Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was indicating that in point of fact, the registration of deeds is based on two aspects. The one is the physical mapping out of a specific piece of land for the purposes of its registration as a private possession. In that connection the profession of surveyor is of great importance and this function of the surveyors is therefore being retained in Rehoboth as well. The second aspect is, of course, the registration of specific rights in respect of that land which has been mapped out. In this connection the Registrar of Deeds and his staff play a vital role. This idea of the protection of rights has long been part of the way of life of the Baster community of Rehoboth, to the extent that many of them went to Windhoek to effect the necessary registration of deeds there. For those who were unable to afford going there owing to economic pressure, it was the custom for them to obtain a “plaaspapier” on which their title and their rights were detailed. This is something which came into being by virtue of the customary law. Hon. members are of course aware that the position of rights is based on four aspects, namely the customary law, the common law, the statutory law and the administration of justice. I mention this to indicate that the customary law is very important, from the point of view, too, of the rule of law which one hears about so often. I believe that the customary law has become so much part of the way of life there that clause 13(2)(b) is in fact an excellent and functional exposition of that customary law. But, Sir, it is also true that land is undoubtedly the chief asset which serves as security for loans, and that is why provision must also be made for mortgage bonds. Particularly in a growing community, in a community which wants to negotiate loans in order to improve itself, it is necessary for provision to be made for mortgage bonds.

As hon. members know, there are two kinds of mortgage bonds, namely, those on fixed property or immovable property, and notarial bonds on movable property. In this connection it is perhaps advisable to refer to what was said by the hon. member for East London City. He referred to the possibility of a general clause to provide for bonds on immovable property. Originally it was possible to have a general provision in terms of which immovable property could also be hypothecated by way of a mortgage bond. This is something which was the custom particularly in the old days when the issue of “kinderbewyse” came up. The “kinderbewys” ensured that the parent would pay that share of an inheritance to the child when one of the parents of the child died. However, it was found that this created much uncertainty, and that is why this no longer applies in our law. I make bold to say that it would be a retrogressive step if we were to encumber the Rehoboth community with a general provision which we no longer have in our law. The fact of the matter is that when a person wants to burden immovable property, notarial bonds are registered. A time clause is included. We know exactly what the date of the notarial bond is, and this is very important when it comes to preferences in the case of an insolvency. The second aspect is that we also know exactly what goods are hypothecated. In the case of a general provision it is very difficult to find out exactly what the date in question is or to trace an encumbrance of movable property. I make bold to say that anything of the kind would make it very difficult for a person to obtain money unless the creditor or the intending creditor can state specifically that he is aware that there is no notarial bond. I therefore believe—from an economic point of view, too—that when it comes to the possibility of obtaining loans, it is undesirable to introduce a general provision. Of course, we must not forget, either, that this legislation has been agreed to, or at any rate has been agreed to by implication, by the Advisory Council of Rehoboth. It came before them, and when one looks at clause 29 it is very clear that they do not want a general clause in this Bill.

Sir, reference was also made to the possibility of replacing the registrar with a commissioner of deeds. My personal opinion is that there is no reason for the deeds registry of Rehoboth to be downgraded in any way or for the title “registrar” not to be used. It has been pointed out that the registrar must have certain powers and qualifications, but it is very clear that such a person will be provided there. The attitude of the Republic has always been one of being responsible for the people of South West, and I do not think there need be any fear that an incompetent person will be appointed there. When I look at the Bill, I find that there could be three possible objections or approaches. One of the approaches could be that this legislation is premature, that it should not come into operation now, and this would imply that the Baster community was not qualified to decide for itself on how they want to deal with the land. I am quite unable to agree with such an approach. History has clearly proved that these people have developed their own system, and this in turn proves that they are sufficiently sophisticated to be in favour of this and capable of it at this stage. It is necessary to raise one point and that is that the establishment of a deeds registry is merely an administrative action. It need have no political overtones and people need not try to make a political football out of it. It is merely an administrative action. There are various decentralized deeds offices in the Republic, too, and the establishment of a deeds office in fact furnishes proof of the goodwill towards South West Africa that exists, but all options are open to these people to decide exactly where they are going and I want to state that those people will know best how to run their affairs. When one considers the possible constitutional framework for South West Africa, about which I want to say absolutely nothing at this stage, this deeds registry will fit into any system that may come into effect there and I therefore want to state that those people who want to make a political football of this are very wide off the mark. Then there are also people who could perhaps say that the legislation is too sophisticated, or it is not sophisticated enough. In reply to that I want to state that this legislation is exactly what the people asked for, and what they ask for we ought to give them. This legislation is in fact largely based on the customary law, and therefore it is pre-eminently the principle of the rule of law which is here being implemented.

In conclusion, I want to state that there is a possibility that this Bill would have to undergo refinement and that the Rehoboth community itself will decide whether they want mineral rights to be covered or whether they want prospecting contracts to be covered—in general, how they want to arrange these matters. We therefore accept that there will be refinements, but we have the confidence in those people, viz. the Rehoboth community, to believe that they themselves will in fact work out their own salvation. This Bill can form the corner-stone of a capitalist economy. The people will now have their own land and may continue to obtain mortgage bonds on this basis and, by so doing, regulate their economy, carry out planning and make progress.

In my opinion this Bill is an exceptionally important one, a milestone along the road to national self-realization of these inhabitants of Rehoboth. May they prosper.

Mr. Speaker, as appears from the speech of the hon. member for East London City and that of the hon. member for Pretoria West, this Bill is chiefly concerned with technical matters. As far as the registration of deeds is concerned, the hon. member for Pretoria West said that it was mainly concerned with the establishment of a deeds office in Rehoboth. Here he is mistaken. It is not only concerned with the establishment of a deeds office in Rehoboth; it is concerned with the introduction of a whole new system of registration of deeds for this small part of big South West Africa. This is basically a technical Bill, but at the same time it is related to the whole set-up in South West Africa. It is related to the Bill that has already passed through this House, the Rehoboth Self-government Bill. It is also related to the ideological and constitutional development of South West Africa. Consequently it is not merely a technical piece of legislation. The hon. member for Pretoria West said, with reference to the Advisory Council of the Rehoboth community, that this was a national group which was aspiring towards national identity and independence. This Bill is much more than just a measure concerned with the technical aspect of the registration of deeds. It is concerned with the ideological principle of the future of South West Africa and particularly with the question of the independence, not of South West Africa as a whole, but of the various parts or national groups of the territory of South West Africa.

Just as the hon. member for East London City stated his standpoint and that of his colleagues at the beginning of his speech, I too want to state the standpoint of this side of the House as soon as possible. Just like the hon. member for East London City, we on these benches were surprised and shocked when we first read this Bill after it had been tabled. Just as he examined it thoroughly, our justice group also examined it thoroughly. I want to avail myself of the opportunity of expressing our thanks to the officials of the department who assisted us. They were very helpful to us in going through this Bill. Just like all hon. members in this House, we listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Second Reading yesterday. We realize, in consequence of the discussion which preceded it, that there are certain practical problems. Practical problems have arisen in the Rehoboth Gebiet in connection with the registration of farms, immovable property and so forth. We realize all these things. Nevertheless, I have to tell this House that we on these benches cannot support the Bill.

†The hon. the Minister mentioned the practical problems involved. He mentioned, for example, the question of “plaaspapiere”. There is also the question of the distance from Rehoboth to Windhoek. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the distance is between Rehoboth and Windhoek.

Sixty miles exactly.

The fact that one has to go 60 miles to register a deed is apparently good and sufficient reason for changing the whole system of deeds registration for one area in the whole territory of South West Africa. The hon. the Minister has also mentioned the question of costs. We believe that it should be and could be possible to accommodate these practical problems by opening, if need be, a deeds office in the Rehoboth area. We cannot, on the basis of the problems sketched to us here, believe that it is necessary not only to open an office, but to exclude the community and the Rehoboth Gebiet from the operation of the South African and South West African legislation dealing with the registration of deeds. This is not merely a question of opening a branch office. Here we have a community of 19 000 people, 2,2% of the total population of South West Africa. It is a community which is much smaller than any single constituency in South Africa. It is smaller than the divisional council area of Paarl, Caledon, Worcester or Bredasdorp. We can see the practical problems of distance, staff and the question of how one relates the “plaaspapier” to the registration of deeds. We do not, however, believe that this is sufficient cause for excluding the Rehoboth area from the Deeds Registries Act which applies throughout South Africa and South West Africa. This is like saying that if any one section of the community is having difficulty with travel, or does not have sufficient lawyers, we should set up, not a branch office or a decentralized office, but a separate deeds registration system with a separate registrar of deeds.

We believe that this is quite unnecessary and superfluous and is only being done against the background of the ideological approach of this Government towards the self-government or independence of the Rehoboth people. As the hon. member said, it is not only technical but also part and parcel of the whole philosophy of this Government. We believe that if this Government has a problem in connection with the “plaaspapier”, staff or distances, it should be possible to amend the Deeds Registries Act to make it possible for the Rehoboth people to be accommodated within the provisions of the Act. However, to scrap the entire system of registering of deeds in the Rehoboth Gebiet and to set up a new system is quite superfluous, is quite unnecessary and we believe in the long run is perhaps going to be dangerous for the people of Rehoboth themselves because they will not be an integral part of the system for the registration of deeds in the rest of South West Africa. We have no doubt that this will create tension between one area which has its own and exclusive registration of deeds system and the rest of South West Africa which has another system. No good reason has been given to us why we should exclude the Rehoboth Gebiet from the operation of the normal registration of deeds and therefore, for purely practical reasons, we believe to set up not only a new deeds office, but also a new system of registration, is both unwise and unsound as far as the law and the people of Rehoboth are concerned.

I think the hon. the Minister will concede that this Bill has to be read together with the Rehoboth Self-Government Bill and it has to be read against the very delicate constitutional developments and talks which are taking place in South West Africa. The hon. the Minister said that the “Basterraad”, the “Adviesraad” was consulted. I want to know …

The Advisory Council was not only consulted; it was more than consulted.

I want to know whether the people at the Turnhalle were consulted. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister shakes his head, but he must remember that the people have taken quite a number of decisions at the Turnhalle. They have not only taken decisions about constitutional matters and constitutional development, but also about matters such as farm labour, the removal of discrimination, minimum wages, free education and so on. If one goes into all these matters, one cannot but realize that the registration of land, of immovable property, and citizenship are to matters which constitute the essence of the independence of a group of people. The registration of land is not a thing one can simply disregard. The ownership of land and citizenship are basic matters to any people or group which is undergoing a process of constitutional development together.

†Therefore, just as we believe that it was unwise to proceed with the Rehoboth Self-Government Bill, we believe that it will be unwise to proceed with this legislation at this time. There is no doubt that the Turnhalle talks have so far been highly successful. I think they have made tremendous progress. They brought people together and they have reached agreement on the declaration of intent and on pass laws, education, minimum wages and other things. We think it will be a great pity if the negotiations and the sensitive, delicate discussions which are taking place are once again to be prejudiced by this House taking one small part of South West Africa away from the body of South West Africa and treating it on an exclusive basis. I think the hon. the Minister must be aware that this is an extremely sensitive matter. One has had the Managing Director of the Nasionale Pers, Adv. D. P. de Villiers, stressing this time and time again during a summer school at the University of Stellenbosch.

It was during an autumn school.

Yes, it was during the autumn school a short while ago. He made it quite clear that nothing is happening which is seen to be manipulation by the South African Government. A person like Sir Seretse Khama of a neighbouring State said that what is important is that there should be no manipulation by the South African Government. At this stage of the development where discussions are taking place about land, about discrimination, about education, about economic opportunity and about constitutional development, we believe it could well be fatal to the success of the talks if this House continues to pass legislation which fits into the pattern of separate development. The hon. the Prime Minister said that those talks, those discussions are being held on the basis of “all options open”, but while we appear to be saying in theory and in words that it is “all options open”, we in this House are going as fast as we can to guide one particular section of that community in the direction of separate development.

We believe there is no sound, practical reason for fragmenting the system of registration of deeds. I am not talking of the office for the registration of deeds because it is possible through legislation to create more offices. However, when we are talking of the system of registration of deeds, we see no sound reason, because of the practical difficulties raised by the hon. the Minister, for departing from a system which has operated with success throughout South Africa. [Interjections.]

I accept that there are practical difficulties relating to the “plaaspapier”, but for all that it could be reconciled. In any case there is going to be a reconciliation. The hon. the Minister said the office is going to be situated in Rehoboth. Yet he knows there are no trained attorneys in Rehoboth. He knows that there are no public servants in the Rehoboth community itself who are competent at this stage to run such an office. What are we going to do in these circumstances? In any case a group of White officials is going to run the office down in Rehoboth. We believe that no sound reason has been produced why the present system of the registration of deeds should now be fragmented because of limited and, I believe, temporary practical problems relating to Rehoboth. What is much more important, is that we do not believe that at this stage the House should embark on a course of action which is going to take the people of South West Africa further in the direction of separate development or fragmentation at the very time when the peoples of South West Africa are meeting to consider a proposal which may take them in the direction of separate development or in the direction of a unitary State. We believe that this House should do nothing whatsoever to prejudice the success of the Turnhalle conference and the success of a negotiated independence for the peoples of South West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to deal with the concept of registering title in a central registry as opposed to the concept to which the hon. the Minister has referred in respect of the area concerned, a concept which is known as the “plaaspapier”. It is perfectly true that South Africa as a whole uses the centralized system of deeds registration. We regard this as a system that has great advantages. However, the hon. the Minister should appreciate that this system is not universal in the world. On the contrary, even in a fairly sophisticated country like Great Britain, the concept of having title to a piece of property by virtue of having the title deed in your custody, is an old accepted concept which has, in fact, not been entirely done away with yet. Indeed, it exists in many parts of the world. Therefore, whereas it is perfectly true that we believe that a system of a central registry in respect of title, mortgages, real rights and immovable property is an advantageous system, it is by no means the only system operating in the world. In fact, custody systems operate in many parts of the world. Therefore, the concept of having your title contained in the so-called “plaaspapier” in an unsophisticated way is a concept which has been accepted in many parts of the world and is not one that calls for urgent and immediate action. The difficulty we have is that we fail to understand why at this particular point in time while the constitutional development of South West Africa is being discussed this particular situation must be changed. I do not object to its being changed from a long-term point of view. I do not wish to argue that I and the other lawyers in the House, who have all enjoyed legal training, regard the central registry system as being better. The question that, to my mind, needs to be answered is why this matter appears to be so urgent and why it must be raised at this point in time, particularly in view of the points the hon. member for Sea Point has raised concerning the situation which the people of South West Africa and we ourselves are faced with at present.

I come to the second point I should like to raise. Wherein actually lies the magic that a particular community of this nature should have its own deeds registry system? Why must this particular community, as opposed to other communities, have a deeds registry system? It may be argued that, in this particular community, there is the individual ownership of land, whereas in other communities there is no individual ownership of land or only a limited ownership of land. However, the concept of a separate community forming part of an indivisible State at this moment in time, having its own deeds registry system, is one which I would like the hon. Minister to motivate. He failed to do so up to now. There must be a reason why Rehoboth people should have their own system. Why should it be separated from the rest of the system which operates in South West Africa? If this is so …

But the Whites have their own separate system.

The Whites do not have a separate system.

In the Transkei they have a separate system.

No, the hon. member must not get his facts confused.

The Transkei has its own system.

No, Sir. The Transkei is to become independent … [Interjections.]… and the issue which has to be answered, is whether this is in fact—here we come back to the same argument that we had in the previous piece of legislation—not just another step towards the creation of an independent State. If one starts accepting the concept that separate deeds registry systems must exist in different communities, that there must be different systems for different areas, the next thing that is going to happen, is that the hon. the Minister for Indian Affairs will say that he would like to have a deeds registry system for Indians in South Africa. He can say that there is the Group Areas Act in terms of which one has separate titles in separate areas, and that he would like to have it all on his own. From there we can go to the Coloured people, and when we have dealt with all the races, we are going to end up having different sections of the country which can ultimately lead to us having a separate deeds registry for Yeoville, that we are going to have our own little community with our own little deeds registry set-up in my own constituency, which has many more people in it than has the entire area of Rehoboth.

With great respect, there must be a principle involved, and the hon. the Minister has not told us what the principle is. He has not told us what he is aiming at and what he has in mind in letting a particular community have this.

You cannot create a branch office in terms of the Deeds Act.

The hon. member for East London City, who seems to be so fond of interjecting, says that one cannot have a branch office in terms of a deeds registry system.

That is right.

What nonsense does he talk! We can have, and we in fact have in South Africa at the moment, regional sections. We have, for example, the Rand townships registrar, which deals with …

That is in terms of the Act.

Of course, it is in terms of the Act, and there is nothing wrong

You cannot do it in terms of the Act.

… and there is no obstacle other than the noise coming from the hon. member for East London City, who does not know the Deeds Registries Act as well as he thinks he does.

You cannot do it.

There is nothing wrong with creating a situation where one has a regional office in a central deeds registry system. There is precedent for that in South Africa …

Where?

In the Rand township registration office.

That is in terms of the Act. It was established in terms of the Act.

There is no reason why the Deeds Registries Act should not be amended in order to create more regional sections …

Ah, there you have it!

… and there is nothing to prevent it, other than the noise coming from the hon. member for East London City, who seems to be unable to keep quiet today.

I have never heard such nonsense! [Interjections.]

But there is no suggestion, and the hon. member should be satisfied with that, of having a separate deeds registry for Constantia at the present time. Iwant to come to the next point, a serious point to my mind, and that is that I would like the hon. the Minister to deal specifically in his reply with the implication of clause 13(2)(b) read with the piece of legislation which we passed earlier in relation to the Rehoboth community and the power of the Rehoboth Baster council and the legal authority there to deal with property and the transfer of property. What is said here is that you cannot transfer land unless the certificate is accompanied by a document issued by the office of the Rehoboth Baster community stating that the legal provisions and customs applying to the transfer have been complied with.

Sir, this is not the ordinary clearance certificate one is used to. It is not a certificate of that nature. This is now a new concept. The other certificate is dealt with in, I think, clause 48. But this certificate seems, to my mind, to have political implications in that the community as such could exercise its power, and a political power could be exercised in respect of a purely economic matter like the transfer of property. One can experience grave difficulty. If you are going to introduce a modern system of deeds registration, when the only issue is whether in fact the man who seeks to transfer the property is the owner of it and whether he has legitimately disposed of it, when that is the only issue that should count, here we now have a political situation where a political body must authorize the transfer of property from one person to another. This, although it may seem quite innocent at this period of time, seems to be something to which one needs to pay attention, because there is little doubt that political power here could be used in order to prevent the ordinary transfer of property to people of whom the people in authority disapprove. This, to my mind, is introducing a principle into a deeds registry system which is a political principle and not an economic or a legal principle.

I want to turn to the next matter, and that is the difficulty one has in respect of the preparation of documents in a community of this kind and the fact that it appears clearly that the preparation of documents is going to be done in the main by the same individual, the same person even, as the one who actually effects the registration. This will create a conflict of interests, a very serious conflict of interests, because there is no protection for the parties to a particular transaction. In the normal course, for example in a money-lending transaction which is secured by mortgage, there can be someone to look after the interests of the borrower and someone to look after the interests of the lender, while there is an impartial official whose duty it is to attend to the registration. What happens in the present case is that you do not know what the terms of the mortgage bond are going to be. You are going to have to find standard forms which will be used and yet the contract between the parties may be quite different and the whole issue is whether the two people who want to have a mortgage bond registered can agree, before the official has to execute it, as to what its terms are, and there is no one there to protect the interests of the one as against the other to ensure that each one has the type of transaction registered which he wants to have registered. This, to my mind, is an important principle which is being ignored here. It is being ignored because of the desire to have a cheap and a simplified transaction, but I believe it will create increasing problems as the community becomes more sophisticated. Hon. members who spoke before me spoke on the subject said it would enable the people to borrow money. I must tell you, Sir, that one of the matters that worries one most in a developing and unsophisticated community is how people are exploited once they are able to borrow money.

Interestingly enough, there are lots of examples. We can take a place like Alexandra township as a good example of the degree of money-lending that took place there and the nature of the mortgages that were registered. I believe that if one is now going to allow a system whereby people are going to be allowed to mortgage their properties, they may lose them as a result of money-lending activities, I believe the community also has a duty to provide a reputable institution which can make money available on loan. Without the creation of such an institution, you are opening the door to an exploitation of people who are in an emergent state and, by passing this piece of legislation, you will create a situation where their properties might well be endangered over a period of time. Eventually one might well find a concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group of individuals as a result of the exploitation of this kind of situation.

There are other faults in respect of this piece of legislation. For example, it deals with the registration of notarial bonds. But the very argument that is being advanced is that there are no notaries to execute the notarial bonds. So we create a machinery for the purpose of registering notarial bonds while knowing that there are no notaries and that the people will still have to travel 60 miles to Windhoek to find a notary in order to execute the notarial bonds. If that is so, then the logic as to why they cannot travel the 60 miles for other purposes is one which I cannot see in the present circumstances. Our submission is—and I believe a very strong case can be made out for it—that if you want to have a registry office, you can have a regional registry and there could be an amendment to the law to allow for that. In addition, I believe that if you are going to provide a service, it should be a service where people can get advice in respect of property transactions. I think the functions of lawyers, conveyancers and notaries there are as important—if not more important—than the functioning of a deeds registration office, because advice of that kind is needed in this kind of community perhaps even more than it is in an unsophisticated community. It is in fact a service any community requires.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the fact that if you are going to create a precedent whereby you are going to register transfers and bonds all through the services of Government officials, then you have to consider that precedent also in respect of the rest of South Africa. The issue then arises whether building societies should not be allowed to register their own mortgage bonds and to lodge them in order to save costs and in order to reduce a situation where, at the present moment, considerable cost is being incurred. Once you have created this precedent, there is no limit to which it can go in order to eliminate what, at the present moment, are expensive procedures for the employment of conveyancers, notaries and attorneys. Through this you create a precedent which, I believe, is not in the interests of the community. I believe this community should be put on a road where they can have their own trained people to advise them and then develop towards this kind of sophistication. It should not be done as we are doing it now, namely to create the sophisticated system first without having the necessary advice available to the community.

Mr. Speaker, the two first speakers from the Opposition side started off by telling this House that they were shocked when they first saw this piece of legislation, although I must admit that the hon. member for East London City said that his side was “somewhat” shocked. They are perhaps shocked for a different reason than the hon. member for Sea Point. However, I am very grateful that eventually the hon. member for East London City said that his side of the House was going to support this measure. I could easily understand that he was perhaps shocked because the very able member of the provincial council for Constantia today joined the ranks of the NP. [Interjections.]

*I want to thank hon. member who took part in the debate for their contributions. Some of them spoke from experience and knowledge. For example, the hon. member for East London City spoke from experience and the hon. member for Pretoria West spoke from double experience, since he is a trained surveyor and lawyer. On the other hand, hon. members on the other side of the House with just as little experience and technical knowledge as I have—I am not a lawyer—also discussed the legislation. At a later stage I shall react to the noises which emanated from that quarter. At this stage I just want to say that they were mischievous noises.

If the hon. member for Sea Point had taken part in the discussion of the Bill in a sincere way, he would not have brought up the Turnhalle Conference in his speech. I want to accuse the hon. member of having availed himself of every possible opportunity to bedevil delicate relations in the country. As regards the hon. member, I shall …

Why, then, do you drag in the fact that a member of the provincial council crossed the floor?

I was not aware that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was so sensitive. I just want to tell him that he would not gain access to this party if he, too, were to do anything of the sort.

The hon. member for East London City stated his party’s initial misgivings. I can understand this. However, I want to remind the hon. member, and the hon. member for Sea Point, too, that when, about a month ago, I submitted other legislation relating to Rehoboth to the House, viz. the Rehoboth Self-government Bill, I indicated in the course of the discussion that the legislation we are now dealing with would be submitted and that there was a connection between the two. I think that in the meantime the hon. member has perceived that the legislation cannot be passed by this House after the proclamation of the Rehoboth Self-government Act, because if we were to do that first, the power to pass Bills relating to matters as this would lie with the Baster Council of Rehoboth itself. I am pleased that the hon. member understands this. There is nothing sinister about this Bill. Once again it is simply the carrying out of the will of the people of Rehoboth themselves. When we discussed the other legislation I told the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Rondebosch that in their opposition to the Bill they were in fact opposing the will of the people of Rehoboth themselves. To eliminate all doubt I had to say expressly yesterday that all the parties represented in the existing Advisory Council supported the Bill. The problem with the hon. member for Sea Point is that he is too fond of poking his nose into the affairs of people in areas he does not know.

Yes, but the legislation is before us.

I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for taking part in the discussion, but then he must take part on the basis of superior knowledge. He did not discuss the technical aspects of the legislation. I understand just as little about that as the hon. member himself does. However, the hon. member discussed the political aspects of the matter. I want to tell the hon. member today that the objection of the leader of the political party in Rehoboth with whom he liaises and whom he represented as being opposed to that legislation during the discussion of the Self-government for Rehoboth Bill, was that that legislation was not acceptable because it failed to give independence to the people of Rehoboth, and this after the hon. member had built his whole case on the standpoint that we were giving independence to an area within South West Africa. I think that when the hon. member goes to Rehoboth again he should learn something of the fickleness of the political leader and the political party whom he liaised with there.

Sir, I shall come back to the hon. member again, but at this stage I want to refer to a few aspects dealt with by the hon. member for East London City, although perhaps we can go into greater detail at the Committee Stage. In my opinion the hon. member quite rightly raised the aspect of mining and prospecting, which is not covered by this legislation. When one looks at the legislation, this looks like a deficiency. My information is that contracts relating to mining and prospecting rights in that particular area have thus far been in respect of areas which have straddled the borders of Rehoboth and included other areas. That is why the contracts were concluded in Windhoek and elsewhere. Owing to these circumstances, the Advisory Council did not deem it necessary to make provision for this now. But, Mr. Speaker, if with the passage of time, it were found that there was a specific need in this connection, they would in fact have the power, in time, to provide for this. Perhaps I should explain it to the hon. members like this: When this legislation is passed, the necessary machinery will be created, for the interim period at least, until a Baster Council and a Kaptein are elected and have the say in these matters.

The hon. member, and I think the hon. member for Yeoville too, indicated that there was a specific need in the legislation for the provision of advice to any member of the Baster community. I want to point out that provision is in fact made for the Registrar of Deeds to furnish the necessary advice with regard to the drafting of registrations. The hon. member also raised the point of the registrar’s title. I think he overlooked the connection between the definition of “registrar” and clause 3.

†The definition of “registrar” reads as follows—

Clause 3(1) reads, inter alia, as follows—

*In other words, the correct title is used. But apart from the title, the person concerned must comply with the requirements of the Public Service. He has therefore to be a trained person. To the hon. members for Yeoville and Sea Point who raised this point, I want to say that one does not simply pick someone off the street and make him a registrar of deeds. There are specific requirements attached to the appointment of this person. In other words, he must be a qualified person. In order to elucidate this further I want to say that initially, a White person will be appointed from the Public Service until such time as a Rehoboth citizen can be trained to occupy that post. Therefore, in my opinion, the hon. members’ plea that this should be a kind of inferior post and that the person concerned must have the title “commissioner for titles”, falls away. I want us to steer away from any impression that Rehoboth is hereby being given an inferior deeds registry. Right from the outset it will be according to standard. In passing, the title “registrar of deeds” is also the choice of the people of Rehoboth themselves, and if we were to couple it with an inferior title, this would be extremely unpopular with the Advisory Council, and the Kaptein of Rehoboth as well.

The hon. member also raised the issue of a multi-purpose registration form. I think this can be given the necessary attention. It is a valid point and when the regulations are drafted this can be given the necessary attention. The hon. member adopted a specific standpoint in connection with cessions of registered mortgage bonds. I want to tell the hon. member that my advisers, who know more about this matter than he does, are in contact with the office of the local registrar of deeds, and he is of the opinion that it is a simpler process to cede a mortgage bond than to cancel an existing mortgage bond and register a new one. In some cases, for example the transfer from an estate, one has no alternative but to cede a mortgage bond. That is why provision must be made here for cessions. Furthermore, the local registrar of deeds is of the opinion that if this power to cede is done away with, it will leave a serious deficiency in the legislation, particularly as regards Rehoboth. I am also prepared to give favourable consideration to the hon. members’ remarks in regard to general procurations. I have referred to the necessary qualifications of the appointed registrar of deeds and I think I have now also replied to the objections raised by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Will the same qualifications be applicable as in the Deeds Office Act?

Yes, the same qualified person. The hon. member must take another look at clause 3. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for East London City—if I remember correctly— pointed out that in practice, the same person would have to perform various functions. However, I do not think it works out like that. There will be a registrar with his staff. My information is that in practice, a member of the staff will investigate the deeds, while the registrar of deeds will ultimately carry out the registration thereof himself. The hon. member for East London City also referred to the position with regard to antenuptial contracts. I should like to tell him that the position in this regard corresponds with the wishes of the Advisory Council. Hon. members must bear in mind that we are here creating a system which is in all respects in line with the conventions and the wishes of the people of Rehoboth themselves. If they should wish to amend this later, they will be free to do so when the Baster Council which is to be elected takes control of this matter. The whole argument of the hon. member for Sea Point was political. He links the legislation to an ideological principle, viz. the future of South West Africa. I can say nothing to the hon. member about this, apart from saying that this legislation has nothing to do with the future of South West Africa. It concerns the needs of the people of Rehoboth themselves. I regard his attempt to bring the Turnhalle Conference into this matter as improper, and the people of Rehoboth themselves, and not only they, but also those who are concerned with the Turnhalle Conference, will regret the fact that the leader of a political party in this Parliament has dragged in that conference with regard to this matter. Must I now once again refer the hon. member to paragraph 6 of the statement of intention of that conference? The hon. member must take a look at how those people all take decisions together, even those among them who are far less developed than the people of Rehoboth. What they are doing there for the future development of the whole territory of South West Africa does not prevent us from taking steps in regard to specific communities which may be necessary in the interim. Now we come to the registration of deeds and the transfer of land in an area which has developed a long way, before any other area, and which had laws and institutions of its own before any other community in South West Africa. Does the hon. member now want to intimate that those people must let themselves be dictated to by people of lesser experience? This legislation originates from the need of the people themselves and has nothing to do with political situations as he is trying to suggest.

The hon. member said, inter alia: “It will create tension.” If tension is going to be created, it will be created among the people of Rehoboth because the hon. member adopted such a standpoint here by taking cognizance of what was said at the Turnhalle conference in respect of a matter which had absolutely nothing to do with politics. Among other things, he also called it “the manipulation of the South African government”.

That is the reproach that will be levelled.

In other words, he is suggesting this to people who do not think so now. I want to reproach the hon. member with the standpoint he adopted on this matter. The hon. member asked: Why specifically at this time, when the people are meeting there? Surely it is general knowledge—I have said this before—that this legislation was requested as long ago as last year. There is the development of financial institutions in Rehoboth which can make capital available themselves. I refer in particular to the Rehoboth Development Corporation. It can afford people the opportunity to improve their properties and build or improve their own homes. They can and will negotiate loans for this purpose. That is where the need for this legislation arose. I concede that I am not acquainted with all the aspects of deed registries. The hon. member for Yeoville, with his superior knowledge of these matters, states that practices like the so-called “plaaspapier” of Rehoboth are acceptable in other parts of the world. But surely one cannot get a mortgage bond with that “plaaspapier”. Surely I said that in my introductory speech. It is therefore of no avail for the hon. member for Yeoville to come and put to us what is done in other parts of the world, if such a practice, which is in conflict with the existing system of registration of deeds in Rehoboth, does not lend itself to the negotiations of loans and mortgage bonds.

The hon. member for Yeoville also asked “why now?” as did the hon. member for Sea Point. Must I, then, repeat what I said? Surely it is because there is a specific need there now and because it is being shown in practice that a deeds registry of their own is in fact necessary. The hon. member also asked: Why this particular community? However, he himself provided the answer, namely that is this community within South West Africa that has had the say over its own properties for years and has not possessed communal land. The hon. member also followed the line adopted by his leader and asked: “Is it not just another step towards independence?” I can only tell the hon. member what I told his leader: He must go and listen to what his political friend, the leader of the minority party in Rehoboth, has to say.

I have nothing to do with him.

The hon. member states that he has nothing to do with him, but nevertheless he is very well-informed by the hon. member. What does he think about “independence”? The charge he levels differs from the reproach levelled at me by the leader of the minority party in Rehoboth, viz. that we are not giving them “independence”.

What is your attitude in that regard.

Surely that hon. member knows what my attitude is. After all, I spelt it out clearly to him. Surely I indicated repeatedly that this was not independence, but self-government for the people of Rehoboth, in accordance with what it was before, even in the previous century.

I think that I have now dealt with the important objections which were raised. However, the hon. member for Yeoville also added in conclusion that the system we envisaged could lend itself to the exploitation of people. I think that this is an outrageous charge which is levelled by the hon. member.

But it is true.

I wonder what the people of Rehoboth, and of those in control of the administration there, will say when they hear about the hon. member’s objection. In my opinion, the political arguments advanced this afternoon are irrelevant. We are here dealing with a technical piece of legislation and we can take a closer look at it at the Committee State. I have also told the hon. members that my advisers have been, and are now, in contact with the local registrar of deeds and we shall also be in contact with the chief registrar of deeds, and, on the basis of his opinions, I shall try to deal with the technical aspects to the best of my ability.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

I want to make a few remarks about this. The first point which I want to make is that I looked forward hopefully to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate. I must say that he disappointed me. We in these benches emphasized one central theme in the Second Reading of this Bill, namely the question of Bantu squatting. I realize that it is a problem which does not fall entirely under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister’s department. Nevertheless it is a problem which falls within the scope of this Bill and to which one therefore would have expected an answer, if not from the hon. the Minister himself, then in any event from the Minister of the responsible department.

Order! The hon. member must not speak in general. He is now continuing the Second Reading debate. He must confine himself to his amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am only referring to this for the purpose of motivating my amendments. They only make sense if one takes the problem of Bantu squatting into consideration as well. The issue here is the fact that the hon. the Minister said that Coloured squatter camps were being frozen at this stage. However, this does not apply to Bantu squatting. As a result, one is faced with the dilemma that the increased fines and penalties will immediately be applicable to these people, as soon as this measure becomes law. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that one of the important points in the amendment which we moved during the Second Reading, was that this is exclusively a punitive measure which contains no positive or constructive suggestions to solve the squatting problem. My amendments to clause 1 are only an extension of the argument which we advanced during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, the penalties we are dealing with apply to two offences mentioned in section 1 of the Act. The first one concerns trespassing generally, and the second one the entering of a Bantu village or location or of an area set aside for Bantu, without having the necessary authority to do so. The hon. member for Rondebosch has suggested that the maximum penalties that can be imposed are a little high. While the second part of the penalties refers to the offence of trespassing in a Bantu village, I am sorry to have to say that during the whole discussion of this Bill we have had an absolutely stony silence from the Minister and three Deputy Ministers who are concerned with this Bill in as far as it relates to Bantu. Even now they seem to be more interested in private conversations. The hon. the Minister concerned is talking to one of the Deputy Ministers, while the two other Deputy Ministers are engaged in a different conversation. They seem to be uninterested in whether the penalties which are to be imposed in respect of the offence of trespassing in Bantu villages or locations are adequate or not. This is an extraordinary attitude. It shows a complete indifference on the part of the Minister and three Deputy Ministers concerned. They are all overpaid and underworked. As regards the amendments moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch, I want to say that the penalties envisaged are maximum penalties and not minimum penalties. We support those amendments because we believe that the penalties he envisages are sufficient as maximum penalties.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Green Point. I want to assure the hon. member that I have never tried to deny that the Bill might indeed be applicable to Bantu areas. However, I pointed out that the big problem at the moment was in regard to the Coloureds of the Western Cape.

What about the court case concerning Crossroads?

I also pointed out …

You are quiet as mice! The whole lot of you!

Mr. Chairman, I also pointed out that these were matters which would be handled by the Department of Bantu Administration. However, I can answer the hon. member immediately, and this is …

Why not the Minister concerned?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer the hon. member if …

[Inaudible.]

I cannot provide an answer if I cannot have some attention from the hon. member.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

I am not angry with you. I am angry with the other hon. Ministers.

I can provide an answer immediately. I discussed the matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister who deals with these matters. Personally, I am convinced that he will approach the case of Crossroads with great sympathy and that he will clear matters up there. I am also convinced that he will answer for his actions when his Vote comes up for discussion. At the moment we are chiefly concerned with the Coloureds, but we must make the same principles applicable to Bantu settlements, because problems there may also assume proportions which may necessitate urgent action. I readily concede that. Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch. Experience has shown that if the fines concerned are too small, it pays squatters rather to pay the fines and continue with their squatting. The fines must be a deterrent. They must be deterrent and preventive, otherwise they are useless. For this reason, since we would like to put an end to squatting in the future—so that we may have an opportunity to solve the great problem of the 120 000 people who are already squatting—I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to identify myself with the sentiment which was expressed by the hon. member for Green Point and by the hon. member for Rondebosch. I believe that the punitive provisions here go very much too far. This debate is confined to the subject of illegal squatting. However, section 1 of the Act covers much more than squatting. It concerns any person who enters a building without the permission of its owner or the legal occupant. In other words, in spite of the title of the Act, Section 1 is not concerned only with the subject which is now under discussion, namely illegal squatting.

Order! I think the hon. member is making a mistake. It deals only with the penalties.

Yes, but we can only analyse the penalties in the light of the offence upon which the particular penalties are imposed. Section 1 of the Act, in respect of which these penalties apply, provides that the offender is any person who enters upon any land or building without lawful reason, or who remains there without the permission of the owner. Because of this I want to say that this provision is not only concerned with what is usually understood under illegal squatting. On these grounds alone it seems to me that these penalties are being much too drastically increased. What is more, if it is indeed true what the hon. the Minister said, that these penalties do not serve as a deterrent—the present penalty is already R50 or three months—I believe that, if R50 is not going to deter someone, R200 will not deter him either. Therefore, where at the moment provision is made for a fine or imprisonment for a period of three months, or both, it seems obvious to me that when someone is brought before the court and found guilty time and time again, in time the court will not only impose the maximum fine in terms of the old provisions, but will also consider the alternative penalty of imprisonment or of both. Under these circumstances I therefore want to request the hon. the Minister to consider retaining the original penalties.

Mr. Chairman, I am having great difficulty with the hon. member for Edenvale. It seems to me that he did not read the Bill before he made his speech this afternoon. He is missing the important point, namely that it is a maximum penalty, and the imposition of that penalty lies within the discretion of the court, and the court will only impose the maximum penalty if there are people who deserve it. I want to point out, in any event, that what was R50 in 1951 is no longer R50 today. Every day we hear from the Opposition that the value of money has decreased tremendously. They want us to make allowances for this in all the other things which we do, except in laying down fines. In that respect we must not make any allowances. This is a very strange attitude. Then I also want to say that offenders of this kind do not deserve much sympathy. If under special circumstances they do deserve sympathy, they shall receive the sympathy of the court.

I am very grateful that the hon. member for Edenvale has pointed out so clearly that the Bill is not only concerned with squatters of one colour. In this way he confirms what I tried to explain in previous debates, that it is not a discriminatory Bill and that it is applicable to other people as well. This was met by all sorts of noises on the other side. But now this highly intelligent member of the Opposition has confirmed every word I said. I am grateful for this, but not grateful enough to accept this amendment.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—95: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. G; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—40: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Order! I must point out that the principles contained in the three sections proposed to be inserted in the principal Act by this clause, were fully discussed and agreed to at the Second Reading. In accordance with the practice of this House, I shall accordingly allow one member of each Opposition party to state his party’s attitude to the principles contained in each of the proposed new sections and the hon. the Minister to reply to it. To assist hon. members, I shall allow separate speeches on each new section. Further discussion will be in accordance with Standing Order No. 63, viz. it will have to be strictly confined to the details of the clause and the amendments thereto.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that, in terms of Government Notice No. 1954 of October 1975 …

Could the hon. the Minister speak a little louder?

I will start over again and to make myself more understandable to the hon. member I shall speak in English.

The hon. the Minister may speak in Afrikaans. I like his Afrikaans; it is very good.

By Government Notice No. 1954 of 17 October 1975, the State President entrusted me with the implementation of this Act as from 2 October 1975, except as far as Bantu are concerned. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, of course, administers the Act as far as the Bantu are concerned. Originally it was thought that the reference in the Bill to only “the Minister” would state the position correctly in law. However, the law advisers recommend that in order to put the matter beyond any doubt, the word “Minister” should be clearly defined, namely as “Minister of Community Development”. Since the identical provision in the Bantu Urban Areas Act is already being applied in respect of the Bantu, there is no need to involve the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development here. I may just mention that the matter has been discussed and cleared up with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. This clarifies the scope of the Bill. To my mind, this also constitutes an answer to the standpoint of my friend, the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, may I say straight away that I welcome the amendment of the hon. the Minister. It makes quite clear to us what we had suspected, namely that this clause, which has been referred to as providing for the influx control over Coloured people, is in fact a clause for influx control over Coloured people, because they are the only ones who are under the control of the hon. the Minister. We thank him for at least clarifying that issue. I do not think I need transgress or abuse your ruling, because I intend to deal with the application of the principles which were agreed to in the Second Reading. In the first place I should like to refer to the necessity of having the powers which are contained in clause 2. The hon. the Minister spoke at great length in reply to the Second Reading debate. He told us with pride and, in many instances, with justification of what had been achieved in eliminating slum conditions in Johannesburg with the aid and the assistance of the Johannesburg city council. He spoke about the squatter problem that has been dealt with in that city. He also spoke at great length and eloquently, as the hon. the Minister is capable of doing on any subject, of the elimination of slum conditions and squatter conditions in Cato Manor. He also spoke of the achievements in the Cape Peninsula and in Elsies River. The extraordinary thing is that the hon. the Minister seemed to forget, while he was gilding the “kruithoring” in this way for a long time, that all this was done before the squatter’s Bill was even in the hands of the Minister of Community Development. After all, the squatter’s Bill was administered by the Department of Justice until October 1975. Everything that he has achieved, the monumental Nationalist progress and efficiency, has all been achieved without one word of the squatter’s Bill being applied. In this regard I refer to both the Act of 1951 and the amendment Bill which he now has introduced.

Why then does the hon. the Minister want these amendments? Or has he gone a little bit far in gilding the “kruithoring” as he was doing in such length?

I now want to deal with the clause. Power is now to be given for the prohibition of the erection and occupation of unauthorized buildings or structures. As far as local authorities are concerned, this is mandatory. From this side of the House we have indicated that the local authorities have powers to deal with this problem and that they can exercise those powers within the discretions which they now have. The clause before us is aimed at eliminating all discretion on the part of the local authorities. They must now toe the line. They must now be told what they must do. If we want evidence of the powers which they have, we need only look at an item which appeared in the newspaper this morning. The Cape divisional council is in fact acting through the courts, in the normal way, to deal with the problem at Crossroads as it affects the Bantu population. They have done that because the Cape divisional council has no power to deal with the Bantu squatters. They must have these shacks removed, unless some other authority, namely the silent Department of Bantu Administration, takes upon itself the responsibility for these thousands of squatters. When it comes to the Coloured squatters, the divisional council has exactly the same powers, but it has chosen to act in a proper manner, a humanitarian way. It has chosen to peg the position by the numbering of the squatter huts and by doing a social survey of the persons who are occupying these huts, and then dealing with them as and when they can give them proper housing. The hon. the Minister now wants to place the sole say in the hands of the Government. I am not arguing for one moment against the principle that there must be law and order in so far as unauthorized structures are concerned. That brings me, Sir, to the first of the amendments which I have on the Order Paper. I believe that the hon. the Minister desires to be fair to these people who find themselves in this unfortunate position. I have lived with him long enough in the past to know that he has that attribute in so far as his attitude towards the suffering of people is concerned. If he is going to be fair, then in the exercise of this power to order demolitions and removals, surely the best people—and he has argued this so eloquently over so many years—to determine that are the people who are directly involved with the problem, and that is the local authorities. They know what the situation is. They are the people who deal year in and year out, month in and month out, with the Government in regard to funds for housing. That is why I wish to move the first amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of this is that where there is an unauthorized structure, the owner—and that includes property owned by local authorities—“may, notwithstanding anything contained in subparagraph (ii), permit the occupation of such building if the person wishing to occupy the building is in employment and no alternative accommodation is available to him, provided that the owner or lessee advises he the local authority and obtains its approval of such occupation”. Surely, Sir, the hon. the Minister can find no reason for opposing that. The sort of person referred to here is not a ne’er-do-well. This is a person who is in employment, who is earning a living and who is trying to meet his responsibilities as far as his family is concerned. This is the sort of person who has to resort to this type of accommodation because there is no other accommodation available to him. What is in fact going to happen? If his department is to administer this law, which we have accepted at Second Reading, it must have regard to the attitudes of the local authorities. I want to ask him, and I do so with tears in my eyes, whether he finds any reason whatsoever why the continued occupation of the squatters’ dwellings at the present moment should not be entrusted to the discretion of the municipal councils of Cape Town and Johannesburg or of the Cape Divisional Council. That is all that my first amendment deals with. Let those who have the daily contact, who have the organization for squatter control, decide on the future of these people, the temporary future I hope, until there is accommodation for them.

I now wish to move amendments (2) and (3) standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

These amendments are merely consequential to amendment (1). I come to the next point of this particular clause on which I wish to address you, viz. the elimination of the necessity of going to court. I am sure that everyone of us in this House—I hope the Government as well—does not feel that the necessity to permit people access to the courts is becoming an irritant. The only conclusion that I can come to from the attitude taken up by the Government benches, is that it is irritating that they should have to go to court when there is a dispute as to legal rights between individuals. It is becoming an irritant; it is becoming a nuisance, and so they want to get rid of it. The Act provides for magistrate’s court procedures. Those of us in the legal profession in the city of Cape Town have arranged a pro amico panel of persons to assist and advise people who are involved in this type of litigation. I can assure hon. members that lawyers who are doing pro amico work are not doing it merely to be a nuisance and are not giving up their time to do something which is fruitless and purely an instigation to oppose the law. I shall be happy to give the hon. the Minister a list of the attorneys who are dealing with this work in Cape Town and are trying to help these people who find themselves in this predicament. They are all appeals ad misericordium. They are all ad misericordium to try and sort out the position and the future of these people. [Time expired.]

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

We in these benches are opposed, of course, to clause 2 in its entirety. Amendments (2), (3) and (4) are virtually the same as the amendments of the hon. member for Green Point. This being so, he advanced many of the arguments which I would have advanced. Amendment (5) is the same as amendment (6) on the Order Paper of the hon. member for Green Point. The first amendment I have moved, deals with the question of compensation after a squatter’s home has been destroyed. I notice that the Afrikaans version of the amendment on the Order Paper is not correct. The amendment does not deal with “eiendom” but with “besittings”. I should like to read the amendment. It should read—

The amendment deals with “besittings” because naturally one cannot compensate him for a home which was illegal in any event. The question of compensation is a very serious matter. I know from personal interviews, not only with people who have lived in squatters’ camps, but also with the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, that it is a delicate matter.

Amongst the people who were moved from Werkgenot to Nyanga East, for example, there are a great many who feel very strongly about the matter. They are simple people, but they lost all their possessions. These were not much by the standards of the well-to-do, but it was all they had. They feel very annoyed about the fact that there is no way in which they can receive compensation. On the other hand I also understand the dilemma with which one is faced when one has to determine compensation. How is one to know whether someone is telling the truth, whether he has given a realistic estimate of the value of the possessions which were destroyed or damaged, etc.? I think, however, that this problem can be overcome if we accept an amendment like this, one which inhibits the official to some extent when it comes to the destruction of a squatter’s home.

There are many cases where they receive all the material to take along with them.

There are cases where all the building material may be taken away. I know about this. However, there are also cases where bulldozers are used or squatters’ houses are burned down. In those cases the possessions of the people concerned which have not been removed, are destroyed. I know of people who are prepared to make sworn statements. They feel very annoyed about this. I think it is particularly on this level that one can really cloud race relations. This is the level at which really bad feelings can arise. I really think that the acceptance of this type of amendment may, on the one hand, have an inhibitory effect on officials who may become over-enthusiastic when it comes to the destruction of squatters’ camps, and, on the other hand, provide a measure affording protection and offering compensation to those who are evicted from their squatters’ homes. Consequently I am of the opinion that this is a reasonable amendment. I do not think it can create any major problems.

The other amendments concern access to the courts, something which is being taken away here. I do not want to devote a great deal of time to this. The hon. member for Green Point has made out a case in this regard, and I agree with him. However, I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Can he tell us in a very simple way why this step is deemed necessary? Is it because it is seen as a delaying measure? Is it because the officials feel that they cannot destroy or demolish the various squatters’ homes at a fast enough rate? I should like to have an answer to this.

I now come to my fifth amendment. It concerns the proposed new section 3C. This matter was discussed at some length during the Second Reading debate. A person who wants to employ another person who will be brought into a particular area, first has to obtain a certificate from the local authority to the effect that proper housing is available to such other person. I do not quite understand the logic of this argument.

It is very logical.

No, it is very stupid. The hon. member for Worcester has children himself, and I am certain that if his children seek employment, they do so from his home.

In an orderly way.

Only when they have saved some money, do they look for a flat, and still later, when they have saved enough money, do they buy a house. In this legislation, however, the sequence is being reversed. Now a man who wants a house, has to get money first, but where is he going to get the money if he does not have employment? Now it is said that he cannot be employed if he does not have a house. This inverted logic makes no sense whatsoever. Potential employees are really being forced to become officials of the various departments that are involved in this legislation.

Order! I am sorry, but I am unable to accept amendments (2), (3) and (4) of the hon. member for Rondebosch as they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, on the Order Paper for Monday, I had the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch this afternoon, namely to omit the proposed section 3C.

I do not think I need enlarge upon what has already been said, and said very effectively during the Second Reading debate although not sufficiently to convince the hon. the Minister that we believe that the proposed section 3C is an ill-advised addition to the Act as it now stands. As I said earlier this afternoon, the hon. the Minister clearly indicated by the amendment which he moved that this is to be an influx control measure as far as Coloured people are concerned. This happens at a time when we in this country, I hope, are moving towards a closer association between White and Coloured people, when we are treating them, as some of the hon. member’s colleagues referred to them, as “vennote” and when we are moving in the direction of allowing them to play a more responsible part. We hope that they will play a more responsible part in the future of our country if they are given the opportunity. However, at this time they are being singled out for a restriction on movement which is not applicable to White South Africans. I do not want to over-extend this particular issue and I do not want to extend the principles which are involved. I do not want to do it; it can also be used in any way anywhere other than in this House and in this country as a genuine expression of the opinions of this side of the House. When we have an intention to move away from this type of legislation, this type of treatment for different groups within our community or our nation, then I think I cannot say anything more than that it is ill-advised for the hon. the Minister to proceed with the proposed section 3C. It is for that reason that we ask that the hon. the Minister delete it. [Interjections.] The hon. member has some problems as to what I am getting at. Let me put it quite clearly.

What do you mean?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay asks, “what do you mean?” Let me tell him …

But I have not said anything.

Well, in that case I think he will agree with me. I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay will agree with me as I know his attitudes towards South Africa’s problems at the present moment. At the moment there is in South Africa complete freedom of movement for White and Coloured persons. There was heavily restricted movement for Indian people, but this has been changed in recent months. The hon. the Minister nods. Well, he dealt with the relieving of those restrictions in his capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs. We have certain restrictions which are onerous in regard to the Bantu people. I would have thought that the one thing which we need in this country is to get away, to the maximum possible extent, from at least the restrictions on the movement of people. For three centuries we have lived with the free movement of the Coloured people in this country, but now the hon. the Minister wants to insert the provisions of the proposed section 3C.

What is the result?

The result is not to be found in restricting people, in removals and resettlements. Did the hon. member not look at TV last night to see what happened as a result of removals and resettlement? I want to say that the words “removal” and “resettlement” stink in the nostrils of the world today and we must not talk and legislate in such a way that we restrict, or that there is a suggestion that we are restricting the free movement of people in this country. That is all I am saying.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order! Is it relevant and is the hon. member for Green Point in order, to compare the legislation to the gas chambers and internment camps in Germany? The hon. member referred to last nights TV broadcast and linked the legislation to that.

Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I want to assure the hon. member for Lydenburg that I did not refer to it in such a way as to suggest that the two were in any way synonymous. What I did say was that the message that came through in that connection was of removals and resettlements. Those words were heard over and over again.

You know the two are not comparable.

Those are the words that came through. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I want to ask the hon. member to nullify those words. With those words he is arousing emotions …

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, since the whole history of South Africa shows that the Coloureds have always enjoyed freedom of movement, let us not now incorporate the proposed section 3C which has the effect of restricting the freedom of movement they have enjoyed in this country. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the amendment in that light. Naturally, there are problems connected with rehousing. Every country in which there is a growing industrialization experiences problems with housing. In such instances the centres of industrial development in the country always serve as an attraction. What we must deal with here is the question of housing and not the restriction of movement of the Coloured people of South Africa. Therefore, I move the sixth amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

As you have indicated, Sir, that my fourth and fifth amendments would be out of order, I shall not move those.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Before the hon. member goes any further I want to point out to him that he may not discuss the principle of this as I ruled at the commencement of proceedings that only the Minister may reply in this regard.

In replying to the Second Reading Debate, the hon. the Minister made out a very serious and, to my mind, convincing case for combating and preventing squatting. Up to the time of the hon. member for Green Point’s participation in this debate this afternoon, I believed that all hon. members were in agreement with the hon. the Minister as far as this matter was concerned. I do not know what the hon. member for Green Point’s problem is. I have always regarded him as being a very friendly member, but this afternoon somebody or something must have angered him, because he made all sorts of offensive statements here. I do not even want to go into the unsavoury remarks he made and the comparisons he drew.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue in that vein. He must come back to the amendments or to the details of the clause.

As you please, Mr. Chairman. I did say that I did not want to go into the matter. However, you will surely allow me just to say that this Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting freedom of movement. The hon. member said it dealt with freedom of movement, but in the particular clause to which he objected, there is no jot or title concerning freedom of movement.

Order! This is a matter which affects the principle of the Bill and I have already ruled that only the Minister may reply in this regard.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I shall drop the matter. As regards the specific wording of the amendment, it is my submission that this amendment …

Order! To which amendment is the hon. member referring?

I am referring, in the first instance, to the first amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. I shall come to the other amendments later on. It is my submission that this specific amendment is in conflict with what is contained in the proposed new section 3A(1)(a)(i). Its purport is, to be specific, that no person will be allowed to erect a structure for which a building plan has to be approved, unless a building plan has been approved for that structure. The amendment concerned is linked to clause 2(1)(a)(ii). However, I cannot see how a local authority can authorize a person to contravene another provision of this same Bill. If this amendment were to be accepted—in terms of which a local authority would then be authorized to allow a person to occupy a structure for which a building plan has not been approved—the whole spirit of clause 2(1)(a)(i) would be violated. Clause 2(1)(a)(ii) must be read with clause 2(1)(a)(i). The latter part of clause 2 contains the effective prohibition on the erection of a structure for which a building plan has not been approved. After all, clause 2(1)(a)(ii) reads that a person—

Now, however, the hon. member for Green Point wants a local authority to be authorized to condone indirectly a contravention of clause 2(1)(a)(i) and to permit the occupation of such a structure.

Under certain circumstances.

Yes, but surely it is clear that if we accept clause 2(1)(a)(i), we shall be unable to accept the first amendment of the hon. member for Green Point, as it will render clause 2(1)(a)(i) utterly nonsensical. This is my first objection.

Moreover, if this amendment were to be accepted, it would defeat the whole object of the whole Bill. It would create a loophole so large that one would be able to drive a team of horses through it. If this amendment were to be accepted, one would never be able to combat squatting effectively. What it would amount to is that a person need only be in service for him to be allowed to squat. When steps have to be taken against squatting, there is always the problem that the local authority is always confronted with the very fact that a person is in service in the local authority area and that steps should therefore not be taken against him. If this type of argument were to be accepted as a valid excuse, the rest of the Bill could just as well be scrapped, for in that case it would never be possible to take effective steps against squatting.

As far as the argument of the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, i.e. that the matter is now being removed from the discretion of the local authority, I should like to refer to what a responsible official of a large local authority told me only this week. He said that with the present set-up—in the light of obstacles and problems and the cumbersome procedures to be followed—it had become virtually impossible for a local authority to combat squatting effectively. Therefore, if we were to place more obstacles in the way of local authorities, obstacles which would prevent their taking action—this is what is being proposed in this amendment—I fear the whole object of this Bill would be defeated even before it appeared on the Statute Book.

In respect of the sixth amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, as well as the fifth amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch—both amendments propose the deletion of the proposed section 3C—the same principle applies. I do not want to go into the fundamental principle of the matter at this stage, but I should just like to illustrate my standpoint. If a person were to be allowed to bring an employee into the area of a local authority without his ascertaining whether there is proper housing for that person, we would once again be leaving a loophole which would simply render it impossible to combat squatting effectively. Sir, I remain convinced that there are many employers who sin in this very respect. Employees are recruited outside the area of a local authority and they are simply brought into that area without provision being made for them and the burden is thrown on the shoulders of the local authority. The hon. member for Green Point defended the rights of the local authorities. Sir, in my time I too have had some experience of the problems of local authorities to provide accommodation. Let me tell him this. One of the biggest problems with which local authorities have to contend, is that people are simply brought into their areas without accommodation being provided for them. Then the local authorities are saddled with the problem of providing accommodation to those people.

The other amendments, those which concern reference to the courts, have already been ruled out of order by you, Sir, and consequently I shall say nothing further about them. Suffice it to say that we should not to accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendments moved by the hon. members for Green Point and Rondebosch and at the same time to take advantage of your ruling that one member from each party can put his or her party’s views on this principle. I want to say categorically that we agree absolutely that it is utterly undesirable for the Government to introduce any form of influx control for Coloured people. The hon. member who has just sat down says that this clause has nothing to do with influx control, but I maintain, as hon. members on this side have maintained, that if you make it necessary for an employer to provide a certificate to the effect that accommodation is available before you are allowed to take a man into employment, that is a form of influx control. [Interjections.] Then you are making it a crime to employ someone, because there are penalties attached to it if a person is employed without the production of such a certificate. You are imposing a penalty on the employer for giving a man employment, and that means that Coloured people who want to move in from the rural areas in order to seek employment in the Cape are going to have difficulties placed in their way. They are not going to be asked to produce passes, in the same way that Africans are asked to produce passes, but in effect this is imposing a form of limitation of mobility, if one wants to put it that way, on the Coloured people, and the hon. the Minister agrees with that.

Why do you call it influx control?

Because influx control is in fact limitation on movement. That is what it means. It means you limit the right of the person to enter a certain area, and that is exactly what this is doing. I tried to point out to the hon. the Minister when I spoke on the Bill during the Second Reading that if there is one thing which is likely to cause intense racial friction it is the introduction of a law like this for Coloured people. We have had experience of this with Africans. We know what it has done to the Africans over the years and we are dead against this being extended in any form to Coloured people. I hope the hon. the Minister will think very carefully about this before he goes on with it.

The other point I want to make is that in a sneaky way further obstacles are being placed in the way of Africans as far as appeals to the courts are concerned now. Sir, I am not talking about the amendment which you have ruled out of order. In the Government Gazette of 14 May we find a notice which corrects an ultra vires notice which appeared some weeks ago and to which I also referred during the Second Reading debate of this Bill. I wondered when the new and valid notice was going to appear. Well, it appeared on 14 May. I notice that there is only one hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu affairs in the House at the moment. I think the hon. Deputy Minister who is actually in charge of this particular department has vamoosed at the moment critique. Here we find an extension of the Bantu Prohibition of Interdicts Act to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, sections 3 and 5 of which are being amended by this Bill. This means that the unfortunate people who are going to be removed, for example at Crossroads, will be removed forthwith, without even being allowed to apply to a court to have the demolition order set aside.

Sympathetic bulldozers.

It simply means that the Bull-dozers will arrive and that these people have no right of appeal to the courts of law by way of interdicts to stop this action being taken. At this stage of South Africa’s history, where we are supposed to be doing everything we can to improve race relations in this country, it is utterly mad to be contemplating immediate action against 10 000 people who are settled in the area of Crossroads, albeit under frightful conditions. All of us here have admitted that the conditions are in fact appalling and we want to see those conditions improved. That is the point at issue, but what do we accomplish by simply demolishing those shelters? What happens to those people when the roofs over their heads, such as they are, be it sheets of corrugated iron or pieces of cardboard or sacking, are demolished? I want to point out to the hon. Deputy Minister that among those 10 000 people, thousands are legally in employment in the Cape. The position of their dependants who come to joint them could be legalized in terms of section 10(1)(c) of the Urban Areas Act. These people have got husbands who are legally in employment. They have been here for many years and they are entitled to be here in terms of section 10(1)(b).

They are squatting illegally.

They are squatting out of necessity, because the authorities have not provided them with the necessary accommodation. The labour of these people is required by the economy of South Africa. We are exactly in the same position in the Western Cape now that we were in Johannesburg in the immediate post-war period, when people came into the urban area of Johannesburg to provide labour so that the war effort could be prosecuted with the utmost vigour. The local authority did not build any houses. Whatever the reasons were, no houses were built. The position is exactly the same now in Western Cape, because for 10 years no housing for Africans on a family basis has been built by local authorities in the Western Cape. Who is going to suffer because of that? It is the people who are supplying the labour which this economy so desperately requires. Who is going to do the work those people are now performing? This is what I want to know. The hon. Deputy Minister says that they are squatting illegally. I want to ask him whether he considers it a crime for a wife to want to join her husband in the urban area?

Yes, if they squat.

I see. Many of these people are married by Christian rites, and no man should put asunder and all that. But marriage is made a crime, their shelters are demolished and the Government says they are committing a crime. [Interjections.] I think it is a scandal that this situation is being allowed.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether, if I go to Johannesburg and I have no accommodation there and consequently break into a house to find accommodation for myself and for my family, will I be committing a crime or not?

We are not talking about housebreaking.

But that is the point …

That is not the point. The point is that the local authorities should provide housing. Yet, for ten solid years no housing has been provided for these people. The economy requires the labour of these people. Hon. members can ask industrialists, people in the building industry and people who use this labour force in the harbours for loading and unloading ships what they would do if they were no longer able to have the labour of these people.

Will you allow squatters on your property?

It is not my responsibility as a private citizen to provide housing. It is my responsibility to pay my taxes, and it is the Government’s responsibility to use that money to see that the population of this country is properly housed. It is a basic responsibility of the authorities in this country and not of employers. As I have already said, I am dead against the principle of tied housing. I do not believe that an employee should be tied to his job by virtue of the fact that his having a house depends on whether he stays with one employer. [Time expired.]

Order! In terms of the ruling I gave at the beginning, I have allowed members of the PRP and of the UP to discuss the three principles contained in clause 2. Consequently I am not going to …

There are two principles.

I said that it did not matter whether there was one principle or whether there were three principles, but that I would allow speeches on each of the three principles. We have had these now. From now on I am going to allow hon. members to discuss the amendments or the details of the clauses only. And hon. members must not think that they are going to lead me up the garden path. I am going to apply my ruling very strictly.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should deal with the arguments put forward up to now, because they did deal to a certain extent with matters of principle that have not been disposed of. I am distressed at the speeches we have heard. I know hon. members mean well, but it is terribly frustrating to find after a Second Reading debate of seven or eight hours that nothing of what hon. members have been told has registered. This clause is not a measure to introduce influx control for the Coloured people. I do agree with the hon. member for Houghton, however, that it does limit their mobility to some extent. But what is wrong with that? If I build a fence at the top of a cliff to prevent people from falling down that cliff, I am limiting their mobility, but I do so in their own interests.

That is no parallel.

I am sorry; this is an exact parallel. In this instance we are trying to stop people from coming to the city …

To get a job.

No, to live in misery, to live in circumstances that are unfit for human habitation. [Interjections.] The difference between hon. members on those benches and us are that they are interested only in the fact that people should be able to employ others in the most miserable, unforgivable and unacceptable circumstances. They do not care about the circumstances in which those people live. They do not care about the fact that people have to sleep in water during the Cape winter and that they do not have shelter against the rain and wind of the climate of the Cape Peninsula. They are completely indifferent to that. It is most frustrating that one should have to argue this again and again. I want to tell hon. members something else which they seem to forget: Every one of the people they are pleading for and all the circumstances which they want to see continued in the Cape Peninsula—with minor exceptions—come down to an unlawful deed which they endeavour to justify. Under the common law people are not allowed to trespass on the property of private individuals. Almost every one of the squatters—if one is to believe the owners of land—is an illegal trespasser. Do we not also have a duty to protect the interests of the people who own land? What would the hon. member for Houghton say if people came and squatted in her backyard in Hyde Park and we were not allowed to stop them.

That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the responsibility of the local authority to provide housing, and not just to demolish shelters.

I think that is excellent, but the hon. member was not here last night. She apologized, and I accept that, but she must understand …

[Inaudible.]

Sir, we cannot both make a speech. I gave her a chance to make her point, and I wish she would allow me to reply to her. The hon. member was not here last night and therefore did not hear what I had to say. She is now taking part in a debate in ignorance of what I told the House last night, and that is that one must not look at this Bill in isolation. Let me repeat that this Bill is not the answer to the squatting problem. The answer to the squatting problem—and I am sure she must agree with me, otherwise I misjudge her completely—is the provision of housing.

Of course I agree; but do that first.

Mr. Chairman, never in the history of South Africa has housing been provided with the expedition with which it is now being provided. I want her please to accept that that is true. But, while we are building houses at this unprecedented rate, with the full appreciation of the evil that we have to overcome, we cannot allow that evil to continue to grow at perhaps even a faster rate than the rate at which we are combating it. That is the principle which I have to deal with in this Bill, and this Bill can only be appreciated against the background of a supreme, a mighty housing effort, unprecedented in the history of South Africa. Therefore I repeat that it may be a restriction on the mobility of the Coloured people, but it is a restriction in their own interests, because the Government will not tolerate an extension of the miserable and filthy situation in which these squatters have to live, and that is where we differ from the PRP. On that we must agree to differ. They want it to continue and we want to end it.

Nonsense.

Sir, they are pleading for the continuation of a situation which is intolerable for people who are concerned about the welfare of the citizens in our country.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister tell me where these people are to go once their shelters have been pulled down?

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to the hon. member. Other similar questions have been put to me. I have been asked where these people will go, and how these people will find employment, since employers have to ensure that they have a roof over their heads before they give a job to new entrants into the area.

I am talking about the existing ones.

This does not apply to people who are unemployed and who have been in the area before. This applies only to new entrants. Only in the case of new entrants must the employers satisfy themselves that these people have a roof over their heads. Sir, what do White people do? What do many Coloureds do when they want to look for jobs in a new place? There are many things that they can do. They can come and stay with relatives, and that is what most people do. In the books I have read they talk about the “in-law” remedy for people who are unemployed and looking for work. That would be satisfactory for the purposes of the new section 3C, because they would be staying with relatives or friends. The concentration of Coloured people in the Cape Peninsula is so vast that I cannot think that there are many Cape Coloured people outside the Peninsula who do not have friends or relatives in the Peninsula. They can board temporarily. They can go to the employment offices of the Department of Labour and seek assistance. They can look for a job in this way while they are outside Cape Town, or in other ways. They can get assistance from the Department of Social Welfare. It is not necessary for a job-seeker to squat. To squat is an illegal act. To squat is an irresponsible act towards that man himself and towards his family. To squat is an antisocial act which no responsible Government can allow to continue.

We shall not allow it to continue, and for that reason I cannot accept these amendments. If I accepted these amendments, it would mean that we would have to go to court. I have great sympathy with people who say that one should not attack the rights of citizens without their having recourse to the courts. That is a principle in which I was educated all my life. It is also a principle of the great Roman-Dutch Law. But there are circumstances which make it impossible to adhere to that ideal, and this is one of them. The simple fact is that if we have to go to court every time it is necessary to stop a new entrant to the Cape Peninsula, an entrant after 15 November last year, to start a new squatting effort, then …

How many cases have you had since October last year?

We have been waiting for this legislation. But we had the case of squatters next to the University of the Western Cape. We had that one case. If we have to go to court for every instance, the courts will be cluttered up. We will then be completely frustrated in what is socially and compassionately a necessary thing, namely to end this evil. An evil it is, and I wish hon. members would accept that it is an evil, a rotten evil. Sir, I cannot accept these amendments.

Then there was the suggestion that we must scrap the proposed section 3C, which places an onus on the employer.

*It places an onus on the employer, before he employees a new entrant in Cape Town—not people who were in Cape Town before 15 November, but people who are new entrants—to make sure that that person has a roof over his head. That does not necessarily mean that he has to have a house of his own. It just means that when he goes home at night, he has to have a place to sleep. Then, having found employment while staying with his relatives, in his temporary lodgings or in whatever accommodation he can find, he can come to the department and the department may perhaps give him a home. That, is something else which hon. members have forgotten since the Second Reading. We have arranged with the municipalities and other local authorities that for every 100 houses which become available in future, 37½% will be used for the rehousing of existing squatters—people were squatting before 15 November last year—and that the other 37½% of the houses will be used to provide for the normal housing needs of the local authorities. Out of that 37½% which has nothing to do with squatting, because it will get an allocation of its own, homes will be given to new entrants who are legally employed in the Cape Peninsula or wherever the measure is implemented. We have the plan, the ability, the money and we are building the houses, but we want to prevent the people from squatting because they do not wish to accept the responsibility of being a householder. They do not want to pay rent, they do not want to keep up a house, they prefer to live under three sheets of corrugated iron, a degenerate form of nomadic existence.

Like trek-farmers.

Quite an interesting interjection.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the allocation that he has been talking about applies to Coloured housing?

I want to make it perfectly clear that I speak of White, Coloured and Indian housing today.

I was wondering whether …

Order! The hon. member cannot make a statement, but may only ask a question.

May I ask the hon. the Minister who is going to do something about the 10 000 people at Crossroads?

The 10 000 people at Crossroads, those who are legally in the Cape Peninsula, are the responsibility of the local authorities concerned and of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, whose funds are channelled for these purposes through a special housing commission under the chairmanship of the National Housing Commission. I cannot speak for them. I can assure the hon. member that people who are legally in this area and who have not come here in contravention of the law will be taken care of by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. But the hon. member must not ask me for details. The opportunity will arise when this can be discussed fully. It is not my responsibility. The intention of this Bill is to deal in the first instance with the Cape Coloureds, where the problem is the most severe.

I have made the point I wanted to make, but the matter is so important that I just want to give a brief resumé. When an employer is asked to obtain a certificate from the person he employs, this certificate does not refer to an individual housing unit. The person could be staying in lodgings or he could be staying with relations or friends. That is perfectly acceptable. That is something we all do. Perhaps hon. members have never been unemployed. I have had to look for jobs in my life and I stayed with my brother until I found a job. Prospective employees can also make a similar plan.

For people who find jobs after 15 November there is a special arrangement in terms of which more than a third of the houses that become available in future can be used to satisfy the normal housing needs in the areas of the local authorities concerned. Those who do get jobs will be housed in accordance with the schemes which are in operation at the moment. This is consequently not influx control; it is a restriction of mobility in the same way as a fence on top of a cliff restricts mobility in order to prevent people from descending into the depths of indescribable misery, such conditions being unacceptable to this Government.

Mr. Chairman, I was really dismayed to hear the Minister’s motivation for the retention of the new proposed section 3C. Yesterday I tried to indicate why I think that the measure is undesirable. A measure of control is being exercised over the entry of people. I shall return to this later.

Order! I do not think that the hon. member should return to that later because it affects the principle of the Bill.

In connection with the proposed new section 3A I move the following amendment—

The issue here is the irrefutable presumption which is being created, namely that when a prosecution is instituted against the owner or lessee of the land, the occupation of such land shall be deemed to have taken place with his consent. In my opinion it is an unfair onus which is being placed upon the owner of the land. It may also happen that a person may be completely unaware of the squatting which has taken place, perhaps because the owner has been away or does not go there very often. In my opinion, such a presumption cannot in all fairness be included in the Bill. For that reason I want to request that this particular paragraph be deleted.

However, I have another problem which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. This is in connection with the possible implications of the new proposed section 3A(1)(a)(ii)(bb). In terms of this section, the owner will be committing an offence if he allows people to occupy that land or structures and in this way, in the opinion of the health authorities attached to the local authority, endangers the safety or health of the public. The question which arises in this connection is a legal one and therefore I should like to know when the offence in terms of the proposed section 3A(1)(a)(ii)(bb) occurs. Does the offence occur at the moment when the people move into such houses or does it occur at the moment when the health authorities determine that the occupation by these people of such houses is a danger to the health of the public? Is the position perhaps that the offence is only committed when the person has been brought before the court and it is testified that the occupation of such houses was dangerous for the health of the public? It therefore seems to me that the proposed section 3A creates considerable legal uncertainty because in my opinion, subparagraph (bb) read together with the proposed section 3C does not clearly provide when the offence of which one is accused actually took place. It is on the grounds of these two points that I have moved my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, apart from the fact that the same provision exists in the principal Act, I want to point out to the hon. member that although it is a principle of our law that the onus of proof rests upon the prosecutor, there are numerous exceptions. Those exceptions are quite regular. One of the most important exceptions is precisely in connection with statutory law, because in many cases where statutory offences are created, the onus of proof does not rest upon the prosecutor, but on the accused. However, there are also exceptions in the case of the common law, and in this connection I refer to the position of a receiver of stolen goods. When the accused has a special knowledge of the circumstances of an offence, the onus of proof is placed upon the accused, because it would be unfair to place the onus upon the prosecutor. The prosecutor may be placed in the position where it is impossible for him to furnish proof. This applies to this case as well.

However, I can give hon. members an assurance in this connection. When we speak to people on whose property there are filthy squatters’ homes or shacks, they often say that the shacks were erected without their knowledge. In many cases we have very good reason to believe that the shacks were not only erected with the knowledge and approval of the owner, but that on top of it the owner receives a considerable rent for those shacks. However, in many cases it is impossible for us to prove that the shacks were indeed erected with the knowledge of the owner. In this case it is quite justifiable, in terms of the rules of Roman-Dutch Law, to place the onus of proof upon the owner of the property. It must also be kept in mind that we are dealing here with a refutable and not an absolute presumption. It is within the power of an owner to prove that the erection of the shacks took place without his knowledge. If he proves this, judgment is given in his favour. After all, we should not place an impossible burden upon the State to prove things as to which it cannot obtain the information required.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to indicate where such a provision occurs in the principal Act?

I refer the hon. member to section 5(1) of the principal Act, which provides, inter alia—

The magistrate therefore takes action without there being any question of whether the owner knows about it or not.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Green Point is not referring to the proposed section 3C.

In his reply on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale, the hon. the Minister said the presumption is to be found in the Act as it stands at present, but it is not there.

I shall explain the position.

As I say, I do not find that presumption in the Act.

The hon. member is quite right—it is not there.

In other words, the hon. the Minister was mistaken.

Yes, I was.

What makes the presumption even more unacceptable to us, is the fact that the hon. the Minister suggested there would be an awful number of cases to be dealt with which would result in the courts being cluttered up. I cannot believe for one moment that the hon. the Minister is serious in suggesting that the fact that the courts will have long rolls is a justification for curtailing the right of access to the courts. I merely want to put it to the hon. the Minister that that is what his argument amounts to. He was giving a reason why the right of access to the courts is being departed from. He said that if he did not have these presumptions in the Bill, the courts would be cluttered up. I think that that is a dangerous approach. I do not think it is an approach the hon. the Minister would like to press as a reason for depriving anybody of access to the courts. I am rather surprised that he has come with that suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to the hon. the Minister, I think he may have missed the point of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale. He is seeking to ascertain whether this clause will in fact be a pegging clause. However, I am sure the hon. member for Edenvale will deal with that in a minute. I wish to concentrate on the first amendment of the hon. member for Green Point, viz. to add subparagraph (iii) at the end of subsection (1)(a) of the proposed section 3A. It seems to me that, when the hon. member for Mossel Bay uses the word “skuiwergat” to describe this measure, he is using precisely the right word.

It is the very spirit of this clause what the hon. the Minister is at such pains to express, viz. that this measure is essentially a negative measure, but that it has a positive side, namely the provision of housing. That is why the subparagraph which the hon. member for Green Point wishes to have added, stipulates that they may occupy the building concerned provided no alternative accommodation is available. In view of the clear statements of the hon. the Minister during previous stages of this debate, I should think that he would be delighted to accept such amendment because it makes provision for pegging the number of squatters, according to my information and my understanding of this clause. As I understand it, the present number of squatters is going to be pegged and the man who is squatting at present is apparently not going to be prosecuted in terms of this Bill until such time as alternative accommodation is available. This measure is applicable only to the new squatters, the new influx. That is how I understand the Bill. The hon. member for Edenvale has some further thoughts on that which I think are valid.

You have understood it correctly.

In that case, this kind of provision should be welcomed by the hon. the Minister.

Let us see how this will affect, for instance the Bantu residents of two areas adjoining my constituency, viz. Clermont and St. Wendolin’s. The squatter population in Clermont has over the last ten years increased from approximately 25 000 to 80 000. These Black people are people who are legally employed, in other words they have employment in terms of the amendments which we are proposing to this clause. They are Black people who were endorsed into the area in terms of the laws of Bantu Administration, to provide labour for certain industrialists in the Pinetown and New Germany areas. These people arrived from the rural areas, and basically from the Transkei. They arrived assuming that there would be accommodation available for them, and I inspected their labour contracts in places like Tabankulu, Qumbu and other places. When they arrived at the factories, they were shown where Clermont was and were told to obtain accommodation there. Their reference books were stamped, showing that they were legally registered as labourers. They went into Clermont, and what happened, was that there were thousands of Black people arriving, with employment, but without anywhere to live. This produced two things. Firstly it resulted in these people being exploited by people building huts and shacks on their own properties to accommodate the newly arrived labourers. Other people were faced with the situation that they did not want to build shacks, but that they had thousands of people literally sleeping in the bush.

Mr. Chairman, here we introduce a clause to protect industry as well as these people, because they are living in awful conditions in Clermont and at St. Wendolin’s, which is on the other side of Pinetown. These people are living in these conditions, although they are legally there, having an absolute right to be where they are. Quite honestly, this debate has been almost an Alice in Wonderland experience, because we have never had a response from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, although this Bill has a very wide impact in his field.

Anyway, that has been dealt with—as I am sure you will shortly rule—during the Second Reading. In Clermont one has approximately 30 000 to 40 000 Black people, legally employed with their passbooks or “dompasse” in order. They have no safeguard in terms of this Bill, and it seems to me, by introducing this clause, this amendment which the hon. member for Green Point has proposed, we are moving an amendment in the very spirit in which this magnanimous and friendly hon. Minister comes to this House, because he says that this Bill can only be seen in terms of alternative accommodation. By introducing this clause, it gives those people, who are at present living in shacks—not those who may be coming—security of tenure until they have alternative accommodation. We have often had the promise and the assurance from the hon. the Minister that all he wants to do is provide alternative accommodation, although dead silence from the other empire builders, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development …Not one word! It is an absolute Alice in Wonderland situation that we can have a Bill such as this coming through … [Interjections.]

Why does the hon. the Minister not tell us what he is going to do? What does the hon. the Minister intend doing in regard to the Coloured people? Will he please tell us?

I would ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what is going to happen to Black people who are squatters in terms of this clause.

If he is going to reject this amendment, are these people, who are legally in a situation, and who are living in shacks, going to be literally forced out as has been explained in the case of Crossroads? This does not only affect places like Clermont and St. Wendolin’s, but in the Pinetown and New Germany areas there are large Bantu Trust areas under the control of chiefs. Because of the proximity of Industries, people are beginning to squat in areas presently controlled by KwaZulu or by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The situation is going to become worse and worse in areas such as the Valley of a Thousand Hills, around Shongweni and in St. Wendolin’s, which is an all Indian area. There are approximately 40 000 people squatting in those areas already. These people are all legally employed and the department has provided no housing at all. What is going to happen to them? I believe that this clause accepts the fact that these people are there legally and that they are serving our industry; that Pinetown and New Germany make an important contribution to the industries of South Africa and that we cannot do without them. It puts on the responsible department the responsibility for housing. I have confidence in the Minister and his department and believe that they genuinely want to provide housing. I am sorry to say, however, that I do not have the same confidence in the other department, because anybody who has anything to do with them in regard to housing, knows that it is such a bureaucracy that you cannot even find out when housing is being built and what is going on. They are short of staff.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

I want to assure the hon. the Minister that we have confidence in him and that we accept his word that he does want to provide alternative accommodation. We believe it is a very efficient department, so why does he not accept this amendment? It is a very sensible amendment. It is entirely in the spirit of his whole department.

Order! That is a repetition of what the hon. member for Green Point has said twice already.

I hope the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment, because I believe it is particularly necessary in view of the fact that this Bill applied to Bantu as well as to Coloured people. I believe the Bantu are the people who are most defenceless before this Government.

Order! That argument has been put before.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to remind the hon. the Minister that he has not yet reacted to my first amendment. I think it may have slipped his memory. It concerns compensation.

Sir, I should like to reply to it immediately. I am sorry, but it did slip my mind. The position is that the amendment is quite unnecessary for the simple reason that when they demolish a place the department as well as the local authorities take care not to damage the property. When the occupier, even if he is an illegal occupier, is present, he can immediately take the demolished pieces. It is his property and he can use it as he likes. If he is not there, my department will look after his furniture and possessions for him for a reasonable period of time, which is fair enough to satisfy a court He can collect it from them at any time during that period. If somebody’s property is maliciously damaged, he will, in any event, have the right to go to court under the common law. I want to assure the hon. member that in such cases matters are dealt with great circumspection, and secondly, that his possessions are looked after by the department or the local authority for a reasonable period of time so that he does not have to suffer any loss. Therefore this amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to my amendment, the hon. the Minister said, inter alia, that a presumption existed under the existing Act, which was apparently not correct, and this I understand, but I nevertheless want to say that my interpretation, that we are here dealing with an irrefutable presumption, is correct.

Irrefutable?

Yes, an irrefutable presumption, as it stands here. I want to suggest that if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, the opening should be at least created, when there are people who are innocent, for this to be taken into account by the court. In the second place I want to say that the hon. the Minister’s reply to my reference to the health aspect, when he referred to section 5 of the Act, is certainly not sufficient answer to the argument which I advanced because this Bill makes it a punishable offence for the owner or occupier of land to allow these things, the occupation of those structures, while section 5 of the Act lays down a completely different procedure. Section 5 of the Act provides that an owner of land can, by means of a sworn statement, inform a magistrate that there are people squatting illegally on his land. The head of a Government department can also submit such a sworn statement to a magistrate. In terms of that sworn statement, the magistrate can then take steps in connection with the squatters. Apart from that, section 5 contains further provisions, namely that when such an official, officer or owner wants to submit a sworn statement like this to a magistrate, he first has to put up a notice in the place concerned. In terms of section 5 those squatters still have the right to make representations to the magistrate. In other words, the fact that reference is incidentally made to a threat to health conditions in section 5 falls into a completely different context.

Section 5 has nothing to do with penal action against the owners of the land. Section 5 of the Act only deals with action against the squatters and sets out all the powers which the magistrate may exercise in this connection. I therefore want to say once again in all honesty that the hon. the Minister did not reply to my argument and I want to tell him that we must have clarity about that irrefutable supposition. In the light of the other considerations to which he did not reply, there is uncertainty about when the offence is committed. The hon. the Minister must consider inserting an amendment here. I should also like to know whether we are here dealing with pegging, seen from a legal point of view.

Order! I cannot allow this, because it concerns the principle of the Bill and this has already been accepted.

Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to ask whether an element of pegging applies in the proposed section 3A(1)(a)(ii)? It seems to me as if it does not matter when that structure has been erected. In other words, it also applies if it has been erected before 25 November 1975.

Order! The hon. member can put a question to the hon. the Minister. He is not allowed to discuss the matter.

May I then ask the hon. the Minister whether my interpretation is correct that, in terms of subparagraph (ii), action can be taken against an owner no matter when that structure was erected?

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! The hon. member for Green Point has already had three turns to speak.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order with you, if I may. This matter we are dealing with at the present moment permits of certain actions being taken by the Department of Bantu Administration. We are in some difficulty, and I want to know if it is in order that the hon. Minister who is piloting this Bill tells us that he is quite unable to answer the question which deals with that aspect of the Bill. The quartet of the Bantu portfolio are not available and thus we have to deal with an hon. Minister who cannot give us any answers to the questions regarding the Bantu.

Order! I cannot give my ruling in connection with that. It depends on the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react to the standpoint of the hon. member for Edenvale. I am advised that a refutable assumption is being created in the clause concerned. If it will make hon. members any happier, I shall, however, undertake to refer the matter back to the legal advisers. If they tell me that the presumption is irrefutable—I doubt whether this is so—I shall put the matter right in the Other Place.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived and amendments (2) and (3) dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

On amendment moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier,

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe, and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, D V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (1) moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

On amendment (4) moved by Mr. L. G. Murray,

Question put: That the words “3C.(1) The Minister” stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—91: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft) R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment, with amendment (5) moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, dropped.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Community Development agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clause, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this clause extends the present power of the Act to establish emergency camps, a power which is at present in the hands of local authorities, to the Department of Community Development. Since there is one of the Ministers of the department of Bantu Administration present, let me hasten to say that this also affects the Department of Bantu Administration. I do hope that we shall have a Minister or Deputy Minister of the Department of Bantu Affairs dealing with this issue that affects the Bantu since the Minister in charge of the Bill has said he knows nothing about that aspect and cannot speak on behalf of the Department of Bantu Affairs. We are nearing the end of the Committee Stage and have as yet not heard a word from the representatives of the Department of Bantu Administration.

This clause gives that department the power to establish emergency camps. We on this side of the House welcome this step, but there are certain aspects in regard to the powers—now to be given, in terms of the amendment to the existing Act—which are open to query and—I hope—to explanation by the hon. the Minister. The first point is: What does he envisage as far as emergency camps are concerned? He is assuming the powers to establish them. There is obviously a need for them and he recognizes that there will be homeless people, although I would like to know if these are the homeless people who are going to be turned out of the present squatter camps. If that is so, what is the purpose of these emergency camps and how will they be utilized and controlled? We would like to know that from the hon. the Minister. We also want to know when he will direct the establishment of emergency camps by local authorities in accordance with the new provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I now wish to move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Since the hon. the Minister is to direct local authorities to establish emergency camps— and this also applies to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration—will he do so after consultation with the local authorities, and if so, will he write this into the Bill? This question indicates the purpose of my first amendment. My amendment provides, that there should be consultation with the local authorities before they are directed to establish emergency camps.

I now come to the second point. Where a local authority is directed to establish an emergency camp which, I should imagine, would require basic roads, sewerage, water and some form of housing which is not inexpensive, who is to foot the Bill? That is the point of my second amendment. Where an authority is directed to establish an emergency camp, the cost involved in complying with such a direction should be discharged either by the Department of Community Development or the Department of Bantu Administration, whichever is involved.

I hope the hon. the Minister will enlarge upon his intentions in regard to the nature of these emergency camps because that is a matter of some concern. In the absence of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, perhaps the hon. the Minister will convey to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration what powers he now has to establish emergency camps. According to information supplied in reply to questions this year, the only residential accommodation provided for Bantu in the Western Cape during the year 1975 was 183 units at Langa and Guguletu and 38 units at Nyanga. If Crossroads is to be demolished and the persons who are legally entitled to be in the Western Cape are to be housed, then a substantial sized emergency camp will become an immediate necessity. Unfortunately I cannot speak for that department and the department itself is silent. However, will the hon. the Minister give me the undertaking—his undertaking will be good enough—to pass those sentiments on to his colleague when he next meets him in a Cabinet meeting or elsewhere?

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the second amendment as it involves increased expenditure and accordingly requires the State President’s recommendation. As a matter of fact, I was prepared to allow the hon. member to make an attempt to persuade the hon. the Minister to take over the amendment. However, it seems to me that the hon. member has already done so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister even gave me looks which created the impression that he was agreeing with the sentiments I was expressing. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will move such an amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once to the hon. member for Green Point that I am happy to accept his first amendment. I think that the department would in any case have consulted the local authorities as a matter of good administration, but if the hon. member feels that it is better to have it written into the law, then I accept it. I appreciate the motives which caused him to move the amendment.

Sir, although you have ruled his second amendment out of order, I should like to explain to the hon. member why I cannot take it over. I think he will be happier if he knows the reasons. The hon. member asked me about emergency camps and I should like to tell him that they will only be established if a true emergency exists. I personally hope that it will never be necessary to establish any such emergency camp, but should the position deteriorate for any reason which I cannot foresee at the moment and we really face an emergency in housing, for instance, the sort of situation which arose during the Second World War, then the necessary power, which already exists, will be used to establish emergency camps in order to alleviate immediate and urgent grief among the people. It will not be necessary to protect the municipalities as my hon. friend suggests because the Minister has the power to issue regulations for the control and management of such camps. One of the provisions embodied in the regulations will be that people who live in the camps will have to pay for the services and the privileges they enjoy there. They will therefore have to pay fees for electricity, water and sanitation and out of these fees the municipalities will be compensated. I hope that such an emergency will not arise, but if it does arise and we find that the municipalities suffer as a result, we will have the power to recompense them. In fact, we already enjoy limited power. If it should become necessary to recompense them even beyond the scope of our powers, we would not hesitate to come to the House to ask for further powers. However, we do not want to create the impression that we expect an emergency. On the contrary, we do not.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I only want to indicate that we, obviously, have no objection to this Bill. This matter was raised last session. The Bill is useful, and I am sure it will help us when the commission which is investigating housing submits its report, which I hope is not far off.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches have no objection to this Bill. It is going to be helpful. We can only anticipate that when the commission on housing has investigated this whole situation, a major amending Bill will be introduced.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, on a previous occasion we had an opportunity to indicate that we would support this measure in principle. We support it only on the basis that anything is better than the existing situation. It must be understood that at the moment the training of Black workers is done not as part of a nationally co-ordinated programme but, generally, almost surreptitiously and virtually under the counter. Here, at least, we have recognition of the fact that Black workers must be trained in the White areas. Therefore we regard this as a major advance.

We of the Opposition have applied sustained pressure on the Government to institute improved and more advanced training for our workers. We have always tended to talk of workers as such. We have not tried to discriminate between White and non-White workers. However, in the very nature of things, the emphasis must fall on the training of non-Whites and, particularly, of Blacks because at the moment the training they in fact receive is most inadequate and, furthermore, they constitute virtually four-fifths of our total industrial work force—hence the importance of their training.

Previously I reminded the House that 10 years ago we suggested precisely the same kind of measure and, unbelievable as it may seem, the Government rejected it en bloc. They rejected the principle of improved training for our workers in South Africa. I remember how indignant the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark became. He accused us of wishing to open the sluice-gates to non-Whites to stream into industry. If anyone has opened the sluice-gates to non-Whites to come into industry, it is of course the Government. The irony of the situation is that, after having waited for 10 years, today we have a change of heart on the part of the Government. This measure is a recognition that the Blacks form an integrated portion of our work force. It is an indication of the Government’s acceptance of the fact that the Blacks are part of our industrial machine. Furthermore, it is an indication of acceptance by the Government of the permanence of the Black workers in so-called White South Africa. The principle that is accepted here is that training is needed in White South Africa and that this is where we require the trained men and not, as the Government has continually maintained, in some mythical homeland because, quite apart from anything else, the homelands constitute and represent 2% of the economic activity of South Africa. Therefore, to try to suggest, as the Government has done up to this moment, that this training should be undertaken in the homelands, is obviously nonsensical. Now, whilst we accept the principle, and unlike the Government, we cannot vote against a measure of this kind, we want to make these points: Firstly, we regard this legislation as inadequate. Secondly, we say it bristles with inconsistencies. Thirdly, we say that it clashes with existing provisions of the law. If this legislation were to be passed in its present form it would create overlaps, hiatii and a great degree of confusion. We feel that, if this sort of thing is done, it ought to be done properly, because this is important and that is why our recommendation to the hon. the Minister is that we should take the Second Reading. Let us accept in principle what he has in mind here. After that he should withdraw this measure and he should go and think about it again and get additional advice. I know that this Bill is based on an interdepartmental inquiry quite some time ago, but he should get advice from the outside, from industry. This is an important measure, but I shall attempt to show that, in its present form, it is hopelessly inadequate.

One gets the impression too that it was compiled reluctantly, almost as if they were going through the motions, but that the department really did not have its heart in it. We know that the hon. the Minister himself, by virtue of his background, is not particularly knowledgeable about this type of activity, and one would therefore accept the fact that he would wish to avail himself of the very best advice that is available in South Africa. That, once again, is why we say to him: Let us take the Second Reading; let us agree in principle that this be done, but that he should then withdraw it to make quite sure that we could cast it in a form where we will have maximum benefits. I want to ask him right here and now whether the Department of Labour agreed to this legislation in its present form. Have they been consulted? Has his colleague the hon. the Minister of Labour agreed to this legislation as it stands? My view is, and it is our contention, that this legislation impinges on the activities of his colleague the hon. the Minister of Labour. We are certainly amazed that the latter has not remonstrated about this legislation which is put before us in this particular form.

In order to illustrate the inconsistency and the inadequacies, I wish to draw attention to several features. This legislation, in clause 1(iv), for example, defines a Black worker as “an employee”. Obviously he is an employee, because if a man works and receives payment for it, he must be an employee, otherwise he would be a slave and surely nobody is suggesting that our Black workers are slaves. But, whilst this legislation says specifically that a Black worker is an employee, the Industrial Conciliation Act specifically excludes the Black worker as an employee. So, here we have a situation where the one hon. Minister says the Black worker is an employee and another hon. Minister says he is not an employee. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the state of confusion which can arise as a result of this situation? Obviously, one of them must be wrong. Quite clearly this is a situation which cannot be tolerated and the hon. the Minister must motivate it for us.

Let us look at another situation. I want to put it this way. We on this side of the House are implacably opposed to the fragmentation concept which has become a hallmark of the Government. We believe that labour is indivisible, that their needs are the same and that the contribution of workers, whether they be White, Black or Coloured, is the same. It is true that there may be quantitative differences in the contribution they can make, but there are certainly not qualitative differences. Our view is that irrespective of the colour of the hands of people. Whether the hands be White or Black or Brown, they must either be given an opportunity to build together, or the chances are that they will tear down what has already been built in South Africa. The training of workers is obviously important, but you do not train them in different ways. You do not train a Black man in any way that differs materially from the way in which you train a White man. It is our view that in South Africa there should be one agency responsible for in-service training, and by the nature of things this agency should be the Department of Labour. If we accept the principle embodied in this Bill, that the Department of Bantu Education is responsible for in-service training of Black workers, then we must similarly accept the principle that the Department of Education must become responsible for the in-service training of White workers and that the Department of Coloured Affairs should be responsible for the in-service training of Coloured workers, and similarly with Indians. We believe that the training of workers within the work situation should be co-ordinated by one department. That department is the Department of Labour, and we are amazed that the hon. the Minister of Labour—who I regret is not here at the moment—should have tolerated a situation where his functions are usurped in so obvious a manner. Our view is that one agency should be responsible for in-service training, and that agency ought to be the Department of Labour. To depart from this we regard as ill advised.

But let us consider some of the implications of this legislation, and more particularly how it conflicts with the provisions of the existing Industrial Conciliation Act, because what appears to be not understood is that there are very many training schemes, in-service training schemes, already in existence, all controlled by the Department of Labour. If you look at this legislation before us, Sir, and if you relate it to the position of in-service schemes which already exist and which have been negotiated by industrial councils, and which have been published and which have been made binding by the Minister of Labour in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, then you will find that the position of these industrial agreements, in relation to the provisions of clauses 11 and 12 of this Bill regarding the provision of private centres and also schemes conducted by a single employer, is entirely uncertain, to say the least of it. Obviously there could be clashes between the two and no reference to this is made whatsoever.

In clause 11 of this measure before us reference is made to private centres conducted by a person for the training of employees who are in the employment of other persons, but clause 12 refers to schemes conducted by an employer for the training of his own employees. It does not seem that clause 7 of this Bill, dealing with public centres, debars the establishment of schemes established under an industrial council agreement, but this should be said. What is the position of all the existing schemes which have been established under the industrial council agreements? What is going to happen to them? What happens when there is conflict between this measure and those which already exist under the Industrial Conciliation Act? There can be a clash of interests, and that is why we ask whether the Department of Labour has been consulted about this, and whether they agreed to this legislation in this particular form.

Sir, another important issue in this legislation is the question of recognition, and I want to say a few words about that.

Clause 11 and 12 of this Bill allow the person or the single employer to seek recognition from the department or the Secretary for Bantu Education. Now if such a request is made, the Secretary may either recognize the centre or the scheme subject to conditions which he may determine. But both clauses 11 and 12 empower the Secretary to withdraw recognition of a centre or of a scheme if he considers that the imposed conditions are not being complied with. It is all left to the Secretary; he is the final arbitrator in this matter. He can either recognize or he can decide that recognition should be withdrawn. Obviously this is undesirable. As far as this Bill is concerned, it seems that if the person or employer decides not to seek recognition in terms of the provisions of this Bill, then he is in no way affected by this Bill, except perhaps that the Secretary may inspect it in terms of clause 7. It should be clearly specified whether persons or employers are obliged to seek recognition or is it merely something that they do if they wish to or need not do unless they feel like it? We are dealing here with a law and not with opinions or a treatise on economics or theology. We are dealing with a law that is going to affect large numbers of people and hence it should be specified. We have, to mention another inconsistency, the question of inspections. We already have inspectors in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Here we find that the Secretary of Bantu Education can now appoint his inspectors to inspect virtually the same sort of issue. We find that the Department of Labour can also appoint inspectors. What is going to happen if they clash and disagree on whether the scheme should be recognized or not? Apart from these inspectors, we have inspectors of health and inspectors under the Physical Planning Act. As a matter of fact, we have more inspectors than workers. That is why the Civil Service has become the fastest growing industry in the whole of South Africa.

Another major objection to which attention should be drawn, is that a whole series of in-training schemes have been negotiated by industrial councils. They have been published. They have been made binding by the hon. the Minister of Labour after having satisfied himself of the terms of such agreements. Most of the training schemes that exist today apply to Bantu workers, especially in terms of section 48(3)(a) of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Some of these deal specifically with the issues that have been provided for in this legislation. For instance, they deal with the duration of training, detailed schedules of the subjects to be covered in the course, the hours to be spent on each subject, etc. This forms the subject matter of the legislation which is before us. For example, we want to know what, in terms of clause 11 of Government Notice No. 1067 of June 1973, is going to happen to these very elaborate training schemes for the business equipment industry which are also recognized by the Department of Labour. Are they to fall away? What will happen if there are clashes between those and the provisions that are now asked for in this particular legislation? There will either be duplication, as I have said before, or they are going to be hiatii. Think also of the confusion that can arise in connection with the control of these schemes. I think that this Bill, if it goes through in this form, should specifically exclude training schemes which already exist and which are taken up and contained in industrial agreements. We suggest that if the hon. the Minister wishes to continue with this legislation in this form, he should put an amendment to this effect before us, because at the moment there are already training schemes under the Industrial Conciliation Act, dealing for example with the furniture industry, the clothing industry, with civil engineering, motor engineering, printing engineering, building engineering and steel engineering. My information is that at the moment the in-service training of over 600 000 Black workers has already been dealt with under the Industrial Conciliation Act. This, to my mind, makes this legislation unnecessary.

Moreover, this legislation raises far more questions than it really answers. As an example of the sort of question that is raised by this Bill I want to ask how this Bill will be administered in respect of learner Bantu building workers who are presently being trained under the Bantu Building Workers Act, 1951. This Act specifically says—and they are being trained—that they may not be employed on skilled work in the building industry in urban areas. What is the position in regard to these people? Is he going to train them in terms of this legislation? And if not, why not? If the hon. the Minister does train them in terms of this, will they be employed on other assignments? If not, why not?

As I have said, this legislation in its present form bristles with inconsistencies. One is surprised that the hon. the Minister should have come forward with a measure of this kind. This legislation is also in other respects entirely unsatisfactory. There are a number of by-products which are not appreciated by the hon. the Minister. The effect of clause 11, for example, is quite clear. Clause 11 will exclude a number of organizations that are supplying training at the moment, because it says specifically that training may not be supplied to other people. In this regard one thinks of well-known South African organizations, e.g. the National Development Management Foundation, universities, various consultants, professional institutes like the Institute of Personnel Management. These are all conducting training. They are providing a very important and useful service. They are bringing people in from overseas and are providing a special know-how in this field. This legislation as it stands now will mean that those organizations will in future not be permitted to provide training for Black workers. It will be silly if we did this, because these organizations, already provide an outstanding service and should in fact be encouraged to continue with it.

The hon. the Minister said that he did not want organizations to make a profit in providing training. This is an unusual approach. Why has the Government become so sensitive about profits? Is it a new manifestation of the socialist views which have become associated with the Government’s approach? If people supply training and they charge money for it, then usually it is training of a high standard. People do not avail themselves of this kind of training unless they find it worth while. Therefore, if one does it in this way, if one prohibits other organizations to do training, then one will have a system of regimentation and institutionalization. One will prevent all the flexibility which we have at the present time and which is so useful. One will create a situation where the supplying organizations will no longer be able to supply training as well. Computer organizations, when they supply computers, frequently move in and train the staff, the people who are going to utilize the computer. People who supply tractors to farmers very often supply people to train the tractor drivers and the mechanics. Under this legislation as it stands this kind of training will become illegal. [Interjections.] This is what it says, i.e. that no person may provide training for anybody else. If the hon. the Minister disagrees with this, he must indicate what these provisions really mean. That is certainly what they provide for at the moment.

During the Committee Stage we will recommend to the hon. the Minister to introduce an amendment in which he should say that anybody who provides training to any other person may apply for approval. He should make it voluntary and not obligatory or mandatory, because otherwise it will have the affect of excluding many of the other organizations.

I should like to say a few words on clause 14. In this clause the Government provides for the erection of public training centres at Government expense. However, the rationale behind this is that the training cost must be recouped by way of levies that will be imposed. For this purpose certain levies will then be imposed. At the moment organizations can deduct for tax purposes, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 80% of their training costs. Is it really necessary to have an additional levy? The effect will be that centres will then supply training services which may not be viable because of the fact that they will be subsidized by the Government. Sir, this will be money for jam; this will be jobs for pals. If you have this situation, you will just create what we already have in the case, for example, of the Bantu services levy, where millions and millions of rands have been collected and now lie in the coffers of the Public Debt Commissioners. This is money which is just not being used. But the way in which this money is going to be collected really leaves much room for criticism. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in referring to this point when he introduced this Bill, expressed himself in the following way—

Did he not consult them, Sir? This is legislation which tells us how it must be done, but here he puts it entirely as a query. He will consult with the Bantu administration boards, and if they agree, it can be done in this way. What happens if they do not agree? Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we introduce legislation in this House. I am surprised that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in his very first venture into this field, should come forward with something which is so sloppily compiled.

I want to raise another issue, and that is the scope of this legislation. Absolutely nothing has been said by the Deputy Minister as far as the scope of this legislation is concerned. Atleast the Government now accepts the need for training. They even provide financial assistance for it. But, Sir, is any ceiling going to be applied to the jobs for which Black workers can be trained? There is nothing to indicate what the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind. We have, however, had a statement by the Secretary for Bantu Education in this connection. When he spoke on this matter on 21 November and announced this Bantu Employees’ In-Service Training Bill, he is reported as having said the following—

What are permissible work categories? Who has defined them? Where do they exist? Sir, this clashes with what the hon. the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister, in talking to us earlier on, said specifically that in terms of Government policy there is nothing to prevent employers, with the co-operation of the trade unions, taking the necessary steps to bring about an improvement in the productive utilization of non-White labour. Here we have the Prime Minister saying specifically that he wants non-Whites, for all practical purposes, to do all jobs in order to become productive. Now we have a totally different view on this by the Secretary of the department, while the Deputy Minister has not pronounced on this at all. I want to ask what happens in terms of the Anti-Inflation Manifesto. Is there not inherent in that Anti-Inflation Manifesto an agreement that non-Whites, and particularly Blacks, should be trained in all kinds of activities in order to combat inflation? We want to know from the Deputy Minister what is going to happen in this regard. He must tell us whether he is going to impose a ceiling and, if so, why. If this legislation means merely that Black people are going to be trained to tighten nuts and bolts, then it is certainly an advance on what we have at the present time, but then it is also completely and hopelessly inadequate, because until such time as the Government recognizes the need for proper trade training for Black workers, we are not going to advance at all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken cognizance, from the hon. member for Hillbrow, that they support the measure which is now before us conditionally. He says that they support this Bill only because provision is being made for the in-service training of Bantu in our commerce and industry. But in the same breath, after having said that, the hon. member is also very derogatory and critical of this Bill.

Fairly.

Oh, it was done fairly! I should like to know who the hon. member really wants to get at now, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Department of Bantu Education, or who? I may not use the word “bitterbek” but I shall now indicate why the hon. member is so sour. It is frustration that makes him the way he is. He is suffering from frustration because he moved a Bill for the training of manpower here in 1969, which was then rejected by this side of the House. That is the real reason why this hon. member is so sour. Let us now consider what the difference between the Bill which that hon. member introduced at the time and the Bill which is before us now. The Bill of the hon. member was, according to him, a terribly “smart piece of legislation”; it was wonderfully streamlined, and the country had to accept it, he said. He said in his speech that we had debated it ten years ago. For the sake of the record, and for the sake of the young members, however, I want to say that we debated that Bill on 28 February 1969, i.e. seven, not ten years ago. The hon. member only came to this House ten years ago. The Bill which the hon. member introduced here dealt with manpower training in all categories of work.

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that? The hon. member knows as well as I do that it is in conflict with our Industrial Conciliation Act, and that there are certain work categories in which it would be senseless to train workers, for why should people be trained in certain work categories if they cannot be employed in that capacity. One would only be creating frustration among those employees.

You do not understand.

No, I understand it very well. I shall tell you now what the hon. members had at the back of their minds at the time. The hon. member wanted to circumvent the Industrial Conciliation Act; that is what he had at the back of his mind. We know that the spirit in which he spoke at the time—and this is the spirit in which he is still speaking now—was a spirit of “utilize the Black people to beat the bottleneck; train the non-Whites”, and that kind of thing. That was their underlying intention when they introduced that Bill. The hon. member must not refer so disparagingly to this legislation. He spoke of “sloppy legislation; it is puny; it is inadequate and is a slapdash piece of legislation”. I wonder where we could have found a bigger mess than the legislation the hon. member submitted to us. He proposed a national manpower board of 33 members, and asked that we should have a manpower board for every industry.

May I ask a question?

Pardon me, but I am busy now. The hon. member had a full half hour; I am speaking now. At that time we had 100 registered industrial councils. If we had listened to him, i.e. that a minimum of seven members should serve on such a manpower board, there could have been up to 700 members, on the manpower boards alone, apart from the national board of 33 members. Then the hon. member speaks of “slapdash, puny, inadequate and sloppy”. I do not think there was ever a “sloppier” Bill in this House than the one introduced by that hon. member. He is also forgetting—and I think it is necessary that this matter be cleared up— where he found the legislation which he moved here, when he thought he was being “smart” to introduce a private Bill as a young member? He scratched around in the British Statute Book and found the British Industrial Training Power …

Of course! It works there.

Yes, of course! He copied that Act word for word. He then thought he was coming here with something new. The hon. member for Hillbrow thought he would come and show us how to make laws! If one can speak of “sloppy legislation”, if one can speak of a “a slapdash piece of legislation”, then it was the Bill which that hon. member submitted to this House in 1969.

Basically that is the difference between that legislation and this legislation we are dealing with today, because this legislation deals specifically with the in-service training of Bantu in commerce and industry in South Africa. His piece of legislation did not make provision for in-service training only. It also made provision for pre-in-service training, as I have said, and for work categories which were completely in conflict with our Industrial Conciliation Act. In other words, he was trying to circumvent the existing laws of this country. That is what that hon. member had at the back of his mind. However, he is now speaking critically of this legislation.

Come to this legislation now.

I am coming to it now. What does this legislation make provision for? In the first place it makes provision for a co-ordinating council, a controlling council which will advise the hon. the Minister. And who serves on that council? But before I come to that, I just want to ask this question: How did this legislation come into being? It was not transcribed from the British Statute Book.

You took over his ideas.

That is not true. This Government made certain proposals and then this House decided that certain taxation concessions would be made to industrialists who provided Bantu with in-service training. First there was the Van Zyl Commission, and subsequently a standing committee was appointed. The standing committee investigated the entire matter and found that it was necessary to introduce schemes for the training of Bantu in this country. Who served on that standing committee? There were representatives of the Department of Bantu Education and of the Department of Labour. I think it is necessary to tell the hon. member who served on that committee. On that committee there were representatives of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, of the Building Industries Federation, of the S.A. Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, of the S.A. Federated Chambers of Industries, of the S.A. Confederation of Labour—which represents more than 200 000 workers in this country—of Tucsa—which also represents many employees—of the S.A. Agricultural Union, of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, of the South African Motor Industry Employers Association, and also of Seifsa. Where could one hope to find better representation than this when it comes to the formulation of the kind of legislation which is now before us? After all, employers are affected by the people whom they employ, for example by the productivity level of the workers. But the hon. member comes to this House and talks about “sloppy, slapdash legislation”. In other words, all employers in South Africa are “sloppy” and “slapdash” and worthless, but when the hon. member for Hillbrow—that philosopher, that prophet—puts forward proposals, he is the clever man in South Africa! He is the philosopher, but other people, for example the industrialists, are a lot of fools and half-wits. However, they did not simply come to light with the Bill and submit it to this House. They drew up a draft Bill and published it in the Gazette. All employers were asked to comment, and then they came forward with the Bill as it is before us at present. It was drawn up in co-operation with all those people. But the hon. member referred sharply to this piece of legislation.

Reply to his points.

I shall reply to them in the course of my speech. The hon. member must not be so hasty. He can go and have a game of marbles in the meantime.

We are enjoying the exhibition, but we also want to hear something at least.

I want to indicate what this legislation makes provision for. In the first place it makes provision for a co-ordinating council which will serve the hon. the Minister in an advisory capacity. What more does one want? And who are the representatives on this council? The people whom I have already mentioned. The council will consist of four representatives of the Department of Bantu Education and one from the Department of Labour. The hon. member pretends that there will be no co-ordination between the Department of Bantu Education and the Department of Labour, but provision is very clearly being made for the representation of the Department of Labour. The hon. member wanted a reply, and there he now has the first reply. There are also about eight representatives of employers, as well as the representatives of the employees. It is a council consisting of 16 members, not the clumsy council of 33 members proposed by the hon. member. This council will be of an advisory nature and there will be sound co-operation. Surely one cannot imagine a better composition for a council. And then that hon. member speaks so disparagingly of this legislation. I do not think he even took the trouble to ascertain how this legislation originated.

In the first place provision is being made for public centres. What is so strange about that now? These will be public centres with a governing body. Therefore, they will govern themselves. They will compile syllabuses and courses in co-operation with the department, and determine the duration of courses. It will be determined who has to be trained according to the requirements of the area. The hon. the Minister will ascertain where such a public centre may be established. The hon. member, however, threw his hands in the air and said that nothing had been done during the past ten years. He even alleged that we have been brooding on this piece of legislation for the past two years. But I wonder how the eight public centres originated. They already exist. Most of them are already in operation. Seven of those public centres have already been completed, and two of them trained students last year already. I know what I am talking about because one of them was opened by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It was completed in the course of a few months.

In my constituency as well.

Then at least you have something to be grateful to this National Party Government for. However, the hon. member tried to imply that nothing has been done in this regard over the years. But a great deal has been done. Those governing bodies really are autonomous bodies. The coordinating council will draw up the constitution to indicate what people have to serve on that council, and of how many people the council shall consist. The people themselves will be able to determine whom they want to employ, what instructors they want to appoint, and what salaries they want to pay. They are able to procure equipment. The public sector is borne by the Government—already almost R250 000 has been spent on each centre—and that is what provision is, inter alia, being made for in the legislation. But the hon. member said that there would not be any co-ordination.

The legislation also makes provision for private centres. The hon. member is so concerned about private centres. What is a private centre? I wonder whether the hon. member has cleared up in his own mind the question of what a private centre is. The hon. member is very concerned about this, but I shall give him a practical example of a private centre. The Hotel Board has a training centre in Ga-Rankuwa at which they train chefs, and so on. That is a private centre. The legislation provides very clearly that a private centre cannot train the employee of another organization except with the necessary consent of the Secretary. The Hotel Board may therefore train the employees of other organizations if it has obtained the necessary consent. In addition it is also a requirement that an employee of another organization should then be registered.

I think the hon. the Minister was quite justified in providing in the legislation that people may not make a profit from the training scheme. The hon. member knows as well as I do what happened in the past. Surely he knows that we had labour pedlars who did not want to train people, but who left it to other people to train artisans and tradesmen. When those people were employed in the industry after they had been trained by the State, the Railways and others, they were lured away by people who offered them higher wages. The same thing will happen here if the necessary steps are not taken. What the labour pedlars are concerned about is not the training of the Bantu; what they are concerned about is the money they are able to put in their pockets. Consequently it is imperative for provision to be made in this legislation, so that it will not be possible to exploit employers who apply for facilities at a private centre. If there is a private centre at, say, a little place which has been registered and an employer obtains consent, after he has made application, for his people to be trained there, there is nothing wrong with that. After all, the private centre will be under the supervision of the Department of Bantu Education to a certain extent, for a private centre has to be registered to qualify for tax rebates.

Since I am talking about rebates, it occurs to me that the hon. member is extremely worried about levies. Owing to the generous concessions which the State has made as far as taxation is concerned, I am doubtful whether the control bodies of public centres will ever ask for levies to be imposed. The concessions are so generous that while in the past the percentage that was worked on was more or less 82, it will in future be approximately 97%. This is the percentage which it will be possible to deduct from the income. I really doubt whether the control bodies will ever apply for levies to be imposed. However, if application is made for levies, these will not simply be granted; the Minister has to approve them, and he does, after all, have an advisory council. It is also the case that the governing bodies will be consulted. It is no more than right that this should be the case. If there is an employer who falls within the prescribed area of a public centre, it is only right that he should be able to apply to be exempted from the payment of contributions to the scheme.

Who is going to collect the levies?

Provision is made in the legislation for the appointment of a person to do so. If the hon. member had studied the legislation, he would have known this. It is clear to me that the hon. member did not do his homework properly. He simply scratched the surface a little.

That was very lax of the hon. member!

The hon. member also referred to the private schemes. Provision is made in the legislation for the recognition of private schemes. In terms of the legislation private schemes have to apply for recognition. We know that at this stage 160 private schemes of this nature have been registered. We also know that more than 800 application forms have been sent to industrialists throughout the country. We know, moreover, that apart from the fact that the department has registered 160 schemes, the department is also engaged in an inspection of certain of the places that applied for registration. As soon as the inspection has been completed, this figure of 160 will increase. Other employers are at liberty to make use of those facilities as well.

The hon. member is pretending that there has been no training over the past few years. However, I want to point out to him that in 1975 it is estimated that almost 55 000 persons were trained by our private schemes. This is nothing new, for the hon. member knows that when we had the opportunity last year to make a tour of Zululand and visit the sugar mills of Tongaat, we saw wonderful schemes which had been established for the training of Bantu. Those schemes have existed for a many years. I am thinking, too, of the Copperton Mine which has been training people for years. The State and the Post Office also have training facilities, and the Railways even has training facilities on a regional basis. It is calculated that the public sector has, during the past year, trained almost 60 000 people. However, the hon. member implied that nothing was being done as far as training was concerned. The Department of Industrial Psychology at the University of the Orange Free State recently conducted research with a view to establishing what the position as regards the utilization of Black manpower in South Africa is.

What was the finding? They arrived at the conclusion that the number of unskilled workers in South Africa have increased by only 1,3% during the past five years. They also found that the number of semi-skilled operators, technicians, sales staff and so on had increased by 22%. This supports my contention that training has progressed with leaps and bounds during the past number of years. The statistics with which I have furnished this House were not snatched out of thin air. These are the results of proper research conducted by the University of the Orange Free State. They did not merely make inquiries at one or two companies and receive data only from them; they made inquiries from 144 employers or employer organizations, and those inquiries resulted in the statistics which Ihave quoted. This is what has already been done by the Government up to now.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Before the House adjourned, I was referring to provision in this Bill for the creation, establishment and recognition of public centres. I was also referring to the creation and establishment of private centres and to the recognition of private schemes. I said, inter alia, that during the past year an estimated 55 000 Bantu had received training at the recognized schemes, of which there were at present 160 as against, if I remember correctly, 142 in 1975. We know, however, that at that stage there were 158 schemes which had at that time not yet been recognized. To determine how many people had been trained under them, is of course very difficult. I also said, inter alia, that approximately 55 000 people had during the past year been trained by the State—I included in that the Railways, the Post Office and the mining industry, which are of course excluded from this Bill. This is a tremendously large number. If all these schemes are recognized, as well as those which applied subsequently for recognition, we can expect the total number of persons who will be trained in future to be an enormous one. “The sky is the limit”, if I may put it that way. Provision is also being made in this Bill for the Minister to be able to render certain financial assistance to those private schemes which contribute to the economic development of the country. Since 1969 18 such schemes have existed in the border areas. It is enlightening to see what the State has done as far as these schemes are concerned. Almost R390 000 has been contributed by way of subsidies to keep those schemes functioning, and more than 10 400 Bantu had been trained in the various industries in the border areas. This is very important, for it indicates what is being done there.

However, we should go a little further and also consider the fourth category to which I have perhaps not referred yet, viz. the pre-in-service training of Bantu in terms of the Bantu Education Act. During the past year eight such schools or industrial centres have been established in the most densely populated Bantu areas, including two in Soweto. Then there is one in the Vaal Triangle and the remainder in various other places. It has cost the State almost R3 million to establish those centres. In future the spending of an additional R40 000 on each of the centres in order to expand them is being contemplated. Those centres make provision for the Bantu people from the junior secondary schools who will in future be able to attend classes at such a school every week. The training is free of charge. The pupils are conveyed free of charge to receive training at the centres in question. This will mean that when that young man applies for work in the industry he will already be acquainted with the industry and will know what type of work he is interested in, since he is able to obtain training in these schools in welding, metal work, masonry, electrical work, woodwork and plastic moulding. This is a very important preliminary level which the Department of Bantu Education has created to prepare the useful Bantu for subsequent useful utilization in industry. These are all things which have been done during the past few years. In other words, the statement which the hon. member for Hillbrow made, i.e. that almost nothing has happened during the past ten years as far as the training of Bantu is concerned—we are referring specifically here to the in-service training of Bantu because that is what this Bill deals with—is of course unfounded, for the statistics which I have quoted demonstrate that a great deal has in fact been done during the past few years. This side of the House is thoroughly aware that, to achieve optimum productivity, workers have to be well trained. This side of the House has never been opposed to the training of Bantu workers. What is very important, however, is that this side of the House has taken into consideration in what work categories training is required. Of what avail would it be to train a person who cannot be employed? That would be ridiculous. This is the most important factor. The hon. member for Yeoville is so tremendously concerned now about who will determine in what work categories training is required.

Leave me out of it, please!

Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such a foolish question?

Leave me out of it! Do not involve me!

In the co-ordinating council, a council which provides the hon. the Minister with advice, there are representatives of the Department of Labour as well. These are the people who will determine which workers ought to be trained. After all, the Department of Labour knows in what work categories trained workers are required. In the interests of South Africa, it is imperative— having regard to our labour pattern and our labour legislation—that it should be determined in what work categories training is required. Without that it would be absurd to tackle this scheme, people would be trained and expectations created among them without it being possible to employ them anywhere. In order to make a success of this scheme, a few very important requirements have to be complied with. In the first place, those candidates will have to be given aptitude tests. I should like to express a few ideas in this regard. It will be of no avail to train a person who does not have the necessary aptitude. A further very important aspect is that a candidate has to be motivated. He will have to realize that he is not merely a number in a factory, that he is not merely a number in the industry. He will have to realize that he is fulfilling a very important function there, an important function with regard to the production of the factory, an important function with regard to the economy of South Africa. There is one thing he will have to realize, and that is that his regular presence—that he should be on the job every day, if I may use this phrase—will not be the sole guarantee of his wage at the end of the week or at the end of the month. He will have to realize this. It is important that the worker has to be motivated in that respect if one envisages making a success of the scheme.

Another view which exists among many people is that the skilled worker only practices a trade. Surely this is not the case. In industry today the operator is a skilled person. The tendency in the world demonstrates—this is accepted, and we have to take cognizance of it—that the artisan as we know him, is a person who is disappearing. This is already happening in America, and elsewhere. In the future we will have to make increasing use of the services of operators. It is then that it will become extremely important to determine precisely for which kind of worker a need exists, so that people can be trained in the right work category. It would be foolish of the State, which spends millions of rands on the training of workers, to allege that it wants to provide people with academic, technical and industrial training, but that it will not be able to utilize them. It goes without saying that certain work categories will in due course be created for the Black man, work categories which were not formerly at his disposal. In fact, this is already being done. However, this will have to be done in an ordered way in future. It is very important that it be done in this way.

I want to address a last request to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him to ensure that, particularly with our public schemes, a course be introduced which will be aimed specifically at the training of Bantu in liaison committees and work committees. That category of Bantu, too, has a need for suitable training through which they can arrive at an appreciation of the necessity and of the urgency of their task as work representatives, particularly when it comes to negotiation and to matters relating to strikes and the disadvantages which these may constitute. In my opinion this is an extremely important matter.

I want to conclude by saying that it is a privilege to support this Bill at the Second Reading. But I would be neglecting my duty if I did not pay tribute to the Department of Bantu Education and to the standing committee with all those industrialists who took the trouble to make a very thorough prior examination of this Bill, and submit it to us. But I would also be neglecting my duty if I did not mention the Bantu Administration Board of the Vaal Triangle which has its seat in our constituencies. There we have an example of co-operation of a Bantu Administration Board, where we now have a training school for pre-in-service training. A few months ago the sods were turned for a public centre. Both those centres are in operation today. I should like to pay tribute to that Bantu Administration Board and I should like, in addition, to invite the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Pinelands, or rather the hon. member for Pinetown, to come and see how well they are functioning.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that the hon. member to my right is from the constituency of Pinetown and that there is a very great difference; it is not nearly as good as Pinelands. The hon. member who has just sat down dealt somewhat exhaustively with the Bill which is before us and tried to make a very spirited come-back after listening to the hon. member for Hillbrow before the dinner-break. In fact, I do not quite know what happened to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark during this break, but he has certainly calmed down considerably, for which I am very grateful. He mentioned some very important facts which undergird this Bill. For example, he mentioned the absolute necessity for the motivation of the Black worker, not merely giving him simple or even complex training, but making quite sure that he is motivated to do the work which will follow. I am sure that he will agree with me though, that if you are going to truly motivate a worker you must make it absolutely clear to him that there is no ceiling to what he can do with the ability he has. The unfortunate thing about so much of the legislation which comes to this House is that it seems to presuppose that there will be definite limitations set which of course are going to interfere with and interrupt the motivation of that worker concerned. I hope that what we have seen here today in this legislation will be only the first of many steps which still lie ahead of us and which will lead to all workers in South Africa being regarded as workers and not as one race category or another.

The hon. the Minister in his introduction to this Bill told us in his own words that this was not a new departure and that training had been part and parcel of the Government’s policy for a very long time and in South African industry in general. He went on to say—to use his own words—”dit het egter nodig geword om nywerheidsopleiding vir die Bantoe op ’n vaste grond slag te plaas”. While it may well be argued that this is not a new beginning, I do not think anyone can deny that there has come into the South African society on the labour front a new awareness and a new acceptance of the key role which the Black workers are playing and will have to play in the future of South Africa and its economic development. For a very long time the Black worker in South Africa was regarded as an interchangeable unit of labour so that again and again, if the employer wished to replace his labour, he thought not in terms of policy or in terms of ability but in terms of numbers. This had nothing to do merely with one Government or another; it was an attitude of life and an attitude of employers towards what seemed to be this incredible reservoir of cheap labour which was at our disposal not only in South Africa but in Southern Africa and even beyond. Now, this has …

Are you referring to the Union Hotel?

No, I am referring to South Africa in general. This is a point of view which no employer can afford to adopt today. It is very interesting to find that this new development and understanding have come. The provisions of the Bill are only a small part of a new awareness and recognition of what is taking place in South Africa. I think one can sum it up by saying that even when all other factors seem to leave us unchanged, the economic factors are dictating to the South African society in such a way that there is a great deal of sanity coming into the market places of our country. This can only be to the good of all South Africans, Black and White, as well as to all employers and employees.

I want to say at the outset that we in these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill, but that we shall indicate certain reservations and raise certain questions in connection with certain of its provisions. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that this Bill would make specific provision for training to be put on a basis that we have not seen before. This started with the interdepartmental committee under the late Dr. H. J. van Zyl and as I understand the Deputy Minister’s speech and the legislation, this committee arrived at three major decisions. For any understanding of this Bill, it seems to me that one has to keep these three decisions in mind. In the first place there is the industrial training given to Blacks at school level. For certain periods during a week they can receive this industrial training. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to this. Secondly, reference was made to the tax concessions which were given to employers in order to encourage them to move even further into the field of training. When I first entered this House in 1974, I referred in my maiden speech to these tax concessions which were made during the budget of 1974. On 21 August 1974 I said the following (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 1221)—

I mentioned that it was the second such concession which had been made, and now we are seeing the consequent developments flowing from that. One of the factors we simply have to keep in mind, if we are going to train our Blacks adequately, is the whole question of what I called then and which I refer to now again as economic literacy. This refers to the fact that a great number of the workers that come into industry in South Africa are what we may term pre-industrial. They come from rural areas and initially they have very little understanding of the make-up of an industrial society. As a result of that I believe that these training centres to which this Bill makes specific reference, could perform a very valuable task not merely in the actual training itself, relating to the ability to use the tools and to produce the goods, but also in introducing and assisting the Black worker into the industrial environment which may well be foreign to him up to that time. It is this economic literacy which I believe is so desperately needed in all our training systems in South Africa today. We learn that there are 142 of these schemes, flowing out of the tax concessions which have been granted, involving 423 different industrial courses. Whilst at first sight this may appear to be a very good beginning, I want to suggest that we simply cannot afford to be complacent about this matter and that I regard these figures as disappointing in the extreme. One would hope that the employers who have been granted this opportunity will make even greater use of this in the future. A total of 142 schemes is simply not nearly touching the magnitude of the problem facing us in regard to the need for training and more training and in some instances retraining.

The Bill makes provision for the setting up of public training centres. We have been told that eight of these have been set aside and that four are already in operation. We have also been told that one of the major reasons for this piece of legislation is that, although the money has been set aside, the Government does not believe that it is its responsibility to pay the operating costs and that, therefore, the only way to bring this about is by a legally enforceable levy.

The third type of training which has been referred to is that in private training centres. The underlying principle behind all the types of training to which I have referred, whether it be at school level or whether it be employers’ own schemes or whether it be public or private training centres, is the increased productivity of the Black worker. No one can quarrel about this. We are all aware that if we are going to tackle inflation responsibly, then productivity at every level must be increased. It has almost become a cliché on the South African scene, but we cannot stress sufficiently that one cannot really make the best possible use of all one’s work force unless everyone has the opportunity for training and the opportunity to use that training without any limit prescribed.

There are a couple of reservations which I would like to express in connection with the Bill. If one looks at the Bill as it is set out, its major aim appears not to be so much the promotion of training, but rather the control of training. This is an unfortunate emphasis. I believe that legislation should always be promotional in the sense that it actually encourages and does everything it can to make possible the training it envisages, rather than circumscribing and controlling to the extent which I believe this legislation is. As an example one could look at the co-ordinating council which the Bill provides for. It is the co-ordinating council itself which draws up the constitution of the public training centres, instead of allowing the governing authority of the public centre to draw up its own constitution. The real authority, as I read this legislation, is vested not in the governing body of a particular training centre, but rather in the council or in the Minister. I believe this is inherently clumsy and that it would be preferable if far greater control could be vested in the training centres themselves. And then, Sir, on the one hand you have the public centres which are directly linked with the council and with the Minister, whereas the private centres are controlled by the secretary rather than by the Minister or by the council.

Another factor which seems to me to be contradictory and even repetitious is that although one of the main functions or purposes of this legislation is to provide for training centres, section 48A of the Industrial Conciliation Act itself provides for employers’ associations to establish training centres. There seems to me, in other words, to be a desire to move ahead in the whole area of training of Black workers, which in itself is excellent, but there seems to be an unawareness of the fact that quite a lot of progress has already been made along these lines before. One wonders whether one of the major reasons for this apparent contradiction and internal conflict is that you have, on the one hand, a Department of Labour and, on the other, a Department of Bantu Education. For the life of me, I cannot really understand, even although we are supporting this Bill, why this really had to fall under the portfolio of Bantu Education and not that of Labour. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself made the point that there is a distinction between formal training on the one hand, which comes under the natural purview of Bantu Education, and industrial training on the other. There is a vast difference between the two. Of course there is bound to be some overlap, but I cannot understand this approach. Perhaps the Deputy Minister will motivate this and tell us why it was necessary to do it in this particular way, because whatever else is said, everyone in this House wants this kind of development to take place in the most expeditious way possible.

Finally, Sir, there are a number of questions I would like to ask. Nowhere in this Bill are we told what the criteria are in reaching a decision as to where the public centres are to be situated. It is clear that the hon. the Minister determines this in consultation with the governing body, but no indication is given as to what the criteria are or ought to be in reaching a decision as to where these centres should be. There are obviously reasons why one geographic centre is selected above another, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us what criteria are to guide him and his department in reaching this decision. Then, Sir, no provision is made for the governing body to purchase immovable property. It is a fact that there are a number of training centres in existence already. It is a further fact that some of these centres own their own property. To give the Deputy Minister one example, let us take the case of the sugar industry, which owns its own property and its own training centre. There is no provision in this legislation, as far as I can see, for any training centre, public or private, to own immovable property. Perhaps here too the Deputy Minister might tell us a little more.

As regards the membership of the coordinating council, I believe that the membership is, to say the least, lopsided or unbalanced. We are told—and I refer now to clause 3—that the council shall consist of six persons to be appointed by the Minister from among officers in the Public Service of whom four shall be serving in the Department of Bantu Education, one shall be serving in the Department of Labour and one shall be serving in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. member for Hillbrow has already made the point strongly that we are talking inevitably and essentially about labour, about employees, about employers and about training. One would have thought that the Department of Labour would have a larger direct representation than just one member, as against four members from the Department of Bantu Education. Once again, one wants to know how these decisions were reached, what the criteria were underlying the selection of these six representatives and the manner in which they will be chosen. Hon. members have been given a long list of all the organizations that are represented on the council and one is very grateful to see just how wide that representation is. According to my reckoning, however, although we are dealing here with the in-service training of Blacks, it is possible that the council might be entirely void of any Black membership. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to look at clause 3(1)(b)(xi) which reads—

I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister would give me his attention, because I would like a specific reply. Whilst the membership of the co-ordinating council constitutes very wide representation, according to my reckoning it is quite possible for this large and widely representative body to have no Black membership at all. That may be so by design, but I would have thought because we are talking about the in-service training of the Blacks themselves, that it is imperative to have direct representation of Black workers on such a body. I know that this is perhaps a departure from normal policy, but I do see one way in which the hon. the Deputy Minister can overcome it, if he is willing to do that. I think for example of the African Chamber of Commerce, a body which is very highly regarded in every circle that I know of. It would be quite in keeping with the legislation as it stands now, for the hon. the Deputy Minister to make an appointment also from that body. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give some consideration to that.

Another serious question is that, as far as I can see, no provision is made for a provisional registration or temporary exemption until the formalities of the Act can be complied with for existing centres which are not registered in terms of the Bantu Education Act. Provision is made for those who are registered in terms of that Act, but I see no provision having been made for those not so registered. Therefore the question is: What about a training college or training centre which is already in existence, but which is not registered under the Bantu Education Act? Once again I want to give an example, viz. the training college for the clothing industry in the Transvaal.

We support the principle of this Bill. We support the direction in which it takes us. We have listed some of our reservations and have raised certain questions, but nothing can obscure the fact that this move is a positive one in the right direction, neither the certainty that this is only one small step of many others which will have to be taken if South Africa is going to move securely into the future.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Pinelands I support the Bill which is before the House at the moment, without any reservations. What the hon. member for Pinelands should have done here tonight was to express his thanks for the rapid progress made in establishing the eight public centres. The then Minister of Finance announced it in 1973 and in 1974 a start was made. Here we are only at the start of 1976, and I think that the hon. member should have taken note of this with gratitude. However, he said precisely what we had expected he would say. He said, inter alia, that the education and training was not sufficient. Very well, but after all this is what we are engaged in doing. He also said that we did not go far enough. This was his other problem. If he now thinks or hopes that we will go further and train Blacks as artisans in White South Africa, he is definitely making a big mistake.

That day will come.

As long as the National Party is in power, the sort of training which the hon. member is advocating for the Black worker, will not take place in White South Africa.

In these times of inflation, in a world battling to free itself from the stranglehold which inflation has over it, I want to welcome this Bill because it forces us to make every effort at the national level to try and combat inflation effectively on a mutual basis. To be able to do this, however, a number of things are necessary. I want to mention only a few of them.

In the first instance, it is necessary for the Government and the private sector to be partners in the struggle. Manpower training and manpower development must be tackled jointly. The Government is doing its share by means of the tax concessions which are now being made in respect of the in-service training of Black workers, the introduction of training programmes, the provision of buildings for training purposes in the case of the public centres and provision of the initial equipment. The hon. member for Pinelands objected to the fact that the State was not also paying the running expenses. Did I understand him correctly? The hon. member is nodding his head.

It is also essential for education and training programmes to link up with manpower research and labour requirements in order to eliminate the areas of friction which may arise in this multi-national society in South Africa. I see that the hon. member for Pinelands agrees.

Thirdly, attention must be given to the optimum utilization and the effective application of the available manpower. Briefly, what labour utilization amounts to is that the labourer must be used for the task for which he has been trained. If for instance the engineer is employed merely to do administrative work, we would very soon have an artificial shortage of manpower in industry. It is also extremely important that labour peace and industrial peace be ensured and therefore this Bill at present before the House only makes provision for operator training. This can only take place when there is an allocation of work according to requirements in consultation with White trade unions. Only then can training be proceeded with. The distribution of labour in modern industry forms a pyramid with the highly qualified engineer at the very peak. Then come the technicians, and after them, the artisans. Among the artisans we have the artisans’ assistants and right at the bottom, at the base of the pyramid, we find the broad strata of workers which include the operators. In contradiction to what an hon. member said this evening, I want to maintain that an operator is not a skilled artisan, nor a semi-skilled worker; he is a specialist in one or more operations which he can carry out quickly and accurately. Therefore the operator must be trained in the shortest possible time. The Bill makes provision for this and in-service training is provided for Bantu labourers in three ways, viz. in public centres, private centres and schemes.

I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Hillbrow will listen to what I have to say now. Over-training can be an evil which may lead to boredom and frustration. This is a statement which many artisans who have been underutilized in the past, will fervently endorse, enthusiastically. Utilization of labour is lost when people are under-utilized. In practice it has already been proved that the so-called shortage of artisans can be bridged by work distribution, something with which the hon. member for Hillbrow does not agree.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, with reference to his statement that Blacks may not be trained as artisans …

He did not say so.

My question is whether this is not blatant discrimination. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to the hon. member’s question.

Rather answer right now.

Legislation became necessary in order to co-ordinate and organize the training efforts. The measure at present before the House is the result of careful inquiry by the inter-departmental committee in consultation and collaboration with the employers’ organizations and employees’ organizations. I say it is the result of the various interest groups. The question is now: Who is being trained, what is the aim and where are they trained? In this case, industrial training is limited solely to the skills and techniques necessary for the effective performance of the operator’s task. The Black labourers must already be employed and then only in approved spheres of employment in the White metropolitan areas. The duration of training must be as short as possible.

The education and training of the Bantu in South Africa consists of three stages. The first stage of training is formal education at school. The second stage is pre-in-service training of people in the basic industrial skills at centres established for this purpose. The emphasis falls on industrial terminology, dexterity and skill. Here the young school children become acquainted with industry. This pre-in-service training serves only as preparation for their later employment as operators, and in this way in-service training is shortened. It also simplifies the choice of vocation. Pre-in-service training forms part of the formal and academic training administered under the Bantu Education Act of 1953. The third stage of the training will then be in-service training which will be administered under this measure.

I now come to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I should like to tell him what the policy of the NP is. The NP follows an absolutely unselfish policy. The NP recognizes the existence of various nations, each of which is entitled to self-determination according to its own nature and a right to a territory of its own. Human development is accompanied by national development and when people develop, the nation also develops. The NP believes in education from the nation, by the nation, for the nation. That is why trade training, technical training and tertiary education are homeland-orientated. This training takes place in the Black countries, where the Blacks live. In their own interests the Blacks must be orientated to their own homeland. In other words, they must have an interest in their own country. The NP does not begrudge those Blacks the highest level of development. They are assisted thoroughly in this, by this Government, too.

Now, what is the policy of the Official Opposition? It is due to their policy that they have reservations about this Bill. The Official Opposition prefers a grey South Africa, in which White, Black and Brown become intermingled like stripes, in which they mix, rub against one another, jolt and clash. All of them look after group interests and strive to maintain group interests. Out of this, unrest, disorder, lawlessness and chaos are born.

Mr. Speaker, the NP, on the other hand, says that every nation must serve itself as far as possible. This ensures labour peace and industrial peace. Any country where labour peace and industrial peace does not prevail, goes under, because the industries and business undertakings will not be able to get their work done. The Opposition party believes in revolutionary principles.

But surely we support the Bill.

This Bill came about in an evolutionary way and will develop in an evolutionary way so as to comply with the requirements which may appear to be necessary. The approach of the Opposition is based upon selfishness and results in manoeuvring for advantage, political huckstering, friction, clashes and trials of strength which may eventually lead to a defeat and to the ploughing under of the less well-to-do and minority groups. This condescending, philanthropic attitude, on the part of the PRP especially, is the most extreme form of selfishness. That is why I welcome this Bill. This Bill has been drafted in wisdom and will be implemented with wisdom in order to afford the Black operators in industry an opportunity to develop skill, technique and everything which goes with that, and in this way to improve their own standard of living as well. This could result in fewer people having to be employed in industry.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech by the hon. member for Hercules. [Interjections.] No, I really did listen. However, I wanted to comment on some of the statements made by the hon. member for Vanderbijl Park. Unfortunately I note that he is not present … [Interjections.]

There he is! It is just that he is hiding.

I really find it shocking that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark should have been so personal in his attacks on the hon. member for Hillbrow. To me, as a young member in this House, this was indeed a great shock and a disappointment.

But he is the one who is vulnerable!

He certainly failed to reply to any of the fundamental points touched on by the hon. member for Hillbrow. One of those fundamental objections was the fragmentation that is occurring with regard to the training of labourers. This is one of the fundamental points referred to by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The question concerning all the other existing work schemes not covered by this Bill …

Read the Bill!

… and the deficiencies that exist in this measure …

Read the Bill.

I want to tell the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that I have read the Bill thoroughly. As far as the hon. member for Hercules is concerned, I must say that I was really shocked by his whole approach to the training of Black workers in the so-called White areas. I want to quote something to the hon. member, something which I did not write myself. It comes from Volkshandel and was written by the editor of that publication—

It is not I who says this. It is written here.

Do you agree, Fred?

It is the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut that says this, not I. [Interjections.]—

He goes on—

[Interjections.] I could continue, but I want to say that I do not know a single responsible body or responsible businessman in South Africa who would support that attitude adopted by the hon. member for Hercules at this stage. [Interjections.]

After all, we shall never agree!

Let me now continue. Let me continue and stress at once what both Opposition parties have said, namely that we support this Bill in principle; I want to stress this, because it seems to me that the hon. member for Hercules did not hear it properly. I want to say that in view of the economic development in our country, it is surely quite clear that we shall have to train and utilize Black labourers on a far greater scale, not only as operators or as semi-skilled labourers, but also as skilled labourers and technicians. I want to remind the hon. member for Hercules that according to the five-year economic development programme, calculated at a rate of development of 6,4% per annum—and we know now, unfortunately, that owing to economic circumstances it is unthinkable at this stage that we shall be able to maintain that rate of development, but that very fact provides us with the breathing space we need to do the things we ought to do—there is going to be an acute shortage of Whites to maintain that development programme and that in the course of the next five years, according to that percentage increase expected, at least 30 000 Bantu will have to be employed to perform work which has been done by Whites up to this stage. This is stated in the report and I need not read it to you. Every responsible businessman and body accepts these facts as necessities. The distinction which the hon. member for Hercules drew between the economy in the homelands and outside them, is a false distinction. No member on this side of the House has ever objected to the economic development of the homelands and no member on this side of the House objects to Bantu being trained as artisans and as technicians so as to play their part in the development of the homelands. That is not the issue. I shall come back to that later.

With a view to the general economic development in the country, with a view to the creation of conditions of peace and stability, with a view to the prevention of unemployment, with a view to the fact that we have a great responsibility on this continent with a view to the promotion of our export trade, it is necessary for our economy to develop to a far greater extent than has been the case up to now, and this can only occur if to this end we utilize the Blacks, too, in all capacities. But it is also very clear that with a view to increasing the productivity of Bantu workers, proper training must be provided, once again in all categories, and I want to associate myself with the ideas expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister here, for which we are grateful, because it really seems to me that a change of attitude on the part of the Government is to be detected here. The hon. the Deputy Minister said (Hansard, col. 6154)—

This is something which has been advocated, consistently and for years, by this side of the House. He went on to say—

The hon. the Minister will have to explain what he means by that, but let us leave it at that. It is the idea, the principle, I am stating here. “Sustained economic growth”—it is the Deputy Minister I am quoting here, for the information of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark—“in this country can only be ensured by the maximum utilization of its available manpower.” I am grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for having said these things. It is stated in his Second Reading speech. I quote further—

I am grateful for those feelings expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. They testify to his own analysis of the emergency we are facing.

In the third place it is essential for us to ensure an upward mobility for the Black worker. If we take into account that the large numbers of workers integrated into our economy—whether they are in the so-called White areas or the homelands makes no difference—we cannot keep the ceiling for those workers at the level of operator or semi-skilled worker. For the sake of industrial peace and because we want to give those people a stake in the maintenance of this order and economic system, we shall have to create opportunities for them to advance. If this does not occur, it is impossible to expect those people to maintain peacefully this order of which we all form part. In other words, there is undoubtedly a need for the training of operators and semi-skilled workers, but there is also a great need for them to be trained as skilled workers, artisans and technicians.

The hon. members for Hercules and Vanderbijlpark gave us an indication of all the schemes the Department of Bantu Education is engaged on at present. I should like to convey my appreciation to the Department of Bantu Education for what they have done in recent years. I am very grateful, too, that the department furnished me with certain details quoted by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark relating to the various schemes in which the department is engaged at present. They are most certainly impressive and I want to say nothing which could create the impression that I do not have the highest appreciation for all those things. I am now referring, inter alia, to the ad hoc border industrial schools, the crash courses offered at the five ad hoc industrial schools, the private in-service training schemes, the eight industrial training centres in the White areas, the capital of more than R2 million spent on developing them, the departmental industrial training centres in White areas and the trade training and technical institutes in the homelands. I am fully aware of those institutions. I have already said that in my opinion the Department of Bantu Education deserves appreciation for what it has done over the past few years. Here we call to mind, too, official bodies like the Government, for the financial aid by way of direct cost expenditure and by way of tax concessions in order to make these training schemes possible.

In this connection I should like to dwell in particular on the fact that according to information, there are 15 trade schools in the homelands, and that at an additional four secondary and training schools there are trade sections where trade training is provided. We have also taken cognizance of the two advanced technical training institutes at Mmadikoti near Pietersburg and Edendale in Natal, and the section at Ga-Rankuwa for the training of para-medical staff. The conclusion to which I want to come is that however important this may be, the training of artisans and technicians is limited solely to the homelands. The training facilities which exist in the border areas and in the so-called White areas are limited to the training of factory operators and to in-service training with a view to increased productivity.

Taking the future development of the Bantu homelands into account, and looking at the results of training in the trade subjects of which details are provided in the report, it appears that in all the years, the total number of pupils enrolled for trade courses in all fields has been a bare 3 469. The trade which attracted the second largest number of students was joinery, the easiest trade. There were 618 students in this field. Concreting, bricklaying and plastering attracted the largest number of students, viz. 745. Other figures are: Painting and glazing, 77; electricians’ and wiremen’s course, 17; motor mechanics’ courses, 478; welding and metalwork, 365; leatherwork, 86; and plumbing, drain laying and sheet metal-work 397. This is the total for all years and not just the total for the last year given here. With a view to the development of the Bantu homelands, we may also ask what progress has been made with regard to technical education at the technical colleges. It appears, then, that the total number of students at present undergoing technical training is a mere 401.

However, let us consider briefly the position in respect of the Blacks who are active in our economy. According to the latest statistics in the quarterly journal of the Department of Statistics, a total of 1 354 800 people was active in the manufacturing industry in October 1975, no fewer than 750 000 of whom were Black people. In October 1975, a total of 251 711 people were working on the S.A. Railways and Harbours, no fewer than 119 893 of whom were Black people. In the Post Office the figures were 67 800 and 18 000 respectively. In the construction industry the figures were 417 000 and 295 300. In other words, a total of 1 450 000 Black people were working in the four categories I mentioned, namely the manufacturing industry, the Railways, the Post Office and the construction industry. It goes without saying that we cannot run our economy and at the same time bring the Black people up to the desired level if we do not put proper training facilities at their disposal.

In spite of the unfriendly remarks by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, the hon. member for Hillbrow has been right when he has referred, over the years, the bottlenecks. The bottlenecks still exist today and all of us are aware of them. The cause of those bottlenecks is simply that it is totally impossible for the White population to continue to maintain the economy at the desired level. What we need is a total approach, a macro-economic approach in which we will take as the point of departure the total economic development of South Africa, including the economic development of the homelands. I want to say that this Bill is deficient in that it does not go further, nor is intended to go further, than merely the in-service training of workers in a specific way. In other words, provision is only being made for the training of operators and semi-skilled workers by way of private training schemes, public centres and private centres. Whether the hon. member for Hercules, who referred to this, likes it or not, the sober fact is that these schemes are really incapable of meeting the needs of the economy of our country, as the hon. the Deputy Minister himself admitted in his Second Reading speech.

With reference to what the hon. member for Pinelands said, and to confirm what the hon. member for Hillbrow said, I should like to refer to a few aspects of the Bill which, in my opinion, deserve to be improved. The first question I want to ask is why mining has been excluded here. We know that the gold-mining industry has its own training but this does not apply to all the other aspects of the mining industry. Then, to come back to the issue of the composition of the council, for which provision is made in clause 3, I want to point out that the Minister of Bantu Education also nominates a representative of the Department of Labour. If I interpret this correctly, it does seem to me that it ought to be the Minister of Labour who nominates the representative of the Department of Labour. Nor can I understand why the approval of the Minister has to be obtained in regard to the representatives of all the other bodies who will serve on the co-ordinating council. Surely the bodies mentioned here are responsible bodies. Among them are the Chambers of Industry and the Chambers of Commerce, and surely it is unnecessary that they should first submit their nominations to the Minister for his approval before they have representation in this council.

I want to associate myself with the request made by the hon. member for Pinelands to the Deputy Minister to consider and to provide for the representation of Black people in this council. I do not want to bind the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I am of the opinion that clause 3(2)(a) should be amended so that the Minister will also have the power to appoint people in their personal capacity and not necessarily as representatives of a body.

There is also the question whether the Department of National Education should not also have representation on this council. This also applies to other bodies like the CSIR or the National Development and Management Foundation. We are going to ask certain questions later on in connection with clause 3(3)(a) and in connection with clause 4 the question once again occurs as to why the Minister has to appoint someone from the council as a chairman, and why the council cannot do-this itself. In passing, I also just want to refer to clause 7(2)(d) in the Afrikaans text, in which the words “standaard van opvoeding” are used. Obviously what is intended is “standaard van onderwys”.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, I want to refer to a matter which has already been touched on, and ask why a governing body should only be able to acquire movable property and not immovable property as well. In this regard the hon. member for Pinelands referred to the case of Tongaat. Another question in connection with clause 9 is why it is necessary to obtain the prior approval of the Minister before a donation may be accepted. Surely the governing body consists of responsible people and is constituted under the supervision of the council. Why must the hon. the Minister interfere when the governing body wants to accept a donation or does not want to accept it? This kind of thing is entirely unnecessary.

We have already discussed clause 11 of the Bill. However, there are various other aspects which I want to mention, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. As far as clause 13 of the Bill is concerned, however, I want to ask why aid cannot also be provided for employers who want to provide in-service training outside the economic development areas.

However, I want to devote the last minute or two to discussing the prohibition of private in-service training, viz. the prohibitory provision in clause 11. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not furnished a reason for wanting to impose that prohibition. He must furnish the reason for the prohibition, and possibly there is a good reason for this but it certainly cannot be the reason furnished by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. What does the hon. the Deputy Minister fear? What could happen? The argument which the hon. the Deputy Minister advanced during his Second Reading speech was entirely unconvincing and I expected him to provide a far better motivation. The hon. the Deputy Minister refers to the Bantu Education Act and quotes the definition of the word “education” from the Oxford Dictionary. However, I am sure that if that definition were to be put before any objective person or court, they would not interpret education as training. To this it must be added that the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister that this prohibition is merely a continuation of the prohibition which already exists in the Bantu Education Act is not true either, because the Bantu Education Act imposes no prohibition on private schools; it only states that private schools have to be registered and that the hon. the Minister may withdraw the registration. However, there is no absolute prohibition on private Bantu schools in the Bantu Education Act. The hon. the Deputy Minister can therefore not argue that because there is a prohibition in that Act, it must also be continued in the legislation relating to training institutions.

The argument advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister is like a big sieve which cannot hold water. However, there may be reasons, but all I can say is that I cannot see why such heavy penalties should be provided in the Bill for people who want to train persons for other employers. As was rightly indicated by the hon. member for Hillbrow, it is quite conceivable that a farmer, for example, would be prepared to train the Black employees of another farmer in the use and repair of tractors. However, under the Bill he may not do so, and I can think of innumerable other examples of one employer wanting to render a service to another employer with regard to the training of his workers, without wanting to approach the department to be registered. Such a person does not need advice and it seems to me that this prohibition goes much too far and in view of the lack of motivation by the hon. the Minister, this measure cannot, in fact, be justified.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what the Opposition speakers had to say about the Bantu Employees In-service Training Bill this evening. There is an old Boer saying: “Every man has his match.” The hon. member for Eden-vale who has just resumed his seat put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, but apparently the hon. member was not present when it was clearly stated across the floor of the House that various bodies—representing both employers and employees—were concerned with the formulation of this legislation and are satisfied with the legislation at present on the Statute Book. However, the hon. member for Edenvale calls into question certain other aspects of this legislation. The hon. member was very concerned about development and growth. Well, as far as development is concerned we can only agree. His concern about growth I can fully understand, too, because at the moment it is only the NP which is growing in the Cape at the expense of the UP! I can therefore quite understand his obsession with growth.

I want to dwell for a moment on the hon. member for Hillbrow, who, unfortunately, is not present at the moment. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark dealt with him reasonably well, but I made a very interesting discovery. This evening that hon. member again referred at great length to the legislation he introduced, legislation which would have given South Africa everything South Africa needed in regard to the in-service training of Bantu.

I now want to refer to people who are greater authorities than he. I acknowledge that he, too, is an authority in the sphere of labour, but there are greater authorities than he. I should like to refer to the important employers’ organization Seifsa which knows everything about matters of this kind. A number of years ago these people gave an opinion on the British Industrial Training Act, which the hon. member took as a model for the legislation he introduced here. He himself admitted this today by implication. This is what they have to say about it in The South African Worker—

Hon. members must listen carefully; this is very illuminating—

Take note—

That was in 1968. It was further stated—

Here we have two organizations which may be regarded as authorities in the field of labour and the in-service training of labourers, and these people summarily reject the British Act as not applying to South Africa and not capable of giving us anything more than we already have, even before the introduction of this legislation.

Those hon. members based their arguments on the premise that there had to be progress with regard to the placing of Bantu in higher work categories. It seems to me, however, that the hon. member for Edenvale does not live in the modern South Africa. After all, this Government has adopted the policy that Bantu will in fact progress to higher categories of labour, but only in an orderly manner. Surely that is being done today. But he and the hon. member for Pinelands talk about their policy of throwing open the flood-gates, just like the hon. member for Hillbrow, who at that time only took account of the training of Bantu, without taking work categories into account. Those people want to lift the ceiling, as the hon. member for Pinelands said.

The hon. member for Edenvale says that these people will never be satisfied unless they can progress in all work categories. However, in South Africa this will only take place in an orderly and ordered manner, because who can gauge the absolute frustration of those workers who are trained for work categories for which they cannot be employed? People can only be happy in their work if they can find fulfilment in their work in appropriate work categories, and we must always take that into account when discussing matters such as these.

Surely it is true that at the moment South Africa has a realistic Government, which is practical, which has its feet firmly on the ground and which knows that what it does is done correctly. It also ensures that it is done in an orderly way. Surely we know, too, that at the moment we in South Africa have a Government which has an understanding of and sympathy for the aspirations and the ideals of all its people, White, Black and Brown. After all, the NP proved this even before it came to power, and after it came to power it furnished ample proof of it. It has an understanding of all their aspirations at every level, from the political level to the labour level. I have just said that we are today living in a South Africa in which it is the stated policy of the Government that Bantu workers may in fact progress to higher categories of work. It has taken the steps necessary to make this possible and, in the border industrial areas in particular, it has made the work categories more accessible and this is fully in accordance with the future requirements of the homelands in regard to skilled labour.

I want to repeat that we shall only do so on condition it occurs in an ordered, orderly and controlled fashion because it is a basic fact that has been acknowledged over the centuries and is acknowledged now, that training can only be meaningful if it is geared to demand arising out of certain needs in the labour market. I want to repeat that the training can only be meaningful if it concentrates on the demand arising out of certain needs. That is why we make provision in the legislation for an all-embracing, comprehensive or very comprehensive co-ordinating council which will at all times keep a watchful eye on the labour situation in South Africa and which can advise the Minister accordingly.

The Government also has responsibilities towards these people and towards its White people in particular. This Government refuses to do away entirely with the protection of the White worker without further ado. These people are quite rightly entitled to a moderate, justified degree of protection. Furthermore, this is all the Government affords them: Moderate, justified protection and nothing more. And this is not at all in accord with the UP’s “crash programme” thinking as it was explained to us this afternoon. The UP holds out the prospect of crash programmes for the training of people, apparently in order to dump them on the labour market in their thousands. We know that the UP only learns slowly, but have they learned absolutely nothing from the events of 1922, those bloody events, if I may put it like that? Are they, then, unaware that we in South Africa have far higher potential for tension today than was the case then, and that this could make it far more dangerous for the country if we allowed things to happen in a disorderly way?

It has been maintained by the UP that only by way of this legislation is a start being made with die in-service training of Bantu. However, this has been done very successfully for some time, so successfully that it has been our experience that in some sectors the productivity of the workers has risen by as much as 300%. I want to dwell briefly on the various channels through which we allow the training of Bantu to take place. The first is the public centres. I do not want to dwell on this at length, because mention has been made of this already and I am not fond of repetition. These centres are established by the Government and the running expenses are paid by the industrialists. I only want to mention a few of the institutions in which the people may be trained. There is a long list and I do not want to bore you by mentioning all the training facilities established for the people. However, training is available in such fields as fork-lift drivers, arc-welding operators, stores clerks and civil engineering and construction industry assistants. Then, too, there are the private centres where two or more industrialists combine to train their labourers. Let me just mention again a few fields such as carpentry and machining, plastering and textile operators. In the final instance there are the private training schemes where industrialists provide their own training requirements. I am merely mentioning a few of the industries involved here for the sake of interest, and my aim is to indicate that the categories are fairly extensive. There is the civil engineering and construction industry, motor repair, motor manufacturing and assembling, the textile industry, glass manufacturing, electrical appliances and furniture manufacturing.

As one who also represents the agricultural sector in his constituency, I want to convey my thanks this evening to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department for the fact that the step of establishing a public centre for the training of farm labourers has been taken. This will meet a very pressing need in South Africa. It will be in the technical aspects of farming work in particular, such as the management and maintenance of machinery, that they will undergo training. It has also been stated this evening—I do not want to repeat it—how many workers have already been trained as a result of the establishment of the private training schemes. The fact is that significant tax relief is afforded to industrialists for all the training facilities and opportunities created, to such an extent as to create a real incentive for them to train people. This is particularly significant in the case of border industrial areas, and quite rightly so, because after all, it is true that these areas will have to be the source of manpower for the future homelands. Consequently they will have to pay special attention to providing skilled manpower and entrepreneurs, too, at the various levels.

In order correctly to evaluate labour training in South Africa one also has to consider the work of the Department of Bantu Education at the school level. I am going to be very brief. Reference has already been made to the fifteen trade schools which already exist. At this stage there are also nine ordinary academic schools with trade sections. At the moment another four are under construction and two are at the planning stage. We already have seven full-fledged technical schools and two institutions for advanced technical education. Taking all these things into account, one realizes that a new horizon and new prospects are being opened up for the Bantu in South Africa today as the result of the action taken by this Government in regard to the training of labour from the early to the later stages. Like all good things over the past three decades in South Africa, this favourable change, this creation of prospects for the Bantu, through which he is able to develop further and earn far more than is the case at present, is once again the work of the National Government, and we thank the department and the hon. the Minister for this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sasolburg has raised some interesting points, but since this is my first speech in this House, I do not intend to enter into argument with him.

It is a great honour to me to represent the constituency of Durban North in this House. I am not only honoured, but also relieved at having survived the political earthquake, to use the colourful term employed by one of our newspapers, Die Burger. Now that it is over, I shall do my best to represent the interests of my constituency in this House and I shall also try to make a constructive contribution to the debates in this House.

My constituency comprises an important part of a prominent metropolitan area in South Africa, and in view of the tremendous industrial development which is taking place in Natal at the moment, it is fitting that I should devote my first speech in this House to the question of improving the quality of our industrial labour force.

I particularly welcome the greater attention which is being given to the training of Bantu employees. This is a positive approach and it goes to the heart of the problem which any developing industrial community has to contend with, i.e. the provision of sufficient skilled labour for the growing industries. The people are the ones who have to produce, and this applies to South Africa as well. We must increase our production in this country, not only to increase our wealth, but also and especially with a view to our security. In the final analysis, after all, our true security lies in the high productivity of the system of free enterprise, because it demonstrates in a practical way that is is more efficient than communism.

Consequently I want to deal briefly with the absolute necessity, firstly for creating training facilities for Bantu, and secondly for developing such facilities. The most rapid and most efficient way of complying with these two requirements is to be found in the method of in-service training, because we are dealing here with people who are already acquainted with the discipline of a work situation and who have most probably developed a basic skill as well, and also with people who may not have had the opportunity to develop other skills. In other words, in-service training complies with the requirement of urgency and the training is almost never wasted. In addition, it provides training where it is needed most, i.e. where employees possess no other forms of skill. So the point I am really trying to make is that in meeting this need, this legislation will be serving the interests of the employees themselves, of the industries in which they are employed, and of South Africa as a whole.

†Mr. Speaker, there are three major groups in South Africa who have to give increased attention to the need for greater in-service training of Black employees. The first major group, I suggest, is the State, which has a direct responsibility because the State has an overall responsibility for the economic wellbeing of South Africa. The second major group are the employers because they should, and they must, assume a larger measure of responsibility than perhaps, they have been willing to accept up to this time. Of course, in return it is quite clear that they will reap the benefit of this development.

The third major group are the labour organizations themselves, who have always pleaded for better training facilities for workers. They will now be enabled to take advantage of the measures contained in this Bill. One of the major problems facing South Africa, in common with the rest of the world, is inflation. It is widely accepted that the most effective way of fighting inflation in a country is by increasing its productivity. It is self-evident that the best way to increase productivity is to exploit to the full the total labour force in South Africa. Here I would like to—in parenthesis—interpose some remarks about a specific aspect of the Bill. I particularly welcome the fact that, although the preamble of the Bill prescribes the area of its operation by the use of the words “the training of Bantu employees in industry”, the definition section of the Bill provides that industry includes, inter alia, agricultural undertakings, and section 3 provides for it that the co-ordinating council includes a person appointed by the South African Agricultural Union.

*Being a farmer myself, I am coming to realize more and more the advantages to be derived by agricultural undertakings from the introduction of in-service training, as well as its advantages for employees in the rural areas who have limited opportunities for education of a formal and an academic nature, because of fewer facilities and greater distances. The fact is that the agricultural sector is becoming increasingly important in a world in which starvation is becoming more and more prevalent. The way in which productivity can be increased in this sector is by greater use of sophisticated agricultural machinery and methods.

In practice, as well as in conversations with fellow farmers, I have found that the generally accepted attitude among farmers is that they would be only too glad to pay higher wages to employees who have been properly trained in the use and especially in the maintenance of agricultural machinery, to quote only one example.

†Mr. Speaker, in the agricultural sphere I also believe in the value of even fairly elementary expertise on the part of the employees. One can think of building, for example, building of farming structures and housing units for farm workers, as well as the artificial insemination of animals and a basic understanding of modern methods of feeding and fertilizing. Of course, an important side-effect of greater productivity and of higher wages for employees in the agricultural sector, would be a tendency to halt the movement to the cities of badly needed and valuable farm labour. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the machinery provided by the Bill could be usefully applied in the agricultural sector, and I hope that, in its implementation, advantage will be taken of this.

Coming back to industry, in the normal sense of the word, up to fairly recently workers had had every opportunity to increase their skills and this sector of our labour force has been well utilized. That is not to say that improvements could not be made, but inevitably in future greater stress will have to be laid on the reservoir of Black labour available to industry in South Africa. It is not always appreciated that Black people now form nearly 80% of South Africa’s total labour complement. In 1932 they formed some 57%. In 1944 they formed 69%. In 1954 they formed 72%, in 1972, 75% and now nearly 80%.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the fact that greater attention is being given to the training of Bantu employees, because any step which firstly encourages the full utilization of our total labour force and which, secondly, provides for our employees a means for their own self-betterment, helps to create a society in which all people reap the benefit of the greater productivity of the free enterprise system, and thus helps to render South Africa, I suggest, immune to the threats of communism.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Durban North on his maiden speech. I can assure him that we all listened with very great interest, expecting nothing short of the best from the hon. member and I am convinced that the hon. member will make a very fruitful and solid contribution to the debates and the discussions in this hon. House.

*I am not entirely certain whether all sides of this House wish the hon. member a very long stay here, but as long as he is here, we gladly accept him as a colleague from whom we can expect the very best contributions in the House. We congratulate him sincerely on his maiden speech.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that everyone will concede that I am correct when I say that it is not necessary at this stage to repeat the Second Reading speech. If hon. members would go through it again, they will note that the general guide-lines of the Bill which we have before us had already been outlined in that speech. There may be certain aspects on which hon. members require further elucidations and explanations, aspects in regard to which there may be a slight difference of opinion, but I am nevertheless grateful, and I should like to express my gratitude to hon. members who participated in this debate for their support.

In the first place I am grateful for the support which came from this side of the House, from hon. members on the Government side who spoke in support of this Bill, hon. members who aired their opinions with great effectiveness. On the other hand I also want to express my sincere gratitude to both Opposition parties for the assurance they have given with regard to their support of the Bill. I express my gratitude to the party which claims to be the official Opposition, as well as to the party which claims that it may possibly be the effective Opposition. I do not want to give a decisive answer to this question. I am merely referring to the claims which are being made by hon. members on that side of the House. I sincerely appreciate their support.

I think this is a positive piece of legislation. It is in the interests of greater efficiency and the efficient utilization of the labour in South Africa.

But there are a few matters on which one will most certainly have to focus attention. There are certain things which could of course, in my humble opinion, be discussed more appropriately during the Committee Stage, and therefore I want to say at this stage already that I do not intend replying to all the questions, to all the misgivings and to all the situations which were raised on this occasion. But I do, nevertheless, want to refer to a few things in passing.

I do not want to pick a quarrel with the hon. member for Hillbrow. He is rather verbose and eloquent in his presentation of a matter, and he was in fact rather wordy in his criticism of certain aspects of the legislation. I shall simply accept this as part of the way in which he presents an argument. Some of the adjectives which he used were perhaps a little extravagant, but the main thing, to my mind way of thinking, is that the hon. member does nevertheless support this legislation in principle. I am not going to quarrel with this hon. member as to whether or not this legislation owes its paternity to him, even if it is indirectly. But to judge from the tenor of his speech, he will of course want to deny paternity. Yet he appears to be reproaching us for not having been afforded the opportunity of being responsible for a law with more or less the same purport as this one. I shall leave it at that.

I think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark replied very effectively to certain of the statements made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. But I shall not go into this any further. He directed a kind of oblique back-handed blow at theologists and others, and I assumed that it could to a greater or lesser extent have been applicable to me as well because my background is more that of a scribe than that of a lawyer. But the longer I listened to the hon. member the more I realized that he might know a little more about the legislation than others, but that he did not know everything about it either. In fact, as far as this Bill is concerned, I think he should go away and read it again. Perhaps I could point out a few things to him here which he possibly did not, or possibly did not want to notice.

I want to deal with a few of the observations and objections in regard to this Bill. As I have said, I cannot deal with everything. There will be sufficient opportunity to do so during the Committee Stage. Nevertheless, there are a few things I want to refer to now, at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate. I think we should, right at the outset, make it clear that there is a fundamental difference between the point of departure of this side of the House and that of both the parties on that side of the House. The hon. member for Hillbrow stated the fundamental philosphy of that side of the House when he advocated that no distinction should be drawn between ethnic and race groups when it comes to the training as envisaged in this Bill. Here we differ. If one fails to perceive the social, the ethnic, the anthropological reality of South Africa, if one fails to perceive that reality and its implications on all facets of life, then one is living out of contact with reality. In my opinion this is one of the cardinal matters in regard to which the Opposition parties are out of contact with reality. As we see reality, one is not dealing with 25 million individuals in South Africa. The hon. member is nodding his head. He agrees with me. I think we are making progress. We are not simply dealing with 25 million people in South Africa, not just simply with so many individuals. I have on occasion referred to an observation made by Van Wyk Louw, one of our great thinkers in South Africa, who said that our liberal friends speak so readily of a nation of 10 million people— those were the numbers at the time he wrote this; now it would be 25 million people—and imagine that the difference among them is simply a slight class difference, or a light nuance of pigmentation.

He said that those people were making an error of reasoning, and by implication he linked this error of reasoning to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He did not know that the hon. member for Hillbrow would make such statements here this evening, but I do think it is applicable to him as well. It is not a lack of sentiment, but an error for reasoning. If one fails to perceive the major racial differences in South Africa, then one is suffering from a colour blindness which obfuscates all political discussion. This is a truth with which we are dealing here. We in the National Party state the reality in South Africa as far as the people in this country are concerned. South Africa does not simply have a total population of 25 million, but we are dealing here with with …

What is the difference between a Zulu mechanician and a Xhosa mechanician?

That is precisely what I am trying to bring home to the hon. member, i.e. that one cannot qualify that person simply as a mechanician. Surely there are more aspects associated with his existence than simply the fact that he has a specific manual skill. The hon. member adopts the standpoint that whether he is a Zulu or a Xhosa makes no difference. All the hon. member is interested in is whether a person is a good mechanician. Is that not a disregarding of reality? If that is the standpoint of that side of the House, then we can understand why they are not able to face up to the social and political realities in South Africa or to cope with them.

Our approach is that we accept the reality in South Africa of a population which breaks up, through historic, ethnic, cultural and nationalistic factors, into a diversity of peoples. Some under-emphasize this, and it may well be that others over-emphasize it, but there is no doubt that our situation in South Africa does require emphasizing. I could quote various people in this regard. I am thinking, for example, of a letter written in The Cape Times a few years ago by Prof. A. H. Murray, formerly of Cape Town, in which he called attention to this very fact.

He pointed out that if people are economically interdependent upon one another, that interdependence in the economic sphere still does not, as he termed it, make of them a community. It does not make of them a community, for many more factors are required to make a community of such a group of people. These are the hard facts. In my final speech in this Parliament last year I drew attention to the distinctions which were drawn by a person such as Prof. Ben Vosloo in respect of the plural structure of the population in South Africa. This plural ethnic-cultural structure in South Africa was scientifically analysed, and he compared our situation to the consensus model of pluralism in the United States of America, where people take note only of the points of agreement while they explain away the differences.

What has that to do with this legislation?

It has a great deal to do with it, for that hon. member says that no distinction should be drawn between the race groups as far as training is concerned.

It is beyond his meagre comprehension.

I do not think it is beyond his comprehension. It simply testifies to a wilful blindness to the facts in South Africa, where one should face up to the total reality, and not merely the economic reality. I am not going to allow the hon. member to interrupt my elucidation of this little point. He referred to the consensus model of America. What are they doing with that consensus model? They are creating more hatred and bitterness between people than before. He referred to the consociational model of Switzerland, where the different language, ethnic and cultural groups are recognized and overarched by certain organizations in order to procure the best cooperation.

The professor also referred to the so-called conflict model of this pluralism, where a person has a diversity of racial-biological features, of ethnic ties, cultures, religion, history and traditions. Where these things are present and one wants to force those people together into one social order—labour is part of such a social order—one is creating a cumulative or mounting conflict. This is one of the fundamental points of difference as far as our respective approaches to this matter are concerned.

A man like Prof. H. Murray—a well-known philosopher who has devoted penetrating thought to these matters—points out that we are dealing with a diversity in the constituent elements of the overall population. He calls them “ethnic corporations”. For example he calls the Coloureds an ethnic corporation and he calls the Black peoples so many ethnic corporations, ethnic corporations which exist alongside the White ethnic corporation. At present these non-White ethnic corporations are in a position where they cannot really offer much more than their labour. As corporations this is their most important export product to the White area. The time will arrive, however, when they are no longer exporting their labour only, and when they should, within their lebensraum—homelands, group areas and rural areas—produce enough to export more than just their labour to the White area. The relationship between them is not that of one community, but that of a contractual relationship between various corporations whose ties with one another are contractual. I think this is a sound piece of political philosophy which this esteemed professor proclaimed in this respect.

It is against this background that this side of the House asks that side of the House what they want to achieve with the concept of discrimination which they nag about from morning to night. Through the hon. the Prime Minister we tell them that what they understand this to mean, is not the same as we understand it to mean.

What do you understand it to mean?

Those hon. members want to throw everything open now. Surely I told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout the year before last that according to his recipe of no discrimination—the hon. member for Edenvale would do well to listen, for I think I am talking a little sense—if one’s approach is similar to that of the UNO, of the World Council of Churches and other such organizations, i.e. that any individual, regardless of his race, ethnic group, colour or nationality should have equal claim with any other individual of whatever ethnic group, race or nation, in any situation, then one will have a conglomeration of 25 million people in South Africa in which each individual will have equal claim with each other individual, in every situation.

Words.

No. The hon. member is backing away now, for his alternative then is apparently that he is in fact able to distinguish between people, that he is able to tell them that in certain communities they will not simply be accepted as a member of the community along with any other individual. According to the UNO standpoint—and this has been indicated over and over by leaders on this side of the House—one is heading for the greatest discrimination against specific communities which have certain rights and want to maintain certain freedoms but are dominated by the majority of the mass of individuals. That is the fundamental difference between our respective points of departure.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also discussed the training in the homelands which, according to him was “nonsensical”.

I did not say that.

I made a note of it. But it may be that I did not hear the hon. member correctly. Even if I did not hear correctly, I nevertheless want to add to that the following positive statement, for perhaps the hon. member agrees with me that it is not nonsensical to want to have training in the homelands.

I have nothing against that.

Wonderful. If it were nonsensical to want to have training in the homelands, then it is also nonsensical to have 24 trade schools and portions of trade schools in the homelands. It is also nonsensical to work for the establishment of 137 towns in the homelands. Surely it is also nonsensical then to bring the people together there to do the work …

Who said it was nonsensical?

It seems to me the hon. member for Maitland thinks I am raising these arguments unnecessarily because he agrees in any case.

Who said it was nonsensical?

The hon. member was not altogether with us. I am reacting to what I understood the hon. member for Hillbrow may have said. If the hon. member agrees with me now, I have no objection to it. [Interjections.] Very well, then we understand one another. Those hon. members will be voting for us in a moment. This goes together with the entire idea, which is not only a South African idea, in so far as we are concentrating on the development of the homelands. It is also a generally accepted practice in Britain and elsewhere, viz. to get away from the major metropolitan areas, to decentralize and to create other viable areas where development can take place. In our case there are the homelands and other areas. For that reason we also regard training in the homelands as being very important. We are doing so, however, on the understanding that the citizens, the inhabitants of the homelands, do not have an equal claim with the White citizens in the White areas to every work situation in the White area. In that regard the hon. members opposite might differ with us. However, that is our approach. This has the implication that we should only accept the labour which is attracted from the homelands if we are certain that there is work in the White areas. The Bantu sells his labour in the White area when it is necessary and without acquiring all the rights of a citizen in the sociopolitical situation in the White area.

I should now like to point out another point of objection raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He said that he doubted whether we had had the consent, the co-operation of the Department of Labour in the introduction of the Bill. The Department of Labour went the whole way with us in this regard. The draft legislation was submitted to the Department of Labour. They were consulted in the matter throughout. They are with us in this matter. As far as the misgivings of the hon. member in this regard are concerned, therefore, we can reassure him. He may rest assured in this regard, and may vote for the Second Reading of the Bill with an easy conscience.

This brings me then to another point which the hon. member raised, i.e. the possibility of withdrawing the Bill after the Second Reading so that it may first be referred to industrial organizations. This is completely unnecessary. If this had not already been done, the hon. member might have had a point. However, the Bill has already been submitted to all the organizations concerned. All the organizations which are involved in the co-ordinating council in clause 3 were consulted from the beginning. There has been consultation with all these organizations since 1974. Hon. members will see that there are the most important employers’ organizations and the most important employees’ organizations. In case it has not yet been mentioned, the clause provides that the Minister may nominate other bodies after consultation with the coordinating council. In this way the Minister is, after all, committed to consultation with the co-ordinating council, while he bears the responsibility in any case.

I do not know whether it is necessary, but I do nevertheless, in case the hon. member requires any further proselytizing—a theological term which is being used in a political sense—want to quote to him what the Federated Chamber of Industries wrote in a letter in this regard on 23 March 1976, namely—

Their letter continued—

This is evidence of the total involvement of the Chamber of Industries in the drafting of the Bill. Subsequently they indicated that they were satisfied with it. They said—

This is their own executive council—

It was approved. One of the principal objections which the hon. member for Hillbrow raised against this Bill, has therefore been intercepted, and the reason he advanced for his request that the Bill first be referred to the industries, therefore falls away. His requirements have already been met.

The hon. member then went on to refer to the definition in the Bill which, in his opinion, produces contradictions. He pointed out that it differs fundamentally from the Industrial Conciliation Act through which Bantu are excluded. My information is that in the first subsection of section 48 the Coloureds and the Whites are dealt with, but that provision is made in another subsection making it possible for the provisions to be extended to include the Bantu as well, after an agreement between employers’ and employees’ organizations. On that point I am therefore able to satisfy the hon. member.

A question was put in regard to the position of the schemes under the Industrial Conciliation Act. The position is simply that a scheme of a private enterprise may continue in a perfectly normal way. Such a private scheme need not necessarily be recognized, unless the body offering it wishes to become entitled to the increased tax concessions. If one employer, however, trains the employees of other employers, then the legislation requires that there should at least be a private centre, and that this centre should be approved. This is to prevent the employees who are being trained from finding themselves in a vacuum. Private training may simply be proceeded with in a perfectly normal way. However, if the training is of such a nature that it is in conflict with the provisions of the Bantu Education Act, then the matter will be gone into. The in-service training must take place specifically in respect of employees who are employed in approved work categories.

Clause 11 was discussed quite extensively. This clause provides—

The idea here is to co-ordinate training. If a person has a centre at which the employees of more than one employer are being trained, then we want to exercise control over it, because we foresee the possibility that there may be abuses. For example: A person may simply establish a centre and train workers while the workers do not have permanent employment. The workers are then placed on the market although they will not be able to find work at all or may be employed in non-approved work categories. That is why we certainly want control over the training at these private centres. Private schemes may continue without recognition, but the training of the employees of more than one employer has to be approved.

The hon. member asked why there could not be profit making. He wanted to know why a little money could not be made from this. Sir, we want to control the training for specific reasons so that the training of employees is not exploited and so that we do not have all kinds of abuses in regard to it.

The hon. member also referred to the levy for which provision is being made in clause 14. The introduction of such a levy is not an obligation. It does not go without saying. To begin with, there must be at least a few employers who appreciate the need for such a public centre and then make application for the establishment of such a public centre. What is more, the fact that a public centre is established does not mean to say that the levy is suddenly going to be compulsory. The Bill provides that the Minister, if he wishes to impose such a levy, has to consult the co-ordinating council in regard to it.

This means that all the employers’ and employees’ organizations that are interested in the establishment of such a public centre will be consulted by the Minister. In other words, inherent in that consultation of the bodies is the fact that these people are in a position to ask him: “What about a matter such as a levy? Do you think a levy will be necessary?” If the Minister then thinks that a levy is necessary, the employers have to make application for the introduction of such a levy in any case.

In addition certain employers may apply to be exempted from the levy if they are not of the opinion that their employees are going to benefit in any way from the training in such a public centre. Such an employer may ask to be exempted, and there may in fact be reasons for his being able to make out a case for being exempted from such payment. In addition, it is also a fact—and we see this in practice in the case of a few of these centres—that certain centres are able to carry out their training work without it being necessary to impose a levy. Where the bodies involved in the training appreciate the value of that training to such an extent that they are prepared to contribute generously to the centre or the course in question, it will not be necessary to impose a levy.

As far as collection is concerned, the hon. member for Hillbrow was concerned about the fact that I mentioned the Bantu Administration Boards. This was simply a possibility, for one cannot in any situation, for example, appoint a Bantu Administration Board to do the collecting. This was simply mentioned as a possibility in certain cases.

But who is to do it then? A fine of R1 000 is being imposed, but it is not being stated who should do it.

Surely the machinery is now being created in the Bill for the establishment of such a body, and the hon. the Minister must, where he appoints such a collector, consult the council again. According to the Bill he has to consult the council on whom he is going to appoint to collect these levies.

Sir, I actually wanted to afford another colleague an opportunity of piloting through a Bill, but I just want to refer quickly to certain other points which were raised. I want to thank the hon. member for Pinelands for his observations. He said something about the question of literacy. When we were dealing with the Vote we pointed out that there are certain bodies which are striving to achieve greater literacy among people. But we have begun, through this department, to give attention to that matter—even if it is perhaps a little late. However this is differentiated from this specific in-service training, where greater skill in the industry in which the person is already employed is promoted. Perhaps one could make out a case for substituting another word for the word “productivity”. I know there are people who say that we should not speak of productivity, and perhaps a better word would be “skill” or “efficiency”.

The hon. member asked whether we were not placing too much emphasis on the control of training, and not doing enough to promote it However, it is clear in a few places in the Bill that it is in fact the promotion of in-service training which is being contemplated. The co-ordinating council is being established with that very object in mind. One of the functions of the council will be to promote in-service training. In addition I should like to refer to the many major tax concessions, which, although they are a materialistic, are nevertheless a very attractive method of achieving this object. Hon. members will observe that in terms of clauses 11(3) and 12(3) professional assistance may be rendered on the part of the department which, in monetary terms, could be worth a great deal and could contribute to promoting the training.

The hon. member also asked whether other bodies could also not be nominated to the co-ordinating council. I am not going to give a decisive answer now to the question of whether Black people may also be nominated to the council. The fact of the matter is, however, that this is a co-ordinating council that has to strive to promote the efficiency of employees who are already employed. I accept that an employee does not simply have an equal claim, together with the employers, to representation on that representative council. There are of course other organizations and channels through which the desires of the employee may definitely be brought to the attention of the employer.

The trade unions are represented on the council, and they represent the employees.

Yes, the trade unions are represented. But it is also interesting to note that in clause 3(1)(b)(xi) it is being provided that any other body which is interested, or which may be considered to be interested in this matter, may be nominated to the council. Similar provision is being made in clause 3(2)(a). However, it is important to note that the Minister will not simply seize a person at random and appoint him to the council, or afford a specific body representation on the council as a result of agitation among the public. The essence of the matter is that the hon. the Minister—who makes the nominations—does so after consultation with the council, for represented on the council are the various organizations involved in the in-service training, the employers’ as well as the employees’ organizations. It is for that reason that I cannot simply tell the hon. member here that it will also be possible for so-and-so to be nominated to the council.

I said at the outset that I did not think that it was necessary to reply to all the questions. There are still the questions which were asked by the hon. member for Edenvale, but I think that most of them can be dealt with during the Committee Stage. The mining industry to which he referred, undertakes its own training. I have, moreover, already said a few words about the question of the representation of labour. I have also explained why the hon. the Minister has to make the appointments. The fact of the matter is that the nominations come from the Department of Labour, but that the hon. the Minister appoints the members. After all, it is the hon. the Minister’s council, a council which has to furnish him with advice, but the fact that the hon. the Minister has the final say, does not mean that he will initiate all nominations. It is, however, a final check to ensure that this council, which has to furnish him with advice, will be made up of the right people. The hon. member also asked why the fines were so high. The standing committee which dealt with the matter, and discussed it repeatedly insisted that there should be an increase in the fines.

There are still certain other matters which one could bring into the discussion, but I think that most, if not all of them, are matters which may more appropriately be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main object of the proposed legislation is to abolish the Kakamas Board of Management and to regulate the disposal of the accumulated funds and other assets which are at present under the control and management of the Board. The Kakamas Labour Colony has a long and interesting history, and I just want to refer briefly to some of the important events.

The Kakamas Labour Colony owes its origin to attempts on the part of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa towards the end of the 19th century, to try to find a solution to the phenomenon of White impoverishment in the rural areas, a phenomenon which caused considerable anxiety at that time. In 1894 the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church appointed a commission, the terms of reference of which were, inter alia, to investigate the possibilities of irrigation settlements or labour colonies to provide the impoverished with a livelihood. The Synod purchased land along the Orange River at Kakamas and also obtained land by way of donation from the then colonial Government, and here the Kakamas Labour Colony was established in 1897. In 1898 the digging of the first canal was commenced and in 1900 it was possible to allocate the first agricultural plots to the most deserving persons who had assisted with the digging of the canal.

In 1909 the Labour Colonies Act was placed on the Statute Book and the following year the constitution of the Kakamas Labour Colony was promulgated in terms of this Act. Initially control over and the management of the labour colony vested in the Kakamas Labour Colony Commission, but in 1948 Parliament approved a new constitution for the labour colony. This constitution, which was promulgated by way of proclamation, is still in existence today although it has been considerably amended to adapt to the changed circumstances. The purpose of the constitution was to establish the Kakamas Board of Management and to invest the Board with powers to control and manage the Kakamas Labour Colony on behalf of the founders, i.e. the Dutch Reformed Church. In terms of the constitution the Board was compelled to use all funds and other assets for the sole benefit of the labour colony.

With the passing of the years the image of Kakamas as a labour colony changed completely. In terms of the constitution, which was adopted in 1948, the principle of the transfer of ownership to the settlers was accepted and since then considerable changes have taken place. In 1957 the Synod adopted the important resolution to grant the labour colony autonomy. In 1964 a municipality was established to take over the village management functions from the Board. In the same year the waterworks were taken over by the State. The common pastures were transferred to seven companies, in which the plot-holders hold shares. In 1968 a co-operative trading society was established which took over, inter alia, the shops and flour-mills.

The former labour colony became independent to such an extent that the Kakamas Board of Management is at present mainly concerned with the finalization of a small number of transfers of odd pieces of land which have been sold to the settlers. As a matter of fact, these transfers are being undertaken by the Commission for Supervision and Control and the Commissioner of the Dutch Reformed Church on behalf of the Board of Management, and indications are that this matter will be finalized in the near future.

†Regarding the accumulated funds and other assets at the disposal of the board, it may be mentioned that they exceed R80 000 in value. The question as to how these assets should be administered has been thoroughly investigated by the Synod and, acting on the advice of legal advisers, the Synod has decided to create a trust. The problem, however, is that neither the Labour Colonies Act, 1909, nor the constitution of the Kakamas Labour Colony provides for the repeal of the constitution or the administration of the assets on abolishment of the Board of Management. The proposed legislation therefore provides for the establishment of a juristic person to be known as the Kakamas Trust of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa whose affairs shall be managed by a board of trustees. The Bill also provides for the taking over by the proposed Trust of all the assets, liabilities and obligations of the Board of Management and entrusting the Trust with powers of administration in respect of the accumulated funds and other assets on behalf of the inhabitants. The benefits be derived from the trust are therefore confined to the area of the former labour colony. This is in accordance with the principle laid down by the constitution of the former labour colony, namely that the moneys and funds derived from the labour colony shall be used for the benefit of the inhabitants. As founders of the Kakamas Labour Colony the Synod of the Reformed Church have taken a leading role in formulating the principles of the Bill and it therefore has their approval.

* Since the interests of the owners of land within the former labour colony cannot be ignored, the Bill is being treated as a hybrid measure. The intention to introduce the Bill was made public beforehand by means of the Government Gazette and local newspapers while interested parties, whose addresses could be traced, were informed of the matter by registered post. Notices were posted to approximately 680 persons. The Bill was also open to inspection at the local magistrate, the divisional councils of Kenhardt and Gordonia and the Provincial Secretary of the Cape of Good Hope.

Special attempts were made to inform interested parties of the contents of the Bill and to clarify obscurities which existed originally. Therefore, I am glad to be able to confirm that the Bill meets with the approval of those who have an interest in the matter.

Mr. Speaker, in the very, very limited time at my disposal during the Second Reading debate on this rather important measure, I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill on behalf of this side of the House. I have prepared a good Second Reading speech, but, as I say, my time is very limited indeed. I happen to be well acquainted with the colony at Kakamas and with the inhabitants of Kakamas. I have always felt to call it a labour colony is rather inappropriate; I would have preferred to call it a settlers’ colony. We know that the people of Kakamas are wonderful people. They are very hospitable and friendly and financially they have done extremely well over the years. Over the last 67 years they have reached great heights and I believe they should be congratulated on the prestige which they have reached. This is a happy moment for Kakamas. Since they have accumulated funds over the years and since those funds are now to be transferred to a trustee for supervision, I think it is only right, too, that those funds should be ploughed back into the settlers’ colony by way of grants to universities. I am very pleased to see that it will not only be universities in South Africa which will receive such grants, but also institutions and universities outside the Republic. This money will be used for the education of the settlers and the inhabitants of this very happy colony. I am afraid I must sit down, but we are very happy to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister and this House as a whole will appreciate it if I say very briefly that my party also supports this legislation. It goes without saying that the legislation is in the interests of all the people concerned.

However, I want to object to the fact that, while I was so kind to the hon. the Minister in the course of the year, he said, immediately after the hon. member for Durban North had delivered his maiden speech, that he would prefer that hon. member to be the party’s main speaker on agricultural matters in future. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, it is a privilege for me to give this Bill our support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.