Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! As I understand the point taken yesterday by the hon member for Houghton, Mrs H Suzman, it is that my ruling on her notice of motion denies a member of Parliament the opportunity of bringing charges against or criticizing a judge by means of a substantive motion. She quoted extracts from Speaker Jansen’s ruling of 13 March 1935, from the well-known works on parliamentary practice by Ralph Kilpin and Erskine May, respectively, and from the report of a committee of this House, in support of the statements that Parliament is entitled to enquire into the manner in which judges fulfil their duties and that a substantive motion may be brought in order to discuss the conduct of a judge.

Both statements are correct and have been applied in this House on numerous occasions in the past when members were stopped from or admonished for casting reflections on judges during general discussions, and were at the same time reminded that they could do so only on a substantive motion. On all these occasions, except one (to the best of my knowledge), there was no substantive motion before the House and therefore no reason for considering or even referring to the form or contents of such a motion.

Mr Speaker Jansen’s ruling of 13 March 1935 (V & P, 1935, p 461) was given in connection with a notice of a substantive motion based on alleged politically biased remarks made by the then Chief Justice during the hearing of a case. The case was still sub judice, and in ordering that the notice be therefore removed from the Order Paper, Mr Speaker Jansen made the following remarks, which I quote (with emphasis added) for the convenience of members:

I agree with these remarks of Mr Speaker Jansen, which are fully supported by the practice of other parliaments, as appears from the other authorities referred to in my ruling of the 8th instant. I need only add that they express a constitutional usage (some say a convention) emanating from the fundamental principle of the independence of the judiciary, which it is incumbent upon Parliament to protect. It is also the basis for the practice of this House evidenced by the precedents referred to by me in dealing with points of order upon my ruling of the 8th instant. And these principles and practice I must take into account when a motion or a petition impugning a judge is considered by me under Rule 133 or Rules 189, 190 and 191 of the Standing Rules of Parliament.

My rulings of last Wednesday and of yesterday dealt only with the formal requirements for a petition or a substantive motion impugning a judge. Those rulings did not say a prima facie case can or cannot be made out against the judge concerned; they are findings to the effect that the petition and the motion in question did not comply with the requirements laid down by the rules of practice which are both long established and well founded, even if less well known due to lack of occasion for applying them.

The matter raised by the hon member for Sea Point, Mr C W Eglin, is not a point of order, but I nevertheless wish to refer to page 152 of Kilpin’s Parliamentary Procedure where the author states:

I do not think that the Rules Committee is a review or an appeal tribunal with reference to Speaker’s rulings. In any event, I do not think that any impasse situation or dilemma has arisen, as argued by the hon member. To my mind there is no conflict between my ruling and the decision of this House in the case referred to by the hon member.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: As I understand it, unless a prima facie case is made out in the substantive motion, you will not allow it to be discussed by this House?

Order! May I suggest that the hon member study my ruling; if she has any problem in this regard she may discuss the matter with me in my office. She is most welcome to do so.

Mr Speaker, I maintain that I have made out a prima facie case.

Order! I have given my ruling. Will the hon member for Houghton please accept it?

Then, Sir, I wish to give notice of another motion.

Order! I have given my ruling on that point of order.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: With reference to the portion you quoted from Mr Speaker Jansen’s ruling in 1935, may I submit with respect that you omitted to read what actually is the crux of that ruling, in which Mr Speaker Jansen states:

Order! That is not a point of order. I cannot listen to the hon member any further. I have that quotation in front of me. I know exactly what the hon member is referring to. I have studied the authority myself. That is not a point of order.

May I then enquire what it is, Mr Speaker.

Order! I say that what the hon member has proposed to be a point of order is not a point of order, and that is my ruling in respect of the hon member’s proposed point of order.

Mr Speaker, with respect, I have not even as yet motivated my point of order.

Order! I have listened to the hon member. He is telling me that I left out a certain paragraph in the ruling of Mr Speaker Jansen.

Which you have.

Which is quite correct. That is not the point of order. I have the authority with me and I am telling the hon member I did not refer to this particular paragraph in my ruling and that is the end of the hon member’s point of order on this issue.

With the greatest possible respect, Mr Speaker, my point of order is based on the part of the ruling which you, Sir, did not read out. Having read the ruling, it was then my intention to take the point of order.

Order! I have given my ruling and the Speaker’s ruling in respect of a point of order will be accepted in terms of the ruling I have given, and the procedure to be followed is also explained in my ruling. I have given my ruling. [Interjections.] The Secretary will read the first Order of the day.

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker: Your ruling is in relation to judges of the Supreme Court. May I inquire whether the same ruling refers to other office-bearers such as …

Order! That is not a point of order. I will not be questioned by hon members after I have given a ruling in the House. Will the hon member please resume his seat?

Mr Speaker, may I raise a point of order? I raise the point of order on the assumption that there should be no misunderstanding, because I am not querying anything which you have just said. Would you regard it as sufficient cause for a motion if, in fact, a prima facie case is established that a judge is influenced by the colour of a man’s skin in respect of the imposition of sentence?

Order! That is not a point of order.

But that is the point …

Order! That is not a point of order! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I wish to give notice that on Wednesday, 15 March, I shall move the following:

[Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Sasolburg entitled to say that the hon member for Houghton received her instructions from Moscow? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the objectives of the Bill before the House are contained in the attached printed memorandum. I merely want to refer to certain aspects in this connection.

In the first place I want to thank the House Committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Caledon.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for one hon member to refer to another hon member as a jingo?

Did an hon member say that?

Yes, Mr Speaker. The hon member for Turffontein said that in referring to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. [Interjections.]

I will consider the issue. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Speaker, I thank the House Committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Caledon for the important work they did and the attention they gave to this Bill. It is important to note that the Bill is a further attempt to rationalise own affairs legislation in the sphere of housing.

The termination of nuisances is seen primarily as the function and responsibility of local authorities, and it is appropriate that local authorities become more directly involved in the determination of nuisances.

Local authorities are probably best equipped to deal with housing and health matters in their areas. Quick and effective action in order to eliminate nuisances is essential, although such action should always be just. The main objective is people’s safety and health, and the action of local authorities must be viewed in this light.

These measures are supplementary to health regulations and the Health Act which is applicable in local government areas at present. A nuisance refers to any condition of occupied premises which constitutes a threat to the safety or health of the occupants of any premises or of a member of the public.

†A further matter which I would like to draw attention to is the proposal contained in clause 6. Hon members will recall that during the discussion of my Vote last year, I announced that persons over the age of 60 years with a certain income limit may apply to the Development and Housing Board for a loan to safeguard their houses. As a matter of interest the limit was raised recently from R2 000 to R2 500. Clause 6 contemplates that the board may now grant a loan without a mortgage bond being registered in its favour.

The amendment in clause 8 empowers a local authority to grant a permit to demolish a building constructed for residential purposes subject thereto that such a building is not suitable for human habitation or is reasonably capable of being restored for habitation.

*The other amendments in the Bill are mainly consequential amendments.

Mr Speaker, the CP supports this legislation, but to be a bit mischievous, I want to tell the hon the Minister that I hope he will not interfere when the CP town councils implement this measure.

Mr Speaker, this Bill presents a very fair arrangement which is being made applicable to White inhabitants of South Africa. It has reference to health conditions only where these present a danger to the occupants of a building or of adjacent buildings. It is concerned with the safety and health of the ordinary taxpayers within the jurisdiction of a local authority.

An interesting measure in this legislation is that the Minister can now safeguard housing for elderly people. Loans in this connection are being increased, and these loans can be granted without the registration of a mortgage against this property in favour of the Minister’s department.

I think this is a fair arrangement which gives the owner of a property on which, in the opinion of the local authority, a nuisance has developed, an opportunity to comment on or object to a report and to object to the local authority about the contents of a report. He can also appeal to the hon the Minister if he is not happy with the local authority’s decision. What is very fair in this connection is that an owner who feels aggrieved and does not agree even with his appeal to the Minister, still has the freedom to go to an ordinary court to have his case tried there. I think this is a good arrangement, and we on this side of the House should like to support it.

Mr Speaker, this Bill embodies the main provisions that were included in the Slums Bill tabled in Parliament last year. That Bill experienced a particularly chequered history. Despite considerable investigation by the joint committee which resulted in a number of revisions the Bill was in fact not passed last year. The Joint Committee on Environment Affairs reported on 23 December that it was unable to reach consensus on the desirability of the Bill.

The situation now is that having failed to pass the Slums Bill as a general affair, this administration now sees fit to embody the proposed changes in the Bill now before us as an own affair.

In the steering committee we have indicated which provisions of the Slums Bill were in fact unacceptable to us and these objections remain. As regards this Bill now before the House, we reject it on the grounds that what was unacceptable as a general affair is even less acceptable as an own affair.

It is fundamentally objectionable to ignore the wishes of the other two Houses and to steam ahead with legislation which will once again expose the farcical distinction between own and general affairs and which will exacerbate differences in standards as a result of differentiating the provision of housing on the basis of race. [Interjections.]

As has often been said, the provision of housing represents one of the greatest challenges facing us. Principles such as the maintenance of existing housing stock, the upholding of security of tenure and property rights and the facilitation of housing delivery to lower income communities generally are of paramount importance.

The Government has failed dismally in fairly distributing housing and housing facilities among races. Group areas legislation, the Land Acts, influx control and forced removals have been a part of our history of which this Government can be ashamed. Failed attempts last year to tighten up on the Group Areas Act—I shall come to why they failed—clearly illustrate the moral bankruptcy of that policy. We had a debate in this House today which once again clearly illustrated the dichotomy.

Despite vigorous opposition in the other two Houses and from ourselves, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill has now been enacted. This abhorrent Act abrogates important aspects of common law, imposes harsh penalties and will result in the eviction of hundreds of thousands of people.

It must be understood that the Slums Bill of last year was viewed with suspicion. It was associated with the Group Areas Amendment Bill and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill. It was therefore rejected.

The Bill before us is seen as an attempt to achieve the same thing via the back door. It is perceived as an attempt to look after the interests of Whites at the expense of other communities. The fact is that unless similar measures are to be introduced for the other groups, different standards will be perpetuated. This is in conflict with the Government’s supposed intention to do away with differentiation wherever possible. We will have the anomalous situation where White housing standards will be controlled in terms of this Bill whereas those for the other race groups will be controlled in terms of the Slums Act of 1979.

The situation will be further aggravated by the application of the Free Settlement Areas Act. The piecemeal opening up of selected areas will not be able to accommodate the huge population pressure which exists as a result of the housing shortage. We have warned that unless all areas are opened and the market allowed to operate freely on economic considerations only, the pressures on selected open areas will aggravate and not avoid the slum creation process.

Having detailed our principal objection to this Bill I wish to make it quite clear that this party recognizes the need for objective standards as far as housing is concerned. We made this view quite clear in our campaign in the Johannesburg municipal elections last year, and it will be dealt with in some detail by our next speaker. And it is here too that we believe that this Bill fails. The proposed procedures are subjective, contrary to the rights of owners and occupiers and arbitrary in their application.

We are told that the existing Slums Act, 1979, is both cumbersome and unwieldy, and that the new Bill is intended to streamline slum control. This is not so. By failing to set guidelines similar to those in Schedule 3 to the existing Act concerning the matters about which relevant officials must form an opinion, uncertainty and inconsistent administration will result. By dispensing with an independent slums court the advantage of independent arbitration will be lost. This loss of certainty and of the protection of due process is a greater loss than the gain of achieving a procedure which is merely less cumbersome.

Dealing with what the hon member for Caledon said regarding the rights of objection I still maintain that that is not the same as being able to express and present one’s own case in a court of law. I think that there is an enormous difference.

Could the procedure not have been streamlined in some other way rather than to do away with the court altogether? Furthermore there is enormous danger in conferring wide discretionary powers on local authorities. We are presently witnessing events in Boksburg and elsewhere where local authorities controlled by the CP have reintroduced racist regulations in terms of existing legislation. I have no doubt that this Bill, once enacted, will continue to serve the racist policies of that party.

In summary, we believe this Bill fails to meet its objectives for the following reasons: There is no requirement for expert opinion such as from a Medical Officer of Health. In fact, any official may determine a nuisance. There is no independent body such as a court to determine whether a nuisance exists, nor is there an allowance for due process. There is no recognition of the rights of occupiers. For example, where the number has to be reduced, they themselves have no say in how this is to be achieved. Finally, the local authority may sell a property by public auction and may apply the proceeds to settle amounts owing to it in preference to the rights of a mortgagee. This reverses the ranking specified in the existing Slums Act.

These are aspects of the Bill which can and should be amended. However, as stated at the outset we are opposed in principle. We would support a full and detailed enquiry into all aspects of housing, especially for low income communities. From this, appropriate legislation should be formulated dealing with the prevention of the creation of new slum areas and the improvement of conditions in existing slums; on the contrary, this Bill merely serves to perpetuate racial differentiation and we therefore oppose it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pinelands belittled the concept of own affairs and I think I know why. He would like to refer to mixed affairs and not own affairs.

*The hon member for Pinelands also made it very clear that there are no explicit guidelines on what action should be taken. He said any official could determine what a nuisance was. I want to remind the hon member, however, that regulations are promulgated and that those regulations determine the guidelines for action.

It is very clear to me that the hon member cannot share the sentiments of the NP on this side of the House, because he lives in a different environment and in a different world. I think his constituency is in a different position. I think he is privileged to live among people where slum conditions and nuisances cannot arise very easily. Therefore I hope that he will have some empathy with the people in South Africa who are exposed to conditions of that kind.

Mr Chairman, you will permit me to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon member for Caledon, who was chairman of this House Committee, on the superb way in which the committee functioned. He handled it very skilfully. I also want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for having accommodated me in my amending proposal. The first amendment was that a local council, as well as any organisation or body which is recognised as a local authority by the Minister in the Gazette, can be included in this legislation. We cannot overemphasize the importance of that. In the Transvaal, for example, we have local area committees, or LACs, which ultimately develop into self-reliant, independent town councils. That is why it is essential to give them as much autonomy and self-government as possible in their process of development and progress.

As has been indicated, the Bill before the House repeals the Slums Act as far as it has reference to the White population group. It is important to note that this Bill is merely supplementary to the health regulations in the Health Act as it applies to local authority areas at the moment.

That is why, when we talk about a nuisance or a slum that may have to be prevented—hon members heard the hon the Minister’s announcement of an increase in the security measures at the homes of people over 60—I want to express the hope that the public will make use of the department’s regional offices, on the one hand perhaps to submit a complaint or on the other to obtain more information and to determine what procedure should be followed in meeting their requirements.

Over and above the fact that this is a good amending Bill and a good arrangement, and is in conformity with the own affairs principle, which we are eager to support, it is a great privilege for me to support the hon the Minister and his department in this measure and to thank them for effecting increased security measures for the elderly. There are numerous elderly people in my constituency who make use of this concession. I thank the hon the Minister for doing away with the registration of a mortgage bond against the property so that an endorsement on the title deed will now be sufficient.

This is a good measure and I thank the hon the Minister, because it is proof of the sympathy, the empathy and the feeling of the Government has for its electorate at large. I should like to support this proposed legislation.

Mr Chairman, in the course of my address I will touch on a number of issues raised by the hon member for Pretoria Central. However, the hon member for Pinelands indicated our opposition to this measure and our reasons for opposing it.

We believe that much of the evidence given last year to the joint committee which considered the Slums Bill has been ignored. None of the objections raised has been met, but this is typical of the arrogant attitude of what we believe to be an uncaring Government. To be more specific, certain legal experts came to the conclusion that the original Bill made fundamental inroads into the judicial liberties enabling a local authority to act “virtually as a court” and to “grab and sell” a property whereas, in terms of the existing Slums Act, the local authority has to follow certain legal procedures. Nothing has been done to address this problem in the Bill currently before us.

A number of organisations, including amongst others the Bar Council of South Africa, were concerned about the definition of a nuisance. Many felt that the provisions of the Bill could be abused, bearing in mind that its provisions, by virtue of the subject matter with which it deals, would in all probability mostly affect the less sophisticated members of our society. Nothing has been done to address this problem in the Bill currently before us.

Concern was also expressed that a local authority could be given the right to remedy a nuisance as defined in the Bill should the owner of premises fail to do so after notice. Nothing has been done to address this problem in the Bill currently before us. The local authority may, as provided in clause 11B (6) (b) of the Bill, recover the costs thereof from the owner, and the certificate signed by the town clerk stating the amount of the expenses shall be prima facie proof thereof. If the owner fails to pay the amount of such costs after they have been incurred then, after notification, the local authority may without obtaining a court order take possession of the property in question and sell the whole or part thereof and utilise the proceedings thereof to defray such costs and other stipulated expenses. Nothing has been done to address this problem in the Bill currently before us.

Concern has been expressed that the method of notification is not stipulated although section 11 deals with methods of service. The Bill provides for increased, almost draconian fines, and the provision of imprisonment for up to a year, all of which gives rise to a great deal of concern. Nothing has been done to address this problem in the Bill currently before the House.

Having said all that, it should be clear that this Bill must not be viewed in isolation, as it is destined to be part of the overall package dealing with the flow into and the movement in our cities of Black people.

The hon member for Pinelands referred to the Johannesburg Municipal election campaign last year. Allow me to say I few words about that campaign too. The leader of our team, Mr Tony Leon, made it absolutely clear that we recognise the need for objective standards as far as housing is concerned when he said the following on 17 August 1988:

He went on to say that the policy of the PFP is:

That is the NP-controlled administration—

That is what Tony Leon said about the NP-controlled City Council of Johannesburg. There is not much difference in the attitude of the City Council of Johannesburg and the Cabinet of this country.

To return to Mr Leon, he said:

During the course of his address in the city council during the budget debate in Johannesburg on 15 June 1988, he expressed similar sentiments and made remarks concerning our commitment to the maintenance of standards. That, therefore, is our attitude towards slums and it attests to our determination to prevent inner-city decay. We will ensure this is brought about by sufficient inspectors who will be obliged to enforce by-laws relating to noise, hygiene, density and health.

It is imperative that standards be applied. During the course of the debate on the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill in this House last year, I remarked that I believed that the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act should be abandoned and replaced by a Housing Bill. This I believe to be fundamental and a matter to be taken into account in all seriousness by the Government.

I believe it to be of fundamental importance for a national housing strategy to be aimed at ensuring the availability of a housing stock in all sectors of the market for the entire spectrum of income groups. We have a critical housing shortage at the present time and I do not believe that the Bill currently before us represents an appropriate legal saviour which will support the creation of a national housing stock.

I mentioned earlier that this Bill should not be seen in isolation but should be seen as part of a group which includes the Group Areas Amendment Bill, the Free Settlement Areas Act, the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Act and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. All the other measures are aimed at providing selective opening of certain areas only as free settlement areas. What the Government has not understood or what the Government fails to realise, is that the selective opening of areas will aggravate slum conditions rather than reduce undesirable housing phenomena in such isolated open areas. Obviously this is the reason for the haste in producing this Bill and pushing it through Parliament at this time as an own affair. What the Government fails to realise is that the advent of new dwellers in the inner cities means they will occupy housing stock previously occupied by mainly lower income communities. The established existing communities in those areas moved out into other areas. This has created a system of absentee landlordism, and an increase in overcrowding of the existing housing which will be under considerable pressure in the months and years to come.

Concern has therefore been expressed that the proposed provisions that were made last year in the Slums Bill are aimed primarily at substituting what has been called the “cumbersome” and the “outdated” provisions of the existing Slums Act, and anticipating the likely consequences of selective opening of certain areas only. In seeking to accommodate these objectives, the Government has rejected fundamental principles such as the maintenance of existing housing stock, the upholding of security of tenure and property rights, and the supply of housing delivery to lower income communities generally. These have become of secondary importance in the preparation of this Bill.

As I mentioned in the debate on the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill last year, I believe that the focus should be placed on the question of supply of houses before we get to the question of the removal of slums or the control of squatting.

I believe it is appropriate to compare the Bill currently before us to the Act which is in force at the present time. The Act contemplates two main actors, namely the medical officer of health who is an expert and forms the crucial initial opinion whether “a nuisance” exists, and the slum clearance court which is an expert quasi judicial body which determines what action should be taken.

On the other hand, the Bill before us contemplates only one actor—the local authority or in certain circumstances a committee or official acting under delegated powers. There is no requirement of expert opinion and there is no independent body to determine whether a “nuisance” exists and, if so, what action should be taken. The local authority initiates the procedure and decides what is to be done.

Secondly, it was important to determine the criteria for determining a “nuisance”. Many people have expressed concern at the definition of “nuisance” in the Bill, inter alia, the Legal Resources Centre in Johannesburg, and I would like to say that the Act as it currently stands provides fairly detailed and objective criteria against which the medical officer of health must form his opinion as to whether a “nuisance” exists. On the other hand the Bill provides that a nuisance is any condition which in the opinion of a local authority constitutes a threat to health and safety. It will be seen therefore, that there is a considerable difference between the Act and the Bill and this is a matter which gives cause for grave concern to a large number of people.

Thirdly, one must examine the procedures for determining a “nuisance”. The Act provides for the creation of a quasi judicial body to hear evidence and argument and then to come to a decision. The landowner has a right to know that the matter is being considered, to have a copy of the report of the medical officer of health and to participate fully in the hearing. On the other hand the Bill creates no process whatsoever. The local authority appoints an official, considers his report and makes a decision. After this the owner may object to the local authority’s decision. He appears to have no right at all to a hearing before the decision is made and is not even allowed a copy of the official’s report. This further adds to the concern people have expressed about the definition of a “nuisance” and the procedure for determining how one arrives at what is to be determined a “nuisance”.

The fourth area of concern is the rights of the occupiers. One of the conditions which can create a nuisance is overcrowding of tenancy. The Act lays down detailed criteria in this regard. The Act also recognises, to a limited extent, that occupiers also have a legitimate interest in this regard. When the slum clearance court has directed that the number of occupiers be reduced, the local authority is required to serve notice on the occupiers informing them of this. The occupiers have the right to reach an agreement amongst themselves as to which of them shall cease to occupy the premises. If they fail to do so, the local authority may require the owner to provide such a list. Only if the owner fails to provide the list, may the local authority itself draw up a list and serve an order on the occupiers who must leave. Under certain circumstances the owner is prohibited from recovering any rent from people living in a slum and they are entitled to recover any rent which they have paid. The Bill before us, therefore, confers no rights whatsoever on the occupiers.

Fifthly, one should examine the powers of the local authorities. The Bill represents a devolution of greater powers to local authorities. The Minister may require a local authority to remove a particular nuisance but there is no provision for central Government to step in and take over the local authority’s powers. In addition, there is no provision for the responsibilities and powers of local authorities to be suspended. The existing Act does make provision to this effect.

This aspect, too, is a cause of great concern to us. It means that the responsibility for enforcing the legislation has been transferred to the administrators of the provinces and to the Minister of own affairs. The current Slums Act provides that a medical officer of health can remove what is known as a nuisance, following a ruling from a slums court under the chairmanship of a magistrate. This Bill will achieve all the same objectives but without due process.

Overcrowding in places like Hillbrow and Woodstock is prevalent because no alternative accommodation is available there. Now that the Government has done away with influx control it is creating another way of drastically reducing the flow of people to the urban areas.

The Urban Foundation has estimated that in urban areas throughout South Africa there are approximately 7 million people living in what they call “informal settlements”.

This does not include the many hundreds of thousands living in rural areas, or indeed in the inner cities where there is a great deal of overcrowding. The reason for this overcrowding is that there is a backlog of 1,8 million housing units at the present time, and it has been estimated that an additional 2,8 million housing units will be required if we are to house our people before the end of the century. This means a total annual housing requirement of 400 000 units each year between now and the year 2000.

We believe the Bill to be an inappropriate measure at this time as we believe the Government should address the problem of housing before introducing this measure. We therefore oppose the measure.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the hon member for Johannesburg North who was the last speaker on their side. In the course of my reply I will address some of the matters he raised. He made a lengthy speech, obviously putting forward certain suggestions which I will also consider in due course.

I can say at the outset that one would always have to take into consideration the situation of the person occupying one of these premises. One will obviously scrutinise the situation as far as the occupants are concerned in terms of the regulations we will still have to draft in collaboration with the local authorities.

*Mr Chairman, I want to make one thing very clear. This legislation is not intended summarily to deprive people of their accommodation. I want hon members in this House to know that this measure, which the PFP is linking to the Group Areas Act, has nothing to do with it. It concerns their health, it concerns over-occupation and it concerns risks to their safety which the occupants of the premises eventually face.

I want to raise a second matter before I reply to hon members. This concerns the impression created by the hon member for Johannesburg North and the hon member for Pinelands.

†The hon member for Pinelands said that we are now coming in through the back door and putting this through as an unfair piece of legislation. He referred to the general affairs Slums Act and I think he said that it was reported on on 23 September. I will quote from the 1987 Annual Report, of this department. We said the following when we reported on the Slums Act:

That decision was made way back in 1987. We are not now, in 1989, sneaking legislation in and that is a wrong perception that the hon members for Johannesburg North and Pinelands put to this House and the public outside this afternoon.

*It is important for regulations in this legislation to be handled with the concurrence of the relevant hon Minister and in consultation with the local authorities. We will then consider the procedures very carefully in a logical way. The hon member for Middelburg was so kind as to support the legislation and they say he revealed a streak of naughtiness in doing so, but I want to say that it is provided in this legislation that if the local authorities do not take efficient action, or do not take action at all, the legislation may be implemented under the provisions and powers vested in the Minister or his delegates. The hon member should therefore rather not be naughty, and that goes for his party too.

I want to refer to the hon member for Caledon. I should like to join the hon member for Pretoria Central in expressing my appreciation for his chairmanship of the House Committee and for his fine contribution this afternoon. The hon member for Pretoria Central also referred to important matters in the legislation, and I want to thank him for his remarks. What is important is that those persons who do not support this measure, focus on the issue of slums, poor conditions which contain health risks, and dangerous occupation. These aspects are spotlighted by the PFP. They are not concerned about the position of the occupants and owners. They are more concerned about giving this Bill a political content, which it does not have.

We on this side of the House are dealing with housing legislation. This House passed the principal Act in 1985 and we are now in the process of amending housing legislation to provide for matters concerning housing to be formulated in one Act. This is a rationalisation of legislation and consequently I want to reiterate that this legislation deals with housing per se.

The hon member for Pretoria Central also referred to the important objectives brought to light by the Bill and the provisions which are dealt with, namely to make it easier for elderly persons with a limited income to safeguard their own properties by means of a loan from the Development and Housing Fund, without the obligation of registering a bond. Those positive provisions—and the others are also positive—will never be stressed by the opposition in this House. I therefore want to thank the hon member for his handling of this specific matter.

Another important matter which is a useful aid for local authorities is the fact that a permit to demolish an existing house, is no longer subject to a lengthy process for the obtaining of such a permit, but that the town councils, after specific criteria have been laid down, may themselves issue demolition permits to owners. This is also a form of deregulation and it consequently facilitates the entire process to allow specific essential development to take place through our local authorities.

While I am thanking hon members for their participation in the debate, I also want to give perspective in view of the fact that hon members had such a lot to say about the untenability of this legislation. I also spoke to responsible organisations. Evidence was also given before the House Committee. The House Committee did not summarily pass this legislation.

For the most part the hon member for Johannesburg North used the expertise of people at his disposal to make proposals. Did the hon member read through this Bill. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he has read this Bill? [Interjections.]

*Sir, if the hon member says that he has read it, I accept that.

We also had the extensive evidence given before this House Committee by the Urban Foundation. To tell the truth, I gave a member of the Urban Foundation a hearing regarding this legislation myself, and held a penetrating discussion with the member of the Urban Foundation who took the trouble to come and discuss it with me. They also said that such legislation was urgently needed.

Of course they disagreed with certain provisions. That is quite right, but I gave their delegate a perspective on why we felt that it should be handled in this way at this stage. We therefore want to say that we are not indifferent to the comments of organisations as regards the legal aspect too. I made this point to the member who had the interview with me and said that the legislation had been in the preparation stage since 1987. We need this legislation urgently.

We must consider the fears which came to light with regard to the fact that local authorities could ostensibly act unilaterally against the background of the measures embodied in the Bill, which are at the disposal of an owner. He can even appeal to the Minister against a notice of the local authority if he feels that he has been done an injustice. Hon members can look at the envisaged new Chapter 1A 11C(1). The owner still has access to the courts if his appeal to the Minister does not succeed.

The main objective is the safety and health of people, and the actions of local authorities must be seen in this light. The remedy which an owner has against a notice to remove a nuisance on his premises is briefly the following. If he feels aggrieved he may, within 14 days after receiving the notice, object in writing and submit his reasons to the local authority. The local authority may, after consideration of the objection, confirm, set aside or vary the initial notice.

This method also means that an owner may negotiate orally with the local authority, in addition to his written objection. If the owner does not succeed with his objection, once the notice has been confirmed by the local authority he may within 60 days after receipt thereof appeal to the Minister and until such time as the Minister takes a decision no steps may be taken by the local authority.

When considering the appeal the Minister must certainly consider all relevant facts and he will also give the owner the opportunity to motivate his case further orally. I am mentioning this here as a question of policy. If an appeal is noted, the appellant, apart from the written appeal, will also have the opportunity to motivate his case further orally. The audi alteram partem rule will definitely have to apply. As a last resort the owner can then appeal to the courts.

The fact is that the local authority cannot act arbitrarily. Its actions are gauged by what is a danger to the safety or health of occupants or a member of the public. In this case safety refers to such matters as the structure, the state of a dwelling unit, or overcrowding of a dwelling unit.

I will specifically make it my task to look at these regulations with the department to ensure that steps cannot be taken arbitrarily. I am referring to the power entrusted to local authorities in clause 3 to make regulations. These regulations cannot be handled unilaterally. My concurrence must be obtained. These measures are adjuncts to existing regulations and legislation.

In my Second Reading speech I referred to the entire matter of health and so on. The role of the medical officer, the health inspector and others is not suddenly being removed by this legislation. I am holding discussions with the United Municipal Executive to establish uniform regulations. I would like to see the same approach to implementation prevailing throughout and for this also to be embodied in the regulations.

For that reason I think that I have also replied to the issue that there are doubts about the further definition of the word “nuisance”. I just want to give the assurance that we at last have a measure which we can implement fairly and which will be implemented to achieve the objectives envisaged.

I should like to conclude by saying that nothing sinister should be read into this legislation, as our hon friends in the PFP are suggesting. We shall look with great circumspection at this Bill and its implications, as well as its eventual implementation, and if there are specific measures which are obstructive we shall give continuous attention to them and we shall come back to this House if necessary. I want to give hon members in the House the assurance that this legislation will be implemented fairly and circumspectly, as has in fact been done over the years.

In conclusion I want to say that this legislation, which is a rationalisation of housing legislation, has not suddenly been entrusted to the own affairs administration. As a matter of fact, the provisions and the powers of the Slums Act, as regards areas declared White, were transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly, and the Minister of Local Government and Housing, as long ago as 1984, when the new Constitution came into existence.

It has not suddenly been entrusted to us. We are rationalising legislation which has for some time fallen within the sphere of competency of the Administration: House of Assembly and the department. We have no doubt that we are actually improving the measure and have also contributed towards a process of deregulation, without endangering the ownership rights of people, as well as their rights of occupation. I thank hon members for their contributions.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Chairman, as we have made clear we were first of all opposed to this Bill on the basis that it was originally earmarked last year as a general affair and in fact was opposed by ourselves and rejected by the other two Houses. In principle, we were opposed to this Bill now being introduced as an own affair in this House.

Secondly, as far as individual aspects of the Bill are concerned, we accept that there is a need to streamline the legislation, but doing away with the court of law and due process we believe is a fundamental weakening of the legislation, and we are opposed to that.

There were other aspects of the Bill with which we were not satisfied, but I will leave it at that on the basis that in principle we are opposed to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we support the legislation because it is the policy of this side of the House that the own affairs of own communities must be controlled and managed by the communities themselves. [Interjections.]

I can understand how the hon member for Pinelands feels about the matter, because his party is in favour of a mixed community, with no acknowledgment of the existence of groups.

We support the legislation because it really brings the government closer to the people and the community, and because the relevant owner is not being prevented from going to court in any case for adjudication if he is of the opinion that the assessment of the local authority is not to his advantage.

This is a good Bill and a streamlining of the entire procedure, to the advantage of the owners and the occupants as well as the persons around them. We consequently support the Bill.

The House divided:

AYES—107: Alant, T G; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Blanché, J P I; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Ville, J R; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Gerber, A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jacobs, S C; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Langley, T; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Le Roux, F J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Mentz, M J; Meyer, A T; Mulder, C P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nolte, D G H; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pienaar, D S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Snyman, W J; Steenkamp, P J; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Walt, A T; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Wyk, W J D; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J.

Tellers: Golden, S G A; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—16: Andrew, K M; De Beer, Z J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Malcomess, D J N.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, before I come to the Technical Colleges Amendment Bill (House of Assembly) I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, the officials in his department as well as the legislators.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member aware that the Eastern Province has just won the Currie Cup? [Interjections.]

Since that is a technical question, I shall refer to it later in dealing with this piece of legislation.

Order! The House has taken cognizance of the hon member for Newton Park’s point of order.

Mr Chairman, I have always hoped that the rain was on its way, but now that has passed too. [Interjections.]

Order! There is no reason for excitement. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

We are very grateful for the preparation of this legislation. When one looks at who was involved in its preparation before it ended up in this House, one gets the impression more and more that when the Department of Education and Culture submits legislation to this House, those who truly have an interest in these matters have seen it and made their contributions.

Consequently we can support this legislation with great confidence. It is high-quality legislation which remedies deficiencies, mainly after the acceptance of the Education Affairs Act (House of Assembly), 1988. As a result most of the clauses in this legislation are consequential changes, which arose after the acceptance of the Education Affairs Act.

Apart from these matters, the legislation deals mainly with the provision with regard to the conditions of service of the staff at technical colleges, the procedures with regard to the conducting of exams, the overall management of the technical colleges, the registration of private technical colleges and the duties and powers of regulation that must be granted to the Minister with reference to matters concerning the technical colleges.

When the profession has been consulted in this way, has assisted in drawing up this legislation and in fixing its limits, and the members of the profession have decided together to administer this legislation and to function within it, they are loyal to their own codes, dedicated to the task they have undertaken and idealistic in doing the work that has to be done. That is why the profession then wants to be left in peace to do good work in accordance with its dedication in this regard.

I am happy with clause 12, which deals with the admission of students to these colleges. I am also happy about the measure contained in this clause that provides for the possible refusal to admit students to such a college. So much for clause 12. I am also very happy about clause 28, which contains a very strict penal provision in the case of possible irregularities that may arise.

In addition we are grateful for the contribution of the hon member for Brits in drawing up clause 24. We had decided in any case to do what he proposed, viz to retain the provision with regard to bilingualism as defined in clause 24. Nevertheless we want to tell the hon the Minister that we believe that the principal of an institution of this kind knows the language medium of his students, as well as which people comprise his financial base and his donors, and will know in which language he should publish his annual reports. We had decided to leave clause 24 as it was in any case, and not to accept his amendment. In my opinion, however, we can regulate matters in such a way that a principal of an institution where it is not necessary to publish the annual statements in two languages will have the authority not to do so, especially since a brochure of this kind can be expensive and can cost that institution a lot of money.

I conclude with a last thought about technical colleges. Technical colleges have really begun to fill a great void in a strongly developed business world during the past few years, a world in which there is an ever increasing search for more and better knowledge which will lead to better equipped technical and business people.

To an increasing extent these colleges are showpieces for South African education, because they fit in beautifully between preparatory education and the subsequent tertiary education. I think hon members who are privileged to have such colleges in their constituencies should really go and visit those colleges. What is interesting about those colleges, is the extremes in the age spectrum of their students, from young people who are barely 16 years old to silver-haired men and women who are still studying or taking short courses there. Those colleges remedy an essential deficiency in education and achieve great things.

Consequently there is great excitement outside in the practical world. The private sector is eager to contribute, to join the technical colleges in shaping things, and it becomes part of what develops in those colleges. This eventually gives rise to the wonderful work that is done here, and to the rewards of our technical and business world at large. That is why we should like to support this legislation and why, on the one hand, we are conveying our congratulations and, on the other, our good wishes to these colleges for the wonderful work they are doing for our people in South Africa in this sphere. We should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition is pleased to support the measures before the House this afternoon. We initially objected to two clauses, namely clauses 24 and 27, but our objections have been negated by two amendments—one of which was introduced by the CP, and the other by the chairman of the House Committee, the hon member for Brentwood. I shall come back to that later.

Quite a number of the clauses contained in this amending Bill emanate from the fact that section 26 of the Constitution provides that the implementation of the Technical Colleges Act is entrusted to the Minister of Education Culture. As the hon member for Brentwood has just pointed out, this has necessitated a number of consequential amendments. Aside from these consequential amendments, a few other matters are also regulated in this legislation. The hon member for Brentwood has already referred to most of these, and I am not going to dwell on them again.

It was reported to the House Committee that not much comment had been received from those departments and institutions that had been approached for comment. Those objections that were in fact raised have, as we have heard, largely been accommodated in the legislation.

However, I should like to confine myself for a moment to clause 24. The CP introduced an amendment with regard to this clause which was supported by both the NP and the PFP members of the House Committee. We should like to thank them for that. The amendment concerned deals with the standpoint that the annual financial statements of technical colleges will, as in the past, be drawn up in both official languages.

This is a matter of great importance to the CP. We insist that the official languages be protected and maintained. We are not prepared to make any concessions in this regard, particularly when we take into consideration the constitutional development program of the Government.

I, as an Afrikaner who loves his language, have a troubled heart. The new constitutional dispensation in terms of which many different peoples, and consequently also many languages, are being forced into one constitutional structure, could have tragic consequences in the long run for Afrikaans in particular. I am speaking about Afrikaans in particular, because English is an international language which is not threatened with extinction.

It would be foolish not to take cognisance of the situation in Africa. States were created in Africa by colonial powers without any regard for ethnic boundaries. This entailed tragic consequences for the languages of Africa. Because those states were comprised of so many ethnic groups, there was no question of the popular languages also becoming the official languages in those states. Hon members on the opposite side of the House should also take cognisance of that.

In Nigeria and the Sudan, for example, over 100 languages and dialects are spoken, in Ghana 30, in Liberia 25 and in Kenya 20. The result of this was that practically all the African states adopted the colonial language as their official language. Furthermore, it is also a fact that particularly among the westernised Black elite, the retention of one’s own language is not deemed so important and does not play such an important role. So it was, for example, that shortly after the independence of the Transkei, a radio transmitter was erected to transmit almost exclusively in English. Almost all public speeches by Black leaders, such as Pres Mangope and Chief Buthelezi, are delivered in English, even in front of their own people. The ANC declared on one occasion: “English is the medium of the liberation struggle”—and consequently not an individual Black language. A Black leader from Soweto said the following:

A little further on he said:

I have no doubt that a Black government would recognise only one language as the official language. It would not be Afrikaans or even a Black language. The CP regards it as vital that the protection of the official languages enjoy higher priority. Furthermore, loopholes must not be created in legislation in order to shift that language which is spoken by a small minority of people in the undivided South Africa of the NP, namely Afrikaans, gradually into the background.

I also wish to confine myself briefly to clause 27. As this clause was originally formulated, all private technical colleges would have had to be registered in terms of an own affairs law of this House. This would have meant that all private technical college students, including all students from other population groups, would have been under the control of the House of Assembly. It would also have meant that all private technical colleges would have been financed out of the education appropriation for White own affairs. By inserting the word “White” into this clause, as in the amendment which was moved by the hon member for Brentwood, this problem is, however, eliminated. The CP supports the measure before the House at present.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Brentwood insofar as this Bill is concerned. I am going to devote my attention particularly to clause 27, as the hon member for Brits also did towards the end of his speech. However, I intend to approach it from an entirely different angle.

I am not going to react further to the hon member for Brits insofar as the rest of his speech is concerned. It was clear to me that he was trying to score some political points off the Bill, whilst in my view no reason existed for this. At any rate, it would appear to me that he attempted to act as the champion of Black languages. In my own mind I have no problem with the fact that Afrikaans is a language which lives in the hearts of both Afrikaners and people of colour. If a language lives there, then one is assured of the fact that it will also continue to exist.

Section 15 of the Educational Services Act, 1941, originally regulated the registration of private technical colleges. The latter Act did not, however, make adequate provision for the proper application thereof. That Act has in the interim been repealed by the Education Affairs Act, 1988.

It is consequently necessary to amend the Technical Colleges Act, 1981, in order to provide for the registration of private technical colleges. In addition to various other matters which are addressed by this amending Bill, and which have already been pointed out, the registration of private technical colleges is addressed, and this is done in clause 27. All similar institutions, or colleges, will henceforth have to register.

It must be noted that career training in all industrial, technical and commercial directions is urgently required at the national level. It is therefore necessary that the development of private technical colleges be encouraged. However, it is just as important that these institutions comply with certain standards, and this, amongst other things, is what this proposed legislation provides for. Control can only be achieved if such a college is registered and all formal courses are examined subject to the provisions of section 9(1) of the South African Certification Council Act, 1986.

Perhaps it is necessary to first define who qualifies to register as a private technical college—an institution which would like to offer one of the formal courses of a technical college for more than 20 White students, or an institution which would like to offer a course the content of which, in the opinion of the head of education, corresponds to that of the formal courses of a technical college. This includes, for example, the various small secretarial tuition centres, at which training and instruction are given to people who are not compelled to attend school, or otherwise those centres at which the theoretical training of technicians takes place, usually on the basis of a commercial undertaking. It therefore comprises formal instruction or training courses at the N1 to the N6 level.

This development, under control with regard to standards, can only be to the benefit of the community of the RSA as a whole. This is another form of privatisation, and consequently for that reason in particular I am pleased to support the proposed legislation.

Mr Chairman, this is another piece of amending legislation that has become necessary largely as a result of the introduction of the tricameral Parliament and the own affairs system of Government. This party must immediately again query the issue of education being an own affair and—I say it yet again—state this party’s total opposition to education being treated as an own affair.

Listening to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly during an interpellation on open schools last week, one once again became aware of the fact that his arguments in favour of own affairs education are based purely on the ideological standpoints of his party. That, of course, is the ideology of apartheid. His arguments have little to do with what is in the best interests of education in this country.

The PFP’s general policy is to oppose any legislation which endorses or furthers own affairs education. This certainly remained uppermost in our minds when we discussed this Bill. I want to stress that we can in no way believe own affairs education to be in the overall interests of this country. We believe that we need to be far bolder in our approach to education, ensuring at all times that the education we offer all our people is equal in all respects and of a high standard. Separate but equal education, which is the Government’s standpoint, is a myth and is certainly no solution to this country’s problems.

Before this House today we have a piece of amending legislation related to technical colleges under the control of the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly. Its aim is to amend certain definitions and to add new definitions which are now needed as a result of the control of technical colleges for Whites falling under this House. This has become necessary in view of the fact that certain Acts, such as the Educational Services Act of 1941, have been repealed in terms of the Education Affairs Act of 1988, that somewhat unfortunate piece of legislation which this House passed last year. We also know that the examinations at technical colleges are now controlled in terms of the South African Certification Council Act of 1986 and no longer by section 13 of the Educational Services Act of 1941. We have no quarrel with this.

We are also in favour of the Committee of Technical College Principals replacing the Association of Technical Colleges as stated in clause 26, but note that in typical Government fashion this committee is only to advise the Minister and the Head of Education on matters and has no real authority whatsoever. But then we are used to the Government creating bodies for advisory purposes only while leaving all the power in the hands of the Ministers.

We believe, however, that this is not in the interests of education in this country. It creates the opportunity for more and more centralization and no real devolution of power despite the Government’s insistence that this is Government policy.

A new section 36A, regarding the registration of private technical colleges, has been inserted in the Technical Colleges Act by this piece of amending legislation. Generally there is no need or cause for any undue concern about this insertion except for section 36A(4)(a) which states the following:

I place emphasis on the words “prescribed requirements”. What does the hon the Minister mean by “prescribed requirements”, and who drew up these requirements? I believe this is a point which needs some clarification.

Are private companies allowed to create their own technical colleges to train their own employees in terms of clause 27 of this Bill? This is a further question I put to the hon the Minister at this late stage.

Apart from these points, and bearing in mind that this is amending legislation only, which has become necessary as a result of changes in the Constitution, while we stress our opposition to own affairs education, we will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, permit me first to express a brief word of thanks to the House Committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Brentwood for the excellent work which I think they have done. Thank you very much for your support and co-operation. Thank you very much too for the support of the hon member for Brits on behalf of the Official Opposition. We listened to the hon member for Durban North and, as he indicated, there are various matters which he supports. There are other specific matters to which he voiced his objection and which we shall get to later.

I should also like to associate myself further with the hon member for Brentwood who referred to the assistance which we had received from no fewer than 10 different bodies and organisations to whom this Bill was submitted. It is the style of this department as far as possible to recognise all organisations involved, or partners as we prefer to call them—not only in word but in deed—as is reflected in various pieces of legislation, so that they may also furnish advice. The hon member for Durban North referred in a somewhat derogatory way to the advice which inter alia could be given by this Committee of Technical College Principals, but it remains important to know that the advice which they may give is followed under all circumstances in which it is in the best interests of the cause we serve.

Today I want to pay tribute to all organisations who furnish advice because the reality of the matter is that there is only one body which assumes ultimate responsibility and makes final decisions. This body, in this case the governing party involved—the Government—does this on the basis that it takes note of the advice that comes from various bodies. I therefore do not speak disparagingly about such organisations; I want my appreciation and regard for the work that they accomplish to be placed on record.

In this regard I want to refer particularly to Fedtech—the Federation of Technical College Councils—under the chairmanship of the hon member for Tygervallei, which among other activities made an exceptionally thorough study of this Bill because it affects them particularly. I want to give notice that the hon member for Tygervallei told me that he could unfortunately not be present in the House today but he also, as the chairman of Fedtech, made his contribution and expressed his appreciation of developments regarding the adaptation of this Act.

I should also very much like to record my thanks to technical colleges throughout this entire country, also in association with the hon member for Brentwood.

There is no doubt that we frequently take the activities of schools, technical colleges and others for granted. The fact is that there are dedicated educationists who work in utter commitment day after day in the interests of the cause in which they are involved. I want to pay tribute today to all these lecturers, teachers and principals of technical colleges for the excellent work that they do and at the same time also to their councils for the exceptional contribution which they make.

I can do no other than express my special thanks to industry as well. It is certainly the case, as more than one hon member indicated, that the successful contribution of technical colleges as regards training in this country is connected in great measure with the close co-operation which they have with industry. I want to express my thanks to industry which not only indicates its involvement by entering into the spirit of things but also by the contribution of funds and services. I want to express my thanks to these people because they have made it possible for technical colleges to carry out this exceptionally important work which they are doing at present. Let us tell one another today, technical colleges are providing outstanding services in the course of our country’s development at present. [Interjections.] They are in the thick of the struggle for a person to be vocationally orientated and for one to ultimately provide training which is in the national interests. I think that it is particularly on this account that technical colleges are doing important work in co-operation with various industries.

I want to thank the hon member for Brentwood for the thorough review which he provided of the Bill which is before the House at present. I want to thank him for his reference to clause 24 too which actually deals with making out financial statements in both official languages. It is true that the hon member for Brits was rather verbose about this.

Let me say immediately I am grateful that the CP agrees with the NP because this matter of official languages is laid down constitutionally. It is to be found there. I want to tell the hon member for Brits that we shall do everything in our power to protect the principle of two official languages. The hon member knows that over the years this was an entrenched provision in the old legislation which required a two-thirds majority for it to be changed. We shall continue to be scrupulous in the protection of both official languages. He need not worry his head about this. I find it strange that the hon member now sees a threat to Afrikaans in constitutional development. The hon member for Kempton Park summarised this pithily by saying that mother tongues, and therefore also our official languages, were entrenched in people’s hearts. [Interjections.] We shall not promote Afrikaans by speaking disparagingly about English or any other language. The opposite will not happen either. We shall not protect our own culture in general either if we speak disparagingly of other cultures and say that those cultures did not contribute to the development of our own. We commit ourselves irrevocably to the principle of education in the mother tongue and the maintenance of the two official languages. If we receive further confirmation of this by means of the amendment in this legislation, I shall be only too happy about it. What the hon member for Brentwood says is also true, however, which is that, if there is a technical college which works only with Afrikaans-speaking people, I think the principal of such a college will make his own decision on these matters and the same applies to a technical college in an English neighbourhood which has only English-speaking students. Surely the hon member will not object to that. In general the point at issue is the protection of the two official languages about which I am in agreement with the hon member.

We also thank the hon member for Brits who, in consequence of the amendment which he moved, agreed to the amendment in clause 27 which provides for the registration of technical colleges.

I want to thank the hon member for Kempton Park for giving a very sound analysis of clause 27 which deals with the registration of technical colleges. I thank her very much that she did it in this way. I want to tell her that I agree wholeheartedly with her that it is necessary to encourage the establishment of technical colleges because they also have an exceptional contribution to make. If we can obtain that contribution by obtaining the close involvement of industry as well as regards financial provision, it can only be in the best interests of the training of suitable and first-rate manpower. As the hon member indicated and as it is also embodied in this legislation, there is no doubt that control is actually required. Our thanks to this hon member.

This brings me immediately to the hon member for Durban North. It is clear to me, and we could have known this beforehand too, that the PFP would object to this legislation because it is linked to the principle of own affairs and own education. Those hon members are entitled to do this if it is their policy. I want to tell the hon member that, if he argues this afternoon that the concept of own affairs and the concept of education as an own affair are based on ideological grounds only, I almost want to fling up my hands and ask him what we on this side of the House are talking about after all. Yes, it has an ideological basis but that is not all. My colleagues on this side of the House and I have indicated times without number that it is not based on ideological grounds alone. The hon member continues stubbornly to harp on the same theme that it is based on ideological grounds. [Interjections.] That is not true. I want to ask the hon leader of the PFP to listen today. He has not been a member of the House for some time. Let him listen and perhaps he can also in due course try to convince that hon member of his. [Interjections.]

What are you going to tell your leader?

The hon member for Durban North says that own education is not in the best interests of the country and all its people. The hon member goes further and says that “separate cannot be equal”.

This afternoon I want to say this. I am convinced that Black education has attained the quality that it has in fact achieved today purely because we have separate Black education with a separate Department of Education and Training. If the hon member wants to be honest, he will have to agree with me.

The fact that we have Coloured and Indian teachers who have attained the standard which they have reached today is a consequence of the system for separate education which is directed at paying attention to the special needs of a specific system of education.

You reject De Lange’s recommendations!

That is not true. The hon member for Sea Point really does not know what he is talking about if he says that. I challenge the hon member to prove to me from the De Lange Report that the report recommended that there should be a single system of education. This is not true and the hon member knows that it is not true. The De Lange Report did recommend that we should create equal educational opportunities.

I want to tell hon members that I am not ashamed as I stand on this side of the House today. I refer the Opposition to our record. Let them look at the amount in the budget which went to Black, Coloured and Indian education when the De Lange Report appeared. They should also look at conditions today. We are on the way to instituting equal educational opportunities.

Let me also say immediately, however, that the hon member who is so quick in referring to the De Lange Report today should read the report again. The De Lange Report states inter alia that, in our striving for equal educational opportunities, this cannot happen overnight.

How many years?

It is stated there.

How many more years?

It does not help for the hon member to ask how many years are involved. The fact is that the principle of own education is to the benefit of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks and those hon members cannot get away from that. The hon member referred to advisory bodies and as regards technical colleges—I want to conclude with that—the hon member told me that he objected to the fact that certain requirements had to be satisfied in the application for registration. If he had wanted to take this reference further, he would have said that there were also specific conditions which had to be complied with. I want to ask the hon member just this. Is the hon member in favour of this?

I was asking you a question. I was not fighting with you.

The hon member asked me what the requirements were and why there had to be requirements. I want to put a question to the hon member. I want to ask him whether he is in favour of the fact that there should be control.

Of course!

Of course. That is what it is all about. The fact is that, when we are dealing with the registration of a private technical college, the point at issue is that we ultimately want to ensure the best education and training there.

The requirements which will have to be satisfied will obviously have to be included in the regulations but I can tell hon members now that they apply to buildings, qualifications of staff and various other matters which are necessary to ensure quality training. That is all. This is precisely the same principle which we apply as regards requirements and conditions in private schools. There will be no deviation from this principle because we have only one object in view, which is to ensure training of the highest quality.

I should like to conclude by referring briefly to the following. Specific conditions of service of officers and employees of technical colleges, including misconduct and incompetence are regulated at present in terms of the Educational Services Act, 1967.

Since the Educational Services Act, to which reference has been made, has been repealed repeatedly, the provisions of the principal Act which deal with the conditions of service of the staff of technical colleges are being extended. In addition, the principal Act is also being adapted to make provision for officers to be deemed to hold posts in educational services for the purpose of pension rights and retirement benefits. This amendment is necessary because of the recent amendment of the Government Service Pension Act, which is also in the interests of all officials at technical colleges.

I do not consider it necessary to go into further detail. I think we have dealt with everything that was required and I want to express my thanks once again to hon members for their support and their service on the joint committee.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, in motivating the amending Bill before the House, I want to say what a storm in a teacup there has been in regard to this Bill! [Interjections.] It is in fact a very minor Bill and has nothing to do with politics or indeed with legislation which has a national effect. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must allow the hon member an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Hon members should take note that the Cape Times actually apologised for their remarks last Saturday. [Interjections.]

The facts are that in 1919 Mr Herbert Ainsworth made a will which left certain monies to family and friends and to various church bodies, such as St Mary’s Church, Johannesburg, for the relief of poor persons in the parish and to the Diocese of Manchester in England. He also left money to the St Bernardo’s homes for children and for many other good causes.

The residue of his estate was used to create a trust administered by trustees for the purposes of:

It further provided that no more than £150 should be advanced to any one such man.

Now quite patently that is very considerably out of date. Herbert Ainsworth died on the last day of 1920 and since then the will has been altered by amending Bills in this Parliament on a number of occasions. In 1934 it was first called the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust Private Act. In that year they changed the amount from £150 to £500. It happened again in 1953 and the £500 was altered to £5 000. It happened again in 1964 when the £5 000 was altered to R20 000. Patently it is absurd that we should keep having to come back and waste the time of this Parliament to increase the amount of money concerned.

In the amending Bill that is in front of the House they amend the amount of money and tie it to the amount that can be lent by the Land Bank. Thus with inflation, as the Land Bank has to move up its figure, then so will this trust automatically have its figure adjusted.

The second part, clause 1 (b) of the amending Bill, is to allow the trustees to purchase immovable agricultural property, whether it is rent-producing or not. They have not been able to do this in the past but they think that perhaps they might buy land which is not rent-producing to subsequently hand it over to someone they bring out from the United Kingdom.

Finally, it gives the trustees the right, in clause 1(c), to invest and reinvest the funds of the Trust in any securities or investments, specifically in a unit trust scheme. Obviously they are trying to keep up with modern financial practice and it simply increases the scope of where the trustees may place the funds in the Trust. That is all there is to the Bill—a very, very simple matter indeed.

The Bill first went to a committee for private members’ motions of this House. Subsequently Mr Speaker gave permission for it to be handled as a public Bill and it therefore was submitted to the Joint Committee on Home Affairs. The chairman of the committee, who I see is present, very kindly invited me to that meeting, at which the Labour Party from the House of Representatives was present. A few questions were raised, but finally the Bill was passed by the joint committee without dissent. I am grateful to the chairman of that committee, the hon member for Innesdal, for having allowed me to speak at that meeting and for the fact that it was passed without dissent.

I was informed that I had to obtain sponsors for the Bill in the Houses of Representatives and Delegates. I asked the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the hon member for Durban Suburbs to do this for me in the respective Houses. With hindsight, this was an error. I should have asked a member of the Labour Party to undertake this sponsorship, but quite frankly I did not consider that the Bill was sufficiently important to warrant bothering the governing party in the House of Representatives. I was therefore astonished and dismayed at the actions of the House of Representatives and their rejection of the Bill.

The speech of the hon member for Bethelsdorp in the House of Representatives seems to be the one to which I should respond. I can well understand the anger of all people of colour in South Africa at the fact that 80% of the land of South Africa has been reserved for Whites. The hon member for Bethelsdorp claimed many things. He claimed that Herbert Ainsworth probably made his money through the exploitation of cheap Black labour. He talks of the exploitation by protagonists of colonialism and goes so far as to even mention slavery. He describes the Bill as being racist and not fit to be discussed.

Nowhere does the Bill mention colour. It simply says that the beneficiaries of the Trust are to be of British birth. [Interjections.] There are obviously members in this House who are not prepared to give a proper hearing to a Bill and so do not have the intelligence to properly understand what it is all about. [Interjections.]

There are of course today many, many people born in Britain who are not White and I am sure that the trustees would be treating all British born people on the same basis whatever their colour. It is, however, most difficult for the Trust to establish on a farm in South Africa anyone who is not White because of South African apartheid laws. [Interjections.]

When the House of Representatives rejected the Bill, I had a telefax from the Sage Trust Company who were handling this Trust, and I want to quote from that letter where it says:

As far as the Bill in front of us goes, the House of Representatives has rejected it totally. The hon member for Bethelsdorp goes on to say, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard:

[Interjections.]

These hon members who are being so jocular here at the back are in fact rejecting the viewpoint of their own members in the joint committee who approved the Bill. [Interjections.] I do not think it is worthy of a member of any party to suggest that because someone who is not a member of his party is asked to handle the Bill they may have been treated badly. The equivalent in this House would be that the NP refuses to pass the Bill because I as an opposition member have been asked to handle it. I hope hon members in this House will not be so irresponsible.

The LP’s rejection of the Bill raises an even more important issue, and that is the right of a testator to leave his money where he wishes. I would guess that the hon member for Bethelsdorp would leave his estate to be shared amongst his family, thus leaving it entirely to Coloured people. Should we then reject the will because no Black people benefit from his will? Of course not. However, this is what the LP has in fact done by rejecting the will of an obviously philanthropical man who sought to assist people with the money he had made during his life.

The results of not passing this amending Bill will be that things are made extremely difficult for the trustees to properly administer the Trust. They are currently limited to R20 000. With R20 000 one obviously does not even have the deposit on a house in South Africa. Patently this Bill has to be passed, yet the House of Representatives has not approved it. This will mean that the trustees, who have to administer the will of a man who died many years ago, are going to have their hands tied.

In requesting, therefore, that this House pass the Bill I also want to make an appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the LP in the House of Representatives to reconsider their stand. I would like to request openly here in this House that the hon the Chief Whip of the LP inform the hon the State President that the party no longer objects to the Bill, so that he could send it to the President’s Council in the full knowledge that it has the support of all three Houses of Parliament.

Parliamentary representation carries a great and a heavy responsibility and I believe that it should be properly exercised. I am not at all sure that in this instance that has happened in the House of Representatives.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I have to agree with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. [Interjections.] If I were to follow the example of the hon member for Bethelsdorp, I would now have to enter into a confrontation with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central because they did not create the opportunity for young Afrikaner men also to benefit in terms of that fund. [Interjections.] So much for the humorous side of the matter.

This specific Bill, an innocent measure as the hon member so aptly remarked, affects many, many fundamental matters in our country. It affects the acceptance or the rejection of capitalist democracy. [Interjections.] A person’s bequests are just as sacrosanct as one’s property in a democracy. Whoever rejects another person’s right to make bequests as he sees fit also rejects that person’s right to have property of his own. He therefore rejects the capitalist system. [Interjections.]

That is one of the points, but the next which goes hand in hand with this is the tragic aspect that in good faith—which we still maintain—we entered into a system of consensus politics. We are part of the system of consensus politics and we now see how easy it is when people who are supposed to enter into consensus politics abuse the advantages of this system for confrontation.

We have legislation before us which is of a purely technical nature and look at what is occupying us now. As regards the technical aspects of the legislation, I unfortunately have to tell the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that I think what is written here, namely that the sum of money to be advanced shall be in accordance with section 26 (1) (a) of the Land Bank Act, 1944, as finally amended in 1979, is basically a mistake. I shall tell hon members where the problem lies. Section 26 (1)(a) provides that the amount to be advanced may not exceed four fifths of the value of the property. In terms of the Land Bank Act and the policy of the Land Bank Board this means that it may not exceed four fifths of the economic value. In many cases, as all hon members know, the economic value of a farming property is frequently not even half of its market value. If one takes a four fifths advance in addition, one comes up against the problem that the money which may be advanced can in some cases only be 40% of what the man has to pay for the property and the goods which he has to acquire.

I have an idea that we shall have this legislation before this House again before long. Fortunately it is added that the trustees may calculate this amount themselves but I think that it was an unfortunate oversight on the part of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central in that he did not consult the Land Bank Act about the matter just as the affair with the Labour Party was also basically a slip. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he agrees with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that the President’s Council is an essential institution within the tricameral system? [Interjections.]

I would definitely agree with that if the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said so. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, this amending Bill highlights problems and restrictions which arise in the investment of funds by other trusts. As it appears clearly from the amending legislation, trusts are not competent to invest in unit trust schemes. Consequently it would also be beneficial if we request the hon the Minister of Finance to pay attention to this matter in finance legislation.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust Amendment Bill. Provision is made here for persons of British birth who wish to farm here. This brings the entire matter more closely into line with the Land Bank Act. It is also very interesting that the House of Representatives is opposed to this amending Bill. They say that it has a racist flavour. Now the PFP can feel for themselves what racist objects they attach to the PFP. I did not know that the PFP was obviously racist in origin or objective. [Interjections.] I can find no racism in this Bill, but the House of Representatives are turning it into a racist matter. The PFP must admit that it is difficult to pass legislation if others always have racism at the back of their minds. The PFP are now experiencing this for themselves, but their intentions were sincere as regards the Bill and we support them in this. We think they are sincere in their intentions. They see no racism in it, but now they are experiencing for themselves what we as the CP frequently have to experience. If there is a word that is being used until it is threadbare, it is this word “racism”. If I consider what the House of Representatives actually means, a person will later have to obtain permission if one wants to make one’s own will and leave something to one’s own children or they might call this a racist action. One will have to make one’s will in such a way that one will first have to obtain permission from them before one is able to bequeath anything to one’s own children and heirs. One will have to establish whether one first has to consult them on how one has to make the bequest.

I am not rejoicing in the fact that the PFP has been slapped in the face. I merely want to give them some genuine advice. To remain among one’s own and firstly to stand up for one’s own remains a Biblical principle. This side of the House is pleased to support the amending Bill. We believe that it will be a blessing to young men who might perhaps wish to make a living in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member for Witbank for his support. I regret that I will not be taking his advice as contained in his last sentence. Nevertheless, we thank him for the support that he and his party have given to the Bill.

I also thank the hon member for Heilbron for the trouble that he has taken with regard to this particular Bill. I believe that he made a very positive contribution to the debate on this Bill. This amending Bill was sent to me by the trustees and I have simply passed on their wishes. This is therefore what I have attempted to get for them. I will, however, take the trouble to get hold of the hon member’s speech in Hansard. I will pass on his comments to the trustees of the Herbert Ainsworth Trust so that they can consider them. Perhaps they will give him the answers that I certainly cannot give him at this stage as to why precisely they have opted for this particular method of amending the Herbert Ainsworth Trust. I also wish to thank the NP for its support of this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice.

Mr Chairman, I just want to bring something to your attention.

*Amidst the problems during yesterday’s debate concerning white, coloured and black water, I unfortunately omitted to thank the hon member for Fish River. I apologise and I should like to thank him for his contribution to the debate.

†He certainly knows his area and very competently highlighted the problems connected with the lack of water. If he continues in this vein he may still become the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs. [Interjections.]