This amendment which we now find in the Bill as it has come from the Other Place, is, of course, in substance the same as the amendment which we on this side of the House moved when the Bill was before this House, before it went to the Other Place. We are pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has changed his mind because, when the Bill was here and we proposed precisely the same thing . . .

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

The amendment would seem to indicate that the hon. the Minister has now found it possible to find a definition which will water the Bill down without interfering with its principles and without prejudicing the safety of the State. That, of course, is quite the opposite of what he said in this House.

Order! I have told the hon. member that we are only concerned with the amendment. He must confine his remarks entirely to the amendment.

The amendment adds a definition of “police matter”. This is, of course, what we have been striving for, and it is for this reason that we are pleased to see this definition in the Bill, because “police matter” was not defined at all in the Bill as it read before it went to the Other Place; it is now defined and it gives some idea to the Press and to the public alike . . .

Order! I shall ask the hon. member to resume his seat unless he comes back to the contents of the amendment; that is all we are concerned with.

Sir, this amendment provides a definition which was not there before . . .

Order! The hon. member has said that three times already. There is no necessity to repeat it over and over again.

May I just say that we are delighted that the fit of pique which the hon. the Minister had when this Bill was before this House has now passed.

The House is being asked to approve of an amendment which has been adopted in the Other Place at the instance of the Official Opposition in the Other Place, and in order that this House may decide whether or not to approve of this amendment, I propose to discuss the contents of the amendment and to address a few remarks on the contents of that amendment, as to whether it is a good one or a bad one. After all, this House cannot approve of this amendment without discussion as to whether it merits its approval or not, and in order to decide whether this amendment warrants our approval, I think it is necessary to consider the manner in which this amendment could be described and the manner in which this amendment has been described from time to time. You will appreciate, Sir, that I am dealing merely with the merits of the amendment and descriptions of it as to its merits. Sir, it is interesting to note, when one has to weigh up the merits of an amendment of this kind, that this amendment is one which in the past has been described by the hon. the Minister as one which . . .

Order! I am not interested in how the Minister in the past described the amendment. The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the amendment; that is all I am concerned with.

I propose to deal merely with the merits of this amendment and nothing else. I do not intend to go beyond that scope.

I hope the hon. member will come to the point straight away.

I will, Sir. This amendment has been described as one which does not change . . .

Order! I have told the hon. member that I am not interested in the description; the hon. member must deal with the contents of the amendment.

With respect, Sir, unless I can comment on the contents of the amendment and compare my views with those of others as to the merits of this amendment, then I cannot speak at all.

Order! All that is before the House is this amendment.

That is all I wish to address myself to at this stage, Sir. In trying to indicate to this House whether or not we should approve of this amendment, I wish to discuss comments which have been made and which can still be made at this stage on the merits of the amendment, without going outside that field at all. This particular amendment might be criticized in some respects, in the sense that responsible people might say of it that it does not change the Bill, as it was before this amendment was brought in. Responsible people might say that it takes the matter no further. I say that, Sir, because responsible people have said that of this measure; that is to say, the hon. the Minister himself . . .

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

With respect, I have not left the amendment.

Order! I have given my ruling.

In deciding whether or not we should accept this amendment—and after all that is why it is being brought before this House—it might be said of this particular amendment that it is nonsensical. . . .

Order! The hon. member must come back to the amendment or resume his seat.

With respect, I have not yet left the description of this amendment.

The hon. member is not coming to the point. He is giving the opinion of other people; I am not concerned with the opinion of other people at all.

I merely say that it might be said . . .

By whom?

Order! The hon. member must come to the point or resume his seat.

It might be said, for example, that this will improve the Bill tremendously, and I take it that Government members, when speaking to this amendment, will say that it should be accepted by the House, because it now brings certainty, whereas previously there was ambiguity. That, of course, is the standpoint which has been adopted on a previous occasion by this side of the House. On the other hand, it may be that hon. members who do not agree with me in my attitude to this amendment . . .

Order! The hon. member must come back to the amendment or resume his seat.

May I address you on a point of order, Sir, for the guidance of this side of the House? In discussing this amendment, are we entitled to go into its history; secondly, are we entitled to go into its merits as an amendment and, thirdly, are we entitled to go into its effects?

Hon. members are only entitled to go into the merits of the amendment.

Are we not entitled to go into either its history or its effects?

Hon. members cannot go into its history. They must confine themselves to the merits and the effects.

I am indebted to you, Sir, for your ruling. In dealing then with the merits of this amendment and its effect, which, of course, includes the question as to whether it now makes the clause clear or not, I am glad to be able to say at this stage that we are entitled to assume from the fact that this amendment is now included in the Bill and that the House is being asked to approve of it, that the hon. the Minister and the Government disagree with anyone who might describe this amendment as nonsensical or absurd.

Order! The hon. member is now covering a field which I have asked him not to cover. I am concerned only with the merits of the amendment and its effects. I am not concerned with its history.

I am not dealing with its history, Sir.

And I am not concerned with the opinion of other people; I am only concerned with the hon. member’s own opinion.

Well, Sir, I will give my own opinion. I believe that this amendment is an immeasurable improvement to the Bill, it shows that anybody who took a contrary view, or who at this stage takes a contrary view, is entirely wrong. We have reached the stage where there has been an about-face in respect of anyone who might previously have criticized this amendment when it was put forward by this side of the House. We have reached the stage where the phrase to which we took objection, “police matter,” is now defined as relating to the internal security of the Republic or the maintenance of law and order in the Republic, which is precisely the manner in which I would have wished that phrase to be defined and circumscribed. If the hon. the Minister replies to this debate —and I imagine he will—I take it that he will attempt to justify the acceptance of this amendment by saying that the addition of certain words, i.e. the words “law and order”, makes all the difference to this amendment and to its acceptance. If the hon. gentleman tries to do that—I hope he will not—then of course he is basing his case on an untenable proposition.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the merits of the amendment.

I shall do that, Sir, and refer merely to the term “law and order” as it appears in this amendment. Those words were inherent in the words “internal security of the Republic” which also appeared in the amendment, even in the absence of the words “law and order”, because I defy the hon. the Minister or anybody else to tell me how you can maintain the internal security of the Republic in terms of the first phrase used in this amendment without at the same time maintaining law and order. It is elementary that you cannot maintain internal security in police matters without at the same time maintaining law and order. I conclude by saying that I have little doubt that these words “law and order” are now acceptable in certain quarters in order to save face . . .

Order!

Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to reply very briefly to certain arguments advanced here by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). The hon. member made two statements which, for the sake of the record, I cannot allow to go unchallenged. In the first instance, before you called the hon. member for Durban (North) to order, he made the statement, which now forms part of the record, that the amendment adopted in the Other Place was the same in substance as the amendment which he had moved in this House and which I had rejected. That, of course, is not correct, and the hon. member ought to know that.

It is precisely the same.

That is not the position, for the simple reason that in his amendment which was rejected by this House, the hon. member only had the words “internal security”. He wanted to have nothing to do with the following words “law and order”, and those words did not appear in his amendment either. In the second instance it is not the same because in his own amendment the hon. member referred to the provisions of the Police Act.

Order! I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will refrain from going into the history of the amendment.

With the greatest respect, Sir, I am merely replying to the argument, which is now on record, that this amendment, in substance, is the same as the amendment moved by the Opposition in this House. Suffice it to say, in one single sentence, that it is not the same because the hon. member’s amendment which was rejected by this House referred to the Police Act. I come back now to the amendment which is before the House. Sir, you will see that in this amendment no reference was made at all to the Police Act. Will you permit me to reply in just a single sentence to the hon. member’s argument which now forms part of the record “that the Minister has changed his mind.”? It is not the Minister who has changed his mind; it is the United Party that has changed its mind.

No, that will convince nobody.

When the Bill was before this House, hon. members of the Opposition availed themselves of the parliamentary procedure to move that the Bill be read “this day six months”. The Bill was then sent to the Other Place in the form in which it was passed here, and no such amendment was moved by hon. members in the Other Place.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Did the hon. the Minister say during the second-reading debate in this House that it was impossible to find a definition to water it down without endangering the safety of the State?

Order! I cannot allow that question and I cannot allow the hon. the Minister to reply to it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

This Bill consists of two Clauses only one of which has any substance in it. All the objectives this Bill seeks to achieve as a whole are contained in this one Clause. As we see it the Clause envisages three things: In the first place it cancels the existing position, namely, that if the House of Assembly is dissolved for any specific reason all the members must simultaneously fight a new election. In the second place it cancels the rule that the members who represent the Coloureds have to be elected on a date eight days before the general election for the White representatives. In the third place, it introduces a new rule, namely, that the four members who represent the Coloured voters will hold office for a whole period of five years, irrespective of whether the House of Assembly is dissolved before the time or not. These are the three objectives of this Clause.

In any case I want to deal with the merits of the objectives. I want to say immediately that the Opposition sees no reason why it should support any one of these objectives and that is why we are going to vote against this Clause. As far as the first objective is concerned, we do not think there should be two classes of members of Parliament as there will, in fact, be if this Clause is accepted. We do not think that the one member should, in certain circumstances, be in an advantageous position and in a disadvantageous position in other circumstances as against another member of Parliament. There is an important reason why we think that and it is this: The four members who represent the Coloureds have the right in this House to vote on all issues; they may, for instance, vote on a motion of no confidence. In other words, the four votes they control can, in given circumstances, cause a government to fall . . .

On a point of order, may I just point out that in terms of Rule 58 the principles of a Bill cannot be discussed in Committee but only the details of it. I submit that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has, in respect of one of the details of the Bill, gone over to discussing the principle which was accepted at the second reading.

Are you afraid to have a debate?

Who helped you with that?

It was compiled spontaneously.

Order! I just want to point out that the principle which was accepted at the second reading is that the Coloured Representatives will have sitting in the House of Assembly for a fixed period of five years. That principle may not be discussed at this stage.

On a point of order, am I correct in saying that it is customary to allow at least one speaker on Opposition side to state the case in general in the committee stage.

Where do you get that from?

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I want to abide by your ruling; but may I point out that this Bill consists of only one Clause of any substance. We are consequently faced with this problem that all the details of the Bill are contained in this one Clause only. All I am trying to do is to indicate why we cannot support the three objectives set out in this Clause. The reason why we cannot support the first objective, namely, that the Coloured Representatives will not lose their seats when Parliament is dissolved, is that those four members can cause a government to fall; that they can cause Parliament to be dissolved; they can be the cause of a new election while they themselves are safe in their seats; their position is not affected. We on this side of the House regard that as a serious anomaly and as unreasonable towards the entire parliamentary institution. I want to add this: This is not the first time that this point has been discussed in Committee in Parliament. I should like to draw your attention to the discussion which took place in Committee in 1946, when the Indian Representation Bill was under discussion, as well as in 1947 when the life of the Natives Representatives was extended. On that occasion the present Government, the Nationalist Party, who was then in Opposition, adopted the attitude that it would create an untenable position if four members were placed in a position in which they could cause Parliament to be dissolved without their own positions being affected by it. In 1946 the discussion was on a similar provision in respect of Indian Representatives. The Indians were to have had two representatives whose term of office was also fixed for five years. The Nationalist Party objected most strenuously to that and pointed out that those members would be full-fledged members; that they would enjoy all the rights other members enjoyed; that they would have the power to cause a government to fall without their own position being affected at all. Mr. F. C. Erasmus who was then the chief secretary of the Nationalist Party and who subsequently became Minister . . .

What has that to do with the Clause?

I want to show why we can’t accept this Clause. Mr. F. C. Erasmus who was then chief secretary of the Nationalist Party moved an amendment in the committee stage on that occasion which meant in effect that, when Parliament was dissolved, all members, including the Indian Representatives, would have to be re-elected and General Smuts accepted that amendment. A year later the question of a fixed term of office of five years was again under discussion in respect of the Natives Representatives and once again Mr. F. C. Erasmus, strongly supported by the present Minister of Social Welfare, adopted the attitude that it would be doing Parliament an injustice if Parliament could be dissolved without all members of Parliament being affected. The United Party Government immediately appreciated the merits of their argument and General Smuts indicated that he would revise the position in which the Natives Representatives found themselves. We are completely opposed to the first objective of this Clause. We maintain that it cannot be justified on merit, least of all by that side of the House.

The second objective of the Clause is to cancel the rule that members who represent the Coloureds should be elected on a date eight days before a general election. We place no particular value on the eight-day-rule. That was introduced for administrative reasons because the Coloured constituencies are big and thinly populated and it takes a long time to count the votes. The important point is that the final results are more or less announced at the same time as the results of the general election are announced and that the elections are more or less held at the same time. It does not, therefore, detract from the main principle that as the position is at the moment, when Parliament is dissolved, everyone has to sacrifice his seat; that everybody has to fight an election, that the elections take place more or less at the same time and that the results become known more or less at the same time. In other words, Parliament is in fact reconstituted at the same time. We have no serious objection, therefore, to the eight-day provision, because we do not regard it as important. We think that the existing position should be retained; if not, we would prefer all the elections to be held on the same day for both the Coloured Representatives and the White Representatives. [Time limit.]

I should have thought that the hon. the Minister would have answered the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson).

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I am sure that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has not finished. I will therefore resume my seat to give him an opportunity to continue.

I have gained the impression that the object of the Minister in regard to this clause is that he would not like some Opposition party to be given extraordinary publicity before the day of a general election by a victory among the Coloured voters. The same circumstances of course apply to a by-election. But if this is what is worrying the Minister, I think the correct step for the Minister to have taken would have been to stand by the policy always propounded by that side of the House, the standpoint his own leaders have always strongly defended, and that is that the elections for all should take place on the same day. That has always been the standpoint of that side of the House.

The third object of the clause is to introduce a new rule that the four members representing the Coloureds will retain their seats for the full period of five years, irrespective of whether this House is dissolved before that time or not. Well, we have stated our objections to this in principle during the second-reading debate. Our practical objection to this part of the clause is based on the fact that at the time when this rule was in force—that was in respect of the Natives’ Representatives, it led to practical difficulties time and again.

Order! The hon. member cannot take that argument further; it affects the principle of the Bill, which has already been approved at the second reading. The hon. member has stated that the Opposition is opposed to it and he should leave it there.

May I say what the practical effect of the clause will be?

The principle has already been adopted, and whether there are practical difficulties or not makes no difference.

Apart from the main principle, we are also dealing now with the clause as such; I must discuss the merits of the clause. Are you ruling, Sir, that I may merely say that we are opposed to it and that for the rest I may not say a single word to explain our standpoint?

The hon. member cannot take that point further.

But what do we do if the clause consists only of that which is also the principle?

Then the hon. member may vote against the clause.

On a point of order, is the hon. member not entitled to discuss the merits of the clause, as it is linked up with the principle?

The hon. member has already discussed the first two objects of the clause. I have allowed him to do so. but he may not discuss the principle itself. The principle, that the Coloureds’ Representatives will be elected for a fixed period of five years, has already been adopted.

With respect, as I understood the hon. member, he was discussing the merits of the period the Coloureds’ Representatives will sit in this House.

The hon. member may not discuss the principle further.

Mr. Chairman, will you allow me to say just in one sentence why we cannot vote for the third point in the clause?

I can allow no further discussion of the principle. The principle has already been approved during the second reading, that those members will be elected for a fixed period. The matter was fully dealt with during the second-reading debate and I will allow no further discussion of the principle. The hon. member may further discuss the first two points he raised if he can advance new arguments, but he cannot discuss the third point further.

May I then just say this, which again affects the merits of the first point, that if one dissolves Parliament in such a manner that all members do not face an election simultaneously, it will result in a situation where elections will take place for a group represented here, and to which Parliament wants to give representation, at a time when Parliament is not in session and when they will therefore not be able to attend the sessions of Parliament. I will conclude with that, but I just want to ask the hon. member whether it does not concern him at all that the representation being given to the Coloureds is made worthless because they will not always be able to be present when Parliament sits?

The position of the provincial councillors will be dealt with by other hon. members, but I just want to state once again that there is not a single reason why this change should be made after 14 years, and we shall therefore oppose the clause as a whole.

Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will answer some of the questions which were put to him in the second-reading debate.

I will answer when I please.

If that is the hon. the Minister’s attitude, that he will answer when he pleases . . .

I am not referring to you now. I was referring to the hon. member over there who wants me to reply when it suits him.

It is quite obvious that if I had not stood up, the hon. the Minister would not have answered and the question would have been put. Surely the hon. the Minister is going to get up and answer some of the questions which have been put to him. Sir, I asked the hon. Minister certain questions in the second-reading debate. He did not answer those questions and I want to repeat those questions: Sir, you have ruled that the principle of the Bill is that Coloured Representatives are to be elected for a fixed period. If that is the only object of the Bill, why is it being done in such a complicated way? Surely the hon. the Minister knows of the 1936 Act . . .

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

I want to discuss why we find this extraordinarily obtuse wording in sub-section (3) (a). I want to point out to the hon. the Minister, as I did once before that there is a wonderful precedent for the implementation of this principle in the Separate Representation of Natives Act of 1936, which provides very simply that “members of the House of Assembly elected under this Act shall hold a seat for a period of five years notwithstanding any dissolution of the House of Assembly.” There the principle to which you have referred, Sir, is stated very simply and crisply without any doubt and without any possibility of misunderstanding. If that was the only object of the hon. the Minister, why did he not express it in those terms? It would have been very easy to do so. The second question I want to ask is this: Why has he inserted a provision in sub-section (b) which provides, for the first time ever, that when a special proclamation is issued in terms of Section 35 of the Electoral Consolidation Act of 1946, that is to say, a proclamation calling a general election and fixing election day, why is it that he has here tied the hand of the executive by saying that the State President shall issue that proclamation within seven days of the expiration of the five years? Why is that here? It was not there before, a special proclamation had to be issued in terms of Section 35 in respect of the Coloured Representatives not more than eight days before the general election for White Representatives. That position is now being changed. It is now obligatory on the State President to issue that proclamation within seven days of the expiry of five years. That is not the position as far as the other members of this Parliament are concerned. That is how the law stands at the moment and it is unaffected by this. If Parliament is not dissolved it sits for five years and thereafter the provision is made that the State President shall issue a proclamation in terms of Section 35 setting out nomination day and determining election day which has to be within a certain period prescribed by the Act, as is the position here. The difference is this that by design the State President must do it within seven days. The other provisions remain, namely, that the Members of Parliament continue until the day before the next election regardless of that proclamation.

Does the hon. the Minister have in mind, that if a Parliament lasts for five vears and a proclamation is thereafter issued in terms of Section 35, to wait some while? I think it is most extraordinary that the State President’s hands should be tied in respect of this election. What does the hon. Minister have in mind? I hope he will give us an explanation as to why this provision has been put in; as to why he has stated, what he has said to be the principle of the Bill, so obtusely and whether he will give us any indication as to whether, having regard to his arguments and those of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) that this Bill should be supported because of the administrative costs and the difficulties of administration, the Minister has in mind a further amendment providing that the M.P.s and the M.P.C.s should be elected on the same day and that that day should perhaps be the day on which the M.P.C.s are elected so that the members here may have a: further time without election? I am just asking whether the Minister has that in mind. I hope he will give us some reply.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to deal with just one point. It was raised during the second reading but the Minister has not replied to it. It deals with this particular clause and the point is this: What is the position of provincial councillors? The principle is laid down that they shall be elected for five years. That has been the position ever since Union. The Minister is now amending the law in this particular clause to give them a further five years, namely a five-year period fixed for provincial councillors. What I don’t understand—nor does anybody else—is why provincial councillors should have a five-year term for a second time. In terms of the existing law the term of office of a provincial councillor was for five years from the date of the first meeting of the council. This position is now being amended; the term of office of a provincial councillor shall now be five years from the date of election of the whole council. I just don’t understand this differentiation. During the second reading we endeavoured to get this information from the hon. the Minister but in the course of his remarks he apparently omitted to reply to it. I think he should clear up this confusion because there is a great deal of confusion.

The Coloured Representatives in this House are fixed for five years from the date of a general election. That is fair enough but there is no valid reason for establishing the fact that the Coloured provincial councillors should again be fixed for five years because that has always been the case. If the hon. the Minister would give us some information on that I shall be grateful. As the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has pointed out the wording of this clause is very involved. If the terminology was intended simply to establish that the term of office should be for five years, one would have been able to understand it. but this is involved. I cannot believe that this involved method of expressing a simple English sentiment that the term of office should be five years is intended in this instance just to be for five years. That is why, Sir, we have been at some pains to ascertain the real motives behind this Bill but that, however, is not germane to the issue and we shall have to deal with that in some other way.

To finalize this is what I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister. I hope he will tell us why he is establishing the provincial councillors for a period of five years, when they are already elected for five years. In terms of the existing law their term of office is for five years from the date of the first meeting of the council. If the hon. the Minister would explain that to me I shall be very grateful.

I am not going to attempt to argue at length on this clause because of your ruling that one may not discuss the principle which was accepted at the second reading. Since this entire Bill consists of one clause which embodies the principle it is clearly not going to be possible for me to repeat any of the arguments I used at the second reading. I simply want to say again that I am completely opposed to this measure. I don’t believe for one moment that the hon. Minister gave us the true motives . . .

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

I am against this clause, Sir. which just so happens to be the entire Bill before this Committee. Had it been a Bill of several clauses one would have been able to speak for some time on this one particular clause. I am against this clause and therefore I am against the measure which is embodied in the clause. I don’t believe for one moment that the hon. the Minister has given us the true motives behind the introduction of this clause and I shall simply vote against it and attempt to put my objection more fully at the third reading.

I understand the attitude of the hon. member who has just sat down. We can do nothing about it and she herself cannot do anything about it either; it is not even necessary for me to reply to her. In any case, Mr. Chairman, you would not allow me to reply to her on the question of the five-year period because we have already discussed it in the second-reading debate.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) talked about an alleged desire to give publicity to some political party or other. He says that that is his impression. I am not responsible for his impressions. All I can say is that his impression is wrong. The hon. member also referred to the attitude of the National Party with regard to Indian and Bantu representation. I can only say to him that there is a world of difference because the attitude of the National Party in respect of those matters was that in principle it was not in favour of giving the Indians and the Bantu any representation at all in this House. The circumstances are not at all comparable therefore.

The hon. member also made the point that this clause was placing a power in the hands of four people; he said that in the event of a clash between two parties of more or less equal strength, the votes of those four people might well be decisive. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a matter that we disposed of in the second-reading debate and I do not propose therefore to pursue that argument. The reply, of course, is that they also have that power to-day. But here we also have a second reply to the argument that the power of the Coloured Representatives is being greatly diminished, because if their vote can be decisive, then it proves that they are being given a tremendous power under this measure.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) wants to know why M.P.C.s are also referred to here. I am informed by the law advisers that it is because of the fact that M.P.C.s were mentioned originally in the section, which provides that they must be elected at least eight days before the election, that they also had to deal here with the position of the M.P.C.s; that is why they dealt simultaneously with the position of the M.P.C.s and of members of the House of Assembly. The law advisers feel that this is the best way to deal with it. There is no sinister motive behind it.

There is only one further point to be dealt with and that is the point made by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). The hon. member wants to know why I (b) provides that a special proclamation shall be promulgated. The hon. member is locking for a sinister motive behind it. I can only say to him that there is no necessity to look for a sinister motive, because in this case too I made inquiries to ascertain why the law advisers had couched this paragraph in this particular wording, and I was informed that the sole object was to bring about clarity.

Is there no clarity as far as the White Representatives are concerned?

What has that to do with the price of eggs? After all, I thought hon. members on the other side were accusing us of creating a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the Coloureds, and now that we are creating certainty the hon. member objects to it. I have nothing further to say, Sir.

The hon. the Minister is quite wrong in saying that I used the argument of the balance of power. I do not believe in that argument at all, because if four people in this House hold the balance of power then any four have it. At one stage we had the position in the Other Place that there were four Natives’ Representatives, but it was Senator Brink who, through his actions, held the balance of power. To ascribe a balance of power to one particular group is not reasonable. If there is a balance of power, then anybody or any four out of the total number hold it. I therefore am not in the least interested in that type of argument.

On a point of order, Sir, the principle which contains the history, the merits and the objects of a Bill is discussed in the second reading. If you now allow hon. members to discuss merits and objects in the Committee Stage, we will have to carry on this discussion ad infinitum. I ask your ruling, Sir.

The hon. the Minister did it and I have allowed the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to reply to it. The hon. member should not go too far.

Sir, I shall not refer at all to the third point which deals with the principle. I should, however, like to revert to the first two arguments I advanced. I am not in the least interested in the balance of power argument. My point was in regard to the question of the dissolution of Parliament, and that four people could cause the dissolution of this House; they can make a Government fall without their four seats being affected. The Minister has not dealt with that argument at all. [Interjections.] May I mention the attitude which was adopted by Gen. Smuts, a person who had extensive experience of parliamentary matters? He said in 1947, in respect of the position of the Natives’ Representatives—

Then there was the argument of a former Minister, Mr. F. C. Erasmus, who said (translation)—

The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare also adopted a very firm attitude in regard to this point.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should take it any further. It is the result of the fixing of a period.

I had no intention of speaking in the Committee Stage but it has now been suggested that the point I put forward at the second reading has been replied to by the hon. the Minister.

Order! I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to repeat a point he made during the second reading.

What I want to establish is that it has not been replied to and that the Minister now has an opportunity of doing so.

How can I reply to a point made in the second reading in the Committee Stage?

Why did you not reply to it at the appropriate time?

At the second reading the principle has been accepted that in future two elections will determine who should govern this country. If that is not true, then it is for the Minister to say that that is not so. To me it is quite clear that we have introduced into our Statutes the principle that one election is not sufficient, that we have to have two.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the principle.

Sir, you have ruled that that should be discussed at the second reading and that we cannot continue with it. This clause gives effect to that principle. I want to vote against this clause and I want it to be known why I am going to vote against it. The reason why I am going to vote against this clause is that I believe that this Committee will be taking a wrong step if it were to support this clause as it stands here. Sir, you have ruled that if this clause is defeated at this Committee Stage the Bill will lapse. That is the effect of your ruling. It is clear to me therefore, that if I can advance arguments as to why this clause should be defeated at the division I shall be achieving my objective.

That involves the principle, the hon. member cannot attack the principle.

It is the principle that can be attacked in a division. You will rule, Sir, that if the majority voted against this clause the principle would have disappeared at the Committee Stage. That is the simple issue. I want to exercise my right to persuade my colleagues on the other side to support us in the division on this Clause so that we can defeat this principle embodied in this clause and which I oppose, i.e., the holding of two elections to provide a stable government.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member even to discuss the principle of the clause and he says he wants to convince other members that the principle is wrong. He cannot discuss the principle; nor can he make that statement. He can vote against the clause if he wishes to do so but that is the end of it; he can vote against the clause.

So the purpose of the Committee Stage is now being destroyed. May I discuss the effect of this clause?

In a very limited way. The hon. member may not discuss the principle of the definite period.

Your ruling is clear, Sir. The principle of this Bill is not that the holding of an election for the Coloured Representatives and White Representatives of this House on the same day should be prohibited. I think we have established that that is not the principle. I want to show that if this Bill is passed it will be possible for an election to take place for members of this House and the Coloured Representatives on the same day. That is the point I want to make. If that is possible it can be brought about by administrative action. My feeling is that it would be even better if it were brought about by legislative action. That is why I am opposed to this Clause. It does allow the executive to lay down that the elections should be held on the same day. I am going to give you the reason why I say this, Sir. I am assuming that, all things being equal, this House will most likely be re-elected some time in October of next year. As an illustration I want to indicate what can happen. Issues that happen between now and then may result in the present Government being returned with a majority of two and at that specific time the period of office of the Coloured Representatives may have expired with the result that the State President, in calling upon the Prime Minister to form a government, will be doing so on the strength of the fact that the Nationalist Party has a majority of two in this House. But within a week or two the Coloured voters return four members who are opposed to the Government with the result that the Government will then be in a minority. I want to prevent that constitutional position developing. The only way I can prevent that happening is to vote against this clause.

Your eight Bantu representatives will be more dangerous.

I have illustrated what this clause means. If there is anyone on that side of the House who is so fond of elections that he can face that possibility and vote for this clause, then I say, as far as I am concerned, he is not conversant with our constitutional procedure. It is no use our passing legislation and then, at a subsequent date, saying: “We did not realize the implications.” I have attempted to indicate the implications of this measure, namely, the holding of two elections to determine who should govern the country, and even then perhaps discovering that a further general election would be necessary to determine what the will of the people is. I am totally opposed to a proposition of that sort.

I want to come back to the position of the Provincial Council. Let us take the elections which have just been fought. The hon. the Minister has not replied to the questions I have put to him. The election for the Coloured Representatives took place on 10 March and the one for the White Representatives on 24 March. Those people became members of the Provincial Council for five years as and from 11 April. Is that the position? Right or wrong? I think those people are elected for five years. What I do not understand, and what the hon. the Minister has not explained, is that those people will be in the Provincial Council for five years as and from II April in terms of existing legislation. The Minister has not yet explained why he wants to change this position with this involved amendment. These people will come out of office on 11 April 1970. All this Bill says is that there must be a proclamation seven days after that. In addition to that—I think this is the crux of the matter—although the Provincial Council, by effluxion of time, went out of office in October, here in the Cape they had a minor sitting early in the year, and the general election took place in March. Why does the Minister legislate for those people to stay there for five years when they will be there for five years in terms of the law as it stands to-day? The hon. Minister does not answer that question. He must, therefore, make me think, as others are thinking, that there is nothing but sinister intent in this measure. I am willing to be corrected; maybe I am wrong. Will the Minister please tell me why it is that men who have been elected to the Provincial Council, in terms of the law, for five years, are being legislated for now to stay there for five years? Surely this is gilding the lily.

The hon. the Minister replied to the points I raised under (b), namely, why was he forcing the hand of the State President to issue the proclamation calling for a general election and fixing the date of the election in respect of the Coloureds whereas it was not fixed in respect of the Whites, by saying that it was because they wanted certainty for the Coloureds. I find this a most remarkable statement. He wants certainty! Who decides whether that proclamation is going to be issued? The Cabinet decides and the State President acts on their advice and their decision. The Minister wants certainty; does he think the Cabinet may forget to do it straight away? Is that what he is suggesting? Is he suggesting that he can’t trust the State President to do what he is advised to do? What sort of answer is that? Quite clearly it cannot have anything to do with another Government; he can only bind his own Government. Nothing in this is going to bind a United Party Cabinet when that time comes. I trust, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will give us some indication as to what all this is about because it does seem to be yet another constitutional device in relation to the Cape Coloured people, at which this Government is so very adept, to make sure that the normal constitutional processes do not ever take place.

The real reason is surely—I hope the Minister will confirm this—the point raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), namely, that it may so happen that the five years will elapse at the same time as the life of the House of Assembly expires in which case the Government will have two alternatives. It can either call for an early general election for the White representatives or it can extend the proclamation. In other words, the proclamation won’t be issued for a considerable time after the life of the House of Assembly has expired for the White election. Is the hon. Minister suggesting with this amendment that in fact what is going to happen is that they are not going to issue a proclamation in terms of Section 35 which the State President “shall proclaim as soon as the life of this House expires”. These two provisions cannot be seen separately. This provision as to seven days has been put in because it is not in the law at the moment because the law makes no distinction between the powers of the State President to issue a proclamation relating to Coloured elections or White elections.

That is why I again want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has in mind that the Coloured elections for Members of Parliament and for Members of the Provincial Council will be held on the same day? I ask that because it seems to be very pertinent in relation to the issuing of a proclamation calling for a general election. I think the Government will be equally anxious to avoid a parliamentary general election occurring on the same day as a general election for Coloured M.P.C.’s, as they are keen to avoid a general election for provincial councils taking place on the same day as a general election for the Coloured Representatives to this House. So there are two dates they have to avoid, and the situation that clearly arises from this is that the determination of a general election, an early general election, may well depend on when either the provincial councils’ life has expired, or, Sir, when the life of the Coloured M.P.s elected in terms of this Act, expires. So there are two dates that have to be avoided, and they might find themselves between the two of them. So I ask the hon. Minister again: If he is going to avoid those difficulties, does he not have in mind, and is it not why this Bill is so framed, to have the election of the M.P.C.s and the M.P.s elected under the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act, on the same date? Is that what the hon. Minister has in mind? Because the answer that he gave as to why he wants this provision is to say the least of it, not convincing.

Then, before I sit down, may I ask the hon. Minister again if he will answer the other question, to which he has not given an answer: Why is this so complicated? Why does it not follow the simple formula of the 1936 Act? There he has a precedent, in clear and unambiguous terms and it says exactly, Sir, what you have ruled to be the principle and object of this Bill. If he has not heard of the 1936 Act, and his advisers do not know of it, then Lean understand why it is being done like this, but I do hope that he will give us some indication.

Just one small point, please. I just want to correct what the hon. Minister said in reply to me. He said that it was the policy of his party that the Native representation should be abolished . . .

Order! That is not relevant

I merely want to answer a statement by the hon. Minister.

On a point of order, has the hon. member not spoken three times already on this clause?

The Committee divided:

Ayes —92: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel. J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rail. M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.: Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch. J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee. J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden. F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.: van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.: Venter, W. L. D. M.: Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen. M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel. J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes —44: Basson, J. A. L.: Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.: Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.: Durrant. R. B.: Eaton. N. G.; Eden. G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field. A. N.: Fisher. E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff. de V.: Henwood, B. H.; Hickman. T.: Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie. R. G. L.; Lewis. H.; Malan. E. G.: Miller. H.; Mitchell. D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.: Moore. P. A.; Oldfield. G. N.: Plewman. R. P.: Radford. A.; Raw. W. V.: Ross. D. G.: Steenkamp. L. S.; Steyn. S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Clause put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Ayes —92: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt. B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.: Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes —46: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje. F. J. C.: de Kock, H. C.: Dodds, P. R.: Durrant, R. B.: Eaton, N. G.; Eden. G. S.; Emdin. S.: Field, A. N.: Fisher, E. L.: Gay. L. C.: Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman. T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller. H.: Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Mòolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Title of Bill accordingly agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, the objects of the Bill are, firstly, to authorize the use of new transfer forms for registering transfers, of listed securities; secondly, to give statutory recognition to, and to define the legal effects of, the certified transfer procedure introduced by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange; and, thirdly, to relieve issuers of securities of certain duties with regard to transfers from or to persons under contractual disability. As regards the first of the objects I have mentioned, it is at present a requirement of the Stamp Duties Act that a transfer form be signed by both the transferor and the transferee and that the form so signed embody particulars of the consideration passing. In addition, certain memoranda and articles of association of listed companies require the signatures of the transferor and the transferee to be attested. It is now proposed to allow listed securities to be transferred by new forms in which the transferee’s signature and the attestation of the transferor’s signature will be dispensed with. Furthermore, in the case of a stock exchange transaction, the particulars relating to the transferee and the consideration need not be embodied in the same form as that signed by the transferor. The new forms which will be introduced are the “securities transfer form” set out in the First Schedule to the Bill and the “brokers transfer form” set out in the Second Schedule. The “securities transfer form” is intended for use in a simple transfer as when A sells to a single buyer B. In such a case the only difference between the form in current use and the new securities transfer form will be that the securities transfer form will not be signed by the transferee and the transferor’s signature will not be attested. The “brokers transfer form” is intended for use in a stock exchange transaction where A makes a block of shares available for sale and these are sold to buyers B, C and D. Seller A will complete and sign a securities transfer form in respect of the block of shares sold and leave the particulars of the transferees and the consideration paid to be filled in on brokers transfer forms which will be completed for each of the transferees B, C and D. Each brokers transfer will be identified with the securities transfer form signed by A. It is not proposed to abolish the use of the transfer forms now in use or to make the use of the new forms obligatory. A further object of the Bill is to give statutory recognition to the certified transfer procedure which was introduced by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in 1963. Prior to the introduction of this procedure, the general practice on the Johannesburg Exchange was for share-dealing to take place in lots of 100 shares. If 1,000 shares were sold, ten share certificates, each for 100 shares, with ten transfer forms, each signed by the transferor, had to be delivered by the seller. If the transferor held a block certificate of more than 100 shares, the certificate would first have to be lodged with the company for splitting into new certificates of 100 shares each. Under the certified transfer procedure, the way was opened for the issue to a transferee of one certificate of all the shares transferred to him. Thus a purchaser of 1,000 shares would be issued with a single share certificate for 1,000 shares instead of ten certificates, each for 100 shares. If he wished to sell, say 600 of his 1,000 shares he would hand over his certificate to his broker, who, on execution of the sale would require his client to sign as many transfer deeds as were required to effect delivery of the 600 shares to the various buyers. The selling broker would then arrange for the share certificate for 1,000 shares and the transfer deeds in respect of the 600 shares sold to be lodged with the transfer office of the company concerned. The company would “certify” the transfer deeds to the effect that it held the relevant share certificate and release the “certified transfers” with a “balance receipt” for the 400 shares not sold. The selling broker would deliver the certified transfers to the buying brokers in settlement of the transactions and hand over the sale proceeds, to his client together with the “balance receipt” for 400 unsold shares. If the client decided within a shout time to sell his remaining shares, he could deliver the balance receipt accompanied by a transfer deed (the balance receipt taking the place of the share certificate) or he could have further transfer deeds certified by the company against surrender of the “balance receipt”. Where a certified transfer deed is delivered in the place of a share certificate, the Rules of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange make it clear that certified transfer deeds constitute “good delivery” between seller and buyer on the market. However, there was some doubt whether third patties acquired good title by taking delivery of such certified forms. It has been judicially recognized that ownership in shares passes upon delivery of a share certificate accompanied by a transfer deed signed in blank. There is, however, no such certainty regarding the passing of ownership where a certilled transfer deed is delivered in the place of a share certificate. It is now proposed to remove these doubts and uncertainties by according delivery of a certified transfer the same legal significance as delivery of a share certificate with transfer form attached signed in blank. Finally, the Bill aims at relieving companies and other issuers of listed securities of the duty of satisfying themselves that ‘the transfers which they register are within the contractual powers of the transferor or transferee. A custom exists by which the issuers of securities “mark” transfer deeds where the transferor is a person who appears to be under contractual disability. By “marking” the issuer confirms that documents evidencing the transferor’s capacity, such as an antenuptial contract in the case of a married woman, have been exhibited to or are in the possession of the company and that accordingly when in due course the transfer form is returned to the company to register transfer, the company will not query the capacity of the transferor to transfer. As previously stated, it is judicially recognized that ownership in shares passes upon delivery of a share certificate with a transfer deed attached, signed in blank. Thus the registering company is merely recording a transfer of ownership which has already taken place. A company owes a duty to its shareholder not to remove his name from the share register without his authority but where the shareholder is a person under contractual disability or a company with limited powers, the registering company should not have imposed on it a further duty to ensure that such shareholders have the necessary contractual capacity. The Bill was sponsored by the Stock Exchange and the Chamber of Mines and submitted by ‘them to a number of professional and other bodies broadly representative of the commercial and industrial community. With the exception of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries, they all expressed their support of the Bill in principle. The objection which the Chartered Institute of Secretaries raised—and the only one—related to the clause which provides that a registering company is under no duty to satisfy itself that a person signing a transfer form on behalf of any other company has been properly authorized thereto. This objection will be more fully dealt with during the Committee Stage. I now move the second reading.

We support the second reading of this Bill. As the hon. Minister has indicated in the course of his address, it provides for the streamlining of the procedure with regard to the transfer of securities. The hon. Minister, if he refers to the long title, will see that it provides “for an improved method of transfer of certain securities” and during the Committee Stage we propose to make a suggestion to him similar to the suggestion made in the Other Place. We think it is a pity that while the Minister is dealing with this matter—he has already referred to persons with contractual disabilities, persons contracting under ante-nuptial contract—consideration should not be given to those classes of persons who may have shares in an estate. I am referring to deceased estates and the Minister as Minister of Finance is anxious that the investing public should invest in South African securities. The position in other parts of the world is that when a person dies, all that is necessary is for the executor to present the instrument appointing him to the authorities and the shares can be held in the name of the estate by virtue of that instrument. The position in South Africa is that there are certain companies which by reason of their articles make provision for the registering of shares in estates as being contrary to their articles. So one can imagine the embarrassment caused to an estate where a father may have invested a considerable amount of money in shares of a certain company and later on when the executor wishes to hold those shares in the name of the estate, the company concerned, that is the transfer secretaries, notify the executor that the articles preclude the registering of shares in the name of the estate and the shares cannot be so registered. Various devious methods are used to register such shares. In some cases they are registered in the name of the executor personally and he files in his papers a document to the effect that he holds those shares in the name of the estate. But it can be an embarrassment to the estate if there is a defaulting executor. We think that his Bill gives the opportunity to companies to register shares in the name of the estate, and we feel the opportunity should be taken here. I know the hon. Minister may disagree with that. He may feel that that should be done later when the Companies Act is amended. But that would take another two or three years, because, as the Minister knows, the Companies Act is before a commission and that commission has not. yet reported, and before that commission reports and a new Bill is submitted, some time must elapse. Strong representations have been made to me by interested persons to take this opportunity, when we are dealing with the streamlining of the transfer procedure in regard to those companies which are registered with the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, to make provision in a Bill of this kind for the registering of shares in the name of the estate and preventing companies from debarring registration in that manner. The hon. Minister is breaking new ground in regard to the procedure, and we feel that the Minister, having gone as far as that in this Bill, should take the next step and make provision for the registration of shares in an estate and so assist the many cases in South Africa where estates are embarrassed by reason of their not being able to register their shares in certain companies. I may say at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that it does not apply to all companies; there are companies which do allow it, and all that is necessary is for the administrator to file with the company his letters of administration. He is a judicial officer, he is appointed by the Master of the Supreme Court, he submits his document so appointing him and those shares are then held in the company under the document giving him title. Similar cases may occur where a person may be declared mental and his affairs are handed over to a curator. The curator, in the exercise of his powers, as an officer of the court, may decide to dispose of certain shares in the company and invest in other shares of another company, but of course there is no provision in the company’s articles for the holding of the shares of a person under legal disability and the curator cannot hold the shares in the name of that estate and therefore he cannot be so selective in his investments, unless of course he invests the shares in his own name, which of course could be construed as an irregularity. Therefore I hope that when we deal with this Bill in the Committee Stage, the Minister will give consideration to this, because I think it is a requirement which has been demanded by the commercial world for some time now, and this gives us an opportunity to introduce this innovation.

This Bill will be welcomed by people who have to deal with the transfer of shares, especially for operations on the Stock Exchange. We have found in the past that there has often been very great delay in the delivery of shares, and if there is delay in the delivery, there can be built up a credit position which is very unhealthy. In that respect this new procedure is a great improvement.

With regard to the use of the ante-nuptial contract, we have found in practice that people are not quite sure how the ante-nuptial contract can be used. Therefore it has become the practice to say, when a woman signs, “assisted by me her husband”, and he signs as well. When they protest that they have an antenuptial contract, we say: “Sign in any case, although you have an ante-nuptial contract, because if it is not registered with the company, you will -have this difficulty.” This is an improvement.

There is another matter, namely the signing by the transferee. At present the transferee, as in this form in use, has to have his signature witnessed. Because so many mistakes are made in signing the transfer form by the transferee and in the cancelling of the stamps, it has become the custom for the broker to write “Leave blank”, in pencil, of course, and “Sign here” and “Don’t sign here”. Still mistakes are made, and the form can be spoilt. The transferor may be living in London or in Paris. That is one of the difficulties, and this new system which is proposed will bring about a very great improvement. It has been under consideration by experts -for over two years, and I congratulate the Minister on being able to introduce this Bill. The sooner it is put on the Statute Book the better.

I wish to thank hon. members for their welcome support of this Bill. As regards the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) and the point he has made, I can very well appreciate that there is a certain amount of embarrassment to both the heir and the executor in terms of certain articles of association. I say I can understand that, but at the same time I am not in a position to judge of the merits of -the case the hon. member has put up. What I want to say at this moment is that any amendment to this Bill to rectify any deficiency, if there is any deficiency in the existing procedure, will only apply to listed shares. It will not remove the evil, if there is an evil, in regard to all unlisted shares. I do not know what is going to happen if a company is delisted and its name is removed from the register. What will happen then if there are two procedures, one procedure for listed shares and another in regard to unlisted shares?

They can still use the present -form.

Yes, but that is not the point raised by -the hon. member for Pinetown. So what I would suggest is that this matter be left to the Commission of Inquiry into the Companies’ Act. If they are satisfied that there is substance in the point of the hon. member, and if they make recommendations and those recommendations are carried out, it will apply to all shares, listed as well as unlisted, and it is not necessary to have any special provision in this Bill, which is introduced solely to streamline procedure and nothing else. It was certainly not our object to go further than to deal with questions of procedure. Apart from -the merits themselves, there is the further point that in a matter of this intricacy, the form in which the amendment will have to be cast is not an easy one. Even if you have decided that what the hon. members asks for is a good thing, it will still require particular care how it is embodied in the legislation. For those reasons I would suggest that we leave the matter as it is. I understand this particular point has been raised before the commission investigating the Companies’ Act, and I think it would be very unwise of me to anticipate any possible finding by that commission, particularly as it would only apply to part of the field, and not to the whole field. I have also privately informed the hon. member of my views in regard to this matter, and I suggested that the matter be taken up before the commission. The hon. member told me that that has already been done. In those circumstances I suggest that the hon. member exercises a little more patience and awaits what the commission has to say about the matter, after having made a full investigation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The object of this Bill is principally to eliminate legal and practical difficulties encountered by the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board when carrying out its functions and duties in terms of the principal Act. While recommending the necessary amendments in regard to disciplinary matters, the Board took the opportunity of recommending some other amendments as well, some of which are of a minor nature. I shall not deal with all these clauses separately, but I propose to deal with the more important ones.

Clauses 1 and 2 are intended simply to give effect to the de facto position which now exists following the dissolution of the South African branches of The Society of Incorporated Accountants, the South African branch of the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants, the Association of Practising Accountants of South Africa and the Institute of Accountants of South Africa, Limited.

Clause 3 (a) is of importance to the board and is intended to empower the board to make an order as to costs incurred by it in connection with enquiries into allegations of improper conduct in cases where an accused person is found guilty. At present, the costs of disciplinary enquiries, which can run into substantial amounts, are met entirely from the board’s funds, by far the greatest portion of which is derived from the annual fee payable by registered accountants and auditors. It even became necessary to increase these fees materially from the beginning of 1964 as the board’s expenditure exceeded its income for the past seven years due inter alia to the substantial costs in connection with disciplinary matters. This means that the vast majority of the practising members of the profession who are innocent parties are being called upon to bear the expense necessarily incurred by the board in bringing to book those few members who have failed to carry out their professional duties with the requisite degree of care and skill. Furthermore it would serve as a useful deterrent if members of the profession were to realize that in addition to any punishment the board is empowered to impose for improper conduct, they might be obliged to meet some or all the costs incurred by the board in connection with such disciplinary enquiries If there is an order as to costs it need not be an order as to all the costs. The provision in Clause 4 is designed primarily to make it an offence if a registered accountant and auditor, who pays annual fees at the rate applicable to persons not engaged in public practice, accepts appointment or acts as auditor to a company.

Clause 5 in the first place seeks to make it obligatory on a person who wishes to enter into articles of clerkship with a view to qualifying as an accountant, to have passed mathematics at matriculation level. This provision should come into operation only on I January 1972, so that an ample period of notice will be afforded to scholars who are interested in embarking on a career in accountancy. The second provision in this clause is intended to vest the board with a discretion to transfer the articles of an articled clerk to another principal if the board is satisfied that such clerk is not receiving proper training with the first principal. The third provision in this clause is intended to soften the impact on a prospective accountant’s career of the increased period of compulsory military training. It is similar to the legal provision already existing in respect of clerks articled to attorneys. It goes slightly further, however, in that it provides that the concession will apply to Gymnasium trainees as well, as it is considered only right that a citizen who has discharged his national duty by equipping himself for the defence of his country, be it compulsorily or voluntarily, should be entitled to some consideration.

The object of Clause 6 is to keep the board fully conversant with the exact overall position which obtains in regard to practising and nonpractising accountants and auditors, thereby also obviating the eventuality of a non-practising accountant and auditor entering public practice without paying the higher subscription.

Clause 8 contains the most important provision in this Bill. Experience has shown that without the presence at disciplinary enquiries of a legal assessor to advise on matters of law, procedure and evidence, it would become extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a lay tribunal such as the board to ensure that the principles of natural justice are strictly observed in all cases. Naturally such a legal assessor would perhaps not be appointed in minor cases. The board’s disciplinary rules provide for the appointment of a legal assessor but the Government Law Advisers have stated that legislative authority for such an appointment is required.

Finally Clause 9 provides that in conformity with the provisions of Section 33 of the principal Act, the provisions of this Bill will also apply to South West Africa.

We support the second reading, and it also has the support of the accountancy profession.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time. The object of the Bill which is now before the House is to extend the present power of the Registrar of Friendly Societies to renew the provisional registration of Friendly Societies under certain circumstances.

Such a power has become urgently necessary as a result of unforeseeable circumstances in order to prevent an impossible situation from arising in respect of the registration of a number of friendly societies.

The present provisions of the Act provide for the provisional registration of friendly societies for a period of five years. The Act goes on to provide that before final registration can be granted to such a society, it has to comply with specific requirements.

Finally the Act grants the Registrar the power to renew the provisional registration of a society but only in those cases where the society complies with the other requirements to which I have just referred but where its financial position is not sound.

It means therefore that where a society, upon the expiry of its period of provisional registration, has not complied with the aforementioned requirements in respect of its rules or in respect of its working methods, irrespective of whether or not its financial position by this time is sound, the registrar may neither renew its provisional registration nor agree to its final registration.

Such a society would then necessarily have to dissolve.

The Act has now been in operation for five years, and it is clear that there are quite a few societies, the provisional registration of which will expire in the next few months, which will not be able to comply timeously with the requirements laid down for final registration as far as their rules are concerned.

In the majority of these cases the societies concerned are medical aid associations which, in spite of repeated appeals by the Office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions to friendly societies to bring their rules in order, have consistently adopted a wait-and-see attitude in respect of the amendment of their rules in view of the legislation contemplated by the Department of Health, legislation which has been foreshadowed since 1963 and which it was anticipated would impose additional requirements in respect of the rules of medical aid societies.

Then there are other societies (in the Rail ways, for example) which have had to contend with other problems of a different kind which have delayed the amendment of their rules.

The fact of the matter, therefore, is that in the near future we will be faced with a position where, if the legal provisions are strictly applied, useful and highly desirable friendly societies will have to be compelled to dissolve unless provision is made in the Act for the renewal, where necessary, of the period of provisional registration of societies so as to enable them to comply with the requirements for final registration.

The amendments contained in the Bill will enable the Registrar to renew the provisional registration.

We support the second reading of this Bill. As the Minister says, it provides for the provisional registration of a society and it provides in the first clause for extensions to be given from time to time. We appreciate that the Friendly Societies Act has not been in operation for a very long time, but I hope that the Minister will arrange from time to time for a report to be given to this House to indicate in which cases extensions have been granted. Although provision is made for a periodical extension from time to time, I think there should be a final date, and where there are organizations which have taken some time to put their affairs in order in order to comply with the Act, and perhaps through procrastination on the part of the staff more than one extension has to be given, that should be brought to the notice of the House, because the whole object of the introduction of the Friendly Societies Act was to ensure that these organizations would be put on a proper, sound financial basis. Many of them have had time to put their affairs in order and it is hoped that where extensions are granted there will be some form of report given to this House to indicate to which organizations an extension of time has been granted. You will appreciate, Sir, that the outside public in many cases helps these friendly societies; they may be interested in supporting them in one way or another, and if they find that the friendly societies procrastinate in putting their affairs in order, that publicity may be a deterrent to those organizations which have not been prompt in complying with the Department’s requirements.

I just want to say in reply to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) that I think it is absolutely essential that Parliament should be kept informed from time to time as to what the position is. I imagine, however, that that information will be contained in the annual report of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. The period of five years has not yet expired, of course, and it has not therefore been possible to do what he suggests, but I shall see to it that that information also forms part of the annual report if cases occur where the period is extended, and I shall see to it that it is reported to this House.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Orders of the Day Nos. VI and VII to stand over.

When the National Welfare Act was passed in 1947, it laid the foundation of what has been correctly described as a glorious page in social welfare development in South Africa, as well as its administration. Although this Bill takes over a great deal of what was contained in the previous Act, it nevertheless contains two or three very important new principles such as the registration of social workers and the appointment of various commissions in order to enable the State and those who are associated with this work to make even greater advances in this very important feature of our social life. This side of the House, as has already been intimated, supports the principles contained in the Bill, but nevertheless I do not think one can permit a Bill of this nature merely to rest on the fact that it is being supported. I think it should be dealt with by members of this House in order to stress not only the significance of it but also to raise certain issues which, I believe, are important in dealing with this measure.

At the outset I would like to join those who have paid a tribute to the Department of Social Welfare for the outstanding service they have rendered to the country and the community by the administration of the present Act. In doing so, one must not be unmindful of the work which preceded those who are presently in office and the foundations which were so well and truly laid by the predecessors of the present imcumbents of the offices, like the Secretary of the Department, and especially by a man like Mr. Kuschke, who rendered such sterling service in this particular cause, as well as the Minister and his predecessors, all of whom have shown a great deal of sympathy in this important work and who have at all times been open to accept new suggestions and thoughts in regard to this important aspect of our social life.

But there is another section of our community which should not be forgotten when we express appreciation for what has been done, and that is the voluntary welfare worker in the community, the citizen who is initially responsible for the establishment and development of social welfare work in the community. Like all other important advances in this particular field of activity, it is the individual in the community, the average citizen, who virtually is the spearhead of this type of work. Meeting problems, as he does in his every-day life, he is urged to render those services in order to overcome those problems. In the course of doing that work he may well find that that problem is one which arises throughout a cross-section of our society. We have therefore had institutions established like child welfare, child life protection societies, cripple care associations and other societies of a similar nature, which have rendered yeoman service in the field of human suffering and have over the years brought a great deal of comfort and understanding of their problems to those unfortunate persons who find themselves afflicted with various handicaps in life. There is the work, for example, that has been done for the aged. The establishment of homes for the aged is a milestone in our social welfare history, and has been made possible by the hard work done by so many organizations and people in this particular field. When one finds a Bill of this nature, where a sincere effort is being made to go still further on this road of progress in this field, it must naturally receive the approval and the blessing of this House. But there are certain features of the Bill to which I feel one should direct the attention of the Minister, so that in dealing with the mechanics of the Bill he will be aware of the fact that there are certain problems which we are quite sure he will come across. Although we support the general principle of the Bill, I am one of those people who feel that in setting up these various commissions we might be making the machinery for bringing about co-ordination in this work a little bit top-heavy. I appreciate the desire to try to deal in greater detail with these important aspects which the Commissions are being set up to deal with but when one thinks of the work that is being done by the voluntary workers and the jealous manner in which they guard the standard of their work and also the untiring devotion that they give to this work, one wonders whether we are perhaps not making too big an intrusion into their particular field by setting up such top-heavy machinery. When I peruse the clauses of this Bill I sometimes feel a little regretful that the mechanics of this legislation could not have been dealt with either by a Select Committee or perhaps by a conference of social welfare workers in order to ensure that this new machinery will not make too great an incision into the work which is being carried on by the voluntary workers at the moment, to such an extent that it discourages them or that it creates a certain amount of apathy due to the fact that a great deal of their work, which calls for the human touch, will now almost be mechanized and put into a straitjacket of administration. Although the hon. the Minister is obliged in terms of Clause 7 to appoint these commissions, I would suggest that the hon. the Minister should feel his way forward gently so as to avoid a development of the situation which I have just described. In addition to that, such a considerable number of officers whether voluntary workers or otherwise, will have to be appointed to staff these commissions, that one wonders whether we will not be diverting a great deal of manpower to the pure mechanics of this service. We will now have not only a national welfare board but also four commissions with a large number of members; we will have regional welfare boards, each board consisting of at least eight and not more than 16 members. We may well find that we are caught up in the cogs of top-heavy machinery, with the result that we may fail to see the wood for the trees. I would like the hon. the Minister, in implementing the various clauses, to move forward slowly and with circumspection to ensure that we do not clutter up the work that is being done at the moment with a lot of red tape. We know that there are approximately 2,100 welfare organizations in South Africa. I think that is a great credit to our country. At the same time I would like to be sure that these organizations and their national bodies are gradually educated to the new mechanics that will come into operation as a result of the passing of this Bill. Sir it will take time before the national bodies eventually find themselves caught up in this new machinery. I feel that they should help the Minister to direct the course of the work undertaken by these commissions. I have a fear, which I hope is not well-founded but which is based on some experience in a large city like Johannesburg, where welfare work has been very highly developed, that these commissions might eventually be staffed by officials who. instead of encouraging the voluntary workers, may create a certain amount of apathy on the part of the voluntary worker and make him feel that he is no longer able to play the part which he has played in the past or which he would like to play in the future and to which he would like to attract more and more recruits from the younger people in our community. We have found in large cities, where we have sometimes encountered opposition to the establishment of community chests that people fear that where the work becomes stereotyped, where everything apparently moves smoothly, the whole thing will become a matter of routine and that progress will slow up because of lack of enthusiasm and because of lack of personal drive. We may well find that the remarkable development that we have seen over many years in our country will slow down. I hope that the hon. the Minister will bear these thoughts in mind because a great deal will rest in his hands. Despite the fact that nominations will be submitted to him the appointments will rest in his hands.

The other important issue is that the commissions may well change a certain line of policy and that the Department may find itself bound hand and foot by decisions of the various commissions. The Department might well find itself thwarted in trying to give effect to its broad policy by the attitude adopted by the various commissions. After all, it is not always easy to reject recommendations made by bodies which spend a great deal of time going into various matters, sifting the facts and submitting recommendations. If it does thwart what has been a very wonderful approach on the part of a State Department then it may well lead to a drying up of the fountain of ingenuity, of initiative and of the progress that we have known in years gone by.

There is another aspect of this Bill to which I think the hon. the Minister should pay closer attention and that is the question of the registration of social workers. Clause 34 deals with the circumstances under which registration shall be refused. The terms used in Clause 34, simple though they may seem, are very wide in their application. For instance, it is stated here that the board shall not register an applicant as a social worker if he has been trained at an institution where any person who is not so registered takes part in a full-time capacity in the training of persons in any aspect of the subject of social work, etc. Although the White Paper does say that all persons who take part in fulltime training with a view to being registered eventually as social workers, will have a period of five years to become registered, nevertheless it can lead to a narrowing of the field of tuition, because a lot of this work which is being done by our universities here and by universities abroad . . .

Order! Is that not a point which perhaps better be discussed in the Committee Stage?

Sir, this is a new principle which is being introduced in the Bill. As I have said before, the greater part of the Bill is simply a repetition of the provisions of the 1947 Act, except for certain principles which I have just dealt with, such as the appointment of commissions and the question of the registration. That is why I have dealt with these specific points because I believe that those are the aspects which virtually constitute the principles of the Bill. The general principle of social welfare work is obviously an accepted principle. I merely want to draw the attention of the Minister to the wideness of this particular clause, which may well result in restricting the field of tuition. I do not wish to go into greater detail but I think it is something to which the Minister should pay careful attention. The Minister must know from his own knowledge and from his visits to various institutions abroad that a great deal of the preparation in his field of activity takes place through men and women who are not registered workers and who do not even have a degree in social science. They have degrees, however, in other fields which enable them to impart important knowledge which eventually encourages students to take up this type of work. I am merely saying that if you impose too many restrictions, you may well defeat the object that you have in mind.

Apart from what I have already suggested, there is not much that one can suggest except to say that there are very important fields in which advances will have to be made in order to keep up with modern developments. There is one important field to which I think the attention of the Minister should be directed and that is the field of geriatrics the study of the aged and their particular problem. This will fit in very well with some of the new provisions of the Bill, but it is a very important aspect in our community life. For many reasons that we have discussed before, the lifespan of the individual is increasing year by year, and it is important to direct very much more attention now to the old people than we have done in the past. The mere provision of a pension, the mere provision of homes for the aged, is not in itself sufficient, because there are certain other aspects which may diminish the value of those material benefits. For instance, there is the question of loneliness. I think the hon. the Minister, in a previous debate. referred to the question of the establishment of clubs for old people. As I say, there is the question of loneliness to be dealt with; there is the question of some form of occupation. We are not sure ourselves yet whether the aged should be employed on a remunerative basis or whether they should have some form of occupation which will virtually be vocational therapy. because it has been found that one of the most important reasons for deterioration in the aged is the fact that they have nothing whatever to do. We have had visitors from abroad delivering talks in this country on this question. I feel that this is a matter which should receive much more attention than it has received in the past.

Then I want to say just a few words with regard to the question of mentally and physically handicapned young people. In that field we have made certain endeavours, mainly at the instigation of private citizens, and very often at the instigation of the parents of children who are mentally or physically handicapped. Here we have a field in which I think the State can extend its activities considerably. Much as we wish to concentrate on this question of family life, marriage guidance, etc., we must remember that a great deal can be achieved when one deals with healthy minds and healthy bodies, but it is entirely a different matter when we deal with handicapped bodies and handicapped minds, which leave so much suffering in their wake. In those cases we cannot get the necessary co-operation to bring about the changes that we would like to bring about in the general social and family life of the country. It is in that direction that I feel that, with the passing of this Bill, the Minister and his Department will have an opportunity to play a muoh greater role than they have played in the past; to learn more of the science of this type of work and to educate the public to co-operate with the State with a view to bringing about a much greater advance than we have had in this field hitherto. I have had experience myself through serving on committees for fund-raising purposes for the provision of certain amenities, for the purchase of ground and the erection of buildings in order to help these young people who are mentally or physically afflicted. I have always found that the going is a bit slow at the beginning. That is something which one finds in all states in dealing with social welfare matters. However, as soon as the Department is convinced of the growing importance of the work, much more rapid progress is made. I think this matter should be studied scientifically by the Department and, if necessary, universities should even be encouraged to concentrate on this particular aspect. On the one hand we have the science of the aged to be studied and on the other hand we have this problem of young people who are handicapped physically and mentally. Our objective should be to fit everyone into society in some way or another, whatever his or her handicap may be. We must give them the feeling that they belong, and if we can bring that about, then we will have made very great advances in this field.

There are other details of the Bill that one could deal with, but I do not propose at this stage to go into greater detail. We will obviously discuss some of these matters in the Committee Stage. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in conclusion to give his careful attention to the various factors that I have raised here with regard to, the establishment of these commissions and the two other important aspects in the social life of our country that I have touched upon. If the Minister does give his attention to these matters, I feel that this Bill will not only serve its purpose, but that it might well be the cornerstone of an even finer structure than we have built upon the wonderful foundation that we laid in 1947; I feel that it might well become a monument to the great work done by our community in a voluntary capacity and by the State in the field of social welfare.

It is gratifying that all the Opposition speakers who participated in this debate welcome and support this Bill. Evidently one of the great stumbling blocks, as we have just heard from the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, is the establishment of various commissions to assist in regard to social work. Then there is some fear that there may be overlapping and confusion. That fear is quite widespread. There is, inter alia, Professor Pollak of the University of Natal, the Head of the Department of Sociology and Social Work and at the same time the Dean of the Faculty of Social Science, who also has objection to the establishment of these various commissions. She writes, inter alia—

She is referring to Clause 7—

Perhaps it should be pointed out that in the memorandum issued in this regard a clear distinction is drawn between the functions of these various commissions. From that it appears that there are good grounds for the establishment of these commissions. If this memorandum and the report of the work group are studied thoroughly, the functions of these commissions ought to be quite clear, and this fear which is expressed in regard to overlapping and confusion is probably quite unjustified. There seems to be confusion in regard to the technical meaning of the term “social work”. It is evidently not fully realized what difference there is between social work and social welfare. I shall come back to the memorandum in a moment, and particularly to what it says in regard to the Commission for Family Life. In the time available to me my object is particularly to draw attention to family life as it will be affected by this Bill before us. The family, as we all know, is the cornerstone of a sound national life; it is the foundation on which society is based. Any breakdown in family life makes the community structure and the national structure collapse. Just like an individual, every family has its own character. The strong characters of a group of individuals make for a strong, sound, ethically outstanding society, which is what we envisage in terms of this Bill. Families with character are the cornerstones of a strong nation with a high morality. To a society of individuals, or where the feeling of cohesion is best expressed by group formation, as in the case of herd animals, the passing of a National Welfare Act like this would have no sense or meaning. National welfare should start with the family, with the child, where there is disintegration, which always results in hardship for the child. The provision which is made in this Bill for family life and therefore for the child appears very clearly from the following: According to the definitions “welfare organizations” mean, inter alia, an association of persons, whether they are corporate bodies or not, or institutions which have the following objects—and here I refer only to the definitions relating to the family and family life in regard to welfare organizations: It means means, inter alia, providing for the material, spiritual or social needs of families. I have underlined the word “families”, and that is how I have taken it from the definition in the Bill. In the second place it means the practising of charity in regard to needy families; in the third place, it means the prevention of social need and the suffering of families, and fourthly, the collection of funds for the above objectives. In Section 43, for example, save for the provisions of sub-section (2), Sections 94, 95 and 96 of the Children’s Act, Act No. 33 of 1960, are repealed. A further reference to family life and its importance is also contained in the establishment of the commissions which are mentioned and discussed here, commissions for inter alia (a) the registration of welfare organizations; (b) for social work and (c) for welfare policy which, one would have thought, does not exclude the family, and still there is an additional and special Commission for Family Life. If one reads what is stated in the memorandum in regard to the Commission for Family Life, it is clear how important this commission is. If you will allow me, Sir, I want to read just a few paragraphs—

From this very clearly appears the importance of these commissions which will each have their particular function to perform—

1. (a) The concept and essence of a family policy and the manner in which it can be implemented.
2. (b) The relationship between family policy and population policy.
3. (c) The family and the philosophy of life and associated therewith a family code, marriage guidance and family functions.
4. (d) Research in the field of family life.

Give us your own views on the matter.

I should like to comply with the request of the hon. member. These commissions individually cannot escape their duty, particularly the Family Life Commission, namely, inter alia to provide employment for the father, accommodation for the family, food, clothes, and also to some extent for the education of the family. In this way the family structure in its natural composition of the father as the breadwinner, the mother as the one who cares for the family and the children as those who are cared for, is retained and strengthened as the result of the activities of these commissions the establishment of which is now being proposed in this Bill. This Bill must help to exonerate us from possible blame that our present system of care is to be condemned because family increase is not being encouraged by family allowances. This Bill must assist in restricting the increase in the number of so-called orphanages where not more than 3 per cent of the children are actually orphans, because it must help to safeguard and to preserve family life. Somebody who made a speech on the occasion of the opening of a so-called orphanage, 96 per cent of the inmates of which were children, both of whose parents were still alive, used the following words without, I think, really considering what they meant—

That is what we do not want and this Bill, I take it, will help such institutions which are essential and which, thank God, render assistance to children who are being neglected, to grow and flourish and to go from strength to strength. Such an institution can go from strength to strength at the most in caring for those unfortunate children, but they can only grow and flourish on the ruins of broken families. That is what we want to prevent. We do not want such institutions to grow and flourish on the ruins of broken families. I should like to accept that this Bill, with all the commissions which are to be appointed, will envisage the realization of the following wish, namely: May this Bill help sound families to grow and flourish on the ruins of such so-called orphanages. I hope I will be clearly understood—I am sure nobody will quarrel with me in this regard—as meaning that families which are cared for, as we envisage in this Bill, must necessarily result in a reduction in the number of those so-called orphanages for the care of so-called orphans.

The report of the work group which made a study of the matter has been distributed among all bodies, social workers, national bodies and welfare organizations, and the time allowed for them to comment on it was later extended by the hon. the Minister so that nobody can voice the reproach, inter alia, that we were a little too hasty in introducing this Bill. It is already common knowledge, Sir, that during Family Year in 1960 and at the Family Congress of 1961 it was urged that a measure of this nature should be introduced in regard to family life. In regard to welfare work, the position is very much as it is in regard to other things in life such as, inter alia, agriculture and education. Everybody in the world professes to know everything about it and continuously talks and writes about those things. We should not make the same mistake in regard to social work and family care. Therefore this Board which is to be appointed will include a kernel of experts in sociology—leading lights who will have to indicate the course to be adopted.

Registration of social workers will give status to the profession and will make the social worker more acceptable to the public, and the social work itself will be technically improved, and one may ask whether we have not waited too long already. Are, e.g., engineers, teachers and doctors in our society always more important people than our social workers?

I hope the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) will forgive me if I don’t comment on his speech. I have a great deal to say to the hon. the Minister. I want to say first of all that the hon. the Minister claims in his White Paper that he has obtained broad consent for this Bill. As far as the history of the Bill is concerned one cannot say that he has tried to rush this matter through Parliament. We know that the first Bill was referred to a Working Group. Thereafter their report was referred to various social welfare organizations and special bodies for comment. I know the hon. the Minister delayed introducing this Bill last session as a result of the objections by social workers and various national organizations to the report of the Working Group. That Bill was delayed and the hon. the Minister has now come with another Bill which contains a few amendments. He now claims that he has obtained what he calls “broad general support” for this measure.

I want to say that in so far as the Bill attempts to streamline procedure there may be some grounds for this claim and insofar as the principle of the registration of social workers is generally accepted by social workers there, too, there may be some grounds for the hon. Minister’s claim. On the other hand, there are so many objections to the Bill as it stands, with regard to the method of appointment to the National Board, the selection and functions of the commissions the Minister intends setting up under this Bill, and concerning the actual method of registration of social workers, from highly trained experts, universities, welfare organizations generally and from the professional social workers that I do not think the hon. the Minister should proceed with the Bill in its present form. Therefore I want to move as an amendment—

I know the hon. the Minister will not be very pleased with this amendment because I know he is keen to get this Bill through the House this Session. I know he has delayed over the last two years in bringing this matter to some conclusion but I believe the objections are so valid and so far-reaching that many of them go beyond the principle embodied in this Bill, and therefore I think the Minister should not hurry the matter. It is very important indeed that we have a properly constituted welfare board and to have the registration of social workers placed on a correct basis.

Do you not agree that this will give them professional status?

Yes, but the method of doing it is so incorrect that, once the principle is accepted in this way, it will be very difficult for a Select Committee, after the second reading. to make the adjustments I think necessary and which many social workers certainly think necessary. The method of registration is under question as far as I am concerned. In fact, I am not at all sure that there should not be two entirely separate bills; a bill dealing with the registration of welfare organizations and the setting up of a National Welfare Board as one subject and the registration of social workers and their code of ethics as the subject of a completely separated bill.

I do not see any particular reason for hurrying this, particularly as far as the registration of social workers is concerned. I think we should be extremely careful before we rush a measure through which has not got the full consent of at least two of the branches of the Social Workers’ Association.

I want to mention some of my specific objections to the Bill. First of all I have strong objections to the composition of the National Welfare Board. I have the strongest possible objection to the way in which this Board is going to be constituted. It is absolutely undemocratic from start to finish. The Minister appoints every single member to that board. He appoints them, it is true, from a list of nominees submitted to him by registered welfare organizations and social workers but nevertheless the hon. the Minister has the complete right of appointment of the members of the National Board. Many of the persons most intimately concerned, i.e. the social workers and national organizations which have been doing welfare work for many years, have no direct say in the way in which this board is going to be constituted.

It is true that the hon. the Minister has met some of the objections to the first Bill he proposed, in that he is allowing four extra members to be appointed. It was originally one additional member;* he has now increased that to five additional members. Nevertheless, it seems to be absurd that he has made no change, for instance, in the method of representation on a geographical basis. It seems to me absurd that a regional welfare board coming, for instance, from the Border area which is a relatively small area, should have the same numerical representation on the National Welfare Board as a vast complex like the Witwatersrand with its enormous population and where, I might add, the headquarters of every single national welfare organization, except two, are located. I think there are only two exceptions; I believe the one, the National Council for the Care of the Aged, is located in Cape Town and the other is the National Council for the Care of the Deaf with its headquarters at Pretoria. I cannot see how the regional board which encompasses all these national headquarters should have the same representation on the National Board as regional boards from areas which have very much smaller populations and no headquarters of welfare organizations.

The other objection I have is that there is no guarantee that any of the large welfare organizations will have members on the National Welfare Board. There always used to be representatives of the executives of the large welfare organizations on the National Welfare Board. It is true that they were not necessarily professional people and I know it is sometimes fashionable for professional social workers to speak in a derogatory way of the voluntary workers but some of these people are people of the highest standing in the community. They have devoted years of their lives to working specifically in this field and they have become recognized experts. I think it is wrong that there is no guarantee that any of those representatives will serve on the National Welfare Board. In fact, what also worries me—perhaps this is one of my major objections—is that there is to be no representation, as far as I can see, of non-White social welfare. It seems to me that the board is going to be entirely White in its composition. I want to point out, for instance, that there has been an increasing tendency to separate the welfare work of the different racial groups. It is becoming more and more difficult for White people to involve themselves with welfare work among the non-Whites. Let us take the case of Indian welfare work. That is being done almost exclusively now by Indians. There may be a few exceptions in Johannesburg but I know that in Natal every single Indian social agency is staffed by Indians and has Indian executives. As far as Africans are concerned the tendency has been for the Government to discourage the work of White social and welfare workers in African welfare work. There is no guarantee that there will be any representatives for the non-Whites on the National Board. I want to know, therefore, how representative exactly this National Welfare Board is going to be.

The hon. the Minister must realize that, since he is going to choose each representative from each region plus the few so-called free members whose numbers have now been increased from one to five, there is going to be a complete scramble on geographic lines for nominations from the regions. The Minister will therefore have to consider nominations from churches, from social workers from welfare organizations and also from universities. It worries me that we have no guarantee that there is going to be any really good cross-section on the National Welfare Board. I do not say the hon. the Minister will necessarily do so but there is nothing to stop him in this Bill from appointing people representative of one section of the community and one section only; representatives from one type of university only; representatives only from English-speaking universities or only from the Afrikaans-speaking universities. There is nothing to ensure a cross-section of representation in this Bill at all. Everything is left in the hands of the hon. the Minister. Whether or not he will be very careful and discreet in his selection I do not know. I only know that this Bill does not make the necessary provision to see that the Board is thoroughly representative. That is one of my objections.

I object too to the setting up of these commissions. Again the selection is completely in the hands of the Minister so that, instead of as formerly, we had the formation of social policies from a really representative group of social workers and officials of the different societies together with the Department of Social Welfare, we now find that the policy in the national welfare field is going to become narrower and narrower. What it means virtually is that some 20 persons will dominate and control all welfare policies and their evolution in the Republic. I don’t think that is something we should encourage. Again there is nothing to stop the hon. the Minister from choosing the members of these different commissions exclusively from one section of the community.

The functions of these commissions worry me. I don’t see how one can divorce family policy from anything else. How can one isolate what should be family policy. It is surely an essential part of the whole social welfare field. I might say, anyway, that in this country we have not even established what is considered to be norms of family life in a multi-racial society. What is considered the norm of family life for the Whites is not considered the norm for the Africans because nobody seems to think there is anything wrong in having, for instance, Africans living most of their working lives away from their own families. So we have not really even established a decent norm of family life for our multi-racial community.

Then it seems to me that what is known as welfare policy overlaps the functions of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as well as the functions of the National Council. I am in full agreement with the objections voiced by Professor Pollak in this regard and I might add that Professor Pollak is an expert on sociology. She has no peer in this country, to my mind, anyway. As for the Social Work Commission, Sir, I believe this should continue, as it was, to be dealt with by the profession, the Universities’ Committee for Sociology and Social Work and the Department of Social Welfare’s professional section. I do not see any need for setting up a special commission for social work.

I now come to the other important objection I have and that is the registration of social workers. I understand there is a possiblity that the commission may be made a registering body and I understand that may be discussed in the Committee Stage. That will at least meet one of my objections to the Bill as it stands because the social commission will have a majority of social workers on this special social commission. But it is only a 4/3 majority of social workers. There is no clear definition of the so-called prescribed qualifications mentioned in Clause 33 and which, if related back to the definitions clause, do not mean anything at all. They talk about “social activities”. I don’t know what that means.

Registered social activities.

Yes, of course, but there is no regulation stating what the prescribed qualifications should be. It does not say whether it should be a university degree, a diploma, so many years of work in a recognized national welfare organization or something like that. It simply says the prescribed qualifications which are going to be laid down by the regulation. I don’t like the Definitions Clause because it refers to “social activities” which does not mean a thing. I might say the White Paper does not even . . .

The MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS. So you have no confidence whatsoever. . . .

Well, Sir, let us say that I want a great deal of it changed. I want the experts to be able to give evidence before a Select Committee of this House and that is why I have moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading otherwise I would not have done that. I am voicing my objections as I am fully entitled to do.

I expected you . . .

I am not interested in the Minister’s personal observations about me; I am trying to be objective . . .

I am not saying you are not objective; I expected you to be what you are.

I am glad I have fulfilled the hon. Minister’s expectations; I would have hated to have disappointed him. But let us leave that to one side.

I want to say that the hon. the Minister’s White Paper does not even know the difference between what is called a welfare worker and a social worker. The two terms are mixed up quite hopelessly in two of the sections in this White Paper. So perhaps it would be a good thing if we got straight what was meant by social worker and what was meant by social welfare worker. The one relates normally to volunteer workers and the other to professional people who have been trained in sociology and social work generally.

I think it is absolutely wrong for the hon. Minister to hurry with this registration even though I know the principle of registration is accepted. But the hon. Minister will agree with me that there are branches of the Social Workers’ Association which have the strongest objection to registration under the Bill as it stands.

How many?

I know of at least two but they are very important branches. There is the Southern Transvaal branch which is very important and there is the Natal branch, also a very important branch.

I got the strongest support from the executives.

Yes, but on the other hand these branches represent some of the most important social workers’ branches in the country and the hon. Minister should take cognisance of their objections. I think they are very valid objections. Their objection is, first of all, that the Minister is putting the cart before the horse in having a registering body before the code of ethics has been worked out. That is something which the profession must work out for itself. There is no hurry. Even though compulsory registration is delayed for five years it is far more sensible to delay it until the code has been established since this registering body is also going to have the right to cancel registration and to be the disciplinary body. I think it is absolutely essential that a professional code of ethics be worked out before registration takes place and not after registration. I think that is very important.

When you look at the Bill, Sir, you will see the very wide definition of “improper conduct”, which can mean improper conduct in terms of their work or otherwise. What does “or otherwise” mean? To have such a definition of improper conduct before the profession itself has worked out a proper code of professional conduct, and so forth, is absolutely wrong. I therefore think that the hon. Minister should certainly not proceed to force the pace of registration.

I think the responsibility and authority of the social work profession needs to be supported by the introduction and implementation of a suitable code of ethics which should be combined with provisions for defining professional and non-professional conduct. I believe that compulsory registration should be delayed until the profession itself has settled the issue of what sort of code it should adopt. In passing I want to mention that I strongly object to separate registers being kept for each racial group. I don’t think there should be racial divisions at all in the execution of professional social work. That is why I say we don’t even have norms for family life in this multi-racial country. We should have social work applying to the poor, the aged, the crippled, the mentally defective and so forth on a non-racial basis. It should be dealt with as one branch of social care and social welfare work. What the Minister should do. I believe, is to give the necessary assistance to the professional association of social workers, to subsidize them, that they can at least have a full-time officer, somebody who can help the liaison between the universities and the National Welfare Board, the regional boards and the National Welfare organization. This is something the hon. Minister could do immediately. He should assist them to pay for a full-time secretary who can help in all this important liaison work. The profession should be asked to get on with the job and to formulate a code of ethics and a code of professional conduct which I believe should precede registration of social workers. Those are my main objections, Sir, and I think the hon. the Minster will agree that they are pretty far-reaching. I do have other objections to specific clauses of the Bill. I object, for instance, to Clause 34. Other hon. members have already mentioned this. I think it is quite wrong for the Minister to try to prescribe the type of person who can teach social welfare work or any of the ancilliary subjects such as social legislation, for instance, at a university. The universities are quite capable of looking after their own standards and I consider that this clause is another infringement of the autonomy of universities. I shall certainly move for its deletion in the Committee Stage if I am not successful in persuading the hon. the Minister and this House that the Bill should not be given a second reading but should be sent, instead, to a Select Committee before the second reading.

I do not propose to deal at any great length with the many clauses of this Bill but I want to make some reference to .the position of those who work amongst the Coloured community and amongst the Bantu outside the reserves in the urban areas. What will the position of those social welfare workers be in terms of this Bill? It is obvious from a first reading of the Bill that no provision is made for representation of these people on any of these boards. Furthermore, at local level, there appears to be no possibility of representation for these workers at all.

I was alarmed when I saw that a register was going to be kept of the White, Coloured and African social workers. I would like to know, before this Bill goes on to the Statute Book, what the position is going to be in regard to Coloured people and Bantu in the urban areas. The position is that those who work among those people realise .that the greatest field of all, in which social and welfare workers can occupy themselves, is in the field of working amongst the Coloured and the Bantu, especially those in the urban villages and in the Coloured townships which are being built all over the Republic. We find that with few exceptions, most of that work is done by White welfare workers and White social workers attached to local authorities. These people do the job more or less as ancillary to their main duties, which is to work amongst the Whites in urban areas. I recognise that there has been a consultative committee in operation for some time. What I am saying is not said in any critical way of that organization or any other organization, but it is obvious to me, that this thing is designed exclusively from the angle of the White community in this country. The speaker before me said that we have never established what a family and family life should consist of and I agree with her. What are the standards by which a family should be measured and what are the requirements which should be set and to which we should adhere or attempt to adhere, in the provision of facilities and amenities for these people, who live among us and with us? These are the points that exercise the minds of those associated with social welfare work. I believe that we are really tackling this problem from the wrong end. There can be no serious quibble about raising the social and welfare workers to professional status, and no objection either, that a start must be made somewhere. Certain standards will have to be laid down, so that these persons will know what is expected of them, and that others may be attracted to that profession. These things are accepted. But working as I do with others, in these vast communities of Coloureds and Bantu people inside the Republic, there is no question at all that if this is put onto a proper basis and is worked property, the vast majority of the workers will not be White people. That is, if we are going to do the job properly. If we are going to do the job as a sort of adjunct to what you might call the White organizations, then of course, what I say, will not come about. But if we tackle the problem, as I believe it should be tackled, and we get social and welfare workers, Coloured and African ones, then obviously, with the tremendous field in which these people will work and be able to work, there is no question that they will out-number the White professional workers. Because, however we may look at it, the needs and demands for social welfare work are greatest among these people and not among the Whites. I could quote numerous examples, but I do not want to bore the House, except to say that in building homes, or houses, if you prefer to call them that, for the lesser privileged people, we pay no attention whatsoever to the ordinary normal standards which are expected in respect of White families and which are provided for them. These are the things which exercise my mind and I hope that the hon. Minister will give us some sort of indication. Without wishing to be political or getting involved in any political argument I want to pose the question: Is this going to be another one of those matters where we are going to have a sort of job reservation? Will fields be set out where exclusively White people will be permitted to work and where Coloured people will not be permitted to work? There are large numbers of Coloured people to-day who do take an active interest, especially among churches, and they do a tremendous lot of work, and, as I have already said, there are large numbers of voluntary Whites, who also work among them. How will this Bill affect them? How will the establishment of this Board affect those people? These are the questions which will be asked from time to time and these are the question which I would like to see answered, without any equivocation, because without any shadow of doubt these boards will be predominantly White, I believe that in this type of social welfare work, the Coloured community is entitled to representation. I think it will be acknowledged quite readily that if nominations take place on a regional representative basis, they have very little prospect of being nominated. And if they were nominated, would the Minister accept them? These are the things which the Coloured community is going to ask. and these are the questions which I would like the hon. Minister to answer. In regard to these regional boards, five will be nominated. Is the number large enough, is it representative enough, will it give effect to the wishes and desires of all people who are going to be concerned in this matter? I think it can be quite safely said that welfare work and social work in this country is so widespread and so diversified that the only difficulty that I can see with this Bill is that the hon. Minister is attempting too much at one go, as they say. He is getting himself involved with having to set up all these commissions, and without wanting to be unkind in any way, one wonders whether the setting up of these commissions will be another case of jobs for people, government jobs, or will they be able to get down to do the work which must be done? Here we have four welfare organizations which will be appointed, a Social Work Commission, a Family Life Commission, a Welfare Policy Commission and a commission in regard to the Registration of Welfare Organizations. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the one difficulty which will face the Minister—and I hope the hon. Minister will give us an indication as to how he is going to deal with the matter—is that when you deal with Coloureds, Bantu and Indians, this number of commissions will have to be multiplied by three, and that gives you 12 commissions, quite an assortment, and there is a multiplicity of other problems which will arise. I do not wish to be critical of the Bill in any shape or form, because I think it is a step in the right direction, but I am anxious, and I express my anxiety, on behalf of the Coloured community and the Bantu in the urban areas, and on behalf of those people who work among them, as to what their position will be, how will they figure in this scheme, how will they be fitted in, or will they be left at the outer perimiter as an appendix? I have not got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the training facilities for the non-Whites in this country are extremely limited, and many local authorities are averse to appointing permanent workers in these communities, because of lack of funds, although subsidise are paid. I have had experience, where actually, training facilities were stopped by the Central Government. So these people are deeply concerned, and they have got to be so. The Coloured man and his family and the African man and his family are just as concerned as we are of making some headway in the world. He has the same troubles that we have got. He has got his blind parents, his difficult children, the cripples and the spas-tics and the palsied; the retarded children, the deaf and the blind, and without any shadow of doubt, although there are facilities, they are not anyway near on the scale they should be. Here is a Bill in broad concept introduced in .this House, which is now going to lay down a basis on which the whole of this work will be undertaken, so I ask the hon. Minister if he will give us some reply to the questions I have asked him, so that we can know precisely what will be the position and the functions of those other people inside the Republic who are so in need of this type of work and uplift. Various people on the Government side have said that we must uplift these people. Here is a chance to uplift them. It cannot be an exclusively White organization, it cannot be run by White people only—they have not got the facilities, they have not got the personnel, and I do not think many have got the inclination either, but amongst the Coloured community there are people able and willing to do it, and the same applies to the Bantu. I do not have to tell you that in certain urban areas the Bantu themselves are now beginning to ask that they should have their own workers among themselves. That is very laudable and nobody can object to that, but when it comes to registration on separate lists, and a board of this nature, which appears to be exclusively White, where their opportunity of having their points of view put forward and where their representation is going to be limited, they must express anxiety and they must voice it through people like me.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has left the Chamber, because I would have liked to tell her that I find her proposition for sending this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, divorced of all reality in regard to these matters. The hon. member for Houghton is not one who often raises her voice on matters of this nature and after her participation in this debate to-day, it leaves one with an atmosphere of unreality. We are well aware that the hon. member makes a good study of her brief occasions, but it would appear that she has a very poor understanding of the true import of this measure, because surely the hon. member devoted a great deal of her time to those provisions dealing with the registration of social workers and she must realize that this Bill in fact lays down the principle of granting professional status to this group of persons for the first time, as far as I am aware, in our legislation, and that in itself is a big step forward. Many of the objections raised by the hon. member in our view can surely be adjusted in the Committee Stage when we come to discuss the separate provisions of this Bill.

I would like to say that this Bill does more than set up an administrative structure for the social welfare services of our country. It places our social work as a civilized nation on a scientific basis. In fact, it will form the basis of research on which will be moulded the plans for the sociological advance of our nation in the years to come, and in this regard I view it personally as one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been considered by this House for a long time. I must say that it is regrettable that as far as the Government benches are concerned, there has been such a poor display of interest in connection with such an important subject.

Mr. Speaker, they should recognize that there is no group of our community at any level in our South African society which will remain unaffected by the provisions of this Bill, not only in the legislative sense of curing social evils that might exist in our South African community, but also of assisting people whom misfortune has struck down in one way or another, or assisting people who are socially maladjusted, but more important in this Bill is the positive aspect, because it assists to formulate and promote social policies to assist our South African nation and our complex society to meet the challenges of a rapid industrial and technological development that is affecting our society in South Africa. It is a Bill not only to cure evils, but it is a Bill to prevent social evils, and that is the point which I think the hon. member for Houghton somewhat overlooked. Mr. Speaker, where our nation has undergone large changes and our population emphasis is on the development of an urbanized industrial working class of White people, there must naturally follow in view of these tremendous development during the last few decades, sociological changes in the South African people of all races. Therefore I see this Bill as setting up the machinery. We have certain provisos and we will deal with them in the Committee Stage, but it is setting up the machinery to meet these changes and to create the new background of social responsibility.

I do not wish to traverse all the ground that has already been traversed in this debate, and covered very ably by my colleagues on these benches, and on the Government benches, and particularly by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) in regard to the administrative structure and the background which has prompted the Minister to introduce this measure. I wish to deal with what I consider are the three most important classes of the Bill, namely Clauses 7, 8 and 9, those clauses which deal with the establishment of the Commission. I view them as the most important because these commissions, as is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, will deal largely with policy and research questions. Clause 9 admittedly describes the functions of the commissions as being of an advisory capacity to the Minister and the National Welfare Board. But by the very nature of these commissions and the functions that they will be expected to carry out, they will act and must act in a positive sense. Their activities will not be to advise in a negative sense, but to advise in a positive sense. Furthermore, the functions of these commissions are so wide that they will cover all facets of our social activities, and if there is any gap, and where the Minister may consider there are aspects of our sociological life in respect of which he needs further advice, or the National Welfare Board needs further advice, the Minister has the power to appoint an additional commission. But the field that these commissions cover is a complete gamut of the social life of South Africa in all its aspects. Obviously it is impossible to deal with that aspect in detail here. I want to confine my remarks largely to the aspect that has been dealt with by the hon. member for Waterberg. (Mr. Heystek), and that is the Family Life Commission. This is very briefly dealt with in the memorandum and the hon. Minister has indicated the origin of this particular commission. As outlined in his introductory remarks, it has originated during family week which took place some three or four years ago. This Family Life Commission will have the most important task of formulating and promoting family policy in our country, the most important aspect and the essence of the family, the relationship between the family and the population policy of our country—the need for more White people and the part that the family has to play in that end-result for our nation, marriage guidance and the functions of the family, and fourthly, research in the field of family life, which is so very necessary in our South African society. Mr. Speaker, of all the human institutions in our country, whether educational, religious, legislative, or judicial, in our democratic society in South Africa there is no single institution so important as the family. To me it is important for two reasons: The family in our country plays such a large part in the life of nearly all citizens. You will have noticed that I used the words “nearly all citizens”, because I wish to deal with that aspect a little bit later. Secondly, the family is the first and the main source of development not only of the physical attributes, but also the character and the personality of every individual in the South African society, and collectively the individual makes up the South African nation. The family, in other words, is the basis of the installation and continuation of knowledge, customs, values and traditions as we know them in South Africa, as well as the arena in which each individual of our South African society’s personality is afforded the opportunity of developing to the fullest extent possibly. In the past we as South Africans have been inclined to fix our attention upon the disintegration of the family. We have devoted our attention to the curing of family ills and the lack of family establishment in South Africa, rather the negative approach. This Bill, in my view, takes the positive approach in setting up this commission and this commission, I have no doubt whatsoever, will lay down the patterns to meet the changed thinking of each succeeding generation in South Africa. That there will be changes in the construction of the Commission, that there will be new approaches in this commission is undoubtedly true, but in the evolution of a nation and as amongst people, a different approach is taken from generation to generation; with this commission and other issues that this commission will deal with, attempts are made to regard the family as an institution by legislation, which is the first time that this has happened in South African history. Sir, there are people to-day who tend to view the family institution as something that is outdated, viewing the family individual as a mere human being, and thereby shifting all responsibility for the development of the individual that has been created in the family on the State, that the State must be responsible for education, that the State is responsible for the individual’s security, that the State is responsible for the welfare of the individual. I see it this way that the task of this commission will be to ensure the continuation of the family as the basis of the strength of our nation.

There are other problems which have contributed to the decline of the family as an institution in our country. You have the problem of the role of the working mother in our society to-day. You have factors such as the shortage of housing, the cost-of-living, the factor of the general conception that the only economic unit to-day is the small family, the family of one child or two children; then there are other factors that have assisted to break down the family as an institution: You have the fact that much of the recreation of the individual, the child. takes place outside the home to-day; you have the increased tempo of living; you have the influences of mass media of information, the radio, newspapers and others where the cultural instinct of the family and unit has been broken down. You have all these factors which have led to the erosion of family life and of the family as an institution. I think I can quote profitably here to hon. members in the House an extract of an editorial that appeared in a recent edition of Lantern, dealing with this factor of the erosion of family life in South Africa—

Sir, when you get a statement like that in an influential journal as Lantern circulated amongst all educational institutions in our country, then such statements cannot be put on one side and ignored. Therefore I say that the job of this commission in regard to family life is to discover family values in South Africa. The job of this commission as I see it will be to give guidance so that application of any government policy will ensure that the family fits effectively into the new and constantly changing structure of our South African society.

I want to turn to one other aspect of the work of the Family Life Commission, as I see it. I think, and I hope the Minister will confirm this, that this is the first time that marriage guidance receives recognition as a social science in our legislation. Sir, this is a relatively new branch of social work. Basically it seeks to help individuals to adjust themselves to married life. It is a scientific approach that is evident in every aspect of the work of these four commissions, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. Sir, marriage guidance seeks to analyse the root cause of marriage problems and by counselling to assist families and individuals to find their own solution. Sir, the need for marriage guidance cannot be disputed. It is recognized that divorce is the most serious form of family disintegration in our country to-day. It has increased greatly in the last few years. I think it will shock you to know that as far as the White section of the population of South Africa is concerned the divorce rate has multiplied seven times since 1913. That in the ten year period between 1946 and 1956 there were no less than 43,480 divorces approved by the courts of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the latest figures available, according to statistical data one in six marriages in South Africa will go to the divorce court, one of the highest rates in the world. I would like hon. members and you, Sir, to consider the effect on the marriage partners concerned as revealed by these statistics, but more important is the effect on the children of these marriages. When you consider that 63 per cent of all the divorces going to the courts in South Africa have children involved, you will see how serious the position is. For the year 1961, the latest figure available, no less than 4,516 divorces were granted in our country in which no less than 6.450 children were affected. In the period between 1957 and 1961, no less than 33,330 children were affected by divorces that took place in the courts of South Africa. Sir, any social worker will tell you what the effect is on child delinquency of this fantastic divorce rate in our country at the present time. The courts are full of these cases of juvenile delinquency. Any social worker will tell you that where children are brought and charged before the courts and the children’s courts, in most cases they are children who come from broken homes through divorce. In the light of such statistics one can only express the hope that as a result of the work of this commission, it will be laid down that no divorce will take place in the courts of South Africa until the Judge has referred the conditions of such a divorce to a registered social worker, known as a marriage councillor. Sir, this is not a new principle. It is a principle for example accepted in Australia. There they have the Matrimonial Causes Act where it is laid down that Judges, and solicitors too to a certain extent, are given the duty of searching at every stage for any possibility of reconciliation and of taking prescribed steps to attempt this, and one of these steps is the nomination by the Judge of an approved marriage guidance organization for the purpose of endeavouring with the consent of the parties to effect a reconciliation, and in such legislation is also written in the provision that anything discussed in the course of such endeavours may not be used in any divorce proceedings. Marriage guidance is a comparatively new branch of social work, and as an organized social activity and as a science in South Africa, it is only ten years old. When it is realized that professors, doctors, army generals, even busmen and civil servants are actively engaged in marriage counselling to-day, you will realize the wide scope and importance of these activities, and this commission can give a tremendous fillip to this work and assist in curing an issue which is quite definitely undermining the South African way of life.

I would join with the hon. member for Umbilo in pleading with the Minister to reconsider those provisions of the Bill in which the National Welfare Board is called upon to report only once in every five years. The hon. Minister will realize that the work of these commissions is not a negative approach.

I have said that I will consider it.

I am glad to hear that. May I just take it a point further? I view this work as work of a positive nature, laying down patterns to cover this tremendously wide field . . .

You are referring to the Report of the National Board?

Yes. The reason why I am making the suggestion is because these commissions are called upon to report once a year and obviously, in view of the positive aspects of the work of these commissions, it is necessary that that work should receive public attention, and if these commissions report to the National Welfare Board, these reports will present positive aspects of their work, and I hope when we come to the Committee Stage that the Minister will accept the amendment that this side of the House wants to move. This work should receive the attention of the public.

There is one other important aspect in regard to the work of these commissions, particularly the two which will deal with family life, not only family life in the unit, but family life in the community. We hear a lot of talk about “isms” to-day, the sophisticated approach to the breakdown of these fundamental institutions that we recognize in our democratic way of life, and the biggest influence against family life is the “ism” of Communism. The best way to fight Communism is to build up the family unit, not only amongst the Whites but amongst the non-Whites, too. I think it should be realized, particularly by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that there is not a single word of racialism in this Bill, but that the provisions of the Bill apply equally to all races. It is my hope that as this is the first scientific step towards social and welfare work in South Africa, we will develop these services to the benefit of all our people in South Africa.

Right at the outset I have an unpleasant task to perform and that is to say to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that I am not prepared to accent her amendment nor do I think this House or the country is prepared to accept it. [Interjections.] I want to be very friendly with the hon. member but let me just say this to her.

Order! I hope the hon. Minister will not be so friendly that he does not address the Chair

I want to say to the hon. members that since I have been Minister of Social Welfare this is the first time, as far as I can remember, she has shown any interest in legislation of this nature.

It is never too late to reform.

Shall I show Hansard to you?

This is the first time as far as I can remember the hon. member has shown interest in this work.

That is not true.

The hon. member cannot tell me it is not true, because I am only saying what I can remember.

The friendship has not lasted very long.

I shall deal with the reasons for her amendment. She has relied on the basic principles of democracy and she has also relied on the Social Workers’ Association of South Africa. She has relied on both of them at the same time. She said those people were organized in an association and that they did not care for the Bill as we had it before us to-day. But when I asked her, by way of interjection, she said it was only the one branch. But surely the hon. member knows that this association has more than one branch in South Africa; she also knew to which branch she was referring. She also knew that I knew about that branch which was using her to raise their objections here. I am just giving the reasons why I am not prepared to accept her amendment. These are my reasons: Over the past two years I have been in touch with every possible institution and association in the whole country, a legion of them, I told them I would like to have the greatest possible co-operation from them and I got it. I shall, at a later stage, express my appreciation in this House for the co-operation I have received in connection with the important step we are to-day taking. However, the Social Workers’ Association does not consist of only one member. There is an executive committee and I have received a telegram from them as well as from the border branch of that association. I have received a telegram from the Western Transvaal branch expressing their strong support as well as a telegram from the Northern Transvaal Branch congratulating me and they are all members of this association. I have received a telegram from the student social workers of the University of Pretoria.

What about the other universities?

It is remarkable that the hon. member and I should be thinking of the same thing at the same time. I have received a telegram from the University of Potchefstroom in which they express their strong support as well as from the University of Pretoria and the University of South Africa which functions throughout the whole country and cannot be said to be sectional. I have a multitude of telegrams, also from Stellenbosch, Port Elizabeth and from Bloemfontein. I have received telegrams from all possible organizations. Here I have a list of 14 various organizations which deal with this matter from day to day.

May I ask the Minister whether he has received a telegram of congratulations from the English-speaking universities.

I suggest to the hon. member to show again, in six months’ time, the interest she has shown in this Bill by moving that it should be read to-day six months. I want to accuse the hon. member directly that she does not care a hoot for one sentence in this Bill. She does not approve of a single phrase or full-stop or comma. It does not fit into her pattern of South Africa’s development. She does not want to maintain and build like other hon. members of this House. She wants to destroy and ruin. She wants to destroy the services which are to-day being rendered to the non-Whites and she also wants to destroy the services which are being rendered to the Whites. She knows that if she can throw them all together and produce a jumble of boards, etc. she will have attained her objective and I do not intend paying any further attention to the hon. member.

I want to express my appreciation for the support I have received from both sides of the House as far as the principles contained in this Bill are concerned, Both sides of the House emphasized the fact that this legislation was the beginning of a new era. Every member who got up—they are people who have been interested in social welfare work for years—said that this legislation was the beginning of a new era as far as social welfare services were concerned. A new and necessary pattern is being created for the development of social welfare work for the years which lie ahead. Practically every member who got up emphasized that. This is something big which we are building from its very foundations, not only for a year or two, but for the future of the country and the people who have been entrusted to our care. The Bill creates machinery which will give expression to ideas on social welfare services which have come to fruition after most thorough consultation with all bodies concerned in this type of work. Various members on both sides of the House have referred to that aspect. It places the activities of everybody interested on a sound basis of co-ordination whether it be the State or a private institution. I was particularly impressed by the good spirit in which this Parliament has accepted this legistlation with its thread of co-operation running throughout the whole structure. In considering this legislation we are erecting a structure for the years that lie ahead. I myself visualize it as a pyramid based on sound foundations. Sir, if you want to build a pyramid that will stand for years and years your foundations must be sound. I want to express my sincere gratitude to members on both sides of the House for having subscribed to and pleaded for those foundation stones which have been laid. They also stated in their pleas that we must ensure that that structure remains well-balanced, that it does not become top heavy. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) and hon. members on both sides of the House said that. They pleaded for a well-balanced philososphy of life on which we could base our future development and everyone pleaded that that development should not become top heavy and collapse like the Tower of Babel, thereby destroying everything that has been done. I myself have visualized this Bill as a pyramid. Boards, regional boards and commissions are to be established to advise me. Hon. members may think I have visualized myself as the apex of that pyramid but I have not; that is foreign to my nature; I do not like it and I think it is unsound. I see Parliament as the apex of that pyramid.

Hon. members have made certain suggestions in their speeches as to the lines along which this matter must develop; that we should approach it carefully and build in such a way that that structure remains standing. The strictest test to which this legislation can be put is not what we say about it in this Parilament but what its effect will be when applied in practice. I am convinced that this legislation will stand that test. It is based on the 1947 Act. The only difference is that we are living in a new era with new circumstances. New developments have taken place in the world and we have to adjust our legislation and activities accordingly. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) put it very clearly when he said that a golden thread ran between the old and the new legislation. Not only do I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House very sincerely but I want to congratulate them heartily on the wonderful speeches and suggestions they have made to the effect that we must set about it carefully and not be over hasty. This system of erecting a pyramid will co-ordinate the activities of everybody on a sound basis. During all the years I have been carrying this great responsibility I have often said in this House that social welfare work was evervbody’s task and not only that of the State. That task rests on the shoulders of this Parliament, the people outside and everyone who is interested in the future development of our nation. The discussion has been characterized by that constructive approach in particular. I am not talking about exception; constructive suggestions came from all sides of the House. Hon. members who are doctors approached the matter from the medical angle. Other hon. members indicated how these commissions could develop so that research work could be done. We had sound constructive suggestions.

In my introductory speech I asked for the co-operation of Parliament and I got it. Across the floor of this House I want to ask everybody to co-operate in future as far as this measure is concerned. I am asking for the co-operation of the universities, of other bodies and organizations and of the public in general. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) and other members pleaded for the expansion of our social welfare services by enlisting the services of as many people as possible. We must move forward. I have so often said this development was not static. We must move forward: we are going to move forward and we are going to do so together in terms of this harmonious pattern, hoping and expecting that we shall move forward together. We shall assume responsibility for everybody, for the young and the old. We cannot leave some people behind as we develop. I am very grateful to the House for this unanimity. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) said this was a milestone. The hon. member for Germiston (District) spoke about the role the family played. The hon. member for Turffontein enlarged beautifully on that in speaking about the value of the family structure in the development of a nation. My philosophy is this: Save the family and you save the child; save the child and you save the future of the nation. But then we must be interested in that family. We must also be interested in the preventive measures. The hon. member for Umbilo spoke about the constitution of the board and the imbalance of the former board. I just want to say that that position has not deliberately been allowed to develop but I shall attend to the matter and I want to give him the assurance that there was no question whatsoever of my being partial in constituting those social welfare bodies and work groups. I consulted people from both national groups. When people expect to take part in it they must take the initiative and show an interest. The hon. member himself said we must appoint those people who were best able to do the work. But those people who are only interested in these organizations if they can do harm do not deserve to be there. Everybody who tries to build on the good things will be taken in consideration. We must encourage research. We are living in a time when the pace of technological development is fast. We must not neglect research therefore we must expand in order to keep pace with development. The details of this measure can be discussed during the committee stage and I shall always be willing to consider suggestions. Even when this legislation is on the Statute Book. I shall invite hon. members to suggest how it can operate better so that we can all be proud of it once it stands as a monument to the welfare services of South Africa.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

Detention at Night on Warrant arising from Parking Offence

I move pursuant to Standing Order No. 25—

That the House do now adjourn,

The subject matter concerns the now celebrated occasion on which a Mr. Owen Williams was hauled out of his bed at night by the police on a warrant for contempt of court arising from his not attending court in regard to a parking offence. It raises the question of the liberty of the subject, which is a matter of paramount importance to us, particularly to the Minister of Justice, who is charged with the administration of matters concerning the liberty of the individual, and it probably involves many other people who have been subjected to the same sort of treatment. But if it only involves this one individual, I make no excuse for taking half an hour of the time of the House to discuss the matter.

Now, we have a very good system of administration of justice and a very good law relating to criminal procedure. We have a long-established criminal procedure code which provides that the individual should not be deprived of his liberty if it can possibly be avoided. I am sure it is common cause that those matters are not at issue; our system of justice is not in issue. What is in issue is the administration of that system, which is the Minister’s responsibility.

The Press has reported that an investigation has already been made by the police, and if that is correct the Minister should by now be in possession of that report so that he will be able, one hopes, to give some account of what happened.

Three points arise to be discussed here this evening. The first is the issue of the warrant of arrest, the second is the execution of the warrant, and the third is the refusal by the sergeant in charge of the police station to grant bail to Mr. Williams.

As far as the issue of the warrant is concerned, Section 309 of the code provides that a warrant may be issued where it appears that the summons has been served, and I want to say at once that it is quite clear that it does not have to be served personally. In this case the summons was for a parking offence, and it did not have to be served personally, but I think the Chief Magistrate of Durban put it very well on 15th May in the Natal Mercury when he said that a warrant of arrest may be lawfully issued if the summons is not personal, but then he added that law courts usually take the precaution of ensuring that the summons has come to the notice of the person concerned. In this case this did not happen. Great care must be taken to see that the individual should not be deprived of his liberty except on very good cause shown, nor should he subsequently, as in this case, be subjected to the degradation and the indignity of spending a whole night in gaol and to be locked up at a later stage with hardened criminals, a man who was guilty only of a parking offence. The endorsement on the summons in this case indicated, as the magistrate said when he was tried, that it had not been personally served, and the magistrate did not even feel it was necessary to hear the accused. He said that from the warrant itself it was clear that it had not been served and he acquitted him immediately.

One of the other issues that arises out of this is the question of the payment of fines. If one has a summons for a parking offence or any other offence for which an admission of guilt can be paid, one is entitled to go to any police station and to pay one’s fine. How is the centralizing of this controlled?

The second matter that arises here is the question of the execution of the warrant, and in this regard I want to quote what has been said by our courts. I refer here to the case of MacDonald vs. Kumalo, 1927 EDL. This was a Full Bench decision of the Eastern Districts Local Division. This is what the judge stated—

Lord de Villiers himself said—

Sir, this is true also of the warrant issued in the first instance by the magistrate’s court. But so far as the execution of the warrant is concerned, there are certain very serious matters which I think call for the hon. the Minister’s attention. Firstly the arrest was made at dead of night. Why was it at dead of night? You see, Sir, a senior police official gave an interview to the Cape Argus on the 13th of this month, in which he points out that policemen are reprimanded for not having brought people to court who should have been brought to court. He says—

He may if he feels that he will not stand his trial. But here we have an individual, a very respected citizen, a man in the most responsible position, living in a home in which there are children, and he is simply hauled out by the police; and this was the first time that he was ever seen. The usual procedure, quite properly stated by this senior police official was not followed in this case at all. In other words, no other attempt was made to get in touch with him. Surely he could have been contacted simply by picking up a telephone and dialling his home number or dialling his office number and quite clearly he would have appeared. Then I want to quote another statement made by the senior police official, as reported in the same paper—

Sir, that usual procedure was not followed here, and at dead of night Mr. Owen Williams was taken out of his home and taken to the police station. Sir, I am going to ask the hon. the Minister to do certain things and I want to refer him to what was said by Judge Harcourt in his book—

Sir, with those sentiments I agree wholeheartedly and I hope the hon. the Minister does.

The third point that arises is perhaps the worst point of all and that is the refusal of the police sergeant to grant bail. The law provides for various safety valves, even having come to the stage to which this man had come, where a warrant had been properly issued—he was not guilty of contempt of court but there was a warrant for his arrest —even at that stage our law makes provision in Section 155 (2) of the Code for any policeman of the rank of police sergeant or above to grant bail where, for obvious reasons, it is not easy to go to a magistrate or some other judicial officer in order to grant bail. He may do so in respect of any offence except —and I want to quote this to indicate in what sort of offences he may not grant bail—except in the case of treason, murder, sedition, robbery, rape, assault in which a dangerous injury is inflicted, arson, breaking and entering, and theft. Sir, this indicates the serious nature of the sort of crimes which the legislature had in mind. What happened here? Here we are dealing with an offence, not in that schedule, arising out of a parking offence, for which offence (contempt in terms of section 309) the maximum fine is R50, and the police sergeant in charge for the time being refused bail. He indicated, it would seem from what I have heard, that he did not know that he was entitled to grant bail. Sir, this is a most scandalous state of affairs. In any event, if he did know that he could grant bail, he did not exercise his discretion in this regard. In this case there was an American picked up at the same time who had with him R150 in cash which he offered as bail in respect of both Owen Williams and himself, and that was also refused. To make matters worse, a senior attorney, an officer of the court, telephoned the police station and offered personally to stand surety that Mr. Owen Williams would appear in court the next morning, and again the sergeant refused. This attorney lives in the same block of flats as Mr. Williams, or next door to him. Sir, I want to quote Lord de Villiers once again as to what a policeman’s duty is in this regard. I refer to the case of Shaw and Collins, 1883 2 SC—

He then went on to say—

Sir, this is a gross abuse of a discretion. The police sergeant did not exercise his discretion at all, or if he was exercising it, he exercised it quite wrongly, and because of this this citizen is deprived of his liberty; his family is deprived of the man of the house for the whole evening, a house in which there were small children who were all woken up by this intrusion. He had to sleep on a mattress on a cement floor. The next day he was put in a police van and taken to the grille where he was locked up with hardened criminals— no rule as to who should be there—and kept there till 11 that morning.

Sir, this is monstrous; this is an abuse of the process of our law and an abuse of the process of justice which our law has for centuries provided for the protection of the citizen. I am sure the hon. the Minister will be the first to agree that the liberty of the subject is not to be trifled with in this way.

I do not just want to complain about this, Sir; it is a very grave situation. I want to make two suggestions to the hon. the Minister. The first one is that he immediately causes the Commissioner of Police to issue a directive in terms of Regulation 6 of the Police Regulations to every police sergeant and of higher rank as to what his duty is in granting or refusing bail in terms of the Code. And I commend to him the words of Lord de Villiers. In the second place I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he causes an investigation to be made immediately as to the manner in which warrants for arrest are issued in respect of minor offences. I suggest that he uses all the powers he has, including the power under Section 390 of the Code, whereby he can provide for these matters. I hope the hon. the Minister will not only give us a report as to what happened to this individual but that he will give us an assurance that he as the Minister, empowered to do so, will do everything in his power to ensure that this does not happen again if it can possibly be avoided.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has made all the propaganda he can out of this matter without ascertaining what the real facts are. The hon. member has also made certain statements obviously without having acquainted himself with what the legal position in that regard is. Let me first deal with the case of Mr. Bisschop who has started all this hullabaloo.

That is not part of my motion.

Yes. the hon. member mentioned his name. The hon. member used this case in his argument. I want to disclose that case because the main propaganda made in the newspaper was based on it. No fewer than three summonses had been served on this person to appear in court for three different offences. All those summonses were served on him personally. He treated the court with such contempt, that he did not even go to the elementary trouble of appearing at court in respect of one of the three. What is more, after the senior prosecutor had issued the second summons for contempt of court against the first person, Mr. Bisschop, he personally telephoned him and said: “I have already issued the second summons against you for contempt of court and the summonses have been served on you personally”. He simply ignored the court.

Let us go further into the facts of this matter. The police have a warrant for his arrest. The hon. member knows that the person must be arrested when such a warrant is issued by the magistrate. The remarks of the hon. member this afternoon must have created the impression on the uninformed that the person was arrested because of the parking offence. That is not the case. He was not arrested because of the parking offence; not one of them was. Why did the hon. member try to create that impression? Throughout his speech the hon. member tried to create the impression that he was arrested for the parking offence and not one of the two was arrested for it. They were arrested for contempt of court on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the magistrate. The warrant of arrest is handed to the policeman to go and fetch the person wherever he can find him. He has to arrest him and keep him under arrest until he appears before the court. The hon. member went further and attacked the police sergeant for having refused bail. I want to tell the hon. member that the police sergeant could not grant him bail in terms of Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act. I have checked this with the chief legal adviser and with the Attornev-General. I shall read to the hon. member what the Criminal Procedure Act says in this regard—

This case took place under these circumstances—

It is the court and the court alone which can release him. The police sergeant has no power to do so. He politely explained that to the attorney who telephoned him during the night and referred him to this section. Why does the hon. member make this kind of allegation?

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, I only have quarter of an hour.

May I ask a question?

Order! The hon. the Minister has indicated that he is not prepared to answer any questions.

Let us go further. The hon. member has made great play of this poor man who was woken up by the police in the middle of the night and arrested while still half asleep. What are the facts? The facts are that the police looked for him earlier in the evening. As late as half past eleven Mrs. Williams still told them that Mr. Williams was not there. Then the police left. When they arrived at the charge office at five minutes to 12 Mr. Williams phoned them there. But he does not tell the Argus that. If the hon. member spoke on behalf of that person he could have taken the trouble of asking him; he could easily have got hold of him to find out. He phoned the police and told them he was at home. They went there immediately and arrived at five minutes past 12. Where is the man who was asleep? Where is the man who was pulled out of the bed? He was not even home at half past 11, and he telephoned the police before 12 o’clock to tell them he was now at home. Had he not telephoned them they would not have gone back. Let us look at the further facts. What is the position? Do hon. members who talk so glibly about this case know that 570,122 summonses for this sort of thing are issued annually in the Republic? That figure refers to last year. In the case of the Cape Town court alone 55,000 summonses were issued according to the senior prosecutor and in that connection 4.501 summonses were issued for contempt of court because the persons concerned did not appear at court in spite of the fact that the summonses were served on them personally. The hon. member says you must pick up the telephone and ’phone these people! In this case the senior prosecutor personally telephoned the one individual after two summonses which he had simply ignored had been issued against him for contempt of court.

Let us go further into the position? The police have no option. The warrant is issued by the Bench and they have to execute it. They have to arrest the man and bring him to court. The policeman concerned sometimes goes five, six or eight times to the address before he finds him. What happened in this case. These two people live in the same area. The police had been looking for Bisschop for a long time without finding him. As I have said, a third summons had been issued. They were at his house that afternoon at half past three; they were at his house at seven o’clock that evening; they were at his house that evening at 11.40, twenty to twelve, and he was not there yet. This is the second person who is supposed to have been fast asleep in bed. At twenty minutes to twelve he was not home yet. When they went from there to the charge office they passed Williams’ house and saw that the lights were on. They knocked at the door, asked whether Williams was there and were told by his wife that he was not. When they arrived at the charge office there was a telephone call from him saying that he was home. In the execution of their duty they went to his house, showed him the warrant and explained the position to him. Nothing unpleasant happened and they took him with them. On their way back they again had to pass Bisschop’s house and saw that the lights were on. They knocked on the door and found that he was home. He himself opened the door when they knocked. The police then took them to the charge office and allowed them to use the telephone in order to phone their attorneys or any other person which they in fact did.

Then there is -the story about the dirty cells. I have ascertained for myself that that is not true. What is more, the story about the blankets which appeared in the newspaper is not true either. What is more, apart from the sergeant who has to go to all the people every hour and to whom no complaint was made, an officer of higher rank personally went round that morning and not a single person complained to him. One asks oneself what it is all about. I want to state very clearly that a warrant of arrest is not easily issued but when there are 52,383 persons in the entire Republic who have had summonses served on them personally to appear before court and who simply ignore those summonses, so much so that the magistrates throughout the Republic are obliged to issue warrants of arrest against them, what must the police do? It is very easy for the hon. member to say you must phone 52,000 people. But you do not even have the option of telephoning them because as a policeman you have been instructed to arrest the man because he has treated the court with contempt. My question is this: Since when have our courts become so cheap that they can be treated with contempt in this way? I want to put this question to the hon. member: Why did the hon. member not say it straight out to the House when he spoke? Why did he bring the whole House under the impression that the man was arrested for a parking offence whereas the offence was actually that of contempt of court in respect of which a warrant of arrest had been issued by the Bench? The policeman had no option. He had to arrest the person. One would have thought. Sir, that the hon. member, as an official of the court, would have had a higher regard for the dignity of the court than that. One would have thought that the hon. member, as an official of the court, would have laid greater emphasis on the fact that people treated the court with contempt in this way. As far as Williams is concerned the summons was served on his wife. Williams told the police—I repeat it here— that he knew the summons had arrived at his home; he knew that his wife had signed to the effect that she had received the summons. What is more, she signed “O. Williams” on the back of the summons when the parking inspector handed it to her.

But he was found not guilty.

Yes, but I shall tell the hon. member why. Everything goes very quickly in the parking offences court because there are hundreds of cases. The attorney explained that he knew nothing about the summons. I am not blaming the attorney but I maintain that Williams knew about it; he told the police that he knew about the summons. I am going to send an officer to Williams and another one to Bisschop to take affidavits from them in that connection. If and when I get those affidavits I shall decide what further action to take. I doubt very much whether they would be prepared to swear to affidavits; whether they would be prepared to repeat under oath the nonsensical stories which the newspapers have published for the sake of whatever propaganda they could make out of it. We shall see whether they will do that. I want to say quite clearly that nothing irregular has happened in this connection as far as the police are concerned; that they acted merely in the execution of their duty on the instructions of a magistrate and that they would have been guilty of gross neglect of duty had they not done so. Surely they cannot refuse to do it. Surely the hon. member knows that. Surely they cannot refuse to act in terms of a warrant of arrest issued from the Bench by the magistrate. They are not concerned with whether or not the man is guilty. They are given a warrant to arrest a man. It is not a summons to be served on anybody; they are not investigating an offence in respect of which it is within their discretion as to whether or not they should arrest the man.

It is not necessary to do it in the middle of the night.

I have just explained to the hon. member what happened. Did the hon. member not understand me? I have explained to him what happened. Had they been arrested earlier they would have-been there longer because the sergeant could not release them on bail. [Interjections.1 The hon. member for Pinelands is an advocate and he holds it against the policeman for having acted on the warrant of arrest. I want to say quite clearly that the figures before me show that 52,000 persons treated the court with contempt last year and those are not laws made by the Government; they are the laws of local authorities. When our courts are treated with such contempt then surely the time has arrived for us to view this type of offence in a serious light. I am not referring to parking offences but the offence of contempt of court. It surprises one, Sir, that a person who works for a newspaper, who has access to the newspapers, remains silent on the facts I have just given the House irrespective of what wrong impression is created in the minds of the public. Why did Mr. Williams not say that the summons had been served on his wife? Why did he not disclose the fact that his wife had told him about the summons? Why did he adopt the attitude that he knew nothing about the whole matter? Why, in the case of Bisschop, where the facts were available to the newspapers which tried to make propaganda out of the matter, did they not disclose the fact that three summonses had been served on him for three different offences he had committed?

Discussion having continued for half an hour,