announced that the following vacancies in the representation in the House of Assembly had been filled with effect from 3 September 1986:

1. (1) Claremont, by the election of Mr J van Eck;
2. (2) Pinelands, by the election of Mr J J Walsh.

Order! I have to announce that I have for some time been considering the fact that our State President, in various speeches in Parliament, is being attacked with personal and derogatory remarks which are humiliating not only to him as a person but also to the position of Head of State. Hon members know that I wish us to refrain from actions of this kind on the part of hon members towards one another and towards the State President. I have accordingly decided that the Chair will henceforth take strict action against any member who in a speech humiliates the State President, impugns his character or makes personal, disparaging remarks about him. It ill behoves any hon member to humiliate or belittle our State President as a person or in his position as Head of State. [Interjections.]

Do you hear that, Koos?

Yes, I hear it; but he does not deserve it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe must contain himself! In what light does the hon member view the announcement I have just made? I have just announced in what manner we shall treat the State President in future—not only as a person, but also as Head of State; and it makes no difference who the State President of South Africa is in the future. Now, immediately after I have made that announcement, the hon member is making himself guilty of this sort of behaviour!

Mr Speaker, I take the view that I should not say anything untrue about the State President, and I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare immediately provoked me, even before you had finished speaking. I was reacting to him.

What were the remarks which the hon member for Jeppe shouted?

I said: “He does not deserve it”, Sir.

“He does not deserve it”?

Yes, Sir.

Does the hon member not think that was derogatory, coming immediately after my announcement?

No, Sir. I have explained my point of view to you; that I shall not say anything that is not true. If something is true, then I think I may say it.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe will immediately withdraw the words “he does not deserve it” and, albeit in his absence, offer an apology to the State President. [Interjections.]

Sir, I…

Order! I order the hon member for Jeppe, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

I shall rather do that, Sir. [Interjections.]

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs, dated 4 September 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Family Court Bill and the Divorce Amendment Bill, dated 4 September 1986, as follows:

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Mr Speaker, the CP has stated its standpoint on salary increases on previous occasions. The CP will not oppose this motion without notice, but would like to propose that the salary of the office of State President should be dealt with in a way other than according to the prescription in the present Constitution Act, namely that it should take place by way of a decision of Parliament. We feel that the salary of the State President, like that of the Ministers, should be dealt with under the Vote “State President” and that the taxability of his salary should be investigated.

Mr Speaker, we do not object to this motion being submitted without notice, but I must state my party’s standpoint very clearly that in principle we reject by implication the Schlebusch Commission’s proposals with regard to salary increases for members of Parliament, Ministers and the State President.

In the second place we are convinced that at this stage and considering the state in which the country’s economy is, no increase should be granted. In this connection I am referring to our Press statement of 4 August, which I have already submitted to the hon Chief Whip of Parliament. I should also like to pledge my support to the hon member for Kuruman as far as the future handling of the State President’s salary is concerned.

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, firstly I want to welcome the hon members for Claremont and Pinelands to this House. We only hope that in the future they will obtain higher polls in their constituencies than was the case yesterday.

On the strength of what the hon member for Primrose said we are all awaiting the report of Dr Wim de Villiers. As reported to the standing committee, too, according to this report, it is vital to retain Parliamentary control of the SATS. I also hope, as the hon member for Primrose said, that the hon the Minister will give us the necessary information about that.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central spoke about the avoidance of GST. I do not think it has been emphasised strongly enough that the SATS is run on business lines. The normal position has always been, as in the private sector, that the SATS should be run on business lines.

We have a great deal of respect and regard for the management. They had a mandate, not only from Parliament, but also from the hon the Minister and others to take some other form of action. We simply cannot understand why they could not implement that mandate. If that is so, the legislation relating to GST should be amended so that no one in the private sector benefits from transactions before an increase in GST is announced.

The management was honest enough to declare everything to the Receiver of Revenue, entering into that transaction with the permission of the Receiver. After all, the State cannot lose anything if it does not have the money, and the money saved was never in the hands of the State. So the State did not lose anything in this transaction.

The hon the Minister of Finance took action by advancing the time of the announcement and affording the public, and the business community as such, the opportunity of benefiting from this, as in the case of any normal transaction. Why could the SATS not do the same? It is now being said the SATS was dishonest or underhanded, thereby clouding the relationship between the House and the SATS.

And in regard to the concessions to the management, including the concessions granted to members of top management, there is also suspicion-mongering on the part of the PFP. It is a question of suspicion-mongering, and what they are saying is subversive. Yesterday it also appeared that they did not have the support they have always thought they had at the polls.

It is also a question of suspicion-mongering directed, in particular, at the hon the Minister for whom we have a very high regard at this time. What is the position in regard to these allocations? One expects only the best from employees. Increased productivity is expected of them, and the concession was granted after the majority of SATS workers had received salary adjustments. The senior staff, however, did not share in that, and with these loans an anomaly had to be eliminated as far as housing benefits were concerned. It is part of the remuneration package aimed at making that of senior staff members a market-related package. When these loans were granted, the widest gaps between the salaries of workers in the SATS and those in the private sector were specifically in the ranks of management.

The standing committee and the majority of hon members have already indicated that it would be advisable if this kind of remuneration were rather paid, in future, by way of direct salaries. We know that the hon the Minister, the standing committee and this Parliament will endorse this. We therefore do not think it is the terrible thing the PFP alleges it to be.

The matter I dealt with a great deal of commiseration in the standing committee was the question of the withdrawal from service of the Metroblitz train. I still feel sad when I think that, leaving aside the losses suffered on this service, the Metroblitz was ultimately withdrawn. As a result of the gauge of our lines, the sharp bends and gradients, it was impossible for the South African Railways to achieve relatively high speeds with its trains. Between 1960 and 1980 train speeds increased from 39 km per hour to 44 km per hour. It therefore took 20 years to increase the speed by 5 km per hour. With the development of the Scheffel bogey the limitations of the narrow gauge were completely eliminated, it now being possible to achieve a greater measure of stability when trains move at high speeds.

We are losing passengers, but I do not understand why that train has to be melted down. Why can it not be extended on a market-orientated basis? Why can that train not run between Johannesburg and Pretoria? Why did that train have to start from Pretoria and not from Johannesburg? I have not yet obtained a satisfactory answer to that question. Why could that train not be used on the line between Johannesburg and Bloemfontein? Why could it not be used between Wellington and Cape Town, between the Strand and Cape Town and between Stellenbosch and Cape Town?

Hear, hear!

That is a matter involving market-orientation, and I am asking the management, for whom I have the utmost regard, to reconsider this. If they have melted that train down, I am going to be very angry with them.

Now you are telling them, Oom Sporie! [Interjections.]

It was an expensive project which the management could not simply do away with. This train is as dear to my heart as the Trans-Karoo. The hon the Minister has said that they should simply call me the Trans-Karoo because I am so concerned about that train.

I now want to ask the management why the Trans-Natal and the Trans-Karoo are to disappear from service with effect from 3 November. Why are they giving those trains numbers? Why can they not remain the Trans-Natal and the Trans-Karoo? [Interjections.] That is a matter I am still going to put up a fight about.

The Blue Train now has 60% more passengers because it is again being advertised. If the advertising and the service are up to standard, people will travel in that train. I can give that assurance. [Interjections.]

I do, however, want to take this opportunity to convey my congratulations to Mr Barry Lessing, Assistant General Manager (Passenger Services and Road Transport) of the SATS, for his contribution during the recent transport symposium in Pretoria where he received an award of R1 000. I want to congratulate the management sincerely on having such an outstanding fellow in its employ.

I just want to add that we have, sitting over there, probably one of the most convivial of hon Ministers of Transport Affairs one can think of, and I hope we shall one day also be able to record his anecdotes. That is why we want this matter to remain under parliamentary control.

The first Minister entrusted with Railways in the Union of South Africa was Jacobus Wilhelmus Sauer. He was the father of the later Minister of Railways, Mr Paul Sauer. He had a unique sense of humour, just like that hon Minister, and he was a formidable protagonist in Parliament. He was a very good speaker.

At the time there was a by-election in Vryburg. That was a different by-election to the one held the other day. It was back in the days of the Cape Parliament. What happened at the time was that his opponents decided to hire a train to transport all the voters to Vryburg from the outlying areas. He opposed the move. He simply said that train should not be allowed to run, and he took it off the timetable. His opponents took the matter to court and the court decided that the train should run. Mr Sauer, however, was very clever. He then decided to load as much liquor onto the train as possible. What then happened was that most of the voters could not get off the train when they reached Vryburg, and the rest put their crosses in the wrong place. [Interjections.] Well, that was the kind of person he was.

There is just another small matter I want to mention. I want to refer to his son, Paul Sauer. Paul Sauer was a very quick-witted man, and during the war years the old United Party government put a whole private coach at the disposal of the English dramatist, Noel Coward. On occasion Mr Paul Sauer referred to Coward as the well-known “crooner”, upon which Mr Swart, the later State President, exclaimed: “What is a ‘crooner’?” Mr Sauer replied: “It is someone who sings in a special way because there is something wrong with his throat!” Referring to the old United Party Cabinet Ministers he then said: “He differs in that respect from a Cabinet Minister, who speaks in a specific way because there is something wrong with his head!”

I just want to say the Mr Paul Sauer was also a diplomat. One evening he received a whole deputation. The next morning, after agreement had been reached, the English newspaper reported:

That was after he had entertained them that evening and an agreement had been concluded.

Hon members can therefore see that amongst our Railway people—I am thinking of our hon Minister of Transport Services and our Railway employees—there are many people who have a sense of humour.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Rosettenville has spoken; he always has a way of saying things in such an entertaining fashion. I should like to associate myself with his plea for the preservation of the Trans-Karoo service; it would be a bad day indeed if it were abolished.

I think that we are largely pricing ourselves out of the market as far as the transportation of passengers is concerned. I know what the hon the Minister’s problem is with regard to the State’s contribution to non-profitable transport.

I do, however, want to ask the hon the Minister to give renewed consideration, in future, to the idea I have previously raised, ie whether one cannot draw a distinction between the tariff applying to the name-trains and those applying to the numbered trains in daily use—if I may use these terms—so that for those travelling on the Trans-Karoo or the Trans-Oranje there is a little extra comfort included that is not provided on the ordinary or numbered trains. I am just mentioning it, because I have raised the idea before.

I have listened to the debate thus far, but I think that certain aspects of the report should be more clearly highlighted. Hon members of the Official Opposition levelled certain accusations at people who cannot defend themselves in the House. So in order to obtain clarity and to emphasise certain aspects, I want to focus on certain arguments in connection with the report under discussion.

I want to deploy my argument. Firstly I want to point out that the SATS is a State undertaking which, in terms of its legal terms of reference—we find this in section 7 of Act 65 of 1981—has to be controlled and administered on business lines. That is a very important aspect, and it would be quite a good thing if, amongst others, hon members of the governing party also listened to this, because then they would perhaps make a better job of defending the issue and would not have to give the officials a slap in the face every now and again either. [Interjections.]

Because the SATS has to be controlled and administered on business lines, it therefore follows that it is in direct competition with the private sector. The fact that in this regard the SATS is in direct competition with the private sector is a very important aspect that we should not lose sight of. In order to remain competitive in this strongly competitive market, it is surely up to the SATS, if it is a commercial undertaking of the State, to be orientated at all times towards keeping costs down to the minimum.

It is also true that both the SATS and the private sector are under the same obligation to pay sales tax. That is the second argument I want to raise. It is therefore logical that every concession in terms of the relevant legislation should be applicable both to the SATS and the private sector. Concessions in terms of the Sales Tax Act should therefore logically be applicable both to the SATS and the private sector. I also want to point out that the Sales Tax Act leaves room for the advance purchasing of supplies or assets. The Act provides, amongst other things, for the sales tax always to be calculated at the GST rate applicable at the date on which the goods are delivered, or on the date on which the purchaser pays the full purchase price of the relevant goods, whichever date comes first.

Just as the private sector made ample use of this concession after an early announcement of increased GST on 1 July 1984, the SATS also did so. The action taken was therefore in no way ultra vires. Nor was any mistake made. It is only logical that the SATS would make use of an early announcement by the Government that GST would be increased on a certain date—in this case 1 July 1984. Any person who has the interests of the institution he serves at heart would, under such circumstances, surely make his purchases in advance. As far as I am concerned that is only logical, Mr Speaker.

The advance purchasing of supplies is also part of the SATS’s normal policy. And in the past there have been numerous instances of the SATS trying to counter an expected price increase by action of this kind. When the SATS heard, for example, that Iscor is going to increase the price of rails, it purchased a supply in advance. In the case of the fuel price it is, in fact, standard practice on the part of the SATS, when there is a suspicion that the fuel price is going to increase, to see to it that all its fuel storage facilities are full to capacity. That has been done frequently in the past. No one has previously complained about this.

My argument is therefore that in this regard the action taken by the SATS has been completely correct. The purchasing and acquisition agreement entered into by the SATS, with the assistance of Finansbank and the Waring group of companies, was therefore specifically aimed at bringing about these advance purchases of supplies.

The question that now arises is whether it has, in fact been worthwhile. I think the answer is yes. It was worthwhile, because as a result the SATS obtained a nett benefit of approximately R30 million. The people at the helm were therefore not caught napping and, as it were, saved the institution in which they are employed an amount of R30 million.

If the SATS did not resort to tax avoidance—and I am specifically speaking of tax avoidance because this is something quite different to tax evasion, as hon members of the PFP would have it—within the framework of existing legislation, it would have needed to increase tariffs considerably. This would not only have prejudiced its competitive capability, but would also elicited criticism. Then we would again have had to hear all about how the SATS was fast asleep; about its having been informed in good time of a pending increase in GST, but not having made use of that knowledge. If something of that nature were to happen, the SATS would, of necessity, have to increase its tariffs.

To place the legality of such action beyond all doubt, full particulars of these transactions were submitted to the Receiver of Revenue by the management in advance. He also sanctioned it. So the Receiver of Revenue was also satisfied with this method of doing things.

The statement that the State lost revenue is, of course, incorrect. Members of the PFP stated that the State had lost revenue. Surely one cannot lose what one does not have! The State can surely not lay claim to taxation which can be avoided in terms of the Act. If that is the case, the Act should be amended.

To argue now that the State and the voting public at large lost money because the SATS took these steps, is incorrect. One cannot lose what one does not have. I say again that the State cannot lay claim to taxes that can be avoided in terms of the act.

I want to come back to the other important point in the standing committee report. I am referring to the aspect of loans to the management and the commissioners, the “soft loans”, as they are termed. In this connection I just want to highlight a few points. Firstly, apart from ordinary housing loans, departmental houses are made available to all regional managers. Consideration has consequently been given to extending this benefit to board members. They have previously not had that privilege. Owing to the fact that the majority of board members, however, elected remain in their own homes, it was decided to make concessionary loans instead of departmental houses available to board members. That is the background that I should like to highlight, because it has not yet come to the fore in this debate.

The loans were granted in accordance with section 12(4) of the South African Transport Services Finances and Accounts Act, Act 17 of 1983. They were therefore granted within the framework of the Act. The loans draw interest at 4% per annum, payable on 31 March of each year, and together with all outstanding interest, they are redeemable upon termination of service. So when a member leaves the service, his loans are redeemable.

Because the board members have used the loans as housing loans, and with a view to having a right of recovery in regard to the pension benefits of the beneficiaries, the loan transactions were channelled via the SATS’s House Owners’ Fund. The loans were not, however—this is a very important point—financed from the moneys of the House Owners’ Fund, but from the ordinary operating funds.

Fourthly, the Auditor General requested a legal opinion from the State Law Adviser on the validity of the transactions. All the members of the standing committee were aware of that and we also had evidence to that effect. The legal opinion handed down by the law advisers made it clear that the wording of the relevant section was comprehensive enough to serve as an authorisation for loans to employees. When all is said and done, the loans are lawful conditions of service financed from a lawful source. Legal opinion has indicated, however, that funds from the House Owners’ Fund may not be employed for this purpose.

As far as the question of the commissioners is concerned, legal opinion has it that the granting of the loans would not be in order if the General Manager were to have acted solus, ie if he were to have acted without the hon the Minister’s authorisation. In their evidence to the standing committee the SATS indicated that the General Manager had not acted solus.

Traditionally the conditions of service of the commissioners are the same as those of the SATS’s deputy general managers. These loans were granted to bring the conditions of service of the commissioners into line with those of the deputy general managers of the SATS.

Another point we should like to highlight, a point which did not come strongly to the fore, is that this took place with the verbal approval of the hon the Minister. In order to place this aspect beyond all doubt, the SATS undertook to obtain the Minister’s written approval at the time. I think that that has already been done by now.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout moved an amendment that I cannot accept. He apologised for the fact that he cannot be present here this afternoon. He—and all the other hon members too—referred to the question of GST and the loan of R1,5 million. The hon member for De Aar has just made a speech with which I actually agree wholeheartedly. He gave a very clear explanation of the approach to GST. If we had not saved this R28 million, the opposition could again have said that we were poor businessmen.

We received a letter from Mr Schweppenhaüser. We informed everybody along the way. He said that Mr Horwood had repeatedly told him that the R75 million he was giving to us was for losses on passenger services and that it had nothing to do with GST. We have repeatedly rehashed this, and I say again that we have good businessmen, because it is not a question of tax evasion, but one of tax avoidance.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is not aware that at the standing committee meeting in connection with this matter we were informed that a sum of money had been given to the SATS by way of interest specifically because of the fact that they would be paying GST?

I want to read a note from the General Manager of the SATS:

*And that is how we put it in the standing committee. In a single year we suffer a loss of R1 000 million on passenger services. The Cabinet says we should attempt to make a profit. When we saw clearly that we could pick up R28 million, our Management was wide awake to the fact, and as the hon member for De Aar has said, it was merely tax avoidance. If we did not buy anything, the State did not receive anything either. So the State lost nothing.

The hon member for Primrose put a very important question to me. He asked me whether we were going to relinquish parliamentary control and what my standpoint in that regard was. Because parliamentary control is a very sensitive issue, I asked Dr Wim de Villiers for his opinion and he said it could be retained. I should like to put the hon member for Primrose’s mind at rest about that.

The problem in connection with the R1,45 million did occur under parliamentary control. So parliamentary control is not going to solve all problems, but I am glad the hon member for Primrose put the question to me.

The variety of matters he went on to mention are very important as far as I am concerned. He also referred to the fact that a letter had been received from the Receiver of Revenue. This matter was discussed thoroughly in the standing committee. The matter of the statistics is a very important one and we shall give attention to getting the statistics of the SATS in order.

†The hon member for Durban Point asked us to keep parliamentary control and he added that the GST matter was an example of legitimate tax avoidance.

*The hon member was quite right, because the whole thing was legal.

As far as the R1,5 million is concerned, there are a few things I should like to spell out for hon members. I have already informed some of the trade unions in writing about the matter. The hon member for De Aar rightly said board members did not receive houses, although regional managers did, and this serves to eliminate housing anomalies. The remuneration of commissioners is linked to that of the Management.

I have already, as the standing committee required, approved the granting of the loans in writing. The standing committee said that I should do so in writing. I agree with the principle embodied in the decision of the standing committee that remuneration should rather be granted by way of direct salary benefits then by way of improved fringe benefits. When the relevant board members’ salaries have been market-equated, attention will be given to the phasing-out of these loans. Then we will phase-out these loans.

I now come to the hon member for Amanzimtoti. He put his case very well, and I want to congratulate him on that.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Umhlanga. He is sitting next to the hon member for Durban Point. In the Budget debate he challenged me to travel by air to Durban using an alias. I did precisely what he asked me to do. I left here using the name Steph van Blommenstein.

So much publicity!

No, no, I did what that hon member challenged me to do. When I asked him whether he would accompany me, that jolted him, because he saw that I was serious. He did not want to accompany me.

I sat in the back of the aircraft en route to Durban, and the House can take my word for it that no one in Durban knew I was coming. [Interjections.] The hon member said: “You will be lynched if the people see you waiting for your luggage at the Durban airport.” I waited for exactly eight minutes in Durban.

Then the air hostesses gave you a hand!

No, not at all.

I waited for exactly eight minutes before the conveyer belt conveyed my luggage to me. People then spoke to me, saying: “We want to congratulate you.” [Interjections.] That is true. Instead of wanting to “lynch” me, they congratulated me.

Then the hon member for Umhlanga told the Press I was seeking cheap publicity. One of the newspapers—I think it was the Daily News—said that a limousine was waiting for me outside. Mr Cadman was also on the aircraft, but he did not see me because I was sitting at the very back.

I hope you did not do anything else in Steph’s name! [Interjections.]

What, for example? No, my friend! [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member for Umhlanga that I did precisely what he asked.

Let me say that I take my hat off to the staff of the SA Airways for the energetic way in which they handle baggage in the limited confines of that airport. It is so cramped that we are spending R12 million on improvements. I asked them what they thought of the hon member for Umhlanga, to which they replied: “He is just a bit difficult at times!” [Interjections.]

I want to welcome back the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He put a few questions to me, for example whether I had the permission of the trade-unions. As I said a while ago, we will be holding discussions with them. I want to thank the hon member for the criticism we received from him because it is always positive. It helps us on the road ahead. Unfortunately he cannot accept the amendment, but having reached the end of this session as we have, I hope they will not request a division on this issue.

Amendment put,

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, the PFP opposed this Bill at Second Reading in that we suggested that it be referred to a select committee for consideration, to hear evidence, consider papers and generally look at the Bill in the light of the demands of the South African population as a whole.

In his address the hon member for Park-town cited three particular reasons. He said we believed that criminal justice as well as areas related to criminal justice are a general affair and therefore should not be considered under the specific own affairs nature of this Bill which is a House of Assembly Bill only. Secondly, he cited the reason that this is not a Whites only problem, but the Bill itself is a Whites only Bill, and he requested information as to what was happening in other areas. Thirdly, he cited the lack of consultation, particularly with a welfare organisation such as Nicro, which is concerned with probation services.

I have gone very carefully through the hon the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate to try to understand his thinking on those particular matters and to see exactly how he was reasoning. The first problem I have is that the hon the Minister says of the hon member for Parktown:

I quote from his uncorrected Hansard. According to him it was proposed in “an obstructive way that this be now referred to a select committee”. I have particular problems with this because all general affairs Bills are now referred to standing committees. There is a wide acknowledgement among all parties in this and in other Houses and in South Africa as a whole that sending Bills to standing committees is a good way of handling such Bills because they receive better attention and are considered properly, and because corrections can be made if the measure deserves to be corrected. However, the hon the Minister now says we are being obstructive in calling for it to be referred to a select committee. I want to suggest that the hon the Minister is wrong to consider it in that way.

Secondly, the hon the Minister stated that the Bill had originated—I quote from his Hansard once more—from—

That is quite a committee! He goes on:

I assume, representing Black posts. On this point I again have a particular problem. The hon the Minister went on to quote from the Afrikaans Hansard of the hon the Minister of Justice, and I want to quote from the English version (Hansard, House of Assembly, 20 March, 1986, col 2239):

It is quite easy for this hon Minister to hide behind the fact that he is an own affairs Minister. Our problem is actually not with that hon Minister. Our problem is with the fact that if one offers probationary services to one community in South Africa, as we are doing in terms of this Bill, it will be perceived to be discriminatory. If we are going to handle own affairs in this way, it is far better to do exactly what happened last year with the housing Bills which became housing Acts where in fact three Bills were put through the three Houses simultaneously. I am therefore not hanging the problem around this hon Minister’s neck. I am simply saying that it would have been far better if probationary services Bills had been presented, as they should have been presented, in each of the three Houses, together with one for Black people.

We are dealing with the Third Reading stage of this Bill where we are talking about the likely effects of a measure such as this. What we are going to have is that we are going to have a probationary service Bill for Whites without equivalent Bills for Coloureds and for Indians. I believe that this will be perceived to be discriminatory.

The hon the Minister may, as he has already done, indicate in his speech that he must cater to his group. I agree. I grant him that. I am just saying that it leaves a great problem for a lot of people in South Africa.

The hon the Minister also said that he had not consulted Nicro directly but that Nicro was consulted on an ongoing basis. That is fine, so be it. It is just that we happen to know from Nicro themselves that they would have liked to have been consulted directly on this measure since it does directly and most specifically refer to the activities of Nicro and 16 or 17 other such organisations involved.

I would like now to turn away from the hon the Minister’s reply and consider the Bill itself, and more specifically clause 3 which reads as follows:

One would assume—these are legitimate questions—that the Minister may thus cause programmes to be established for the prevention of White crime and for the care and treatment of the White victims of crime. Is that absolutely correct?

Yes.

I find that very interesting because one of the objects of Nicro, in terms of its constitution, is the following:

1. (b) to promote crime preventative activities.

It says so in its constitution. However, Nicro is a non-racial body. It does not cater specifically to each racial group. My problem is that what in effect is happening is that this hon Minister is actually insisting that Nicro cater to one race group only!

Rubbish!

I have no doubt that the hon the Minister will have the opportunity to say that in his speech in little later.

I will say that loud and clear!

If one is going to try to prevent White crime, I foresee a particular problem because to me White crime is a unique concept. I can understand that there is crime. In fact, there is gang crime and all sorts of various degrees of crime. However, White crime is, to me, a new one. I foresee particular problems in setting up programmes to prevent White people from committing crime, because they are not exclusive. The State is not setting up programmes to prevent Coloured, Indian or Black crime. It is an extraordinary concept!

That is discrimination against the Whites!

That is exactly right, particularly against the White criminals, yes. [Interjections.]

Secondly, when we look at the area of the care and treatment of the victims of crime, we find that the State is setting up a committee which will have programmes to care for and treat White victims of crime. For all the goodness and the beauty and the happiness and the correctness of the hon the Minister’s view of the South African Constitution, I cannot believe that the rest of the world is going to see anything behind this than that we care for White victims of crime. They will ask why we are not caring for anybody else. That is exactly what it looks like. [Interjections.]

I now turn my attention to the provisions for the appointment of probation officers. I have a particular question regarding the duties of the probation officers themselves concerning their registration. I shall quote from the definitions clause:

This is a technical question as the Council for Social and Associated Workers has in fact never defined what an associated worker is. What we would be very interested to know, is how the hon the Minister is going to possibly register probation officers or have them as associated workers when the Council for Social and Associated Workers has no such category.

I turn now to the pre-sentence evaluation committees. As my colleague the hon member for Parktown has said, there are some very good ideas in this Bill. [Interjections.] With reference to the pre-sentence evaluation committees, I quote from the Bill as follows:

Once again I have a specific question: Do those persons serving on that committee have to have any particular qualifications? If so, they are not set out and we would wish to know what they are since these are important bodies. They are carrying out judicial functions and so they should have certain fixed qualifications. We believe that those qualifications would have to be set out in terms of certain regulations.

I turn now to volunteers and I refer to clause 13 which deals with the utilisation of volunteers. Once again this is a good concept. We praise it. However, we want to know where it is intended they be recruited from, what the criteria are for the selection of these volunteers and how they will be screened and trained. Once again we ask the question: Will this be done through regulations and will people be informed through regulations? We ask this because the point that we made during the Second Reading debate about Nicro not being consulted is based precisely on these points. Nicro has advice to give and suggestions to make, and we would hope that before the hon the Minister promulgates regulations he will in fact consult Nicro.

My last and very specific point concerns clause 10(2). I wonder whether the hon the Minister could look at that because I think the wording gives rise to certain kinds of problems. It concerns information classes, and I quote:

I refer to the wording “in respect of different categories of persons”. What is actually meant by that? This is a very specific problem. It may be a semantic problem, but we do not believe that the hon the Minister actually meant different categories of persons. He actually meant different categories of offenders categorised by their crimes. However, I shall leave it at that. The hon the Minister can reply to that.

The PFP opposed the Second Reading of this measure and wished to have it referred to a select committee because we believe there are a number of questions that remain unanswered. We are very unhappy about the fact that it is being handled as a single issue in one House and not being treated in its totality in all three Houses.

You are making a mistake. This is a good measure!

If the hon member for Koedoespoort had read the speech of my colleague the hon member for Parktown, he would have discovered that that was exactly what we did say. We feel that the Bill should have been referred to a select committee and should have been introduced simultaneously with similar Bills in the other Houses. I regret that we will not be able to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pinetown attempted to conduct an argument on why this matter in particular should be dealt with as a general affair. From my side I should very much like to make the point that the hon member deliberately distorted the entire spirit and atmosphere of this Bill.

The idea contained in this Bill is centred specifically upon the fact that specialised probation services are to be instituted in the community.

Order! The hon member may not say that another hon member is guilty of deliberate distortion; she must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon member created the impression that we had alleged there was only White crime. I should like to state that this impression of discrimination was created by the hon members of the PFP in particular. The entire argument that a professional service be instituted in respect of probation services is based on the point of departure that there have been complaints or problems in practice as regards the quality of probation services. The object of this legislation is precisely to bring about an improvement in the quality of services in practice. The allegation that it is chiefly aimed at dealing with White crime is therefore really without foundation.

The hon member did not research this matter very thoroughly. If he had paid any attention to the research carried out inter alia by the Viljoen Commission which adopted the specific standpoint on the fact that the entire matter of probation services, as defined in this Bill, could not be instituted in Black and Brown communities at this stage because of a shortage of trained people, he would have realised that this refuted his entire argument.

I have read it; you are not thinking! [Interjections.]

The entire principle on which the matter is therefore founded is that legislation which can really be implemented and become operative should be included in the Statute Book.

I foresee that the implementation of this Bill will have precisely the following very important consequences in the community: In the first place, it will address the quality of probation services in a very thorough fashion. This will result in the possibility of introducing specialised courses specifically for probation officers at universities as well. It will now be possible to improve the quality of the service in general.

A further consequence will be that in the interim a service can develop in the Black and Brown communities until a proper system of probation services can arise. At the moment it is necessary for an initial support system to be made available which will then be able to develop into a type of system of probation services such as proposed in this Bill.

Apartheid is an outmoded concept.

A very important consequence of this Bill, when it becomes operative, is the very fact that the services of trained volunteers will be used in the community. I should like to emphasise that there are insufficient trained volunteers available in the Black and Brown communities capable of operating a system of probation services in this way. Because of the lack of the necessary control and development, it will not be possible for them. It is right and proper, however, that such a system of probation services should develop.

A further important consequence I foresee, if this legislation is enacted, is precisely that deficiencies illustrated in respect of the treatment programme of people accused or convicted and their families and dependants will be able to be dealt with very much more thoroughly as the Minister is now being empowered to institute programmes. I wish to emphasise particularly that they can be instituted only with the assistance and support of trained people who will have to be available for an extended, specialised system of probation services which currently cannot get off the ground in the Brown and Black communities.

A further very important matter is that the inception of this legislation will result in the potential currently lying fallow in the White community being exploited to the full in the very important action of prevention of crime as well as in its treatment. This does not exclude the possibility of launching a similar programme in other communities but we have to accept that at this stage we are unable to launch a service of the same quality in the other communities.

For the reason of not being in charge.

I think it is important for me to emphasise that the hon member for Pinetown is going to great lengths in an attempt to present the entire question as discrimination. He says there is discrimination against Black and Brown population groups because similar legislation is not being placed in the Statute Book and at their disposal immediately. I find such a view regrettable because, if he had researched this matter very thoroughly, the hon member would appreciate that the entire development of specialist services has to follow a logical course.

I should have supported the hon member if he had said that it was high time for a concerted effort to develop a system of probation services in these communities but for the present we know there are insufficient expert people available to put these services into operation.

I should very much like to support this legislation in these few words and I should like to express the hope that the problems we are struggling with in the community and which very frequently occupy some of the social workers can now be addressed in a most effective manner.

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what the hon member Dr Venter said in that this legislation will result in an improvement in the quality of a particular field of welfare services. We have no doubt on this score.

The speech made by the hon member for Pinetown did not deal with the legislation as such but the standpoint that there should be own affairs. In their opinion there should be no such thing as own affairs. That is why one can understand their entire philosophy that all affairs should actually be own affairs of all population groups or—otherwise expressed—that all affairs should be general affairs. There is such a degree of opposition to that philosophy that the hon member held up the wording in clause 10(2), namely “separate information classes” and said this should not be so. He actually took it amiss that something such as group thinking should remain in the House as he indicated by means of interjections. [Interjections.]

This Bill provides for the rendering and extension of a very important welfare service under the control of the department of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and spells out inter alia the powers of probation officers which are concentrated on the prevention of crime in particular. The establishment of pre-sentence evaluation committees composed of experts should be of great assistance and value to the court in determining the most suitable sentence in such cases. It will contribute in addition to the regulation of voluntary helpers by identifying and registering them to be able to furnish the necessary reconstructive care or aftercare or to supervise people on parole from a prison or reformatory. To my mind this is one of the most important consequences which will result from this legislation in future.

As provision is also being made now for additional training of all such people by way of prescribed courses, this should further enhance the quality of the service. It should therefore serve the interests of the community as a whole.

In consequence, Mr Speaker, in these few words I wish to express the conviction on behalf of the Conservative Party that this legislation will hold positive results for the entire community. We on this side of the House shall therefore also support the Third Reading of the legislation before us.

Mr Speaker, I shall not repeat the views expressed by the hon member for Pietersburg, who has set out in clear terms the advantages of the new approach contained in this Bill. I agree with everything he has said. We consider this measure to be an improvement. We consider it a measure which is in the interests of those unfortunate people who require these services. It is indeed true that one comes across very tragic cases resulting from imprisonment. There is also, I believe, a dire need for this sympathetic approach to be coupled with professionalism.

I cannot share the views expressed by the hon member for Pinetown. We live in a society in which communities have their own customs and attitudes, particularly in relation to sensitive matters such as the treatment and rehabilitation of criminals. It is true that when it comes to matters of this nature one happens to be more at home among those belonging to one’s own community.

You will definitely not be coming to the PFP!

I believe that all communities will provide such services to their own people while, at the same time, they will probably often resent someone who belongs to another group trying to put them onto the right track. So, Mr Speaker, we support this measure and we will vote for it at Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, permit me at the outset to address a word of congratulation to you. I believe you succeeded as a man in causing a woman to withdraw her words without any opposition whatsoever. [Interjections.] I consider that an exceptional achievement and I wish to congratulate you on it, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

You seem to be having a hard time, Morrie! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for the degree of support received by this Bill from hon members on this side of the House as well as those of the CP and the NRP. The hon member Dr Venter made an exceptionally positive contribution which bore evidence that she not only spoke knowledgeably on this matter but also with specialised knowledge. She correctly identified the needs and recognised this as a step in the right direction in order to satisfy those needs. I am very grateful to her for really being able to succeed in summarising the spirit and the objects of the Bill under discussion and conveying them to hon members of this House.

My thanks also go to the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member for Durban Point for their positive contributions.

The hon member for Durban Point uttered a great truth in saying those probation officers were occupied in a very delicate matter and that it was only someone from a person’s own group and from his own cultural milieu who would be capable of grasping and sensing thoroughly what needs existed regarding someone who had come into conflict with the law in consequence of either the abuse of alcohol or a variety of other factors. It is difficult for someone from a different cultural group really to penetrate to the depths of a person’s being. I am very pleased that the hon member for Durban Point emphasised this.

I have to express my disappointment again at the attitude of the hon member for Pine-town in particular and the attitude of his party in general. It is patently ridiculous to wish to refer this matter to a select committee now. How can a person come up with the argument that, as all Bills on general affairs are referred to standing committees, the same should apply as far as Bills on own affairs are concerned? If the legislator had had this in mind, surely he would have provided in the Constitution that all bills relating to own affairs be referred to select committees.

I think the hon member was not present when I made my Second Reading speech but it appears to me that he did read it.

Yes.

Nevertheless he used only what suited him from it. I stated it very clearly in my Second Reading speech that this Bill did not quite materialise out of thin air. [Interjections.] This Bill was envisaged by the Viljoen Commission which recommended that we place probation services on a sound and legal basis. The commission also put forward its reasons for this. So what is left for a select committee to do concerning the matter? Oh no, the hon member is apparently merely unhappy that Nicro had no share in this Bill.

The argument remains valid that that coordinating committee—all State departments furnishing welfare services in various spheres are represented on this committee—was in continuous contact with Nicro.

As I said in my Second Reading speech, this Bill has been on the Order paper for the past six months. I hope the hon Chief Whip takes note of this; I think he has certainly done so. The Bill has been on the order paper for the past six months and, if Nicro had had any objection to it, there was time to raise this. I had to infer that its members were absolutely happy and satisfied with this Bill and its contents. That is why this argument of a select committee does not hold water.

A further point the hon member for Pine-town fails to appreciate is that we cannot conduct the entire constitutional debate from square one whenever we introduce a Bill on own affairs here. It was laid down by this Parliament that there would be own affairs and that State welfare action would be located in own affairs departments, We cannot repeat the same old arguments time and again and then even come, as the hon member Dr Venter justifiably…

Just let the leader of the Cape Province hold an election.

Would you like to lose your seat?

I do not understand the hon member for Rissik. I am not even addressing him and he barges in here like a bull in a china shop and tries to put me off. [Interjections.] He should confine himself to his sphere and permit us who are adult to discuss these matters. If he has something to say, he may rise and do so in the debate but should refrain from unnecessary interjections.

Before I commenced speaking this afternoon, I resolved not to lose my temper, come what may. I would not permit myself to be intimidated; not my him or by anyone else. [Interjections.] Nevertheless he has succeeded in putting me off now. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pinetown said: “Criminal justice is a general affair; it is not a White only problem.” Of course, he also mentioned that Nicro had not been consulted. Surely we are not dealing with “criminal justice”. We are concerned here with the very instrument which wishes to ensure that justice takes place and by means of which we wish to prevent people from becoming criminals. We are attempting to create exactly such a mechanism by means of this legislation. The fundamental error in reasoning made by the hon member—he makes a great many but this is one of them—is to say that this Bill applies to offenders only. That is what he said but it is patently untrue.

†This Bill does not only affect offenders; the classes that we intend having will also cater for those people who want to attend of their own free will, such as alcoholics and other people who know that they have a problem and who are afraid that they might come into conflict with the law. When the hon member therefore tells this House that this Bill only applies to offenders it is a complete misconception.

I did not say that.

The hon member did say that. [Interjections]

*I said that, if this Parliament saw any sense in referring Bills dealing with own affairs to select committees, it would have done so but it was not necessary here. I have already stressed the necessity of this. This is certainly not a problem existing only as regards Whites. I proffer not apology for introducing a Bill providing only for the Whites’ problems concerning criminality or people who clash with the laws. I make no apology for this as I am proceeding from the standpoint stated so clearly by the hon member for Durban Point that the White probation officer would be very sensitive to the White’s problem connected with a specific matter. The White does not have that knowledge regarding the Black man, for instance.

If this hon member will rise and indicate where this Bill prohibits us from appointing probation officers for Black people, Coloureds and Indians, I could understand him. This Bill does not prohibit this; this Bill is actually a positive one creating a facility for Whites. There is no reason whatsoever preventing the Coloured House and the Indian House from creating such a facility for their people as well nor for the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning doing the same for the Blacks. Now I had better proceed.

Would it not be better to do it together?

Why does he always want to do everything “together”? I have attempted to explain to him that his thinking is unscientific for the simple reason that the White does not have the insight into the soul and circumstances of the Black in this delicate matter.

Why do they have to govern us?

Here he is again with another argument. I wish the hon member would rise and make a speech on this so that we could debate the matter to its conclusion but he has something on the brain and I often wonder whether it is water.

You have too little of it.

No, I have considerable grey matter underneath but his is all superficial and composed of water.

The hon member also mentioned the fact and inquired why this Bill permitted the appointment of probation officers even if they did not have the necessary qualifications. I assume the hon member meant people with qualifications, for instance a degree in social science etc.

The hon member knows—or he should know—that we adopted legislation last year providing for the registration of people, who do not have academic qualifications, as social workers. We have already provided for those people because of their extensive experience in that sphere. We cannot merely turn those people out because their expertise and experience are of very great value in this work.

The hon member also asked what qualifications someone should have to serve on a pre-sentence evaluation committee. I think he would do well to leave it to people who discuss these matters sensibly. We cannot prescribe qualifications, provide them with strict parameters and then say only those qualifications will apply. I am thinking, for example, of ministers of religion, eminent people in a community, and people who have already come into conflict with the law in consequence of certain offences, as people who could make a very important contribution on such a pre-sentence evaluation committee. They are the people who are able to speak from experience. The same applies to volunteers, regardless of their qualifications.

I mentioned it in my Second Reading speech that we could put people who were rehabilitated alcoholics or users of drugs to very good use in the volunteer corps because experience was sometimes—and very frequently—the best teacher. The hon member accused me a while ago of speaking of “different categories of persons”. He then recommended that I mention “different offenders”. I have already pointed out to him…

I asked what was meant by “different categories of persons”. [Interjections.]

By “different categories of persons” I mean people with problems, who are already offenders, or people who are afraid of becoming offenders; hence my use of “different categories of persons”. The term is also used as regards the abuse of alcohol, people with sexual aberrations and so on. Is that clear to the hon member now? [Interjections.]

Sir, as in your exceptional achievement this afternoon, I have also succeeded because even the hon member for Pinetown now understands what I am saying to him in Afrikaans. That is certainly an outstanding achievement.

I am grateful for hon members’ support.

Question put,

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this Bill gives effect to a resolution adopted by the Select Committee on Pensions on which members of all the parties in this House were represented.

Mr Speaker, this is the first of the two Bills that flow from the work of the Standing Select Committee on Pension Benefits. It is particularly interesting to contrast the two Bills because in one we are dealing with a person in a relatively prominent position, and in this particular Bill we are dealing with a person who, to the best of my knowledge, has no particular claim to fame. What I think is important, however, is that it shows that this committee is one to which both the prominent and the less well-to-do can have recourse to have a problem sorted out. It also highlights the important role that this committee plays.

We get so many deserving cases, but the problem is that, although one would like to be generous, one considers all the time what sort of precedent one would be establishing. One can establish a precedent for one person which might then, in fact, apply to thousands of people in South Africa. This immediately becomes a burden on the South African taxpayer.

In this particular case—and this is why I would like to say a few words about it—it gives me particular pleasure to be able to support this Bill, because here we have a person who, as I have said, was not in a prominent position, and could most probably not even afford to have recourse to legal advice, and so forth, to have a wrong rectified, but she did have recourse to the committee, and she was able to get a bureaucratic muddle rectified. Let me hasten to add that this was not a bureaucratic muddle which resulted because of the action of the Department but because of the District Surgeon’s handling of affairs. Although this lady had to wait four years, she eventually was able to obtain recourse via this committee. I am very pleased that we were able to rectify this wrong.

Finally I would just like to thank and congratulate the hon member for Brits, who is Chairman of the committee, on the way that he chaired it. It is a very pleasant committee that is, in fact, not divided on political lines. One often finds us voting across different political affiliations because the only thing that we try to determine is the merits of the case before us.

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon member for Eden-vale said, I just want to say that the hon members on this side of the House are also very grateful that since a person who had apparently been entitled to a social pension for years, and who as a result, as the hon member said, of what was seemingly an administrative problem in the department, did not receive it, there is nevertheless this mechanism in the South African parliament to effect the necessary rectification. There was general consensus among all the members of the standing committee on this matter, and we associate ourselves sincerely with what the hon member for Edenvale said.

Mr Chairman, this recommendation was accepted unanimously by all the members of the committee. There was no question or argument about it. We all felt it was a fully justified award which rectified an injustice.

There was another unfortunate aspect involved in that there were allegations of what could only be regarded as improper action by a district surgeon. The committee also recommended that the matter be referred for investigation in that regard. The pension only deals with the administrative side. If, however, it is found that the allegations against the district surgeon were well-founded, that should be dealt with as well by the appropriate medical council.

We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members who participated in this debate sincerely for their support. I want to assure this House that this is probably one of the most pleasant committees to serve on. We are looking into heartbreak cases—virtually in every case—and it is fantastic for the man in the street to know that as far as democracy is concerned, he has an opportunity to have his case dealt with in the highest Chamber in this country. I can assure you that the gentlemen who serve on that committee all do so with the greatest responsibility.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order… [Interjections.]

Order! A point of order is being raised.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw your attention to and ask whether a quorum is present in this House.

Order! Would the Secretary please establish whether a quorum is present in this House.

I have been informed that a quorum is in fact present. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brits may proceed.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Rissik makes such mistakes before Saturday’s rugby match, I foresee difficulties for us Northern Transvalers in winning the match on Saturday. He must make certain of his facts. [Interjections.]

I just want to say that I support this measure, and that it is a privilege to do so.

Mr Chairman, it is of course a sine qua non that Parliament should look at everything objectively. Now we are often accused of not abiding by that particular rule but as the hon member for Edenvale pointed out, this is a very good illustration of the objective view that Parliament takes.

I am very happy to be associated with the fact that an obvious injustice has been put right by the decision of this Committee. I am of course not aware at my level of the matters which the hon member for Durban Point raised but I assume that they will come to my attention in the normal course of events. Certainly, if there is any question of an abuse of powers or a failure to apply his mind to this particular matter, I can assure the hon member that steps will be taken against this particular district surgeon, whom I do not know. As I say, this matter has not yet officially been brought to my attention.

*I am very grateful to those hon members who participated in the debate, and for their support for this Bill. I am also giving very positive consideration to sending a probation officer to the hon member for Rissik to establish what deviation makes him such a strong supporter of Northern Transvaal. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Order! The Committee will now consider the Pensions (Supplementary) Bill (House of Assembly).

Clause 1:

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to congratulate you on your maiden speech. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon member for Edenvale.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate on this measure in respect of representations which we on this side of the House had made was, I am afraid, both inadequate and unsatisfactory, because he did not reply to the substance of the problems that we had raised. He dealt in general with the philosophy, attitude and policy of the NP with regard to own affairs education. However, apart from that, I certainly gained the impression that he avoided dealing with the arguments we had raised.

We understand that the Government has decided, as far as the provision of education is concerned, that it should be an own affair, and that it will be racially stratified. What the Government does not do, in arguing its point of view, is to make an open admission that that is so. The Government continues attempting to persuade us and South Africa that its education and own affairs policy is based on so-called language, cultural and ethnic considerations, whereas the structures created by the Government in terms of legislation it has produced provide for racially segregated institutions. It is important that the Government should understand that it is to that aspect of their legislation that we take the strongest exception. We take exception because we believe that it goes against the vital interests of South Africa to have racially segregated education.

In producing this legislation the hon the Minister had an opportunity of softening the blow. He could have removed those aspects which are offensive to people of colour. The Government could have gone ahead with its own affairs education legislation and with the introduction of own affairs education without specifically including in its legislation, or allowing to remain in the legislation, those things which are offensive to other race groups.

I indicated to the hon the Minister that we are going to vote against clause 1. We are going to vote against this clause for the simple reason that the Government has failed to remove an aspect in this definitions clause which is racially offensive to others. Apart from being racially offensive, it is also dishonest and misleading because the Government persists in using the word “White” in definitions of persons, categories and activities where it is misleading and dishonest to do so.

The Government has, for example, not removed the word “White” from the definition of compulsory education. According to this Bill, this is education that applies to a “White person”. That is transparently a false concept for the simple reason that the education provided under this hon Minister’s control—whether it be education at school, technikon or university level—is not education exclusively for White people. Many so-called White private schools fall under this hon the Minister’s department. However, there are also children from the other race groups in those private schools. My contention is that it is offensive to them to be defined as “White persons” when they are in fact not White.

The same applies to the definition of education. Once again, the word “White” has been left in the definition. In other words, this department contends that the education being provided by them at schools, technikons and universities is education for Whites only, whereas that is not the case.

The same definition applies when it comes to a student. A student in this legislation is defined as a White person. I believe the Government had an opportunity to remain within the constraints of their own affairs philosophy but to amend the legislation to remove those words, those concepts which are offensive to people of the other race groups. I believe it is most unfortunate that the hon the Minister has not done so. We will oppose this particular clause and later on, when we come to further clauses, we will be debating one or two other objections that we have as well. There is also a further clause that we will be voting against.

I just want to make use of this opportunity to say that I believe that it would be advisable and desirable that so-called own affairs legislation should also be subjected to the study and the scrutiny of a standing committee, which is not the case at the moment. I think if that is done the Government will experience the fact that standing committees for own affairs legislation will also be able to bring about considerable improvements in that legislation before it makes its appearance in the House. This has been the experience with regard to, for instance, all general affairs legislation. On standing committees, because of the input of experts and people from diverse backgrounds and with diverse interests and points of view, and because of the opportunity to debate thoroughly and extensively the provisions of the legislation, it is possible to bring about considerable improvement in such legislation. I should like to recommend to the hon the Minister, as a member of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, that consideration be given to the appointment of standing committees for legislation of this nature as well. I think the hon the Minister will find that it might delay to some extent the passage of some legislation, but it will without doubt bring about improvements in that legislation.

Mr Chairman, we very clearly told the hon the Minister in the second reading debate why we opposed this legislation in principle. We also clearly indicated to the hon the Minister what our viewpoints against it were. I want to tell the hon the Minister once more that he said absolutely nothing in his reply to the second reading debate which could even vaguely give us an indication as to why we should support this Bill.

I reiterate that the hon the Minister must understand quite clearly that this Bill changes the principles of the 1967 Act. It changes those principles. With this he is enslaving White education under a mixed Government, a mixed Parliament, a variety of mixed councils, and I want to tell him that he has set his foot on the road of integration and abdication, the end result of which will be that nothing will remain of so-called White education, which he is supposed to be putting to the voting public. With that I restated the principle of our viewpoint once again concerning clause 1 of the Bill. We shall be contributing a word here and there on the remaining clauses under discussion, but in the meantime I rest my case.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to talk to the hon the Minister about several specific matters in clause 1. Before I do so, I must extend to him my apology that I was not here last Friday when this Bill was debated, but events speeded things up a little last week and I happened to be caught at the Indaba.

I should like to refer to clause 1(m), the definition of organised parent community, because I do see in this a possible problem. Maybe the hon the Minister will be able to relieve me of the difficulties I have, because it appears to me that the hon the Minister has collapsed two things into this definition. He defines organised parent community as follows:

That is the one definition, and secondly:

Let me give a practical example. In Natal we have school committees elected from the ranks of the parent body of a school. Then we also have regional committees. There are eight of these throughout Natal. In addition we have two parents’ associations which are both voluntary associations. They are the Association of Afrikaans-Speaking Parents and the Parents’ Association of Natal, commonly known as PANA. These two bodies plus eight school committees make up the definition “organised parent community”. I say this, Sir, because this has a particular bearing on a later clause relating to the composition of the education council. Again, Sir, there, I believe, something is missing. I believe a tighter definition is necessary.

As I have already said to the hon the Minister—he may be able to relieve me of this worry—I am somewhat concerned about the collapsing of these two concepts into one single concept. The hon the Minister has indeed left the way open for the actual exclusion of the voluntary parent bodies. There is actually no obligation on the voluntary parents’ association to serve on an education council. That is the possibility about which I am worried, Mr Chairman.

One can understand that there is a difficulty in Natal. That is actually true too of all the other provinces. The problem is, however, more acute in Natal and the Transvaal where the voluntary parents’ associations are actually looking to representation. In terms of the definition contained in a clause we will discuss later on, they actually do not have such right. I hope the hon the Minister will help to clarify this matter.

The second matter relates to the definition of an organised parents’ community. My problem in this regard is in relation to the possible exclusion of certain parents and of certain schools from the definition of such organised parents’ community. The councils and committees are established in terms of any law, and here I think of the parents of pre-primary children. Now, Sir, here we find ourselves in a very difficult position because, as I understand it—and again the hon the Minister may be able to correct me—they do not fall under the definition of private schools. If they do not fall under the definition of private schools, and they also do not fall under the definition of those areas covered by ordinance, and so they do not get elected to school committees and to regional committees, it is actually very difficult for parents of children at pre-primary schools to gain representation on the education council which we will consider later. The parents of pre-primary schoolchildren are very concerned about being excluded by law from the structure of education which is being set up in terms of this legislation, and in terms of the earlier ordinances.

The final point I want to raise with the hon the Minister is a very sensitive one. It relates to the difficulties which may be experienced—the hon member for Bryanston also touched upon this—by the parents of children who are not White. The question which troubles me in relation to this is whether those parents can indeed be part of the organised parents’ community. In the clause no reference is made to White parents. It merely talks about the organised parents’ community. My presumption is—reading this and looking at subsequent clauses—that it is possible that a parent who is elected to a volunteer association and selected by a volunteer association can in fact serve on the education council. Similarly, Sir, that volunteer association may pick its own members, unless the hon the Minister is going to prescribe guidelines which will restrict the volunteer parents’ associations to White people.

I know this is a sensitive area. It is nevertheless one which we actually have to handle. I shall tell the hon the Minister why. Last weekend I received a phone call concerning such parents—concerning parents of children at a so-called private school, who belong to the Parents’ Association of Natal—and there was a degree of sensitivity about their relationship with the education council to which we will come a little later. I would therefore be very pleased if the hon the Minister could examine those three particular areas—that of the organised parents’ community and what it involves, that of pre-primary school parents and their role and place, and finally, that of the parents of children who are not White.

Mr Chairman, there is not much for which I can thank the hon members of the Official Opposition, since they are both going to oppose us. That is their right, however. As for me, I shall try to reply to the reservations they expressed.

Firstly, the hon member for Bryanston claimed that I did not answer his questions during the Second Reading debate. Perhaps it would have been more correct, or at least fairer of the hon member if he had told me that I had not satisfied him in respect of his arguments. In all fairness, if he were to consult Hansard, the hon member would see that I did in fact react to him. What is correct, is that I do not agree with him on certain principles he stated.

That is unsatisfactory.

That I do not agree with the hon member, is quite correct. Now the hon member is telling me that that is unsatisfactory. Of course it is unsatisfactory to him; just as his arguments are unsatisfactory to me. There is nothing odd about that. In politics we must simply say these things to one another and accept it as such. I assume that the hon member also regards his reference to me in that light.

The hon member said that they would vote against clause 1 because education is racially segregated. I make no excuses for that. The fact of the matter is that we are in fact dealing with education for Whites. We are also dealing with education for Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. That is the whole philosophy on which the education policy of this Government is based.

Apart from the fact that he and his party are opposed to that, the hon member told me that it is dishonest. If they are opposed to it, they can be, but now he also says that it is dishonest because we admit people of colour to private schools, universities, technicons, and so on, and that over the years there have been the exceptions, for example, children of diplomats, who were even admitted to State schools. Surely that is not fair.

Do the hon member and his party object to services being rendered to people of colour by White education? I am asking the hon member: Do they object to that?

Of course not.

Very well, the hon member says they do not object. He therefore welcomes the fact that we do render services to people of colour. All the hon member has to accept then is that primarily what we have here is education for Whites, for which we do not apologise, since that is our philosophy. However, we are prepared to render services within our system of White education on certain conditions. We do so in respect of the universities, the technicons, the technical colleges, as well as the private schools. Underlying the principle of recognising private schools as part of the general education system, is that we acknowledge that as a result of certain religious and cultural differences, there is a need that has to be fulfilled, and according to those particular groups these needs are not met sufficiently in our present State schools, if I may put it that way.

We are therefore not being dishonest. It is stated very clearly in item 14 of the Schedule to the Constitution that we are prepared to be of service to persons who are not members of the particular population group for whom that particular institution was established. Surely that is not dishonest, since it is also stated in the Constitution, with reference to the definition of own affairs, in item 2 of the Schedule, that education at all levels is an own affair. We are therefore not being dishonest. We tell this to the world, and the world knows this. We are rendering a service, and I want to tell the hon member for Bryanston that we may as well agree to disagree in that respect. This side of the House and I do not feel bad about that or that we are being dishonest. I think we are putting our cards on the table and saying precisely what we would like to do.

The hon member for Bryanston then requested—this is in accordance with his argument and I grant him that—that from his point of view we should omit “White”. We cannot omit “White”, nor do we wish to, since we are convince that it is in the best interests of the education of all population groups if we do it this way.

I therefore cannot give ear to, nor can I consider accepting, an amendment when the hon member moves a motion in respect of omitting “White”.

The hon member pointed out that it would perhaps be a good thing that we even appoint standing committees for legislation that has to do with own affairs. I want to point out to him that we are dealing primarily with White education here. Since we are dealing primarily with White education, we are not dealing with a standing committee that is representative of the various population groups. [Interjections.] If the hon member would listen to me, I would explain to him.

It was my fault; I apologise.

All right. I therefore want to tell the hon member that although we cannot make provision for standing committees, for the reason I have mentioned, it is true—I am referring to Standing Rules and Orders no 9—that under committees, provision is made for us to have select committees and standing select committees in the House of Assembly as well. If we deem it necessary, as in the past, a select committee can be appointed in respect of any legislation, and we can consider matters together in that committee, as we have done in the past. We cannot appoint a standing committee as such, however, since it is representative of the various population groups, and we are dealing here with own affairs.

A committee consisting of representatives of the various parties…

That is possible, and it could take place in a select committee. There is no problem with that.

Not on an ad hoc basis, but on a fixed basis.

I want to tell the hon member that if we had to refer every Bill to a select committee, we would have more squabbles than we had here last week. Then we would be delaying the whole parliamentary system incredibly.

Mr Chairman, I am rising to put a question. Last year 101 Bills were approved by Parliament, and 97 of them were Bills relating to general affairs and in respect of which there were multiracial standing committees. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister why a select committee or a standing committee of the House of Assembly could not perhaps be appointed for the four Bills that have to do with own affairs.

I do not think that is part of the discussion we are busy with, but I am prepared to reply to the hon member’s question. If the need arose for the appointment of a select committee with regard to specific legislation—that is how we did things for many years in the past and everyone was satisfied—it was appointed. If in the future the need arises for a select committee with regard to legislation on education and culture, I am more than willing to have a select committee appointed. Within the provisions of the Constitution, however, it cannot be a standing committee; it has to be a select committee.

That is all I wish to say with regard to the hon member for Bryanston.

The hon member for Rissik apologised for not being able to be here. We accept his apology. The hon member again referred to his speech in the Second Reading debate in which he makes the accusation that the principles contained in the original legislation are violated by the present measure. I replied to that very clearly in my Second Reading speech. I pointed out that that is not the case. I advanced my arguments in that regard, and I really do not think the hon member for Rissik will take it amiss of me if I refer him once again to my Second Reading speech in this respect.

The hon member for Pinetown definitely has a broad knowledge of education. I am pleased that we can make use of his services and his opinions, particularly when they are not politicised. That is simply by the way, Mr Chairman. The hon member nevertheless referred to the organised parent community. Of course I understand the hon member’s problem. I shall attempt to explain.

It is indeed correct that the organised parent community consists of the two groups defined in the legislation, viz the councils and committees on the one hand, and the various bodies and associations on the other. The reason for this is that I understand that we do not have a broad enough base for parent representation purely by way of school committees and the regional councils of Natal. The hon member knows why this is the case. It is therefore not necessary to explain it to him. That is why I am trying to explain to him that someone must make provision for a broader base to be established. We are obtaining that broader base in that we are now able to get the parents organised into some form of association.

Now it could happen—as is the case in Natal—that there is an Afrikaans parents’ association, as well as the Parents’ Association of Natal. The latter is usually referred to as the PANA. The one organisation represents the Afrikaans-speaking parents, and the other, the English-speaking parents. Those two parents’ associations can now come to the attention of the Minister, who in turn can recognise such a parents’ association as one that is representative of a sufficiently broad base of a specific number of parents. The hon member will agree with me that we cannot recognise every parents’ association because one could then have a parents’ association which, for argument’s sake, only represents 100 parents; that is not possible.

The opportunity will therefore be created for a parents’ association—it does not matter whether it is English or Afrikaans speaking—which could be recognised. I want to tell the hon member that one of the norms will be a sufficiently broad representation of parents. Furthermore, I want to tell the hon member that in the regulations there will be a division between the representations of those in accordance with the statutory bodies and the non-statutory bodies. Only the maximum and the minimum are indicated in the legislation, but in the regulations we make provision for a certain number to come from the statutory body, and the others from the non-statutory body.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? The hon the Minister is aware that I put questions over a period of time regarding guidelines in respect of recognition. Does he intend to make these guidelines publicly available or will they be merely Ministerial and circulated to the departments for recognition?

At present I do not foresee that I will be making them public. I would very much like to negotiate with any representatives of parents’ associations. They must come to me so that we can talk to one another. I think that we would serve the matter best in this way.

I now come to the hon member’s standpoint on the parents of pre-primary children and the problems he has with that. The hon member will understand when I say that I have a particularly high regard for the value of pre-primary education, but at the same time pre-primary education is not compulsory. Because pre-primary education is not compulsory, it is not represented on these councils at this stage. It is possible that we could move towards that in the future; we are still in the process of investigating the whole question of pre-primary education. However, that is the reason for our not having representation of pre-primary education at present. The hon member is correct. There will be parents who only have children in the pre-primary school, and not in the junior school, and who therefore will not have representation whilst their children are in the pre-primary department. I want to tell the hon member that we would in any event like to oblige all the various sections. I also mentioned in my Second Reading speech, and there is a possibility—and the hon member must not hold me to this…

Such as Savtbo?

Yes, such as Savtbo.

The hon member’s third question was whether the parents of children of colour who are admitted to White schools will also be able to obtain membership of organised parents’ associations, thereby perhaps gaining admission to councils. The first point I want to advance in reply is that I do not prescribe to any parents’ association whom it may admit as members. I cannot decide that; it must decide. That parents’ association must decide for itself whether it wants to admit such a member. As far as the recognition of parents’ associations is concerned, we have to talk to one another, of course. However, I cannot prescribe to a parents’ association whom it should admit as members. With that I have replied to the question.

Mr Chairman, this clause is fairly significant in that it puts into the principal Act the fact that it is in certain stated areas subservient to general laws. I think it is very important for us to understand that. The hon the Minister stated very explicitly—in fact, particularly in his reply to members of the CP—what the Constitution provides. I want to focus on paragraph (C) of item 2 of Schedule 1, which covers the registration of teachers, because I in fact contend that the provisions of any general law regarding the registration of teachers will cause the deletion of clause 14 of this Bill before us, because as soon as there is a general law on the registration of teachers, it will be impossible to have it as an own affair. I am not going to discuss this whole question at this point but when we get to clause 14.

I think that this is important, since there is to my mind a legal problem and an ambiguity concerning the registration of own affairs teachers, certainly from what I know of the legal advice that certain people have taken. The hon the Minister will be well aware that I posed a number of questions during this and last year to the hon the Minister of National Education on the whole issue of the general affairs registration of teachers. He indicated to me that that is his responsibility, and that he in fact has a committee investigating that issue so he is not yet proceeding with the matter at this stage.

Mr Chairman, I contend that there is this legal ambiguity—an opinion we get from our legal advisers given to certain organisations and individuals—that to proceed with this Bill, clause 14 as it now stands is actually in conflict with that provision in the Constitution. I am not a lawyer. We can only decide according to what lawyers say. The hon the Minister has his lawyers and other people have their lawyers. What I am just hoping is that the legal advice that he has received has taken into consideration the fact that the registration of teachers is a general affair. That was stated explicitly by the hon the Minister of National Education. The hon the Minister’s argument in his introductory speech on this Bill as well as in his reply to the debate was that as long as there is no general law, the White own affairs law continues to function. I think it is fine as long as it continues but he is actually changing that law today.

For that reason I contend that item 2 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution Act, giving the registration of teachers as a general affair, is in fact the superior legislation and that certain provisions in the Bill before us should not have been included in it.

Mr Chairman, the CP’s objection to clause 4 concerns the following: Act No 39 of 1967 is an Act which is applicable exclusively to White education. In terms of that Act, power was vested in White education and it was autonomous—I want to use the word “autonomous”—in that those involved in it could decide about their legislation themselves. They were not bound by provisions in general legislation, because it did not exist at the time.

This limitation is now being included in this educational legislation for Whites in the form of this clause, viz that White education is being made subject to the regulations of a general law and is being bound and enslaved by this. That is clear and logical, surely.

What is at issue then? What is at issue is section 2(1) of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, 1984, which is a general Act. It is an Act which is definitive for all education. The right of White education to decide exclusively on itself is being restricted by that Act in a definitive way. The hon the Minister must have a good look at section 2 of that Act. The policy determined by the Minister of National Education in respect of formal, informal and non-for-mal education is set out in it. The first point deals with the norms and standards for the financing of education. In other words, the norms and standards for the financing of White education are determined by a general Act, by a general Minister. White education cannot determine its own provisions in this respect or decide on its own norms and standards.

The same applies when it comes to the syllabus, examination and certification. Once again the point at issue is the norms and standards which are being determined for White education. White education cannot determine its own norms and standards for its own syllabus, examinations and certification. When we come to the point about teaching staff, however, norms and standards do not even come into question. There is nothing about norms and standards in that section. It simply says that the policy determined by the Minister of National Education in terms of this general Act deal with the salary, service conditions and registration of teachers. In other words, in terms of this general Act the Minister of National Education determines the salaries, service conditions and registration of those teachers and staff who teach in White schools. Not even the registration of one’s own teachers is under one’s own control, therefore, as an own affair for Whites. The Minister can read it, Sir. I have been telling him this since 1984 when we debated that legislation. He still cannot see that that is the factual situation.

What is at issue here is not norms and standards; it is the service conditions, the salaries and the registration. What I find the worst, is the fact that the registration and service conditions of our own teaching staff is not under our own control. This means that one is prescribed to and bound by the policy of an hon Minister in charge of general affairs who is acting in terms of a general Act. One cannot determine one’s own service conditions, one cannot deal with one’s own registration and one cannot determine one’s own salary scales. [Interjections.]

I just want to ask the hon the Minister, since the factual situation is that this provision is being included in a White educational Bill which is an own affair, whether he really wants to tell me that he cannot see that White education is being bound and enslaved by this and denied the right to decide for itself. In other words, it does not have the right of self-determination.

On that basis we can never, under any circumstances, accept this clause. It is an absolute assault on the self-determination of White education as an own affair, and we cannot support it.

Mr Chairman…

You must be careful now, because I am here!

I shall come to the hon member in a moment.

I want to refer to the hon member for Pinetown’s argument about the registration of teachers. If I understand him correctly, his point of departure is that clause 4 may have certain jurisprudential problems because we are dealing here with the registration of teachers as a general affair, and therefore cannot continue to allow teachers to register with the White professional body. No, that is not correct. I want to refer the hon member to the Constitution Act. This also applies to the hon member for Koedoespoort.

It is made very clear in the Constitution Act that the registration of teachers is a general affair. The factual position is that there is no such registration body as yet. At the moment there is a White organised profession with which White teachers have to register.

The people of colour preferred not to have such a body. That is their right. One can therefore continue provisionally to register the Whites with the specific body, which was my argument during the Second Reading. I want to tell this hon member, however, that since there is a general registration body now, I believe that body will set minimum conditions for the registration of all the teachers in this country who can teach. The basic reason behind this is to establish the professional character of the teachers in all population groups and to place it on a high standard.

What is important, however, is that it is still the task of each specific educational system—and there is nothing wrong with that—to decide that, above and beyond those qualifications, those requirements for registration, it can determine requirements for the registration of people who teach in its department and there can therefore be a registration body only for the Whites. The only requirement that will apply is that if, for example, a teacher wants to register himself with the Whites’ professional teachers’ council, he has to comply with the requirements of the general registration body first. There are other requirements which have to be complied with too. They are not in conflict with one another. Therefore, and there is no legal problem either.

I now come to the hon member for Koedoespoort. The hon member’s argument is indeed correct. There has been a great deal of debating about this matter across the floor of the House, however, that I do not want to spend too much time on this subject, but I do want to tell the hon member that this is in fact true and that we do not make excuses—after all, it is there for everyone to see—for having White education for White children in White schools. In terms of the Constitution Act, however, there is a provision—we find it in this Bill too—that it is subject to certain general laws. [Interjections.] If the hon members do not want to understand that, it is their affair and they must leave it at that.

The fact of the matter is that the words “norms and standards” appear in that Act. In respect of syllabi, for example, this does not mean the contents of the syllabi. If the hon members go and tell the public at large that people of colour are going to decide on the contents of the syllabus now, I say they will be telling an untruth. The fact of the matter is that what is at issue is norms and standards—we have debated this matter so many times—and this does not mean an assault on the standard or the contents of the syllabi.

At present there is only a core syllabus in the four provinces, for example. There may be other differences as well. The four provinces do not write the same matriculation examinations; they write four separate examinations. Surely one will not maintain that the standards of the examinations in the Transvaal, the Free State, the Cape and Natal differ! That is not what the hon members say. The examinations of the four provinces all comply with a common standard which is set by the Joint Matriculation Board.

Exactly the same thing happens here. The hon member was talking about norms and standards in respect of capital and current expenditure. He said everyone would decide about this, and that White education was therefore being enslaved to other people who were going to decide on it. Naturally, in terms of the Constitution Act, this falls under the hon the Minister of National Education who administers the general affairs in education. We do not make excuses for that; in fact, that is how it is recorded in legislation. The question, however, is how he administers it. This is done in consultation with the respective Ministers responsible for education. What the hon member wants to make known, therefore, viz that only people of colour will decide on this, is not correct, because the hon the Minister of National Education does so in consultation with the respective Ministers responsible for education. We do not make excuses for this, because there simply are certain matters which are general and which affect all educational systems, and it is in the best interests of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, and in the best interests of everyone living in this country, that we respect those specific general affairs and do things in that way. We have made this point so often that I have nothing more to say to the hon member about it.

If the hon member compares this legislation with the original Act—Act 39 of 1967—he will see that we admitted people of colour to Government schools even then. We did admit them to Government schools. He knows that is true. That has been the case for a long time. In other words, this is no new principle. What I should like to concede to the hon member is that a similar concessions has now been made in respect of private schools, but still there is no deviation from the principle; the principle has remained through the years. I want to tell the hon member and the Whites outside the House, with a clear conscience, that in my heart of hearts I am convinced that we are not restricting White education. We are not selling White education out to whomever. We maintain the standpoint that we have separate education for the respective population groups, but that we render service to them as announced.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister argued that the hon the Minister of National Education would not have a say when he determined the policy of the syllabus. Unfortunately I do not have his 1984 Hansard at hand, but during that year the former Minister of National Education said in answer to a question I put to him, that the envisaged own affairs education departments would be totally subject to the policy determined by the Minister of National Education. In the second place the hon the Minister said it went without saying that the Minister of National Education would have a say in the syllabus. If the hon the Minister does not want to accept that, I shall fetch that Hansard when I have a chance and give it to him personally with column references and all. I shall prove to him that this was what was said by the Minister of National Education at the time. It is recorded in black on white in Hansard that this was in fact the situation. The fact of the matter is—and I want to make this clear to the hon the Minister—that it was determined in the Act of 1967 that White education itself would decide on its own affairs. That was self-determination. White education could determine its own norms and standards without further ado. White education could appoint its own teaching staff and determine their service conditions and salaries. It can no longer do so now.

The hon the Minister must not come and tell me that this still means self-determination as far as service conditions are concerned, while White education is bound by general conditions in any case. That White education can therefore include its own little conditions within the framework of those general conditions is absurd, surely. Even if White education includes ten own little conditions or whatever, not one of them could be a condition which is in conflict with the general conditions which, as the hon the Minister himself said, are going to be determined. White education can only include those conditions—as an own affair; an affair for itself—which are not in conflict with and are not prescribed by the general conditions for its registration.

In addition, Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister cannot explain that away. He has progressed a great deal today by admitting for the first time that own affairs education is no longer autonomous and that it is bound in this way.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to say very much in reply to the hon member for Koedoespoort. I want to ask him only one thing, however. He must please not put words into my mouth. Fortunately what I said is recorded in Hansard. I stand by what I said.

The hon member for Koedoespoort must please try to understand—we have just stated it clearly—that the hon the Minister of National Education has specific matters to administer, and he does so in consultation with the respective Ministers of Education. To me that seems to be in agreement with what the Minister of National Education at the time said in 1984. We do not differ with one another on that point. It is correct, after all; we have no problems with it.

Yes, but who determines it?

The hon member is asking me who determines it. It is determined by the hon the Minister of National Education “in consultation with” the respective Ministers of Education and Culture. Let me tell the hon member he is living in an absolute fool’s paradise. He wants us to have full separate educational systems, yet he and his party are also very keen to make use of the products of the other educational systems. Interjections.] When we meet here, however, to determine a common standard, the hon member has a great deal to say. I cannot understand that.

We must accept one thing, however. We must accept that the products of the other educational systems also find their expression in the common market, to the advantage of everyone and to the advantage of the Whites. We must get away from the racist idea that we as Whites are the only ones who are going to have the best and that the others must of necessity be weaker. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is, we have committed ourselves in the White Paper to saying that when we strive for what is closest to equal educational opportunities, we shall not do so to the detriment of the standards that have been attained; and we shall adhere to that. It is also important, however, that in the best interests of this country, we ensure that we obtain an equal standard in respect of all the respective educational systems we have here.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 5:

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has differentiated between the organised teaching profession and other organisations. I refer here to clause 5(f) which provides that “the organised teaching profession shall be consulted”.

I must tell the hon the Minister that I am very pleased with the change. It is an excellent change because it makes it obligatory now that “the organised teaching profession shall be consulted when planning for purposes of education” rather than that “consideration shall be given” to their suggestions. It is a very good improvement.

However, I have difficulty with the fact that the same change does not occur regarding the organised parent community in paragraph (e). The hon the Minister has not inserted an obligation that the organised parent community should be consulted when planning. They should be “given a place” and that is correct because certainly they should be given a place and have been given a place. What I do not understand is why the hon the Minister did not take the opportunity of extended paragraph (i) to also the organised parent community because I happen to believe, as he does, very strongly that the organised parent community—the parent community as a whole—do have a very important role to play. I believe that in the future of South African education they are actually going to play an ever more important role.

I think it is unfortunate that they have not been given the same rights that have now been extended to the organised teaching profession. Really, it is an area where—if I may support my colleague the hon member for Bryanston—it would have helped if this matter had been referred to a select committee. I am certain the hon the Minister would have accepted this amendment because I think it is entirely logical that the organised parent community should be consulted when planning for the purposes of education.

Mr Chairman, when we look at clause 5(e), we see that it reads: “the organised parent community be given a place in the education system” whereas clause 5(f) refers to “planning for purposes of education”. The organised parent community is getting representation on the education council.

I accept that.

Very well, then I need not reply further. [Interjections.] It seems to me I must resume my seat, because the hon member already has the reply.

No, I am waiting.

The parents also have representation with regard to planning through the provincial education councils. Now the hon member will grant me that with regard to planning as such—I am saying this with all due respect to the organised parents—there is a greater need for the organised profession to be given a say. Consequently we are under an obligation to give the organised profession a place there. In the normal course of events I believe that any Minister will also be only too willing to obtain the standpoint of the organised parents via the provincial education councils, in order to involve them in the process too. But it is essential for us to give the organised profession a place there. This is our reply.

Mr Chairman, replying to the hon the Minister’s argument, the organised teaching profession itself is represented in the educational council. Let us therefore not even consider that as a possibility because both the organised parent community and the organised profession are considered there.

Let us therefore consider the other case. The case that the hon the Minister is trying to get me to argue is that the organised teaching position does not deserve a place—but it certainly does. The organised teaching profession does deserve a place in planning and it should be consulted.

All that I am arguing is that what they have, should have been extended to the organised parent community as well. The hon the Minister has not given me one argument why it was not extended. He said in fact that in the normal course of events a sensible Minister would consult. Why has it therefore not been put in the Bill?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 7:

Mr Chairman, clause 7 provides the Minister with the opportunity to compose, at his discretion, an ad hoc council to advise him on matters which he may refer to the council. The hon the Minister did not refer to this in his second reading speech.

New structures are to be created, and a large number of additional councils set up to advise the Ministers and the departments at various levels on a very wide range of matters. We can, for instance, look at the new National Education Council. It is furthermore the case that, in terms of this legislation, an education council will be constituted for each province. We also have the different certification councils and on top of that we are now also talking about new bodies for teachers, etc.

If one takes this into consideration, together with the consequences of the implementation of the new Constitution, which creates departments and so forth, it indicates the creation of a new structure of bureaucracies at various levels. On top of this the hon the Minister now finds it necessary to provide for an ad hoc council to be set up.

We would like to know why it is necessary to come up with an additional council. Are the structures which are to be created not capable of carrying out all the tasks which need to be carried out? Is there anything which justifies the appearance of a further additional council?

One of the unfortunate results of this new legislation is the expansion of bureaucracy by way of many new bodies and the unnecessary fragmentation of the control of education. Moreover this will entail enormous additional expenditure. We contend that the hon the Minister must produce an acceptable justification for the creation of this council to indicate that it is really necessary.

It almost seems as if the hon the Minister is saying here that everyone is getting a council, and now he wants one too. [Interjections.] If all the other fellows get councils, he also wants one. I can accept that it is not only this hon Minister who wants an ad hoc council. His opposite numbers in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates most probably also want such a council. [Interjections.] It is just like the hon the Minister’s Mercedes Benzes and chauffeurs, because if one has it, the others also want it.

I do not believe this can be justified, but I shall gladly listen to any justification which the hon the Minister can provide before I make a final decision.

Mr Chairman, sometimes the hon member for Bryanston makes me laugh. He says we are in the process of creating a terrible bureaucracy here.

Which is true.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes as regards the meaning of the word “bureaucracy”, because I do not see what the hon member for Bryanston is stating here.

All we needed was one Minister. One good Minister!

This ad hoc council which can be established—the hon member rightly referred to this—will be in the place of the National Education Council. The National Education Council is now disappearing. Consequently the argument of the hon member that there is now going to be an additional council falls away because the National Education Council is falling away and in its place…

[Inaudible.]

Of course. Is the hon member opposed to the provincial education councils?

No.

No, he is not. The provincial education councils are now being established. Such a provincial education council is a broader council. This clause provides that if the Minister finds it possible to undertake what will most probably be more specialised research, he can constitute an ad hoc council to advise him on a specific matter. It is not laid down that he must do so. Why would the hon the Minister constitute such a council if he did not really have the need for it? If he can use the advice he gets from a provincial education council, he will do so. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that he wants advice in a specialised field, independent of the separate provinces. Then he can, if he wishes, constitute such a council. But the Minister is definitely not compelled to constitute such a council. He does so only if there is a need for it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr Chairman, this clause deals with what is probably the most important area in this Bill because it establishes bodies that were conceived two or three years ago in order to make provision for the particular character and ethos of a province to be continued, if one wants to call it that, once the provincial councils had disappeared. With the disappearance of the provincial council there was no body to which the individual departments in a province were answerable. This body then came about to be constituted, after lengthy discussions between various interested people in the organised education system.

I have attempted to highlight the problems that I believe exist in respect of the new section 5(l)(e). The hon the Minister has answered me on this and I thank him for it. He said that by means of regulation there will be a quite clear differentiation between the percentage—I asume it will be “percentage” rather than “numbers”—of the representatives that will come from the structural bodies and those that will come from the voluntary bodies. I am very pleased that he has given that answer. However, I regret to say that I do not believe he has satisfactorily addressed the problems of the preprimary parent, and in this regard I want to give an example in terms of the provincial education council.

The provincial education council is a body which serves to advise and to answer questions put to it by the hon the Minister, and in particular by the departmental head of education in a particular province. One would assume that in the normal run of discussions the aspect of preprimary education would be discussed by the provincial education council. It would be discussed because when one consults this Bill in relation to the definition of “school”, one finds that it means—

Therefore, preprimary education does fall quite specifically under provincial education and it will be discussed.

The problem is that this hon Minister and, I believe, the system as a whole have made provision for a number of designated persons from particular categories. Thus we have the head of education, an officer designated by him, various officers from his department, representatives of tertiary education, the organised teaching profession, the organised parent community, private schools, special education, technical colleges and seven others all nominated by the hon the Minister. Moreover, the hon the Minister indicated specifically in his speech that he would make provision for Savtbo among the seven nominated by him.

All I am asking, is that in order that the preprimary phase be specifically provided for, the hon the Minister should make specific provision for a representative from the preprimary phase among the seven nominated by him, because that is their problem. It is not that they want to cause trouble. It is just that when the provincial education council comes to consider, debate and discuss matters concerning preprimary education, the parent representatives from the preprimary phase should be there to participate. I agree that the hon the Minister has taken great care with the preprimary phase. I support him in that, and hope he will continue to do so because I believe it is an integral part of our education system.

I trust therefore that the hon the Minister will give consideration to this request. I know he hinted at it a little earlier but I should like him to be a little more specific and, if he can, give us a guarantee that the preprimary phase parents will be accommodated within that number of seven.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that as a result of my representations in connection with Saatve he saw his way clear to accommodate them in the way he spelt out during the second reading debate. There is great appreciation for the recognition of Saatve in this case, and we just want to convey our thanks to him for this.

Mr Chairman, I have appreciation for what the hon member for Pinetown is saying. The pre-primary parents can gain representation in the provincial education council through the organised profession—I am saying can; not must. This is one course they can adopt. Pre-primary education can also gain representation through the organised parent community—yet again I am not saying must or will. Consequently there are already two ways in which they can gain representation in the new system, whereas up to now they have not had any representation in the old system.

What is more, the pre-primary education system is developing. I want to tell the hon member that I have an open mind as far as pre-primary education is concerned. If it develops in such a way later that we feel justified in giving them direct representation, I shall look into the matter. At the present moment, however—we are not concerned about the quality of the education but about the total level of development and the number of pre-primary schools in existence—we do not think it is necessary to mention this specifically because it can acquire representation through the other two channels. In future I shall continue to watch development of pre-primary education with an open mind.

Mr Chairman, I must ask the hon the Minister if he would be willing to give us an opinion on a second matter. The hon the Minister is aware that in the structural changes in education in Natal and in the constituting of the regional committees, the provincial education authorities, before the hon the Minister took over that department—and I want to make that quite clear because I am not hanging it on him—decided on the allocation of schools and school committees on a ward system in order to have elections to regional committees.

One of the aspects of this electoral system of school committees in wards revolved around the question of the voting of English- and Afrikaans-speaking parents at parallel-medium schools. We have in Natal a fair percentage of parallel-medium schools, and it was so devised in the structure of voting that the voting of the parents for the number of seats on the school commitee and then on the ward committe would be representative in proportion to the percentage of English and Afrikaans-speaking pupils at the schools. In fact, there is a quota, if you like, of English and of Afrikaans pupils in proportion to the total number of pupils.

There has been discussion—and the hon the Minister is well aware of this—back and forth in Natal on this particular aspect. There are people for and there are people against. I have restrained myself up to this point from giving my opinion on that particular system. I should like to see how it is working, but I am concerned that what is happening in Natal is in fact not happening in the other provinces. That is not to say—and I want to make this quite clear—that I believe it should necessarily be uniform, but I am interested in the hon the Minister’s view of this kind of voting system, and, in fact, whether that kind of voting system will be proportional in terms of the selection of representatives of the organised teaching profession and of the organised parent community voluntary associations.

Mr Chairman, I always follow a very good example. Consequently I should now like to follow the example of the hon member for Pinetown, when he refrained from voicing an opinion regarding the system which Natal has developed there itself. Just like the hon member, I am going to refrain from voicing my opinion on this. The hon member is setting a good example in this regard.

What I do want to say is that I believe it is fair and right that neither of the language groups are being cheated. I believe it is fair and right that we have more or less a fair representation in those councils—the hon member spoke quite sincerely, I believe, about a “quota”, and put it in inverted commas himself—as regards the number of English and Afrikaans-speaking persons in proportion to the numbers represented. Of course this applies not only to Natal but also to the Free State. That is also all I have to say about this.

I assure the hon member for Pinetown that I am aware that there were problems in Natal. I want to say this today. I gained great respect for Natal. In spite of the many big problems which exist there—at the level of parent associations and at other levels too—it is nevertheless true, according to my information, that the people of Natal would appear to be finding common ground. Today I also thank them for putting the cause higher than possible sectional differences and so on. I believe that in the field of education matters are improving in Natal.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the proposed new section 6(4)(b) and (c). Here again, Sir, the hon the Minister has distinguished between the way in which the organised teaching profession is to be treated and the way in which the organised parent community is to be treated. Reference is made here to, among others, a subcommittee of the heads of education. These are of course important subcommittees. Let nobody have any doubt about that. Anybody who has followed the records and the minutes of these committees of heads of education over the past ten years or so will know how important these subcommittees are.

In the proposed new section 6(4)(b) it is stated as follows:

Section 8B(1) refers of course to the Federal Teachers’ Council. I also quote the proposed new section 6(4)(c):

Now, here again, Mr Chairman, I regret that I have to disagree with what the hon the Minister is doing. The hon the Minister may do exactly the same thing he did the last time. He may not give me an answer. I do believe, however, that here again there should be a parent. Justice must be seen to be done. It is that same kind of question. I am not gainsaying the fact regarding the organised teaching profession. I am very pleased that they will have mandatory representation, but I would plead that this too is a situation in which an amendment should have been made regarding the question of parents. They should have had representation. The hon the Minister should not again have left the option open.

Mr Chairman, the hon member will accept my yet again not replying to his speech. [Interjections.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr Chairman, I want to indicate quite clearly to the hon the Minister that I do not want to wage other bodies’ wars here. Other organisations have had problems with this. I do not want to mention them and neither do I want to involve them. What I do want to do, however, is to examine fairly critically what is being proposed in this clause. Even before I do that, however, I should like to suggest that it is perhaps possible for the hon the Minister at this stage to give consideration to removing this clause from the Bill altogether. There are several reasons for this. The hon the Minister is aware that I know that there are ongoing discussions being carried on within the organised teaching community. These are discussions across the board, as it were, Sir. They do not only involve the White group. The discussions are being held so that the teaching community can find themselves.

The hon the Minister has said he is very pleased that the people in Natal have found themselves. I hope the hon the Minister will be very pleased in the future when the members of teaching profession find themselves as well. I believe they are in the process of doing so.

I earnestly hope that the hon the Minister will see this as an opportunity to withdraw this clause. We will not hold it against him that he brought the clause before us. We believe he did so at a stage when he was requested to do so. The Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations of South Africa and the SATCW—the SA Teachers’ Council for Whites—had met over a long period of time and had approached the hon the Minister with the request to include an amendment that had the effect of amalgamating those two bodies into the Federal Teachers’ Council of South Africa. We understand that. What we are hoping for, however, is that the differences that have emerged between those two bodies over the past three or four months will be settled. We know there have been ongoing contacts between the various organisations operating within that body in order for them to try to find themselves on this particular measure.

It relates to what I was saying earlier, namely that the registration of teachers is a general affair. The hon the Minister has agreed with me that it is a general affair, because that is a provision of the Constitution. This issue is the kernel on which the teachers can find themselves.

The hon the Minister must not get cross with me. All I am trying to do is to find a way out of this impasse. Sure, the hon the Minister can say we should pass the clause now and then perhaps amend or change it next year. I, on the other hand, am saying that we should take it out at this stage and then introduce an amending Bill next year. I believe that as the clause presently stands there is a considerable possibility that problems will continue to emerge.

I want now to move away from this principle argument asking the hon the Minister to remove this particular clause, to ask some specific questions. The first question regards the proposed new section 8B(3)(a) which I quote:

As I have said, one of the origins of this Bill was the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act, Act 116 of 1976. This Act was the culmination of a very long process by the organised teaching profession dating back for some considerable time. I know in the case of the Natal Teachers’ Society a resolution was taken at their congress in 1918 that there should be a teachers’ council. The teachers’ council therefore has a long history. The way it finally emerged in 1976 as a Whites-only body caused difficulties even then. It was hoped by some people that that would change.

The South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act of 1976 states in its definition that a “professionally qualified teacher” means “a White person who holds a professional teacher’s qualification”. That caused problems. I know certainly of at least one case where a teacher who through conscience refused to register because she refused to join a Whites-only body, lost her job. She was thrown out and then left the country because she refused to join a Whites-only body. Do I understand correctly in terms of this clause that, because the definition of “professionally qualified teacher” will disappear on account of the fact that the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act is going to be repealed, it is now possible to appoint and have registered at, for example, a private school—such a school is included in the definition of a teaching post—a person who is not White? Can a person who is not White register? Looking at the Bill before us, I would say that he can. If the hon the Minister is going to stand up and say that he cannot, I would like to know why not.

My second question revolves around the proposed section 8B(2)(a). It reads as follows:

A very interesting situation has emerged here. We have a statutory body in the SA Teachers’ Council which has statutory rights and a non-statutory body in the SA Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations but with statutory rights.

These two will be amalgamated. As I read the provision that I have just quoted this body will be what I can best term a semi-statutory body. It can have its own constitution and it can exercise its own affairs but it does have a statutory position in that it is written into the principal Act No 39 of 1967.

What I am trying to gather in this second question that I pose is whether the Federal Teachers’ Council can decide for itself that it wishes to become a non-racial body, because, as I quoted, it “shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with its constitution”. Can it become a non-racial body? Can it bring in all other races? Again I see nothing in the Bill that precludes this. I am pleased that it is a possibility that could materialise.

My third question is in regard to the proposed new section 8C(5) which concerns those people whose registration is carried forward. It reads as follows:

I wish to emphasise the following exclusion—

That definition reads as follows:

The effect of the proposed new subsection (5) will be to remove the necessity for White persons who teach under departments other than that of Education and Culture to register at all.

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly.

I shall just have to shout a little louder, Sir.

Mr Chairman, they are making a terrible noise.

Order!

This amendment effectively means that in future not all White teachers will have to register. Only those who fall under the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will have to do so. This too is a fundamental departure from the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act. In the past, this Act obliged every White person who was a teacher to register with the SATC for Whites. The proposed new section 8(C)(5) means that only those who fall under this Minister will have to register.

Having raised these three points, I should like to pause for the time being while the hon the Minister catches his breath.

Mr Chairman, I would like to support the hon member for Pinetown in regard to the two points he has made. Those of us who know anything about education in Cape Town and in the Peninsula, will know that particularly the White Afrikaans-medium schools in Cape Town—in Maitland for example—are having to reduce their number of posts. They have to do this for two reasons. Firstly, there is now a rule that the formula is to be one teacher to 40 children. Secondly, Afrikaans-speaking people are moving out of the Peninsula and population growth has reduced dramatically in the White community.

What is happening is that many qualified and experienced White teachers will become redundant. The provisions of this clause and particularly the proposed new section 8(C)(5) which the hon member for Pinetown has just mentioned may cause a further problem for these teachers who ought to be utilised immediately in the total teacher corps of South Africa. They can probably easily get posts in the schools of other racial groups. However, they now have not only the problems facing them when they became redundant, such as not being able to get their gratuities, etc, but also that because there are White teachers moving into so-called Coloured schools or schools under the Department of Education and Training and they actually do not need to register with this council, they may well gain the impression that they are acquiring a lower standing. I believe that that is bad.

Secondly, it seems to me unfortunate that White teachers are being racially segregated in this way. The question of education in this country, and particularly the question of the quality of education, is so important at the moment that it is unfortunate that we endeavour to encapsulate a certain quality and standard of education within a racial straitjacket. To me it seems critical that we should get rid of this racial quality.

I wish to urge the hon the Minister to consider carefully the appeal of the hon member for Pinetown which I can support in specific cases. There are teachers who are experienced, who are in their late forties or early fifties, who would like to carry on teaching and who would be happy to teach in other schools but who, because they have been made redundant, are not able to find posts. Furthermore, this kind of legislation compounds the feeling that if they teach at a Coloured, Indian or Black school they are not actually teaching in a situation of the same quality as when they are in a White school.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown put a few important questions to the hon the Minister, and depending on the replies which the hon the Minister is going to give us, we will decide whether or not we can support this clause. I think we will most probably be driven by necessity to vote against it.

If this clause’s provisions mean that the envisaged teacher’s body is going to be exclusively for White teachers and that teachers of other colour groups are going to be entirely excluded from it, we simply cannot agree with that, because it is in conflict with a fundamental policy of this party. What is more, we also believe that it is counter-productive as far as the education of all the children in South Africa is concerned.

We really believe that it is going to be in the interests of education, the children, the teachers and South Africa as a whole if the maximum opportunity is created for teachers of all race groups in South Africa to be able to make contact with one another and communicate with one another on all education matters, so that the experience which the various groups gain can be discussed on those occasions, so that there can be co-operation and, as a result, the teachers can appreciate all the education problems in South Africa.

I just want to tell the hon the Minister about a very interesting experience I had in Johannesburg, at an Afrikaans primary school where Zulu was taught to all the children as a subject. This happened only a few years ago.

Although the teacher was trained to teach Zulu, he experienced great difficulty in teaching the subject to the children. The children also experienced tremendous difficulty in making progress in Zulu. One day, because the teacher was discouraged by the problems he had, he called in the Zulu gardener and said to him: “Please come and help me to explain Zulu to these children and to teach them the language.” The Zulu gardener went into the classroom in his overalls and for half an hour he helped the children with Zulu and with the pronunciation of the language.

After that half hour the children had made so much progress and their entire approach and reaction was so positive that the school decided to use that gardener from then on every time that subject was taught. The next day that gardener arrived in a brand-new blue suit with a white shirt and a red tie and he was a teacher. Of course his wage was that of a gardener, but he was a teacher and he taught Zulu to all the classes at that school. Do you know, Sir, on average those children fared 25% better than before.

I cannot tell hon members which school that was, but this happened quite illegally. In that case an unqualified, illiterate person was so effective in the teaching of his language to pupils of another colour that for many months the school made use of his services. Consequently the pupils fared far better.

I just want to say that today White teachers teach at Coloured, Indian and Black schools. They are appointed in their thousands and do very good work. I agree that all White teachers who no longer have posts at White schools as a result of the closure of White schools or the declining pupil numbers at those schools, must be incorporated in Black education where there is a great shortage of teachers. If White teachers can teach at Black schools why can Black teachers not teach at White schools? Why can they not be appointed on exactly the same basis as White teachers are appointed at schools for people of colour?

I know it will not be long before that perfectly normal, advantageous and beneficial step will be taken. It is going to happen!—Why can it not happen today, at private schools and at the other schools falling under the department of the hon the Minister, for example? If this happens—and it is going to happen—we must already make provision at this stage for those Black teachers to be admitted to teachers’ bodies in future, and I am not only referring to those Black teachers, but to teachers of all groups.

I am mentioning this as an example of a perfectly natural development which we can expect. If we pass the Bill in its present form, this means that the Government will have to do what it must do every year in this House. Every year it comes to this House and admits that it was in fact wrong. The legislation must then be amended, usually on the basis of recommendations made two or three years ago by the Opposition.

Say it in advance.

This happens so frequently. Now we are saying the Government must save itself the embarrassment it brings on itself year after year by submitting dozens of pieces of legislation and then admitting that it was wrong as regards the provisions in some of them. [Interjections.] It must then accept amendments on the basis of standpoints stated in the House in the past by the Opposition. We want the Government to avoid that embarrassment in future. [Interjections.] This provision must be removed from the legislation so that such problems do not crop up. If this is done, the PFP is already helping the Government to avoid such problems in future. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have never met anyone who is so fond of writing his own testimonial as the hon member for Bryanston. [Interjections.] Sometimes he really tries very hard to write that testimonial in a fine and flattering way, but some efforts are not that good.

Look what the hon member is doing now. The hon member is holding it against us that we are not immediately doing what the PFP says.

But you do it in any case!

The hon member told us a fine story, which I believe…

Why do you accept PFP policy when Chris submits it, but not when I do so? [Interjections.]

Well, because I have very good judgement of course, and there is quite a big difference between the two people whose names the hon member mentioned. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.