I move—

I second.

I feel that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not say a few words about this report. I particularly want to refer to the report on the petition of the Vanryneveldspas Irrigation Board. It will be noted that the petition has been submitted in three sections, viz. (a), (b) and (c). I have no objection to the Committee having adopted (a) and (c), but I feel that I should object because the Committee, in terms of the report, did not accept Section (b), which reads as follows—

That was not adopted. I feel that those irrigators are really entitled to claim, after the years of drought they had to endure, that they could still be exempted from payment of the reserve fund tax for these two years. What makes me feel even more that it is a little unjust is that when we have regard to the further portion of the report where they refer to the Great Fish River Irrigation Board, we see that in that case the irrigators are exempted from payment of the reserve fund tax for five years in the future. I have no objection to those people having received exemption, but I felt that whilst a precedent was established by granting exemption to those people, the people under the Vanryneveldspas Irrigation Scheme should also have received their exemption for the two years for which they asked. They suffered from the same drought. The only difference is that the Vanryneveldspas Dam has now overflowed and that the other dams referred to in the motion are not full. But they all got water and everybody can irrigate to-day. Everybody can now benefit from the water in the dam. I really feel that it is an injustice towards the Vanryneveldspas Dam irrigators that they did not receive exemption for these two years, whilst the others—and as I said, I have no objection to it—received exemption for five years. It should also be noted that these people asked to be exempted for only two years. As the one who submitted the petition I feel that justice is not being done towards those people. Therefore I want to record my objection to the fact that these people received no concessions and that the exemption they asked for was not granted.

Motion put and agreed to, and the following Resolutions transmitted by Message to the Honourable the Senate for concurrence:

This House recommends—

1. (1) That the reserve fund rate of 25 cents per morgen per annum payable on the irrigable area served by the Lake Arthur, Grassridge and Commandodrift Conservation Dams in terms of a resolution adopted by both the Senate and the House of Assembly in 1934, be remitted for the years 1961 to 1965, inclusive; and
2. (2) That loans be granted to the undermentioned Irrigation Boards in the amount reflected against the name of each such Board, viz.:

I move—

I second.

I want to say that we on this side of the House welcome this report and the recommendations. It is going to open the door to the putting right of a very longstanding grievance as far as the Dunn family are concerned in Zululand, in the Dunn Reserve. They are people who for a quarter of a century have been trying to get title deeds to their land but difficulties have arisen because of the Bantu who were settled on their land. The practical effect of this report is that the Bantu can now be removed from those lands which are owned by the Dunn family and put on to new lands in the Amatikulu area, land which has been properly planned, which can be properly cared for and properly farmed. I believe that they will obtain generous allocations of land in exchange for the land they are vacating. As I say it is going to put right an old standing grievance and it is going to give the Bantu in those areas a new deal. The land is not going to be farmed in such a manner that it is going to be destroyed but it will be cared for properly, and we therefore give this report our blessing from this side of the House.

I want to express my appreciation for the hearty cooperation we had in connection with this matter. I may just inform the House that the Dunn family are very satisfied and grateful for the solution which was found here. We also had the necessary consultations with the Bantu and they are satisfied. There was good co-operation on all sides. I want to express a special word of thanks to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), who actually took the initiative in this matter, and for his co-operation. I want to thank him for it and say that this is a very good example of what can, be done if brothers co-operate.

Motion put and agreed to, and the following Resolution transmited by Message to the Honourable the Senate for concurrence, viz.:

That this House approves—

1. (a) The excision from the Scheduled Native Area in terms of the provisions of paragraph (b) of Section 3 of the Native Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936), of a certain piece of land, in extent 7,603.803 acres, situate in reserves Nos. 7 (a) and 9, district of Mtunzini, Natal, property of the South African Native Trust constituted under Section 4 of the said Act No. 18 of 1936; subject to the inclusion in the Scheduled Native Area of the said province of a certain piece of land, in extent 9,386 acres 2 roods 22.32 perches, being Lots 32, 36, 37, 38 and the remaining extents of Lots 40 and 41, respectively, situate in the district of Nkandla, Natal, property of the South African Native Trust constituted under Section 4 of Act 18 of 1936; and
2. (b) the amendment, in terms of paragraph (b) of Section 3 of the Native Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936), of the Schedule to the Natives Land Act, 1913 (Act No. 27 of 1913), by the deletion therefrom and the addition thereto of the land referred to in (a) above.

This Schedule sets out the agreement arrived at between the Railway Administration and the Foscor Corporation. There is one clause which indicates that the Railway Administration will have to build two sidings and additional earth works for two additional sidings that may be constructed at a later date. The report of the Railway Board which the hon. the Minister tabled in the House indicates only that two sidings will be built. There is no reference in that report to these additional provisions. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why there was this omission in the report of the Railway Commissioners when we were asked to give consideration to these construction works. The agreement which we are being asked to approve of here makes provision for two projects only …

Order, order! That is not under discussion. That is not in the agreement.

With respect, Sir, that is in the agreement. There is a clause referring to the construction …

Order, order! The hon. member is asking why it is not in the report of the Railway Board.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking why that agreement contains four sidings whereas the Minister earlier indicated only two sidings.

The agreement merely provides for the possibility of constructing two additional sidings. In the Railway Report by the Board it could have been inserted, it might have been an omission, but we had to make some provision in the agreement for future development.

Is it covered under the earth work costs?

Yes.

Schedule put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

The provisions of this Bill affect a whole number of Acts applicable to the Railways.

An explanatory memorandum which explains the amendments envisaged has already been tabled. It is a detailed memorandum which explains all the various provisions, and I take it that hon. members have acquainted themselves with its contents. In view of the fact that the implications of every clause of this amending Bill have been clearly explained in the memorandum, I feel that it is not necessary for me again to deal with all these aspect here and to repeat everything which appears in the explanatory memorandum.

I may, however, just add that some of the amendments are intended to facilitate departmental activities or to extend the benefits to the staff.

In regard to Clauses 12, 18 and 19, which affect the staff to a slight extent, I may just mention that the amendments contained in these clauses have been approved by the various staff associations of the Railway personnel. Clauses 18 and 19 have been unanimously approved of by the Joint Committee of Control of the Railway Superannuation Fund, on which the staff is represented. In other words, the matters affecting the staff have been accepted by them and have been discussed with them. I therefore move.

The last time we had a Bill of this nature before the House I drew the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the explanatory memorandum is not printed in the Votes and Proceedings, neither is it available in the records of Hansard. The result is that students of Railway affairs, and those interested in Railway matters will have to consider the amendments without having the advantage of the explanatory memorandum. I appealed to the hon. the Minister then to give a more detailed explanation of the changes so that there would be that record. On the last occasion I understood from the hon. the Minister that he agreed with me in that respect. But now the Minister has adopted the same course to-day, with the result that there will be no complete record in our Votes and Proceedings nor in Hansard. I regret that very much. I think that this is something of importance to a great many people who are not in the position to have the information which we have as Members of Parliament. I hope the hon. the Minister will attempt to rectify this position when it comes to the Committee Stage, because this Bill is very important; it has many important provisions which can better be dealt with at the Committee Stage rather than the second reading. However, because I may fall foul of the rules of the House it is my intention to deal with some of these important clauses at this stage in case there is a principle involved which the Chairman will not allow us to deal with at the Committee Stage. As I say, it is merely because I do not want to be caught out in this matter. For that reason I want to deal with some of the clauses that the Bill now seeks to bring in by way of amendment to the principal Act.

Clauses 2, 3, 5. 13, 17 and 20 of the Bill deal with the position that has come about as a result of the consolidation of cost of living allowances with basic emoluments. The explanatory memorandum gives no details of some of the things which were outstanding when we had the main Budget debate. I refer particularly to the now fully agreed decisions between the hon. the Minister and the various staff associations in relation to overtime payment. I would like to know what the position is in that regard. It is covered by the amendments which we are now considering, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some information in his reply as to what the final agreement is, whether it is a permanent or a temporary agreement, and any further information, so that we will be able to appreciate what changes have actually been brought about. I am not going to go into further details of consolidation because it reoccurs later on when we deal with the superannuation provisions.

Clause 10 of the Bill gives the Administration the right of recovery of losses suffered by the Administration as a result of dishonesty on the part of its servants. This is a new principle as far as the Administration is concerned, but it is one of the things which in the interests of the Administration appears to be necessary, so I am not going to say much more about that. However, in Clause 12 of the Bill we have a different position altogether. The explanatory memorandum deals with that and perhaps if I read it to the House hon. members will appreciate the position more clearly and it will make it more simple of explanation. It says this—

that is where overpayments have been made—

I want to emphasize here, Mr. Speaker, that it is recoverable over a period of 12 months, in respect of overpayment. The last portion of the paragraph dealing with Clause 12 says—

The position then is this, that if as a result of an action by a senior officer—and it will be a senior officer in most cases—a servant is overpaid, it will be possible, once this amendment goes through, for the Administration to recover that amount from the servant concerned. If he has been overpaid over a long period it will nevertheless be recoverable over a period of three years. The limitation is three years. Now it may be no fault of the servant concerned, he may not have been aware that he was being overpaid by the Administration, but the Administration now considers that the servant should repay the amount and that the servant should not be expected to pay an amount in excess of three years’ overpayment.

The point I want to make is that the explanatory memorandum and the Bill does not make provision, in the same manner, for underpayment. If it is found that there has been an underpayment, at the present time the servant can claim for a period of one year, in the same way as the principal Act restricts the recovery of overpayment to one year. The Bill now appears to make it possible for the Administration to recover overpayments up to a period of three years, but it makes no provision for a similar concession where underpayments are concerned, so that the servant would have the benefit of getting back pay in respect of three years rather than in respect of one year only. I think that this is something that should be put right, and if it is possible to do it I should like that to be done in the Committee Stage. It does not appear to be clear at this stage whether that can be done or not, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us the benefit of his views on this point. I think it is only fair that if the Administration is going to recover overpayment for a period of three years it should, at the same time, consider the payment of underpayment over the same period of time. I think that that is a fair proposition to put to the hon. the Minister.

The next issue that arises—and I do not think it is a result of consolidation although it could well be—is the reduction in the percentage rate of contributions in so far as members of the Superannuation Fund are concerned. This will mean a reduction in the monthly amounts paid by all the servants in respect of their contributions to the Superannuation Fund. A reduction of ¾ per cent will, of course, mean that the Administration will pay on the basis of rand for rand that much less in terms of their contribution to the Superannuation Fund. However, I am not concerned about that aspect at the moment. What I am concerned about is that it does appear to me that the actuaries, in submitting reports to the hon. the Minister from time to time, do not appear to be consistent. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of improvements in wages and salaries for servants in the past, the actuaries have always recommended an increase in the percentage rate of contributions to enable the fund to withstand the shock of the improvement in wages and salaries. I have always queried that procedure, because the fact of an improvement in wages and salaries automatically brought about an increase in the amount debited to the credit of the Superannuation Fund, as well as an increase paid by the Administration. So when a percentage increase in the contribution rates of the Pensions Fund was made, it appeared to me to be an amount in excess of what was necessary to keep the fund in a sound financial position.

You are quite wrong there.

The hon. member must not say I am quite wrong because now, for the first time, the actuaries are recommending a reduction in the rates of contributions despite the fact that consolidation is putting a tremendously increased burden upon the Pension Fund. I think the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is quite wrong in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, we have this position: at a time when the Pension Fund is apparently going to be subjected to a very heavy additional outflow of money as a result of consolidation, at this particular time the actuaries recommend a reduction in the percentage rate of the contribution. I mention this fact because it does justify the attitude we have adopted over the years when the actuaries recommend a percentage increase to offset improvements in wages and salaries, whereas at this time when the increase is possibly higher than at any other time, as a result of consolidation, they recommend a decrease of ¾ per cent. I think the fund can stand this decrease. I am not arguing about that at all. What I am arguing about is that the actuaries do not appear to be consistent in their attitude as far as this is concerned. I would much rather have seen an increase in the benefits than a decrease in the percentage rate of contribution. But as the benefits that would accrue would be so small when spread over the entire staff, it may be that this is possibly the way in which to give a measure of relief to contributors to the fund. I have made that point and I think it is a matter which we should consider very carefully, as far as the actuaries are concerned.

In respect of the other provision contained in Clause 24 of the Bill, here I find that there has been what I can only describe as serious neglect on the part of the Administration. Clause 24 of the Bill is designed to validate certain changes in conditions of employment. The position here is that by regulation the Administration is empowered to alter the conditions of employment in many respects. I think if I refer to the principal Act it will be quite clear to the hon. the Minister how important this issue is. Section 32 in Chapter III of the principal Act deals with the question of regulations, and the regulations which may be amended. It says—

1. (a) the conduct and subjects of examinations qualifying for admission to or promotion in the several branches of the Service, for particular classes of appointments thereto or for any other purpose;
2. (b) the grading, classification, remuneration, promotion, transfer, discipline, conduct, powers, duties, hours of attendance and leave of absence of servants and the conditions of employment in the Service;
3. (c) the rates of overtime payments and of any travelling, subsistence, climatic and local or other allowances and the circumstances under which any such allowance shall be made;
4. (d) the circumstances in which medical examinations shall be required;
5. (e) the security which may be required to be given by particular classes of servants and the amounts and form thereof;
6. (f) the procedure to be observed in investigating and dealing with charges of inefficiency or disciplinary infringement and the officers by whom the prescribed penalties may be imposed;
7. (g) the establishment of a sick fund and the working of the same, the form and manner in which the accounts thereof shall be kept, the scale of contributions and the manner in which contributions shall be made to any such fund by any servants;
8. (h) the circumstances in which and the person to whom an appeal shall lie and the manner in which such an appeal shall be prosecuted;
9. (i) the procedure to be followed in the election of representatives of the staff to committees and boards …

and other details. But the part we are now dealing with is Section 32 (3) which reads this way—

And that proviso is the important issue. In other words the Minister has a period of three months in which to obtain the approval of the Governor-General—or the State President now —in respect of regulations formed in terms of this Act. We discover now that in the schedule to the Bill before us there are a series of Government Notices which have been issued and which now require validation because they were not submitted to the Governor-General within the prescribed period of three months. I want to deal with one or two just to indicate what has happened. The first one is Government Gazette No. 538, which deals with the overtime payment for officers. It was operative from 1 August 1958, and the necessary regulation containing the amendment was published on 17 April 1959, and it is now coming before Parliament in 1961 for validation because of the lapse of time in excess of the three months’ period. But that is not the worst one. If one looks at Government Notice No. 1726, which was printed in the Government Gazette of 23 October 1959, one discovers that the operative date of this particular regulation was 1 April 1956. I cannot imagine what could cause the delay of this particular publication in the Gazette for almost three years. There is a three-year delay in submitting the amendments to the Governor-General. It is true that most of these regulations in respect of payments to the staff reflect improvements in their wages, but, because of the very wide field covered by the regulations, I think it is necessary for the Minister to indicate why there has been this neglect in submitting the amended regulations to the Governor-General, a delay in this one case of almost three years, and now a further delay of just over one and a half years in bringing it to Parliament for validation. This particular one, Government Notice No. 1726, should have been brought to the attention of the Governor-General and thus to the attention of the country by way of publication in the Gazette in 1956, but it was only done in 1959, and the Minister has not explained why there has been this extraordinary delay. The Minister has the power by way of regulation to amend many of the day-to-day things which affect the staff as a whole. The Minister can, by way of regulation, make these amendments provided he gets the consent of the Governor-General within three months. This is an important issue. I am not complaining about the fact that they are brought forward for validation, because that is the correct procedure to adopt, but it is a question of shaking the confidence of the railwaymen when this sort of thing can happen and there can be this neglect of duty by some officials in not complying with the Act and not giving effect to the proviso of Section 32. I hope when the Minister replies he will deal with this matter in detail, because it is important. I want to make it quite clear that we are not opposed to the validation, but what we query is the reason for the long delay before the matter is brought to the attention of the House.

As I have said, this Bill can better be dealt with in the Committee Stage. We want to give the staff the benefit of the provisions contained in it, and we wish to put no objections in the way of letting the Bill pass the second reading, but in the Committee Stage we would like to deal with some of the clauses in greater detail, so that we will know exactly what the Minister has in mind, and, if it is necessary to move amendments to give effect to what we feel should be done, we shall do so, depending on the explanations which the Minister gives.

I agree with the hon. member that the explanatory memorandum is not printed in the proceedings of the House and in Hansard, but, of course, the Bill is always available to anyone who is interested, and any important matters which are raised in the House are reported fully in Hansard. I do not think the staff is really interested, as long as it is to their benefit, in reading the Hansard report of the explanation for every particular clause. Take, for instance, consolidation. The staff is perfectly aware of what it entails and what the implications and the benefits are to them. It makes no earthly difference to them to read the explanation for consolidation in Hansard, as they are already fully aware of the position. It is merely to save the time of the House and to avoid tedious repetition that an explanatory memorandum is published giving all the details, but I do not think it necessary to repeat it in my speech. But, as the hon. member rightly said, the important clauses of the Bill can be fully discussed and explained in the Committee Stage if he so desires.

In regard to consolidation, as the hon. member rightly said, that has been unanimously agreed to by the staff. As I explained on a previous occasion, the staff took the initiative in regard to the matter of the payment of overtime and Sunday time. It is not something the Minister forced on the staff. The staff were aware of the fact that, unless some change was made in the payment of overtime and Sunday time, full consolidation could not be effected. The staff were also aware that if no changes were made in the payment of overtime and Sunday time, a small section of the staff would get the lion’s share of the benefits. That was one of the stumbling blocks in the past in obtaining full consolidation, because the majority of the staff felt that they would receive very few benefits except pension benefits, whereas a small section would run away with the lion’s share. In the past I could never get unanimity in regard to consolidation. To obtain this considerable benefit, the staff as a whole was prepared to make this concession, which is that overtime payments will be based on straight time only. I agree with the hon. member that for overtime and Sunday time there should be enhanced payments, and I want to give the assurance that this is not a principle which I have abolished permanently. I have also given the staff the assurance that in future, when the occasion arises, and circumstances are such that I can consider it, enhanced payment of overtime will be re-introduced, not necessarily on the same basis as in the past, but that the principle of enhanced payment will be observed. So paying straight time for overtime is a temporary provision, so that I can be placed in the position of being able to consolidate the whole of the cost-of-living allowances, which, of course, gives security to the staff and is of considerable benefit to them. I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the hon. member and myself in regard to the trade union principle of paying an enhanced wage for overtime.

You have changed your mind.

No, I said that to the staff even before the hon. member raised it in the House. On the last occasion I did not want to discuss it before I had the unanimous support of the staff. Now I have that support, and that is why I am prepared to state my standpoint.

In regard to Clause 12, although the provision is there that we recover over-payments for a period of three years, the practice has been and will be in future that recovery is only made for a period of 12 months. The Administration is in the same position as the staff. If there is an under-payment it will be paid only for 12 months, and if there is an overpayment it will be recovered only for 12 months. That has been the practice in the past and it will be the practice in the future.

The hon. member also raised the matter of the reduction in pension contributions. As I explained previously, the Superannuation Fund is controlled by the staff. They regard that fund as belonging to them and the Superannuation Fund Committee consists of representatives of the management and of the staff. I only act on recommendations of the Committee. I think the staff will raise serious objections if the Minister takes the initiative in regard to these matters. It is their fund and they control it, and all the recommendations for increased pension benefits or reduced contributions are discussed by the Committee and after obtaining the advice of the actuaries they make recommendations to the Minister. That was done in this case. The hon. member knows that in regard to consolidation one of the benefits I granted the staff is that both their increased contributions, together with the increased contributions of the Administration, will be paid by the Administration. That will be done, but on the general contribution it has been found by the actuaries, and recommended by them, in view of the sound financial position of the fund, that the contributions can be reduced. The Superannuation Fund Committee discussed the matter as to whether pension benefits should be increased, or whether contributions should be reduced, and they decided in favour of the latter. I accepted that recommendation and it is embodied in the clause. The hon. member, as an old railwayman himself and one-time leader of a staff organization, will agree with me that it would be entirely wrong for the Minister to disregard the recommendations of the Committee and to do anything contrary to their wishes.

With regard to Clause 24. I can only reply that obtaining the Governor-General’s consent is a mere formality, as the hon. member knows. These particular regulations referred to here were quite innocuous. They did not deal with changes in the conditions of employment, but they were all to the benefit of the staff where they dealt with the staff as such. But it very frequently happens that after deciding on a regulation it cannot be published before a week or 14 days elapses and consequently there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act. Many of these regulations have been made with retrospective effect, which again was to the benefit of the staff. If any of them were not to the benefit of the staff, the hon. member would have received complaints, but that has not happened. I agree that this should not happen if at all possible, but it is inevitable on occasions. There is, however, nothing seriously wrong with it. There were delays last year. We had a very short session and the instructions were that we should avoid legislation unless it were absolutely essential so that we could adjourn by the end of May. I agree that the Bill should have been before the House last year, but as the result of the pressure of work and the fact that we decided to adjourn early, it was not possible to bring it before the House. But I can assure the hon. member that it has not been detrimental to the interests of the staff. Many of these regulations dealt with changes in the name of certain posts. To give one example, the post of Assistant General Manager, Planning, was changed to Assistant General Manager, Finance and Planning, and that required an amended regulation. It is really quite innocuous. It could not be published in the Gazette in time and therefore it is in conflict with the provisions of the Act and it has to be validated.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

As the result of the revision of salary and wage scales resulting from the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with basic wages, which I envisaged in the main Estimates during this Session, the approval of an additional amount has become necessary to cover supplementary expenditure in order to eliminate unauthorized expenditure later in the year.

Hon. members will have noticed from the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Fund, which I have already tabled, that an additional amount of R56,421,942 is being asked for. Of this amount, however, R48,493,942 must be deducted in respect of cost-of-living allowances which are now no longer being paid. The total revised Estimates for the present financial year therefore amount to R427,324,200, which is R7,928,000 more than the original Estimates.

Of the additional amount of R56,421,942 which has to be voted R56,380,198 is required for the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with basic wages, whilst only R41,744 is being asked for for other purposes. Of this latter amount R20,000 is being asked for to cover expenditure in connection with the celebration of the first birthday of the Republic of South Africa. In view of the festival which is envisaged, certain expenditures will already have to be incurred during the present financial year and consequently it is necessary to approve of a preliminary amount for this purpose. Provision is being made in this connection under Head No. 1.

Then further provision for R19,000 and R2,744 in respect of ex gratia payments is being made under Head No. 17. In regard to the ex gratia payment to the Municipality of Koppies, the position is that when the Municipality considered the provision of its present water scheme it had to bear in mind the requirements of the Railway Administration. At that time the Railways bought a large quantity of water from the Municipality and guaranteed a minimum amount, but approximately five years after completion of the Municipality’s water scheme in 1954 the water consumption of the Railways decreased considerably as the result of the electrification of the line between Kroonstad and Vereeniging and the use of diesel locomotives. The Administration was consequently compelled to terminate the agreement it had with the Municipality for the provision of water, in terms of the provisions of that agreement. A scheme which is smaller than the existing scheme would have satisfied the town’s requirements, and it has consequently been decided to compensate the Municipality to some extent by the award of an ex gratia payment of R19,000.

In connection with the ex gratia payment of R2,744, the position is that a consignment of karakul pelts which was being transported from Windhoek to Cape Town did not arrive in Cape Town in time to be shipped. This consignment of skins consequently had to be transported to London by air in order to arrive there in time for the auctions and the amount of R2,744 which is asked for is intended partially to compensate the consignors for their additional costs.

Provision is made in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for an amount of R2,855,000. The original budget for the present financial year amounted to R100,923,600, and with the additional amount now being asked for the revised Estimates come to R103,778,600. Of the additional amount required, R2,650,000, is financed from loan funds, and R205,000 from the Betterment Fund.

Under Head No. 2, New Works on Open Lines—provision is being made for an additional amount of R2,745,300. This amount is mainly required for improvements which will have to be tackled to provide for the expected traffic needs on certain sections and for which provision could not be made timeously in the main Estimates which were submitted during March of this year. I shall deal with a few of the most important schemes.

Certain improvements will have to be made to the section in the vicinity of Kimberley in order to cope with the steadily increasing traffic, particularly manganese and iron ore, lime, cement and asbestos consigned from the Postmasburg line.

Under Head No. 7 provision is made for R100,672 in respect of improvements and modifications to the terrain at Capital Park. The existing terrain was laid out as the first portion of a larger terrain, and the traffic has increased to such an extent since its completion that its efficient handling will become impossible unless this terrain is now enlarged and various modifications are made.

In regard to the amount of R242,069 which is asked for under Head No. 15 in respect of a new goods shed and delivery depot at Bloemfontein, the position is that the present facilities have become insufficient due to the increase in traffic and the expansion of the delivery service. Improved facilities have therefore become essential, but in view of the fact that the terrain where the present goods shed and delivery service facilities are situated is not traffic and the expansion of the delivery service. depot elsewhere is being envisaged.

During 1957 it was decided to institute centralized traffic control on the Union-Volksrust section and in the main Estimates for the current financial year provision was made for this work also. As the result of the findings of a committee appointed to investigate the matter, it was decided to abandon the plan to institute centralized traffic control—this work has not yet been commenced—and to electrify the line. In this regard provision is made for R1,250,000 under Head No. 25. It is expected that the scheme will cost R5,053,400 to complete.

When the above-mentioned section has been electrified, the line between the Rand and Natal will have been completely electrified and the electric locomotives being used on the Rand and in Natal can be utilized more beneficially. In order to replace the locomotives now being used on the Union-Volksrust section, it will, however, be necessary to purchase 50 additional electric locomotives. Provision is made for this under Head No. 3.

I second.

I think the speech of the hon. the Minister made in introducing this motion can be described as notable, not for the information the Minister has given in regard to the figures but for the lack of information. The Minister summarily dismissed important aspects of what the House is asked to approve in the way of capital expenditure from Loan Account and has devoted the major part of his speech to an explanation of these three major items, the amount devoted to the republican celebrations, to the Koppies Municipality and certain other ex gratia payments. The Koppies Municipality was a matter of comment in the Auditor-General’s Report and it was dealt with by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. It is not an important matter. Nor do we need an explanation in regard to the republican celebrations. But what the Minister has not told us is the effect of this additional amount we are called upon to vote from the Revenue Fund in relation to his entire Budget.

I cannot discuss that. It is against the rules of the House.

I am not discussing it. I am discussing the reason for this additional amount. I have taken the trouble to look up previous debates in this regard. The point at issue here is that, as the Minister has pointed out, the additional amounts we are asked to vote make his gross expenditure R427,000,000, but in the Budget Speech we were told that the expenditure would be R419,000,000. The Minister says that the additional amount is largely to cover the cost of consolidation.

You cannot discuss that.

The Minister has just referred to the fact that the amounts we are asked to vote refer to consolidation. He has pointed out that there is a saving of R48,000,000.

You cannot discuss the saving.

I am not discussing the savings. Out of the total amount of R56,000,000 we are asked to vote there is a saving of R48,000,000, making a net expenditure on his Budget of R427,000,000. The Minister has explained that the R56,000,000 we are called upon to vote here is as the result of consolidation. The point I am trying to make is this. The Minister indicated that his gross expenditure at the time he introduced his Budget was R419,000,000, and that consolidation at that time would cost R 11,000,000. If it cost R11,000,000, it would have brought his gross expenditure to something like R429,000,00, a deficit on his Budget of R500,000. But the effect of the figures before us now is that the Minister will not have a deficit of R500,000 but a surplus of some R4,000,000.

But I explained that this was not the cost of the whole of the consolidation.

That is what we are trying to determine, because if it is not the whole cost of consolidation, the Minister made a statement earlier in the year that the cost of consolidation was some R12,000,000. What is the actual cost of consolidation?

That has not been determined yet.

Are we to assume that there will be a further expenditure in excess of R427,000,000?

Yes. I will give the explanation when I reply.

So these will not be the final figures in respect of the total expenditure for the current financial year. That is the information I wanted.

Turning to the capital account, the Minister has asked us, with no explanation, to vote an additional amount of capital expenditure from Loan Account of some R2,855,000. It falls under several heads and in no single instance has the Minister given an explanation.

You can get all that information in the Committee Stage.

I am not dealing with the Committee now, but with the principle, because with one exception the whole of the capital expenditure consists of entirely new items that the House has not before been called upon to approve. Let me say that with the exception of the Additional Appropriation in the year 1958, there has been no list of new items included in the Additional Estimates as we have this year. There is a list of new items dealing with the construction of permanent way, the purchase of locomotives and on a wide variety of subjects, but what the House is asked to approve in these Additional Estimates is not only expenditure of this R2,855,000, but we are asked to approve of the principle that these items which should have been included in the Brown Book—the House is being asked to sanction these new items of expenditure which may be incurred by the Administration, these new construction works. The Minister shakes his head in approval, but is it the right principle? That is the issue. Is it the right principle that the House should be called upon now, with no explanation from the Minister for the reason for including these items in the Estimates, to sanction these new works? Let me take the Minister back a little. I recall the day when his predecessor was severely criticized for the practice of including in the Additional Estimates a wide variety of new works to be approved by Parliament in the Additional Estimates, when the proper place for the inclusion of that work was in the Brown Book. This matter has also been the subject in past years for consideration by the Select Committee on Railways, and as recently as last year reference was made to what is described as a doubtful practice, of including these items, as they now stand, in the Estimates. Let me take a simple example, the item for improvements and alterations for the yard at Capital Park. We had a case last year before the Select Committee of the remodelling of a similar yard in Pretoria. That item was placed in the Additional Estimates as a matter of urgent work for 1955-6 and its cost was then shown at £137,000. That work was finally completed some years later and the cost of that item with no subsequent parliamentary approval being sought had risen to over £500,000. What indication have we had from the Minister to-day in regard to the urgency of any of these items on the Estimates? In a large number of these items we are merely asked to vote a token amount, simply to seek parliamentary approval for it. It is the contention of this side of the House that it is an improper practice which has not been approved of in the Select Committee. The proper place for the Minister to come with items of this nature, other than for urgent and immediate work, is when the Brown Book is introduced into Parliament. I would be glad of a full explanation from the Minister to-day as to why this step has now been taken that this House is asked to vote and approve new items, not to the extent of the amount we are being called upon to vote, of R2,855,000, but to the extent of R22,000,000 or R23,000,000 in the way of new capital expenditure.

R22,000,000! I am only asking for R2,855,000.

But the Minister is asking parliamentary approval for new works totalling, or estimated to total, R22,000,000.

That is the estimated amount.

Previously that was judged by the Select Committee to be undesirable. What is the purpose of the Brown Book if we are now called upon to vote items of this nature? Why are a number of token amounts put on, amounting to millions, of which we are asked to vote purely a nominal sum to sanction the work itself without any explanation for any one of the items? I say the Minister is not treating Parliament with the full responsibility to which it is entitled. I submit again that it is quite undesirable and I hope that in future the Minister will not adopt this practice but place these items in the proper place where they should appear, viz. the Brown Book.

I wish to support the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in his plea that the hon. the Minister should give fuller information in regard to the amounts Parliament is now being asked to vote. As I understand the position, Parliament is being asked to provide the sum of R56,000,000, but there is a set-off against that of R48,000,000. It is apparent from the interjection from the Minister that this is not the complete cost of consolidation. He has now indicated by way of interjection that the House can expect second Additional Estimates to be presented to it at some stage, presumably early next year. The position is that Parliament and the country are entitled to know precisely what the position is and the Minister should have told us that, not by way of interjection, but in his speech; because what we are doing here is to vote money for a part consolidation and not for a consolidation. The House and the country are also entitled to know what the effect of this is on the question of whether there is still deficit budgeting or surplus budgeting for the year. It seems that by some form of recalculation the Minister is changing a form of deficit budgeting to surplus budgeting. I think the House is entitled to fuller information in that regard. Then in regard to the Loan Vote funds it is perfectly true what the Minister says, that he is asking for a supply of R2.8 million, but what he is asking the House to do in addition is that Parliament should commit itself to an expenditure in the region of R22,000,000. That, as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has pointed out. is a very substantial addition to the commitments which Parliament is now making for the future. I agree with the hon. member and I therefore support his plea that the Minister should give further information in this regard and certainly in regard to the larger items. I accept that there is justification for the items but I think the House is entitled to an explanation as to why there is justification and why it is that within a period of something like two months since the original Estimates were dealt with, a need has arisen for a commitment of so substantial a nature. It is apparent of course, from the Estimates, that there will have to be a further appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Railways and Harbours Fund of some R2,500,000. I do not blame the Minister for this but it is unfortunate that again we should be dealing with a position of putting the cart before the horse, because we are now once again approving of the expenditure of money before we have approved of the transfer of that money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Railways and Harbours Fund. I do not blame the Minister for that, but I do blame the Government, because if appropriation has any serious meaning then it should be done in the correct way. I think we should have had before us the appropriation on Loan Account from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in order to see precisely what the position is and in order that the House could get the fullest information available as to where the money has to come from to finance this additional outlay on Capital Account. Sir, I do not want to enter into what will obviously become a debate with the Minister of Finance, but the question of capital funds is a very serious one, and it is for that reason that I raise this at this moment. I therefore repeat that I hope the hon. the Minister in his reply will deal with the aspects that I have raised and those which the hon. member for Turffontein has asked the Minister to deal with as well.

I wish to support the views which have already been expressed by both the hon. members for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) and Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in regard to the technique which is being adopted in getting these particular items approved. You see, Sir, it is not a new problem; it is one which was ventilated in the House earlier in this Session also with regard to this type of advance action by using Estimates of Additional Expenditure for a relatively small amount, to cover the approval of an item involving a total over-all expenditure considerably in excess of that amount. To a very large extent it cuts right across the accepted principle of parliamentary finance. It makes the parliamentary control of finance most difficult, if not impossible. This is a matter, as has been said by the hon. member for Turffontein, the principle of which has already on several occasions received the attention and the disapproval of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts as not being in accordance with the proper principles of financing. The items that we are dealing with are of a general nature. I refer now to the request for R2.8 million which will ultimately become somewhere in the region of R103,000,000 …

What Select Committee’s report are you referring to?

It was discussed by the past year’s committee and by an earlier committee.

Resolution No. 5 of 1956.

As I say, this principle has been discussed and what we are doing by approving of an expenditure of R2.8 million is that we are agreeing to work to the value of R103,000,000. This is work of such a nature that it should have been possible to foresee it at the time the Brown Book was prepared and it should have been submitted to the House with the Railway Budget. That is the accepted method of dealing with this type of work, except in emergency cases, and I do not think that this description would apply to the majority of these works, viz. rolling stock to the tune of something like R19,000,000 and new works on open lines R65,000,000. Surely the preparatory work to frame these Estimates must have been in progress for a considerable period; the policy must have been accepted by the hon. the Minister and the Government that this work was coming forward, in time for it to have appeared in the Brown Book so that the House could have had an opportunity of discussing the merits or the demerits and accept in principle that the work should be done. But once we have accepted this additional sum today we have tied Parliament absolutely and we have accepted that this work will be completed to the total estimated value. Therefore, I should like to add my disapproval, to those who have already spoken, of this method of carrying through very heavy expenditure without Parliament having been allowed a proper opportunity of discussing the merits of the items themselves and thus committing himself to an unknown expenditure which, as has already been pointed out, has an unhappy knack of very substantially increasing. We commit ourselves to that expenditure at a time when Parliament should be carefully examining every item of capital expenditure which is placed before us in view of the capital situation in the country as a whole.

Consolidation is a very complicated matter, and since that decision was taken a large number of officials have been working full time to make the necessary adjustments to wages and salaries. It is so complicated that even now the matter has not yet been finalized. I gave the staff the undertaking that they would at least receive the benefits from 1 April in spite of the fact that the whole matter has not yet been finalized. Before I can come to Parliament and ask it to vote the necessary funds, I must at least have an estimate of the actual costs, and at the present time the only estimate of cost I have is the amount appearing in the Estimates.

Which amount is that?

I am going to give the hon. member the figure. There are a large number of items which have not yet been finalized—for instance the items concerned with the cost of material and the additional costs in regard to the wages of the personnel on new works. That has still to be finalized. I have no estimate of that cost yet, except the broad estimate that I gave Parliament at the beginning of the year. There are a large number of additional wage adjustments which have to take place. As a matter of fact, it was only recently that I improved the wage scales of the salaried staff, and that is included. In other words, the total cost that I gave Parliament at the beginning of the year will probably be exceeded eventually, but because I have not got the actual cost yet because these matters have not been finalized, I cannot place the actual costs on the Additional Estimates except for this amount. That is why the amount which Parliament is being asked to vote now is lower than the amount that I stated in my Budget speech as the eventual cost. I expect that the cost will be even more than the amount that I gave Parliament in my Budget speech.

On the basis of what you are voting now it is only two-thirds of the figure that you gave Parliament.

Yes. As I say, I envisage that it will even be more than the amount that I gave Parliament at the beginning of the year. It is a complicated matter. I am dealing with almost 220,000 members of the staff, and although my officers have been working on a full-time basis it has been physically impossible to finalize the whole matter.

Hon. members were very concerned about the principle that the House should be called upon by way of Additional Estimates to sanction new items of expenditure from Loan and Betterment Funds. I think we must be practical. First of all, how long and how often is the Brown Book discussed by the House? This year was the exception. I think an hour was spent in discussing all the items in the Brown Book, amounting to millions of pounds. In other years the Brown Book was never even discussed.

That was not our fault.

Of course it is the fault of hon. members. They have the opportunity of discussing the Brown Book if they will take less time discussing the Revenue Estimates. This year they said: “We want at least an hour to discuss the Brown Book” and that was arranged, but usually they do not even discuss the Brown Book; they are not concerned about the millions of pounds of expenditure on Capital Account. Hon. members are very concerned now about the fact that I am asking for R2.8 million on the Additional Estimates for capital works. Hon. members must realize that running the Railways is not like running a small town business in a rural area. Planning is continually taking place, and in regard to these items, for instance, planning has been taking place for months. But until such time as an estimate has been drawn up the matter cannot be placed before Parliament. Parliament also agrees to a very large amount being appropriated for unforeseen works, up to R500,000. Parliament realizes that it very often happens that capital works must be done and must be done urgently when Parliament is in recess. Surely the main principle is to get parliamentary authority and sanction for the capital expenditure, and that is what is being done now. The Brown Book is compiled at the beginning of the year, and if I have to accept the principle that hon. members have enunciated here, it means that once the Brown Book has been compiled and placed before. Parliament, we must embark upon no additional capital works, whatever the position might be, until next year when the Brown Book is revised again. That is quite impracticable.

Nobody says that.

If the hon. member knows something about operating railways he would not talk like that.

But nobody says that.

The hon. member does say it; that is his argument: Why do I come with new items in the Additional Estimates; why are they not in the Brown Book? That is his argument.

I asked for an explanation.

I am going to give the hon. member an explanation. In Committee I am prepared to explain every item in the Additional Estimates for capital works. But the argument of the hon. member for Turffontein was that this should have appeared in the Brown Book, not in the Additional Estimates, and he has referred to a Select Committee resolution in 1956 to support his argument. It is quite impracticable to have all your items of capital expenditure in the Brown Book because there is continually planning and development and expansion and new works have to be embarked upon in the course of the year. The main principle is that as far as possible prior parliamentary approval must be obtained for all new items of expenditure. Hon. members have the fullest opportunity of debating these matters, whether they are in the Additional Estimates or in the Brown Book. They have an opportunity of debating every item. They do not even discuss the Brown Book, and now this is pertinently before them and they have an opportunity of discussing these items. Surely this is for the benefit of the House and hon. members.

That is a funny argument.

But you argued entirely differently in 1958. You said the only reason why it was included in 1958 was because there was no general budget.

No, the hon. member must be misinterpreting what I said.

But I have your Hansard here.

He must be misinterpreting what I said in 1958. This has been the usual practice. If hon. members are curious to know why it is considered necessary to provide for these items in the Additional Estimates, I am quite prepared to give an explanation of every item when we are in Committee. As I say, the main principle is that as far as possible prior parliamentary sanction must be obtained for any items of expenditure. When I have to get a Governor-General’s warrant for certain items of expenditure, Parliament objects when I come along the next session by way of Additional Estimates and a Bill to validate my action. This is the right method that I have adopted now.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds.

On Head No. 1.—“General Charges”, R1,548,385,

Under Account No. 212 an additional amount of R155,301 has to be voted, of which R20,000 is for expenditure in connection with the celebration of the first anniversary of the Republic of South Africa, which leaves an amount of R135,301 to be accounted for. May I ask the Minister what the large items are which are included in this amount of R135,301.

I would like to ask a general question in regard to these items; I do not want to specify the account numbers, but there seems to be an increase in each instance, whether it is the Service Commission, the Accounting Office or the General Manager’s office, in office and travelling and expenses. Could I know the reasons for these increased amounts, in a general sense, not in a specific sense?

The increase in travelling expenses is, of course, due to increased activities.

What sort of activities?

Well, the General Manager, for instance, has to travel more to visit the different systems and more expenditure is entailed. Very often the Minister has to travel more than he usually does during a particular month. This is a fluctuating figure. Sometimes it is less and sometimes it is more.

We do not mind the Minister travelling. You can double it if you like.

In regard to Account No. 212, this includes a large variety of items. I will give the hon. member a list of them. I will get the particulars and give it to him.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 2.—“Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works Railways”, R7,660,509,

On Accounts Nos. 233, 234 and 235, large additional amounts are being requested for crossings, signals and interlockings, and telegraphs and telephones. Has this anything to do with new construction or is this renewal of equipment?

This all arises out of consolidation. Your expenses are so much higher because your basic wages are so much higher.

Does this refer only to wages, because in certain cases we have a clear classification of these items; that is what I am trying to determine. Increases in salaries and wages are clearly specified, but under Permanent Way Structures, for instance, there is a large increase under “Water Supply”. Surely there is no wage item involved there, and there we are being asked to vote an additional R74,363. That cannot be wages.

It is all as a result of consolidation. Material costs are debited to the Stores Department. The handling of the material and all the rest of it is based on the consolidated wage now, and that increases the costs.

Head put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

On Head No. 2.—“New Works on Open Lines”, R2,745,300.

I am not going to ask the hon. the Minister for an explanation of each individual item, but what I would like to ask him is this: The amounts we are being asked to vote here fall under heads such as “Permanent Way: Additional Track”, “Permanent Way: Additions and Improvements”, “Permanent Way: Regrading and Deviations”. Take Item No. 9, “Regrading and Deviations” between Port Elizabeth and De Aar. How many of these items, if any, appear on the Estimates as a result of the recommendations of the Planning Council in the General Manager’s office? Are these recommendations that are made through the system managers, or do these recommendations come from the Planning Council as such? If that is so, who is responsible for estimating these costs? This is a question on which I would like clarification because we have had this experience in the past that we are asked to approve of items and then in subsequent years we find them appearing in the Brown Book and we find that the estimate in the Brown Book bears no relation to the original estimate. Take Item 7, for example, “Improvements and Operations to Yard at Capital Park in Pretoria”. The estimated total cost shown here is, say, R97,000, but we have had cases where this sort of item subsequently appears in the Brown Book at an estimated total cost of, say, R250,000. When these things are planned, is the estimated cost also taken into consideration by the planning section, as well as the necessity for the immediate commencement of the work? I shall be glad if the Minister could deal with these items in that general way.

I was unable to agree with my colleagues on the Opposition benches when they objected to the introduction of new items in these Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, because I believe that the hon. the Minister made out a very good case for including certain major new works. I want to refer particularly to Item No. 25. I say that because to anybody who has over the years studied the growth of traffic between the Reef and the coastal ports, I think it has been a source of considerable alarm as to whether some of our main lines or portions of our main lines will be adequate for the growing volume of traffic. That particularly applies to the Union/Volksrust section, which I have on previous occasions dealt with in this House. I may say that on previous occasions when I urged that this line should be doubled and electrified the Minister gave the explanation that first of all the line would be regraded, that the most modern methods of signalling would be introduced, that the line would then be electrified and finally, if the traffic warranted it, the line would be doubled. I assume that the purpose of electrifying this line is to cope with this growing volume of traffic which in the year 1960 amounted to 11,500,000 tons, and which must be approaching very close to the limit that can be efficiently handled on a single line. I think it is reassuring therefore that the hon. the Minister should have come forward at the earliest possible opportunity with this estimate to electrify this line and so increase the carrying capacity and speed of handling the traffic on this particular line. One should remember that this line is the main artery which links up the Johannesburg mining and industrial area with the coast, and therefore there should at all time be an adequate margin for the traffic that is available, not only for economic but also for strategic reasons. When one bears in mind the growing importance of the port of Durban in respect of export traffic particularly and the new changes in the pattern of export trade of South Africa, particularly in so far as the citrus traffic is concerned, or the export of ores and steel, then I believe that the hon. the Minister was right in placing this item on the Additional Estimates at the very first opportunity. I would therefore like to say that we in this corner thoroughly approve of this measure and that we believe he did the right thing. I wonder whether in replying the hon. the Minister could give us some information about the effect which this electrification is likely to have on this section of the line, the extent to which it will increase the carrying capacity, and whether he visualizes that in the near future this will be a prelude to the doubling of that particular section, because I believe it is in the interests of the country that as soon as it is possible the whole of the line from Johannesburg to Durban should be doubled and electrified.

I think the most important item that we have to deal with under this heading is this question of the electrification of the Union/Volksrust section. The Minister must have had serious representations made to him in respect of the advisability of electrifying this section in view of the fact that at present he is using diesel locomotives rather extensively on this particular section. I wonder whether the Minister would give some indication to the Committee as to what he is going to do with all the railway property at Volksrust once this scheme goes through. There is a considerable concentration of railwaymen at Volksrust who are in railway houses and quarters, and as a result of this decision there will be quite a number of transfers from that area, not comparable with what happened in Ladysmith in the days of the electrification of the Maritzburg/Glencoe section but something of that nature. The Minister knows that he has considerable railway property at Volksrust and I would like him to indicate what he has in mind and what is likely to happen now that this decision has been taken to electrify the line from Union to Volksrust. I believe this is an essential step to take; I am not arguing against that. I think that the electrification of the line from Durban right through to the Reef is a step in the right direction. I also read into this, rightly or wrongly, that the system of electrification is cheaper even than dieselization over a long period of years. I am not opposed therefore to the electrification of this system. What I am concerned about is the effect that it will have on a considerable number of workers who are presently stationed at Volksrust. I should like to know whether the Minister is going to compensate those who are going to lose their property, because they are not going to be occupied by other residents. It is essentially railwaymen who are going to suffer as a result of the decline in the number of railwaymen stationed at Volksrust itself. I happen to know very well what happened at Ladysmith and I should hate to see railwaymen suffer in the same way at Volksrust as a result of this decision. I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that I feel that this decision to electrify this line was inevitable and will in the long run be in the best interests of the Railways.

My reply to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is that the Planning Council deals with all major works costing more than £100,000. Works costing less than that are usually submitted by system managers or by the different departments in head office, departments such as the Operating Department.

Rand or pounds?

Pounds. The Planning Council does not compile the Estimates. That is done by the technical departments. In other words engineers investigating the particular work that has to be done. I agree with the hon. member that in years gone by the Estimates were not very reliable. It frequently happened that a new work was estimated to cost £100,000 and eventually cost £500,000. There were several reasons for that. One is the extreme shortage of engineers combined with a tremendous rush of work. They simply did not have the time to go into the details of the matter. But that time is past. Another difficulty is that many of these major works take two or three years to complete and costs are continually rising. You may give a fair estimate of the cost of the work to-day and in two years’ time the cost has considerably increased. The same thing happens in the case of rolling stock and locomotives manufactured overseas. Contracts in this connection make provision for increased costs in respect of wages, etc. The same applies to these large new works which stretch over a period of years before they are completed. There are increased wages and increased costs generally. Consolidation is going to mean a big difference in costs in respect of many items which have already been before the House and approved in the Brown Book. I shall probably have to come to Parliament next year and ask for additional funds in respect of many of those items.

The hon. member for Durban-Berea (Mr. Butcher) wanted to know what effect the electrification of the Union/Volksrust line would have on the line generally. The line has been regraded and originally we decided to introduce C.T.C. working on that line instead of electrification. C.T.C., namely centralized traffic control, is of course much cheaper than electrification. As a matter of fact, it is only half the cost of electrification. After further inquiries by the Planning Council, however, it was found that C.T.C. would not bring a solution to the problem, that is, it would not raise the carrying capacity of that line sufficiently or to the same extent as electrification would do. Apart from that, however, I felt that it was in the interest of good working to electrify the whole section. We have the electrified network from Durban to Volksrust, then steam working from Volksrust to Union; again electrification on the Witwatersrand as far as Klerksdorp and Witbank. It will, of course, be in the interest of good working that the network of electrification should go right through instead of it being broken by steam working over certain sections. The Volksrust line will, however, require considerable improvements in future because we still have difficulties between Glencoe and Ladysmith which is a single line and between Newcastle and Volksrust which also is a single line. The carrying capacity of these lines is being inquired into by the Planning Council at the present time with a view to determining how their capacity can be increased further. We shall have to make provision for increased capacity when the Shell refinery is completed because that is going to bring a tremendous increase of traffic over that line. The Planning Council is busy inquiring into these matters and will, in due course, submit its recommendations with regard to them. The electrification of the section Union/Volksrust will raise the capacity over that line by about 100 per cent and this will meet our requirements for a number of years to come. When the line becomes congested again, then doubling would have to be undertaken.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) wanted to know what was going to happen to railway property at Volksrust. I do not yet know what is going to happen with those properties which will no longer be required by the Administration after electrification has been completed. Quite a number of staff will have to be transferred. The artisan staff, for instance, will have to be transferred because there will then be no steam locomotives stationed at Volksrust any more. Provision is of course made for those members of the staff who have their own properties under the House Ownership Scheme. Their houses can be sold and they will then have an opportunity of purchasing another house at their new centres. As far as the remaining properties are concerned, we shall have to try and get rid of them the best we can.

I thank the hon. Minister for the information he has given us, but it seems only to endorse the point of view I expressed when discussing the motion to go into Committee. Take, for example, Item No. 10, where R1,071,000 is provided for the installing of block signalling between Spytfontein and De Aar, or Item No. 15, where R4,774,200 is provided for the layout of a new goods and cartage depot at Bloemfontein. I can hardly conceive that in respect of these large items, the planning council suddenly got down to work in Johannesburg and decided to have a new goods layout and cartage depot at Bloemfontein; to plan it quickly and have it put on the Additional Estimates. Surely, investigations took place by the System Manager initially, and surely these investigations must have taken place over a number of months.

That is so.

The Railway Board, too, probably had a view to express about it. So that I cannot conceive that such a large item as this could appear from March this year to June. If it had been planned and sanctioned, it could as well have appeared on the March Estimates. We would then have had a better picture of the gross capital expenditure necessary for the completion of the work. The hon. Minister has said that the Administration’s capital works programme was coming to an end, and neither I, nor I think any other member of this House, knows whether such large works, such as the one we are being asked to approve of here, is part of the original development programme or part of a new programme or the result of the new programme. It is aspects such as these on which we are not clear in our minds. When the matter is being dealt with in such a piecemeal fashion neither we, nor the country, have any conception what the new programme is, i.e. whether it has been completed or not. The hon. Minister will agree with me that when we have the Brown Book before us, we can say that that represents the development programme for the Administration, and one can see what is involved and what the financial commitments are. But when we get it piecemeal in this fashion, we do not know whether it is part of a new programme or of an old programme. We know the position as far as the Volksrust/Union section is concerned; the Minister has talked about it for a long time already. It has been on the stocks for a considerable time, because it is the general policy of the Railways to electrify as far as possible. We are aware of that. But if it is then part of the general development programme, and if it is being planned by the planning council, then at least it should appear in the Brown Book, so that we can have the full picture before us instead of having to deal with it piece-meal. That I think also answers the contention of the hon. member for Durban (Berea). I know he has difficulties in following these matters from time to time, although I hope, after this explanation, he will now understand.

There is one other item about which I would like to speak to the hon. Minister, one which again brings in the planning council, and that is Item No. 18—the re-erection of the old brass foundry and coppersmith shop as engine spares store at Bloemfontein. I understand that it was part of the development of the workshops at Koedoespoort—the hon. Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that all the foundries at Bloemfontein were being moved to Koedoespoort. Now, it must have meant considerable expenditure to move those foundries and to establish new ones at Koedoespoort. How can it then become necessary that we are being asked for R26,500 for the re-erection of a foundry which has already been demolished as part of the general policy to move all foundries to Koedoespoort? It points rather to a lack of planning, because the original plan took into consideration the movement and centralization of these foundries, but now we are told that it has been found by the Orange Free State system that it wants this old building for the purpose of using it as a store for engine spares. I would appreciate it if the hon. Minister could explain this matter, because it certainly does not look like planning when looked at in this manner.

I think it is the hon. member for Berea who understands the position, while it is the hon. member for Turffontein who does not. I want to give the hon. member an illustration of what happens with planning with special reference to these two items he has mentioned, namely Items 10 and 15. Now, the new goods layout at Bloemfontein has been under consideration for quite a number of years and the planning thereof has stretched over a considerable period. Final estimates for these works, however, were only obtained after the Brown Book had already been laid before Parliament and consequently could not have been included in the Brown Book. It is not a matter in respect of which planning started two or three months ago and it is not a question of us suddenly deciding to have a new goods layout there. It has been investigated and inquired into over quite a lengthy period of time. The procedure which is being followed is this: First of all, information has to be obtained from the System Manager in regard to congestion of traffic which is being experienced at a certain point. Then the planning division—the planning council consists of the Management itself—is called in to investigate and to make recommendations. Thereafter, the matter is placed before the planning council, consisting of the General Manager and his assistants. When they have decided upon the matter, it is submitted to the Minister for his concurrence, with an indication of the costs involved. Only after the Minister had decided on the matter, is it placed in the Brown Book or on the Estimates. Now, in this particular instance, the estimates of the expenditure involved became available only after the Brown Book had already been laid before Parliament and could, consequently, not have been included therein. An alternative course would have been to wait until next year and then we would not have been able to commence with the work at all in the course of this year without having to finance it out of unforeseen works, or by way of obtaining a Governor-General’s Warrant to be approved of by Parliament when it meets again.

In regard to Item No. 10—Spytfontein-De Aar: Block Signalling, I would like to point out that the whole section of the line from Potchefstroom to De Aar has been under consideration for some time already. In order to relieve congestion a certain section of that line had to be doubled and C.T.C. had to be installed on another, namely from Beaconsfield to Postmasburg and to relieve the congestion further, a new avoiding line had to be built between Kamfersdam and Beaconsfield. The intention now is to double the whole section from Warrenton as far as De Aar and, eventually, from Klerksdorp to De Aar. This has, however, to be done in stages, and I do not want to come to Parliament at this stage and ask for funds for the doubling of the entire section from Klerksdorp to De Aar which will cost many millions of rand because, as the hon. member rightly pointed out, that estimate would be quite unreliable. The work would have to be stretched over a period of from five to six years and eventually might cost twice the amount provided in the Estimates. The work is now being done in stages. The first stage is the installation of C.T.C. between Beaconsfield and Kamfersdam. Then additional lines are being built in the yard at Beaconsfield. An additional avoiding line between Kamfersdam and Beaconsfield has been completed. The line between Warrenton and Content is being doubled. Next year I would probably ask Parliament for funds for the doubling of yet another stretch of that line. The first stage, however, is to double from Warrenton to Content and from Beaconsfield to Spytfontein. It is also part of the scheme to install block signalling—in other words, to subdivide the sections. There is a double line between Poupan and Belmont but the sections are so long that considerable delays are continually taking place. These sections are therefore being sub-divided by means of block signals and this is what is provided for here. It is part of the whole scheme. I do not place the entire scheme before Parliament and ask for all the funds at the same time, but I do so only for those stages where we feel we have to start immediately. Once those stages are completed, we will go over to the next stage. That is how planning takes place. It stretches over a long period, but only when the estimates become available and the Minister has taken a final decision, is the work placed on the Estimates and brought before Parliament. The hon. member will realize, therefore, that it is quite impossible to include everything in the Brown Book because many items have to be started in that part of the year when Parliament is not in session.

In regard to Item 18—the re-erection of the old brass foundry at Bloemfontein—I would like to point out that with the building of the new marshalling yard, the old foundry had to be demolished. The materials with which the old foundry was built are still available and we are merely using that to re-erect it as a store. That is all that is happening here—it has nothing to do with new foundries at all.

I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to Item 12, namely the installation of a teleprinter network at Harrismith, Glencoe, Ladysmith, Pietermaritzburg, Bayhead and Durban at an estimated cost of R47,300. Can the hon. Minister give us some information as to what is envisaged here when he speaks about a “teleprinter network”? The other two items I want to deal with are Items 16 and 17, namely the provision of rest rooms for road transport staff and improvements and additions to rest rooms for the running staff at Beaufort West. These works I presume are part of the general plan to improve the facilities for, particularly, the running staff at the various depots throughout the country. The hon. Minister will recollect that he set up a committee to go into the whole question and, I take it, this is partly a result of its recommendations. Mr. Chairman, what amazes me to-day is that the Government members are so well informed on all these things that they have no questions to ask on these matters. The matter is, however, of considerable concern to us.

In reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) about the teleprinter network, I would like to tell him that that is necessary for the new system of truck control which has been introduced. What we have in mind is to have a system of being able to tell at any given time where a particular truck finds itself on a system. Such control is necessary and the installation of a teleprinter network between the main centres would enable information being sent from the one yard to the other. In regard to Items 16 and 17, the hon. member wanted to know whether the intended improvements were part of the recommendations of the relevant investigating committee. In this connection I can say, and say with satisfaction, that about 99 per cent of the recommendations made by the Ford Committee for the improvements of staff facilities have already been implemented. That embraces all sections of the staff. The remaining 1 per cent is being implemented at the present time.

Is that in respect of Danskraal?

No; Danskraal has been completed.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3.—“Rolling Stock”, R93,800,

Mr. Chairman …

These locomotives are the result of the electrification of the Union-Volksrust line.

The hon. Minister has anticipated my queries, but it is not as simple as all that. You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister has now made different statements in regard to matters of costs, etc. If the electrification of this section is being planned, when is it anticipated that the new Class 5E locomotives will be placed in service? How does the acquisition of these new locomotives tie up with the completion of this section?

The delivery of these locomotives has been planned to coincide with the completion of the line.

We would like more information from the hon. Minister on that aspect. Where, for instance, are these locomotives being manufactured?

Tenders have not yet been placed.

Another aspect is the design of these locomotives. In the past, as the hon. Minister knows, there has been trouble with electric locomotives. The frames of some have cracked and various defects were subsequently to their delivery discovered in their design with the result that they had to be modified at considerable cost. I would, therefore, like to know whether these particular locomotives are being built to specifications drawn up by railway engineers.

Can the hon. Minister, when he replies, also give us information as to the circumstances necessitating the decision to provide sealed beam headlights on tenders and on certain locomotives? We had the normal type of headlight over the years, but now we are faced with the expenditure of quite a considerable amount of money, namely R50,200, for the provision of sealed beam headlights. Is this a new invention and has it been developed by the Administration itself?

In reply to the hon. member for Umlatuzana about the sealed beam headlights, I would like to tell him that provision is being made for this type of headlight because the cost of maintenance is much lower. It can, therefore, be justified economically.

In reply to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) about the electric locomotives, I want to say that tenders have not yet been called for the supply of these electric locomotives. I am, however, trying to standardize the type of locomotive in use. The locomotives which he referred to as having developed defects were the 4E locomotives. The 5E and 5E1 locomotive is of a different design. The 5Es are already in use in Natal and on the Witbank section. It is being found that the 5Es and 5Els are excellent locomotives. We have had no trouble at all with them so far. That is why we are ordering a similar locomotive to those already in service and giving satisfactory service. These were, of course, designed by engineers of the Administration. The delivery of these locomotives will coincide with the completion of the electrification of the line in about two or three years’ time.

What is the target date?

About 2y years’ time. The delivery of the locomotives will, as I said, coincide with the completion of the line.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 4 put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds reported, without amendment, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works reported, without amendment.

Report considered and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works adopted.

Bill brought up to give effect to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure adopted by the House.

I move—

This is a very short Bill and its provisions are also very clear. I am therefore convinced that hon. members are so familiar with its contents and its aims that it will not be necessary for me to devote a great deal of time to it. I just want to point out that this Bill actually originated from a scheme which my predecessor had already drawn up in the 1950s. At that time he also introduced a draft Bill but it was found that certain city councils were not yet ready for the idea and the matter was not taken any further at that stage. However, I remain convinced that this Bill with the principles embodied in it is very essential for the establishment of the right attitude, spirit and sense of responsibility amongst the Bantu in the urban residential areas. That is why I already announced last year that I would introduce a Bill of this nature as soon as possible. In addition I want to say that I am engaged on a revision of the laws relating to the urban Bantu. I have already referred to this matter on a previous occasion and said that I had the co-operation of many municipalities. I intend giving my further attention to this matter to see how the position as regard the urban Bantu can be developed still further.

Before explaining the various clauses, I should like to say a few words in general. In the first place I want to point out that here we are creating the possibility for the Bantu to take the initiative themselves to a very large extent in matters relating to their residential areas. They will be given their own councils, councils which will not only have advisory functions, but which will also be given executive functions. In the past such bodies existed, but only in an advisory capacity. Many of these boards did good work, and in recent times I have succeeded in gaining the co-operation of many of them. However, everywhere the complaint was heard that they were only advisory and as such were powerless because they could only suggest certain things while there was nothing they could really do. Under these circumstances the idea has been expressed in recent times in various parts of the country that the time has come for these boards to be given a certain degree of power to enable them not only to provide for the material welfare but also for the social and spiritual welfare of the Bantu in the urban areas. I have come very strongly under the impression of the necessity of granting these boards a greater degree of responsibility so that they can undertake these tasks in the interests of their own people. The bodies responsible at the moment for these Bantu urban areas are of course the municipalities. I consider however that a greater measure of co-operation between the municipalities and these boards is possible, not only in an advisory capacity, but the municipalities can delegate many of these powers to the Bantu councils so that they will also be able to play a considerable part in building up their own communities and in the establishment of better mutual relations. I want to say at once that it is not my intention to abolish these advisory boards immediately. On the contrary, certain very important principles are being laid down. In the first place there will now be very much closer co-operation with the urban councils. This is a principle to which I attach great value namely, that there should be consultation by the municipalities with the Bantu in their areas so that they will have the co-operation of the Bantu in developing a system in their areas which will meet their desires. Consultation is therefore an important aspect of this matter. Another important aspect is that the urban Bantu councils must serve as a link between the municipalities concerned and the Department. I have already taken certain administrative steps in this regard which have already made it possible for us to achieve very sound co-operation between the municipalities, my Department and the advisory boards. In this regard I want to point out that in the past I have encountered the unfortunate phenomenon that certain persons take pleasure in telling the Bantu that all the good things which they enjoy in their areas have been provided by the municipalities while the Government is responsible for all the bad things. The Bantu are therefore inevitably opposed to the Government’s policy. I have found instances where regulations are described as being bad and as emanating from the Government while the good regulations emanate from the municipality concerned! The result of all this has been that in many cases a healthy attitude towards the Government has not been cultivated. As I have said, I have already taken administrative action and to-day a great improvement is to be noted in all these matters. Municipalities are realizing to-day to an ever greater extent that in order to do good work it is necessary to maintain close contact with the Bantu in their residential areas and with the Department of Bantu Administration. This new tendency will still yield very satisfactory results for us in the future.

Another important principle embodied in this Bill is that the councils are being given new powers in order to enable them to look after their own affairs. Allow me to put it in this way: We are giving the municipalities the opportunity to delegate additional powers to the Bantu urban councils, and I hope that it will never be necessary for me to intervene in this regard, but that the municipalities will realize their responsibilities to such an extent that they will voluntarily give these new powers to the urban Bantu councils so as to make it possible for them also to do good work in—to use the old expression—the location as a whole. In the first place we are allowing them to co-operate in laying out the area. What we mean by this is that they can co-operate in the laying out of streets, the improvement of streets, etc., and in future we hope also in connection with the provision of electric light, etc., and that they will also be able to cooperate in respect of the laying out of playgrounds.

And gardens?

Gardens and also places where the children can play for example. I want to say frankly that in this regard we have received co-operation which I personally appreciate greatly and to which I attach great value. I attach great value to playgrounds for the children and places for the younger Bantu, where they can spend their time on healthy sporting activities, etc. In this regard I appeal to the town councils to follow the example of the city council I want to mention here, namely the Johannesburg City Council. They have laid out excellent places for the Bantu—sports fields and magnificent open areas where the small children can play. I wish hon. members would go and see them. I want to invite other municipalities to go and see what results are being achieved. But here we want to ensure that the Bantu will play a part himself in the planning of these matters so that he can co-operate in the improvement of his own areas. Here I think I shall develop a pride amongst the Bantu in their own residential areas. This is a pride which already exists to a very large extent, and which is in actual fact basically present amongst the Bantu. Just look at the housing schemes. Hon. members will see, particularly where the municipalities are wide awake, that beautiful gardens are laid out in front of the houses, fruit trees are planted; they are laid out neatly. When one enters the house in most instances— I almost want to say in 98 per cent of the cases—it is neat and clean. The floors have been polished and the furniture is in good condition. It is a pleasure to see such homes. But it is not confined to the homes. We also find the same position on the yard around the house. I want to invite hon. members to go and see Meadowlands. Magnificent results have been achieved. I just want to say that both Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Hammerskjoeld were simply astounded to see the neat homes and the fine gardens and to see how well kept they were inside. This shows that these people have a basic pride in their own homes, and we should like to see this pride being extended to the whole of their area. Many have already done so, and it already exists, but I think that by this measure we shall develop this attitude still further.

But that is not all. I do not only believe that we should look after the material welfare of the Bantu. There is still much that we can do in this regard. We must also look after the spiritual and social welfare of the Bantu, in other words we should also provide for his cultural institutions, etc. Here they must also play an active part. The Bantu must have the right to develop his own cultural institutions, for which opportunities are being created, and by so doing we shall be making it possible for a large part of the children and young people who degenerate into tsotsis, to put their free time to good use.

Mr. Chairman, we also want to make it possible for them to have a share in the maintenance of law and order in these areas. Here a very important principle is involved. I had this experience last year particularly during the disturbances. I received requests from various locations: Do not send the police here; give us the opportunity to deal with these people and you will not have any trouble. I must honestly say that I was also convinced that if we had allowed them to deal with these people we would have had less difficulties. But it has now been proved, and I shall say how it has been proved, that the Bantu can play an important role in these areas in maintaining law and order themselves. We are giving them this opportunity here. In the first place we are doing so by the establishment of community guards. I was surprised at the number of requests I received last year already, and particularly at the beginning of this year, from various quarters, to the effect that we should allow the Bantu to establish their own community guards in their locations, in the same way as we are now allowing Bantu chiefs to establish their home guards in their own areas. This is a request which has actually come from the Bantu. This is an important principle and it can help to prevent those people in particular who have nothing better to do than to go around causing trouble and intimidating people from continuing with that type of activity and in their being pulled up short, and it can also contribute towards clamping down on tsotsis and such people. The Bantu will have the responsibility of ensuring that law and order is maintained in their own areas. I want to enlarge on this point presently when I explain the various clauses.

I am giving the Bantu this further opportunity. Certain legal powers are being granted to certain members of the Bantu councils or certain representatives of Bantu chiefs who live in those areas, so that they will be able to deal themselves with many of these matters which often cause unnecessary difficulties. I can only tell hon. members that they will be surprised to know that after we took administrative action to allow the Bantu chiefs to a large extent to nominate their representatives in the towns, it has had a very salutary effect on the maintenance of law and order during the past two years. It has had a tremendous effect. What is more, these representatives of Bantu chiefs have acted in this capacity without our having authorized them to do so administratively. Members of the ethnic groups who are faced with one or other difficulty, particularly of a domestic nature, go to such a representative. He is regarded as the representative of the chief; he solves the difficulty for them without their having to go to court and paying heavy expenses. All these difficulties are solved for them. It is now our intention to give these people official recognition and to grant civil and criminal powers to such people in the Bantu residential areas. I think that in this way we shall be able to render a very great service to the Bantu. The same concession which was made to the Bantu in the Bantu areas in the Native Administration Act of 1927 is now being proposed in the case of the urban residential areas. This recognition is now being given for the first time and we are convinced that it will contribute greatly towards the maintenance of law and order in the residential areas concerned.

Then there is another important principle, namely that we are now for the first time appointing official representatives of the chiefs on these councils. I repeat that during the past few years, particularly during the past year, we have seen to it administratively that they are appointed in the Bantu residential areas and it has had a very salutary effect. This has resulted in the establishment of a very large measure of peace in the Bantu areas. Hon. members will be surprised to hear how this idea is being applauded by the ethnic groups concerned in these areas. The Zulus for example were particularly grateful for the fact that in Durban for example official recognition has been given to the chief’s representative in Durban. It has had a very salutary effect. Thus we find the same position in the case of the Basutos, the Vendas and every national group. Legal sanction is now being given to this system in the Bill for the first time. We are convinced that this will have a very beneficial effect on all the Bantu as regards sound administration, etc.

Then there is another matter which is of importance, and perhaps it is the most important, namely that in establishing these Bantu councils we are not abolishing the advisory boards. We shall consult them as regards the establishment of two types of council. The first is a council which is constituted on a group basis or in accordance with the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act. As hon. members know, eight different ethnic groups are recognized. A group of Bantu who work in a city can elect to establish a council on an ethnic basis. Let us assume that the Zulus in Durban for example decide that they would rather have an exclusively Zulu council and they do not want to have a council together with the Xhosas or the Basutos. Then they will have every right to establish such a council on an ethnic basis. Or if they prefer to establish a council for the area concerned on a regional basis, then the various ethnic groups can decide that such a council will be established on a regional basis and such a council need not be established on an ethnic basis. But the advisory board concerned will be consulted and they can decide what type of council they would like to have. This is a right which is the Bantu’s due. It is one of the methods which we are following in establishing the Bantu authorities and which has achieved simply wonderful results, namely that we consult them in this matter and that they themselves will have to decide what type of council they would like to have. I think that in general this will result in very great satisfaction. I can only say that in many areas we have consulted the Bantu on these matters and they applaud this idea. There are cases where they are intermingled and where one cannot establish an exclusively ethnic council as yet. But there are other areas where they prefer to have an exclusively ethnic council.

Which Bantu have you consulted?

In recent times I have consulted persons in areas such as Johannesburg for example although not in an official capacity; the same applies to Pretoria and elsewhere. I personally have had discussions with individual Bantu from these areas whom we regard as leading persons in the communities concerned. Furthermore I say that they will be consulted personally as to what type of council they want. They can therefore decide which type of council they would like to have.

There is another important principle, namely that at least half this council—or rather let me put it in this way: A council will consist of elected and selected members. It is a principle laid down in the Bill that at least half the council must consist of elected members; that is to say persons who are elected on more or less the same basis as the old advisory boards. It is also the wish of the Bantu that a large proportion of the members should be elected on this basis. It is my personal opinion that there will be many instances where the council will consist almost entirely of elected members because the representatives of the chiefs in the cities are in most cases persons who have been working there for years and without our knowing it, they have always been recognized as the chiefs’ representatives. They have been working in such areas for years; they can stand for election, and if they do so they will automatically be representatives of the chiefs, so that in many instances we shall have councils which will consist almost entirely of elected members. But there are other ethnic groups which may be in the minority, and which will then not have representation. Then it will be our duty to ensure that they are also given representation on these councils and the method which will achieve the greatest satisfaction is for the chiefs’ representatives whom we recognize in respect of the various ethnic groups to meet and to nominate their representative on the council. The Minister must approve their nomination because he must make sure that they are official representatives of the chiefs and they must be approved of by the town council concerned because the town council must make sure that they have the right to be in such a Bantu residential area. This is therefore a power which is vested in the town council. Such persons must therefore be approved of in the first place by the town council, and in the second place by the Minister, in order to make quite sure that they are really the representatives of the chiefs. They will recommend the selected members of these Bantu councils. In this way I think we shall be able to give the Bantu a far greater say in their own residential areas and we shall succeed in making it possible for them to provide for their material welfare, their spiritual welfare and their general social welfare not only in an advisory capacity but also in an executive capacity. In other words, to take more responsibility for the active development of a sound community life in their own Bantu residential area.

Has the Bill been discussed with municipalities throughout the Union, and have you had discussions with the municipal associations?

I can say that I have unfortunately not had official discussion with municipal associations on this matter. But last year I circulated a Bill dealing with the urban areas and from the replies which I received it is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of municipalities want greater powers to be granted to the urban Bantu councils. I feel that the time is past when they should be merely act in an advisory capacity and that the municipalities should be able to delegate powers to them. But I just want to make this promise. If any municipalities have doubts, then such municipalities have time to submit their doubts to me, and when I introduce this comprehensive legislation next year I am quite prepared to give consideration to such representations as well as to any suggestions which they may make. As regards this draft Bill, as I have already said, I have consulted the muncipalities, and when the draft legislation is drawn up, I shall again consult all the bigger town and city council and hold discussions with them on the matter. That is the promise I make.

Can there be more than one ethnic council in the same place?

In a large city like Johannesburg there may be one location which is situated to the one side and which is mainly inhabited let us say by Sothos. They will then have their own ethnic council just for that one location, while a location which is situated in another area, away from that one, may want a different ethnic council. But I repeat: I should like to have the cooperation of the Bantu in this regard. They must really guide me in this matter, in cooperation with the municipalities. There must be the closest co-operation.

I now just want to deal very briefly with the various clauses. Clause 1 merely contains the definitions, but here I am inserting a very important point. Hon. members will notice that reference is made to Bantu residential areas. In the past we spoke of Bantu locations. I honestly want to say that I do not like the word “location”. An ugly stigma has always been attached to this word and I would prefer us to drop this word in future and speak of Bantu residential areas. I hope that hon. members will give me their full support in this regard.

Clause 2 deals with the establishment of urban Bantu councils. I have already pointed out that I shall not abolish the advisory boards, but that I shall establish these councils in consultation with them, and that they will have to help me in this regard. I want to express my appreciation to-day for the good work which many of these advisory boards have done. In recent times we have succeeded in gaining outstanding co-operation from them. Last year, for example, I met the advisory boards of Johannesburg. We were able to have a lengthy discussion and to meet one another personally and we succeeded in establishing very sound co-operation with them, particularly during the difficulties we have had. The establishment of these Bantu councils will rest in the first place, and rightly so, with the urban local authorities. They must take the initiative, together with the Bantu advisory boards. We must seek the necessary co-operation and guidance in this regard. Then I have said that the councils must be established on a regional basis or on the basis of national units. Here we must discuss the matter with the Bantu in order to see what they want. I do not want to take up too much of hon. members’ time and I shall therefore only refer to the various clauses briefly.

I have already referred to Clause 3 dealing with the elected and selected members, and the reason why we are giving recognition to the representatives of the chiefs in the various towns. I want to emphasize once again that most of these chiefs’ representatives who have been appointed are people who have already been in these towns for many years. In practice they have always been the representatives of the chiefs. When such a representative’s people have difficulties, they went to him in order to consult him. Now such representatives are being given official recognition in this Bill. I am convinced that we had proof during the recent difficulties that these people played a wonderful role in maintaining peace, and that they have co-operated for the past year or two in establishing a very sound state of affairs in the Bantu residential areas.

Then there is Clause 4 which deals with the functions, duties, etc., of these councils. These are so self-evident that I do not want to say much on this point. I have already pointed out in general that our whole object is not only to give them advisory powers, but also executive powers, so that they can play an active part in the active development of their whole community, in the material as well as the spiritual fields. I just want to give an example of what we have achieved in this regard. I take the Bantu residential area of Potchefstroom. There we always had certain difficulties with tsotsis. One of these persons then revealed a very great sense of responsibility. He saw that the tsotsis were trying to cause difficulties, and he brought them together and he organized them. He organized one group into an orchestra and another group into a youth movement, etc. It was not long before he had combined all the Potchefstroom tsotsis into an excellent organization. After the Tswana Territorial Authority had been established there, these people, who otherwise would have been tsotsis, entertained the chiefs one evening with music and a concert of a high quality. I did so wish that Members of Parliament could have been present that evening to see what we have achieved by using this type of method.

In this regard I forsee that such a representative can play an important role. I just want to make this announcement, namely that it is my intention in the near future to appoint a full-time sociologist in the Department who will have to deal with the social problem of the Bantu as a whole not only in the Bantu areas but in the cities as well. I think that this is a field to which sufficient attention has not yet been given. We want to appoint a full-time experienced sociologist who will take this task upon himself. It may be said that this is “pie in the sky” but many people have prayed that there should be “pie in the sky”. I should like to see this being one of the important tasks which are undertaken.

Then there is Clauses 5 and 6 which deal with conferring of criminal and civil powers on members of the Bantu councils, the representatives of the chiefs in the cities. I repeat that this is having a very salutary effect. Then there is the establishment of the community guards. I originally considered the name “home guards” but because the home guards in the Bantu areas are slightly different, I have decided to use the name “community guards”. It has met with approval amongst the Bantu who have conveyed these suggestions to me.

Then there is the question of the expenditure to be incurred in the Bantu residential areas. The House will remember that under the old advisory board system the position was that the municipality drew up a municipal budget and then submitted it to the advisory board for its information. The advisory board gave its opinion and that was the end of the matter. I think that is quite wrong. I am now laying down that the budget for the Bantu residential area must be drawn up in consultation with the Bantu council. What I should really like to see is that the Bantu council should draw up the budget and that it should then decide on that budget in consultation with the municipality. In other words, I should like to see them playing an active role in the drawing up of the budget, the control of financial matters, etc., so that through the Bantu councils we shall also be giving them a school in which they will learn sound administration, how to work with money, leadership, etc. If our municipalities will work along these lines, I think that this possibility exists. I really want to make an appeal to our municipalities to act very generously and wisely in this regard, and to establish the closest contact and co-operation with the Bantu. I am going to keep my eye on this matter. I want to say quite clearly that if I see there is a municipality which is not doing its duty, I shall have no alternative but to take action to ensure that this law is so worded that I can simply force them to take such action. I hope it will not be necessary.

Then there is an important change which I am introducing in respect of the Bantu Revenue Account. The House knows that in the case of beer halls a certain amount had to be paid into the Bantu Account which could only be used for certain purposes. I am now opening the door so that in deserving cases which are submitted to me by an urban Bantu council, and which are submitted to the municipality concerned or which are submitted by the municipality itself to me and of which I I approve—I am opening the door so that these funds can be used in such deserving cases. This is a small deviation from the existing procedure.

But, in general, there is a very important change as regards the existing advisory boards, namely, that far greater powers are being granted and that they will be given the right to play a far more active role in developing their own community.

I really want to express the hope to-day that the Bantu will regard this as an opportunity which they must grasp and which they must grasp in a responsible spirit and in such a way that they will treat the people in their own areas in a dignified, humanitarian and fair way and that they will ensure that these undesirable elements who only represent a small percentage but who are the cause of unpleasantness and difficulties; not so much for the White man but for the Bantu himself—will be pulled up short. I also want to say that if there are White elements who slip into the locations, I shall consider giving these Bantu communities the power to clamp down on them as well. These people have a duty towards their community as a whole and I hope that this duty will be faithfully carried out. As regards the community guards, the details have been worked out in close co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Justice and the necessary police liaison will be present so that we shall ensure that they will be under proper control. I want to emphasize that I shall ensure that proper control will be exercised, and with these few words I move.

I regret that in the Minister’s opening remarks he should have made a suggestion that the officials of the local authorities have been telling the Natives that everything good came from the municipalities and that everything bad came from the Government. I think that was a very unfortunate remark to make, especially as these officials are not here to defend themselves.

I do not think the hon. member understood me correctly. I said that certain gentlemen make misuse of it.

Sir, it is the policy of the United Party to extend a measure of local self-government to the Natives in urban areas and we shall vote for the second reading of this Bill. We do not agree with some of the provisions it contains, but we are in agreement with the general principle. We regret, however, that a Bill of such importance in Native affairs should be rushed through this House during the dying days of the Session. We regret, too, that neither the urban local authorities, who will be largely responsible for its fulfilment, nor the urban Natives themselves, whose interests are concerned, have been consulted. I have consulted several of the local authorities concerned and they inform me that the only information they have concerning the proposals in this Bill was conveyed to them through the Press a few days ago. We regard consultation as the touch-stone of Native administration, and we think that the Government’s failure to observe this fundamental procedure in the case of this Bill is most unfortunate. We hope that after the second reading the Minister will agree to refer it to a Select Committee for further consideration so that the local authorities may have an opportunity of expressing their views in regard to the details of this measure.

In so far as the Bill itself is concerned, I wish to draw attention to a number of points that we consider should receive further consideration. I refer, first of all, to Clause 2. As I have indicated, the United Party has always been in favour of the extension of machinery that will give the Natives in the towns a fair share in the management of their own affairs, which has hitherto been denied to them. The advisory boards constituted under Section 21 of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act have fallen into disrepute among the Natives themselves owing to the fact that they are merely advisory and have no executive functions. The creation of another body with administrative jurisdiction in matters affecting the Natives is desirable. The Government’s action in preventing the holding of annual congresses of these advisory boards on the ground that the Natives have talked politics was also a considerable cause of frustration. Unfortunately everything in Native affairs is bedevilled by politics, and these Native boards and councils are the only platforms left for the Natives to air their grievances and their political views. I do not see how the Minister is going to prevent these urban Bantu councils from also committing the same unforgivable sin.

Coming to the clause itself, the provisions of paragraph (1) needs clarifying. It gives authority to the urban local authority after consultation with advisory board or the Bantu community concerned, to establish a Bantu urban council for any urban Bantu residential area under its jurisdiction, or secondly, for the Bantu belonging to any national unit. As I read this provision, it means that you may have two or more councils in the same residential area, one for a mixed group of Natives and one for those who belong to a specific national unit, or two or more councils for each of the national units in one residential area. Thus in a township such as Orlando, where you have a large mixed population consisting of half a dozen different ethnic groups, you might have half a dozen councils, each exercising independent jurisdiction in respect of the matters referred to in Clauses 4 and 5, over the same area, and the confusion and conflict that will arise between these ethnic groups is bound to lead to trouble. Personally, I have always been opposed to ethnic grouping. There are differences of opinion on the matter, but my own opinion is that it is a mistake. But if you will have it, you must confine the councils for these national units to townships that have been exclusively set aside for them. This question of ethnic grouping was carefully examined by the Centlivres Commission, which inquired into the 1957 Johannesburg riots between two ethnic groups, the Basuto and the Zulu. That Commission consisted of three eminent, retired Judges, Centlivres, Greenberg and Roper, and although the Government was not prepared to receive its findings the views of three Judges of such high standing are entitled to be considered with the greatest respect. That Commission found, after an exhaustive inquiry, that with one exception not a single Native had a word to say in favour of the policy of ethnic grouping. According to the evidence, three leading Basuto chiefs and three leading Zulu chiefs, called in by the authorities to address their followers, stated that they had formed the impression that ethnic grouping was causing friction between different tribal factions, and that it was one of the material factors in the disturbances; and European witnesses, including the manager of non-European Affairs, were of the same opinion. The Commission found that “the implementation of the policy of ethnic grouping was one of the causes that led to and facilitated the rioting I mention this finding to indicate the difficulties the Minister may have if the principle of establishing councils on ethnic lines, particularly in mixed areas, is proceeded with. Unfortunately under sub-section (3)—the Minister has said that the whole question of establishing these Bantu councils would be left in the hands of the local authorities—but unfortunately subsection (3) does not bear that out. In that subsection there are two peremptory provisions that should be deleted. These provisions compel an urban local authority to establish an urban Bantu council, if requested to do so by a Native Advisory Board, or secondly by the Minister after consultation with the Bantu community of any area. Sir, we have the strongest objection to the peremptory provisions of this sub-clause. The Minister has ample authority under Section 41 of the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945, of which this Bill will form a part, to compel a local authority to perform any function which it is empowered to perform. But in that case he can only act in consultation with the Native Affairs Commission after reference to the Administrator, and he must give written notice to the local authority. This procedure gives the local authority ample opportunity of being heard. Here there is no such safeguard. All the Minister has to do is to consult the Bantu community. He may ignore the local authority altogether, and we say that is bad and contrary to the principles of local self-government. We feel, too, that the local authority should not be compelled to act on a request by a subordinate body like an advisory board. In many cases these advisory boards do not really represent the wishes of their own people, and in any case the discretion should lie with the local authority after consultation with the advisory board, because the responsibility for administering this Bill will fall on their shoulders.

I come now to Clause 3, the constitution of the council. This clause provides that the council shall consist of not less than six members, one half of whom shall be elected by the Bantu residents of the area concerned, and the other half of candidates selected by the Bantu chiefs and approved by the Minister or the local authority. There is nothing to say that these candidates should be residents of the area concerned, or whether it will be competent for them to be imported from the Native reserves, and we would like to know what the feelings of the local authorities and the urban Native communities are on this point. I presume that if they come from outside, the local authority will have to provide accommodation for them and with sufficient salaries to keep them on their feet. Many of the Natives in the towns have become detribalized and have lost all their tribal associations. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact, and this idea of linking up the Natives in the towns with the tribes and tribal institutions and compelling them to accept representatives from outside, instead of allowing the Native residents themselves to elect them all, seems to me to be a very doubtful experiment.

I next come to Clause 4, which lays down the functions and duties of these councils and gives effect to a number of the recommendations of the Fagan Commission. In addition to the advisory functions conferred upon the advisory boards by Section 21 of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, they will exercise a number of useful administrative functions which may be delegated to them after consultation with the Administrator and with the concurrence of the Minister. There does not, however, appear to be any machinery to enable the council to enforce any orders it may give in the carrying out of these functions. That is a very important point. There is no power given to them to enforce their orders and decisions. Under para. (a) (iii) they will have power to remove persons unlawfully resident in the area, and they will have jurisdiction in cases of unlawful occupation of land and buildings, the management and control of the area and the maintenance of good order therein. The regulation of the influx of Natives into the area, which may be delegated under subsection (ix) is, however, a particularly thorny problem for such a body to handle. The local authorities have not been able to enforce it effectively themselves, and how this unfortunate council of Natives will be able to enforce it, goodness only knows!

A useful provision that the Fagan Commission inserted in their Bill was one that required that at least once in every three months a conference should be arranged between the urban local authority or its appropriate committee and a committee appointed by the Native board. They also visualized the establishment of a central board which could deal with a number of these councils, and I think that was a very good suggestion indeed. I think that the question of introducing such a provision in this Bill is one which should receive consideration.

I come now to Clause 5, the extension of civil and criminal jurisdiction to these councils. Sir, we regret that we cannot approve of this clause in the form in which it is drafted. The Fagan Commission approved of this principle in a much more modified form.

It recommended that civil and criminal jurisdiction should be conferred on one or more members of a Native village board, which they recommended should take the place of the advisory board, or a Native headman, or as they called it, a block man. In civil cases they recommended that the Native courts would have jurisdiction in any dispute between Natives within the area of the board where the value of the claim did not exceed £25. If these Natives in the towns are given jurisdiction on the same lines as the chiefs, they will have jurisdiction in important issues like the custody of a child and I think that requires further consideration. We do not think the jurisdiction should be extended to the extent contemplated in this Bill. In petty criminal cases—I am still referring to the report of the Fagan Commission—the presiding Native could impose a fine of £5, or in the case of a male juvenile under 18, six cuts with a light cane, and he could also award compensation to the injured person in a sum not exceeding £25. Those were proposals that one could fairly consider. Another point was that they were precluded from dealing with any criminal case if a charge had been laid in the ordinary courts. Under Clause 5, read with Section 20 of the Native Administration Act of 1927, as amended, the penalty that may be inflicted by one of these Natives—magistrates, you might call them—is a fine of £20 or corporal punishment if the accused is an unmarried male below the age of 30 years. It does not say how many strokes; that is left to the discretion of the person trying the case. Sir, municipal managers whom I have consulted are opposed to criminal jurisdiction being granted to these Native courts, for obvious reasons. They have no objection to civil jurisdiction being exercised by these people. My own feeling is that it would be wise to extend limited civil jurisdiction at the outset and see how it works before proceeding with the wider question of jurisdiction in criminal cases. We have to be very careful about extending criminal jurisdiction to these people. We have had that experience in some of the Native reserves and it very often leads to a lot of corruption and all sorts of irregular practices. I think the Minister would be wise to allow them to deal, first of all, with these civil cases and see how it works and what type of people he gets, and then he can consider the question of granting criminal jurisdiction later on. This is a matter which will be more fully dealt with by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), and so I shall leave it there with the suggestions I have made.

I come now to Clause 7, this question of community guards. This clause provides for the establishment of community guards under the control of the council, and if placed under proper supervision it should serve a very useful purpose. I wish to repeat, however, what I said during the discussion on the Justice Vote, that these guards should be under close police supervision and control to prevent undesirable practices that are inevitable in irregular forces of this character, such as the abuse of authority and corruption. It would, I think, be out of the question to use these guards unless they were under the strict control of the police and discharged their duties only under the supervision of a member of the force. Subject to this safeguard, law-abiding Natives might assist in the enforcement of law and order and so help to improve the unsatisfactory relations that exist between the police and the Natives to-day.

I now come to Clause 8. This is one of the most important clauses of the Bill. The cost of the administration of these councils is to be met from the Native Revenue Account, and this in turn is bound to make a substantial demand upon its funds. The revenues, such as the fines imposed by the Native courts and other small items that will accrue to the councils, will be comparatively very small. Clause 14 of the draft Bill of the Fagan Commission recommended that the village boards … Anyway, I think this clause requires further consideration. I think it is a matter which should be discussed with the municipalities, and that is why we hope that the Minister will agree to the setting up of a Select Committee to consider this Bill. The Fagan Commission in their draft Bill recommended that the village boards which they contemplated setting up should have power to levy moneys for all the purposes for which they were responsible, but there is no such provision in this Bill. So, if there is a deficiency in the account, the local authority will have to meet it. In some cities this difficulty is often solved by the profits on the sale of Kaffir beer, but at other centres such as East London, where there is no municipal beer-hall, the municipality is required to pay substantial amounts into the Revenue Account every year to meet the deficits. The Minister knows all about that, because the municipality came to see him, and I think this year the deficit is something like £60,000. The added cost of a Bantu council, with its Native courts, its community guards and the carrying out of the many functions that may be delegated to it under Clause 4, is likely to constitute a very heavy burden upon local authorities which are in the same situation as East London. I would like the Minister to consider the question as to whether the Government, in view of the fact that this is part of Government policy, should not itself consider subsidizing these councils in the performance of their duties.

Then we come to Clause 11, which I think should be deleted or substantially amended. Under Section 19 of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, 1945 (as amended), two-thirds of the profits derived from the sale of Kaffir beer is used to cover losses on Native housing schemes, to offset the losses resulting from the reduction of Native rentals and to meet other charges in connection with housing schemes and maintenance costs. These contributions from the Kaffir Beer Account can, under the law as it stands, only be applied to expenditure within the area of the local authority concerned. Now Clause 11 adds a paragraph to sub-section (3), which provides that the account may in future be used for any service, expenditure or grant which may be certified by the Minister as being in the interests of the Bantu, irrespective of whether or not it relates to a matter in the area of the urban local authority. That is a very far-reaching provision. It means that the Minister may use the beer profits of a place like Johannesburg for some service in the Transkei, or he may use portion of it to pay for the deficit of the Municipality of East London. It is a very wide clause and I do not think it should be left to the Minister to do that. We think this is objectionable, and that this clause should either be drastically amended or deleted altogether.

Subject to these remarks, we will not oppose the second reading of this Bill.

It is seldom that I have the pleasure of complimenting the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) on a speech, but I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to congratulate him on the fact that he has spoken in such a restrained way and that he has submitted such constructive criticism. I am even glad to find him moving along the road towards the separate development of the races in South Africa. At the outset he stated that hon. members opposite would not vote against the second reading and I now want to state unequivocally that this Bill is a means towards achieving separate development.

This Bill embodies three principles. The first is the constitution and powers of the Bantu councils; the second the conferring of civil and criminal jurisdiction on Bantu in the urban areas to dispense justice in accordance with Bantu laws and customs, and the third is the establishment and the functions of the Bantu community guards. These three principals must not be considered and discussed independently of one another, but they must be seen within one single framework, namely the integration of the urban Bantu into the systems of government of their homelands and the extension thereof. This Bill must not be regarded simply as a separate little part of the overall policy of separate development, but as a very important part of that policy.

It is true that the measure contains elements which have been borrowed from the Western systems of government, but this aspect of the Bill is not of decisive importance, nor does it derogate from the overall concept of separate development for the Bantu. There will be people like the hon. member for East London (City) who will place the emphasis on the fact that this measure embodies a democratic concept in that part of the urban Bantu councils will be elected by the inhabitants of the Bantu urban residential areas, but that is not the decisive factor as I shall try to show presently. I want to emphasize that the introduction of this representative concept is unavoidable in order to give local interests their rightful due. Every local community has local interests such as health, sanitation, housing, etc., which must be catered for. And these local interests are not related to the overall interests of a national unit. Consequently in order to give these interests their rightful due, provision has to be made in the Bill for this representative system through the medium of local representatives.

Are you now making excuses for the Bill?

I am merely saying that there will be those who will interpret the Bill as though the Western democratic concept embodied in it constitutes the decisive factor, and I say that is not the position and I am only explaining why it has been essential to provide for such local interests. It is true that in the composition of these councils this concept was taken into account, but that is certainly not the position in the case of their establishment. Allow me to refer hon. members to a few of the provisions embodied in this Bill. This measure links the urban Bantu with the Bantu in their homelands. The Bill contains the following provisions which we must emphasize. In the first place the councils are being established on the basis of national units, just as the new urban areas are being laid out on that basis to-day. The House will remember that the Xhosas are being grouped together in the new towns, the Sothos are being grouped separately and the Zulus are being grouped separately, and it is on that basis in the first instance that these councils will be established. It is true that the councils can also be established on a regional basis, but that is because in certain towns the members of other national units are insignificant in number or because the principle of grouping cannot be applied in those towns as the residents are still living intermingled as a result of the fact that the national units have not yet been grouped together. In the second place I say that the main object of this Bill is to integrate the urban Bantu into the system of government of the Bantu homelands because the representatives of the chiefs are being given a direct say in their affairs through representation on the urban Bantu councils. This is a very important link with the homelands and will definitely contribute towards consolidating the authority of the Bantu authorities of the national units concerned and towards giving the urban Bantu the feeling that they are “ama godku” or homelanders and not “ama chipis”, that is to say detribalized Natives, in the words used yesterday by the Minister of Bantu Administration.

The third reason why I say the main object of the Bill is the linking of the urban Bantu to their homelands, is the fact that the urban Bantu councils will have to assist the representatives of the chiefs in word and in deed. Clause 4 (d) lays down that the councils must advise and assist the representatives of the chiefs in respect of matters affecting the Bantu on their national units. This also creates an important link with the homelands. The final reason why I say that the main object of the Bill is the linking of the urban Bantu to their homelands, is the provision which transfers the administration of justice in the urban Bantu residential area to the Bantu so that they can administer justice in accordance with Native customs and Native law. I want to emphasize this very strongly; the law which will be administered must be in accordance with Native law and customs. But in addition Clause 6 provides specifically that such a judicial officer can also consult these urban Bantu councils in respect of the administration of justice. If justice is dispensed in accordance with a nation’s own laws and own customs, then the national traditions of that nation gain new significance for that nation and give such a nation a firmer anchor in that which is its own; it gives its nationalism a deeper significance, not only a nationalism for agitation purposes, but a nationalism which has deeper roots, a nationalism which is rooted in the culture of that nation.

The importance of this measure as regards the implementation of the broader concept of the separate development of the Bantu must not be under-estimated.

I now come to the powers of these Bantu Councils. The councils are now being given the power to serve the Bantu through the Bantu. The administration of justice also represents a service of the Bantu by the Bantu. And the community guards also constitute protection of the Bantu by the Bantu. In all these three principles we find this common factor, namely, that this is service of the Bantu by the Bantu. I want to emphasize that by conferring these powers on the Bantu it will teach these Bantu to accept responsibility. That was not the position in the case of the advisory boards. They had no responsibilities. If I must merely advise a person, I am not yet taking the responsibility of the man who must carry out decisions. But seeing that the Bantu are now being given executive powers as well, they must learn to accept responsibility and they must also accept responsibility in the sense that they will be responsible for their finances as well. It would be a fatal mistake to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for East London (City) to the effect that the town council should be subsidized to enable it to provide these services. The Bantu must manage his own affairs, but he must also be prepared to pay for his own services. He must not be given money on a plate for his own services and I consider that it would be a fatal mistake to comply with this request of the hon. member for East London (City), because if we give the Bantu powers, the Bantu must also be prepared to take the responsibility involved in those powers on their own shoulders. The hon. member for East London (City) has also said that the Bantu are now being given these powers but they do not have the right to impose sanctions. I think that the hon. member has not read the Bill properly in this regard. The main body to which these Bantu councils are subordinate is the White town council, because we are still dealing with areas which fall within the White area; that must be fully understood. The Bantu are not being given complete self-government, as is the case in the Bantu homelands. This is being done subject to the jurisdiction of these town councils and these town councils will be the bodies which will lay down the regulations. These Bantu councils do not have the power to make regulations, and if they cannot make regulations, they cannot impose sanctions either. The power to impose sanctions for the non-compliance with regulations belongs rightfully to the town councils or to the Minister of Bantu Administration because they can impose conditions, as the relevant clause provides.

As regards the clause dealing with the administration of justice, the hon. member has also objected to the clause as now worded. I want to say at the outset that I advocated this step last year in this House. Hon. members will remember that I introduced a private motion dealing with our system of justice and the court system in South Africa. At that time, inter alia, I urged the administration of justice for the Bantu by the Bantu themselves and I also asked for the introduction of this system in the White areas as it would represent the application of Bantu laws by the Bantu themselves for the very reason that it would strengthen these ties with the homelands. The hon. member objects to the fact that unlimited jurisdiction is being granted. The person to whom this jurisdiction is being granted is a member of such a Bantu council, or a representative of a chief. He is being given the same legal powers in civil as well as criminal matters as the chief himself has in his own areas because after all he is as far as the Bantu in such an urban area are concerned, taking the place of his chief. Why should he have less legal powers than his chief would have over those Bantu? By granting him lesser powers, we would be making this power of administering justice to his own people which we are now giving him practically worthless. In this regard I therefore cannot agree with the hon. member for East London (City) either. What is more, the jurisdiction he is now being given in criminal matters is not exceptionally great. The maximum penalty is only R40 and this is not an exceptionally high amount in criminal matters. As far as civil matters are concerned the most important matters are therefore being excluded and I want to point out that any Bantu who are dissatisfied with the administration of justice can always appeal to the Native Commissioner. That is laid down in the various provisions of the Bantu Administration Act of 1927. As far as civil jurisdiction is concerned, I just want to read what jurisdiction they will have—

Then certain exceptions are made in. respect of which he cannot administer justice. He does not have jurisdiction over cases involving status, etc., in particular. As far as penalties are concerned, he can try all offences arising from Native laws but he cannot administer justice in the case of all statutory offences, but only in the case of those matters which the Minister entrusts to him.

There is another important aspect which I just want to emphasize once again as regards this question of the administration of justice. It is that this person who is to administer justice in the urban Bantu residential areas, will be able to consult the Bantu councils. This is an element in the administration of criminal justice, that is to say consultation, which one also finds under Native law and customs in their own areas, because the chief also does not impose punishment until he has consulted his advisers. This consultative factor is embodied in this Bill in respect of these people who are to be vested with judicial powers. As far as the community guards are concerned, I have been very pleasantly surprised by the fact that the hon. member for East London (City) accepts this provision, but once again I want to differ from him. I feel that the municipalities or the council should not be subsidized for this purpose and that they should bear the costs themselves. The hon. member has raised another objection about which I want to say a few words. He has raised certain objections against this Bill as a whole. This Bill is an “enabling Act”. He has based his objections in the first place on the fact that the Bantu themselves have not been consulted in respect of the Bill and in the second place on the fact that the municipalities have not been consulted. I want to say at once that this Bill will not be applied to the Bantu except at their own request. If they ask for it, it will be applied to them. It is therefore not necessary to consult them in advance before the Bill is put into operation because the Bill will only be implemented with their consent. Consequently, as far as the Bantu are concerned, there cannot be any objection. In the case of the municipalities the Bill will also not be applied without their consent, except in two cases, and those cases are where the Bantu advisory board asks for it, or the Bantu community desires it. What becomes now of the hon. member’s principle of “government by consent”? When the Bantu ask to be governed in this way, he does not agree. He says that the whole clause dealing with this aspect should be deleted from the Bill. Here we want to govern people “by consent”, If a town council therefore refuses to establish such a council after the advisory board has asked for it or after the community has asked for it, such a municipality is after all not governing “by consent”. After all it is then opposing the will of those whom they are governing. It is hon. members opposite who always insist on there being “government by consent”. I cannot understand this argument of the hon. member for East London (City) at all. I think that this is a very sensible measure which we should applaud in this House, a measure which represents a step in the direction of separate development, a measure which in future will also be known as one of the cornerstones of the implementation of the policy of separate development.

An interesting situation has arisen in which the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has congratulated the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) on his speech in support of the principles of the Bill, but takes him to task because he believes that the hon. member has incorrectly interpreted this Bill. I have to agree with the interpretation of the hon. member for Heilbron of this Bill and to tell him that because of that we intend to oppose the Bill at the second reading. The hon. member for Heilbron has pointed out correctly that this Bill is in direct accordance with the Government’s policy of separate development; that the whole idea is to foster ethnic grouping, to foster the development of ethnic grouping, to foster the development of national units amongst the urban Africans, and he has also pointed out that it is the intention of the Government to maintain all proper control of the Bantu councils in the hands of the local authority and of the Minister himself. For these very reasons I propose to move the following amendment—

1. (1) it denies to Bantu in the urban areas real administrative powers at local authority level;
2. (2) it perpetuates, in the financial sphere, the principle of separation between the Bantu on the one hand and other urban dwellers on the other;
3. (3) it confers additional judicial powers on unqualified persons; and
4. (4) it perpetuates the system of ethnic grouping.”.

Sir, we have all been expecting this Bill for a long time and indeed it has taken the Government nearly nine years to present us with a Bill which purports to give some measure of self-government to the Bantu living in the European towns, a sort of urban counterpart that we have long been promised to the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951. As the Minister pointed out, some nine years ago the Urban Bantu Authorities Bill was published but in fact it was not proceeded with. It was circulated to the different local authorities and in view of all the criticism offered against the Bill it was not proceeded with. It is a pity that although nine years have elapsed and the Government now comes to this House with this new Bill, the Minister did not see fit to delay the introduction of this Bill a little longer so that he could have the benefit of the views of the local authorities and of the Advisory Boards on the contents of this Bill. That Bill, as the hon. the Minister said, came in for a great deal of criticism and, as I will show, in some respects the Bill that we are dealing with to-day does not even go as far in the granting of autonomous powers to the urban Bantu as the 1952 Bill went. Nothing more has been heard from the Government in those ensuing years. Presumably the Government has been too busy with other legislation, such as closing the Open Universities, getting rid of the Natives’ representatives in Parliament etc., but last year, after the events at Sharpeville, the hon. the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Prime Minister, read out a statement in this House detailing the steps which the Government intended to take in an attempt to improve race relations in this country and also to do something about the urban Bantu. Needless to say the Prime Minister took that opportunity of chastising employers’ organizations and other organizations which had had intimate dealings with the urban Bantu but had had the temerity to put forward their own suggestions as to how conditions for the urban Bantu could be improved, and in that context he said—

(Mr. Pelser): Order! I think the hon. member should return to the Bill.

On a point of order, I am dealing with the Bill. This was the introductory remark made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in May of last year in this House when he informed the House that the Government intended to go ahead with a Bill of this nature. Amongst other steps announced on that particular occasion, the Prime Minister’s statement that it was the intention of the Government to institute Bantu urban authorities to replace the Native Advisory Boards—“the practically useless Native Advisory Boards”, the Prime Minister called them—and in accordance with its policy of separate development, the Government said, it intended to give the Bantu in the urban Bantu residential areas an increased measure of authority over their own people in those areas. The Minister of Finance said on behalf of the Prime Minister that provision would also be made for the establishment of the necessary links with the wider Bantu Authorities and where necessary, with the Commissioners General who were to be appointed for the various ethnic groups. Well, I can think of one Commissioner General who could quite easily be described as the wider missing link. In September 1960 we had further plans outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister for this new Bill for the urban Bantu. In the same month we had another statement from the Minister of Finance telling us about plans for the Urban Bantu Authorities Bill, and finally the hon. the Minister himself told us in November 1960 that he too was planning to eliminate regulations that created friction and to consolidate urban legislation, something which he again mentioned in this House in introducing this Bill. All of us, after these glowing reports and promises were, I think, entitled to assume that the Bill that we would be dealing with to-day would indeed give the Bantu in the urban areas some new deal and would give them some more authority and real administrative power over their own affairs. Because I think it is common cause that to a large extent the Advisory Board system has been a failure. Commission after commission has reported on it—the Holloway Commission in 1932, the Fagan Commission of 1946, and various administrators of non-European affairs in the urban areas, and in fact the Africans themselves have all stated that the Advisory Board system has been a failure. The Africans, in fact, called them mere talking shops because the so-called powers given to these Boards rendered them completely impotent. They were given no executive functions at all, which the Minister has admitted himself today, and therefore they were useless. They were simply there in an advisory capacity, and indeed although the local authorities had to consult these Boards on matters germane to the Bantu in the urban areas, there was no need for them to take any notice of their advice. In practice it has been found that very small percentages of the Africans who were actually entitled to vote for the election of Advisory Board members even bothered to take part in elections and not very many competent urban Africans bothered to stand for election to these Advisory Boards. Although this was the only officially recognized channel of consultation between the urban Bantu and the local authorities, the system proved to be a failure, except perhaps in one case and that is the case of Benoni where the Benoni town council took the deliberate step of integrating the Advisory Boards as far as possible into the administrative machinery of the town and did take the trouble to take notice of the recommendations made by the Advisory Boards, and, unless they had some really serious objection to those recommendations, actually went ahead and implemented them. But Benoni is an exceptional case and elsewhere throughout the Union I think one can fairly say that the Advisory Board system has in fact failed. In any case if it had any hope of success, the Government itself killed any hope of success by its action in 1956 when it withdrew its attendance from the annual congress of the Native Advisory Boards, the Urban Boards which used to meet annually with Government officials in attendance. Because the Congress of these Boards had the temerity to discuss what the Government considered to be political matters, matters such as vocational training for Africans, the pass laws and the Bantu Education Act, the Government withdrew its support from the annual congress of the Advisory Boards and in fact refused to allow finance to be voted to send delegates to attend those congresses, and so in 1956 the Advisory Board congresses collapsed completely and that was the death knell of any hope of success for the Advisory Boards. As I say, it is common cause that something had to replace the impotent Advisory Boards for the urban African, and obviously if we were framing a Bill to-day, we would take a course of action diametrically opposed to the provisions of this Bill because we start off on diametrically opposed premises. We start off on the premise that the urban African is permanently urbanized. Certainly a big percentage of urban Africans are here to stay; they are not temporary sojourners who are going back in a generation or in less than a generation, when the 30-year leasehold on their houses elapses. That is the diametrically opposite viewpoint on which the Government has based the legislation before the House to-day, and it is interesting that the Government is basing this legislation on the basic premises of the Stallard Commission of 1921, which stated that “Natives should only be allowed to enter the urban areas which are essentially the White man’s creation, when they are willing to enter and minister to the needs of the White man and should depart therefrom when they cease so to minister.” To-day, 40 years later, despite the tremendous industrialization in this country, despite the tremendous movement from the rural to the urban areas that we have experienced, and despite all the evidence to the contrary that thousands upon thousands of Africans are permanently urbanized, the Government comes with legislation to-day which is based on a concept which was false in 1921 but is a great deal more false in 1961.

Our first criticism, then, of the Bill itself is that this Bill is merely a façade which pretends to give administrative powers to the urban Bantu, and if I needed to argue this out—I do not need to do so after the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron because he completely backs up what I say in this regard by pointing out that any single power which is conferred on the Bantu councils in this particular Bill under Clause 4 is so ringed about by all sorts of conditions and consultative powers only which the board has—control is imposed by the local authority, by the Administrator and also by the Government—that virtually they are rendered powerless, so that no real powers have been conferred on these people. Sir, the hon. the Minister shakes his head, but he should have listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Heilbron, a speech which bore out entirely what I have been saying. While the Minister is shaking his head from side to side the hon. member for Heilbron is nodding his head up and down. As I was saying, Clause 4 (2) (a) and (b) of the Bill effectively curb any real exercise of administrative power by the Bantu councils. I would say too that there are certain notable omissions in this Bill, which were even contained in the 1952 Bill which was shelved. For instance, under the 1952 Bill the Bantu councils or Bantu authorities, as they were then called, were even going to be allowed to allocate trading sites and to issue licences for businesses. That right is not allowed in this Bill. Most important of all, the financial control which was given to the Bantu authorities under the 1952 Bill, is whittled down completely in this Bill. Under the 1952 Bill the Bantu authorities were allowed to set up their own treasuries into which moneys were to be paid and they were going to be responsible for their own expenditure, but no such thing happens under this Bill. Incidentally, I am not supporting the principle of financial segregation and I shall return to this point in a moment, but at least in terms of the Government’s own policy, which is supposed to be giving some sort of autonomous powers to these people, it must realize that financial control is the crux of the matter, because control over expenditure is the most important tool of management and unless that control is given to these Bantu councils, they in fact enjoy no real rights whatsoever. They will be as impotent as the Advisory Boards because they are also ringed about by all sorts of restrictions imposed on them by the Local Authority, the Administrator and the Minister himself, so I do not see any extension of powers to these Bantu councils over and above the powers that were given to the Advisory Boards. Indeed the Minister’s contention that increased financial powers have in fact been given, is not borne out if one examines Clause 8 (4) of this Bill, because that clause talks only of the necessity of the urban authority consulting with the Bantu councils as to how money shall be expended. It does not say that notice has to be taken of the recommendations made by the Bantu councils. They only have to be consulted. They have the same sort of powers that were given to the local advisory boards.

We object in principle, as I say, to this financial segregation anyway, and that objection is embodied in one of the sections of the amendment I have moved, and we object very much to this perpetuation in the financial sphere of this principle of separation between the Bantu on the one hand and the urban dwellers on the other. It is quite wrong to attempt financially to separate communities living in the same integral part. It is an attempt to make the poorest section of the community finance their own services, because in practice it has been found that, although it is not compulsory by law, many local authorities make a habit of making their Native Revenue Accounts self-balancing, and that means that the poorer sections of the community are expected to finance all their own services, although those people contribute way and above what actually goes into the Native Revenue Account as far as rentals, fines, fees, Kaffir beer accounts, and so on are concerned. The hon. member for Heilbron should remember what the African contributes to the economy of this country both by way of his labour, which is under paid in very many respects and also in the form of indirect taxation, before the hon. member comes and talks about the Africans financing their own services. We object to this stated principle of financial segregation. I wonder what the hon. member for Heilbron would say that if I suggested that in Johannesburg for instance, all the rates collected from an area like Houghton or Parktown should be kept for the residents of Houghtown and Parktown and that none of that money should be expended on the less wealthy sections of the city, such as Westdene and other areas. Obviously, it would be hopelessly inequitable and it is a suggestion which nobody would make. But that is exactly what the hon. member is suggesting as far as the urban Bantu are concerned.

The whole manner in which these urban Bantu councils are to be constituted and their composition is open to criticism on the ground that the composition of the council encourages and fosters the growth of ethnic grouping. The whole system is open to criticism. Clause 3 tries to ensure that ethnic grouping is carried out, that representatives of national units sit on the Bantu councils, and when one remembers, Sir, the fact that the members of the Bantu councils will have to be representative of recognized Bantu chiefs, and before a representative may be selected by a chief, both the Minister and the local authority must all have approved of him as a candidate, one wonders what sort of independent thinkers these selectees are going to be, who will have to go through three filters before they are allowed to be selected and sit on these Bantu councils. In any case I want to know what the chiefs in the rural areas know really about conditions in the urban areas. I quite realize that to a certain extent the promotion of ethnic grouping is permissive in this Bill, it is not compulsory. But the snag about this is that every non-European Affairs Manager who has got to control the Bantu urban residential area—I fully concur with the hon. the Minister that that is a much better term to use than “location”—is a licencee of the hon. the Minister, and his licence can be revoked, and therefore every non-European manager to some extent is compelled to carry out the policy of this Government, and the policy of this Government, as the hon. member for Heilbron showed again this afternoon, is to foster the development of ethnic grouping and national units in urban areas. Therefore we can expect this system to go ahead full steam under this particular Act. I do not want to quote again from the Riots Commission. The hon. member for East London (City) has done so already. But there is no question whatsoever, Sir, that intertribal fighting on a large scale followed disagreements in the urban areas, which, but for ethnic grouping (said this commission) would not go beyond such quarrel and disagreements. And there is a wealth of evidence to support this view.

As far as the extension of judicial powers to unqualified persons is concerned, I do not intend to deal with that in any detail whatsoever, because the seconder of this amendment will be doing that. I simply say that it is quite wrong that the extension of these powers should be given to unqualified persons, and particularly in the urban areas where these people are quite used to being administered by magistrates, and indeed where customary laws and traditions are gradually fading out. Now this is another way of imposing the tribal and ethnic authority on people who have become industrialized and urbanized and who are drifting completely away from tribal custom, which I do not venerate with the same reverence as the hon. the Minister does. I believe in the extension of the benefits of Western civilization, and I believe that Western civilization, quite arbitrarily, is a better system than the tribal system. Therefore, I would see the westernization of the African going ahead at an increasing pace, and I would not, like the hon. the Minister, attempt to put the clock back and revive the tribal customs.

I don’t want to say very much about the establishment of community guards. I am glad that the hon. the Minister says that he is going to look after this matter carefully, that discipline will be imposed, because my fear is—although I am all for the improvement of conditions in the residential urban areas as far as the putting down of crime is concerned, and the safeguarding of the law-abiding inhabitants—I am nervous of the granting of powers, unless control is carefully exercised over these community guards, which could well in their own way turn into a body of strong-armed gangs which themselves abuse their powers. So I agree with the hon. the Minister that very careful control will have to be exercised over the extension of powers to these people, and also that they should be properly trained.

Finally, I want to say that, of course, this Bill is altogether out of keeping with the concept that we have in this corner of the House about the necessity for integrating the urban African into the ordinary administrative set-up in a town. In other words, we believe that there should be representation, not of an indirect sort, but of a direct sort, as far as the Bantu areas and the ordinary town councils are concerned. We believe that this Bill is simply part and parcel of the Government’s blind stubbornness and failure to realize that thousands of Africans are completely integrated into the Western way of life and are ready for responsibility, and that they should, therefore, be granted some form of direct representation in the ordinary local administrative bodies which rule the towns. We are surely ready to start training people in administrative responsibilities and where better can that take place then at the local level. And even in terms of the Government’s own policy to set up towns in the reserves, it would be good to have a body of trained people that could go back to administer such urban areas, and the best way to learn the benefits of democracy is to experience them and to practise them, and the way that should be done is not in separate little Bantu councils but right in the heart of the local administrative bodies, in the heart of the town councils themselves.

For all these reasons, and because we disagree entirely with the whole principle of setting up separate systems of local government for Africans in towns, we intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill. I believe entirely in the correctness in the words used by the Institute of Race Relations in giving evidence to the Fagan Commission—

With that, we concur.

I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), and in doing so I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that this measure is a measure of exceptional importance. It is a measure of exceptional importance, Sir, because it is the first major measure which the Government has introduced to attempt to impose its ideological policies upon the urban Natives. We have had a series of measures which have sought to implement Government policy in relation to the rural Natives, but now we come at last to what is the crux of the whole problem of White-Black relationships, and that is the problem of the urban African. This Bill has to be read, as the hon. Minister indicated in the course of his speech, really with another measure, the Draft Bantu in Urban Areas Bill, which has not yet reached this House and which is, as the hon. the Minister explained, under consideration at the moment and is being discussed by various municipalities. Some of us have seen the draft which is under consideration, and we realize of course the tremendous importance of that measure. However, the Bill which is before us now is really an extension of the other measure. So the two Bills really go together. I therefore do say that I think it is a great pity that the hon. Minister should have followed the course which he has followed and that he should have introduced the Bill now before the House late in a Session such as this, and that he should carry over, probably until the next session, his other Bill which he has spoken about to-day. Because I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that had the two measures been seen side by side—had it all been part of one major piece of legislative work—then I think the House would probably have got a more balanced view of all the implications of this kind of legislation.

However, we now have this Bill and this Bill attempts to introduce a form of representation for the Africans in the towns in regard to their own local control. It sets up machinery for the creation of boards, and so on, for their own participation in local government, and it also takes another important step, with which I want to deal mostly, namely, the introduction of tribal courts into the urban areas. That is the side we have before us to-day. The other matters contained in the other Bill, we will have to await until next year when we will consider them. But, as I say, I want to emphasize the importance of this measure by showing that here we have the first piece of major legislation to implement high Government policy in relation to Africans in the urban areas, and, I repeat, it is in the urban areas that we in South Africa are going to have our greatest test in relation to White-Black relations. If we in South Africa succeed in achieving a settlement of our White-Black relationships in our urban areas, then indeed we will have succeeded in a major project. Because we can argue about the rural areas and we can have different points of view, but in the overall picture it is the urban position that is the vital one; it is the urban situation which has been described as the “flashpoint” of White-Black relations. As far as we in the great cities, such as I represent (Johannesburg) are concerned, we of course are at the very vortex of this problem. We with our vast complex of African townships, sit probably at the very place where the most important part of the experiment is likely to be carried out. So we have a very, very deep interest in this Bill.

I said that I was going to deal in the main with the question of introducing tribal law into the towns. In dealing with that of course, we are dealing with aspects of high policy far beyond even a question of the courts, because naturally the question of tribal courts and so on, touches economics and affects other aspects as well. What is the picture that we have in our towns to-day? What are we really dealing with? Everybody will agree that the situation among the Africans in the towns at the moment is highly unsatisfactory and presents very many grave aspects which require urgent attention. There is no doubt about it that going through the transition period from a rural existence into an urban existence, all the stresses and strains are being felt in an urban complex such as we have in Johannesburg. There is a very sad and tragic breakdown of family life; there is grave disorder and crime which is rooted to a very great extent in poverty and in other factors. There is a lack of responsibility owing to lack of opportunity for learning how to exercize responsibility. All these problems have got to be dealt with and this Bill, as I say, touches one aspect of the problem, namely the question of control. This, then, is the background to the Bill we are discussing to-day.

I said that I particularly disliked the introduction of tribal law into the towns. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has described in detail the functions that are likely to be performed by these tribal courts. I am not going to deal with details. I am going to deal with broader aspects. May I say here that I believe that the hon. the Minister himself takes a very great interest in this matter. This is one of his hobby-horses, this question of tribal courts. The hon. the Minister has made a very close personal study of tribal administration. I believe that he has himself spent many hours listening to the operations of tribal courts. That was probably before he became a Minister, and in fact he has, I believe, travelled further than the borders of South Africa in his study of tribal courts, and he is a pundit of the tribal courts. He thinks that they are part of the background, the heritage of the Bantu people, and he is very keen on these tribal courts. I can therefore well understand why he should be keen to introduce tribal courts, if he can, to our urban areas. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister, I think, will probably endorse what the hon. member for Heilbron said. I think he has an ideological interest in this matter, rather than a practical one. He believes that the introduction of the tribal courts will bring “volkstradisie” into the Bantu towns; that these courts will give Bantu nationalism deeper roots. It is that kind of consideration, that rather airy-fairy ideological consideration that is behind this move, I believe. As far as the practical side is concerned, there is nothing good to be said for this move at all. In fact, everything said for this move is dangerous and should give us cause for concern. First of all I think the Minister is doing this, as I say, for ideological considerations. He thinks there should be “apart” courts for “apart” people. The Africans in his concept of things are a people apart and he feels that there should be “apart” courts to suit their particular traditions. I can put this very well by quoting from a book, one of the text books in regard to Native law, Studies in African Native Law by Julius Lewyn, who is a lecturer in Native Law and Administration at the University of the Witwatersrand and who has made a very close study of this question.

A liberalist.

A liberalist! He is a very good authority on the subject, whatever his politics may be. He says—

And then he says that he has already indicated, and I shall underline some of them, that there are social and economic forces that will in the long run frustrate this move. So according to Mr. Lewyn, and I agree wholeheartedly with him, in the long run the economic and sociological forces in the towns will defeat the attempt to bring these tribal courts into the towns. He also says that where the economic relations of people of different races are close and continuous, it is not possible or practical to apply one body of law to one race and another to the other race.

Mr. Speaker, that is a profound truth which applies particularly in regard to the towns. In your rural areas and your reserves, where the community is largely composed of not only one race of people, but where it is also composed of people whose livelihood and economic conditions are very largely similar, there it may be possible to operate a system such as this, although I want a little later on to show that in the reserves too, this desire to perpetuate tribal courts is producing very serious disabilities and is a source of considerable unrest. However, there is a chance for this kind of thing to operate in the reserves. But when it comes to the towns, when it comes to a city such as Johannesburg where you have not only different races, Black and White, but where among the African peoples, you have different groups and a vast variety of economic circumstances, this tribal system of law will never work. It will break down and the only effect will be that it will create friction and difficulties.

The hon. the Minister who is a great student of tribal law, will agree with me that in relation to tribal law there is no such thing as one comprehensive tribal law; it does not exist. This tribal law, such as it is, varies from tribe to tribe, and now the hon. the Minister is hoping that by the introduction of ethnic grouping in a place like Johannesburg, in the townships, he may be able to operate tribal courts in relation to each particular ethnic group. But it is not as simple as that. I defy the hon. the Minister to carry out his ethnic policy in Johannesburg. It will never happen. He has tried already to make a start in some of the newer townships that have been built for ethnic groups, but the great majority of the people of Johannesburg still live not on ethnic group lines, but are all mixed up together. I would like to know how they are going to be sorted out and when. I make the prophecy, Mr. Speaker, that it will never happen in a hundred years in a place like Johannesburg.

And how are these tribal courts going to operate? There will obviously have to be different ethnic courts in a place like Johannesburg. I have said earlier on that there is no common body of law. It varies from tribe to tribe under different conditions. So the system will become hopelessly mixed up in respect of a place like Johannesburg.

You may have conflicting ethnic groups …

I do not want to go into details, but the hon. the Minister will agree with me that different tribes have very marked differences in the way in which they apply their law, and in a place like Johannesburg where you have all the different groups mixed up, the system simply cannot work. I can illustrate this very well. The other day a maid in my employ brought me a Bantu paper and showed me a picture in the paper of a clinic which had been set up in Meadowlands, the show-piece of the Government as far as housing in Johannesburg is concerned. She said that she was interested to see this, but would I please explain one thing to her. She said: “It is explained that this is a multi-racial clinic, organized on ethnic group lines. I do not understand. I am a Sotho and I am married to a Zulu. What happens now if I am ill and go to that clinic? One door is marked as the Zulu door and another door as the Sotho door. Through which door do I go in and which door does my child have to go in and where does my husband go in? And will not we all get the same doctors inside the clinic?” You see, Mr. Speaker, how absurd this ethnic grouping can be. When they get inside, of course they all come to the same doctors. So it really is a façade and it is not a reality. The other point I want to make is this: I said that the tribal system created serious troubles so far as the reserves were concerned, and how much greater trouble is it likely to create so far as the townships are concerned? I would just briefly quote from a report which can be said to be a case history of conditions that have existed in a number of our reserves over recent years, reserves where there have unfortunately been disturbed conditions. In one of these reserves, an investigator who investigated conditions in that particular reserve, made the following statement—

Sir, in that particular case, one of the sources of trouble and concern was the way in which that chief, untrained in the law, and his councillors, were applying tribal law. Is there any reason to believe that in the urban areas, in a place like Johannesburg, where such powers fall into the hands of untrained people, where they fall outside the dispassionate body of the law as administered by the State, they will behave any differently? I have no doubt whatsoever that you are opening wide the way to exploitation of this system of tribal courts for all sorts of practices which have nothing strictly to do with justice, and I have no doubt about it that you will introduce into your urban areas a further source of discontent and discord. I think it is a very great pity indeed that this step is to be taken.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the ideal state in any country is to have one body of law administered completely dispassionately by the State, by trained officers of the State, with a body of law which is understood, that has grown out of practice and that is able, as a result of experience, to meet whatever situation may arise. The important thing is that it should be seen by the people who fall under it to be an impartial system of law, a system of law which stands above the people as it were, and is not open to abuse, because it is not administered by people with very little experience. I think that to try to impose tribal courts in a country such as South Africa, which is essentially a multiracial state which cannot be separated into different races, is dangerous. We should have one system of law and the idea of bolstering up tribal law I believe to be a futile one. I believe that in the course of time tribal law will not only prove to be a failure in the towns, but I believe that ultimately in the reserves and elsewhere it will also have to give way to one system of law for the whole of the State. I say this is a retrograde step and it is with great regret that we see it being introduced into our towns.

I also want to say something about the question of lawyers. As you know, Mr. Speaker, lawyers are excluded from these tribal courts. The hon. the Minister is allergic to lawyers. He does not like them. He spoke in most scathing terms about lawyers the other day.

Only certain lawyers.

I believe the hon. the Minister is allergic to lawyers. He does not even allow them into the tribal courts.

Political lawyers.

Never mind what kind of lawyers. Lawyers are an essential part of the administration of justice. Surely the hon. the Minister is not going to tell us that because there are perhaps some doctors who do not always practise ethically, because there may be doctors who exploit the poorer people, for that reason he is against doctors and wants to exclude them.

He likes witchdoctors.

Mr. Speaker, lawyers have survived and will continue to survive because they are a necessity in a civilized state. They are essential to assist the courts and they are essential to assist people who are brought before the courts in order to get the justice that is due to them. And to have a system of justice which does not allow for lawyers in an evolving society which is becoming more and more civilized is surely a ridiculous state of affairs.

In this book from which I have quoted, the writer also makes it very clear that from his study of the tribal courts if there is to be an exclusion of lawyers, with litigation becoming more and more complex, it will be a drastic step. The Minister believes that this tribal law is something which is going to be more economic, to provide a cheap form of law for the Africans and something that will not run them into great legal expenses. In his view it is going to be a primitive form of law, a very simple form which will suit the needs of the African. That is the basis on which the Minister believes these tribal courts will be a good institution. But when he attempts to introduce these tribal laws into the towns, in an incredible short space of time the system of law will have to become complex because this simple system which operates when dealing with the theft of cattle and so forth in a primitive society, will become complex in a complex city society with a whole new variety of types of disputants. Either the system will collapse or will itself have to become incredibly complex. It must become adapted to suit the new legal situation and it must begin to gather precedents and legal background. How is it going to operate if the Africans do not have legal men to interpret it for them? Either they will have to have lawyers or the Minister will have to set up some new, as yet unthought of system of legal aid for the people who are to appear before these courts. The simplest and the best way is to forget the tribal courts and gradually to move over to our ordinary courts of law.

The Native Commissioners’ courts are operating well and will do so as long as there is a need for them. But I believe that even the Native Commissioners’ courts will ultimately, in the distant future, find no place in the kind of society which we will have in South Africa where, I believe, the only commonsense thing is to have one system of law for every civilized person. And most people in the country we hope, will ultimately become civilized. I say that in this stage of our civilization, in the year in which we live to-day, for the hon. the Minister to introduce tribal courts in our big cities is a retrogressive step and it is most unfortunate that that should be done in a Bill of this kind.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I fully endorse the points that have been made so very ably by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the amendment she has moved. I say that this Bill is a facade. It gives the pretence of some democratic rights to the Africans and denies the reality from them. The reality is kept closely in the hands of the hon. the Minister who can control every regulation, who can control every person appointed to these particular councils. I believe it is a facade. I do not think it is going to introduce real elements of democracy into the towns. Finally I say this, that if this Bill is an indication and an important signpost of Government overall policy relating to the Africans in the towns—which, as I say, is the crux of White/Black relations—if this is an earnest of the way in which this problem is going to be tackled, then I am very sorry indeed for South Africa. It seems to me that if, on this kind of legislation, the Government is going to stand or fall I, for one, have no doubt whatever what the result will be.

Mr. Speaker, I want to disappoint the Progressive Party this afternoon by not paying too much attention to them. I think that the attitude which their two speakers have adopted was quite to be expected. That is the natural attitude for them to adopt and they must not blame me if I do not pay too much attention to them. I just want to say that it seems to me that, taken as a whole, the amendment which they have moved is really an attempt to score a point over their fellow Opposition members in the struggle which they consider may take place later during a general election. It seems to me that they are already engaged on cheap election propaganda in an arena to which they have gained free access.

Seeing that the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) has been so sceptical as regards the conferring of civil and criminal jurisdiction on the Bantu of the urban areas I just want to tell him that he has made such a fuss about the matter in vain. To a large extent these facilities have already been voluntarily accepted by the Bantu. Furthermore the House will see that in future use will be made of this provision to a still greater extent. In conclusion this is not something which replaces the other method, namely, trial by Bantu Affairs Commissioners. I think the hon. member worded his case unnecessarily strongly.

I just want to come back to one remark by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit). He has said that he finds justification for the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee after second reading. I do not agree. When the Minister introduced the debate on this Bill this afternoon, he showed in a very striking way how this Bill would merely fit into a broader pattern of legislation relating to the Bantu in the White areas and that next year when the whole pattern is woven together and formed into new consolidated legislation, these steps which are being taken this year, will also be considered within the newer and more general framework. I think that this answered conclusively in advance the argument that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee after second reading this year.

I consider that this Bill is once again, as the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has already said, a striking example and a further example of the revolutionary development and the creative possibilities of our apartheid policy. As the Bantu consider themselves to be competent and as they become competent to take further responsibilities in their own interests, this Bill makes that possible. Seeing that the Bill relates to matters affecting the White areas, it is of course self-evident that in accordance with our policy of separate development there are limits to these opportunities which the Bantu will enjoy here, while those limits do not exist in their own areas, that is to say the homelands. This Bill is limited in its scope and its concept; it is easy to deal with and I do not think that much new can be said about it. I really just want to take this opportunity briefly to contrast certain of the most fundamental concepts to be found in the present advisory board system and the urban Bantu council system which is being made possible by the new Bill. I want to try to contrast what is the position and what can now be done.

In the first place there is the basis on which these councils are to be established. We know that under the Bill it is compulsory for the town council to accede to the wishes of the local Bantu. But I just want to point out that such a council can have one of two characters. This is very important. In the first place there is the territorial character on a regional basis when the Bantu live intermingled in such an area. In the second place there is of course the ethnic character which it can adopt, when it can unite the Bantu concerned on the basis of a national unit. This possibility does not and did not exist under the existing system. The advisory boards were simply established without such a board acting in an advisory capacity in respect of the Bantu on the basis of ethnic groups or simply on a regional basis. This distinction has not existed hitherto. This is therefore a step forward in the sense that it will introduce greater flexibility into the system of government. It is the historic position that there are many Bantu residential areas in he White areas where the Bantu for practical purposes consist in the main of only one group. In such areas councils can be established on an ethnic basis which will also in such instances integrate the Bantu more effectively with their people in the homelands.

I want to give another example, and this relates to consultation when the councils are established. It is clear from this Bill that with the introduction of the new councils, there will be consultation with the Bantu, consultation with the local boards—the present advisory boards—and in so far as they do not exist or do not give satisfactory expression to the wishes of the Bantu, consultation with the Bantu community as such. This will therefore give the Bantu an opportunity which they did not previously have under the advisory board system of not merely saying whether they want a body to act on their behalf, but also what type of body they want—a body on which the various groups will be represented, or a body on which they will be represented on an exclusively ethnic basis. Hitherto this opportunity has not existed. Under the existing system the town councils were obliged to appoint advisory boards.

I now want to refer to another matter and this is the way in which the representatives on the council will be elected. We have the two systems, namely, the elected members who are elected by the community and the selected members who will be selected from and by the representatives of the chiefs. This also differs from the advisory board system as it has existed hitherto, under which there is no provision whereby the selected members who represent the chiefs can or must be represented on such an advisory board; in other words, there is therefore no provision for an official link between them and the homelands, for people who can work in the interests of the Bantu from the homelands who live in that community.

Then I want to mention another point, namely, that the urban Bantu councils which will be established under this Bill, whether established on a regional basis or on the basis of national units, will only consist of Bantu. This also places greater trust in the Bantu and gives them greater opportunities. The advisory boards were to have consisted of Bantu but it was allowed and in many instances this happened as well, that the chairman was a White man. He was usually a member of the council who was a member of the Bantu Affairs Committee. This system whereby the chairman of such a body was a White man, will not continue under this new system of councils because the chairman of such an urban Bantu council will be a Bantu elected from the ranks of the Bantu themselves, and of course elected in accordance with the system which we shall prescribe in the regulations.

But there is the second important difference in the case of the constitution of such councils. In the case of the advisory boards it was possible in the past for Coloureds living in the Bantu residential areas also to serve on the advisory boards, while under the new system this will not be possible. These councils will be exclusively for the Bantu themselves.

Mr. Speaker, this system of elected members is therefore a system which flows historically from the customs of the Bantu themselves, that is to say that the people of the tribe, the people of their own homeland, have a say in the affairs of and a controlling authority over their ordinary subjects. This principle is being extended in this Bill and, as the hon. member for Heilbron has correctly stated, this principle represents a very strong link which can keep the Bantu of these areas in touch with and linked to their homelands. This is a link which the advisory boards have hitherto not been able to provide and which, therefore, judged by this yardstick, was a weakness in the system.

Hon. members will notice that there is a striking similarity between the two systems as regards the election of members. In the case of the advisory boards the representatives have been elected hitherto. In the case of the councils they will now be elected in two ways. In other words, in both these cases we have the position that the existing system of election under the advisory board system will be retained in the new system—but the representatives will be chosen on a dual basis, as I have said, from the community and from the representatives of the chiefs. It should be clear, even to those who are so fond of using democratic yardsticks, that judged by democratic yardsticks this is a more democratic system because the Bantu will be able to elect the people who will represent them on these urban councils on a broader and more differentiated basis, with the great improvement that such election will result in the ties with the homelands being strengthened. When we examine the duties, functions and activities of these councils, we find yet another difference between the two systems. I do not want to enlarge on this point greatly, but I merely mention the fact that under the old advisory board system the functions of those boards were of course mainly of an advisory nature. While we are therefore extending this system and enabling the local authorities to confer additional duties, functions and powers gradually on the various urban councils which are to be established, this will of course be subject to conditions which will be laid down, as approved of by the hon. the Minister.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, we know full well what the members of the Progressive Party want, and it is pointless arguing with them about it. It is of no avail whatsoever. When we examine the functions of these councils, we see how such functions will be conferred on these councils gradually but to an increasing extent—not all at once. It seems to me that certain hon. members opposite misunderstood the position and that they think that these councils will be entrusted immediately with all the functions mentioned in this Bill—that they will be given everything at once. That is not so. This process will take place under the guidance of the local authority, whether it be a city council, town council or any other body. It is evident throughout the Bill that the local authority, in other words the city council, will have to act as a type of mentor and give guidance in respect of all the functions which these Bantu councils can exercise. They will have to act as the leaders and guardians under whose care and by whose grace the functions, powers and duties of the urban Bantu councils will be exercised. It must also be understood that these powers will be conferred on the Bantu councils by the local authorities gradually. Here the important educational principle of gradual training and development towards further responsibility is once again being applied. This is the same principle as that which we introduced in the Bantu Self-Government Act and as applies to their self-government in the case of the homelands. The same principle applies here, although it cannot be developed to the same level because these are White areas in which the Bantu are living.

I should like to emphasize once again that this will provide a medium for consultation and that it will be far more effective than the former advisory board system, under which there was, after all, a reasonable opportunity for consultation between the local authority and the Bantu. Provision is being made that there can also be consultation between the urban Bantu councils and the Bantu Affairs Commissioners of our Department. There are many matters in respect of which our Bantu Affairs Commissioners can consult these councils, when their opinions, reports and recommendations can be requested, and contact established between them and the Department. This is a statutory provision which is being inserted and which will, therefore, extend and improve the possibilities of consultation and contact between the authorities and the urban Bantu. Equally important are the functions which the urban Bantu councils are being given to enable them to assist the representatives in their urban areas of the Bantu authorities in the Bantu homelands in their task. Under the Bantu Self-Government Act they can appoint such representatives in these areas, and the urban Bantu councils are being specifically entrusted in this Bill with the additional function and duty of assisting those representatives in this task of maintaining the ties with the homelands so that they can look after the interests of the Bantu concerned all the better. This also represents a better service and also increased possibilities for consultation, which hon. members opposite are always so eager to have.

I do not want to enlarge unduly on the criminal and civil jurisdiction which is being conferred on these councils, but I just want to point out that this is also a function which is being conferred and which is being made possible by this urban Bantu council system, something which was not so clearly possible under the existing advisory board system. Another important aspect regarding which there is also a difference relates to something which the local Advisory Boards were not able to do hitherto while under this new system it is in fact being made possible. I am referring to the establishment of community guards, about which enough has already been said, and on which I need not enlarge any further. I just want to say that it is axiomatic, it is essential, and that it is one of the primary requirements of civilization that a community, whether it be a primitive community or a highly-developed community, should be able to control itself, to discipline itself and to preserve itself as far as law and order, etc. amongst its own people are concerned. This measure which makes it possible for the Bantu councils to establish community guards, as is emphasized in the Bill and as the hon. the Minister has said, in the closest co-operation with the South African Police, also represents a step in that direction. The hon. member for East London (City) need therefore not be concerned on this point. This proposal is one of those measures which we shall find is most essential in order to help the Bantu to protect themselves and maintain order, as befits any civilized community. In the past and recently we have seen that disturbances take place in the Bantu towns or communities, and that undesirable developments take place because they do not have their own machinery to control disorder. Here we are establishing community guards and we consider that this will eventually prove itself to be one of the best ways of cultivating a sense of civilization and order amongst the Bantu communities.

Mr. Speaker, although this new system holds out so many advantages for the Bantu living in the residential areas in the White areas, it must be clearly understood that there is no fixed intention to force this system on the Bantu when they do not want it. The Bantu all have one or other form of contact with local authorities to-day through the medium of the Advisory Boards. We shall do everything in our power to promote this system. That is quite correct. When the Bantu community wants this system and the local authority concerned does not want to grant it, it is right that it should be made obligatory and that it should be made possible. But this process will take place gradually, gradually as far as its introduction is concerned, as gradually as far as the conferring of functions on such already established bodies is concerned. Hon. members need not fear that we believe that a miracle will take place overnight and that disruption will be the result. As is the case in respect of Bantu self-government in the homelands, here too a process actively but gradually introducing these duties and opportunities on a proper educational basis will take place. As I have said, we shall do our best to expedite this process as much as possible, but we are mindful of the saying: Look before you leap.

I just want to refer to one further important difference. This is a great and very important difference. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has dealt with it partially, namely the exercise of financial functions. I have just said that the maintenance of order in one’s own ranks is one of the primary requirements of civilization in a community. In the same way the exercising of financial responsibility is also a primary requirement for a civilized community. In accordance with the basis laid down in this Bill, the urban Bantu councils will be able to participate in a far more constructive way in future in the process of budgeting for their needs. Provision is made in the Bill that if the local authority adopts a form of consultation with the urban Bantu councils which is not suitable and which is not comprehensive enough to give them a proper training in the responsibilities of financial management, the Minister can lay down how consultation between the Bantu council and the town council concerned is to take place. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a great step forward because it will make it possible for the urban Bantu councils, for those communities, to have a causal connection with this process of spending the funds available. So often we find primitive communities which think that money is available in unlimited quantities. Money comes from heaven! We know the old saying: Money does not grow on trees. Fathers normally tell their children that. Primitive communities often believe that money is something which one can simply pick off a tree somewhere. We have seen this once again in the excesses which have taken place in the Congo, i.e., that those communities were under the delusion in the freedom which they had been given that everything was now available to them free of charge. The steps which are now being taken and which will give the Bantu councils these opportunities, will introduce the great educational principle into such communities which will teach them the value, origin, the limitations and the possibilities of money. That is very important.

May I ask a question? What will be the position if the local authority refuses to provide funds to the Bantu?

One can ask any sort of discourteous question if one wants a discourteous answer.

That is discourteous.

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) did not ask the question.

The Bill states quite clearly that there will be consultation. There will be proper consultation and negotiation and the consultation will not be of the type which was often found in the past, where they were given a cut and dried budget and they simply had to take it or leave it. There will be negotiation. The Bantu will say that they require so much money for a football field. Then the local authority as sensible guardians will grant the request if funds are available, and if the necessary funds are not available the reason why that money is not available will, as I have just said, be very fully explained to the Bantu. All of us want unlimited opportunities as far as money is concerned, but life teaches us, this House teaches us, and our own family budget teaches us that one cannot get everything one wants. It is precisely this educational principle which will be better brought home to the Bantu under this system because it will be explained to the Bantu through the consultations between the town council and the Bantu council why the demands they are making are excessive. I am confident, and we have sufficient proof of this, that the Bantu are not so irresponsible that they will run amuck if a request which they make cannot be acceded to. One should rather not arouse such imaginary fears and one should try to impress a sense of responsibility on these people and reveal the right attitude in this creative process.

I just want to conclude by saying that these urban Bantu councils which are now to be established, fit into the pattern of the system of government of the Bantu themselves in the sense that this system will gradually teach the Bantu in the urban areas, to the extent that they may control and run their own affairs in the White areas, to develop and to acquire knowledge of management to an ever-increasing extent, and as a result of the knowledge which they acquire through the operation of this system, they will be able to transmit this knowledge back to their homelands. This is a measure which we who believe in separation welcome, and I hope that the United Party will continue to reveal the measure of responsibility which they have revealed hitherto in their speeches and that they will support this Bill, with reservations here and there such as those which the hon. member for East London (City) has expressed. We appreciate this greatly and for that reason I hope that no one on either side of the House will make any reproaches in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister who introduced the second reading of the Bill, we were told in glowing terms of the wonderful life in the Native townships to-day, “waar alles so mooi is”, I was reminded of the story about the commissar in the Soviet Union who was sent to an agricultural district to talk to the residents who had been a little troublesome. The commissar addressed this meeting of farmers and told them how good everything was. When he had finished speaking he asked whether there were any questions. One man got up and said he had a question to ask: If everything was so good, why was everything so bad? The commissar said that was a very interesting question, but he could not answer it, and he would get the department to write to the man, and he must please give him his name and he gave him his name, Comrade Nel. The next year the commissar came back and addressed the same people again and told them how good everything was. When he had finished and asked whether there were any questions, a little man got up at the back again and said: Commissar, if everything is so good, where is Comrade Nel? [Laughter.] After listening to what is happening now in the townships, I wonder how the Minister ever hopes to induce the urban African to go back to the reserves.

We of the United Party have already indicated that we would support the second reading of the Bill, and then ask that it be sent to a Select Committee. We do that because, as the Minister well knows, it is our policy to give the urban Africans in their townships their own councils. It is our policy that that shall be done under the control of the urban authorities, and when they have been trained for municipal government, they can eventually aspire to complete control of their own townships. We must congratulate the Minister on now having accepted our policy. The Minister cannot shake his head and smile. He knows as well as I do that this is our stated policy. It is what we are aiming at.

Since when?

Seeing that the hon. member is new in Parliament, I thought he would take some interest in the policy of the other party. If he reads our 1954 statement of policy, he will find what it is. I only regret that it has taken the Minister so long to accept our policy, and now at last to put it into effect. I would agree that this new council is being given no more new powers than the advisory boards had. I also admit that the advisory boards were a failure, largely because of the attitude of the Government, and something has to take their place, because those boards have to all intents and purposes disappeared. That is why we support the Government in bringing into being these councils which will be elected by the residents of the urban area. We do not agree with the form of selecting the other members and, in the Committee Stage, we hope to move an amendment. The principle of allowing the urban African to elect the members of the council is something contrary to the Government’s policy. They do not allow it anywhere else except in the Transkei. Under the Bantu Authorities Act there is no provision for electing representatives. It is done under the old tribal custom. It is only in the Transkei, except for Pondoland, where a very modified form of election is granted. But here the Government is deliberately teaching the African the Western way of democracy. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) was at pains to tell us that this was not a Bill to bring about democratic institutions amongst the Bantu, but he protested too much. He was afraid, he said, that people would think—and he is quite right in saying it—that we are now bringing the principles of the democratic form of government to the Africans. That is just what the Minister is doing in this Bill. Now, we are not going to discourage the Government in any way from giving any form of democracy to the Bantu. That is why we will support the second reading, because of this principle which the Government has now accepted for the first time, and the fact that it is now starting to give the Bantu political rights in the urban areas outside the reserves. It may only be municipal rights, but they are political rights, and it is the start of the granting of further political rights. The Minister himself and members of his party have continually said, in attacking the policy of the United Party, that if you once start giving political rights you cannot stop; they will demand more and more rights. The Minister is now starting with municipal councils, and it will grow from there to the territorial authorities in the urban areas, and finally the urban Africans will have a parliament of their own. The Minister and the Government have at last admitted that their policy of no voice to the African and no form of representation for him outside the reserves has failed. Things are not as good as they pretended, and that is why they have to take some steps now to satisfy the urban Africans. As I said last night, there is a clamour throughout Africa for a voice in the government. This Government has now at last acknowledged that fact and have accepted the principle, and that is why we are prepared to give them support.

We do not like the provisions of this Bill in other respects, and we think it can be improved upon. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has attacked the Bill, because it does not give the councils sufficient executive power. She argues that they cannot do anything without the approval of the local authorities, because if they cannot control the finances they cannot do anything at all. He who holds the purse-strings dictates. The Deputy Minister spoilt the case of the Minister by the attitude he adopted in replying to the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw), and he did it because he could not reply. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister says he did reply, but how did he reply? He said that if the council wanted to spend money on a swimming-bath they would go to the municipality and ask for money, and the municipality would say there was no money and explain why not. But he did not explain what would happen if there was money available and the municipality refused to give that money. He went on to explain why it was necessary to control the purse-strings, and I agree with that. I agree that when you start off with a new body, when these people are for the first time being given some control over their own affairs and have no experience, there has to be control over them, and therefore it is necessary that somebody should control their spending or have some right to stop them spending money recklessly. The Minister knows that the Territorial Authority of the Transkei got into trouble and he had to give them more money. You have to train these people to handle finances, and our policy was to train them gradually until they could take over the control.

One reason why we want a Select Committee after the principle has been accepted, so that the Government could not run away from the principle of having elected councils, is to enable us to consult with the local authorities and to get their advice as to how these provisions can be improved. They are the people who have to administer the Act; they are the people who have had the experience, and they are the people who can advise us. We also want to discuss the matter with the Africans. The Minister said he consulted Africans. I asked him whom he consulted, and he said he consulted individuals. But that is not the type of consultation we want. We want to know, e.g. what the Advisory Boards in Johannesburg think, and we want it to be done before a Select Committee, and they should not just talk to the Minister personally. We have to consult with the Africans. Let us consult with them about the rights we give to them and get their acceptance of what we give them, and let us not start off with hostility on the part of the Africans right from the beginning.

There are also other matters we would like to discuss in a Select Committee to see whether we cannot improve the Bill. I am very much opposed to Clause 5, e.g. I do not agree with everything the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) said, but I do object to the establishment of these tribal courts in the urban areas. I do not agree that we should have one system of courts for all the races, as advocated by the hon. member for Parktown. I think it is necessary and will be for a long time to have different courts. We have the Native Commissioners’ courts now and that will have to last for a long time because people in the reserves, and to certain extent in the urban areas, are living according to Native custom and the Native Commissioners are people trained in dealing with Native custom. They do not deal with anyone else but Natives. In the reserves we have the chiefs’ courts, and although I do not favour the extension of the chiefs’ courts and their jurisdiction, I readily grant that you cannot abolish the chiefs’ courts. What I do object to, though, is the fact that the Bantu are compelled to go to the chiefs’ courts to-day. The Minister will know that before 1951 no Bantu could be compelled in the Trenskei, at any rate, to go to the chiefs’ court, and this is where the hon. member for Heilbron is wrong.

He said, in dealing with these courts which are now to be established in the urban areas, that if the Bantu did not want to go to these courts they need not go because they have the choice of going elsewhere.

No, he said they could appeal to the Native commissioner.

Before 1951 the plaintiff could choose his court. He could choose whether to go to the chief’s court or to the Native commissioner. If he went to the chief’s court the defendant would be notified, and if the defendant did not want to go to the chief’s court he did not go and the chief could not give judgment by default. The plaintiff was then compelled to go to the Native commissioner’s court, where the defendant was also compelled to go. But unfortunately we changed that rule some time ago. The Minister will remember that I objected to it in the Select Committee at the time. We were told then by the then Secretary that the Presidents of the Appeal Court, and also the Chief Native Commissioners, had suggested it. Well, I saw some of these gentlemen afterwards and they denied it and said there must have been a misunderstanding because they did not agree with this principle of allowing the chiefs to give default judgments. One of the troubles we have in the Transkei to-day in the opposition to the chiefs’ courts is the fact that people are compelled to go to them, because the courts are not all run on the same basis. Some of the chiefs’ courts are well run, like that of Victor Poto, and the Natives do not object to going there, but in other areas the chiefs have practically no work because nobody will go to their courts. Everyone goes to the Native Commissioner’s court. Admittedly the party who feels aggrieved after the judgment in the chief’s court can go to the Native commissioner, but he has already suffered the inconvenience of having to go to the chief’s court and of having judgment given against him; and the Minister also knows that there are many cases where the execution of the judgment is done so quickly that before he has a chance to appeal he finds his stock has gone. The Minister will also know from his officials of the way in which the majority of these chiefs’ courts are run. When a Native goes to an attorney to appeal, or to go to the Native Commissioner’s court, he finds that the chief has not done his duty and has not sent in the record, and if it is not done within a certain time the case lapses. We have numerous cases like that. Any Native commissioner in the Transkei will tell the Minister that. By establishing this type of court in the urban areas we are not bringing to the urban areas a more efficient type of court than they would have if we leave the Native Commissioner’s court to dispense justice.

I do not believe that the majority of Natives to-day know what their customs are. We find it only too often, even in the Appeal Court, where the chiefs are called in to sit as assessors to give advice as to the customs, that it is not in line with decisions given by chiefs in older cases. To-day Native custom is applied in terms of judgments given by the Native Appeal Court in years gone by. It is only natural that they do not know what their true customs are, because ’conditions have changed so much. Even our customs have changed. As we progress, we get different customs. The development of our commerce has given us new mercantile law. Here I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that it is quite wrong to bind down the African as we do to-day to his custom as it existed 100 years ago. We take no account of the development which has taken place in the country, and that is quite wrong. I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that we should take evolution into consideration.

But the type of official who is going to preside over these courts to be established in the urban areas will not be a chief who holds authority by virtue of his birth or an induna appointed by the chief and living in the reserve where he can consult with all the old men in their courts. You will have some member of this council who will act as the judicial officer, and I do not believe that these men in the towns and who are permanently urbanized know sufficient about their customs. What worries me more is that they have no one to advise them except other members of the council who may also be detribalized. What is worse is to give them criminal jurisdiction. Giving the chiefs in the Transkei criminal jurisdiction was quite wrong, and I know the resentment amongst the Africans over this provision in the Transkei, giving the chiefs criminal jurisdiction. They much prefer to go to the Native Commissioner. And what happens in the chief’s court? All sorts of irregularities take place. In a civil case it is bad enough, but in a criminal case it is much worse. I know of a case in the Transkei where a chief tried one of his tribesmen for common assault, although he had murdered the man, and he fined him £2. That man was keen on appearing before the chief quickly, but luckily the police found out about it and they took him before the Native Commissioner. There are other instances of irregularity. There are cases where a chief fined a man £50. whereas he has power to fine up to £20 only, but what does the average tribesman know about the rules? There is no necessity for giving criminal jurisdiction in these urban areas. You have the Native Commissioners and they can try these cases. I would agree that it is desirable to have Africans as officers of the court, and I submit that there must be sufficient trained Africans to start with, Africans in the service to-day who have legal qualifications. I know of two in Umtata alone and there must be many more throughout the country who have these qualifications. Put them on the bench and make them Native Commissioners. The Minister has promised the Transkei that he will develop the judiciary on that basis, taking it away from the chiefs and developing it along the lines of the Native Commissioner’s court, with a trained official sitting on the Bench, and I can assure him that the African much prefers that.

Another reason why the African prefers Native Commissioner’s courts is that attorneys are not allowed to appear in the chief’s court. The fact is that the Native likes going to an attorney. The Minister knows the Bantu, and that there is nothing they like better than a court case, and they like going to an attorney. They want someone to speak for them. If there are Native Commissioners in these urban areas, with an African acting as Native Commissioner. and African attorneys are allowed to appear in these courts, it opens another avenue for these people. If you establish council courts in the urban areas, you will take away the livelihood of these African attorneys who are practising here at present. Once these courts are established, these African attorneys will disappear because they will not be allowed to appear in these courts. One of the big complaints that the Africans have is that they get educated and there is nothing for them to do; they must go back to the reserves and become petrol-pump attendants. We are looking for openings for the educated Africans. They are all clamouring for education and being educated, and this will open up a new avenue of employment for them, especially for the African attorneys who find it hard to get work to-day outside of the reserves, and there are more and more African lawyers qualifying every year. Create these openings for them. In the Committee Stage we will deal more fully with the question of these courts and move an amendment, but I hope that in the meantime the Minister will consider what I have said give grave consideration to it—and instead of establishing these special tribal courts, which I know the Africans do not want, let him consider rather appointing Africans as Native commissioners in the urban areas to try the cases.

The hon. member for Heilbron, in justifying these courts, said that they did not have much power; they could only fine up to £20, and he said that was not much. But that means two or three months’ salary to most Africans. In the reserves it means a couple of years’ wages. Tn the towns the wages are higher, but the fact remains that it is a big amount for an African to have to pay to a court which is not fully qualified to try the cases.

He can also get a beating.

Yes, he can also get a beating. I do not know how the hon. member for Heilbron would like to have a sentence of beating imposed by him by an unqualified judicial officer who may pass sentence without considering the evidence properly or who may admit evidence which is inadmissible.

He can give expert evidence on that.

Was he beaten? Another point that I want to raise is the question of community guards. I have no objection to community guards. I think it is quite a good idea if people want to maintain their own community guards to protect their families and their assets. I was glad to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister telling us how many of these people there are who are prepared to do this and how they do look after themselves. In saying that he only proved that we are right in saying that there is a growing body of respectable middle-class Africans living in the urban areas. He has justified what we have always said. But there is one thing that I do insist upon if we are going to create these community guards, and that is that not only must they come under the control of the police, but that the Government must be responsible for their actions. We cannot have guards with some measure of authority given to them, commiting acts in terms of that authority unless the Government is going to be responsible for their actions. We do not want what the Minister has done in relation to the Transkei and that is to pass a law indemnifying any chief or headman or official who commits any act or authorize any act which may cause harm or injury to another citizen. We do not want to find that in cases of that nature the guard and the Government will be indemnified against any action. Sir, in the Committee Stage we will go more fully into all these matters. There are other speakers on this side who will deal with different aspects of this Bill but I do want to make it clear that we are supporting this Bill because of the fact that the Minister has accepted our policy and has accepted the principle of the urban African getting political rights.

I do not wish to deal with the lengthy argument of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in connection with the granting of civil and criminal jurisdiction to the Bantu councils, but I should like to make one important point, and I should like the hon. member to listen. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories apparently does not know that the Bantu advisory councils were in fact elected in the past. Certain qualifications for the voters were prescribed, and the persons who wished to be candidates for election had to possess certain qualifications. I should like to put it to him that it is not a new principle in connection with the franchise. That existed already. I do not wish to take up too much time of the House, but I should just like to reply to a remark of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The hon. member for Houghton referred to the fact that the congresses of the Bantu advisory councils were stopped in the past. That is true; they were stopped by the Government. I should like to make the point here that I had the privilege—I think it was a privilege for I gained a good deal of knowledge in connection with these matters thereby—to be chairman of the non-European Affairs Committee of the City Council of Pretoria, and in that capacity I also had the opportunity of being the chairman of a Bantu advisory council for four years. I also had the privilege of attending quite a number of these congresses of the advisory councils. For instance at the congresses held at Uitenhage and Pietermaritzburg, the members of the Bantu advisory councils saw an opportunity to attack the Government’s policy in broad outline. Those congresses were intended to give them an opportunity to discuss local interests and local matters, and at those congresses Bantu who had co-operated well with the city councils, were incited in connection with matters that were no concern of their’s. Local matters were entrusted to them as advisory councillors, and they also came to argue about other matters.

I should like to say here that many Bantu advisory councils did good work. I do not know why pictures were painted here of instances where they did not function properly. In Pretoria they functioned very well; I can testify to that. They co-operated splendidly, and with the opportunities they had to advise, they also served their community well. But the interest on the part of the residents waned in connection with those Bantu advisory councils. That is true. But it did not wane for the reason given by the hon. member for Houghton. The people simply were not interested. There even were parties which organized to get their own members elected. They organized and yet the people did not come to the polls, simply because they were not interested in a measure of political say like some people thought. They were content to live in those Bantu townships with the benefits they received there, and it was because they did not take an interest in having a political say.

In Pretoria there was fine co-operation between the Department, the City Council and the Bantu advisory councils, and it produced results to which I shall refer later. The officials also felt that the councils, as they existed, perhaps were obsolete and there were members of the councils who felt that they wanted greater rights, but I shall tell you in what connection: The establishment of these Bantu urban councils embrace the principle that the councils are not only advisory, as the hon. the Minister also put it, but they also want administrative powers, and here they are now getting those powers. In other words, it is a horizontal extension of powers. They also want to assume greater responsibilities, and under this measure greater responsibilities are entrusted to them. We should like to see those people assuming greater responsibility.

There is one clause, Clause 2, that refers to the establishment of urban Bantu councils, and which refers to Bantu who belong to a national unit, and then there is Clause 3 which relates to the constitution of the urban Bantu councils which also refers to Bantu belonging to a particular national unit. In other words, in those two clauses we have the principle of ethnic grouping to which the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) objected, and to which other members also referred. I do not know why Pretoria has had a different experience in connection with this matter. I should like to refute this viewpoint that the system does not work. In Pretoria, and particularly in the new Bantu township, Vlakfontein, it is working well and it has always worked well, and we are pleased that it has worked well in the past elsewhere also.

I should like to refer briefly to this new idea of community guards. I am very glad that that measure of responsibility is also going to be conferred upon the Bantu in the urban areas. I should like to tell you that the advisory council’s representatives acted in self-defence in certain matters. The block leaders appointed in various blocks last year themselves acted as defenders, and we gratefully acknowledge that there were no riots in Pretoria’s Bantu townships last year, and that was thanks to the fact that these people themselves maintained order in those townships and particularly in the area where there was ethnic grouping.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the usual task the chief’s representatives have in that they are maintaining the connection of the urban Bantu with their tribes, I also see the following functions for these representatives of the authority concerned with the particular Bantu group. The urban Bantu council has to advise the local authority on matters of general interest affecting its tribal group, in other words, affecting his ethnic group. He can act as ambassador for his chief. He can assist in strengthening the bonds with the tribe. He can assist in building up tribal pride, but that is the very thing hon. members opposite want to take away; they want a process of equalization. They want the Bantu to lose his tribal pride and his tribal relationship. That is the thought of many of the members. If it then has to happen that the Bantu has to be repatriated for one reason or another to his country of origin, then the Bantu council could also assist in that respect; then perhaps we shall not have all the complaints we have had here before in connection with people who did not know where they had to go to. I should like to make these few small points and then, in conclusion, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister not to extend the qualifications of the Bantu who are going to be candidates for nomination in comparison with the qualifications presently prescribed for persons who become candidates for election to the advisory councils. I should like to go further and ask the hon. the Minister that when the regulations are drafted, the qualifications of the voters should not be extended in comparison with the qualifications presently existing for voters in the urban Bantu areas. My object with that is that the elements that infiltrate into those Bantu townships, who do not belong there, who do not live there and who are not employees, can be traced by providing that a Bantu should produce his identity card before he can vote, so that we can know whether he is a person lawfully there. I wanted to raise only these few matters and questions with the hon. the Minister.

As has been made abundantly clear from this particular side of the House, we support the effort of the Minister in this Bill to try to institute the first measure of political rights for the urbanized Bantu. It has always been the policy of this Party to press for that, and that desire is also reflected in the work of certain local authorities throughout the country such as the Johannesburg City Council, which has in the past, in its liaison with the Bantu Affairs Department, made it clear that it would like to see a larger measure of rights, both administrative and executive, granted to the urbanized Bantu in the townships in order to enable them to play a fuller part in the development of that community. But I would not like the Minister or the members on his side to be under any illusion that by accepting the second reading of the Bill, this side of the House in any way agrees with their general policy with regard to the Bantu in this country, particularly in the urban areas. We regard the Bantu as becoming part of the permanent urbanized community and we want to foster his sense of loyalty in that respect and his sense of responsibility in the township in which he lives. We want him to have some measure of home ownership so that he can become a loyal South African. In doing so we would be playing our part in assisting the Bantu to combat communistic influences which may be brought into his general economic life. This side of the House supports the suggestion that we must develop the political consciousness of the Bantu in his township and in the various villages which have been established for him in the urban areas. We still oppose the policy of ethnic grouping and the policy of migratory labour on which the whole of the urban policy of the Government is based, but we are not prepared to vote against the second reading because we feel that every effort on the part of the Government, no matter how small it is, to begin to grant political rights and to awaken political consciousness amongst the Africans should be encouraged and fostered. But when one reads the terms of the Bill and weigh up the powers which are being given and when one weighs up the financing which is to be placed at the disposal of these boards, one finds nothing different from what already exists. All that the Minister is really doing in this Bill is that he is trying to introduce the system of tribal authorities under a cloak of local administration, because he is rendering the whole principle which he has enunciated almost ineffective by making provision for the appointment of representatives of the tribal chiefs on an equal basis with the elected representatives in the townships. No person can be an elected member unless he is a representative of the tribal chief. The Minister is really bringing about an entrenchment of ethnic grouping in the townships and ensuring, where he has not been completely successful, that he will be so successful by making provision for the selection of tribal chiefs’ representatives to balance those persons who are elected. Sir, when one looks at the powers conferred in this Bill one finds a most extraordinary situation, and quite frankly I wonder whether there is really any intention to do something much more constructive than has hitherto been done and which we on this side of the House would like to see done. For instance, in Clause 4, which is a very vital clause in this Bill, setting out the powers and functions and duties of these urban Bantu councils, it is stated first of all that the urban council shall exercise the powers and perform the functions laid down in Section 21 of the Act, of which this Bill becomes a part. Then it goes on to say that urban Bantu councils shall also exercise such powers and perform such functions and duties as may be determined by the local authority in consultation with the Administrator, with the concurrence of the Minister. Certain things are then set out and we find that these certain things are extracts from the existing law. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to Section 38 (3) of the Urban Areas Act which I have no doubt he knows very well indeed and which provides that an urban local authority may make or adopt regulations not inconsistent with the Act in regard to certain things—for instance in 3 (b) “management and control of locations, Native villages, Native hostels” and “the maintenance of good order, health and sanitation”. Paragraph 4 (2) (v) of the Bill says: “The management and control of the area and the maintenance of good order therein and (x) talks about the provision of “sanitary, health and medical services”. Then paragraph 4 (2) (VI) of the Bill is similar to Section 38 (3) (e) which provides for the local authority to make certain regulations for “the erection and the use of dwellings, buildings and other structures” and so it goes on. Practically all the powers here are similar to those already in the hands of the local authorities, and all that is suggested here is that in addition they will ask the urban Bantu council to deal with it. But the Native Advisory Boards have already been assigned the duty of considering and reporting on all these various functions and undertakings, because in Section 21 (2) of the existing Act it says that a Native advisory board shall consider and report upon any regulation which the urban local authority proposes to make or adopt under subsection (3) or (4) of Section 38.

But only in an advisory capacity.

That is right—to consider and report. What then is the effect of placing these powers in the hands of these urban Bantu councils? How will they be enabled to carry out the functions given to them? As the position stands at the moment the estimates which the local authority prepares for the administration of its Bantu townships are prepared in consultation with the Native advisory boards. It is provided here that that consultation shall now take place with the urban Bantu council, but it gives them no authority to demand anything. It is made perfectly clear in Clause 8 (4) …

That powers will be delegated.

Yes, but at the moment nothing is being delegated. We have to deal with the powers which this Bill gives. You cannot go beyond the powers of a law. With regard to the preparation of estimates, it says here that the estimates shall be prepared by such local authority after consultation with such council in the manner determined by such local authority, and then it gives the Minister the power, if he is satisfied that the manner so determined does not afford an opportunity of proper consultation, to decide the manner in which the consultation shall take place. We know that for years now it has been necessary to have that form of consultation. We know that for years every suggestion that the Native advisory boards have submitted to the Minister have merely been shelved and not given the fullest attention and consideration, so one is a little sceptical as to whether these powers really amount to anything at all. There is nothing new in these powers in so far as these present advisory boards are concerned, save that here, instead of saying that they shall consider and report, it says that these shall be the functions which they shall perform and the duties that shall be imposed upon them. But, as has been rightly pointed out, none of these functions or duties can be carried out unless there is some form of executive direction, unless there is some form of financial direction or control of moneys. That is the only way in which they can carry out an executive power satisfactorily. The hon. the Minister went on to talk about some of the work which he has seen in the townships throughout the country. It seems to me that if his objective here is to bolster up the failing Native advisory boards in the various cities and towns throughout the Union, outside the big towns, he might be making a constructive effort but if one applies the terms of this Bill to a large city like Johannesburg, then I ask the hon. the Minister: What is there for them to do in terms of this Bill? All the sanitary facilities have been provided; houses have been built; the recreational facilities have been provided, clinics have been installed; roads have been built, services on a tremendous scale have been provided, millions and millions of pounds have been spent, electricity has been installed at a cost of nearly £3,000,000. All these things are already there, and if the Minister wants this body to function satisfactorily, he must give it the opportunity to function on a basis similar to the local authority, which is the ultimate objective of the United Party—to have a form of government which largely follows the lines of a local authority, where they debate their problems and where they pass resolutions and put them into effect. We are perfectly happy that in its initial stages it should be under the direction and leadership of White trained municipal officials. In fact some seven or eight years ago as the Minister may remember, the suggestion was made that the time had come when a large collection of people, nearly 750,000 living in the townships on the outskirts of Johannesburg, should be given some measure of local authority administration and that they should begin to appreciate the necessity of doing something for themselves. The City Council of Johannesburg immediately appointed assistant principal officers, such as an assistant town clerk (Native Affairs), an assistant city treasurer (Native Affairs), an assistant medical officer of health (Native Affairs), all with the objective of providing an official who would be able to lead and lay down a pattern for that particular township, so that in time to come when we have developed an embryonic local authority system amongst them, they will have a White officer who is properly trained and able to lead and guide and direct them. But the present powers that are being provided here fall far short of anything along those lines. We would like to see it happen. We would be entirely with the Minister if the powers which he has tried to paint to us in glowing terms could actually be effective powers. The Minister boasted for instance, at a public meeting the other day that he visualized the day when the Bantu would have their own mayors. If he means that, then he probably has in mind the eventual building up of a Bantu local authority system and if that is the case, we feel that the powers provided for in this Bill do not go far enough. They are not sufficiently effective. For that reason, whilst we accept the principles of the Bill, we would like the Bill after its second reading to go to a Select Committee in order to work out a proper basis on which these bodies can be established. Much as we dislike this idea of selected tribal representatives, much as we dislike the enforcement of ethnic grouping, we are nevertheless not prepared to oppose the introduction of an additional system which can be of so much value in the life of that community.

There is another aspect of this particular Bill which I think might well bear the scrutiny of a Select Committee. In paragraph 11 provision is made, with regard to the spending of the Kaffir Beer Account moneys on various services, for the inclusion of an additional paragraph in Section 19 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act is the section dealing with the financial side, the Native Revenue Acount. And where it takes the kaffir-beer account and places it into a sub-account of the Native Revenue Account, it provides the various purposes to which the money shall be directed. I cannot place my hand on the actual place, but the additional use to which the money shall be put is as follows: “Any service, expenditure or grant which may be certified in writing by the Minister as being in the interests of the Bantu, irrespective of whether or not it relates to a matter in the area of the urban local authority”. I think that is a very dangerous principle to introduce. Because the principle here is that money can be diverted to any part of the Republic of South Africa. It could be diverted to the reserves, it could be diverted to any point, to any purpose in the interest of the Bantu which the Minister may decide. I am afraid that that may cause a great deal of resentment in the urban villages and in the urban townships where these people through their beer-halls make such a big contribution. For instance the City of Johannesburg made a profit last year, or the year before, of some £650,000 on the kaffir beer account. If it were found that £240,000 of that were diverted to let us say some place in the reserves, it might create a lot of dissatisfaction, because the money is supposed to be used for development in that township, for social services, for health services and to meet any shortfall on their local account. That was the initial purpose. Those purposes laid down are very important, because if the money is not kept in a pool to meet not only to-day’s deficit, but to-morrow’s deficit, or the deficit of years to come, then it may in time impose an additional burden on the inhabitants of those areas controlled by such local authority and it may be the cause of a great deal of resentment and incidentally could lead, unfortunately, to trouble which we want to avoid.

Now I want to make another point clear to the hon. the Minister and that is this: Johannesburg has already been consulting with Bantu, and all those urban authorities which make effective use of the Native Advisory Board have already been consulting. It seems a little naive to suggest now that provision is being made where there will be better liaison for consultation. To-day in large cities like Johannesburg and Durban and Cape Town, the time has arrived when you want to do a little more than merely consult, where you want to do a little more than merely at the behest of a local authority, and in terms of the powers granted here, to assign certain duties without in any way giving some clarity as to the extent of the executive powers or executive administration that can be put into operation. For instance, assuming that a local Bantu council suggests that a sewerage system should be installed; it will do no more than suggest, a system possibly costing R200,000, or even R500,000. It can only suggest. That is exactly what it does to-day when it has a look at the Estimates. It suggests. But if on the other hand it could pass a resolution which would be binding on a local government authority, or some method could be evolved whereby more notice would be taken of what they say and their resolutions would have more power, would carry more weight, something to that effect, then we would be giving them some sense of hope for the future. Our fear at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is to leave them with the same sense of frustration in which they find themselves at the moment. They are willing to co-operate, I am sure, and they take a great interest in their townships. I can only speak of my experience in Johannesburg where the Native Advisory Board functioned very satisfactorily. It was in the closest liaison with the City Council during the troubles that arose in the country last year. For that reason you had peace in Johannesburg, you had quietude in Johannesburg. Even during this year, when the country was somewhat alarmed because of a possible outbreak of trouble, Johannesburg maintained a very good standard of responsibility, because that consultation between the local authority and the local advisory board, has been maintained on a very high level. But it is not enough to maintain it only on that basis. I say that it is necessary to go even further and to provide greater powers, possibly under the supervision of the White trained authorities.

Mr. Speaker, I think for instance that Clause 2 of the Bill should also receive certain further consideration in a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister has maintained that he does not wish to do away with the advisory board. It is only when the advisory board requests that it wants a change that an urban Bantu council will be established. But the Bill makes provision that (a) no further Native Advisory Board shall be established, and (b) it has certain peremptory powers, whereby if the Minister himself desires to establish a council, he bypasses the local authority; he consults with the Bantu community and if he is satisfied that it is desirable, he directs that an authority be established. I don’t say that there is anything wrong in the Minister wanting to see a Bantu council established, but if there is to be consultation with the local urban authority and if the urban local authority is to assist in directing the formation and the establishment and the operation of the urban Bantu council, why should the Minister take powers to bypass it? Why should he not maintain the principle of consultation and in consultation with the urban local authority establish the council, and not seek these powers whereby he merely instructs the council peremptorily to carry out what he wishes? I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is really contrary and in conflict with the suggested spirit of the Bill to which the hon. Minister has directed the attention of the House.

They have that chance of consultation.

There is a further clause whereby the Minister need not consult if he does not wish to. It says, “the urban authority shall, if the Minister …”. We read the law probably even a little more carefully and more correctly and more intelligently than the hon. member for Heilbron. So we can give our interpretation of these matters.

Then finally, I want to deal with one other factor, namely the establishment of the community guards. The hon. the Minister has had representations for years from the inhabitants of the various townships for the establishment of community guards. It has always been resisted because it was felt that the police should deal with these problems. Speaking for myself alone, Sir, I also feel that only the police should deal with such problems. Enough protection should be provided in the townships, and there should be the normal police patrols, and so on. But as we have already accepted the principle in our general administration of justice for the establishment of a voluntary police reserve, I obviously could not take this particular provision amiss. But, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), there must be the corollary, namely the responsibility of the state for the actions of these guards. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some more details on that point. There must surely be certain regulations laid down. These people must surely be sworn in under certain regulations, so that police control should be maintained. It is stated in the Bill that this does not in any way usurp or interfere with and does not derogate from the functions of the South African Police, or from the powers, functions and duties of a member thereof. But the community guardsmen must surely be sworn in under certain regulations, and those regulations must provide and that is a natural corollary, in respect of a person who is the agent of the state in providing protection to the community, that the state should be responsible for his actions as the agent of the state, just as in respect of any policeman or any person who is an agent of the state, it is so responsible. The community in other words, must not only be protected by the agency of the state, but it must also be protected against the agent of the state should he in any way or another overstep the mark or commit a breach of the law of the land. We feel that that is an important factor.

So if I may just briefly summarize what I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister: I want to say that a great deal of the work that he envisages to be carried out, is to-day carried out by the local authority only because it has the finance to do so. If the Native Revenue Account is going to be charged with the work which the urban Bantu Council is going to carry out, I believe there should be some greater measure of weight attached to resolutions or decisions of the local Bantu Council for services which it requires to be carried out. As the Bill stands at the moment, I am not satisfied that the powers, which the hon. the Minister is providing differ very much from the powers already existing, and I am not convinced that they would be of a more effective nature. I feel that the hon. the Minister should therefore give careful consideration to the suggestion of a Select Committee which can hear evidence and submit perhaps a better measure. But finally, I want to say that we do not support, I say it again, perhaps the motive of the Government in this matter, nor its policies in the urban areas. We differ widely and absolutely in respect of those policies. But we do support this one effort, because it is our policy to enable the possibility of administration through elected representatives to take place and to give the Bantu in the towns the opportunity of governing and administering their own affairs under satisfactory supervision.

I am pleased that on the part of the Opposition there is also some gratitude to-day for the measure introduced by the hon. the Minister.

Who said so?

Those gentlemen who said they were going to vote for the Bill. One votes for something only when one is glad and thankful for it. This also is one of the numerous signs of the striving for national peace and unity. Of course, every one has his own motives and reasons for feeling very strongly about a certain matter, or for feeling less strongly, or for feeling that he will vote for a Bill anyhow. Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen who have spoken on behalf of the Opposition have said (I am now referring to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories) that they will gladly vote for the Bill (to use the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout) for “This is the first measure which acknowledges political rights for the Bantu”, Good, let it be so then. It is their view that this is now the first step in the granting of political rights to the non-Whites. Let me now say this for the sake of clarity to the hon. member, and to the whole Opposition, that the political rights they now possibly see in this measure greatly differ from what they have always proposed and which we have consistently fought. These so-called political rights cannot and never will integrate in the political rights and in the councils of the White man. Does the hon. member understand that? That was the chief reason why in the past we consistently opposed any form of political rights to the Bantu within the European area, where it could integrate with the White man and the councils of the White man. This will never on earth be able to integrate with the political franchise or powers of the White man in the White man’s councils, for it will not function there, and these councils will never be chosen on such a basis that they could integrate in any way with the political institutions of the White man. The hon. gentlemen must now understand that. The difference remains as great. If the hon. members had pleaded for a muskmelon, and one is dealing with an apricot, one should not say: This thing, although it is very small, will become a peach some day. It cannot and never will become a peach. These political rights the hon. gentlemen are now accepting with so much enthusiasm can never and never will become those political rights for which the gentlemen opposite have always fought with so much enthusiasm in the past, and in connection with which they have proposed one amendment after another. I am sorry to have to dampen their enthusiasm somewhat. But let us have clarity on this matter. Do not come along and say now that the proposals of the United Party, made so frequently by the Leader of the Opposition, are now being realized, namely that political rights should be given to the Bantu within the councils of the White man—integration. This form could never under any circumstances integrate with the political institutions of the White man. The hon. gentlemen of course are amazed now for they never knew that the doctrines and the policy of the National Party could lead to certain developments, to certain situations where we shall take certain steps, and this is not the last surprise hon. members opposite are going to experience. There are many other things of which they have no idea as yet and which will surprise them still more in the near future, and then I hope they will receive it with still a little more enthusiasm than that with which they received this Bill this afternoon. I should like to put it very clearly that hon. gentlemen must understand that this franchise is very remote from that always advocated by them in this House.

As regards the Bill as such, it is unnecessary to say anything further as regards the functions of the council. I should like to say only this, that if the measure is not going to achieve maximum success, it will certainly be the fault of everybody in the world except that of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I am sorry to have to say it to his face, but the manner in which he put the case, with the enthusiasm he showed, will, I think, infect the whole of South Africa and every city council, and I think that when we come along with the implementation of a policy such as this, that when things come to light of which the Opposition never dreamed then enthusiasm is necessary for the success of it. There is the old adage: “to be unknown is to be unloved”. And if one does not introduce that unloved one with great enthusiasm, or adumbrate it (as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition always says) it will not be a success. I think it is a privilege to be able to congratulate the Minister that the temperament, the humour, the enthusiasm and the cheerfulness with which he introduced the measure, have already had their effect. I make bold to predict that this is one of the things that is going to have a tremendous impact on South Africa, and in particular in those areas of the White man where we have to make provision for the reasonable control and peacefulness of the Bantu who are our guests. If ever there was a measure that would contribute to the creation and the establishment of a good spirit, of a better understanding between White South Africa and the Bantu living here, then it is this Bill. For this is the very first time there is an opportunity for them to train themselves, for we must remember that many of the Bantu who are working for the White man here today, probably will return to the Bantu areas within a year or so, to their national homes, and then this training they have received here, which this measure now enables them to get in the form of councils where they will be exercising a measure of control in the allocation of plots, in the application of health measures, in maintaining security and similar matters, will be of incalculable value to the Bantu homelands when some of them return there some day. The Minister was asked, in connection with another matter which came before this House, what prospects are offered for a large number of Bantu who have already acquired a form of education. Here we have an opportunity for those who have received this very education here, now that they have received that training, to be of great value in their own areas when they go back there. But there is one silver thread running through this whole measure, something I always looked forward to seeing brought about, and that is that it is now rendered possible, through the Bantu councils which are to be established, which will be chosen on an ethnic basis and which will perform certain functions, for them to be a living link and a living wire linking them to their homelands. This is the first effective step the Government has taken to protect the Bantu working here in our midst, against the possibility that they may eventually forget their descent, and their origin and their tribal connection. Now for the first time that essential bond for the welfare in the future and the peace between your various Bantu groups in South Africa, will be created so effectively that you will keep going that living link every day, every week and every month, and for those who are in danger of being detribalized and to lose their love for their own national homes, it will mean that they will long to return again. This is not the time for me to refer to a parallel that occurred in another part of the world, but there are instances nevertheless in other parts of the world, of people who had been away from their national homelands for centuries, and when circumstances eventually brought them back, they felt that although they might not be as well off materially as before, they are much happier in what at the present time is one of the model states in the world, namely the state of Israel. If we want to let those Bantu nations of South Africa feel happy, we should make it possible for those who afterward become homesick and develop national pride, after they have qualified themselves here and long to return to their homes, to be in a position to do so. It seems trivial to-day, but in the distant future it is going to be one of the measures that will make it possible to maintain that national love, that national pride even in the man who has to earn his living here in a strange land, and to let the Bantu communities and the Bantu nation of South Africa feel so much happier and to develop, something we do not begrudge any nation in the world. In this respect we of course are at variance with our friends opposite. We heard this afternoon how they made plea after plea expressing opposition to the establishment of any council on an ethnic basis. They are opposed to any ethnic grouping. In that respect we are of course in violent conflict with them. We want the various Bantu nations of South Africa to maintain their national identity and their own way of life, but the Opposition want to put the Sotho and the Xhosa and the Tswana in one basket, and if there is one way in which we will cause such a man to lose his love for his national homeland, then it is the underhand way of denationalizing him and causing him to develop in such a way that afterwards he will not even be able to recognize his tribal connection. No, I praise this measure, and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister. Although it is small in stature, the results of this measure are going to be very great. And although the reason why hon. members opposite want to vote for the Bill to-day may be frustrated, I hope that when the hon. the Minister comes along with other measures afterwards, they will enthusiastically support those measures also. Those are the steps that have to be taken for the welfare of both the Whites and non-Whites in South Africa.

I would also like to add my complaint to that of an earlier speaker when he said that it seems to be becoming the practice of the Native Affairs Department to introduce highly controversial measures at a very late stage in the Session. It is also regrettable that in the course of this debate it has been revealed that this particular measure has not first of all been presented to the municipalities which will be chiefly affected, or to the Native advisory councils for their opinion. It seems to be a major characteristic of the Government’s policy that they never consult the people or interests chiefly concerned. The Government know best and they lay down the law and they are indifferent to the opinions of the people whom they seek to govern. The hon. Minister did say that he has consulted certain Natives, but how do we know that those Natives are freely elected representatives of the people or that they truly represent the opinions of the urban Natives, such as the elected members on the advisory councils of the different municipalities?

Sir, this Bill is an extremely interesting measure because to my mind it reveals the utter failure of the Government’s Native policy in respect of the administration of the urban Natives. It places the Government in a dilemma of deciding whether or not to recognize the permanence of the urban Native or to maintain that they are an impermanent element in the urban society. We find the Government in a difficulty on this Bill in introducing simultaneously measures which are an acknowledgement of the permanence of the urban African and at the same time extending a further measure of ethnic control to urban Natives.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When Business was suspended I was referring to the dilemma in which the Government finds itself in this Bill in having to acknowledge the permanency of the urbanized Native and yet, at the same time, introducing a measure which provides for the extension of the tribal system. The conspicuous failure in Native policy over the last few years has been in respect of the treatment of the urbanized Native. I will not deny the successes of the hon. the Minister’s Department in respect of tribal Natives, but I do think that in the case of urban Natives his policy has been a conspicuous failure. It has always attempted to treat the Native as if he is permanently tribalized, and ignores the fact that once they get into the urban areas they become educated, they become civilized and they throw off the primitive restraints of tribalism.

In some recent research done in Durban at Cato Manor by Professor Horwood of the Natal University amongst 10,000 heads of households revealed that on an average they had resided in the urban area for no less than 14 years. That shows the extent to which these Africans, once they become urbanized, do become an integral part of urban society.

Another feature of the Department’s policy in relations to urban Africans is the obduracy with which the Department continues with a policy which is an obvious failure. As long ago as 1952 the Department realized that the advisory council system was a failure, yet nine years have passed before they introduce this Bill. The advisory council system was a failure first of all because the boards were not representative and, secondly, because they were impotent; thirdly, because although urban councils were obliged to consult them in respect of certain matter, the urban council were never, by legislation, forced to consider the views of the boards’ reports to them, and still less were they obliged to take notice of those reports after they had considered them. And so we have reached this unsatisfactory state of affairs existing in our urban areas. I believe that this stage of affairs need never have arisen, but the hon. the Minister is a prisoner of the system that his predecessor has created. The hon. the Minister has no lack of highly academically qualified and experienced administrators all over the country administering these urban areas. I refer to the administrators of the Native Affairs Departments of local authorities. There are many outstanding men performing this work all over the country, but the very system prevents them from either rendering constructive criticism of any sort, or putting up imaginative, bold, courageous alternative suggestions to alter and make more effective this system which is based on the principle of apartheid.

I refer to the invidious position in which these Native administrators find themselves because they have a dual and very often conflicting loyalty. It has been pointed out how they are employed by the local authorities but they are licensed by the Minister himself. They have been described as tightrope dancers. I do not think that that description does justice to them because when one considers that they not only have to recognize the authority of the Minister but also try and satisfy a town council as well—and Heaven knows, town councils can be temperamental enough —but on top of all that they have to please a very critical public. As if that was not sufficient, they also have to deal with very considerable Native populations, very often sullen and resentful and extremely difficult to handle. They are rather the Bobby Salkinders of our municipal government. They have an extremely unenviable task and an extremely difficult team to control. These people know the problems and they could put up the right solutions, but because any criticism of the basic policy of apartheid would be regarded as heresy, they have simply to apply the Minister’s policy, or some variation of it as close to the policy as they can get, and they are restrained by circumstances from expressing themselves freely or putting up constructive suggestions.

This is a highly undesirable state of affairs because the hon. the Minister has insulated himself from these constructive ideas. He is becoming a prisoner of certain basic premises on which the whole policy of apartheid is based. I want to refer to these premises. First of all there is that premise that the urban Native is a temporary sojourner, that he remains a tribal Native, that he can never become permanently rooted in the urban areas. Secondly, that any areas which are not defined as Native reserves or as portions of land set aside permanently for the sole use of Natives under the Native Trust and Land Act, despite the fact that in these urban areas there may be anything up to 100,000 or more Natives living on that piece of land, are considered White areas. Thirdly, for that reason no African may be allowed ever to acquire any vested interest or establish permanent roots in any of those areas. They cannot acquire any rights at all.

Fourthly, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) said in his speech yesterday, these Africans can never be regarded as South African citizens in the same sense that White persons can be regarded. Furthermore, by denying any claims of these urban Africans, the Minister is, in point of fact, ensuring the survival of the White man. It is because of the basic defects of these premises that this policy which has now been administered for between 12 and 13 years has gradually broken down completely. That is why economic pressures which are building up in the urban areas are gradually and relentlessly exposing these deficiencies.

This Bill is a real hotch-potch. It is full of conflicting principles. If the hon. the Minister were to adhere strictly to the Government policy of regarding all Africans as migratory workers or temporary sojourners in the urban areas, he should never extend any administrative rights whatsoever to them in a White area. Comparisons have been made between the Africans in the urban areas and the Italians who migrate to France to work as seasonal workers. But those Italian workers do not acquire any administrative rights in the areas in which they live. That comparison is not a fair one.

The introduction of this Bill shows that experience has proved that it is essential to give the urban African a measure of administrative authority in order to ensure a more stable state of affairs, and in order to ensure his co-operation. To that extent this Bill is a grudging admission of the permanence of the urban Africans. We already have a considerable admission of the permanence of the urban Africans in the countless millions of pounds that have been spent in putting up hundreds of thousands of houses for African workers in the European areas. This is another concession to reality, and it is another decided inroad on the Government’s policy of impermanence. On the other hand, the Bill ignores the fact that urbanized Natives do become detribalized to a considerable extent, and provides for an extension of ethnic control by extending the principle of the appointment of elected members of the urban councils, and also by extending certain judicial functions to nominated tribal nominees. To this extent the Government is supporting their regular policy of apartheid in these areas.

There is no doubt that the institutions which this Bill seeks to provide would certainly not be accepted by the urbanized Natives. I say that deliberately because I think one must recognize that the system of selecting members is one which will not be accepted by the ordinary urbanized Native. In the case of advisory councils, over many years it has been found that in practice in most of those councils —in fact in the great majority—the number of nominated members has usually been equivalent to the number of elected members. In this case, in terms of the provisions of the Bill it is quite clear that any selected members put on these boards will be Government yes-men, because they are screened by the Minister and the local authorities and by the tribal authorities as well. Therefore, if we are going to have any repetition of the state of affairs that existed on the advisory council, whereby the selected members and the elected members are going to be equal in numbers, then the selected members will very effectively neutralize any genuine expression of opinion of the registered property owners. Moreover, the powers that are given to these boards are extremely limited in scope, and they virtually apply solely to the areas in which these Africans are resident. They do not affect them in any other area of the local authorities, and particularly in the areas in which they work. Furthermore, these powers are severely circumscribed by the very limited amount of finance available to them.

I believe, too, that there is a third reason why the urbanized Africans will not accept these institutions, and that is because, short of direct representation on a town or an urban council, I do not believe that they will ever feel that their true interests are being studied. Not only will they not be satisfied that their views are generally being considered and given effect to, but they will also lack personal contact with the members of the local authority. I believe that that element of personal contact with councillors is a very important element. Here I would like to quote a passage from a book entitled: “The Johannesburg Experiment” by Sir John Maud. Of this situation I am talking about, he says this—

I believe that that criticism can be levied against this Bill because it fails to give them any substantial say in the governing of the cities in which they are resident. Apart from that, the whole conception of urban councils within the ambit of a town council is, to my mind, completely anomalous. To divide up an urban area on a communal and racial basis is something which I think has always proved unsatisfactory. To me municipal government and the municipal areas that it governs are both indivisible for administrative purposes.

I believe that the findings of the Commission in respect of communal government apply with equal force, whether it is applied to central government or provincial government or even local government as well. I therefore believe that this whole conception of dividing administrative authority on a communal basis is unworkable, just as I believe that to divide government in this country on a racial basis, on the basis of a state within a state as set out by the hon. the Prime Minister recently, is equally untenable.

I also want to say that another respect in which this Bill fails conspicuously is in its failure to establish a basis for the fair apportionment of the gross municipal revenues. This matter was dealt with by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), but I want to mention certain sources of revenue in any municipal area which, I believe, are the chief sources of revenue, derived from rates. I prefer to revenue from industry and commerce, hotels, blocks of flats, places of amusement. In the case of Durban we have another vital source of revenue—I am not quite sure whether to classify it as Durban’s major industry or as a social welfare institution for bookmakers, or a place of amusement for visitors. I refer to our race courses. These are all institutions which provide the main sinews of municipal revenue. Yet no provision is made in this Bill for the apportionment of these sources of revenue to the African. I believe it is manifestly unfair to confine the finances of Native residential areas—and I am pleased to see the hon. the Minister is at last paying some tribute to the citizenship of these urban Africans by no longer referring to Native locations but to Bantu residential areas. It is unfair to confine the finances for those areas to the pitifully limited resources of the Africans themselves, the greater proportion of which is derived from the revenue from the liquor trade. This is placing a considerable limitation on their activities and is also imposing upon them a very unfair burden. It is perpetuating something which, I think, is a rather mean and discreditable feature of our legislation in this country.

Order, order! The hon. member may not reflect on legislation passed by this House as mean and discreditable.

I withdraw those words, Sir, and I use the words “the unfortunate manner in which Bantu education is financed by the contributions of the Bantu themselves”. To my mind there is only one way of providing a satisfactory solution, and that is to face reality and realise that Africans become permanently urbanized—and a great many of them do, let us face that fact—and I am not now referring to the temporary migratory labourers which still represent a considerable proportion of the Bantu labour force; I refer to the people who are permanently resident in these areas, we have to recognize that they are integrated into our economy and that to a very large extent they have become civilized people, considerably educated and enjoying a much higher standard of living than they ever attained in the reserves. Under those conditions they are never prepared to revert to tribalism.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but I think we should recognize the fact that these people in the position which they occupy in our society are an essential foundation of the whole of our industrial economy, and constitute one of the main supports of our prosperous secondary industry in this country. They should therefore be recognized as such. We should see to it that their just wants and aspirations are recognized and that they are given adequate representation on the main governing bodies in the urban areas.

For those reasons, and because I believe that this Bill is not only unacceptable and unworkable, but totally unrelated to the requirements of the urban areas, I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) will forgive me if I do not reply directly to what he has said, except just to refer to one or two statements. I want to refer to the efforts of the Progressive Party to bring these elected members into discredit beforehand. They will be “government yes-men”, and they have all sorts of similar names by which to call those representatives, in order to get the Bantu of the Bantu townships not to accept those people. I do not know to what extent the Bantu are still prepared to listen to the Progressive Party. But it is very clear that they are trying to prescribe politics for the Bantu.

The other statement which the hon. member made is that the Government policy has actually failed and that is why they are now coming along with this legislation. I will deal with this gradually. Much has been said about the details of this Bill and all sorts of interpretations have been given to it, somewhat arbitrary I think, and I do not want to contribute to it. There were, for instance, the two conflicting statements that this legislation is actually just a façade, only a display, but that there is nothing inside it. It is there only as a bluff. That was the one statement, and on the other hand we heard from the United Party that this dealt with the reality of political rights for the Bantu in the White area—two things which differ so vastly that one can hardly believe that it could be said in the same debate and on the same subject. I do not think we can talk to our friends of the Progressive Party because we apparently do not speak the same language, because we differ in regard to these matters.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said this afternoon that their point of view is that the Bantu are permanently in these areas and that the legislation must therefore be along those lines. We differ radically from the hon. members of the Progressive Party and for that reason I feel that no matter what we give the Bantu by way of a degree of self-government in these areas the Progressive Party will always say that it is not enough. In contrast to what Sir Roy Welensky says—“too much too soon”—they always say “too little too late”, That is the story as we know it and therefore I am afraid I must interrupt my discussion with them.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very uneasy feeling which one gets when the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) rises and says that he agrees with one on a matter of Bantu policy and then qualifies it by saying “because the United Party is in favour of local government for the Bantu in the urban areas being extended”, Since we agree on this one piece of legislation I think it is very necessary that we qualify it by saying that we vote for this measure within the total pattern of the National Party’s policy; and that the hon. members opposite vote for this measure within the total pattern of the United Party’s policy.

It is our policy.

I hope the hon. member knows his policy so well as perhaps to reply to me. I say we must see this measure in relation to the National Party‘s total Bantu policy and there the party’s point of view is that the Bantu are in the White area temporarily, that they have temporary residence there and because of that they have no claim to participating, together with the Whites, in the government of this part of the country. This is the party’s principal point of view, and if one considers this measure then it must be viewed in that sense. But since the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is so lavish with his policy I ask: Is it not the policy of the United Party actually to give the Bantu in the urban areas representation in this Parliament?

But the hon. member is now deviating very far from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I ask if this is not so?

It may be so but the hon. member cannot ask it in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I want to put it to you that we are dealing here with a particular section of the Bantu population, that section living in the Bantu townships in the cities, and because of that I am trying to justify that the policy of this party is to regard those people as a temporary population and in that sense I am busy justifying the policy against the allegation from members opposite and I hope you will permit me just to make this one statement, and in view of the fact that the United Party agrees with this measure. They agree, as the hon. member for East London (City) said, to giving the Bantu political rights in their urban local government, but this must be regarded in conjunction with the admission and the policy that that party also wants to give the Bantu representation in the Central Government. I say that in this regard I will never agree with the United Party in connection with this measure.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) spoke to-day and stated that the Government was now in the process of being converted to the policy of the United Party. He said that it had always been their policy and the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) asked him: Since when? He replied since 1954. Mr. Speaker, 1954 coincides with the policy which the United Party adopted at its congress at that time and which the hon. the Minister of Transport described as the sixpenny policy. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is apparently anxious to defend the policy of the United Party and I want to put this to him: Already in 1951 this Government came along with a measure corresponding to this one and then there was so much opposition from the local authorities—and let me put it very clearly, local authorities under the control of the United Party—against the measure that it was dropped temporarily. Now I come to the question of the hon. member. If we came along with this measure in 1951 and they adopted this policy in 1954 then how does he explain the allegation that we are now converted to their policy?

Are you now scared of it?

It is no use coming along with silly counter questions. He must try and answer my question. But I am very glad that the United Party has been converted to this policy by its city councils since 1951, and accepted the policy of this party at its 1954 congress. If they continue like this they can perhaps get so far as to forget about the Native representative which they want to bring into this Parliament.

You are optimistic.

Maybe I am. To come back to the Bill, Mr. Willem van Heerden wrote in Dagbreek this week that in this Bill there is an element of the old British “indirect rule”. That is quite true. With this measure we aim to confine the White government and the White administration’s contact with the Bantu to the leaders of Bantu communities, without penetrating to the masses and without the Government enforcing its authority on every individual in those communities. In this sense it is a good thing that the Government, through the medium of certain leaders, should make contact in order to have it conveyed to these communities … [Interjections.] Not all the leaders of course, but the leaders who can really be representative of the needs and wishes of such a community and who also really have the interests of that community at heart. While this measure has been described as containing some element of “indirect rule” it must also be realized very clearly that Britain’s example of “indirect rule”, as we got to know it in history, and the degree of “indirect rule” in this measure differ materially because in the British “indirect rule” the Government was the temporary element and the people governed were the permanent element, while the reverse is the case here. The Bantu who will now be governed by “indirect rule” are the temporary element and the Government which does it is the permanent element. This statement must, therefore, be qualified in this respect. Let us now also state clearly: The Bantu here are subject to the authority of the White government and the Whites are not prepared to sacrifice the responsibility of having that authority, not to any claim nor to any claptrap or any wise talk of the Progressives.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important measure because it concerns a section of the population which forms a link between this part of South Africa and the Bantu homelands. We are dealing here with a section of the Bantu population which has the closest contact with Western culture and economy and which has contact with the industrial life of South Africa, with the economic system, and who can learn the political set-up of South Africa and convey it to the Bantu who are not directly in contact with it. With this whole system which is now being developed the Bantu in the White areas are being made acquainted with the political system of the cities in such a form that they can get to know it and its responsibilities, but it is being applied so that with their knowledge and feeling for their own traditions they can perhaps form something for themselves which can be developed with great benefit in their own homelands. It is this industrial community of the Bantu among us which really forms the spearhead and which can help the Bantu in the Bantu areas to adopt the spiritual attitude necessary for an industrial life. I think it was only two evenings ago when Dr. Jan Graaff spoke in Cape Town and pointed out that it was necessary for industrialization—it is perhaps very far-fetched to talk about industrialization of the Bantu areas; we are still talking about development —that those Bantu should also learn about and adopt something of the forms which give meaning to our industrial life. And it is through these people that those things will be conveyed more easily, with the help of the border industries, to the industries which must be established in the homelands. It must be viewed as a process. There must be a starting point which leads to something.

I want to emphasize again that the whole field of impact of this measure is not limited to these urban townships in the White areas of South Africa. It is a connecting system whereby the Bantu of the Bantu areas and those outside are linked up with each other. Now I also want to say that in introducing a system whereby certain members can be elected it must be taken into consideration that in the Bantu townships in White South Africa there are no strong and deep-rooted institutions which can serve as a deterrent to inciting and propaganda and it must be expected that at the elections and among the members who will be elected there will probably be bidding and that attempts be made to free the Bantu entirely from their tribal connections and their national bonds, as the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said she wanted, and if the system in that regard is not as successful as it should be then I believe that we must be realistic and decide whether it is to the benefit of the Bantu and to the benefit of South Africa to continue with such a system. We must be realistic. [Interjections.]

In that connection I just want to say this. In the Bill there is reference to the representative of the Bantu authorities who can be appointed. It is provided that these urban Bantu councils which will be established must advise and assist him. I feel this is something in the right direction but I would like to see a clearer description of the duties and functions of that representative. It appears to me as if that representative of the Bantu authorities is susceptible to an even more dynamic task than we envisage for him at present; we must not just see him as an ambassador of the Bantu authority but as an actual part of the management here. We are dealing with a unique situation in South Africa where we cannot judge and go about it just in terms of existing conditions and conceptions. I think the functions and duties of that representative are susceptible to still more dynamic use.

Somewhere in a newspaper the idea was expressed that in every Bantu township there are really two categories of inhabitants. The one is those who are permanently settled in these areas and who are completely detribalized.

Permanently?

If the hon. member will listen more and talk less he will not make a spectacle of himself. Somewhere it was written that the inhabitants of urban townships consist of two categories. The one is those who are described as being permanently resident—not as I describe them—and who are entirely detribalized. The other group are the temporary residents, the migrant labour, and with the two categories of representatives, the nominated and the elected members, it must actually be regarded that the nominated members will represent the temporary residents, the migrant workers, while the elected members will represent the permanent residents. I say that if there is such an idea then it is nonsense. The whole idea of the Bill is to facilitate integration of the element which they describe as one kind with the element which is described as the other kind. These nominated representatives are there to represent all the Bantu of such a township, and so too are the elected members.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) spoke about the fact that we regard the Bantu as temporary residents in the area, but that we are now in fact giving them a franchise and that we are therefore deviating entirely from the whole pattern of our policy. The Constitution of Basutoland has a provision that all non-Basutoes in Basutoland can also vote there and when this Act, this Constitution, was adopted New Commonwealth of February 1959 published this article about it. The newspaper says that Lord Home, who was then charged with this matter, said the following—

We have the identical viewpoint here. While these Bantu to some extent obtain the right to decide their own affairs they have no right to remain here, just as is the case with non-Basutoes in Basutoland.

But they have the franchise.

The hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) can state his view but he must give me an opportunity to state mine. We adopt an identical viewpoint and if the hon. member for Durban (Point) differs from it let him to-night in the absence of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) act as the spokesman of the United Party and say what their principle is in regard to this problem and what the total relationship and their view of the Bantu in South Africa is in which makes them accept this Bill.

The hon. member who has just sat down was at great pains to show that this Bill was within the Nationalist Party policy. He made extremely heavy weather of it, just as the member of his party who spoke before him, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), who quite definitely accepted that the urban Natives are here permanently. In addition, the hon. member for Krugersdorp said that we on this side would be surprised. I am not surprised. It is so obvious that this Government is speedily turning to United Party policy and forgetting the pipe-dreams of the Prime Minister.

Now, in so far as this Bill is concerned, I want to examine it by comparing it with the present position. I want to compare these new proposals with what exists now and see how they change the administration of the Natives in the urban areas. I personally, as my party, am in favour of the extension of powers to the urban Natives and the appointment of urban councils for the Bantu, and the long title of this Bill, which provides for the establishment of urban councils, etc., is very enticing as far as I am concerned. But the Deputy Minister said during the course of the debate … [Interjections.] Sir, I think there is a rat squeaking somewhere. Can you do something about it?

Order! I do not think the hon. member should refer to rats.

I am sorry. The Deputy Minister said that the African did not understand finance or local administration and had no chance to learn under the present system of advisory boards. I propose to show him that he is either extremely ill-informed or entirely wrong.

You cannot understand him.

You listen to me, and if you can understand what I am saying I will be surprised.

Order!

The Advisory Board in the Benoni Native Township, Daveyton, holds meetings regularly. It is in my constituency and I happen to know a lot about it, so different from those hon. members opposite in regard to their own affairs. This Advisory Board has four committees. There is the administration committee, the social services committee, the development committee and the transport and licences committee. These committees consist almost entirely of African and they deal with every facet of life that affects anyone living there—almost 60,000 of them. I have taken considerable interest in the Board and I receive the reports of their proceedings. I want to give information in regard to some of the items affecting the everyday life of the people which are dealt with by these Africans in Daveyton. I think the Deputy Minister will be very surprised. In regard to this Advisory Board, the various committees say—

I will not read all the items. I will just pick on one or two, some of which are mentioned in the Bill now before us, and which affect the ordinary Native in his everyday life—

The hon. member cannot go any further with that.

Well, may I mention just one or two more, like grants-in-aid for boys’ and girls’ clubs, £50 each. I have given those details to try to explain to the other side that these people are also human beings struggling for a better life. To suggest that none of them are at the stage where they understand finance is just to be ill-informed. They are concerned with just the same things that you and I are, and they are concerned with the financial implications in exactly the same way as we are. From the financial angle, these items I read out as coming from the committees of the Advisory Board were recommendations they asked should be included in the Estimates of Expenditure from the Native Revenue Account of the local authority. I must frankly tell the Minister that in all his long speech I could personally see not a tittle of difference between the present position in regard to the financing and the handling of finances for the benefit of these people, and the position he is now putting before us in the Bill … [Inaudible] The financial implications are the same. Here they have made recommendations to the Advisory Council through the usual channels. Under the new arrangement the Minister tells us they are getting more power, but the powers are exactly the same. Everything has to go through the Native Revenue Fund, which is under the control of the urban authority and any expenditure is subject to the authority of the local authority. Now what on earth is the difference between asking the Committee please to put something on the Estimates in the hope that they will be paid out of the Native Revenue Fund, and saying: This is what we want to do; we can only do it if you give your approval? The same authority has to decide. If there is any difference, then I am a Nationalist. I repeat that I am in favour of the establishment of these urban councils, but I am relying on this short title and I am hoping that the Minister in his reply will be able to convince us later in the Committee Stage that he has really extended the responsibility of the Africans through these councils. It was stressed by one or two speakers over there that it is the intention to give the Africans additional responsibility. I will take a lot of convincing in the Committee Stage that that is going to be done. But I want to go further and say that this matter is very important. This is the first break in the granite wall, but there are going to be more. This Bill must obviously be discussed with the local authorities in a Select Committee after the second reading.

I would like to make one more point before I sit down. The Minister has taken power to divert portion of the Native revenue from a particular municipality to be used elsewhere. I want to assure the Minister that if he takes that power and if he uses it he is playing with fire. The Africans in my constituency were extremely well-behaved every time there has been trouble. They know where their money comes from, and they will bitterly resent any diversion of their funds, and I certainly hope that the Minister will agree that in this instance he is taking power but does not know what for, and he must realize that he will be playing with very dangerous fire indeed.

It is significant to note that there is not one Government member in this House capable of standing up to explain away the fact that this Minister has had to take over United Party principles in this measure. [Interjections.] There is not one member in the whole of the 103 Government members who is prepared to-night to stand up and to defend the measure before the House, not one of them who is not so ashamed of the complete change in Government policy yet who has the courage to stand here and say: I am sorry, you were right, and we have had to accept your policy. What have we had to-night in this political somersault which the Minister has presented in this Bill? We have had nothing but pleas in mitigation. Please do not think we have taken your policy over. Please do not say this is your policy. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) made a pathetic, self-justification speech. He tried to give the House four points to explain that while they were carrying out United Party policy, it was not in fact United Party policy—four long explanations that what they were doing was not in fact what this side of the House has asked for for 13 years, that it is not our policy but is in line with theirs—a plea in mitigation for what they were doing. The hon. member for Heilbron said: “Dit is deel van die konsepsie van afsonderlike ontwikkeling.” Is it not wonderful, Sir, that this is now part of the apartheid policy, part of the policy of separate development which now recognizes that in the urban areas, in the White areas of South Africa, there is a permanent population which must be recognized and for whom provision must be made. But the hon. member says it is part of their policy. I will ask him to remember that because in a moment he will find himself in complete conflict with another member on his side. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) also tried to explain away this measure as being Government policy, whilst in fact they are following the trail set by the United Party. He said: “Die stelsel sal nie integreer met blankes se instellings of in hulle raadsale nie.” But the Minister and the Deputy Minister spent half their speeches telling how the system would bring about good relations because of the constant consultation and discussion and co-operation between the White and the Black authorities, all of which requires getting together. But although they get together, on the Nationalist side of the House it is not integration. When we propose it, it is integration, but when the Minister says: Let us get together, the White municipality and the Black municipality, and let us discuss our problems, that is not integration but apartheid. Obviously they will talk to each other over wireless or over television. It will be a closed circuit. It will be a sight for sore eyes. Imagine the hon. member for Krugersdorp having to talk to them on television because they will not be in the same council chamber; they will consult at long range, by telephone, or by television. Obviously the Minister could not put his case across to these councils unless they could watch him in action, so television is the best method of communication. Therefore they are not going to mix in the same hall, according to the hon. member for Krugersdorp. There will be no integration. They will not be in the same building or in the same hall, but there will be close and constant consultation, consultation such as we have never seen before, consultation bringing this Black council of Bantu and the White municipal authorities together to discuss their problems day by day, their budgets and their finances. The Deputy Minister was quite lyrical about it. He explained how the White council was going to explain to the Black council that they did not have enough money for a swimming-bath. [Interjections.] I will come to that. He ran away from my question, but I am dealing with his answer to the question I did not ask. I will come to the question I did ask just now. His answer to the question I did not ask was that the White council was going to explain to the Black council why they cannot have a swimming-bath, because there is no money, and why there is no money. But how are they going to explain it when they are not in the same council chamber, when they do not get together and meet, because the hon. members for Krugersdorp and Heilbron and the absent member for Innesdal, who made a speech and ran away, all of them said this is not integration.

It is separate development.

Yes, separate development, and the contact is by television. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) must do it on the borders of Bechuanaland by means of drums, and they must be separate drums. The Minister can sell him the drums. [Laughter.] I think we have a candidate as a new Commissioner-General. He will be the Commissioner-General for Drum-Drum.

Order! That is not in the Bill.

Sir, we are discussing consultation. I am sorry it sounds funny, but the Minister was serious. I am not serious because it is a joke to me, but the Minister was serious. I want to know how they are going to carry on these consultations unless there is integration, the getting together in the same hall around the same table. A front-bencher said to-night officially in the name of the Government that this Bill would not bring the White and the Black together “in dieselfde raadsaal”.

And he was right.

He was right?

Order! The hon. member need not take any notice of that interjection.

No, I should not, but that is a Government member. From the point of view of common sense, I should ignore that interjection, but there is no common sense on the Government side and therefore I must take notice of an interjection, even from that hon. member, because we are trying to find out how this Bill fits in with the pattern of Government policy. The Minister said: Hierdie is’n eenvoudige klein wetjie,” a simple little Bill. He started speaking at 14.20 this afternoon and somewhere around 2.50 he started on his notes. Before that he had been busy with his introductory remarks. About an hour later he had finished explaining this “simple little Bill”. But in fact what he was doing was trying to explain why he was admitting through this measure the complete collapse of Nationalist policies and the whole philosophy of apartheid; the collapse of the whole concept of the separation of Black from White, and the development of the Black in his own separate areas.

May I ask a question? I would like to ask the hon. member, if this Bill, as he says, is not common sense, why is he going to vote for it in the second reading?

The hon. member is living in a dream world. If he listened he would have known that what I said was that the Government’s attitude towards the Bill was not commonsense. I am talking about the Government’s attitude. Of course the Bill is common sense. I have just said that it is United Party policy, and I said that the Government’s attempt to escape from that fact shows a complete absence of commonsense. I said that the Minister’s speech to-night was an acceptance of the collapse of the philosophy of apartheid because it was a recognition of a permanent urban population, completely opposite to the statement of the hon. member for Innesdal that the urban Bantu was a temporary sojourner here. I want to quote from a Nationalist Party member to prove this. This Bill gives to the Bantu participation in local authority, in the control of his own affairs. I want to quote a responsible member of the Nationalist Party, who regards this participation in this light. He said—

Now this Bill creates participation in the local affairs of the urban Bantu in terms of this spokesman, to bind him to his surroundings. This was said by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. de Wet Nel, on 10 June 1955. When he was dealing with the rural Bantu authorities their participation in those authorities, in his own words, bound them to their surroundings. Now he is creating the exact parallel to the rural authorities and if participation in the Bantu rural authorities will bind the Bantu to their surroundings, then this Bill binds permanently to their surroundings those who are participating. We cannot have two rules, or at least we should not have two, but with this Government we can have any number of rules. If the Government claims that participation in the rural local authorities means permanence, then by the same token this participation also means permanence.

I say that our reason for supporting this Bill is that it supports United Party policy. I have good authority for that too. I quote from the same date, 10 June—

That is also the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs. He had finished reading the United Party’s policy; he had made a thorough study of it, but it has taken him six years to translate that policy into the Bill before this House. But it is an interesting thing to make a comparison between the United Party policy which the hon. the Minister had studied thoroughly —because he referred to it in detail—and this Bill; the United Party policy which the Minister calls the sixpenny policy. The hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) also referred to the sixpenny policy with contempt. The Government are always referring to the sixpenny policy with contempt. You see, Sir, this Bill is dated June 1961; this sixpenny policy is dated November 1954—seven years before, and I can produce the counterpart of this in 1951 in a pamphlet and also in 1948.

What is the point?

I will tell the hon. member. This is United Party policy, the sixpenny policy. It says—

Wat betref naturellelokasies in stedelike naturellegebiede stel die party voor dat die adviserende rade deur naturelledorpsbesture, soos volg, vervang word …

Read on!

It is simple, clear and unequivocal. We propose that the advisory councils shall be replaced by Native urban councils. The title of this Bill is: To provide for the establishment of Urban Bantu Councils! A strange similarity, Mr. Speaker.

What about property rights?

I will come to that too. You see how they are trying to escape. Sir? The next point—

In other words, a partly elected and a partly nominated council. This Bill states that there shall be a council with partly elected and partly nominated members. That is Clause 3 (1).

They are not nominated.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) says they are not nominated. They call it “selected” in the Bill, Sir. You see what has happened, this Government has not got enough nominations left to make so they use another word. “Selection” is probably a harder word for that hon. member to swallow than “nominate”—that is why he does not like it because he has consistently failed to be selected either as Commissioner-General or anything else.

Order!

I agree, Mr. Speaker, that is not in the Bill. I want to come back to the Bill. Clause 3 of the United Party sixpenny policy reads as follows—

Clause 4 of the Bill reads—

Now, Sir, we come to the interesting part. The interesting part of this experiment in apartheid vis-à-vis the United Party policy is this. In Clause 4 (2) we have a list of 11 points. There are 11 powers which this board has to exercise. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) says “read the Bill”. I am. Sub-section (2) reads—

’n Stedelike Bantoeraad

1. (a) oefen ook die bevoegdhede van’n stedelike plaaslike bestuur uit ens. onderworpe aan die voorwaardes bepaal deur die Minister.

Read the whole clause.

The hon. member obviously cannot read his own Bill, so I will give him an elementary lession—

’n Stedelike Bantoeraad

1. (a) oefen ook die bevoegdhede van’n stedelike plaaslike bestuur uit en verrig die funksies en pligte daarvan teen opsigte van die gebied waarvoor of ten opsigte waarvan dit ingestel is, ten opsigte van een of meer van die volgende aangeleenthede in verband met Bantoes wat die stedelike plaaslike bestuur na oorlegpleging met die betrokke Administrateur aan so’n raad opdra met die instemming van en onderworpe aan die voorwaardes bepaal deur die Minister…

That was what I said “aan so’n raad opgedra” (assigned to such a council).

Naturally. The hon. member will see what I mean. The United Party policy says—

I thought the hon. member would fall for it. It was a bit elementary but he swallowed it all the same.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

But I am quoting from the Bill, Sir.

Order! The hon. member is deviating too much.

Sir, I find it difficult when I am misled by members who do not know the United Party policy.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill—

Let me come back then, Sir. The United Party says that the duties of these urban councils shall be—

The spending of money allocated to it by the urban authority. Clause 8 of the Bill says—

The United Party says the local authority will allocate the funds and Clause 8 of the Bill says that the local authority will allocate the funds. The United Party policy says—

With the exception of the taxes, every one of those matters is accounted for in this Bill in terms of the explanation given by the Minister. Sub-clause 6 and sub-clause 5 of the Bill say—

We say—

The Bill says—

The United Party says—

We find that in the United Party policy the powers to be granted to these councils will be—

We find in sub-clause (3) of this Bill—

We find in sub-clause (4)—

We say—

May I ask a question?

Let me just finish this point. Clause 9 says—

We say—

Mr. Speaker, point by point …

May I ask my question now? I want the hon. member to read to us from that sixpenny policy of theirs what their policy was in connection with the race federation.

That is a very fair question, Sir, and I hope you will allow me to deal with it, but may I first continue the discomfort of the hon. member. The hon. member and his party cannot rise higher than a sixpenny policy! After 13 years they had to buy a policy for sixpence from the United Party. After 13 years of struggling to find a policy they have paid 6d. into the United Party funds to produce this Bill. [Interjections.] I have not finished with the hon. member. The United Party recommended—

We find in sub-section (2)—

This covers every single power which this urban council has. I challenge the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) to get up and to admit that this is the United Party policy. I challenge him to mention one power in this Bill which is not set out in the United Party’s sixpenny policy. I can go on; we find that the United Party pleaded for “gedurige kontak”…

Who are your contacts?

Our contacts are more responsible than the contacts who misled this Minister because he said that he had obtained advice on this matter. Our contacts know how the people feel. The Minister’s contact are those whom he pays … [Interjections.]

We support this Bill because it incorporates the basic principles of United Party policy, the principle of elective representation in bodies with executive authority; the recognition of a permanent urban Native population; the recognition of the fact that there are people born and bred in the White areas of South Africa for whom provision must be made. And this business of running away from reality cannot hide the fact that this Bill which is based upon United Party policy is a recognition of the complete and utter failure of the concept of total separation into White and Black territories. It is a recognition of the fact that there is a Bantu population permanently resident in the White areas of South Africa. This is not a good Bill. This Bill suffers, as most Government Bills suffer, from bad planning … [Interjections.] It has numerous weaknesses; it is typical of this Government’s slipshod patchwork; it is patchwork, because it takes a good principle and spoils it with slipshod trimmings; it takes a good basic policy and spoils it by adding to it unacceptable and unreasonable provisions. We will deal with those provisions in due course, but we accept the principle of an urban council with executive powers.

Before I sit down, Sir, I want to refer to the other opposition to this Bill. We have had opposition from Government members—perhaps hidden opposition, but nevertheless inner opposition. They spoke in favour of the Bill but they tried to explain away their support for it. The members opposite who have spoken during this debate do not like this Bill. The group on my left is also opposing this Bill. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) agreed with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) …

With his interpretation of it.

She agrees with his interpretation. The hon. member for Houghton said that the advisory councils were “useless, that they had failed and that they had no power” to use her own words. They have been an absolute failure. But she is voting against this Bill so that these useless and powerless councils may remain the operative local Bantu bodies in the White areas. In other words, she is not prepared to accept even this minor advance, she prefers to vote against this advance. Her party prefers to leave the status quo as it is to-day. If this Bill is rejected then we are left with the advisory councils. In other words, to vote against this Bill is to leave the advisory councils in the urban areas and the hon. member herself says that they are useless and powerless. In other words she rejects a step forward in order to retain something which she considers a hopeless failure. We on this side of the House prefer to take one step forward, if that step is in the interests of and to the advantage of the Bantu. This is not a perfect Bill. We will try to improve it in the Committee Stage, but it is a step forward in the direction of an improved local authority. It is a step in the right direction—it is an advance. It is a step forward for the urban Bantu of this country, but the Progressive Party prefer to vote against this forward step; they prefer to stay where they are; they prefer to retain these unsatisfactory advisory boards.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton is keeping up a running commentary. She asks with whom this will go down. I am not interested in that. I am interested in what is in the interests of the Bantu people. The Bantu people of South Africa will welcome this because it is a step forward. They prefer to take a step forward than to stand still, tied to some unachievable dream which the party on my left hopes to achieve. It is a question of whether you are realistic or whether you tie your chariot to a star, and unless you can have the sun, the stars and the moon you are not prepared to have anything at all.

It depends on whether it is a falling star.

We, Mr. Speaker, say that this is a step in the right direction. It has weaknesses; there are many things in it which we do not like but we will try to rectify those. In the words of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) “this is an admission of the permanence of the urban Bantu population”. He said, “it is a concession to reality”. We agree that it is an admission of the permanence of the Bantu people in the White areas of South Africa; we agree with the hon. member for Durban (Berea) that it is a concession to reality. Because we agree with that, we are prepared to vote for this Bill. That hon. member who also agrees that it is an admission of the permanence of the Bantu and a concession to reality will vote against this concession to reality. We are glad that the Government, after 13 years, has seen a glimmer of light.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) as well as his party were very greatly confused and embarrassed here this evening. The hon. member rises here as a member of a party which throughout the years concentrated on fighting the National Party and its whole Bantu policy step by step. The picture they have always tried to present to the electorate and to the outside world is the picture of the then notorious sjambok pamphlet, that the White man in South Africa is only one who tries to trample on the non-White and who tries to suppress them as far as possible. At this stage of the development of the Bantu policy of the National Party the Government comes along with a Bill which completely overwhelms them. The hon. member for Durban (Point) flung his arms in all directions to try and hide his embarrassment. All he could try to do to conceal his embarrassment to some extent was to say: This is the real thing; it is United Party policy. I say that this hypocrisy of the United Party …

(Mr. Pelser): Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir. Then I will say that this insincerity of the Opposition is nothing new to us. We have seen it all these years. This is the party which was opposed to the policy of the establishment of Bantu homelands; this is the party which has always tried to protect and retain the property rights of the Bantu in the White areas; this is the party which pleads for and works in the direction of greater representation for the Bantu in this House. To-night they are trying to tell the country and this House: This is actually our policy which the National Party is now taking over, which they are now buying from us for a sixpence, as he put it. We feel sorry for the United Party when we see how the Bantu policy of the National Party is busy developing and becoming a reality, quite beyond their expectations. During the past few days hon. members of the Opposition have said that the policy of apartheid is a total failure …

It is.

The Bantu policy of the National Party has knocked them off their feet to-night. They cannot get away from that. We are very glad that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has brought this legislation before the House because it is one of the positive measures to give the Bantu a particular opportunity to accept responsibility for their own local affairs through their own local management body, to acquaint themselves with the privileges and responsibilities of the democratic system of the world in which they find themselves in their contact with Western civilization. We predict to-night that this Bill when it is applied will make many friends for the National Party among the Bantu population. I also predict that this Bill when it is applied in practise will serve as an anti-communist act. The hon. the Minister pointed out that if one gives the tsotsi element something to keep him occupied his tsotsi tendencies will disappear. When the Bantu in those urban areas start to take over their own affairs and to share in their own local Government then they will be less susceptible to communist subversion and incitement from people to recognize no responsibility towards South Africa.

As far as the Progressive Party members are concerned we just want to say this to them: They allege that this measure is not sufficient, that it is not practicable and that it does not mean anything. They are a progressive party in name. In reality they are a party which dances to the tune and the ideas of the Afro-Asian group of nations; people who run away with the idea of more and more political rights for under-developed people without reckoning with the practical demands of the country and of the world and of civilization. On the other hand the National Party is busy with a policy which is rooted in the history of South Africa, rooted in a knowledge of the Bantu, rooted in the level of the standard of living which they have acquired and which tries to develop them from that practical state and to educate them ultimately to become developed and responsible citizens of the country in their own areas. I predict that this Bill when it has become law will take much ground from under the feet of the Opposition, and therefore we not only want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the Bill but we want to express the hope that the Bantu will welcome this Bill. We also express the hope that through this the responsible and moderate Bantu will share in the powers which the Government place at their disposal to develop themselves and to work out their own salvation.

The hon. member who has just sat down has said that the apartheid policy is a practical policy and has accused us of following an unrealistic policy. The point I want to make is that any policy which runs counter—as we believe the apartheid policy of the Government does—to the inevitable development …

On a point of order, Sir, there are so many interjections from that corner of the House, that we cannot hear a word of what the hon. member is saying.

Order! Will hon. members on the cross benches kindly remain quiet.

In the kitchen.

On a point of order, there are as many interjections from that corner of the House.

Order! That is not a point of order.

The last speaker has already left the Chamber, so I shall not deal with his speech. We are opposed to this Bill because it perpetuates the whole system of regarding the Bantu residential areas in our towns as something quite different from the towns of which they are part and we oppose the perpetuation of that system. I think it is true, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said, that it extends the power of the urban Bantu councils beyond …

On a point of order, Sir, will you order the gentleman over there …

Order! Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat.

I am rising on a point of order, Sir, I want to know whether I should be told to “shut up” by that hon. member.

Order! The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) may proceed.

On a point of order, Sir, when the hon. member for Salt River rose on a point of order he was told to shut up. I suggest with respect, Mr. Speaker, that that is not in terms of the Rules of the House and that the member should be ordered to withdraw it.

Did an hon. member tell the hon. member for Salt River to “shut up”?

Yes, Sir, I said so.

Will the hon. member withdraw that?

I withdraw it, Sir, but I want to know whether hon. members are entitled to refer to us on these benches as the “kitchen”?

Order! The hon. member for East London (North) may proceed.

Before the interruption I was saying that we were opposed to this Bill because it perpetuated the whole system of regarding the Bantu residential areas as quite different, quite separate, from the rest of the urban areas of which they are part. Nominally it may be said that this Bill extends the power of the councils, up to what is now known as the advisory boards and henceforth to be urban Bantu councils, but it is a nominal increase only. There is no extra finance, nor is the system more democratic. On the contrary, where previously all the members of the Native advisory boards were elected, some of them are now to be nominated, in fact, half the members may be nominated. We can see no important extension of power. The extension of power is insignificant. On the other hand there are other aspects of this Bill to which we object most violently. It is an extension of the Bantu Authority system which has been introduced in the Bantu reserves into the towns; it perpetuates the ethnic group system and thirdly, it introduces into the towns for the first time a system of tribal courts. We are strongly opposed to those features. I do not know whose policy this Bill is intended to implement. There have been various claims to its paternity during the debate. What we are quite satisfied about is that we are opposed to the Bill and regard it as a bad Bill. There are two points in particular with which I want to deal. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) dealt with all our objections in turn and I want to deal with two of them. The first is the separation of the Bantu residential areas and the rest of the towns from a financial point of view. The Bill provides that only the revenue from the Bantu residential area shall be used to develop that area. This obviously rests on the fundamental conception that the Bantu residential areas are quite separate from the rest of the town. It fails to recognize the fact that many of the Bantu in the urban areas are there permanently, have been part of the town for many years and will always form an integral part of it. To regard them as separate is quite unrealistic and incorrect. The principle behind the financial provisions of this Bill is to regard them as separate. The cardinal principle of the use of public money is that one taxes the people who have the ability to pay and the money is devoted to the people whose needs are the greatest. That is the cardinal principle of taxing people and using public money not only in municipal affairs, but as regards national finance too. One taxes the people who have the ability to pay, but in spending the money one looks where the needs are greatest. That is not recognized in this Bill. On the contrary the hon. the Minister is going to use only the revenue from the poorest section of the population in the towns, the Bantu, to develop the Bantu residential areas. Now as the hon. member for Houghton said, in distributing the money which one has available in the remaining urban areas, one does not take the revenue from Westdene and spend it in Westdene, and one does not take the revenue from Houghton to spend it in Houghton. One takes the revenue from the whole of a municipal area and spends it in the whole area according to where the needs are. To take another example: In East London one does not take the revenue from the Quigney and limit the development of the Quigney to that amount of money. Neither does one spend all the money that one raises in Selborne on Selborne. One raises finance from the whole of a municipal area and spends it in the whole of the area according to where the needs are greatest. To go a bit further, and this is a most important consideration, one raises most of one’s finance from the business areas of the towns, and most of those areas are in the White areas, and that money should be used not only for the development of the White municipal areas of the town, but also for the Bantu residential areas of the town. After all, the African forms an integral portion of the whole town and is part of the wealth of the town. When an African buys any product in the town, say for instance a pair of shoes, say for instance in Oxford Street, East London, part of the price of that pair of shoes is going to contribute to the rates of the town. If a Native buys a pair of shoes he is contributing to the rates of the town, and why should the money which he indirectly contributes towards the revenue of the town be devoted entirely to the White municipal area? Mr. Speaker, we are entirely opposed to this separation for financial and other purposes of the Bantu residential areas from the rest of the urban areas. It means that one is not going to be able to develop the Bantu residential areas as they should be developed in the interest of the whole community.

But the main item on which I wish to speak to-night, and I shall do so quite briefly, is to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister on the question of the chiefs’ courts, which he intends to introduce into the towns. There may be something to be said for this system in the reserves, the main reason being the lack of a reasonable alternative. After all, many of the tribal communities live very far indeed from any urban centre. Take for instance the Transkei, certain communities live very far away from a town where there is a magistrate or a Native commissioner. In those circumstances there may be some justification in having this system of chiefs’ courts. Further, it may be that the particular community is a close-knit community in which everyone is known to everybody else, and where the chief or headman has retained authority. But that system is only reasonable in the particular circumstances of the reserves. It is completely unsuitable to the towns, to the Bantu residential areas in the towns. It has no place in the towns, and to introduce that kind of court, the court of the chief or the court of a chief’s representative in the towns is a step backwards. It is a step in the direction of tribalism and a step backwards. In the towns, apart from the normal courts which deal with the affairs of Europeans, you already have your Native commissioners’ courts, specially set up to cater for the Africans. I hope with the hon. member for Parktown that we shall ultimately only have one system of courts and get rid of these Native commissioners’ courts, but for the present they serve a very good purpose. But there is certainly no justification whatsoever for introducing the type of court which this Bill envisages into the towns. Obviously they are to be inferior courts, in the reserves as wen as in the towns. There is no requirement that the Judge must be a trained legal man. May I ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to tell us whether he will lay down some qualification which will be required before a person can be appointed as a representative of a chief or headman to hold a court in an urban area? Is it his intention to lay down any legal requirements before a person shall become qualified to hold a court in the urban area? No legal requirements in relation to the chiefs’ courts or headmen’s courts are laid down in respect of the reserves, except experience and authority within the community. I want to know: Will there be any legal requirements before a person can be appointed to this position in an urban area? There is certainly nothing in the Bill. Further, these courts will obviously be inferior because of the procedure which is adopted. It is not necessary for them to keep written records. It is not necessary for them to observe the rules of evidence which we lay down as necessary if a case is properly tried. The “Judge” or whatever his designation is going to be, may consult with other people, not only in relation to whether the evidence is sufficient, but also in regard to the sentence which he is to impose, to consult with other members on the Bantu Council, who have not heard the case at all. We regard that kind of approach to legal cases as wrong. There is no doubt whatsoever that these courts will be very inferior. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why is it that this principle is being introduced into the urban areas? So far as I can see the only advantage which even the hon. the Minister may see in it is that it may develop his theory of Bantu authority, that it may lend colour to the idea that not only in the reserves but also in the urban areas you can carry out the Bantu authority system with all that that means. What I want to say to the hon. the Minister is this: If ever there was a way of breaking down the tribal system, it is to try to extend it to places where it cannot be extended. Just as in the reserves the artificial boosting of the tribal system is bringing it into disrepute, so if the hon. the Minister tries to introduce a system of tribal courts into the urban areas, he will bring the whole system into disrepute. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the urban Bantu will not look up to the person who is able to hold a court as a representative of a chief or headman. Not only will he not respect them, but he will not tolerate them, and I think that nothing is more calculated to bring the Bantu authority system into disrepute than to make an urban African who has had experience of our type of court, subject to one of these courts to be held by the representative of a headman or a chief. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. There are many features of this Bill to which we are strongly opposed, but this one I feel particularly strong about. I feel that the hon. the Minister is making a very bad mistake indeed in trying to introduce this principle into the towns, and I make an earnest appeal to him to reconsider this question. It is bad enough in relation to civil law and I can foresee great difficulties arising where there are different customs amongst the ethnic groups in the towns; I can see difficulties arising where you have a mixture of ethnic groups. So even in relation to civil law, I think the principle will be entirely unsatisfactory, but in relation to criminal law. I think it should not be contemplated at all. The system has been severely criticized in the reserves and in the urban areas it will be doubly criticized. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw this provision in respect of chiefs’ courts in the urban areas.

For these and other reasons, we are strongly opposed to this Bill. The hon. member for Houghton in moving our amendment has set out our reasons in full. I wish to raise these two points particularly, and I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider the Bill before it goes further.

I have listened to all the speeches that have been made on this Bill, and, Sir, I must admit that I was surprised at the reaction of hon. members of the Progressive Party to the criticism of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). In fact the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) said that there seems to be a doubt about the paternity of this Bill. That is quite remarkable, Mr. Speaker, because after all all those hon. members were elected on this policy which was read by the hon. member for Durban (Point). That was the basis of the policy on which those hon. members were elected to Parliament. I cannot understand why they should quarrel with it now. I don’t know why they doubt the paternity of this so-called “6d.-pennie-beleid”. The position is that surely nor the fraternity, nor the maternity are in doubt. I have got an idea that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) was one of the drafting committee that proposed that particular clause in our party constitution.

Quite wrong.

Well, if she did not draft it, she accepted it when it was drafted, and she was elected on it. I think they should not quarrel too much about the policy which brought them to this honourable House.

The hon. member for Houghton went further than that and she agreed with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that this Bill is for separate development and for ethnic grouping, and that was Point No. One she made against the Bill. Now that is also wondrous strange. I seem to have a recollection that a group of hon. members from the United Party broke away in August, two years ago, because of the purchase of land which was to be for Bantustans and therefore for separate development and ethnic grouping, and they said “No, we are going to support the purchase of land for that purpose and if the United Party passes a resolution to say that land must not be purchased for separate development and ethnic grouping, we are going to leave the United Party. But now the quarrel is that this Bill is for separate development and ethnic grouping. It is very hard to please some hon. members, Mr. Speaker. It depends, entirely Sir, as to who their opponents happen to be for the time being.

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

Yes, Sir, I am dealing with the categorical statement, not just the suggestion, of the hon. member for Houghton, following the hon. member for Heilbron, that this Bill is for separate development and ethnic grouping. I am not going to cover the ground that has been covered by other hon. members on this side of the House, except making again the point abundantly clear that so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, the Bill provides for a council, an urban Bantu council, whereof half the members are elected, and in a White area, and therefore will become a permanent part of the development of the White area, and they are obtaining franchise rights, and franchise rights, according to hon. members opposite, always leads from a small beginning to greater and greater demands and greater rights. I want to say this quite clearly: The hon. the Minister and his Government feel that they can have half the members of the urban Bantu councils selected. Who is to select them? It is rather interesting: They are to be selected by the unit or selected by the chief, and I want to deal with that for a moment because of what follows. They are selected by the chief or elected by the generality of the Bantu comprising that unit. But when it comes to Clause 5, the appointment of these Bantu magistrates or administerers of justice—I do not exactly know what their title is going to be—then we find that the people on whom the Minister may confer the right to act as “magistrate” (whatever their title may be) are people who will be nominated or selected by a chief or who have been elected by their fellow-Bantu. There is no other class of persons that can be nominated by the magistrate and appointed to the post of “Bantu magistrate” in this area. An appointment can only be made from one of two classes of people. I want at this early stage to ask the hon. the Minister this: Bearing in mind even in regard to our own local government ordinances and the protection afforded people like town clerks who cannot be dismissed by local authorities without the approval of the Administrator, what is going to be the position of these people once appointed? Is this a lifetime appointment, or a temporary appointment? Is it a case that when members of the unit—may I interpolate for a moment and say that this “unit” as it is now called, a Bantu unit is, I take it, the ethnic group (“ethnic group” does not seem to be language that is much used for some reason or other in this Bill; the Bill continually refers to “national unit”). Now a national unit comes together and it is rather like electing a sheriff in one of the Western United States of Amercia; they elect the members of the council, one of whom may be appointed by the Minister as the “magistrate”, This is a real difficulty: What protection is afforded to that man when he ceases to hold office? Think of the position of a man who is elected as a magistrate in these Bantu areas; in giving judgment he has not got the authority of the traditional chief behind him, because he will be elected from amongst the detribalized Native living in the towns. There will not be the traditional respect shown for a chief so far as those people are concerned. So what is their security, what security are they going to have? Can the members of that council, of which he is a member, turn round from time to time and ask for his disposition and the appointment of another man? What kind of a future is there going to be for a man who has earned the resentment of his fellow-Bantu? What is his position going to be under the circumstances of this Bill if he once loses his authority and the protection which he can be given by for instance the community guards which are to be appointed? He now merely is a common citizen again, and what protection is there going to be for him? This is a very real difficulty that I would like the hon. the Minister to deal with, because even in more civilized societies we give special protection to town clerks and people of that kind, owing to the fact that they have such difficult tasks to perform that they quarrel with large sections of their people, and they must be protected. Another point I want to make here, and again may I interrupt myself for a moment and say that the hon. Minister holds forth on the advantages which will accrue to the Bantu and the bold step forward in the development that which can be foreseen, spiritually and culturally. On two occasions at least, he used those words “spiritually and culturally”. May I ask the hon. the Minister from a cultural point of view not to use the plural when referring to the Bantu when he means the singular. Why do we maltreat the Native language like this when referring to “a Bantu”, There is no such thing, Sir. Surely if we are dealing with the cultural side of the Bantu, let us start by not mishandling their own language. The hon. the Minister knows that the singular term is not “Bantu”. That is the plural. Why don’t we commence then culturally by at any rate dealing with the language of the Bantu people in a proper manner and give it fair treatment to start with, so that we do not infringe the canons of good taste every time when these people are referred to by using the plural when we mean the singular? Let us start by putting our own house in order and in our legislation use the singular and call a member of the Bantu race Umuntu. The hon. the Minister knows that that is the singular. This is a matter of not hurting the feelings of the people we allege we are going to give an opportunity to develop “their spiritual and cultural values”.

Now the hon. the Minister in reply to a question that I put to him said that the local authorities have not been consulted. On his own showing, this Bill has been on the stocks for over two years, and the local authorities have not been consulted nor have the Bantu people in the areas concerned been consulted as Bantu people. The hon. Minister said that he met individuals from time to time. But what about the local authorities? The Minister had no difficulty in consulting with the local authorities in regard to this Bill. Why again does the hon. the Minister now come with a classic case of saying to the municipalities of South Africa, and to the Bantu people in the mass in our urban areas: I am people in the mass in our urban areas: I am going to tell you what is good for you? Does the hon. the Minister knowing the Bantu people as he does, really believe that he could deal with an individual Muntu and get him to accent his pet theories which he is enbodying in this Bill? Under what circumstances is that likely to be the case? Sir, under the most favourable circumstances when you are dealing with a single Muntu, he is likely out of courtesy to tell you that which he believes you would like to hear—and, Sir, he is not particularly unique in that either; I know a lot of people who are likely to do the same.

The truth of the matter is that this Bill has come from the Minister and his Government virtually without knowing what are the viewpoints of the municipalities or of the urban Bantu who are living there and who will have to make this Bill work because it is going to be thrust upon them. The hon. the Minister knows that it is being thrust upon them. It is futile for the hon. the Minister to come and say that he is giving those Bantu people an opportunity to develop themselves, their culture and their language, and all this kind of thing, when the Bill is thrust upon them, and they have not had a voice in it themselves. I suggest that what the Minister should have first done was to invite an election of the representatives of the mass of the Bantu people. After all he is providing for an election here. Why not have their spokesmen elected and get the elected spokesmen then to deal with the Minister? Then the Minister may be in a position to say that he is speaking from the point of view of the wishes of the Bantu people, because then he would know what those wishes are. The appointed men, the selected men, will never speak for the people. That is one of the basic weaknesses of this Government, that they do not know what the people are thinking. They may know what certain sections of the White people are thinking, and certain sections of the Coloured people are thinking, and they may know what certain groups of the Bantu people are thinking even, but the broad mass of the Bantu people’s thinking is unknown to the Government, because they are not speaking through the mouth of their chiefs to-day. The Minister knows that perfectly well. The Minister knows perfectly well that the chiefs are falling into disfavour right throughout the Republic of South Africa, and this Bill is not going to make it any better.

If the Bill is so bad, why do you vote for it?

That is a queer interjection. May I explain to the hon. member for Houghton that we are voting for it because it has adopted the basic principle of giving the Bantu living in the so-called White area the opportunity to elect in part a council to care for their fellows. That is the basic principle.

What did the hon. member for Houghton vote for in 1953?

That basic principle may be tainted by difficulties here and there, and I want to say at once to the hon. the Minister, who is perhaps a little more realistic than the hon. member for Houghton, that he will not be surprised if I criticize clause after clause of this Bill, not to-night, but in the Committee Stage. To-night there are certain points I want to pick out for the second reading debate, but in the Committee Stage, there will hardly be a clause which is not subject to some criticism or other, and if the hon. the Minister can meet us, then I am sure we will be able to make it such a good Bill that even members of the Progressive Party may think it is worth supporting after all.

There is another answer to the question of the hon. member for Houghton and it is this: With this Bill before Parliament, the eyes of the Bantu people in the European urban areas, throughout South Africa will be watching what is happening and what is being said in Parliament, and I cannot imagine the Bantu people in our urban areas, the detribalized Natives, being not entirely disgusted with the showing of any political party at this moment in their history, which, as the Progressive Party does now, refuses them to make this small step forward on the upward grind to get onto a basic level of responsibility. This is a step to constitutional government, a small step, but a step towards it. Sir, don’t let it be said that when the Nationalist Party did come with a step in the right direction—for political motives or any other—we refuse the Bantu that step forward. Sir, I say that in the interest of race relations in South Africa. Let the urbanized Bantu realize that the White man as such in the main here represented in Parliament are going to take a step that will place them on the first rung of the ladder in their upward struggle, in giving them that chance. It is going to put the hon. the Minister in trouble, Sir, because I know what will come next, and that will be a determined effort to get rid of the selected representatives. Those councils are going to demand that every member shall be an elected representative. That will inevitably be the next step. And, Sir, who is the hon. the Minister to deny them that and say that the council shall not be composed of elected representatives after the history of all sections of the White population in South Africa? What has been the history of appointed representatives throughout our history in this country in the four provinces before Union? What else but a struggle to get away from the nominated executive councils, and so forth, and to have a fully elected body? And of course the Bantu will do exactly the same, and that is going to give the hon. the Minister a headache and he will eventually have to give way. He won’t be able to resist it. He has taken a step now, however unwillingly it may be, towards giving the Bantu elected councils in the White urban areas, as a permanent fixed part of the population. All the amenities that he smoke of this afternoon in his speech, are all anchors to hold the urban Bantu here in the European area, preventing them from going back, keeping them here. How many of the Bantu who have enjoyed all the amenities now being provided in the towns, places like Meadowlands, are going to leave that to go back to their huts in the reserves? How many of them are going to leave the bright lights any more than the young White people are leaving the bright lights and going back to the farms on the platteland? We know that most of the social problems in South Africa stem from the denudation of the platteland by White people and here we see this influx of Bantu to the urban areas. And it is. being made easy for them and now they are being given the franchise, the right to determine their own future in their own urban areas by means of a partly elected council. They will be spending money collected from them by their own council. Why should they leave all that and go back to live in their kraals on the platteland? They won’t do it.

The point was touched upon that in a large town like Johannesburg you can have various Bantu urban councils or all at one and the same time. If these councils are created for ethnic groups, or national units, then I must say that this establishment of an imperium in imperio is an absolute absurdity. This is a state within a state. Now take an overall picture of the situation in a place like Johannesburg. In it you will have small councils composed of different ethnic groups, each of them operating in respect of their own ethnic groups. Across those ethnic group lines difficulties must arise, and that will definitely be a cause for friction between one ethnic group and another. The hon. Minister knows what has happened on the Rand, and can he imagine what will happen when there are recurring faction fights between the Sotho and the Zulu people and what is going to be the position when cases come before these Native magistrates which are to be appointed and the various councils who will have to sort out the difficulties all in a particular area? All with equal jurisdiction, all with equal powers in the various areas, a whole group of them even operating in the same area. Surely the Minister must realize what confusion can be created. The hon. the Minister may try to overcome the difficulty by setting up one council where there are small numbers of various ethnic groups electing members for a mixed council, but he has been at pains to explain that that is not going to be the case where there are large ethnic groups. There each ethnic group will be able to have its own council. Think of the expenditure of the moneys that are being provided, coming from the Native Revenue Fund, moneys going to the urban Bantu councils. Sir, there will be several claimants to that money, and here at once we will get into difficulties over the distribution of the money amongst the different urban Bantu councils.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 16 June.