that in respect of White education in certain towns, for example, it is impossible for a school to offer a wide range of subjects, because they do not have viable classes. We have here a ridiculous situation, because we are looking through fragmented glasses all the time. In a town there may be a White school which is unable to offer a proper differentiated education because of lack of numbers, and a few miles outside of that town, there may be a Black school also not being able to offer such education because there are no teachers available. If we look at this problem on a national level, it really constitutes an imminent state of emergency. If the problem is tackled on a national level, we will be able to find persons prepared to work together in such a project.

I want to refer to another aspect. In our educational system there is a tremendous leeway to be made up in the field of technical education. This is true of Whites, although we can say that there are at least a number of colleges for advanced technical education in South Africa for them. But we have virtually no counterpart for that as far as the Bantu are concerned. I am talking at the level of advanced technical colleges, the level of tertiary education. Today it is possible for a Bantu to attend a White university, with the permission of the Minister, if there are no facilities available for him at Black universities.

Sir, why cannot we apply this, too, at the level of our advanced technical colleges, which also form part of the tertiary level of education? I want to point out that I am talking about the higher education; otherwise I will be accused of advocating integrated schools. It will take South Africa too long to establish the equivalent of these colleges for the Bantu. We should by all means go ahead in doing that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, please be so good as to allow me just a few minutes to reply to a number of questions raised on both sides. The hon. member for Gezina raised a number of points in connection with medical, dental and veterinarian training for Bantu persons in South Africa. It is true that there is a very pressing need for trained Bantu persons in all three of these fields. Although there are more than 300 Bantu persons who have qualified as doctors, they are not all available to work among their own people. In the latter two fields the situation is, relatively speaking, perhaps even poorer. There is only one dentist and, as far as we know, there are no Bantu veterinarians available to work among their own people. There is definitely a pressing need in this respect.

As the hon. member for Gezina rightly indicated, it is fortunate that whereas in former years there was an inadequate supply of students with the necessary combination of subjects—matriculation exemption with mathematics, etc., the position has improved greatly in the past number of years. He furnished the hon. Committee with the figures yesterday and indicated how more such students have become available. For that reason we feel that the time has now definitely arrived for a start to be made on this. As I said the other day in reply to a question—I think it was by the hon. member for Edenvale—we have progressed quite far with an investigation into the possibility of introducing medical training for Bantu in South Africa and places where this could possibly be done. When I refer to medical training, I also have in mind dental and veterinarian training. I shall make the necessary details available as soon as possible, as I undertook to do the other day. I want to give the hon. member for Gezina the assurance that we are aware of this need and that we should like to do our best in this regard.

The hon. member for Edenvale also asked me one or two questions to which I just want to reply briefly. He pleaded for more Bantu persons on the councils of the universities. By the end of last year we had already appointed Bantu persons to all three of the councils, that of the University of Zululand, that of the University of the North and that of the University of Fort Hare. I think we appointed four in each case. The councils comprise 16 or 17 members and four of them are now Bantu persons. When the time is ripe, more Bantu persons will be appointed to the councils. I can therefore give hon. members the assurance that a start has already been made in that respect. It is a fact that we should like to appoint every Bantu person who possesses the necessary qualifications and is suitable for the task, to the staff of the universities concerned. In this regard I refer to both the administrative and the lecturing staff.

A few days ago I made statistics available in this regard as well. However, it should be understood—the hon. member, who was himself attached to a university, will probably agree with me here—that certain standards have to be maintained and that a person should not be appointed merely owing to the fact that he belongs to a certain Bantu people. Standards should be maintained not only as far as the academic staff are concerned, but also, and particularly, in the case of the administrative staff, i.e. the staff who must see to the academic and financial administration. We are very actively engaged in this and wherever I am able to do so, I see to it that Bantu persons are appointed to such posts. However, a university is similar to many other institutions in life, in that growth comes from below and not from above.

The hon. member for Edenvale also raised questions in regard to the branches of universities. As hon. members know, it is now legally permissible to allow a Bantu university to have a campus away from its seat; in other words, to have a branch of the university. Some of our White universities already have such branches. At this stage it is in the case of Fort Hare, in particular, that such a possibility is being investigated. The hon. member asked whether anything would come of the idea of moving Fort Hare to Umtata. He used the word “moving”. I am unaware of any such intention. I do not believe that it would be in any way practical, nor do I believe that it would be desirable for Fort Hare to be shifted to Umtata from where it is now. Something that is in fact under consideration, is the establishment of a branch establishment of Fort Hare at Umtata. In time, a branch establishment of this kind could possibly—I say “possibly”, because I want to venture no prediction, whether negative or positive, on the matter—develop to such an extent as to be granted full university status. This of course would depend on the supply of students, the demand and the available staff.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make use of this opportunity to state certain matters in good time so as to eliminate unnecessary discussion. Discussion is always fruitful but perhaps I could reply to certain questions in advance, before time is taken up in putting them.

Pursuant to what the hon. the Minister said about the universities, I want to reply to a question concerning the Lodder committee. The question was put whether the report of this committee will be distributed. Hon. members will appreciate that the Lodder committee was appointed by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Consequently it is not the intention to distribute this report. A permanent committee to implement the recommendations has already been appointed, although they have not yet commenced the implementation thereof.

In the Department of Bantu Education we have bottlenecks, the existence of which I do not want to deny. I am also saying this with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central. However, I want to disagree with him entirely when he refers to an “emergency situation”. I know that he qualified this and I am pleased he did so. He subsequently let it appear from his speech that it was not such a complete “emergency” as the word itself denotes. I shall attempt to present a brief survey of what has been done during the past year, and perhaps I can in that way intercept some of the fears of hon. members on the opposite as well as on this side.

This year, three days ago, it was precisely 25 years since the Department of Bantu Education took over the control of education for the Bantu. What has been achieved in that period, has been recorded in the annals. I am going to discuss only what happened last year. I think it is noteworthy that so much has been achieved in these 21 years. Since the take-over of Bantu education by the central Government in 1954 the progress has been such that I do not think anyone will contradict the fact that despite difficulties which had to be overcome, we have reason to be grateful. One must bear in mind that in the initial years, just after the take-over, it was the aim of the Government to bring education, and more specifically primary education, within the reach of every Bantu child who could make use of that education. In this respect I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said, and I believe that all South Africans will co-operate with us in making the education of the children the primary task which we have to undertake. I have already stated on public occasions what I am now going to say to the House. It was the Prime Minister who summarized this best: “What we claim for ourselves, we must also grant to others.” I think it would be foolish of any person to think that a Bantu parent does not cherish the same ideals for his child as a White parent does for his child. That need and desire of Bantu parents we certainly want to try to advance. From the outset we succeeded rapidly in bringing education to a large extent within the reach of Bantu children, and the number of pupils on the primary and secondary levels increased so rapidly that it made tremendous demands on the department. The number of pupils has during the past 20 years, for example, increased from 869 000 in 1952, to 3 312 000 in 1973. On the secondary level the increase during this period has amounted to more than 150 000 pupils. I am not saying that this is an ideal situation, but one could simply weigh up the facts against the background of the financial appropriation. The total number of pupils attending schools in 1973 represents 19,68% of the total Bantu population of the Republic. In contrast to this, only 9,5% of the Bantu population was attending school in 1954. If I compare the present figures with those of the Whites under a compulsory system, then we see that 23% of the White population is attending school—19% of the Bantu population, without compulsory education, as against 23% of the White population is attending school. I am not saying that we may be satisfied if we compare the figures to those in other African countries; we must aim higher. I do think, however, that we could sometimes consider with pride that in the rest of Africa this percentage varies from 1,5% to 10,0%.

After 1969 the department also took over Bantu education in South-West Africa. We now find the position to be as follows: There are about 12 000 schools and 61 000 teachers—this includes the Republic—and almost 3½ million pupils. As I said yesterday evening, it must be borne in mind that in addition to all the ordinary facets of education with which a department of education is concerned, the Department of Bantu Education still has to deal with university training and industrial training. We must also consider that the teachers in the Bantu Education Department have to do their work in 17 different languages, if we include the two official languages. One cannot simply transfer a teacher from a Tswana school to a Sotho school. Hon. members should come and see what happens in practice. Those of them who are interested are very welcome to come and see what happens when even a Tswana is appointed as an inspector at a Sotho school. It gives rise to dissatisfaction. For that reason the demands of parents for mother tongue instruction, particularly at the lower primary level, is of fundamental importance when we speak of education in this context. Transfers are not always the easiest thing in the world.

There are other branches of education to which serious attention has recently been devoted, such as teacher training in the first place. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Central that the ratio of one teacher to 50 pupils is an unhealthy one. A considerable growth is discernible in the enrolment of candidates for the production of teachers, and I want to invite hon. members to scrutinize the annual report tabled a few days ago in this connection. Mr. Chairman, you will permit me to make one observation here: I hear that hon. members complained that the report reached them only a few days before the Vote came up for discussion. I just want to inform hon. members, before they complain about this, that it is in fact an outstanding achievement on the part of the department, for this publication should only have appeared in March of next year, but we tried to furnish it in good time to hon. members so that they could study it, and also with a view to the discussions which we shall have here next year.

Sir, the hon. member for Edenvale was justified in saying yesterday that there are some cases in which the figures which we furnish do not always tally with figures furnished on other occasions. Sir, far be it from me or my department to furnish false information, and I believe that hon. members will take my word for it. But at this stage I want to request the co-operation of hon. members in respect of Bantu administration and education. My request is that hon. members, particularly when they ask for statistics, should avail themselves of the opportunity of asking for this information personally at our offices. Sir, I just want to mention to you in this connection how difficult it is, if one is confronted on a Thursday afternoon with ten questions in respect of which one has to obtain statistics of a complicated nature, to reply to those questions on Friday morning. It simply cannot be expected of our officials, particularly when we have to obtain much of this information from Pretoria and other places, to assemble all the information in time. I therefore want to make an appeal to hon. members and suggest that we accommodate one another and that hon. members refrain from asking for this kind of information by way of a question on the Order Paper whereas they could obtain the information as readily by simply making inquiries in regard to it personally at our offices.

Sir, I have here a long list of the achievements we have performed during the past year, and I want to mention only a few of them. At the end of 1973 there were 5 042 candidates—including just over 200 at Bantu universities—who passed the teacher’s examinations, while the expected production of teachers for the new few years is as follows: For 1974, we expect approximately 6 000; for 1975 just over 7 000: for 1977, with the additional facilities which are being created, approximately 8 500. Sir, this is still not enough, and we shall have to increase the rate, but we are not really finding a solution when we have to entrust these double sessions to White teachers. The hon. member asked us to investigate this matter. There is merit in the suggestion that we should try to make use of teachers from elsewhere, too; we shall certainly investigate this possibility. But we must not contradict ourselves by saying on the one hand that a double session makes tremendous demands on the teacher in the Bantu area—it is true—and then suggest in the same breath that the White teacher, who has been teaching in the morning, should be given an afternoon session, for surely one then has a double session.

But at least the conditions under which he teaches are far better in any case.

No, I think it has been established that the teaching profession is not the easy profession which people think it is, i.e. that teachers work for five hours a day and are then finished working. Heavy demands are made on teachers. We must, in all fairness, try to solve this problem, but there is no instant solution to these things. We are experiencing the same problems, and I am mentioning this to you so that you can know that one does not obtain a teacher by simply taking a person and saying that you are going to make a teacher of that person. It takes years to train him, and we must face up to the fact that, even on the secondary level, we still do not have enough people who are competent enough to be fully trained to be the quality teacher which the hon. member rightly referred to. We must raise the standard of the teacher in order to raise the standard of education of the child. Together with that we must face up to the fact that we may be able to boast with figures and with what a tremendous percentage we have at school, even that we have compulsory education and that we may be able to write free education into the Statute Book, but if it is simply incapable of implementation in practice, then we are lying to ourselves and to the world. We must therefore merge theory and practice in respect of all these matters on which we agree with one another. We must remember that we had, and still have, a tremendous physical backlog. It is easy to say that we should provide the school buildings. I want to say again today that the farmers in the rural areas have over the years provided buildings, while buildings have been made available in the cities by voluntary organizations and through the co-operation of newspapers, particularly in the urban areas, and in the White areas in the platteland, and we must remember that that work was done voluntarily. But it is not a foregone conclusion that one can introduce compulsory education if the school building is standing there. If the school building is standing there, one still has to obtain the benches and all the other requirements, to which the hon. member for Edenvale referred. He has the right to ask why it was not possible to provide those things sooner. I want to furnish him with a reply, which is that our suppliers could not give us these things rapidly enough, especially at the rate at which these things have become necessary in recent years. But then the question of books arises, and once one has all the books and all the classrooms and all the desks, and there is no teacher standing in front of the class, what does one do then? Then it is still no use. Then one tries, to the best of your ability, to squeeze in an extra child somewhere, and although we are not satisfied with the ratio, we are at least giving these people a reasonable chance. We admit to this shortage of trained teachers and the shortage of funds the unfavourable teacher/pupil ratio, the unsatisfactory standard of teachers in some cases, the lack of aids such as free books, etc.

I want to deal with another aspect which is disquieting, and that is the large number of what we call “drop-outs”. Questions were asked in this regard yesterday, and once again it is true. But this number of “drop-outs” would not even have begun to fall by the wayside if it had not been that the department had set about accomplishing these things. In this way. They drop-out of their own free choice, and sometimes through force of circumstances, and I want to tell you what these circumstances are. I am going to tell you what these circumstances are for I think that we could perhaps in this way convey our message to the general public. It is easy to talk about compulsory education. I said once in reply to the hon. member for Houghton that compulsory education means that one makes it compulsory for the child who does not attend school to be prosecuted, and for the parents who do not allow that child to come, to be prosecuted as well. Put just think of the conditions under which many of these Bantu are living, which make them unable to provide those children with clothes, which make them ashamed to send their children to school. Surely we do know a little about this from our own schooldays, of how inferior a child can feel at school. There are no instant solutions. We must face up to the fact that compulsory education will to an increasing extent have to go hand in hand with free education, the provision of free books. We are trying this out. We are not always successful, but we have already made considerable progress, so much so that in the provision of free school books and stationery to all pupils the following progress has been made: We have now provided class reading books for primary schools in both official languages and in the Bantu languages to such an extent that every pupil has a reading book in each language. In addition to that, a limited number of graded text-books are being supplied to the higher primary schools, to such an extent that this provision will vary in 1974-75 between 33 l/3rd% and 50%. In January 1975 almost all secondary pupils will have been provided with free textbooks. Provisionally, prescribed books in all the languages, and stationery, will have to be purchased by the pupils themselves. I now want to illustrate to you what may be achieved if there is an attitude of mind among our people aimed at inspiring others to work. A well-known publishing firm—I am not going to advertise the name in the House now—has offered to keep the libraries at various schools fully stocked with books. This is an example which could really be emulated by other publishing firms. This could be done so that if people do not have free books, they can at least obtain those books through a library. Examples have been set on a local level where parent/teacher associations have assisted one another in building up a fund for themselves. Mr. Chairman, you may say that this is sermonizing, and you might as well say it. However, I am not saying this merely as a pastor; I am saying this as one of the Afrikaans children wh-o grew up during the depression. The best thing we could give the Bantu in South Africa is not the free gift which we mete out to them, sometimes in a condescending manner.

†We do this more often than not sincerely, but every now and again also in a rather condescending way. We must take these people with us along this road towards self-help and self-development. How can we do this? Last year I quoted something which I had read in Malawi. I want to suggest to hon. members here that a visit to Malawi will show them that what the people there are achieving can do us a lot of good here. Together with my friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville, I read something pinned up there on a notice board and we brought it back with us. It is an old proverb which states: “Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.”

*That is what we are trying to do. We want to encourage these people to do more than simply make demands and requests. They must not be encouraged to believe, and it must be brought to their attention, that this Government is not doing enough for them. They must be inspired to do things for themselves. I want to tell hon. members that there is a company in Pretoria which inspires Bantu children every year to hold inter-school choir practices. It is an experience to be present there. The parents and the children together hold these practices on a local level, and the parents and the children together participate in these events at the school. I want to say that it is made possible for parents—as we also knew it in the depression years—to collect money themselves, even if it is in the simple form of a small school concert or the arrangement of a function of that nature. The other day I paid a visit to the Fezeka school in Guguletu. We did not know under what sad circumstances this would be, for it was erected under the leadership of Mr. Uys, one of the chairmen of the Bantu Affairs Administration Board, who passed away suddenly a few days ago and who is being buried this afternoon. This is the first school which was constructed with the assistance of the Bantu Affairs Administration Board and the Teach Fund of The Argus. At that school I saw how disciplined and how grateful the Black children of South Africa still are. I want to say very clearly and with much gratitude that if we can single out one of the greatest achievements made last year, then it is the discipline which the Black pupils are beginning to manifest, as this became apparent at the Fezeka High School. I think there was less unrest among Black pupils and students last year than there was in many major White countries in civilized Europe. This speaks volumes for what the department and the education officials have achieved in this regard. I think that what has been done in regard to the elimination of double sessions, particularly in the Cape where these have diminished considerably, has been so positive that we will soon be able to eliminate them entirely. When I say “soon” then I mean it in terms of the situation as a whole. We must not say now that “soon” means a year or even five years, but because we have such a tremendous backlog, it also means the years of backlog which we will have to make up before we can introduce compulsory education hand in hand with free education.

I want to conclude by furnishing a few replies to a few questions which were put. A question was put to me with reference to the number of children now attending schools. A total of 93% of the school-going population is at present attending primary classes which entail relatively low education costs, but the inevitable use of unqualified and relatively low-salaried teachers reduces the per capita costs. People who asked questions in regard to the per capita costs would do well to consider that these are also influenced by the fact that so many of them leave school at a low educational level, even before Std. 2. If I may mention, by way of summary, the high-lights of the year, Sir, then I just want to furnish hon. members with the following figures: The total number of pupils in the Republic increased from 3 101 000 in 1972 to 3 312 000 in 1973—an increase of 6,8% in one year. It is expected that by 1980 there will be more than 5 million pupils attending school. Although compulsory education does not yet exist for the Bantu, more and more children are nevertheless attending schools. According to estimate, 72% of the children of school-going age, between 7 and 15 years, were attending school in 1973.

I do not easily take exception to the behaviour of hon. members, but if the hon. member for Durban Central, who is supposedly very interested in the education of the Bantu child, would now interrupt his ten-minute-long conversation with another member, I would appreciate it sincerely. One could expect this of the other hon. member to whom I referred yesterday because he has only been here a short while. The hon. member for Durban Central must understand that I want to reply to him properly when he puts questions to me. If he does not want me to reply to his questions all he has to do is tell me; then I shall ignore his questions in future. If he wants to continue with conversations of that nature while I am replying, I am quite prepared to leave this point. It is not only irritating; it is not the kind of example to set to younger members like the hon. member behind him who also wants to follow his example now. Those hon. members should rather follow the example of the hon. members on their side of the House in front here, who are their leaders.

Let me continue for the sake of people who are interested in education, and not in petty conversations. As far as literacy is concerned, the department is firmly resolved to eliminate illiteracy, and great progress has already been made with that. According to estimates, 58% of the Bantu population in the Republic was literate in 1973, and according to estimates 80% of the Bantu in the age group 12 to 20 years were literate. As far as post-primary pupils are concerned, while the increase in the total number of pupils between 1972 and 1973 was 6,8%, the increase was 14,8% in the period from 1973 to 1974. Increasing numbers of pupils are therefore progressing to the secondary level. The number of schools in the Republic increased by 479, from almost 10 948 in 1972 to 11 427 in 1973, almost two per normal working day: As far as the construction of classrooms is concerned—and here I am once again conveying my sincere gratitude to the voluntary organizations that gave assistance in this regard, particularly those in the White area; for with the tremendous rate of increase in the number of pupils, the department could hardly keep up—4 242 new classrooms were constructed during 1972, at a rate therefore of approximately 16 per working day. As far as industrial training in the White area is concerned, I could mention that eight departmental and eight private industrial training centres have been approved or are in various stages of planning and construction. Particulars in this regard have appeared, but if the hon. members want further particulars in this regard, I shall furnish them with these particulars either by correspondence or otherwise. As far as the universities too, are concerned, the number of students has increased and the further prospects are as the hon. the Minister has envisaged them. As far as free books are concerned, the department is now, in the second year of its three-year programme, reaching this goal. By January 1975 almost all secondary pupils will have been supplied with free text-books. The provision of all books in higher primary schools will vary in 1975, as I have said, between 331% and 50%. Unfortunately this programme is being delayed as a result of increases in book prices.

A few questions were put to me last year, to which I should also like to reply now.

†Last year the hon. member for Berea asked me about the supply of health tablets for school-going Bantu children who do not receive proper nutrition. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. member that with the kind co-operation of the Department of Health, health services will be provided soon. At the time the question was put to me I was informed that these health tablets could not be distributed without the necessary health authority to prescribe them. But now these health services are going to be provided in the very near future—as a matter of fact, this was approved of on 31 August—and we will soon have a prescribing authority operating in these schools. I am therefore glad to be able to inform the hon. member that this matter has been attended to and I must thank him for what he suggested in that regard.

I would also like to inform hon. members, in connection with what was stated last year about the higher priority Bantu education should receive as far as funds are concerned—this was also asked by the hon. member for Durban Central today and perhaps it should also receive greater priority in his verbal encounter with his benchmate—that the provision of funds for this account has been doubled in the last two years and was increased from R96 million last year to R140 million this year. This is a very substantial increase for which we want to thank the Treasury and especially the hon. the Minister who obtained this money from the Treasury on our behalf.

In conclusion I want to say that it is not generally realized, and this should be pointed out, that in addition to these moneys provided for Bantu education ever so much money is also being spent by local authorities, and I would like to thank them too for the part they have played in the past. Ever so much money is also being paid by the Bantu Administration Boards and in future even more money will be spent by them on Bantu education. Farmers and private individuals have also been contributing and I wish to thank all who take a sincere interest in Bantu education and in the welfare of the Bantu child on behalf of the department. The welfare of the Bantu child is part of the welfare of South Africa and I want to thank everybody for his and her co-operation.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his speech. It was an excellent one. At the same time, I would also like to say how much we agreed with what the hon. member for Johannesburg West had to say.

*I just want to say what a pity it is that so few people from the ranks of the Nationalist Party heard that important speech of the Deputy Minister. It seems to me they are not interested in education, which is such a critical matter.

How many are there on your side?

A much higher percentage than on that side.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister has acknowledged that much remains to be done as far as Bantu education is concerned and has asked us not to be too hasty with criticism. Well, I do not wish to sound critical; I am only going to probe for information. But it is the job of the Opposition to probe, and to be critical. Although I agree with everything he has said and although I have the greatest sympathy with his department, there are a few matters that are puzzling me from the reports we have received.

I am primarily concerned with technical education, the need for technical education especially amongst the Black people. I think it is common cause—we all agree— that technical education is a very important part of education among the Bantu people. We have seen how Japan pulled itself up by its bootstraps by embarking on a very intensive technical education programme. China, Russia and India have adopted the same programme. I feel that not sufficient is being done in South Africa as far as technica1 education amongst the Bantu is concerned. I cannot agree that academic education is more important to the Bantu at this stage of his development than technical education. Particularly in undeveloped areas, people must be able to help themselves. They must be able to help hands, and skills are more important than, for example, the knowledge of mathematics.

But they need a basic academic training for technical education.

I agree with that. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that we have made greater progress in this regard than the rest of Africa. Well, of course, I should hope so! I readily accept it, but I would also like to point out that there is a more ready market in South Africa for trained Bantu than there is in the rest of Africa, particularly as regards technically trained Bantu. There is an unlimited market, actually. The only thing they are able to sell is their labour, particularly skilled labour. It was said in 1971 in a survey of the Department of Labour that we require 20 000 artisans and 5 000 apprentices in South Africa; so the demand is limitless. I have tried to find out how many of these artisans we are in fact training in South Africa. The first document I consulted was the report of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development for the period from January 1972 to March 1973 On page 23 there is a lot of information about the number of homeland citizens with specialized knowledge or skills entered in the registers. When you read down the page, it looks very impressive. As a matter of fact, if one adds up the number of tradesmen, or “ambagsmanne” as they are called here, one reaches a grand total of 5 387 in respect of the eight homelands. But strangely enough, in addition to the number of tradesmen there, are 2 583 operators. This is very puzzling, because there are never more artisans than operators. The ratio is never less than four to one; so one would have expected at least 20 000 operators instead of 2 000. I had a look through the questions in Hansard, and I found that on 23 August this year, the hon. the Minister replied to a question by the hon. member for Edenvale. I refer to col. 171. The hon. member for Edenvale asked the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education what training facilities were available for the training of Bantu artisans in trades other than those enumerated earlier in the question. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave a long list of tradesmen who had been trained in 1973 and 1974. The total for 1973 was 2 043 and that for 1974, which of course was incomplete, was 2 096. This is even more puzzling. From the further part of the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister it appears that these are not really artisans at all. I think there is a lot of confusion here because the reply states that these men must receive further in-service training. The reply also refers to a five-year “sandwich” course with an employer. They are therefore only operators. This is further borne out by the reply to a question which the then hon. member for Transkei asked on 24 April 1973. The hon. member asked the hon. the Minister about Bantu undergoing training as skilled artisans under the pre-service-in-service scheme announced by the Minister of Finance in his 1973 Budget and the hon. the Deputy Minister replied that none were being trained. Last week the hon. member for Amanzimtoti put a question to which the hon. the Minister in a written reply said that no citizens of the Transkei were indentured at all in any trade during the last few years. This information is most confusing. I am afraid that the figure of artisans given does not tally with what is in Hansard.

I have also tried to clarify what technical training is being given to boys at school, because if we are not training artisans we should at least give technical or trade subjects at school. I have again consulted the annual report of 1973, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has also referred. The report gives the total enrolment of boys in technical or trade subjects for 1973 as 3 834. I have totalled all the figures. In trade training classes there were 3 227, in secondary technical subjects—I presume that is from Std. 6—there were 549 while 58 were being trained as technicians with whom I am not particularly concerned. What I am concerned about is that there were only 16 trained as trade instructors. It appears that the 3 227 pupils receiving trade training represent 10% of the schoolgoing population which, as the hon. the Minister has just told us, is three million. In any country of the world the optimum percentage of those who should receive technical training is believed to be 25. We seem to fall a great deal short of that.

What is even more alarming is the passed list which is published on the second last page of the report. We find in the case of the trade training classes that out of approximately 3 200 students only 1000 passed. In the case of the secondary technical subjects only 91 out of the 549 passed and out of the 58 technicians only 14 passed. Out of the 16 trade instructors only nine passed. The percentage passes is only about 34. These figures are shocking to say the least of it, but I am not blaming the department; I blame the tuition. One cannot expect good results if one does not have proper tuition. This is the problem— the teachers who are trying to teach these boys technical or vocational subjects are not properly equipped. If we are only going to get eight trade instructors per year out of all the homelands, how can we possibly hope to train any technicians? I feel that at least 500 per year should be trained in trade instruction alone apart from the teachers who should be getting training in vocational subjects. I think this is perhaps the most disturbing factor of all as far as technical education is concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman I do not intend to react to what was said by the hon. member who has just spoken. He put questions directly to the hon. the Minister and I shall therefore leave it at that.

A short time ago the hon. member for Durban Central referred to an “emergency situation” in Bantu education. I want to say at once that, looking at the existing situation as regards Bantu education services in South Africa, one wishes that one could have an opportunity of giving in this House a dramatic presentation of precisely what has occurred in this sphere over the past number of years, and what is being planned. Because we are unable to do so, I believe that the finest example we could use here, is this report of the Department of Bantu Education for 1973. In this report we are given an impression of genuine growth. In this report we are given an indication of why the situation is not an emergency situation, as the hon. member for Durban Central wanted to suggest here. Allow me to convey at once a few words of congratulation in this regard to the officials of the department responsible for this fine and complete report. It tells a very interesting story, not only about the results of National Party government and National Party policy, but also, here and there, something in respect of the policy of the Opposition.

We often hear the people on that side saying that apartheid has failed. They like to use the word “apartheid” because they associate with it separate counters, separate doors, separate latrines, and so on. I think the sooner the Opposition is honest enough to admit that they realize—and I emphasize these words—that the policy of the Nationalist Government is not what is reflected in a few apartheid measures, the better. As far as we are concerned, more fundamental matters than this are involved. With us it is a question of the building of separate nations, and that being was the case, the Nationalist Government realized this one important point, soon after taking over the reigns of Government, namely the necessity for the development of Bantu education. In this process of development the Government needed five to seven years first to extricate itself from the skeleton we inherited from the United Party’s education system, I call it a skeleton because up to and also after the year 1953, the National Party was obliged to carry on with a system of education for the Bantu which actually amounted to the provinces, private initiative and the churches having to see to the education of the Bantu. In point of fact they neglected these people. Sir, the Nationalist Government realizes that one cannot educate any person who is illiterate. One cannot train him to have what hon. members opposite are continually pleading for, namely proficiency in some occupation. One cannot educate him into realizing that there in his homeland, or wherever he may be, he forms part of a greater whole. That is why the basic premise of the National Party in its education policy is in the first instance that the Bantu be taught to read, write and calculate—the three well-known R’s in English, namely reading, writing and arithmetic. I ask the hon. member for Durban Central: If we had not provided the Bantu with this from 1955 up to now, what would the quality of education have been? If primary education, by means of which we gave the Bantu the basic things, had not enjoyed priority under the Government’s policy, what would the situation have been today; would we have had the people to train for the occupations in which they were required? Sir, a second premise is the principle that education and training are inseparable. Looking at the department’s programme of education, Sir, one finds that this Government has put education back where it belongs, namely among the Bantu, by the Bantu, for the Bantu in his own language and in his own environment. There he is being equipped to realize that he has an identity of his own. We know that hon. members opposite do not accept it in that way, particularly as regards the discrimination when one comes, eventually, to the political aspect of the matter, because according to the Leader of the Progressive Party, the policy of the Progressive Party is to extinguish in the people this feeling of belonging to a group. Sir, education as applied by this Government, does not extinguish the sense of belonging to a group and the nationalism of these people; it makes them aware of its importance.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has already quoted a few figures here, but I want to mention a few supplementary figures. In 1960-’61, less than R18 million was spent on Bantu education; in 1973-’74 the figure had risen to R98 million. In 1955 the Bantu population was 10,4 million and in 1973 it was 16,7 million, an increase of approximately 62%. But over the same period, the number of schools for Bantu increased by a full 100%; the number of teachers increased from 22 000 to 58 000, a full 164%, and between 1955 and 1973 the number of pupils rose from 1 million to 3,3 million, an increase of fully 222%. Sir, that is surely not nothing, even though the immediate increase from year to year does not amount to 100%. Sir, in 1950, only 7% of the total Bantu population was at school. In 1955, when the new education Act came into operation, this figure rose to 10% and at present it is approximately 20%. In 1955, again for the information of the hon. member for Durban Central, only 45% of the Bantu children able to attend school, were in fact at school, and at present the figure is very close to 75%. Sir, we could continue in this way by quoting from the report of the department to show you how growth did occur. But what, ultimately, are we achieving by means of this plan? What do we envisage? What the Nationalist Government envisages is, initially, to bring home to the Bantu the basic things, viz., to enable him to read, write and calculate, and if he is unable to do these three things, then the Opposition will weep in vain for people to be trained for the labour market. It is true that with the growth of our country and our economy, the progress made by the Bantu in various spheres—in the economic, social and other fields—there will always be a conflict between the demand for and the supply of labour. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Westdene has quite rightly emphasized the need for basic fundamental education. I will return to that in a moment, as I would like to begin by adding my own word of congratulation to the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister and the department for the development and the growth which have obviously taken place, and especially to emphasize not only the progress that has been made, but the very clear exposition by the hon. the Deputy Minister that free compulsory education, whilst not being able to be realized immediately, is nevertheless the goal. And not only is that the goal, but the spirit in which he has expressed it in itself can be an education to the Black people of South Africa, because they can know that the spirit in which this is done is not regarded in the light of education being merely a luxury for some, the fortunate few, and certainly not as a charity, but that this is a birthright for every child in South Africa. This is the kind of spirit I hear coming over and with which we agree very heartily.

Sir, obviously nothing can be accomplished immediately, particularly in the area of education, but there is concern amongst many people that although the emphasis has been so strongly on basic education, there has not always been the same emphasis on higher education. In reply to a question put to the hon. the Deputy Minister, we were told that in 1974 the percentage of Bantu pupils in matric was 0,17%. Five years ago it was 0,10, and five years before that 0,06. So, obviously, there has been an improvement and a development for which one is grateful, but I would suggest that these figures indicate that we need to do far more if we are going to have this development beyond the point we have reached. Sir, if one realizes again that 65,40% of all the Black children in school are only up to Std. 2, one realizes this enormous gap. I simply point that out as an indication that while great progress has been made, we have a very long way to go. It could perhaps be better expressed in the following statistics, and one knows of course that statistics can sometimes prove everything or nothing, but in 1953-’54, i.e. the last pre-Bantu education year, State expenditure on each Black pupil in South Africa was about one-eight of the State expenditure on each White pupil. If one looks at the figures for 1972-73, one notices that State expenditure on each Black pupil was about one-eighteenth of State expenditure on each White pupil. So, in other words, the gap, instead of being narrowed, is actually widening in quite an alarming way. Now, of course, there are many valid reasons for at least part of this gap, like the fact that the concentration of African children is in relatively inexpensively staffed and equipped lower primary classes, whereas for the White children they have a strong concentration, at least for some years, of comparatively expensive secondary education. Nevertheless, the point still stands. I am quite convinced that the gap ought to be narrowing rather than widening. Over the last 20 years, in order for White schools to continue their work, an increase of about 200% in unit expenditure has taken place. Over the same period with the same costs the State expenditure in respect of each Black pupil in terms of unit cost has only increased by about 32%. It is quite clear that if the goal which the department has set itself, and which we commend as strongly as we can, is to be achieved, we simply have got to have a far more equal distribution of wealth in South Africa. It is not surprising at all when one bears this in mind that, despite the improvements, there are still many, many schools which are overcrowded. As the hon. the Deputy Minister himself has indicated, there are places where you might have a building and you might have equipment but you have no teacher so a great deal has to be done.

I want to say one other thing. One talks about the quantity of education that is required, and this is true. I want to come back to a point made earlier in the debate in regard to the quality of education. We have to realize, as has been pointed out, that it is not enough simply to have more and more children going to school. It is not enough simply to have more and more buildings going up to accommodate children. The emphasis on teacher education is absolutely fundamental. I want to go one step further. Many people, Black and White, including educationists and homeland leaders, have expressed concern about the quality of Bantu education itself. The point I want to make is brought home I think very well by Martin Buber, philosopher and educationist of standing, when he says—

Too often education—I do not limit it to Bantu education—in South Africa has been closer to propaganda. As I say, this abuse is not confined to one group or another. Any kind of education whether it be literacy or church or school can be open to this temptation. I say that it is possible to have education for servitude rather than for freedom. Again in the words of Martin Buber—

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that our responsibility is to increase the quantity of education, i.e. the availability of education, and also the quality of education for our Black people and for all our people in South Africa. It must place a key in the hands of people so that they can unlock the many doors which are waiting to be unlocked. Of course they must be encouraged to help themselves and enjoy self-development. This is, of course, standard and highly desirable. However, we must come to the point where we accept as we do for the education of White children that it is finally the responsibility of the State to provide the basic education for all.

I want to conclude by putting a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. At least 18 months ago the Urban Bantu Council in Soweto passed a unanimous resolution asking that a technical college be built there. I know that there are difficulties. I know that we have to have basic education. However, if we start at this point, it takes years to achieve it. I hope very much that the possibility of the building of a technical college right there in the heart of this growing industrial area may be possible. If it is said that the funds are not available to do so, I can say that it is quite clear to me that industrialists in that area will pay for the building of that college if only the department will grant permission for it to be built.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of points on which I am in agreement with the hon. member for Pinelands. It is just a little strange to me that we are able to agree at this stage. Formerly it was never possible to agree with hon. members of that party. It is common knowledge that the hon. members of the Progressive Party are more liberalistically orientated in their thinking and this makes it very difficult for their way of thinking and the Nationalist way of thinking to meet. This is true, but I shall come back to this point a little later.

We are all against T.B.

The ideal, of course, is to provide all children with education, to prepare all children as well as possible for the life that lies ahead of them and to train them as well as possible for daily life. That is the ideal we all have. It goes without saying that all of us are intent upon uplifting the Bantu mentally and intellectually in order that he may be a happier person. No one can deny that there can only be praise for what the small White population of South Africa has achieved as far as Bantu education is concerned. No one can deny this. Even Unesco, one of the organizations of the United Nations, calculated recently that by the end of this century there would not be a single illiterate person in South Africa. Even they had to admit, and the world has to admit, that this small White population at the southern tip of Africa has achieved a great deal in respect of the education and training of Bantu. I want to mention a few figures in support of this, but as far as these figures are concerned there is a difference in approach in comparison with the figures furnished so far. In 1948 there were 733 756 Bantu children at school in the entire country, including the Transkei, of whom 508 were in matric; in 1955 there were 1 130 910 Bantu children at school, of whom 674 were in matric; in 1960 there were 1 506 034 Bantu children at school of whom 835 were in matric, and in 1965 there were 1 950 558 Bantu children at school, of whom 1 405 were in matric. The figures for 1966 were 2 111 886 and 1615 respectively. In the first quarter of 1973 there were 3 312 283 Bantu children at school of whom 5 736 were in matric. Thus we have seen a phenomenal growth here in respect of secondary education as well. In 1956 only 37% of the Bantu in South Africa were able to read and write, while in 1965 the percentage was already 51%. The percentage rose to 57,4% in 1968. Today, 80% of Bantu children in South Africa between the ages of 11 and 20 years are literate. Consequently, the Bantu is more receptive of in-service training, and it is important for us to begin with the basics and develop from there. They are self-sufficient and that, too, we have seen to. In 1973, 60 002 teachers were employed at certain secondary schools, of whom only 979 were Whites, in other words, only a very small percentage of Whites were involved in Bantu education.

One of the reasons for growth has been the Bantu Education Act of 1953, the Second Reading of which was piloted through this House by the late Dr. Verwoerd. Interest was stimulated by the introduction of this Act and the Bantu started taking a greater interest in training and education. If we want to talk about a “bold step of courage” which the hon. member for Durban Central spoke of, then this was a “bold step of courage”. In 1953 Dr. Verwoerd had to put an end to the unscientific principles of Liberalism which were being applied in education, and he set Bantu education on a certain course with a specific purpose in mind. That is why I say that the liberalistic view and the Nationalist view have never been able to meet. The liberalistic view believes in only two alternatives. The one is that we should uproot the Bantu, that we should uproot people from their culture, from their character and from their community, and make of them something other than what they really are. We must have them absorbed into a kind of collective world.

Are you exactly the same as your grandfather?

The hon. member for Houghton asks whether I have the same point of view as my grandfather and to this I want to reply, with conviction, “yes”. I believe that the Creation is fundamental to everything and that in the Creation one finds diversity within the unity. That is why we differentiate and believe that this should occur in education as well. Education provides for this too. The basic principle of education is that there should be progress from the known to the unknown; from the concrete to the abstract. Is that not true? That is why in education one should always proceed from the standpoint that one should progress from the known to the unknown. One cannot lead people toward the abstract without their having any knowledge or background of it. I also want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the knowledge of a Bantu child is, after all, different to the knowledge of a White child, or does she want to disagree with me on that score? There is no educationalist who can disagree with me in this respect. Because my grandfather believed that people are different and that consequently everyone should be kept in his own atmosphere by allowing his education to take root in his culture and his language, I believe so too. What art should be practised by the Bantu? Should he practise the Western art, or should he practise his own art? Should he be trained in Western art or should he be trained in Bantu art? These hon. members want to tear the Bantu away from everything that is his. The National Party has thought along the lines of allowing education to be founded on the basic principles. It is this that has stimulated that interest in education among the Bantu.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

You are welcome.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he could explain to me why in every homeland the African leaders have changed the medium of instruction from the vernacular to English, if they are so keen to retain mother tongue instruction?

Sir, the reply is very simple. The position is that the necessary textbooks have not yet been translated into those languages. We are doing our very best in this regard. When I consider the amounts expended on Bantu education by this small White population, I do not know where the hon. member for Houghton wants all the money to come from. Millions of rands are being spent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and the hon. member who have just resumed their seats gave an account of the achievements of the department. I want to state very clearly that we on this side of the House appreciate all the positive work that is being done by the Minister and his department, and particularly the progress achieved as a result of the efforts made by that department. We in the United Party, because we are fellow-South Africans, are in accord with the Minister in being proud of the positive results and achievements attained. We shall continue to encourage the Minister to do still more, and we shall always have appreciation for what he and his department achieve. That we must state clearly. But, Sir, what we also want to state clearly, is that it is not the achievements of the Government which are the subject of debate in South Africa at this stage. All the fine and positive results achieved by the Government, are wiped out by the behaviour of the Government. All the profit and benefit which the Government could derive from the good and fine things they are doing, they wipe out through their negative behaviour and utterances.

Today I want to furnish an example of discrimination. The other day, when I spoke about discrimination, many hon. members on the other side of the House asked me to furnish them with an example of discrimination. There are many members on the other side of the House who deny that there is such a thing as discrimination in relations politics in South Africa. There are other members who say that it is not discrimination, but differentiation. Now, Sir, I want to furnish you with one of the thousands of examples of what one can come across daily in South Africa, examples of cruel, harsh discrimination against members of other race groups, [interjections.] Hon. members can call it differentiation if they like, but they are not bluffing us; they are not bluffing the population of South Africa; nor are they bluffing the world. The effect of their actions is regarded as discrimination and they will have to pay retribution for the effect of the discriminatory steps they are taking. In the Witwatersberg constituency, which at the time was the Randburg constituency, there was a Bantu farm school. Initially it had been a mission school, and later on it came under the control of the Department of Bantu Education. It was a school with a good reputation. Good work was done there. There were 390 Bantu children at that school, children of the farm labourers and the labourers on the smallholdings of the area within a radius of about seven miles from that school. Then came the 1970 election. The then hon. member for Randburg was very fearful that he would lose that election. He was very fearful of the threat from the verkrampte H.N.P. supporters in that constituency if they refrained from casting their votes. There were a few people in the vicinity of that school who complained about the school.

Only a few?

Yes, only a few. There was a petition which was signed by only 103 people. When we investigated that petition, we found that in the case of some households it had been signed by the father, the mother, the aunt, the grandmother, the grandfather and all the children. We should remember that that school served an area in which there were hundreds of Whites and in which there were thousands of Bantu labourers and workers. It was the children of Bantu who received tuition of a high standard at that school. However, it did not suit the book of the Nationalist Party or that hon. member to have that school there because it gave offence to certain selfish, verkrampte H.N.P. supporters whose support was sedulously courted by the Nationalist Party in that election. The Nationalist Party then decided that they would have to summarily close the school without further ado. We made representations and went to see the then Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, the present hon. Minister of Mines. We put the matter to him, but the Deputy Minister was in a difficult situation. He and his officials realized that this was wrong and that it amounted to discrimination.

Did he say so?

Their embarrassment was as plain as a pikestaff, but the interests of the Nationalist Party were regarded as far more important than the interests of those little Bantu children. The Government did not make a single effort to provide alternative accommodation for those little children. They did not take a single step in that regard. On a certain day the Government decided that the school had to close and a summary notification was issued. Can we really have any idea of what it means to those little children to be able to attend a school? I ask the hon. the Minister who has adjusted such a kind attitude over the past few days whether he knows what it means to those little children to be able to go to school. Does he know what it means to the parents of those little children to have their children at school and to buy them little school uniforms and blazers on a scanty income? It takes them five years to be able to afford blazers for their children. The Government, however, decided that the school should be closed, and as a result, 390 defenceless children fell victim to the forceful, discriminatory action of that Government. It was White supremacy in its harshest and cruellest form that was inflicted upon those little children in order that supporters of the Nationalist Party could be shown how forceful the Government was. [Interjections.] These little children were sent on their way; I was there that day. Three hundred and ninety little children had to walk away from that school with tears in their eyes. Tears ran down their cheeks. They were bewildered, confused and dismayed and they could not understand why the White man should act in that way. However. I want to point out that while I was standing there one of the older children said to me: “Tell the White bosses that every dog has its day.” I want hon. members to bear that in mind … [Interjections] … because their discriminatory action is the cause of hundreds and thousands of people walking around with feelings of rebellion against and hate of the Whites in their hearts, owing to one thing only, viz. the discrimination applied to other people by this Government.

You are an agitator.

Order! Did the hon. member for Stilfontein say that the hon. member is an agitator?

I withdraw it with sorrow.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I appeal to the hon. the Minister. The majority of those little children have never attended a school again. The hon. the Minister should set the matter to rights. He should get them schools. The hon. member for Witwatersberg, who is implicated in this criminal offence, should be dismissed from this House. He should be appointed to one or other of the Government’s boards. There are many Government boards. He can be appointed to such a post or sent overseas to serve in one of our embassies, but he should be removed from South African politics, where his actions are harmful.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is it permissible for the hon. member to accuse the hon. member for Witwatersberg of a criminal offence?

Order! Did the hon. member accuse the hon. member for Witwatersberg of a criminal offence?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it unconditionally, I say it was a political offence in terms of relations politics in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with earlier speakers and in a few words, convey our thanks to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the administration boards and in addition, the officials who devote themselves to their task with great enthusiasm. We want to felicitate them and congratulate them on an outstanding achievement in the growth of Bantu education. I want to dwell for a moment on the differing premise in respect of our approach, in this party structure, to Bantu education. From speeches in the debate on the previous Vote and in the present debate, too, the standpoint and the task of the National Party in this regard crystallize out very clearly. We can begin by asking: What is our point of departure? We want to outline the fact clearly that our task, in the first instance, is to see the Black man in his national context. He is a member of a group of people who, owing to unity of language and historical development, have a clear consciousness of belonging together. Our educational programme is aimed at the development of the Black man in his totality, the awakening of national pride, the appreciation of his own cultural wealth, the love of his own soil and loyalty to his fatherland, therefore, his development so as to enable him, in the first instance, to serve more effectively what is his own and to create utilities in his country, so as to guide the activities in his own country towards growth and independence. We are in earnest on this score. Looking at the task of the B.I.C., the X.D.C. and others, it speaks volumes that we are guiding those Black businessmen towards self-sufficiency in their business structure. The representation at the highest levels, inter alia on university councils, and the fact that Mr. Matanzima is at present a member of our group at U.N., are clear examples. In the second place we strive for the development of the Black man in order that his greater productivity in the White areas may be utilized to enable him, in this way, to be better qualified and to be able to negotiate for higher remuneration and thus himself achieve and maintain a higher standard of living, and to enable him to learn skills which he can take back to his homeland.

Let us take the Progressive Party and look at their so-called point of departure. They do not have a point of departure. We see them as political blind moles following behind a mother blind mole. They strive towards the development of the Black man so as to exploit his labour potential in order to line the pocket of the rich boss. Sir, they should not look at me like that; they should be looking at those members at the back over there. Those members courted their policy; they had better seek a link there. They look down on the Black man in all respects; they do not recognize his nationhood, because then they would have to subscribe to the policy of the National Party. They do not even study and learn his language. In 1970 there were 26 secondary schools in the Transvaal offering a Bantu language as a subject. Not one of them was an English medium school. At present there are 35 schools offering a Bantu language as a subject, of which 30 are Afrikaans medium and five are English medium. The hon. member for Bryanston can now go and find out whether one of those schools falls within his area. We perform this task and we encourage our teachers to see the Black man, out of respect and mutual respect, as a full-fledged citizen in his own country. I think that for the most part those hon. members can only speak Fanagalo. Sir, I just want to quote to you something that was written by Mr. P. R. S. Maphike, a learned man (translation)—

Sir, I want to express my thanks to hon. members of this House for the grasp and knowledge of the idiom and the rich sound of the Black man’s language. In this respect we call to my mind hon. members such as the member for Vryheid, the member for Klip River and the hon. members for Eshowe, Pietermaritzburg South, Durban Point and Mooi River; these are people who speak that language and are able to communicate properly in that language. Sir, I just want to refer to something that happened when one of our Defence Force units was stationed at a certain place; the name of the little place was Rathanang. The officer was a wide awake officer and he thought that this would be a fine, appropriate cry to encourage his men to march at a lively pace, because the word “Rathanang” rolls easily off the tonge. To his embarrassment he found out later that “Rathanang” meant “Make haste slowly”. Sir, these people who speak this language will know with what confidence and mutual respect one is able to communicate with the Black man. In this regard, too, we want to convey our thanks to the hon. member for Algoa. The first Xhosa class in a South African school was at the Cilliers High School in Port Elizabeth, and it was owing to his zeal that it was established there. Sir, to people who regard this task with contempt, we can only state that in America, West Germany and the Netherlands, Xhosa and Zulu are subjects at the universities. Those people who live a long way from here have a regard and respect for these languages and these people; but this is not shared by certain people in our own ranks. I want to invite these people to contribute from their own pockets to the sport and recreation fund in order that those Black children who are cooped in the great Bantu cities, among tarred roads and concrete walls, may also be taken out for the holidays to their homelands to give them the opportunity to become acquainted with the land, with their birthright. I want to invite hon. members of the Opposition to co-operate in working towards this great ideal. It is a splendid challenge to one and all of us to guide and stimulate the Black people towards development into mature people in their own right.

Mr. Chairman, may I just say at the outset that we are aware that the hon. the Deputy Minister unfortunately has another appointment. Consequently I want to ask on behalf of this side of the House whether he would be so kind as to use the remaining five minutes to reply and then he would be free to go if he would only be so friendly as to undertake to furnish a written reply to any questions that may be put here.

I have listened with a great deal of appreciation to the discussions here and in particular I want to emphasize once again my persona] appreciation for the really impressive progress made in the sphere of Bantu education in the past number of years. That progress has been impressive in many respects. This side of the House states very clearly that not only do we have appreciation for this, but we shall lend our support in all respects to whatever is asked of us to promote further progress in this sphere. The progress that has been made is not the point at issue; the point at issue is solely whether a great deal more should not have already been done than has in fact been done at this stage. [Interjections.] But here, too, I want to express my appreciation for the intention—and I shall come back to this later—expressed here by the hon. the Deputy Minister concerning the ideals that are being set, i.e. that it is the policy and the aim to move in the direction of general education and free education for the Bantu and also the provision of free books and other real facilities. The hon. the Deputy Minister should accept that we shall continue to exert pressure on him to make ever more rapid progress in that direction. In this regard we on this side of the House also want to associate ourselves with the thanks and appreciation that have been conveyed to bodies such as TEACH and other bodies which have all, by way of bursaries, contributions and other funds, helped to allow Bantu education to progress more rapidly. I also want to convey thanks for this truly interesting and illuminating report which has been put at our disposal. It is a report containing an enormous amount of information and it is something which we can certainly study to greater advantage in the course of time.

Allow me, Sir, to touch on a few aspects. I want to come back to the reply furnished in regard to Bantu members of our university councils, and also to the question of salaries. It has been said here a number of times that the United Party has done this and has failed to do that, and look what the Nationalist Party does now. I just want to say that we have certainly been saying for many years that we cannot continue with the system of a White council and a Bantu advisory council at these universities, just as we objected from the outset to the White professors who were to serve on the Senate and the Black lecturers on the Advisory Senate; and just as we objected from the outset to the distinction that was and, to my knowledge, still is drawn at these universities between the salaries of White lecturers and Black lecturers. Sir, this is a case of equal qualifications and equal work and we are nevertheless still practising discrimination or differentiation, call it what you will. I have considered at length the definition furnished here yesterday in respect of these two terms. It is said that discrimination occurs when one tells people they are all equal—because that, surely, if I understand it correctly, is the spirit in which the policy of national diversity is to be interpreted—while certain people are cheated and it is said behind their backs: “Boys, you must stand together.” Sir, I was at those Black universities a number of times in former years and I remember that the Black lecturers were not even allowed to drink tea with the White lecturers. I am pleased that those times are past. I think that those times are past. I am pleased that it is being realized that one cannot build up those universities and create a healthy society in this way. The argument has always been: We cannot put Black people in the council because the idea was that that White council would eventually transfer all its functions and powers to the Bantu council which would then, in the process of functioning as an advisory council, eventually have to learn how to run that university. We knew that that policy was not going to work. I am thankful that the National Party has eventually abandoned this absurdity. I want to repeat my standpoint, namely that I think that it is now time for an ever-growing number of Bantu to be appointed to that council; that the time has now arrived for us to appoint Bantu: to an ever-increasing extent, as rectors and registrars to save their own institutions, as, in fact, the theory underlying those universities requires.

I want to say, too, that it was with appreciation that I took note of the standpoint of the Deputy Minister here that we should not begrudge the Bantu that which we ask for ourselves. He said, too, that the Bantu parent wanted the same things for his child as a White parent wanted for his. However, I want to ask this: How can we reconcile this with the fact that it is still the policy not to build high schools in our urban areas. In the report of the department, mention is made of the fact that it is policy to build high schools in the homelands where they are supposedly to serve as growth points. This is mentioned on page 81 of the report. How is it possible that we can tell Bantu parents in the urban areas: “we are terribly sorry, but we are not going to build schools here, which your children can attend as day scholars. The only high schools which are going to be available, are in the homelands. You must send them there.” In all honesty, we cannot then say that we wish the Bantu parents to have what we want for ourselves; that would be as little true as in the days when the Afrikaner was moving from the country to the cities. Then the cry was: “We should go back to the country.” Our policy was not to say that we should only build high schools in the country in order to force the Afrikaner to return to the country. If we must carry out our ideological policy at all costs, we should not expect gratitude and appreciation on the part of the Bantu parent. I want to say at once that I am aware of the fact that, owing to the bad conditions prevailing in the urban areas, some Bantu parents choose to send their children to the homelands and the hostels there. According to my information, however, this is one of the points which is totally unacceptable to many Bantu parents.

In connection with the further development of education it is very clear that we are faced with two problems. One is finance, and the other is human material. In this regard it is surely very clear that if more finance is not made available by this Parliament for Bantu education, then it is obvious that services will have to be curtailed. We all know that finances are not unlimited, but then it is a question of priorities. We should then decide which is more important. Is it more important to spend R32 million to buy out White traders in the homelands and transfer most of their business enterprises to the BIC and some of them to Black people, instead of spending it on Bantu education which, as everyone here says, is the finest investment that could be made? That is the problem. That is the question we must ask and continue to ask. I am convinced that in this regard we can say honestly that our priorities are not always correct. It is very simple. That is why we insist that sufficient funds be made available to enable us to rectify these things which are not being done or which cannot be done at this stage. We should also try to rectify the wrong things that have been done, for example Bantu parents who are obliged to pay for the school books of their children. They are the poorest section of the population. It just does not make sense. We should give our full support to the hon. the Deputy Minister if he were to come to this House with drastic increases in financial allocations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. members and Whips on both sides of the House who are making it possible for me to perform a function this afternoon which I undertook to do a long time ago. I should like to give the undertaking that I will have a note made of the questions to which I will not be able to reply now owing to the time limit. I request hon. members on both sides of the House to be so kind as to make inquiries in this regard, then I can give them the information by way of a personal conversation. If they prefer, I can also give it to them in writing. Otherwise I shall furnish the replies to the best of my ability in a subsequent debate.

I now want to return to the questions put to me by the hon. main speaker on that side of the House. I do not want to comment any further on the question of the universities, except to say that we must adopt a realistic attitude. Consequently, I also want to ask the hon. member who was attached to a university, where the people who have to fill those senior posts, are to be found? I am not saying this in a derogatory sense in respect of the Bantu, but we must bear in mind that we have always said that we do not want to lower the quality of our university education. The quality of our education will depend on the quality of the people providing the instruction. We cannot thrust a person who is not qualified into that post simply because he has a black skin. I am in full agreement that if an equally competent Black person is to be found, the replacement process must continue to as great an extent as possible. The same applies to schools.

The hon. member put a question to me in regard to high schools. I can inform the hon. member that it is my ideal, and on this score we will simply have to agree to differ, to build up in children as much as possible the ideas of homeland ties from an early age, in so far as this is practicable. I must concede that practical difficulties are being experienced, especially in recent times, with the formula in terms of which schools are being provided in the urban Bantu residential areas, and this has of necessity been changed as the result of circumstances. In Soweto alone, for example, 12 new junior secondary schools were approved during 1973. It is of course a problem to provide hostel accommodation when one makes the training facilities available in the new homelands, and we want to provide the basic facilities until the ideal has been attained. It still remains our first priority to establish training colleges in the homelands. Whether hon. members agree with me or not, this is the wish which the leaders of the peoples themselves, and the school committees and school boards have conveyed to me.

I am going to reply to only one more question, and that is in regard to what the hon. member for Bryanston had to say about a school. The full report is contained in Hansard, but I just want to say in brief that any school may be constructed in the rural areas with the consent of the environment. If the hon. member wishes to take the lead and is able to obtain the co-operation of the environment to establish a farm school there, it will be considered on merits. That is all that is asked. However, as I said of Sea Point at the time— and I am not being sarcastic now—we must take the vested rights of the inhabitants into account. I am saying the same thing here.

†The hon. member for Sea Point will know that there are practical problems. You have to consider vested rights and the rights of individuals who have the right to protest. It is not because of the colour of the skin that we have confusion in such a case; it is because people do not want the noise or the inconvenience of such amenities.

*With that I want to conclude and repeat the promise that I shall reply to other questions when hon. members put them to me in writing. I just want to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. members on both sides of the House who made positive contributions to this debate. I hope that, after this debate, we will be able to continue building on the sound foundations which have been laid by our officials.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in clause 5(1)(c) provision is being made for the Medical Council to appoint a medical practitioner as a member of the Pharmacy Board, but in terms of the present provision there is no clear requirement for such a medical practitioner to be a member of the Medical Board. The way in which the amendment has been framed simply ensures that the Medical Board has to appoint someone from amongst its members. I therefore move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

Mr. Chairman I wish to associate myself with the Minister’s remarks and support the amendment he moved. I think it is an improvement to the existing clause, and I would also like to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

This is in subsection (2) of clause 5. It deals with the situation where, if for any reason no one is elected to the board before the period contemplated in the regulations for the signing and transmission of the voting papers, the Minister may appoint any person qualified to be so elected to fill such vacancy, whereupon the person so appointed shall be deemed to have been duly elected. The purpose of my amendment is to suggest that the Minister after consultation with the board may appoint the person. The reason I do this is that I believe that the South African Pharmacy Board, the president and the members of the executive, have a very close knowledge of those people who play a part in pharmacy. Every year at the annual general meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society the president of the Pharmacy Board is usually there in his official capacity. If he is not there then other representatives of the board attend the conference, so that they are fully aware of what is going on at the annual general meeting of the society. At that annual general meeting there are present up to 100 pharmacists who have been elected by their various branches, by their peers, to represent the various branches of the society. One can say that one has the cream of the administrative section of pharmacy representing all sections of pharmacy—retail, manufacturing, educational, wholesale—gathered there and all under the eye, as it were, of the board and the members of the executive of the board. I feel therefore that the executive committee of the board is in a very strong position to advise the Minister should a vacancy occur which the Minister has to fill in terms of this subsection.

In conclusion I would like to point out that object 3(d) of the objects of the board says “to advise the Minister on any matter relating to pharmacy”. I feel that by including the amendment I have suggested, we are in fact carrying out the letter of this suggestion, namely, of advising the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would have no fundamental objections to the amendment, the proposed amendment, if it were to read “after consultation with the executive committee of the board”. It is acceptable to me in that form. The executive committee is the executive body of the board as such. They meet very often. They have the same expert people. They can readily be summoned by me, and if I were to accept the amendment in this form, I think I would be meeting the hon. member’s objection in this regard. I shall therefore accept it to that extent. If the executive committee of the board were to be consulted, I believe it would carry into effect what he envisages. Moreover, his original amendment in its present form relates to either the executive committee or the board. I think we should leave this to the executive committee only. In that case it will be acceptable to me. I therefore move, if this can be changed, as my amendment: That the words “after consultation with the executive committee of the board” be inserted at the place where the hon. member wants to insert his amendment.

Order! Is the hon. the Minister moving the same amendment now?

I can accept the amendment if the hon. member deletes the words “or the board”.

Mr. Chairman, may I draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to page 195 of the Order Paper on which my amendment to this clause stands in that very form—

It stands on the Order Paper in that form in my name.

In that case I accept it.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Clause 14(1)(e) merely makes provision for the keeping of registers of bodies corporate which, at the date of the commencement of the Act, carried on business as a pharmacist. The clause in its present form will also have the effect that no new wholesaler or manufacturer will be able to be registered as a body corporate, and in order to make provision for the registration of wholesalers and manufacturers, this amendment is essential.

Mr. Chairman, here again I want to associate myself with the Minister’s remarks and support the amendment which he has moved, which I believe is an improvement upon the original clause. I also wish to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Sir, clause 14 refers to the keeping of registers. It commences by saying that the registrar shall maintain certain registers and then it goes on to list the type of registers —the register of pharmacists, trainee pharmacists, pharmacy students, of unqualified assistants and of bodies corporate. Clause 14(1)(f) deals with the question of the registration of pharmacies. As it stands now it reads “a register of pharmacies in which shall be entered the name and address of every pharmacy in the Republic and the name of the owner, manager or person in charge of such pharmacy”. I believe that it should be made quite clear—it should be stipulated in the Bill—that it should also refer to the type of pharmacy concerned. This is the intention of my amendment, viz. In line 51, after “pharmacy” to insert “and the nature of such pharmacy”. As I understand the position, every hospital, manufacturing, wholesale or retail business which deals with the handling of drugs is regarded as a pharmacy within the meaning of the Act. I believe that it is only right that the nature or type of pharmacy should be included in the register by a definite provision in the Act itself. I do so because I believe this position is the same as that existing in clause 14(1)(c) where the position has been stated extremely explicitly. It says—

1. (c) a register of pharmacy students in which shall be entered the name of every person enrolled at the university or at a pharmacy school or other institution approved by the board and who has complied with the requirements prescribed for registration as a pharmacy student …

And then—

I appreciate, Sir, that it could be possible in the regulations promulgated under this clause to stipulate those provisions, but if the drafters of the legislation have seen fit to go into such detail in regard to the manner in which the register for pharmacy students should be maintained, then I believe that it is equally important that in paragraph (f) dealing with the register of pharmacies it should be made quite clear that the register should also stipulate the nature of the pharmacy so that it will be possible to tell at a glance whether it is a retail, wholesale, manufacturing or hospital pharmacy.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept this amendment. Let me say that “pharmacy” as such means any place wherein this is performed any act specially pertaining to the profession of the pharmacist. It follows that the word “pharmacy” has a particular connotation, and I think the inclusion of this amendment would lead to misinterpretations. It is felt that we can deal with this matter administratively, particularly in view of the fact that this Bill provides for minimum requirements only. I think the Pharmacy Board is at liberty to increase the scope of entries to be made in the register should it deem it necessary, and I do not think it is necessary for us to make this specific change to the meaning of “pharmacy” or to indicate that there are different kinds of pharmacies.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Health agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

This clause deals with a body corporate carrying on business as a pharmacist. Such a body corporate may be a manufacturer, a wholesaler or a retailer. It is the intention to limit the pharmacy profession in the retail sphere to qualified pharmacists. In order to give effect to the aforementioned intention, the insertion of paragraphs 22(1) (b)(iv) and 22(1)(e), as embodied in my amendment as printed, is essential.

Clause 22(1)(b)(iv) empowers the board to suspend the registration of a body corporate as a pharmacist if such a body corporate disposes of the whole or any part of its interest in the retail pharmacy business to any person other than a pharmacist. All the bodies corporate carrying on business as retail pharmacists are registered as private companies. The interpretation of the Companies Act by the legal adviser is that if a shareholder in such a private company should wish to dispose of his share, he should obtain the approval of the body corporate and if the body corporate should grant its approval it would expose itself to action by the board. As far as this provision is concerned, it is unfortunately a requirement that we have to go as far as we are doing at this stage, but we cannot go any further without our effecting far-reaching amendments. But the intention is clear: No person who has an interest in a pharmacy at present may dispose of such an interest to anyone other than a pharmacist. If the board should act according to this provision and should be threatened with action in any way, we would not hesitate to legalize the action of the board by law in the light of circumstances. Consideration has been given to using the word “shareholder” instead of the words “body corporate”, in the amendment. The problem is, however, that public companies exist which hold shares in retail pharmacies. The activities of these companies are not limited to those of retail pharmacies, but include manufacturing and wholesale pharmacies as well. Consequently, if the word “shareholder” were to be used, it might hit back at the shareholders of the private company, and that would have the result that quoted shares could be sold to pharmacists only. It is not the intention to limit manufacturing or wholesale activities to pharmacists only, and consequently the amendment cannot be worded in another way at this stage. That is why I move the following amendments as printed in my name—

1. (1) To add the following subparagraph at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1):

1. “(iv) if after the commencement of this Act the body corporate disposes of the whole or any part of its interest in the retail pharmacy business in respect of which it is registered under section 14(1)(e) to any person other than a pharmacist;”;

1. (2) to add the following paragraph at the end of subsection (1):

1. “(e) the body corporate, if it carries on business as a retail pharmacist, shall have been carrying on business as such immediately prior to the commencement of this Act”; and

1. (3) to add the following subsection at the end of the clause:

1. “(5) A body corporate desiring to be registered as a body corporate entitled to carry on business as a pharmacist shall in the prescribed manner, specifying the prescribed particulars, apply to the board for such registration.”.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are perfectly happy to support the hon. the Minister’s amendments, but we do feel that the first amendment he has moved does not go far enough. I am not now going to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Durban North on page 201 of the Order Paper. I am not proceeding with that. Instead, I wish to move the following amendment—

I said earlier that we believe that the first amendment moved by the hon. the Minister does not go far enough. It deals only with disposition and not with acquisition. The Minister’s amendment reads, inter alia, as follows: “If after the commencement of this Act the body corporate disposes of the whole or any part of its interest …” It does not mention acquisition. It is important that this loophole, the loophole of acquisition, should also be closed, because a provision relating to disposition by itself will not prevent acquisition. It is for that reason that I have moved my amendment. If this amendment is accepted, as I believe it probably will be, since I have had consultations with the hon. the Minister and his department in this regard and since I believe the amendment is in an acceptable form, it will mean that after the commencement of this Act these provisions will apply also to any person other than a pharmacist acquiring any shareholding. Therefore only a pharmacist can acquire any shareholding in such a corporate business.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

This is an amendment to subsection (3) of this clause, which deals with a contravention of or failure to comply with any provisions of clause 22, and also a refusal or failure to answer any inquiry made by or on behalf of the board as to the name of the managing director or any other director of, or of any other person employed by, a body corporate referred to in this clause. The subsection goes on to say that this shall be an offence and that a person shall on conviction thereof be liable to a fine not exceeding R200. The object of my amendment is to increase the amount from R200 to R500. My reason is that this provision originally appeared in Act No. 13 of 1928. It has remained in the Act since its inception, for 46 years. At that time the maximum fine was R100. Now this Bill suggests that the amount should be doubled to R200. After a period of 46 years I believe that the value of money has undergone a much greater change than that. I suggest that this is a totally inadequate fine to impose in view of the seriousness of this provision. I say this advisedly, because not only does this subsection refer to a failure to comply with any provisions of clause 22; it also deals with a refusal or failure to answer any inquiry made by or on behalf of the board. I know that the failure to reply to a request for information by the board is regarded by the board as contempt of the board. I know that they have, in their own right, in the past either suspended or erased pharmacists for having shown contempt of the board by not responding to a request for information. I believe that this could be regarded as a serious offence. I believe it would be logical to increase the amount to R500 in view of the fact that, 46 years ago, the fine was R100. I ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment on that basis.

Mr. Chairman, I accept both the amendments moved by the hon. members for Wynberg and Berea. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg does, I think, lead to more clarity, and does close a loophole. As I have said, I also accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea.

*I just want to refer again to my third amendment, i.e. the addition of the new subsection (5). By way of motivation I just want to say that it is essential in order to make provision for the registration of wholesalers and manufacturers in the future.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

For the last 46 years the medical, dental and pharmacy professions have been embodied in one Act and the penalty for professing to be or practising as a pharmacist while unregistered was in the past embodied in those sections of the Act dealing with practising as or professing to be a medical practitioner or dentist. In terms of the Act the sentence imposed was the same in the case of the various professions. In the original Act the fine was an amount not exceeding R200. In this Bill the amount, as far as the pharmacists are concerned, has been increased to R500.

If one refers to the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Bill which the House accepted only last week, one finds that penalties for practising as a medical practitioner or as a dentist or as a psychologist while being unregistered, all involve a fine of R500 and a term of imprisonment. I believe that it is logical and right that the professions of pharmacy, medicine, dentistry and psychology should be treated on a par and that the offence is equally serious in each case. The penalty as detailed in this Bill should include the option of a term of imprisonment for a period of up to 12 months to bring it in line with the other Bill. The words “or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment” should therefore be added. I ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment on the basis of having uniform penalties.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following two amendments—

1. (1) In line 63, after “practitioner”, to insert “or pharmacist”; and
2. (2) in line 65, after “undergone”, to insert “prescribed”.

I submit that these two amendments will bring about an improvement to the clause. Subsection (3) reads—

1. (d) the handling of medicines or the supply of medicines to members of the armed forces, under the supervision of a medical practitioner …

A medical practitioner is not always on hand and the pharmacy or the dispensary is virtually in the hands of a pharmacist. For that reason I ask that the words “or pharmacist” be inserted after “practitioner”. I think it is reasonable. It is customary to have a pharmacy in the hands of a pharmacist and not in the hands of a medical practitioner. The medical practitioner is in charge of the wards, but the pharmacist is in charge of the dispensary.

It merely refers to “training” and there is no provision at all about what sort of training is intended. It might have been training in riding horses, because it does not say wherein the training must have been undergone. That is why I suggest that “prescribed” should be inserted. It will then specify what type of training the person who is handling the medicine should have before he does so. I cannot see any objection to including these two words and I ask the hon. the Minister to be good enough to accept the two amendments. I believe that they will improve these provisions.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea is concerned, his amendment is accepted as its wording has now been changed in the Afrikaans text.

I have noticed the change in the wording.

I therefore accept his amendment.

As far as the hon. member for Rosettenville is concerned I am prepared to accept his first amendment.

*As far as the second amendment is concerned, I want to point out that if the hon. member’s amendment were to be accepted it would mean that the Minister of Health would have to prescribe the training of people such as medical orderlies. Those orderlies are trained by the Defence Force and in certain circumstances they are thrown on their own resources. I do not believe it would be a desirable development if the Minister of Health were to prescribe their training. The concept of “training” in point of fact embraces training for the purposes for which the people have been employed. In the South African Defence Force medical practitioners as well as pharmacists have strict orders they have to comply with in regard to medicine. It has to be ensured that the legal provisions in regard to the various professions and the control of medicine are strictly complied with. I do not think it is necessary for us to accept this amendment. I regret that I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister sure that a person who will be asked to do this work in a ward will have had some sort of training in the matter? We may get young boys …

But they will have had their training.

But who is going to prescribe their training? That is the point that we want cleared up. Somebody must prescribe their training.

The Defence Force as such.

All right, I agree. That is a very fine body to prescribe the course of training and I accept that. All I ask the hon. the Minister to do is to say that the prescribed training should be given, or prescribed training by the Defence Force, it he wants to make it clearer. The Bill only specifies training, whereas I would like it included here that the Defence Force should decide on the training these people should have. It is a simple matter, but it clarifies the position. If there is an accident in connection with the handling of drugs this Minister will be responsible. I am warning now that it is possible for that to happen. He knows how dangerous it can be when people who have not undergone the prescribed course handle drugs.

These people will act under the same laws; they will just fall under another department. If the hon. member will change his amendment to “appropriate training” instead of “prescribtd training” I do not see any difficulty in accepting it.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of what the hon. the Minister has said, perhaps I should withdraw my second amendment. Will the hon. the Minister insert the word “appropriate” when the Bill goes through the Other Place?

Mr. Chairman, I will go even further and insert the words “appropriate training in the Defence Force”.

Mr. Chairman, with leave of the Committee I therefore withdraw my second amendment on the understanding that the hon. the Minister will reconsider the position and make the necessary change in the Other Place.

Second amendment moved by Dr. E. L. Fisher, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for his co-operation in this matter. I referred to the problem I had in regard to this particular clause during the Second Reading debate. The old Act laid down specifically “in the case of any military or naval institution or unit, the employment for the dispensing of medicines of members of the military or naval forces who have undergone training therein and are considered by the Minister to be competent to dispense medicine in such institution or unit”. There was some control then because the Minister of Health had to consider them to be competent. I am very pleased that my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville, has pursued this matter, because I think it is most important. I have no objection in principle to the fact that the responsibility will now rest with the Department of Defence.

However, I want to draw attention again to the fact that some of the trainees in the Department of Defence, although they may have been given the adequate period of training, may not all have the initial basic educational training to justify this. In an answer I received from the hon. the Minister of Defence a year or so ago, the nature of the training supplied was indicated to me, and in some cases the standard of education of these trainees was only Std. VIII. I do not believe that a Std. VIII education satisfactorily equips an individual, even if he enjoys a three months’ training period as has been laid down by the Department of Defence, to dispense the modern, sophisticated drugs. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he bears this in mind when this matter is considered in the Other Place.

Remaining amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35:

Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment standing in my name, as follows—

1. (1) In line 21, to omit “two hundred rand” and to substitute “five hundred rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment”.

This is the clause which is entitled, “Pharmacy to be under continuous personal supervision of a pharmacist”. I refer particularly to subsection (2) which reads as follows—

I want to point out here too that in the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Bill which has been approved by this House, the penalty for a similar offence is different. In terms of clause 36(1)(e) of that Bill any person who uses a title, description or symbol in order to lead persons to infer that he is a medical practitioner, is subject to a fine of R500 and/or 12 months’ imprisonment. I believe that the penalties should be the same in both Bills. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister if he would be prepared to accept it on that basis.

I also wish to move the second amendment standing in my name, as follows—

1. (2) In line 26, after “Minister”, to insert “after consultation with the board”.

I have referred to the question of the penalty, but there is also a proviso to the clause. I quote the proviso—

In terms of clause 3 of the Bill it is one of the functions of the board to advise the Minister and I feel that it would be desirable to insert the words “after consultation with the board” in this clause. I ask the hon. the Minister if he is prepared to accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to accepting the first amendment of the hon. member after the correct wording has been substituted in the Afrikaans version. I also have no objection to accepting the second amendment moved by the hon. member.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

This amendment is similar to the previous amendment which the hon. the Minister has been good enough to accept. The marginal note of this particular clause states that it deals with the restriction in respect of business names. I believe that any contravention of this particular clause is a reasonably serious matter and I believe that under these circumstances it should have the same penalty as will apply in terms of the previous clause.

Mr. Chairman, seeing that the hon. member is after the blood of these people, I also accept this amendment, subject to the substitution of the correct wording in the Afrikaans text.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Here again I wish to draw the attention of the Committee and of the hon. the Minister to a similar clause which appeared in the Medical Bill which the House has accepted. In that clause in the other Bill there was provision for a fine not exceeding R100 for a similar contravention. I believe that in this Bill the fine should be the same. I am aware of the provisions of clause 50 which could be referred to as an omnibus penalty clause. However, if I may just refer to clause 50 for a moment on a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, it states:

In view of the fact that the precedent has been set in the Medical Bill that this type of contravention in terms of the Medical Bill is considered to merit a fine not exceeding R100, I think it is desirable to have the same penalty laid down in this Bill for what virtually amounts to the same contravention. Otherwise I believe it could react unfairly to a pharmacist who, while finding himself charged under this clause, has a penalty imposed under clause 50, a penalty which could be in excess of the maximum of R100 laid down as the maximum amount for a similar offence in the Medical Bill.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept this amendment. Clause 50 of the Bill provides for this. The hon. member must realize that the regulations create offences and must also make provision for them. In clause 50 a fine of “not exceeding R500” is being laid down. Consequently this is the maximum penalty to which a person who has committed an offence will be liable. We have other provisions too, for example, clause 43, which may very easily be covered by clause 50. In the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Bill a specific penalty has been laid down for virtually every offence. However, clause 50 of this Bill covers all these very effectively, for by means of regulations, for example, offences may be created that are not specifically mentioned here. For that reason I do not think it is necessary to accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 43:

Mr. Chairman, I see that the hon. the Minister wishes to move an amendment to this clause, but while I am on my feet I may just say that in view of the hon. the Minister’s reply to my previous amendment it is not my intention to move this particular amendment. My only concern is that there is a disparity in the possible sentence that may be imposed, but as I say, I do not wish to move the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Where it is being provided that a pharmacist shall not pay commission to a medical practitioner, we have not included certain favours that may be bestowed, such as an overseas trip, a motor-car or something of that nature. I think that if the Committee were to accept my amendment as printed, we should also be able to deal with the evasion of the payment of commission, which may actually be interpreted as referring to money only.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister and give the hon. the Minister my support. I think it is a very wise provision. In my personal experience I have knowledge of a chemist and druggist who operated a pharmacy and who used to present many of the medical men with whom he had a close association with electric razors, watches and fountain pens. I believe that that is an undesirable practice and that this clause will make the necessary provisions to combat it. May I just say in passing that that particular individual left pharmacy and went into some other business. I do not know whether he found that more lucrative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. “(4) Any regulation made under this section may prescribe penalties not exceeding a fine of fifty rand for any contravention thereof or failure to comply therewith.”

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by restating the old arguments, but I wondered whether the Minister might be prepared to accept this amendment, in the light of his explanation concerning the omnibus penalty section of clause 50. As I read the present clause 49, there is no provision whatsoever in regard to a contravention. I only ask, as a matter of information, whether he would not regard the clause containing this amendment as being clearer; and in the light of the fact that the penalty in the Medical Act is a nominal one of R50, whether he does not feel that this clause could be embodied with advantage in the Pharmacy Bill as well.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following two amendments—

1. (1) In line 3, to omit “after considering any” and to substitute “on the”; and
2. (2) in line 25, page 45, after “may,”, to insert “after consultation with the executive committee of the board,”.

The first amendment merely involves the substitution for the relevant words of the wording contained in the previous Act. The board prefers the phrase to read “on the recommendation of the board” rather than “after considering any recommendation of the board”.

The second amendment, too, is simply aimed at bringing the relevant words into line with the wording of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Bill. There, too, I made the concession of undertaking not to make regulations on my own without having consulted the board.

I now want to reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. Although the hon. member thinks that these penalty provisions are not being covered, I want to refer him to the definition of the word “regulation”, which reads that a regulation means any regulation made under an Act, and consequently under this Bill as well. For that reason the penalty provision falls under clause 50, just like all the others. In other words, in this case too we have a maximum penalty of R500. I do not think this amendment is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, may I say that we on this side of the House support the amendments of the hon. the Minister.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Health agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be fitting, on a great day for pharmacy, for me to express, on behalf of the profession for whom I have spoken in this House for 13 odd years, my sincere appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the manner in which he has approached this task. It has not been an easy one. There has been endless consultation and there have been many problems and quite a number of legal wrangless, and in expressing my appreciation to the hon. the Minister I should also like to add once again my thanks to the Secretary for Health, to the legal draftsmen and to all in the Department of Health who, with patience and diligence, have contributed to the successful enactment of this particular measure in the House of Assembly. I trust that its passage through the Senate will be an equally troublefree one. I am very happy, on behalf of my colleagues, to reply to the Third Reading debate on this Bill.

Where we have been dealing with legislation which was aimed at rectifying matters which were not appropriate under modern circumstances, I want to say that in the process of making new laws, one often has to contend with technical problems, problems on which people may differ and which may draw heated reactions from them, as well as with pressure being brought to bear from outside. In this way, while all this legislation was being drafted, and even in regard to this Bill as well, many interest groups came along with proposals which in our wisdom or otherwise we did not regard as being in the interests of the public or of the pharmaceutical profession. I said at the outset that I was very sympathetically disposed towards the pharmaceutical profession. Things have not run very smoothly for the pharmaceutical profession. I want to add, however, that in our consideration of this new legislation which has to suit the conditions of 1974 and not those of 1928, we took both the pharmacist and the public into account, as well as the longterm advantage for South Africa arising from scientists who no longer have the sense of purpose today that they had in the past.

†I can only conclude by saying that I appreciate the help of the Opposition even as far as amendments are concerned. At this late stage they came with amendments that I could in fact accept, and I think that was evidence enough of the fact that they were imbued with a spirit of helping us. It is evident that they were not throwing a spanner in the works as so often happens in other matters. I am glad that medicine very rarely, if ever, becomes involved in politics.

*Finally I should like to express my thanks to my officials, who gave freely of their time and service in order to ensure that this new legislation was good legislation. Not that we think this is the very best legislation, but it is legislation we may rectify in due course if the occasion arises. I personally think it is a good piece of legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This amendment Bill arises from the need to adapt the Bantu Transport Services Act to the change in circumstances caused by the establishment of Bantu Affairs Administration Boards.

In terms of the provisions of the Bantu Affairs Administration Act of 1971 (Act 45 of 1971), an administration board is, within its administration area, vested and entrusted to the exclusion of any other authority or body with all the jurisdictions, functions, duties and obligations of an urban local authority in so far as matters affecting Bantu are concerned. This means that Bantu Affairs Administration Boards are now in charge of all administrative functions affecting Bantu which were previously fulfilled by local authorities with regard to urban areas. This objective is pursuant to the existing arrangement that Bantu Administration Boards now undertake all administrative functions affecting Bantu.

Although transport contributions were previously collected, in terms of the provisions of the Bantu Transport Services Act, by urban local authorities on behalf of the Secretary for Transport, it is not a function of an administration board to collect such transport contributions in terms of Act 45 of 1971. Consequently clause 1 seeks to make the collection of transport contributions in declared areas as well a function of an administration board.

Bearing in mind that the areas in respect of which administration boards have already been established are considerably more extensive than ordinary urban areas, it has also become necessary for the Bantu Transport Services Act to be administered on a wider level by including more than one urban area in a specific region. Clause 2 makes provision for this.

It is not the intention to make the Act applicable to all the areas which fall under the jurisdiction of an administration board, but only to those areas where a need exists for subsidized transport.

As in the past, no contributions will be paid in respect of domestic servants in the employ of a private home-owner or in respect of adult Bantu for whom their employers provide accommodation which has been approved by a competent authority.

The Contributions in Respect of Bantu Labour Act, 1972 (Act 29 of 1972) came into force on 20 October 1972. It is being provided in terms of that Act that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development may from time to time by notice in the Gazette declare any area outside the Bantu homelands as an area where, in terms of the Act, every employer shall pay contributions with regard to every Bantu who is in his employ, as well as any Bantu who is permitted to work as a casual labourer, or to perform any work on his own account in any remunerative activity, or who is working as an independent contractor. The Act in question provides that such contributions in Bantu affairs administration areas shall be payable monthly to the Bantu administration boards in question.

In contrast to the Contributions in Respect of Bantu Labour Act the transport contributions which are collected in terms of the Bantu Transport Services Act are at present calculated on a weekly basis.

The amendment in clause 3 seeks to calculate transport contributions on a monthly basis as well, as in the case of Act 29 of 1972. In this way an enormous amount of administrative work could be eliminated.

In addition it is being provided in clause 3 that employers in declared areas shall pay a maximum rate of transport contributions of R1 per month: Provided that a lower rate of transport contributions may be fixed. At present employers, on a basis of a 26-day month and at the maximum rate of 20 cents per week, are paying a total amount of 87 cents, which is 13 cents less than the envisaged, maximum rate of R1 per month.

As in the case of previous increases in transport contributions it is not the idea to levy transport contributions at the maximum rate throughout the country, but only in those areas where the contributions which are being collected, are insufficient to meet normal subsidy requirements. It is emphasized that transport contributions are increased or decreased as transport needs require, and exemption may even be granted to certain areas. In addition subsidies are reduced or terminated in areas where they have previously been paid as it becomes possible to introduce economic bus fares. The accumulation of surplus funds is therefore being confined to a minimum.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister will know that this Bill, which is now before the House, amends an Act which has a long history, in the course of which history it was opposed by this side of the House in the past on specific points of principle. Those principles were passed, however, and we cannot therefore argue about them. We must therefore consider the Bill against the background of the acceptance of the principle that a transport levy may be imposed on employers in respect of their employees.

The Bill which is now before the House seeks to do four things: Firstly, to extend the meaning of “employer”; secondly, to extend the meaning of “urban local authority”; thirdly, to make the Act applicable to such additional areas as the Minister may indicate in consultation with the commission; and fourthly, to make provision for a new method of calculation and also to increase the maximum contribution to R1.

Sir, first I should like to deal with the matters with which this side of the House is in agreement. Firstly, we agree with the new method of calculation. In fact, we think that it is a great improvement. I think it was in fact brought to the attention of the Government in the past that there were ways in which the old method could be improved. This side of the House is in full agreement with the new method. We are also in full agreement with the extension of the definition of “employer”, and the extension of the definition of “local authority”. We have no objection to the changes which are being made to the definitions here.

But, Sir, what we are not in agreement with and what we want to lodge a protest against, is the increase in the maximum contribution to R1 per month instead of 20 cents per worker for six days as it was in the past. Sir, it may be argued that this is merely a maximum, and that there is no certainty that the maximum will be charged, but it is my belief and the belief of this side of the House that one would hardly lay down a maximum if it were not the intention, at some time or another, to ask the employer to pay that maximum.

Firstly, then, we are objecting to the increase in the contribution because, in our humble opinion, it does not deal with the socio-economic ills which exists in South Africa and which are that the Bantu are in fact not being paid enough, so much so that they cannot pay for their own transportation, which means that this Bill in fact does nothing more than merely deal with the symptoms of the matter and does nothing to alleviate the ills. Secondly, Sir, we object to the increase in the contribution because it is in fact firstly a disguise and secondly a sectional tax, against which this side of the House has also in the past lodged objections, and thirdly we are objecting to the increase because we believe that if the transport of the Bantu has to be subsidized, it should not be paid by the employer, for this is by its nature a sectional tax, but that that subsidization must come from the State. This has always been the attitude of this side of the House. Fourthly, Sir, we object to the increase because, according to our calculations, and our study of the funds, we have reached the conclusion that the transport fund has sufficient money at its disposal to pay out the amounts required by the hon. the Minister for his purposes.

For the sake of interest, I just want to quote a few figures. In 1972-’73 the Fund into which the levies are paid received an amount of approximately R3 800 000, and an amount of only R3 062 000 was paid out. There was therefore a considerable balance of approximately R800 000. Of the payments in respect of subsidies to specific conveyors 66% went to one firm for the year 1972-’73. For the year 1973-’74 the figures were even higher. In that year an amount of R5 600 000 in round figures was received in respect of levies paid together with the contribution of the State into one fund, and an amount of only R3,5 million was paid out to conveyors subsidized by the Fund. What this really means, in our humble opinion, is that less is now being paid out by way of subsidies than there was in the levy fund, and there is therefore no reason to expect the employers to pay more.

What is also interesting. Sir, is the fact that at this stage, 1972-’73, the balance of the fund, after payments have been made, stood at R2,6 million. A year later, on the basis of the present levy rate, the amount in the Fund was not R2.6 million, but R4,7 million. If it were therefore to be argued that more money is needed to subsidize the conveyors, this side of the House is of the opinion that there are sufficient funds in the account, and that no necessity whatsoever exists for increasing the levy at this stage. It will also be argued that this is not really an increase. As the hon. members know, this amount was under the existing Act a maximum of 20 cents per worker for every six days. In my calculations the monthly maximum payment which has to be paid by the employee amounts to just over 80 cents per month. It may be argued that by making it R1 the method of calculation may be facilitated. My argument is that the method will be just as easy if the maximum contribution is set at 80 cents instead of at R1. There is no difference whatever in the calculation and it therefore seems to me that there is no necessity for this amount to be increased.

In conclusion I can say that we shall support this Bill in the Second Reading. We are supporting it mainly because we believe that the Bantu workers need the subsidy today, and because we know that the Government has no intention of paying this by way of a Government subsidy. For that reason we believe that this Bill should be supported in principle, but we should just like to inform the hon. the Minister that we will oppose this specific clause during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Maitland, who has just resumed his seat, adopted the attitude that the Opposition would support this Bill in principle. He made it quite clear that, unlike what happened in the past—in the year 1972 when we also discussed this matter and the Opposition did not see its way clear to supporting us—they would, in fact, support the principle of this Bill today.

Only the principle of this Bill; not the Act. Are you so stupid that you cannot understand the difference?

However, the hon. member made the statement or rather adopted the attitude, that they see no justification for the contribution of 87 cents, as I have calculated it and as the Minister has calculated it, to be increased to R1, while it is the intention of the Bill to place on a monthly basis the administrative cost attached to the calculation of this amount of 87 cents, which is payable weekly. I do not think the hon. member made a very strong point on that score, but I think that on this occasion, while we are discussing this Act again, and when considering what happened in the past when this Act was first introduced, i.e. in 1957, and after it has been amended further in subsequent years, it may be a good thing for us to consider the history of this Act.

When the Bantu Transport Services Act, 1957, was amended in 1972 by Act No. 11 of 1972, the maximum scale applicable at that time was increased from ten cents to 20 cents per week.

And we opposed that.

Yes, that is quite correct. I am mentioning this specifically in order to indicate that we in South Africa are making some progress also in this sphere as far as the Opposition is concerned.

But we are still opposing it.

We are succeeding in gradually making the Opposition realize that where we are dealing with transport services in South Africa and since they have consistently adopted the attitude in the past that the Government and the State have to pay for everything, they have gradually been making some progress since that time, and that they are prepared today to accept the principle and are merely raising objections to this insignificant increase. We have been dealing with this matter since 1957.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is the hon. member entitled to discuss the principles of the original Act instead of the principles of the Bill as such?

The hon. member may continue.

If I remember correctly, we had some problems in those years when the transport costs of Bantu were increased by 1 cent, and there was a strike. On that occasion commerce and industry contributed a certain amount—I think it was R25 000—in order to subsidize the transporting of Bantu. The point I wish to make is that the employer in South Africa realized at that time that he should contribute towards transport for Bantu in South Africa. Since we want to settle the Bantu in South Africa in orderly communities, but also want to provide them with the necessary transport to facilitate matters for them, and since we have now established the Bantu administration boards which are operating in a wider field than a local authority, we have to be realistic and do everything in our power to be able to provide the maximum amount of service with the money and contributions at our disposal. I am therefore glad that this Bill is before the House this afternoon.

If we consider the contributions made towards the Bantu transport services in recent years, we notice that the State made an enormously large contribution while the contribution of the worker was not as great. I therefore think it is justified, since we are using Bantu labour in this country and also seen in the light of the attitude this side of the House has adopted all along, i.e. that the Bantu are in the White area of South Africa to sell their labour here, that we should do everything in our power to make the Bantu selling their labour here content and to settle them in orderly communities, which, from the nature of the case, are separate residential areas. I think that we have made such progress with the Opposition over the years that they are now also, in principle, in favour of separate residential areas.

Which clause is the hon. member discussing now?

I believe that we have also made so much progress with the Opposition that they will be prepared to accept with us the task and the responsibility to place these transport services on a sound, realistic and appropriate basis.

I am very glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister has recommended that we should display some realism in our discussion of the various clauses this Bill consists of. Our Bantu transport services are now being rationalized, in the sense that the small amount which is at present being collected weekly will henceforth be collected monthly. We are also rationalizing these transport services in the sense that whenever a deficit arises in respect of the transport services for Bantu, the Minister will have the right to collect increased contributions. However, if it becomes evident that the maximum rate of contribution is not essential, the Minister will also have the right to lay down that contributions be made at a lower rate. On behalf of myself and this side of the House, I want to give my full support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the hon. member for Heilbron. We used to have an hon. member for Heilbron who invariably was “stroom-op”. No matter in which way anybody wanted to go, that member always went the opposite way and I am afraid this hon. member seems to be following in the footsteps of his predecessor. Did he or did he not listen when the hon. member for Maitland replied to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech? Either he did not listen or else he failed to understand his own language. It looks as if I shall have to repeat all the arguments of the hon. member for Maitland and to tell the hon. member for Heilbron why exactly we are not opposed to this Bill.

Use very simple words so that the hon. member will be able to understand.

I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that I should rather use very simple words. Before we get to that point, I want to say today that in a way I can claim parentage of this particular Bill. I am very, very glad to say that I have played a part in the introduction of this Bill, as I shall explain to the Houst a little later

Let us deal with the hon. member for Heilbron first. He was here in 1972 and therefore heard the then hon. member for Yeoville express the attitude of this side of the House. He knows full well our attitude in this matter, namely that the amount should come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and that there should not be a sectional tax whereby a section of a section only is taxed for the benefit of all. He knows full well that we have said all along that this is a necessary service which should be provided by the Government until such time as we have educated our industrialists to pay a living wage to their Bantu employees. He knows all that because he nods his head, but yet he can stand up here and talk the nonsense he spoke a few minutes ago. Why? For cheap political gain? Why does he make these statements? I can only guess that it was for cheap political gain

He knows that we are entirely against the principle of this Act. I am not, of course, allowed to speak against the principle of this Act, namely that of a levy on employers for the subsidization of the transport of Bantu employees. I would very much like to move the repeal, of this Act and for the substitution of a measure whereby the Government would pay for these services out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but I would not be permitted to do that. This afternoon we are being asked to debate a Bill in which the principle is not whether or not employers should be taxed to subsidize the transport of their employees. We are being asked to consider a Bill to agree to certain other things. Firstly, there is the extension of the definition of “employer”, something which the hon. member for Maitland has said we accept. I hope the hon. member for Heilbron is paying attention now. Secondly, we are being asked to agree to the extension of the definition of “urban local authority”, and thirdly, the extension of the definition of a “declared area”. Fourthly, there is the question of the increase of the dues and the fact that these dues are now going to be paid monthly instead of weekly. These are the principles which we are being asked to discuss this afternoon and not whether in fact such a levy should be imposed on employers. It is for this reason that we are today prepared to support this measure— with one exception, of course, namely the extension of these fees to other employers and the increase in the amounts that are going to be paid. Why are we prepared to accept this principle? We are prepared to do this because, unfortunately, our employers and our industrialists in particular in this country are not paying their Bantu employees enough to enable them to pay their own transport fees, whether to the Railways, a Government agency like Putco and similar organizations, or to private bus owners.

Before I come to specific areas I want to deal with one little point regarding the wages of Bantu workers. I consider that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport must speak to his colleagues in the Cabinet regarding the low wages which are being paid to these workers, particularly those who are subject to industrial agreements. I believe that one of the reasons why these people are not being paid enough is because the determinations by this Government are too low. If that hon. Deputy Minister can use his influence in the Cabinet I am sure it will be to the benefit of everybody if he succeeds in increasing the minimum wages which are set by this Government in terms of wage determinations.

Under this Government certain areas have been developed, such as the border industrial areas and certain Bantu townships. It is the transport between Bantu townships in the border areas and the border industrial areas which has not up until now been subsidized. It is in these areas that we have had trouble in the past when, because of rising costs, bus companies have had to increase their fares. A wholly-owned Bantu bus company recently applied to the National Transport Commission, through the Secretary for Transport, for an increase of fares and for the subsidization of workers. I want to quote some extracts from their application. They said the following:

I must hasten to add that this company was advised to couch their petition in those words, because the Government is not empowered to take the money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and because we were tied by the particular Act which we are now amending. The petition reads further—

This is exactly what happened in practice. This particular bus company which, as I have said, is wholly Bantu-owned and only transports Bantu from the Bantu areas into the White areas, did have trouble. In fact, at the beginning of this year this particular company received permission to charge higher fares than it is charging today. It received that permission from the National Transport Commission, but do hon. members know that it has not as yet implemented those higher fares? At the moment it is in fact operating at a loss, because it is afraid of introducing the increased fares; because it is afraid of the reactions of the Bantu people who have to pay those increased fares. Certain of the runs of this company are subsidized and because of this subsidy they did not have to raise the fares for the workers and they can operate economically on those runs. I know that the company is grateful to the hon. the Minister and to the commission for the fund which was created in terms of the Act. However, it has not been possible for the commission to subsidize this particular company on others of its runs because of the very shortcomings which we are today remedying in terms of this Bill. I believe that this is a move in the right direction and I want to urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider the point of view put in 1972 by this side of the House and which I briefly outlined again this afternoon. We believe this should not be done by way of a levy against the employers, but that it should come from the General Revenue Fund. However, for the moment, because of the good which can come from a proper application of the amendments which are now before this House, we shall support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member for Heilbron, before I state our attitude towards this Bill, I want to say that we do not in principle believe it should be necessary for employers to subsidize transport services if any subsidy is necessary, which it is in this case. We believe it should be the responsibility of the Government to pay this from the General Revenue Account. We do not believe that the employer should be further harassed by not only taking responsibility for the subsidy but also because the additional administrative tasks involved are a burden which the employers could well do without. On the positive side, this Bill in many ways simplifies the formula for the collection of contributions. This step is to be welcomed. We are giving our qualified support to the Bill because there is no doubt at all that it is necessary to subsidize transport services for Black people. Wage levels for Black people in this country do not allow for a major percentage of bread-line budgets or, in many cases, sub-bread-line budgets, to go in fares just to get to work. The average inhabitant of the townships pays far too large a portion of his income in transport costs. In many cases the amount spent on getting to and from work results in cutting down on the necessities of life such as food and clothing. Our attitude therefore is that we support the necessity for a transport subsidy. On the other hand, we do not like the method of financing the subsidy. In this instance we believe that the ends justify the means and for that reason we give our qualified support at Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Maitland and the other hon. members, including the hon. member for Heilbron on my side, for their support. The hon. member for Maitland mentioned three reasons why they support this Bill and I am therefore not going to discuss them here, but I accept them as such. Apparently only one point remains in respect of which there exists some disagreement, and this may be discussed fruitfully during the Committee Stage when that clause comes for discussion. The other arguments therefore really fall away.

I just want to refer to what was said by a few hon. members in this connection. All three the hon. members on that side of the House who participated in this debate, referred to the fact that wages are insufficient to enable people to pay for their transport costs. However, they are speaking to the wrong person if they address me on this subject. They should speak to their own industrialists and their own friends in the metropolitan areas who are employing these people. They should go and do some missionary work elsewhere, but they should not speak to us on this side of the House in regard to this matter. It is not our task to do something about it.

The Wage Board … [Interjections.]

I ought not to reply to the hon. member for Houghton, because she did not participate in the debate. She now has a new habit of debating by means of interjections. It does not fall within the scope of this discussion at all for me to discuss matters concerning the Wage Board here. I think it would be quite inappropriate. I conclude therefore by saying that, if they want to advance that argument, they should start doing so among their own people in their own constituencies, because the transport of these people are being subsidized to these places. We may discuss this matter further after they have done that.

At this stage there is nothing further for me to reply to, and I thank the hon. gentlemen for the manner in which they accepted this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the period of approximately two years that the National Road Safety Act, 1972, has been in force, it has become apparent that certain amendments as far as the constitution of the National Road Safety Council is concerned, are desirable. Furthermore, certain anomalies relating to provisions for the continuation of the Group Pension Scheme established by the former S.A. Road Safety Council in terms of section 21 of the now repealed Act No. 1 of 1960 have come to light and must be rectified. I shall deal with these matters seriatim in accordance with the provisions of the Bill now before the House.

Clause 1(a):

Subparagraph (ii) of subsection (1)(a) of section 3 of Act No. 9 of 1972 appoints one member to the National Road Safety Council nominated by the United Municipal Executive of South Africa. I consider it desirable that the UME should have the right to nominate three members, one of whom shall be appointed by the Minister whom he considers best qualified for the position. Clause 1(a) of the Bill makes the necessary provision.

Clause 1(b) and 1(c):

Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the principal Act appoints five members, one each designated by the Executive Committee concerned of the four provinces and the territory of South-West Africa.

Similarly, paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the principal Act appoints the Secretary for Transport, the Secretary for Justice and the Commissioner of the S.A. Police as members of the National Road Safety Council.

The eight members concerned are already fully occupied as MEC’s and as heads of three large Government departments and occasionally find it difficult to attend a meeting of the Council called for on a specified date. Unexpected developments arise from time to time which may result in one or more of the Provincial Executive Committees or the three departments concerned being unrepresented at a meeting which is undesirable. For that reason I propose that each of the eight members in question be authorized to nominate an alternate for himself to meet such contingencies.

Clause 1(d):

Subsection (2) of section 3 of the principal Act provides that the Minister shall appoint a member of the NRSC on such conditions as he may determine at the time of the appointment, but the Minister has no authority to alter those conditions during the currency of his appointment which may be for a maximum period of five years. This is undesirable as circumstances change rapidly and it may be necessary for the Minister to change the conditions of appointment as circumstances demand at any time during his period of office. For example, the Minister may find it expedient to increase or even decrease a member’s remuneration and/or allowances. The deletion of the words “at the time of the appointment” in subsection (2) of section 3 of the principal Act will rectify the position.

Clause 2:

Section 7 of the principal Act, or any other section for that matter, makes no provision for delegation of powers conferred upon the NRSC by section 6 to any member of the staff of the Council. I need not take up time, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on the necessity to delegate certain powers to subordinates to promote the smooth and efficient conduct of affairs. I have sufficient confidence in the ability of the NRSC to delegate any powers it may deem expedient with circumspection. The proposed amendment will have that effect.

Clause 3:

Clause 4:

Subsections (1) and (2) of section 19 of the principal Act provide for the continuation of the National Road Safety Organization Personnel Superannuation Fund, a fund which was non-existent on the date the principal Act was passed. That superannuation fund, mentioned in section 20 of Act No. 1 of 1960, was substituted by the South African Road Safety Council Group Pension Scheme on 1 July 1961, that is after Act No. 1 of 1960 came into force. The intention was to provide for the continuation of the latter Group Pension Scheme in the principal Act and not to revive the defunct NRSO Personnel Superannuation Fund which was in existence on the date Act No. 1 of 1960 came into force, but was subsequently discontinued on 1 July 1961, as I have already explained.

The anomaly created by section 19 of the principal Act must therefore be rectified. Consequently I propose that the “South African Road Safety Council Group Pension Scheme” be substituted for the “National Road Safety Council Personnel Superannuation Fund” in subsections (1) and (2) of section 19 of the principal Act. Clause 4 of the Bill makes provision accordingly.

Clauses 5 and 6:

The amendments to sections 20 and 22 of the principal Act proposed in clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill are merely consequential as a result of the amendments proposed to section 19 of the principal Act, which I have already dealt with.

Clause 7:

Clause 7 of the Bill deals with the name and the date of coming into operation of this Bill, when passed. I must point out, however, that the amendments proposed in clauses 4, 5 and 6, dealing with anomalies relating to the continuation of the Group Pension Scheme for the staff of the NRSC, must of necessity come into operation on 15 March 1972, the date on which the principal Act was promulgated in order to obviate a vacuum being created between that date and the date of promulgation of the proposed amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker, in case there is some misunderstanding later, I want to make it clear now that we will support and vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. However, I have a number of matters which we want to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We accept the provision that the UME should nominate three members, although on principle I have always felt that a body should be allowed to select its own representatives. I must, however, accept that this is the procedure followed in most legislation and under the circumstances, even though I have always felt that it is better for a body to rick its own man than submit names for the Minister to pick from, we will not raise any objection to that subsection.

*With reference to subsection (b), which deals with alternates who may be designated. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this House the assurance that when a member of an executive committee designates an alternate, that alternate will be either an MEC or a member of the provincial council, and not an official. Not that I have anything against officials, but we have a principle here that a person elected by the electorate should personally sit on the council. As a politician he is responsible to the administration and to the electorate. We feel that it would be wrong for an elected person to delegate his responsibility to an official who does not share that responsibility. We have not drafted any amendment, because we first want to see what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is.

In regard to subsection (c), which deals with the alternates of the Secretary for Transport, the Secretary for Justice and the Commissioner of Police, we have an amendment which we shall move. We feel that when the representative is a departmental head, his alternate must be a senior official and not a person who does not carry the same responsibility as a Secretary or a Commissioner. Accordingly we shall move that the alternate must not have a lower rank than that of deputy secretary or deputy commissioner of Police.

In regard to subsection (d) I should like to have more information from the hon. the Minister. If a person has been appointed for a certain period. I see no reason why he should be relieved of his office during that period for which he has been appointed. He is appointed for a period of five years, and I see no reason for the Minister to relieve someone of his office during that period. I hope the hon. the Minister will furnish more reasons as to why this amendment has become necessary.

†Now we come to clause 2, which is the clause regarding which we have the most difficulty. We accept of course—it is obvious—that one must have the right to delegate powers. But the clause as it is now proposed gives all the powers of the council to any officer and any employee of the council. Those powers of the council are to appoint officers; to purchase or sell or acquire or dispose of or in any other manner hire or let or hypothecate any movable or immovable property: to open bank accounts with banking institutions; to arrange for bank overdrafts; to invest moneys with the Public Debt Commissioners, etc., and then it goes on to set out the normal duties pertaining to the operations of this organization. But in the earlier sections of the Act which I have quoted, there are powers to deal with money on a large scale. Mr. Speaker, we have had the unfortunate experience of the investment of moneys by another body falling under this department and under this Minister, that is to say, the moneys of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund, where an official who was entitled to invest money is now serving a prison sentence for the profits which he made out of those investments. Sir, one can blame a person for falling for temptation, but we must blame ourselves as Parliament if we open the door to temptation, and therefore we intend to move in the Committee Stage a provision limiting the exercise of the powers set out in the clauses dealing with money as such, that is to say, with the investment of moneys, the opening of bank accounts and the arranging of overdrafts. In terms of our amendment it will only be possible to exercise such powers in pursuance of a resolution of the council or with the written authority of the director, which shall be reported to the next meeting of the council. In other words, we recognize that there are times when an official must act, perhaps urgently, in matters of this nature, but we believe that he should act either or, the instructions of the council or by a resolution of the council or on the written authority of the director, if the person so acting is not the director himself, and that that instruction, given by the director, should then be reported to the council. In this fund, which is already building up its own little money empire, we do not want this money to be available for investment and spending at the sole discretion of an official who does not carry high authority.

The other powers dealing with publicity material, films, research, safety, information to the Press etc., are obviously powers which must be exercised by officials and we have no objection to any of the remaining powers except those contained in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (f) of section 7 of the Act. We do not want to remove the right to delegate: we simply want to limit it and give protection against possible abuse. Sir, we have no objections to clause 4, but I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to clarify this. The Act which we are amending was passed in 1972, Act No. 9 of 1972. The change from Personnel Superannuation Fund to South African Road Safety Council Group Pensions Scheme took place in 1961. The original Act of 1960. Act 1 of 1960, admittedly at that stage had the original name of the fund. But it was changed after that Act came into force, not after the Act of 1972. Now. I think when a mistake has been made, as I submit has been made here, it is better just to admit it and to say there was a slip-up. The hon. the Minister admits that the change happened in 1961. The new Act is dated 1972 and unless the Minister can show me that the new title “Group Pensions Scheme” has come into force since 1972, then I think he should just tell the House: “Sorry, we slipped up here and we are correcting it”, and not try to give an involved explanation which, if you were not listening carefully, you would probably accept at face value. I am afraid we do not accept anything coming from that side at face value.

Regarding clause 5 I would like to know why, when he corrects the grammar of “in substitution of”, he does not make it simply “in substitution for” but changes it to “in lieu of”. After all, “substitution” is an English word, while “in lieu of” is French, and surely we should use our own official languages when they contain a suitable English word. And if your grammar is wrong, change “of” to “for” to make it grammatically correct. Heaven knows, we need a bit of correct grammar in some of our documents! However, the language in legislation is usually very good. The standard of both English and Afrikaans in Bills is generally very good. I want to ask him why he prefers “in lieu of” instead of “in substitution for”.

With these two reservations of significance, the one regarding finance and the other regarding the rank of an alternate— we will deal with these further in Committee—we will support the Second Reading and the principle of this Bill. We are prepared to co-operate in placing it on the Statute Book.

Order! I must now interrupt the debate in order to enable the hon. the Minister of Finance to make an urgent statement

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of being allowed to make an urgent statement in the general interest.

Representations that urgent tariff protection be afforded to the local textile industry have been received from various quarters. The importation of textile goods at reduced prices disrupts the local market for the fabrics under discussion. This disruption gives rise to the large-scale dismissal of workers in virtually all sectors of the industry, and may also have an adverse effect on the suppliers of raw materials such as cotton producers. My colleague the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has already indicated that the Government is giving its urgent attention to the matter and has issued a warning to importers and processors of textile fabrics that no interference with the stable growth of the industry will be tolerated.

In cases where tariff protection is afforded to an industry, the normal procedure is that the matter be investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries and that its recommendations, if they are adopted, be put into effect by Government Notices in terms of section 48 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1948. However, since urgent action is necessary in this case, it is not possible to follow the normal procedure, and at this stage the board has only been consulted in general. It has consequently been decided to put increased customs duties into effect by means of taxation proposals.

The board is already giving its urgent attention to the various requests for tariff protection addressed to it by the relevant branches of the textile industry, and its investigations have already reached an advanced stage. If, on the completion of these investigations, it should appear that amendments are necessary to the measures now being envisaged, they will be effected by Government Notice.

Mr. Speaker, under section 58(1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, I now lay upon the Table, for consideration by the House, the formal taxation proposals in respect of increased customs duties.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Point for supporting this measure in principle. I just want to reply briefly to some of the objections and problems which he had in regard to this Bill.

In the first place there is the question of alternates of M.E.C.’s. It is being conceded that an alternate has to be a member of the same executive committee or provincial council. I shall have to consult with the law advisers, and if it is necessary for it to be specifically defined in that way, I shall act accordingly. It is by no means the intention that such alternates may be officials. I gladly give such an assurance.

As far as the other members are concerned—the Secretary for Transport, the Commissioner of Police, etc., the hon. member is of the opinion that their alternates should not have a lower rank than that of Deputy Secretary or Deputy Commissioner. I want to inform him that, for a reason which occurred to me while he was speaking, this is not acceptable to me. Let us take the police as an example. It is possible that a police officer who holds the rank of colonel but is not a Deputy Commissioner may have a very intensive or thorough knowledge of road safety matters. The Commissioner of Police may deem it necessary for him to be represented by an expert. Since that expert would not hold the particular rank which the hon. member wants to set as a limit, he would then be eliminated. I think we may leave it in the discretion of this senior official—the hon. member has conceded that the Secretary for Justice, the Secretary for Transport and the Commissioner of Police are reliable officials—to designate alternates who will have to represent them on that council, with instructions if instructions are necessary, or alternatively a person in their departments whom they consider competent to be an alternate.

The question has been put to me why the conditions of service have to be changed. I cherish very high expectations and require a very high standard of the National Road Safety Council. This council has now been in existence for just over two years, and since its establishment we have read and heard thousands upon thousands of words in the Press and on the radio concerning road safety and accidents in our country and all the things that go hand in hand with them. This council has a gigantic task on its hands. Only a person who will be able to throw in his full weight behind the council deserves to remain on that council. We must bear in mind that the council was considerably reduced in size in order to make it a more functional body. If I am convinced that a person appointed under this clause is not throwing in his full weight, I should have the right to look into the matter. I shall leave negative factors such as misconduct, etc., out of account, although they do enter the picture too. For the purposes of this argument, however, I do not want to take them into account. To me it is important that a person who is intensely interested in and dedicates himself to the cause, must hold a post on this council. I do not want to run the risk of having a person who does not throw in his full weight, a passenger, serving on that council for a full term of five years.

The hon. member referred to delegations and expressed concern in that regard. It is most definitely the intention to delegate purely administrative duties only. I am sorry that the hon. member has intimated that he intends moving an amendment of a negative purport. I do not like negative approaches. I am prepared to consider, at the Committee Stage or even in the Other Place, any amendment which the hon. member wants to move, on condition that it has a positive purport and states clearly that these will only be administrative duties. However, I do not like the idea of excluding certain specific things and thus putting a negative complexion on this legislation.

As far as the pension scheme is concerned a mistake was made, and this is the first opportunity we have had to correct that mistake. It was not my mistake, but it is my privilege to correct it. As regards the French term “in lieu of” in the last clause. I myself do not of course have any objection to French as such if it is used as innocently and as aptly as this. The French language and people have many attractive features. However, I was not responsible for this. It is legal draftsmen who draft the Bill and then it goes through the hands of the parliamentary advocate. However, I am sure that they will take cognizance of the representations made by the hon. member in this regard, and I shall also discuss it with them in due course.

I take pleasure in thanking the House for supporting this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his reply. I am sorry, however, that I cannot go along with him entirely. I welcome his acceptance of the suggestion that executive committee members should not be represented by officials. In connection with the alternates for the heads of departments, the hon. the Deputy Minister himself emphasized the importance of this body and I would like to raise one point in this regard. Let us, for example, take the Secretary for Transport. He is also the chairman of the National Transport Commission, which is an important body in regard to road transportation in South Africa. Through that body he has contact and responsibility which is of importance as far as road safety is concerned. Therefore, if he is not able to attend himself he should surely have one of his senior men, one of his deputies, who has his confidence to represent him and to bring to the Road Safety Council the contact and the information which he has by virtue of his relationship to other bodies. I would be happy to go below deputy secretary to under secretary and this would, I think, broaden the scope more. But it will still bring people from the top echelons of the department in to serve on a top-level body.

But when the hon. the Deputy Minister talks of bringing in perhaps a major in the Police Force who happens to have a specialized knowledge of road safety, he is going against his own argument, viz. that these are top men and that he wants people there who can play a major part in the name of the people they represent. He is changing the position in regard to the UME and I do not want to go into his reasons for doing so. But he is not happy with the present situation. That is why we feel it should be a person of a senior rank who by virtue of that senior rank will be able to play his part in a national organization represented at top level from every side. You are taking your top people from the provincial council, viz. a member of the executive committee. For Transport and Justice it is the secretary who is the member.

The hon. the Deputy Minister chose the secretary at the start in 1972 because he wanted the top man to participate in a matter of major importance to South Africa. I think that where we now introduce a departure from that principle at least we should only depart within the scope of the spirit with which the original council was constituted, viz. that of being a top level body. I therefore move the following amendment—

This still leaves scope and will, I believe, not affect the operation of the Bill. Before proceeding further I would like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction to my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have sympathy with the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Point. I can see what his problem is. He is, to be specific, concerned that we shall do a top-level body an injustice by appointing a person to that body who is not able to speak with the necessary authority on matters and to make an important contribution. I stated at the outset that this body was a body of top people. I have confidence in them and in the years that that body has been in existence they have already justified the confidence I have in them.

I cannot for a moment imagine that the head of a department will appoint a totally incompetent person to serve as his deputy or that he will appoint a person of a lower rank who will not be able to make any contribution whatsoever. One has to know the workings of the council, and in saying this, I want to blow my own trumpet to some extent, if the hon. member will forgive me for doing so. I have often attended the meetings of the National Road Safety Council and participated in the discussion. I listened very attentively to the accumulated knowledge of a number of very efficient and dedicated people to whom I also want to pay tribute today. When we specifically write into the legislation that it is to be a person of such and such a rank and circumstances arise at a given moment causing the secretary to be absent —his deputy secretary, too, might be absent at the same time—then this provision has to come into operation because I do not want to leave any of the constituent organizations of the NRSC unrepresented. If one of the members is ill or has other urgent duties to fulfil, he will be unrepresented on the council in terms of the present Act.

For the very reason of avoiding this we have introduced this amendment which provides for deputies when a member is absent. I can assure the hon. member that on the basis of what I have seen of the workings of the council up to now and on the basis of what I have observed of the zeal and dedication with which the persons concerned perform their duties on the council, not one of them will abuse this provision by sending simply a nominal representative to the council. The example I mentioned in referring to this matter during the Second Reading, was that an agenda with specialized points for discussion would be circulated, if necessary.

It might be necessary for a discussion to be held at which expert knowledge would be required. If, in that case, it was possible to elect and delegate an officer or an official of a department to attend that specific discussion, and act on behalf of the head of the department, it could only result in a contribution being made even if the specific rank in that case was not one with a high status. If the hon. member would be so kind as to look at these arguments once again, he would understand that I would frustrate the object of the amendment by accepting the limits he wants to impose.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister is fortunate that we are dealing here with senior officials. I have much more confidence in the senior officials and in the way in which they exercise their responsibility and carry out their duties. Therefore I shall accept that the senior officials may have the right to delegate those powers. I would perhaps not have been so co-operative had it been the Minister who had to appoint the alternative. However, in this case ….

I was just about to say it.

With the permission of the Committee, I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

To add the following proviso at the end of the proposed paragraph (a):

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that if I would move a positive amendment, he would consider it. Well, this is very positive. This proviso is to the effect that the powers and duties “shall” be exercised. In other words, it emphasizes that they may exercise all the powers, but where it deals with money this gives protection to the official so that he will not be placed in a difficult position. It is not a question of not trusting an official, but of protecting him. It means that if an official wants to arrange an overdraft, he does so either on a resolution of the Council or on the written authority of the director. Therefore he is covered. If someone else fiddles that account, the official does not carry the can for it since he is protected by an authority. This is not simply a question of not trusting people. It has a dual purpose, i.e. it protects a person firstly from temptation and secondly from suspicion. It does not take any power away from him or prevent his taking any action but it simply keeps the Council or the director and through the director the Council at a later meeting, in the picture. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will reconsider this provision in this light. It must not simply be restrictive, but it must serve as protection against both temptation and possible abuse. I shall take this matter no further but ask the hon. the Deputy Minister for his view on it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said he wanted a smooth and efficient working of this council. I believe the is right and that this House has a responsibility to the people of South Africa in respect of road safety. The amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Durban Point does not take away all the powers of delegation which are proposed in the amendment itself. We recognize the necessity for the delegation of a number of the powers which are contained in section 7 of the principal Act. All we are doing here is imposing a safeguard, and I believe that this safeguard will be welcomed by the members of the council themselves. We believe that this council should keep its finger on the pulse of the most important matters that are being dealt with by that council. We believe that the powers other than those contained in paragraphs (b). (c). (d), and (f) should be delegated as that, obviously, will make for a more smooth and efficient working of the council itself. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister must accept that there are considerable funds at the disposal of this council. I think members will recollect that when the principal Act was introduced in 1972 this side of the House in the ensuing debate objected to the form of financing of the council itself. In other words, we maintained that this was a sectional tax. We are still of the same view and although we cannot change this situation, at least we can see that the funds that the council receives are properly controlled.

It may be interesting to look at what moneys are in fact controlled by the council itself. In the latest report, the one for the financial year ended March 1973, there is disclosed what I consider to be quite a fantastic position. The total income was R1 596 000. I think all members will agree that this is a considerable sum of money to be handled every year. Let us see what happened to this money. Although R1 596 000 was received, at the end of the financial year there was in fact a surplus of R763 000. In other words, only approximately one-half of the funds received by the council were in fact used by the council for the purpose for which the Council was established. This means that either the council was not carrying out its functions to the fullest of its capacity in matters that are vital to South Africa, or that the funding was totally in excess of the amounts required to run a viable, strong and effective organization. If the council is not doing its job, it is for this Government to do something about it. But until such time as the Government does something about it, we on this side are not prepared to allow delegation of the powers which this amendment envisages. Therefore we have moved the amendment to the amendment.

If it is, however, the intention to build up a large reserve—I do not think that we on this side of the House can agree that this is a good thing—it will involve a considerable sum of money. At the end of the 1972-’73 financial year the reserves that had been built up amounted to R982 000. This amount grew from R183 000 over a period of one year to R982 000. What it was at the end of March of this year would be anybody’s guess. But at the rate at which this fund has been progressing, it appears that the fund would probably be in the region of R1,8 million at the moment. We certainly are not happy that this vast sum of money should be dealt with by a subordinate official and not closely and completely controlled by the Road Safety Council itself. I think that we are quite astonished at the financial situation which the report disclosed here, particularly in regard to the Central Road Safety Fund. We feel that under these circumstances, the powers which the Deputy Minister wishes to give to subordinate officials, in terms of his amendment, are far too broad. We feel that the amendment that we have moved now is a fair and reasonable one.

Mr. Chairman, the argument of the hon. member for Durban Point is a logical one. I can see his argument. I can also appreciate his anxieties in this regard. His little barb at me did not go unnoticed. I shall therefore take that little matter no further.

All’s fair in love and war.

That’s right. It is a pity that the hon. member for East London City went and spoiled a well-meant amendment by the hon. member for Durban Point, because in my opinion, he obviously does not know what is going on in that council. That is why he has been talking such nonsense.

What nonsense?

Merely quoting figures of surpluses from one year to another, insinuating by that that this Government should see to it that this council is doing its job, and further insinuating that the council is not doing its job properly, is grossly unfair and most unreasonable. I think he could quite easily have left that little argument aside. His doing so would not have detracted at all from the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment by the hon. member for Durban Point, because it is logical.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause,-as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As it is a Friday afternoon and we are reaching such agreement, I am going to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, in applying clause 2 and delegating powers, to use one of those powers to investigate the comparative danger of people falling asleep driving at 80 km/h as opposed to hitting somebody at 100 km/h. I feel that this is something we are overlooking. I must admit that I myself have fallen asleep at the wheel and other people have done the same. I hope he will use this power to institute an investigation into whether sleepiness at low speeds and lack of alertness is not as dangerous as going a few kilometres faster. I am sure he would be one of the most popular Ministers in the Cabinet if he did so.

Talking about sleep, I do get the impression occasionally that the hon. member’s tongue keeps on wagging while his brain falls asleep. That is the only trouble I have ever had as a result of his sleepiness. Otherwise I am in complete agreement with the hon. member and I am not even afraid to say in this hon. House and in public that what was proposed by the council under discussion, the National Road Safety Council, will eventually be found to be the most proper manner in which to handle speed limits in South Africa, i.e. 120 km/h on all freeways and 100 km/h on all other roads except where the administrators of the provinces feel that there are reasons why the speed should be lower. It is as simple as that. However, we are dealing with something which is not under discussion and consequently out of order. I shall not pursue this any further because it is the responsibility of another department and I cannot comment on it here.

Use your influence.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure envisages the extension of the existing powers in the Radio Act to prevent and control any interference with radio reception, which includes television reception.

Hon. members are aware that the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation plans to launch its country-wide television service on 1 January 1976, and that trial broadcasts will commence in certain areas before that time. It is therefore necessary and timeous to introduce the necessary controls in order to ensure that viewers will enjoy interference-free reception and will derive maximum benefit from their television sets.

The interference involved here is electrical interference caused by all sorts of apparatuses such as lifts and welding sets, domestic appliances such as refrigerators and vacuum cleaners, and especially by the spark-plug systems of motor-car and other engines.

Interference of this kind creates a greater problem in the case of television reception than is the case in respect of ordinary sound-wave reception, the reason being that interference with a television image is much more annoying to a television viewer than interference with sound is to a radio listener. On television such interference can spoil the image completely, and at the same time it also causes an annoying disturbance of the sound that goes with the image.

From the very beginning it was realized that the introduction of television would require stricter measures against interference, and consequently the radio regulations were amended last year already in order to announce new interference limits and measures of control for television. The new limits and measures were formulated after lengthy consultation with the South African Bureau of Standards and are, in general, in line with international practice. Subsequently discussions were also held with interested parties on the feasibility of the new arrangements and the compliance with the interference limits.

These steps were taken to enable manufacturers, importers, dealers and users to acquaint themselves in time with the new requirements and to equip themselves for complying with them.

†Mr. Speaker, in the Bill before the House it is proposed, in clause 2, to empower the State President to make regulations providing for all the arrangements necessary to ensure effective prevention of interference.

It is envisaged that in the main these arrangements will comprise, firstly, the prior examination and testing of prototypes of all new vehicles and equipment that will be placed on the market after the end of this year. This work will be carried out by the Bureau of Standards, who will also issue certificates to the importers, manufacturers or dealers to the effect that the new vehicles and equipment will not cause interference above the prescribed limits.

Fees will be prescribed for this examination and testing, and these fees will be payable direct to the Bureau of Standards by the importers, manufacturers or dealers.

Secondly, the proposed new arrangements will require the public to ensure that vehicles and equipment that are already in use at the end of this year do not cause interference. The general public will not be required to have their vehicles and equipment tested and certified by the Bureau of Standards, but they will have to see to it that the vehicles and equipment are fitted with the suppressors prescribed by the regulations.

The necessary suppressors can be fitted at reasonable cost by all properly equipped garages, electricians and shops that service vehicles and equipment. Most of the electrical equipment imported in recent years already complies with the radiation limits prescribed because these limits apply in the countries of manufacture. Older imported equipment and locally manufactured equipment at present in use will, however, probably cause interference and will have to be attended to.

*Mr. Speaker, in regard to this obligation on the public to ensure that their vehicles and appliances do not cause interference, I may mention that in most cases domestic appliances causing interference only affect the premises on which they are used. In most cases viewers will therefore, in their own interests, want to have their appliances fitted with these suppressors where necessary.

However, motor vehicles are the greatest source of interference and usually affect the television reception of others. Here I want to mention that the proposed new arrangements will provide inter alia that any motor vehicle which has not been fitted with the necessary suppressors will not be deemed to be roadworthy. This step is necessary in order to make the control effective, and provision for the power to make regulations in this regard has therefore been made in the Bill after consultation with the Provincial Administrations and the Administration of South-West Africa.

It goes without saying that steps will have to be taken later on to ensure that all owners of vehicles comply with the requirements relating to the fitting of suppressors— in other words, that they see to it that their vehicles are roadworthy in this respect as well.

However, I want to make an appeal to the public, in the interests of good television reception by all, to ascertain in good time whether their motor cars have been fitted with suitable suppressors and, if not, to have the necessary suppressors fitted before the television broadcasts are commenced. If everybody co-operates in this respect, there ought to be no serious interference problems once the television service has been introduced.

It is being proposed to promulgate revised radio interference regulations, which comprise amendments to the existing regulations on which agreement has been reached with commerce and industry, and also to make provision for the new arrangements, to which I have referred, as soon as this proposed statutory amendment has been passed and promulgated.

I believe that all hon. members will support this essential measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. the Minister and warn him that if he is not careful he will get the nickname of “Speedy Gonzales”. We now have this three-clause Bill before us. I want to quote from a letter received by the former hon. member for Orange Grove, dated April 1972, in which reference was made to a discussion in February 1972. The hon. member for Orange Grove was then informed—

Better late than never …

As my colleague says, better late than never”. It has only taken two and a half years from knowing about the problem, from being concerned with the problem, from having worked out the regulations, from having worked out the tests, formulated the limits and established the procedure, to produce this Bill. Since this letter of 25 April 1972, it has only taken two and a half years to translate that into the Bill before the House, but in the meantime. Sir, the people have been buying the machines to which the hon. the Minister referred this afternoon, machines which two years ago could have been tested by the manufacturers and checked against the standard. For two and a half years those people have gone on making those machines as they were and now they have to be checked, and the owner will have to have them suppressed instead of the manufacturer. For two and a half years people have been buying machines which could have been pre-tested. This could have saved an awful lot of money and inconvenience to those who have to fit suppressors now. So whilst we accept that the Minister has no option but to appeal to the owners of equipment to have them suppressed—and suppression is a word which the hon. the Minister of course does not often use, but in this case we will accept his right to suppress—instead of appealing to them, he should have acted sooner. So, whilst we obviously will support this measure, I think it is necessary to point out that the Minister has delayed unnecessarily and, I believe, has occasioned unnecessary cost to purchasers.

My colleagues, the hon. member for Berea, was going to raise a matter, but seeing he is not here at the moment I will raise it. That is the question of the inspector who visits premises to inspect. In conformity with other legislation—the hon. the Minister of Health this afternoon discussed the same question with regard to pharmacists —we want to suggest that when an inspector goes to premises, to enter those premises, on arrival he should identify himself. It is a simple thing to do. He has documentary identification. When he arrives and wants to go into X factory or Y workshop or Z shop to inspect and examine equipment, he simply on arrival produces his identification so that there is no doubt and no chance of bogus inspectors coming in and pretending to be inspectors when they are in fact not, and engaging in industrial espionage. The electronic field is a highly skilled and a rapidly advancing field. There are techniques which are strictly protected by manufacturers, particularly in the research stage. I believe therefore that the industry is entitled to be protected against a bogus inspector engaging, in fact, in industrial espionage. We should either like to move an amendment in the Committee Stage or ask the hon. the Minister to consider introducing an amendment to clause 2. Clause 2 empowers the Minister to make regulations and we should like to have an amendment introduced in terms of which the Minister will be empowered to make regulations regarding an inspector identifying himself on arrival.

Lastly I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of the thinking of the department and his own thinking in regard to the sort of fees which will be charged for examination and certification. Does he envisage that these will be nominal fees or are they going to be onerous fees relating to the cost of examining and certifying? If the latter should be the case, there will of course be implications as to the cost of the item concerned, but I shall take that no further until we have heard the hon. the Minister’s reply and his intentions in this regard.

We shall support the Second Reading of this Bill and we hope that it will be proclaimed sooner than the time it has taken to be presented to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member need not be so upset about the passage of time between the announcement of the measure and its introduction, for in the time that passed we most certainly maintained the necessary contract with manufacturers and all concerned. For the past two years the department has constantly been involved in conducting negotiations with the importers the local manufacturers and other dealers in this regard. They have already geared themselves to these new requirements. This Bill has in fact become necessary because there were doubts whether the regulations already promulgated had legal force, and in order to put this beyond all doubt the necessary measures are being taken by way of this Bill. However, this does not mean at all that we have omitted to do the necessary in the meantime. The hon. member need therefore not be concerned about that.

The inspectors of the Bureau who will visit the premises will definitely have the necessary identification documents. The hon. member may rest assured that such an inspector will be able to identify himself properly, and there ought to be no doubt on that score.

As regards the question of the fees that will be charged, I can inform the hon. member that the Bureau of Standards will do the examination and certification. One can only assume that the Bureau will charge reasonable fees which, at least, will also take into account the administrative costs that will be incurred in this regard. Of course, it will not be possible for those costs to be subsidized by other organizations. The task which the Bureau will perform for us will be a great one, but in my opinion all the indications are that the fees will be reasonable.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This will enable the hon. the Minister in making his regulations to include a regulation to the effect that an inspector shall produce his authority on entering premises. Unless this is in the Bill he will not have the right to make regulations in that regard; it will not be obligatory but will be for the hon. the Minister to decide in his own discretion whether he will exercise that right or not. I believe we should insert this in the Bill.

In regard to the fees, the hon. the Minister passed the buck to the South African Bureau of Standards, but we are passing a Bill which empowers the hon. the Minister to lay down the fees. It is specifically provided for in this clause, where the following words appear: “the fees payable in connection with such examinations …” In other words, it is not the Bureau of Standards but the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications who must lay down the fee. The hon. the Minister is incorrect when he says that the Bureau will charge a reasonable fee. It is this Minister who has the power to lay down the regulations governing the issue of certificates and the fees payable. I am sorry, but he cannot pass the buck on this one; the buck is firmly on his desk.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the amendment I want to refer the hon. member to the standing regulations in this regard. I want to read the relevant regulation to the hon. member and I think it will satisfy him in this respect. Standing regulation 68L (2) reads as follows—

I think that covers fully the question the hon. member has in mind.

No. I am talking about the question of producing it on arrival.

The next sub-regulation covers this point and reads as follows—

I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

No, I am sorry.

I think it will prove satisfactory in the implementation of this measure.

*The other trouble that the hon. member had was that the Minister allegedly wants to pass on to the Bureau of Standards the responsibility for prescribing the fees. The Post Office and the Bureau will co-operate closely in laying down these fees. The Bureau is the body which incurs the costs in this regard, and in accordance with that they will estimate fees and submit them to us. Our decision in this matter will be taken in consultation with them so the hon. member need not fear that fees will be laid down on a one-sided basis.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry; I called the hon. the Minister “Speedy Gonzales” at the start, but now I am afraid I shall have to call him something like “Evasive Gonzales”. He is missing the point. In fact he is missing both points which I have made. Our objection is that all regulations for any department which has inspectors have the stereotype provision that if identification is demanded, they must produce it. In other words, identification is only produced on demand. That is the present regulation and it is standard in all Government departments. The man has to be asked to identify himself before he produces the identification. When somebody comes along and says that he is the meter reader from the corporation, who has ever asked such a person coming into their house or their factory claiming to be an official, to identify himself? It is not normal practice, particularly when you are dealing with an inspector whose “yea” or “nay” and whose goodwill can mean a tremendous lot in cold hard cash. I do not mean that they do it illegally, but purely their approval or disapproval of something can have manufacturing implications. No manufacturer is going to upset the man right from the start by saying that he does not believe that he is an inspector and that he has to produce his identification. If he does that he will put the man’s back up straight away. It is human nature, and we are talking about the reality of human life. All my amendment asks is not that the man should be asked to identify himself, but that automatically when he goes to inspect a factory he should say: “I am Mr. Jones …” of “Ek is mnr. Van der Merwe, die inspekteur; hier is my identifikasie.” It is a simple thing. Why does the hon. the Minister not want the person to identify himself as a rule and not as something which he does only when challenged? That is the point. We are not questioning that you can challenge a person to identify himself, but it is a question of his doing it on arrival. It is not just a technical thing. The established practice is that nobody challenges. When you are dealing with industrial espionage it can be a very expensive thing and it can mean big money. All we are asking for is a simple, little amendment, to close the door to an industrial spy who is posing as an inspector and who is getting way with it because the manufacturer does not want to question his bona fides. That is all we are asking. It seems such a little thing and I hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider this.

In regard to the other point, the fees, we shall have to wait and see. In other words, the answer is that no consideration has been given yet to the level of the fee. Therefore we must accept that that is the answer, that it has not been considered. I shall take that matter no further, but I hope that it will be a reasonable fee and that it will not push up costs unnecessarily.

Mr. Chairman, I want to identify myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban Point in regard to this amendment. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister in order to confirm what my colleague has said that if he wishes to refer to the Dental Mechanicians Act, the Hazardous Substances Act, the Foodstuffs and Disinfectants Act, the Atmospheric Pollution Act, the Publications Control Act and the Drugs Control Act, he will find the same practice. In regard to the Publications Control Act, I believe the hon. the Minister has accepted that principle and I also believe the principle has been accepted in the Drugs Control Act. In a previous debate when this point was put to the then hon. Minister of Health, Dr. Carel de Wet, he said that the suggestion in the amendment was a positive approach and not a negative approach because it was trying to build up an atmosphere between an inspector and the person who was being inspected. For that reason, if one can build up a positive atmosphere rather than one of resentment and suspicion, I believe the hon. the Minister should accept this amendment. It is an important principle and one which I believe should be standard practice in all future legislation. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider it in the light of the fact that he will be accepting what is already a precedent in all the Acts which I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point has spoken of realities, and accordingly I should like to discuss the real situation in regard to these amendments. In practice, when an inspector of a Government department arrives at any place, whether he is a factory inspector or an industrial inspector, he is accepted in good faith. He need not paste his certificate to his forehead in order to identify himself. Nor would this be fitting in a representative of the State. That sense of trust must be there. If a firm is really so concerned about the possibility of espionage, it would be very lax of that firm not to insist on the production of the identification document which the person ought to have. I have inspectors in the Department of Labour and I may say that in practice our inspectors need not go about with their identification documents in their hands. That is really infra dig. [Interjections.] It reflects on those people’s standing. If people are at all suspicious, they may demand his identification document and then it may be produced. But I feel that since this is not necessary in practice, I cannot see any reason why this particular provision would not succeed in practice.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to explain this Bill further. It is quite often said that we should try to be more efficient and consequently more productive. In fact, we regularly hear that the machine of State is functioning rather slowly, and consequently the Minister instructed his Department of Bantu Administration and Development during 1973, in the interests of enhanced efficiency, to inquire into the possibility of more effectively delegating to lower levels matters and functions which, according to law or custom, either rest with or are carried out by the State President or the Minister. This was an exhaustive inquiry, and took a considerable amount of time and energy, but I am delighted to be able to state that it has also yielded good results.

This inquiry had the effect that approval was given to thirty-one matters being delegated from the State President, twenty-five to the Minister and six to a lower level, and to 133 matters being delegated from the Minister to a lower level.

A large number of delegations were possible under existing legislation and have already been effected; others can be carried out by way of amendments to regulations, whereas provision is now being made in this Bill for delegations requiring statutory amendments.

Clauses 1, 2, 3. 8, 15 and 25:

These clauses are examples of authorization for delegation, to which I have just referred.

Clause 4:

In terms of existing statutory provisions, Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s courts have, in respect of persons, jurisdiction over Bantu which only includes natural persons. A body corporate, e.g. a company, is therefore excluded from the jurisdiction of the said courts. The representative of a Bantu estate has not been included under the jurisdiction of the court either. The said state of affairs has now had the effect that “Bantu companies” and a representative of a Bantu estate cannot, according to law, sue or be sued in a Bantu Affairs commissioner’s court. Hon. members are aware that civil courts of Bantu Affairs Commissioners are geared for placing less complicated and cheaper tariffs at the disposal of Bantu litigants and that such courts may also take judicial cognizance of Bantu practice and customs. In these circumstances a “Bantu company” and a representative of a Bantu estate have to sue an opponent in the other courts of the country, and, similarly, plaintiffs against the above persons also have to apply to other courts. It should also be mentioned here that a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court, in contrast with a magistrate’s court, is not restricted as regards the amount of a claim. Therefore, when Bantu litigants, to whom reference has been made, are unable to apply to a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court, they are obliged, in the case of claims exceeding the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court, to apply to the Supreme Court and are in this way exposed to more complicated procedures and higher tariffs, and this often results in good claims being abandoned or in a valid defence not being raised for fear of the said higher tariffs. The amendment will make it possible for a corporate body and a body of persons in which no person other than a Bantu has an interest, as well as the representative of a Bantu estate, to sue and be sued in a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court.

Clause 5:

The Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, provides that land in scheduled and released areas may be excised from such areas subject to the condition that compensatory land is granted. Under section 6(1)(a) of the said Act all State-owned land which has been reserved or set aside for the occupation of Bantu vests in the Trust, but the Act does not provide for the withdrawal of the latter type of land from such reservation or setting apart and for the granting of compensatory land, and this is in fact what this amendment seeks to regulate.

Clause 6:

Under section 18(2) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, the trustee may grant, sell or otherwise dispose of Trust land to Bantu. In paragraph (2) of section 49 of the Act “Bantu” is defined, and the definition is interpreted as being a natural Bantu person and consequently does not include a corporate body in which Bantu persons have the controlling interest. The amendment proposes to make it possible for the trustee also to dispose of Trust land in favour of, for instance, a corporate body in which Bantu persons have the controlling interest.

Clause 7:

Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1943, grants exemption from certain taxes to, inter alia, the government of any self-governing territory within the Republic, a legislative council established under the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, 1968, and a Bantu authority established under the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951. The amendment proposes to extend this exemption also to legislative assemblies established under the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, 1971, (Act No. 21 of 1971).

Clauses 9 and 10:

Most of the homelands have already advanced to the political level of self-governing territories. In the light of this homeland governments have requested that the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, 1959, be amended in order to confer greater powers on them in nominating representatives and assistants of representatives and in constituting boards which assist representatives.

Clause 11:

Owing to restrictions in the Act it is not possible at present to give permission to general dealers in urban areas to sell and supply packaged Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder. Some of the areas which are urban areas according to law are in fact rural areas in the ordinary sense of the word, such as the rural areas within the areas of jurisdiction of divisional councils. It is desirable for general dealers to be allowed access to such rural areas to sell packaged Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder in order that proper distribution may take place.

Clause 12:

As you are aware, Sir, a Transkeian High Court was established recently, and in the course of doing so certain difficulties were encountered in the existing Act. This amendment proposes to remove those difficulties.

Clauses 13, 17 and 20:

The Transkei Constitution Act and the two Constitutions of the other homelands in the Republic and South-West Africa each contain provisions in terms of which officers and employees of the Public Service of the Republic may be placed at the disposal of executive councils and cabinets to assist them with the administration of the respective departments of their government services. However, there are also persons such as teachers and persons in the employ of the South African Bantu Trust who are needed to render such assistance, and these amendments propose to grant wider powers for making persons available to render the said assistance.

Clause 14:

This amendment proposes to grant the Transkei Government wider powers concerning land so that it may, for instance, also amend the conditions of a title deed in suitable cases.

Clauses 18 and 19:

Under the present provisions of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970, a Bantu person acquires citizenship of a territorial authority area merely by virtue of his birth in that area, even if at the time of his birth both of his parents had been citizens of another territorial authority area or had only been in that area temporarily, e.g. on a visit. A Bantu person also acquires citizenship merely by virtue of the fact that he is domiciled in that area. He may also claim citizenship from one of the various territorial authorities. This amendment proposes to regulate the position so that birth within an area shall only imply citizenship if at least one of the parents of a Bantu person was born in that area was a citizen at the time of his birth, so that domicile shall only be a qualification for changing citizenship and so that any Bantu person may only claim citizenship from one territorial authority.

Clauses 21, 22, 23, and 24:

Clauses 21 to 24 delegate wider powers to homeland governments and regulate matters connected therewith. Clause 26 contains the short title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that, after the explanatory memorandum and my further explanation, there will be understanding of and general support for this Bill in this House.

I regret, Sir, that I cannot comply with the wish of the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that this Bill will have the support at Second Reading of the Official Opposition. It will not have that support. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us very little other than what we already knew, having read the White Paper in respect of this Bill. In the first instance, Sir, our principal objection is that we are presented with this type of legislation. You have here. Sir, a Bill consisting of 26 clauses, unrelated clauses, having one common theme only, and that is that they all relate to the Bantu people of South Africa. That is the only common denominator that goes through the whole of this Bill. You have 26 clauses containing at least 26 different principles, or probably more, because many of the clauses have a number of subsections amending 13 separate Acts of Parliament, 26 clauses containing more than 26 principles amending 13 separate Acts of Parliament which we are supposed to deal with as a principle at the Second Reading, either supporting it or rejecting it as a Bill, not as a variety of separate clauses but as a Bill.

Sir, not only does this make a mockery of parliamentary procedure, but it makes it almost impossible to differentiate between discussion at Second Reading and discussion at Committee Stage, and it presents a further difficulty which, as I say, makes a mockery of parliamentary procedure, and that is that if support is given to the Bill at Second Reading it makes it almost impossible to ascertain what we can discuss at the Committee Stage and what we cannot discuss because it is almost impossible to ascertain what has been accepted as the principle at Second Reading and what has not. Sir, a more undesirable method of dealing with legislation it is difficult to conceive of. Indeed, Sir, if we are to follow this type of procedure in dealing with legislation in this House, then every Bill might as well be a General Laws Amendment Bill dealing with a whole variety of matters.

It is a Bantu Laws Amendment Bill.

Yes, I know it is. What would the hon. gentleman’s attitude be if a Bill was introduced which was called White Laws Amendment Bill? It does not tell us any more …

[Inaudible.]

I am not surprised that the hon. member for Vryheid does not understand what I am talking about.

He is showing his ignorance.

Sir, there is today, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, an empire, and I do not say it in a derogatory sense. He governs, through his department the entire administration of the major group of people in the country. At this stage of the administration of South Africa, Sir, you cannot therefore any longer put forward, with any reason, a Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, because whether it is straight administration, whether it is relating to land, whether it is relating to health, whether it is relating to Constitutions, whether it is relating to liquor, whether it is relating to courts of law, every single aspect of administration relating to the majority of the people of the country is centred under one Minister and that is why, Sir, when you get a Bill of this kind, you have amendments dealing with legislation which in respect of the White people would be covered by 13 different Ministers, in this Bill alone.

Sir, it makes it extremely difficult to handle legislation of this kind. As I say, it makes it extremely difficult to deal with it in terms of the rules of this House, and it makes it extremely difficult for those who have to deal with the Act, once it is on the Statute Book—the lawyers and administrators—to deal with legislation of this kind and to amend their legislation accordingly. Sir, it is not everybody who is able to walk into a library and take out a copy of Butterworth’s Annotated Statutes. Not everybody has that facility where one deals with legislation which is already up to date.

Sir, that is the first objection that we have, that it is a thoroughly undesirable way of dealing with legislation. Now, Sir, let me illustrate the manner in which I believe it should have been done. If you look at the first four clauses, Sir, you will find that they deal with the Bantu Administration Act of 1927; it deals with a specific aspect of legislation and administration. Why is an amending Bill, embodying those four clauses, not introduced to deal with amendments to the Bantu Administration Act? Clauses 5 and 6 deal with land, with the Bantu Trust and Land Act. Why not introduce a short Bill to amend the Bantu Trust and Land Act? The same applies, Sir, to the remaining clauses. You have extensive amendments to the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with a specific topic. There again, Sir, why is a Bill not introduced to deal with that? As I have said, a variety of subjects which in themselves are comprehensive are dealt with in the Bill.

May I ask a question?

Please do.

Would that mean that the hon. member would also be against a Bill which we usually get in this House, namely the General Laws Amendment Bill?

He referred to it a moment ago.

Certainly I am against the General Laws Amendment Act and we have stated that over and over again. We know what difficulties we experience in respect of that legislation. I will not embroider on it, but let me put this to the hon. the Minister: Instead of having a short General Laws Amendment Bill dealing largely with matters relating particularly to the courts and general law, which has been the custom in the past, we now get a great, big omnibus Bill involving all sorts of things from the kitchen stove to security legislation.

It is all wrapped up in one piece of legislation and one is faced with exactly the same position here. There is no principle involved and one is placed in a difficulty in so far as discussion in the Committee Stage is concerned. The same objection which applies to the General Law Amendment Bill applies to this Bill. If a General Law Amendment Bill is made to cover as wide a field as is covered by this Bill, then exactly the same objection applies.

Now, I shall in discussing the Bill in detail attempt unlike the hon. the Minister, to group the clauses which have some relation one to the other. The first group embodies clauses 1, 2, 3, 8, 15 and 25, i.e. those clauses which deal with delegated powers. One can quite understand that in a large department like that of the hon. the Minister, not everything can be handled by the Minister and that hence there should be a desire that some of his powers should be exercised by officials to whom that power is delegated. One can understand that a similar principle should also apply to matters which formerly were submitted for decision to the State President, which of course means a Cabinet decision. Now, there are three categories that are dealt with in this legislation: Firstly, where powers were formerly dealt with by the State President and are now to be dealt with by ministerial power; secondly, where power was dealt with by the Minister and is now to be dealt with by the Minister or by certain named senior officials, like the Secretary for the department or a Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner; and, thirdly, yet again where the power which was formerly exercised by the Minister is to be dealt with by named officials, e.g. the Secretary or the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner or any other official of the department duly authorized. It is in respect of these three categories that I would like to engage the attention of the House for a moment.

Clause 1 is a delegation of power, which formerly rested with the Minister, to the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development or to the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner concerned if authorized thereto by the Minister. This is a delegation of power which I think can be supported. It is in respect of the appointment of Bantu Affairs Commissioners and additional Bantu Affairs Commissioners and it is not unreasonable that the Secretary, who is after all the head of the department, or the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner, who is the senior man in the province, should have those powers, because it is in respect of a field which is particularly within his knowledge and within the scope of his administration.

The next one is clause 2, which deals with the places additional to the seat of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court at which sittings can be held. Here again it is a clause which we could support because it does not constitute an unreasonable extension of the existing power. The extension is to the Secretary for the department or to any other officer of the department duly authorized. I may say that I shall be asking the Deputy Minister in the Committee Stage to indicate whether the words “if authorized thereto” apply merely to the unnamed official, or whether they apply to even the named officials, the senior officials as well, because to us there is some lack of clarity in that regard.

Then there is a similar extension of power in respect of the defining of the areas of jurisdiction of these courts and once again we do not find that extension of power objectionable. Finally, in clause 2 there is the extension of what formerly was a power of the Governor-General to the Minister to make regulations. This extension has our support.

I now come to clause 3 which we are not able to support. This clause deals with what really amounts to a power of banishment—not banning, but banishment. It is an old-established power which rested in the Act of 1927. The exercise of this power formerly vested in the Cabinet because it was a Governor-General’s power but it is now to become a ministerial power. In the case of a person other than a Bantu person he can be prohibited from entering an area. In the case of a person who is a Bantu he can be told that he shall not enter an area and in addition he can be told that he shall not be in any place outside an area. This is an important power because it impinges upon civil liberties. It impinges upon the freedom of movement of individuals. It is a material inroad into what are normally termed civil rights. We feel that a certain formality ought to govern the exercise of this power other than a mere decision and signature by a Minister. Accordingly, we believe that the power was correctly one which was surrounded by the formality of a Cabinet meeting and a recommendation to the head of State that the power should be exercised. We accordingly feel that we cannot support this clause.

I now come to clause 8 which we also feel is too wide. This clause deals with the definition of “Minister”, the person who has the power in terms of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. This is a very wide Act having widespread implications in respect of every urban Bantu. Here again we believe that to allow any officer of the department to be authorized to exercise the ministerial power is going too far. At a later stage we shall move an amendment with the object of limiting the exercise of that power.

Then there is clause 15, which provides for an extension of power from the State President to the Minister which we can support.

We believe that we cannot support clause 25, because once again the Bantu Affairs Administration Act is an Act which governs Bantu Administration Boards. We believe there ought to be a limitation and we shall move a suitable amendment at the Committee Stage.

I then come to the second group of clauses which, I suppose, have some relationship. Clause 4 is the first of them. We shall support this clause which allows Black corporate bodies and deceased estates of Black persons to be dealt with by way of litigation in the Bantu Commissioner’s Court. There are advantages to this which the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with when he spoke. I believe there are disadvantages as well. You have today some very large deceased estates and you have some very large companies. One thinks of bus companies which could be termed Black companies. The same criteria which prevent their causes being heard in a magistrate’s court with a limited jurisdiction as to the amount of the cause of action should, I believe, be considered in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court as well. Whilst you may not limit the jurisdiction in the same way as you do in the magistrate’s court, I think that the criteria which prevent a very large cause in respect of a White estate or company being heard in the magistrate’s court and makes it heard in the more formal procedure of the Supreme Court, apply in respect of a Black company or estate. Consequently I think consideration ought to be given to limiting the jurisdiction of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court where these types of bodies are dealt with. Nevertheless, clause 4 will have our support because in general we believe it is an improvement.

Clause 5 deals with the question of State-owned land occupied by Bantu. I had the greatest difficulty in understanding what was intended to be conveyed by this clause, but I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister has state the intention correctly. It fills what appears to be a gap in the existing law. This clause has our support.

Clause 6 seeks to extend the definition of “Bantu” in relation to residing on land situated in a certain area to include a corporate body, and this is acceptable, as is clause 7, which deals with the exemption of taxes and duties in respect of legislative assemblies in the homeland areas.

I then come to clauses 9 and 10, clause 8 having already been dealt with, which provide that greater powers will be given to the homeland authorities, which will reduce the power of the Minister in respect of the appointment of representatives of the homeland authorities in the White areas and the boards that advise them. This too can be supported because the homeland authorities have reached, in most cases, that stage of development where whilst it is required that they consult the Minister, his decision is no longer binding. It is a change to see the amendment taking this form rather than the other form. Nevertheless, as I have said, it keeps pace with development.

Then there is clause 11 which deals with Bantu beer. In this Bill, one minute you are dealing with ambassadors and the next minute you are dealing with beer. This is the difficulty you have. It is not unreasonable that the areas in which Bantu beer can be sold should be extended. There are, of course, divided opinions as to any question of the sale of liquor, but, by and large, this provision has our support. I would ask the Minister to consider two things in this respect. The one is the enormous increase in the illegal hawking of Bantu beer and the other is the dreadful pollution of the countryside by plastic Bantu beer containers which are made of a substance which is not easily destroyed.

I now come to clause 12, which is the extension of powers in relation to the homeland courts. The interesting thing here is the provision that process from the courts of the homeland areas all be applicable outside the homeland areas. It was to overcome this sort of thing that the union of the four provinces of South Africa was brought about, and now we are doing it in reverse, I suppose, however that the wheel will eventually turn full circle.

Clauses 13 and 17 relate to the power whereby persons other than civil servants can assist the homeland Governments. There is no difficulty there and the same applies to clause 20. Clause 14 also has our support.

I come now to clause 16. This is a matter about which I have grave doubts. It empowers the Government to authorize an investment corporation to pay an indemnity to an industrialist who has been contracted with to develop industry in a Bantu homeland, to pay him an indemnity if he suffers damage against which he cannot be insured and in respect of which he cannot recover damages in a court of law. I have the greatest doubt as to whether we are wise to proclaim to the world by means of legislation such as this that in the Republic of South Africa there are areas which are safe for investment and that there are areas which are unsafe for investment. I believe that is the last thing which we should proclaim to the world. What worries me also is a clause which is as widely stated as this, with no safeguards of any kind, and the scope that exists for malpractice. I am not suggesting for a moment that this would occur at the level of the Minister, but in the many bodies and individuals which are involved there are no safeguards of any kind.

Finally, if one wishes, as I believe one does, to engender among al people of South Africa, including the less developed races, respect for free private enterprise in which we believe and respect for private property, which is the basis of the free private enterprise system, these guarantees should not be given by the Republican Government, but by the homeland Governments concerned who wish to encourage industrialists to invest in their homelands. As this clause reads at present, and I hope we shall have a chance of hearing the Minister’s views on it at the Committee Stage, it is open, it is almost an encouragement to nationalization after independence. I believe one must have a very close look at this clause in the committee stage before we can say whether or not it is desirable. What we want to know, but what is not disclosed in the White Paper or has not been disclosed by the hon. the Minister is what it is designed to cover. What type of contingency is envisaged that will be covered by a clause of this kind? When that has been indicated perhaps one can have second thoughts about it.

Clauses 18 and 19 relate to citizenship, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. What is the attitude of the Bantu homeland leaders in respect of the legislature provision contained in clauses 18 and 19? It changes the basis upon which citizenship is to be acquired in respect of the homeland areas. I would have thought this was particularly a domestic matter of the homeland Governments themselves. After all they are the ones most concerned with who is a citizen of their areas and who is not. The hon. the Minister has indicated the reasons for this legislation one of which is the fact that with our industrial development many people acquire a domicile in an area with which they have no cultural affinity or in which they were born because their parents happened to be there on a temporary basis. The implications are wide and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the views of the homeland authorities are in this regard, because it does affect them.

Then there are other clauses which are not of great concern, but in the time available to me now I should like to deal with clause 23 which relates to prisons. In principle the power of a homeland authority being able to establish prisons, is not objectionable but this clause includes the power to transfer a Bantu person who was convicted in the Republic from a prison in the Republic to a prison in the homeland. A number of factors arise here. Firstly, what is there to ensure that the conditions in the prisons in the homelands will be of the same standard as those in the prisons in the Republic? Secondly, where will the prisoner be released after he has served his term of imprisonment? Is this capable of being used as a means of defeating some sections of the other legislation which gives to a Bantu person the right of tenure in the White areas? Is a convicted person so transferred—and it can be done against his will—to be released hundreds of miles from his home? Is he to be released in the area where the prison is situated in a homeland or are there regulations which demand that he be returned to the place where he was convicted, which is probably his home, so that he can me released there? What is the position in regard to visits by wives and family? What is the position of a man convicted in Cape Town, for example, who is sent to the big prison at Umzimkulu which is 800 miles away? There are a number of factors which require consideration before it can be said that clause 23 is a clause which is desirable or which can be supported. There is also the question of prison rules, which may be far more harsh in the one case than in the other. I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister that we live in a time of enlightenment so far as prison reform and the administration of prisons are concerned, and I may say that our prisons in the Republic stand as high as any in that regard.

Then there is clause 24, which deals with the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act and specifically with the question of financial assistance and motor carrier transportation. The difficulty I have with motor carrier transportation is that, where you have fragmented homelands, as we have at the present time, and established bus services serving one route which goes through White areas and Black areas and where you have different motor carrier transportation boards, presumably a certificate has to be acquired in respect of a bus service from the White board for the White territory as well as the Black board where it goes through the Black territories.

This is the case between Swaziland and us at present, and we experience no problems there.

Precisely, Sir. My friend over there says no difficulties are being experienced at all. But he does not know what he is talking about. Take the situation at Eshowe as a simple example. There every bus service—and there must be a dozen of them—runs through a few miles of White territory, then a few miles of Black territory, then a few miles of White territory again. That applies in the case of every single one of the services there. If you have a joint transportation board representative of both areas I could understand it, but here where you have separate boards, one of which can grant a certificate and the other refuse it, it makes the running of a bus service under those conditions absolutely impossible.

There are certain agreements according to which they work.

I hope the hon. gentleman will get up and give us the benefit of his knowledge in this case.

All in all we have here a hodge-podge of unrelated matters, some of which we approve of and some of which we oppose, but for the reasons I have given we will be opposing this legislation at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said at the outset that he objected to the fact that so many principles were embodied in this one Bill. He said, furthermore, that the principles that were embodied herein were in fact the work of 13 different Ministers. I want to tell the hon. member that he indirectly moved a strong motion of confidence in the Minister and in this department in this sense that they were allegedly doing the work of 13 Ministers, as he suggested. The hon. member’s objection is not quite clear to me. There is nothing preventing them from discussing any of these clauses for as long as they wish in the Committee Stage. He does not see his way clear to giving his support as regards only a few of these clauses. In the case of a few other clauses the hon. member said he wanted more information before they decided whether or not they would support them. That is why I cannot see what the hon. member’s real objection is to the fact that the Bill embodies various principles. If the hon. the Minister were to have embodied each one of these clauses separately in Bills, we would have had 26 Bills before Parliament.

No. 13.

Very well. Then I want to ask the hon. member how long it would take to discuss 13 different Bills here in Parliament. Of course, there is nothing preventing him and his supporters from discussing any of the principles in this Bill in full. I want to predict that the hon. members on the opposite side are not going to take up the full amount of time allotted for a Second Reading debate in order to discuss all these principles. If this should prove to be the case, it would show that it was not necessary to have different Bills, for in that case there would still be some time available which had not been used.

I think the most important objection the hon. member raised was in respect of the delegation of powers. He supported some of the clauses, but he did not see his way clear to supporting clause 15, which deals with the administration boards. In past years we always heard from the Opposition, when a fine thing occurred in a department, that it was the officials of that department who were responsible for those fine things. However, if something occurs with which they are not satisfied, they say it is the Minister who is responsible for it. Now the hon. member comes along, however, and says the powers should not be delegated to the people who supposedly do the fine things. I think in that respect, too, the hon. member is again moving a motion of full confidence in the Minister since he does not want the Minister to delegate his powers to the officials of the department.

In respect of this particular Bill the hon. member said that the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Minister were doing the work of 13 Ministers. In that case, surely, it is pre-eminently essential to delegate powers in the case of this department. No properly organized undertaking—business undertaking, farming undertaking or educational undertaking—can function efficiently and smoothly without delegating powers. In this particular instance the hon. the Deputy Minister said during the Second Reading that the department had conducted an intensive investigation into the question of delegation and had found that there were powers which could in fact be delegated. Of course, that clause does not provide that the Minister may delegate all his powers. The Minister can decide which powers he wishes to delegate. Furthermore, should it prove to be necessary, the Minister could again take upon himself those powers he had delegated. What is more, in delegating those powers, he may lay down administratively that when an official is concerned with an obvious everyday, routine matter, the official concerned may proceed with it, and that when an official is concerned with a deviation from the normal case, the matter should be referred to the Minister himself for decision. These are things which may be controlled administratively. The advantage of doing it in this way is that a tremendous amount of administrative work may be done much more quickly than would otherwise have been the case. I also think that the clauses the hon. member is supporting are examples of this. At present there are more than 100 Bantu Affairs Commissioner districts in the country, and at present every Bantu Affairs Commissioner is appointed by the Minister for a particular area. If such a Bantu Affairs Commissioner goes on leave or takes ill, only the Minister may appoint another person to act in his stead, and surely this is not necessary. The Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner in that area is very well acquainted with matters and he may decide who may be appointed there. That is why I think that the objection the hon. member raised to the question of the delegation of powers is not really a valid one.

The same applies as regards the delegation of powers by the State President to the Minister. Those powers which may be delegated by the State President to the Minister are usually delegated by proclamation, and that proclamation eventually comes before Parliament and can therefore be examined by both Houses of Parliament.

I just want to say that the amendments which are being made in respect of the Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ courts, are bringing those courts into line with the Magistrates’ courts of the Republic for in the General Law Amendment Bill which was before Parliament during the first session of this year, it was also provided that the Minister of Justice might make those appointments. Therefore, this amendment brings the Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ courts into line with the magistrates’ courts.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, the hon. member intimated that he might possibly support it. The case which gave rise to this amendment is perhaps a good example to mention. Then the hon. member might realize why it is necessary to effect this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the Natives Land Act of 1913 made provision for certain land used by Bantu to be included in the schedule and declared a separate area. Furthermore, it made provision for a commission to be appointed for the purposes of purchasing land, land which should be reserved for use by Bantu persons. It is further provided in the 1936 Act that released areas may be declared and that the reserved areas may be allocated to the Trust, as well as the land which is reserved for Bantu use and which was purchased between 1913 and 1936. It is provided that land which is situated in the reserved area may be withdrawn from Bantu use, and that compensatory land may be given, and the same applies in respect of the released areas. However, provision is not made for the clearing and granting of compensatory land in exchange for land which was purchased between 1913 and 1936. The Act is silent on this matter. In the Gordonia district, near the Augrabies Falls, there are farms such as Bokseput, Riemvasmaak and a few others with beautiful North-western Cape names. Those farms were purchased between 1913 and 1936 and reserved for use by Bantu persons. However, it is in an unfavourably situated area, and since that time the people who lived there have been moved—some of them to the Ciskei and others to Damaraland. That area now has to become a White-owned area and compensatory land has to be given in exchange. The legislation does not provide for that, and this amendment now seeks to make provision for a case of that nature.

The hon. member objected to clause 16 as well. The hon. member says we should respect private initiative and property ownership. But, Sir, the amendment to this clause does not in any way affect any of these principles. All this amendment makes provision for is an authorization, where we find ourselves in a situation where development is taking place in the homelands and we may come up against new, unforeseen situations, that guarantees and succeeding guarantees may be given. The hon. member said the provisions are too wide and are not being defined. But, Sir, the definition is in fact found in the contract drawn up between the corporation and the person concerned. The contract describes instances where guarantees are given. Since one cannot foresee everything which might arise in future, this provision has to be wide in order to make provision for any eventuality.

The hon. member also objected to the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act. He asked what the attitude of the homelands was. I was informed that the homeland governments requested this and that it will be in their interests if matters are arranged in this way. At the present moment the situation is that, if a person is born in the area of a Bantu authority or a self-governing Bantu area he automatically becomes a citizen of that area—it makes no difference whether or not his parents are members of that people. They could perhaps have been merely passing through. The second way in which citizenship may be acquired is by means of domicile. Now, arising out of that, a person may be born in an area of which neither of his parents is a citizen. He may be a member of another people and if he lives in an area for five years he may lay claim to the citizenship of more than one homeland. The amendment being proposed here rectifies that matter since the various alternatives now cancel one another out. If a person acquires citizenship on the grounds of one qualification, he cannot acquire it on the grounds of another as well. Now, it is the case that in this particular case, if a person was born in the area of a homeland government, and one of his parents is or both his parents are members of that people, he becomes a citizen of that area. He may also acquire citizenship on the grounds of his domicile of five years or longer within a particular area, or he may acquire citizenship on the grounds of the language he speaks. But if he has acquired citizenship in terms of any of the aforementioned, he cannot acquire citizenship again in terms of his language because these factors exclude one another. Furthermore, he may acquire citizenship on the grounds of his association with other people. These, too, are mutually exclusive. Now, in the preamble to that section it is stated that all persons may acquire citizenship in one or other of these ways. In other words, the intention of this clause is that all Bantu persons who are South African citizens in the international sense of the word must acquire citizenship in South Africa. Now, I considered what kind of person may not qualify for citizenship and I came to the conclusion that it will be only a very exceptional case, an unnatural case, if there should be such a person who cannot, in terms of one of these qualifications, qualify for citizenship, for a normal person associates with other people, he speaks a language, he is born somewhere and he lives at a particular place. In other words, the chances of a person not being able to acquire citizenship in terms of this legislation are very slender.

Sir, it is a privilege for me to support this Bill.

Sir, I found the discourse of the hon. member for Licthenburg very interesting in so far as it relates to the clauses on which we are agreed. However, I found very little enlightenment relating to the clauses upon which we disagree, namely clauses 3, 8, 16 and 25. I will deal with some of the clauses in the course of the next few minutes, but I should like to say, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has already said, that this is a Bill which has no definable principles. It is no good saying that it assists in the promulgation of laws to place them all under one umbrella. I believe that the Government, in placing laws of this kind on the Statute Book, and placing them before Parliament, seeks to place an Opposition, and particularly this Opposition, in an invidious position. There may well be a majority of the clauses which are acceptable, clauses which are necessary for the good government of the country. There may also be three of four clauses which are totally unacceptable, which are in the eyes of the Opposition wrong and not necessary for the good government of the country. One or two of these clauses may affect civil liberties or any such matters which the Opposition regards as being very serious. Now, if an Opposition, having such a Bill placed before it, accepts it in the Second Reading, it is open to criticism from one section. If it denies support in Second Reading, it is open to criticism again, because it should be understood by members of the Government that ordinary people, people not sitting in this Chamber, do not understand the machinations of law. They do not understand, particularly, the various stages of Bills and what is to be done. It is very important at this stage in the development of South Africa that the issues which divide the Government and the official Opposition, and also the Progressive Party, are clearly defined. It is very important that the people of South Africa know precisely what they are voting for, who they are voting for and why this is necessary. In legislation such as this, the Government seeks only to cloud the issues which distinguish the various parties. Such legislation is slovenly, does not assist South Africa in making up its mind and does not make for efficiency at all. I think the Government must realize that if this type of legislation is brought before this House on future occasions, it will very likely be the tendency of the Opposition to oppose it at Second Reading.

Some comments have been made about the delegation of powers as set out in some of the clauses, three of them in particular, with which we do not agree. I refer to clause 3, clause 8, and I think clause 25. As the hon. member for Lichtenburg has said, it is correct that there should be a delegation of powers so as to increase efficiency in departments. It is correct that the load should be spread. In this particular legislation, however, and in many other types of legislation, powers relating to matters which affect the personal lives of individuals, are in our view powers which should be the direct responsibility of the Minister and not only his ultimate responsibility. It is far better to retain responsibility for the direct decisions than, as in the past on numerous occasions, to have the Minister jump in and rectify decisions which have been hastily or incorrectly taken and which have caused tremendous damage. So, delegation is not undesirable in certain circumstances, but when it involves the lives of people we believe the delegation should not take place and that the direct responsibility should be retained by the Minister himself.

We have said that the clause that troubles us is clause 3 in particular. Clause 3 transfers the power from the State President, acting on the advice of a full Cabinet recommendation to the Minister. In the case of a White man this power allows for a person to be excluded from a specific area and in the case of a Black man allows for a man to be confined to a specific area. Before this power can be applied such person must have committed an offence. It is stated: “Any person who utters any words or does any other act or thing whatever with intent to promote any feeling of hostility between Bantu and Europeans shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to a fine of one hundred pounds, or both.” This is not one of the major crimes in the South African racial Statute Book but it is a crime which can easily be construed to have been committed by anyone uttering words in a harsh manner. We say that this is a powerful weapon which is now being transferred form the office of the State President and the whole Cabinet and put in the hands of the Minister. This is a power which, if used at all, should be used very sparingly. It should be used with the greatest circumspection and only with the utmost responsibility. Consequently we believe that it should remain in the hands of the full Cabinet and the State President acting on the advice of the Cabinet. It should not be placed in the hands of an individual Minister who, in this particular case, is somewhat volatile and well known for his political “kragdadigheid”.

Clause 8 is theoretically even worse than clause 3. Here powers are delegated from the Minister to officials of the department. Although the Minister retains responsibility for the affairs of the department, we increasingly find that the actual running of the country, the vital decisions which are being made, are moving over into the hands of the senior officials of many departments who do not sit on the benches opposite. What sort of powers are these? If one looks at section 2 of the Bantu Urban Areas Consolidation Act, one finds that it deals with the delegation of powers to require Bantu to move or to be removed from given areas. There is a delegation of powers to possibly remove locations and hostels and to abolish them, e.g. in terms of section three. This is of course the Act which we are amending, which contains the famous section 10, which is fortunately not vitally affected by this provision. However, this Act which we are amending and in terms of which we are delegating authority to officials is the Act which, more than any other, governs the very life of the majority of South Africans. This delegation could involve decisions as to what amounts are chargeable to the Bantu services levy, could involve the question of the establishment of Bantu advisory boards, could involve the withdrawal of the licence of Bantu Affairs officers, could involve discussions relating to the removal of what are called, in the Act, redundant, Bantu, etc. In the hands of an official this is a particularly controversial function.

We say that such powers should be retained as the direct responsibility of the Minister who is able to answer for his department across the floor of this House. The importance of the decisions to be taken in terms of this are now being down-graded by placing these powers in the hands of officials. Many decisions require a certain discretion. Whereas a Minister, in his position of power, in his position of authority, can exercise a certain discretion, what chance do we have, in terms of this already draconian legislation in many ways, of a senior official, who is bound by the terms of the Act, by the limitation of the wording of the Act, eager to progress himself, not willing to take a broader view because of the responsibility he has in terms of legislation, using his discretion in the interests of people? Would he dare to do so in all cases? Is it not easier—and I put it no stronger than that—for the Minister, who has the authority, who has the power in terms of the Act, personally to exercise this type of discretion and perhaps act in a bolder fashion? I can foresee the Minister in terms of this delegated authority one day perhaps delegating authority to a wrong person, who then may make a wrong decision. Then the Minister would have to step in to fix things up. In terms of this legislation, a wrong decision could involve tremendous damage to South Africa. My feeling therefore is that this power must stay in the hands of the Minister.

The same arguments applicable to clause 8 also apply to clause 25. Effectively, in these two clauses the burden of the work is in fact spread out. The whole bureaucracy of Bantu administration boards, which particularly in the urban context is already one of the major arms of Bantu administration in South Africa, is now, however, placed directly in the hands of men who do not face us at all in this House, in the hands of officials who have little option but to implement the letter of the law.

Let us now look at some of the powers which could possibly be delegated if clause 25 is accepted. If one reads it carefully one finds it goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. An official may now create, if a general authority is granted—and I assume the Minister will grant general authority to certain senior officials to act in his name in terms of this Act—Bantu board areas in terms of section 2 of the Bantu Affairs Administration Act. An official may alter the territorial boundaries of an area whereas this was previously the decision of the Minister. Theoretically and perhaps even not so theoretically an official can appoint the chairman and the members of a Bantu administration board. I think I am now going from the sublime to the ridiculous, but if general authority is given, an official can determine the tenure of office of the members and regulate the business of the board. He can even determine the salaries of people not employed by the State who serve on such Bantu administration boards. We have just passed a Bill in terms of which the power to determine the salaries of members of Parliament is taken away from Parliament and put in another place. In terms of this Bill, however, we are giving an official the right to determine the salaries of board members if, in fact, we have a general delegation. I think this is taking the matter from the sublime to the ridiculous.

I believe that if we are going to delegate and if delegation is in fact in the interests of the administration of the Act, then the delegation should be more specific; we should be told which powers are going to be delegated. The powers which are going to be delegated should be specified on the Statute Book and then we would not have this type of argument in this House.

I now come to clause 16. The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that he could not think of specific examples. He said that the clause only provides for an authority which eventually may be used. I am sure that that is correct, but surely an authority is not created unless it is intended to be used? As such I am quite certain that such authority will in due course be exercised and the situation may arise where this authority will be used almost immediately to indemnify certain corporations for acts which have already taken place. The hon. member said he could not think of examples. It is of course necessary that the Bantu homelands develop at the fastest possible rate. It is of course essential that the Bantu homelands be offered every encouragement and that industries, businesses and agricultural establishments must be aided, but surely the provision as set out in the Bill is far too wide? The type of loss which it is anticipated might be incurred by a body or corporation going into the homelands is not at all defined. The clause merely provides—

We ask whether this is an indemnity to investors that if their concerns are nationalized by a homeland authority in due course, they will be compensated for loss of that sort. Is that what is envisaged? Is this an example which we may give? I should like to know whether this is an indemnity against loss which is caused due to boycotts of that particular business or undertaking within the homelands. Is a boycott envisaged which may cause the loss of thousands of rand because of lost working days or the loss of sales? When there is a loss of sales, the profitability of the concern will decrease. Is this the type of eventuality which it is envisaged will arise in a homeland in due course? Is it an indemnity against loss due to strikes which may take place? Loss due to strikes is not necessarily insurable. In fact, I think very few insurance companies insure against strikes at present. Strikes may well cause a stoppage of work and may involve hundreds of thousands of rand in certain industries. Is this an indemnity against loss due to the establishment of an uneconomic venture in the first place?

Because the man who went in there and established a business which, in the circumstances, has proved a failure and has suffered a loss as a result thereof, should not be insurable and will certainly not recover damages. He may well be able to prove a significant loss. I realize that there is a certain amount of discretion in this matter, but what we are asking is that the question be defined. Tell us the type of thing that is envisaged, because on the present wording it is far too wide. I think it is an open licence to entrepreneurs to be careless, as a matter of fact, I think it is an open invitation to entrepreneurs to be careless, not to worry about whether or not they are going to do their job properly or look after their property. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said it is almost an invitation for a homeland leader, perhaps in many years to come, or for his Government to realize that whatever is nationalized they need not worry because South Africa is going to make it good. Whatever the case may be, unless this power is used with great circumspection, South Africa in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time might find itself landed with a bill of many millions of rand. I think it is in the interests of us all that we define what we are trying to indemnify. If the indemnity which is asked for by the Minister is a reasonable one it will be supported by this side of the House, but we need to know what is envisaged and what the Minister wants.

We do, however, welcome several of the provisions of this Bill. We welcome the question of Bantu corporations being brought within the ambit of the Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ Court. We also welcome the clause which makes it possible to place a wider spectrum of persons at the disposal of the Transkeian Government, but the clauses I have mentioned, namely clauses 3, 8 and 25, are in fact repugnant to us. Clause 16 also gives us grave doubts, because we are not certain as to its real implications. Therefore, despite the way in which this Bill has been drawn up, in order to make the view of the Opposition clear, we have decided to oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I really expected much stronger opposition to this Bill from the Opposition side, particularly since this measure deals with citizenship of the homelands. I can remember, when the original Act was introduced here, how strongly the Opposition was opposed to the granting of citizenship to the various Bantu peoples, even to the extent of moving that the Bill should only be read this day six months. At that time the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development concluded his Second Reading speech by making the following appeal: “Perform your task of building nations”. One wonders whether these people have really come to their senses and now want to perform their task of building nations, for there has really been very little substance in the criticism that has been expressed here, particularly in regard to the amendment of the provision in the Act which relates to citizenship.

As far as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is concerned, he objected strongly to this type of legislation. The hon. member for Lichtenburg has pointed out quite rightly that if we were to accept the argument advanced by their hon. member for Umhlatuzana, we should have 13 little Bills here instead of this one comprehensive Bill. I cannot agree with this argument at all. As the hon. member has already been told, the homeland governments were consulted by the hon. member for Lichtenburg, in regard to this amendment concerning citizenship.

Now I come to the hon. member for Sandton. This hon. member says that the people of South Africa must know what they are voting for. This is indeed a profound truth. The people of South Africa know very well what they are voting for. That is why there is such a small number of people sitting on the other side of the House, and an even smaller number on the Progressive side. The people of South Africa know what they are voting for. Contrary to what the hon. member says, this is not the type of legislation which clouds the issue so that people do not know what they are voting for. South Africa knew very well, because we on this side of the House made our policy very clear. In terms of clauses 23 and 24 we are giving greater powers to the homeland governments. We cannot deny that the homeland governments in South Africa are a reality. It would seem as though the United Party does not want to accept this reality. It is further evidenced by the fact that the amending legislation is extending the powers of the homelands in regard to prisons and is making provision for them to establish their own prisons. The hon. members are very concerned about the question of prisons, but surely this is not something to be concerned about. When these countries eventually attain full independence, they will be able to have prisons the way they want them.

Then there is a long list of other provisions which have not been mentioned at all. The hon. member for Sandton only said, “We welcome a couple of these clauses.” I want to mention the functions that are being delegated to the homeland governments in terms of clause 24. In the first place, health services in respect of Bantu are being delegated to them. So is tourism, including the development of the tourist industry. Legal aid is being delegated to them. They will be able to levy amusements or entertainment tax. They will be in charge of the licensing, regulation and control of places of amusement and recreation. Auction dues are being delegated to them, and they will also be in charge of the restriction, regulation and control of horseracing. They will be able to license totalizators and to establish, control and manage libraries and library services in respect of Bantu. In addition, they are being placed in charge of the establishment, control and management of museums, art galleries, herbaria, botanic gardens and similar institutions. It appears from these things that it is the earnest intention of this Government to allow these countries to develop fully as soon as possible.

In conclusion I wish to refer to the amendments to the Population Registration Act. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said, we find that there are certain gaps in the original Act. The provisions in this legislation which are amending that Act are corrections, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg has rightly said.

The hon. member raised an interesting matter when he asked what the position would be of a Bantu who was born in a White area, who has lived with Whites and who has Afrikaans as his language. The hon. member asked what citizenship such a Bantu would have to adopt. When such a Bantu marries a Tswana, for example, he will be regarded as being a Tswana. This is the type of thing that we are trying to rectify in this legislation.

Accordingly we welcome this legislation, in spite of the objections raised by the Opposition. I am sure the hon. the Minister will deal with their objections in respect of the prisons and so forth.