Mr. Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members, I wish to announce that in terms of sections 20 and 21 of the Republic of South African Constitution Act, 1961, the State President has agreed to the following salary scales and allowances for the Prime Minister, Ministers and Deputy Ministers:

Prime Minister:

Ministers:

Deputy Ministers:

I wish to announce, furthermore, that in terms of the provision of section l(1)(a) of Act 40 of 1974, the State President has agreed to the following salaries and allowances for office-bearers and members of this hon. House:

Speaker:

Deputy Speaker:

Deputy Chairman of Committees:

Leader of the Opposition:

Chief Government Whip:

Chief Opposition Whip:

Whips:

Members:

These salary structures will be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1974.

I wish to state, furthermore, that announcements in connection with the salaries and allowances of the Administrators, members of the Executive Committees and members of the Provincial Councils, the chairmen and members of the Executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and members of the said Council, the chairman and members of the Executive of the South African Indian Council and members of the said Council, will be made by the Ministers in charge.

Mr. Chairman, in the data processing industry there is a saying: “You don’t shop for computers in the bargain basement.” Not only is this simple statement true when one has to decide what equipment to buy, but it also applies when one starts to consider the installation of a data processing system. One has to think big before one can really arrive at the economic level of such a system. I want to state that I believe that this system operated by the Department of the Interior is in fact a big system. I think that it is one of the most sophisticated data processing systems at present in operation in our country. It is a fact that when one is planning as comprehensive a system as this one, it is impossible to foresee every situation and every little change that could crop up. It is something like an artist who is unable to visualize in advance exactly what his work of art is going to look like in every detail. When a big system such as this is developed, one picks up difficulties along the way and solves them, but one also has fresh opportunities, as one goes along, to introduce additional facilities. That is why the completion date for such a system, virtually without exception, is much later than is originally planned. For the same reason, one ends up with a system that is much bigger and consequently, equipment sometimes has to be enlarged earlier than had been foreseen in the original plan. Therefore one should not be upset if a system is delayed or is a little more expensive than one had originally planned. This system operated by the Department of the Interior is in fact such a system that has developed in the course of time and that has already, at this stage, attained a high degree of effectiveness. If we consider that a fine service is being provided today, that one can go to the counter and receive a birth certificate on the spot which can be printed within a few seconds, that the voters’ rolls comprising the names of 2,2 million voters, can be printed in a matter of less than 24 hours, that 6 000 identity documents can be issued in one working day and that 5 million items of character information can be fed into that system daily—every working day—then one can form some idea of what an enormous system it is and the vast amounts of information stored there. Apart from this, bureau work is done for the Weather Bureau and the State Archives as well.

This system is the result of the combination of six different registers in which there had been overlapping between names, addresses, dates and numbers, etc. This data was duplicated in those six different registers, but now there is one central population register. There is one very important aspect of this centralization which deserves our attention, namely that it could be taken a little too far. I think that if one were to approach the matter from a purely economic and financial point of view it would probably be logical to link the criminal bureau, for example, with such a central population register and place all kinds of other data on every person’s record. However, I think that we in South Africa can be proud of the fact that as far back as in 1950, Act No. 30 of 1950 was adopted which enabled us even then to protect the individual’s right to privacy. There are many countries that have undergone a similar kind of development, but where matters were simply allowed to take their course. Today these people are having great difficulty retracing their steps and protecting the individual. Such a central register with names and addresses, etc., is a very much sought-after item in the world of trade. Were an irresponsible official to put such wealth of information at the disposal of commerce, for example, perhaps as a result of bribery, it could lead to the public suffering a great deal of inconvenience. That is why I say it is to the credit of our Government that in our service we place such a very high premium on the protection of the privacy of the individual.

The centralization of services and information was possible because the Public Service Commission had perceived the benefits to be derived from this at a very early stage. Sir, here I should like to quote you a few figures concerning the enormous savings that have already been effected. As far back as 1972 the Public Service Commission calculated that if all computers were to be replaced by people at the time of that particular report, 12 000 new appointments would have had to be made, and that these 12 000 people would have cost R26 million per annum at that stage. As against that, the work of these people was done by 744 people involved in the centralized systems of the State, at a total cost of only R4,8 million per annum. There is therefore an enormous difference between the cost of doing the work on a proper large-scale basis by means of data processing systems, and the costs involved in this work if it is done manually. Then, too, one should take into account the fine services I have just mentioned here, which are impossible with manual systems.

But savings of this kind and the return on investment that can be achieved and that has in fact already been achieved in South Africa, are only possible if one joins together things which belong together, and if one does so on a proper scale. Sir, it is true, unfortunately, that the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission is very limited if we consider the data processing activities over the whole spectrum of the administration of our country. There are 66 semi-State institutions which have computers that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. There are 28 local authorities that already have computers at this stage and which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission either. Sir, if we consider that the semi-State institutions that have computers, comprise only 7,6% of the total, and that the local authorities that have computers, comprise only 3,2% of the total number, then we can see that this is the area in which an enormous effort is now going to be made by the computer companies to do their marketing. It is also true that many of our local authorities come close to justifying an economically installable system and will soon grow big enough to do so. In addition, the type of activities and work done by the local authority are typical of a system which can easily be put on computer to great advantage and with great savings in terms of the figures I have just mentioned here. Unfortunately, however, it is true that there is no central body in our country which could even furnish these people with advice, these people, who form the target area at the moment and could be computerized in the near future to great advantage, let alone co-ordinate their activities with a view to the development of common data processing systems. Sir, I make bold to say that we are one of the few developed countries which do not have this. In all other countries the entire spectrum of expenditure in this sphere is co-ordinated on a national basis and in our country, where we have this tremendous shortage of manpower and capital, we have up to now been able to do this in regard to the Public Service alone. These are the results, Sir; this is the proof that one can get one’s money back fivefold, but then one should act and invest timeously; one should timeously train manpower to do this kind of work. Unfortunately it is true that in the field of the small computers, many more suppliers are entering the picture, and every supplier that launches a marketing campaign, has qualified people whom he sends into this field. Where does he get these people? Typically, he poaches them from, inter alia, the Public Service, because this is the place where people are trained in these techniques, and then someone enters the country and employs people at an enormous salary to do marketing for them. It is even possible that in a small contract, which will ultimately bring in say, R100 000 for a supplier, the total marketing costs of all the suppliers who mob the purchaser could amount to even more than the R100 000 which the purchaser would eventually pay; and when I say this I am not even including all the staff involved in this unproductive way. Sir, I feel that it is urgently necessary for us to approach this matter at the highest possible level and that our provincial councils should appoint staff to their local management departments to advise local authorities. We must try to have co-ordination of activities in one way or another. As the Public Service Commission put it in its policy for the Public Service, these services can also be provided to local authorities on a regional basis, because these services are essential. They save a vast number of people and a vast amount of money. We simply must, therefore, give attention to this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down is a man who is very knowledgeable in matters of computerization and mechanization. I can only say, as one who does not understand anything about the workings of the computer, that a visit to the department’s computer installation is worth while and very instructive if one wants to learn what a computer is and what can be done with it. I am told by experts that there are one or two matters—for instance, the way in which the voters’ roll details are programmed—which could possibly be changed so that further information and data will be readily available, but I think that is a matter which I can perhaps take up with the Secretary instead of taking up the time of this Committee.

Sir, just before we adjourned last night I had stood up to reply to a very reasonable question which the hon. the Minister had put to me. The question was how the United Party’s federal policy would be applied without the statutory race classification provisions of the Population Registration Act. Sir, I think it is a reasonable request and I propose to spell out for the Minister today what our view in this regard is. It is a vital question because it has implications with regard to the implementation of the Government’s policy of separate development; it has implications with regard to the policy of the Progressive Party in regard to the proposed voting procedures in the Senate, and it has implications naturally in so far as we are concerned in regard to the application of our federal policy. Sir, the hon. the Minister last night cited a very interesting example; I think it was an attempt at political sidetracking on his part. He asked what would happen in regard to the identification of children to decide whether they would attend White schools or Coloured schools. He posed that question and he also posed the question whether we on this side of the House would repeal the Population Registration Act. Sir, I propose to answer those questions. Separate schools for White children and for Coloured children are not a new phenomenon in South Africa. They existed long before the passing of the Population Registration Act with its race classification provisions. We had them in this country for decades before the advent of the Nationalist Government in 1948, and the simple test which was applied and applied successfully ove all those years was the test of appearance and acceptance. Sir, this is a rule of identification which has been satisfactorily applied. When disputes or differences did arise, as they must inevitably arise in borderline cases, they did not lead to disastrous results; they were settled administratively between the parents and the head of the school concerned. Sir, we on this side of the House accept that there is a necessity for machinery for the registration of personal identity. There must of necessity, in any country, be a system of registration of dates of birth, dates of marriage and particulars of marriage and dates of death. There must of necessity be a system of registration of individuals for electoral law purposes and for passport purposes. We accept that a system of registration for personal identification is necessary, and we have had full discussions in the House as to what identity documents a person should or should not be obliged to carry, but that is not in issue at the moment. We accept, however, that there must be some form of registration. Sir, a system of race group identity is necessary to be able to implement the policies of all the parties in this House. It is necessary for the purpose of compiling voters’ rolls, and it is necessary for the purpose of the Group Areas Act so long as the present laws exist in regard to occupation under the Group Areas Act. But, Sir, this Government does not use a system of race group identity for those necessary and basic purposes only. This Government, on the ground of classification based on skin colour alone, has been enforcing a plethora of apartheid measures which are nothing but hurtful and humiliating restrictions on individuals. This Government determines race grouping by rigid statutory provisions. Let me say unequivocally that we as a party are committed to repeal the present race classification laws as they exist in South Africa.

Now how would we deal with group identification? Let me remind the hon. the Minister that from 1936 until the Coloureds were removed from the common roll, Coloureds were identified on the common roll as Coloureds and Whites were there as Whites, without the necessity for statutory provisions for classification or race identity. It worked very successfully from 1936, and it worked by the simple process of registration based on the long-tested and valid basis which, I have said, is one of appearance and of acceptance. Sir, of course there will be borderline cases between White and Coloured, between Coloured and Bantu and between Coloured and Indian. Of course there will be those borderline cases, but how these persons are to be group-identified is, surely, if we want to be reasonable and compassionate, a matter primarily of concern to the individual who finds himself in one of those borderline cases.

People to decide for themselves.

That is the voice of Dr. Albert Hertzog again. If our party were in power we would establish a just and fair society. We believe that in doing that it becomes absolutely necessary to ensure that the maximum consideration is given to the desires of the individuals concerned, i.e. those borderline cases, as to where they should be classified. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Turffontein interjects and says “Words”. If the need for compassion in this country is not a matter which deserves the attention of everyone in this House then I do not know what is more important than that in so far as race relations are concerned. I believe that we can within the federal framework establish that society and I believe that all discrimination based on skin colour, except in so far as it is necessary for the establishment of legislative assemblies for the various races, should as far as possible and as rapidly as possible be eliminated by allowing personal choice of association to the citizens of this country. Sir, this approach is more realistic today than it has ever been before and I want to appeal to hon. members opposite not to see the bogeys conjured up by the two or three people who might be grousing here or grumbling there about the borderline cases feeling that in some way their dignity is being impinged upon because the man whom they believe is Coloured is exercising the rights of a White person. Let them forget that when, in the climate in which we are living in this country today, we are seeking not to offend but to find means of co-operation. The best way to seek co-operation and to obtain co-operation between people is to respect their personal views, to respect where they are accepted by their community, and to allow them the maximum of movement and association within the confines of their acceptance and association. I believe that is something which should be done. I believe that by the general application of this rule we will be moving towards a society which will be far more peaceful with far more respect as between individuals than we have at the present time under statutory and rigid race classification laws with all the hurt, harm, damage and hearbreak which is caused to so many people in this country.

Sir, we have had an interesting discussion, or rather an indication, from the hon. member for Green Point of how they are going to remove all discrimination in, as he puts it, the just society they are going to establish with their racial federation. Sir, with this wonderful idea the land of milk and honey is on the horizon. It is everyone’s idea, on this side of the House as well, that we should remove unnecessary discrimination from our entire community, even if it has originated and existed there as the practice over a long period. We believe in the diversity of people. We believe that people differ. An hon. member on the other side spoke of the heartbreak cases. I want to tell the hon. member that this side of the House is as dismayed by the heartbreak cases, but surely the hon. member cannot expect us to continue with a laissez-faire policy. I think he used the following words: “It will depend on appearance and acceptance.” Sir, one now has to regard that side of; the House as the alternative Government in this country, but I want to tell them that one of the basic concepts in this country is the identity of the White man as well as the identity of the other groups, the other groups which we recognize as consisting of the Coloureds, Indians and the Bantu. The basic principle of which they are all proud, is their identity. Now those hon. members want us simply to accept a laissez-faire policy and want these matters to be settled according to acceptance.

Sir, I want to come to the question of federation. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Umlazi sitting in the corner there at the back, has just woken up. It is a little too early for him to enter the debate. He can speak a little later. I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that the most important point which has been stated on that side of the House for a long time, is implicit in the last few sentences of his Hansard. In those few sentences he admitted that the entire policy of race federation is based on discrimination between races. I tried to write down the hon. member’s words. He said, “AH discrimination will disappear …”. That young hon. member at the back who has such a lot to say, will probably confirm this. But then he continued as follows: “… except where it is needed for group classification”. How is the hon. member going to classify someone according to acceptance and desirability? Last night the hon. member for Yeoville put a brilliant question. He asked the hon. the Minister whether, if there should be a person with a very light skin, he would object if such a person were classified as White. Is this the basis of the policy of the United Party in future? Is their policy based on the isolated cases, on the heartbreak cases? Sir, we are engaged in a great project in this country. We are trying to satisfy everyone in a situation which exists nowhere else in the world. But we are in particular also ensuring that the White man’s identity will be preserved in the times which lie ahead. The hon. member referred to schools. He said that for a long time the principal and the parent had had to sort out the matter, and that this will be the case again. Sir, this is simply a laissez-faire policy. They will simply sit back and see what happens when the parents and the principal come to an agreement. One principal will admit to his school a person who is virtually quite black and another principal will reject him. Where is there any certainty? When it comes to the registration of persons who may be enrolled on the voter’s list, the hon. member said this would be the only place where they will apply discrimination. How will the hon. members on the other side be able to act on that basis? And then, Sir, they accuse this side of the House because we lay down reasonably fixed rules to determine whether a person is White, Coloured or Black. Sir, this is not a difficult problem.

May I put a question?

I only have a few minutes; the hon. member must make his speech just now if he wants to speak. I want to close by saying that this side of the House …

I just want to put a question.

The hon. member must not argue with me now while he is seated. He must rather rise to speak after I have finished; then he has an opportunity to talk for 10 minutes. Then he might also be able to say what he would like to say. Sir, the basis of this whole question of registration is a question of the identity of peoples in South Africa. If that side of the House differs with us on this matter, why do they not state candidly that they are in favour of a multi-racial community, as they were still saying up to a short while ago? Why do they not advocate that they want to place everyone on one voter’s list? If they want to do this, they are going even further than the Progressive Party, which states that it will place the rich and the educated on the voter’s list, while the poor man must carry on as he pleases. These are the differences which exist. This side of the House is prepared to lay down rules. There will be heartbreak cases and we are also heartbroken about them, but they are not of our doing. We try to solve the dilemma and the problem of how to deal with these people without doing them much harm. However, when one looks at the reports in the Press, it makes one think that this is the rule and not the exception. When one thinks of how many thousands, how many millions of people are being registered annually on the basis that they are White, Coloured or Black, these cases are the rarest exception. I almost want to say that the percentage is so low that if one were to take this over the whole country, it would be virtually insignificant. This statement by the hon. member for Green Point will be remembered as the basis of racial federation and I hope that there are members who will react to this further.

Mr. Chairman, I want to exchange a few ideas about the thing that has made it possible for all hon. members in this House to be present here, namely elections. Some time ago, a foreigner, after staying in South Africa for a year, said on his return that there were two things that foreigners could learn from the South Africans. The first was how to fight elections, and the second was how to play rugby. However, I only want to talk about elections. Elections are pleasant, enjoyable and good-natured affairs, and our people like them. As far as the good-naturedness is concerned, I should like to tell an anecdote about what happened to me at the time of the referendum. I paid a call on an old couple who, I was told, were not going to vote for a Republic. I knocked on their door that afternoon and the old lady invited me in. I talked to her and after a time she said that she would vote for Republic, but that she did not know where her husband stood in the matter. I told her that I would convince him. She then went to call him, but before leaving the room, told me that I could speak to him, but that one could not believe what he said. He then came in and she went to make coffee. I talked to him and he told me that he would vote for a Republic, but he also asked: “But what about my wife? Before I can continue, Mr. Chairman, you must just tell me whether the Afrikaans word “wragtig” (really) is parliamentary. I replied that the old lady had promised me that she would vote for a Republic. His answer was that he would vote for the Republic, but that he could assure me that one could really never believe her.

During a party nomination election in my constituency, a lady came along intending to vote. When she came to the chairman, she found that her name had been crossed off the list and that she had been marked off as being dead. The chairman therefore told her that she could not vote. She replied that she had to vote. He told her that she was marked off on his list as being dead. She said that there she was standing in front of him and that she wanted to vote. She said she wanted to vote for “Bokkiebaard” van der Merwe. He gave her a tendered ballot paper and the next day, when we opened the tendered ballot papers, we found that as part of the reason supplied by the chairman for giving her a ballot paper, he had stated, inter alia: … and the deceased denies that she is dead.”

I want to come to the important part of elections, namely the serious side. To South Africans elections are something which determines their destiny. To me and to the hon. members on this side of the House they and I want to acknowledge that the same goes for every hon. member of every political party in South Africa. Each one sees them from the point of view of his convictions as determining the destiny of South Africa. That is how we approach them. Having made an analysis of the election results of the past year, I arrived at a few facts which I found disturbing, particularly bearing in mind that elections are expensive and cost the State and the taxpayers a great deal of money. Still one finds that at every election there are people who are unbalanced to a certain degree and have themselves nominated as candidates. At the moment a candidate need only have a proposer and a seconder to have himself nominated as a candidate. On analysis of the results of the recent election I found that there were six candidates who only polled between 1 000 and 1 500 votes. Twenty-eight candidates only polled between 500 and 1000 votes. Nine candidates polled less than 500 votes, viz. 207, 416, 376, 444, 429, 342, 278, 193 and 141 respectively. The candidate who polled 141 votes, polled only 1% of the votes of the total number of voters in the constituency. Such a person is definitely not entitled to put himself forward as a candidate. I want to say that many of those who polled less than 2 000 out of a total of 14 000 or 15 000 votes, should not be entitled to qualify as candidates either. I want to add that it was not the two major political parties who were the scapegoats. It was the small parties who were responsible for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. How are we to solve this problem? I conclude by asking whether the hon. the Minister could not consider demanding from a would-be candidate, a petition signed by 250 voters whose names appear on the voters’ roll of the constituency and that he submit it to the electoral officer a day before official nomination. Those 250 signatures should qualify him as a candidate. I want to go on to suggest that the deposit be increased to R1 000. This could contribute towards excluding these politically unbalanced people from our political elections in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a few specific matters with the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I want to make a personal appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the decision that has been taken by him in the Frescura case. This young man was deprived of his South African citizenship earlier this year in terms of section 19(3)(d) of the Act, which states that such action may be taken against a naturalized citizen if within five years of naturalization he is sentenced to imprisonment of not less than a year or a fine of not less than R200. As we all know, Frescura was found guilty of two counts of contravening the Publications Control Act by publishing undesirable issues of Wits Student and of four counts of defamation, two relating the hon. the Prime Minister and two relating to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, and fined R900, part of which was also suspended. I want to point out that these convictions were made eight months before the five year period of naturalization would have ended. The decision to deprive him of his naturalization was taken 11 months after the court action. Mr. Frescura is now a stateless person. He was a nine-year old child when he came with his parents to South Africa from Italy. According to Italian law he cannot revert to Italian citizenship once he has given it up, which he did when he became a South African citizen at the age of 22, just over five years ago. I want to make it clear that I am not defending his actions. There is no defending the very offensive and vulgar cartoons which this young man published. I think they were thoroughly objectionable and no one can really defend them. I also want to point out that Frescura has been heavily punished for his action not only by the courts but also by the Witwatersrand University which rusticated him for a year. In other words, he had to give up his architectural studies for an entire year. On his return to the university this year he was forbidden to take any part in extra-curricular activities. In other words, he could not belong to any association at the university, including sporting and cultural associations, as long as he continued to be a student at the university. In addition, he was forbidden to participate in the preparation of any kind of university publication for the duration of his studies. I feel that this young man has paid very heavily for his indiscretion and I do not believe somehow that the law was intended for this sort of foolish indiscretion, however vulgar and offensive. I feel sure that the law was intended for hard-core crime and not for this sort of thing. I do not believe that the Prime Minister or the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would want to go on punishing this young man for the rest of his life. At the moment, as I say, he is a stateless person. He has no papers whatever since they were confiscated when he was deprived of his South African citizenship. He is rendered immobile except within South Africa itself. He is a young man continuing with his studies and is married to a South African girl whose family has deep roots in South Africa. All of them deeply regret the highly indiscreet actions of this young man a couple of years ago.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would show some compassion in this case and whether he would allow this man to reapply for citizenship within a year or two, having showed that he has during that time led a blameless life, and whether he is going to provide him with any papers meanwhile so that he can at least identify himself. I would also like the hon. the Minister’s assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to take any further action against him—in other words, to deport him because he is no longer a South African citizen. I know that the Secretary for the Interior made a public statement to the effect that there was no intention of deporting this young man. I would like, however, to have a further reassurance from the hon. the Minister.

I also want to raise the question of visa refusals. Last year, I think during the no-confidence debate, the hon. the Minister gave us a run-down of the comparative figures between the United States and South Africa. He told us that the percentage of refusals of visas in respect of the United States was higher pro rata than in South Africa. He told us that while in South Africa only 0,8% of people who applied were refused visas while over 10% were refused in the United States. The hon. member for Klip River quoted those figures again here last night. I want to point out that these figures are misleading; they are completely misleading because only 0,13% of American applications were refused on political grounds. I rather think that the majority of refusals in South Africa are on political grounds. I say so because when one looks at the people who are refused visas, one sees that most of them must be because the Government objects to their political background. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about one or two examples in this respect. With further reference to the American situation, the position is that 81% of the 10% who were refused, were refused simply because the State department had reason to believe that these people were not bona fide visitors to the United States, but that were people coming from Mexico and elsewhere with every intention of remaining in the United States permanently and seeking work. When those people could prove that this was not the case, the visa applications were granted. But the one important difference, let alone the different interpretation of the figures which I am now giving, between South Africa and the United States is that in every case of the refusal of a visa, reasons are given for that refusal and, what is more, there is a right of appeal. That does not, of course, exist in South Africa. The situation there is therefore very different from what it is here.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give me a reason for the refusal of a visa to Prof. Richard Sklar, one of America’s best-known Africanists. He teaches at the University of California in Los Angeles. This professor is also a consultant of the Ford Foundation for the Middle East and Africa. He was asked to visit South Africa in order to prepare a feasibility report and to study the advisability of the Ford Foundation supporting social science research by South African social scientists in South Africa. In pursuit of this mandate he applied to come to South Africa in order to hold discussions with educators and others and with the different universities of South Africa and research institutions to see what arrangements could be made. Arrangements were already made for him to meet groups of people at the universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town. I believe that arrangements were also under way for him to meet people at the University of Stellenbosch. Then, in July, came the decision that Prof. Sklar had been refused a visa. The hon. the Minister also told us last year in the same speech that he made on the comparative figures between South Africa and America, that the main criterion which he used in deciding whether or not a visa is to be granted, was what was in the best interests of South Africa. Now that is a fine, high-sounding phrase and I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me why, in the best interests of South Africa, he decided to refuse this eminent academic permission to enter South Africa on what I would call a highly constructive mission. It is true that Prof. Sklar is a man of liberal views and I think he has, on ocassion, put the case against South Africa. However, I do not think he is remotely well known as anyone who campaigns or lobbies against South Africa. He is, in fact, well known for his expertise in African affairs. If the hon. the Minister will tell us, I want to know why he refused Prof. Sklar a visa.

There were two other cases involving well-known American academics. I mentioned them just in passing last year because my time was limited. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give me detailed reasons concerning the case of Prof. Gwendolen Carter who was at North Western University until just recently and who is one of the best known writers on Africa and Prof. Thomas Karis of the City University of New York. Both these people have visited South Africa on several previous occasions. They have written authoritative books on the subject of South Africa and the other African States and they wished to revisit South Africa last year to bring their information up to date. However, they were refused visas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow up on what the hon. member for Houghton said. She put certain matters to the hon. the Minister. He will reply to her questions in his own time. I can only say that her statement that the young gentleman to whom she referred at first, was guilty of an “indiscretion”, is certainly the understatement of the year. He was guilty of conduct that filled all right-thinking people with disgust. In any event, I do not intend to dwell on her speech any further. The Minister will deal with it.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Green Point. I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member this afternoon. In general he repeated the stand point he took up in this House yesterday. I want to ask him now whether he has settled this matter in full with the other members of the United Party. I ask this because there was a substantial difference of opinion between him and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout last night. I even wonder whether they are still sitting in the same caucus these days, and whether they are able to speak to each other. To judge from the reports in the newspapers there is a very deep division in the United Party, or has the hon. member for Green Point perhaps retained his membership in both factions? I want to put it very clearly that the hon. member for Green Point took up the standpoint here that there must be classification, registration and race classification too. However, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said last night, if I read his Hansard correctly: “There will not be race classification.” And if I understand him correctly, he went further last night and put a question which indicated that there ought not to be race classification. He said that the system that applies in South-West Africa ought also to apply here in South Africa. Now it is of interest to note that the hon. member for Green Point has at least ironed out this matter with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that we can take it that there will in fact be race classification.

Both of us accept registration.

I am pleased to hear it. This brings us some clarity from the unclear ranks of the United Party. He had another problem which he had to solve. Last night, and today too, he based his standpoint on the concepts of descent and appearance, i.e. his classification of races would be on the basis of descent and appearance. When the hon. the Minister put a question to him last night, he said that that was basically correct. Shortly afterwards, however, the hon. member for Pietermarizburg South said that it should not be on the basis of appearance. His words were: “Not on the basis of appearance.” One must therefore take it that it would have to be on the basis of descent. I hope that the hon. member for Green Point has thrashed out this matter with the other members of his party because it seems to me that we have had three hon. members opposite who last night took up three different standpoints in regard to this matter.

This is a very important matter. As the hon. member said very clearly, it is important to his party’s policy and my party’s policy and to the policy of the Progressive Party too. That is so. Now, however, the hon. member envisages a more open community and wants to bring about a freer movement of people. He created for us a fine ideal of a “compassionate society” in which the heartlessness of existing legislation would be tempered.

Are you against a compassionate society?

Then, when one asks him how he would do this, he leaves it in the hands of the teacher, the headmaster of the school, or he leaves it here and there in the hands of an official who would have to deal with this matter administratively, on the basis of a mere conversation, without there being any definite guide.

That was the case for 100 years.

I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who made that interjection, that there would surely have to be a guideline somewhere, in accordance with which these heads of schools and the various officials of various departments who will have this matter on their hands, will have to take their decisions. Surely there will have to be a definition, somewhere, of the difference between a White person, a Coloured, an Indian and a Bantu. Somewhere, surely, there will have to be a guide for these people. There will have to be a consistent guideline somewhere, otherwise one would have so many different decisions …

It has always been there.

… by various officials that one would become confused. One could have the situation that there would be a greater “tolerance” a more accommodating attitude, here in Cape Town, and a stricter application in Johannesburg. One might find that people would feel resentful about this and that there would again be complaints about discrimination. This could occur because a light-coloured man would be allowed to have his name on the White voters’ roll here in Cape Town, but not in Johannesburg. I can see this giving rise to ridiculous situations which could cause just as much pain and suffering as hon. members opposite say is caused by the existing legislation. I want to tell hon. members opposite that they must consider this particular piece of legislation with great clarity and precision. They must not run away from this. If they want to come up with proposals for the procedure in regard to reclassification to be revised, to be made more human or simpler, to be made more manageable, then we could consider them. However, the hon. members must not throw the baby out with the bath water. That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in particular, wants to do here as far as his standpoint is concerned.

There is another matter in connection with which I should like to address myself to the hon. the Minister of the Interior. His department provides a particularly good service in regard to the handling of guests who enter our country at our harbours and at the airport in Johannesburg. They have there the finest officials I have ever come across. I have the highest respect for the integrity, hard work and sacrifice displayed by these officials. I am personally aware that there is a very senior official here in Cape Town who sacrifices his Saturdays and Sundays if necessary when a large ship with a number of immigrants or visitors to Cape Town arrives in the harbour on a Saturday or a Sunday at a very difficult time and that he gives his personal attention to handling the people who enter South Africa. Nevertheless, difficulties are sometimes experienced because the officials who have to deal with these matters are unable to speak the language of the people entering the country. I have in mind, for example, groups of immigrants coming to South Africa; I have in mind in particular, groups of visitors from a one boat—say, for argument’s sake, a French ship or an Italian ship— that docks here. One finds then that certain difficulties do arise in dealing with these people efficiently and telling them about the facilities available to them on their visit to South Africa. This is a remark that has been made to me by people who have already established themselves in South Africa and whose friends have had similar experiences when they had to enter our country.

Sir, these are very well-disposed established immigrants who have already taken out South African citizenship, and who speak French, Italian, Spanish, German, etc., who have remarked to me that they would like to be of assistance to the department, not in a full-time capacity but by providing temporary assistance when such ships arrive at the harbour here or when guests are received at Jan Smuts airport. They would like to offer their services on a voluntary basis in order to make it possible for the department to receive these guests as well as possible and help them as efficiently as possible to find their feet in South Africa and make use of the best facilities here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville has just said that we in the United Party also believe in race classification. I do not know where he gets this from, because this is one of the policies of the Nationalist Party Government which we abhor. We are certainly not in favour of race classification.

You stand for the removal of race barriers.

The furthest we are prepared to go is to say that people should be registered but that they should not be classified; we say that the people in the neighbourhood will decide for themselves how a person should be classified, not according to a classification principle, but according to the principle of acceptance by the community in the neighbourhood. Sir, the hon. member spoke facetiously about the United Party’s plea for a compassionate society. I want to tell the hon. member that it is very easy to say, “The identity of the White person is of primary importance; I am a White person and I do not care two hoots about what happens to you as a non-White.” I want to ask the hon. member how he would feel if he were to be one of the persons who are being classified today according to this classification principle laid down by the Government. I think the hon. member would be bitterly dissatisfied.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, unfortunately I have no time. Mr. Chairman, in this debate we are dealing with the Minister of the Interior. When I was in the provincial council some years ago, it appeared to me that the Minister of the Interior was actually the person who could decide whether a provincial council should have certain powers or not.

Now that I have been here for a few months, I see that it is not the case and that the hon. the Minister of the Interior is in fact only a link between this Parliament and the provincial councils and nothing more. But what I find so striking is that although the hon. the Minister is the link between the provincial council and Parliament, it seems as if this liaison is being conducted in a mysterious manner, because we have never seen it take place. In the provincial council I repeatedly asked where this liaison took place and what happened in connection with the liaison, and the nearest I came to it was that now and again the Administrator visited the hon. the Minister, drank a cup of coffee and then chatted about a few small matters, and that was the end of the matter. We are not satisfied with this and we therefore suggested in the provincial council of the Cape that there should be liaison which is worth wile, not only a liaison between the Administrator-in-Council and the Minister, but also between a select committee of the provincial council and the hon. the Minister. Unfortunately this suggestion did not meet with the approval of the Nationalist Party in the Cape Provincial Council, and they rejected it.

The next year we came along with a suggestion saying that we felt that an effort should be made to get consensus between ourselves and the Coloured Representative Council. We introduced a motion in which we asked that there should be liaison with the Coloured Representative Council by way of a Select Committee and that they, too, should be asked to establish a liaison body on their part which could liaise with us on matters which overlap, for we are convinced that there is not only overlapping between this Parliament and a provincial council and between Parliament and the Coloured Representative Council, but also between a provincial council and the Coloured Representative Council. But, as in the case of the other liaison we suggested, this was also rejected. But there has been a hopeful sign, though.

In the following year the leader of the Cape Provincial Council informed the council that there would be informal liaison between the executive committee of the provincial council and the executive of the Coloured Representative Council in future. Now it seems to us that we are on the right road and that if we continue with this liaison and keep emphasizing the matter, we shall probably succeed in getting this liaison in the right form. Now I find it striking that in the debate on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, it was said by the Prime Minister that this committee which he wants to establish, a statutory consultative committee, would also be a link between this Parliament and the Coloured Representative Council, which on that occasion he called a Parliament. I think there is a major shortcoming as regards liaison at this stage.

†I should like to go further and say that this liaison I have been speaking about is not only liaison between the governing party in the one House and the governing party in the Other House. We believe that this liaison must be by way of a Select Committee so that there will be members of the Government party and members of the Opposition party in the Select Committee and that the people whom they meet with from the other body will also be representative in more or less the same way. We definitely do not want to lay down how it should be done. We believe that this is the way in which to have proper liaison.

Now, Sir, in the short time still available to me I would like to say that while I was leader of the Opposition in the Cape Provincial Council, I found it very necessary indeed to liaise with the leaders of the Opposition in the other Provincial Councils in South Africa, with the leader of the Opposition in the Transvaal and with the leader of the Opposition in Natal. I did a great deal towards this.

I would like the hon. the Minister to know that I did this, as did my colleagues in other provinces, and that we did so to the great detriment of our own personal possessions, because it cost us a lot of money. We were not able to reimburse ourselves in any way at all. We did not have any travelling allowance that was worthwhile. We had no concessions as regards air fares. We had to pay all this out of our own pockets. It certainly meant that this was not a very attractive method of liaison, because it cost us a lot of money. But despite that, this liaison went on. We used to meet as often as four times a year. I should like the hon. the Minister …

What did you discuss? What did you liaise on?

We liaised on matters of common concern to the Opposition in the three provinces.

Such as?

Practically every matter that comes up for discussion in a provincial council. The hon. the Minister looks up to the heavens and says: “Good heavens, what is going on now?” But, Sir, the hon. the Minister must not think that he is the only pebble on the beach. He must not for one moment think that he is the only Minister who knows anything about liaison. Let me assure him that we liaised about local government; we liaised about hospital services; we liaised about national roads and our provincial roads. Surely the hon. the Minister should know this. He should not have to ask me what we liaised about. If he knows his job, he should not ask me these foolish questions. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the time has now arrived that he should make provision for proper travelling facilities for leaders of the Opposition so that they can visit one another regularly and so help in provincial government in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Wynberg. The entire theme he dealt with amounted to one appeal, and that is that the Opposition would like to help govern the country. Under our system there is only one way in which they can do that, and that is to win the election. If the hon. member had won the provincial council election, he would have had all the liaison he wanted. The difficulty is that he is in the Opposition and the reason for his being in the Opposition is a problem with which they are battling in earnest in that party at the moment. There is liaison between the central Government and the provincial administrations at a number of levels. There is the liaison with the Administrators. There is, for example, the liaison between the M.P.C. in charge of hospitals and the Minister of Health. There is the liaison between the Minister of National Education and the M.P.C. in charge of education. There is the Education Advisory Council that liaises with the directors of education. Liaison takes place in innumerable ways and there is interaction between the central Government and the provincial councils.

What about the Opposition? Are they not to be informed?

The task of the Opposition lies within the House. That is why they are elected to serve as an opposition. The party that wins the election, governs the country and it is on that level that liaison takes place. In addition, the hon. member tried to draw a distinction between a system of registration and a system of classification. Now I should like to know how one compiles a register of peoples—or, as they prefer it, a register of races—without even having a classification. After all, one cannot decide that someone can be placed on the register for Coloureds before one has classified him as a Coloured. This is a technical distinction, and there is a deep gulf between the standpoint of the hon. member for Green Point and that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as he expounded it in this House last night. It is a gulf which they will not be able to bridge by juggling with words. The hon. member for Green Point had the courage to say that classification—he called it registration, but it is classification by implication—is essential to their system of federalism, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout contradicted him. I watched him last night. After that he was as quiet as a little bird that has been fed.

Sir, I should actually like to come back to the hon. member for Parktown who was holding forth last night about the wage gap and about what the Government has supposedly left undone in this regard. With a wave of his hand he dismissed the substantial improvement in the salaries of non-Whites in the service of the State as a “disappointing performance which falls far short of what is required”. In passing, that is an excellent formulation of the role played by the Progressive Party in this session after the predictions we have had, viz. “a disappointing performance which falls far short of what is required”. The hon. member’s negative attitude towards the recent salary increases is totally unreasonable because in the first instance, he imputes the existence of the wage gap by implication to the National Party. After all, that is not correct. The wage gap developed, of course, under the influence of economic laws and factors such as demand supply, standard of living and way of life. It is inherited and is encouraged to a large extent by the money magnates for whom, for the most part, the members of that party are the representatives in this House. Let us accept the existence of the wage gap as a fact and as part of the reality with which we are struggling. Let us act and think positively in order to improve this reality to the best of our ability. Let us try to narrow the gap as the Prime Minister has committed himself to doing. In the second instance this criticism is unreasonable because the positive steps that have been taken, are not acknowledged. It is suggested that nothing has been achieved. I want to use examples to bring a few facts to the attention of the hon. member. From 31 March 1973 to date the following has been achieved in regard to two items that I now want to mention to the hon. member. These are, the acquisition or the allocation of profits on income calculated on the basis of 31 March 1973. A White medical officer in the service of the State received a profit of 35,78% while an Indian or Coloured medical officer received a profit of 44,82%, in other words a 10% greater profit. A Bantu medical officer had a profit of 42.40%. These increased profits are those which apply to minimum scales. On the maximum scales the Whites received a 33,33%, the Indians and Coloureds 50% and the Bantu 41%. Let us once again calculate the profit on the income calculated as at 31 March 1973 in the case of nursing sisters. On the minimum scale the Whites received an increase of 25%, the Indians and Coloureds 29,63% and the Bantu 48,71%. On the maximum scale the Whites received 21,66%, the Indians and Coloureds 25% and the Bantu 34,37%. Is that not encouraging? Does it not at least deserve a positive reaction?

What about the gap? I was not referring to the salaries, but the gap.

The problem of the wage gap must surely be approached from an economically realistic angle. Our economy can carry only so much and no more. South Africa and the National Party have a proud record in regard to what has been done for our developing peoples. Thus the Bantu peoples in South Africa have the highest standard of living and income of all their fellows in the rest of Africa. To achieve this and to build on this we have to select priorities. This the National Party has done whilst not neglecting its duty in respect of the wage gap and in respect of salaries. It is attempting to improve them at a faster rate than in the case of the Whites. Whereas it is doing this, we on this side say that it is more important to emphasize simultaneously—with the substantial, but nevertheless limited means at our disposal—training, the creation of employment opportunities and the creation of an infrastructure which will give the optimum number of people a good future over the long term. That is why we tell the champions of total, high-speed and virtually immediate elimination of the wage gap, that we shall do our duty to see to it that every employee in South Africa receives a fair and just wage. The hon. members should really cease from continually making comparisons in which they harp on income as the sole test to determine whether matters are going well with a person or not. In just the same way the hon. members make this the test for those who should have the franchise or not and similarly they make it the test for one’s way of life. The test to determine whether a person is receiving a decent salary or not, lies in the relationship between the salary he gets and the service he provides and the way in which he can live on that salary. To those affected, those people for whom these hon. members want to act as champions, we want to say: “Be patient.” We have proved our good faith in the past in this regard and we shall do so in the future as well. The hon. the Prime Minister has committed himself to a gradual narrowing of the gap, and this has already been tackled in practice. The figures I quoted to you, show that there has been a real, substantial concession and there was discrimination, if I may put it that way, against the White employee to the benefit of the non-White employee in regard to the percentage increase.

A further reply to this criticism is that the homelands have become a fait accompli which are now recognized by virtually all parties in this House, that the homelands will have to depend on the knowledge and experience of Bantu who are well-trained and have an academic background, and that there will therefore necessarily have to be a correlation between what the Bantu in the White area earns, and what the Bantu government will be able to afford in the homeland. There will have to be correlation in order to prevent competition so that the homelands will be able to utilize their best brain power for their own development. To sum up: The wage gap in the Public Service is, on the one hand, a heritage from our history and on the other hand, it is the result of economic realities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Vereeniging talks about the wage gap, we want to make a request to him and his colleagues, namely that they should tell us what the difference is in rands between the monthly earnings of the non-White and the White. They should not talk about percentage increases because that can be misleading, since it depends on the basis on which that percentage is calculated. They can only give a clear picture if they give an indication of the real incomes of the people concerned and also the real difference between the incomes in terms of rands per month, and whether they can then indicate that the wage gap, expressed in rands per month, is diminishing as a result of the increases that are granted. It is very easy, but often misleading to talk about percentage increases.

Do you not welcome the gradual narrowing of the wage gap?

I should welcome the narrowing of the wage gap if it were narrowing in terms of rand per month and not merely if it were a narrowing in terms of percentage increases.

I should like to refer to a few of the problems which the hon. the Minister of the Interior is going to experience in South Africa within the next few years, if not the next few months. I am not referring to the problems he is going to have in regard to his own political aspirations, but to problems connected with the post he occupies. The evolving—“evolve” is the word the Nationalist Party is so fond of using when they talk about separate development—of the policy of separate development to date …

The development.

The development, if you want to call it that, has, to date, been concerned with theories, fine words, explanations, terminology, inanities and interim steps that are taken. But the moment of truth, as it is called in English, of separate development, is just around the corner for the Government, and in that respect the hon. the Minister of the Interior is going to find that he will have to contend with dilemmas such as he has never come across in his life before.

Order! Can the hon. member tell me how he relates his speech to the Vote of the hon. the Minister of the Interior?

I am going to talk about citizenship and that is the responsibility of the Minister of the Interior. In the past, and to date, in terms of the philosophy and the policy of the Nationalist Government citizenship has been defined as follows: If one is White in South Africa, that is the basis for the rights and privileges arising from one’s citizenship. If one is White, one is a superior first-class citizen of South Africa. One has all the rights and the privileges and one forms part of the power establishment in South Africa. If one is Black, that is the basis of one’s citizenship and then one is a second-class, or is it a third-class citizen of the country. One is then inferior and one has to accept that one will have inferior rights in South Africa if one is to have any rights at all. One must accept that one will have to be satisfied with inferior privileges and inferior services. In other words, if one is White, one has all the rights and privileges and is not subject to any form of discrimination. One is the boss. The White man is the boss in terms of the Nationalist Party’s policy of White supremacy. But if one is Black, one is subject to an endless series of discriminatory measures and disadvantages. If one is Black in South Africa, one cannot develop one’s potential as a person to the fullest. One cannot utilize one’s qualifications and abilities in the economy of the country in order thereby to gain the very best salary and advantage from them, merely as a result of the colour of one’s skin.

He can do it in his own community.

If the opportunity does not exist in one’s community and one is a permanent part … [Interjection.] What about the African who is born in Cape Town, whose parents were born in Cape Town and whose forefathers have been living here for generations? He has acquired a qualification here and would possibly very much like to utilize his abilities and talents here in order to obtain the best possible salary for himself. He cannot do so because the Government’s discriminatory laws enforcing White supremacy prohibit him from doing so.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I have very little time at my disposal and have not even finished with my introduction. The hon. the Minister of the Interior is going to have a number of problems on his hands and it would be advisable for him to try to find solutions to them even now.

Let us begin with the homelands. Let us take the year 2000 and consider the predictions of authoritative people. By that year, 22 million permanent urbanized Africans will be living in so-called White South Africa. [Interjection.] This is going to become your problem and I want you to start thinking about it now. Those Africans will be citizens of South Africa. The question I want to put is whether the Nationalist Government is going to say to these people: “Whether you like it or not, we are going to introduce legislation which will force upon you the citizenship of the homelands, whether you want it or not”? What is the Nationalist Party going to do when some of those people say that they are not prepared to accept that citizenship? Are you going to force them to accept it? What measures are you going to implement? How are you going to justify your action if you do implement those measures to force on them citizenship they do not have and do not want and which will in any event mean nothing to them? What is the Nationalist Party going to do about the actual citizens of those homelands who visit South Africa, or who work here as migrant labourers or who are here in South Africa temporarily for some reason? Are they going to be treated as the Africans of South Africa are treated? Are the citizens of independent Black states going to be subjected to all the discriminatory measures that are inflicted in South Africa today in terms of the Government’s legislation, or will it be said that the moment a person becomes a citizen of a Black homeland he will no longer be subjected to the discriminatory laws and measures of South Africa? It would then give that person a qualification. On the other hand, how is a distinction to be drawn between South African Black people and Black people from one of the homelands?

Mr. Chairman, I really do not think it is worth the trouble even to try to follow up on what that hon. member said. I think one can begin to form an idea of the cause of the rift that has developed in the ranks of the United Party. Listening to hon. members such as the hon. member for Randburg, and to the venom uttered yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Sandton, one has all possible sympathy with hon. members such as the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Maitland.

That is very kind of you but it is unnecessary.

It is clear that an ideological gulf is developing between the two groups in the United Party.

What about another rift?

You say a rift? I should like to have been present at the United Party caucus this morning to have heard what happened there.

The moment of truth.

The hon. member for Randburg is getting so talkative over there about “the moment of truth”. I think “the moment of truth” for the United Party has come. Now and at all times, the United Party will have to answer for this ambiguity on its part.

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

Mr. Chairman, I apologize; I almost forgot to come back to the Vote. Since I must come back to it, I am going to start by speaking about a matter which, politically speaking, is not so contentious. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether the division of the Government Printer should still fall under the Department of the Interior. Let me point out that the total budget for the department is a colossal amount of more than R9 million. Comparing it with the Interior Vote as such, I see that the budget for the Government Printer is already bigger than that of Interior. There is also a steady increase in the amount from year to year. This department, the Government Printer, already has a staff of more than 1 200 on which more than R4 million per annum is spent. I think we can say that the Department of the Interior has developed to the point where it only renders a public service in respect of certain aspects which are the chief concern of the department today, for example population registration, etc. It is a fact that historically, many other departments were attached to it in formmer years. I have in mind, for example, the fact that even the Departments of Indian Affairs, Coloured Affairs and Statistics were all departments that developed from and once formed part of the Department of the Interior. Because this division disposes of so much, because the head of this division already draws up his own budget, because he has direct access to the Treasury, because he has direct access to the Minister, because he manages it without outside intervention, it is my opinion that functionally speaking, the position should perhaps be grouped and classified differently. In my opinion, the divisions performing this kind of function—we have in mind, for example, the State Buyer, who also functions in more or less the same way—could, as sub-departments be grouped and classified together so that we could create one functional department outside the Department of the Interior.

In the short time at my disposal, I want to mention another minor matter which is of an entirely different nature and has nothing to do with the Government Printer. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we could not do something about the passports of these friends, these “boytjies” of ours, who go visiting in Mbabane and Maseru on Saturday nights. These are the people who cross the border at weekends only to do what they may not do in Johannesburg and Ermelo. These people embarrass the sense of propriety of people of the Republic of South Africa and also the hosts they are visiting. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether anything could be done to control and supervise the passports of these visitors, bearing in mind that this is an extremely difficult task, in such a way as to restrict this kind of behaviour on their part. Actually this is an evil and a circumvention of our own legislation and in my opinion we should try to restrict it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my last reply to this debate by making a statement in regard to leave gratuities in the Public Service, which are a matter of importance to the officials. Reference was made on quite a few occasions in the debate, and rightly so, to the fact that there is a shortage of staff in the Public Service. I referred to this yesterday evening, and then went on to mention that there are certain measures which we have already introduced and steps which we have already taken in an effort to keep our public servants. I also paid tribute to the public servants who are there at present for the excellent work which is being done to keep the State machinery in operation.

One of the matters in regard to which the Public Servants’ Association has been making representations for a very long time, and in regard to which the Joint Advisory Council of the Public Service has for several years been making repeated requests, is the question of leave gratuities, the payment which one receives when one retires on pension. The present limitation is 184 days. The request is that the number of days should be increased. There are of course various aspects to this matter. The matter has been given full consideration, and I am now able to announce formally that instead of the existing arrangement it has been decided that all officers shall upon retirement be paid out for 12 days accumulated leave per annum, multiplied by the number of years of service, to a maximum of 365 days. In addition it has been decided that leave for the last year will be limited to the number of days’ leave earned in that last year. Our experience at the moment is that public servants take as much leave as they can possibly get in the last year of their service precisely because —and I do not blame them for doing so— they want to enjoy the benefit of that leave since they cannot be paid out in cash for it. It is often very difficult to manage without that senior official in the department in that last year. On the other hand one cannot blame him for taking his leave in the last year before he retires. For that reason the idea is now that officers will be paid out for leave up to a maximum of 365 days, and that no additional leave may then be taken in the last year, only that leave which is earned in that specific year. The paying out of the cash value of the full leave credit upon the death of officers, and to a maximum of 92 days to female officers who marry, remains unchanged. These improved measures came into effect on 1 October 1974. Suitable provision is being made in the transitional measures to ensure that in the application of the new basis, staff members will not be dealt with less favourably than in terms of the existing scheme. Particulars of the improvements and the conditions to which these are subject, and the transitional measures, will be announced to all interested parties by means of a circular. Sir, I wish to express the hope that this measure will contribute further to making our public servants happy and to making the Public Service even more efficient in the performance of its duties.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to say a few words in regard to the wage gap, a matter to which considerable discussion was devoted both this afternoon and yesterday as well. I want to say at once that the Government has on various occasions announced that it is its official policy to narrow the wage gap. This wage gap is something traditional in this country; it is not a creation of this party or that party. The wage gap between Whites and non-Whites is as traditional as the wage gap between men and women, which one finds not only in South Africa but in many other countries of the world, and one cannot change such an historic legacy immediately and at one swoop. When the latest salary improvements came into operation on 1 July 1974, the following deliberate steps were taken to stabilize the salary ratio and to narrow the wage gap. I shall mention five specific steps: Firstly, the improved key scales in themselves, without taking into consideration any other adjustments, result in the remuneration of the non-White groups being stabilized; secondly, salary recognition for qualifications is now being calculated on precisely the same basis for both Whites and non-Whites in South Africa; thirdly, parity has been introduced in the salaries of Coloured and Indian men and women (salaried staff), while the salaries of Bantu men and women have been brought closer to parity; fourthly, a deliberate attempt has been made to bring salary scales for non-Whites into a proportionate relation to those of their White counterparts; fiftly, scale lengths have at the same time been brought into line, as far as was practicable, with those for Whites. Sir, there is a great deal more I could say about this matter; I have a considerable number of notes in regard to this matter, but I just want to say this by way of illustration: It was not possible to effect a real narrowing of the gap in each of the many thousands of cases because one had to deal with practical problems such as salary structures, which, in the nature of things, had to remain in line with other salary structures, etc., but in by far the majority of cases there was not only a percentage narrowing of the gap, but also a real narrowing of the gap in terms of hard cash. I can prove this to hon. members from the figures. Sir, you would of course be able to mention isolated cases in which a real narrowing of the gap did not occur, although there was a percentage narrowing in such cases. What is also involved is the question of the comparableness of posts. Posts do not always have the same designation in all departments, and in addition the question of evaluation of the post itself and the productivity of the official in the post itself is also involved. I want to mention a few examples of the narrowing of this gap. I want to mention again that in the field of education there were numerous examples. I worked through these particulars myself and there are numerous such examples, for example, as regards the recognition of salaries, recognition of qualifications, etc.-—so much so that I want to make it clear that teachers’ salaries for non-Whites at this moment are such that what the non-Whites receive, depends upon themselves. If they become qualified—and I think it is their duty to themselves and to their community to do so—then the salary scales are attractive, extremely attractive, especially the new salary scales which came into operation on 1 July. There are only three other examples which I took. In the case of a nurse aid the real gap has now been narrowed by R40 per annum. I want to concede that this is not much, but this according to the circumstances. For a staff nurse it has been reduced, narrowed in real terms, by R60 per annum, between Coloureds and Whites. For a midwife it has been reduced by R103 per annum, also a real narrowing of the gap. I can continue in this way. I think the hon. members must content themselves with the assurance which I am giving them that seen as a whole there are more cases where this gap was narrowed than there are cases where it was not. I have to concede at once that we were not able to apply it throughout, for the reasons which I have already mentioned.

I want to leave the salary position. I still want to deal with one or two matters in regard to the Public Service Commission before I proceed, to deal with Interior matters. The hon. member for Ermelo put a question to me in regard to the Government Printer, i.e. whether the Government Printer should continue to fall under the Department of the Interior. Sir, this is interesting, It seems to me as though the Department of the Interior has over the years become the Department in which all sub-departments or divisions which do not obviously fit into another department, find a home. The department has collected them and for that reason its activities have become so divergent—from the one extreme to the other as hon. members could have deduced from the debate on the basis of everything which is discussed under this Vote. But as Far as the Government Printer is concerned, I want to say at once that it is my personal opinion that the Government Printer is a matter which does not belong under the Department of the Interior. Traditionally he has been there for many years now, but I think that the Government Printer could perhaps be incorporated to better effect in some other department. In any case, it has already been decided that the Public Service Commission should investigate the question of where the Government Printer really belongs. In some respects it is an industry, for it does printing in the same way as any other printing and publishing firm. In other words, it is an economic or financial institution which, in respect of finance, has to liaise very closely with the Treasury. It could fit into different departments, even the Department of Public Works, if necessary. But its real home is at present being investigated by the Public Service Commission and a decision will probably be taken in regard to this case in due course.

I am replying in sequence to the questions as they were put. I began at the end. The hon. member for Bryanston said that the “moment of truth” had now arrived as far as our policy on citizenship for the Bantu was concerned. I want to say to the hon. member at once that he is missing the boat completely when he alleges, for purely political purposes, that White citizenship means first-class citizenship and non-White citizenship means second or third-class citizenship. I want to give the assurance that from the standpoint of the Department of the Interior all inhabitants of South Africa who have obtained citizenship or have it through birth, are full-fledged South African citizens who are all treated alike. The Black man who travels overseas, travels exclusively on a South African passport, in the same way that the White person who travels overseas has no other citizenship, he is a citizen of South Africa and he travels on a South African passport. That is the present position. But what our policy of separate development leads to—and now I can reply to him politically and not as Minister of the Interior —is that the homelands will eventually develop into independent states and I can foresee—and not only foresee but I believe it will happen—that those homelands will then introduce their own citizenship for their own citizens, in precisely the same way as the citizens of Lesotho have their own citizenship and their own passports, while Lesotho is an accepted country in the outside world; and that the question of citizenship is one of the issues which will be ironed out and reasoned out thoroughly when a homeland negotiates on independence with the South African Government. This is one of the matters which will then be thrashed out and in regard to which a decision will be taken. This is the place where it will be ironed out. It will be determined what citizenship those citizens are going to hold after independence.

At present they find themselves in the position that they have dual citizenship.

No; the hon. member must not misunderstand me. As far as the outside world is concerned, they are all exclusively South African citizens. The outside world does not recognize Transkeian citizenship or Bophuthatswanan citizenship. As far as the outside world is concerned they are all equal as citizens of South Africa. Internally we have our own system. At present, in terms of an Act which my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration dealt with, such a person for example has citizenship of the Transkei while he is still a South African citizen. It is precisely what happened in our case who were for many years Commonwealth citizens, and simultaneously South African citizens. Therefore we also had dual citizenship at the time. This is the same pattern which is now being adopted here. At the time we ourselves eventually came to feel that we no longer wanted dual citizenship and dual loyalty. Consequently we asked for our own citizenship and we did away with dual citizenship. The same course can be adopted by the Bantu peoples, but this is a matter which will be finalized when an agreement is reached between the homelands government and our Government in regard to the question of citizenship, when independence is attained. I think the hon. member is tiring himself with a matter which will present no problems to us when we come to it. Speaking of the “moment of truth” I think the “moment of truth” for the United Party is far closer than our “moment of truth” in this regard.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to liaison between Opposition members in the provincial councils. I want to tell the hon. member that he should not be so short-tempered. I just wanted to know precisely what he meant when he referred to liaison. Then he suddenly became angry, and attacked me. I only wanted to know precisely what he meant by “liaison”. I wanted to know for what reason there had to be liaison. I just want to raise another matter in this regard, if I may. Did this hon. member liaise with the United Party Opposition in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, and with the National Party Opposition in the Provincial Council of Natal, for that is what he said?

No; that was a mistake.

I thought so; it did sound strange to me. The hon. member said that he had liaised with the Opposition in the Transvaal and with the Opposition in Natal. We know that the Opposition in Natal is the National Party. I just wanted to ask him whether he had liaised with them as well. I am pleased the hon. member has now set the record straight. I want to say at once to the hon. member that there was a consulting committee, as he himself will know. It was abolished in 1956 because it was found to be too clumsy under those circumstances. Direct liaison with Government departments, as the hon. member for Vereeniging quite rightly said, occurs daily. When a matter in regard to health, for example, is raised, the provinces liaise directly with the Department of Health, without any intermediary. When it is a matter concerning education, they liaise directly with the Department of National Education. Whatever matter is involved, they liaise directly with the department in question. I introduced an arrangement—I want to say at once that in my opinion it is a good one—whereby copies of all the correspondence between the provincial administrations and such a department have to be sent to the office of the Minister of the Interior, so that if a matter is raised in the Cabinet by my colleagues with whom the provinces have liaised in regard to one of these matters, I, as the responsible liaison Minister, will be conversant with the matter in this regard. I think it is a good arrangement. Copies of all correspondence between Ministers and the provincial administrations, on any matter whatsoever, come to my office so that I can remain informed and follow up the necessary further liaison work.

As far as the functional spheres are concerned, the provinces liaise directly with the departments in question. The same applies to my Department of the Interior, when it comes to the functional spheres. In the case of general matters, when a specific department is not involved, the liaison work is done by the Department of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior is then the mouthpiece of the provinces in the Cabinet, who then presents their affairs. I could just mention a single example. An announcement will probably be made later today in regard to the salaries of M.E.C.s and M.P.C.s. That liaison was my and my department’s task, and that announcement is made by my department and I. This is an example of the liaison which exists. I do not think the hon. member saw the matter in its correct perspective. We liaise very closely with the United Party-controlled provincial council in Natal for what is involved is not a political party, but what party is exercising the administrative function. Therefore, as Minister of the Interior, I have no liaison with the National Party, in other words, the opposition in Natal as such, because they are not in a position of executive power in that province. In exactly the same way I have no liaison with the Opposition in the Transvaal or Cape Provincial Councils. I hope that the hon. member understands my position, and that he accepts it in this way.

The hon. member for Bellville put a question to me in regard to persons who are able to speak various languages and who could be of assistance in dealing with persons arriving at our harbours. I want to say to the hon. member at once that when it is a group of immigrants, they are dealt with by the Department of Immigration. I take it that they have their own assistants in their departments, but if there are not any, the hon. member could ascertain from the Department of Immigration in what respect people could offer their assistance. When we receive and deal with these people as the Department of the Interior, which is concerned with passports, the position is that we welcome assistance of this nature. However, I would like to request that this should preferably be done after the people have been cleared from the harbour area. Once they have gone through customs, we would welcome it if people would offer their assistance. I want to suggest that the hon. member should contact the local regional office so that he can bring about contact in that way. I want to thank the hon. member for the idea which he left in our midst.

I now want to refer to the specific questions asked by the hon. member for Houghton. In the first place, the hon. member put a question to me in regard to the student Frescura. The hon. member recounted the facts concerning this person quite correctly. The position is of course that he is stateless at the moment, as the hon. member rightly said, but he is not stateless as a result of his presence in South Africa, for he was never a citizen of South Africa.

Yes he was.

Or rather, he was a citizen of South Africa, but he was deprived of his citizenship. Let me set the picture straight now. The fact that he does not have citizenship of Italy is due to the provisions of the Italian laws. I am prepared to reconsider his case at a subsequent stage, depending upon his attitude and the tendencies he displays. The representations which have been referred to me to date, have in no way shown any indications of there really having been a change of heart or any change in attitude on his part. That is the problem I have. I say again that South African citizenship cannot be cheapened, and I am not prepared to reconsider this case unless he changes his attitude. For the sake of interest, I want to refer to another case. It is perhaps a good thing that one should sometimes mention the positive things that happen as well. I want to refer to another case, the case which really was quite confidential and where things happened quietly, a case of another student. Hon. members will recall that there was a case last year, or the year before last, of a certain student at the University of Cape Town who drew certain offensive cartoons of Mr. and Mrs. Waring. He was a Rhodesian student who, as a result of what he had done, was found guilty and sentenced in court, and in consequence of which we refused to allow him to be re-admitted to South Africa. This is the punishment which is normally imposed for such offences. However, this student was in the final year of his engineering studies. Unfortunately I cannot remember the precise details, but in the field of the specific course which he was taking, it was not at all possible for him to continue at the Rhodesian university because no opportunities in his field existed. As a Rhodesian citizen he could not gain admission to England in order to further his studies there. He was virtually unable to gain access to any country. In other words, the action taken against him, which he fully deserved as a result of his irresponsible actions, meant that his entire career had been brought to an end a year or a few months before he would have completed his studies. When the matter was brought to me for consideration I let this person know, on my own initiative, through our office in Salisbury, that I wanted to see him personally in South Africa. We issued him with a temporary permit and he entered South Africa and came to my office to speak to me personally. I discussed with him what had happened, and inquired about his position. He told me that he regretted the matter, and that the position was really an awkward and difficult one and that he knew that he deserved to be punished. He said that he had acted unthinkingly. He wrote me a letter in which he not only tendered his apologies, but in which he also made it clear that he would very much like to further his studies, and that he would like his case to be considered. Upon receiving the letter I immediately returned his temporary resident’s permit to him. He returned to the University of Cape Town last year where he completed his studies, and I have just received a letter from him in which he not only expressed his thanks but also said that he was back where he had come from, and that he would like to find a future career for himself in South Africa. This is the other kind of attitude which can be displayed.

Good!

It can be done, but then an accommodating attitude should be adopted on both sides, and not only on one side. We, on our part, cannot simply continue to lean over backwards, while the people on the other side do not want to do anything. This has to come from both sides.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. the Minister a question? How is the student to demonstrate that he has changed his attitude if he has now, as I believe he has, carried out his studies without paying further attention to student activities? How much longer does the hon. the Minister require to be convinced that his views have changed? Will the hon. the Minister also please answer my question about the danger of deportation.

I want to say to the hon. member at once that no deportation order against him are being contemplated. I want to state here in public that I do not intend deporting him, and that he need not be concerned about that. As regards the question of steps, I think that we should wait a reasonable time. I do not want to specify a definite period. It would depend on what he is doing. However, he must know that South Africa will not tolerate such things and that we will take action when it is necessary to do so. I accept that his conduct is attributable to youthful irresponsibility and impetuosity. We all went through such a stage. However, there are certain things which one does not do, and what he did is one of those things.

That is clear enough; I agree with that.

I cannot reply to the next matter which the hon. member touched upon, for I cannot recall the case of Prof. Richard Sklar at all, nor was I able to trace it immediately. I think the hon. member should perhaps place a question on the case on the Order Paper; then I could reply to this matter fully. I could not in the short space of time since the hon. member spoke about this matter, obtain the file. In any case, the file is in Pretoria, and it is impossible for me to get hold of it quickly.

Then I want to come to the question of the refusal of visas. The hon. member said that we refuse visas for political reasons. I want to inform the hon. member that almost as great a percentage as the percentage which she mentioned of visas which art refused in America for reasons other than political reasons, are also refused in South Africa for reasons other than political reasons. Why should it always happen, when a visa is refused, that the stigma of political reasons should be attached to it?

There are hundreds of other reasons why visas are refused. There are cases where visas are refused for completely different reasons, reasons which have nothing to do with politics. Therefore I say to the hon. member that I want to persist in my standpoint that in the handling of visas South Africa is not only an example, but is in fact a country which is far more lenient than many other countries. Because we know how our people and how the Press react, we are excessively careful when we refuse a visa because we know that a row is going to be kicked up about it. However, I want to add immediately that in the course of my functions I shall consider visas in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time when I have to consider that visa. With each of the applications I shall bear in mind what the interests of South Africa are. That is the key to my approach. If I am of the opinion that it is in the interests of South Africa to refuse a visa, and I repeat this to the hon. member so that there may be no doubt about it, I shall refuse the visa in spite of what she or the Press may have to say about it. That is my standpoint. We will not, in the nature of things, look for trouble; we are not deliberately going to irritate people or simply refuse a visa owing to stubbornness or obduracy, or merely in order to be difficult or demonstrate our power.

There is no sense in that, and it can only harm our country. However, if it is necessary we shall not fail in our duty, but shall do so in the interests of South Africa. In regard to the case of Prof. Carter and of Prof. Carris, which the hon. member mentioned, I just want to say that I remember the names very clearly, and that I know that they have already been here before. But what the particular circumstances were which were prevailing when the last visa applications were before us, I cannot remember either. It is impossible to locate the particulars relating to that matter in such a short time. The hon. member will therefore pardon me if I do not reply to it now. If she would place the necessary question on the Order Paper, I shall make the particulars available.

I want to come to the hon. member for Meyerton who asked whether we should not make it a requirement that a political candidate should have 250 signatures for nomination and should have to pay a deposit of R1 000 in an effort to keep the peculiar candidates, who never receive more than 1 000 votes in an election and who simply cause unnecessary elections, out of politics. The fact of the matter is that we are a democratic country, and that we therefore afford our people the opportunity of making themselves available for Parliament and the provincial councils. We do not want to create the impression that these councils are accessible only to people who are well-off. For that reason one has to be reasonable as regards the amount of the deposit. I am not certain either whether a deposit of R1 000 will help in regard to people of this kind. In my own constituency I have, since 1966, had the same persistent candidate standing against me, a candidate who has never polled more than a thousand votes.

If at first you don’t succeed …

I can see the hon. member has had experience of this in Port Elizabeth as well. This specific person has stood against me on three occasions now. On two occasions I fought the election against that person only, and had it not been for him I would have won my seat unopposed. During the last election we held a parliamentary and a provincial council election at the same time. If this person wanted to keep me and my party busy, he could, by paying a deposit of R600, have kept our office working at full tilt, and have opposed us. However, he was so determined that he made himself available for both Parliament and the provincial council. He opposed both the provincial candidate and I, and as a result of that had to pay a deposit of R1 200. In both cases he polled fewer than 700 votes. A deposit of R1 000 will therefore not deter him, for he will simply stand again. He paid R1 200, but could have achieved the same results with R600. This is not an easy situation.

As I have already stated, two Members of Parliament and an official of the department are going overseas soon to examine the British system, as well as those of a few other Western countries. They are doing this in order to make more detailed information available to the Select Committees. I observe in the British legislation that they require a proposer, a seconder, and in addition, eight signatures. Therefore a person has to have ten supporters before he can be nominated. I should like to know what the motive behind that is and precisely how it all hangs together. It is not such an easy matter, as I have said. We should like to throw our elections open as widely as possible to the public, for we have a democratic system. However, I want to say at the same time that apart from the nuisance aspect, there is still the financial aspect. Such an election costs the State a great deal of money. I am not referring to the political parties now; that is their task, but officials have to take charge of such an election on a full-time basis. In addition there is all the printing, and so on. And then there are candidates who do not even poll a thousand votes. In an earlier election the same person polled only 33 votes. The fact remains that this man is a trier, and will never give up.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the use of requisition lists already in use in municipal elections?

That was the case. I am not certain what the position in all the provinces is, but when I was still a municipal councillor in the Transvaal, 25 signatures were required. I think the best reply to the hon. member’s question is that there is at present a Select Committee which is considering this entire matter, and the hon. member should speak to the members of this Select Committee so that they can see whether they can find a solution to this matter. I think it would be of benefit to all the parties if something could be done in this regard. However, I cannot give the hon. member a solution to the problem.

I now want to deal briefly with the hon. member for Florida too, who put a few questions to me in regard to the use of a computer. I welcome the hon. member’s contribution, for I think he made a very positive contribution in regard to a very specialized matter, of which he has special knowledge which is very valuable to us. As far as the computer is concerned there is already a measure of co-ordination which the Public Service Commission is undertaking on behalf of Government departments. With the technical knowledge which the hon. member has at his disposal, he will know very well that there is far more opportunity for centralization and coordination than ever before, and that it is possible for a great deal to be done in this regard—in respect of semi-State institutions, provincial administrations, municipalities, and so on. Ultimately one ought to be able to have a central computer depot into which one can feed information and recover it again. Something like this could be applied very economically, with the least wastage of manpower and working hours. This matter is being investigated at the moment. We want to prevent computers being utilized uneconomically, and the time of computer staffs being wasted unnecessarily. However, I want to thank the hon. member for his standpoint and for the clear exposition he gave of it.

I should now like to return to the overall concept of race classification—this is the last point to which I am going to reply— to the concepts, appearance, acceptance, descent, etc., matters which we began to discuss yesterday evening and which were taken further today. The hon. member for Green Point adopted the standpoint today —I take it after having consulted with those people with whom he has to consult …

You put a question to me yesterday evening, and I replied to it.

I am not levelling a reproach; I am just saying that what he stated to us today, was the official standpoint of the United Party. The hon. member made it very clear today that the race classification legislation would be abolished if the United Party were to come into power. That legislation will be done away with. Their point of departure will be appearance, acceptance and registration, not classification.

Registration.

Registration instead of classification. I honestly think the hon. member and the United Party as a whole are playing with words in this regard. How does one decide where one should register a person if one does not decide in some way or another, through some channel or other, where one should classify him? In which register should Mr. A. be placed if one has not determined in advance what classification one would apply to him? The question of classification provoked a violent reaction yesterday evening. I am sorry not all the hon. members involved are present here. I have here quite a few quotations. The hon. member for Green Point himself said yesterday evening—

“Distinction” is, it is true, a different word, but what does “distinction” mean? It means that one has to classify. The word “distinction” means that people are classified into groups. One could also use ugly terms such as “compartmentalize”, etc. Whatever term one used, “distinction” means that one is grouping people into various peoples or races, or whatever.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. What I mean by classification are the provisions specifically contained in section 5(5) of the Act. These provisions are rigid classification laws.

Is that all?

I do believe that there must be recognition of the separate groups. This is inherent in Government policy, in our policy and in the Progressive Party’s policy. It was statutory classification that I mentioned.

Now we have gone back to the other argument. Now the Act must not be repealed. Now only this provision must be removed. We have been struggling since yesterday evening already to clarify the matter, but now there is complete confusion again. I had already accepted that the Act is going to be done away with. The hon. member for Durban North said yesterday evening, and I am quoting from his Hansard—

He was referring to the hon. member for Green Point—

He was therefore rising to his feet especially—

Not “should be done away with” but “should be changed”.

Who is playing with words now?

No, do not say I am playing with words. I quote—

then he would be satisfied. In other words, the hon. member used the word “classification”. I repeat—

He used the word “classification”.

You can’t wriggle out of that.

The hon. member said the basis should be changed. Could I please have the attention of the hon. member for Green Point? I am dealing with him. I was speaking to the hon. member for Green Point. I am quoting from my own Hansard of yesterday evening—

To which the hon. member replied: “That is basically correct.”

Today the caucus has decided differently.

I went further and asked—

Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, Mr. Webber, replied: “Not on the basis of appearance.” It is stated in Hansard. I think we have such a babel of confusion here because the hon. Opposition wanted to turn this debate into an emotional debate, for what purpose only they knew.

We cannot classify them.

We have to classify them before we can have clarity.

I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point whether we cannot examine the entire question of race classification in amity. What is necessary? Wheter it is their policy, or the Progressive Party’s policy, or whether it is our party’s policy which is being applied, all three require a form of classification between people, otherwise it is not practicable. No matter how much we would all like to get away from the concept, the circumstances prevailing in South Africa compels everyone sitting here to retain it. We have to do this in some form or another. It can be applied more humanely, and there can be another basis on which we can classify. We can discuss the particulars, but on the principle everyone here is agreed that there has to be something in terms of which we can distinguish the groups from one another. It need not necessarily be an insult to people. There is no stigma attached to a person belonging to a certain race. On what grounds is it a stigma that one person is a White, another a Coloured and a third a Black person? Everyone is proud of his descent. Where could one find prouder people on earth than the Zulu, who are so proud of their descent that they want to be nothing else?

May I ask a question?

Yes, certainly,

Perhaps I should make myself clearer to the hon. the Minister. According to educational laws in this country children who are Afrikaans-speaking have to attend an Afrikaans-medium school and English-speaking children, an English-medium school. Where is the rigid statutory classification as to which children are English or Afrikaans speaking? [Interjections.] I am talking about the rigid statutory classification and not race identification for political purposes.

The hon. members question in regard to the school is an appropriate example because it is in fact being done in the Transvaal where the mother tongue education ordinance is being applied. I do not know whether it is being done in all the provinces, but it is being done in the Transvaal. What is the position there. An inspector of education determines which of the two languages the child knows best. This is then accepted as his mother tongue, and on that basis he is placed in a school. This is being done because it has been proved pedagogically and scientifically that a child makes the best progress in the school where the language medium is his mother tongue. This is the norm which is being used. Here, however, the question revolves around something else. The hon. member would like this to be introduced with as few problems as possible, and I agree with that. He does not want friction and fixed rules. They want to introduce the system as gradually and as easily as possible. They say it ought to be based on appearance and acceptance.

As it originally was.

As it originally was. Now I want to tell the hon. member this. Unfortunately it does not depend in practice—as the hon. member indicated—upon what the person’s own preference is: “I want to be this or that.” He may express that wish and he may have such an appearance, but then it still depends on the community, viz. whether the community is prepared to accept him in that position. Their norm of acceptance will therefore produce precisely the same heartbreak stories for them as we are experiencing at the moment under this legislation.

What you are doing is clarifying how far your view is from ours.

There is the question of acceptance. Acceptance by whom? Three, four or five persons say they accept him, while 20 say they do not. What should the decision be? Is he accepted or is he not? That is the practical situation. There are five persons who accept him as White, and there are 20 or 30 who object to that. Let us test this against the practice.

It used to be done in this way in South Africa for years.

Yes, it is easy to be a member of the Opposition and to criticize. It is a completely different matter to be the Government and to apply it. A child is brought to a school and it s deemed that in appearance he is White enough, and the parents say that they are accepted as Whites. After three or four weeks the other children begin to make that child’s life unpleasant for him because they do not accept him; it becomes progressively worse, and what must we do now?

[Inaudible.]

I do not deny it. My argument is that the same will happen under the fine-sounding policy of the hon. member. That is the only point I am trying to make; I am not trying to build up any argument to the effect that our system is perfect. I am merely trying to emphasize the point—and I think I have already proved it—that classification is necessary for the sake of our standards and traditions in South Africa, on the basis of which we place our population groups in different schools and residential areas, and no one is prepared to do away with this. Even the Progressive Party is not prepared to do away with this. Even the Progressive Party is not prepared to say that the Sea Point swimming baths should be open to non-Whites; they, too, are not prepared to say that they will allow integrated schools. No one in this Parliament is prepared to do away with this separation. Therefore there has to be classification. The method which the United Party wants to apply, will result in as many heartbreak borderline cases as the method which we are applying at the moment. It is merely a different method which will have the same effect. For that reason I say that the entire attack on race classification which has been launched from that side of the House, today and yesterday evening in particular, did not impress anyone, for the fact remains that however one applies race classification the method will have precisely the same effect in borderline cases, whether that party’s method or our party’s method is applied; it will make no difference.

Sir, I want to repeat what I said yesterday evening, and with that I want to conclude. Under the present provisions of the Act, race classification is being applied from day to day with the greatest possible measure of sympathy and humaneness. I know of cases where the Secretary may under certain circumstances make a reclassification, where he leans over backwards to make people’s lives easier and more pleasant, to avoid causing them distress, but there is an Act which has to be applied and which makes provision for people to lodge objections against classifications; that is the problem, but this race classification which has to be applied as a necessity in our ethnic structure is, as I have said, being applied with the greatest possible humaneness, and I do not think that the United Party has succeeded in suggesting a method here which is better than the one which is being applied at present.

Votes agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the amending legislation which I am proposing this afternoon for consideration by this House has been recommended by the province of Natal. It is especially in Natal that you find a great many little townships on its north and south coasts. It is therefore not surprising that a request for the legislation which I shall presently explain should originate from Natal. These little townships are finding it progressively more difficult to supply and finance the multifarious municipal services so very much in demand during holiday seasons every year when thousands of visitors from up-country converge on the Natal beaches. The Natal provincial authority sees as a solution to these problems the formation of corporations on a regional basis comprising a number of local authorities. The various services which are at present being furnished by a great number of independent local authorities in the regional area could then be undertaken by one authority, thus avoiding multiplicity of control and expenditure. In this regard paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, empowers provincial councils, inter alia, to establish corporations with the power to prepare and carry out schemes for the supply of water and disposal of sewage and industrial effluent in any area. To this end the Natal Administration has to date established six regional water service corporations in this province. However, their functions are limited by Item 20 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Act to the supply of water and disposal of sewage and industrial effluent. These corporations carry out their functions over large regions, as their name implies, which may include several local authorities each of which provides services to the public resulting in the duplication of services, expenditure, staffing and effort. The Administrator-in-Executive-Committee of Natal, after detailed investigation, has decided that the multiplication of services in areas where a Regional Water Service Corporation operates may beneficially be undertaken by such regional corporations on a regional basis. These corporations are ideally situated to undertake these functions since they already have the administrative, technical and engineering personnel, expertise, machinery and have administrative offices suitably situated in the area. They function in terms of the Natal Water Service Ordinance of 1963 (Ordinance No. 27 of 1963) which will require a simple amendment to clothe them with authority to undertake such services, provided that the Administration was empowered by the Financial Relations Act to legislate in this connection. The services which are capable of regionalization in this manner are fire-fighting, refuse disposal, cemeteries and crematoria, etc. The proposal does not imply the establishment of further corporate bodies in Natal, nor would it involve greater expenditure. The effect will rather be the opposite because the ideal bodies already exist and services now rendered by a multiplicity of local authorities will be centred in one single body for various regions with beneficial results to the public. In point of fact, the proposal is no more than a logical extension of the considerations which justified the amendment to Item 20 of the Second Schedule of the Act in 1970 to empower provinces to empower their regional water service corporations to dispose of sewage and industrial effluent.

When opening the annual meeting of the United Municipal Executive in February last year, the Minister drew attention to the phenomenal growth of the metropolitan city areas in South Africa with all its attendant problems for city authorities. This phenomenal growth of our cities, which can indeed be described as an urbanization explosion, affects every city-dweller. It has already resulted in tremendous strains being placed on the Government and particularly on local government as demands arise for new homes and services. This brings into sharp perspective the importance of local government and the responsibilities that it must shoulder, for it is the local government which affects people daily in every phase of their lives. We must then ask ourselves if the structures of our local government are adapted to the needs of our changing cities. Is the present system of local government in the different provinces capable of effectively handling the complicated problems of rapid urbanization? indeed, are these structures adaptable to the changes and all their attendant problems? At the time the Minister asked this question, a question which can be repeated here today, namely, whether the time has not arrived for the establishment in metropolitan areas of statutory committees with specific prescribed powers in which all the local authorities in the area are represented, to deal with those problems mutually experienced by them.

Sir, it is in the light of these considerations that the Government finds it necessary to propose the amendment of Item 20 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, as set out in clause I of the Bill now before the House. When the proposed legislation becomes law, it will be possible for the provincial councils to provide by Ordinance for the establishment of corporations with power to render specified municipal services on a regional basis.

Mr. Speaker, may I first of all say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I congratulate him on the first Second Reading debate he is handling in this House. The last time he was with us, we had a long, and at times acrimonious debate on the Publications Bill. I can assure him that we have no intention of keeping him here for anything like that period of time in regard to this measure.

The Bill before us is an interesting one. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, it has been requested by one of the provincial authorities. However, I think it needs a little examination as to the effect it will have. While suiting the purposes of the Natal Provincial Administration, it may perhaps be going a little beyond what is required to give effect to the wishes of that province. In terms of section 13(1) of the Financial Relations Act, 1945, the State President is empowered with the concurrence of the executive committee of a province to entrust to that province the power to legislate in any matter specified in the Second Schedule to the Act. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, Item 20 of the Second Schedule in its present form enables a province to legislate, if the State President has exercised his powers, for the establishment of corporations to carry out water supply and sewage disposal schemes, subject to the provisions of the Water Act. The hon. the Deputy Minister will see from the Act itself that any corporation so established by a provincial authority is empowered to levy rates on immovable property and to raise fees for water or services provided by it.

This Bill seeks to extend the scope of Item 20 by providing that provincial councils may in addition legislate for the establishment of such corporations to prepare and carry out schemes—this is a very wide power—for the provision of any service ordinarily provided by local authorities. I understand and accept, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has elaborated, the difficulties which the small boroughs and health committees in Natal have in providing fire-fighting services, refuse disposal and matters of that sort, but this Bill goes very much further than just dealing with that particular problem.

If this Bill is passed in its present form, the provinces will be able to set up a corporation which will possibly be able to operate even on a regional or metropolitan basis with rating powers to provide such services as refuse removal, gas supply, public transport and to take over any other normal function of a local authority. It is clear from the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister that that is not what is intended in so far as this measure is concerned. It therefore appears to me that there is a very real danger in this Bill as it now reads in that it will enable a provincial council which is not working in a happy state of co-operation with a local authority to pass legislation which could undermine local authorities to a very great extent and hit at the basic concept of local government by taking over responsibilities of a local authority and handling them on a regional basis. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will, after having had an opportunity of considering my proposal, not consider the possibility of having this power qualified by providing that a corporation may only be established by a provincial council, to provide a service as contemplated under paragraph (b) of Item 20, with the concurrence of the local authority already established in the area in which the corporation is to operate. I believe that such a qualification, requiring that the local authorities protection against the assumpit must concur in the step, would give local authorities protection against the assumption over one or more of them of their basic functions by a corporation established by a provincial council. I believe it is a matter which deserves the consideration of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I want to go on to what he had to say about metropolitan authorities. I believe that metropolitan authorities established with the concurrence and with the co-operation of local authorities are by far preferable to the taking over of control by provincial administrations of matters which are essentially matters of local authority interest. A thorough survey was done in Cape Town some years ago by Dr. Slater, the former provincial secretary, into the possibility of a metropolitan authority as far as this type of service in the Cape Peninsula is concerned. This has the advantage that it does permit works which would otherwise be relatively costly if handled by one local authority, to be spread. This in turn would make services more accessible and more adequate if they were done on this centralized basis. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we agree that this is a practical solution, this avoidance of a proliferation of small undertakings. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give consideration to the establishment of these corporations to take over what are basically local authority functions and powers only with the consent of the established local authorities which will be affected by such corporations.

We want to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the kind remarks on the delivery of my first Second Reading speech in this House. I also thank him for the assurance that they will not detain me for as long as they did at my previous appearance with a previous Bill.

The hon. member also pointed to certain dangers when it comes to taxes that can be levied by the provincial authorities which may damage the powers and the services rendered by local authorities at the moment. He also raised the question of a proviso being written into clause 1. I think that this can be discussed in the Committee Stage and I shall not reply to him now.

*I also want to thank the hon. member for concurring with the idea that we in South Africa should really pay more attention to metropolitan authorities. It has been proved that tremendous problems develop in the big cities of the world. We read, for instance, that the centre of New York and other cities are already dying to the detriment of the populations of those cities. We must really not let ourselves in for similar miseries and it is time for us to pay thorough attention to those matters. That might be the task of such metropolitan authorities. I thank the hon. member and other hon. members for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, if there is no objection, I want to move—

I object.

Does the hon. member object to it?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he would go into a question which we could discuss in the Committee Stage. How can he do it now?

I can give it to you now.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amending legislation, the Second Reading of which I have just moved, is required in order to give a legal foundation to an administrative practice which has been followed for some time in respect of altering birth registers. For the past few years the Department of the Interior has, on request, altered a person’s sex description in his or her birth register after such a person has undergone a change of sex as a result of medical treatment. For this purpose a certificate is required from the surgeon or gynaecologist who performed the operation concerned, to indicate that the person concerned has undergone a change of sex as a result of treatment. The recommendation of the Secretary for Health is also required before the alteration of the person’s birth register is considered. The Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, 1963, makes provision, inter alia, for the alteration of a person’s name and surname in his birth register. The Government law advisers have confirmed that no provision exists in the Act in terms of which the sex description of a person who has undergone a change of sex may be altered in his birth register. In the Bill now before this House, it is consequently being proposed, firstly, that the Secretary for the Interior be vested with the power to alter in a person’s birth register the sex description of a person who has undergone a change of sex, on the recommendation of the Secretary for Health, and, for this purpose, to request such medical reports or order such examination as he may deem necessary; and, secondly, that the alterations of sex descriptions of persons who have undergone a change of sex, which have already been effected in the birth registers, shall be deemed to have been effected legally.

Mr. Speaker, we support this measure. There is, however, one question that arises, viz. whether the exact date or time of the operation of the person concerned is to be recorded in the register when the change is made. I ask this question because I believe this matter has been raised in certain judgments in other countries dealing with this problem, particularly in the case when by testamentary act a father leaves half his estate to his sons and the other half to his daughters. What then happens in the case of a death before amendment of the will where one of the heirs has by means of an operation undergone a sex change? It then becomes important to which category the person belongs and at what time the change took place. I believe this matter was raised in the Other Place and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to clarify the position with regard to what is to be done.

Not only must the change of sex be recorded in the register, but what is the position in regard to the change of name of the person concerned? Where a person changes from male to female, there will be a need to change the name to the female equivalent of the name the patient held who underwent this treatment. It appears that the secretary may on recommendation alter the birth register of a person. Although subsection (2) would appear to restrict this to the changing of the description of the sex of that person only, does it not also apply to a change of name at the same time? I know that the procedure with regard to a change of name is not a very long or involved one in the case of a first name, but at the same time I think it is an additional inconvenience and that it should be avoided if possible in respect of people who have undergone this type of operation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the second matter the hon. member for Green Point raised, i.e. the question of the change of name, and I want to draw his attention firstly—I think he is well aware of this himself—to the fact that there is a provision in the Act in terms of which a person who wants to change his name from Peter to Petro, or from Henry to Henrietta, may do so. There is existing machinery in terms of which this is done. It is for the very reason that there is no machinery in existence in terms of which the sex description may be changed in the birth certificate, that we have this legislation before us today. Moreover, there is in fact no obligation on the party who has undergone a change of sex to change his name. If he wants to remain Henry in spite of the fact that he has undergone a sex change from male to female, there is nothing on earth preventing him from retaining his name. I do not think this is going to create a major problem. Machinery is already in existence for this also in respect of the change of a surname in terms of the Registration of Aliens Act.

However, the hon. member for Green Point referred to another question, i.e. the rights of personality or patrimonial rights which might attach to a person in terms of our law, or might be lost by a person who had undergone a change of sex, and said that at a certain time it might be necessary to determine at what time the change of sex had been undergone. The time at which a person has undergone a change of sex may affect his rights, such as his patrimonial rights and rights of succession, as the hon. member mentioned. However, it has never yet been the function of any State document to determine such a date or time. It has always been a factual question which has had to be argued and proved before every court which has had to investigate a matter of this kind. The fact that a party’s date of birth appears on a birth certificate, does not mean that his rights commenced at that date. The hon. gentleman, who is a jurist, will know that certain rights attach to the foetus pre-natally and that it is always a factual question to determine when that foetus in fact came into being. In this particular instance we have the additional problem that it is not a single operation which brings about the change of sex, but a series of operations. It is uncertain at precisely what time the operations performed or medical treatment given came to an end. I do not think it is the function of the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths to determine a final time or date of a change of sex. I think it is the function of every person whose rights are affected in this regard to go to the relevant court and to submit proof to the court, such as medical evidence or whatever other evidence may be available, on the actual date or time of the final change of sex. Therefore, we should not look to this Bill or the department to solve this problem for the parties concerned. I am satisfied that no injustice is being done and for that reason I do not think it is necessary to include a date as well in this new certificate which will be issued after the change of sex has been undergone.

Mr. Speaker. I have one practical problem that I wish to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think this little Bill deals with a terribly real problem. It may not affect a great number of people but it is a very real problem as anybody who has read a very recent book on this subject, a very serious work called Conundrum, the story of a British journalist who accompanied the Everest expedition and has now become a woman, will know. This man was married and had four children. The book deals with the complications, the kind of complications which arise in a situation of this nature. I therefore think that this legislation we have before us today is very essential. Whether one calls it enabling legislation or consequential legislation, I would not know. But I have said that it is not a matter for levity.

The one problem I would like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that very often children need to show the birth certificates of their parents. I think it is true in cases where they apply for citizenship. What happens in a case where a child produces birth certificates showing that he has two mothers or two fathers and not one of each? I concede that this is a very exceptional case, but it may just happen. I wonder whether problems of this nature would also arise in the case of the natural guardianship of children, when one of the parents changes his or her sex, assuming this happens in the case of a married person with children. I gather from my hon. friend, the member for Green Point, that this might be dealt with by common law. This seems to me to be one of these situations. I have no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department are looking into these matters because there seems to me to be a number of these small practical problems that could arise as a result of this Bill which he has introduced this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point has two problems. The one is the actual date on which the change of sex allegedly took place. The second relates to the matter of taking a female name when, for example, the person’s sex has been changed from male to female. I shall come to the determination of the date. In the case of the name or surname, however, there is existing legislation which makes provision for the change. If such a person should wish to adopt another name or surname he should simply make an application in that regard in the normal way

The hon. member for Bellville is correct when he says that determining the date is a real problem. It is not simply a matter of one operation which is performed, so that the date of the change of sex may be determined after one operation. There are a whole series of them, and as the hon. member for Parktown has also said, it may appear strange to us, but such things do happen in our times. Moreover, it is not just medical treatment that has to be given. A considerable amount of psychological treatment has to be given subsequently, and it is in fact, difficult to determine on exactly what date the change of sex has taken place. At present we are simply trying by means of this legislation, to give to the Secretary for the department wide powers and the discretion to determine what has to be done in order to obtain the facts pertaining to the change. He must be able to consult knowledgeable people, inter alia, the Secretary of the Department of Health. On account of their training, such people are able to give guidance. The secretary may also liaise with psychologists. However, the secretary should have the opportunity of being able to obtain the information from knowledgeable people from other departments, who can pronounce judgment on a specialized matter such as this. I can give an even fuller reply to the hon. member for Green Point. I investigated the matter after it had been discussed in the Other Place, and without drawing out the proceedings, I just want to give him this reply. It does not appear desirable, if a need should exist in this regard, to make provision in this Act—the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act—for determining a date relating to a matter such as this. The feeling is that we should rather do so in other legislation. I am not going to cover everything now. There will, for instance, have to be provision for specific reports by specific experts and one shall have to have the findings of such an expert in terms of section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 and section 22 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act of 1965 which provides that affidavits by certain persons in connection with the determination of certain facts by means of, for example, a process requiring skill in certain sciences, are, on their mere production, admissible in proof of the fact concerned. Therefore it is not the intention in this Bill to go so far as to record the exact date of the particulars of the person’s change of sex. There is other legislation in terms of which this may be done. I want to give the hon. member for Parktown the assurance that this matter has been investigated in depth and that it is not the intention to make things more difficult for the people who find themselves in this unfortunate position. This legislation is being enacted for the very purpose of making things easier for them on their road through life.

I just want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Bellville by telling the hon. member for Sea Point that, in terms of section 42(3) of the Act, a certificate constitutes prima facie evidence of the particulars concerned. Consequently, a court will not accept the correctness of someone’s sex description on a certificate if counter-proof is furnished. Therefore, even if there were to be a date and that date were to be disputed, another decision would have to be taken in court as to what the actual date was. In other words, the Secretary obtains the necessary information about the operations and other treatment and records the change in the register but a count has to decide on the date on which a person has indeed undergone a change of sex. Even if one were to think that one had made it water-tight by determining a date, such a date might subsequently be tested in a court, if there were to be objections. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we have conducted a thorough investigation into this matter and in our opinion it has been stated quite correctly in law.

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 in regard to the recording of the date of the actual sex change on the certificate. I agree with him that this could only be prima facie proof of the date. However, time goes on and it may well in due course become a material matter to have to prove that date for some purpose or other some years later. As I say, it is a prima facie proof of the date of the sex change and it also has the benefit that anybody who at a later stage wishes to check up in order to establish the correct date will have some guide to work on in going through hospital records and so forth to enable him to establish when that change took place. I believe that it has a value and I appreciate that it is not conclusive.

The other matter was in connection with the change of name. It does mean that at a time when there is a very personal and sensitive atmosphere prevailing, there are two things to do. The one is to go through the process of being satisfied that this change has taken place and secondly, having to make the necessary name change from male to female or vice versa. One feels that in the circumstances in which these matters take place, the circumstances of the operation and the emotional stage that such a person experiences, one would like to eliminate any unnecessary aggravation of the emotional stress that has already been experienced.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the date is concerned, I just want to say that such a person can have the date determined by addressing an application for all the information to the Secretary for the department. The Secretary for the department will then have to determine with the assistance of those knowledgeable people I have just referred to, when, in their opinion, that change of sex took place. In accordance therewith a date will indeed be available which is not, however, determined by the Secretary for the Department, but has to be determined by a court. The Secretary merely records the change in the birth register. It is not that a date will be kept out altogether, because at some stage or other a date will after all be necessary. I agree with the hon. member.

Sir, since the personal files of all persons are retained at the central registry of the Department of the Interior, I take it that these documents of proof would be filed there as part of the permanent record pertaining to the individual and would then be available on any subsequent occasion, and that that would probably meet the situation.

Yes.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill read a Third Time.

Sir, I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give us replies to three specific questions before we have to vote, finally, on this clause and the amendment. Then hon. members would know exactly what they were voting for, and I believe that his replies to the questions will be able to serve as guidelines for officials who are concerned in this matter. My first question is this: Suppose my amendment is not accepted and the clause is retained as printed. Would it then be correct to say that an official will not be guilty of misconduct if he should praise the activities of, say, the Department of Labour or the Department of Bantu Administration or the Department of Foreign Affairs, or the Department of the Interior and the execution of Government policy in public? My second question is this: Is it correct that he will not be guilty of misconduct either if he should criticize the policy of the United Party in respect of these matters in public? My third question is this: Is it correct that he will in fact be guilty of misconduct if he should criticize, say, the Government’s labour policy in the light of the obvious benefits of the United Party’s policy in respect of labour. I should like to have replies to these questions from the hon. the Minister, for I believe that his replies will serve as guidelines for people if my amendment is not accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I refer once again to paragraph (o) of this clause, and in doing so I would like to point out that in terms of clause 10(23) the consequences of being found guilty of misconduct are that one will either be fined or have one’s salary reduced or be discharged or transferred from one’s post. Even if these penalties are not invoked, the position is still that if an officer has been found guilty of misconduct because he committed some offence in terms of any Act of Parliament at all, that fact will certainly appear on that officer’s staff record. Therefore my argument is that it is possible in such circumstances, where an offence is committed through the commission of some act totally unrelated to the work of his department, an officer could be punished twice for an offence, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister will bear that in mind in deciding upon his attitude to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the wording of the provisions of this clause are identical to the provisions of section 18(o) of the Education Act, No. 41 of 1967. From the experience we have gained, we can state that this Act, with these strict provisions, the Education Act No. 41 of 1967, is essential in our service. We deem it the pedagogic responsibility of the State, in the first place, to protect the child and, in the second place, to protect the service, for the youth, the child, is always the nation’s greatest asset. The child is the nation’s ideal, its dream for the future, and the child has the right to be educated by persons of the best calibre available. We are not seeking merely an erudite person, although he might be crippled by other defects. We would then be displaying great ignorance and committing a grave error as far as our youth is concerned. Furthermore, the conditions of service in this Bill do not come as a shock to a teacher or a person entering the service of the Education Department. His entire training in this sphere is consistently orientated to this. He becomes familiar with the climate we require, and we assign a far wider task to him than merely to impart knowledge to the child. Sir, our children have the right to have the best teachers at their disposal. This Bill is a fine Bill. I just want to quote you an excerpt from what was said by one of our great thinkers in the sphere of education. Let us examine the modern requirement he sets for the teaching staff—

I think this is clear and that we cannot accept the amendment, and that we should content ourselves with the clause as it was proposed with this unequivocal statement of the calibre of person we should like to have.

As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central is concerned, I have to draw his attention to the fact that what he really intends doing by means of this amendment is to do away with criticism of the Public Service and the administration of the country as a whole, and wants to make only criticism of the activities of this particular department, the Department of Education, an offence. If I understood him correctly, this is his approach. Now, he will concede that this is not contained in the Public Service Act. This is not how the Public Service Act reads at present, for the Public Service Act, No. 54 of 1957, in fact contains the provision that an officer may not comment in public on the administration of any department. He will also concede that this is not the situation under the Educational Services Act, No. 41 of 1967. In my view this would create a problem in the sense that one makes concessions in some Acts and not in others. If the hon. member has a case to make out, I would say he should introduce a motion in this House requesting that all the Acts be amended in this way, for if we were to amend only the one and not the others as well, we would be creating confusion. I believe that over the years, while these provisions were on the Statute Book, i.e. the provisions in terms of which teachers and public servants acted, they exercised their civil rights and also had the right to level criticism. I am therefore of the opinion that it is not necessary to change these Acts or the Bill in order to grant officers free civil rights. I believe that in this country we acted with a large measure of tolerance when we had to do with officers who wanted to play a part in public life or serve in political parties and/or the management of parties. I think that, in the past, with the exception of the Second World War period perhaps, we experienced very few problems with the application of these particular sections in the Public Service Act, the Educational Services Act and also—I take it—in those Education Ordinances which apply to the provincial education departments.

I should also like to react to the arguments of the hon. member for Sandton. I think the hon. member is making a mistake with his motion that this clause be amended as he proposed in his amendment. He wants to limit an offence, within the scope of the Bill, to an offence only in terms of the provisions of the Bill itself. He does not want an offence which is regarded as an offence in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act to be considered as an offence. I suggest that the hon. member take cognizance of the provisions of the Bill and especially those of clause 36, where he will find that only two offences are created in terms of the Bill. These two offences are defined in subsections 1(a) and (b). The first is that a person may not train these children at an institution which is not a prescribed centre.

Is the hon. member not of the opinion that the provisions of clause 9(b) are wide enough to be able to cover offences?

I am now dealing with the concept of “offence” as it is defined at present in the Bill, and I am also in the act of replying to the hon. member’s argument that it be limited as he suggested by his amendment. He wants to limit it by saying that it should be an offence in terms of the provisions of the Bill. I pointed out that clause 36 creates the offences which could be committed in terms of the Bill. The only two offences created by the Bill are, firstly, that no person except an approved institution may instruct these children, and, secondly, that no person may remove such children from the institution without the necessary permission. Surely there are many other offences an officer may commit, offences which make him unacceptable as an officer of the State.

The hon. member referred me to clause 9(b). It reads as follows—

There are many other offences that are not necessarily prejudicial to discipline. There are offences in connection with theft or fraud which have absolutely nothing to do with the person’s function as an officer or with the efficiency of the department, but which nevertheless make him a very undesirable officer to keep in the service. One considers that an officer might commit an offence such as an immoral act, not necessarily with these children but with other children, which would immediately render him undesirable. If the hon. member wants to limit the term “offence” only to offences in terms of this legislation, he excludes a whole number of offences which people might then, in my opinion, simply commit without having to encounter any problems in regard to them. I must tell him—and he has also heard this from the hon. member who has just spoken—that the provision as it is contained in this legislation is precisely the same as that in other legislation. It is, for instance, contained in the Public Service Act and the Educational Services Act.

There are three in which it is not contained.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central put three questions to me arising out of his amendment, to which the hon. member for Eellville has in fact replied. However, I want to reassure the hon. member that the relevant provision in this legislation does not affect the officer’s rights as a citizen of the Republic of South Africa. As a citizen of the Republic he obviously has his rights and may criticize certain political activities and even political figures on the right occasions and under the right circumstances. But it does not implicate him as far as the provisions of this legislation are concerned. I have told hon. members that inter-relationships between State departments are involved here and that is has nothing to do with bona fide criticism which a person expresses as a citizen of the State.

As far as the hon. member for Sandton is concerned, I want to say that I have caused a new discussion to be held with the law advisers on his amendment as well as the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central. Since the hon. member invoked clause 9(b), I want to point out to him that this provision refers to an act which such an officer may commit. He may perhaps commit another offence which might be difficult to construe as an “act” and that is why it is necessary for the provisions, as they are contained in the Bill, to be retained.

He also referred to the penalties and said a person was going to be punished twice. In all humility, I want to put a question to the hon. member. Suppose the hon. member were an education head in a province, or a person at the head of an education department, and an employee or an officer in the education department were to commit a criminal assault on one of the girls. That man is subsequently punished by the court. Does the hon. member accept that once the man has been punished, the matter is closed? Surely such a man cannot be retained in the service; he has to be dismissed, so, in other words, he must, actually be punished twice.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Does not clause 9(b) suffice? Surely it is perfectly adequate for what is envisaged by the hon. the Minister.

That is not a question.

I want to know whether it is not adequate.

Clause 9(b) is adequate in the sense that it may be applied with regard to an offence which is prejudicial to the administration, discipline or efficiency of the training centre.

Including the example you mentioned?

Yes, including the example I mentioned. Let us accept that if my example were perhaps badly chosen for the purposes of the argument, it is still the standpoint of the law advisers that one might still have an offence which is not covered by that point and that this provision should be retained for that reason. I want to state very clearly that this legislation is based on the practice over many years and the problems which have been experienced with it are minimal.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Let me just complete my argument first. I can well understand that hon. members consider it their duty to criticize and to try to effect improvements: I concede that that is their duty. Nevertheless. I want to put it to them in all humiliy that they really do not have the same experience of this as an education department which has been involved in similar administrative matters all these years. That is why it is not possible for me to accept these amendments.

Can the hon. the Minister give us any example of an action that is not covered by clause 9(b) but may be covered by 9(a)?

That is a perfectly reasonable question. In drawing up a Bill such as this, one tries to cover all the possibilities one has already encountered, in practice, as well as the possibilities which, in one’s opinion, might arise in the future. There is, however, an equally strong possibility that there might be other offences which one does not have on one’s list. One has to make provision now to cover such possibilities as well; hence this provision.

On amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper,

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment—

1. “(c) The Secretary may appoint one or more advisory assessors to assist the person appointed in terms of paragraph (b).”.

Clause 10 relates to the procedures to be followed in the case of misconduct by officers employed at training centres. Subsection (8)(b) of this clause reads as follows:

From this one can see that the Secretary has to appoint a person, any person, to inquire into the charge and to see what has transpired. I assume that the intention would be that the Secretary would in most cases appoint a senior member of his department to go into the matter. One must realize that the inquiry which will subsequently be held, pursuant to this section and in terms of which this person has been appointed, will in fact be the final inquiry relating to the misconduct of the person concerned. His only remedy, once the inquiry has been held and a decision taken, is on appeal. There are circumstances, we suggest, in which the person who is appointed may well need expert advice or expert reasoning in handling the matter. For instance, if one looks at clause 9(i), one will find the excessive use of intoxicants or stupefying drugs referred to. This provision applies to a person who, while he is or should be on duty, is under the influence of intoxicants. It may well be necessary in a case like this, if evidence is to be led—and there is provision in this clause for evidence to be adduced and for legal procedures to be followed—to have the advice of a medical person to assess whether the person was guilty on the evidence or not. It cannot be expected of a senior official of the department to be an expert in every field. It cannot be expected of such a person to go into the intricacies of the various types of charges which may be preferred. The Secretary may therefore find it necessary, in certain cases, to appoint a lawyer to sit with such an official in order to handle any legal matters which may arise. We must realize that if clause 9 and subsequently clause 10 are invoked, as I have said in relation to a previous clause the penalties imposed will, in fact, be quite serious for the person concerned. The penalties involve being fined, having one’s salary reduced, being discharged from the employment of the department or even being transferred. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the penalties, I think it is correct that qualified and properly schooled persons should, in certain circumstances, be able to assist the person who is appointed to handle the inquiry. I think therefore that is is equitable that power to appoint such an expert assessor should be granted to the Secretary. I would point out that the amendment is not a peremptory one; it is a permissive one. It does not place any new duty on the Secretary. It grants the Secretary the discretion. So if, in a particular case, the Secretary does not wish to appoint any assessor and feels that it is not necessary, he would not in fact do so. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. It is permissive; I think it is helpful and I think it might assist in the just handling of cases which may come before the person appointed in due course.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton, who is a lawyer, failed to see one important concept. He looked at clause 10(8Xb) and read the words “a person”, or, in the Afrikaans version, the word “iemand”. He sees these words as being in the singular, but as a lawyer he surely ought to know that it is one of the principles of our Interpretation Act, in fact section 6, that words in the singular number include the plural, unless the contrary intention appears. I looked at this clause very carefully. It does not appear to me, from anything stated here, that the contrary intention appears and that the singular in this case does not include the plural as well. In other words, where he reads the word “person”, he could just as well have read the word “persons”.

I think it is a fatal error in his argument. If we had been playing cricket, I would just have taken his left stump. Moreover this clause is in complete agreement with subsection 29(8)(b) of the Educational Services Act. The wording is identical and corresponds in all respects to the Public Service Act, Act No. 54 of 1957, section 18(8) of which reads as follows—

Therefore, if he complains about this legislation, he should complain about all the other legislation which has exactly the same wording and which is applicable to the whole of the Public Service and to education. In this regard I think I have just bowled his right stump.

I do not play cricket.

Yes, that is very clear. The hon. member should have taken this fact into account as well, and if he had gone to the trouble, it would have been possible for him to establish this fact. Over the years it has been the practice and the experience that when the Department of National Education has had to inquire into some offence, it does make use of the professional people to whom the hon. member referred in his speech. If the Department needs an expert, one who has to decide whether a certain person has committed an offence relating to the use of drugs, it will certainly add such a person. If it needs a legal practitioner, it goes to the State Attorney in order to obtain the necessary advice from him. Over the years this has been the practice followed by the Department of National Education, and not only by that department, but by the whole Public Service, i.e. to make use of these experts. This they have done in terms of the Acts as they exist at the moment and which correspond in all respects to the Bill we are now dealing with here. With that I think that I have also taken his middle stump.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and who is such a fine bowler, made two statements. He referred to “all Government departments” and “all Education Acts”. I want to read to him from the Coloured Persons in South-West Africa Education Act, Act No. 63 of 1972. Section 23(8)(b) reads as follows—

Exactly as he said, “a person”—

Then one has section 23(8Xc) which reads as follows—

I now ask the hon. member for Bellville to take a look at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton. His amendment agrees exactly with what I have just read out here. Before the hon. the Minister replies I just want to say this. The whole argument of the hon. member for Bellville who ostensibly bowled so well, is based on the fact that all Public Service Acts and all Education Acts contain the same provision. The simple fact is that his standpoint was wrong and that, as far as I know, there are at least three Education Acts, Acts in respect of Whites in the Public Service, which contain exactly the same provision as that contained in the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Sandton. I just want to add that it could contribute to the expeditious settling of the matter.

He bowled a wide instead of a googly.

The hon. member for Durban Central reproached the hon. member for Bellville for having generalized when he said “all Acts”. What he meant, of course, was all relevant Acts. In the case of the Department of National Education, I have to take into account in this regard, the Public Service Act and the Educational Services Act, in which exactly the same provisions appear. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is superfluous. It does not matter much whether or not the paragraph is added, but I regard it as being quite superfluous.

†I think the hon. member for Bellville dealt with most of the points raised by the hon. member for Sandton. I would like to enlarge upon two of them. In the first place I wish to point out to the hon. member that the nature of the charge or the offence will determine the type of person or persons who will be appointed to conduct this inquiry. Thus, it need not only be a senior official; it could be anybody who is considered competent to conduct such inquiry. And of course, the concept of assessors is not excluded from the clause as it stands in the Bill. Secondly, I wish to emphasize that it is common practice in the Public Service that in all legal matters the office of the State Attorney must be consulted. So, we will have legal advice available when we deal with matters of this nature. Having now dealt with all the points raised I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

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

The way I understand it is that we now have four categories of training centres. We have State training centres. Then we have the State-aided training centres and then we have the privately registered training centres. Then there is also, of course, the non-registered institutions which would like to be training centres.

There are only three categories.

Yes, but I mean the other categories would have to register in any case. If we go back to the discussion of clause I where I raised the issue specifically with the hon. the Minister, we will see that a family looking after a mentally retarded child would have to register as a private training centre or as a training centre. Potentially you might have a whole number of families who are not registered which then would be a fourth category. What my amendment wants to do is just to allow some measure of discretion to the different training centres. In other words, I agree that it is important that the training centre should register if it wants to provide training for mentally retarded children, but it can and should have the option to decide, initially at least, what kind of training centre it would like to be. If it wants to be simply a State-aided one, then I think it should be free to apply for that kind of registration. If it wants to be a private training centre, I think it should be free as well to do that. All I am simply saying is that should the Minister consider it necessary to declare a particular training centre a State-aided training centre, he should include in this clause the words “if this particular institution so requests”. In other words, if it wants to do this, it should be allowed to do so, otherwise it would simply remain a privately registered training centre over which the Minister has adequate control in any case.

I think the hon. member for Rondebosch does not understand the situation properly. There are, in fact, only three types of training centres. This clause simply empowers the Minister to declare an institution a State-aided training centre so that it may be paid a subsidy. It is unthinkable that any Minister would want to force the money of the State on to any organization which does not want that money. That is why there is no need to consult the management of such a centre. In fact, most centres come to the State themselves for aid, and not only financial aid, but also technical and professional aid, so there is no danger of the Minister forcing his money on such a centre, and for this reason it is really not necessary to do what the hon. member wants to have done. I want to explain the position to him again. In the first place, there are State centres, i.e. a centre which is established at institutions for the mentally deficient, in other words, all the inhabitants of such institutions are under the care of the State, under the Department of Health. But because there might be people who can be trained among them, the Department of National Education then establishes a State institution at such institutions for the mentally deficient which are fully maintained by the State. In the second place, institutions may exist which cannot make the grade on their own. This is the case with all those existing throughout the country; all of them need financial aid. So what they do, is to register with the Department and we recognize them as State-aided institutions on certain stated conditions. They receive money for teachers’ salaries, equipment etc., and even for the purchase of land and for the erection of buildings. They receive the money from the State and are, therefore, State-aided institutions. Thirdly, we come to the cases raised by the hon. member when we discussed the first clause, namely a parent or parents who have mentally retarded children and who are able, by virtue of their training or their professional qualifications, to give such training themselves or who are in the position financially to employ a person to give instruction to these children on their behalf—to a group of children or to a single child. All they have to do, is to register with the Department of National Education. For the rest we do not meddle in their affairs. In other words, they receive no financial aid from us. All we do, is to register them and we see to it that the work which is done there is done on a proper basis and that the children are cared for properly. This is all we have in view, and for that reason I think the hon. member will accept that his amendment is not really necessary because the situation he foresees, will not occur.

I should like to take this opportunity of inquiring from the Minister what the position is in the running of a training centre which is going to be established within an institution already run by the Department of Health. That is what will virtually happen in the future. The Department of Health will have an institution for mentally retarded children who may have other mental defects. They may have a mental institution for retarded children who do not have mental defects other than their retardation. It then becomes desirable in this institution run by the Department of Health to institute a school for education for these people, in an institution already run by the Department of Health. According to the Bill, as it is now presented to the House, the newly created training centre will be taken care of by a body appointed by the Minister to govern the affairs of that new training centre and to make all the arrangements for the teaching at that training centre and who will be responsible financially through the Minister of Education for the erection of that training centre. Now, how will it not interfere with the running of the institution by the Department of Health?

Clause 2(1) provides for the establishment…

Of such institutions.

… of training centres at institutions run by the Minister of Health. The Bill provides for these institutions for the mentally deficient and for the training centres which form part of the institutions run by the Department of Health to exist alongside of each other; in other words, my department will provide the training, but these institutions will remain the responsibility of the Department of Health. The State takes full responsibility for the training of these children.

Does that mean then that for part of each day there will be a group of people who will attend to the educational training of these children and that for the other part of the day there will be another group looking after their physical welfare. Will there be no possibility of a clash between the two groups?

No clash.

Will this be done in agreement with each of the departments after consultation?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have some information from the hon. the Minister. As I understand the matter, the present situation is that this type of institution receives a certain subsidy from the Department of Health. I think these institutions receive R2 per day per child, or R35 per month if the subsidy is for residential purposes. Sir, I have spoken to people working in these intitutions and they are somewhat concerned. If they change over, will they still receive the subsidy, or are they not going to receive it? How is it going to affect them should the hon. the Minister declare these institutions to be state institutions or private institutions? I am asking this question because a few of these private institutions are very dependent on the subsidy which the receive from the Department of Health.

Sir, the hon. member is quite correct. All these institutions to which he referred, are at present in receipt of a subsidy from the Department of Health. When they become State-aided centres under the Department of National Education, this subsidy from the Department of Health will obviously fall away, but they will, in fact, receive much more than only the R2 per day per child, because in terms of the authorizing legislation we are dealing with now, it will be possible, for example, for my department to pay all the salaries and provide all the facilities needed by such an institution. In other words, they will be much better off than ever before.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, it is actually very seldom that a proposal for the granting of more powers to the Minister is made from these benches, but this is in fact what my amendment amounts to. In other words, I am asking that the Minister be given more discretionary freedom in respect of the granting of loans to these institutions. In terms of the clause as it stands, loans may only be granted for the physical improvement of the grounds, and in particular, as the clause states, in respect of equipment of a permanent nature. The subsequent repayment of loans are, of course, covered by the provisions of subclause (17)(a), (b) and (c). The amendment I wish to move seeks to give the Minister a discretionary power in deciding whether loans should not be granted for other purposes as well. Sir, I am aware of the fact that this Bill is modelled on the lines of Act No. 41 of 1967, the Educational Services Act, and it is for the very reason that we are dealing here with a special form of education and with educational services which will differ fairly radically from normal educational services, on account of which this type of school has special needs and requirements which are not covered by this particular clause that I should like the hon. the Minister to be free, if people were to ask for sporting facilities, for example, which have a bearing on this type of education, to grant this type of loan. Actually it is to give the Minister a stronger hand to render assistance to this type of institution by means of loans that I move as an amendment—

Sir, I appreciate it very much that the hon. member wants me to have greater powers. If I would have been able, for instance, to grant a loan of R100 000 or R1 million without having to have the authority of this House, I would have been very pleased and I would have set the wheels in motion. Unfortunately, however, loans may only be granted in accordance with Treasury regulations. The Treasury does not grant loans for matters other than those specifically mentioned here. All money for purposes such as those the hon. member has in mind, viz. for special equipment, furniture and additional requirements, these institutions obtain by way of the subsidy granted to them. The Treasury only authorizes loans for the purposes specified in this clause, and however much I should like to accept the hon. member’s amendment, I dare not do so; I am sorry.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This is the clause which relates to the establishment of State-aided centres and the appointment of officers and their salary scales. The amendment provides for decisions relating to the establishment of the relevant institutions and for decisions with regard to salaries, etc., to be made after consultation with the governing body. The governing body is one which is largely appointed by the Minister and which is responsible for the management and control of the institution. It is the governing body which liaises with the Minister in relation to the affairs of the State-aided institutions; it is the governing body which worries about the day-to-day matters of the institution, and it is the governing body which deals with the forward planning in regard to the institution. Surely it is reasonable, therefore, to ask the Minister to consult with this body before making any decision affecting the establishment, and perhaps from time to time the amendment of the establishment, of such State-aided institutions. We feel that this amendment should be incorporated in the legislation. The Minister would obviously not be bound by any advice given to him. This amendment merely requires the Minister to seek the views of the governing body concerned because, after all, they are the people who have the closest knowledge of the intimate affairs of the institution. In these circumstances I wonder if the Minister would not be prepared to accept this amendment.

Sir, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. L. G. Murray, as follows—

This amendment relates to the provision of a pension scheme. In view of the fact that clause 19(5) provides that persons employed at State-aided training centres can be compelled to become and remain members of a medical aid fund or medical aid society, it is felt by persons on the staff of institutions which may be declared State-aided institutions or even private centres that mention should be made in the clause of a pension scheme as well. A pension fund most probably exists and the motivation most probably is, since there are State-aided private organizations which will be recognized as training centres, that they should like to see mention being made of a pension scheme. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell me that it is unnecessary to do so since the matter is in fact covered in some other way, but the reason for moving this amendment, is that it is felt that there should be a provision somewhere to make it possible for such conditions to be imposed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Durban Central to clause 20, which reads—

Clause 20, therefore, relates to employees at State-aided institutions. The clause, however, refers to clause 7 as well, which deals very explicitly with the admission of persons to a pension fund. Clause 7 reads—

In respect of training centres falling under the control of the department, therefore, the pension rights, etc., of the officers concerned are covered by clause 7. The only thing clause 20 does, is to provide that a person employed at a State-aided institution shall receive the same benefits as persons employed at State institutions. Consequently I am of the opinion that the hon. member’s complaints are eliminated by the Bill itself.

With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton, I want to point out that it is only natural that the Minister will consult the relevant governing bodies which he himself established. This will be done in observance of the normal practice and as a matter of courtesy. The hon. member should really take cognizance of the fact that the functions of these authorities are defined in clause 15. The English version reads “… the management and executive authority … while the Afrikaans version reads “die bestuur en uitvoerende mag”, shall be vested in the governing body of such an institution. In my opinion this deals with the funds which have to be administered for that institution and which are made available to the institution by way of subsidy or from other sources, while clause 19(4), which the hon. member seeks to amend, deals with the salaries, salary scales and allowances of persons employed at State-aided trailing centres throughout the country. The Minister cannot take into consideration the circumstances of only one specific training centre: he has to determine salary scales and conditions of service for all training centres throughout the country. His function is to determine the basis of posts, one which will hold good for all training centres throughout the country and in my opinion the Minister wants to have his hands free for that reason so that he will not necessarily have to take note of the decision of such a governing body. As I have said, he will consult with the governing body. Here we are dealing with something which exceeds by far what we dealt with under clause 15, which relates to the management of the institution. What we are dealing with here is the classification of the people who are to work there and the classification of the people who are to teach there. It is an educational function in respect of which the management of the institution concerned does not have the necessary background or profound knowledge so as to enable them to give guidance.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville is standing up so often that I keep getting illusions that we are back on the Publications Bill. Despite the fact that this is not a political Bill it seems to me that to get an amendment through to the hon. the Minister in this Bill is just as hard. I think we agree broadly with what the hon. member for Bellville has just said, but if we look at the amendment carefully it relates particularly to the creation of the establishment. It is an amendment to clause 19(1)(a), which does not relate to the further subsections. It is true that the functions of the governing body are to control directly the affairs of that particular State-aided institution. I ask the question: Who better to go to for advice in relation to that particular institution, than the governing body when you are considering restructuring the institution or the establishment of an institution? All we ask is that the hon. the Minister should consult. He need not necessary take the advice because it is not incumbent on the Minister at all I think that the amendment is very reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Durban Central has the same difficulty with this legislation as I have, and that is that we are not lawyers and that we, as laymen, are being confused by the cross-references in the legislation. The explanation given by the hon. member for Bellville in respect of the matter of pensions is quite correct.

I accept it.

I also want to satisfy the hon. member for Sandton, for I know that his intentions with his amendment are good. I want to assure him that we maintain very good relations with the managements of all the centres. To do so is, after all, in our own interests as well. For that reason I explain that the basis for determining the establishment of such a centre is a matter to which the management of the centre will actually be unable to make a contribution until such time as it has been carried into effect. Essentially the basis for an establishment is determined by my experts, the educationists in consultation with people who are practising in this field. They determine, for example, that a certain number of teachers are required for a certain number of children, a ratio which differs completely from the ratio applicable to normal schools. They determine, for example, that there should be one psychologist for a particular number of children. They determine that there should be a part-time neuro-surgeon, etc. In point of fact, these are factors on which the ordinary layman serving on the governing bodies is not able to pass an opinion. As soon as that establishment has been determined and is operating in a specific centre, nothing prevents the management of such a centre from addressing representations to the Minister saying that their undertaking has grown and that they are experiencing additional problems previously unknown to them. That is when a revision of such an establishment will take place. Only at that stage will there be consultation with regard to this aspect.

Arising from the hon. member’s remark that he finds it hard to have an amendment accepted even in an uncontroversial Bill such as this, I want to tell him that the reason for that is not my obstinacy, but simply that it is a fine piece of legislation, based on the experience gained in the course of many years. It stands to reason that the experts of my department know more than v/e do who just happen to be dealing with a piece of legislation such as this.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for Green Point, as follows—

1. (1) In line 34, to omit “or employee”; and
2. (2) in lines 35 and 36, to omit “or State-aided training centre”.

The motivation for the first amendment is that it is felt that it should be made easier for temporary people to render service on a part-time basis. In clause 1 an “employee” is defined as—

We simply feel that if “or employee” is not deleted, people working on a temporary basis will be deterred because they will think it is expected that employees should really be full-time employees. We also accept that it is stated in the clause: “Unless it is otherwise provided in his conditions of service”, but I state it here with the specific purpose of eliciting a reaction from the hon. the Minister and so that the people may be certain as to what the real position is.

Mr. Chairman, I have already referred to this point in the Second Reading debate. I stated that it will be impossible for my department to render this service without the help of part-time people. In other words, neither the department nor I have any desire whatsoever to get rid of these people. We cannot manage without them. I think the hon. member really answered his point himself when he referred to what is printed at the beginning of the clause: “Unless it is otherwise provided in his conditions of service”. To my mind this really solves the problem. I can assure him it is not the intention to take advantage of these people.

Mr. Chairman, in that case, with the approval of the Committee, I withdraw the two amendments.

Amendments, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

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

This paragraph gives the hon. the Minister the authority to discharge any female employee at a training centre for mentally retarded children simply because she gets married. I think this is persecution; I think it is not only Victorian but also medieval that a person should be penalized simply because she takes up the Holy institute of matrimony which the Church and society condone. I do not know of any other professional career in which people are penalized for this. Neither lawyers nor doctors nor even ballerinas—and that is saying something—jeopardize their careers by getting married. Yet in the case of teachers who are training children, which is exactly where we need maternalism, the women can be discharged when they get married.

I think there are two principles involved here that we must consider. The first is the quantity of staff available and the second the quality of staff available. If this provision is applied, it is my contention that both these principles will be affected and may suffer. Let us firstly look at the position with regard to the quantity of staff. The figures I have available here show that in the 47 day centres for mentally retarded children in South Africa, there is a total of 126 female teachers and 13 male teachers. Of the female teachers 61% are married and of the male teachers only 2%. If the hon. the Minister is going to apply this provision, he is going to affect his staff position at these training centres seriously. In fact, we see from these figures that female married teachers are the very backbone of these centres. Therefore the hon. the Minister is going to find himself in a position where he is going to encourage only spinsters and bachelors to take up this career. The other principle we must consider is the one of quality. Surely, it is obvious to all that with regard to this particular work, which consists of looking after mentally retarded children, the qualities of sympathy, understanding, love and patience are vital.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the omission of paragraph (g). This is a vital provision, and whilst I appreciate the pessimism of the hon. member for Sandton, who mentioned earlier that it is extremely difficult to get that side of the House to accept any kind of change, amendment or omission, I am quite sure, with my faith in human nature, that even the hon. the Minister will agree to this one, for he too has a wife! Earlier today I was on a bus tour with members from the other side of the House. We were looking at the facilities offered to Coloured people in this part of the world. The members on my right were busy with other matters and were not able to be with us.

We were earning our keep!

I learnt a great deal, and what I learnt has a very real bearing on this particular provision, and I am very sure I shall have a lot of support from that side of the House tonight as well. One of the subjects under discussion as we made our tour, was obviously, the question of discrimination. Because I was with a group of experts, I naturally listened very carefully. There was quite obviously very real concern about discrimination against women. In fact, one hon. member on that side of the House, who shall be nameless, said that the Nationalist Party supported women’s liberation very strongly indeed. Let me go further and quote him. He said: “Women ought to be free in order that they might serve men.” I am not going to mention that hon. member’s name, but if you watch my eyes you will know who I am talking about.

Now, in a more serious vein, duly authorized by the hon. member for Houghton, I am speaking specifically on this proposed omission. Of course, the clause does not only refer to women and to married women. It lumps married women together with those who are guilty of misconduct or unfit for duty or those who do not have the capacity to carry out their duties efficiently. I am quite sure that is not the intention. Although there is the saving provision of “may be discharged”, it seems to me that this paragraph is totally unnecessary as it stands. In previous debates we have heard the need for increased productivity in South Africa being emphasized and the need for making the best possible use of our total human resources being stressed. When the session was interrupted by the recess earlier this evening, the hon. member who sits next to me, fortunate as he is, was talking about this very thing, and I should like to support him. Women are afforded opportunities for training, they have developed skills, they have experience, not only in a number of disciplines, but in this respect specifically in the care of children, children who are in very special need. If there were any way to deprive these children, this might well be one of those ways. The only thing that will affect the women under discussion is a change of their status. In many other parts of the world there has been a move towards making specific holiday allowance for women. Consequently, nothing happens to their jobs when they get married. When they fall pregnant and they are about to have children, employers are compelled to give them specific holiday periods so that they may have their children and then return. They get paid leave so that they can do this and return to continue the work they have been doing effectively.

Other organizations, including some large organizations in this country, are discussing the possibility of setting up pre-nursery schools to which mothers can bring their children. In this way they are endeavouring to obviate they will lose the skilled work of those women. Others are talking about creches, and so on. This is the kind of development which is taking place in our world, because we need the skills of all our people. I hope that this particular omission will be accepted by the hon. the Minister so that no possible discrimination could figure against women simply because they get married.

Mr. Chairman, I would have thought that the hon. member for Houghton would move this amendment had she been here. Now it has been moved by the hon. member for Pinelands. I must say at the outset that this amendment is not without merit. I agree with a great deal of what has been said by hon. members. For the information of the hon. member for Pinelands I wish to point out that we also have maternity leave for women teachers who hold permanent appointments and also for those who hold temporary appointments. His suggestion is therefore not something new to our system. However, hon. members will realize that my hands are tied in this respect.

Why?

My hands are tied by the Acts under which my department operates.

You have the chance now to change it.

The Public Service Act also has the same provision. I fully appreciate that I could be a very popular man tomorrow with the ladies if I accepted this amendment. In fact, I could even become quite a ladies’ man. But in the capacity I stand before this Committee I have to act responsibly and therefore regret that I cannot accept this amendment. There is not much more that I can say except that it is not without merit. Although I agree with a great deal of what has been said, for the reasons I have mentioned I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has said that this amendment is not without merit. I think the time has come for us, in several spheres, to give more attention to merit. The hon. member for Johannesburg West, for example, thinks that the time has come to select sporting teams on merit. The hon. the Minister has said that this matter has merit. I welcome this new approach, because we have not had a Minister before who has expressed in regard to the conditions of employment for education appointments such a “verligte” view as the hon. member for Johannesbur West has expressed in regard to the selection of sporting teams. I believe the hon. the Minister is only too well aware of the number of married women who have had to leave the teaching profession on marriage. Some of them have taught for a long time before they married. They received their pensions but are back almost permanently to fill the vacancies in the profession. I seem to come across them almost daily. They regard this practice as quite useful because they can remain in a state of spinsterhood long enough to get an appreciable pension. They then marry and thereafter they get their pension plus their salary. I do not think that this should be the major consideration. I believe it is basically wrong to equate matrimony, the fact of a teacher marrying, with, for example, the other aspects of this clause. For instance, she is not unfit to perform her duties and she is not incapacitated because of her marriage to carry out her duties efficiently. These are the other criteria in this clause being made applicable to the category of women who marry. I believe that the hon. the Minister is right. He is circumscribed by a number of laws that exist at the present time, but somebody must break out of this bondage. We have had a case where the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs broke out and accepted something new as far as his department was concerned. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister in this late hour of 1974 that here is an opportunity for him to strike out, not for women’s lib but fox reality as far as the needs of the teaching profession are concerned. Let him tell us here quite categorically—the sphere in this regard is very limited but we can deal with the principle—that in so far as these people are concerned who come along to do this important job, he is not going to penalize any woman because she marries. I also want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he can in the context of this Bill accept the deletion of this clause. If there is one aspect of teaching where the deepest affection, maternal affection is needed it is in dealing with retarded children. I want to suggest to the hon. he Minister that a married woman may have those additional qualities which are not always visible—I do not like using the word—in spinsters and which can make her far more valuable in the work that she is doing in relation to retarded children. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in another capacity I have come across this problem, i.e. in connection with the staffing of hospitals. There the problem is one of trying to retain the services of married people. We must not use a legal provision in a statute to get rid of them. We want to use them. If the hon. the Minister of Health were here, I am sure he would confirm that in the hospital services everything possible is done to try to retain the services of married women in the hospital service. This is because there is an additional attribute which they have as married women to enable them to discharge the duties which they have to perform. I want to say that I do believe that in this particular profession of dealing with, retarded children the hon. the Minister should give consideration to what I am saying. If he does so, I do not want to say that he will become the favourite Minister of all the women in South Africa but he will certainly be evidencing a realism in regard to this particular job covered by this measure which is before us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has told us that his hands are tied by the Public Service Act. Surely this is a golden opportunity for him to release himself from the bonds of that Act? This is what teachers want. In fact, in Natal, which is often mentioned, we do not have this provision. Married women are classed as permanent employees. They used to be on the temporary staff but this was changed. I feel that the hon. the Minister has an opportunity here to make a further change.

The point I want to lead up to is the point that I was in the process of making just prior to the adjournment and that is that we feel that the hon. the Minister is embarking upon a serious and contentious step by having this sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of married women staff members. The figures that I have quoted show that 61% of the staff presently employed in the training centres for mentally retarded children are married women and that only 2% of the members of the staff are married men. Let us assume that the Minister exerts his powers under this Bill and discharges those married women, then what are you left with? The majority are spinsters and bachelors. These spinsters do not wish to lose their jobs, Mr. Chairman, but are they going to be able to resist Cupid’s arrow? I do not think they will and you will therefore have a compromise; there will be coexistence without marriage, and we will then have the serious situation that there will be a conflict between the Minister and the Church, and I am sure he would not like that. Mr. Chairman, on a more serious note, there is the consideration of suitability. As I have said, the majority of his present staff are married women, and I do not think this is peculiar; in fact, I think it is desirable, because married women have the necessary aptitudes for this difficult task, aptitudes of sympathy, of understanding, of patience and love which are vital in working with mentally retarded children, and these aptitudes tend to blossom in mothers. They understand the problems of children better than anybody else. Now the Minister wants to give himself powers to get rid of the very people who are most suitable to do this work. This seems quite impractical and unreasonable. In fact. Sir, I would prefer to see the Minister giving himself the power to insist on having married women in these training centres.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this paragraph as it stands. We consider its provisions to be, firstly, unrealistic because the staff position will be aggravated and, secondly, to be impratical because married women are more suited for the conditions in these training centres; thirdly, it is mediaeval and unjust to penalize women simply because they marry, and finally this is going to be a disservice to the very children whom we are endeavouring to assist in this Bill. Therefore we sincerely appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the omission of this paragraph from the Bill.

Question put: That the paragraph stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux. A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: I. F. A. de Villiers and E. L. Fisher.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, this clause relates to training programmes. It is essential to note that a “council”, the word which is used in the amendment, is a body which is specially created by the Minister to advise the Minister in regard to matters relating to a particular training centre. The governing body, as we already know, is the body which looks after the day-to-day affairs of the training centre. In the light of the fact that this clause gives power to the hon. the Minister to establish or disestablish training programmes, those matters which both the council and the governing body deal with on a fairly regular basis and are advised by their teaching staff in regard thereto, I think it is not unreasonable to ask the hon. the Minister prior to establishing or disestablishing a training programme, to consult with either or both of these bodies. In fact, we suggest that the Minister should consult with both these bodies before establishing or disestablishing a training programme. I must admit that I am not all that hopeful that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment. It would appear that after dinner, while the atmosphere has changed, the attitude has not …

It has hardened.

Perhaps it has hardened. Once again I want to point out that we are only asking for a duty to consult and not the duty to be bound by the advice that is given. I think that the views of the governing body and the council are relevant and it is indeed a reasonable amendment to ask for.

Is the hon. member moving his amendment?

Yes, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton proved that he is a realist and a man with a sense of humour. I could see this from the way in which he moved the amendment. Let us first have a closer look at what the intention of this clause is. When we do this, we see that this is concerned with a purely educational matter, viz. to determine a special training programme which will meet the needs of these mentally retarded children. Such a programme may consist of a variety of aspects of which I wish to indicate a few. In the first place, such a programme will have to be aimed at socializing the children. They must be taught to associate with their friends and with the community. They must be taught to communicate with other people. The programme will have to concentrate on speech and at a later stage the question of skill and co-ordination will be included. The question of reading and writing will be included in the programme at an even later stage. Therefore, this is concerned with a purely educational matter and the people who have to draw up such a programme, will, from the nature of things, be educationists, authorities on their subject such as, for example, inspectors. They are therefore the people who have to draw up the programme. If the programme is applied and the need arises in such a centre to adjust something or to deviate from something, the principal of the centre will probably be the first person to bring it to the attention of the department, but the administration may also do this. There is the greatest measure of goodwill on the part of the department and it will always try to solve such problems and to make adjustments and changes where necessary and where this can be justified from an educational point of view. Therefore I think that what the hon. member suggested, will happen in practice, but the governing body is not really a competent body to decide on the educational programme to be followed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Sandton. I believe that his amendment is a fair and logical one and I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that in view of the fact that it is stated in clause 3 that the Minister may establish a council for a training centre to advise the Minister, he, in rejecting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton, is virtually showing that he has no confidence in a council which he himself creates and appoints. By virtue of the fact that the council is appointed by statute—it is a statutory body—I believe that it is logical that the council should be consulted before any decision is made. In view of the fact that the council is a creature of the Minister—he appoints the individual members—I believe that he will only appoint individuals whom he considers to be suitably qualified to serve on the council and therefore it is only that he shows confidence in them by allowing them to be consulted.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment.

†I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is a large number of private institutions where people are involved in this type of work. If one looks at clause 15, in terms of which the council is being established, one finds that the members are people who have been associated with this type of work. They will be invaluable to the hon. the Minister in determining the actual training programmes. These are people with a vast amount of knowledge about this type of training and I should like to see them being consulted. After all, we can perhaps build up a different argument about the council, but when we come to the governing body we find that there will be people who will be involved in this kind of work and we know that there are a great number of private institutions which will in fact become State-aided institutions. They will be able to help the hon. the Minister and even the straightforward educationalists because many of them have had the practical experience of this type of training. They have experience in the type of training which is to be provided, and it will only be wise of the hon. the Minister to consult the governing bodies or the council in that respect of training programmes.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I wish to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Berea. I want to point out to him that the councils are established in terms of clause 3 to provide the Minister and Secretary of the Department with advice in regard to the matters which are prescribed. In other words, the Minister is not compelled to consult them with regard to all matters. A wise Minister will of course consult the council in all matters in which he seeks the co-operation of the council. That is entirely correct.

I also refer to what the hon. member for Durban Central said. I admit that there could be more people in one region than in another, people with an expert background and in regard to this problem therefore our aim at such centres and at such schools for special education is always to call in the assistance of some or other medical practitioner for example, who has a knowledge of and is interested in this particular type of work. However, I want to tell the hon. member that, when we establish a programme, whether it is at a technical school or at a school for special education, we always consult the people and appoint a committee of experts to advise us with regard to this matter, which is a purely educational matter.

For that reason I am now in favour of accepting this amendment.

I just want to refer the hon. the Minister to the clause which deals with the governing bodies. I quote clause 15(a):

I think the hon. the Minister has merely proved my case when he said in reply to somebody else’s remark that a Minister if he was wise would consult them. Even if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the part of the amendment which deals with the council, the hon. the Minister should accept the part of the amendment which deals with the governing body. Quite honestly, I think that the hon. the Minister can quite easily accept this part of the amendment. There is no clear-cut example in any other State department and there is nothing that you can compare this with because no other education department deals with this particular sort of problem. In the case of other State departments and other departments of education I can concede the hon. the Minister’s argument that there should not be that kind of consultation because it is just impossible. But here we are dealing with individual cases. I still feel that the hon. the Minister can safely accept our amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name, as follows:

In line 10, to omit “34(1)” and to substitute “34”.

Mr. Chairman, we support this amendment moved by the hon. the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34:

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

Clause 34 deals with the registration and cancellation of registration of training centres. During the discussion on clause 1 and on various other occasions the hon. the Minister pointed out that, according to his interpretation of this legislation, it will, in fact, be possible for a parent to register as a “training centre”. Although the hon. the Minister has referred to the Education Services Act on various occasions, we find that when one compares this clause with the relevant section of the Education Services Act, Act No. 41 of 1967, these two provisions do differ from one another. In the relevant Act of 1967 one notices that no person is allowed to provide education “for reward”, unless such education is provided at a State-aided school, university, college, and so on. In the case of other legislation, such as the Act dealing with the education of Coloured persons—I have already referred to that legislation—one finds that the provision depends on the number of pupils. For example, in that legislation it is laid down that no person is allowed to provide education if there are more than 14 pupils. In clause 34 no mention is being made of either reward or a particular number of pupils. As I have said in my Second Reading speech, we know why the hon. the Minister does not want to commit himself specifically either to the number of pupils or a reward. He said that was not all the matter was concerned with, but that we should appreciate that he sometimes had to protect children against their parents too. He pointed out that certain parents are unable to take care of their children, and this we accept. On the other hand, we have to accept that there are also parents who, in fact, have the right and are capable to take care of their own children. I personally know of such cases. In his discussion on clause 1 and on other occasions the hon. the Minister said that it was possible for parents to register. In other words, the home of the parents then becomes a private training centre. As a matter of fact, it is being laid down that he is only allowed to provide such training at his house. I think that if he inserts this proposed proviso, he will, in fact, facilitate the task of the department because in cases where a person has to register, it relates to both the person and his specific place of residence. Let us, however, insert this proviso I have proposed. I just want to read it again—

In other words, what we are doing is to give full control to the hon. the Minister. To my mind the proviso will eliminate any doubt that may exist, and the work of the department will be greatly facilitated in that, once the parent has been registered, there will be no need for the house of such parent to be declared as a training centre. One declares that the parent is qualified to provide such training, and then such training need not be provided at a training centre. All other aspects applicable to a training centre as such are eliminated. I honestly believe that this will facilitate the task of the department, while the Minister will still be exercising full control. Otherwise he has to declare the parental home as a training centre, together with everything that is involved. Then there will be two categories: A child will then be allowed to receive training either at a training centre or from a person declared by the Minister as a qualified person.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly feel that the amendment the hon. member for Durban Central is pleading for here tonight, is quite unnecessary. In terms of the legislation as it reads at present, the Minister already has the powers which the hon. member wants to give to him tonight, i.e. to give recognition to a parent who wants to provide his own training. I really do not know why the hon. member wants to insert a further definition by means of an amendment to make possible something which can already be done. Just as one has different categories of children who will be affected by this legislation, so one necessarily has different categories of parents. This one has to accept. One finds the type of parent who has this type of child and who, through ignorance, is not interested in further training for the child, who is not interested at all in sending the child to a registered institution and who simply makes private arrangements which are definitely not going to be in the interests of the child. We find the second type of parent falling in quite a different social group and who, in all probability, regards this type of child as a social burden and who does not want to admit in public that the child is part of a community. In other words, as far as training is concerned, they are not going to make any substantial arrangements either, as we would like to see in terms of this law. They do not want to make such arrangements because they want to hide the fact that there is a child such as this in the family. Allow me to elaborate some more on this aspect. A family in which there is a handicapped child, is usually a quiet-living family because this handicap affects the entire family relations. Parents who find themselves in this particular position, are unable to fulfil social commitments together. Sometimes it is not even possible for them to attend church services together, because the child is unable to accompany them. In cases such as these they make particular arrangements for one of them to go out while the other stays at home. A normal family pattern is being disturbed on account of these very solutions and practical arrangements. I do not think we should try and tamper with this legislation any further, because, as it reads at present, it gives the hon. the Minister the discretion to apply registration even if he does so in the case of an individual person. This can be done without this definition. We accept that the hon. member in trying to extend these powers, have done so in a very fine spirit.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central really seeks no more and no less than that which is already provided for in this Clause. This is the conclusion I came to after giving careful consideration to the matter. According to his amendment it means that the parent who has a mentally retarded child and wants to train the child, or himself have the child trained at home, has to obtain permission from the Secretary, and also has to be authorized by the Minister to do so. In other words, he may not proceed with such training until he has obtained permission from the Secretary and the Minister. Now in which respect is this any different from what is already being laid down in this clause?

During the discussion on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch in connection with the definitions, I explained to the hon. member that all a parent has to do, is to report to the Secretary of the Department the fact that he has a child such as this and that he is going to undertake the training himself or that he is going to have such training undertaken. The hon. member now says that I then declare the house of such a person as a private training centre. What I am doing is not to declare a training centre, but merely to register it. In other words, the department will simply keep a record that Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so will undertake the training of their child or children themselves. This will then enable the department and the Minister on the one hand to exercise the necessary control and, on the other hand, to make available the necessary advice and guidance if this is needed by the parent who has been registered. In other words, what the hon. member is proposing here is already contained in the clause, and I think it would be unnecessary to accept this amendment and to have it added here. It does not add anything to the content and the purport of the clause as it reads at present.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put a practical problem to the hon. the Minister. I can foresee that we might perhaps want to put some questions to the hon. the Minister next year or a few years hence as to the number of private training centres and State-training centres in existence. One would want to know how this legislation works. It is being made quite clear that no one is allowed to train such a person, except a training centre registered in terms of the clause, and then one finds oneself faced with a problem straight away. For example, I shall have absolutely no interest in knowing how many parents have been granted authority to train their own children. I would not want to know what their names and addresses, and so on, are. However, I shall be interested to know how many training centres, private or otherwise, there are in Durban, in Natal or in any other particular area. If the proviso in my amendment were accepted, the parent, or the person engaged in such work, would really be declared as a registered person. Such a person is registered to enable him to do such work. In this way one will draw a distinction between the training provided at a training centre and training conducted by a person registered to perform such work under the control and with the permission of the Minister. This is actually the reason why I am putting it in this way. I do not doubt the fact that the parent is, in fact, in a position to do this—this is not what the argument is about.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member, if his proviso were to be accepted, what meaning would he attach to the words “private training centre”?

I should then like to ask how many training centres there are. Let us be honest. There are very few cases where one would meet with this type of thing. Surely, there are …

You are the most stupid teacher I have ever come across.

I know of examples, but I should not like to mention them here. I know of cases where there are two medical practitioners, a man and a wife and both of them are married. They can provide the training, to their own children. I just want to make it easier for them. The whole purpose of this is to make matters easier for them.

May I ask the hon. member another question?

No.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. One of the problems I have here, is the fact that if a parent does not register himself, if a parent does not register himself as a private institution, such a parent may be prosecuted. Suppose he can then be sent to gaol for a year or has to pay a fine of R500. This is the kind of provision which seems to me to be unnecessary. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is, in fact, the case.

Mr. Chairman, he has to register if he wants to offer the child a training programme. There is no doubt about that. It is quite correct that he is compelled to register, and this is also the intention of the provision. This is being done because we want to know where such training is provided to children and so that we will be able to exercise control over what is done with them. I am convinced that any parent who finds himself in such circumstances, will be keen to register.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 36:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name, as follows—

1. (1) In line 49, to omit “34(1)” and to substitute “34”; and
2. (2) in line 51, to omit “34(1)” and to substitute “34”.

In this connection I just want to explain that I have accepted the purport of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, but that I have, on the advice of the law advisers, amended it in such a way to clause 34 as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has seen the light in relation to this amendment. I do feel that small differences still exist between my proposed amendments and the hon. the Minister’s amended version of my amendments. The hon. the Minister has lumped together subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of clause 34 whereas in the amendment in my name I refer specifically to clause 34(2). We are dealing here with penal provisions and I do feel that we must be specific in this regard. These provisions refer to the conditions for registration of these training centres. These conditions are only stated in clause 34(2). Clause 34(1) deals with the programme providing the training and 34(3) deals with the Secretary’s right to authorize the inspection of certain private training centres. Sir, I cannot see how you can lump these two subsections together as a condition of registration. This is my one point, but I think in principle we agree.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, section 13(3)(a) of the Electricity Act provides that the moneys in Escom’s Reserve Fund (for the replacement of obsolete machinery, etc.) may be invested in such securities as the State President may approve.

As a result of an oversight Escom has up to the present, without the necessary approval by the State President, been investing the moneys in its Reserve Fund in the securities prescribed for the investment of its Redemption Fund in paragraph 13 of the First Schedule to the Act.

After this oversight had come to light, the State President’s formal approval was immediately obtained in respect of the securities in which Escom’s Reserve Fund may be invested. However, this approval only covers investments made after 31 August 1973.

The provisions of the present Act do not authorize such approval being granted with retrospective effect by the State President in respect of those securities in which Escom’s Reserve Funds were invested prior to 31 August 1973, and clause 1 of the Bill supplies this deficiency by providing that these funds shall be deemed to have been invested in approved securities as prescribed by the Act.

For the information of hon. members, I may mention that I have ascertained that the deficiency is attributable to a bona fide error, and that the investment of reserve funds which were in fact made by Escom prior to 31 August 1973 was made in the same securities approved at present by the State President for investments of these funds and also strictly takes into account the spirit of the Act in this regard. For quite some time now Escom has been experiencing problems with the present provisions of section 43 of the Electricity Act, 1958, since the said section mentions specific things which may be acquired by an authorized electricity undertaker by compulsory purchase, but does not make provision also for a series of other things in respect of which it may also be as essential to acquire rights by compulsory purchase when such rights cannot be acquired by negotiation. Here one has in mind, for instance, the acquisition of rights for constructing water pipelines to a power station, together with the right to construct a private road running along such a pipeline for inspection and maintenance purposes. These are rights which, owing to changed circumstances, have become essential to Escom and other authorized suppliers of electricity under the Act, but which cannot be acquired in terms of the present wording of the said section.

It is justified that the said power of authorized electricity undertakers be extended in the Act in order that the necessary land or rights to land may, also for the above-mentioned purposes, be acquired by compulsory purchase in cases where this cannot be effected by negotiation. The proposed section 43(1) in clause 2 of the Bill makes provision for this.

†Many cases are dealt with annually where the owners of land or of interests in land agree to the acquisition of their land or rights by an authorized undertaking for the purpose of generating or distributing electricity, but refuse to accept the compensation offered therefor. In terms of section 43 of the existing Act land or interests in land in such cases are acquired by way of compulsory purchase, in which case public hearings by the Electricity Control Board must be held to determine whether such acquisition is necessary and the State President’s approval must be obtained before compensation can be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Expropriation Act. As this is a time-consuming and expensive process it is proposed that in such cases compensation be determined by the court in terms of the applicable provisions of the Expropriation Act and that the present procedural requirements in regard to the recommendations by the Electricity Control Board and the State President’s approval be done away with. To provide for this the insertion of a new section 43(5) is proposed as indicated in clause 2.

To sum up, there are three matters contained in this Bill for which I am seeking the approval of the House: (a) regularizing the investment of Escom’s Reserve Fund moneys up to 31 August 1973; (b) extending the power of an authorized electricity undertaker to acquire by compulsory purchase certain land or rights in land deemed essential for its proper functioning; and (c) simplifying the procedure to be adopted where the parties agree to the purchase of the land by the electricity undertaker, but fail to agree on the compensation to be paid.

In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to a printing error which occurs in the English text of the Bill, where in the proposed section 43(5)—that is in clause 2, line 39 on page 5 of the Bill—reference is made to the “Appropriation Act, 1965”, which should in fact be the “Expropriation Act, 1965”. I am assured that this error will be rectified at the first opportunity when the Bill is reprinted.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are not going to oppose this Bill. We believe that the hon. the Minister, as a new Minister in charge of the portfolio of Economic Affairs, may probably be carrying out the adage that a new broom sweeps clean. His investigations into certain unfortunate occurrences in the department are noteworthy and to be commended.

The Electricity Supply Commission as such is carrying out a vital task as far as the South African economy is concerned. The original Act provided clearly that the way should be open and that all such services as are necessary should be rendered with due regard to private enterprise and the protection of private interests.

We are certainly not going to oppose clause I in which provision is made for the validation of certain investments. We realize that the Act clearly makes provision that the permission of the State President should have been obtained. However, it was not obtained, but we accept the assurances of the hon. the Minister and we shall support this validation.

I now want to deal with clause 2. The widening of the scope of the definition of the sort of land and undertakings that could be taken over, is acceptable to us. When it comes to compensating the persons concerned, we want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the Expropriation of Land Act is at the moment under consideration by a Select Committee. It may well be that this Bill makes provision for certain undertakings which will be invalidated when the Select Committee produces a new Bill. On the other hand we believe quite rightly that the inordinate amount of time that is taken under the present procedure whereby the State President and Escom itself are called upon to go to considerable lengths to ensure that private interests have an opportunity of making themselves heard in open hearing, can delay the undertakings that are becoming so vital. However, particularly in view of the fact that today we are not only dealing with Escom’s major enterprises, we have to recognize the fact that with atomic power stations envisaged it will be more and more necessary to expropriate land for purposes other than the purposes set out in the original Act. We have to have regard for the rights of the individual in the matter and another speaker on this side of the House will highlight one problem in regard to the proposed new section 43(5). In principle, however, we go along with the hon. the Minister and we shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side are grateful for the support which the hon. Opposition promised this measure. It is good that it is possible for us to be so agreed on this matter at this late hour of the evening. As the hon. the Minister rightly said, the Bill makes provision for certain measures necessitated by the needs of Escom. Because Escom, as was rightly remarked by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, plays such an important role in the development of our country, it is a good thing that measures be taken from time to time to make the regulation of the affairs of Escom as practical as passible.

It is indeed true that the proposed legislation contains no principle which has not obtained up to now. Nor does the Bill contain any change of principle. The Bill is aimed purely at facilitating certain procedures, and now I am referring to clause 2 in particular. At the moment we have the position that if Escom requires land for a passage and is granted a right of way by the owner concerned but finds that that owner is not satisfied with the compensation offered, machinery is put into operation which has the effect that a great deal of time of the owner as well as that of Escom is taken up and that costs will also have to be incurred by them. This legislation, and more specifically the clause to which the hon. member referred, makes it easier for the owner to go to court directly and to obtain finality on the matter at an earlier stage. The expropriation legislation is at the moment the subject of a Select Committee and may of course not be discussed here. We shall have to wait and see what the result of the inquiry is. I take it that when the findings of this committee are converted into legislation, they will also be applicable to the legislation before us at the moment. However, the position at present is that Escom ‘has on its hands a whole series of cases deserving immediate attention, cases which must be disposed of and cannot wait until such time as the new expropriation legislation has been finally formulated. That is why this measure is before the House at the moment, and it is expected that when it has been passed by this House, it will be possible to dispose far more easily of Escom’s affairs during the following months. Under those circumstances it is also my pleasure to lend, from this side of the House, our support to the hon. the Minister and his department.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Springs that this legislation contains no principle which is being changed. I think that it does involve a change in principle in the sense that the expropriation of property on the conditions as set out in subclause (5) is different in that up to now this has never been done until an agreement was reached between the body doing the expropriation and the owner of the land. The principle being changed here is that the actual possession of the land is now being transferred to the expropriating body. I foresee that the owner will indeed have a very hard time if this should happen, for up to now the owner has always had the whip-hand. After all, he is still the owner. What this legislation is doing is to deprive the owner of his ownership, the right of possession which he has today. All that is necessary is for the expropriating body, Escom in this case, to agree that the property can in fact still be purchased. The compensation payable then becomes a matter which is put off indefinitely, until such time as the parties can reach agreement.

†One must remember that expropriation proceedings are such that you find a number of people being allergic to them. I have had very vast experience of this allergy and I can say here without fear of contradiction that there are a number of people who, when threatened with expropriation, feel that the end of the world is there and have no more inclination to continue living. A large number of people that I know have, when threatened with expropriation, died before those expropriation proceedings were concluded. There is also a large number of people who, when threatened with expropriation proceedings, took very seriously ill before those proceedings could be completed. Others decided to run away because they could not stand the strain any longer. I can report on any number of cases where people who were threatened with expropriation had nervous breakdowns. I am just mentioning this to show what the state of mind is of a person threatened with expropriation. One has to bear in mind that, if one is going to give new rights to Escom to acquire land, one is taking away from the owner of that land a very big bargaining point, viz. the actual possession of that land. How many times have we not heard laymen repeat the age-old saying that possession is nine points of the law. In the case of expropriation I firmly believe that possession of the land is indeed nine points of the law. We are now going to find that as soon as Escom has said that it wants to expropriate certain land or to buy it by compulsory purchase because it insists on taking possession of that land, the owner of that land will not have any real bargaining power. The only bargaining power he will now have, will be to say: “I am not prepared to accept the R1000 you offer me; I want R2 000.” That is not going to get him very far. On the other hand, if he retained possession of the land he could say: “I am not prepared to agree to a compulsory purchase and I am not prepared to give you possession of the land until such time as we agree on compensation that satisfies me.” You see, Mr. Speaker, what a very big bargaining power this is. We have heard already from the hon. member for Springs this evening that Escom wants these rights very urgently. They do not want to be bothered with bargaining. I think that that is why this piece of legislation is before us. We must be careful that we do not allow Escom to become one of the biggest bureaucrats in the country. If they do become one of the biggest bureaucrats in the country, life will not really be worth living because they will simply take land all over the place whether they really require it or not. They will take possession of this land and use it. If they do not within six months come to an agreement with the owner as to the compensation to be paid, a very important provision comes into play. In such a case the compensation offered by Escom will be the amount the owner will receive. That is contained in the last priviso on page 5 of the Bill. The proviso reads as follows—

That is not the undertaker who is going to bury this poor unfortunate man; it is Escom—

You see, Mr. Speaker, this right that is being given to Escom is not such an innocent right as people think it is. You can imagine what is going to happen if Escom says to a man: “We are going to give you R1 000 for your land and we would like to take possession of it immediately.” This man will then get into such a tizzy about this expropriation that he will be unable to think clearly and before he knows it, the six months period will have elapsed. When this man wakes up again, he will find that his land has been expropriated and that he has to be satisfied with the amount Escom offered him in the first instance.

Surely a sensible person would not act that way.

I have said at the beginning that a person against whom an expropriation order has been issued is no longer a normal person. There are many people who are allergic to expropriation. Any process of expropriation turns them into abnormal people. We must bear that in mind. It is no use for the hon. member to shake his head and to say that this is not the case. I say that this is indeed the case. I can mention numerous cases of people who were affected to such an extent that they died as a result of the process of expropriation. For that reason it is extremely important that this power, which is being granted to Escom, should be watched very closely. I am not against it. I only want the owner to be protected in all spheres.

Mention one instance where a person said after appropriation that he was dissatisfied.

I can mention numerous cases of people who are bitterly dissatisfied because their property was expropriated. I do not know whether the hon. member is only referring to Escom. I am, of course, referring to expropriation in the broad sense of the word. I am speaking of all expropriation, expropriation by municipalities, divisional councils and any other body which has the right to expropriate. I know that Escom is taking trouble to ensure that the owner is in fact satisfied, but I also know of cases where the persons concerned were not satisfied.

†I do not feel that we should oppose this legislation, but I do hope that when Escom puts this legislation into operation, it will lean over backward as far as property owners are concerned. I hope they will do everything in their power to help the owners and not try to catch out the owners. In other words, if Escom is going to do this job properly, they will have to tell everybody they are going to see: “These are your rights; if you are not quite certain what your rights are, go and see your attorney and tell him that this is what we want to do with your land; these are the ways open to you, and remember that you must try to reach an agreement with us within six months; if you do not, whatever we offer you will be the amount of your compensation.” If we are going to ensure that Escom does that—-and I believe Escom will do so if the hon. Minister suggests it —I have no fear that this legislation will prove to be discriminatory in any way.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. member for Wynberg, who has just resumed his seat, I am not sure whether a misunderstanding has crept in somewhere. The position in the present Act is very clear. Before an authorized undertaker may buy property, a certain procedure has to be followed. The Electricity Control Board has to institute an inquiry to determine whether that land is in fact required. After these things have been done, the State President has to grant his approval. Then one can make use of the provisions of the Expropriation Act of 1965 in order to determine compensation. It is a lengthy process.

†The position is simply this. It happens in practice that an authorized electricity undertaker—let us say Escom—approaches the owner of land because Escom feels it must have that land to carry out its rightful purpose. The owner, as it happens, is not averse to selling his land. But the only thing on which he does not agree with the undertaker is the price, the compensation. He agrees with everything else and does not say that he is not going to sell it. Then you do not have to have compulsory purchase and the long proceeding of an inquiry by the Electricity Control Board; the State President does not have to give his approval, a certain period does not have to elapse, there is no necessity to have a public inquiry, and all the rest. That is a long, time-consuming and costly procedure. If the only point of difference is in fact the compensation, we thought it would be very useful if we could streamline the proceeding. The only thing that is then involved is how you determine the compensation. The compensation in such a case would be determined in terms of sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Expropriation Act of 1965. We want to cut out the need for the Board to have to go through the long process of a public inquiry, to have to obtain the approval of the State President after a time has elapsed, and all the rest. We want to do this only where the compensation is not agreed upon, but where everything else is agreed upon and there is no resistance by the owner to sell.

*If I understood the hon. member correctly, I feel that there could perhaps be misunderstanding in this regard. We are merely trying to follow a streamlined procedure.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is he prepared to ask an undertaker like Escom to please lean over backwards regarding these matters and explain to the owners what their rights are?

There is no problem there whatever. In fact, I think I should explain my attitude and that of the Government in regard to this whole question of expropriation. We do not want to be in the position where the Government, or Escom, or any other public body can simply proceed left right and centre to expropriate. We see this as a last resort. We would much rather, in a private enterprise economy, negotiate with the owners of land and say: “Can we not come to terms? Let us agree on all the terms of the deal”. But in cases where the land must be acquired, there must obviously be powers to expropriate as a last resort. I can assure the hon. member that we will approach every case with great sympathy. This is also done by these bodies and I think their record proves it. In the next Bill on the Order Paper hon. members will see to what lengths we are prepared to go to protect the other party, the party being expropriated. I therefore really feel that this is purely a procedural matter whereby we are trying to simplify the procedure and to cut costs. It only comes into effect when there is agreement to sell and there is only one item outstanding, namely the compensation.

*I hope I have satisfied the hon. member on that point. I just want to express my hearty thanks to my friends the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. member for Springs for their support of this measure. I appreciate it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise one matter in connection with subsection (5) of the proposed new section 43.

The hon. the Minister says that I must have misunderstood him in regard to the provisions of the proposed new subsection (5). The point is simply that this is a completely new procedure. It is not a procedure that has been provided for in the Act up to this stage. This proposed new subsection gives the Electricity Supply Commission or any undertaker the right to take possession of the land. This is something which is quite new in relation to the question of expropriation. Possession of the land is taken immediately as soon as the owner states that he is agreeable that the land can be taken. Once this happens the undertaker can take possession of the land immediately. This is a completely new principle. Because it is a new principle, we do not know how it is going to be applied. In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister said that all that is being done here is to streamline the existing procedure. I beg to differ. It is not the streamlining of an existing procedure; it is a brand new procedure. I will concede that this brand new procedure does in fact streamline what was a rather cumbersome procedure previously, but, in doing so, it does very considerably detract from the rights of the owner in relation to bargaining. I want the hon. the Minister to realize that it is this bargaining aspect that I am concerned about. Until this Bill becomes law, the owner of land will be in a very strong bargaining position but once he loses this position he will not be able to bargain with the undertaker as he has been doing in the past.

That’s deadly!

I think I should rather talk about Escom because perhaps this idea of an undertaker is rather deadly. Why I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to ask Escom or any other electricity undertaking to bend over backwards, is because this is a completely new procedure which Escom now has to do its bidding for it. If the hon. the Minister is at this stage prepared to caution Escom once Escom obtains these rights, I believe that Escom will probably go on in the same way as it has in the past and pay reasonable compensation for land taken. If they are not cautioned I believe that Escom may get some new ideas in regard to this sort of transaction and in the circumstances, the owner may be the loser.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have already given that assurance. I just want to refer to this specific provision. It appears, as the hon. member has said, on page 5.

† have the English version in front of me and I should like to quote the following—

It states specifically that the owner must agree to the land being acquired. I do not see where the hon. member’s difficulty arises.

There is no bargaining power.

I do not think so, Sir, because surely the procedure for determining compensation still remains exactly the same. This procedure is still the same as that laid down in the Expropriation Act of 1965. That procedure has to be followed. A little bit lower down in this proposed subsection (5) it states—

Therefore, the owner agrees to its being acquired and if the compensation is the point at issue, it has still to be determined in terms of those sections of the Expropriation Act just as the position is at the moment.

He no longer has possession.

Well, he may or may not. He agrees to the land being acquired, but I am not sure that that necessarily means that the land is taken out of his possession. Sir, I take the point made by the hon. member. If it is a question of drawing Escom’s attention to that, we will certainly do it. We would certainly wish to see an absolutely fair transaction in every respect; there is no difficulty there at all.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the provisions of section 2 of the existing Expropriation (Establishment of Undertakings) Act, 1951, the Minister of Economic Affairs may grant to an undertaking which has been declared by the House of Assembly and by the Senate to be an undertaking of national importance, permission for the expropriation of land required by such an undertaking for the purpose of constructing, operating or maintaining any structure used in connection with conveyance, such as a private railway line, pipeline, conveyor belt, etc. The Minister is not authorized to grant permission for the expropriation of land required by such an undertaking for any other purpose than conveyance.

The experience of the three undertakings which have up to now been declared by resolution of Parliament to be undertakings to which the provisions of the said Act are applicable, has indicated that it is virtually impossible to acquire on reasonable terms the necessary land required by such an undertaking for its other purposes. The purpose of this Bill is to adjust the Act in order to make this possible.

In clause 1 of this Bill it is proposed to substitute for the existing definition of “land” in section 1 of the Act an improved definition of “land”, and to lay down for the purposes of this Act the definition of “local authority” as contained in section 84(1)(f) of the Constitution Act, 1961 (Act No. 32 of 1961).

Clause 2 of the Bill will amend section 2 of the Act in order to authorize the Minister to grant permission to an undertaking for the expropriation of land and rights for other purposes than conveyance activities.

†Presently the basic requirements in the Act are:

1. (a) The applicant must convince the Minister that his circumstances warrant an approach to Parliament to be declared an undertaking of national importance by resolution in both Houses of Parliament;
2. (b) proof must be provided that the land or rights required are absolutely essential for the realization of a project of national importance;
3. (c) proof must be provided that the land or rights required cannot be obtained on reasonable terms and conditions by way of negotiation; and
4. (d) the applicant must prove that he has the means to establish the undertaking for which the land or rights are required.

However, as the Government is fully aware of the fact that the proprietary rights of individuals are affected by the provisions of the Act and its amendments, it has been decided also to empower the Minister to limit his approval to the temporary expropriation of rights in or over land. In terms of the amendment the Minister will also be explicitly empowered to reduce in his discretion the size of the land and the extent of the rights to be expropriated.

Mr. Speaker, matters relating to expropriation must always be considered with the utmost circumspection, but I am sure that hon. members will agree that in deserving cases where the establishment or expansion of any undertaking of national importance can be impeded by individuals who demand unreasonable compensation or terms for land or rights in or over land and who are therefore hampering development to the detriment of the whole country, the Minister should have competent powers to approve appropriate powers of expropriation by the undertaking concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the remaining clauses of the Bill contain consequential amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the address of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and I think that on this occasion the hon. the Minister has presented a reasoned argument and one which we are going to support. It is interesting to cast one’s mind back to the original Act, No. 39 of 1951. Most of us were not in the House at that time, but the original Act was envisaged when it was necessary to consider the erection of the refinery in Durban, the first major undertaking of this kind in South Africa, and an undertaking of tremendous interest to Durban. Before the Act came to the House, however, it was widened. It was realized that where you have a private undertaking of this nature, because of its very size and because of the expropriation rights that such an undertaking would apply to the House for, the House should be completely satisfied as to the validity of the undertaking itself as an undertaking in the national interest; the House should be satisfied that the finance was available and that in the final event this undertaking would be brought to fruition. This House at that time went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the rights of the individual were protected. In fact, the original Act called for the first application to be made to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, in those days the late Dr. Eric Louw. The application would then be referred by the Minister to the Board of Trade and Industries, and thereafter the Board of Trade and Industries, if it approved the application, would forward it to the Cabinet, who would, after giving their approval, refer the application first of all to this House and then to the Other Place. So extraordinary lengths were gone to in order to protect private enterprise before giving a private undertaking of this nature the right of expropriation. The expropriations envisaged at that time for the Durban refinery were for a pipeline from Durban harbour to the refinery itself and later on for a railway line and road access. It is interesting to note that the next application for approval as an undertaking in terms of this Act was made as a result of the establishment of Iscor itself. Since those days we have had the refinery of Caltex in the Cape Town harbour area and the Act has become broadened. With changing conditions and with the new conditions envisaged in this tremendous undertaking by Iscor, one realizes that the definition of “land” in the original Act has to be widened and also the concept, because in the old days it was the function of the undertaking that was important, but now it has gone even further and includes the activity of the undertaking. One sees when one reads this Bill that there is a completely new phrase, and that is the phrase dealing with temporary rights of expropriation, or the temporary expropriation of rights. One can envisage that in the construction of the Iscor railway line from Sishen to Saldanha it will be necessary, over various distances, to expropriate land initially for construction purposes and for temporary sidings, etc., and this Bill makes provision for this. However, having listened to his speech very carefully, I want to say that it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister has recognized in his statement that the applicant on each occasion must convince the Minister that his circumstances warrant an approach to Parliament before it can be declared an undertaking of national importance. Proof must be provided that the land or rights required are absolutely essential for the realization of the project of national importance. Proof must also be provided that the land or rights cannot be obtained on reasonable terms and conditions by way of negotiation. Finally the applicant must prove that he has the means to establish the undertaking for which the land or rights are required. In view of the present economic development of South Africa I believe that we should go along with the hon. the Minister in recognizing that these undertakings may even escalate, and for the three that are already in existence the changed circumstances warrant the application of the Bill as it now reads.

Other speakers on this side of the House will deal with our concern about the completely new principle that is now being introduced in that the land or temporary right or use thereof cannot in the ordinary course of business be acquired on reasonable terms. It is this principle of temporary expropriation or temporary rights that we are concerned about. We have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. the Minister. He has indicated that the Government is concerned that the rights of those persons whose land is to be expropriated temporarily are to be guarded. The hon. the Minister has shown his own concern in this matter and we shall support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the fact that the hon. Opposition, through the mouth of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, is supporting this measure. I want to reassure the hon. Opposition by pointing out that no legislation introduced by this side of the House need be regarded with suspicion. There are sound reasons for every measure that comes before this House, and no hon. member need be on the look-out for sinister motives which do not exist at all. Consequently I am glad that the hon. Opposition is supporting this legislation, although it may express certain reservations at a later stage.

As far as the legislation itself is concerned, it has the whole-hearted support of this side of the House, since it improves the definitions of “land” and “local authority”. It is important to note, as far as clause 2 is concerned, that any organization or undertaking declared by the hon. the Minister, with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, to be an undertaking of national importance, may obtain certain rights of expropriation. While this is the position the House may rest assured that the hon. the Minister will not only protect the strong from the weak, but also the weak from the strong. When we were dealing with the Electricity Amendment Bill, the hon. member for Wynberg had certain misgivings, but I want to point out that when it comes to expropriation, an almost worthless piece of land can greatly gain in value if the undertaking which is interested in the land is well-provided with capital. The position is that when the State expropriates, the person whose land is to be expropriated expects a higher price for his land than he could normally get for it. When it comes to expropriation for an undertaking such as Escom, Iscor, Sasol or even Caltex, or any other undertaking, landowners are sometimes inclined to think that they are dealing with a powerful organization, even an international organization, which has an unlimited supply of money, and because such an organization needs land, owners believe that the price should be higher. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to take the realities of the matter into account in every respect. When a project in the national interest has to be undertaken by a strong and large undertaking, the Government must also protect this strong undertaking from the individual who makes a fortune overnight with one transaction. Hon. members may be assured that the Minister, the Government and the hon. House want to protect the interests of all. The important thing, finally, is to determine what would be in the best interests of South Africa. This is the norm that should be applied and in that respect this Government has a record which is absolutely unique in the history of the world. This Government has a record of always acting in the best interests, not only of the individual, but also of South Africa and its people.

Certain people

Yes, including the United Party supporters. If it had not been for this Government, the United Party supporters would have been much worse off. We on this side of the House should like to support this essential legislation in order that everything may run smoothly in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Germiston District that we must protect the strong undertaking by means of this legislation. I think the strong undertaking is able to protect itself and therefore it is not necessary for us to protect it in this House. The one we should actually protect is the little man who is so hard hit when his property is expropriated. In particular, we should remember that what is offered by way of compensation should be fair market-value. We must see to it that these undertakings do pay fair market-value for the property which is expropriated. Actually, a good deal of what was said by the hon. member for Germiston District is not really relevant here, for the expropriation legislation we are dealing with here is not new legislation, but old expropriation legislation with a few new ideas.

†The most revolutionary concept is the new concept of taking land for temporary use. This is quite a new concept, one which one does not find in any other legislation. It is also a complete new concept in South African law and particularly in the law of expropriation. Up to now there has not been any machinery by means of which one could expropriate the temporary use of land. This Bill gives an undertaking the right to expropriate for temporary use. Because it is a new concept and because it will not be readily understandable, I think it is necessary to consider the principle very closely before one deals with it in any detail. We are here dealing with rights which the Bill says are going to be temporary rights. For example, in this way an undertaking can expropriate a strip of land alongside a railway line for a couple of months only. If one takes the Sishen-Saldanha line which is to be built by Iscor as an example, one finds that the land along which this route runs is generally farm land of a not very high quality. I believe that at today’s market value that land has a very small value indeed. But one must not forget that in the course of time there will be development as a result of the development of that area and as a result of the building of that line. Land which today is practically valueless may then in a comparatively short time become very valuable land. When that happens, one finds that a strip of land that is, say, one mile long and a couple of hundred yards wide running along a railway line, a strip of land which today is practically worthless, will become worth a great deal of money. In this case we find that the undertaker or rather the undertaking has acquired this land for temporary use.

What is temporary use? The Bill is completely silent on what temporary use is. I imagine it is going to be the temporary use that enables the undertaking in the case of a railway line to build such a railway line and to have all the appurtenances thereto constructed. I am thinking of the sidings and stations, the necessary access roads and whatever else is required. I assume that within a period of five years after this temporary right has been acquired there will no longer be a need for the undertaking to have the use of this temporary land. According to this Bill there is no limitation on the period of time for which temporary use may be acquired.

If we go back to my first premise, we find that the land which was valueless and for which the undertaking paid a small amount when the right to the temporary use of that land was acquired, has within five years become very valuable land. Consequently the owner is very anxious to get his land back because if he gets his land back he will have an opportunity of perhaps doing business with his neighbour or with some other large undertaking. However, he is completely hamstrung and cannot move because whoever is interested in his land is also interested in the strip of land one mile long by 200 yards wide that runs along the railway line. The negotiations come to an end and no business is done because the man is unable to sell this piece of land to whoever wants to buy it. Now you see, Mr. Speaker, how difficult it is to establish at the time when the right is taken just what the right is that the owner is giving away, albeit temporarily. There is no one in this Chamber tonight who can tell us what that period of time is going to be. We on this side of the House feel that, although there is a great deal of good in this legislation, there should be a specific proviso as to what the length of time should be which is to be regarded as “temporary use”. I believe it is quite a simple matter to rectify this. I believe that most of these undertakings can be completed within five years and I do not believe there will be any difficulty at all if the right of temporary use of this land is limited to a period of five years. One could also add to this Bill a clause enabling the undertaking at the conclusion of the first period of five years to make a fresh application for a further period of five years. In that way the owner will know that he has given his land away for five years in the certain knowledge that he may be called upon to give it away for a second time. When he is asked to give it away on the second occasion, he can then stipulate a much higher amount as compensation for the land than he could have stipulated at the beginning of his negotiations. As you will remember, I said that at present the land is practically valueless. So what is the market value of the temporary right to the land? For the land I have just described here, two miles of land that is 200 yards wide, let us say it is R50. In five years’ time, however, the value of that land may be R5 000. In that case the undertaking will come to the owner and say that it wants to use his land for a further period of five years. There will then be fresh negotiations in which the owner will say that he is not again going to give the land to the undertaking at R50; the land is far too valuable and he now wants R5 000, provided that R5 000 is the fair market value, he will get R5 000. However, I think it would be an added inducement to the undertaking to complete the programme of works, or whatever it wants the temporary use of the land for, within the five-year period. I think that is something we should also consider. In other words, we have a built-in incentive in the Bill, an incentive to the undertaking to complete the job within five years. If it does not do so, it will have to pay a larger amount of compensation in respect of a further period of five years.

That is the one aspect of the case. The other aspect is slightly different. If one does not make provision in this Bill for giving back the land which was taken in the first instance, one will find this land which was taken for temporary use, still being used by the undertaking 25 years later. This has been known to happen. I can quote chapter and verse to illustrate what has already happened. I am sure that no one in this House tonight, when he heard of land being taken for temporary use, ever thought that the period of that temporary use would last for a generation. And yet that is the case. I can quote quite a number of cases in this regard. One of the worst examples I can quote is that of a railways administration, none other than the S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration. Twenty-seven years ago they came to a man whom I know very well. This was in the year 1948. It was just before hon. members on that side of the House took their seats over there. My friend was asked whether he would allow the Railways Administration to hire a portion of his land so that they could divert the permanent way onto his land for the purpose of re-modelling the other part of the permanent way which was on Railway property.

It was temporary-permanent.

Yes. My friend is a very easy-going type. He said: “Why hire it from me? You may have it for nothing. All you have to do is write me a little letter thanking me for giving it to you for nothing.” In due course—I think in those days the Railways took about two weeks to write letters—he received this little letter. This little letter said—

In all its pristine glory!

In all its pristine glory. I must tell you that at that time, Mr. Speaker, on this land which the Railways took over there were suikerbossies, proteas and all the beautiful flowers and natural vegetation of that part of the country. Now comes the terrible sequel.

This is a long story, I must say.

Well, it is a long time. The terrible sequel is that this friend of mine is still battling today to get this land of his restored to him. The Railways Administration has obviously changed hands in the meantime, but we will not take that into consideration. They found that it was so delightful to have the permanent way over my friend’s property that they said they could not move it. They said: “You know what we are going to do to you now? We are so grateful for what you did for us that we are going to expropriate this land from you; this land you gave to us for nothing we are going to expropriate from you.” The negotiations for the payment of compensation in respect of this land have not yet been finalized, not even today, 27 years later. I am mentioning this at great length, because I want hon. members to know what we are letting ourselves in for here. I do not say that I am a prophet, but unless we take stringent measures here to prevent this sort of thing happening, I am afraid that in fact what will happen is that we will have hundreds and hundreds of cases of what I have described here this evening as having happened to my friend. Can you imagine that railway line in your mind’s eye, stretching all the way from Saldanha Bay right up to Sishen, 800 miles along, with little bits of land taken all over the place for temporary use? I think we have to examine this piece of legislation very carefully. I do not believe that we can allow it to go through in its present form. I would like to see that there are at least two amendments moved. The one should make it imperative and implicit in the legislation that the land taken for temporary use should be restored to the owner after the purpose for which it has been acquired has been fulfilled. I also want to see a clause stating that land will be acquired for temporary use for a period of five years only, and that after that period of five years has elapsed, there will have to be a new application. The terms and conditions under which the undertaking will then get it must then be in respect of the circumstances prevailing at the time of the second application.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the general principle contained in this Bill. Quite clearly, if there is a case to be made or expropriation either for the State or for corporations undertaking work of a public nature for the conduct of their operations, there is a case to be made out for temporary expropriation in the carrying out of their activities or the construction of their work. We have no objection therefore to the concept of temporary expropriation provided that it links up with the main principle and that is that it should only be for corporations which are carrying out some activity for the public benefit or for the State. We share the misgivings expressed by the hon. member for Wynberg about the fact that “temporary” can be extended indefinitely into the future. I think many hon. members are aware of how after the 1939-’45 War temporary buildings were built throughout South Africa. Many of these prefabricated or temporary buildings are still in use today. Therefore we must be extremely careful when we use the word “temporary.” It should be defined in periods of time subject to a renewal on application. We wish to support the point made by the hon. member for Wynberg.

Where one moves into the field of expropriation one has to act with extreme caution and extreme wisdom because one is interfering with the basic rights of citizens in respect of the ownership of land. Ownership of land is a very fundamental concept and it has been a very important aspect of common law and Roman-Dutch law over centuries. One does not lightly interfere with the right of individuals to own land and to do what they wish on that land; one does not wish to have any forced alienation of land. The provisions are quite clear that it must be required for a public purpose. Anything which would extend it beyond that would be quite wrong. Secondly it must be in respect of land which cannot be otherwise obtained; in other words when it is required for a public purpose on a temporary basis and cannot be obtained. When an owner is not prepared to alienate his land, the stubbornness of the owner for his own good reasons must be weighed up against the public interest and on balance the public interest in this case will weigh more heavily than the interests of the individual owner.

Thirdly, and perhaps the most difficult aspect of all, is the question of reasonable compensation especially in circumstances where public use is involved. On the one hand one has to see that the owner of the land receives reasonable compensation after all the market factors have been taken into account, but on the other hand speculators or other people who are not necessarily the long-term owners of the land, and people who have got wind of projects and who move into this particular situation in order to exploit it to their advantage and to take the taxpayers for a ride should not be enabled to have their way. This is exactly what has happened in the Iscor project in the area of Saldanha Bay. The hon. the Minister in the course of a motion in the Other Place referred to the fact that some of the owners were farmers and long-term owners of land who had to be given reasonable compensation. I am not arguing about the people who are long-term owners of the land, but very often when the State or big public corporations are involved, it becomes necessary for them to announce in advance that land is going to be purchased. For instance, Iscor was unable to proceed with the oil-loading berth until the State had first decided on the project, so they were compromised and could not do as other corporations could have done and that was to acquire that land in advance because they did not have the authority to proceed. They were therefore required to purchase land either on a permanent basis or as in this particular instance on a short-term temporary basis after the State had announced that the particular activity was going to take place in that area. In the normal course of events, were it not a public corporation performing a public function, the management of that corporation would purchase the land in advance or they would purchase options on the land in advance. However, they certainly would not first announce their intention and then run around trying to buy up the land or options. Let me give a comparable illustration of this. Let us say that Highveld Steel, in erecting its new plant at Witbank, had first announced to the public: We are going to set up a R100 million plant at Witbank; then, after making the announcement, they went around trying to find a site for the plant. That is what does tend to happen when public corporations undertake large projects, but are bound, first of all, to wait for the formal decision of the State. It is in these circumstances that it becomes especially difficult to determine what is reasonable compensation. The parent Act of 1965 dealing generally with compensation, made it quite clear that when the State conducted an activity—this would be a public function—the enhanced value of the land which was a result of the State’s activity should not be taken into account; that the value placed on the land should be that prior to the announcement that that activity was to be undertaken. Those are the provisions of the Expropriation Act, the parent Act of 1965. This is reasonable. Surely one does not first announce one’s intention to purchase land. The consequences of this would be to push up the price and thereafter one would have to compensate people at the higher price as a result of the public announcement.

Therefore, Sir, I want to deal with three purchases of land made in the Saldanha Bay area which could have been handled differently if the hon. the Minister had applied the provisions of the parent Act and the spirit contained in this amending Bill before this House. One has the situation—and the hon. the Minister is aware of it—where a Stellenbosch professor, with a syndicate, purchased land which had a very low value for R65 000. Within a period of 18 months, in fact on the very day on which he paid for the land, he resold that land for the sum of R343 000. The question arises, should that land have been purchased in advance on behalf of Iscor or should it have been allowed to have been purchased by what turned out to be a speculator prior to the announcement being made? The next illustration is that of a furniture dealer. He got wind of something and purchased land which Iscor or the State could have purchased or which could have been expropriated and compensated for at the ruling price at the time. This person paid R50 000 and after ? couple of years, sold off two parcels of land for R1,4 million. He was not the original owner of the land. He acted either on intuition or because he heard some gossip or because of a leak in information. However, he got in ahead and, in fact, in doing so flouted the whole spirit of the expropriation provisions. The final example is that of a hardware merchant. He approached a widow and obtained from her an option on a piece of land for R2 000. In the end the widow was paid R185 000 and the man who had paid R2 000 for the option, received R316 000. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he considers to be reasonable compensation in terms of this Bill. Here we have a man who paid R2 000 for an option on property belonging to a widow who in the end was paid R185 000 for the property. Does the hon. the Minister really think that a reasonable price to have paid for that land was a figure in the neighbourhood of R535 000? This is a very difficult situation. I agree with the hon. member for Wynberg that when expropriation is resorted to, an amount of compensation should be paid which is very sympathetic to the person from whom the land is being expropriated. I think that once the rights of people are interfered with, there should be some additional factor that should be taken into account. The point I want to make is that the whole object of expropriation for the purposes of the State is not to place a value on the land after the State has announced its intention, but to get a retrospective valuation of the land prior to the announcement by the State. Otherwise, what is the object of expropriation? In those circumstances, expropriation merely becomes a means of ensuring that the land is purchased, but it is not a means of ensuring that the land is purchased at a reasonable figure. We expect the hon. the Minister to indicate whether he, in the application of this Bill, intends that there should be expropriated at a value after the State has announced its intention of proceeding with a project—after somebody has announced his intention of buying up Newcastle, Saldanha or Rosslyn. Is the value of the land to be fixed after an announcement has been made, or is it to be fixed at a time prior to the announcement? In the lastmentioned instance, the owner will receive a reasonable price, one similar to the price he would have received had the State not been involved or had there been no public purpose. We expect the hon. the Minister to explain quite clearly whether he intends adhering to the principle of “reasonable” compensation as very clearly stated in the original Expropriation Act or whether he now says that it is reasonable first to announce your intention and having thereby pushed up the prices, to compensate owners at the post-announcement value of the land and not the pre-announcement value.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a short question?

But the hon. member for Sea Point has already resumed his seat.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend on the other side, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, for his support of the principle of the Bill. I want to thank the hon. member for Germiston District, too, for his fine, constructive speech which I really appreciate.

†As far as the argument of the hon. member for Wynberg is concerned, I have listened with interest to the points he made. His almost unfinished saga was interesting. However, I do not think that there is such a great difference in our approaches as he seems to think. I understand that he intends moving an amendment and I take it he will do it during the Committee Stage. I shall therefore not ask for the Committee Stage to be taken immediately after the Second Reading. I shall come back to the specific points mentioned by the hon. member when we consider his amendment. However, I just want to point out that there is of course provision in the Bill for the restitution of land temporarily expropriated because the Minister can impose conditions and I presume that one of the things at which the Minister will look very closely in the case of a temporary expropriation, will in fact be that particular point. That is in fact one of the important points in the relevant clause. However, because there are practical difficulties involved, we do not want to tie our hands in advance to a specific period. I shall, if I may, come back to that when we discuss the amendment.

In a way I am rather sorry that the hon. member for Sea Point has used this opportunity to go back to Saldanha. I think he owes me many explanations about what he has said about Iscor’s activities at Saldanha. I answered him during the short debate and thereafter he issued a Press statement which I also answered. One of the questions he asked was why the Government did not declare that a controlled area under the Natural Resources Act. I stated that the Government could do no such thing in terms of that Act; all the Government could do was that it could do something about a change in use of land under the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. When I pointed that out, the hon. member should have said whether I was correct or not. However, today he makes further allegations and says that we must not expropriate after we have announced that we want to establish a concern in a specific area, but was the hon. member’s biggest point not that he criticized Iscor severely for irregularities? He criticized Iscor severely because it bought options in advance.

You are quite wrong.

Is that not correct? Surely the record is there. I gave the dates …

You asked me across the floor of the House …

Never mind “across the floor of the House”; let us stick to the facts. We must not cloud an issue. We are trying to be constructive. We are leaning over backwards; in fact we are going further than any provision in the existing measures regarding expropriation in order to look after the interests of the other party, the party whose property is to be expropriated. I can list all the safeguards which are included in this Bill. However, I think it will be a pity if we are going to tie this up with the allegations that were made about Saldanha. I therefore propose to leave it there, but if the hon. member wants to come back to it, I shall deal with it. I think there are merits in the Bill, and when we come to the Committee Stage I shall try to answer the hon. member for Wynberg if he moves any amendment.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Yes.

Without going into the details of the Saldanha Bay development project, can the hon. the Minister deal with the definition of what is “reasonable terms”? Does he accept the concept that you do go back to pre-announcement date or that you expropriate …

Order!

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.