The debate which we have had on this Bill has been quite interesting in many respects. At the outset I wish to thank hon. members, particularly hon. members on this side of the House, most heartily for the manner in which they have dealt so correctly with fundamental issues and even reasonable detailed issues in reply to points raised by the other side of the House. I also wish to be appreciative and express my gratitude to hon. members opposite, particularly to the hon. member for South Coast who introduced the debate, for the measure of appreciation they have shown of the good intentions they recognize as being inherent in this Bill. Our attitude is, of course, that this Bill only contains good intentions. Inter alia, the hon. member for South Coast and others pointed out that much good would flow from this measure. That was the extent to which they expressed their appreciation. I for my part appreciate the support which has come from hon. members of the Opposition. I am sorry that that support was qualified and not unqualified.

I also want to say at the outset that although this debate was limited in its scope, it nevertheless very clearly revealed a fundamental difference between the Opposition and the Government. This fundamental difference between the Opposition and the Government is in regard to our approach to Bantu matters and Bantu policy and because that fundamental difference exists fairly divergent attitudes were adopted towards this measure. This fundamental difference was most clearly demonstrated by the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) although it was also to a lesser extent evident from the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). Seeing that I have mentioned these two hon. members by name I hope they will not hold it against me if I say that they will be justified to conclude that I regard the attitude which they have adopted as very close to that of the hon. member for Houghton. They must not hold that against me.

In any case, the fundamental difference to which I am referring is this: Opposition members still regard the Bantu and White communities exclusively as one uniform community whereas we on this side—and we are very proud of this—regard the Bantu as one national community and the Whites as another, the implication being that there are two national communities, that each one has within his own group his own peculiarities, that each one has his own area where he is entitled to certain things, where he has rights and privileges and that it is a concession to the one to be in the area of the other. This basic difference in approach between us has, therefore, also been the basis of the discussion on the Bill so far.

I am explaining this aspect so that it will not be necessary for me to deal in detail with the various points raised in this connection. I shall accordingly explain the various subjects raised instead of dealing with the remarks of individual speakers.

You said that in your view there were two national communities, namely the Bantu and the Whites. Should the various Bantu communities, according to their ethnic grouping, not be added to that?

True. I, of course, did not go into detail, because you have the Indians and the Coloureds as well. In any case, we have a big Bantu national community consisting of various ethnic groups. But let me continue.

I want, by way of limited elaboration of what I have just said with regard to my appreciation of the support that we received from the Opposition and especially from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), to say also that I appreciate the spirit displayed here by the hon. member for South Coast in that he showed understanding and goodwill for some aspects of the Bill under consideration, especially with regard to clearance work in Alexandra and elsewhere and also with regard to better control in order to eliminate undesirable conditions where they may exist in areas such as these. But, Sir, I regret that I cannot be appreciative of the last part of the speech of the hon. member for South Coast, especially as he opened the way for other speakers on his side to put forward views which were not always very relevant and which are incompatible with our policy because they are not in the interest of South Africa and especially of White South Africa. At this stage I would like to deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Coast on behalf of his party. I want to accentuate that Opposition members especially and the amendment, confuse the object of this Bill with the planning of Alexandra which is already being carried out. Secondly they confuse the objects of this Bill with the provision of hostels, as a principle and as a practice, which is also being carried out already in many places in South Africa, and thirdly with the possession of freehold title which in practice can remain even in designated areas in the hands of Bantu, and I will deal with that aspect in a moment.

You left that out in your speech.

No, I did not leave it out altogether in my speech. I used Alexandra as an example, and I said so very clearly. In my reply I will have to deal with the essence of the Bill in the first instance, and secondly I will be compelled to deal with particulars raised by hon. members of the Opposition with regard to Alexandra, with regard to Fingo Town, with regard to the question of family life, the question of single quarters, etc. I will have to deal with those things because we cannot just link them up as such.

At this stage may I put a question to the Minister so that he can reply to it at the appropriate stage in his speech, in the light of what he has just said? Can he tell us if he proposes to leave freehold title with the Bantu in Alexandra, that is to say, those who do not sell willingly?

I will deal with that point in the course of my speech.

In their amendment the Opposition objects to two things in the main. One is, the elimination of established freehold rights enjoyed by Bantu in designated areas. In that connection I want to stress the fact that this Bill does not introduce for the first time methods whereby freehold title can be eliminated in areas to be called designated areas. Existing legislation already makes provision that property can be taken over, in Alexandra as well. Provision already exists that property can even be expropriated in Alexandra, without this Bill. Expropriation can also take place under expropriation measures of the Transvaal. So far we have already taken over almost 500 properties in Alexandra. They were all sold to the local authorities there on a voluntary basis. They were sold to the Peri-Urban Areas Board. The Peri-Urban Areas Board also has at its disposal legal machinery for expropriation, but it has not yet been necessary to use that machinery. All the properties which they have obtained so far they got on a voluntary basis….

Only for certain purposes.

It is not the intention under this measure to embark on a large scale on expropriation. The Peri-Urban Areas Board will still buy properties on a voluntary basis where they can do so; they will proceed along those lines and expropriation will only be considered where it is necessary, especially where it is necessary for public purposes in the interest of the Bantu, but that expropriation can take place by way of legal instruments which they already have available and also, of course, by means of legal instruments which are now being made available and which will promote better transactions, in the interest of the Bantu as well. Nowhere does this Bill make provision for any compulsion with regard to the elimination of Bantu landownership, free-hold title, etc., in a designated area. There is no compulsion provided for in this Bill. It is made possible, yes, to administer a designated area as an urban Bantu location in spite of the fact that in such an area there are properties owned by Bantu. This point was stressed by me in my speech and it is also underlined in the memorandum which we tabled. Whether those properties will remain in Bantu ownership or not is not a matter which is determined by this Bill—not at all. That will depend on local conditions and on the question whether such Bantu ownership there is compatible with general policy and justifiable, but there is no compulsion in this Bill to do that now.

The first point on which the Opposition based their objection in the amendment is that it disrupts normal family life. In this connection I want to stress that no family as a unit will be broken up. Hon. members on this side also stressed this point and I am thankful that they did so. Families, as units, can be shifted out of Alexandra to other Bantu residential areas near Johannesburg where they can settle if the heads of the families qualify to work there. Those families taken out of Alexandra will then make room for other Bantu to be housed there, and we say that according to the planning of Alexandra—and that has nothing to do with the contents of this Bill— they will and should be housed there on a single basis. [Interjection.] Sir, I will in the course of time deal with all the matters raised here, so the hon. member over there should exercise a little patience. This Bill does not introduce the principle of housing Bantu in Alexandra on a single basis. That is merely a question of planning in accordance with our policy. I refer to Alexandra merely as an example of the sort of place where we will apply this Bill for administrative purposes in the first instance. It is only in a designated area that Bantu administration can be facilitated by the passing of this Bill. Here also it does not follow that in all designated areas there will be no family housing. In designated areas it will be possible to have both family housing and single quarters. This Bill is not directed against family housing as such. That was a misrepresentation on the part of hon. members who tried to create that impression. I want to stress that designated areas can only come into being with the approval of the local authorities concerned.

In view of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply now, why did he specifically link this Bill with the statement by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development with regard to Alexandra.

Sir, I did not link it up. In the memorandum we mentioned three places as examples where this Bill can be applied. I mentioned Alexandra and I mentioned Fingo Town and Evaton, and in my speech I said that instead of using all three of them as examples I was going to use Alexandra as an example, that is to say, the place in which the matter is most urgent. Alexandra was merely used as an example because it is the best example of the three types of places.

The Minister referred to Alexandra in his public statement; he referred to “Alexandra van die toekoms”. That is where he tied it up with accommodation for single men.

I will come to my statement in a moment.

You said that you were the author of that statement, not the Minister.

I will deal with that statement in a moment but the point is that in that statement I did not link Alexandra up with the Bill. It was linked up in this debate with Alexandra by hon. members on the other side. I will explain why we said that the provision of single quarters was the best thing in Alexandra and I will quote good authorities in support of that proposition.

*I shall now perhaps be able to console hon. members opposite in their enthusiastic haste to come to Alexandra. Let us get to Alexandra as soon as possible, and when I do deal with it hon. members opposite must realize that I am doing so because I am more or less obliged to do so because of the fact that during the past few weeks certain things have appeared in the Press about Alexandra concerning certain departmental and municipal negotiations which are afoot and in respect of which information has leaked out which is not correct. That was why that statement was issued a few weeks ago. Many misrepresentations have, of course, been made in this debate and many bogies have been raised in connection with Alexandra and that is why I am getting closer to Alexandra. However, before I deal with Alexandra I just want to say that I am not now going to deal with the important principle of property rights by the Bantu in South Africa. I think hon. members opposite know what the principles are. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has put it very crisply and correctly—the important principle of the right of the Bantu to own property in Bantu areas and the right of the Whites to own property in the White areas. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), who was formerly an illustrious mayor of the illustrious Golden City, knows and ought to know that the United Party has up to the present been applying that policy as national policy there. I am not reproaching him at all in that connection; I give him credit for the fact that he as a City Councillor of Johannesburg has done so and that the present City Council of Johannesburg has applied it and is still applying it. By saying that I do not mean that they are carrying out National Party policy; they are carrying out national policy. After the 1937 legislation, to which the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) also referred last night, they have consistently practised it since 1 January 1938, because the 1937 Act was the first Act to contain statutory provisions which placed statutory limitations on the possession and acquisition of land by Bantu from Whites and since 1938 up to the present the City Council of Johannesburg has observed that. I do not know why the hon. member for Florida made such a fuss about it, except of course because he no longer subscribes to that policy; and if the hon. member and members of his party say that the Bantu should in future be allowed to own property in the White area on an extensive scale, in the Johannesburg municipal area, in any other municipal area, on the platteland, in cities and in towns, that the Bantu should be allowed to own property in the White area, hon. members must say so. I just want to point out, however, that United Party municipalities did not only apply National Party policy, but national policy. That is an old traditional policy. I do not know whether the hon. member for Florida wants us to believe that his party has deviated from it. If so they must tell us straight out and they should tell us whether they want to carry out the parallel as well, namely, that the Whites should have unlimited rights to own property in the Bantu homelands. Do they want to limit the rights of Whites to own property to the White areas and give the Bantu the right to own property in his area as well as in the White area? They must tell us that clearly. These questions must not remain in the air.

The hon. member for South Coast asked for a variety of assurances in connection with the right of ownership; amongst others he alleged that we had given assurances in the past that the Bantu’s right to own property in Alexandra would be guaranteed; that it would remain in the hands of the Bantu. I just want to correct the hon. member for South Coast in that regard. I shall be grateful if he will tell me where that assurance was given by the National Government that the Bantu’s right to own property in Alexandra would be maintained. I should like to have proof of that because I want to state very clearly that no assurance was given by the Government that the right to own property would remain. It was said, however, that Alexandra would not be done away with and that it would remain there for Bantu occupation. No specific assurance that the Bantu would always be housed there on a family basis was given either. Only a general assurance was given that Alexandra would not be done away with; that the numbers in Alexandra would be reduced and that the Bantu would still be housed in Alexandra but no assurance was given on the part of the Government that the right to own property there would be maintained. I said a moment ago that all the property which has been acquired there from the Bantu was sold by them on a voluntary basis and I fervently hope that in future it will also be on a voluntary basis and that the Bantu will co-operate. I predict to-day that, if not all the Bantu, the great majority of them, will sell their property on a voluntary basis to the local authority because the experience of those who have done so hitherto has been that they were treated fairly and honestly and justly by that local authority. But if it is necessary to expropriate, which can be done in any case because there is legal provision for that, additional and better methods are available in terms of the Housing Act which comes into the picture by way of reference to it. I want to say this that, as far as the application of the Housing Act for the acquisition of land over the whole country is concerned, in probably 90 per cent of the cases it has always happened on a voluntary basis and hon. members should be grateful that such a tried method is also available for the acquisition of land and other related matters. Hon. members opposite have made a great point of the Bantu’s property rights in Alexandra, but they must realize that in many respects the same thing happened in regard to the property rights which the Bantu had there as happened in regard to their property rights at Sophiatown and at Martindale, where they rendered those property rights absolutely valueless by exploiting them in that they over-burdened those properties with bonds, by raising money on those properties. A property can be yours only in name if it is as over-burdened as many of those plots were at the time in Sophiatown and Martindale. In most cases the instalments were so heavy that with the best will in the world those properties could not produce those instalments with the result that it led to overcrowding, subletting, slums conditions, etc., merely in an endeavour to raise the money for the instalments in every possible way. If that is the attitude in regard to property rights in towns like Alexandra, there is no justification for the right to have property rights. I must also remind hon. members that those who sell their property to the local authorities can acquire property rights if they wish—it is offered to them and it even gets propagated—in Bantu homeland towns. It was in this connection that the hon. member for Durban (Point), who is now enjoying a pleasant afternoon’s rest, so ghastly misrepresented the statement which was published when he said that we were saying that “the Bantu can go to the Bantu homelands”. We did not say that property owners must go and purchase land in the Bantu homelands. It is quite clear what the position is in connection with those Bantu in Alexandra who have property rights; they are resettled on a family basis in the locations of the towns where they work. Many have already gone to Germiston; fewer have already gone to the locations of other towns on the Reef and almost 45,000 Bantu, that is men, women and children, have been moved from Alexandra to the south-western parts of Meadowlands and Diepkloof particularly where they have been resettled on a rent basis. All those Bantu can own property in the Bantu homelands. As a matter of fact, any Bantu can buy property there. Nobody is prevented from doing so. I think if everybody wants to buy there, there will hardly be enough properties. There is no limitation and those families who buy in the homelands are not obliged to run after their title deed and to go and live there. If the Bantu is a qualified worker in Johannesburg or in Germiston or in a peri-urban area, he can live there on a family basis in the location which offers accommodation for people on a family basis. It was in that connection that the hon. member for Durban (Point) made that nasty misrepresentation last night.

In this regard an hon. member also asked in what way the Bantu could acquire property rights in his homeland towns. That is not really relevant here, but in passing I just want to remind hon. members that regulations were published recently. They acquire the property in the proper way by means of title deed just as the hon. member for Durban (Point) will acquire property in Durban or here in Cape Town. Regulations have been issued in that regard. As a matter of fact, in some respects it is easier and simpler for them to acquire property than for Whites. I just want to say this to the hon. member for Durban (Point): By acting the way he did last night he has lowered himself further in the esteem of members on this side than the position he already holds. The hon. member made such a fuss about a hopelessly weak little point that he has really qualified himself to be nominated at any time as a representative of Algeria or Ghana at UNO. He has qualified for that. The way he carried on last night has brought him down to the level of that role.

Or Commissioner-General.

No, he does not even come into consideration for that—not even the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst).

May I put a question to the Deputy Minister to clear up a point which he made just now when he said that no assurance whatever had been given to those property owners in Alexandra …

I said, and I repeat, that the Government had given no assurances in connection with the ownership of property in Alexandra.

May I now put my question to the Minister? Will he apply his attention to Column 337 of the English Hansard of 3 February 1959 where the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development replied to the question as to whether owners of immovable property and their families would be required to move from Alexandra. Let him look at the reply given there by the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I will read this reply before I make my speech; it reads—

That is still the position to-day—

I challenge the hon. member to point out to me which of those words or sentences contain a guarantee that ownership rights will remain vested in those people who have it to-day. No, Sir, hon. members opposite are now zipped. I stress again what I said just now that no guarantee was given that property ownership would remain vested in those Bantu. No such guarantee was given by the Government.

What does “disturbed” mean?

Now that I have read out those words, the position is clearer than ever before.

Then words mean nothing.

Hon. members opposite must appoint more searchers than just the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) whom I noticed searching for this little thing in Hansard. He could have got it from me much more promptly. I want to give him a few other quotations also; he can look through them in the meantime. I just want to tell the hon. member that for the sake of convenience I have here all the references to Alexandra by the Government side of the House in the form of neat cuttings from Hansard. The hon. member may have them if he wants to look at them in the meantime, and then he can put questions to me later if he wishes. But in his hurry he took the wrong one first. I can also give him another statement which was made by the hon. the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Native Affairs.

Alice in Wonderland.

Then I should try once more to rectify another misrepresentation which has often been made here by the Opposition. Hon. members on this side have done so very effectively. There is no breaking up of families in Alexandra, not in the least. Hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Yeoville, have in the past, and yesterday again, alleged that families would be broken up, that the women and children would be taken away and that the breadwinners would remain in Alexandra as single Bantu. That is pure nonsense. There is nothing like that. The family is kept together as a unit, and if the family as a unit has to be in those northern areas because the breadwinner works there, then that family will be housed in another location, and Tembisa is one of the locations to the north which will be considered in that regard.

Permanently?

Permanently, for just as long as he qualifies to work there. Bantu working in areas other than the immediately adjacent ones have already been shifted on a large scale—the families as units. In other words, if the bread-winner works in the municipal area of Johannesburg, that family is put in the western locations of Johannesburg as a family, whilst the breadwinner still works in Johannesburg. I have just said that we have 44,000 such people, i.e. about 8,000 or 9,000 breadwinners have already been resettled in that way. We have not broken up any families. If families had been broken up there already on such a large scale, Sir, do you think that hon. members opposite would not already have voiced a whole string of protests by way of putting questions on the Order Paper in that regard? But nothing of the kind was done. These are gross misrepresentations of which hon. members opposite should not make themselves guilty, particularly when they can acquaint themselves with the facts by obtaining the information beforehand, in the same way that I know that in this regard they obtained information from the Department beforehand, and also in other respects.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister why in Alexandra alone there may be no families.

I have just told that fiery member to be patient. I will reply to all the questions, but I cannot do so in the order he wants. He must allow me to reply to these points in the order which suits me.

May I put a question? Where will the Bantu who are employed in the industries round about Alexandra live? Will they have to live in the south-western areas?

Sir, the hon. member received a reply to his queston a minute and a half ago. Perhaps he was asleep then. I clearly said that a family whose breadwinner worked in the northern area round about Alexandra would receive housing in another location when that family had to leave Alexandra. Has the hon. member understood me now?

We have heard much about the single Bantu. The single Bantu who in the course of time will be housed in Alexandra will be people who at present live in blocks of flats and on the other properties of their employers, and who are accommodated in wrongly situated hostels and compounds in Johannesburg. Hon. members on this side mentioned a few of these wrongly sited hostels and compounds last night. I do not think I should say any more about those wrongly sited hostels and compounds of the Johannesburg Municipality at the moment, because our Department is at present negotiating with the Johannesburg Municipality in that regard. I do not want to say more about it until those negotiations have been completed, because during the last recess, under my personal leadership, we negotiated with the Johannesburg City Council in regard to the question of locations in the sky in the northern areas of Johannesburg. We made reasonable progress, and I hope that we will also make reasonable progress in our negotiations with the City Council in regard to hostels and counpounds. Hon. members should therefore not ask me to say more about it. We did not hide our thoughts from the City Council in that regard.

In regard to single Bantu in Alexandra, I now have to refer to the allegations made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in this House recently, in which he told the most hair-raising stories. If they had just been hair-raising, one could have regarded it as the duty of a good propagandist, but apart from being hair-raising they were very stupid, and I would never accuse the hon. member for Yeoville of being stupid. I think we all admit that he is certainly not stupid.

You are able to make any accusation.

I am now going to give him the surprise of his life. I am not going to accuse him of being stupid. Anyone who is antagonistic towards him—and I am not—could rightly have ascribed the things he said here to stupidity. He said that there were certain rumours that we were going to build eight hostels each containing 2,500 rooms. I do not know whether we are going to build two or six or eight hostels. The number has not yet been decided. I suppose that rumour comes from somebody who has some purpose in wanting to send such reports into the world. We have only approved of one hostel as yet. Then he said what tragic things would take place, and just listen to what he said about family life—

The hon. member has never seen a Bantu hostel, or he would have known that there is no such thing as a hostel with 2,500 single rooms. That would be much worse than a dovecote. Ill-disposed people would have accused him of stupidity, but I say these are simply misrepresentations. For his edification I will repeat what I said a moment ago, when he was not here. I said that those families would be housed in other Bantu areas, as family units, when they leave Alexandra. The families will not be broken up. The men will not be sent in one direction and the women in another, and the crying children in a third direction. That hon. member who has such a burning desire to come into power need not think that he will achieve his aim by telling such stories. Then he talks about elementary human rights and says that the family life of the man. the wife and the children is being disrupted, and then he asks what is to happen. Then he insinuates what will happen. He asks what we will do in regard to prostitution and illegitimate children and unnatural practices. We know what he is insinuating. Then he asks where the single Bantu who will be housed in the hostels lived in the past. I have now dealt with that question. The hon. member was not here. I said that those single Bantu who will be accommodated in Alexandra will be single Bantu who are employed in the vicinity, in flats or on the premises of other employers, or who were accommodated in the compounds or hostels of the Johannesburg Municipality. If the hon. member is concerned about prostitution, illegitimate children and unnatural practices, he must tell me where those things are more likely to happen in a well-controlled hostel inside a location, under the supervision of municipal officials, or in the locations in the sky of Killarney and Hillbrow and Yeoville? The hon. member should be a little patient, because I want to give him the figures concerning his constituency. I assume it is in his constituency, but the hon. member will surely accept my bona fides if I do not mention the names of the blocks of flats. I want to give three examples of flats in Yeoville.

There is a block of flats in Yeoville containing 40 flats. It is licensed by the Johannesburg City Council for ten male and 28 female servants, a total of 38, or practically one per flat. What control is there over what goes on in the rooms on top of that building? There is not even a fraction of the control exercised to-day in all the hostels. The other block of flats has 29 Bantu for 24 flats, more than one Bantu per flat. There is no control whatever over what happens in those rooms. Then I want to refer to two blocks of flats in Killarney. There is one building with 61 flats, where there are 47 male and 68 female Bantu, a total of 115. Those Bantu live in quarters on top of that building. I ask the hon. member for Yeoville what control there is over these shocking things he mentioned, viz. prostitution, illegitimate children and unnatural practices in so far as those Bantu are concerned? There is none at all. [Interjections.] There is another block of flats containing 69 flats, with 119 Bantu men and women. There is no control whatever. Those terrible things he spoke about can take place much more easily in those locations in the sky than in hospitals and in compounds which are under proper municipal control. The hon. member knows that. And then he should also remember that the Bantu in those locations in the sky have no conveniences at all. What recreational facilities have the Bantu in Killarney, except if they, like Hannes Venter or the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), do physical exercises?

Does he worry you so much?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not worry me. I do not know whether he worries the hon. member for North-East Rand. What recreational facilities have they there? There is no church for them, no cinema, no parks or gardens where they can go, and no beerhalls. And they have no people of their own kind with whom to associate, except if they hold a party together with the kindred spirits of hon. members opposite who live in those flats. They have no social contacts with people of their own kind in those locations in the sky. They can have all these things when, in time, they are accommodated in hostels in Alexandra and in other Bantu areas. We shall have an opportunity later to discuss this matter further either under the Vote of the Minister or when certain legislation is perhaps introduced. I have just raised these points so that hon. members may consider them in the meantime.

I want to remind hon. members that in the mine compounds and in the compounds of other large employers such as the Railways and Escom, provision is made on a large scale for single Bantu workers, and we have never yet heard these complaints about them that we are now hearing in regard to these proposed hostels.

Now I want to come to that statement. I am sorry to have to take up the time of the House in dealing with these matters, but if I do not reply to all these things the public and hon. members opposite may perhaps think that we cannot reply. I therefore feel compelled to reply fully. I now want to come to the statement which was so fruitfully, in his opinion, used by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), but to so little effect. The hon. member quoted the following words—

That means its geographic limits—

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) asked very dramatically what a single person was. I thought he knew. A single Bantu is a man who works in that area because he is unmarried or because he does not have his dependants with him. A point is made of the fact that hostels will be built for both sexes. I have already given examples of blocks of flats where we find both sexes. There the two sexes live together without any control. That is the case in all the blocks of flats in all our cities. It is much better to have hostels for women in Alexandra, as in any other Bantu location, if there is justification for it, and also hostels for men. They will then be separated, and apart from that they will be under control. The statement of the hon. member for Point that accommodation on a family basis will gradually be eliminated is absolutely meaningless. I am not going to read the whole report because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. But there is nothing in this statement which indicates that we are going to disrupt the family life of the Bantu. As I said in the beginning, the family as a unit will be transferred to the new residential area. It says in this statement that the resettlement of families will take place gradually, as in fact has been the case for the past year already. The people who have been bought out can go to live in other locations, and they also have the choice of obtaining property rights in Bantu townships. I have now dealt with this question at length.

Whilst I am dealing with this statement, I just want to add this: It says very clearly that gradually, around the newly developed Alexandra, proper isolation strips will be provided. For the first time in its history it will be properly isolated from its immediate vicinity. And do you know, Sir, who will derive most benefit from it? The voters of the hon. member for North-East Rand and he himself. I do not expect him to thank us now already, but I hope he will do so in due course. I also hope that we will have his cooperation in that regard; we need it. There will be uninhabited Strips 500 yards wide, 200 yards wide, etc., depending on the nature of the surrounding areas. The developed area of Alexandra will be safer than it is at present, because it will be isolated geographically. I think I have dealt clearly enough with this statement to prove that it contains nothing which can be interpreted in the way the hon. member for Durban (Point) and others interpreted it.

In regard to single Bantu in hostels, I just want to say that this Bill contains nothing to make it obligatory to erect such hostels. Hon. members opposite are wrong if they think that this legislation makes hostels obligatory. They have confused this Bill and the planning which can take place without this Bill. If they read the long title of the Bill properly, as the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) did last night, they will see that the Bill provides for the better administration of designated areas. Areas can be administered in a worse manner; we now want to do so in a better way.

The hon. member for Florida and the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) also said many wrong things. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) and the hon. member for North-East Rand had much to say about the hostels. The latter went so far as to say that nobody wants hostels. Is that right? He said: “Nobody wants hostels.”

No one wants hostels in Alexandra at any price.

I am very grateful for that statement. It is much more useful to me than what the hon. member said last night. I knew that that hon. member is the sort of person who, if he sees a trap, will not walk around it but will step into it. Many hon. members opposite raised this matter of hostels. The hon. member for Zululand put his standpoint honestly and I give him credit for it. I shall try to reply to him. I should like to know from the hon. member for Florida and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel)—that is the only connection in which I want to use his name— whether they and their party are going to exert themselves towards having all Bantu working in White areas being present in those White areas on a family basis? The implications of their objection to this Bill are that the Bantu employed in White areas should be there with their wives, children, grandfathers and grandmothers—the whole lot. The hon. member for Zululand last night to some extent washed his hands in innocence in so far as that was concerned. I accuse the other hon. members, however, including the hon. member for Pinelands, of the fact that the trend of their arguments was that the Bantu employed in the White areas should be settled increasingly in those White areas with their families.

The Fagan Report refers to it.

I shall deal with that point fully later on. I want to remind hon. members of the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point), when he said that he and his party are in favour of the Bantu being allowed to enjoy property rights “because they must have their roots in the soil”. They now want the Bantu, on a family basis, to be settled in the White areas to an increasing extent “because they must have their roots in the soil; they must have title ownership”. That means, as I have already said, that the Bantu must become increasingly integrated in the White areas. But then hon. members opposite object if we say that the whole trend of their policy is to make a Bantustan of the whole of South Africa. If the Bantu is to have that root of property rights in the White area, it will mean the integration of the two communities into one. The Bantu administration policy of the United Party is based on …

Order! Will hon. members please stop talking. I find it very difficult to hear the Minister although he is speaking loudly.

I am talking loudly, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if it irritates you, but I am sure I am not irritating the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) by doing so. He speaks so loudly that he ought not to complain if other people do so. Mr. Speaker, you have interrupted me and now there is an incomplete sentence recorded in Hansard. In view of this statement of the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely that the Bantu should have roots in the White areas, it is obvious that those roots will become anchors in integrating the Bantu community and the White community into one single community. [Interjections.]

I have just appealed to hon. members not to make so many interjections, and the hon. member for Durban (Point) is interjecting again.

According to what I am told by my Minister, Durban recently made a swift calculation that if all the single workers in that municipal area were to be housed on a family basis, between 28,000 and 30,000 houses would be required. The hon. member for Durban (Point) should tell us where that land can be obtained, because I take it that he will not want those houses to be built in the Bantu homeland area of Inanda or Umlazi. Perhaps he will manage to build those houses in the sea.

I now want to come to the question which I put to the hon. member for North-East Rand a moment ago. I think in the meantime it has sunk in, and I hope he will give me an intelligent reply. I want to say that in regard to the single Natives who are to be housed in hostels in Alexandra, no less a body than the Johannesburg City Council is desirous of having hostels in Alexandra for both Bantu men and women. The hon. member for North-East Rand said that nobody wanted hostels in Alexandra. I am forgetting about the less helpful remark he made last night, and I am using the useful remark he made a moment ago. The City Council wants those hostels to be there. I am grateful to the Johannesburg City Council for that. It should be clearly understood that I say it is to the credit of Johannesburg and not to its discredit that they want it. They want those hostels there so that those Bantu who are to-day housed so unsatisfactorily in the locations in the sky and other places, may be properly housed. The City Council welcomes this Bill because it will lead to better administration. They also raised the question of property rights with us. I want to quote from two letters from the Johannesburg City Council, which will show hon. members that the Johannesburg City Council is not only in favour of hostels, but that they welcome them.

I wonder what the Johannesburg City Council will do with that hon. Whip opposite? I want to quote from a letter written last year, because this Bill had already been brought to their notice last year; and the hon. member for Germiston (District) and the hon. member for Orange Grove know it very well, because officials of our Department gave them information about it last year already. It is with reference to that that the correspondence also took place with the Johannesburg City Council. Then the Town Clerk of Johannesburg wrote on behalf of the City Council to the Secretary of our Department on 16 May 1962—

I just want to give the House the assurance that the building of hostels was a suggestion emanating from the Johannesburg City Council, because they required those hostels for the people living in the locations in the sky—

And the Bill before us to-day, except for a few words which were changed, is the same as last year’s Bill—

Now hon. members opposite come along and say that nobody wants hostels, that nobody wants them in Alexandra for single Bantu, but here we have an important body such as the City Council of Johannesburg, which is one of the few places where the United Party still rules to-day, and they want hostels, and they say they are glad that this Bill is being introduced.

But let us come a little nearer to the present time. I want to quote from a letter dated 18 April 1963, last month, written by the Town Clerk of Johannesburg with reference to the Bill before us at present. They refer to the property rights which they do not want the Bantu to lose. We know that this is a point of principle with them, but in connection with the hostels they say this—

Yes, they also would like provision to be made there for families, but they insist that hostel accommodation should also be provided in Alexandra. What is more, they knew that an application had already been received for women’s hostels in Alexandra, and the City Council of Johannesburg, knowing that, does not even point out that the hostels for single Bantu in Alexandra should be for men only, or that other hostels should be provided just for women, or that there should be hostels in Alexandra just for one sex. They have no objection to the two sexes being accommodated in separate hostels in the same area. I want to tell the hon. member for North-East Rand with all respect that he adopted a foolish standpoint.

Just one or two small matters and I will conclude. The question was put here by the hon. member for Florida, inter alia, why the Resettlement Board is mentioned in connection with this Bill. My reply quite simply is that the Resettlement Board is already assisting in taking the Bantu families from Alexandra to the Western Areas, to Diepkloof and Meadowlands. That is an arrangement entered into with the Resettlement Board. This reference to the Resettlement Board is simply to put it beyond all doubt that agreements may be entered into by the local authority concerned, i.e. the Health Board, with the Resettlement Board in regard to this type of removal, and also for structural work, repairs, or even building work which may be necessary in Alexandra, so that it can be done by teams of Bantu building workers of the Resettlement Board if the local authority should decide to have such work done in terms of an agreement arrived at with the Resettlement Board. Hence the reference to the Resettlement Board, so as to put it on a proper legal footing, and I certainly do not think hon. members can have any objection to that.

Now I want to come to the last point I want to reply to, namely, the question of Fingo Town, the village which is mentioned as an example in the memorandum and which is part and parcel of the area of the Town Council of Grahamstown. I want to assure the hon. member that there is no intention of immediate action there as far as we are concerned, and secondly, I want to remind the hon. member of what I have said at the beginning, viz. that an area, and also Fingo Town, can become a designated area only with the approval of the local authority, the Town Council, concerned. So if we feel that it should become a designated area we can mention that to them, and if they are of the opinion that they can use this legal instrument, they can approach us. But there is no intention as far as we are concerned for any immediate action in this connection. Moreover, as far as the question of ownership is concerned. I have already stated that it does not naturally follow that if an area becomes a designated area, private ownership of the Bantu there must be eliminated. The tendency may be there, but it does not necessarily mean that. Let me say this that the Town Council of Grahamstown in the past already has approached us in connection with problems they do experience there with regard to the administration of Fingo Town, and I think the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is aware of the fact that they have trouble there because there are no regulations they can make use of and it is very impracticable to have regulations there under existing laws, and we also know that those people living in Fingo Town are very bad ratepayers. I think the hon. member will admit that. Thirdly, we know that the town council there has already had a lot of trouble with regard to sub-letting and squatting on premises in Fingo Town. So they have approached us already in the past and we could do nothing of practical value. If they want to approach us now, with this legal instrument available, much more can be done.

But in regard to property ownership I repeat that it does not necessarily follow that if Fingo Town becomes a designated area, ownership there will automatically be in jeopardy. It may gradually disappear if it is decided to buy those properties out one after the other, but it does not automatically follow if this Act is made applicable to Fingo Town. And in regard to expropriation I also want to say that the Town Council of Grahamstown can if they like to do so, expropriate property in Fingo Town without this legislation. It will be difficult, but they can do so. So I do not think there is any reason to fear that steps will be taken as soon as this Bill becomes law. If a designated area should be declared there, I think the initiative should come from the Town Council of Grahamstown. I hope this will satisfy the hon. member for Albany.

I think I have dealt with all the questions raised, and I hope hon. members opposite now that they have seen that their amendment is based on two misconceptions, will withdraw their amendment so that here too we will show that all of us have the best intentions.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—83: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha. M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé. S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais. P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.: Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden. J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.: van Zyl, J. J. B.: Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field. A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay. L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie. R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.: Malan, E. G.: Miller. H.; Mitchell, D. F Mitchell, M. L.: Moolman. J. H.; Odell, H. G. O.: Oldfield, G. N.; Radford. A.; Raw. W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher. D. M.; Taurog. L. B.; Thompson. J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker. H.; Warren. C. M.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move—

We have had a long and interesting discussion on this contentious Bill before us, and I do not intend, during the time at my disposal, to repeat what has already been said in connection with the transfer of Coloured education to this Minister and his Department. I want to admit at this early stage that we have a much better Bill before us to-day than the one which was originally introduced. I think the improvements to the Bill are to a large extent due to the Minister’s willingness to listen to arguments and to accept amendments. I think we should congratulate him on that. Nevertheless, in principle and in essence this Bill remains unsound as far as we are concerned. It breaks with tradition and it gives rise to estrangement and suspicion. Mr. Speaker, in terms of this legislation the responsibility for the education and the training, in other words, the training of nearly 400,000 Coloured children in South Africa, is now being taken out of the hands of the provinces and placed under the control of the Minister and his Department. I want to admit that that is a Department which has excellent men in command, men who are performing their difficult task with dedication and enthusiasm in so far as it concerns the establishment and organization of an entirely new Department. To take over something of which you have had no experience is by itself a sufficiently unenviable task.

I should, however, appreciate it, Sir, if you will allow me at this stage, also from this side of the House, to express our appreciation to somebody who has had a great deal to do with this matter and who will shortly be leaving us, a dedicated South African who took it upon himself to try to bring about a better understanding between the two racial groups, the Coloured group and the White group; and not only to bring about that better understanding but also to maintain it, to preserve it and to extend it, in particular to uplift the Coloured people in the cultural and educational fields and in that way to give them a status in society in South Africa. I refer, of course, to Dr. I. D. du Plessis, a person who, under the most difficult circumstances, took this Department over with a new approach and who succeeded to a great extent to fulfil his ideal. We too thank him and we want to express the hope that he will be spared for many years to continue with his noble work.

The transfer of the education of our Coloured people will greatly increase the work and scope of this portfolio and its Department. Transfer will not only increase it but this legislation, as it appears before us to-day, will also give an enhanced status to the portfolio and place a big responsibility on the shoulders of the Minister and his officials. It will create problems with which the hon. the Minister and his Department have not had to contend hitherto. It creates a department the officials of which are not yet experienced in the work. I take it that all of them are fully aware of the great responsibility which is being placed on their shoulders because of the transfer of this important matter. I take it that they are aware of the stumbling-blocks in the way, that they are also conscious of their inexperience at this stage. I want to admit, however, that they are all imbued with a spirit of willingness to assist and a spirit of goodwill. I regret, however, that I must also say that, apart from all this, it will be years, in my opinion, before those people who have become the prey of this ideology, as I said at the time of the second reading, will receive the high standard of education which is due to them or which they received under the old set-up, particularly under the experienced departments of the Cape Province and Natal, as well as of the Transvaal and of the Orange Free State. As far as this matter is concerned, the Provincial Administrations concerned could have served the purpose just as well and better if only we—not only the present Government but all Governments of the past—had only done our duty towards those who were in control of education and if only we had made the necessary funds available to them. Had we done that they would have done more than we will be able to do, at least over the next few years, because of our inexperience. I repeat that I am not only blaming this Government for the shortcomings of the past but all Governments which preceded this Government.

What I do want to state clearly, however, on behalf of this side of the House, is that if the education of this racial group, which we all admit is an appendage of the Whites, suffers under the new set-up, none other than this Government will have to shoulder the full responsibility and blame for it, because it is this Government who, against the will of the racial group concerned, namely our Coloured people, is introducing this fragmentation into our educational system and who is depriving the provinces of it for no reason other than to satisfy their unfortunate and dangerous ideology. The Minister could to some extent have removed the suspicion which exists amongst the Coloured people. As a matter of fact I must admit that as a result of the amendments which the Minister has accepted there is less suspicion to-day, but a measure of suspicion does nevertheless exist and the Minister could also have removed that had he, for example, accepted my amendment in connection with compulsory education. I want to repeat that I appreciate the fact that he did indeed accept so many important suggestions from our side, but I say with respect that there would have been less suspicion had he adopted a different attitude as far as compulsory education was concerned. He could have done so without detracting from his legislation. He could have promised that it will be introduced within a certain period without detracting anything from his legislation. He could have satisfied those people without detracting anything from his legislation. The Minister knows that this question of compulsory education is very dear to the Coloured people, and such a concession would have had a salutary effect on them without detracting from the objectives of the Minister and the Government.

Before I go any further I should like to refer to a very important matter. In passing I should like to draw the attention of the Minister—the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) will go further into it—to a matter which we did indeed notice but in respect of which the hon. the Minister unfortunately did not see his way clear to accept our amendment. I refer to Clause 9. I trust that even at this late stage we shall still get a satisfactory reply from the Minister, or that he will find a way out of the difficulty, because a measure of uncertainty and concern exists, not only amongst the White teachers who are attached to Coloured schools, but also amongst the provincial departments of education. Quite a number of White teachers are engaged in Coloured schools in the various provinces and as I see it Clause 9 does not give these teachers an option, and that, with transfer, they will, without having any option, have to enter the service of the new Department whether they want to or not and whether it is to their advantage or not, particularly in so far as their pension rights are concerned. Had the Minister accepted our amendment that would not have been the position and we would not have been confronted with this difficulty to-day, and in that case the teachers would also have been satisfied. I want to refer to Clauses 13 (2) (a) and (b) in particular and seriously ask the Minister—because this is a serious matter which brooks no delay—that he rectifies it or at least gives us the assurance that it will be rectified, or that it will be applied in such a way that nobody will suffer.

Nor do I think anybody will disagree with me when I say that this measure, rightly or wrongly, widens the gap which already exists between the Whites and the Coloureds. By means of this legislation we are once again bringing it home to the Coloureds that we do not welcome them and that even their education must be on a different basis and fall under different control. We on this side of the House approach the matter from a different angle; our approach is based on the policy which was followed over the past century and longer, a policy which was laid down by General Hertzog at the time. We think that a departure from that policy as embodied in this Bill may have detrimental effects and will have, we are sure, as far as both the Coloureds and the Whites are concerned. We think we should not estrange them further but that we should rather bring them closer to ourselves. We may differ as to the method but I think that is also the intention of the Minister and the Government. We are afraid, however, that this legislation will have a psychological effect which will adversely affect that relationship. The policy of equal treatment in the field of the administration and the control of education did not only recognize the principle that education remained education, whether it be the education of Whites or Coloured, but it also made the Coloured feel that they belonged to us, that they wanted to remain our friends and that we wanted them as our friends. That is why I am sorry that this legislation has been introduced. The psychological effect of this compulsory separation, administratively, must and will have an adverse effect on the Coloured. It will give them an inferiority complex and make them feel that we are also camping them off in a separate camp as a racial group as far as their education is concerned.

That is the policy of the Government to-day. We think it is totally wrong and fatal for the future of both the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa. While we on this side of the House are in the minority, we realize, of course, that this process will continue, and that irrespective of how efficient the officials and the Minister may be, this process of estrangement, of fragmentation, will continue. But I also want to express the hope that it will not be long before my hon. friends opposite will also realize that as far as the Coloured people are concerned, those Coloured people who are so closely related to us and who have been with us for 300 years and who received the same education which we did—together with us to start with and then separately, but who received the same education under the same Department, with the same syllabuses and in many cases the same teachers and the same examinations— we are pushing them further and further away from us. That is a great pity. That is a tragedy. I hope, however, that if the Government does not realize it, the electorate will and bring about a change. To register our opposition once again I wish to move as an amendment—

1. (a) it interferes unnecessarily and in a disturbing way with the powers of provincial authorities;
2. (b) it will result in additional and unnecessary expenditure for the taxpayer;
3. (c) it will detrimentally affect the existing privileges and rights of teachers in Coloured schools; and
4. (d) it may lead to a lowering of the standard of education which the Coloured child has enjoyed up to now”.

I second.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow this third reading to pass without registering our final protest against this measure. I think it is necessary for me briefly to show that the terms of this Bill, despite the assertion made by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) to the effect that this Bill now presented to the House is an improvement on the one which originally came before us, in no way gives effect to the assurances that came from the hon. the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of Coloured Affairs when they were trying to win over Coloured support for this Bill. The Coloured people were at all times assured that this measure would be in the best interests of the Coloured people, that it would furnish considerably improved conditions of service for Coloured teachers, that it would provide for better educational facilities for the Coloureds, that the standard of education would be the same as the standard of White education, and that it would lead to the Utopian ideal held out to them by Government speakers of compulsory education for Coloureds within the foreseeable future. The Minister himself time and again indicated that this Bill would bring Coloured education on a par with the White education of this country and would be the means of bridging the wide gulf that exists between the educational facilities of the Coloureds as compared with those of the Whites. I am afraid that the terms of this Bill are at complete variance with the promises and assurances given to the Coloureds outside of this House. The Minister had an opportunity during the course of this Bill to place on record the warranties to which I have referred and which would have set at rest the uneasy minds of Coloured leaders, and particularly Coloured educationists.

I think it is necessary for me to remind this House once again that this Bill has not been sought by the Coloureds; they did not ask for it. No responsible Coloured leader or Coloured organization has asked for the transfer of Coloured education from the Provincial Administrations to the Coloured Affairs Department. This Bill is being forced on them by the Government.

It is perhaps appropriate for me to refer briefly to two statements that have come from Coloured teachers’ organizations to give effect to what I have just said, that this is not of their asking. I refer firstly to a memorandum presented by the Teachers’ Educational and Professional Association. They say—

Among the associations which opposed the transfer, we find a whole list of such organisations. I do not want to waste time by reading through it. They finally say this—

Another statement I should like to read briefly is the statement issued by the South African Federation of Teachers’ Associations, addressed to the hon. the Minister himself on this aspect of the matter—

This organization represents seven teachers’ organizations in the Republic and South West and has a total membership of 5,800 teachers out of a possible 12,000. These are the views of this representative organization, and the memorandum is dated 6 April 1963. It must be obvious, therefore, that the Coloured people have not asked for this and that this change is being forced upon them by the Government. In the circumstances, therefore, the Coloured people were entitled to receive unqualified assurances from the Government that this change would not involve them in any worse position, that there would be no diminution of their rights and of their standard of education. that there would not be any distinction in the standard of education offered to the Coloured children under this Bill, as compared with the standard of education for White children. But these assurances are not to be found anywhere in this Bill, and I say that despite the fact that it was said that the Bill before us now is an improvement on the one we had before us originally. The one official body which the Government recognizes as the mouthpiece of the Coloured people, the Union Council for Coloured Affairs, expressed their grave views about this compulsory change. Our Press indicated throughout the past few weeks the attitude of this Council. That Council knew only too well that it was essential and in the interests of their people that there should be placed on record guarantees of equal education and equal rights. This Council passed resolutions making it clear that it could not support the transfer unless certain safeguards were incorporated. Here, too, very briefly, I want to say what this Council said in this respect. In a memorandum submitted to the Minister the Council unanimously decided that the proposed transfer would only be justified if certain large-scale improvements could be brought about by such transfer, and then they suggested what were the essential improvements to be incorporated, in the measure. They went on to say that the application of compulsory education on the same basis as applied to White children was one of them. There should be salary readjustments and no curtailment of syllabuses or diminution in the standard of education; there should be created an inspectorate from among the Coloured teachers; there should be an extension and improvement of medical services and an extension of school hostel facilities and the reintroduction of the school feeding scheme, and finally, an extension of the avenues of employment for Coloured clerical, administrative and professional personnel in this field. The Council was only prepared to approve of this change provided these conditions were fulfilled. It is significant that there is not a single word in this Bill which gives effect to any of these requested safeguards. In order to give the Minister an opportunity of placing on record the assurances which have from time to time been given by him and other Government speakers to the Coloureds outside this House, I personally moved an amendment on behalf of my colleagues and myself at the second reading, which asked that certain assurances should be given by the Government. This amendment was exhibited to the Minister by my colleagues and myself before the second reading. The Minister assured as that he would give everyone of the assurances set out in the amendment. To my mind there could not have been a better opportunity for the Minister to have vindicated himself than by giving the assurances incorporated in that amendment, to which he personally agreed. These assurances were in point of fact the assurances asked for by the Council for Coloured Affairs and by the Executive of the Coloured People’s National Union. Both these national organizations have often been referred to by the Minister when he wished to impress upon the House the measure of support he was receiving from the Coloureds. I repeat that the guarantees we asked for in the amendment were the same guarantees which were sought by these two organizations, and they were in line with the assurances the Minister himself had given to the Coloureds when he sought their support for this measure. If in fact, therefore, the hon. the Minister intends to carry out the assurances that have so often been given to the Coloureds, nothing would have been easier than for the Minister to have given those assurances in this House and have them placed on record in unequivocal terms and have them incorporated in the Bill. But what did we find? Instead of giving these assurances, the only response we received from the Minister was an extraordinary statement made by him in his reply to the second reading, in which he said the following. I quote from Hansard of 5 March, Col. 2202. The hon. the Minister said this—

Sir, this is not a question of political support. This had nothing to do with politics. This was an attempt to get for the benefit of the Coloureds something on record which would safeguard their future and their destiny. The Minister continued—

That is the only reply that my colleagues and I received from the Minister to this serious amendment which we moved, genuinely believing that it was in the interests of the Coloured people that that amendment should receive the favourable consideration of the Government. In reply to this statement made to us by the Minister in his reply to the second reading debate, I want to say that my amendment was not introduced with the slightest intention of making any political capital out of it. An important matter of this kind, affecting the education and future destiny of a large section of our citizens, transcends all politics. This matter is far above politics. My amendment has only one motive, to get on record for our Coloureds an unqualified assurance from the Minister that the Government intended to carry out in every respect its promises to the Coloureds. The Minister’s refusal to give these assurances, coupled with the ignominous way in which he treated his own Council for Coloured Affairs, which consists virtually of Government-nominated persons, justified the misgivings which we on these benches have about this measure. I repeat that no responsible Coloured person or organization supports this Bill. Even the conditional support given by the Union Council and by the Executive of the Coloured People’s Union has now been withdrawn, for the simple reason that the conditions laid down by those organizations have not been incorporated in this Bill.

Where do you get hold of that?

Well, read your local Press and the statements made by the members of your Council. I can only repeat what appeared in the Press as emanating from that Council.

I can see you are also a victim of that Press.

The terms of this Bill make it possible for the Government to give the Coloured children what has always been feared by Coloured leaders, namely a type of education specially devised for the Coloureds.

Where do you see that in the Bill?

The Minister refused my amendment to incorporate in the Bill a safeguard that there should not be any departure from the standard of education provided for White children. That would have been the test. The Minister insisted on taking to himself the fullest powers to determine the type of education to be provided for the Coloureds. This Bill does not provide any guarantee that there will be compulsory education for the Coloureds. It leaves the matter entirely to the discretion of the Minister. The Minister will remember that he refused to set a reasonable time limit for the introduction of compulsory education. In no single instance has the Minister incorporated the improvements suggested by the Coloured leaders as a condition precedent to the transfer of Coloured education to the Department. Is this not sufficient reason why the Coloured people, and those of us who wish to protect their interests, have misgivings about the measure? Surely at a time like this, when South Africa needs the help of the Coloured people more than ever before in our history, we should do everything possible to avert any further deterioration in our race relations. To my mind in this Bill there exists a very real possibility that the provisions of the Bill will lead to a serious deterioration in our race relations. For these reasons my colleagues and I intend to vote against the third reading.

I will be brief. The principle of the Bill before us provides for taking away from the provinces Coloured education. That we cannot accept on this side of the House, this diminution of the powers of the Provincial Councils, powers which we believed would receive greater regard now that we are a Republic. The Government has introduced this measure and on that ground alone we on this side will oppose it, but there are other features also. I do not want to traverse the ground covered by my colleagues or by the hon. member for Peninsula beyond simply saying that the Minister has been heard at various stages of the Bill in regard to this question of the equality of the standard of education which will be provided for the Coloured people in comparison with that of the Whites. My own view was simply that what was necessary was that there should be assurances in regard to the same syllabus and the same certificates, but however much the matter has become involved by other considerations, that is still the kernel of the matter, and that is not provided for although the substance of the Minister’s remarks is that it is his intention to reach the same standard of education for Coloureds as for Whites as soon as possible. There may be practical difficulties, some of which we can realize.

There is one other point I wish to put to the Minister in this regard, and that is why I have a special objection to the third reading being taken. It arises from the provisions of Clause 13. which were referred to by the hon. member for Hillbrow, the clause which we opposed in the second reading and in the Committee Stage and in respect of which I have since been able to make some more detailed inquiries, so that I can be more certain of the facts on which I speak. In Clause 9, I think, provision was made for the transfer of the staff at present in the various provincial education departments and under authorities who control Coloured Education at the present time, but I am dealing now particularly with the Provincial Administration. Staff in the service of the Provincial Administration in the Coloured Education Department is under Clause 9 willy-nilly transferred to the Department of Coloured Education. I think the Minister will accept that that is so. Those officials, because under this Bill they will virtually be civil servants—are given no choice. That is my first objection. I think that in principle, basically, it is quite wrong to take staff who have been engaged in the educational system of a province for Coloured Education—or for that matter any other branch of the Public Service—and to say to them, “on the passing of this Act you will be transferred willy-nilly, without being heard on the matter, to this other department under the conditions which will be laid down for you there.” Sir, I cannot remember that ever happening before in that form. Some kind of opportunity has always been given to the staff to make an election. That is not provided for here. Willy-nilly they are transferred over to another employer, to another organization, and to another set of conditions of employment. I want to emphasize that last statement—“ to another set of conditions of employment” That is so particularly when you come to Clause 13 (2) (a) and in (b), particularly (2) (b). Whatever the position of these officials may be in their present service with regard to pension rights and the age at which they can enjoy those rights and the conditions under which they are working at the present time in so far as their pension rights are concerned if they should fail to reach pensionable age, provision is made in those regulations as to what happens if for any reason they fail to reach the retiring age. Their pension rights are safeguarded. Under Clause 13 (2) (b) it is stated that any such benefit as they may be entitled to in terms of their rights at the present time shall only be payable from the date on which the person concerned attained the age at which he would have had the right to retire on pension. Again I think that this is very, very unfair. The man may have rights under which he can under certain circumstances be paid his pension prior to the age of retirement, under the circumstances set out. Now we come along, without giving him an opportunity to elect to stay in some other branch of the profession or to move over to the service of the Department of Coloured Education and we say to him, “we are now also going to change your pension rights; should you in the cimrcumstances set out in Clause 9 go on pension before your retiring age you will not commence to draw your pension in respect of the service which you have rendered in your previous employment to the province concerned until such time as you reach the pensionable age which has now been established.” Sir, a youngish man may wait for years for his pension notwithstanding the fact that in terms of his existing service with his existing employer, if I can call a Provincial Administration an employer—I think it is a fair term—he would have been entitled to pension benefits at an earlier age. Conditions may have been laid down and accepted by him, that in the event of his going on pension before the retirement age he will be entitled to such and such benefits. That is all swept aside here. Sir, here is a specific case, and I want to put this point particularly to the Minister because I believe it is very unfair. I believe it is going to create a bad feeling in the minds of people who, without their approval, without their consent, without their being given an opportunity to elect otherwise, are simply transferred over from their existing service to the Department of Coloured Education. I think it is a bad start. In so far as my own province is concerned, I find from inquiries that I have made that the Coloured teachers in Natal are in number inadequate to staff the Government’s Coloured Schools in Natal. I understand that with principals and vice-principals there are now 44 White teachers employed in the Coloured schools. Sir, those 44 White teachers can find employment to-morrow in the White sector of education in Natal, and they are being transferred over under these conditions. I hope, that the Minister may find it possible to say something in this regard which is going to show that there is going to be concern, official concern, as to the position not only of those men in my province-—because I am talking about the principals; I am stressing it in regard to my own province merely because since the Committee stage, I have been making special inquiries to find out who is going to be affected. There are, of course, all the Coloured teachers. The Coloured teachers may not find it so easy to get alternative employment, but in the case of the White teachers the other posts are sitting there waiting for them, under precisely the same conditions of service as they are enjoying at the present time. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance on that score. I would like him to give us an assurance in respect of the Coloured teachers as well as the White teachers who may be affected. I do not think that it really ought to matter whether a man who is being transferred under Clause 9 is a Coloured teacher or a White teacher. The point is that he has been in the employ of another employer and without his acquiescence he has been transported, by Act of Parliament, from that sphere of employment to another employer under a different set of conditions to which he has never willingly agreed. I would appeal to the Minister therefore to deal with this specific point as candidly as he can so that these people can know precisely where they stand.

During the second reading debate I said that I saw much good in this Bill and that it could produce many benefits for our Coloured people if it were administered properly. I said that realizing that we have a Department that goes out of its way to promote the interests of the Coloured people. I also said so knowing that the teachers were consulted on how the transfer was to take place. Their views were called for and the teachers themselves and a large number of the parents were highly satisfied with the assurance they received from the people who addressed them. At that moment I had an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the points contained in the amendment moved by my Leader in this House on a subsequent occasion would be accepted. We put the matter fairly, and I took the liberty to say that I was in favour of this measure. I am still saying to-day that if this measue is administered properly, much good could come of it. But what is happening now? After the Minister has given us certain assurances, what do we find now? Before we moved the amendment here in the House, we went to the Minister. We showed him the proposed amendment, and with his own pen he ticked off each of these points and said: “I give you the assurance that I shall carry out every one of these things”. Here I have the paper upon which the Minister with his own pen and ink ticked off every section as correct.

And is it not in my speech when I replied to the debate? Read Hansard.

What did the Minister do when he replied in the House that day? He not only shocked us by saying that we could go to blazes—and just because the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) offended him—but he also shocked all the Coloured teachers throughout the country as well as his own Coloured Council. He can frighten the Coloured teachers and he did frighten the Coloured Council, but as long as we are here, we are not going to allow ourselves to be scared. We shall do what we think is right and in the interests of the Coloureds. Sir, I have the greatest confidence in our Department. I hope they will administer this Act well, in the interests of our Coloured people. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister has, with his forceful tactics in this House, shocked his own teachers and his own Council and me in such a way that I am unable to support this Bill any longer.

During the second-reading debate we were told that this measure introduces a new deal for the Coloureds in respect of their education. We were told that in course of time he would be given the most wonderful opportunities. We have now come to the third reading where we have to consider the contents and the effect of this measure, and to see whether it really is going to mean a new deal for the Coloureds. It has been argued that the Whites, particularly in the Cape Province, can no longer bear the enormous expense connected with Coloured education. I was surprised to hear, after the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) had proposed his amendment, that the four points contained in the amendment were all based upon untruths. I should just like to put one question to hon. members opposite: Under Clause 2, the hon. the Minister will also have to go to the Minister of Finance every time to obtain the necessary funds for this new Department. The Minister will be as dependent on the open or closed purse of the hon. the Minister of Finance under other clauses, in respect of Coloured education, as the provincial administrations have been up to this point. In the same way as they expected to obtain the necessary funds from the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs will also have to approach the Minister of Finance for the necessary funds So I cannot understand how it can be said that there will now be tremendous progress in respect of Coloured education. Mr. Speaker, in 1955 there were 1,404 schools under the Provincial Administration. By 1961 the number of schools had grown to 1,618. The teaching personnel rose from 7,600 in 1955 to 10,000 in 1961.

Order! The hon. member is now making a second reading speech.

No, I do not wish to make a second reading speech; I merely wish to point out that this legislation cannot accomplish greater progress than we have thus far had under the provincial system. I contend that under this measure Coloured teachers will have fewer rights than they have had in the past.

Why?

The hon. member asks “Why?” Does he then forget the discussion we had here under Clause 17? Does he not know what rights Coloured teachers had in the Cape in respect of organizations to which they could belong? The effect of this measure will be that the Cape Coloured teachers will have fewer privileges than they had before.

He may not participate in politics any longer.

It is not only a question of participation in politics. A Coloured teacher in the Cape to-day has the right to refuse a transfer, but under Clause 14 of this Bill he has no say in the matter. He will simply have to accept the transfer. So I could go on and show that all four of the points contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow are the holy truth. For instance, take his point in connection with unnecessary and additional expense for the taxpayers. When the hon. the Minister establishes this division of Coloured education, where is he going to get the officials for that department? Is he simply going to take them over from the Provincial Administration? The Schumann report states clearly that a large proportion of that personnel will still have to remain there. A portion of the expenditure incurred by the Provincial Administration in connection with Coloured education will continue to be incurred, or those people will have to do other administrative work. The same report says that we shall have to spend an extra R400,000 per annum.

Order! The hon. member is once again making a second reading speech.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to you that the effect of this measure will be that we shall have to incur greater expenditure …

Order! The hon. member should make a third reading speech and not a second reading speech.

In conclusion I should like to say this: The effect of this measure will ultimately be that there will be a change in the education the Coloured child has received thus far. It is regrettable that the effect of this Bill, which is really aimed at retaining the goodwill of the Coloureds, will be that we shall lose it in course of time. That in my view is the main reason why one cannot vote for the third reading of this Bill.

We still have the same arguments we had in the second-reading debate; we still have to put up with the same sowing of suspicion we had during the second-reading debate. Wild accusations are being thrown at the hon. the Minister, allegations for which no proof at all is produced. Reference is made to the fragmentation of education. Is the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) really serious when he refers to the fragmentation of education? Here we have five Departments concerned with the matter, and the whole object of the Bill is to place all Coloured education under one and the same Department of Education. That is not fragmentation; it is consolidation; consolidation which is an absolute condition for any progress in any system of education. The second charge is that there will be a lowering of standards. Where do hon. members see that in this Bill? You can go through the Bill with a fine comb and you will not find that anywhere. I do not know with reference to what this is said. The only reason mentioned here by the hon. member for Hillbrow is that the new Department has no experience of education. We are going to have the same schools; we are going to have the same teachers; we are going to have the same inspectors of schools or people who are trained for that purpose.

Where does the Bill say that?

In any event, to begin with the position remains the same. The hon. member refers to the ideology of the National Party that is now causing this fragmentation. I do not know what he really means by that. I do not know whether he means that we shall now bring the schools closer together, and that we shall eventually throw open the doors of the schools as multi-racial schools. But we have always had separate schools.

We said “administratively”.

The hon. member couples the fragmentation to that. Surely that is consolidation; it is first-class consolidation which we have been struggling to achieve in White education. A further accusation concerns the standard of education. Now, that may mean that we are not going to give these people syllabuses that are suitable for them, or it may mean that the standard of education is going to be lowered. I do not see that anywhere in this Bill. Once you place the five provincial Departments under one and the same Department, then there will have to be a change in your syllabuses to a certain extent, so that things can fit into each other better, your primary into your secondary and your secondary into your university. I fail to see how we can have a lowering of standards in this way.

Another objection raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is that the Minister was unwilling to accept 1970 as the date for compulsory education. I just want to remind you that this matter was threshed out as recently as 1946 when the then Administrator asked that a ten-year plan be drawn up for compulsory education for Coloureds. The finding of that commission was that if you were to draw up a ten-year plan, buildings alone—and that for the Cape only— would cost £8,000,000. Is this House willing to spend £8,000,000 by 1970 on buildings alone? It means that you will have to bring children there who have not been to school before; children who left school too early will have to be brought back to school. And that was only in regard to children between the ages of seven and 14 years. When now we talk about compulsory education between the ages of seven and 14 years, we will be accused of discriminating; that it should be children between the ages of seven and 16, to make it the same as for White children. That brings your entire secondary education into the picture. We just do not have the teachers. The hon. the Minister may do what he likes; he cannot train enough secondary Coloured teachers by 1970 to do the work in our secondary schools properly, that is to say under a system of compulsory education. No, the position simply is that we have always had to deal with the misgivings of that side of the House, that we have always had in mind some evil object and that we want to break down the poor Coloured person culturally and otherwise. No proof has been produced in support of that.

I now wish to deal with one further small point only. The hon. member for South Coast has said here that the Coloured Council would be satisfied if they had a guarantee that certain improvements will be effected to the existing system—improvements, not to maintain the same standard of education, but to bring about improvements. I now feel like giving hon. members an assurance on behalf of the Minister of Coloured Affairs, that there will be improvements indeed.

That is not part of the Act.

You cannot enshrine promises in an Act. The hon. member should stop sowing suspicion among the Coloureds, so that we can get the Coloured teachers and the Coloured Education Council to co-operate with us.

I fully agree with the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) that we cannot incorporate promises in an Act, but it seems to me that the hon. member was very anxious to say a few things here on behalf of the hon. the Minister that the Minister has not said, although we asked for it.

We have been aware during the past few years that legislation of the nature of this Bill was being contemplated. We were aware that it was the Government’s policy that at one stage or another Coloured education would be taken over and that it would fall under the Department of Coloured Affairs. I personally adopted the attitude, and I have discussed it with some of my colleagues, that I welcome this measure and that having regard to the shortcomings and the neglect of Coloured education and the inferiority of Coloured education in comparison with White education at this stage, there may be an opportunity under this legislation, if we act firmly and wisely on behalf of the people we represent, to obtain an improvement of their system of education and a building up of their system of education until it will be equal to White education. Having held this view, I considered it my duty to enlighten the Coloured people in my constituency, particularly when it became definite that such legislation would be introduced. I did my best, and I consulted officials of the Department and people who think sensibly about these matters, and I had discussions with them because I felt that if the legislation were passed by Parliament I could fulfil only one function, and that is to do the most I possibly can for the people I represent.

Much was said during the second-reading debate, and this afternoon also, about the traditional provincial system of education. I adopted the attitude, right from the beginning, and rightly so, after I had consulted my constituents and knew what their views are, that they do not care for the traditional provincial system and for the honourable arrangements made when Union came about, as long as the money is made available and as long as they get a system of education as nearly as possible equal to that of the White man. As long as the funds are made available, it does not matter which Department administers education. I did my best, in consultation with the Department, where necessary, and with the officials whose advice I needed, and on my own, as far as I could, to create the necesary goodwill and to tell my constituents: “Use your brains; use the opportunity to get the best you possibly can get,” up to a certain stage when the Bill was introduced. The day the Minister moved the second reading of the Bill, he introduced it briefly and succinctly and calmly, and he concluded with an appeal that this measure should be discussed objectively and in an atmosphere of calmness. Unfortunately it is true that members on both sides of the House did not respond nicely to the appeal of the hon. the Minister. I concede that many unnecessary things were said during the discussions. Many speakers participated who did not know much about the difficulties and problems in connection with Coloured education at this stage. I concede also that there was much unfounded criticism but surely that was no reason for the hon. the Minister to lose his temper in his reply as a result of trivialities, as a result of flies that bothered him, and to adopt the attitude he adopted here. He himself did not heed the appeal he made to members to be calm and objective. What happened here on that day was a very great disappointment to me personally. In my view, in all modesty and in all sincerity, as I know my constituents and as I know the Coloured people in South Africa, as I know them under present circumstances, as I know their history, and as I know their political sentiments and otherwise at this stage, I felt that the hon. the Minister had the opportunity here to create the greatest degree of goodwill and confidence in himself and his Department, and in the policy of the Government in respect of Coloured education. The contents of this Bill amount to this, that a drastic change is being brought about in the administration of Coloured education. There are people who sowed suspicion among people who do not think further than the length of their noses, people who have conducted themselves maliciously and there are people who believed malicious stories. The Minister had the finest opportunity to create the greatest degree of confidence and goodwill that he has ever had in his career as Minister of Coloured Affairs. My personal view was that the hon. the Minister threw away with both hands that golden opportunity he held in his hands, by the manner he carried on when introducing this Bill and during the discussion of this legislation; he did not merely permit it to slip through his fingers. I feel it is my duty to point out that it is necessary that we should instil confidence on the part of the Coloured teachers. The Minister knows better than I what the problems are in regard to certain persons who have to be brought under control. However, the question arises whether it was necessary to make that statement at that stage, and to couple it to the Act.

Order! I should like to point out to the hon. member that I have given him much latitude, but we are now on the third reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude as soon as possible. I hope the hon. House understands that as far as I personally am concerned, my experience in connection with this Bill has been very difficult as well as very disappointing. We who represent the Coloured people are in the unfortunate position that we represent people upon whom deep and painful wounds have been inflicted throughout the years in more than one sphere and in more than one way. While we are living in those difficult times and while the opportunity presents itself to us to apply ointment to those wounds and to assist the healing process, we should avail ourselves of that opportunity. That is why I hope you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to make a few further remarks briefly and then I shall regard the matter as closed.

Since the second-reading debate I have adopted the attitude in this House that I have done my duty, that I feel the matter has not been handled properly, and that I wish to leave the matter in peace for the rest. I felt that the Bill should be allowed to go on. It has been said here in the House and at other places that the Coloured Representatives proposed no amendments. I personally felt that I wanted to have nothing to do with it. My point of view is quite clear. As regards the implications of this Bill, and the regard to how it is going to be applied, we are hoping for the best. I feel the time has arrived, particularly as regards our Coloured people, that we should have regard to the words my late grandfather spoke to me when I first wore a pip on my shoulders, that is when I received my commission as an officer. He was an old man and a veteran of the Anglo-Boer War. He told me: “My child, remember one thing. Whether you command three or 25 men, men under your command should not be threatened; they should be led.” I think the same words are applicable in this case. As regards our Coloured people there is a great deal that can be done. As I have said, there are deep wounds.

The hon. member should now confine himself to the effect of the Bill.

What I meant by what I have just said is that as regards the provisions of this Bill and the application thereof, we should tread warily. We are under a duty, when a Bill is tabled or when it is discussed, to explain the implications of it to the people in such a way that they can understand it. When it departs from that to which they have been accustomed and still are accustomed, we shall never make a mistake if we proceed as cautiously as possible. The contents of this Bill has not only upset me …

Order! I cannot permit the hon. member to go on like this.

I ask your guidance, Sir. Am I entitled to discuss the contents of the Bill and the effect thereof?

The hon. member may continue. I shall call him to order if necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The contents and the effect of this Bill perplexed not only me and other persons concerned with it, but even the Coloured Council, a statutory body. You cannot persuade people to accept the effect and the contents of this Bill simply by sweeping away all opposition. Nearly 2,000 years ago a letter was written from which I should like to quote. I want to conclude with this. When we are referring to goodwill, we are referring to love for one’s neighbour. I want to say this—

In regard to this matter after all these hours of debate there undoubtedly is an unbridgeable gulf of difference of principle between this side of the House and that side. In the same way that hon. members opposite have assumed viewpoints of principle that directly conflict with our viewpoint in respect of other measures taken by this side of the House in recent years, and ultimately there-after have come along, as they have done this year too, and have turned a complete somersault and accepted that principle which they had at first opposed, more specifically in respect of the Coloureds. I refer to two instances, namely the Development Corporation and the Rural Areas Act certain aspects of which they were still opposing as recently as last year. So they will still turn a somersault on this measure also. In respect of those measures we had the same arguments of fragmentation, of lower standards, of humiliation etc. In the same way that they were opposed to those measures in the past and subsequently accepted them, so also they will support this measure later on.

I should like to begin by referring to what has been said here by the Coloured representatives. I do not propose to dwell upon that for long. They were fairly perplexed. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) referred to broken promises on the part of the Prime Minister and myself but he did not say in what respects we had broken any promises. It was only a general statement he made. Everything the hon. the Prime Minister envisaged last year to the Union Coloured Council is possible under this legislation. Greater participation by the parents, eventual compulsory education, improved salaries etc.—all the things stated by the Prime Minister as an ideal for the Coloured people—are possible under this legislation. Now they are talking about broken promises. It is merely a general statement intended to raise the dust. The hon. member for Peninsula went further and said: “No responsible organization amongst the Coloured people asked for this transfer.” Is that correct now? Long before the announcement was made, the C.P.N.U. decided in favour of it at a congress held in Port Elizabeth.

On certain conditions they mentioned, and which I have now mentioned in the House.

The point is that they asked for the transfer. That is the point at issue. The Free State Teachers’ Association asked for the transfer, but the hon. member for Peninsula says “that no responsible Coloured organization asked for it”.

The third point he made was that I am supposed to have met the Coloured representatives and gave them certain guarantees which I subsequently broke, according to the hon. member. That is a very serious accusation to make, because what the hon. member has really said is that I am not a person to be trusted in regard to the discussions I had. Now I should like to say this: I shall refuse to see the hon. member in future again under similar circumstances. What happened is this: Those hon. members submitted an amendment to me. I commented upon every point but I gave them no unconditional guarantee that I would accept that amendment just like that. That is the truth. Now I shall prove what I have said. I have here before me my reply to the second-reading debate. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to refer to it, for I am now accused of breaking my promise. I referred to what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) had said, namely that I would say yes, yes, yes only to get the support of hon. members. I then said this—

What was so offensive in that that hon. members should jib at it? Then I continued and referred to all the points they had raised except the one in connection with hostels. I said this—

I do not wish to read the whole speech, but I continued …

Sixthly, the Education Council which is to be established will have to assist in the planning; and in the seventh place the educational institutions which already fall under the Department are a proof of the high standards which will continue to be maintained after this takeover. I want to say to hon. members who are in doubt: Go and visit Porter, visit the technical college, visit the University College of the Western Cape and visit all the other institutions which have been taken over by this Department. If hon. members can produce any proof that standards have been lowered, let them do so.

Then I spoke about the question of compulsory education contained in the amendment of the hon. members. I stated my point of view fully. I spoke about the question of salaries and I said that one of the first tasks of the Education Council will be to institute an inquiry into the whole question of salaries. I dealt with other points too. I find there is only one point I did not deal with. Now hon. members are pretending that they voted against the second reading and are now going to vote against the third reading because I am supposed to have treated them shabbily. They are merely looking for an excuse and I grant them that excuse. My Department and I have thus far made progress with the Coloured people in spite of them. We shall do so in future also in spite of them.

Vigorously.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) is such a somersaulter that I shall not even take notice of him.

The hon. member for South Coast asked me a fair question which I shall reply to fairly. My difficulty was that if I had accepted the proposal, these people would have an option in the first place. The hon. member will understand therefore that I could not give the other side the undertaking that I would not permit any inferiority at the take-over. The hon. member will understand that.

I understand that.

I had to have those teachers to be able to continue making the services available. There are 250 White teachers teaching in the various Coloured schools. I think the hon. member will agree with me that we must retain those White teachers under the present circumstances where as yet an insufficient number of Coloured teachers have been trained to maintain the standard, which is in the interests of Coloured Education. I am informed, and I made special inquiries in this connection, that when the Act was drafted— and I personally attended to that—we made sure that in respect of pension rights, that particular clause was so formulated that nobody would be prejudiced in any way. We went out of our way to tell the technical officers of the Department of Pensions that they should devote special attention to this. What I have already undertaken since then, is to cause the Coloured Education organ, Alfa, to publish a full statement after consultation with the Department of Pensions, so that every teacher will know what the position is and how he will be affected by the relevant clauses of this Bill. What is more, we have already arranged with my colleague, that the Department of Social Welfare will make available an official who, together with the Deputy Secretary of Coloured Affairs, will meet the teachers more often at conferences to discuss the whole position very fully with them.

I am aware that in Natal there are 44 White teachers as the hon. member has said. Of the 250 in the Republic. 44 are in Natal. As regards schools principals, there are four in State schools, five in State-aided schools; as regards vice-principals, there is one in a State school and three in State-aided schools; there are 19 assistants in State schools and 12 in State-aided schools. Altogether there are 24 in State schools and 20 in State-aided schools. I am aware of the fact that some of these teachers probably might wish it otherwise. I should like to tell the hon. member that I propose to discuss this whole matter before the takeover very thoroughly with the Natal Provincial Administration. We shall see to it that nobody is prejudiced. I can give him that assurance.

It is not necessary for me to say much more, except to refer to a few points made by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp); points that in recapitulation really amounted to what other hon. members tried to say. In the first place the hon. member said that he wished to express his appreciation to the person who was largely responsible for building up the Department and he also referred to Dr. I. D. du Plessis by name, and expressed his deepest appreciation to him. I should like to use this opportunity to associate myself with that. I should like to say that Dr. I. D. du Plessis has already retired as Secretary of the Department. He has been succeeded by Mr. Bosman, the former Deputy-Secretary. We felt that in view of these new steps that are being taken, we should retain the services of Dr. I. D. du Plessis. His services have therefore been retained on a contractual basis. He will act as my adviser in regard to various matters. He will represent me at conferences. He will be present at all possible discussions, wherever it is deemed necessary, and he will co-operate most closely with the Departmental head and other officials. There are two specific tasks particularly to which I wish to refer, namely that he will take the lead and will be the inspiration in encouraging the establishment of welfare organizations among the Coloured population. He will encourage them to show interest in their own people, and secondly he will help to promote the cultural life among the Coloured people. I have specially asked him to take a lead in encouraging a developing cultural life among the Coloured people. I do not think we could have entrusted it to anyone better. As the hon. member has now referred to Dr. du Plessis with appreciation, I should like to repeat what I said on another occasion when I took leave of him and say that he has reason to be grateful and proud of what he has achieved. Our best wishes go with him. I feel that the step we are now taking will enable him to make a further contribution, by way of the specific tasks we have now entrusted to him, to the progress and the benefit of the Coloured population.

The hon. member has said that he hopes the Department is aware of its shortcomings and its inexperience. Of course we are, and that is why we are providing in this Bill that the transfer will be effected in the most sensible manner and after the fullest consultation. We are not going to act as if we are the only people who are endowed with wisdom. We are also taking over officials of the Administrations, with a view to continuity and to ensure that the best service will be rendered. In spite of all that has been said in this debate, I have given the assurance, and I repeat it this afternoon, that no inferior education will be given to the Coloured people. We shall try not to have any retrogression. I should like to say to the hon. member once again, that if he uses this argument, I want to tell him on the other hand that the Department is not so immature and so incompetent as he is trying to suggest in respect of this matter. There are various institutions that are already controlled by this Department. I repeat, and I am saying this to those in particular who are always so ready to criticize, that they should go to those institutions and go and see the standards that are being maintained there, and the work that is done there, and then say whether the Department is not to be trusted with a greater task.

The hon. member also referred to the question of compulsory education which, according to his interpretation, is lacking in this Bill. I quoted on a previous occasion what Safta, which is opposed to the transfer, has said in respect of the question of equality. They said that they concede that I cannot now write into the Bill what I have been asked because there are certain practical problems. Safta also expressed its views on the question of compulsory education. I should like to read to the hon. member what they said—

That is what I said during the Committee Stage. I said what it will depend upon. In other words, the hon. member has no reason to oppose this legislation in respect of this matter. Then the hon. member went further and said that he regarded this legislation as a break with the Brown people. What I cannot understand is this: The first few remarks of the hon. member were tributes to the retired Secretary, tributes to the Department, on account of what it has done for the Coloured people. He really expressed his goodwill to the Department. Nodding his head, he confirmed just now what I said in that connection. I cannot understand, if the Department is under the control of such persons, and if the Department has done so many good things for the Coloureds, how it can be possible that we are breaking with the Coloured man in South Africa, when we entrust his fate to such a good Department. It seems illogical to me. The Provincial Administration was not able to cause justice to be done in respect of the education of the Coloured people in the way it ought to be done.

Why not?

We are not going into that again. We dealt with it at the second reading. But let me give the hon. member some information. I met the Education Committee of the Union Council the other day, and I asked them: Were you satisfied with the education you received? That question was also put to thousands of Coloured teachers all over, and the reply from all of them was “No If the Coloured representatives in this House want to be honest, they will agree. In other words, we are not taking over a perfect system from the provinces. We are not taking over a system of education that fulfilled all its requirements for the Coloured people. We are taking over something about which there has been the deepest dissatisfaction among the Coloured people. I experienced this on Saturday again, when I opened a large Coloured school in the country, and there were teachers who had come from as far away as Calvinia to meet me, and all of them told me that they were not satisfied with what they had been receiving thus far.

They had no alternative.

That is a ludicrous argument to raise now. In other words, the hon. members fought for a poorer system, for poorer services, to retain that, and they profess to be the great friends of the Coloured people. And then the hon. member comes along and says that the Brown man is being broken with because the Government is transferring this education, he is being prejudiced. Surely that is quite illogical. I leave it at that.

I conclude by saying that by means of this Department and by means of the contacts we could build up with the Coloured people, we shall show them that it is the Government’s wish that there should be the best relations with them, but that their education should be used for their socio-economic upliftment and that it should be used to remove certain frustrations among them. I personally have the best signs that among the Coloured teachers there already is willingness to co-operate and to consult, and those doors will be opened to them to an increasing extent, to all who mean well by them as a section of the population.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—85: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—44: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, Η. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a third time.

I move—

In the times in which we live legislation must constantly be adapted to changing circumstances, and it is particularly necessary that the legislation dealing with our defence should be so adapted. This Bill before the House contains no drastic changes. It is mostly supplementary, and of course there are some consequential amendments. There are, however, four principles contained in this Bill which I should like to explain briefly before I deal with the various clauses.

The first principle of real importance is to be found in Clause 2, which provides that in future the members of the Active Citizens’ Force and the Commandos may also perform police duties in connection with the control of troops, etc. To-day, for example, we have the position that in so far as our Permanent Force is concerned its members are concentrated in reasonably large numbers in certain places, and if we are to use those people for the transportation of soldiers, etc., we cannot use them for police duties. We must always ask permission to do so. This matter has been discussed with the interested authorities and they all agreed that this would be a useful step and that it will not obstruct any services if this clause is accepted.

The second real principle is found in Clause 15. It is an important change and places members of the Defence Force living in a particular magisterial district at (the disposal of the S.A. Police for a period of 24 hours where the local police officer has come to an agreement with the Defence Force that it is necessary to do so for a specific purpose. We are introducing this principle into our legislation because we are particularly concerned about our small rural towns where there are very few police, and in these days in which we repeatedly hear about sabotage and attacks. What has been exercising my mind is what will happen in a small town where there are only two or three policemen, one of whom may perhaps be on leave, in the event of something of that nature occurring there. Hence the idea that if suddenly an emergency call comes from the police saying that they expect something of that nature, particularly at such an isolated place, they should be able to call upon my officer there, whether it is the commandant of the commando or an officer serving under him or a member of the Permanent Force who happens to be in that magisterial district, immediately to put some of our men at the disposal of the police. I realize that perhaps they may frequently be called upon without anything actually happening, but that is the very reason why we want to make these men available to the police, because we want to prevent anything from happening.

The third principle contained in the Bill is the establishment of Air Commandos. Our Commando system is organized in specific areas, and when I explain the clause I will point out that our Air Commandos are not organized in that way. But we are convinced that in the times in which we live we must utilize all available forces to aid in our defence, and since I became Minister, certain of the flying clubs and others have approached me to ask for the establishment of such Air Commandos, and I immediately felt that this would be a great step forward in regard to our defence. We are now going to do that.

A fourth principle is this: We have in our country to-day a Manpower Board, but it is not a statutory body. We find to-day that we are training large numbers of people for our defence who will eventually never be used in our Defence Force because we will not be able to spare them in time of war. We now propose that a Manpower Board be appointed to deal with the matter, which will be able to exempt whole categories of people from military training because in time of war we will not be able to use them. These are the only new principles contained in the Bill. But before I proceed to motivate the various clauses set out in the Bill, I should mention that none of the proposed amendments are contentious, but are merely intended to increase the preparedness of the Defence Force and to facilitate its operation.

In regard to Clause 1, Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment is consequential, and when I explain Clauses 5 and 10 the reason for the amendment will become clear.

Clause 2 extends the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and in that connection I have to mention that the military service to which members of the Permanent Force, Active Citizen Force and the Commandos are subject are prescribed in Sections 13, 28 and 38 respectively of the Act. The types of service which a member of the Active Citizen Force may be compelled to perform are precisely the same as those which apply in respect of a member of the Permanent Force, except that there is no provision whereby a member of the Active Citizen Force, like a member of the Permanent Force, may be used for police services. In terms of Section 38, a member of a Commando may be seconded to the Active Citizen Force, in which case he will then naturally be liable to perform the same service.

For obvious reasons it is, however, desirable that members of the Active Citizen Force and the Commandos should also be able to perform any police duties which may be entrusted to them and that in regard to such duties they should have the same powers and be entitled to the same indemnities as a member of the S.A. Police, and which are at present applicable in respect of members of the Permanent Force used for police duties.

The use of members of the A.C.F. and the Commandos for police duties is essential even in peacetime in connection with the control of troops, civilian and military vehicles, animals, etc., on public roads. In wartime and when mobilization takes place, and also when there is internal disorder, activities of this nature will increase. The police duties which will be entrusted to them from time to time will be prescribed in accordance with the circumstances, and the police powers and the indemnities will be limited to the cases where they are needed.

Clause 3 contains an amendment of Section 4 of the Act, and in order to explain it I want to say that the increase in the maximum period of compulsory military training for A.C.F. ballotees from three months to nine months during the first year in terms of Section 22 (1) of the Defence Act has created problems in connection with the application of industrial legislation, which is administered by the Department of Labour.

Before the period of training was increased, industrial councils, at the insistence of the Department of Labour, made provision when drawing up the agreements that the full period of compulsory military training, that is three months, should be regarded as “service” for the purposes of the agreements concerned. The question has, however, arisen now as to whether the full increased period should also be regarded as “service”, and in that regard, after consultation between the Departments concerned, it was decided that only four months of the nine months’ absence on military training in the employee’s first year of training, as well as the two training periods of a maximum of three weeks each in the succeeding years, should be regarded as“ service” for purposes of annual leave, sick leave, wage increases, etc.

In order to give effect to the decision that only four months of the nine months’ compulsory military training during the first year of training should count as “service” with the employer for purposes of leave, etc., and in order to curtail the obligations of the employer accordingly, this amendment is now being proposed.

Clause 4 repeals Sections 13 and 28 of the principal Act, and the amendment is consequential to the amendment introduced in Clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 5 envisages the establishment of Air Commandos. The Commando system established in terms of Section 32 of the Defence Act consists of Territorial Commandos each organized in its own area on the lines of an infantry battalion. The operational role of the Commandos is the defence of their area and the safeguarding of vulnerable points. The area in which a Commando serves is extensive and it is impossible to do all the necessary reconnaissance on the ground. In addition, the possibility exists that in guerrilla operations roads may be blocked and sections of the Commando may become completely isolated.

In order effectively to play their role in internal security operations, it has therefore become necessary to make provision for air support, mainly of a non-offensive nature, to the Commandos. The duties of air support include reconnaissance, communication flights, the delivery of essential light supplies to small isolated groups, the removal of serious casualties and general liaison.

This air support cannot economically be provided by the existing and the planned sources of air support for the Permanent Force and the A.C.F. There are, however, numerous owners of light aircraft and also flying clubs right throughout the Republic who can be organized and linked up with the Commando organization in order to provide this very essential air support in internal security operations.

In order to make the best use of the qualities of light aircraft, and to exercise proper control and to provide for the maintenance of such aircraft, it is not possible to integrate the air support organization with the existing ground Commandos. Therefore the establishment is envisaged of an Air Commando organization, in which every Air Commando will render air support to a number of ground Commandos. In other words, instead of these light aircraft actually being assigned to ground Commandos, these aircraft will be organized centrally under a separate command and their services will be granted to the various Commandos on demand. Chapter V of the Defence Act merely envisages the establishment and maintenance of the Commando system as it exists at present and makes no provision for the proposed Air Commando organization.

Clause 6 amends Section 33 of the principal Act by the insertion of a proviso in terms of which various regulations may be framed for the Air Commandos.

Clause 7 contains a consequential amendment to Section 38 as the result of the proposed amendment of Section 3, to which there is reference in Clause 2 of the Bill.

Clause 8 extends the provisions of Section 39 by the insertion of the word “equipment”, which is essential in order to enable the Department to issue radio sets on loan to members of the Air Commando owning aircraft in order to enable them to communicate with ground forces.

Clause 9 inserts the word “equipment” in Section 41. This insertion will make it obligatory on those to whom radio sets have been issued to submit these sets to prescribed officers for inspection on demand.

Clause 10 proposes the insertion of a Clause 42bis. As I mentioned in regard to the motivation in respect of Clause 5, no provision has been made by the Department for making available departmental aircraft to members of the Air Commandos. Consequently it is envisaged that members of the Air Commandos will use either their own air-craft or the aircraft of flying clubs during their training, and that during cases of emergency or war those aircraft will be commandeered. Training ab initio is not envisaged, and only pilots who have already been licensed as such will be recruited as officers in the Air Commandos. In terms of the civilian aviation regulations, a plot must annually undergo certain flying training which is in line with the flying training required for military training, in order to qualify for the renewal of his licence, and in order to be able to do that it will be necessary for aircraft to be hired by the Department either from private owners or from clubs.

Clause 11 proposes to extend the provisions of Section 43 by the insertion of a sub-sec. (2), in terms of which officers of Air Commandos are given encouragement, and to some extent compensated for undertaking training which falls within the scope of the civilian aviation regulations and which can therefore be fitted in with their normal civilian flying activities. In view of the fact that the pilots live in widely scattered places, it will be impossible to exercise control by authorizing every “military flight” in advance, as is done at air stations in respect of flights undertaken by members of the Permanent Force and the A.C.F. The only practical way of ensuring that such flights will in fact be undertaken is the post facto control of the log-books of pilots by flight commanders or commandants of Air Commandos. The allowances will be prescribed in regulations, and a maximum and a minimum number of hours will also be laid down. Those who do not come up to the minimum will not qualify for the compensation, whilst those who exceed the maximum will be compensated only for the prescribed maximum. The minimum envisaged is 18 hours and the maximum 23 hours. The amount envisaged is R6 per hour, which will help the pilot to some extent in defraying his costs for fuel and oil and other expenses. As these flights are undertaken in a civilian capacity and are merely recognized as being of military value, the proviso provides that the State will assume no responsibility apart from the payment of this allowance.

It is envisaged to arrange bivouacs lasting six days a year during which every officer who attends will fly for ten hours and will participate in military exercises which will result in deviations from the procedure allowed in terms of the civilian aviation regulations. These bivouacs will be held under the supervision of Permanent Force flying instructors. In order to acquire aircraft for this last-mentioned purpose, Section 42bis is proposed. This provides for compensation and for a contract between the State and the owner of the aircraft concerned according to previously determined conditions.

It is envisaged that the conditions to be included in this agreement will make provision for:

1. (a) The making available of the necessary aircraft by the S.A. Air Force, in the discretion of the officer in command of the bivouac concerned;
2. (b) the inclusion of indemnification for damage to or loss of aircraft, which by agreement must be covered through insurance by the owner;
3. (c) the provision by the Department during bivouacs of the necessary fuel and oil, but not of maintenance services; and
4. (d) remuneration to the owner (who of course may be either a member of the Air Commando or of a flying club).

It is envisaged that the State during bivouacs will assume responsibility for—

1. (a) injuries to or for the death of members in terms of Sections 145 and 146 of the Defence Act, and
2. (b) damage to third parties caused by the use by the members concerned of the aforementioned aircraft during military training.

It is estimated that payment of a tariff of R6 per hour will be sufficient to rent the necessary aircraft.

In regard to Clauses 12 and 13, it is desirable that they should be dealt with jointly, and in that regard I wish to mention that Sections 68 and 98 of the Defence Act, 1957, provide for the establishment of exemption boards to consider applications in peacetime and in wartime in respect of individual citizens who cannot perform their military service. In terms of the provisions of Sections 22, 23, 69 and 70 (3) of the Act, exemption boards in peacetime may exclude the name of an individual from the list of ballotees, or defer the training of a citizen. In terms of Section 97 (2) of the Act an exemption board may in wartime, in the public interest, exempt an individual from military service.

Sec. 97 (1) (j) of the Act provides that certain persons concerned in a prescribed employment or industry may be exempted from service. (“ Prescribed” here means prescribed in regulations.)

Although a Manpower Board having certain functions was appointed in 1952, no provision for the existence of this board as a statutory body was made in legislation. It is envisaged that the Manpower Board should advise the Government as to the utilization of the available manpower, particularly with a view to making available the necessary fighting men to the S.A. Defence Force, whilst at the same time safeguarding the economy of the country. That means that the board will from time to time have to decide to exempt whole categories of persons, or portions of such categories, and that the exemption boards will be compelled, on instructions, to exempt such categories. The proposed new Section 74bis of the Act provides for—

1. (a) the establishment of the Manpower Board as a statutory body;
2. (b) the composition of the board;
3. (c) the appointment of committees to investigate particular matters; and
4. (d) related administrative matters.

Arising from the function of the board to indicate what categories of persons will not be available for military service in wartime, it follows that the training of persons in those categories in peacetime will serve no purpose, and consequently it is proposed in Section 74bis (1) (a) (ii) that an exemption board should be able to authorize the exemption from training of such persons. The proposed amendment of Section 70 (3) of the Act is consequential.

Clause 14 envisages an amendment of Section 90 which is merely consequential and results from the proposed amendment of Section 3 of the principal Act.

Clause 15 extends the provisions of Section 92 by the insertion of a sub-section (3), and for the information of hon. members, and by way of explanation, I wish to say that from the nature of the matter the South African Police are not able to prevent or to suppress local riots everywhere. Here one thinks of an isolated outpost in a distant area manned by only two or three policemen. In the light thereof it is therefore imperative that the necessary means should immediately be available to the authorities to suppress any riots before they assume appreciable proportions. It is therefore the idea that members of the Defence Force who find themselves in the vicinity where riots occur should immediately be enlisted to assist the police. Any such employment of members of the Defence Force in terms of this proposed provision will apply only to those members who reside in the magisterial district concerned, and will be valid for 24 hours only. Within that period it will be possible for the State President or the Minister of Defence to take action in terms of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 92. As hon. members know, the State President may by proclamation in the Government Gazette, or in any other way he thinks fit, in terms of sub-section (1) call up for mobilization the whole or any part of the Active Citizen Force, the Reserve or a Commando for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Republic or to preserve life, health or property or for the maintenance of essential services. Sub-section (2) authorizes action by the Minister of Defence more or less similar to that of the State President, but any action taken by the Minister is valid for four days only.

The amendment proposed in Clause 16 is consequential to the amendment set out in Clause 15.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with Clause 17 I have to state that the present provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 92 provide that members of the Permanent Force or members of the Active Citizen Force, the Reserve or the Commandos who are undergoing fulltime training or rendering service may be utlized for the defence of the Republic or to prevent or suppress internal disorder, the personal authorization of the Minister has to be obtained.

It is vitally important, particularly as far as the internal threat is concerned, that immediate preparedness should be maintained at all times. The initiative rests with those elements who seek to challenge the authority of the State, and one of the basic principles of their tactics is to rely on the element of surprise. It follows that in order to be effective it should be possible to take counter-measures the moment the elements refer to strike.

In view of the possibility that outbreaks of disorder may occur simultaneously at different centres, the fact that the South African Police cannot be present everywhere in sufficient strength and the possibility of disorders on an ever-growing scale, the Defence Force should be in a state of preparedness to be employed immediately or at very short notice on service in suppression of disorders or in support of the South African Police.

The establishment of this full-time force, together with the strategic dispersal of units, is in fact calculated to meet this requirement, but the effective utilization of the full-time force is jeopardized by the necessity to obtain the Minister’s approval in advance. The resultant inevitable delay may have serious consequences in emergencies. In addition to that one must bear in mind the possibility that it may sometimes take a considerable time, as the result of disruption of communications or for other reasons, to communicate with the Minister. This amendment is designed to make it possible for the full-time force to act immediately when circumstances require it.

I would point out that in the proposed instructions dealing with the employment of the full-time force, provision will be made that such employment will remain subject to the Minister’s approval but that in cases of the utmost urgency this prerequisite may be dispensed with. Even in that case the power to employ the force will vest in the highest possible military authorities, having due regard to the urgency of the situation.

The preceding remarks naturally also apply mutatis mutandis in respect of members of the Citizen Force, the Reserve or Commandos attending courses or camps at training establishments.

In terms of the first proviso the members concerned may continue to be employed on service in defence of the Republic, that is to say, in wartime, for a period not exceeding four days after the date on which the relevant training or service would normally have expired. This provision with regard to four days has been inserted to ensure that if a war should break out on the last day of the training of the troops concerned it will be possible to employ them on service in defence of the Republic until such time as troops called up in terms of Section 91 can be utilized. In the case of proviso (b) which relates to service in connection with the prevention or suppression of internal disturbances, a period of seven days’ further service after the expiry of the training or service period is visualized. The underlying idea is that when service in defence of the Republic becomes necessary mobilization will be resorted to in any event while in the case of internal disorders, the necessity for mobilization may perhaps be obviated if the troops concerned are kept on service for seven days.

Clause 18 contains a consequential amendment which flows from the amendment to which reference is made in Clause 17.

Mr. Speaker, Section 97 of the Act prohibits the calling up of certain persons in terms of Sections 91 and 92—for example Members of Parliament, those employed full-time in a public hospital as medical or dental officers, etc.

During the disorders of 1960 there were delays from the time medical officers were called up for service until they actually reported for service because arrangements first had to be made for substitutes.

The object of this amendment is to delete the relevant sub-paragraph so that doctors who serve in the Reserve, etc., and who are attached to public hospitals, can be called up for immediate service. Mr. Speaker, I want to give the House and the country the assurance that before a doctor who is attached to a public hospital is called up, the relevant authorities will first be consulted in advance so as to obviate the dislocation of essential services. Under no circumstances will doctors be called up arbitrarily for service in the South African Defence Force.

The amendment which is being brought about in Clause 20 is consequential upon the amendment in terms of which a Manpower Board is being established.

Section 103 to which Clause 21 relates, empowers the State President to promulgate regulations in connection with the defence of the Republic, the safety of the public, the maintenance of public order and the effective prosecution of a war, and to make adequate provision to cope with circumstances which in his opinion have arisen as the result of a war.

In this connection I just want to refer to the definition of “wartime” as it appears in the Act and which reads as follows—

As a result of representations received from the Department of Justice, it is the intention now to supplement Section 103 by the addition of the words “or might arise” at the end of sub-section (1). This amendment will remove any doubt as to the validity of the regulations which provide for circumstances which in fact have not yet arisen as at the date of promulgation but which will undoubtedly arise.

As far as Clause 21 (b) is concerned, it is proposed to delete certain words.

The provisions of Section 103 have been taken over practically word for word from Section 1 bis of the War Measures Act, as amended. The only material alteration is that the portion which it is now proposed to remove from the Act and to which reference is made in Clause 21 (b), fixes a limit of R4,000 or two years’ imprisonment with regard to penalties which the State President may prescribe for the contravention of regulations promulgated by him. The old provision, that is to say, the provision of the war measure, contained no such measure. It was possible therefore, in terms of regulations promulgated thereunder, to make provision even for the compulsory imposition of the death penalty for offences for which such penalties could not normally be imposed in peacetime but which it may be necessary to impose in wartime. In terms of War Measure No. 13 of 1942, for example, even attempted wilful damage to property was punishable in certain circumstances in the discretion of the court with the death sentence or life-long imprisonment or imprisonment for at least seven years.

Mr. Speaker, we can take it for granted that the creation of special offences and provision for the imposition of special penalties for those offences (which would probably be regarded in peacetime in a less serious light) will be just as necessary in any future war as it was during World War II. It is considered necessary therefore that this limitation which exists in the emergency regulations in so far as the prescribing of penalties is concerned, should be removed from the relevant section so that such regulations can be applied effectively.

In connection with Clause 22 which amends Section 108, I should explain that Section 56 of the Discipline Code which forms the First Schedule of the Act, authorizes the trial by a military court of any person who is subject to the provisions of the Discipline Code in respect of any civil contravention, excluding high treason, murder, rape and culpable homicide. Section 108 is in conflict with Section 56 because it limits the jursidiction of a military court in hearing of civil offences in terms of the Defence Act, to members of the Permanent Force and members of the South African Defence Force who are deputed for service in war-time, in times of internal disorder or other emergency situations. It is in the interests of the Defence Force, however, that Section 108 should be amended so that it will be applicable to all members of the South African Defence Force who are subject to the provisions of the Discipline Code.

Clause 23 is designed to amend Section 121 which provides that any person who agrees with or induces, or attempts to induce, any member of the South African Defence Force to neglect or to act in conflict with his duty in that Force; or who is a party to or aids or abets or incites the commission of any act whereby any lawful order given to any member of that Force, or any law or regulation with which it is the duty of any officer of that Force to comply, may be evaded or infringed, shall be guilty of an offence.

In the light of the very close co-operation in time of war or in time of disorders between the South African Defence Force, any Auxiliary Service, voluntary Nursing Service or Civil Protective Service which may be established in terms of the Defence Act, it is important that the Services referred to should also be covered by Section 121, in the same way as the South African Defence Force.

It is proposed therefore to extend the provisions of the sections referred to to include the aforementioned “Services”.

Clause 24 amends Section 122 (1) (a) which makes it an offence for any person to supply any member of the South African Defence Force with intoxicating liquor when that member is on duty and is prohibited under regulations, orders or instructions from receiving or taking intoxicating liquor.

It is proposed to extend the provisions of the section referred to so as also to prohibit the offering of intoxicating liquor to members of the “Services” referred to in Clause 23.

In terms of Section 123 to which reference is made in Clause 25, any person who falsely represents himself to be a member of the South African Permanent Force shall be guilty of an offence. It is considered desirable that the Act should be so amended that it will be an offence for persons to represent themselves falsely as members of the “Services” referred to in Clause 23.

In connection with Clause 144, which is being amended by Clause 26, it is proposed to incorporate a new Section 144bis in terms of which all members of the South African Defence Force and members of the “Services” will be obliged to take prophylactics in order to immunize them against diseases which are prevalent in areas where military operations have to be carried out. This step is in the interests of the individual, the Force, and the public in general. I might mention for the information of hon. members that the Public Health Act in terms of which such administration of prophylactics is compulsory is not applicable outside of the Republic.

Clause 27 which amends Section 145, is designed to remove an anomaly which has been brought to our notice by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. It has been pointed out by him that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is only applicable to persons employed in terms of a “contract of service”. Members of the Permanent Force Reserve are on service as the result of an obligation imposed upon them by the Defence Act and consequently cannot be regarded as “workers” for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In these circumstances members of the Permanent Force Reserve are not entitled either to compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or to a pension in terms of the War Pensions Act, 1942, when they are employed on service at a time of internal disorders and sustain an injury. Briefly it amounts to this that members of the Permanent Force Reserve who are maimed as a result of disorders, or their dependants in case they lose their lives, will receive better pension benefits.

Clause 28 contains a consequential amendment which flows from the proposed amendment of Section 145.

Section 148 of the Act, to which Clause 29 relates, authorizes the establishment and conduct of clubs, messes and trading and other institutions for the use or benefit of members of the South African Defence Force or other Forces. These provisions, do not, however, make provision for the establishment of clubs, etc. for members of the Auxiliary Services which, in terms of Section 80 of the Act, may be established and have already been established by the State President for the purposes of the South African Defence Force or any part thereof and of which there are three branches, namely—

1. (a) the White Auxiliary Service;
2. (b) the “Cape Corps” Auxiliary Services; and
3. (c) the Bantu Auxiliary Service.

It is now proposed to extend this provision of the Act to apply to the Auxiliary Services referred to, which will then make it possible in the future to supply intoxicating liquor also to non-Whites in their own messes. It is unnecessary to add that the provision of liquor in messes to members of the Auxiliary Services will take place under very strict supervision.

Clause 30 of the Bill amends Section 149bis, and the explanation for (this amendment is that in terms of the section referred to, read together with Section 76, indemnities have to be furnished by the applicants in all cases where the Department renders services to persons, bodies, etc. and those services are not in the public interest or in a case of emergency. The furnishing of indemnities undeniably produces difficulties in that they have to be co-signed in many cases by spouses, employers, etc. In practice this is not always possible and it is therefore recommended that the section referred to be so amended that the Department will be indemnified in all cases against any claims which may arise as the result of any act which it may perform on behalf of private persons and which subsequently gives rise to litigation.

The amendments referred to in Clause 31 speak for themselves.

Clause 32 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given us a very fair summary of the provisions of the Bill and the reasons for it, and I can tell you right away that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, although we have certain questions we want to put to him and certain suggestions to make to eliminate a few weaknesses in the Bill, the Bill will have our support. We agree with the Minister that the times we live in are such that measures of this nature become necessary. whereas in normal times we might object to it. The Minister himself mentioned the fact that there were four main principles involved in the amendments. The Bill of course covers a very wide field, but the four principles the Minister has referred to are, as he himself says, fairly new principles which are being introduced. I think he missed a fifth one. In view of legislation that is still pending, I can see the time coming where under 122 (b) it may become an offence for an officer or a trainee on his way home from a parade to go into a grocer shop to buy a packet of cigarettes when liquor becomes available in grocery shops. It might be an offence if he buys a bottle of liquor. That may be another new principle, but we will not worry about it at the moment.

Dealing first with the steps being taken to deal with the control of manpower, I think this is one of the most significant features of the Bill, because from it emerges the fact that the expansion we are carrying out in our Defence Force, both in the manpower of the force itself and in the demands being made on the industry of the country, the impact of that demand is now beginning to be felt to such an extent, even in peacetime, that it is found necessary to introduce a clause like that one which provides for the establishment of a Manpower Control Board. I am not criticising it. It is necessary to have it if we want to expand the Defence Force. But I think the Minister and the Government have been wise to set up for peacetime requirements what is largely the United Party’s manpower control board system which operated well under the strain of wartime conditions, and in modified form will now have to operate in peacetime. It will have to allocate manpower to the various essential services whilst holding the balance between defence requirements, industry, and the general needs of the economy of the country. The Bill can be summed up by saying that a number of the amendments proposed have become necessary as a result of the change in the technique and the tempo of modern warfare, the necessity for a quicker handling of the available resources for the defence of the country, and to meet the threat which may develop on the one hand from external aggression and on the other hand I think it would be folly for us to blind ourselves to the fact that the Bill as it is before us to-day certainly streamlines the procedure under which units of the Defence Force can be used in times of internal unrest, with greater rapidity and without certain of the restrictions which have applied hitherto even in wartime. The Bill does to a considerable extent extend the use to which the Citizen Force and the reserves can be used in peacetime to deal with internal unrest, where hitherto that duty has been primarily the responsibility of the Permanent Force. I think one has to face the fact that we have come to that state of affairs to-day, but I will return to it later. However, it is no good blinding ourselves to the fact that it is there. There are a number of other points in the Bill which I do not propose to touch on, but they will be dealt with by other speakers. In some cases they are fairly insignificant changes, almost consequential, but they include the clauses which deal with the introduction of the Air Commando system. There also I can assure the Minister that he will find no objection raised by this side of the House. The action he has taken will make good a lot of the damage done by his predecessor, who broke down what was becoming a useful adjunct to the defence of this country.

When the proceedings were interrupted by the supper adjournment, I had briefly referred to the proposals in the measure before us aimed at implementing the Government’s decision to re-establish the air Commandos. I said that we were with the Minister in that regard. There will be another speaker from this side who will deal with this feature in particular and who has one or two suggestions to make in this connection which the Minister might find helpful.

I want to come back to that clause which contains the main subject matter of the Bill, where the main changes are collected, i.e. Clause 2. In dealing with this clause, the Minister himself described the various new features, including consolidation and other changes being brought about by that clause. I have already said it but I want to make it clear again that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the official Opposition has, in view of the conditions which exist to-day both inside and outside our country, no intention of hampering the Government if it wants to make the most effective use which it is possible to make of all branches of our defence force, when the security of the State calls for such action. The Government has the responsibility to take steps to preserve that security. We as an Opposition believe, particularly in defence matters, that that is a responsibility of the Government of the day which they must be permitted to meet. Consequently, we do not intend doing anything which will jeopardize them in that. It remains of course, also the responsibility of the Government what use they make of the very wide powers this Bill gives them. But that is their responsibility.

At the same time, we believe that we would be failing in our duty if we did not draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what we consider are one or two risks which the new adaptation of the provisions of the Defence Act may bring about unless some proviso is included limiting certain of the powers asked for in this Bill. I think the Minister has already in his opening remarks intimated that he was aware of those risks. I refer particularly to Clause 2 of the Bill, sub-section (2) (d)—the one in which after laying down certain duties which the Defence Force will be charged with, also lays down that they will act in support of the police when and as required. Here we intend asking the Minister to accept an amendment from us in the Committee Stage, or to make such an amendment himself. We propose asking that a proviso be added to sub-section (2) (d). The proposed new sub-section (2) reads—

1. (a) on service in defence of the Republic;
2. (b) on service in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Republic;
3. (c) on service in the preservation of life, health or property or the maintenance of essential services; and
4. (d) on such police duties as may be prescribed.

Now, it is particularly with (d) that I am concerned. This has to be read, as the Minister pointed out in conjunction with Clause 15 providing—

may be called out to render certain forms of assistance to the police. We feel that here we have to take into account that the expansion which is taking place in our defence organization. This very large expansion which is taking place means in many instances that you are bringing into the Defence Force to-day some thousands of young lads, many of them almost straight from school, without experience, without military training. This has to a large extent altered the character of the Defence Force from that which we knew before this new scheme of training came into being. As a result of this expansion, we have scattered all over the country in various magisterial areas, boys who are members of the Defence Force, and, as far as one can see. unless the Minister in his discretion imposes some regulation stipulating the level of activity at which they can be employed, can under this particular clause be called up …

Are you talking about chaps who may be called up to do police duties?

Yes. As I was saying, you will have boys there without any military experience and with very little training—I am talking of the period at the beginning of their call-up. Last year the Minister’s target was about 10,000 trainees; this year it is in the region of 16,000. In the early part of their training you will have a large number of lads scattered all over the country who by no means can be called soldiers at that stage. They are still school boys despite the uniform they will be wearing. When called up for certain of the other duties, like prevention of internal disorders, under the command of experienced and seasoned officers and non-commissioned officers, there will be a certain amount of control and discipline exercised over them. But when they are called up to perform police duties in a magisterial area …

They will not be called up for that; they will then be in camp.

They may be in camp, but there is another provision, Clause 17, which provides that any unit in operation in a camp or in a formation, such as a gymnasium or training centre, can be subject to call-up. We want the Minister to bring in a proviso somewhere in the Bill, either in Clause 2 or in Clause 15, providing that trainees who have not completed a minimum of six months military training shall not be used for police duties or given the authority of a police officer and all that that authority entails. You see Sir, a police officer is somebody quite different to a soldier— a police officer goes through an intensive course of training to fit him for the very responsible task he has to perform often on his own, i.e. without the support of his comrades and without the support of his commanding officers on the spot where the trouble might take place. Against that we have many of these lads who have just been called up and who will not have had the time to assimilate that experience; they would not have the control or discipline which a police officer must have before he is passed out to take up his duty. It would be running a very grave risk to employ those boys on police duties as prescribed for police under the Police Act.

The Minister is fully aware of the tremendous range of powers which a police officer may be called upon to exercise not only under the Police Act but also under the amending Bills which have lately passed through this House. They are men who are dedicated to that type of work because it is their profession. We accept that before such men are recommended for promotion to such duties, the recommending officers have to satisfy themselves that those men are fit to carry the responsibilities of the positions they are going to occupy.

We feel that in this instance, i.e. of boys who have only just been called up for military training, that unless a limitation is imposed, the country can run certain very definite risks especially during cases of emergencies. We must not forget that even a trainee to-day is generally armed with automatic weapons with almost frightening firepower. When one considers that such weapons may be in immature and inexperienced hands, there is the possibility, the distinct possibility of an episode occuring which can react detrimentally to the country as a whole. Consequently, I would like to inform the Minister that we had an amendment drafted in this respect which we intend moving in the Committee Stage. But we will be quite happy if the Minister, should he feel he can go with us in this regard, himself introduces such an amendment drawn up to meet his requirements and ours. The terms of the amendment we have in mind are—

This amendment seems to cover the relevant three clauses of this Bill and to give the necessary safeguard asked for and at the same time not hamper the Minister unduly as the result of the withdrawal of too many valuable people from the Reserve he would have available to use in cases of emergency. The hon. the Minister, when he introduced the Bill, referred to the position in country towns where you have only two or three police officers. An emergency might very well crop up there and then it would be natural to make use of any military personnel there may be available in the district. With that we have no quarrel because these men would largely be experienced men. But we would be glad if the hon. the Minister could explain to us the actual procedure under which they will be called up, who they will be reporting to and under whose control they will operate. One can conceive that in country areas more so than in the urban areas they may be fairly isolated. There may be no commissioned military officer available in the area. The police officers in the area themselves may be few.

In this set of circumstances there is a certain risk which we must always keep in mind. This is a point which neither the Government, nor the Opposition, nor Parliament itself can lose sight of, namely that we unfortunately have had in our country one or two very harrowing happenings which developed largely as a result of inexperience on the part of some one or as a result of some one losing his head due to immaturity or lack of training and discipline. We cannot afford to have any further episodes of that nature. But it is the unfortunate fact that it might happen again just by accident due to immaturity or lack of experience. Such an occurrence could create a disturbance of serious proportions not just inside South Africa, but also in the world outside and the country cannot afford to bring such a disaster on itself. Therefore we feel that in cases such as this, where, these vast powers are taken, cognizance should be taken of this type of danger and that steps should be taken at the outset to guard against it.

In this connection, I want to point out that in the Act itself provision for just such a type of proviso as we ask for is made namely under section 93 of Act 44 of 1957 as follows—

Provision is made for exemption of such people from a call-up. We have the principle of discrimination therefore already laid down in the principal Act and while it may not be exactly parallel to the discrimination we are asking for here, the broad principle is the same. We feel that the matter is of such particular importance that the Minister should give it his most earnest attention. If the Minister feels that he wants to draft his own amendment, we will be happy provided he gives us the assurance that such a proviso will be applied—in a manner of course which will not hamper the object he has in mind. Failing that, we reserve to us the right to move an amendment of that nature in the Committee Stage. We feel that this is a proviso which we cannot afford to do without.

It may be asked why we ask for this reservation in respect of the call-up of trainees for police duties, whereas we accept them for perhaps more dangerous duties when dealing with mob control, riots, and matters of that kind. There is a difference, however, and that is that under these circumstances a trainee will be operating as a unit or individual under a military command of seasoned officers and non-commissioned officers whereas when performing police duties there is the distinct possibility, in fact the distinct probability in the country areas, that he may be left to deal with a situation on his own, a situation where he has not the faintest notion of what to do. It will be fair to the trainee himself, apart from the other affected persons, and certainly in the best interests of our country, that this particular point should be examined.

There are other points of this Bill which will be dealt with by other speakers from this side of the House. There are those clauses relative to our industrial legislation which make provision for safeguarding the employer and employee called up for training; there is the clause dealing with the set up of Air Commandos; and the clause dealing with the withdrawal of the proviso which under certain conditions exempted certain medical officers from call-up. There is also the clause under the medical section dealing with conscientious objections to vaccination and the bringing in under military control of certain voluntary and nursing organizations. These matters will be dealt with by other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say something in regard to the Bill as a whole. One has to examine this Bill, particularly as it is one which introduces four broad new principles into the defence legislation of the country, very carefully. It then becomes clear that this Bill is part of a pattern which has developed, of adjustment of the defence laws of this country in order to meet the changed conditions and techniques of warfare plus other changes now going on both inside and outside the country. We have had a certain number of these measures over recent years. But it can also be said that these measures set out to streamline the existing call up procedure with a view to removing any obstacles which can hamper or delay the rapid employment of the Defence Force and its use in cases of internal disorder in support of the police. In order to attain this streamlining, we are removing or holding over temporarily for limited periods, safeguarding conditions which call for, say, a proclamation by the State President, or under still more urgent circumstances, permit emergency measures where the Minister himself has power to act for a restricted period, pending the issue of such a proclamation there are restrictions which have been dictated by experience in order to provide what was regarded as necessary safeguards—that you hasten slowly. Maybe there is a question of balance which can upset when you do not hasten slowly, and it is in circumstances like those where these safeguarding conditions and restrictions are of extreme value as brakes on impetuous action and safeguards against steps being taken which could bring unexpected damage to the country.

We feel that where the Bill provides for a removal of these safeguards, we have to accept the fact that with that removal we also accepted certain risks which could have been countered by these safegaurds. At present we have to accept those risks as a result of the state of affairs which have developed in the country, not only in ours for that matter, but also in countries around us and in the world at large, but having repercussions on our own country. At the same time, a stage is reached where when considering legislation of this sort, one also has to pause for a while and give careful thought in order to satisfy oneself that the measures we are adopting and approving of in Parliament, are indeed sufficient to bring about the result which we expect to get from them and, moreover, that those results are going to be permanent results. In other words, there comes a time when one has to pause and think just where you are heading.

This Bill emphasizes the great changes which are being made in the character of our Defence Force, an organization which is intended mainly to be a Defence Force. One accepts that there have been significant changes, not only in the general trend of warfare but also in internal conditions and that the training of the Defence Force has to be adapted to fit it for these duties. At the same time it will be foolish not to realize that the continued whittling away of these safeguarding controls and restrictions, in order to speed up and simplify the use of the Defence Force, does not also impose certain risks. I have already said that the world would not be ready to face a recurrence of the happenings we already have had in this country, like Sharpeville for instance. The repercussions of a repetition of such happenings on South Africa itself would be such that we cannot even contemplate facing them. That is why I am pinpointing this aspect of the Bill and that is why we regard it of so much importance that these implications should be considered before the Bill becomes law. You see, Sir, evidence from every part of the world, supplies the answer that force and force alone will never give a complete answer to the problem with which we are faced to-day, namely the problem of internal unrest. Force will never be able to meet it satisfactorily, no matter whence the source of the unrest.

My hon. leader has said, in relation to other legislation but it equally applies to this Bill, that there are conditions developing in this country which are building up as a result of policies of the Government and which are offering, as he termed it, fertile seedbeds for the agitator where he can flourish, because people are under such conditions an easy prey to his machinations. It thus becomes an increasingly urgent necessity to clear away the root cause of the friction, i.e. those driving factors lying behind the need for measures such as those we are dealing with here.

When I say that I am not for a moment advocating that in the process it is necessary for us to surrender White leadership in this country, such surrender of White leadership will hit the Coloured and the Blacks as hard, if not harder, than it will hit the Whites and I am not advocating such a surrender. There are, however, other ways and means by which the Government of the day can, parallel to its defence measures, move in other directions to remove these causes of friction thereby simplifying the task of the Defence Force. We have appealed for this to be done time and time again. But what do we get? We got a lot of fantastic nonsense—schemes described as for the improvement of the conditions of the Bantu and the Coloureds but which in each case remove certain rights which they already possess. Until we remove the cause of the trouble we are going to be faced again and again by demands for increased power for our armed forces and for the Police. A steadily growing interference with the daily economic and the ordinary every-day life of the country, which must ultimately spell disaster to all of us—White, Coloured and Black alike.

So, while we are supporting the Minister and his Government in regard to this Bill now, we want to ask again and this time with some pointed force, that the Government should now get down to practical politics and begin to realize that the police and the Defence Force are not the answers to our internal problems, however necessary it may be to have Police and Defence Forces. They are not the final answer. They only are curative measures while preventive measures are what we want—to prevent these seedbeds of sedition developing. We want the Government to get down to the taks of governing the country and to meet this problem. They should put aside these pipedreams with which we are constantly being regaled in this House. These are not practical propositions and hon. members on that side know as well as we do that they can never be translated into reality. That is the reason which makes it necessary to come to this House again and again asking for increased powers.

Not only will practical politics make it un necessary for the hon. the Minister to come to the House with Bills of this nature, but it will also bring about an improvement in the international climate and so reduce the danger of external aggression. It will ease the growing burden of defence expenditure to the advantage of the industrial, economic and financial life of this country. We call upon the Government to implement those practical measures which we have asked them again and again to implement—steps which will, we believe, if competently handled may result in South Africa being able to count on the strength of our millions of non-Whites to strengthen our internal position thereby nullifying the external threat which develops against us. It will also have the effect of completely reversing the trend being brought about by these fantastic dreams of separation and instead would help to start rebuilding a united nation which the outside world would have to listen to. It will make it unnecessary for us time and time again to amend our defence laws and to have to call up thousands of boys straight from school and putting them into the uneconomical employment of training as soldiers. These things have got to be tackled. The only people who can do that are the Government. We of the Opposition can recommend, suggest and advise but the only body with the necessary authority to carry out such recommendations, suggestions and advice is the Government in power.

I put this to the Government again: This is a most important Bill which the Government has asked us to support. We support it and we do so in the light of existing conditions not only inside our own country but also around us and in the world at large. While supporting the Bill, we at the same time want the Government to meet us by starting to move in a practical direction in order to remove the root causes of the trouble and thereby make it unnecessary for us to waste the time of the House in dealing with legislation of this nature. Let us rather get on with those things which really matter more for the welfare of this country.

Although we on this side are very grateful that the Opposition are going to support this measure, I must express my disappointment that the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) deemed fit to use the words he used at the end of his speech. It is a pity that after what has happened during past weeks, or at least, during the past week, when we have had a very good proof of unity in respect of certain other legislation and when for the first time in almost 20 years we have acted as a unit in a matter of national importance, the Opposition still sees fit to make accusations which have no substance at all when considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing to-day.

It is of no avail to adopt the attitude that the Nationalist Government must be blamed for everything. The fact is that we are faced to-day with two main world tendencies. The first of these is the communist cold war. Let me say immediately in this connection that neither the policy of this Government nor the policy of the Opposition nor the policy of the West can stop this cold war. It will continue and we will not be able to do anything about it. No policy will be able to end the cold war of Communism. On the contrary, the communists will continue their subversive activities irrespective of the party governing this country. The second force that we are faced with to-day is that of a group of non-Whites who are trying to take over this country. In this connection too I want to say that it does not help for the Opposition to say that this is so because of the policy of this Government. That is not so at all. There is a universal desire on the part of the Black men to-day to rule Africa. Neither the policy of the Opposition nor the policy of the Progressive Party nor the policy of the Liberal Party will satisfy those people. They have only one aim in view and that is to govern this country.

That is why I ask why this type of accusation continues to be made when we are dealing here with a matter of national importance. I want to say nothing more about this except to express my deep disappointment and sorrow in this regard together with my appreciation for the support that this measure will receive from the Opposition. It is a pity that they have always seen fit to make accusations which actually have no substance at all if one considers the circumstances with which we are faced in this country.

This legislation makes provision for two main things. As all the previous speakers have mentioned, the first of these is that it is being made possible to call up the armed forces more swiftly in order to strengthen our Police Force in cases of organized disturbance and particularly where weapons are used. We all know that our Police Force is our front line when it comes to the maintenance of law, order and internal security. As long as steps seeking to undermine the State are taken sporadically, as is the case in regard to the acts of sabotage that we have experienced, it remains the task of the police to combat offences of this nature. Fortunately, we can say that our police are well trained and are eminently capable of combating those movements. They have proved recently that they are capable of doing so and we are very grateful in that regard. But when organized disturbances and sabotage take place, accompanied by force of arms, as we had recently at Paarl, then it is not only the police who are called upon to take action. Then our Police Force must be assisted. The task then is more than merely the task of policing. These organized efforts can very easily flare up and lead to force of arms. I think that this provision for swifter action in such cases is an important step in the combating of these disturbances.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) voiced certain doubts. I think dangers do exist. It is true that dangers exist in this procedure which is now being laid down. But we must remember that these people will only be called up when the officer commanding the police in a particular district makes that request. In other words, they cannot be summarily called up. As I said, the police are eminently capable of handling these situations. It is only when they feel that they need help that they will approach the commanding officer of the Active Citizen Force or of the Commando in the particular district to ask for assistance. I think that this is a very important protective measure—that it will be the police themselves who will decide in this regard. As far as I can see, these people will take action in such cases under the leadership of the police. This contains a very important principle—that action can now be taken without the necessary permission being obtained from higher authority. The police already have that power. If disturbances break out the officer commanding the police in such a district must act on his own initiative. He does not have to ask higher authority whether he may take action. He has to take immediate steps on his own initiative. As he is already able to take steps on his own initiative he will now also be able to take the initiative in asking a particular section of the armed forces in his district to assist him. This is a very important protective measure that we have to consider when we have doubts in this regard.

This new task which will not be given to the Commandos will I think instil new life into them. Our Commandos have been labouring under a feeling of frustration. I really do hope that they will now make use of this opportunity to obtain a new lease on life. A new task is now being given to them; they can help to ensure internal security in every district. This gives them a new task which in its turn will instil new life into them.

Another important aspect is the 24 hour provision. The fact that the police have asked for assistance must be made known to the Minister within 24 hours. Higher authority can then take action and handle the situation if necessary. I think that this is another important protective measure in this Bill. That is why I say that although I know that there are certain dangers connected with this step, we are dealing with a cold war; we have to deal with people who adopt the tactics of trying to create the element of surprise by resorting to acts of sabotage and encouraging disturbances at different places at different times. Because this is the case and because we only have a small number of police in various areas, I think that it is a good thing that we are able to make use of the services of the armed forces to assist the police. Another important aim of this legislation is the introduction of Air Commandos. Those people have been offering their services over the past years. I am pleased therefore that the hon. the Minister has accepted this patriotic offer from private pilots and clubs. I think that this is a very important step forward. I think that these people can render great service to the country. I want to point out that 12 of these Air Commandos will be established consisting of about 250 pilots. The fact that about 250 pilots will be included in the armed forces in this way is in itself an important step. We are gaining a very large addition to the Air Force. Besides this, these people are going to receive a great deal of important extra training. In terms of the regulations that will be drawn up they will have to train for a period of from 18 to 24 hours per annum. This will give those people important additional training which will be of great importance to the country in time of war. I am convinced that this new step that is being taken is one which will be of great assistance. We know that more and more individuals and companies are making use of aircraft to-day and the opportunity is there for these Air Commandos to be continually strengthened. I want to wish the hon. the Minister and his officers every success with this new branch of our armed forces.

I do not want to say very much about the Manpower Board. The hon. the Minister has said that this has become necessary because we are now calling up more men. He has also announced that he is going to call up an even larger number of ballotees next year. Because these people are being removed from the labour market I think that it is necessary for us to have a statutory Manpower Board which will ensure that the calling up of these men will cause the least possible disruption in our economy.

I want to say something about the counting of four months of the training term for ballotees for leave, sick leave and salary increase purposes. Actually, I do not have anything to say about their leave or sick leave but I have certain doubts about the question of salary increases. Many firms do not pay their employees when they are called up for military service. Now that they will be called up for a longer period, it will mean that those people will have to make an even greater sacrifice to be trained in our country’s armed forces. The law does not compel employers to pay these people. Many of them therefore are dependent on the remuneration that they receive in the armed forces during that period of nine months. Four months of that nine-month period is now being counted for salary increase purposes. I would like to be sure about this matter but it appears to me as though this provision is going to have the effect that a ballotee may not only lose his wages for nine months but that his wage increases may be delayed by five months every year until he reaches the top of his scale. This means that such employee will suffer a loss for a number of years as a result of the fact that he has been called up for military training. I think that this is a very great sacrifice that we are asking these people to make, these men who are being trained in the service of their country. In many firms the salary of an employee is taken as the basis for determining his seniority. In the case of firms which employ a large staff, the delay experienced by a ballotee in regard to his seniority date can prove very costly to him. I think that this is a matter that we must consider. I do not know whether I am interpreting the matter correctly but I will be pleased if the hon. the Minister can give us an assurance in this regard. I feel that this is too high a price to ask the ballotee to pay, a man who has already sacrificed nine months in camp before returning to his employment.

The hon. member for Simonstown indicated that the Opposition were going to advocate our calling up the reservists, or at least, that it should be possible to enable them to be called up in the event of disturbances or uprising. Should this be proposed by the Opposition, I will have certain doubts in that regard. The reason for my doubts is as follows: The National Reserve Force consist of all citizens between the ages of 15 and 65 years. Everyone will agree that one cannot call up those people. Then we come to the Citizen Force Reserve. I do not know how strong the Citizen Force Reserve is to-day but these people are not organized. The Commandos and the Citizen Force have officers and the men are divided up into units but the reserves in every district are not organized. Nor do I think that is possible for the Chief of Police or the officer commanding the Citizen Force to keep a detailed up-to-date list of all the reservists in a district who move from place to place in that particular district. That is why I do not think that it will prove very successful if the possibility of calling up the reservists is being considered. Another point is this: One may sometimes call up dangerous people. We may call up people who constitute a danger to ourselves. There are people on the reserve list who may constitute a danger to us to-day and if these people are called up they can abuse their positions. I think therefore that it will, be impracticable also to call up the reservists in case of trouble.

The hon. member for Simonstown raised some doubts about the young ballotees who are in camp to-day. I just want to say that these young ballotees remain in camp for basic training during the first three months but after this they are assigned to their units and they act under their commanding officers. I want to point out that in the past no Citizen Force ballotee was trained for longer than four months. In other words, when these young ballotees are assigned to their units after three months they have not had very much less training than the normal member of the Citizen Force had prior to the introduction of this nine month period of training. That is why I think that the objection of the hon. member for Simonstown to the fact that these ballotees are assigned to their unit after only three months is not such an important one. I think that the danger can be exaggerated if we speak only of the young ballotees. We must also remember that of the 7,500 men in camp under the present scheme only one third will be trained for less than three months. That is why I think that the danger seen by the hon. member for Simonstown may be a little exaggerated. But I do want to admit that there are certain dangers in regard to these matters.

I want to conclude by in the first place welcoming this legislation. In the second place I want to make use of this opportunity to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his officers for the efficient manner in which they succeeded last year in changing over to the nine month period of training. I think that this was an achievement on the part of our armed forces that we cannot laud sufficiently. As far as I am able to understand the changeover went smoothly; the adjustment was a tremendous adjustment if one considers the number of additional instructors and the amount of additional accommodation that had to be found for these people. I want therefore to make use of this opportunity to express my appreciation in that regard.

I hope that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) will not resent it if I do not reply to the arguments he advanced here. During the course of my speech I shall deal with a few of the subjects to which he referred. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said that this Bill contained four principles none of which was very drastic. I differ from the hon. the Minister. There is one of the principles which is far-reaching. I refer to the provision giving the Government the right to use the Defence Force—as is provided for in the Bill—for police services. That is provided for in Clause 2.

It seems as though I did not explain that clause well enough.

I feel that this is a rather drastic measure although drastic measures may perhaps be necessary in abnormal circumstances.

Clause 2 can never be drastic. It is Clause 15 that contains drastic provisions.

As the hon. member for Simonstown said, Clauses 2 and 15 should more or less be read together. In any case, Sir, as far as the use of the Defence Force for police services is concerned, I just want to say that we must be very careful when we make use of the Defence Force for that purpose.

Let me explain. Clause 2 makes provision for police services such as the transport of people and so forth. Clause 15 makes provision for assistance to be given to the police for their own purposes.

The hon. the Minister will have an opportunity of assisting us when he replies. I want to emphasize this aspect. Normally our internal security is the responsibility of the police. That is what they are trained to do. In our country, which is a multi-racial one, their task is particularly difficult. That their task is difficult is proved by the fact that a short while ago the Government decided to increase the training period for the police from five months, which for years had been the training period, to one year. They are now receiving more thorough and more comprehensive training. One of the facets of that training is the handling of large numbers of people. The police are being trained to maintain law and order: they are trained to make use of weapons as a last resort only; they are trained to use as little force as possible. The training of the Defence Force is completely different. The training of the Defence Force is to attack. The Defence Force is usually used against a foreign enemy and not against the people of one’s own country. Accordingly, if the Defence Force goes into action, it uses as much force as possible and as quickly as possible in order to put an end to enemy opposition. That is the difference between the police and the Defence Force and that is why there is that difference in training.

I admit that.

The hon. the Minister admits it. One has therefore to be very careful in making use of soldiers to do the work of the police. We must also remember that when the soldier takes over the services of the policeman it is possible that he will not always be under the command of an officer or non-commissioned officer. He and other soldiers may possibly be left completely on their own; and they are not trained for that work. From the nature of the case the Commandos and Citizen Force units that we will use for those services will all consist of young men—I do not say that they will be irresponsible men—but they will be young men. In protecting our country to-day our police are usually armed with truncheons, pistols or revolvers and rifles, but the soldier to-day carries a modern automatic weapon, a weapon with enormous fire power. Unfortunately we already have experience in our country of what the use of that weapon for a few seconds can mean. That is why I want to urge the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice to be very careful, to consider the matter carefully before soldiers are called in for this task. Accordingly I want to urge the hon. the Minister very strongly to give very serious consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member for Simonstown. We ask that the soldier who has had less than six months’ training will not be used for that purpose.

Then I will not be able to use any of the members of the Citizen Force of two years ago; they only had six months’ training.

The hon. Minister has a large number of members of the Citizen Force who did nine months’ service last year.

But I will not be able to use one of those men who had his training two years ago, men who have been in my service now for three years.

They have probably already had their continuous training since undergoing their four months’ training. To a certain extent they are also experienced men. We think of the young man just going into camp and who will be at hand, a man whom one will be inclined to use immediately. We think that that is very dangerous.

The amendment does not put it in that way.

We are just making a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. He may perhaps be able to move a better amendment once he has accepted the idea.

I want for a few moments to discuss the clause which determines the obligation of employers as far as the young men in their service who have to do military service are concerned. It is unfortunate that this measure has had to be introduced but for practical purposes it is very necessary. We find that there are employers who go further than the law requires as far as remuneration and benefits are concerned. We are very grateful for that. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the people who help him with the training, particularly in the Citizen Force and the Commandos, and who give their services voluntarily. They are usually the officers and non-commissioned officers of those units. They do that work in their free time; they do it voluntarily, often without reward; many of them give up their leave and week-ends to do that work. I would like the hon. the Minister to ask the State Departments, particularly the Department of Transport, to give their men the opportunity of assisting in this very important task for our country. I am sure that there must be hundreds or thousands of men in the South African Railways who will only be too anxious to assist the hon. the Minister in the training of the Citizen Force and the Commandos, but they do not get a minute off from their work to do so; they have to do all this in their free time. I really do think that the hon. the Minister should approach his colleagues and ask them to set an example to the rest of the employers in the country by making those men available and giving them certain concessions to enable them to perform this service.

We all welcome the air commandos. Aviation in general is an asset to our country, an asset that we cannot ignore in our defence organization. During the last war all those people owning aircraft and workshops had their services utilized and if trouble does come this must be done again. It is just as well that they are called upon to undergo that training during peacetime, training which will be of great use to them in the event of trouble.

As far as the Manpower Board is concerned. I think we should have had a board of this nature a long time ago to select the people to be used in th right place at the right time. We cannot rely upon people who, when we need them, say that they are not available. A Manpower Board of this nature is urgently required. A board of this nature did excellent work towards the end of the last war and we welcome this step.

In conclusion I want to say that it is not my intention to make accusations or recriminations against the other side of the House except to say that the Government must remember that we cannot continue to strengthen our Defence Force more and more; we cannot continue to give the police more and more powers. We must find some other way of easing the tension that prevails, the tension that is responsible for all the trouble.

We have now had the privilege of hearing one of the veteran speakers on the Opposition side on defence matters and we have also had the advantage of hearing a Brigadier on that side, a man who has had war experience. But I was very disappointed at the attitude adopted by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken.

The Bill which the hon. the Minister has submitted to us this evening is one which will grip the imagination of the country. It is necessary for our Defence Force to grip the imagination of our people. Nothing is more encouraging to a Minister of Defence than when he knows that the people are behind him when he takes measures dealing with defence matters. The four principles contained in this Bill are of such a nature that notwithstanding the opposition that has been forthcoming from hon. members opposite this evening, they are all principles that the people have been looking forward to for some time now. No one knows better than the hon. the Minister himself that for some time now there have been signs on the part of the public to indicate that they feel that the Police Force will not be able to effectively combat some of the things that we fear may perhaps happen. That is why I say that Clause 2 is highly desirable. I thought that we would benefit from the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken. He told us that the approach of the police to an uprising is very different to the approach of the soldier. We know that. But it is a good thing precisely because the potential trouble-makers—and not only the hon. gentlemen there and ourselves—are aware of the fact that the soldier approaches the matter in a different manner to the policeman. He does not want any disturbance to be unnecessarily protracted, and where the Defence Force as such takes action, these disturbances are never unnecessarily protracted. I think that that hon. gentleman really left the House in the lurch this evening. Because he compared these two matters and because the question was put to him from this side by way of interjection in regard to what he wanted when he said that some other method should be found, he still owes us a reply. With his experience he should at least have been able to suggest some other positive method of approach. But he did not.

He is waiting for a shock from outside.

It is no use for those hon. gentlemen criticizing if they cannot suggest anything better. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can improve on this approach. Those provisions are chiefly intended to cover internal trouble and potential trouble-makers will think twice before they look for trouble because they will know that not only will immediate action be taken, but action will be taken with one aim in mind and that will be to put an end to the disturbances and disruption and trouble that may arise. We will see as soon as this Bill becomes law that disturbances will not take place so easily because apart from its effectiveness this measure will also serve as a deterrent to all potential trouble-makers who will realize that it is something that cannot be lightly ignored. I think that the hon. the Minister has done the right thing and I think that he will find that the people as such, all our fighting men in all parts of the country, will be far more keen to offer their services so that they can be of assistance, together with the Police Force and together with the Defence Force, when they are relied upon to do their duty. That is why I say that this is a measure which will grip the imagination of and create enthusiasm on the part of the people as such because the men who offer their services voluntarily, the men who want to offer their services to any of the units that are there for them to join, the men who can assist the police in the first few hours of any trouble will now know that they will not be merely spectators but that they will be able to play their part in putting an end to those disturbances and that trouble. I cannot imagine action being taken in any other way than that provided for now in terms of this particular clause in accordance with the particular principles that the hon. the Minister is introducing here. As far as this aspect is concerned there is something that I would like to add and I hope that the hon. the Minister will receive my suggestion in his usual cordial manner. I hope that it will now be possible and also that it will be made possible administratively for those citizens of our country who receive no training and who have no knowledge of the handling of weapons to be given some or other form of training so that they can be utilized for this purpose. I well understand the position and I agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that one has to exempt a section of the public from military service. But I think that it is obvious that he is thinking in this regard in terms of a war that we may have beyond our borders and not a war here in our own country; I do not think that he is thinking in terms of internal trouble. The fact that I want to bring home to the hon. the Minister is that nobody on earth having the most expert knowledge or vision can say what our difficulties in the future are going to be. No one knows for example what proportions these difficulties will assume once the country is involved in a war and when we have to keep our trained men in the fields. We know that we need more or less 10 or 15 people for every man in the field. But that is for the purposes of a war and not for internal trouble. But now I want in all humility to tell the hon. the Minister that when we have to deal with possible internal trouble, when our best men have already left our country, we will then be very grateful if every man has received a thorough training as a youth, whether he has been exempted from military service or not; we will be very grateful if we know that the man in the office or the man behind the lathe is a man who can handle a gun and who is no stranger to modern weapons. With this in mind I want as concisely as possible to bring this fact home to the hon. the Minister and those who have to deal with this matter—and I hope that what I say will make an impression upon them: See to it that the Manpower Board does its work. This board was appointed during the last world war but that is not sufficient reason to institute it once again. We do not know whether it will always assume the same pattern. If it does assume the same pattern, well then, it may be quite nice to go to war!

As you went to war.

Yes, and the hon. member over there; that is why he emerged just as unscathed as I did. He need not smile at me because he is in the same position as I am. He knows very well that I wanted to go, but I could not, whereas he could have gone and did not want to. That is the difference between us. He ought to know that General Smuts laid down certain basic provisions and I could not go. I can still show him that in writing. I was not allowed to do what I wanted to do, I was forbidden to do it. but the hon. member did not want to do what he could have done. I hope he will stop making those sneering remarks now so that we can concentrate on the matter before the House. That hon. gentleman is always very touchy if anything affects him personally and I do not want to be personal. That is the last thing that one expects from a retired ex-Brigadier—that he should act in such a light-hearted fashion. He was not able to make any constructive suggestions and he now tries to play the fool when we want to discuss this matter. I say that our Manpower Board must function very well in these cases, but I also want to say in passing that it may have the wrong effect if one bases one’s entire defence plan on the fact that there are some of our citizens who will be exempted from the fighting line while there will be others who will be earmarked for the fighting line. I do not feel quite satisfied about that aspect. In this connection I would like to make a practical suggestion—that the hon. the Minister should insert a provision in this Bill, if it is not already there, to the effect that even though exemption be granted and even though a man may be excused from military service, the door will always be left open for the man who wants to go. One always finds people in every war who are pleased when they are exempted from service, but one also finds people who are not pleased about it and who do not want exemption. When that stage is reached these people simply feel—it is psychological with them—that they want to be in the fighting line and they want nothing to do with exemption. I want to urge the hon. the Minister very strongly to see that the Manpower Board does its work, but the door must be left open for the man who although he has been exempted from military service to have the right to go to the front if he feels like doing so. They are not all like the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) and myself who do not want that. I want to urge the hon. the Minister strongly to leave that door open.

You were perhaps a good recruiting officer.

“There will always be an England.”

Those were the only words by means of which I was able to inspire hon. members in those days and, believe me, I succeeded in doing so. If I had not used those words at the time there would have been very few of them there. Do you know what a very important man in the Defence Force said at the time about the type of person like our hon. friends opposite? He said that it was very strange that the proportion of men from the Orange Free State was far higher than that from Natal. It is easy to play the fool in connection with this measure, but I do not think it helps at all. I predict that whatever they say in this regard will be silly and of not value at all. I hope the hon. the Minister will bear these few words of mine in mind. I do not expect him to reply to me now, but I hope that he and his senior officers in the Defence Force will bear these suggestions in mind when they discuss these matters.

Under Clause 1 of this Bill, in which provision has been made for air commandos, the definition of “commando” now includes an “air commando”, and I want to deal particularly with the air commandos, but before doing so there is one matter I want to deal with under Clause 2. Clause 2 of this Bill amends Section 3 of the principal Act by inclusion of a new sub-section (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d), and (a) says—

I hope this means exactly what it says. We on this side of the House have co-operated with the Government last year, and we notified the Government during the Budget debate that we would co-operate with the Government in providing record amounts of money to arm this country because it becomes necessary in this dangerous world and in the isolation in which we now find ourselves as a country, an independent Republic, and we will have to take more steps to defend ourselves, not only internally but externally. It is time that this Government, this Minister, took steps in this regard. I think that in view of the type of armaments the Government is purchasing for the armed forces of the Republic it is clear that the hon. Minister is arming our defence forces with armament which is not only for internal security; he is also looking to the possible aggression by external forces. If that is so, it is time that this Government, and I hope this Minister, is going to take realistic steps and get rid of and delete that provision in the 1957 Act (our present Act) which allows a Permanent Force officer to say that he will not serve outside the boundaries of the Republic. I make no apology for raising this issue once again. We on this side of the House who served on the Select Committee which dealt with that particular Bill before it became an Act, and again when that Act came before this House for amendment and on every occasion when it has been before this House for revision, have tried to get the previous Minister to amend this Act and to delete that provision, because if ever there was an absurd clause in an Act then it is that a professional soldier should say in time of war “I am not going to cross the boundaries or a certain deadline to defend my country; I will take your money in peacetime as a soldier and be trained as such, but I am going to stay at home when war is declared”. Especially in view of certain appointments that have been made in recent times I am most concerned over this and I do hope that this hon. Minister is going to take realistic steps in view of all the money that is being spent, all with the support of this side of the Houes. The country as a whole has given this Government the necessary funds to arm this country, to put us in a position of defence, so that the defence forces can be used in a proper manner to defend this country if we should be called upon to defend this country whether it be against internal aggression or external aggression.

I want to get on to this question of air commandos. I think it is a good thing that the hon. Minister has seen fit to bring this matter forward, but it is not going to be quite as simple as the hon. Minister appears to think, and I think it must be gone into very thoroughly if he hopes to succeed. I was chairman of an aero-club for many years previous to the last war and just after the last war and also chairman of a private aviation company which owned several aircraft. But talking of the period before the last war, I personally collected a number of bursaries and we trained 24 pilots, or shall we say young men, to the degree of proficiency of obtaining their A-licences as pilots, 24 men at no cost to themselves and 22 of whom flew as pilots in the South African Air Force during the war. We had that object in view when we set out as an aero-club and we did it mainly on the subsidy which the Government granted for all people who got their A-licence, pre-war, that is to say, under the old United Party Government before the war. I pleaded with this Government after the war to institute a similar training scheme. It was cancelled in 1949 because this Government was short of money. I can understand that. But then they brought the subsidy scheme into being again, but unfortunately they made it applicable to anybody of any age who wished to fly. In the 1930s you only had the subsidy when you got your A-licence, but as we applied it, we only chose young men who could pass the medical test to get into the Air Force. We actually co-ordinated our Selection Committee which granted bursaries so that we had a liaison with the Air Force Selection Committee; in other words, an officer of the South African Air Force served on our Selection Committee and came from Pretoria and helped to choose our people, and our young men who were trained therefore were actually made to sign on the dotted line for the reserve of the Air Force. When the war came along we had trained personnel and they were taken straight into the Air Force. I would commend this Minister and the Department of Defence to go to the Cabinet and ask them to institute such a training scheme again, because to give a subsidy to a man in his 40s or 50s is all right when you have plenty of money to waste but is of no use to the country as such when we want to train pilots for the Air Force.

Coming to Clause 10, this question of private clubs training pilots, it is quite easy for you to subsidize a club or pay a club for flying hours to cover the training of a pilot. That is quite easy: So much per flying hour and a man must pass so many tests before you pay, and the ordinary insurance companies cover those aircraft and suchlike without any difficulty. But Clause 11 is where the difficulty arises. The moment those aircraft go on service in a commando, unless they carry special insurances—and here I speak with some knowledge of the position—you will find that if there is any damage done to any of those air-craft, if they are being operated from grounds that are not licensed by the Civil Aviation Board (and there are a lot of other regulations under the Civil Aviation Board) the insurance companies will not pay in case of an accident. Under Clause 11 the Minister covers the State by saying that the State takes no responsibility for death, injury, or any other cost—in other words the cost of the machine, the costs if he runs into a house and has an accident in a village, or anything else. He may not know where he will land in case of an accident. But it goes further than that. You will probably find that most of the aero-clubs, unless somebody warns them, may not have somebody who will see in the tiny print at the back of a form somewhere that any damage done to any of the insured machines—not only the aircraft but also the other machines that they use for refuelling, etc.—in the case of riots or civil disturbances, will not be covered by the insurance companies. These young men will be keen to join, but the aero-club may not be aware of this provision. The very fact that those air-craft are going to be used as part of commando means that they will have to carry extra and very heavy insurance, if I know anything about insurance companies. I may be unfair towards insurance companies, but I do not see how they could come out on the premium unless they did protect themselves in that way. So I want to say to the hon. Minister that I hope he and his departmental officials will go into the matter very thoroughly to see that they deal generously with these companies and the people who are in control and who make the aircraft available, where they are privately owned or where they are owned by aero-clubs or by private companies, to join these air commandos. It seems essential, if you want these people to support you, especially if they are going to have to get down and land on rough ground, air strips that are going to be made by just scraping the veld, where there are camps, if you are going to use places where you want to assist troops in the field when you have internal trouble, because that is where you use your single-engined aircraft, that provision is made. It is your single-engined air-craft that can get to these small places and they are the ones of course that easily crash because they are single-engined, and they will require special attention, not only in relation to insurance, but also in relation to maintenance. Here again I wonder if the Department is going to make some special arrangements for maintenance, because all these aircraft, the same as all other aircraft, will have to be inspected regularly. They cannot fly without their daily inspection; their log-books must be endorsed. The engineer in such a case is usually a man who works with the local motor firm. He may not be able to get away. You may get people who are private owners, who operate from a local aerodrome where the engineer who gives them their D.I. and does the repairs, may be a man in a motor business who cannot go out on service and join a commando. He may be running a one-man business. What arrangement will the Department make to see that any privately owned air-craft is serviced, and if it is to be serviced by the Department what responsibility is to be taken by the Department for that servicing and to see that that servicing is correct? I take it that where you use your air commandos, you are likely to use them where you will not be able to use your Air Force. If you can use your Air Force, generally speaking, you will not need your privately owned aircraft, your small air-craft. I think it will be necessary to get a certain amount of mobile ground staff, which will be so mobile that it can be moved to wherever you have an air commando. Can the hon. Minister say if his Department has looked into this matter at all? I do not actually expect a reply at this stage, but I would like him to go into the matter.

I will deal with that point.

I think also in respect of the question of insurance he should treat the individual owners or aero-clubs generously, because if they do not get fair treatment in the early stages, you will find that nobody will come forward with their aircraft. As I said before, the big trouble here is the small privately owned aircraft, usually single-engined. With these aircraft you only have to get an engine cut out and then you are really in serious trouble when there are no landing grounds and your pilots have not got wide experience of forced landings.

This is the second time that I have had the opportunity of following the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District (Capt. Henwood) in a debate on defence matters, and as was the case on the previous occasion it is a privilege for me to congratulate him on a very positive contribution to this debate. I think he set an example to the two hon. gentlemen opposite who, spoke before him as to the kind of contribution that one can make to a debate of this nature. Mr. Speaker, if ever a measure will be popular with the public outside of this House, having regard particularly to the state of mind of our people at the moment, it will certainly be this measure. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on this Bill. I cannot see the bogies that the hon. member for Simonstown saw in this Bill. The danger that he sees in it is that things may get out of hand if young ballotees are called up to do police service on occasions when it may prove necessary to do so. I cannot see that danger. What I do see is that if we do not pass a measure of this nature there is the danger that if disturbances of a serious nature take place members of the public will be inclined to take the law into their own hands and to use fire-arms indiscriminately, and it will be a sorry day for this country if our police have to devote more energy to taking action against our own people behind their backs than they have to devote to taking action against Poqo. The whole idea of this legislation is to assist the police—if they need help—with trained men, men who are disciplined and who are under the control of trained and disciplined officers. The hon. member spoke about young ballotees who have not yet had six months’ training. He did not want to see them called up for this purpose. But the hon. member knows that these training camps are set up at a few specific places within the Republic of South Africa and it is only at those few places that the danger may exist of young men who have, say, only a week or 14 days’ training behind them being called up. That danger will not exist at any other place in the country where the need may arise for the armed forces to be called in to help the police. What is more, the hon. member ought to realize that officers always have the command firmly in their own hands. Let us imagine now that the assistance of the armed forces is required by the police at some place near an Army training camp. The responsible Army officers will not call up the young men who have only had training for a week or so. There will be enough trained members of the armed forces and the commandos available at such places to be called up to perform that duty in those particular areas. And in the case of commandos who may also be called up, we have a high percentage of trained commando officers throughout the country. That percentage is steadily increasing, and there are officers in command who will know, not necessarily immediately, but within a short time, who the trained and available men within the commandos are whom they can use in such cases. There are the active units within the commandos, the mobile watch platoons, whose officers will certainly know which men to use under such circumstances. The danger that the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) sees in this measure is one that I do not see in it at all. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said that the tasks of the Army and the police differed to such an extent that it was dangerous to bring the one into the sphere of the other. I agree with him that their tasks are different, but the hon. member referred to the danger of placing automatic weapons in the hands of young men and he said that this had already happened. I take it that the hon. member was referring to the occurrence at Sharpeville.

Yes.

But the fact remains that there were no soldiers on the scene at Sharpeville; neither were automatic weapons of the kind that he was referring to used.

Oh, yes.

Then my information is different from that of the hon. member.

Read the report of the Commission of Inquiry.

The police there were armed with Sten guns and ordinary out-of-date .303 rifles from the First World War.

What is a Sten gun?

I want to refer hon. members to newspaper photographs of the occurrence in which the police are shown with .303 rifles from the First World War.

What is a Sten gun?

A Sten gun is not a dangerous automatic weapon; it is not as dangerous as an F.N. rifle. The hon. member knows that a Sten gun is a very light weapon and has far less fire power than a F.N. rifle. Moreover, soldiers were not brought into the picture there and so the hon. member’s argument was completely illogical. It is not logical to say that because this may happen we must not introduce a measure of this nature. But I want to refer to another point in this connection, and that is that the shadow of last week’s debate was still hanging over the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for North-East Rand in that they could not resist getting in a political dig in connection with a debate of this nature. They suggested that a measure of this nature was not necessary and that we should try to rectify matters in some other way. The hon. member for Simonstown said that we were wasting the time of the House with this type of measure. I say that it is irresponsible on an occasion such as this when they can make a positive contribution to the defence of the country, when we are trying to build up support for our armed forces in our country and make every young man realize that it is necessary to take part in the defence of the country at the present time, to come forward with arguments seeking to justify the actions of those people who are apathetic in regard to our armed forces. But what is so illogical is the fact that the same hon. member for Simonstown who used this argument stated earlier in his speech that it was not only in our country that measures of this nature were required, but elsewhere in the world as well. But then he came along later and said that we should create a better climate in the world and that if we took political steps to do away with apartheid, measures of this nature would not be necessary. I think that the hon. member must decide: If he wants to talk about defence matters—and he discusses these matters well on occasion because he has a sound knowledge of the subject—then he must confine himself to that subject and leave the other type of argument to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), even though he is also afraid of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman).

The important principle of this legislation is that our Defence Force, particularly that section outside of the Permanent Force, our Citizen Force and the Commandos, will play a far more active part in the future and that they will be kept on the alert. These two groups of the armed forces are now being given the opportunity to ensure that their machinery is kept well oiled and that they are ready for action. That is why I want to say a few words about the people who make up these units—our ballotees in the case of the Citizen Force, and the members of the Commandos. I want to say that young men who are drawn by lot for training bear a great responsibility; they are young men of whom we can be proud and whom we must assist. Appeals were made to employers in the past to make it possible for young men to undergo their training without their careers being adversely affected. If I had young men in my service, I would feel that the product of the Army or the Citizen Force, a young man who has had his training and knows what discipline is. would be worth far more to me in my work than a person who has not had that experience. That man returns as a potential leader of others and that is why I want to ask employers to do everything in their power to make it easier for our young men to under-go their training. I even want to ask whether it will not be possible for employers who are particularly interested in helping their staff to undergo their training by, for example, paying their salaries for a longer period, to be given some form of tax relief. We are living in a time when we must act regardless of cost. Our Defence Budget is increasing every year. Even though we have to try to build up our armed forces by other means, we must do so. Apart from the weapons that we can acquire, I still believe that the human material making up our armed forces will be the deciding factor in time of trouble.

I want to say this in connection with the Commandos. This was a less important section of our armed forces but these Commandos have become more and more important in recent years because they are being given a more active part to play in our defence and we foresee that they will play an even greater part in the future as a result of this legislation. These people are all volunteers with the exception of those men who have not been balloted and who have been absorbed in the Commandos. They are people who devote their leisure to the Commandos instead of to sport, and as these activities increase it demands more of their time. A young man came to see me this afternoon to ask me for a reference, a person who joined one of the new commandos in the Peninsula, a person who qualified as an officer, a man who occupies a senior position in a very large firm in Cape Town. He is a person occupying an important executive position but he is prepared to devote his free time to the building up of another commando here. There are also other people like this. I feel that those men must be given all the encouragement that we can possibly give them, and the same applies to the men who joined the commandos voluntarily. But the fact remains that because in the past the commandos were almost a forgotten part of our armed forces, and because they are set up on a voluntary basis, there have not always been the same regulations for them as for the rest of the armed forces. But recently the standard has also been improved and to-day an officer in a commando must have a Std. X certificate. But when one considers the circumstances in which the commandos are built up, one may be faced with the problem that one man may have the educatoional qualifications but does not have the time to devote the necessary attention to the commando. One may perhaps also have a man who has passed Std. IX but his zeal and interest may be so much greater than that of the first person. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether more discretion will not be given to the commandants of commandos to make use of the services of these people as officers, and this also holds good for the age qualification which is fixed at 45 years of age for the first appointment as officer. One may perhaps have a man who up to the age of 45 has spent all his time in working for a living for himself and his family. He has then reached the stage where he can afford to take an active part in the commandos and he may perhaps have reached the age which disqualifies him from being an officer. But I feel that because of the nature of the activities of the commandos a man of this nature may perhaps be able to render as good a service as a younger man. The same holds good for the standard of medical fitness. Our Permanent Force officers and men and those of our Citizen Force as well start at an age when most of them are medically fit but the members of the commando are only considered for officer rank at a more advanced age. At that stage a man may perhaps have some slight defect of an eye or an ear, a fact which in the normal course of events would disqualify him in the Army, but because he is in the Commandos, whose activities are different, I feel that these people who have the interest should not be pushed aside but that provision should be made for them.

With these few words I want to express the hope that this measure will be supported by the Opposition, notwithstanding the fact that certain hon. members have spoilt things somewhat, so that the men who have to act in the interest of our safety to-day will know that the whole country is behind them.

I am not going to follow the last speaker simply because I think his knowledge of military weapons is somewhat like mine as a non-combatant. I only want to refer to three aspects of a medical character which this Bill touches upon, aspects which touch upon professional customs and ethics and which I think need careful consideration.

Firstly, Clause 19 removes the immunity which is given to full-time medical officers at hospitals. I have not the slightest objection to that removal, and I accept fully the statement of the Minister that he has consulted numerous authorities, but I am not sure that he has consulted the correct authorities. However, I have no doubt he will explain that. But what I do feel is that in general the Acts which are introduced by the Minister’s Department do not show a full appreciation of the problems of the medical personnel with which he will be faced if we have the misfortune to suffer a fair number of casualties. I do not believe he has even mentioned in his Acts the personnel known as interns, and there are 500 to 600 of them throughout the country every year who are betwixt and between—that is, they are not students to be called up, and they are very nearly doctors. But no provision has been made for using or exempting these people. I would like the Minister to take the trouble to go into this matter carefully, as to the grade of students and the grade of interns and the grade of young doctor whom he should exclude from the call-up. Otherwise there will be some difficulty. I have not seen any evidence—I may be wrong—throughout the hospitals and the men I meet in my professional life, that there is any activity going on, that there is any planning going on as to the use of the hospitals of the country. After all, it is the civilian doctors and nurses and hospitals who will have to bear the brunt of these problems, which vary from time to time according to the variety of warfare in which we are involved. For instance, if it is the ordinary warfare with conventional weapons, one can well understand that the civilian hospitals can handle it. But if by any chance someone were to drop an atomic bomb anywhere in the country, the whole problem changes and the doctors must be got out into the country, so that they can cope with the position. There is no evidence of any planning of this nature, although perhaps the Minister may feel that that is not altogether my affair.

Clauses 20, 24 and 25 are very acceptable. They keep people from leading nurses astray, and on that account naturally we are only too glad to welcome those clauses. But I come now to Clause 26, which is the introduction of an entirely new principle, the compulsory immunization and prophylactics. I am not saying that this is not a desirable object but it will land the Minister in a great deal of difficulty. I am thinking not so much of the unfortunate soldier or nurse who will have to have the injection or the vaccine, or the oral vaccine. I am concerned with the professional point of view. You see, if a patient—and here I include nurses and soldiers—refuses an injection, and conscientious objectors and people of that ilk may refuse, how can it be forced on them? I do not believe that anyone has ever given a doctor an order in the professional sense. The doctor, even in the Army, carries out instructions to perform certain duties, but he does it in his own way because he is a trained professional man. I doubt if the Minister or the Commander-in-Chief were to order a doctor to give an injection to a patient who refuses it, whether he will do it. This new principle of enforcing immunization on unwilling people, desirable though it is, is going to be most troublesome. The trouble will come from the objector, and it will be worse with a doctor. No person can order a doctor to act against his conscience in the professional sense, and I do not believe they will obey such orders. It is a problem to which the Minister must give serious thought. Furthermore, he suggests giving them an oral vaccine. That, of course, is desirable, too, but you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. How are you going to be sure that these people will swallow the pill? However, that is a different matter, because someone else can put the pill in their mouths for them, and you do not need the doctor to do it, although he will supply it. But the problem is how you are going to force these people to be vaccinated and injected if they are not willing. Is someone going to hold them down? Do you think a doctor will give an injection to a patient who is being held down?

I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that he is now including in his compulsory immunization the voluntary nursing service and the civilian protection service, all of whom are volunters. I am sure that will interfere to a certain degree with the volunteers who will objct—and there may be quite a number. Conscientious objectors may not join the force if they are faced with the problem that they will be held down and pricked with a needle. The whole matter requires a great deal of consideration and I do not think it should be embarked upon too lightly.

I do not intend in a defence debate of this nature to cross swords with the hon. member who has just sat down because his medical knowledge is undoubtedly far greater than mine. But I want to tell him that it appears to me that other hon. members on his side are rather better informed about the practical life of the soldier and that there are ways and means in which a solider can be made to be a very co-operative patient. [Interjection.]

I want to refer to a few remarks that were made by that side of the House, and I would like to start with the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), for whose knowledge of military matters I have a very great respect. He is a person whom I have learnt to know as one who displays a thorough knowledge of military matters. It is a great pity that he spoilt what would otherwise have been a very worthwhile speech to-night by singing an old hackneyed political tune that has been sung ad nauseam in the House. In the first place I want to refer to what the hon. member said about young men and how dangerous it was to use young men for police work. But we saw this happen when those hon. members were in power in 1946. In 1946 they deemed fit to arm a number of sailors with automatic weapons, with Bren machine guns, and they used them in the streets of Durban. No fault was found with that at the time when the Citizen Force and a division of sailors were used to quell an uprising in Durban. But when the hon. the Minister on this side seeks to pass legislation to use men who have received thorough military training and who will have to act under disciplined officers under specific circumstances, then we have that sort of political objection from the hon. member for Simonstown that I did not expect from him. Towards the end of his speech he said: “Force and force alone does not supply the answer.” That is an old theme that has been used deliberately throughout a whole series of debates and I am particularly disappointed that it has also been used here in a debate of this nature by a member whose contribution to any debate is usually an outstanding one. I was disappointed when he came back to the old theme that it was the policy of this Government that was responsible for all the problems in the country. He also said that the people who usually participate in disturbances should to a large extent be forgiven because the policy of this Government was responsible for their actions, and that the hon. the Minister of Defence was compelled to introduce this legislation. It was disappointing to hear these remarks from an otherwise sober-minded person.

I also want to refer further to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District (Capt. Henwood). I agree in the main with the hon. member’s view of the air commando system—that certain problems are going to arise to which the hon. the Minister will have to give careful attention. I agree that insurance is a problem. We are told that R6 per hour will compensate for the additional insurance that has to be taken out to cover the aircraft against the additional risk involved when that aircraft is used for military purposes. I do not doubt the figure, but at first glance R6 per hour does not to my mind appear to be adequate to provide for all the expenses incurred by the pilot, particularly when he makes use of his own aircraft or when he makes use of a club air-craft. Then an amount of R6 will not adequately cover the expenses incurred. Firstly, when he hires an aircraft from his club he has to pay for hiring it; he will have to pay more than R6 per hour for that aircraft, excluding fuel, oil and maintenance expenses. There are certain types of light aircraft that can be used in our air commandos for which, apart from any military role at all, one has to pay far more than R6 per hour for their use in a purely civilian role, merely for the use of the aircraft. If I belong to a flying club and I become a member of the air commando it may possibly happen that I have to hire an aircraft from the club at R10 per hour to perform military service, to attend an air commando camp, and that I am then compensated at the rate of R6 per hour. And then we still have the problem of the insurance cover. Is the flying club going to take out additional cover for its aircraft, if I use it, or is the pilot. using the aircraft going to pay for the additional cover? These are aspects of the matter which we must consider very carefully.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) also referred to the servicing of these aeroplanes and said that a mobile ground staff unit must be available for the servicing of air-craft. I want to agree with the hon. member once again that a case can be made out for the extending of the air commando system to include certain ground staff. The flying staff of course consists of the pilots, but in the role that I visualize for the air commandos we will have to make provision for air observers. When a person has to fly a few feet above the ground, through valleys and over mountains or over the terrain where the services of these air commandos will be utilized to a large extent, the services of an observer are extremely important. The pilot has to spend all his time concentrating on his flying under those circumstances. We have therefore to make provision for an observer, a person who will play a vitally important role, and at the same time, for a navigator. The observer can perhaps fulfil the function of navigator under certain circumstances but I think that it will be far better for us to have a navigator-radio operator as the third member of the crew of the aircraft when it is being used in such operations. In civilian flying the pilot normally does his own navigating and radio work, but when we are busy with radio communications, and the aircraft is used as a relay station, and the pilot is flying over such terrain that he cannot give his full attention to the radio, then I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it will be necessary to have a navigator-radio operator as a third crew member over and above the observer who may also do photographic work. [Interjection.]

We are concerned further with the necessary ground staff who will have to be included in our air commandos. During normal times the servicing can be done very thoroughly and efficiently by the Air Force, which I presume is the intention, to do certain servicing at certain stages. Otherwise the normal upkeep will be undertaken by the firms which are to-day servicing civil aircraft. But when these air commandos operate and the ground staff of the Air Force is doing the servicing of Air Force aircraft and the air commandos have to operate on distant flying fields where no service facilities exist, it will be necessary to think of maintenance and service staff who will have to be included in the strength of the air commando. The hon. the Minister’s experts will perhaps be better able to inform him about the scope of this matter than I can but I feel that a need for this is going to arise. Over and above this, we have the problem of communications. I have already said that the pilot may find himself in a position where he is hampered in his efforts to arrange communications because of the circumstances under which he is flying. Communications will also have to be arranged on the ground. I feel that the question of communications is one of the most important aspects of the air commando system and that is why it is important for communications staff who have had technical training also to form part of the system. I have in mind the radio amateurs who can play a very important role in this regard. Their technical knowledge is often far above the average. These are people whom we can make good use of in a communication network.

I come now to a point that has already been made and that is a first-aid service for the air commandos. The air commando will not always be in the position where the first-aid services of the armed forces will be readily available to it and staff training will have to be in order to make a first-aid section available for the air commandos. Over and above this motor vehicle staff will also be required because material such as fuel and ammunition and other equipment will have to be transported. These things will have to be transported by the air commandos when other communications break down. A motor transport staff will be needed for this work and we will have to think of some organization or other which remains on the ground while the air commando is in the air.