It is easy to see what Clause 12 provides by simply reading the clause, but what is interesting is that it has been re-cast in order to incorporate the provisions contained in Clause 11. The position is now that after a specified date anyone who is a disqualified person in a group area which has been proclaimed, shall commit an offence if he stays there, if he is of a race other than that for which the area was proclaimed. The significant change which has been made here is that whereas before a person who became disqualified by reason of the proclamation had at least one year before he had to get out of the area or before his lease or other arrangement in regard to tenure would be affected. But now he can have less than a year. I hope the Minister will deal with this. He did not deal with it adequately in relation to the previous clause. The position is that under the existing law he had a guarantee of one year after the date of publication of the proclamation in the Gazette before he had to move, or before his lease expired. The words “but subject to the provisions of sub-section (1 )bis of the said section” mean that the Minister may, when he published a proclamation and proclaims that area for occupation by a particular race group, provide a date in that proclamation which is earlier than the date of publication of that proclamation.

I explained all that yesterday.

No, the Minister did not explain it. At the moment it says within one year from the date of publication in the Gazette. Now it says one year after the date specified in such proclamation. There is nothing there which stipulates that that date may not be earlier than the date of publication. The Minister is a lawyer, and I ask him whether it says that, or is there anything which prevents the Minister when publishing such a proclamation putting in a different date? But if the Minister says that in fact this will not happen, then we are entitled to know why he is changing the law in this regard, and we have had no satisfactory answer from him. Will the Minister concede that it is possible in terms of this amendment for him to specify a date earlier than the date of publication? This Minister says he will not do that, but the fact is that he is given the power to proclaim an earlier date, and when the proclamation is published in the Gazette, then no longer will the people have at least one year in which to get out; they have one year from that earlier date, which may be only six months that they have to make other arrangements. The Minister owes this committee an explanation as to why he has changed the law if in fact he is not going to do it. This can have very serious effects on the people affected, because parts of this Bill provide that on the expiration of that date the lease is automatically cancelled and you have to make other arrangements. It is very difficult to make other arrangements in a short time. The Minister ought to know this. I hope the Minister will give us an explanation of this so that we will not have to beat the air about this clause without an explanation from him as to why this clause has been redrafted and why the provisions relating to a minimum period before having to leave an area have been changed, even though the Minister says that this will not be implemented.

This clause refers to Section 20 (1), and 20 (1) (a) says that “as from a date specified in the proclamation the area defined in the proclamation shall be an area for occupation by members of the group specified”. Now the hon. member persists in saying that it is now possible to make it retrospective and that the proclamation will not allow a period of one year, and on that he builds his whole argument. He put up this straw doll himself yesterday and said that could happen. I pointed out that in practice it just does not work that way. No retrospective power is being granted here. It is not the practice to proclaim it in advance. The whole intention here is that “it shall be an area”. That refers to the future, and surely it is clear that it is not the intention that it will be retrospective and that the period will be shorter. I explained the matter yesterday, and I stand by my explanation.

This is not the meaning of this. I am sorry. The Minister should look at Clause 11. The difference between the law as it exists now and the law as he proposes to make it by this Bill is that the date after which one year shall elapse at the moment is the date of the publication of the proclamation. That is clear from Clause 11, but those words are being taken out, and the date from which the year shall run in future is now one year after the date specified in such proclamation. The words “of publication” are taken out. There is a difference. All we are asking the Minister to indicate to us is why he has changed the wording here. Why, before, was the date from which the year ran the date of publication, and why is it now the date specified in the proclamation? They are two different things. The one is a certain time. The one is a date which can be determined easily, the date of the proclamation, and then the public knows that they have that one year of grace after that in which to make other arrangements. Now he says it is to be changed to the date specified in the proclamation. If it is going to be a year, and if the date specified is to be the date of the publication of the proclamation, why does it not say so in the Bill? I am not concerned with what this Minister intends doing. He may not be the Minister of Planning next year. The Minister is introducing a Bill, and he has to explain to the Committee what this means. He is changing the law. We want to know why he is changing the law.

You are just splitting hairs.

Perhaps the hon. members for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) or for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), who are lawyers, will explain it to us if the Minister does not see the point. It is no good the Minister saying that the meaning of this is to provide that a particular area to which the proclamation relates shall be an area. That has been provided for already; it has always been provided for, but that is not what he is changing. What he is altering is the right of people affected to have one year’s grace. I hope the Minister has got the point I am making and that he will explain it. There are different words, and there must be a reason for it. The only reason I can see for this is that this Minister is in a hurry. Goodness knows, they are 15 years behind schedule already, but he is in a hurry, and he wants to proclaim these areas and get the people out before the year has expired. The Minister must not think I am being uncharitable in having such a view, because that is the only reasonable conclusion one can come to without an explanation from the Minister, which we have not had.

I appeal to the Minister to tell the Committee why the wording as to the date from which the year is to run, is now being changed.

I hope the Minister will accede to the request of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) to give a more satisfactory explanation of this change in the wording. Some hon. members opposite seem to suggest that we are just splitting hairs, but those hon. members obviously do not understand the position, because there is a world of difference between the situation which exists under the law at present and the situation which will exist under the law as it is proposed to amend it. [Interjection.] The situation as it exists under the present law is this, that the period of one year which disqualified persons are allowed must run from the date of publication onwards; and what is more, it is possible under the law as it is at the moment to give disqualified persons a period longer than one year, because the section says “which shall be not less than one year after the date of publication of any proclamation”. What is proposed to be deleted are the words “of publication of any” and in the place of that the words “specified in such” are to be inserted. The effect of that is quite clear. It will then read “which shall be not less than one year after the date specified in the proclamation”. Now, a proclamation can always specify a date after the date upon which the proclamation is published, but the proclamation can also specify a date prior to the date of proclamation.

Does that ever happen?

If the hon. member looks at the Government Gazettes he will see that it happens very frequently. So this clause is open to the construction that a date can be specified prior to the date of the publication of the proclamation. The Minister said yesterday that that was not the Government’s intention. We are prepared to accept that is the way in which the Minister interprets it, but portfolios change hands and other Ministers may not interpret the provision in the same way, and this provision can be interpreted differently. I would again appeal to the Minister to answer the question I put to him yesterday when we dealt with Clause 11, and that is that if in fact it is the Government’s intention not to proclaim a date prior to the date of publication of the proclamation, why is this amendment being introduced? Because the section as it stands at present secures the rights of disqualified persons in two ways. It secures them in the sense that no date can be proclaimed prior to the date of the proclamation, and it secures them in the sense that disqualified persons can be allowed more than one year’s notice if the Minister so chooses. Surely both those objects should be preserved, and as I understand the Minister it is the Government’s object to preserve those two objects. That being so, I cannot understand why the Government wishes to introduce these amendments. I again appeal to the Minister to tell us why it is proposed to make this amendment. If in fact it is the Government’s intention to apply the law under the amended clause in the same way as the section is being applied at present, then frankly it is quite impossible to appreciate why any amendment should be introduced at all. So I would appeal to the Minister to implement his interpretation by not proceeding with these amendments and to leave the clause in respect of the year’s provision as it stands now.

Mr. Chairman…

The same questions are being repeated and the same arguments are being used over and over again.

But I have not said a word yet. I thought that the Minister was going to get up, but I want to say that if he is not going to get up to give an explanation, then we are entitled to assume that our interpretation of this is quite correct.

You are just acting on instructions.

There are other hon. members on this side who are quite able to criticize this Bill, and if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth-North (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) would not sit and giggle like a St. Trinian’s schoolgirl but would instead apply his mind to what this clause says, it would be better for all of us, because I want to tell him that it could apply to the people in his own constituency also. He should apply his mind to the clause and not lend his bleating support, as he always does, to anything the Minister puts up. Then we would perhaps have legislation on the statute book, if that is the intention of the Minister, which would do some justice to the people who are being hit by these injustices. Surely it is not much to ask that if the house in which you have been living all your life is being proclaimed for members of another group, you should have at least a year in which to find alternative accommodation. I must remind the Minister in charge of the Bill that his predecessor has said time and again that he wants to administer the Group Areas Act with justice; that he wants to apply these harsh provisions with justice. Now here is a provision where that justice, for what it is—one year—is in jeopardy, and all we get from those hon. members is sniggers, and no answer from the Minister. I hope the Minister will now get up and tell us what it is that he proposes here, and why he proposes it, and I want to remind him that he is in duty bound, as the successor to the other hon. Minister, to see to it that justice is done so far, at any rate, as this statute now provides.

Clause 12 says—

And Section 20 is not being changed, but remains just as it is.

And Clause 11?

Clause 11 also says the same. This clause refers to the date mentioned in Sec. 20 (1) (a), which is not being amended. Therefore there is no amendment in that regard.

I must say that I find the hon. the Minister’s explanation extraordinary. If he reads a little further down he will see that sub-section (1) of Section 3 is made subject to the provisions of Section 1 bis of the said Section, i.e. Section 21 bis, and Section 1bis of Section 20 has been amended.

The first part relates only to Section 21 (a).

Yes, that is right. Sir, perhaps I should read the whole Clause to the Minister—

Although the Minister is right in saying that the first part relates only to Section 21 (a), clearly the provisions of sub-section 1 his of Section 20 are introduced later in the Section, and 21 bis was in fact amended by this House last night in a way which we consider may cause hardship to the persons affected. We would like to know from the hon. Minister what his reply is to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Durban-North (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and myself against the amendment which is being introduced to Section 1 bis. So far we have not been able to find out why it is that Section 1 bis has been amended in this way, especially since the hon. the Minister assured the House last night that it was not the intention of the Government to give i disqualified persons less than one year’s notice to remain in affected properties. The only explanation we have had from the hon. The Minister is that from a practical point of view it is impossible, he suggests, to proclaim a group area from a date prior to the date of publication of the proclamation. The hon. the Minister suggested that because the proclamation of a group area has so many important and drastic effects it would not be done; that it would always be done either from the date of publication of a proclamation or from a subsequent date. But, Sir, in terms of this amendment which was introduced yesterday by the Government it is possible to specify a date prior to the date of publication of the proclamation. That being the case, why does the Government want to take this power? Surely in the absence of any explanation, we can only conclude and this House can only conclude that it is in fact the intention of the Government under certain circumstances to give disqualified persons less than a year’s notice to vacate. The hon. the Minister also referred the House to Section 21 which states—

1. (a) declare that as from a date specified in the proclamation the area defined in the proclamation shall be an area for occupation by members of the group so specified.

Sir, you will notice that in Section 21 the phrase “a date specified in the proclamation” is left wide; it could be a date before or it could be a date after. That is why Section 1 bis, as it stood before it was amended, was so important because it was in Section ibis that it was made perfectly clear that the date specified in the proclamation had to be either the same date as the proclamation or a subsequent date and that the year’s notice would then run either from the date but certainly not from a prior date. In all these circumstances, we find it impossible to understand the case which is now being made by the Government to justify this amendment if in fact it is not the intention to give disqualified persons less than a year’s notice, and I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister would explain to the Committee why this amendment was introduced to Section 1 bis of Section 20.

Clause put and agreed to.

Official Opposition dissenting.

On Clause 14.

Once again this is the sort of clause about which no discussion need perhaps have taken place in the Committee Stage if we had had an explanatory memorandum. This clause completely recasts a section of the Act which at the moment deals only with companies. The section of the Act now being amended says—

That part of the law is now back in this clause, but in addition “persons” are added. I would have thought that persons were covered in respect of a matter like this under the rest of the items. Then, of course, this is not all it does; having put the companies back in here and having added “persons”, it then goes on to proclaim that anyone or any company that allows the use of land shall also be guilty of an offence. This was not in the Act before. It says—

My first question to the hon. the Minister is this: Is the ordinary person, apart from the company, not covered by the Act as it stands? My second question is this: Is it not an offence in any event for a company or a person to allow land to be used quite differently? My third question is this: Does this provision have anything to do with the visiting of criminal sanctions upon the notorious Luxurama proclamation. Proclamation No. 26 of 12 February 1965? Those are the three questions I would like to ask the hon. the Minister and if he can explain that satisfactorily there might be no need to continue this discussion.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has asked three questions here. One question relates to the wording of this clause, and his question is: If the word “company” is used, that is to say, a juristic person, does that not automatically include a natural person? I am surprised at this question, because it is a recognized rule of legal interpretation that to mention the one is to exclude the other. The fact that the word “company” is used means that Section 31. as contained in the Act of 1961 is made applicable to companies only and to nothing else. I do not know what the reason was why Parliament used only the word “company” at that time, but it was probably because this offence had been committed by companies. I think it is for this reason that it has been deemed advisable, and this is also the reason why I deem it advisable, not to use the words “juristic person” or “natural person”, but to make it very clear that this provision applies to the natural person and the juristic person alike. As a lawyer the hon. member for Durban (North) ought to know that. I think that in 1961 it was perhaps a mistaken notion to single out only the companies for this purpose.

Then, Sir, the hon. member asks why we are now introducing an offence here, and in the third place he asks whether this is connected in any way with the question of mixed audiences. To deal with the last question first, I think this Bill was drafted and conceived long before there was a rumpus about mixed audiences, before certain persons tried to make some propaganda for themselves in a certain way. As regards the question as to whether a crime should be introduced here. I think it is most advisable and high time that persons who try to undermine our pattern of life and to run down our country abroad were dealt with severely. Therefore, I think it is a good thing that such a crime is being introduced now, but I just want to repeat that the point in this clause is simply that the natural person and the juristic person are being placed on the same footing and made subject to the same inhibitions, the same restrictions; in my opinion this is a reasonable thing to do. I should like to know from the hon. member why he considers it unreasonable to place natural persons and companies on the same footing.

I hope the hon. the Minister does not think that the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) is some sort of substitute for himself.

Shame! (Foei tog!)

It is no good hon. members opposite saying “Foei tog!”. This Minister is in charge of this Bill; it is from him that we want an explanation of this Bill.

Are you in charge of the Left Wing of the United Party?

If I was in charge of the Left Wing or the Right Wing of the United Party? Sir, the hon. member must be a little careful in what he says as a lawyer; we do not have a Left Wing and a Right Wing in this party.

There are no wings whatever.

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

Sir, I wish the hon. member over there would come into this debate; he is a lawyer. He could perhaps shed a little light on this matter.

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

The hon. the Minister apparently is going to sit there quite dumb throughout this debate. He must give us an explanation. Let me elaborate. I asked the hon. the Minister three questions. The first one was this: Surely a person who uses land or premises in relation to which he is a disqualified person in an area is already catered for. I do not know; I am asking the hon. the Minister. If he is already catered for, why is provision being made for him here? In the second place, a company now becomes liable for a criminal offence if it uses land or premises, being a disqualified person or company, other than for the purpose of letting it. My third question is this: Having dealt with that situation, the Bill then goes on to say in line 41—

That is quite separate and distinct—

This is extraordinary English, I might point out—

This section is interesting, Sir—

He is not in fact a disqualified person, but he is going to be deemed to be a disqualified person, and he is going to be deemed to be present at, in or about the premises in question. In law, Sir, you deem people to be at a place where they in fact are not for the purpose of catching them in some net. What I am asking the hon. the Minister is whether the net here is not the proclamation which I referred to as the Luxurama proclamation, because that proclamation is issued in terms of the Group Areas Act, and it applies the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 15, as we see here, sub-section (1) of Section 17, which we see here, and sub-section (1) of Section 23, which we see here. If you look at it, Sir, you will see that it says: “Any person who occupies any land or premises for any purpose connected with any such use of property. …” Sir, how do you occupy “in connection with use”? You occupy by means of this proclamation, which says that whether you are in fact occupying it, as we understand the word “occupy”, does not matter; your mere presence there under this proclamation is deemed to be occupation. Here it says: “Any person who occupies any land,” in this extended sense of the proclamation, “for any purpose connected with such use by a person or by a company” —in other words, by a theatre company or by a person staging some sort of affair, now becomes guilty of an offence. Surely if this is the position, this is a most important and new principle being introduced here by the hon. the Minister. By his proclamation he now deems people to be occupiers, although in fact they are not occupiers, and he now associates that occupation with the use of certain land by someone who is disqualified, someone who needs a permit, and everybody needs a permit. Sir, is this the provision that makes it an offence? Because this does make occupation such as we find in the Luxurama proclamation an offence. As far as I am aware, it is not an offence at the moment in terms of the proclamation as it stands to attend such a function; you must not be there except with a permit. There is a connection here between the use of premises by companies and the occupation by people of those premises in relation to the use of those premises. The sections referred to in the Luxurama proclamation. Will the hon. the Minister please answer those three questions. Let me repeat them.

Order! The hon. member must not repeat.

Well, Sir, I have not yet had an answer. However, perhaps the hon. the Minister will now get up to reply.

The note next to the new Section 31 for which provision is being made in Clause 14 reads: “Use of land or premises by disqualified company or person.” The note next to the original section read “Use of land or premises by a company.” It is therefore clear that the new matter that is being added here is the use of land or premises by a person. Whereas in the past it applied only to a company, “person” is now also being added. The reason why “person” is being added is because there was a certain restriction where property was in possession of the company, but it did not apply to persons. This clause now makes it applicable to persons also. What happened in the past is this: Persons possess property; they are disqualified to occupy in terms of the Act, but they allow other people to occupy it. They perhaps have a shop which they may not occupy themselves, but they now put a person there who is qualified to run that business for the benefit of the disqualified person. Therefore provision is now being made for this extension so that the clause will not apply only to disqualified companies but also to disqualified persons, so that it cannot happen that a disqualified person allows a qualified person to occupy the premises on his behalf. An offence is therefore being created here if such a person occupies a premises for the benefit of a disqualified person. This clause has nothing to do with the Luxurama Theatre. It has to do with the cases where a person occupies a premises for the benefit of a disqualified person or company.

The hon. the Minister says that this has nothing to do with the Luxurama. Would he explain what is meant by “any person …”? [Interjection.]

On a point of order, in terms of the rules of the House, interjections are not allowed, but the hon. member is constantly being interrupted.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Will the hon. the Minister explain why, if this has nothing to do with the Luxurama, as he says, and if it only has to do with persons and companies and the use of property, it is provided that “any person who occupies any land or premises for any purpose connected with such use thereof by such a disqualified person or disqualified company …”? This is not just occupation as we normally understand it; it is not dealing just with the use of property, as we normally understand it; it is dealing with occupation connected with such use by a disqualified person or company. This is something quite different: it is a completely new concept. It is not occupation, because that is already dealt with; it is not use, because that is dealt with. For occupation or use, if you are a disqualified person, you need a permit. This is something quite new. This is occupation in connection with use by someone else. The only place where someone has the use of a building and different people occupy it, is normally a place of public entertainment where a company or a person has the use of a certain building by permit and other people occupy it, in terms of the extended definition in the Luxurama proclamation. Sir, what makes me feel that this is probably so, is that this extraordinary concept is contained only in that proclamation, and the very same provisions which are extended by that proclamation are herein contained and re-extended, because in terms of these provisions under which the Luxurama proclamation was issued, the term “occupation” is extended to mean something that is not occupation; to mean just mere presence at or about or in any particular area where, if you were an owner or occupier, you would need a permit. Here you are deemed to be a disqualified person in relation to such land or premises. Now, who is deemed to be a disqualified person in relation to such land or premises? You are deemed to be a disqualified person in relation to that land or premises if you occupy land or premises for a purpose connected with the use of those premises by a disqualified company. Sir, this is not what the hon. the Minister said; the hon. the Minister gave a straightforward simple explanation, and it is not warranted by the extraordinary words which are used here. Here we have occupation related to the use by a third person of certain specified premises. We want to know why. If the Minister does not know, he must tell us that he does not know why and that he does not know what this means. It appears to mean what I have said it means, but we have had no explanation from the hon. the Minister. Normally the hon. member for Standerton comes in when the hon. the Minister does not know what to say. Perhaps he will come in and explain it, and then perhaps the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie)—because this is my third and therefore last bite on the cherry—can answer him in that regard.

I gave a practical example here to illustrate the position. Supposing there is a person who runs a cinema and it is owned by persons or a company who are disqualified. The disqualified person does not occupy the cinema himself; he does not run it, but he lets it to a qualified person, because as the Act now reads he can let it to a qualified person to run it on his behalf. That man occupies the premises for purposes of occupation; his object is to use it as a cinema. That is why the section reads as it does. When such a person, therefore, occupies a cinema for that purpose, on behalf of a disqualified person, it is an offence. Therefore it is being stated here that he occupies the premises for the object for which those premises are destined, and in such a case such a person is declared to be a disqualified person, and it is an offence for such a person to occupy it. He does not do so in his own right but as the nominee or the agent of a disqualified person. That is in fact a circumvention of the Act.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

On Clause 15,

Section 39 which is now being substituted by a new section deals with the appointment and powers of inspectors, and sub-section (1) of that section provides that the Minister shall appoint such inspectors as may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining such facts as may be required by the Minister and of ascertaining whether the provisions of this Act or of any other. Statute prohibiting or restricting the ownership, acquisition or occupation of land by any class of person are being complied with. Sir, the purpose for which inspectors may be appointed are twofold, firstly to ascertain such facts as may be required by the Minister and, secondly to ascertain whether there have been contraventions of the provisions of the Act. One object is obviously of a criminal nature, that is, the investigation of crime, but the other has nothing to do with crime whatsoever. The other object has to do with the ascertainment of facts which the Minister may require. Sir, during the second-reading debate the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side made the point that in fact since 1957 the duties of inspectors under Section 39 have in fact been carried out by the police. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister certain questions arising from this: First of all J should like to know on whose authority the police have been acting as inspectors? Who appointed them in those capacities? Does the hon. the Minister of Justice make those appointments, and, if not, is he aware that they are appointed? This is the first of a series of questions I would like to ask. The second series is this: Have they in fact been carrying out both functions under sub-section (1), the function which is clearly of a criminal nature as well as the function which is not remotely connected with any crime? It appears from what the hon. Minister and hon. members on that side of the House have said during the second-reading debate that that is in fact what has been happening. If that is so then in my submission it constitutes an abuse of the functions of the police.

It certainly constitutes an abuse of the intention under Section 39 (1) because the Legislature could never have intended that the police should, as a general rule, in fact should at all, be appointed as inspectors under this section.

I concede, as was pointed out by the hon. Minister, that the section is wide enough to provide for the appointment of police because it says “the Minister shall appoint such inspectors …” without qualifying it. But, on the other hand, it is a tight rule of interpretation of Statutes, which the Minister of Planning will know, that one sub-section of a section must be read in conjunction with the other sub-sections, if you do that, Sir, you find that sub-section (6) provides that an inspector entering any premises under sub-section (2) may be accompanied by an interpreter or any members of the South African Police. If in fact it was the intention of the Legislature, when it passed …

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the existing law. He can refer to it but he must discuss the proposed new clause. The hon. member is asking questions regarding the existing law. He can refer to it but he must confine himself to the proposed new clause.

Mr. Chairman, if I may address you on this point of order: The object of my asking these questions is to obtain an explanation from the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member is elaborating on it. He must discuss the contents of the clause before the committee.

The point I have made up till now is that if in fact the police have been used since 1957 as inspectors under Section 39 (1) this is an abuse of the provisions of that section. We on this side of the House take the strongest objection to the proposed substitution in this clause of “police” for “inspectors” in this section.

What have you against the police?

If the hon. member would stop trying to jump the gun, Sir, he would hear my explanation in due course; in fact, he will hear it right now. What we have against the police for this function is this: Firstly, because it immediately introduces into the context of the group areas legislation a criminal atmosphere where one ought not to exist. If the police are merely investigating crime then they do not need to be given any powers under the Group Areas Act because under the common law the police have the power to investigate crime. There is obviously no need for the police to be given any such powers. We on this side of the House naturally do not object to the police investigating crime or suspected crime.

Section 39 provides for other functions for inspectors. By doing away with inspectors under the Group Areas Act and substituting the police in their place, immediately, as I have said, introduces a criminal atmosphere where one ought not to exist.

Our second objection to the introduction of the police is that they are now created officials under the Group Areas Act. In other words, they are now made officials of an Act which is undoubtedly hated by those persons affected by it. In the main those persons are the non-Whites in this country. They are the ones who are mostly moved about. Some Whites are affected but only a very small number. In any event, Sir, my point is whether they are Whites or non-Whites who are moved under this legislation that is an entirely wrong principle. We on this side of the House are as much against large-scale movement of population if it affects Whites as we are against it when it affects non-Whites. [Time limit.]

The fact of the matter, Sir, is that it is the left wing of the United Party that is becoming articulate now. The elections are close at hand, and the left wing can be given free rein now. Fact is that this work has been done by the police ever since 1957, as the hon. member for Musgrave has said.

What work?

This inspection work. The proposed Section 39, as it reads at present, entrusts certain powers to the police. The section commences—and the hon. member did not read this—with these words: “When a member of the South African Police investigates an offence or alleged or suspected offence …”. Does the hon. member now want the inspectorate to investigate these offences? Suppose we let him have his way and we grant the inspectorate of the Group Areas Board this power.

It has been amended.

No, no! The new section will read—

I am reading this section. The hon. member does not even know what is being omitted and what is being inserted.

I know very well.

The hon. member is objecting to the police doing the work of the inspectorate, but here it says explicitly “when the police investigate an offence”. Does he now want us to create a different class of police to investigate crimes in connection with the Group Areas Act? Is that what he is suggesting? I must say that if I have committed a crime and I have to choose between being investigated by the police or by someone who has not been trained to handle the authority of the State, I will most certainly choose the police.

But this is not the hon. member’s objection. His objection is against the police. It is a well-known faot in modern history that any leftist group undermines the authority of the State, and does so by embarrassing the police and stirring up suspicion against them. The whole of the hon. member’s attack is directed against the fact that the police will now be used. He does not even want the police to be used to investigate an offence or alleged or suspected offence. He does not even want the police to investigate such an offence. What do they want?

All that is being done here is that the powers of the inspectorate are being transferred to the police. The police are being granted the necessary powers in this connection. This is a much more effective way to administer the Act, because suppose, for example, the inspectorate happens upon a crime, then it is not their business to institute the necessary legal proceedings, They in turn have to go to the police. Then the police have to start investigating the matter from the beginning. All that is being done here is to grant the police certain powers. This change is being made because the inspectors normally do not have the powers. These two hon. members both come from Durban; both of them belong to the left wing of the United Party, as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said a little while ago. He hit the nail right on the head, perhaps more so than he realized at the moment. They are in actual fact trying to stir up suspicion against the police and to create the impression that there is some or other villain in the piece here. The only difference is that this time it is not the Minister of Justice who is the villain of the piece, but the Minister of Planning. This time he is the one who is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I don’t propose replying to the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). I want to move certain amendments to this Clause as follows—

I dealt with the Clause in my Second Reading speech. I want to say at once to the hon. member for Standerton that he is doing an injustice, not only to the members of this House, but to the country in trying to suggest that in dealing with this Clause we are in any way finding fault with the police of this country. It is an insinuation which I reject with contempt. We hold the police in this country in the highest esteem and nothing that we say in regard to this Clause is in any way intended as a reflection on the police.

Nobody can understand why the hon. the Minister wants to bring in the police in the Group Areas Act. We must appreciate that the people who are affected by this legislation are people who are the innocent victims of it. They are not willing victims. In terms of the Group Areas Act they have been declared as disqualified to occupy the premises they occupy at the moment because they belong to a certain group. They are not willing parties to this; they are not criminals, they are inoffensive people who have to be moved and uprooted as a result of this law. The position has been for years, as provided in Section 39. that inspectors go round to see whether the law has been complied with. What do we find now? Has the present set-up been a failure? The Minister has not yet explained to us that the existing system of using inspectors has been a failure; that they have not done the work properly. There has been no explanation as to why the police must be brought in. It becomes a very serious matter now as far as these poor people who are affected are concerned—these unwilling victims of an Act such as this. Even if there is a suspicion in the mind of a police man he can barge into a man’s house. Why? Do these people deserve it, Mr. Chairman? Do they deserve that their whole family life should be upset and destroyed? Do they deserve to have to live in tension and in fear that they may perhaps be committing a contravention of the law? Under this Clause a policeman may walk along the street, suddenly get it into his mind to barge into a man’s house and all he need to say is: “I suspect that you are contravening the Group Areas Act.” Do the people of South Africa deserve that type of law, Sir?

I say no. I say it will be to the ever-lasting discredit of this Government if they allow this state of affairs to come into existence.

I have moved the deletion of the words “or suspected” and I am sure the hon. the Minister ought to be satisfied if it provides only for an offence or an alleged offence. Surely that is sufficient. In other words, if there is an offence one must assume that the police have the necessary evidence in their possession. If there is an alleged offence we must also presume that the police have been given such information which, if proved to be correct, would tend to be a contravention of this law.

Information given by an inspector presumably.

Yes. It is wrong to say that a policeman can barge into a man’s house and upset his home because he suspects a crime. Similarly if a policeman sees my servant girl enter my flat in an evening he can barge in and say: ‘What are you doing here? I suspect that the Group Areas Act is being contravened because you have allowed a Coloured girl to come into your flat.”

Will you give that power to the inspector?

No, I object to the word “suspected”. Surely we can’t keep this word. I am going to make good my promise, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. the Minister does not accept the deletion of this word I am going to call this the Gestapo Clause because that was what happened in Germany. The people lived in fear and trepidation in Germany that their democratic rights would be interfered with, their democratic right to live a quiet life. They were disturbed by policemen running into their homes to find out whether they were hiding somebody.

That happens in every Westernised country.

It does not happen in a civilized country and it should not happen in South Africa.

It happens everywhere.

In what other country?

It happens in Britain.

If it does happen in other countries is that a reason to copy them? Don’t make that the excuse. It does not happen, it has not to happen, in any civilized democratic country especially if the people who are affected are innocent victims of the Act. They had no part in it; they have committed no crime.

Sometimes they are instigated.

Read the Section.

I have read it. I want to ask the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) whether anybody instigated that man in Pretoria to live with that Chinese woman for 18 years? That couple is now suddenly subject to criminal proceedings. Is that the type of thing we want to spread in the world? They have lived together for 18 years, they have four children, and to-day they are living in fear and trepidation. They don’t know what their position is. Is that what we want to create amongst the Coloured people who are the victims of this Act or amongst anybody else? I want to ask the Minister why he insists on this word “suspect”?

I want to go further. Why should they have to go at night time? Why can’t they go during the day? Except if they want to follow up something which they suspect, if my contention is correct, this is not necessary. We as responsible law-makers of this country must do everything in our power to prevent this type of law being passed. I sincerely trust that the Minister will unbend a little. The present Act does not provide for this and I have yet to learn why the inspectors must be substituted by the police who can now enter your home without a warrant at any time during the day or night without previous notice. It says (Clause 15 (b))—

What is this “thing” that a man has that he has to expose? I don’t know what this thing is. [Time limit.]

All that I can say about the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is, “Poor Tossie!” If we compare the existing section with the clause before us, we find that fundamentally there is no change. If the hon. member looks at Section 39 he will see that it reads as follows, and I will read it to him in English. …

No, I understand Afrikaans.

Very well, then I shall read it in Afrikaans—

1. (a) without previous notice, at any time during the day or night enter upon any premises whatsoever and make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary.

That is the section in Act No. 77 of 1957. I will now read the clause before us—

1. (a) at any time during the day or night without previous notice enter upon any premises whatsoever and make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary.

What fundamental difference is there between the two?

I am not going to tell you; you can keep on guessing.

I do not know whether the hon. member was here in 1957, but he must have been here for five years or more now. He has had five long years to get angry about this section, and he is doing so only to-day.

He is not really angry.

No, I also do not think he is really angry. But let us proceed. I will read the new sub-clause (b) now. Any such policeman may—

I will read (b) of the old section now—

This is the only difference—

What big difference is there between the two? Why must the hon. member now create this fuss in 1965 when, in actual fact, he has had five years in which to create a fuss?

Why are you substituting “police” for “inspector”?

For the simple reason that the issue here is the investigation of a crime. It is quite wrong that every Department must have its own police force. If there is any objection in principle on this point, then it must be against every Department having its own private police. Our State is organized in such a way that there is one Department which does the work of the police, and that is the Department of Justice. Sir, do you know what the hon. member for Boland wants? He wants the Department of Planning to have its own police; he wants the Department of Economic Affairs to have its own, police; he wants the Department of Mines to have its own police.

And you want a police state.

What a very fine thing to say! It is a fundamental principle in our country that policing is carried out by the Department of Justice under the classification “Police”. They know how to investigate these matters; they know how to protect the sovereignty of the State against people who offend against the law. They are persons who have been trained to do this. They are the people who know how to carry out this function and how to do so with discretion. The hon. member throws up his hands and prays to have I do not know how many police forces in the State. In effect that is what he is doing. When we read this clause further, Mr. Chairman, we see that it has been taken over virtually word-for-word, except that we now have the work done by the instrument in the State that has been appointed to investigate offences. They have been doing this work ever since 1957, and have they done it badly? Can the hon. member for Boland say to me that the police have committed any transgressions while doing the work under this Act?

May I ask a question?

No. If the hon. member tells me that the police have done the work badly, then he can say that he objects to it being transferred to them, but he has not said one word to the effect that the police have done the work badly. He simply assumes that, because the work will be done by the police, it will be done badly.

I did not say that.

What did the hon. member say then? He calls us a police state; he says that this is the Gestapo clause. Now he conducts a running commentary while I am speaking, because he realizes how ridiculous his own argument is. This is a case where the Opposition are just wasting time on a very innocent clause, and nothing else.

I want to begin by dealing with an allegation made by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) when he spoke on the previous occasion when he got up. He made the allegation that the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and I were liberally inclined …

Of course you are.

“Pinkies”; if not reds.

The allegation is being repeated …

On a point of order can that hon. member in the corner say “pinkies; if not reds” about the hon. member for Musgrave and myself?

You are not yellow, are you?

On a point of order, Sir, to accuse someone of being red is no more nor less than accusing him of being a communist and I submit the hon. member must withdraw it.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

Are you addressing me, Sir?

No, someone else behind you.

Order! Apparently nothing has been said. The hon. member for Musgrave may continue.

Sir, on a point of order, the hon. member with the bald head on the cross benches …

Order!

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit), Sir …

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat and the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) …

I identify him as the member for Stellenbosch …

Order!

On a point of order, Sir, am I not entitled to have a ruling as to whether the hon. member for Stellenbosch can say that?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member alleges that I said something; I did not say a word. [Interjections.]

Order!

The allegation was made by the hon. member for Standerton that the hon. member for Durban (North) and I were liberally inclined and that the only reason why we were opposing the appointment of the police in the place of inspectors in terms of this amendment was in an attempt to undermine the police.

Yes.

The hon. member is repeating the allegation.

Scandalous!

It is a most scandalous allegation which I dismiss with the utmost contempt. It is perfectly well known that we on this side of the House are upholders of law and order in this country and that when we have opposed clauses such as the 90-day clause which was introduced by this Government it was not in an endeavour to undermine the police in their administration of justice and their maintenance of law and order but of course we considered that in the circumstances that measure went far beyond than was necessary for the proper maintenance of law and order in this country. Far from attempting to undermine the police by opposing this provision, it is my submission that the Government by introducing the police as officials under the group areas legislation is undermining the police. Because, as I stated when I got up previously, by creating them as officials under this Act which is hated by the people who are affected, the Government is undoubtedly undermining the police in the same way as the Government undermined the police when they made them inspectors to investigate liquor offences in the locations …

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

Do you also say that this is a Gestapo clause?

I have never yet used that term.

At any rate you are supporting the member who said so.

And you support a man who was said by a Judge to be a tool of the Nazis during the war.

I now wish to ask the hon. Minister of Planning two questions and those Questions have to do with the new Section 39. They have nothing to do with the previous Section 39. The two questions are these: I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has consulted with the Minister of Justice …

Order! The hon. member has already asked that question.

Sir, I have not had an answer The second reason why we on this side of the House oppose this clause is that the police are already grossly over-burdened, they already have far too much to do. All over the country the’ are complaints that they cannot cope with the proper criminal work that has to be done, such as the investigation of crimes, such as robbery, assault, etc. In addition to that we know perfectly well that there is a great shortage in the Police Force. Under those circumstances, is the Minister of Justice prepared to allow the police to be given these extra tasks?

Order! The hon. member has also raised that point al ready.

With respect that was raised only at the second reading.

Order!

Sir, I wish to sum up what I have said by saying that we object to this amendment because in the first place it introduces a criminal context where one ought not to exist, secondly, because it places the police in a most invidious position as officials of the Group Areas Act, and thirdly, they are already grossly over-burdened and ought not to be given these extra duties.

Reference has been made here to the functions entrusted to the police. As has already been said, that function has been entrusted to the police in terms of the old Act since 1957. In so far as the activities of the police are concerned, this is therefore no new function. On the contrary, the new clause omits the one instruction which was given to them in the past, viz. that they should investigate to ascertain the facts. This is now being done by the Department and the police are no longer used for that purpose. It has been said that we should not overload the police with work, but that is already the position at the moment and it was done with the consent of the Minister concerned. If the law remains as it is, one will have the position that the three Ministers concerned. i.e. the Minister of Community Development, the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Minister of Planning, will all have to appoint inspectors, and then each one will require his own officials for it. I think on that point the argument advanced by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) was quite correct, that where there are such functions they must be carried out by the police. Now it is being said that this is not a crime. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) has just said that they are “upholders of law and order”. I now ask them whether a contravention of this Act is a crime or not?

It is an offence.

They are upholders of law and order. Now, is it a crime or not? Now they keep quiet. This has been the position since 1950. The principal Act provides that if there is a contravention of this Act, it is a punishable crime. I refer to Section 42 (1). That was the position since 1950. Nor is it an offence which was created by this Government. If we look at the Act of 1946 dealing with the Indian areas, we find that the same powers were granted there and the same contravention was made punishable, and it says that the offender “shall be guilty of an offence”. It is therefore a repetition of the existing position. It was an offence in terms of the 1946 Act and it is still an offence to-day. If the hon. members now say that it is not an offence, is that the way in which, as they contend, they propose to maintain law and order? It is quite a different thing from maintaining law and order when they say that an offence in terms of the law is not an offence, and that it is not a function of the police as such to take action.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) said that he wanted the word “suspect” removed. He only wants the police to be able to investigate when an offence has been committed or is alleged to have been committed. But when the police do their rounds and encounter something which they think may be an offence, then they may not do anything according to that hon. member. But when a policeman becomes suspicious, when he suspects that something is happening while he is out on inspection, and he comes across something which appears to be a contravention then he may do nothing according to that hon. member. If this suspicion is omitted, all that remains is either an offence (but he cannot say that it is an offence; he must investigate it) or an alleged offence. But an alleged offence stands in relation to a complaint which has been lodged—then it becomes an alleged offence. When the police themselves see that there is a contravention and become suspicious, the hon. member does not want them to be able to investigate the matter. And because it is worded in this way the hon. member says that we are busy with Gestapo legislation, that something new is being created here. But surely it is a principle which has been contained in our laws right from the beginning. Just look at the Criminal Procedure Act. The Criminal Procedure Act gave our peace officers the right to arrest somebody without a warrant if that person was suspected on reasonable grounds of committing an offence. It says here “any person of whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect …”.

But here it is an offence and not a crime.

But I quoted the actual words of the Act which says that it is a crime. Therefore when it is said that we are now passing Gestapo legislation I want to tell the hon. member that the principle has existed for a long time already that a police investigation may be done on the basis of suspicion, and that has existed for all these years already. There is therefore nothing new. and no new powers are being given to the inspectors.

I wish the hon. Minister would not just select his own particular parts of the Criminal Procedure Act in justifying this clause. Why does he not look at those provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act which related to searches, where the requirement is that a policeman before he enters premises of any citizen of South Africa, shall have a search warrant, issued to him on certain conditions, and when he has got a warrant issued to him beforehand, it says “any such warrant shall be executed by day, unless the Judge, magistrate or justice, by the warrant specially authorizes it to be executed by night”. Then there are certain circumstances that our law provides for in that same code whereby the police in certain circumstances may make a search without warrant, and the provision reads as follows—

That is the answer.

Exactly, if the policeman “believes on reasonable grounds that the delay in obtaining a search warrant would defeat the object of the search …. Then why have this provision at all? The Criminal Procedure Act already provides for it. If that is the answer, as the hon. member says, why not leave the law as it is? But let me tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) that the law so far as the police making searches without warrant is concerned, goes much further. It says—

that is a search without a warrant having been obtained—

That is a provision, which, as the hon. Minister says, has been the provision since the beginning of time. We have certain laws in this country relating to criminal procedure, and I believe they are the finest laws in the world, and it is those laws which help us to maintain the standard that we maintain. Must the hon. Minister drag those standards down into the gutter with a provision like this. Why? Why is it necessary? Let the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) get up and tell us if the provision I have read is the answer, why is this clause necessary.

Let me say at once that we will support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Boland. They are more than reasonable. We do not consider it to be unreasonable that there should be at least an alleged offence before they exercise these powers. We do not consider it to be unreasonable that they should go in during any reasonable time of the day. We do not believe it to be unreasonable that they should not go in at night. To give you an example of the sort of thing that may happen if this clause is passed. I refer not to what could happen but to what has happened, to what happened in Port Elizabeth in 1956, and I quote from the Argus of 31 July 1956—

These are officials, whereas now the police are going to exercise these powers—

“To see if any Natives were sleeping there.” Any pretext whatever! And to see whether there were Natives sleeping there they went into the sitting-room. Does he believe, Sir, that 10 or 12 White people every night in Port Elizabeth have Natives sleeping in their sitting-rooms? The report goes on to say that they asked to see the whole house. This is not what may happen, but what they actually did—

That is the point made by the hon. member for Boland. A complaint was made to them over the telephone. Not something documented, no ground for the allegation, but mere suspicion. This report indicates just what is behind this. I want to continue with the report in the Argus—

They acted on an anonymous telephone call. And the inspector said that they did it on an average of 10 to 12 premises every night. And now comes the piece de resistance—

I have no confirmation of this, but so far as I am aware somebody shot one of these investigators one night in Port Elizabeth, a person who was coming up through a window, or breaking into the house. He shot him at night. Quite rightly too. I have no doubt whatever that in those circumstances I would do exactly the same thing. He was found guilty. He only shot him in the foot, fortunately, but he was found guilty. This is what this means apparently, because the magistrate found this man guilty. It means apparently that such an inspector can climb up on a balcony, because he has the right to enter premises at any time of the day or of the night. Now apparently hon. members over there do not find anything wrong with that at all. But, Sir, what is our law relating to search warrants, what is it? Because basically we respect the dignity of every individual as an individual, and part of their basic respect is the respect of that man’s home. His home is his castle. That is paramount, fundamental in our concept of the individual and his enjoyment of rights in South Africa, in our democratic South Africa. Every lawyer in this House knows it or should know it. Sir, this is such an infringement of that right and such an unnecessary infringement. Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that if you are investigating a case of murder, suspected murder, you may not enter a house without a warrant? Except under the special conditions provided for in the Act. And even then you must do it so far as possible in the daytime and you must also have two people with you. if that is possible. For murder you must comply with these provisions, but because the Minister wants to keep track with what is happening in his group areas, that is not necessary.

What sort of nonsense is this? What are we reducing ourselves to? Are we going to sacrifice on the altar of this sort of nonsensical apartheid, apartheid by permit, every principle of the sanctity of the individual and his home? For what? So that these three Ministers can continue to control South Africa by means of a lot of permits. This is another thing to remember that every single person in South Africa goes to a place by means of a permit. He has to have a permit. But goodness knows, yesterday, the hon. Minister indicated that he delegates the power to give permits to some of his officials. The other Ministers might do the same. We might have a wonderful collection of conflicting permits, with possibly two different policies applying in the controlled areas and the group areas—hundreds of permits existing all over the place.

Order! The hon. member is now wandering too far away from the clause.

Yes, Sir, how are the Police going to investigate all these matters? It is going to be a full time job. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) read out an article from the Argus of 31 July 1956, and on 31 July 1956 this work was done not by the police but in fact by the inspectors.

That is what I said.

Yes, it was done by inspectors, people without the training that the police have. Only in 1957 did the-police start doing this work, and since 1957 there have been no complaints in this regard. The hon. member destroys his own argument. Apart from the fact that I do not accept the word of the Argus, because I do not think we can ever accept what the Argus says, I want to point out that in 1957 the inspectors did the work. But ever since 1957 the hon. member cannot bring any case where the police acted wrongly, not even as reported in the Argus. That destroys his whole argument. The whole trouble is that those hon. members have something against the police. That is their whole trouble. They want to attack the police. There is no other reason, because the police are also restricted here. The restrictions are contained in sub-section (2), but those hon. members simply want to attack the police and they agree with the hon. member for Boland who used the word “Gestapo”.

Yes.

Yes, he said our police are now the Gestapo in South Africa.

No, no, I did not say that.

Any other word could have been used here, but just because it is the S.A. Police, it is wrong. Here we have trained men, the police, who can do the work, who know how to institute an investigation, who know how to take statements, trained men who have had years of experience, but these people are now being objected to. Now hon. members say that the police are overworked. But does that not apply to other members of the Public Service? We hear continual complaints that the Public Service has not enough staff to do all the work, but no criticism is voiced in that direction. Where is the Minister to get enough inspectors to do this work, if that argument is valid? No, let there be no doubt about this just being the old argument we have always had when the name of the police is mentioned. Then the hon. members opposite are always on their feet. Here they are not doing justice to the implementation of this clause or to the implementation of this Act, they are not doing justice to the police, they are not doing justice to the administration, because they are already busy, through their speeches and arguments, inciting the non-Whites against this Act and against the police. That is what they want. They want this Act to fall into disfavour. They have no argument. The whole standpoint of the Opposition is that they do not want group areas, and now they try to bring the police, who have to apply the Act, into disfavour, and they are trying to incite the non-Whites against the police. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) pretended to talk in favour of the police, but in fact he tries all the time to destroy the good name of the police.

The hon. the Minister said a-moment ago that the object of this amendment of the Group Areas Act was to bring the legislation into line with the new set-up, viz. the set-up according to which the work which first fell under one Department and under one Minister has now been taken over by two Ministers. That is exactly where I see an anomaly. Last week there was legislation before the House in which the hon. the Minister of Community Development attempted …

Order! The hon. member should discuss the clause.

Sir, I am dealing with Clause 15 and if you would just have a little patience it will become clear to you why I have spoken these few introductory words. The Minister of Community Development had legislation before the House and in connection with one of the clauses in that legislation the Minister tolerated a protracted debate because he wanted to take the police out of that legislation. The Opposition opposed it and said that should not be done. Now the police are being brought in, and the Opposition again opposes it. But as far as I am concerned, having a little practical experience of the matter, the position is not quite clear to me. The Minister of Community Development wants to take out the police and the Minister of Planning wants to bring them in. I am not taking part in this debate because I want to talk politics. I represent my people to the best of my ability and I have already had to deal with this sort of thing. Here the Minister now wants to use the police, and I cannot agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel), who has just used the argument that when there were no police to do this work the things which occurred according to a report in the Argus quoted by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) could happen, but now that the police are doing the work, these things no longer can or do happen. Tf an inspector is not a policeman but he is trained to do his work, then he is able to conduct those inspections, and this work need not be added to the hundreds of things the police have to do. That, argument does not impress me. I simply feel that if it can be avoided that the police do this work, it will remove a stigma attaching to the implementation of group areas. I see real dangers in this. If it could happen in the pash—and I am not saying that it still happens—that inspectors received anonymous phone calls or letters and acted upon them, what could take place then? I am not giving the House a figment of my imagination. I am absolutely convinced that what I am now going to say can happen, and I have good reasons for believing that it will happen, namely that a person anonymously telephones the nearest police station and says that he has reason to believe that unauthorized Coloureds or Bantu are in a certain house. Is it necessary to create the possibility that at midnight or in the early morning hours a policeman knocks at the door and seeks admittance to search the house? I am not talking now about what may happen in District Six, but it is possible that this may happen in a suburb like Milnerton, which is in the hon. the Minister’s constituency. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) used the word “Gestapo”. I do not think he intended comparing the S.A. Police with the Gestapo, but if one hears a knock on the door late at night it reminds one of the history of what happened in Germany when nobody was certain of his life when he heard a knock in the middle of the night and found a Gestapo man standing there.

You are now trying to outbid the Progressive Party.

No, I have nothing to do with the Progressives. The hon. member knows that when I take part in a debate I do not do so for political reasons. I think this matter can be handled effectively and the work can be done efficiently without any stigma attaching to the police, and I think the Opposition will agree with me because they are not opposed to group areas. In all sincerity I want to appeal to the Minister to follow the example of his colleague, the Minister of Community Development, who specially reformulated a clause last week because, as he said, he wanted to take the police out of the working of his Department, whereas for all practical purposes only his Chief Inspector was a head constable in the police; but he did not even want that. He wanted his officials, who were specifically trained for that task, to do the job. My appeal to the Minister is to follow that example and not to place a stigma on the police and a stigma on the Group Areas Act as such, and its implementation. Officials who have been trained as inspectors and who know how to do the work should be allowed to do it. This is an important matter. It might be regarded as ridiculous, but if this type of legislation is implemented by public servants in plain clothes, there is not the stigma of coercion which one has when a policeman in uniform does the work. Why then be so drastic as to say that the police must do the work and not public servants? I make a sincere appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter and to amend it so that the police will not be required to perform these duties, and to consider that, whoever does the work, it should be done within reasonable hours so that there is no possibility of a knock on the door late at night simply because there is a rumour that a disqualified person is on the premises.

The Minister, being a lawyer, will understand when I say that his reply to my case has been vague, embarrassing and bad in law. I should like to say in the first place that it is embarrassing in law because the Minister did not answer my charge. I asked the Minister to give me an explanation of why he was substituting the police for the inspectors and all he said was that three Ministers were involved and it would be better to have police than inspectors. Is that a sound argument for substituting the police for the inspectors? There is no allegation by the Minister that the inspectors are not capable of doing this work. I want to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) that he does not know the first thing about it. He got up just because an hon. member read an article dated 1956. Where, in the present law, does it say that the police have to do the work, except in sub-section (6), which says that a policeman may, if required, accompany an inspector? Otherwise the police do not come into it at all.

Then why do you talk about the police all the time?

That just shows how little you know about this law. It would have been much better if the hon. member had kept out of the argument. I want to tell the hon. member that abuse is no argument and never has been. He should have listened to us when we said that there was no intention at all on our part to do anything else but to praise the police for the work they have done, and I repudiate the suggestion that we are criticizing the police. Let me just say to the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) that the trouble with him is that he is mixed up with film stars. He knows nothing else. He just knows about Ster Films and film stars.

Order! The hon. member for Standerton is not under discussion now.

The hon. member for Standerton asked why we could not have police instead of inspectors, and he tried to show that only the police could do the work. But I want to ask him this. There is a Rents Act in this country which we amended only last year to widen it, and there are dozens and dozens of rents inspectors who also have to make inquiries in regard to the contravention of the Act. You do not have the police doing it. The Minister read out to me what I learned in 1919 when I was an articled clerk, an elementary portion of the Criminal Procedure Act. I may not know much law, but I know sufficient to know that. The Minister surely knows that while there may not be in the minds of legal people a very sharp division between a crime and an offence, in the minds of the public, when a person is charged under the parking regulations he does not commit a crime in the real sense of the word, but an offence. I want to repeat to the Minister that these people do not commit a crime when they occupy their own home, which you have taken away from them in terms of a law.

Order! The hon. member has advanced that argument before.

I want the Minister to answer my question. He has not given us a clear answer as to why he is substituting the police. The Minister said to me that he must have the word “suspected” because, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) said, “as ’n polisieman sien dat dit gebeur”, he must do something about it. But I have never argued against that. I have never argued that if a policeman sees a contravention being committed he must not follow it up. He must do so. I merely referred to the position where it was only a suspicion in his mind. We are trying to prevent the position referred to in that article read by the hon. member for Durban (North) and by the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland), and I cannot see how it will help the Minister to have the word “suspected” there. And why must they go in the middle of the night? I know the Minister will say to me it is the present law, but we are amending the law and we want to try and make it a better law. Why must they go there in the middle of the night, and why should it not be at a reasonable hour of the day that he goes there to make inquiries? As I said before, this is a Government attempt to bring fear into the minds of the Coloured people.

Intimidation.

Yes, it is intimidation.

Where group areas have been proclaimed and there are people who have to go there—perhaps it has something to do with the bioscopes, that people should not go to the bioscopes or to the theatres. They cannot go anywhere because the Government is now telling the Coloured people …

Order! The hon. member is reading more into the clause than it contains. He must discuss the clause.

I am saying that the Government is telling the Coloured people: If you contravene any portion of the Group Areas Act, there is the whole Police Force to deal with you. That is the fear they will have in their minds. The Coloured people of this country, who are most affected, do not deserve that. And may I say this. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) used the phrase that this side of the House “wil net die Klerulinge opsweep teen die wet”. There is no law more hated by the Coloureds than this one and we do not need to sweep them up.

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the clause now.

I ask the Minister to accept my amendments. They are fair and reasonable and just and they will improve the Bill. I particularly refrain from excluding the police. I have not excluded the police, however much I loathe and despise the introduction of the police into this Act. I merely say it is unnecessary to have the word “suspected” there and to give them powers to go there at any time day or night. I made those three points in my amendments and I ask the Minister please to accept them. They do not in any way lessen the authority or make it impossible to carry out this law. I ask him for the sake of the good name of South Africa to accept my amendment.

Order! I must warn hon. members now to advance new arguments. The clause has been very fully discussed.

The Minister must of course have consulted with the Minister of Justice ….

Order! That point has been made.

I have not made my point, Sir. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us, seeing that the Minister of Justice is not here, what is to be the proposed strength of the Special Branch of the S.A. Police created to deal with contraventions of the Group Areas Act? According to an answer given by the Minister of Justice on 18 January 1958 in this House in answer to a question put to him by Dr. D. L. Smit, the position was as follows. He asked him, firstly, whether a Special Branch of the S.A. Police had been created to deal with alleged contraventions of the Group Areas Act, and if so, how many officers and men would be required for this purpose and what would be the nature of their duties, and to what extent would they act in consultation with local authorities. The answer was that a Special Branch of the S.A. Police had been created to deal with it, and there was one officer and 22 other ranks. That was in 1958 and obviously that is not enough to deal with this matter now, and the reply further was that they did not act in consultation with the local authorities. He was then asked whether there was a shortage of personnel, and there was, and he was asked what justification there was for the creation of a Special Branch, to which the Minister of Justice replied: “To promote efficiency and to obviate overlapping.” Now we have a Special Branch created in the police to deal specifically with this, in 1958. Then it was a very small force. How big is this force to-day?

Order! The hon. member is going too far. That is not under discussion now. The clause relates to the whole force and the hon. member must confine himself to that, and he must not discuss the Special Branch here.

Will the Minister tell us by how many members will the whole force have to be increased in order to perform the new functions this Special Branch now has?

They are already doing the job.

There you have the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). He comes into these debates …

Order! The hon. member should discuss the clause and not the hon. member for Pretoria (Central).

I want to say that in fact the functions of the police now are going to be quite different from those which the Minister of Justice in 1958 said they were, because now they are not only going to be the persons who investigate the alleged offences, but they are going to be the people who investigate suspected offences too, and they will have to behave in exactly the same way as the group areas inspectors, the only difference being that when you have a policeman visiting your home it takes on an entirely different aspect from what it does, as the hon. member for Outeniqua pointed out, when an inspector comes there.

Order! That point has already been made.

I want to reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North), who said that all we had done was to attack the police. I want to tell him that he should point out where we attacked the police.

For the last 17 years.

We want to protect the police. The hon. member must realize one thing. It applies not only to the S.A. Police but to every police force in the world, and that is that with the small numbers of police that exist in every civilized country today they could not keep law and order but for the fact that they have their overwhelming support of the overwhelming majority of the people of the country, and that respect will not remain with those people if they are going to be empowered and encouraged to go into people’s homes at the dead of night.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said that South Africa was a police state.

I do not think the hon. member said that, but I hope this hon. member will not say what the hon. member for Yeoville said about South Africa being a police state. Perhaps he should be reminded that the man he follows was described by a judge of the Supreme Court as being a tool of the Nazis. But does that make him a Nazi?

Order! That is going too far.

I was misled by the hon. member’s stupid remarks. Far from attacking the police, we are trying to protect the police from the provisions of this clause which gives to them functions that a policeman should normally not have, and goodness knows the police have other things to do than to fiddle around in the middle of the night and snoop around trying to find out whether some ministerial permit is being complied with. Surely you can tell in the daytimes whether members of a disqualified race are occupying a house. Or is the object of the operation to have no investigation whatever except by the police? That is what it is; only the police should investigate and they should always be the watchdogs. Why? Because it creates a very good impression, if this is what you are trying to create. If you want people in South Africa to be afraid of doing anything contrary to ministerial decrees as contained in these permits, then the best way to make them afraid is to make the police appear on every conceivable occasion.

Order! The hon. member has made that point already.

I just want to repeat, as far as the amendment of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is concerned, that I am not prepared to accept it because it will mean that when a policeman suspects that a crime or a contravention is being committed he will not be able to act. The hon. member said that my argument was “vague, embarrassing and bad in law”. I can only tell him that “even the devil can quote the Scriptures”. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) wants to know whether the Minister of Justice has been consulted. I have already said that he was consulted. The number of persons used in the past has never exceeded 25. I think I have advanced sufficient arguments to show why it is necessary to put through this legislation. What we are proposing here is in conformity with the arrangement which has actually existed since 1957, an arrangement which has worked much better than the arrangement prior to that date.

Amendment in line 53, put and negatived (Official Opposition and Messrs. Barnett and Holland dissenting).

First amendment in line 59, put and negatived (Mr. Barnett dissenting).

Remaining amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mr. Barnett dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Remaining clauses put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Title accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

As hon. members are aware, the children’s Act, which we are about to amend, was placed on the Statute Book in 1960. The general feeling on both sides of the House at that time was that the Bill which was then before the House was a model as far as legislation of this kind was concerned. My experience while I was overseas was that numerous inquiries were made with regard to this Act: we were asked by various bodies to let them have copies of the Act.

Since the Act came into operation it has been thoroughly tested by our Courts and by other bodies which were concerned with the implementation of its provisions. I can give hon. members the assurance that the Act is working very well and that it is often referred to as the Magna Charta of the child in South Africa.

The courts, as well as other bodies, however, have experienced certain problems in connection with the application of some of the provisions of the Act, and I have therefore been approached to bring about the necessary amendments and also to make provision for a few essential things which were not at present covered by the Act. The Bill I am now proposing gives effect to those requests. This Bill, in my opinion, contains no contentious provisions and it is in no way contrary to the spirit of the Act. Some of the clauses merely set out the existing measures in clearer language so as to facilitate their interpretation. Others again contain amendments which will make it possible in all cases to ensure the best possible treatment for the child. As a matter of fact, the basic principle of the Act is to serve the best interests of the child.

I do not think it is necessary at this stage to deal in detail with all the provisions of the Bill: that can be done in the Committee Stage. I will, however, explain the most imposant amendments proposed here.

As far as Clause 1 is concerned, we are here remedying a defect in the principal Act. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 44 the management of an institution may grant permission to a pupil to live in the custody of a suitable person or training institution. A training college, however, as defined in paragraph (xxvi) of Section 1 does not include a training school. It frequently happens that pupils have to be transferred to a training school, in their own interests, to enable them to continue their studies there. Under the existing provisions such pupils then have to be placed, with the permission of the management, in the care of the principal of a training school. It goes without saying that this procedure leads to many difficulties and it is therefore proposed to amend the definition of “training institution” so as to include “training schools”.

The Coloured Education Act, 1963, makes provision, inter alia, for the establishment of special schools and training schools. The amendments which are now being proposed will make it possible to send Coloured children to these schools in terms of the provisions of the Children’s Act.

I come now to Clause 2, sub-clause (a). Sub-section (1) of Section 10 provides that any person who has received an infant for the purpose of maintaining him apart from his parents for a longer period than 30 days, shall, within seven days after receiving such infant notify the receipt of the infant to the commissioner of child welfare of the district in which the infant is to be maintained. It is difficult for the courts, however, to determine whether it was in fact the intention to maintain such an infant for longer than 30 days apart from his parents; it is consequently very difficult to take steps against persons who contravene this provision. It is now proposed, with a view to making it easier to take steps against such a person, to amend this provision so as to compel the person concerned to give written notice to the commissioner concerned immediately after the expiry of the period of 30 days.

Then I come to sub-clause (b). Paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 10 provides that no person may receive any infant, who is an illegitimate child, without the permission of the commissioner of the district in which the child was born. It frequently happens, however, that shortly after the birth of an illegitimate child, that child is removed to another district by its mother, and it is therefore proposed to amend the relevant provision so as to authorize the commissioner of the district in which the child is resident to grant such permission. In view of the fact that it has been difficult as far as this provision is concerned to prove that it was in fact the intention of a person to maintain an illegitimate infant for longer than 30 days apart from its mother, it is now proposed that such a person must immediately give the necessary notice after the child has been in his care for 14 days.

Then I come to Clause 3. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 makes provision for the removal of a child from its existing place of care by a probation officer, policeman or authorized officer if such child in the opinion of the officer concerned is in need of care or if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence is being or has been committed upon or in connection with that child. The effect of the existing provision, however, is that such child may only be removed by the officer concerned with the permission of the person in whose care the child is. It is only logical, however, that the person in whose care the child is will refuse to give his permission for the child to be removed, and in practice therefore it is impossible to carry out the provisions of this sub-section, even if it can be proved that the child is in need of care or that an offence has been or is being committed upon or in connection with the child. The amendment which is now proposed will enable a probation officer, policeman or authorized officer to remove such a child to a place of safety without the permission of the person in whose care the child is, if the child is not in a public place in the company of that person.

Then I come to Clause 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 35 provides that when a child is placed in the care of any person, the religious and cultural background and ethnological grouping of the child and, in selecting a foster parent, also to the nationality of the child and the relationship between the child and such person, shall be taken into account. The courts, however, have ruled that a child under ten years of age has no religious and cultural background, and it frequently happens that persons take children into their care with a view to subsequent adoption in spite of the fact that the illegitimate child and the foster parents have nothing in common in respect of any of the factors which I have mentioned here. We now propose to bring about an improvement in this regard. This matter was argued here fairly fully in 1960 when the principal Act was introduced. It is not considered to be in the interests of such children that they should be placed in the care of persons whose religious and cultural background, ethnological grouping and nationality differ from those of the child and who are not related to the mother, and it is therefore proposed to amend the relevant sub-section by providing that the religious and cultural background. ethnological grouping and nationality of an illegitimate child shall be deemed to be the same as those of his mother and that only relatives of the mother shall be regarded as being related to the child and, moreover, that the racial group shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Population Registration Act, 1950. This amendment is in accordance with our views as to the place which the mother should occupy in respect of such a child.

Section 31 (Clause 7 of the Bill) provides that a child who is found to be in need of care may be placed in the custody only of the parents themselves, suitable foster-parents, a children’s home or an industrial school, or placed in control of an approved agency; it also provides that such a child may be kept in a place of safety before being placed in any of these forms of custody.

Section 48 of the Act provides that when a child has been placed under the control of an approved agency, that agency may allow the child to remain with the person in whose custody he is; place the child in the custody of some other person, or give back the custody of the child to the person from whose care he was removed originally. I am informed that it often happens that children, after having been placed in various forms of custody, reveal behaviour deviations and that other problems arise which make it essential that they be placed in an observation centre so as to be able to determine the particular needs of such children and so as to be able to decide what form of treatment ought to be applied in each particular case, and, secondly that it has become urgently necessary that these children be removed without delay from their existing places of custody. Since the Act does not make provision for the necessary steps to be taken, it is now proposed that a new section be inserted after Section 46 to authorize the Minister to order that such children be kept in an observation centre for a period determined by him and to authorize a commissioner, in urgent cases, to have such children removed to a place of safety pending the Minister’s decision.

Section 54 (Clause 8) provides that a commissioner may only return a child or pupil who has absconded, to the custody or institution from which he absconded. There are often cases, however, where it is definitely not in the interests of the child to return him to the place of custody or institution from which he absconded, and where it is therefore necessary to make other arrangements for his care. In order to make provision for cases of this kind it is now proposed that the relevant section be amended so as to authorize a commissioner to refer such children temporarily to a place of safety or a place of custody pending the decision of the Minister.

Clause 9 amends Section 70 of the principal Act and the object of this amendment is twofold; in the first place the object is to set out more clearly the existing provisions which are rather involved and which lead to problems, and, in the second place, to facilitate the adoption of children of 16 years of age and over. The present provision requires all adoptive parents of such children to be at least 25 years older than the child. That is now being reduced to 18 years in respect of the adoptive parent whose sex is the same as that of the child. The result of this insistence on a difference of 25 years in all cases has often been that it has not been possible to allow adoptions in deserving cases because of the fact that both adoptive parents are not at least 25 years older than the child. The position will now be eased in that the difference in age is being reduced by seven years in those cases where the sex of the adoptive parent is the same as that of the child, in other words, from 25 to 18 years.

Then there are certain further provisions which are now being set out more clearly. The present provisions, which are now being set out more clearly, are sometimes interpreted differently. Commissioners of child care have often placed different, conflicting interpretations upon these provisions. The object of paragraph (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 71 (Clause 10) is to provide that South African children may only be adopted by South African citizens and persons who possess the necessary residential qualifications to become naturalized South African citizens. We have the anomalous situation, however, that when the relevant section was drafted in 1960, it provided that if the would-be adoptive parents are resident within the Republic, both parents must be South African citizens but if they are resident outside of the Republic, then only one of the parents need be a South African citizen. In order to remove this anomaly it is now proposed to amend the relevant paragraph so as to authorize applicants who are married couples resident within the Republic to adopt a child even if only one of the parties is a South African citizen.

A further shortcoming in the existing provisions is that while an unmarried person who is a foreigner but who possesses the necessary residential qualifications may adopt a South African child, a foreign couple cannot jointly adopt such a child. That is obviously an anomaly that we should like to remove. The proposed amendment will make it possible for a husband and wife who are resident in the Republic but who for some reason cannot become South African citizens, jointly to adopt a South African child. The proposed amendment also makes it clear that this concession will only apply in respect of persons who settle permanently in the Republic.

In terms of Section 91 (Clause 13) a Minister may delegate to the Secretary or other senior officer of his Department all the powers granted to him in terms of the Act. Maintenance grants in respect of Bantu children are approved of by Bantu Affairs Commissioners in terms of powers delegated to them by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. In areas where there are no Bantu Commissioners it is desirable that this function be performed by the magistrates on their behalf. The proposed provision will also make it possible for the Minister concerned in these cases to delegate his powers to magistrates as far as the approval of maintenance grants is concerned.

Then there is a further amendment which is contained in Clause 14. This amendment will ensure that the Minister will be able to promulgate regulations with reference to any matter which is likely to promote the implementation of the Act. Some doubt has arisen as to whether the wording of paragraph (o) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 gives adequate powers to the Minister in this connection. This shortcoming is now being remedied therefore.

It was a pleasure to have shared with the hon. Minister’s Department the passing through this House of the original Children’s Act. It is noticeable that some five years have passed before the hon. the Minister has felt it necessary to come forward with any amendments to that Act. That is evidence that when the two parties in the House can come together on a subject in which neither of them is vitally concerned as far as racialism and various political outlooks are concerned they can produce a good Act which can last without much change for some years. It would be too much to hope that it would never be necessary to effect occasional amendments because in time the workings of the Act naturally show loopholes or defects which require to be remedied.

We on this side of the House support this Bill in principle. We feel that if in practice the hon. the Minister has found that some problems have arisen—and we see them in most of the clauses here—which must be solved we are only too plased to give him such assistance as we can. But that does not mean that we accept all the clauses without any argument and that we shall not seriously oppose some of the clauses. We are not very pleased with Clause 3. It gives the police a power which they did not have before; it gives the police power to enter a house without a warrant. It seems unlikely to us that it could be necessary to go into the home of a person without a warrant unless there was some serious reason for doing so. If that were so naturally the ordinary emergency regulations of any civilized State meet the trouble for the police action. It is not necessary, as this clause does, to make it very easy for the police to enter into a private home. Already there is not much sanctity of the home and we feel it would be wrong to give the extra power supplied in this particular clause.

Clause 4 is not altogether clear to us and we would like more information than the hon. the Minister has given us to-day. The remaining clauses, up to Clauses 13 and 14, are ones which we feel we can support although certain questions will be asked and certain minor amendments suggested.

Clause 13 is a serious clause because it gives the Minister the power to delegate his powers to a senior official in another Department. We regard this as most undesirable. After all the hon. the Minister must assume responsibility for his own acts and if he cannot do that in person he should only use his own officials to act for him. We think it is most unnecessary and undesirable for the Minister to have the power to give power to another Minister to act on his behalf.

Clause 14 is also one which we do not like. We feel that the hon. the Minister has a great deal of power. There are 13 different clauses in the original Act in terms of which he can prescribe what he wishes. Without there being any real reason shown the hon. Minister now takes power under this clause to prescribe over a much wider field merely on his own wishes. It is not limited in any way. If the previous Act has worked so well and if it has achieved what both sides of the House wished to achieve why must the Minister now ask for further unlimited and ill-defined power? We feel this is unnecessary and most undesirable. Subject to these reservations we on this side of the House will support this Bill.

The hon. the Minister has told us that the Act has worked well since 1960 and that is true. But certain problems and defects have nevertheless become evident in the administration of the law and in order to try to solve those problems and remedy the defects it has become necessary for the hon. the Minister to come forward with certain amendments. I think I am correct in saying that the whole object of this Bill is to promote the interests of the child and not those of anybody else. The object is to protect the rights of the child. Viewed from that angle I think we can, without any hesitation whatsoever, accept this Bill. I am pleased therefore to learn from the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) that they too accept this Bill subject to certain reservations. It is true that this law has worked reasonably well for five years. It is also true that if we on both sides of the House agree on a subject we can probably place a better Act on the Statute Book than when we differ widely.

We are now faced with the fact that there are indeed defects some of which the hon. the Minister has already pointed out. I wish to emphasize that I think it will be very good if we can cause children to have the privilege in future of being placed under the care of vocational schools I think the position under the old Act was entirely wrong where a child who had to go to a vocational school was placed under the care of an individual because of a faulty definition in the law; that he was usually placed under the direct care of the principal. That is very undesirable for both child and principal. I wholeheartedly support such an amendment. I think it is well and in the interests of the child that he be placed under the care of the vocational school in future.

It is obviously right no longer to have to try to prove that it was not the intention of a person to take a child away from its parents. We must just simply accept the fact that the child is no longer under the care of its parents. The person is obliged to report to the commissioner and furnish the commissioner with any reasonable information he asks for in connection with the case. I think this is an important forward step in the interests of the child.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) said they had certain problems in connection with Clauses 3 and 4. The position seems to be perfectly clear to me. I think it is possible that when a child has been placed under the care of somebody things may go wrong although that person may originally have been a very good guardian. It is possible that that child may again become in need of care. It is possible that something wrong may be done to that child. That is why I think it is necessary that a competent official should have the right to remove the child in such circumstances. It would be wrong to allow a person under whose care the child is to harm the child, neglect the child, for instance, and to cause the child to suffer for goodness knows how long just because he refuses to have the child removed from his care. I therefore think it is right that a competent official should be able, without the consent of that person, to remove the child from his care.

Clause 4 to which reference has been made deals with the religious and cultural background of the child. The principle involved was already discussed in 1960 in this House and was accepted by this House. It was clearly the intention of the House that if a child was born in a certain environment and he no longer had a parent to look after him we should try to protect the rights of that child. If possible we should try to make it possible for him to grow up and to receive his education in circumstances as nearly similar as possible to those under which he would normally have grown up. If I may put it this way: I think the object is that when you are dealing with a Zulu the intention is not to make a Xhosa out of him and vice versa. We want to protect the right of that child to grow up in the circumstances in which he would normally have grown up. That was the intention but the courts have now decided that a child of under ten years of age was not aware of a religious or a cultural background. It is not my intention to argue about the decision of the court but I only wonder why they have made it ten years. I do not think it is based on any scientific findings. It seems to me to be a purely arbitrary age. It might just as well have been 16 years or five years. When a child is seven years of age or perhaps a little younger he is usually at school already. At that age he already has a pretty good concept of his home language. By that time he has a pretty good concept of the domestic habits, way of life and wishes of his parents. Before that age he at least has an elementary, although not a very thorough, idea of the religion his parents follow. By that time he is already attending Sunday School, he has already gone to church with his parents and he has an elementary concept of the religious background in which he has grown up so far. I cannot understand, therefore, how it can be maintained that a child under ten has no religious or cultural background. How can you deny a child of that age those things? I think it is a good amendment to provide that the child should be brought up in the religious background of his parents. I do not see how there can be any objection to that. I want to repeat that this House has already accepted that principle. The dispute on that issue was settled as far back as 1960. The object is to see to it that the child grows up in the circumstances in which he would normally have grown up. That is a principle which has been accepted and it is only to make quite sure that, that apart from anything else, this object of the law is not circumvented. That is the only reason why this amendment is being effected. And for that reason I support this amendment whole heartily.

I want to add a few other things. When a child is placed in an institution that institution must, in terms of the law submit a report to the Minister after two years. At the request of the Minister it may have to be done earlier. It must be indicated in the report why the child cannot be returned to his parents or guardian. That is an obligation which has been placed on institutions. The idea is that wherever possible the child must return to his parental home. The same obligation does not, however, rest on foster parents. It is not necessary for a foster parent to submit a report stating why the child under his care cannot return to its parent or guardian. This is now being amended to make it compulsory, also in the case of a foster parent, to submit a report to the Minister. These reports will be drawn up by the probation officer and submitted to the Minister so as to ensure that, if possible, the child is returned to his parental home, provided conditions at his home have changed in such a way that it is in the interests of the child to return.

While I am on the subject of foster parents there is another aspect I wish to touch upon. Whereas the law gives the right to certain societies and institutions to allow children under their care to go on holiday foster parents do not have this right. The result is that children in the care of foster parents cannot go on holiday; the children cannot leave the care of their foster parents. The law is now being amended in such a way that it will also be possible for a foster parent to allow the child under his care to go on holiday, for instance, provided the foster parent is of the opinion that circumstances are favourable and that it will not harm the child. I also want to emphasize how important it is that, where a child has been placed in the care of some institution or other where everything goes all right for a long time but the child, especially at a certain age, nevertheless develops into a problem child, we should be able to deal with that situation. The hon. the Minister has referred to it. The child develops into a problem child and then finds the conditions under which he lives practically unbearable. There was no provision previously what to do with such a child. Where a child develops into a problem child, where he perhaps develops deviate tendencies, it is now provided that such a child may be placed in an observation centre. His case is then studied and treated there until such time as he has sufficiently recovered to decide what to do with him. Provision is made for urgent cases because the Minister cannot attend to all cases personally. It may happen that a child may very suddenly become so unsettled that it is not in his own interests or in the interests of the other children, to remain there. In such a case the commissioner can have the child removed to a place of safety where his case will be investigated. The child can then remain there until such time as the necessary arrangements can be made in his own interests.

That immediately bring me to children who abscond. It unfortunately happens that children are not always happy in an institution and that they avail themselves of any opportunity which presents itself to run away. There may be different reasons for it. It may be the fault of the child; it may be the fault of some member of the staff; it may be the fault of the other children; both sides may be at fault. The fact remains that children run away. As the law stands at the moment when it appears before him the commissioner has no option but to return the child to the circumstances from which he has run away. I think anybody who gives this some thought will agree that it is not a healthy state of affairs for the commissioner to be obliged to return the child to the very conditions from which he has run away; conditions to which he cannot adapt himself. For that reason the commissioner is now empowered, when the child has run away, not necessarily to send him back. He can do so if it is in the best interest of the child but there may be cases where the best thing to do would be to send the child to a place of safety where the circumstances of the case can first be investigated. The child can then be dealt with in accordance with those circumstances. The commissioner is therefore now given a discretionary power in this connection. The child may then perhaps be sent to another institution or placed in the care of another person or whatever may be thought to be the best thing to do in the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is so much unanimity in respect of this Bill that I do not want to say much more except that I cannot understand why the hon. member for Durban (Central) objects to Clauses 13 and 14. The hon. the Minister has explained very clearly why he wants to delegate powers to magistrates. He clearly stated that Bantu Affairs Commissioners were not always available to do the necessary work and that in those cases he should be able to delegate the power to do that work to a magistrate.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Durban (Central) objecting to the Minister having the power to promulgate regulations. After all this House gave the Minister the power in 1960 to promulgate regulations. It only appears that it was worded in such a way that there was doubt as to whether he had the power in certain cases. It is only being stated clearly now. It is a principle which has long since been accepted and a principle which applies in many other instances. A Minister can promulgate regulations; that is nothing strange. I simply cannot understand why there is objection to it now. We are only stating clearly now that the Minister does indeed have the power; it is a right which we all thought was given to him in 1960 already.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot see anything but good in this Bill. It is a pleasure to me to be able to support it. I am very pleased that it is before the House and I do believe that, in spite of what the hon. member for Durban (Central) has said, it will go through without any trouble.

As mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) we on this side of the House accept this Bill. There are certain points on which we require further clarification and we shall ask for that clarification during the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) has made certain comments to which I shall endeavour to reply during the course of my remarks.

When the Children’s Act of 1960 was introduced in this House it was, of course, a consolidating and amending Bill which repealed the original Children’s Act of 1937. Since 1937 there has been a new and modern trend in child welfare and that necessitated the amending Bill of 1960. I think it is generally agreed that the provisions of the 1960 Act have functioned satisfactorily apart from certain defects, defects which have only become evident during the course of time and during the course of practical experience.

However, Sir, the Bill that is before us to-day achieves, we believe, in principle certain improvements to the 1960 Act. We shall make some comments on some of the clauses but I think the important fact, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill and reiterated by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, is that the Children’s Act is looked upon as the children’s charter. It is the very basis of child welfare work in this country and the over-all principle is based on what is in the interest of the child. I therefore believe that in considering these amendments we must consider their effects on the existing Act and determine whether they place the interest of the child first and foremost. That is undoubtedly of paramout importance and I think that is recognized by the State and welfare organizations who have to administer the provisions of the Act.

Clauses 2 and 4 deal with the placement of children who are found to be in need of care. This is a matter which has caused some difficulty in the past and was the subject of an action in the Supreme Court, Transvaal Division, where a child was placed outside its religious background and apart from the religious background of the mother. This was an important case. It was virtually a test case in that the Commissioner of Child Welfare did not recommend that the child be placed outside that necessary religious background whereas the Supreme Court, in interpreting Section 35 of the principal Act, ruled in favour of the child being so placed.

As I see the provisions of Clauses 2 and 4, it would appear that this is perhaps an attempt to narrow down the amount of discretion which is allowed to a commissioner of child welfare, and the placement of a child, particularly if it is an illegitimate child (an illegitimate child in most cases is placed in adoption through the basis of placement) will materially be affected by Clauses 2 and 4, as they amend Section 10 and 35 of the principal Act. I would like to have some confirmation from the hon. the Minister in regard to this particular aspect to ensure that that basis of discretion shall be maintained. It is interesting to look at the principal Act and to see that Section 35 (2) of the principal Act remains unaltered and that this Bill brings in two new sub-sections which become (b) and (c) of Section 35 (2).

The section that is being left is the one which deals with the religious and cultural background and the ethnological grouping of a child in selecting the placement of that child, and therefore this particular paragraph in the principal Act remains “that regard shall be had to the religious and cultural background and ethnological grouping of the child”. In terms of this Bill, the additional provision is made to define what shall be the religious and cultural background of the illegitimate child, and to define more clearly this question of religious and cultural background and nationality of the child, which will be taken to be the same as that of the mother. This particular interpretation of Section 35 of the principal Act is one, which I believe, is of paramount importance, and taking into account the overall principle that is involved that this Act should be in the interest of the child, I have a certain degree of doubt as to whether the rigid implementation of these provisions could perhaps not be in the interest of the child.

The reason I mention this, Sir, is that persons who have had considerable experience— welfare societies and others—of the working and the interpretation of this particular section, have come across certain difficulties. I might mention here that the experience has been that the child welfare societies find that although recognition must naturally be given to the fact that the population does not fall into rigidly demarcated categories, rigid adherence to the principles of Section 35 is not always possible.

Then, Sir, a worker who has had considerable experience in this regard has told me that in her experience if the rigid and undeviating application of this principle is always to be demanded, there will be cases where the action that must follow will not always be in the interests of the child, and as the interests of the child should be regard as being of paramount importance, then that should take precedence over the provisions of Section 35 in those cases where the rigid application of the letter of the law would be detrimental to the child. That is the point of view of a person whose views I appreciate because she has had vast experience of these particular aspects and the effect of this question on adoptions in terms of other sections of the principal Act. So I think that as far as this amendment is concerned, I would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the overall principle of the best interests of the child will at all times be maintained. I feel, Sir, that if we are to narrow down an interpretation which in any way can become more binding on the persons who must assess the position as to whether such action is in the best interests of the child, we may go too far: those persons should have a certain amount of discretion and there should be a certain amount of elasticity so that that interpretation can at all times adhere to the overall principle of “being in the best interests of the child”.

Clause 2 of this Bill which amends Section 10 (4) is also a matter which has a bearing on the provisions of Clause 4 of this Bill in that placement of the child over a longer period of time often necessitates a great deal of difficulty should it be found necessary to remove the child from the care of what are possibly prospective adopted parents. The whole question of the interpretation of this clause is one which I feel as a matter of principle, and that is why I raise it at this particular stage, at the second reading, so that the hon. Minister will be able to give further elucidation of this interpretation of this particular clause, which at first reading appears to be narrowing down the discretionary powers that were previously based on the words “regard shall be had … as being of paramount importance.

Clause 5 of this Bill in regard to reports on certain children, contains an important principle. It is necessary for the report to be made by a probation officer after the first two years of the child being in custody, but here I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he is giving consideration to perhaps reducing that period of time. We know that in spite of all the care that is given to children in various institutions, it is not possible to replace the normal environment of family life and the care that a child gets at home. That is why it is important that we should find ways and means to ensure that these children who are in need of care at the earliest opportunity should be returned to a home environment which would be beneficial to those children.

A child who has been brought up in an institution throughout his childhood is at a decided disadvantage when the time arrives that he leaves that institution and has to go out into the world. Indeed there are organizations to assist those persons in their readjustment to the normal life, to the public and to society. Therefore I feel it is an important provision in Clause 5 of the Bill which lays down a period of two years, and perhaps the Minister will give consideration to reducing that to a period of one year.

Also in dealing with the principle involved in Clause 5, here it is stated that the probation officer will be required to submit his report at the expiration of the first two years. We have found in the past that it has not always been possible for the probation officer himself to be able to submit these reports during a specified period of time, and that this work has been delegated to an authorized officer, often making use of the qualified personnel, social welfare workers, of voluntary agencies and organizations. I know too that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions have in their circulars dealt with the canalization of some of the duties undertaken by probation officers. Therefore I hope to move during the Committee Stage—and I mention it here so that the hon. Minister might give it some consideration—an amendment to the effect that a probation officer or an authorized officer will be able to submit these necessary reports. An “authorized officer” is already defined in the principle Act as being a person who has been so authorized by various officials, including a probation officer. Here I think we will be able to encourage the utilization of the voluntary welfare organizations and the voluntary agencies. I know that the hon. Minister himself is one who likes to encourage the work of voluntary agencies and organizations, and that if this work was allowed to continue, as it has taken place in the past, it would give the necessary statutory sanction of delegating this work to authorized officers who must of course be qualified persons who are in the employ of voluntary agencies and voluntary organizations. There too, I think the part to be played by these organizations cannot be overstressed, and every effort should be made to encourage them to continue with their work where they are assisting the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in a very vital task, a task, as I mentioned earlier, which can only be undertaken by properly qualified persons, and there are many such qualified persons in the employ of these voluntary organizations. There is also another difficulty that might be overcome in this way. Probation officers have their time fully occupied in dealing with their duties, and by delegating this work to authorized officers, we might be able to assist them and make use of organizations in outlying areas such as the A.C.V.V. and the child welfare organizations who can render valuable assistance to the probation officers.

The other point that I wish to deal with under Clause 7 is the removal of children from an institution to another institution for custody or control, and the importance of the observation centres. Mr. Speaker, the observation centre was a new provision of the Children’s Act of 1960, and I am aware that at the present time there have been established and are being established these observation centres at all the main centres. However, in this Clause 7 there unfortunately seems to be no provision for a maximum period of time at which a child might be retained at the observation centre, and as we know the observation centres have not been established as separate entities; unfortunately the department have to establish observation centres at places of safety and detention. I notice from the latest report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions that the Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. has carried out investigations in an endeavour to find more suitable types of buildings to be used for observation purposes, but in the meantime it appears that the practice is to use places of safety and detention as observation centres, and it has been found that many of these children have been kept at places of safety and detention and at observation centres for a long period of time. I feel that although of course one cannot hastily come to a decision to place a child in another institution, or in the custody of other persons, it is a very important step in the life of that child. At the same time I often think that valuable time is being lost when the child is left for unduly long periods at observation centres and at places of safety and detention. The other difficulty of course in regard to being detained for long periods of time at the centres and institutions has been the result of the industrial schools not being able to cope with the situation, and that is another reason which has necessitated a long stay at places of safety and detention.

The other important matter that is dealt with in this Bill, is the one dealing with the question of absconders, and here I welcome the particular provision as I know it is one which has caused a great deal of concern to the Department of Social Welfare. The Department in dealing with absconders has often found that a child after being committed to an industrial school or to some institution, unless he adjusts himself to the life of that institution, continues to abscond and in many cases the whole purpose of rehabilitating a child, if it is a child that requires rehabilitation, is to a great degree defeated in view of the fact that he continually is returned to the same institution and is perhaps making no progress whatsoever. I have always been told that it is in the interest of discipline that such a child should be returned to the institution from which he absconded. Now I think an important provision is being made by which the Minister, where the Commissioner of Child Welfare, can question (the word used here is “interrogate”) a child and at the discretion of the Minister, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, that child can then be placed at another institution or in the custody and care of other persons, which might be conducive to the rehabilitation of that child should it be a child requiring such rehabilitation, or a child needing special care.

The other aspects of the Bill, dealing for instance in Clause 9 with the adoption of children, are also important. In Clause 9 the question of ages is set out more definitely, and the difference of ages as far as children who are to be adopted is concerned. This is another point which has caused some difficulty and confusion to adoption committees of various voluntary agencies and societies.

Now we come to another section which recognizes the customary unions of Bantu people, and I think there should be no objection to that principle. The last two clauses, 13 and 14 are clauses which the hon. member for Durban Central referred to as also the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer), and here I think we have got to try to assess the position to see whether the fragmentation of the work of the Department of Social Welfare in the administration of Acts such as the Children’s Act, which is divided into the various races, the classes of various races, is in fact in the interest of the child and is in fact in the interest of better administration. That, I think, is a dubious point in that the Department of Social Welfare is inclined to become fragmented into various racial groups, and in many instances amongst their own races they are unable to find persons suitably qualified or experienced in the administration of an Act which affects directly the lives of many thousands of children and the future of those children. It is a matter in regard to which we on this side of the House have differed from the Government in principle and it appears that we will continue to differ in principle as far as that aspect is concerned.

The overall position then appears to be that in this Bill there are various clauses which are aimed at improving the administration of the Children’s Act of 1960. We on this side of the House intend to move certain amendments which we believe might also achieve that object and perhaps improve the Bill as it is now before the House. The position is therefore that we cannot be static in regard to the Children’s Act; it is a case of moving with the times and moving with research and investigation that is being carried out by the Department of Social Welfare, and not only by the Department of Social Welfare in this country but also in other countries of the world. I feel that we in South Africa can be proud of the original Act of 1937, as amended and consolidated in 1960, which has kept South Africa in the forefront in the care of children. At various conferences and discussions with other people connected with child welfare in other parts of the world, there has always been the greatest interest shown in what we are doing here and they have been extremely impressed by the steps that have been taken in South Africa to improve the care of children. We hope that that situation will continue and that in all cases where amendments are effected to the important principal Act of 1960, the interest of the child will be of paramount importance, and that that shall remain the over-riding principle in any amendments that are moved to the Act.

I do not propose to speak at length at this stage, but I should like to deal briefly with the three clauses that we are unhappy about. They are matters which will naturally be dealt with more fully in the Committee Stage, and for that reason I do not intend to deal with them at length now. I should like to state, however, our point of view, or rather to elaborate our point of view which has already been stated by the two previous speakers on this side, mainly to give the hon. Minister and his advisers the opportunity to consider these matters before the Committee Stage, and thus save the time of the House.

The first clause is Clause 3. We are not at all happy about the proposed deletion of the words “or if the child is not in a public place”, and during the Committee Stage we would like the hon. Minister to deal a lot more fully with the reasons for this change The hon. the Minister has suggested that it is being introduced because some difficulty has been found in practice in removing a child from his parents’ home for example where the parents objected. Well, Mr. Speaker, even with the proviso as it reads at present (that is with the inclusion of the words “or if the child is not in a public place”), it is always possible for a policeman or a probation officer or an authorized officer to remove a child from a place other than a public place without the consent of the parents where the policeman or the probation officer has reason to believe that an offence has been committed or is being committed by that person—that is presumably the parents—upon or in connection with the child. We on this side find it difficult to envisage a situation which would make it impossible for the police or a probation officer to remove a child where that is obviously in the interests of the child to do so. So we hope that the hon. the Minister will give a more satisfactory reason for this, because as we see it at present, this amendment is undesirable, for the reason that it will now make it possible for a policeman or probation officer to remove a child from his parents’ home without the consent of the parents, even where there is no reason to believe that an offence has been committed or is being committed by that person on or in connection with the child. That being the case, we would feel obliged to oppose this clause, unless the hon. the Minister can satisfy us that this amendment is one which is desirable in the interests of children.

As regards Clause 13, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has explained why it is that we oppose this proposed amendment, and that explanation together with the explanation of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) I think suffices to explain to this House why it is that we do oppose this clause.

I then come to Clause 14. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus in dealing with this matter, completely misconstrued the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Central). Our point in opposing this proposed amendment is not that we object to giving the Minister powers to make regulations for certain purposes. Our point is this: At present the section dealing with the making of regulations, Section 92, says this: “The Minister may make regulations … and then it sets out the various things for which the Minister may make regulations. All these are clearly listed and the House is in a position to see exactly what matters the Minister wishes to deal with by regulation. We can decide whether we are prepared to give him powers of that sort, powers to make regulations for those specific purposes. We have no objection to that. The present sub-section (o) which is to be amended, reads—

That also is unobjectionable because it is limited to matters which may be prescribed in terms of the Act, and the matters which may be prescribed in terms of the Act can be readily ascertained. Now the proposed amendments will give the Minister power to make regulations in respect virtually of any matter which he deems necessary, or which he deems expedient to prescribe in order that the purposes of the Act may be achieved. This widens the field to the extent that the Minister is given carte blanche to prescribe by regulation virtually whatever he wishes in respect of an Act such as this. It has been possible to say precisely in Section 92 what matters the Government wishes to deal with by regulation, and if one looks at Section 92, one sees that there are sub-sections (a) to (o), covering a great many matters in respect of which the Minister may issue regulations. If the hon. the Minister requires to make regulations in respect of other matters, it should be possible and quite easy to him to come to this House and to say in respect of which further matters he wishes to make regulations. It is quite unnecessary in our view that he should wish to take the unfettered powers to make regulations in respect of any matter that he considers necessary or expedient.

Those are our reasons for intending to oppose certain clauses, and also for being as it were unhappy about one further clause, and we would like the hon. the Minister when the Committee Stage is dealt with to deal more fully with these three clauses in particular.

I want to express my appreciation of the general support given to this amending Bill which I described in my introductory speech as an improvement on a very good Act. I am very pleased to learn from the House that hon. members are convinced, as I am, that the 1960 Children’s Act has functioned very well. We can expect certain defects to manifest themselves in the course of administering such an Act, defects which in turn oblige us to remedy them and to improve the existing arrangements.

I just want to reply briefly to what has been said. As I said in my introductory speech we can easily discuss any suggestions hon. members may wish to make in the Committee Stage. We are not concerned here with a general principle but with specific matters and specific clauses and they can be much better discussed in Committee. However, I just wish to clear up a few of the problems raised by hon. members. I just want to assure the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) that where there has been doubt in the past as to whether the Minister had the necessary power to promulgate regulations in order to administer the law better as far as all legislation is concerned it is not possible to lay down in detail everything the Minister can do and in respect of which matters he can promulgate regulations. You simply cannot do it. The regulations cannot go beyond what is provided for in the Act itself, and that is exactly what we are doing here. If the regulations go beyond the provisions of the Act Parliament can criticize it. I just wanted to reassure the hon. member on that point.

The hon. member as well as other hon. members have referred to Clause 3. I said quite clearly that in terms of the existing section you could not remove a child without the consent of the person in whose care he was. Seeing that there is a provision that you cannot remove the child without the consent of the person in whose care he is it follows logically that in many cases, particularly in cases where the child is ill-treated in his parental home, the parents will not give their consent. The Department and the officials of the Department will tell you, Sir, that the people who always insist on keening the child are the very people who are unfit to keep the child. Provision has to be made to remove the child from their care if it is in the interests of the child to do so. We all agreed that the main object of this Bill is to protect the interests of the child. The hon. member says this clause is undesirable and that we should not have the right to remove that child but we think the very opposite. We think it is desirable that it should be possible to remove that child. I said in my introductory speech that I thought it would be barbaric to make a fuss and to send a police official or a probation officer to go and fetch the child out of a cinema where he is with his parents. The object is only to prevent him from doing it in those circumstances. The circumstances under which officials have been doing it up to the present— and nobody has objected to it—remain completely unaltered except that the parent cannot keep the child by refusing to hand the child over. That is the only change that is being effected.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) asked for certain assurances. His concern is that we may perhaps be making the field wider than it was. This question was thoroughly discussed when the principal Act was passed in 1960. Section 35 was thoroughly discussed and in this connection the Deputy-Minister who introduced the Bill said the following—

Those words are still true to-day. He went further and said—

This statement was made by the Deputy Minister and remains unaltered. There is no intention whatsoever to tighten up the position. I am pleased to learn that hon. members opposite do not object in principle to the retention of the cultural and religious background, etc. I think hon. members will agree that the best you can do for a child is to bring it as close as possible to its own background. His own background is that of his family, his cultural background his religious background. Those are the things the child would have had had he not been alone in the world. Those are the things the child would have had in his parental home. Those are the things his mother and father would have given him had they both been there. Those are the tings we want to safeguard for the child. That is why I am pleased that there is no objection to the principle as such. The courts have, however, pointed out that it was very difficult to determine what the religious or cultural background of a two-year-old child was.

An illegitimate child.

Yes. What is the religious and cultural background of an illegitimate child? An illegitimate child has a mother only. You do not know who the father of an illegitimate child is. It is very difficult always to determine who the father is and the very thing which will be of the greatest importance to such a child in his future life is a religious and cultural background.

With reference to a casual remark made by the hon. member for Umbilo I just want to say that Section 10 of the principal Act provides that a person who takes a child in his care with the intention of keeping him longer than 30 days, must give notice of such intention within seven days after receiving the child. The whole object of amending the legislation is to prevent the law from being circumvented in that people adopt a child, keep that child for a year or two and then come and plead to be allowed to keep the child because the child has no other parents. It is a difficult problem as far as that child is concerned. If you remove such a child it means you are disrupting its life and that will do far greater harm to the child than to place him at the outset in the environment in which he should have been placed in the first instance. In this respect an improvement is brought about in this Bill. Such people had to notify the Commissioner of Child Welfare within seven days after having received the child. In actual fact that period is now extended from seven to 30 days. The onus rests on the person in whose care the child is to say expressly that he intends keeping the child longer. That will mean that we shall not have a number of children roaming around without knowing where they are.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) gave his support to this Bill in no uncertain terms. I just want to tell him that I appreciate the fact that he appreciates that piece of legislation which has been administered in South Africa for five years in such a way that it has only invited praise. I greatly appreciate that. He also objected to Clause 3. I can only tell him that in terms of Section 26 (1) of the principal Act a police official, a probation officer, etc., can remove a child from any place and take it to a place of safety. The existing law is not being amended in this respect. AH we are doing here, for the sake of the child, is to ensure that the child is prejudiced as little as possible. I want to assure hon. members that we shall continue to administer the Children’s Act as we have been administering it since 1960, with the emphasis on what is in the interests of the particular child. We shall continue to administer it in that way. As the hon. member for Umbilo has correctly stated it is perhaps possible that, based on experience gained, we shall after a period of time have to effect further amendments in order to improve this wonderful Act of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa in such a way that it will have no loopholes and so that it will always operate in the best interests of the child. Whatever we do in the best interests of the child we do in the best interests of the future of South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.