Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

1. (a) Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays:

   14h15 to 18h30 20h00 to 22h30

2. (b) Tuesdays: 14h15 to 19h00
3. (c) Fridays:

   10h00 to 12h45

   14h15 to 18h30

4. (d) Saturday, 12 June:

   10h30 to 12h45

   14h15 to 17h30.

Agreed to.

As far as the business of the House is concerned, we shall follow the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, it is evident from the definition of the word “industry” that mining undertakings are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. It is a known fact that in the case of the gold-mining industry, a highly organized industry, the industry itself has made the necessary arrangements for the training of its Bantu labourers. However, it is quite conceivable to me that there may be other mining undertakings of fairly limited scope which may find it necessary to be included in the provision which is being made by means of the Bill. Under the circumstances I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is justified to exclude mining undertakings in general from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, according to my information, this arrangement resulted from a Cabinet decision.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for the establishment of a council to advise the Minister, but I should like to refer in passing to the provisions of clause 3(2)(a) since the Minister is to consult the council on matters specified in that clause. The question therefore arises whether other bodies should not also have representation on the council. Normally one would not have any objection to the fact that the Minister has to consult the council with regard to the matters specified, but we know that certain bodies do compete with one another to some extent and that they—I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows this too—sometimes exhibit a certain degree of pettiness. Therefore, my question is whether the Minister’s hands should be tied. Normally my attitude is that the Minister should have as few powers as possible, but in this case I should like to know whether it would not be better for the Minister to have a free hand in connection with the decision as to whether he will give representation on the council to other bodies or persons.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sound arrangement that there is to be consultation with the council. In this case the Minister retains his discretion in any event. The final decision, after consultation, still rests with him. Consequently I am of the opinion that the position is covered to all sides.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? In cases where there are two population groups present, such as in the Eastern Province where there are a large number of Coloured artisans and employees, would the council in certain circumstances be empowered to make certain facilities which are to be established for Bantu employees in terms of this Bill, available for Coloured employees as well?

Mr. Chairman, I think we must accept that this is specifically for Bantu employees. Other provision will have to be made for Coloureds.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

1. (1) On page 5, in lines 22 to 29, to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute:
   1. (a) six persons who are officers in the Public Service of whom—
      1. (i) the Minister shall nominate three in the Department of Bantu Education;
      2. (ii) The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development shall nominate one in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development;
      3. (iii) the Minister of Labour shall nominate one in the Department of Labour;
      4. (iv) the Minister of National Education shall nominate one in the Department of National Education;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 30, to omit “with the approval of the Minister”;
3. (3) on page 5, after line 47, to insert:
   1. (xi) The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research;
   2. (xii) The National Development and Management Foundation;
4. (4) on page 5, in line 51, to omit “(x)” and to substitute “(xii)”;
5. (5) on page 5, in line 58, after “industry” to insert:

   , or any group or association of persons whose activities relate to industry, commerce or agriculture;

6. (6) on page 5, in lines 64 to 66, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:
   1. (b) In respect of each of the persons nominated in accordance with subsection (1), an alternate member may be nominated or appointed by the Minister or body concerned, as the case may be.
7. (7) on page 7, in lines 1 to 4, to omit paragraph (c).

To start with my first amendment, I want to say that it contains two basic changes. The first is that we should like to involve the Department of National Education in the composition of the council. Therefore I propose in my amendment that the Department of Bantu Education should have three representatives in the council instead of four, so as to have the Department of National Education represented in the council as well. We consider this to be desirable for the simple reason that the Department of National Education is very intimately involved in higher technical education in general and indeed, has a wealth of experience and knowledge in this regard at its disposal. I shall have no objection if the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to keep the representation of the Department of Bantu Education at four members. That is not my point. I only wanted to limit the number of officials of the Public Service to six, as provided in the Bill. The important point is that we think it will be advisable to involve the Department of National Education, too, in the composition of the council. I believe it would be a very good thing to have that co-ordination with another department which is also concerned with the question of the training of employees.

The second point I want to make in regard to my first amendment, is that we believe that the nomination of representatives should be left to the Ministers concerned. In other words, although the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out that it is normal procedure for the Ministers concerned to make nominations and submit their nominations to the Minister of Bantu Education, I do believe that it is nothing less than a recognition of the equal status of the departments that the nomination by one Minister should not be made subject to approval by another Minister. It seems obvious to me that the Minister in question must have the discretion to appoint those persons in his department whom he sees fit to appoint.

As far as my second amendment is concerned, I have already referred in my Second Reading speech to the fact that, because this council has been comprised of people appointed from responsible bodies, we are of the opinion that they themselves should nominate their representatives in the council without first submitting the names to the hon. the Minister for approval. The question arises as to why the Minister wishes to retain this right in this regard, which amounts to a right of veto. There may be good reasons for it, but if that is so, we should like to learn from the Minister what those reasons are. It seems to me, however, that in view of the nature of the bodies which will be represented on the council, they should have the discretion to appoint their own representative on the council without the Minister’s right of veto.

As far as my third amendment is concerned, you will see that by this means we are extending the number of members of the council by giving representation on the council to two other bodies which, once again, could make an exceptional contribution in this regard to the proper functioning of the training scheme since both these bodies do in fact have specialized knowledge which can be used to the advantage of the council and the training scheme for Bantu employees. Those two bodies are the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research—especially in view of the excellent work they have done in respect of personnel selection, etc.—and the National Development and Management Foundation, also because of the fact that Foundation has for many years been intimately concerned with the in-service training of employees. It seems to me that it could only strengthen the council if representation on the council were granted to these two bodies.

The fourth amendment I have moved is merely consequential, if my third amendment is indeed accepted.

As far as my fifth proposed amendment is concerned, I should like to point out that the position at present is such that the Minister can only involve a group or association of employers in constituting the council in its extended capacity as vested in it under this clause. What I request therefore, is that the Minister should be afforded a greater discretion, in other words, that he may also involve other persons. For argument’s sake, let me put it like this: If the National Development and Management Foundation is not brought into the picture in terms of my other amendment, the Minister should be able to consider granting representation on the council at a later stage to a body which is not an employer. I wish, therefore, that provision be also made for the fact that other bodies besides employers with a direct interest in and a first-hand knowledge of the training of Bantu, may be appointed to the council by the Minister. I did not put it like that in my amendment, but I nevertheless want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider the possibility of also making provision in this clause for vesting him with the power to appoint people in their personal capacity. As the clause reads at the moment— including my amendment—only people who are representatives of a group of employees, or of a group or association of other persons whose activities concern industry, commerce or agriculture, may be appointed to the council. No provision is made in the Bill for appointing people to the council in their personal or individual capacities. It would seem that circumstances could indeed arise in which it could be considered desirable to appoint somebody in his personal capacity. In terms of the clause, as it reads at present, it is possible that the hon. the Deputy Minister could appoint a member of the Black Chamber of Commerce to the council. In view of the fact that, in my honest opinion, it could be necessary to involve Blacks in this council as well it is possible that there might be an individual Black authority in the field of staff training and selection, who might have a special knowledge of this matter. I know a few such people, people who could indeed make an exceptional contribution in respect of the activities of the council.

Although I have not put it like that in my amendment, my appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister is nevertheless that he should make provision for acquiring the power, if possible, to appoint people to the council in their personal capacities—not as representatives of a group of employers or other bodies.

In respect of the sixth amendment I moved, I just want to say that it, too, is merely consequential. If there is a feeling that these bodies wish to appoint their representatives to the council themselves, and that the Minister may not exercise a right of veto in this regard, it seems obvious to me that these bodies should also have the right to nominate their own substitutes. Hence my proposal that the Ministers concerned, namely the Ministers of Bantu Education, National Education, et al., and the bodies in question which have representation on the council, should have the powers to appoint their own substitutes without referring the matter to the Minister concerned. My seventh amendment arises from my sixth amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Edenvale. I should like to say one or two things quite briefly. Firstly, in my Second Reading speech I made reference to some of the points that have already been touched upon this morning. The first is in regard to the composition of the council itself. Six persons are to be appointed. At the time I mentioned that it seemed to me that four coming from the Department of Bantu Education and only one from the Department of Labour was somewhat lopsided. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has any comments to make on that.

If I understood the hon. member for Edenvale correctly, one of the major reasons for including a representative of the Department of National Education is to ensure that people with high technical qualifications will be amongst the six, or seven should it be changed. That certainly is also a concern of my own. If the hon. the Deputy Minister does not wish to accept the amendment, I hope he will give the House the assurance that amongst the others there will be people with specific technical qualifications from among officers of the Public Service.

The last point I want to make is that I mentioned, by way of a suggestion or recommendation, that one of the things that would strengthen clause 3(2)(b), would be somebody specifically from the African Chamber of Commerce, for example, or—and I certainly identify myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Edenvale—if not organizations, then specific individuals who would have an intimate knowledge and experience of and links with Black in-service training. There is a growing number of personnel in South Africa who have specific qualifications in this regard, and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will regard the amendments, the recommendations and suggestions we have with great sympathy.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation for the attention hon. members have given this clause. I hope to be more accommodating a little further on. However, I have a few problems as far as these amendments are concerned.

As far as the representation of the Department of Bantu Education is concerned, I want to point out that it was a proposal on the part of the department that we reduce the representation of the department in question to two. When all the implications of this were considered, however, the standing committee felt that the four representatives originally recommended by the department should remain. The reason is that a great deal of work has to be done by the department concerned. That is why we should like to retain the four in this regard.

As far as the representation of the Department of National Education is concerned, as suggested, we feel that the legislation has regard to employers and employees who are directly concerned with Bantu who are employed and that the CSIR, therefore, stands apart to some extent and is not directly involved in in-service training. As far as the representation of other departments is concerned, in my opinion it is normal practice for submissions to be made by those departments in any case. They are certainly consulted in the designating of representatives, although the final appointment is made by the Minister concerned. It is a council which has to advise him and provide guidance in this regard. We could say, therefore, that formally, it is in fact an appointment by the Minister, but that it does not take place without there being consultation with the other bodies concerned. This is also applicable to the second amendment. It is not true that the Minister regulates the legislation to the finest details. But this council is the Minister’s council in the final analysis, and therefore he must be sure that the council consists of people who will be able to give him the correct advice. In fact, therefore, the Minister accepts responsibility for this council. In practice, this dispensation should not cause problems. I have considered the proposals of hon. members on the other side of the House. I have already spoken about the relation of the CSIR to this body. They are not so directly concerned with the in-service training of people in industry and therefore we would rather not involve them here. As far as the National Development and Management Foundation is concerned, there are two things I want to mention. In the first place this foundation, according to my information, is already indirectly involved in this representation, because they are affiliated with the Federated Chamber of Industries. If they should prefer to become involved more directly, then I think we shall have to have consultation with the bodies which have gone through the whole process, employers’ and employees’ organizations. Consultation is not impossible. The clause also provides that if a case for representation of another organization can be made, the Minister may consider it and discuss the matter with the advisory council. Clause 3(2)(a) provides—

That is only applicable to the employers.

The most important two parties here are the employers and the employees who are directly involved in in-service training of Bantu workers. We feel that if they are able to make a case that they are involved in this, it may be considered. The opening is there. Because I am unable to accept this amendment, the hon. member’s fourth amendment falls away.

As far as the hon. member’s fifth amendment is concerned, I believe that this idea is already covered in the definitions. Clause l(vii) provides—

As far as the hon. member’s sixth amendment is concerned, I think that his argument has already been invalidated by the fact that, in our opinion, the nominations are made by the Minister and that the submissions of the other bodies also have to be approved by the Minister. Therefore we are unable to accept that either.

Mr. Chairman, during the Committee Stage of the Bill the hon. the Minister adopted the tactic of dangling a carrot in front of us and saying that he might perhaps accept the amendments of this side, if we did not oppose the measure at this stage. I should like to come back, however, to the first two amendments moved by the hon. member for Edenvale. As far as the question of the appointment of a representative of the Department of National Education to the council is concerned, the hon. the Minister said that we are now dealing with legislation which has regard to employers and employees. During the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. the Minister adopted the point of view that one was dealing here with training of a different kind and that the measure did not concern formal education. I accept the viewpoint of the hon. the Minister and I agree that no department of education today has any knowledge of in-service training. What we are dealing with here, however, is industrial in-service training, and the Department of National Education is the only department which has experience of industrial training, because the department controls no fewer than 17 industrial schools. I am convinced, therefore, that the department is indeed a source of knowledge, not only the knowledge of the persons who are highly qualified in the technical field, but also knowledge relating to industrial training although not so much in-service training. Surely, therefore, it will be in the interests of the Minister’s legislation in the light of the purpose it has to serve, that he agree to this request.

In his second amendment the hon. member asked that clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill be amended so that the appointment of persons to the council could take place without the hon. the Minister’s approval. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that it was the Minister’s council in the final analysis, and that he believed for that reason that he should retain the right to approve the persons who had to be appointed to the council. I believe, however, in the final analysis, the legislation will only serve the purpose for which it is being introduced if the hon. the Minister has the full co-operation and trust of the various bodies mentioned in clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill.

If one takes a look at the bodies mentioned in the clause, inter alia, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, one comes to the conclusion that all of them are responsible bodies. Therefore I believe that in the final analysis it is of vital importance that that council should have the full confidence and the full co-operation of these bodies at all times. As the legislation reads at present, it could perhaps happen that a responsible body, such as those mentioned in the Bill, might submit a name to the hon. the Minister which the hon. the Minister would not be prepared to agree to. It could cause a person being appointed who would be the second or third choice of the particular body. If that stage were reached, one would create a climate in which a body might say that the council did not have its full confidence. It is with that purpose in mind that the proposal is made. I hope that these two amendments will therefore enjoy further consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider his attitude in regard to the proposed subsection (1)(a)(iv), which makes provision for the inclusion of a representative from the Department of National Education. The employers themselves are really not the best judges of the best ways in which to train labour. We are dealing here with unskilled labour in most cases, people who have not had education in technical colleges or any type of technical education. There are methods which have been perfected by the Department of National Education, from the days of the old Cott scheme after the last war, to deal with this type of person who has had very little education, very little schooling and who has very little technical knowledge, and to teach them in the quickest and the most efficient way to acquire the skills of the different trades. I feel that only this department has the necessary knowledge which can be drawn upon. The employers themselves do not have that knowledge. They do not have a set system of syllabi in terms of which to train these people. They do not know the right methods to use in order to train them. They often do not even know what materials to use to train them properly.

That brings me to the hon. member’s third amendment, viz. the insertion of a further subparagraph to make provision for the inclusion of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Later on in the Bill reference is made to the premises, equipment, facilities and materials which are to be used in the training of these people. There is no one who can give better advice on this particular point than the CSIR. There are buildings, methods and equipment which are peculiar to the training of people which are unknown to employers and employers’ organizations, and the CSIR has the ability and the people to do research into the materials, the places and the methods with which people can be trained. I think it is very important that the CSIR be given a say in this body. In the technical college training schemes in which I was involved we often had to consult the CSIR in Pretoria with regard to methods and materials which we were using, and I think the Minister would be very wrong to leave this body out of this advisory council.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. I have already indicated that to me, the issue is not whether the Department of Bantu Education has three or four or more representatives on the council. However I should like to associate myself with what has been said by other hon. members on this side of the House, namely that we feel that the Department of National Education should indeed be represented on this council. In a certain sense, what the Deputy Minister said is true, namely that the council is in fact his body, but the council will also act in many respects as an independent kind of body. This is the case particularly when one thinks of the powers vested in the council in terms of clause 5. It seems to me that the council therefore has a wider function than merely to act in an advisory capacity to the Minister. The council has, as it were, certain independent functions with regard to certain activities for which provision is made in the Bill. In view of this it would be as well, in my opinion, to strengthen the council by appointing people who can really make a contribution towards the proper implementation and development of this measure. Therefore I should like to appeal to the Deputy Minister once more to consider this matter. Consequently the same applies in respect of my second and third amendments, for the reasons already mentioned. I have already pointed out by way of an interjection that as the Bill reads at the moment the Minister is unable to involve these two bodies, namely the CSIR and the National Development and Management Foundation, in this regard, because they are not employers involved in the training of these people. Subsection (2) only refers to “a group or association of employers” which may be involved. The Minister is therefore unable, under that subsection, to involve these bodies in this council. And then, as far as the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction to amendment (5) is concerned, I have to point out that the issue here is not the definition of “industry”. Therefore the hon. the Deputy Minister is correct in that respect. But provision is being made here for a group of persons who are not employers, as I have pointed out. If, therefore, the amendment were to be accepted, the hon. the Minister would be able to involve representatives of other groups like the CSIR and others, which are not employers and cannot therefore automatically be included in this Bill.

The emphasis in my fifth amendment is not, therefore on the definition of “industry”, but on the distinction I draw between employers and other persons. It does seem as if the hon. the Minister may find it necessary to involve such people, and I shall therefore be obliged if the hon. the Minister will reconsider this amendment, in spite of his initial reaction. Sir, the hon. the Minister has not yet reacted to my question—it is not covered by my amendments—as to whether he will not make provision—even though it may be in the Other Place—for power to nominate persons to the council in their personal capacities as well, and not necessarily just as a representative of a body. May I also, then, just ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, setting aside the amendments, for an explanation in regard to sub-clause (3)(a), the question of the period of three years for which they are appointed, subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine at the time of his appointment. The hon. the Deputy Minister must furnish us with replies to three questions: In the first place, why the period of three years; secondly, what the nature of the conditions are which may be determined under this subsection; and, thirdly, what provision is made for when a representative of one of these bodies is no longer attached to the body which has elected him? Say, for instance, the Confederation of Labour or the Chamber of Commerce appoints one of their directors to this council ex officio, but the person later leaves the employ of that body and his substitute is no longer available either. Should provision not be made in the Bill for the membership of the body which has appointed him also to be terminated? I am just asking what the ideas of the Deputy Minister are with regard to the implementation of this suggestion.

I just want to react to a few things, Sir. We shall have to take a look at the last point the hon. member raised. As far as the Department of National Education is concerned, we do not think that this department is directly involved here. If education is, in fact to be involved, then we have the representation of our own Department of Bantu Education, by four persons in the council. National Education is, in any case, responsible for the education of Whites and therefore I do not think it is necessary to involve that department in this as well. I do not know whether I should say more about this, but I believe that the approval of the Minister should not be such an obstacle. We cannot do away with it, in spite of what the hon. member for Durban Central has said. I think this cuts both ways. If the Minister should recommend somebody who is unacceptable to those people, it could create problems, but the same is applicable if they should come up with someone unacceptable to the Minister. It is a situation which could indeed arise, and there has to be somebody who can make a final decision, in this case, the responsible person namely the Minister. I do not wish to deny that awkward situations could arise, but I do not believe it need necessarily be so. I do not believe the possibilities are so many that we shall have a position of checkmate. I just want to point out that the bodies which served on the standing committee, have agreed to this set-up. In other words, these bodies—employers’ and employees’ organizations—were satisfied that the decision should be the Minister’s in the final analysis. It is not, however, the intention that he should simply make one-sided decisions from the outset. The intention is that decisions should be made after consultation. Hon. members will bear in mind that we have had legislation previously where the words “in consultation with” or “after consultation of” have been at issue. “In consultation with” means a combined decision, and in this case the decision of one person can invalidate the decision of another and a position of checkmate could arise. “After consultation”, however, means that one specific person still has the power, after consultation, to make the final decision.

I do not really have any further remarks to make. We shall have to think a little more deeply about the last matter the hon. member for Edenvale mentioned, as I have already said.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (6) dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived.

Amendment (3) negatived and amendment (4) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (5) and (7) negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

1. (1) The council shall from among its members elect a chairman and a vice-chairman.

I have already pointed out that this council consists of representatives of important and responsible bodies. We feel the council is certainly competent, and should therefore also be given the right, to appoint its own chairman and vice-chairman. It is quite customary, in bodies with a semi-autonomous capacity—and I have already indicated that this council will not only function as an advisory body, in my opinion, but also as a kind of semi-autonomous body—that the body in question should have the power to appoint its own chairman and vice-chairman. Therefore it is unnecessary, in my opinion, for the hon. the Minister to have the power to appoint a chairman or vice-chairman. I shall therefore let my motivation suffice. I think the matter has been stated quite clearly enough.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the idea of the hon. member for Eden vale. However, I should like to mention two reasons why I am unable to accept his proposal. There was a proposal before the standing committee, which considered this problem for a long time, that the matter should be left open. When it was explained how the council would function and what the duties of the chairman and his direct link with the secretariat would be, the standing committee felt that in view of practical circumstances the matter should be left in the hands of the Minister. At first glance, therefore, and on paper, the suggestion of the hon. member has merit, but in view of practical circumstances it is desirable that it should rather remain as it is, viz. that the Minister designates the chairman and the vice-chairman at the request of the standing committee, the standing committee which has experienced the practical problems. Because of the large amount of work there will be virtually continuous liaison between the chairman and the secretariat.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

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

The first amendment is in fact, a minor one since it merely seeks to substitute the word “onderwys” for the word “opvoeding” in the Afrikaans text. I think the inclusion, in the first place, of the word “opvoeding” in the Bill is to be ascribed to a grammatical error. Consequently there is no need for me to elaborate on this. Indeed, it is clear to all that there is a difference between the two terms.

The effect of the second amendment is the omission of subsection (3) which reads as follows—

Apart from the confusion which may be created by this subsection, the problems to which it may give rise and the possibility that differentiation may take place between areas to the detriment of the training given, it does seem to me as though all the powers which the Minister may exercise, are adequately covered by the provisions of subsections (1) and (2). Indeed, subsection (1) already contains a provision—

… and subject to such conditions as he may deem fit to impose …

This amounts to the Minister having a wide power to impose any conditions which he may deem fit. It seems undesirable to me to specify in subsection (3) what kind of condition the Minister may impose. We must also look at subsection (2) which provides that in addition to the general conditions which may be imposed by the Minister in terms of subsection (1), he may also impose conditions relating to, inter alia—

1. (a) the courses of training which may be provided;
2. (b) the nature, duration and standard of such courses;
3. (c) the premises, equipment, facilities and materials to be used or provided for the purposes of such training …

As far as I am concerned, subsection (3) is tautological not only because subsections (1) and (2) confer on the Minister all the powers he needs, but also because it may open the door to confusion, a lack of confidence in the council as well as a lack of confidence in the implementation of the Bill. Therefore, to my mind there seems to be no reason for retaining the subsection in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the first amendment. It simply amounts to a choice of words.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, we must have regard to the possibility of different areas possibly being fixed for different forms of training. One may have a very extensive area which covers one kind of training and within that same area one may also have another form of training. In view of this I think that differentiation within the area fixed is necessary. There is also the question of levies. One must make provision for not having an umbrella levy covering a large area, while it would be better to make a particular levy applicable to a smaller area. It seems to me that it would be better, because of the practical circumstances, to retain in the clause the provision concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did not really tell us why he needs subsection (3) specifically. The hon. member for Edenvale has made it clear that two or more employers may not provide training to workers without their having regard to the conditions which the Minister may impose in terms of subsection (2). Although provision is being made specifically for that in subsection (2), the Minister still wants to add the provision contained in subsection (3). I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that this provision, as it reads at present, and especially the part which reads “the Minister may … fix different areas in respect of different categories of work”, may unfortunately be interpreted by certain people as rendering possible a situation of a form of reservation being applied in that it may be said that people may not be trained in certain categories of work. I believe, subsection (3), as it stands, will do the Bill, or actually the object the hon. the Minister seeks to achieve by means of the Bill, more harm than good. In his reply the hon. the Minister indicated what he wished to achieve by means of this provision, and I believe that he can achieve those objects without his retaining subsection (3) of clause 7.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Amendment (2) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to indicate that I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Edenvale.

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

I just want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for being prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

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

During the Second Reading we asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us the circumstances envisaged by him which would necessitate the type of prohibition provided for in clause 11. I want to say at once that although I listened attentively to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply in this regard, nothing that he said was a truly convincing reason to my mind for having this really serious restriction. I quoted concrete examples in this connection. For instance, I pointed out that if a farmer’s scheme was not approved in terms of this provision, it would become impossible for him to train a Bantu labourer of another farmer in, say, the handling and repair of agricultural machinery. In fact, the farmer would be committing a very serious offence if he were to do so in spite of this. This is the logical implication of this prohibition. What is more, at the moment there are, in fact, a large number of cases of employers assisting the employees of other employers to improve their proficiency for the work they are performing. I can see no justification for this particular prohibition at all. This prohibition was not included in the draft Bill which was published and on which comments were invited. In other words, there was no indication whatsoever of the department considering this matter as being of such a serious nature at that stage as to want to include this prohibition. What is more, the prohibition makes provision for a very stiff fine and this is how it has been included in the Bill. I should like to know whether representations were made to the department and by whom they were made, representations which resulted in this prohibition being inserted into the legislation after the publication of the draft Bill. I should also like to know what the real motivation for this was. It seems to me as though a criminal offence is being created here unnecessarily. Something of this kind is without rhyme or reason. After all, the Bill is meant to be a positive contribution towards the in-service training of Bantu employees. Why should this totally negative aspect be included here? It seems to me to be quite unjustified and quite unnecessary.

For that reason I should feel very much happier if we were to confine ourselves to the positive aspects of this measure instead. In the light of the practical circumstances to which I referred, it is, in my opinion, preferable for us to remove this prohibition from the Bill entirely. I cannot see any sense in it. I cannot see what is to be gained by it. It seems to be totally negative to me. It seems undesirable to me and I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give serious consideration to removing this prohibition, in other words, to accepting my amendment.

My second amendment is consequential upon the first. If the first were to be omitted, the second would have to be formulated anew in order to provide for the recognition of these private centres by the Minister and by the department. If it would make the hon. the Deputy Minister happier—in the event of my first amendment being accepted—I should be satisfied to keep to the original wording relating to the recognition of the private centres, as published in the draft Bill. However, I do not see this prohibition serving any useful purpose. It can only cause unnecessary friction and seems to me to be highly undesirable.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale, I, too, should like to request the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to accepting it. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that the basic aims of any legislation amount to certain things being allowed and encouraged on the one hand and certain things being prohibited on the other. Legislation also seeks to make any contravention as regards those things which are prohibited, a punishable offence. Consequently it is completely beyond my comprehension why a piece of legislation which is intended to be a positive measure in its entirety, and which has as its object the training of people, should include a provision such as the one we find in clause 11(1) of this Bill. The provision contained in this clause amounts to a prohibition on the training of people. Looking at clause 19—clause 19 deals with offences and penalties—we see that any person who contravenes clause 11(1), shall be liable to the heaviest penalty for which provision is being made in the Bill. Whereas, in the case of other offences, a fine not exceeding R50 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month is laid down, a fine not exceeding R1 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year is laid down in the case of a contravention of clause 11(1). Therefore, on close examination of this Bill, we see that what the hon. member for Edenvale said, is in fact true. This is a negative aspect of the Bill. An extremely negative aspect is embodied in clause 11(1). I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister said that they could register as private centres. However, the fact remains that there may be many reasons why it may be easier for a person to make use of the services of someone else, a person who has the necessary facilities at his disposal for giving specific training, training which does not take a long time but which can be given over a short period, or on a part-time basis, for example, one day a week or a few hours a week. By having this provision in the Bill, one is actually thwarting instead of encouraging training. Consequently I ask the Minister to accept this specific amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the two hon. members who moved and supported the amendment, respectively, have no reason for concern. They are mistaken as regards a basic point of departure. They take a much too wide a view of the concept of “training”. Training is defined in the Bill as “any training which has as its special aim the improvement of the proficiency of any employee for any work performed in or in connection with any industry”. If we read this definition in conjunction with, for example, clause 7 as well as clause 11(2)(b), we see that training is dealt with within the context of the legislation as a course which is offered. Training, therefore, relates to the actual provision of instruction on an orderly basis to people who present themselves as “trainees” at a centre, be it a private centre or a public centre. Therefore the examples mentioned by the hon. member for Edenvale do not enter into the picture. If a farmer shows an employee of a fellow farmer how a particular implement works, that is not training. If a manufacturer demonstrates the working of implements supplied by him, that constitutes orientation as regards the implement and its use. Somewhere, however, one crosses over the dividing line, the line between showing a person how something works, giving information as to the use of a particular article, and offering an actual course. As soon as this line has been overstepped, it is in the interests of the employee not to be exposed to training which is not properly ordered or which does not comply with proper standards.

On the other hand I should like to say that training in industry is often dangled like a carrot in front of people who are persuaded in this way to purchase expensive machinery. People are advised to purchase complicated machinery; if they do, the suppliers will train the workers. After an enormous price has been paid for the machinery, the promised training is so superficial that one has in fact not purchased any training. In that case one may experience endless problems in using the article. Consequently this provision will also protect the purchasers of expensive implements, machinery and instruments. It will ensure that when training is promised, training as defined in the Bill will be provided, orderly training, training which complies with the conditions laid down by a council or on the advice of a council.

Mr. Chairman, everything which the hon. member for Ver-eeniging said, actually supports my standpoint. If this involved other things such as general evening classes or other training, I could have understood some measure of control having to be exercised. What is involved here, however, is training. The hon. member for Vereeniging rightly indicated that this training is defined as training which has as its aim the improvement of the proficiency of a person for work performed by him. In doing so the hon. member for Vereeniging endorsed my point, on the very grounds of that definition of training. He excluded all possible theoretical dangers. Under what circumstances is it conceivable that a person is going to provide training to an employee in order to improve that employee’s proficiency for the work which he performs for a particular employer? The hon. member for Vereeniging also referred to people who purchased expensive machinery or who were persuaded to purchase expensive machinery, subsequent to which the promised service was not provided as a result of which their capital had actually been wasted. If this is the consideration, the matter must be left to the free market economy. It is not a matter to be dealt with in terms of this serious prohibition. What employer, in theory, will send his employees to such an organization under those circumstances? In my honest opinion, this argument has no validity. In the third place, it is evident that the hon. member for Vereeniging misunderstood me, because I did not say that one farmer should demonstrate to the employee of another farmer how a tractor works. I spoke of mechanical repairs to tractors, work for which training is essential. However, this is not demonstration. I made this very clear, so I think the hon. member for Vereeniging was being somewhat malicious in suggesting that I was not aware of the difference between training and demonstration.

You are always meeting trouble half-way.

I just want to say that this is obviously not what I had in mind. If the danger does exist of the situation possibly being exploited—I cannot imagine that this is possible—then we must leave it to the free economy to combat this type of malpractice effectively. I cannot find any justification in what the hon. member for Vereeniging or the hon. the Deputy Minister said for including this prohibition in the Bill. I want to ask once again why this prohibition was not included in the original draft Bill. I would also like to know who made representations and what the problems are which are actually foreseen. Why, if this is so important, was that point not presented for public comment when this Bill was published?

Mr. Chairman, the matter is not as simple as the hon. members for Edenvale and Durban Central made it out to be. In the first place it was published in the Gazette and comments were received only afterwards. The comments came from the very body which dealt with this legislation all along and which is a responsible body, viz. the permanent committee. Bodies such as the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, employers’ and employees’ organizations, as well as the South African Agricultural Union, serve on this permanent committee. Reference was made to the training of tractor drivers. Now, it is interesting to note that the South African Agricultural Union serves on this permanent committee, so it, too, requested that the specific wording read as it does. Moreover, the South African Agricultural Union is the very body which requested in anticipation, in terms of this legislation, a public centre such as this at which employers can be trained in agriculture.

It does not affect the Union.

It does affect it. According to the hon. member a public centre such as this would consequently have to fall away, because then any person could give another person’s employee some rudimentary training over a period of a few weeks. In any event, this provision is a perpetuation of a prohibition which exists in terms of the Bantu Education Act, viz. that one may not simply go ahead and provide training. One cannot simply go ahead and establish some little school for training people. A training centre must be registered and controlled. I wonder whether the difference is not to be found in the fact that members on that side of the House have a different approach to these things to members on this side of the House. Hon. members on that side of the House are more afraid of the idea of control than members on this side of the House are. Surely hon. members know the old slogan of Jeremy Bentlam: “Law and government are necessary evils—the lesser thereof the better.” Perhaps hon. members on the opposite side of the House have retained something of that approach. If all that is involved, however, is giving a worker some rudimentary training, for example, by showing him how a washing machine works or how he has to work with a refrigerator or freezer, one cannot regard that as training. This is mere orientation.

This legislation, however, seeks to eliminate an evil which may arise, and this is something which was spotted by the permanent committee consisting of employers and employees. It may happen that a person establishes his own centre in order to train the employees of others and charge those persons higher tuition fees. Cases of people charging high fees for training and offering all sorts of courses in order to train people, in the sphere of in-service training as well, have come to the attention of the committee and the department. In many cases the fees amounted to R50 per pupil. This means that if such a person is fined an amount of R100, he pays this fine from the fees which he receives from only one pupil in his school. These are all matters which have come to our attention, and in the light of this I think it is necessary to have this provision. This measure, however, does not impose restrictions on the training which an employer’s organization wants to give its own employees. But it must have the training recognized if it wants to qualify for increased tax concessions. However, if the organization wants to train other peoples’ employees, control must be exercised because, in the light of representations made to the department, it is aware of the dangers, abuses and exploitation which may be experienced in connection with such training. Consequently I regret being unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would consider accepting the following amendment, which I now move—

This would eliminate the case mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister, viz. of a person starting to provide training and charging high training fees. It would no longer be possible for anyone to ask payment for training given at a centre which is not registered and which does not enjoy recognition.

Mr. Chairman, I think the question is simply how one will be able to determine whether or not such training is given for a consideration if such training has not been approved, that is, if we have no knowledge of it. The very thing we want is that training should be approved. This is the control we want to have in this regard. If it has not been approved, we do not have any control over the matter of the payment or non-payment of fees for such training.

Mr. Chairman, if the words “for a consideration” are inserted, surely it will be possible to prove that fees have been charged. I cannot see the hon. the Deputy Minister’s problem. The very thing we have been trying to do in this case is to help the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. The whole problem is solved if the words “for a consideration” are inserted. The Deputy Minister said that we are afraid of the law; that in our approach towards that side of the House we are always afraid of the law. Sir, we are afraid of the law, because in terms of this provision, if I help one of my fellow-farmers I am breaking the law. Let me just explain the position as it relates to the farming industry. I must say that I cannot understand how the Agricultural Union did not see this. If I want to train some of my labourers for instance in the grading or pruning of bananas, I send them to the best farm in the area and ask the farmer to take them for a week or so when he is grading or pruning, so that they can work with him and then return to my farm. He does this as a favour. He has the use of those labourers to help his own labourers during that time, and that is his reward. If he were to charge me for doing that, I could see the hon. the Deputy Minister’s point, but in such a case there is no charge. That farmer does this for all his friends who require his help. Why prevent that? I really feel that this amendment should be accepted, unless the Deputy Minister is prepared to revise the definition of “training”. As I see it, however, he can overcome his problem simply by including the words “for a consideration”.

Sir, as hon. members have indicated, this amendment will actually eliminate to a large extent the problems expounded by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I indicated in the course of my Second Reading speech that I definitely did not agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interpretation, i.e. that this training was illegal in terms of the Bantu Education Act. There is nothing in the Bantu Education Act, according to my own interpretation of the Act, rendering this type of training a criminal offence. During the Second Reading the hon. the Deputy Minister himself referred to the large number of schemes being conducted in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Therefore, does this imply that all those schemes, unless they are registered under this Bill, contravene the provisions not only of this Bill but also of the Bantu Education Act? I should very much like to have an answer to these points from the Deputy Minister.

On amendment (1) moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier,

Question put: That the words “(1) No person shall provide training for the employees of any other person” stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—81: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Cronje, P.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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 Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tender, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—32: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; 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.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. G; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier negatived.

Amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—82: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Cronje, P.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. G.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J. Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. G; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Mai an, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; 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, A. T.; 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.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—34: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Bailing, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, G W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; 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.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Order! Before calling on an hon. member to speak, I must point out that I have to rule the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Edenvale on the Order Paper, out of order since it involves increased State expenditure and, as such, requires the State President’s recommendation. Nevertheless I shall allow him a turn to speak so that he may try to convince the hon. the Deputy Minister to take over the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, two matters are involved here. The clause provides for grants-in-aid being provided to employers who have an industry in the economic development area. The first problem is that an economic development area is not defined in the Bill. Therefore there is no indication in the Bill of in which region this kind of financial aid will be granted. However, I assume that this will apply for border areas and even for development in the Bantu homelands, but I do not know whether there are any further areas which the hon. the Minister wants to include in the economic development.

I now come to the second problem. The work has to continue no matter where it is done, because the Black workers are there. They ought to be utilized as effectively as possible wherever they work. This is, after all, the train of thought as the hon. the Deputy Minister expounded it during his Second Reading speech when he connected the training with, inter alia, two factors. The one is the increase of productivity of the Black employees and on the second factor, he said that this may indeed lead towards a possible reduction in the number of the Black workers employed in industries in the so-called White areas. Under these circumstances and according to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own motivation it still seems to me as if a case can be made out as to why grants-in-aid should also be given in certain cases to employers who have industries outside the economic development area.

Furthermore I want to indicate that the provision is merely permissive and therefore places no obligation upon the Minister to provide financial aid. He still has a discretion. Since this is the case, I ask why it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to restrict his own discretion so that he can only provide aid within economic development areas. I therefore ask whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will not consider changing this position.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member will know, it is the policy of this side of the House to stimulate development in the border areas. This is important in various respects. Therefore it is in the interests of our broader economy and also of social interest. Everyone will admit that an excessive concentration of industries, employment opportunities, etc. within a particular area creates all kinds of social and other problems. For this reason we have this very practical and, in my opinion, very sensible policy. It is in the interests of both the Whites in South Africa and the homelands to create employment opportunities within the reach of those people we want to prevent from flocking to the White areas.

I have no objection to that.

Good, then you agree with me. The purpose here is the additional stimulation of that development because employers in the other areas already receive such a substantial tax concession that it is very beneficial to them. This additional encouragement to industrialists in the border industry areas make employment opportunities available and to provide in-service training there, is in the interests of the homelands. Everyone is blaming us for the fact that the homelands are not developing fast enough and that we do not create sufficient employment opportunities there. It costs R8 000 to create a single employment opportunity, and if we have to create employment opportunities for 160 000 people per year in our area, it will cost us almost R1,5 milliard per year. It is in order to intercept that position that one makes it possible for those people to receive in-service training in an area where people can be accommodated more cheaply and perhaps also offer cheaper labour. Further it agrees with our broad policy of decentralization and rendering those communities self-sufficient. We promote this through this additional provision.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 19 is concerned …

Order! I just want to point out that the hon. member’s two amendments are out of order, but if he wants to move new amendments, he is free to do so.

Thank you very much, Sir. The hon. member for Durban Central will presently move an amendment which amount to the fact that, while we accept that the offence remains and that penalties consequently have to be laid down in the Bill, we want to object to the extent of the fine for which the Bill provides. I shall leave it to my colleague to move the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following two amendments—

1. (1) On page 19, in lines 26 to 29, to omit subparagraph (i);
2. (2) On page 19, after “paragraph” in lines 30 and 31, to insert “(a),”.

The effect of this will be that there will be one uniform fine for all offences whereas, at the present moment, provision is made for a maximum fine of R1 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment for the contravention of clause 11(1). Following the acceptance of these two amendments the same penalties applicable in the case of a contravention of any other clause of the Bill, will also apply in the case of a contravention of clause 11(1), which is a fine of R50 or imprisonment not exceeding a period of one month.

*Mr. Chairman, the standpoint has already been stated that clause 11(1) should not be subject to a penalty. However, this is the case and in terms of the provision of the clause it may even be an offence when someone provides free training to a friend. Our feeling is that, if the penalty with respect to clause 11(1) is compared with the penalties are mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, it seems to be quite unfair. For instance somebody who fails to pay a levy, may only be fined R50. Somebody who fails to produce inspection books or keep certain records in connection with his training centre, can only be fined R50. These and other offences, which in my opinion are extremely serious, are subject to a penalty of only R50 or imprisonment not exceeding one month, while a so-called offence which is committed by a person who is actually providing training, is punishable with a fine of R1 000 or with imprisonment not exceeding one year. Since the hon. the Deputy Minister has now decided that the latter person should be punished for the good work he is doing, we believe that the relevant penalty should be limited to a fine of R50 or imprisonment not exceeding one month.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion it is necessary for me once again to emphasize that this matter enjoyed the attention of a whole number of organizations, not only employers’ organizations, but also employees’ organizations. Those people made this suggestion themselves. In view of practical dangers they are dealing with—inter alia, exploitation they are experiencing—they asked for very strict action to be taken. They asked for this themselves. They said a fine of R100 was no deterrent for somebody wanting to train other employers’ employees, especially taking into consideration all the malpractices which might flow from it. They also pointed out that it is possible for someone to provide training to people who are not employed at all. This is a matter which should be controlled. If one trains a great many people who are not even employed and after that tries to distribute them amongst employers in a haphazard way, what is going to happen? Very well, the Department of Labour will supervise the employment of people, but the purpose is to nip that sort of unholy practice in the bud.

It is not the Department of Bantu Education which noticed this danger or warned against these abuses; it is the experience of people who deal actively with the practical problems, the employers’ and the employees’ organizations. They are the ones who asked for protection and who requested that a far higher fine be laid down to serve as a deterrent. As I said previously, there are certain employers who simply provide additional training, a course here and another there. For every one of those courses the employers charge between R10 and R50. In that way he can earn about R250 from the training of one single employee. The employer can easily pay his fine from the class fees paid by one single employee because he perhaps has 100 other employees to whom he is providing training. It is to present this kind of malpractice that it was decided to impose heavy penalties on those who contravene this provision. I am sorry, I have already held out two carrots to the hon. members. They have already eaten them and do not know it. However, we shall content ourselves with this.

Mr. Chairman, every time the hon. the Deputy Minister rejects an amendment, he advances an argument which actually frustrates his own point. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already referred to the fact that those Bantu may not even be employed. But then they are not covered by clause 11. Clause 11 only refers to people who provide training to employees of other employers, and the word “employee” is defined in the Bill as people who are employed. Therefore the whole point which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned has no bearing on the matter whatsoever.

Yes, in spite of that.

In spite of that. How can I argue with the hon. the Deputy Minister if he bases his motivation upon invalid considerations? Then he says to me “In spite of that”, although he is wrong. In spite of that he cannot accept it.

I mentioned more things.

As far as the second point is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to possibilities which exist and not to things which actually exist, because if there are offences, I want to say that in terms of the definitions of “industry”, “employer”, “employee”, that kind of problem is a theoretical one in my opinion. If it should arise in practice, then, as I requested previously, he must furnish us with precise examples for the kind of problems which are expected to arise. I cannot imagine that anyone would be prepared to incur the capital expenditure without State subsidies, especially in view of this Bill. This Bill, makes special provision for State aid in one form or another for the training of employees in terms of the procedure which is created here. Now someone has to incur capital expenditure for buildings, facilities, machinery and all this kind of thing in order to establish some kind of private training centre for training employees, as defined, of employers, as defined. I can really not see who would make such a fool of himself under these circumstances. After all, he knows now that these facilities are available to other employers to use. Under these circumstances it seems to me that I have to say once again that I fully support the amendment of my colleague. The answer which the hon. the Deputy Minister provides is not at all convincing.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister very briefly and finally that I think that he is conjuring up spectres when it comes to allegations of misuse. There is only one spectre that has a slight likeness of a spectre and this is the one …

Order! It should just not be the spectre of repetition.

No, Sir, it is not going to be a spectre of repetition. It is the spectre of the money which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to. I nevertheless want to ask him, in spite of what has been said, before he introduces the Bill in the Other Place, to consider it very seriously once again to see whether he cannot pin point that specific abuse.

Mr. Chairman, we are not the ones who conjure up spectres. This is the experience of people who deal practically with the situation from day to day. They do not view it as a spectre, but a reality, something which they really experience. A person who trains someone else’s employees can entice them away in that way and cause that person great damage. This is what people really experience.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Finance, I move—

Hon. members will recall that in his Budget speech this year the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned the Government’s decision, in regard to the purchase of land for the Bantu homelands by the S.A. Bantu Trust, to allow the Trust to take over existing mortgage bonds on property which is being purchased, in order to augment in this way the financial resources available for the purchase of land. The Land Bank was approached for cooperation in this respect. Arising out of that the Land Bank Board decided to consider applications of the S.A. Bantu Trust for the purpose of repaying money owed to the Land Bank by persons whose land was acquired by the Bantu Trust. The consideration of applications by the Land Bank Board will take place on the conditions determined by the Board in consultation with the Government, and are subject to the necessary amendments to the Land Bank Act, since the existing Act does not contain authorization for the furnishing of advances for the contemplated purpose. The principle objective of this amending Bill is therefore to grant the Land Bank Board statutory power for the furnishing of such advances to the S.A. Bantu Trust.

The personal conditions which the Land Bank Act imposes in regard to mortgage bonds to farmers cannot be made applicable to the S.A. Bantu Trust, and consequently the Land Bank mortgage bonds on properties purchased by the Bantu Trust will have to be cancelled when transfer is registered. In order, therefore, to make provision for an alternative form of security for the repayment of the money advanced by the Bank to the Trust, as well as for the interest on it, the Bill contains a provision in terms of which the debt which the Trust incurs at the Bank is considered to be guaranteed by the Government.

Mr. Speaker, this measure has become necessary to augment the funds made available to the Trust for purchasing farms under the Government’s consolidation plans, and also in the pursuance of its policy to carry out the obligations, as it sees it, under the 1936 Land Act.

When the consolidation plans were discussed last year, we pointed out that the plans were too grandiose and that the Government did not have any hope of being able to purchase all the land within a reasonable time. Our forecast proved to be correct. The Government now finds itself in an embarrassing position in not being able to buy the farms within a reasonable period. The farmers have been embarrassed because they were given to understand that they would be able to sell their farms within a reasonable period. Some have already made provision to leave their farms. We know that the programme is in a complete mess. There has been ineptitude and bungling by the department and by the Ministers concerned. The previous Deputy Minister will admit that he received deputations from angry farmers who called upon him to carry out the promises. We know that there was gross favouritism in some instances. Because of what has happened and because of the state in which farmers find themselves, especially in the Ciskei, the Government has had to come to light with some measure to augment the funds available.

It may be said that it is not truly the function of the Land Bank to finance the Trust in buying land for Bantu occupation in independent homelands. It is so that this is not the function of the Land Bank. That is why this Bill is necessary to create the powers necessary to carry out the undertakings as outlined by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

However, the position of the farmers concerned is such an urgent one that we are prepared in this instance to agree to the Bill and to allow the Land Bank to undertake the further obligations. It is also true that the Land Bank in these circumstances will not be called upon to pay out funds which could be used to assist farmers elsewhere, because here is really merely a substitution of the Trust as the debtor under existing bonds. The hon. the Deputy Minister made it clear in his speech as to why it is necessary. It will not be a substitution in the deeds registry in the ordinary course, because fresh bonds will in fact have to be passed. Unfortunately the hon. the Deputy Minister has not told us under what conditions these bonds will be granted to the Trust. Will the same conditions with regard to repayment and rates of interest apply as in the case of the bonds to be cancelled? This may affect the Land Bank in that if the conditions of repayment are not the same as those imposed on the farmers concerned, the sellers, the bank may find itself prejudiced in its income. The funds may fall off with the result that sufficient funds may not be available to farmers elsewhere. I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not been able to give us more information in his introductory speech as to the conditions on which the Trust will be getting the money.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned for lunch I had mentioned that this Bill was necessary to assist those farmers who found themselves seriously embarrassed, not through any fault of their own, but solely as the result of the Government’s attempts to carry out is its impractical ideology in this regard. I pointed out that it was not the function of the Land Bank to make money available to buy land for occupation by Bantu in the independent homelands. However, our concern for the fanners in their tragic circumstances is so great that we are prepared to support this measure. Moreover it does not mean that any funds are going to be taken from the pool which is normally available for assisting the farmers. This is merely substituting one debtor for another.

Before the adjournment I was dealing with the question of the conditions in regard to the repayment of the bonds. I mentioned that the hon. the Minister, in his introduction of the Bill, had not given us any information as to how repayment of the bonds advanced to the Trust, were to be repaid. What we want to know is whether the conditions for the Trust will be the same as for the farmers concerned. In other words, will the Land Bank be in no worse a position than it would be if the bonds remained … I see the hon. the Deputy Minister is shaking his head, which leads me to believe that the Trust is going to receive more favourable conditions from the Land Bank. We want information on this and I shall be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give it to us. I also want an assurance from the hon. the Minister that if this Bill goes through, and we are prepared to give it a speedy passage because of the seriousness of the position of these farmers, the farmers who have offered their farms for sale, will receive the immediate attention of his department. Will the offers be renewed to those farmers who had their offers withdrawn? The hon. the Deputy Minister must bear in mind that the valuations of most of those farms were made some time during last year, before devaluation. Therefore the value of these farms must have been affected.

Order! The hon. member is going a bit wide.

I know, Sir, but with your sympathy towards the farmers of the area, you will no doubt permit me to ask the question.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Griqualand East, in giving his support to this legislation, made a wide detour. In this year’s Budget approximately R30 million is provided for the purchase of land. Here we have a measure to assist the Bantu Trust to spend more money on the purchase of land than just the R30 million. According to the priority list, this means that it will be possible to finance from other funds these farms which can be purchased and in respect of which Land Bank mortgage bonds exist, in other words, they can be financed by funds the Land Bank is able to make available. I believe the Land Bank will have the right to issue special securities at a higher rate of interest than the present rate of interest to be able to make these additional funds available. The funds are made available at a rate of interest which differs from that applicable to farmers. In other words, it will not be necessary to utilize the funds which can be made available to farmers from normal sources for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the usual funds will still be available to the farmers. This ought to allay the fears of the hon. member for Griqualand East This is merely one of the additional measures. Other measures are being envisaged. We welcome this measure. The hon. member for Griqualand East suggested that a great deal of inconvenience was caused through the fact that the future boundaries of land which has to be purchased, has been made public. However, this was not the only thing which caused inconvenience. In the past the complaint has always been that the boundaries have not been made public. The fact that the boundaries have not been made public also caused inconvenience and uncertainty. It is therefore necessary for the proposed boundaries to be determined and now that this has been done, it can be accepted that problems will flow from this. It is not our fault that international financial problems and a shortage of funds are being experienced. However, in this way it is being made possible for funds to be made available to the Land Bank from the private sector in order to enable the Land Bank in turn to assist the farmers in that purchases will be expedited. Therefore, this is a positive measure in all respects. However, should it also be realized that, as I have said, this is not the only measure which is being considered. There are other measures as well, and the Deputy Minister will introduce a Bill in that regard in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill. At the same time, however, I believe that there are a number of things that need to be said and a number of questions that need to be asked. It is quite clear that this Bill does not offer an instant solution to the problems of the farmers in the Transkei or in other homelands. Far from it. It deals with only one small aspect of the whole problem. The hon. member for Klip River has just said that as far as he is concerned, this measure will not affect the position of the Land Bank in so far as its normal loans to farmers are concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister nods his head and I am pleased to hear it. But the House has not been told what is actually going to happen. Where is the money coming from? Are additional funds going to be provided for the Land Bank? What is the quantity of the funds which is going to be made available in order to implement the measure? We have been told nothing in regard to these aspects, but are being asked to pass this legislation almost in a blank cheque form because an emergency situation exists. I think the hon. member for Griqualand East is understandably concerned about the people in the area and their farms. One thing however is clear and that is that the Land Bank has not been created for this purpose. This is a new approach because of a problem which the Government has encountered. I think hon. members are entitled to know what the amount is which is likely to be involved. Is this only an emergency procedure or is it going to be applied to all sorts of land which is going to be taken over by the Bantu Trust, not only in the Transkei, but also elsewhere? Is it a long-term proposition or is it only an emergency measure? We are entitled to know these things when we are asked to deal with this type of legislation.

It is clear that what is happening now is the Republic, because of its future relationship with the Transkei, is now going to be forced, even after independence, to purchase land and to pay for it, even although it will then be situated in a foreign country. Because of these circumstances this legislation is being introduced as the first of a series. But it is not the end of the problems which will arise in regard to this matter. The tragedy is the Republic is in the process of getting itself into long-term hock, if I may use that word, into a long-term debt because of purely ideological reasons. We are finding ourselves in these circumstances due to the incompetence of the Government in handling a matter in which human beings are involved and in regard to which commitments have to be met.

There is another issue which I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with. Why is it that the S.A. Bantu Trust, which is now, in legislation that is pending, to be given the power to borrow money, to issue promisory notes and to do things of that nature, cannot itself raise the finance? I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not dealing with this piece of legislation himself. I would like to know, for example, and maybe the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us, why it is now going to be permissible for insurance companies to hold the securities which are issued by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards in the urban areas and why can they not be securities which the S.A. Bantu Trust issues and which could then be held by insurance companies and banks in exactly the same way as we are now going to find Bantu Administration Boards being able to have their securities held and money being raised in that fashion. We should have legislation which would give whatever power the Bantu Trust needs in order to do this, and I think it needs an explanation in greater depth than has been given by the hon. the Deputy Minister as to why the Land Bank in these circumstances, created for a particular purpose, is now being used for a different purpose.

Sir, while we support this legislation because of an emergency situation and because we believe that there are certain obligations that have to be honoured, at the same time we do it with considerable misgivings, because we are virtually forced to help people who are in difficulty because of the ideological adventure on which this Government has embarked.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be as negative as the hon. member for Yeoville was. I am very pleased about the legislation which is before this House this afternoon, and I am particularly pleased that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development introduced it. I want to tell you why, Sir. This is a demonstration to me not only of the confidence which is placed in the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, but of the co-ordination which exists between the Departments concerned, the Department of Finance and the Department of Bantu Administration in this regard. I say that I am very pleased that this Bill is before this House this afternoon. The Government has, over the years, adopted a standpoint in respect of this land which has to be added to the homelands, and in respect of which it has a debt of honour to pay. Under the difficult economic circumstances which have existed recently, we might not be able to purchase the amount of land we should like to purchase for the Bantu homelands with the R30 million. Therefore we are coming forward with this positive measure to make it possible for the S.A. Bantu Trust to purchase this land. The hon. member for Griqualand East as well as the hon. member for Yeoville expressed misgivings to the effect that this could possibly reduce the amount of money available for the farmers now. The hon. member for Klip River has already replied to this. If one looks at the Bill, one sees that the proposed section 45ter will determine that the Bank may advance money to the S.A. Bantu Trust on conditions determined by the board. Since we are dealing with a very responsible board, the Land Bank board, I do not think that it will be necessary, particularly since this board will be able to determine the conditions, to do anything that will be detrimental to the money which is available to the farmers. I want to make this very clear, because it is a matter which might perhaps be very sensitive, and we should not allow any misunderstanding to exist in regard to this matter. The interest may be determined by the Land Bank board, as well as the other conditions, conditions which have to differ for the S.A. Bantu Trust from those for an ordinary farmer. The board has plenary powers in this regard. They will therefore be able to take up money on the open market, and in various other ways, to finance the mortgage bonds which are being taken over for the Bantu Trust. In other words, this will in no way affect the amount of money which is available for our farmers. The hon. member for Yeoville asked why the S.A. Bantu Trust could not generate this money itself. The hon. member for Klip River said that there is R30 million available for this year. It is a fact that land is expensive, and also that as far as this matter is concerned we should like to progress as rapidly as we are able to. With this additional assistance from the Land Bank we can enable the S.A. Bantu Trust to purchase this land more rapidly.

At this stage I should very much like to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Is it not possible to allocate the land which is going to be released to the South African Bantu Trust for resale as well? As a businessman I think the hon. member for Yeoville would agree with me. I am not proposing that the land be resold for a lesser amount. I should like the land to be resold at market value, so that we can obtain the maximum amount of money from it. This could even entail that one could pay redemption and interest from the income obtained from the sale of the land.

This brings me to another very important matter, a matter to which we ought perhaps to give a little thought. If one is going to buy land from farmers in large quantities, one is inevitably creating a major demand for land, unless one purchases the released land as quickly as possible. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us a very clear reply this afternoon to this point, for I know the necessary co-ordination has in fact taken place. I should not like to see an artificial need for land being created, and this could happen if a large quantity of land were to be bought in from White farmers without other land being offered in return. This would mean that one would be creating an artificially high demand for land which would then further increase the price of agricultural land, and I do not think it is in the interests of agriculture in the long term for the price of land to be artificially increased, nor to the advantage of the South African Bantu Trust that wants to purchase land. I think it would be a very good thing if the hon. the Deputy Minister could reassure us on this point.

In addition I want to associate myself whole-heartedly with this legislation. I think it is good, well-considered legislation, and I am pleased that the necessary co-ordination is there. I am also pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister was able to introduce this legislation himself this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the Land Bank and the hon. the Minister of Finance for being prepared to accept this proposal so that this legislation could be introduced.

I want to point out that a Bantu Trust and Bantu Land Amendment Bill is going to follow this Bill. There are hon. members who raised certain matters here which ought really to be discussed under that Bill. However, I shall reply now to the questions relating to this piece of legislation. The other questions I shall reply to when we deal with that piece of legislation.

What is of fundamental importance here is the question which the hon. members asked as to how the Land Bank is going to be affected. I just want to mention the decisions which the Government took again. In the first place the Government decided that the South African Bantu Trust should be enabled to take over mortgage bonds from owners from whom it was going to purchase land. This does not only apply to the Land Bank. This also applies to all other financial institutions, and that is what the hon. member for Yeoville referred to. The hon. member for Yeoville asked why the Bantu Trust was not acquiring loan powers. The Bantu Trust will acquire loan powers in another piece of legislation. The Government also decided that the Bantu Trust need not pay only in cash; it could also purchase by means of deferred payments. I come to the hon. member for Heilbron when I mention the next decision of the Government. The Government also decided that the proceeds from the sale of the land which had to be included in the Bantu areas in terms of a decision taken last year by Parliament, and comprising approximately 2,3 million ha as well as the proceeds of the sale of the other land which has to be excised and which comprises just over one million ha should go to the Bantu Trust for the purpose of enabling it to purchase land. Thus there will be just over one million ha of land available for sale. That ought to eliminate the concern of the hon. member for Heilbron for he said that there should not only be a demand for land on the part of the Bantu Trust, but that there should also be a supply of land to the farmers. Furthermore, the Government decided that the land could be sold at the market price. This is a very important decision which ought to have a favourable effect on the purchasing programme.

I was asked what the conditions were. As will be observed in clause 2 of the Bill the Land Bank Board may determine the conditions. The Land Bank Board will determine the conditions with regard to the interest rate which has to be paid, and also with regard to the term over which repayment has to take place. On our part we will not be able to pay more than a statutory interest rate. It is entirely out of the question that we will be able to pay more. The result is that, in my opinion, a solution will have to and can be found between those two limits. The Land Bank has a few sources of income, of which the first is the people to whom money is lent by the Land Bank. The Land Bank receives repayments and interest from those people annually. Another source of income is the appropriations which are approved from time to time by Parliament and on which interest is payable at a subsidized interest rate. Those appropriations, and the flow-back of loan capital enable the Land Bank to borrow money on the open market at a higher interest rate than the one at which it lends money to farmers. Depending on the extent of the flow-back of capital, and the parliamentary appropriations, the Land Bank is able to determine in advance how much it is able to lend at a certain interest rate so that it is nevertheless able to lend money to farmers at its current interest rate of 7% per annum.

Therefore it is by no means the idea that the Bantu Trust should influence the normal activities of the Land Bank. We made a calculation which was based on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture to the effect that the mortgage debts of the farmers on an average comprised 20% of the valuation of their farms. In addition our calculation was also based on our own purchase of last year, which we analysed carefully. We found that the mortgages and the debt the farmers had, also amounted to 20% of the valuations. According to our analyses of our own purchases last year, and in accordance with the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture, we estimated that the Land Bank will not be involved in an amount of more than approximately R2 million as far as the Bantu Trust is concerned. We shall not take over so many mortgage bonds from farmers that more than R2 million per annum is involved for the Land Bank. Our point of departure is that we have to pay an interest rate to the Land Bank which enables it to borrow that additional amount which we take over from the farmers when it enters the money market. Therefore there will be no encroachment on the normal activities of the Land Bank. The Land Bank will be able to determine what its normal requirements are, and then it will be able to borrow an additional R2 million, or whatever it requires. That is what we are envisaging.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that we were in a dilemma, but that remark should rather be discussed when the Second Reading debate on the Bantu Trust and Bantu Land Amendment Bill takes place. Consequently I shall return to the remarks made by that hon. member on that occasion.

The hon. member for Griqualand East, however, made a statement which I feel cannot be left unanswered. He said that there had been large scale favouring of certain individuals. The hon. the Minister, as well as the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, have already replied adequately on various occasions last year to the hon. member’s accusations, and I want to content myself with saying that the accusation is not true. Consequently I reject it. There was no preferential treatment. This matter is dealt with according to merit.

Perhaps I should react to one other point which the hon. member for Yeoville raised, viz. the position of the farmers in the Transkei. In the first place I want to say that there are perhaps one or two farmers in the Transkei who still have to be bought out. Within the jurisdiction of the Transkei, i.e. the area which will belong to the Transkei when it is declared independent, there is no appreciable number of farmers who still have to be bought out. The only land which still has to be purchased and in respect of which the Land Bank’s takeover of loans may be involved, falls outside the borders of the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is certain that in the entire area of jurisdiction of the independent Transkei, including Port St. Johns and all the other areas which will form part of the Transkei, there are only approximately two persons who have still not been bought out?

Yes, there are very few. Allow me to point out that the Ongeluksnek area at Matatiele, the Cuba area, the Bietsing area and other areas bordering on the Transkei are situated outside the Transkei and will not fall within the area of jurisdiction of the Transkei when the Transkei becomes independent. Within the existing Transkei almost all the farmers have been bought out since as long ago as 1936. Therefore, there are very few farmers who still have to be bought out.

But surely more than only two.

It may be more than two, but in any case there are very few.

There are at least 20 to 30 in Port St. Johns.

There are not many of them and in any case the pieces of land involved are all small. The majority of the farmers concerned are living outside the Transkei [Interjections.] We are going to be dealing with a few thousand farmers, as far as the total purchasing programme in South Africa is concerned, but the number situated within the Transkei does not constitute a significant percentage of them. Those who are involved in the consolidation of the Transkei will initially not fall within the area of jurisdiction of the Transkei. I am referring now to the farmers who border on the Transkei, in the constituencies of the hon. member for Aliwal and of Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked whether this was a long-term policy. Our point of departure is that this measure will be implemented as long as we are engaged in purchases, in other words, until the programme has been finalized.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated during the Second Reading that the amount that is contemplated at this stage is approximately R2 million per annum. This clause does not place any limitation on the amount that can be spent. In fact, in terms of this clause any amount can be spent. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to give some form of undertaking that he will inform Parliament annually as to the amounts that will be involved in respect of this kind of activity?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for us at this stage to furnish additional guarantees. The amounts concerned will be indicated in the annual report of the Land Bank, which is tabled in Parliament annually.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to deal with one aspect of this matter. It is quite clear that the bank is now given powers to raise money far beyond what is said will be advanced annually. Therefore it is important that one should have a degree of control in respect of this matter. The mere release of the Land Bank annual report does not constitute control. The tragedy is that this is to be a method of financing the Bantu Trust without the sanction of Parliament, because nothing needs to be done by this Parliament in respect of any advances by the Land Bank once this Bill has been passed. As we have indicated, we support the Bill, but we do it with grave misgivings and only because of an emergency situation which exists and in order to allow justice to be done to people. However, we lose control over the question of voting funds here in Parliament, because money can now be given to the Bantu Trust by the Land Bank without any control by Parliament. Therefore these are matters which will have to be carefully watched in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the hon. member is wresting things out of context a little. In the first place, the Land Bank is being restricted by this legislation and it cannot lend an unlimited amount of money to the S.A. Bantu Trust. It can only lend money to the Bantu Trust if it has a mortgage bond on land to be purchased by the Trust. This is stated in clause 2 of the Bill. From the condition which is laid down there, it is quite clear that the Land Bank can only transfer existing mortgage bonds to the Trust. The Land Bank is unable to operate outside those limits. This has been laid down as a condition in the Bill that the Land Bank is not allowed to exceed these limits, because the mortgage bonds which are now taken over by the Trust are mortgage bonds which are already in existence.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it is clear that what is at issue here, is not money the Land Bank has to find somewhere in order to lend it to the Trust It concerns money which the Land Bank has lent farmers in the past. All that is happening now, is that the farmer is not going to be the future debtor any longer, but the S.A. Bantu Trust. The Land Bank is not allowed to exceed those limits. If the hon. member really wants to do me a favour he should—in the absence of the hon. the Minister of Finance—move an amendment in terms of which the Land Bank is allowed to go beyond its present limit and lend even more money to the Bantu Trust. I would have considered such an amendment favourably … [Interjections.] Apparently the hon. member does not want to do something of this nature.

The Land Bank is being curtailed and may only transfer existing mortgage bonds to the Bantu Trust To my mind the whole system provides that the Land Bank is not allowed to go beyond the limits which have been laid down.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Trust may, in terms of section 10 of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, acquire land, and up to the present such land has been acquired for cash. Hon. members will recall that the hon. the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget Speech that it had been decided that the Trust may take over existing mortgage bonds on property purchased, and that the Trust may negotiate with the owners of property for payment to be made by instalments over a period of time.

A scheme is being devised in terms of which land may be purchased by deferred payment, and an attempt is being made, on the one hand, to make the scheme more attractive for the purchaser, and, on the other, acceptable to the mortgagee of the land concerned, in such a way that the Trust will still be able to carry out the obligations under the scheme.

One of the obstacles in the application of such a scheme is that the Trust has to be authorised to acquire land by methods other than by cash purchase, and to make the necessary arrangements in respect of such other methods of acquisition. In this way it is now being arranged, through clause 1 of this Bill, that the Trust may furnish a promissory note in respect of that portion of the purchase price which is not paid immediately. The Trust will also, in terms of the amendment, be able to take over the liabilities of owners, for example, liabilities under mortgage bonds, which virtually means that the Trust is raising a loan from the mortgagee to the amount of the mortgage bond so that the land may be transferred free of hypothecation to the Trust, and so that the Trust may furnish a promissory note in respect of the loan.

Some of the properties which will be purchased by the Trust have been mortgaged in favour of Government bodies, of which the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is an example. The funds which the latter department collects in respect of such mortgage bonds, accrue to the Exchequer, and if it has to be paid by the Trust, the money for such payment has to be obtained from the Exchequer and to avoid unnecessary cumbrousness, it is being arranged that the interests of the State in such land become the interests of the Trust upon purchase by the Trust.

Clause 2 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this Bill will meet with support in this House.

Mr. Speaker, like its predecessor, this Bill comes as a direct result of the embarrassing position in which the Government finds itself in attempting to carry out its impractical policies. The Government also finds itself in difficulty because of its failure to assess correctly the funds which would be available to it in carrying out this policy. They set out to buy large tracts of land for inclusion in the Bantustans. When the proposal was discussed in this House last year, we pointed out that the Government could not hope to carry out that policy within a reasonable time, not even in 25 years. Because we knew that there would be hardships caused to the farmers who would be affected by the proposals, and knowing that the Government would not have the wherewithal to buy the farms, we suggested that the Government should make available negotiable instruments to the sellers to enable the Government to buy on the instalment plan and to give instruments which are redeemable over a period of time. We also insisted that in those negotiable instruments provision should be made for depreciation of currency, because with the dismal record of this Government, we could expect devaluation at any time. Any instrument which was redeemable over a period of years should provide for that occurrence. Also we wanted to make quite certain that a satisfactory rate of interest would be applied to the instrument. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given us no information at all in his introductory speech as to what is actually envisaged by this Bill. We know that the trust will be authorized to buy and to pay by giving promissory notes, to incur a debt and to borrow money to pay such debts. When the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced his budget we were relieved to see that he had made provision, or had himself foreseen, that there would be difficulties and had appointed an interdepartmental committee to advise him on how to meet the situation. He said that he had accepted two recommendations. The one was to take over bonds, as is provided for in the Bill which we have just passed, viz. the Land Bank Bill, and also to buy on the instalment plan. We would like to know something about this instalment plan. What is envisaged? Over what period will the instalments be paid? Will it be over a long period, and will the interest payable on the promissory notes mentioned in this Bill be capitalized? Will the seller then receive a promissory note with the interest capitalized so that he can negotiate for the payment of the promissory note? We want much more detail than the hon. the Deputy Minister has given us. He has left us up in the air. We do not know what is envisaged.

In the previous Bill authorizing the Land Bank to take bonds from the trust there is a provision that the repayment of money advanced and the payment of interest thereon shall be deemed to be guaranteed by the Government. In dealing with the Land Bank it was found necessary to hold the Government responsible. The Government itself took on the responsibility to the Land Bank for the repayment of these loans. There is no similar provision in the Bill we are dealing with at the moment. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why it was thought necessary to do it in the case of the Land Bank and why it is not necessary now to make the Government liable on behalf of the trust should the trust not be able to fulfil any of the obligations which it is now authorized to undertake.

When the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was discussed in this House I asked him if the instalment plan in respect of acquisition of property would apply to the Transkei. He replied in the negative. He said it would not apply.

No.

Yes, the hon. the Minister said no. He said that it would not apply to the Transkei.

He said there were only a few farms in the Transkei …

I am referring to the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and not to the discussion of the last Bill. The hon. the Minister’s answer was that this would not apply to the Transkei. That is very serious position for the Transkei, because only R3½ million have been set aside for the acquisition of property.

In a letter which the hon. the Prime Minister wrote to the White Citizens’ Association of the Transkei, a copy of which I received from the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, there is an indication that other methods will be considered of augmenting this R3½ million which has been set aside for the Transkei. Now I wonder whether this scheme, provided for in the Bill, will apply to the Transkei as well. Will the trust be able to buy trading stations and properties in the towns of the Transkei and to issue the promissory notes which are provided for in the Bill? I ask this question especially because of the position of the Whites in the Transkei, especially the people down at Port St. Johns. Incidentally, I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that there are many more farms in the Transkei than the two he spoke of. Which two farms was he speaking of? Down at Port St. Johns there are many more than two farms; there must be at least 20, even more. These farmers will also have to be bought out. If they are bonded to the Land Bank, they will be covered by the previous Bill. However, if they are not bonded to the Land Bank, I want the assurance that they will fall under the provisions of this Bill we are dealing with now and that the Transkei will be assisted.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some details in his reply as to what is envisaged, how the scheme is to work, what the instalment plan is and, as I have said, in what way the persons who accept negotiable instruments from the trust will be protected by the Government. We will support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, with this legislation a new financing method is being created, i.e. the creation of promissory notes. Naturally the matter has been discussed in full with the Treasury. However, there is one matter I want to raise, a matter which I think ought to receive attention, if this is not already being done. The farmers who are affected by this are not voluntary sellers in all cases. They are selling their farms in terms of the provisions of the consolidation plan for the Bantu homelands. I want to refer to the fact that estates may be affected by this in certain cases. In a case in which a farmer dies, his farm is assessed for estate purposes at the Land Bank valuation. Such Land Bank valuations are in many cases less than the normal market value. It is farmers who are frequently very hard hit by estate duty. If farmers hold Land Bank securities they may cause R70 000 of those securities to be exempted from estate duty. Cannot the Bantu Trust negotiate with the Treasury for R70 000 of these promissory notes to be exempted from estate duty as well? I am asking this precisely because the farms were not sold voluntarily and because the purchase price, or the agreed price, is closer to the market value than the normal Land Bank valuations. This could certainly affect the farmers’ estate duty, and could cause them to have to pay considerably more than they would have done under normal circumstances. Since these are promissory notes or Government securities or instruments of debt which are being lent by the farmer to the State, I want to know whether similar conditions cannot be applied, for example, a normal loan regardless of whether it is Government securities or Land Bank securities, and that R70 000 exempted from estate duty. It will also entail that older farmers who no longer want to farm will not insist on rapid repayment of the promissory notes. They will rather be prepared to give the Bantu Trust a longer term loan if there are other conditions attached to it. I am addressing this request to the hon. the Deputy Minister for something which, in the nature of things, can only receive attention in the Budget next year. The actual practical implementation of this measure will only take place next year. This is one of the aspects in regard to which there could be further negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of this piece of legislation, but here too we do so with some degree of misgiving. There are a number of questions that I should immediately like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I hope he will be able to deal with them. In the first place, I want to know why the Bill is limited to promissory notes. Why has the medium of a promissory note been chosen? I have some grave difficulty with that, because a promissory note is—as the hon. the Deputy Minister will know—only one example of negotiable instruments and now, for some reason, we are limiting ourselves to this. Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister—I have raised this matter in the debate about the Land Bank Amendment Bill, but the hon. the Minister did not reply then—why we have not created a Government security which could rank as a prescribed asset for financial institutions. If one does that, one will enable the farmer to have an instrument which he can far more readily sell at a reasonable market price. In any case, if it were in the form of a Government security which could be dealt with on the market, which could be dealt with in the ordinary course, then it would be easier for the farmer to obtain his cash, to take very much longer terms which would be less of an embarrassment to the Government and yet he can negotiate it and can get his money as and when he wants it. You have a situation here that when you issue promissory notes, you presumably issue those promissory notes for what are relatively short periods of time. You are not going to have the sort of period of time that you would have in the case of Government stock. I really cannot understand why we are limiting ourselves to this. The difficulty is that this is like the short-term loans of last year. I cannot understand why one gets oneself into a short-term situation like this. One only uses promissory notes in the ordinary course of events for short-term situations. I think this does need explanation, because it does seem to be a very strange way in which to deal with this position.

I asked earlier why the Bantu Trust does not in fact issue loan stock and have it dealt with in the same way as in the case of the urban Bantu authorities. Why do we not change the law and let them do it in this form? If that is not acceptable, why does the Government then not make stock available to the Bantu Trust so that the Bantu Trust can issue Government stock in the ordinary course? While the whole concept of bringing promissory notes into this type of transaction solves a problem in so far as the farmer is concerned, it certainly also creates a problem in so far as the authorities are concerned.

Then, Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is intended that this concept which is contained in this amending legislation should be used and made available for all actions by the Bantu Trust In other words, will this be applicable only in the case of the Transkei and the areas adjacent to it, or will this same principle be applied when we deal with any other homeland, whether it is close to independence or not? Is it going to apply to all purchases? If it is, the unfortunate situation that arises is that the Bantu Trust will not be able ro resist demands to have matters finalized, because every person who wants to have his farm bought out will say: “You can give me a promissory note. ” It is then not an answer to say that there is no money in the estimates this year. There will therefore be increasing pressure put on the Government to buy farms out and to issue promissory notes, and what worries me is that a very substantial market is going to be created in promissory notes, because they are obviously going to be negotiable. I think that the government, in doing this, is creating a problem for itself. The logical way to deal with this is in fact through the medium of Government stock, which should be made available to the farmer. This is the very point to which the hon. member for Klip River referred, and I think it is a legitimate point. This would then be covered because the estate duty exemption would then apply in these circumstances in the case of Government stock. The hon. the Deputy Minister is obviously in some difficulty here because the hon. the Minister of Finance is not here, and these are really matters which have serious financial implications. I would therefore ask him, if he is not able to deal with these points, at least to give attention to them before this legislation goes to the Other Place so that he can discuss them with the Minister of Finance. If necessary, something more satisfactory can then be brought back to us.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that in spite of the fact that the support of the hon. member for Yeoville for this legislation was reluctant, he did, nevertheless, express a few good ideas. In the first place, the hon. member asked why the legislation only made provision for promissory notes. The reason for that is that the Act need not be amended in the case of Government securities. That is why this amending legislation only deals with the question of promissory notes. I also want to refer to something to which I perhaps did not refer earlier. Apart from the decisions the Government has taken to expedite the purchasing programme, it has also decided to establish a permanent interdepartmental committee to investigate measures such as these from time to time. Instructions have also been given to this committee to investigate the question of Government securities. The committee arrived at the conclusion that in the case of promissory notes an amendment of the Bantu Trust and Land Act was necessary, while in the case of Government securities no additional amendment was required. I can only say that the matter of Government securities is in fact being investigated.

Secondly, the hon. member asked why the Government did not create an instrument in regard to financial institutions, an instrument which could then be considered to be the compulsory investment which they have to make in the form of Government securities. This is one of the aspects which we have referred to the interdepartmental committee for investigation, for in our negotiations with several financial institutions on what their reaction would be if and whether we would be able to take over the mortgage bonds which they have over the farms of farmers, at the statutory rate of interest, those bodies indicated that if this promissory note could be considered to be a compulsory investment, they foresaw no problems. This is a matter which has been brought to the attention of this interdepartmental committee and which they are already investigating. I have already said that the question of Government securities is being investigated, and that Government securities are negotiable. This is the major advantage here, i.e. that if the farmer receives Government securities, he may negotiate them while the debentures will not be negotiable. But it will in fact be a form of security. A person will be able to use it to cede to a person from whom he purchases land. However, he will not be able to negotiate it.

The hon. member asked whether this would apply to all transactions of the S.A. Bantu Trust, and not only in the Transkei. As I have said in the case of the Land Bank, the idea is to implement these measures whenever and wherever they are necessary, until such time as the purchasing programme has been finalized, outside the Transkei as well. The hon. member said that it would cause tremendous pressure. The fact of the matter is that one cannot distribute debentures or Government securities, or whatever they may be, to an unlimited extent, for it places an obligation on the Exchequer at some time in the future, and for that reason a limitation has to be placed on the quantity of land which may be purchased by way of debentures or by way of any other instrument which is created in respect of the liability which it places upon the Exchequer in future. Therefore the Treasury and the Minister of Finance will have to give us an indication every year of how much land may be bought on credit in a specific year so that we do not in future commit the Treasury to such an extent that it is saddled with a liability which it cannot meet.

How much is there for this year?

It is in the final stage of investigation. We shall soon know.

I come now to the hon. member for Klip River. I think that what he suggested was a good idea. However, it is not for me to decide about it. As the hon. member said, it will first require an appropriation. But I undertake to bring that idea to the attention of the interdepartmental committee which is instituting an investigation into this matter, with the request that they investigate the possibility of exempting 70% of these debentures, or up to an amount of R70 000, from estate duty. This would be an encouraging factor. I shall bring it to their attention.

As far as the hon. member for Griqualand East is concerned, I want to begin with what he said, i.e. that we are in trouble, and that they said that we would not complete this programme in 25 years’ time, and that the fact that we are now coming forward with measures of this nature proves how correct they were. Sir, the hon. member initially said “not within the foreseeable future”. Then I wondered what “within the foreseeable future” meant, how many years it would be. When the hon. member came to this Bill, he said 25 years. If the impression has been created among the public, among those people who are involved, that this land will all have been purchased within a year or two, it was not this Government that created that impression. I would rather say that it was some members of the opposite side who did not understand these things correctly and then created that kind of impression among those people. The point of departure of the Government has, from the beginning, been that this programme should be disposed of within a period of not longer than 10 years.

It is 1976 already.

The measures we are now adopting enable us, in view of the fact that the appropriation from the Exchequor for this year is less than we foresaw it would be last year, to purchase a larger amount of land by means of these additional measures than the appropriation provided. The hon. member asked me how long the terms were going to be, what the interest rates would be, and so on. All I can tell him is that the interest rates will be statutory interest rates. However, I cannot at this stage furnish him with a reply in regard to the terms, because the investigation by this inter-departmental committee to which I referred is in its final phases and because there are also future financial obligations attached to this. In addition the matter still has to be approved by the Treasury. Therefore I cannot give him an indication of what the terms will be.

If he were to read my Second Reading Speech again, he would see that I said that the terms should be such that they are acceptable to the seller. It is of no avail our going to the seller with an offer which is not acceptable to him. It has to be a fair offer which will be acceptable to him. In other words, a cash amount has to be paid. We can take over the person’s mortgage bonds, and for the rest furnish him with debentures. If it is recommended that Government securities may be used, we may make use of them as well.

The hon. member also said that the hon. the Minister stated during the Budget debate that this would not be applicable to the Transkei. The hon. member did in fact state at that stage that it would not be applicable to the Transkei. At that stage it was in reality not applicable yet to any area, because we had not yet implemented the system. I do not know whether the hon. member has convinced the hon. the Minister in the meantime, but the hon. the Minister decided that we could implement the system in the Transkei as well, where the adjustment committee is making purchases in the towns, because it can only have a favourable effect in the sense that the purchases will be expedited. Consequently it is being considered.

However, I repeat that an investigation has to be instituted. The procedure here differs from the procedure in the case of farms. In respect of farms one is dealing with relatively large amounts, but when it comes to a person who sells a house which is worth approximately R20 000, we have to establish whether the property may be purchased by means of deferred payments. It has to be decided whether a minimum amount should not be laid down. In other words, we are purchasing by means of deferred payment, on the understanding that the minimum amount which the seller receives is not less than R20 000, so that he may in turn establish himself elsewhere. If an amount of only R6 000 or R8 000 in cash is paid out to him, he might not be able to find his feet again. We are therefore considering laying down a minimum cash amount.

I come now to the question of the farms in the Transkei. The hon. member said there were many. However, Port St. Johns only covers an area of nine square miles. Those properties consist of smallholdings, not farms.

They are not smallholdings.

Yes, they are smallholdings. Most of those properties are smallholdings, and we all know that the Land Bank only offers financing in respect of farms when such farms are economic farming units. In other words, the Land Bank is not involved in those smallholdings.

Tell the farmers that they are not farmers.

Surely every farmer who farms on a smallholding knows that he cannot obtain a loan from the Land Bank. [Interjections.] However, if the person has obtained a loan from a building society or a commercial bank we will also have to take it over, not so? There is no discrimination. The hon. member raised the matter when we were discussing the Land Bank legislation, and I stated there that there would be very few people in the Transkei with land in respect of which the Land Bank had granted loans. The people who live in the towns, the people who are not farmers, will not fall under the Land Bank. Smallholdings will not fall under the Land Bank either. Perhaps the few farmers who are still established in the Transkei might still have land which will be encumbered by the Land Bank. We shall take this over. We shall also take over the mortgage bonds or covering bonds of other bodies.

Why does the Government guarantee the Land Bank and not these other people?

Perhaps I am being unfair now when I say that the hon. member is being unfair. The mortgage bond which the owner has at present will be cancelled. The Land Bank will not again register a mortgage bond on the land purchased by the Bantu Trust. We can furnish the Land Bank with a debenture, and then we do not require any further guarantees. However, the Land Bank informed us that it would cause a tremendous amount of administrative work and consequently it would prefer us to give it only one total guarantee. If we take over mortgage bonds to the amount of R2 million, we need not furnish a debenture in respect of each farmer from whom we have taken over land, we need only furnish a guarantee that the R2 million which has been taken over is guaranteed by the Government. Therefore no other guarantee is necessary. In the case of the farmer we furnish him with a debenture, and that is a guarantee from the Government. We shall not furnish the Land Bank with a debenture every time, it will only receive a guarantee for the total amount. In the case of the individual farmer, however, it is true that he will receive a debenture which is then the guarantee.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one point which arises out of the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the Second Reading debate. He referred to the question of promissory notes and as I understood him, he said—

This troubled me and it still troubles me because I have always understood that promissory notes are negotiable.

Not in this case.

Well, that is what is worrying me. I think this is something about which the farmers are a little bit misled. If the promissory note referred to in the Bill is not negotiable, it is not a promissory note and then I think this piece of legislation is hoodwinking the farmers. One cannot say to a farmer that one is giving him a promissory note, because when he wants to buy another farm he can do nothing with that piece of paper as it is not negotiable. That is not a promissory note in terms of the bills of exchange legislation. If the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind to hand to the farmer such a promissory note, then what he is really doing is to give a non-negotiable acknowledgment of debt to the farmer. I do not know whether the hon. member for Griqualand East understood it to be a non-negotiable instrument of debt, but I certainly did not. We have all learnt that a promissory note is a negotiable instrument.

The farmers know that too.

Under these circumstances I must regretfully move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 9, after “note” to insert “or other negotiable instrument”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 14, after “note” to insert “or other negotiable instrument”.

This amendment will make it clear that what is contemplated is not necessarily a promissory note or a bill of exchange in any form, but that it is negotiable and that the farmer’s ability to deal with it when he gets it is not restricted.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary to accept the amendment of the hon. member for the simple reason that, as I explained to him a little while ago, a negotiable instrument such as a Government security may be used, and that it is not necessary to amend the Bantu Trust and Land Act for that purpose. There are other methods by means of which this may be implemented. What is more, negotiable instruments such as Government securities are at present being investigated.

As far as the negotiability of debentures is concerned, I want to say that these are not, as in the case of Government securities, something which may, for example, be sold on the stock exchange. However, they serve as security. If the hon. member, after he has sold his farm and received a debenture, wants to buy my farm, he may make over the debenture to me and pay the outstanding cash amount. In other words, the debenture has the same effect.

It is a negotiable security.

No, he cannot go to the Stock Exchange with the debenture, but he is in fact able to use it as security and I think he is also able, depending on the conditions which are negotiated, to sell it privately to another person. However, it is not like Government securities which one may give to a broker to sell on the Stock Exchange so that one may obtain an income from it. But as I have said, because we are also investigating negotiable instruments, it is not necessary to insert the amendments moved by the hon. member. We do not require an amendment to implement what is being advocated by the hon. member in his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say I cannot agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister at all. This Bill has, in fact, been drafted badly. The Afrikaans version refers to “skuldbewys”, and the English version should obviously have read “an acknowledgment of debt”. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that all they are giving is an acknowledgment of debt, and not a promissory note, as is stated in the English text. A promissory note has always been regarded as a negotiable instrument.

Of course it will be a negotiable instrument.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has just said that it would not be negotiable. He said it would be a condition of this acknowledgment of debt that it would not be negotiable. He said one would not be able to use it on the Stock Exchange. Well, no one intended that, but what about a bank? Could I take it into a bank?

Yes.

In that case it is negotiable. I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister says it is not negotiable. If he now agrees that it is negotiable, why can he not accept this amendment to ensure that the instrument referred to in the Bill will be negotiable?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Griqualand East has drawn attention to what I think is another fault and another reason why we cannot allow this to pass. I think it strengthens the need for my amendment. Let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who is an Afrikaans linguist, to tell us across the floor of the House what the Afrikaans translation is of “promissory note”. I was taught that it is “promesse” and that “acknowledgment of debt” is “skuldbewys”. Am I right?

It seem to be so.

He said “yes”.

Quite. Therefore the hon. member for Griqualand East is absolutely right. An acknowledgment of debt is not negotiable, but is capable of cession. Every lawyer in this House will be able to confirm that there is a very big difference between a negotiable instrument and an acknowledgment of debt which can merely be ceded.

Both can be ceded.

That is the point. Both can be ceded, but only one is negotiable. The hon. member knows that. That is the essential difference. If, when this piece of legislation is eventually passed, the Afrikaans text is signed, it will mean that the instrument concerned is not a negotiable instrument, while if the English text is signed, it will be doubtful as to what is meant.

What is the purpose of it?

What is the purpose of what?

What is the purpose of your asking this House to … [Interjections.]

This is the whole point and I believe that the hon. member for Griqualand East is quite right: We have before us a slapdash piece of legislation which is not even drafted the same way in English and in Afrikaans and we are being asked to allow the farmers to be given a piece of paper which is going to turn out not to be a negotiable instrument … [Interjections.] We have had no answer on this. If the hon. the Deputy Minister means that he wants to give the farmers promissory notes which can be negotiated … and the term “negotiated” does not mean “dealt with on the Stock Exchange”, because that is a different thing altogether. It means that one can to go to any bank, any institution, to any other person, and negotiate it—not cede it, but negotiate it—so that he accepts it without any equities attaching to it. That is what is wanted. If that is so, there is can be no objection to the acceptance of the amendment. I do not believe that this piece of legislation can be passed with two different meanings attaching to the same word.

Mr. Chairman, I promise the hon. member that I shall investigate this matter. The translation was made by the departmental translators, and I assume that they are not financial experts, but language experts. Consequently I undertake to refer this matter back to the law advisers and, if the translation should appear to be incorrect, to ensure that it is rectified when the Bill is discussed in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: In view of the fact that we may not move that progress be reported, is he prepared to do it and then continue with the Committee Stage on Monday?

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to do it.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to do that we must go ahead with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why he is not prepared to ask for an adjournment of the debate now so that we can resume on Monday after he has taken the matter up with his legal advisers?

Mr. Chairman, there is no need to waste time. We can decide this matter right now. I have already said what I am prepared to do, and if the wording is not correct, we shall rectify it in the Other Place. In my opinion it would serve no purpose to adjourn the debate at this stage.

My difficulty is that the hon. the Deputy Minister says: “We shall rectify it in the Other Place.” Is he, however, going to take the English version or the Afrikaans version? Which version is he going to take? We accept the English version; we have no difficulty with the definition of “a promissory note”. But, we do not accept the Afrikaans version. If the hon. the Deputy Minister accepts the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville to insert “a negotiable instrument”, we shall accept the Afrikaans version as well. We cannot, however, agree to having it rectified in the Other Place if we do not know how it is going to be rectified. If the hon. the Deputy Minister can assure us that he is going to rectify it by seeing to it that the instrument is a negotiable instrument, we shall support it.

As far as I am concerned, the hon. member may proceed with his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to inconvenience the Committee and I do not want to fall with the old adage of “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”. However, I would like to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister should be aware of the fact that there are very important technical differences between the two versions of the clause in the two official languages, as has been pointed out by various hon. members who have spoken on it. The hon. the Deputy Minister must also remember that this is one of the most technical aspects of our legal system, the question of negotiable instruments. One cannot lightly accept a mere viewpoint expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister saying he is not sure whether the instrument is going to be a negotiable instrument or not. I believe the farmers are entitled to some sort of protection here, because in the previous Bill the Land Bank was given a guarantee. I fail to see why the Land Bank, because of its own technicalities, should be entitled to a guarantee whereas the farmer who is to be enabled by this bit of legislation to purchase another farm or to pursue some other occupation—so that he does not need to wait five or ten or fifteen years before being able to make use of the moneys which are payable in terms of the expropriation—should not at least have the opportunity of having the guarantee of some form of negotiable instrument. As has been correctly pointed out, there is a very big difference between an acknowledgment of debt and a negotiable instrument as represented by a promissory note.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may not perhaps be aware of the important difference that is technically involved here. Under these circumstances I think that I could give him a precedent of a very much more eminent member of this House in the past who did move that progress be reported and that leave be requested to sit again on a very similar issue. The matter came to the House the next day and was cleared up. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister should take into account the technical significance which is involved here and do something about it.

Mr. Chairman, I think the Opposition is confusing “negotiable” and “exchangeable”. They are dragging a red herring across the floor of this House. The principle has already been laid down. We do not have the money at the moment, and now one is able to take this certificate and sell it. It is negotiable. You can sell it to a person and get your money in time. The difference between exchangeability and negotiability is what is important now. It is transferable.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to tell the hon. member for Jeppe that, in regard the question which he mentioned, i.e. why the Land Bank is being guaranteed and not the farmer, he should consider clause 2. He will then see that no mention is made of a promissory note. It is simply stated that this amount is considered to have been guaranteed by the Government. In other words, no promissory note or anything is handed over to the Land Bank. It is considered to be guaranteed by the Government. The Land Bank Act requires a guarantee or security. In the case of the farmer, we are giving him a promissory note from the Government. What better guarantee does he want? If the Government gives a person a promissory note which states that the Government owes him X amount, surely it is a guarantee that the Government will pay the money. What more does he want than that? We are not going to give the Land Bank a document, a promissory note, as in the case of the farmer; we are only going to guarantee the total amount.

When we come to the question of terminology, I want to tell hon. members that I do not accept their amendment here. For our purposes the wording as it reads at present is the correct wording. But I undertake, nevertheless, to refer it to the law advisers again, although I have no doubt that it is in fact correct. The difference is that the hon. members want an instrument which is negotiable, in the sense that a person may go to a share broker, or may come back to us. This will not be the case. As the Bill reads there is nothing to prevent a person, if he wants to go to a commercial bank, or to the hon. member, from doing business with the document he has in his hand. With that I content myself. It is not necessary to delay the Committee any further in this regard.

Amendment (1) put and the Committee divided:

AYES—30: Aronson, T.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T; Hughes, T. G.; 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.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. de Villiers and R. J. Lorimer.

NOES—82: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Cronje, P.; 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.; Du Toil, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; 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, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; 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.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Amendment negatived, and amendment (2) dropped.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the late forties the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa, with which eight teachers’ associations were affiliated at that stage, decided to endeavour, by way of legislation, to have a registration council for teachers established.

However, the attempt on the part of the Federal Council miscarried, and it was only in 1963 that the council placed the matter on its agenda again. During that year the then National Advisory Education Council also communicated with the Federal Council in regard to this matter, and at the end of 1964 the Federal Council submitted a draft Bill to the said Education Council, after which interested bodies were consulted. After much deliberation and consideration of the comment passed on the idea of a teachers’ council, however, the then National Advisory Education Council decided in 1967 to suspend the consideration of the establishment of a teachers’ or registration council for the time being.

In 1969, during the Second Reading debate on the National Education Policy Amendment Bill, a former Minister expressed himself strongly in favour of a registration council for teachers, and stated that the first instruction to the new National Education Council would be to investigate the possibility of a registration council for teachers. Consequently the National Education Council set about this task early in 1970, and by the end of 1972, after consultation with the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, and the Committee of Heads of Education, a draft Bill was submitted to my predecessor. After that the necessary consultation with the Administrators took place. In the nature of things further consultation with the organized teaching profession had to take place with reference to the comment of the provinces, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to say that there was at all times the closest and most cordial co-operation between myself as the Minister, the department, the provincial education departments concerned and the organized teaching profession on the finalizing of the Bill after so many years. If the principle contained in the Bill is amended at this stage, it may perhaps not enjoy the full support of the teaching profession and/or the provincial education departments, and I am at this early stage, during the Second Reading, asking the hon. members for an understanding of this standpoint.

Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites will be the realization of an ideal of the White teachers in the Republic to have a statutory body of their own in order to uphold and to promote esteem for education and the teaching profession and the prestige of those who are engaged in the teaching profession. With this principle in mind it is being provided in clause 4(1)(b) of the Bill that each Administrator shall appoint one teacher only as member of the council, while the Minister himself shall appoint one additional person to the council. The majority of the members of the council will therefore be elected by the twelve associations mentioned in the First Schedule to the Bill, on the numerical basis as set out in the Second schedule. According to the present numbers there will be 21 elected members on the council.

†Mr. Speaker, it will be a function of the Teachers’ Council to register all teachers at present employed in a full-time permanent capacity at a school, as defined in the Bill, as well as to register all teachers who in future will be employed in such capacity. At this stage I must point out that the definition of a school does not include private schools which are not subsidized by my department or a provincial administration whereas educational institutions for non-Whites where full-time education, including pre-primary education, is given by Whites up to a standard not higher than Std. 10, are included in the definition. However, these matters will be dealt with in more detail later on.

Persons who do not possess the necessary professional teachers’ qualifications but who are appointed by a head of education in a full-time permanent capacity in a post approved by the Committee of Heads of Education, will be registered provisionally by the council. Provision is made in clause 20(1) that from a date determined by the Minister by notice in the Gazette, no person, who is not registered or provisionally registered, may be appointed in a full-time permanent capacity at a school to teach or teach at school in such capacity. A contravention of this stipulation will be punishable and on conviction a person will be liable to a fine not exceeding R100 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or to both such a fine and imprisonment.

A further task of the Teachers’ Council will be to compile a professional code of conduct with the concurrence of the Committee of Heads of Education. It is expected that this code will mainly deal with ethical standards whereas discipline in administrative matters will remain a function of the educational authorities. An investigation into the functions of a similar body in Scotland revealed that such demarcation is possible and that it works well. The Teachers’ Council will have to watch over the interests of the teaching profession as far as this code of conduct is concerned and will be empowered to inquire or cause an inquiry to be instituted into a complaint, charge or allegation of a contravention of the professional code of conduct against a registered or provisionally registered person. If such a person is found guilty by the council it will have the power to impose any of the following penalties:

1. (i) a reprimand or caution or a reprimand and a caution;
2. (ii) a fine not exceeding R50; and
3. (iii) the striking off the register of the name of the guilty person—should this person be employed at a school the striking off the register of his name will be done in consultation with the head of education concerned.

The council will also be empowered to refuse to register or provisionally register any person if, in the opinion of the council, such person is, on the ground of the circumstances connected with his conviction of any offence or of any contravention of the professional code of conduct, unfit to teach. Another very important function of the council will be to advise the Committee of Heads of Education in connection with the requirements for the training of persons to teach at a school and the requirements for admission to a course for such training. It is of course the right of any person to appeal to a court of law should he feel aggrieved by an action of the council. Provision is therefore made in clause 24 that any person who feels aggrieved by the council’s refusal to register him, or to enter in respect of him a professional teachers’ qualification in the register, or the striking off the register of his name or of any professional teacher’s qualification entered in respect of him in the register, may appeal to the provincial division of the Supreme Court of South Africa having jurisdiction in the area in which the appellant usually resides. In such a case the court may, if in its opinion the council did not act in accordance with the provisions of the Act, order that the appellant’s name or qualification be entered in the register, or the court may remit the matter to the council for further consideration and make such order as to costs as it may deem just.

*I must point out that the Bill, in accordance with the definition therein of “school”, does not provide that teachers employed at private schools which are not subsidized by my department or a provincial administration, are required to register with the Teachers’ Council. The teachers’ associations which exist at these private schools will not have representation on the Council either. The reason for this is that in certain cases non-subsidized private schools, which do not fall under the provisions of the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967, make use of the services of persons who are not in possession of professional teachers’ qualifications as defined in the Bill. In addition they recruit teachers abroad whose qualifications do not comply with the criteria approved by the Committee of Heads of Education. If teachers employed by non-subsidized private schools were therefore to be required to register with the Teachers’ Council, these schools would no longer be able to employ teachers with qualifications not approved by the aforesaid committee in a full-time permanent capacity. Those who do, however, possess the necessary qualifications, may register with the council on a voluntary basis and even become members of the associations mentioned in the First Schedule, in which case they will be able to participate in elections and in that way also obtain a say in the constitution of the council. I hope that this position is clearly understood. We have gone out of our way to quite a considerable extent to accommodate the private schools in this way. I can mention that an association of principals of private schools encourages their teachers to join the associations mentioned in the First Schedule.

The Bill does provide that White teachers who are employed in a full-time permanent capacity by the Department of Bantu Education, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations and the Administration of Coloured Affairs, shall register with the Council. These teachers, with the exception of those in the employ of the Department of Indian Affairs, will also be represented on the Teachers’ Council on an association basis. However, there is no separate association for White teachers who are employed by the Department of Indian Affairs. In any event, their numbers are so small that they will not be able to have representation on the Council in accordance with the numerical basis, as mentioned in the Second Schedule. Since this council will be for White teachers only, it is being provided in clause 18(g) that it will be able to co-operate with any other councils or institutions whose objects or purposes are similar to those of the council, that is, also with such bodies which may perhaps, at some time or other, be established for the non-White peoples. To eliminate any possible misunderstanding, I just want to say that this is a teachers’ council for Whites. Provision is, however, being made in this Bill in clause 18(g) for the fact that similar teachers’ councils for the other population groups may be established, and that this council may be able to co-operate with the other councils in an overall capacity.

As far as the financial implications of the Bill are concerned, it is the object that the council shall be financially self-supporting so that it will be able to carry out its functions without outside interference. Although it is being provided in clause 12(1)(c) that Parliament may appropriate moneys for achieving the objects of the Council, the indications are that the council will receive sufficient revenue out of its own resources to be able to function without such assistance. The main source of revenue will be the annual fees which registered or provisionally registered persons have to pay and which will be prescribed by regulation. However, the State will make a contribution by making available an amount of money to the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in the Republic of South Africa and the Territory of South West Africa to finance the first election. In order to ensure the independence of the council, the council shall appoint a person of its choice as registrar as well as the other employees who are deemed necessary, in accordance with the conditions, scale of remuneration and other benefits of service which it approves.

When the first Teachers’ Council has been constituted, a considerable period of time will elapse before it receives funds from its own resources. In order to have funds available for the repayment of capital and current expenditure, the council, in terms of clause 12(1)(d) will be able to raise loans with the approval of the Minister, the repayment of which may be guaranteed by the Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Finance.

As far as I am aware there is a teachers’ council in Scotland. In general it may be accepted that this is pioneering legislation and the years will have to prove, as the council finds its own way, what adjustments will have to be made to the Act.

I wish to express the hope that this Bill will come up to expectations, viz. to help the teaching profession in the RSA to assume its rightful place in our national economy, and to confer the necessary status upon teachers and the teaching profession in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that although we in the UP cannot give the hon. the Minister an “A” symbol for his Bill, we shall nevertheless be supporting the Second Reading. Without disclosing the exact mark the hon. the Minister obtained, I can reveal that he has at least obtained a pass mark. In school language this could mean anything from 33⅓% upwards. I shall, however, return to this matter later in my speech.

I made the above statement because this Bill falls short, in many respects, of the high expectations a large number of people had for it. This legislation confers statutory professional status on teachers, and I refer to “statutory professional status” because, as far as I am concerned, teachers have always had professional status as such. That status, however, was never given statutory status. Through the establishment of a teachers’ council, this legislation confers such status, and this is something that has, of course, been awaited for a very long time. I think the hon. the Minister also referred to the fact that teachers have been negotiating for this for decades. In Parliament we in the UP have made pleas for its introduction year after year. In all fairness to the hon. the Minister’s predecessors, I must acknowledge the fact that our pleas were never dismissed outright. They were met by counter-pleas that we should be patient and also by promises. That we have finally reached the stage where the establishment of a teachers’ council is to become a reality, is naturally something which I personally welcome. I regard it as a step forward, a step in the right direction.

In discussing the Bill it is worthwhile for one to bear several factors in mind. Whether this Bill is adequate or not, the fact remains that it is the culmination of the efforts, over many years, of a large group of people ranging from teachers to politicians. The contents of this Bill have been the topic of discussion, heated argument and high-level negotiation even among teachers themselves, in their staffrooms, and in their conference halls, and, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned, between the organized teaching profession and the authorities; in other words, the various Ministers and the various provincial administrations who are the employers of the teachers.

The Bill has had many unsuccessful predecessors in the form of draft Bills. Those draft Bills were submitted by one federal council after another and the draft Bills went backwards and forwards from the Minister to the various Administrators, only to be referred back to federal council for adjustment. This resulted in the teachers having the idea that absolutely no progress was being made. I have in front of me two documents which have faded considerably. They are the 1964 draft Bill and a draft Bill which was submitted later during the 1960s by an individual teachers’ association. Both draft Bills bear the heading—

I merely refer to these two draft Bills in order to indicate that it has taken us a long time to reach this stage. In spite of numerous setbacks the teaching profession persevered in its efforts.

In order to appreciate the good features of this Bill and to understand its shortcomings, it is important that we should know why the teaching profession fought so hard for the introduction of such a Bill. The teachers know that, despite the fact that through their training they are, in their field of study, professionally as competent as, say, the engineer, the lawyer or the doctor is in his field, they as professional men and women are being jeopardized not only by many outsiders, but—and this is the worst—also by many members of their own profession. The teacher also realizes that unlike the members of other professions, he is seen to be, and in fact is, a member of a profession where apart from General Conditions of Service laid down by his employers, there is no specific code of conduct by which he has to abide. This factor is only one of the reasons why the introduction of this Bill was deemed necessary. Another factor is that the teacher as a member of his profession has, unlike the members of other professions, no say as regards the requirements to be met by people who want to become members of his profession. What is even worse is the fact that the teacher is completely deprived of the opportunity or the privilege, I may say, of being subjected to professional discipline by his own colleagues or of exercising discipline over them. Under these circumstances the teachers realized that it was no wonder that the notion prevailed amongst members of the public and, unfortunately, amongst their own ranks, that every Tom, Dick and Harry could become a teacher and, what is more, could do as he liked. Such a state of affairs naturally has a detrimental effect on the recruitment of men and women of outstanding ability to the teaching profession. Apart from these rather general disadvantages, teachers also realize that there are rather peculiar disadvantages which they as professional men and women suffer but which other professions are spared. Let me give two rather crude but very true examples. While no member of the public can ever claim to have an intimate knowledge of the professional aspect of the work of a doctor, an engineer or an architect, every member of the public, including the proverbial Koos van der Merwe who spent his five best years at school in Std. 2, does claim that he knows what the job of a teacher is by virtue of the fact that he has attended school for some years. Thus every member of the public knows something about teaching. Secondly, another peculiar disadvantage teachers as professional people suffer from is that in many cases the teacher does not receive credit for his professional efficiency. There are psychological reasons why, when Johnny fails, the parent blames the teacher, whereas when he does well, the whole neighbourhood is told: “Maggies, maar my Jannie is darem slim!” Let me say at once that whether there is a Teachers’ Council or not, and irrespective of whether it is a good or a bad council, teachers will always be subjected to this type of criticism. However, I still believe that the establishment of the Teachers’ Council will undoubtedly enhance the status of the teacher. The State and the teacher will make a grave mistake if they think that the mere establishment of the council will be the magic wand which will rectify the numerous problems which are affecting the teaching profession in general and the status of the teacher as a professional man in particular. The establishment of this council should be seen and accepted as the commencement of an everlasting contract between the State and the teacher. Grave responsibilities will rest on both of them. Both will have to fulfil their part of the contract.

Let us look at the teacher. Whether as an individual, or whether as a group of individuals as represented through their council, the teacher must realize that the esteem society has for him as a professional man will largely depend on his own actions in and out of school. Public respect can never be conferred upon a person—it has to be earned. If one leaves out of consideration the cynics and those unfortunate members of the public who, because of certain psychological reasons, have inferiority complexes about teachers and to whom teachers will always form part of some sort of untouchable caste, one can justifiably say that teachers have already earned a great deal of respect and do enjoy fairly high public esteem. The creation of this council must therefore be accepted by the teachers as yet another challenge. If the council functions successfully, as a result of the teachers fulfilling their part of the contract, the reward will be that teachers will earn even greater public respect and enjoy even higher esteem.

Let us look now at the State. The State must realize that, unless it is prepared to fulfil its part of the contract, the whole object of the council will be defeated. Allow me to indicate certain aspects where failure on behalf of the State would be disastrous to the urge and desire of teachers to act as professional men and women at all times. Firstly, their working conditions and conditions of service should be of such a nature that neither the teacher—and this is important—nor the public can have any doubt about the fact that the teacher is performing a job as a professional man. That is the first point. Secondly, the State must at all times ensure that the salary scales and post structures are realistic. Professional people, especially in a South African context, should never suffer the humiliation of having to agitate in public in order to improve their financial position. In South Africa such action is regarded as completely unprofessional. Thirdly, an answer must be found for the inadequacy of the present pension situation, because the retired teacher, the retired head master and the retired inspector, in having to struggle to maintain the standard of living expected from him, and commensurate with his status, is doing the profession more harm than good. Fourthly, once the council comes into operation, the authorities must be seen to act on and fulfil the recommendations of the council regarding matters concerning the objects of the council. If that does not happen, the council will be considered by both the teachers and the public to be a meaningless body, and such a breach of contract will do the profession untold harm.

*Mr. Speaker, let us know take a closer look at the Bill. In the first place I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Bill before us is anything but ideal. However, I am fully aware of the problems with which the hon. the Minister and his predecessors have been faced. In the nature of the matter the Bill is a compromise between the claims of the teachers and what the various education departments, as employers, have been prepared to concede. We all realize that, unlike the case of doctors, engineers, pharmacists and so on, all teachers affected by this legislation are employed by the State or the provincial administrations. We can discuss the issue of private schools later. However, the various education departments have a responsibility towards the people in their provinces and it is their duty to ensure that there are adequately qualified teachers to meet the needs of the provinces. This is their task and their duty.

If this is not the case, then—as occurs on a large scale today—the second or the third best thing has to be done. It is therefore inevitable that in our present set-up teachers who are professionally unqualified should be employed. It is a pity that this should be the case, but it is a fact we have to take account of. It is simply a question of: Is there going to be someone to take a class or not? Consequently I was not at all surprised to note that clause 16 allows such people to be registered provisionally. I accept that. Even the teachers believed at one stage that only qualified people could claim registration. However, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that during the Committee Stage we shall propose certain amendments. We shall propose things which will not hamper the task of the heads of education, but which will nevertheless serve as a means whereby the teachers’ council will be consulted with regard to this important matter.

Clause 18, which concerns the powers of the council, is an entirely different matter. As far as the disciplinary powers of the council are concerned, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we are satisfied. The council will definitely have disciplinary powers, powers which one expects of a professional council. However, when we come to clause 18(d), the clause relating to the powers of the council with regard to the requirements for the training of people to equip them for teaching at a school, I must tell the hon. the Minister frankly that their power is very limited. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister understands that all they can do is furnish the Committee of Heads of Education with advice. In this case, the power is definitely inadequate. One simply cannot have a council comprising a group of professional people for the objects stated here. Let us consider the object of the council as it is stated in clause 3. The clause in question reads as follows—

It is simply impossible to have a council with such an important purpose and then to say to that council that its only duty is the provision of advice. The members of that council will certainly have to be involved and consulted to a greater extent in regard to this matter. This concerns a matter of cardinal importance and I shall also move amendments in this connection which will not make the matter impossible for the provincial councils but will in fact assist in overcoming the problem. As I have already said, I accept the fact that a responsibility rests on the provincial councils because they have to ensure that there are sufficient people in their provinces to teach at any given moment. It seems as though we shall have to look at the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967, as a result of this legislation. I believe that as a result of this Bill certain amendments to that Act will have to be effected. Under that Act we had a National Education Council, viz. a body which was comprised exclusively of members appointed by the hon. the Minister. However, these people had the same power and objects as this council as part of their functions. The objects are stated in clause 3, which reads as follows—

However, let us look at section 4 of the Act relating to the National Education Council. We find that one of its functions is to furnish advice. I quote section 4(3)(c) which reads as follows—

The function of the National Education Council and the function and the object of this council are therefore exactly the same. Elsewhere we find that the National Education Council can also furnish advice in regard to the qualifications for admission or for training and in section 4(3)(a) of the National Education Policy Act, that the council may—

Here again we have a council which performs precisely the same function, namely an advisory function in regard to education. It therefore appears to me that amendments to Act No. 39 of 1967 are essential.

†One cannot have an elected body from among registered teachers and at the same time have its main functions being usurped by another body. This I believe will be terribly damaging to the prestige of the Teachers’ Council, and I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. the Minister whether he is contemplating amendments to Act No. 39 of 1967.

I must express my disappointment once again that we have to deal with a Bill here which, quite unnecessarily, perpetuates the system “for Whites only” and opens us up to unnecessary attacks. Let me say immediately that I know the practical difficulties if we at this stage should try to establish one council. The reason is simply that 90% of the Black teachers of today have academic qualifications which are equivalent to Std. 10 or slightly higher. No educationist in his wildest dreams could justify such low qualifications as being adequate for professional recognition. This I accept immediately. If all these teachers had to be registered, we would have been faced with a situation where perhaps the provisionally registered people would have been in greater numbers on the roll than anybody else. But if the hon. the Minister is to call this the S.A. Teachers’ Council Bill, he can deal with the matter by means of amendments providing for the gradual admission of teachers of other races in schedule 1. The hon. the Minister should not come and use the argument that he as Minister of National Education only has jurisdiction over White education departments. In schedule 1 he is already legislating for teachers employed in Bantu education departments.

Having done this, I think that he has created a situation where one will find at one and the same school two people, one who happens to be Black and the other White, both having the same qualifications, but while the one can claim that he is a registered teacher in South Africa the other cannot. I believe that it would have been possible for the hon. the Minister to overcome this problem through the definition of “teacher” in clause 1, where it states that “teacher” means a White person who holds a professional teacher’s qualification. If this can be made to read that “teacher” means a person who holds a professional teacher’s qualification, he could have overcome this problem and we would have had the situation where at least at this stage they would have been able to register. The question of representation on the council is an entirely different one because it has to be through the associations. From a practical point of view, I do not think that would have been possible.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that we shall put amendments on the Order Paper. Most of these will be of an administrative nature. I know that he will perhaps adopt the attitude that this is an agreed measure and that he cannot therefore bring about changes. I realize this, but it is a compromise between the teachers on the one hand and himself and the provincial administrations on the other hand. To claim therefore that this has the 100% support of everyone who is involved in this compromise, will not be correct. However, we are prepared to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot congratulate the hon. member for Durban Central on his speech. It was not such a good speech that I can congratulate him on it. What I can say is that one usually hears very few positive sounds from those benches. In general, however, he did not advance so many negative arguments this afternoon. Therefore I want to congratulate him in this respect that he did try to be positive. I agree with some of the arguments which he advanced. However, I cannot agree with him when he alleges that there will be a conflict of interests between the National Education Council and the proposed professional council when they are both trying to promote the interests of the teachers. In my opinion there is no conflict. On the contrary. If two councils are striving to achieve the same objects, the work they are able to do is so much better. If the hon. member and his wife both undertake to look after the interests of their children together, and to educate their children well, it can only be to the benefit of the children. Therefore I cannot see how there can be a conflict of interests here. Incidentally, while the hon. member was speaking, I wondered whether he would be able to register as a teacher in terms of clause 15 of the Bill. I think perhaps he will, unless of course he is eliminated in terms of clause 17. Still, I do think the hon. member ought to have himself registered, particularly in view of the political climate we are now experiencing.

From this side of the House, it is a special privilege for me to give this Bill my full support. As a person who spent the best years of his life teaching, and who was also involved in this specific matter, it is a memorable event for me that this Bill is before this House today.

The first attempts were made in the early forties, I think it was in 1944, to have a professional council of teachers established, and a draft Bill was in fact drawn up in 1949. Unfortunately it miscarried owing to technical problems, and we have only now, after almost 30 years, reached the stage we have reached today. When the new Bill comes before this House, legislation which, according to the hon. the Minister is pioneering legislation because there are not many countries in which a professional council for teachers exist, one must ask oneself the following question: Is it really necessary? Does it meet a particular need? Is there a need for such a Bill? To be able to reply adequately to this question, one need only go through the minutes of teachers’ congresses over the past 30 to 40 years, for one will see that year after year resolutions were passed at all the various congresses in which the establishment of such a council was advocated. For the teaching corps of South Africa it is therefore a very serious matter. One may ask oneself why it is regarded as being essential.

Although the term teaching profession has been in colloquial use for many years, and perhaps even for centuries, it has nevertheless been apparent, when it came to official recognition, that many people strongly doubted whether the teaching profession was really a profession or whether it was not simply a career. The people who advance these arguments, then draw comparisons between recognized professions such as the legal profession and the medical profession which have received official recognition for their status by means of statutory councils, and the teaching profession which has no such statutory council, and therefore enjoys no such statutory recognition. Prominent people lay down basic requirements for an occupation to be called a profession. Even members of the public lay down such requirements, and one cannot doubt this. I am quoting from a court ruling by one of our judges—

What the hon. judge was therefore saying was that when he has to decide that a man is a member of a profession, there have to be recognized standards of competence with which a person has to comply before he may enter the profession and there also have to be recognized standards of conduct which are applied. One can therefore deduce that these are the two requirements which are laid down for a profession, i.e. a recognized standard of competence or learning to which a person has to comply to be able to be admitted to a specific profession and a recognized standard of conduct which is in force and which is applicable to all the persons engaged in the profession.

In my opinion the teaching profession has always complied with those two requirements, firstly, to the requirement of an academic and professional qualification to be able to enter the profession and, secondly to the requirement of a high standard of conduct for the teachers. Although the teaching profession has complied with the requirements it has up to now been excluded from a recognized profession simply because there was no statutory recognition in the form of a body which had the power to enforce that standard. This Bill is now making provision for the establishment of such a professional council for teachers, a council which, inter alia, will have the power, firstly, to lay down a minimum qualification for teachers and, secondly, to draw up a professional code of conduct in terms of which the profession will be able to discipline its own members. This is a very important aspect. I acknowledge, in common with the hon. member for Durban Central, that there are shortcomings in the Bill, but as he also said, it is a compromise between various organs. These are, however, the two fundamental requirements for a profession, and provision is being made for this. It should now be made clear to everyone that when this Bill is passed, the teaching profession is being brought into line with the other recognized provisions in our country as we know them. Seen in this light there can therefore be no doubt that the passing of this legislation will in fact be a red letter day for the teaching profession, for the status of the teacher and of the teaching profession is being enhanced and the Bill in fact ushers in a new era in our country for our teachers in the sense that people will, it is hoped, have a greater esteem for the profession. The Bill will serve as a new incentive for education because it will encourage persons to enter the profession. We are hopeful that it will have such an effect.

Because the legislation, in the first place, is an agreed measure between the various teachers’ associations and the various education departments which act as employers and which have certain vested rights which have to be recognized, this Bill perhaps does not comply with the high requirements and the high ideals which the teaching profession has over the years set for such a Bill. For example if one considers the powers of the proposed council, one sees that it may institute an inquiry into a contravention of the professional code of conduct, and it may penalize any person who contravenes the code of conduct by reprimanding such person, imposing on him a penalty, or striking his name off the register. The council may also obtain certain information from the heads of education, and may advise the Committee of Heads of Education on the requirements for the training of persons to be able to teach at a school and on the requirements for admission to a course for such training. Therefore this is advice to the heads of education in respect of training and admission. It is the last point in particular—in this regard I agree with the hon. member for Durban Central—which one found a little disappointing because it has not been stated in stronger terms. I think, in the interests of the status of the teaching profession, it should really have been stated in slightly stronger terms, for if one considers the other professions, one sees that the medical practitioners, the accountants, the architects and so on, in fact have to approve of the training in and the training institutions for their professions. They even exercise control over the qualifications, curricula and examinations. The education departments could perhaps be of the opinion that the professional council for education would perhaps interfere with their rules and regulations and with the education being provided at the colleges and universities. But I know that the other professions cooperate very closely with the existing universities, and that there is the closest co-operation for example between the faculties of architecture of the various universities, and the Architects’ Association. It is solely in the interests of that profession that such close co-operation exists.

One would have liked to have seen provision being made for something similar as far as the teaching profession is concerned. In other words, I should have liked to have seen one of the powers of this council having to be the approval and recognition of the institutions for the training of teachers as well as the control of curricula, examinations and qualifications of teachers, or something of that nature. Moreover I should also have liked to have seen one of the powers of the council having to be the protection of the professional interests of registered teachers. I hope that this council will in the course of years in fact acquire this power, even though the Bill does not contain such provisions, for truly, we who were members of the teaching profession for years and who are still interested in it, know that a body which will endeavour to look after and protect the interests of the teacher is very necessary in this country.

I would be able to enumerate many examples of injustices which were perpetrated, not that this was done wilfully, but in terms of existing legislation and ordinances. Injustices which were perpetrated on teachers, which one could not condone. I want to refer to one example now. A man who was a teacher for 25 years, resigned to become a member of Parliament. During those 25 years he paid his money into the pension fund for this pension and at the same time the Education Department paid in an equal amount according to the pound-for-pound or rand-for-rand system. When he resigned after 25 years he received only as much money back as he had paid in, and not a cent in interest, to say nothing of the part the Education Department had paid in on his behalf. I think that is an injustice. However, there is simply nobody to which such a teacher may take his complaint. He comes up against the authorities who say that that is what the ordinance provides, and that is the end of the story! Such a body which protects the professional interests of the teachers, is really necessary.

I would be able to enumerate other weak points in the legislation, but that in is not of interest to me. Of decisive importance is that a professional council is being established here. Consequently, a start is being made and a foundation being laid on which it will be possible to build in future. It is also very important that, according to my information, all the various federated teachers’ associations agreed that they were satisfied, and that what stood in the Bill satisfied them. This is important to us, for what is involved here is the teacher. That is why I think today is an important day for the teaching profession. It is a pity that they did not know that this Bill was to be discussed here today, otherwise there would probably have been quite a number of them here.

As far as the exercise of discipline by the council over registered teachers is concerned, it is clear that there has to be a demarcation of territory between the proposed council and the employer concerned, which is one of the education departments. Every education department has a specific service contract with its teachers, and in terms of that service contract, so I think, the department will still be able to continue to exercise discipline over the teacher concerned when he contravenes his service contract. The professional council will then, in turn exercise discipline when the teacher contravenes the professional code or code of conduct which will be drawn up. Whether it will be possible to draw a clear dividing line between these two aspects I do not know, but with the passage of years and as experience is acquired, the various departments and this council will in fact find a solution—will find a formula to solve this problem. I believe that it will be possible to leave the question of the exercise of discipline over the teacher to this council to an ever-greater extent.

Clause 20 provides that, as from the date determined by the Minister, no person who is not registered or provisionally registered shall be appointed in a full-time permanent capacity at a school to teach. The question which immediately crops up of course is this: What about those persons who are appointed in a part-time or temporary capacity and who do not register? That problem may be solved if all persons may be registered in terms of the provisions of clause 15. All persons who have teaching qualifications ought to register with this council. This applies to those of us sitting here in this House, as well as to married women who are not members of the teaching profession at the moment, for when a person wants to teach in a temporary capacity—as the hon. member for Durban Central will have to do after the next election—it will be possible to make use of their services. Temporary vacancies exist and school principals may be forced, for example, to approach a farmer with a B.Com. degree and to ask him to teach bookkeeping. Although such a person may not possess a teaching qualification, he will at least be able to ensure that the subject is kept going.

A person who is appointed temporarily and who is not registered will, in terms of his service contract with the department, fall under the discipline of the department, and not under the discipline of this council, and that is a pity. As the title indicates, this proposed council is a council for Whites. There are persons who allege that because the Medical and Dental Council includes all race groups, and because the council of the legal profession includes all race groups, this council should also include all race groups. For those who have no knowledge of the teaching profession it may indeed seem logical that all race groups should be included here as well. The position is that to qualify as a dentist, medical practitioner, advocate or attorney, one first has to undergo a certain examination, regardless of one’s race or colour. As far as education is concerned, that is not yet the case. Ninety per cent of the Black teachers in Black schools would not be able to qualify if they have to undergo the same examination as Whites. The object of this council is, in the first place, to enhance the status of the teaching profession. To achieve this, a minimum qualification has to be laid down. Personally I think that this minimum qualification should be at least a senior certificate, plus three years’ professional training. Properly it ought to be four years, but the minimum is three years. If one were to set this as a requirement, then approximately 90% of the Bantu teachers would not qualify, and approximately 50% to 60% of the Coloured teachers would not qualify either. In other words, it would not be to the benefit of the Bantu or Coloured education if these people were to be brought together, for only a small group of them would be able to register. The others will have to remain non-members, and this would definitely not be to their advantage.

There are in addition various other reasons why this cannot happen, but I do not want to go into them any further now. What is of importance, however, is that this council is now being established. This is pioneering legislation and may serve as a guide-line if the other teachers’ groups, inter alia, the Bantu teachers, Coloured teachers and Indian teachers want similar legislation. As soon as each group has then established a professional association, an overall body may be established, and then there can be very good co-operation which will be to the benefit of education in general. It is my sincere desire that this Bill will lead to the dawn of a new day for the teaching profession as such, that the status of the teaching profession will be further enhanced, and that it will serve as an incentive to attract good people to the profession.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that we have accepted from the hon. member for Algoa, and that is that he can never appreciate a speech made by any hon. member on this side of the House. I am beginning to wonder if that is not an admission of his own ignorance. I would like him over the weekend to read the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central. Perhaps he will realize that there is indeed something in it that can be appreciated.

We see the Bill before us as one of great educational significance for South Africa. We feel that it marks a new direction in the educational development of South Africa. I say this because for some years we have seen education sitting on a divide trying to find a new direction. As the hon. the Minister has mentioned, teachers have been asking for this for 40 years and what they wanted was a council. I think we have found a new direction today and we in the UP welcome it. We welcome it for very good reasons, because in the past we have always urged this and we now see that it is reaching fruition. We have argued that to stimulate professional pride we need a professional council. However, this is not by any means the end of the road, as the hon. the Minister mentioned. It is only the start, and once a code of ethics has been established, teachers will also want to have their own separate salary structure outside the Public Service Commission. Therefore it is not a giant step, but merely a nudge. However it is a nudge in the direction in which we should like education to go.

In our view this Bill accomplishes very little apart from this register. However, the register is the seed of an idea and it is now up to those teachers who will be elected as members of the council to cultivate this seed, see that it matures and that from this Bill a great teaching profession will grow. We are proud for having educated the Government towards this step and we congratulate ourselves for our effective opposition and guidance. We also commend the new hon. Minister in getting the show on the run. However, we must not forget the hard work that has been put into this Bill by many other organizations. At this stage we should like to congratulate the previous hon. the Minister of National Education, directors of education, heads of educational committees, teachers’ associations and officials, but in particular members of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, of which the hon. member for Durban Central was a member. They were the real power behind this. They prepared what we find before us today. They have had many discussions in order to reach this stage, and we congratulate them on the work they have done.

Why does the hon. member not thank the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member for Langlaagte is very often a few sentences behind. But I shall forgive him that because I know it is late on a Friday. As has been said by a previous speaker on this side of the House, this Bill is not perfect and that there are some defects. The three stumbling blocks are: the code of conduct; the qualifications for registration; and the objects of the council. As regards the code of conduct, it is vital to the effectiveness of the Bill. It is a key, and we feel that it is a great pity that this code cannot be formulated entirely by the council who will be responsible for putting it into practice.

In clause 15(1)(d) it states that the code must be drawn up with the concurrence of the Committee of Educational Heads. We all agree that these are the employers and that they have the right—nobody will deny that— to lay down the conditions of service for teachers. When it comes to the standards of behaviour to which teachers must adhere, we feel the code must be laid down by the teachers themselves. If the public are to have any respect for teachers and if the teachers are to have any respect for their own code, they should be the people responsible for formulating the code and it should not be dictated to them. In other words, it should come from their own hearts, out of their own convictions and they must be responsible to it.

We are quite in agreement with the powers that are given to the council in terms of the Bill. These powers are quite considerable, but it is to be expected that a body such as this should have these powers. We see that it can caution, reprimand, fine up to R50 or strike a teacher’s name off the register. They can refuse to register a teacher, so that a teacher’s full-time permanent employment can be in jeopardy. He can also be dismissed on 24 hours’ notice. That is a considerable power for the council to have. They can issue sub-poenaes for the attendance of a witness with a penalty of R100 should the witness refuse to appear. Should a person attempt to falsify his registration he will be liable to a fine of R200 or to six months’ imprisonment. We think it is good that the council should have this power because they can establish prestige through it. However, we do not take it lightly that the code of conduct, under which these powers will be employed, has not been established. Therefore it is our intention to move an amendment to clause 15(1)(d) to make teachers entirely responsible to their code of conduct. It does follow that, once the code is established for the teaching profession, the question of colour does not arise. We feel that the code will become universal and will apply to all South African teachers of all race groups.

The second stumbling block I mentioned was the registration of teachers based on their qualifications. The difficulty here is that not all teachers are academically qualified. There is a considerable body of specialist teachers concerned mainly with commercial subjects, technical subjects, foreign languages, music or fine arts. For the most part these are, however, highly competent people. For instance, I know of a woodwork master who was originally a cabinet maker by trade. His pupils obtain excellent matriculation results and there is nothing one can tell him about his subject. In addition, his rapport with his pupils is quite tremendous. However, this man did not have an academic qualification, that very necessary piece of paper. Consequently he would be denied registration under certain circumstances. It is true that clauses 15(1) and 16 do make allowances for these people, but there seems to be a lack of clarity in respect of these two clauses. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to make a point of replying to this. As we interpret clause 15(1)(a)(i), all teachers, who in terms of the definition must be academically qualified, would be eligible to register, whether they were in private schools or not. However, clause 15(1)(a)(ii) refers to persons who, although they are seemingly unqualified teachers in Government schools, would be eligible to register, while it seems that unqualified teachers in private schools would be eliminated in terms of this provision. I should like clarification from the hon. the Minister in this regard because we would not like to think that any particular body of the teaching profession was being discriminated against. We shall also move an amendment to this clause in an endeavour to establish some norm.

In this Bill the third stumbling block, which the federal council is faced with, relates to its objectives. We feel that the council should be given more teeth through clauses 3 and 18(d). If one looks at clause 3 one sees that it is couched in widely ranging and, consequently vague terms. It would seem that the object of the council is to uphold the esteem of the profession. Naturally, one asks oneself what the esteem of the profession is and whether it is worth upholding. Our view is that the esteem, prestige or status of teachers is far from being ideal. There is a lot to be achieved in this field. We should like to see it as the object of the council not to uphold this limited level, but rather to investigate and recommend steps which will, in fact, promote prestige in the profession. Teachers have their own professional status by virtue of what they themselves have achieved, but any public status they have is usually based on what they are paid. It is really quite appalling if one compares the prestige and salaries that sportsmen in the Western world can command, or again the status and salaries of academics in Russia, for example, with the salaries of our teachers. They should have a similar reputation and salary but they do not. By means of amendments to clauses 3 and 18(d) we shall make recommendations to try to have these ideas incorporated.

In conclusion I should like to make some general comments on the Bill. Firstly, we think it does incorporate some very democratic principles, particularly when it comes to electing representatives to the council. This representation will be broadly based, unlike the Scottish council, to which the hon. the Minister referred, which is rather rigid and specific, prescribing as it does that certain categories of teachers must be represented. We do not do this in this Bill, but then of course this sort of democracy does give scope for a degree of apprehension. I should like to mention that the university people and the heads of the colleges do feel that the composition of this council could become unbalanced. They feel that they may be swamped. On the other hand, we have heard reports that there is apprehension amongst assistant teachers that they may not be represented and that senior staff will get preference. Then, of course, there is a feeling amongst males that, because of the preponderance of females in the profession, the females could, if they wanted to, launch some sort of take-over bid which could make the militant “women’s libbers” green with envy. We are, however, confident that the teachers will grasp the democratic process with eagerness and that they will balance this council, of which South Africa can be proud.

Finally, I want to say that tentative steps in the right direction have been made in the Bill for the South African teaching profession, but that these steps will have to be reinforced in the future. They will have to be strengthened, and we in these benches will be taking the first steps in this direction with the amendments we intend proposing during the Committee Stage. We foresee that in time the Teachers’ Council will have to be given more specific powers to carry out its objectives and to see that they are carried out. We also foresee that the council will have to be given the power to make recommendations in respect of those matters which affect the esteem, or lack of esteem, for education and the prestige of teachers. I refer particularly to matters like salaries, recruitment, teachers’ duties, promotion, working conditions and teacher training.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Bill. We feel that it is unfair to condemn it at this stage. It must be given a chance to prove itself, and we hope that it will be the start of a new deal in South African education.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North advanced criticism of the fact that the professional code of conduct would be drafted for the most part by members of the council, but the people who will serve on this council will themselves be appointed by teachers from among their own ranks. It is specifically a professional body in the best sense of the word. It is these very people who will be best equipped to give effect to this legislation. If the hon. member had read the Bill in full, he would have seen that provision is made in clause 27 for amendments which may be dictated by experience, to be effected in the course of time. It is expressly stated—

1. (i) matters required or permitting to be prescribed in terms of this Act or necessary or expedient to carry out the provisions thereof.

Provision is made, therefore, for further amendments. I therefore believe that the general statements and the general criticism he expressed, do not really apply. Once again the UP has lost an opportunity, in the case of this specific legislation, to convey a word of appreciation to this Government for work that has been done. As a result they have allowed an opportunity to slip through their hands to pay tribute to and thank the provinces and the heads of education who have devoted themselves to the field of education thus far, for what has been done. They champion the cause of the teachers, but they have not yet addressed a single word of thanks to the teachers who have done so much in the development of peoples in this country, and of the White people in particular. They would have done well to do so. The hon. member for Durban Central made a very crass statement a moment ago when he said that every Tom, Dick and Harry could be admitted to the teaching profession.

You should have listened more carefully when I was making my speech.

That is a misconception. In practice there are many men who do outstanding work for our country.

Go and read what I said.

He himself does not know exactly what he said. The hon. member referred to the responsibility of two components, the State and the teacher. However this is an incomplete picture. He failed entirely to take the important element of the community, viz., the parents, into account. To complete the picture, we must take into account the partnership of the State and the parent. We must take into account the say of the parent together with his right in regard to the education of his child. It is the basic premise in education that one does not want to deprive the parent of his say and right. If the State has the sole right, then we are not a free people and country. On the other hand is the other pole, and this is the professional teacher and the material with which he works daily, namely the child. In all important decisions—and this also applies to the drafting of legislation—the place of the child, too, is important. The issue here is the status and satisfaction of the teacher. Let us be honest now. Surely we cannot pay a good teacher who weaves the concept of eternity into the character of the child, by way of a salary. However, we can give him the satisfaction of being appreciated and respected. This legislation concerns the fundamental being of those people.

To get an idea of this legislation and the needs underlying this matter, it is necessary to page through history a little. I am not going to waste the time of the House, but I just want to page briefly through the history of my province, the Transvaal. I want to refer to the School regalement which was passed in Potchefstroom on 15 March 1852 and was approved by the field-cornet of that ward. Section 4 reads as follows—

In other words, the parent is responsible for the survival of the teacher, in the sense that he has to have food and clothing. In the same year Ds. Van der Hoff also drew up a “reglement”. Section 4 reads as follows—

The poor teacher now goes from the public to the clergyman, who has to control him. In 1859 another “reglement” was adopted, which was signed, inter alia, by M. W. Pretorius. I quote from section 21—

Here again we have the authority of the school committee. Now we come to the Onder-wijswet of 1866 and section 11 of the “Reglement voor de Gouwernementsonder-wijzers”, and I quote—

When a school grows and the number of pupils exceeds 75, the poor teacher has to appoint an assistant teacher for all additional teachers out of his own pocket. In that same Onderwyswet, passed by the Volksraad of the Suid-Afrikaanse Republiek on 22 February 1866, the following, among other things is provided with regard to teachers—

The teacher therefore had to attend to the correspondence of the Field-cornet of the district.

Section 1 of the Transvaal Onderwyswet of 28 March 1882 provides—

The State took the view that education was the task of the parents of children. Section 1 of the Transvaal Onderwyswet of 1892 similarly provides—

Once again the parents are held responsible for the education of their children.

I wish to quote a very interesting sentence from Transvaal Ordinance No. 7 of 1903. One must bear in mind that the Transvaal had just lost its freedom and this is what the new régime prescribed—

Instruction in Dutch for only three hours a week!

I now come to 1907.

Those were the first days of the United Party.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

That was in the time of the hon. member’s great-grandfather.

But also in the days of your great-grandfather.

The marginal note to section 31 of Act No. 25 of 1907 of the Transvaal reads—

It is prescribed that if a child does not pass in English, he cannot be allowed to proceed to the next standard. Today the same principle applies; however, it applies not only in respect of English but in respect of Afrikaans as well.

In 1917, the Transvaal Director of Education, Mr. Scott, sent out a very interesting circular—

I think that this is a milestone for Afrikaans, because in 1917 Afrikaans was recognized as a school subject for the first time.

I now come to a circular of 1931. Hon. members will remember what the economic circumstances were at the time as a result of the depression.

I remember them very well. [Interjections.]

The circular sent out by the Director of Education reads—

1. (1) The amount of vacation leave for which a teacher may become eligible to be reduced from 18 days per annum to 12 days per annum.
2. (2) The salaries of all teachers to be reduced by an amount of 5 per cent.

From this heartsore past and the fine progress that was later made, we glean the story of the dedication of the teacher to his task and service. This heartrending story of how the teacher, in carrying out his important task, has been shunted from one extreme to the other, has left its mark or scar on the teacher.

Even though this Bill contains defects, it attests to the fact that the hon. the Minister and those who have assisted him in drafting it, have at least succeeded affording recognition to the teachers, in the form of legislation, for the sacrifices they have made and will make in the task that lies before them. Appreciation for the service of those people is shown in this Bill. In this Bill there is recognition of the indispensable partnership of those people in our task, and appreciation is displayed for the importance of their work; furthermore, an attempt is being made to weld the components of State and parent and teacher and child into a meaningful unit in the service of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down gave us a historical review of some of the aspects of the teaching profession in South Africa and that, of course, is a matter of some interest, but he started his address by saying that he thought that as far as the Opposition benches were concerned, they were somewhat ungracious in that they had not thanked the Minister, because that was apparently the appropriate thing that needed to be done. [Interjections.] There was, however, a time when the predecessor of the hon. the Minister came in for considerable criticism because of the state of the teaching profession and for the delay which has occurred with regard to the introduction of measures which were necessary for the teaching profession. I want to say to the hon. the Minister, who is new in these shoes, that I hope that he will not find himself in the shoes of his predecessor who, in Die Vaderland of 25 November, was attacked under headlines which read: “Minister het nie gesag of wil nie”. Sir, he had the authority, but he had an inability to act. The one thing which we hope to see from this Minister, if he is going to be in this post for any period of time, which we, of course, do not know, is that he will at least have the desire to act and the desire to do, because this is what the teaching profession needs in South Africa. The teaching profession has been in a position of near crisis in South Africa for many years. Meaningful action has been required literally for decades. Inquiries have been held, we have had commissions over the years, solutions have been suggested, and palliatives have been applied, but the problem has continued. The suggestion of a professional controlling body for teachers has actually been on the drawing board for a quarter of a century and more. It has taken that length of time before this legislation has been introduced here today. It is also necessary to say that this idea of a professional controlling body has been only one of the many ideas which have been put forward to raise the status of the profession, and I believe it is the status of the profession which is mainly at issue in this legislation. We on these benches support the creation of a teachers’ council, but it can only be one aspect of what is needed in order to raise the status of the teacher in South Africa. In its present form, we believe that the Teachers’ Council has inadequate functions.

In this regard this question needs to be asked, and perhaps needs to be rhetorically asked: What are the functions which a council such as this should perform? Firstly, it is clear that such a council should lay down a code of professional conduct. In the second instance it is clear that it should have a say in regard to the qualifications for the profession. Thirdly, it should have a say in regard to the type of training which is envisaged for the profession. Fourthly, it should deal with the discipline of the profession. In the fifth instance, it should have a say in regard to income levels as far as the profession is concerned. Sixthly, and perhaps most importantly, it should actively participate in the promotion of the profession. One has to examine this council in order to see whether it meets these criteria and whether it compares favourably with other professional councils of this nature. When this body is compared with other professional bodies, I believe that this council will be found wanting and will be found to have inadequate powers.

The other matter which I believe should be dealt with is that for a truly professional council to exist in South Africa, it must in fact cater for the whole of the profession and not be a racially exclusive body. This Teachers’ Council is not a teachers’ council, but a teacher’s council for Whites. It is part of the apartheid structure of South Africa. There is no question about it, and the question I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is whether in viewing the situation both internally and internationally, looking at the international status of the council, is harm not being done to the status of this council, which is intended to be a professional body, because of the fact that it is intended for Whites exclusively? The medical council, the law society and the Bar councils are not exclusively White bodies. One recognizes the problems which exist in regard to the qualifications of the teachers of emergent peoples, but should registration of equal qualification not be open to all races and should the membership of equally qualified persons be dependent on race? It is clear that problems exist, but surely these problems can be overcome. Is the answer to the problem not that the Minister should in fact allow the registration of all people who have the requisite qualification? Secondly, should one not encourage the existence of associations in which qualified Black teachers can participate in the same manner as Whites presently do in existing associations? There are already such associations. There is no reason why there should not also in South Africa be a choice to those who want to belong to a multi-racial association, and there is no reason why such an association should not exist.

When it comes to the question of registration, it is quite clear that there should be no registration for those who do not achieve the minimum qualifications. If one applies this, one can apply it multi-racially, but it must be done on a non-discriminatory basis and the same principles must be applied to everybody. In so far as the application of the closed provisions is concerned, it is clear that until adequate numbers of qualified teachers who could qualify for registration exist, one can apply the closed provisions only to those groups of schools to which one wants to apply them. There is, therefore, an answer to this, if only the hon. the Minister wants to apply it. Instead of doing this he goes on and on applying measures in South Africa which are part of the apartheid structure of society and which in the long run will only have to be dismantled again.

However, I should like to say that one has to support the Second Reading of the Bill in the circumstances, because we are operating in an apartheid system, and we cannot seek to frustrate the aspirations of the White teachers because the hon. the Minister will not recognize the fact that professional people should not be divided on racial grounds.

I should now like to turn to other matters. The teaching of our children has been allowed by this Government—and I make that indictment today—to get into a most serious position. We find on the part of parents a dissatisfaction with the standard of teaching of many subjects and with the qualifications of many of the people who have to teach at schools. A study committee of certain East Rand governing bodies alleges that unqualified teachers, that is people who are not fully qualified for the job, make up as much as 65% of the people holding posts in certain classes and in certain subjects. In this regard I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to the article in Die Vaderland of 25 November. That can only be a serious situation. There are posts which are physically filled in that there are bodies who fill them, but quite clearly they are inadequately filled at the present moment. That is the situation which parents are confronted with today.

It is all very well for the hon. member who spoke before me to speak about the part that parents, teachers and the pupils have to play together. Of course they have to do this, but the responsibility for this situation having been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent in South Africa lies full-square on this Government. Make no mistake, Sir, it is not only the parents who are dissatisfied; the teachers are dissatisfied as well. They are dissatisfied in respect of the question of status and in respect of the conditions of work. They are also dissatisfied in respect of earnings. As far as this piece of legislation is concerned, it is designed to deal with only one matter, and that is the status of the teacher. However, in reality the major problem, as the hon. the Minister knows, is that the pay cheque at the end of the month is still the crucial issue when it comes to the solution of the teacher problem. It is as relevant to the question of status as any piece of legislation one may seek to introduce. That is a problem that must be dealt with by the hon. the Minister. If the problems in the profession are to be solved, this piece of legislation alone will not be sufficient. Teachers’ pay, the provision of greater prospects of advancement and progress, the raising of the level of qualifications as well as the devising of means to attract more males with higher educational qualifications are additional matters that should receive the attention of the hon. the Minister.

If I may, I should now like to turn specifically to the legislation itself. In the first place, as I have tried to indicate, the functions of the council are limited. They do not cover the full range of what a truly professional council or body should do. I want to indicate again that I believe that the council should have a part to play and a real say in respect of training, and that it should be involved in the establishment of conditions of employment, amongst other matters. I should now like to turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. In clause 1 one finds that even the definition of professional teachers’ qualifications is not left to the professional body. How could one expect the Law Society to allow somebody else to determine the qualifications to practise law? The Medical Council today determines the qualifications to practise medicine. However, in this case the professional teachers’ qualification is described as a degree, diploma or certificate recognized, not by the council, but in fact by the committee of heads of education established in terms of the National Education Act. One of the fundamental things one has to do is to accept that, in the case of a truly professional body, it has to have a say in regard to qualifications.

The same thing applies in the case of recognition. The same aspects can be argued here. We can refer to other clauses which make it clear that the functions of this council are in these respects of an advisory nature. They do not play the real part which a professional body should play.

The second point is that there is no doubt that we are creating and have in existence a multiplicity of other boards, councils and committees. If one is going to create a truly professional council, then one has to give consideration to the question as to whether we are not dividing power, whether we do not have duplication and whether there should not be a transfer of powers from some of the other bodies to this professional council. Overlapping should certainly be eliminated.

If one looks at these matters I believe one should ask the question whether in fact the Government itself does not keep a kind of veto right. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal in his reply with clause 16 before we move some of the amendments of which we have already given notice. In terms of clause 16 it is provided that—

If one compares this with the provision the hon. the Minister referred to in clause 20, the question arises whether, after the Minister has in fact used his powers in terms of clause 20 to prevent the employment of people, it is still possible to appoint people in terms of clause 16, because on the face of it the two clauses seem to be contradictory. Once the powers in terms of clause 20 have been exercised the powers in terms of clause 16 should no longer be capable of being exercised.