Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

This amendment applies to the term “cadet” used throughout the Bill. The hon. the Minister knows about this amendment, because it was mentioned by me during the Second Reading debate. I want to emphasize to the Minister that the word “cadet”, in ordinary English usage, without any question whatever means “a student attached to a naval or military academy”. The Minister may be in difficulties over an adequate Afrikaans translation of this word. I can appreciate that that may be so. The word “kadet” in Afrikaans may have a different meaning altogether. I cannot help reminding the Minister that the word “cadet” as used in this Bill is, as regards the English language, entirely out of context. Since the Minister has made it perfectly clear that these camps are not to be run on military lines under any circumstances, and since he has, in fact, gone out of his way to emphasize that these camps are to be run on civilian lines, for civilians for purposes of civilian training, it seems to me to be a little odd that he should be willing to use this word “cadet” as it is understood in the English language. As I mentioned during the Second Reading debate also, the only other recognized usage of the word “cadet” in the English language is in relation to someone who has a professional or semi-professional status. And, Sir, these people are certainly not going to be that. That is not the object of these camps, in any case. As I mentioned before, we talk of a cadet journalist, or a cadet in the diplomatic service, or a cadet in the colonial service. But this essentially refers to someone who has some qualifications. I do hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. We are, naturally, very jealous of the correct use of the English language in our legislation and in all other spheres in South Africa. I seriously ask the Minister, irrespective of the Afrikaans use of the word, whether he would not consider the substitution of the word “trainee’’ throughout the Bill for the word “cadet”.

The reason why we cannot accept the term “trainee” is that these people are not going to be trained to do a specific kind of work, such as is being done at the training centres which we have for adults in Kimberley and elsewhere. They are in this respect not “trainees”. They are, in accordance with the disciplined training which is going to be given to them, really closer to cadets. I will admit that the word “cadet” is not a fully accurate description, but “trainee” would in our opinion be even less correct. One must after all take the purpose of this measure into account. One wants them to be proud of this training. I feel that the term “cadet” would serve the purpose and that is why I would be glad if we were allowed to lay down this term which in my opinion will go down well with the Coloured population.

I would only like to say that if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope he realizes that he is introducing a complete innovation into the English language in South Africa.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

I wish to move the amendment as printed in my name—

Sir, this is not a vital amendment to the Bill. This is simply to try to pin-point that in deciding to establish and maintain training centres, due regard will be had to suitable types of employment. I do not like the wide phraseology of the clause as it stands now and I want to place some obligation upon the hon. the Minister when he makes the decision about the type of training centres that he is going to set up to see to it not only that due regard is had to age, ability, etc., but that the employment shall be of a suitable kind.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this amendment as it is unnecessary. One does not want to introduce unnecessary provisions into a piece of legislation. If the hon. member were to re-read the clause carefully, she would find that it is the qualifications which will actually determine the kind of employment in which such a cadet would be placed. May I just state the position to the hon. member once more: The training will be in some kind of work or other with due regard being had to the cadet’s age, aptitude, educational qualifications, physical condition, habits, abilities and requirements. Those qualifications will be the determining factors for our examining officers as far as the direction is concerned in which they will send the particular cadet. The introduction of the word “suitable” is really unnecessary therefore. The hon. member may rest assured that such a person will be directed into a suitable avenue of employment, with due regard being had to all these provisions.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

I listened yesterday to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading Debate, and we on this side of the House were grateful to learn that the hon. the Minister regards these training centres in the same light as we would wish to view them, i.e. that they will not merely be training centres for “skollies”, but that what is being envisaged here is to render a service to a portion of the population of the country, a service for which that section of the population can be grateful. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for North Rand where he stated in the Second Reading Debate that what he would like to have seen was that similar training centres for all sectors of the population, including the Whites, should be established. Sir, if these training centres are administered correctly, then they will yield results of which the Coloured population can in future be justly proud. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the amendments which will be proposed by hon. members on this side of the House are in no way destructive, and in this connection I am thinking particularly of the remark made yesterday by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet when he stated that we did not want to throw our weight into the scrum. There is no amendment to be moved by this side of the House …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to his own amendment. He is discussing the entire Bill now.

No, I do not want to discuss the entire Bill, but I do want to state that this amendment, together with the other amendments which are to be moved by the Opposition, are intended to try and improve the legislation and to give this measure the emphasis the Minister wants to give it, i.e. that it is not the intention here to establish labour camps for a certain sector of the population, but that this Bill will be in the interests of the entire population. Where a management committee for a training centre is constituted, I hope the hon. the Minister will be prepared to have the names and qualifications of the persons who have been appointed as members published in the Government Gazette, so that the Coloured population and the entire population may have confidence in the legislation.

I would like to move the amendment as printed in my name—

I think this amendment is really self-explanatory, but I should like to give the Committee my reasons for asking that the words “or determined by the Minister” be omitted from the clause. I do not like the wide, uncircumscribed powers which are being given to the Minister in this clause as it reads at the moment. We have had previous experience of Acts which have been passed where ministerial discretion has been granted without any limitation at all. I do not think that the hon. the Minister should have further powers than to appoint a committee of management which shall advise him on matters relating to the training centre and to perform such other functions and exercise such powers as may be prescribed by the Act. I think that goes far enough, and I do not think the hon. the Minister should be allowed to extend his authority any further than the authority granted to him by the House.

In reply to the hon. member for East London (City) I just want to say that I do of course appreciate the support which the Opposition is giving to this measure; I also appreciate the expectations which they have of this measure and obviously I will welcome every constructive idea in this regard. I am able to tell hon. members that I will be able to accept some of the amendments, which I have gone into with the Department, but hon. members must not expect me, at the outset here, to accept amendments merely for the sake of good relations. That is not how one makes laws. We are here to exercise sound judgment and not merely to accept amendments to put hon. members in a good mood. There are other amendments in regard to which I am able to accommodate hon. members of the Opposition, but it is not the custom to publish the names and qualifications of members of local boards in the Government Gazette. The State appoints a great many boards for industrial schools and such institutions and the names of the members of those boards are not published in the Government Gazette. They are only published in the newspapers when that publication has particular news value, and in that way the names of the members then come to the attention of the public. But I nevertheless appreciate the underlying thought which is that one would like to have the confidence of the public as far as this matter is concerned. Unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment because then the names of all the other local boards would also have to be published in the Government Gazette, which would merely give rise to a lot of unnecessary work and publication costs. In addition the hon. member must bear in mind that the Government Gazette is not read by all members of the public.

I am prepared to accept the motion which the hon. member for Houghton moved in this connection because the omission of the relevant words do not in my opinion seriously affect the essence of the matter. The alternative would of course be to prescribe the activities and powers of the committee in the regulations. If they could be prescribed in the regulations then I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

The last thing we want is that the Minister should create a precedent for the sake of obtaining the goodwill of this side of the House, or of the public, by publishing the names of the committee of management. But I would like to put the matter to the hon. member in the following way. This is a drastic measure which has up to now been generally criticized. There would not be all that many training centres. There could only be two or three, and what difference would it make if the names of the committee members were published? Surely that would not be creating a precedent. I may just say that in the case of most of the boards the names are published in the Government Gazette. I nevertheless want to make an appeal to the Minister that if this is one of the means which will help to safeguard this legislation from criticism or suspicion, then he must surely consider publishing the names so that all can know that the names of the committee members are above suspicion. It is one of the methods of ensuring that the operation of this piece of legislation will not come under suspicion, i.e. if the names of these people were to be published. After all, the hon. the Minister will not be ashamed of those names. If he publishes them so that all may know who they are, there will be less criticism.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I will make a note of it and that when these management boards are constituted I will make the names known by means of a Press statement. They will therefore enjoy wider publicity than any publication in the Government Gazette. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Dr. J. H. Moolman put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

The effect of this amendment is to ensure that on the staff of these training centres there will be a welfare officer appointed. The reason for moving this amendment is that by the very nature of this type of training centre to be established, it would appear to be important that such a qualified person should be appointed to that staff so as to deal with the various problems that will arise from time to time concerning the persons undergoing training at that centre. We find that modern trends to-day in large industrial concerns, commercial concerns and even hospitals is that they appoint a welfare officer on their staff so as to attend to the numerous problems that arise from time to time. I believe that as this measure is one for the general upliftment of the Coloured community, and as it is possible that there will be a number of these young people between the ages of 18 and 24 who will be able to derive a great deal of benefit from the advice and guidance of a welfare officer, it should be provided for in this clause so as to indicate that this Bill aims at assisting these people. It is possible that many of them will have family problems. Some of them might even be married persons. Various domestic problems will arise and I believe it is in the interest of the cadets themselves, and also of their families, to know that there will be a person on the staff of these centres who will be able to discuss these matters with the cadets concerned.

Those cadets will not need the services of a welfare officer only, but the services of a variety of professional persons, and we are in fact of the intention to make these available to them. They will have the assistance of a psychologist, just as in the case of industrial and reformatory schools. The psychologist is a very important professional person who has to lend a hand there, and the same will happen in this case. But apart from psychologists to help to iron out their problems, these people need vocational guidance officers. We have to see to it that they receive vocational guidance at that cadet school. They will spend three months there, and then they must be able to choose where they should like to go. For that reason a vocational guidance officer is perhaps even more important than a welfare officer. There are the physical training instructors who have to help them. Those people have to be made fit. When they leave there after three months, they must have the maximum physical training behind them. In view of that we cannot designate one specific professional person to assist them. It is also intended that we shall make some of the Department’s professional officers available to these people; not necessarily on the staffs of the centres, but the centres will be in constant touch with our Department, and if they need a professional guidance officer or if it appears that there are psychological problems, we shall arrange to have these people go to help the cadets. Consequently we cannot select one of these various professional persons and mention him as one of the officers, because that would negate the services of other people who are perhaps even more important. I therefore regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

I want to ask the Minister in regard to the appointments he intends to make. We are now dealing with the officers and employees at these centres. Will the Minister give us some idea as to whether Coloured people will be employed in these particular spheres where they are competent to fill the post, or will the staff be all White? I realize that this is the beginning of something for which there is no precedent and to a certain extent the Minister must be given a free hand, but I should like to see as many competent Coloured people as possible being appointed on the staffs of these training centres, and I should imagine that by now there must be some very fine sergeant-majors and others who could be taken from the Coloured Corps and who could be employed there. I ask the Minister to consider appointing as many Coloured people to these posts as possible.

I want to make a point in regard to the appointment of a welfare officer. The Minister said there would be a trained psychologist for the purpose of giving vocational guidance and who would be an officer attached to these centres, which is a first-class suggestion. We have no objection to that at all, for a trained psychologist whose business it will be to deal with the vocational guidance background of these trainees, whether they come from respectable homes or from broken homes, would be of enormous value. But as I see it, the whole purpose of our amendment asking for a welfare officer suggests, by implication, if not directly, that such an officer should be a very real link between the trainee, with his psychological problems—and there will be many who have them—one of their greatest problems will be this question of insecurity, something which besets a child who has not been educated or trained—and the parent. A welfare officer is specifically trained, with his social welfare training, to deal with the insecure youngster and his home background. We are really thinking in terms of the link between the trainee, when he is in a camp or when he has been sent away to work somewhere, and his family or guardian or even only his mother if he is an illegitimate child. There should be some specific link not only within the camp itself as a unit but some link with the world outside in terms of social welfare and the psychological difficulties that will beset these youngsters, not only in terms of how or what they are going to be trained but in terms of their family background and their general psychological development.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may rest assured that in appointing these officials we shall take great care to look for people who can really render purposeful assistance. In fact, we are doing so right now. Right now the Department is looking for people with the proper approach to welfare work and the proper background in psychology, the proper educational background, people who have the required knowledge of physical culture. We are therefore engaged right now in finding the best people. I fear, however, that we cannot include one professional person here to the exclusion of the others.

The hon. member for Boland asked whether we would also appoint Coloureds. Of course. It is my wish that we should appoint as many Coloureds here as are available. He referred to the Coloured Corps, and we shall certainly draw on that. We have given all our colleagues in the other government departments to understand that they will have to help us a bit with people in this regard in order that we may get the right trainers to train these people. The persons in the Coloured Corps are by now skilled in this respect, and you may rest assured that we shall appoint Coloured lecturers or instructors in these training centres as fast as they become available.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, the official Opposition gave its support to this Bill in the Second Reading. We did that because we felt that it was necessary and that there were Coloureds who had to receive this kind of training. It is therefore our duty to make this a workable Bill. I move this amendment in the hope that the Minister will accept it because I feel that it is the best way of dealing with this particular problem. The Minister said yesterday in the Second Reading that he would accept an amendment moved on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Wynberg, namely that the certificate of registration should be produced within 48 hours of demand. We see certain difficulties in that regard. These were also mentioned by the Minister, namely that these people may disappear after a demand is made. On the other hand, 48 hours may not be sufficient time in which to produce the certificate. The demand may be made on a person in Cape Town whose home is in Port Elizabeth. If my amendment is accepted it will mean that the registering officer making a demand can inquire from the recruit where the certificate is and if the recruit says that it is at his home at Langebaan or in Cape Town, the registering officer can then make arrangements for him to fetch his certificate. On the other hand, if the registering officer is satisfied that the man does come from, for instance Port Elizabeth or even further afield, he can allow him a longer period in which to fetch the certificate. There is obviously no sense in giving him 48 hours if he says that the certificate is at his place of employment just across the road because he can then go across the road immediately to fetch the certificate. We want of course to avoid what happens to the Bantu. So often they leave their place of residence to walk in the street and the police demand their pass. They are not in possession of it and they are arrested straight away. That is what we want to avoid and that is why this amendment has been moved so that we do not make the position the same as is happening to the Bantu. I therefore ask the Minister to accept my amendment which I submit will be a practical one and which will ensure some measure of control by the registering officer over the recruit whose certificate is demanded.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

Its effect is briefly the following. The clause as it now stands places an onus on all Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24 to register in terms of this section but the Bill contemplates that certain categories of Coloured people shall be exempted from registration. In other words, they are exempted from the provisions of this legislation. Those exemptions are set out in clause 14 of this Bill. I want to deal with them very briefly. The hon. the Minister has been fair enough to indicate that he does not intend to apply the provisions of this Act to Coloured boys who he is satisfied are receiving full time instruction at any school or university, or if they are permanently employed in fulltime employment or if they are serving under a contract of apprenticeship, or if they are not fit to undergo training as a result of bodily or mental defects or if the recruit will be exposed to undue hardship if the recruit undergoes training or if for any other reason the recruit is not fit enough to undergo training or should not undergo training. In other words, the Minister envisages now that of necessity a large category of Coloured people will have to be exempted from the provisions of this Bill.

Unfortunately certain Coloured people, and I speak particularly of the leaders of the Coloured people, feel that an unnecessary stigma is being attached to the Coloured people generally if all of them have to submit themselves for registration under this Bill. My suggestion is that we will remove a great deal of the hardships and the stigma if this Committee were to decide that this Bill should only apply to those Coloureds who do not qualify for exemption. I think the hon. the Minister will go a long way in helping to overcome the objections that have been raised by these Coloured leaders if he were to accept the proposal which I make, that is, only to make it compulsory for those Coloured people between the ages of 18 and 24 who do not qualify for the exemptions set out in clause 14 and that only that category of individuals should be obliged to register. I know that the hon. the Minister indicated in his reply that it places an onus on the Coloured people to decide whether or not they qualify for these exemptions. That is no hardship. It is a question of fact. If a Coloured man is in fact receiving fulltime instruction at a school or university, he knows that he need not apply. He is either receiving fulltime instruction or he is not. If he is receiving fulltime instruction then he is exempted and he need not apply. If not, he cannot qualify for this exemption and he must register. He is either permanently employed in fulltime employment and serving under a contract of apprenticeship or he is not. It is a question of fact. There can be no dilly-dallying or any falsifications about this thing. They either qualify factually for these exemptions or they do not. I suggest that the hon. the Minister would go a long way towards meeting these objections if he were to accept what I suggest is a very reasonable proposal viz. to make this legislation applicable to those people who do not qualify for the exemptions enumerated in clause 14.

I have studied the amendment moved by the hon. member. Fortunately I had it beforehand. I am afraid that to my mind it destroys the whole principle of the Bill. I therefore cannot allow it.

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of amendments to this clause, as you will see on page 227 of the Order Paper. I should like to move these amendments. I do not know whether the ruling which you have just given to the hon. member for Peninsula will make it difficult for me to move a portion of this amendment.

The same ruling applies to your amendment.

Not all of it, I presume, Sir, because it only applies to the words “who is without lawful means of support” and the consequential amendment, namely to omit all the words after “section” in line 61 to the end of subsection (2). The other two amendments, which are all together here in my name, namely those relating to the production of the document within seven days and the omission of subsection (5), to not fall within your ruling.

The amendment to subsection (1) is out of order, but not the rest.

Yes, that is what I mean. I then want to speak against that part of the clause without moving my amendment to subsection (1) of clause 8, because I think that this is the most important clause in the whole Bill. It is a very far-reaching clause and it is the clause which has led me, for one, to believe that the Bill goes much too far and that it embodies mass compulsion and that it encompasses every single Coloured youth between the ages of 18 and 24, whether that young man is at a university, or still at school, or whether he is in part-time training, whether he is a seasonal worker, or whether he has any lawful means of support. I cannot understand, although the hon. the Minister says that he wishes to make this applicable to a cross-section of the Coloured community, why it is that people who are obviously not idle and people who are obviously respectable members of society, who are applying themselves to earning a living, and who are in no way jeopardizing society, as hon. members on the other side pointed out over and over again in the earlier stages of this debate, should not be excluded from the compulsion of registering. It has been said in argument that every white youth has to register for military training. Of course that is a false analogy. I would have no objection to Coloured youths having to register for military training because there is a certain honour attached to registering for military training for your country’s defence. The conditions under which white youths register for training in military establishments are quite different from the conditions under which Coloured youths are now being not asked but compelled, to register for training camps. It is absolutely no analogy whatsoever and cannot be considered as such with the S.S.B. or even the Pioneer Corps, which the hon. the Minister referred to in earlier stages of the debate. This is a different type of enrolment altogether. It is a different type of recruitment and it is a different type of training. There is no point in my developing this argument any further because hon. members are using an utterly false analogy.

This principle has already been accepted at the Second Reading.

Yes, then there is no point in arguing. But I am going to tell the hon. the Minister, which I believe I am entitled to do, why I am going to vote against this particular clause. I believe this to be the most important clause in the Bill. Since we cannot move any material amendments to this clause, nothing that is done in the Committee Stage of this Bill is really going to improve it to such an extent that I for one would be able to support it at the Third Reading. If the hon. the Minister had found it possible to narrow the ambit of this particular clause, so that it did not encompass every Coloured boy …

Order! The hon. member is now arguing against my ruling.

I am not moving that portion of my amendment. I am simply saying that because one cannot move any amendment in Committee to this, the most important prin-ciple in the Bill, as far as I am concerned, the other amendments which the hon. the Minister accepts, do not mean a material alteration to the Bill—not that I am not duly grateful for those amendments which he does accept. This, to me, would have been the most important amendment we could have obtained.

I should like to move the second part of the amendment, namely in line 8, page 6 to omit “on” and to substitute “within seven days of”. This is the portion of the amendment which is in order. I should like to extend the period, which the hon. the Minister said he would accept, in which a recruit must produce the registration certificate, from 48 hours to seven days. I have very good reasons for doing so. As the hon. member for Transkei has pointed out, 48 hours is a very short time indeed to enable a recruit to present himself at the police station in order to clear himself of any culpability under this Bill. Seven days is the period allowed any citizen to produce his identity card, should it be demanded. That is the reason why I have made it seven days. I think I am right in saying that one is given seven days in which to produce a driver’s licence if one is involved in any sort of accident.

21 days.

The fact that it is 21 days strengthens my case. I thank the hon. member. This is a very important matter, because it carries with it heavy penalties. It means that if the would-be recruit cannot produce this registration certificate, he is liable to severe penalties, namely a heavy fine and/or imprisonment. Therefore I think that every opportunity should be given to the young men to produce these certificates. For instance it may take a long time to prove that a young man is not yet 18 years old. It is left to any policeman on the street to go to a young Coloured man and say: Produce your registration certificate. The young man will say: I am not yet 18. The policeman can say: I do not believe you. You must produce proof of this within 48 hours. The hon. the Minister must know how long it takes to obtain a duplicate of a birth certificate, for instance. It is a lengthy business. Very often it takes white citizens very long to get duplicates. How much more difficult is it for a Coloured youth, who may not even know how to proceed to obtain such a certificate, and equally to prove that he is over 24 years of age, and has escaped the upper limits of recruitment? In other words, it is very difficult to say at sight whether a young Coloured man is 17 or 18 years old or whether he is 24 or 25 years of age. Therefore, because the non-production on demand carries with it heavy penalties and because this is one of the features of the Bill to which much objection has been voiced by the Coloured people themselves, because it carries with it all the slurs of being dragged to a police station, arrested, convicted, and so on. I ask the hon. the Minister seriously to consider whether he will not extend this 48-hour period, which he has intimated he will accept, to the very reasonable period of seven days so as to allow the Coloured youth a really full opportunity firstly of producing the registration certificate or secondly of proving that he is not yet 18 years old or that he is older than 24. I think this is a very reasonable amendment and I hope the hon. the Minister will seriously consider accepting it.

There is another portion of the amendment which I have to move, namely to omit the whole of subsection (5). I do not like this power which is given to any registering officer, who can be any policeman or anybody to whom this authority is delegated by the hon. the Minister, to arrest without warrant any person whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of having contravened or failed to comply with the provisions of subsections (1) to (4), and thereafter to drag him off to the police station and to charge him under the normal Criminal Procedure Act. Then, within 48 hours he has to be brought before a magistrate and charged. I think this is a very far-reaching power indeed and I do not see any reason why this should be included. I move the following amendments—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the pleas of the hon. member for Transkei and also the hon. member for Houghton. In addition I had the opportunity this morning to give some further consideration to these amendments. I am prepared to accept this amendment relating to the period of seven days. One has to form a conception of the problems experienced by a Coloured from Bloemfontein, for example, if he walks about in Cape Town, so far from his home, and is asked by somebody to produce his certificate within 48 hours. Consequently I am prepared to accept the period of seven days. This will presumably also satisfy the hon. member for Transkei, because he asked for a reasonable period. For the sake of the record, however, I want to reiterate what I said last night. If in future it appears that this provision is ineffectual I will not hesitate to introduce an amendment to delete this stipulation. If it becomes apparent that this is abused to such an extent, that it is going to be evaded to such an extent by the very Coloured youths we want to get into the centres, that the measure becomes ineffectual to a certain extent, I want to tell hon. members right now that they should not later reproach me if I propose that the amendment be deleted.

As regards the proposal of the hon. member with regard to subsection (5), I fear I cannot accept it. In terms of the subsection the police must have reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been a contravention or an omission. This is not just going to be a case of arbitrary arrest. They will at least have to be convinced that there are reasonable grounds on which to take in such a person. If I were to follow the course suggested by the hon. member and delete this provision, it would mean that such a person would have to be summonsed and would then have to appear in court. Well, they are just the type of people who are hard to bring to book and be committed to the centre where they belong. To follow this cumbersome or protracted procedure in such cases would really not contribute towards making this measure effective. Consequently I cannot accept this amendment to subsection (5). I do accept the one referred to above.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has indicated that he is accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I wish to withdraw my amendment. As I pointed out to the Minister, I moved the amendment because we foresaw many troubles and difficulties which he also foresaw, and I thought this was a more workable and practical way of dealing with the problems. However, in view of the fact that the Minister is accepting the amendment relating to the seven days period, I withdraw my amendment, with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment proposed by Mr. T. G. Hughes withdrawn, with leave.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has indicated quite frankly to the hon. member for Houghton that he will not accept the amendment deleting subsection (5). However, I hope the Minister will be as kind to the amendment which I propose to move now as he has been in regard to subsection 8 (4) which now grants a person seven days in which to produce proof of registration. I do feel that subsection (5) is a subsection which could cause a little bit of heartache to Coloured people. Because, Sir, a registering officer, who could be a policeman, can just go up to a Coloured boy and say, “I suspect that you did not comply with the law, you did not register.” I wish to move an amendment in which I ask the Minister also to grant a little time in this regard, and which reads as follows—

In other words, we want to try and remove from this Bill the right of a policeman to go up to a Coloured man and say, “Look, I suspect that you have not complied with the law”, whereupon, if the man gives him some excuse, he can say, “I do not believe you”, and then he can take the man to prison. The Minister has indicated that if he experiences problems because of his concession in regard to the seven days period, then he would have no hesitation in withdrawing it in future. Well, Sir, I am prepared to accept the same conditions in regard to my amendment. If the Minister finds that, when a man is called upon to register within 48 hours after being requested to do so by a registering officer, he fails to do so, he can change the legislation to read as it does at present. I do want to give an opportunity to these boys who, for some reason or other have not registered, to do so. In a number of cases we will be dealing with boys who are not educated, boys who do not understand things and who do not know very much about this measure. I do want to give them an opportunity to comply with the law after being warned by a registering officer to do so within 48 hours. The following will then happen. A registering officer goes up to a boy and tells him that he suspects him of not having registered, whereupon the boy admits that he has failed to do so. He can then be warned to have himself registered within 48 hours, and his name and address are taken. The same principle applies in the case of the seven day amendment. His name and address are taken, and it is accepted that he will comply with the law. I do appeal to the Minister that there should in this case not be an arrest without a warrant, without the person involved being given some opportunity of complying with the law. I have made the period 48 hours. I ask that subsection (5) be deleted and substituted by the subsection I have read out, namely that a registering officer shall call upon any person whom he suspects of not having registered to do so within 48 hours, and if he does not do so then he shall be guilty of an offence. If the Minister should be good enough to accept this amendment, consequential amendments can be made as to what offence will be committed and what fine will have to be paid. I make an appeal to the Minister to remove this irksome little subsection which is causing quite a bit of ill-feeling and heartache amongst the Coloured people. I ask him to give them an opportunity to register within 48 hours. I do hope that the Minister will accept my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I fear this is an unnecessary amendment. In view of the amendment I have just said I would accept, namely that a person would have seven days in which to produce his certificate, a magistrate would surely have some very grave things to say to a constable if he simply arrested a man without cause or without reasonable grounds. In view of the provision that he will have seven days in which to produce his certificate, I really think it is superfluous to adopt this amendment to subsection (5). Consequently I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boland.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for saying that he will accept the amendment concerning the production of documents within seven days. I am very pleased about that, and I am sure that all the Coloured people will be very pleased, too. I must say, however, that I still cannot accept the clause, even with the amendment because, as I said previously, this to me is the most important part of the whole Bill. I hope that the Minister understands that I am going to vote against the clause, even as amended.

Yes, we understand each other.

In other words, there is “no prejudice”. I want to see if I cannot persuade the Minister to change his mind about omitting subsection (5) of this clause. I really feel that it is very important. I feel that a Minister who introduces clauses such as this do not really have experience of what this means in actual practice when it is implemented. This is always what worries me. I use the analogy, for instance, of the policeman who has the right to stop any African in the street and demand his pass, to see whether that man has permission to be in the urban area. If he has a reasonable doubt that the African may be in the urban area without permission, off the man is taken to the police station. The police stations are full and, later, the courts are full with these cases which are dealt with with a minimum of ceremony, with no defence being provided for these people—they are mostly poor people and cannot afford to be represented—and our gaols are cluttered up with these people. Well, Sir, I foresee the same sort of thing happening in this regard to Coloured people.

I know that the hon. the Minister himself does not want this to happen. This is not his intention in retaining this subsection in the clause. But quite inevitably this is what the implementation of this subsection is going to mean. It is going to mean that any policeman—for a registering officer is any policeman, or any person to whom the Minister delegates this authority, according to the definitions clause—any person who has this authority can stop any Coloured youth whom he believes to fall within the ages of 18 and 24 and, if he believes that this person has contravened this particular clause, he can take him off to the police station.

He must have reasonable grounds.

Yes, but who is to decide what constitutes reasonable grounds? These words look fine in print and they even sound like nice phrases when one uses them but when they are being implemented they do not mean a thing. Has any Coloured youth got the knowledge or the courage to say to a policeman who says to him, “I have reasonable grounds for believing that you are committing an offence in terms of section 8 of the Coloured Cadets Training Act”, “What are your reasonable grounds?” It is just ludicrous. These things do not happen in real life. I cannot imagine a non-white person who is confronted by a policeman being allowed to argue with him. My experience is that what happens is that there is a bit of rough handling; the person concerned is thrown into the van and taken off to the police station. That in fact is what the implementation of this clause is going to mean—crowded police cells, crowded courts and crowded gaols. I think that this is a very dangerous clause. It is going to lead to great racial friction. I want to point out that it is the implementation of this sort of power that is given to policemen vis-à-vis the African population in South Africa that has been one of the great single causes of racial friction in this country and I say with all the persuasiveness at my command that this is a very dangerous subsection, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will omit it.

I want to point out that my amendment follows the wording of subsection (5) as it reads at the moment. All I am asking the hon. the Minister is to give the man a chance to register instead of being arrested. The hon. the Minister has indicated that this is unnecessary because of the concession that he has made in the previous subsection, but the concession that the hon. the Minister has made is to a man who is already registered and who has not got his registration certificate on him. He will now have an opportunity of producing it within seven days. But as far as subsection (5) is concerned, I am trying to obviate the arrest of the person concerned by giving him an opportunity to register instead of being arrested on what a policeman regards as reasonable grounds and taken to prison. I fail to see the connection between the concession made in the previous subsection and the concession for which I ask in this subsection, and I can only repeat my appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept my amendment.

Quite frankly, I do not see as many ghosts as some hon. members on this side are seeing. I do not think for one moment that the police will arrest people left and right, but I should like to associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Boland, for the following reasons: A white youth has to register within a certain period in the year in which he becomes 16 years old. If he fails to register he commits an offence, and if that comes to light he is summonsed and has to appear in court. But here we have a case where Coloureds may perhaps fail to register on account of ignorance. We have to accept that among the Coloured community there will be a greater lack of knowledge about the provisions of this measure, as a result of a lower educational standard, than among the Whites. I do feel that cases will occur where Coloureds will be arrested unnecessarily, and that they should be given an opportunity to register if they have not yet done so. For that reason I associate myself with the request of the hon. member for Boland to the Minister, to accept his amendment. While I am on my feet, I just want to say that I subscribe wholeheartedly to the principle of total registration as embodied in the Bill. Yesterday I pleaded that compulsory military service should be introduced for all Coloureds, and if this principle of general registration as embodied in the Bill were to fall away, the principle of compulsory military service for Coloureds would become unenforceable, for if there is no general registration there will not be a general record of all able-bodied men. In this regard I want to remind the hon. member for Houghton of the fact that she herself said during the Second Reading Debate that she would support this measure if it were aimed at military training. With these few words I want to subscribe to the principle of general registration.

Order! The principle of general registration is not under discussion.

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but if there were to be a division in this House …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to talk about divisions now. The hon. member must resume his seat if he cannot confine himself to the clause.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I would then just ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to the amendment of the hon. member for Boland. I really do envisage that cases may occur which may give rise to incidents prejudicial to the endeavour made here to do something great for the benefit of the Coloured population.

I just want to point out that the words “reasonable grounds” have already been interpreted by our courts in respect of other laws. I do not have the cases at hand, but if I remember correctly the courts found—this actually relates to section 36 of the General Laws Amendment Act of 1935—that the constable shall have all reasonable facts at his disposal when he takes action. In all respect I want to suggest for your consideration that that means that a constable shall arrest a Coloured only if he has facts at his disposal which indicate that the Coloured failed to register or has no intention of registering. In my humble opinion this clause is most essential, because there are going to be Coloureds who are not going to register or who do not want to register. There will be informers who will bring those facts to the attention of the police, and in terms of this clause the police will have the right to take action.

We have to bear in mind that this measure is intended to solve a problem which really exists. In other words, strict measures should be taken, particularly in the initial stages, and especially if one has regard to the agitation that has taken place against the Bill. The hon. the Minister included among the provisions of the Bill the stipulation that there is a three-month period in which to register, and after that he made a further concession, namely that a person who has registered will be allowed a period of seven days in which to produce his registration certificate. This concession will have the effect that such registration will be permissive, on 48 hours’ notice. That will be the result.

It will have the result that the man who wishes to evade it will merely wait until somebody accosts him and will then use the 48 hours’ period. Then they will have to be tracked down all over again. That detracts a great deal from the power of the law. In more than one respect it makes the law ineffectual, particularly in its initial operation. For that reason I really feel that the Minister cannot make this concession, because surely such a person will not be arrested until seven days have elapsed.

No matter how accommodating I might like to be, I fear this will serve no useful purpose. Perhaps I may reassure the hon. members for Boland, Houghton and Outeniqua, who have strong feelings about the matter, by saying that it is not the object of the measure to put people in gaol. If we could just get rid of that idea, we could see the matter much more objectively. The object is not to catch people left and right and put them in gaol. In my introductory speech I said that we were not going to carry out large-scale raids. That is not the object. One wants to have them disciplined, and one wants to have as many as possible in these centres. That is the principal object of the Bill, and consequently one has to form a conception of the way in which it will be enforced, and of the fact that the police will also assist in implementing the measure. As the hon. member for Prinshof put it, they will be able to take action only on valid grounds. If a youth is arrested, it is not the intention to put him in gaol and try to rehabilitate him that way. In practice such arrest will actually result in his registration. It is sought, by means of the police, to get the man who has failed to register, to do so. But if this provision is not formulated in such strong terms the police will be powerless, and they will be called upon to do us a great service in this regard. The police are by no means anxious to do this work. We had to ask them please to do it for us because we do not have the machinery to do so ourselves. They will perform it in this way, and for that reason I really do not think hon. members should insist on this amendment.

First amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman and amendment proposed by Mr. C. Barnett put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division.

Clause, as amended, declared agreed to.

Clause 10:

I move my amendment—

I should like to bring it to the Minister’s attention that in this case it is only one board, a statutory board, which is not very large. This is where the mechanism of the Bill begins, through the appointment of a Selection Board to select the cadets. In actual fact this is a procedure which has always been followed in the establishment of statutory boards, to publish the names of the members of the board in the Government Gazette. At this stage I do not want to say anything further about that. I just want to thank the Minister for the goodwill he showed a moment ago when he promised, although he was not prepared to accept the amendment, to give the names the widest possible publicity.

I fear the argument I advanced a moment ago in respect of a similar amendment applies in this case too, and we cannot publish them in the Government Gazette, but I also stand by my undertaking that this selection board will be afforded the widest possible publicity.

It is a statutory board, and why would the Minister have a provision in respect of this statutory board which differs from that in respect of all other statutory boards?

That is not the case. There are hundreds of boards of which the names of members are not published in the Government Gazette.

Then I must thank the Minister for the fact that he is prepared to give them wide publicity, but that does not detract from the fact that in the case of just this one board, which is to select all the cadets going to the centres, it is most desirable to publish the names and qualifications of the members of the board. It would inspire the greatest possible confidence in these centres if the public knew who these people were. Once again I want to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter, because it is only board and will not create a precedent. I think it would be wise and would facilitate the administration of the Act if the public knew who were going to select the cadets. It would inspire confidence in the legislation.

I am fully in sympathy with the hon. member’s plea, and it is right that we should make it well known who will be on the selection board. It will inspire confidence, but my argument is the same as that of a moment ago. Its publication in the Government Gazette does not bring it home to the public. How many people read the Government Gazette? I wonder whether there are three members in this House who read it regularly. It is not reading matter for the man in the street. The undertaking I have given, that I shall announce in a Press statement who has been appointed on the board, together with the qualifications of those people, should meet the hon. member’s request.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, an amendment does appear on the Order Paper in my name. It is not a very material amendment as I shall be the first to admit but I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to me how he envisages the prescribed manner of serving the notice for the calling up of recruits.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which asked for a “registered cover” actually includes the methods which are to be used. It will be one of the methods, but it will not be the only one. In some cases it may be delivered by hand, as in the case of a person who does not have a fixed address, but wherever possible it will be sent under registered cover. I do not think we should restrict ourselves by legislation to doing it in only this one way.

In view of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I shall not move my amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, this clause as amended by my amendments might sound awfully involved but I submit that it is a slight change from the clause as it stands but that it is an amendment which is essential to my way of thinking. It is not in conflict with the wishes of the Coloured people or, I submit, in conflict with the stated intentions of the hon. the Minister. Mr. Tom Swartz, the recognized leader of the Coloured people has said:

Mr. Swartz referred to skollies, won’t-works and youngsters who drift into crime and delinquency after leaving school. He asked that they should be brought under discipline and given training. I am sure that he and the council which he represents and the people whom he represents did not envisage that this scheme would call up for training responsible Coloured youths, those who are receiving instruction in schools and other such institutions and those who are permanently employed in full-time employment and those serving under a contract of apprenticeship. That is the reason why, in my amendment, I suggested that it should be mandatory upon the board, on production of satisfactory proof, to exempt for such time and under such conditions as they might determine, those youths who fall within these categories. Similarly, as I said earlier, it is apparent from the words of the hon. the Minister when he introduced this measure in this House that he too did not intend to call up these responsible Coloured youths. I want to quote from Hansard, column 1554, where the hon. the Minister of Coloured affairs says:

No reference is made here to responsible youths who are at school or who are in employment. I wish to quote further from Hansard, column 1556, where the Minister said:

As the clause stands there is a possibility that these responsible youths may be called up for training. It is obvious from the period of training that they will have to undergo that this training will of necessity only be of an elementary nature. Not very much detail in any particular trade can be taught in a period of only nine months. Therefore I submit that it will be better for these youths to remain at work or at school or university. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say this. The effect of this amendment, if it is accepted, will not compromise the Minister in any way nor will it derogate from his powers or from the powers of the board, nor will it affect the efficaciousness of this measure. It will merely give a more definite directive to the board as to who shall be exempted. I submit that the clause as amended still covers all eventualities or contingencies that may arise. Provision is still made for the board to exercise its discretion in the granting of exemptions and particularly as regards the period of exemption and the conditions under which the exemption is granted. The acceptance of this amendment by the Minister will, I submit, satisfy the misgivings of many people and will establish his bona fides.

It is not necessary for the hon. member to move the latter part of his amendment, as it is a consequential amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking now because certain aspects of the amendment moved by the hon. member are the same as the amendment which I have on the Order Paper on page 227. I shall therefore be speaking to his amendment and I shall also be going further and speaking to my amendment at the same time. I wish to move the amendment to clause 14 standing in my name on page 227 of the Order Paper, which reads as follows:

Like the hon. member I also have a mistake in this amendment, although I must admit that the mistake is mine. I did not check it carefully enough. I should therefore like to move an amendment to my amendment namely in paragraphs (b) and (c) to omit the word “not”. They are typographical errors.

It is not necessary to move an amendment. That can be done clerically.

Sir, this was my mistake and nobody else’s. The word “not” has inadvertently been printed twice, owing to my error. For the rest, the amendment is as it is printed on the Order Paper. This clause, together with clause 8—it in fact links up with clause 8—to my mind are the most important clauses of this particular measure. This clause is an exemption clause which I feel should be mandatory and should not be permissive. In other words, it should state “the board shall” exempt all persons who are in employment or at any school, and I have added “training college and technical college” to the permissive exemptions which already exist in the Bill. I also go on to add “any person who is enrolled at any recognized institution for extra mural study for any school standard or university degree or diploma”. I do this obviously because there are many people who, although they are not in full-time occupations at schools or at the universities, are in fact studying. They are attempting to improve their training for gainful occupations. I do not feel that they should be taken away from this to go to the training centres. I believe that what they are doing is what they have selected to do and that they are therefore more likely to be useful citizens when they have completed the training they have chosen than when they have completed the training the Minister’s Board chooses for them, when they thereafter can be placed in any employment that the Minister’s board decides on. I also add “part-time employment and enrolment for any continuation, adult education or other recognized course of study”. I think that is self-explanatory. I want the exemptions extended to include further categories, and, most important, I want the exemptions made mandatory for these particular people and not permissive as they are in the Bill as it stands. There is a further class of person I wish to be included in the mandatory exemption. That of course is the recruit who has undergone a course of training in terms of this Bill. This may seem redundant, but my reason for putting this in is that nowhere in the Bill, as it stands, can I find any provision which exempts a Coloured youth from a further period of recruitment once he has served his year’s training or the two years’ training within the period of three years as is laid down by a subsequent clause. I see nothing in this Bill that exempts him from being called up again. After all, this stretches over six years. I may be wrong, but I want this explained to me. I want it put in the Bill to make absolutely certain that I am not wrong, because I cannot see any provision in this Bill which does not give the Minister the power to recall a recruit. Anybody between the ages of 18 and 24, as I read this Bill, is a recruit. He becomes a cadet once he is actually called up for training. He is a recruit who must register the minute he turns 18 and he remains a recruit until he passes the age of 24. My reading of the Bill as it stands now, is that he is at the beck and call of the Minister’s board at any time during those six years. It is true that he can only serve one year plus one year in any three year period, but there is a remaining period of three years in the six year period. What is to stop this young man, if he does not then find himself in gainful employment, or even if he is in gainful employment, since he is not mandatorily exempt, from being called up a second time, because technically speaking he remains a recruit. This is another big difference between a White youth who signs on for military training and a Coloured youth. Once he has completed his year of compulsory military training and has become liable for service thereafter at a camp for a couple of weeks in the next few years, he is exempt. There is no question of his being at the beck and call of the Minister of Defence.

You should see the new Bill.

Then we shall fight the new Bill on the same grounds, I trust. This time we may even oppose it, may we not? After all, this concerns a different section of the population. To complete my argument, I see nothing at all in the Bill, as it stands, unless the Minister can explain to me where I have gone wrong, which lays down that a Coloured youth liable for recruitment between the ages of 18 and 24 cannot become a cadet more than once, since this extends over a six year period of the boy’s life. As I have said, he is liable in terms of the Bill to serve one year at a training centre, a possible further year at a training centre within a three year limit, but a further three years of the six year period still remain. That is why I have included in my list of compulsory exemptions “the recruit has undergone a course of training in terms of this Act”. I asked the hon. the Minister either to accept that or to explain to me why it is not necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the hon. the Minister, in granting these exemptions, has gone much further than in the case of those people who have to undergo military training. We are thankful for these opportunities of exemption, but I see some practical difficulties. I think that the hon. the Minister will accept what I say as being constructive in connection with this clause. Perhaps I should have moved an amendment to clause 10, but I hope that the Minister will consider accepting an amendment in the Other Place to meet the requests I now shall put to him.

Is the hon. member now going back to clause 10?

No, I am merely telling the hon. the Minister that what I suggest may require a consequential amendment to clause 10, which the Minister cannot accept now, of course. I should like to save some time in connection with these exemptions. If we bear in mind that it may take a little while before the board deals with exemptions and that a Coloured boy who is in permanent employment may be on tenterhooks as to whether or not he will lose his employment and become a recruit, we realize that his employer may not be as kind to him as employers should be. The employer may say: You have applied for registration. When are you going to go? The boy will say: I do not know. The employer may say: If there is uncertainty, I shall look for someone who can stay permanently. I should like to see some sort of haste in regard to this matter. I should like to suggest that in the first place the Minister may consider an exemption board to deal with exemptions strictly and that a recruit, as soon as he a plies for registration, should simultaneously apply for his exemption so that there will be no delay. I shall be glad if the Minister will accept this suggestion that there can be simultaneous application for registration and exemption so that there will be no delay. The clause now states: “The board may at any time …”. There is no time limit. The Coloured boy registers. He applies for exemption, and the board may at any time consider his application. As the hon. the Minister has already indicated, the principle of this Bill will be carried out in a manner which will give the least offence and will not be irksome. May I then suggest to the Minister that he may consider this question of the board, which I have referred to. Mr. Speaker, I should like to see the establishment of an exemptions board who will deal with these exemptions so that the people who are affected in terms of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and the other subsection should know at the earliest possible opportunity whether or not they are exempted. I think this will help considerably. I want to ask the Minister whether he will accept my suggestion. I do not want to move my amendment yet. If the Minister will accept this proposal, I will move an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boland need not introduce an amendment to that effect. His suggestion is adequate. In fact, it is our intention to have exemptions of this nature take place simultaneously with the registration in order to expedite matters. At the first registration 90,000 will be registered, of whom only 1,000 can ultimately be admitted to the training centres, and for that reason the administration must be streamlined as much as possible. It is therefore our intention to arrange it accordingly by way of regulation.

As regards the query by the hon. member for Houghton with regard to the period of service, it is of course defined in clause 16. Clause 16 provides for a year’s service which may be extended by a further year. Extending the period of service will be considered if the progress which the Coloured concerned makes at camp in the course of the year is not satisfactory. The object of these centres is to discipline people, to make them better prople. If it therefore appears that there is a case here and there in respect of whom a great deal of trouble has been taken but that there is no evidence of the desired progress, I think such a case should be detained for a further year. That is the object of clause 16. It is by no means the intention to train people for six years. That is not the intention, nor is it provided in the measure.

As regards the amendments moved by the two hon. members, I fear I cannot accept them. The reason is that they also affect the heart of this measure. It is correct to say that in addition to clause 8 clause 14 is the most important clause in the measure. It cannot be lightly amended, otherwise the whole meaning of the measure will be affected. To ask that people who are in part-time employment should also be exempted is actually to make the legislation ineffectual. What does “part-time employment” mean? To-day he is selling bags and tomorrow he sells bottles. That is called part-time employment. But this is the very type of person whom we want to train in order that he may make a decent livelihood and have no need to sell bags and bottles. I fear that to accept this amendment would really frustrate the provision, and the object of the measure.

As regards the request relating to the definition of “school”, to the effect that it should also include a college, etc., I want to say that it is unnecessary. Because, Sir, a “school” presupposes that if a person is not attending an ordinary school, it may be a vocational school or a technical college, etc. Surely it goes without saying that those places are also included. It is not necessary to mention every single institution by name in the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot follow the Minister’s reasoning. When the Minister introduced this Bill, and in the light of remarks made outside by him, it was clear that he only intended to get at the Coloured youth who is not in full employment of is not studying, either at school or at university. He intended to get at the youth who needed training for work and who was unemployed—perhaps he was not employable. That is the type of youth he intended getting at. In the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) we have done exactly what the Minister said he intended doing. It is exactly what he said. If the Minister goes through the amendment I want to ask him what does he object to in the first portion of the amendment? The first portion says that the board “ ‘shall’ … exempt …”. Who shall it exempt? It shall exempt, “the recruit (who) is or will be receiving full-time instruction at any school or university”. Is it the Minister’s intention to recruit these people who are receiving full-time instruction at any school or university? Is it his intention to make them cadets? Is it his intention to put them into training camps?

No, and I have stated so over and over again.

Exactly. The Minister has stated it over and over again. Is it his intention to recruit somebody who is permanently employed in full-time employment or is serving under a contract of apprenticeship?

No, of course not.

No, it is not the Minister’s intention. Well, all that we seek to do with this amendment is to put all this into this legislation. We want to make it quite clear in this measure that those types of Coloured youths shall not be put into training camps. If it is not the Minister’s intention to recruit that type of youth, why will he not embody it in his measure? Why can he not put it in the law? It is not the Minister who is going to decide this issue—it is going to be the board. The Minister says to us that it is not his intention that this type of youth shall be recruited. Why then does he not include such a provision in this legislation so that the board can be compelled to carry out the intention of the Minister? After all, we do not know yet who the board is going to be. We cannot ask the board whom they intend recruiting. This Parliament must give instructions to the board through an Act of Parliament. All that we ask is that the Minister make it quite clear in the Act to the board whom they may recruit and whom they may not. That deals with the first portion of the amendment.

With regard to the second portion, the Minister says that he cannot exempt a youth who is in part-time employment, for instance, one who may be hawking on the one day and doing something else on the next. The amendment does not say that that type of youth “must” be exempted. It gives the board the power to exempt him, if it wishes to do so. It “may” exempt him. That is the type of youth the board may want to exempt. He may be in part-time employment and at the same time he may be in part-time study. All we are saying here to the board is, if it finds a youth of that nature and it thinks he should be exempted, it may exempt him. Again I ask: What fault can the Minister find with that?

I again ask the Minister to reconsider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I do not think that the Minister has considered the amendment as fully as he should have. I want to tell the Minister that if he accepts this amendment, then all that we are doing is writing into the law what the Minister says he intends doing.

Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this matter a little further because, as I said before, this is my amendment as well. I want it to be mandatory on the board to exempt certain persons, such as people in school or university, or in full-time employment, and those who are in part-time employment but who are also doing courses at a university, etc. I think that as the clause stands at present it in any case does not make sense. As the clause reads, the board may exempt only certain classes of youths. Presumably it “shall”, therefore, call up everybody else. The Minister will in any case not be able to do this because he will not have sufficient accommodation. The only permissive exemptions are those laid down in clause 14. Surely those should be made mandatory exemptions and anything else should be permissive in the discretion of the board.

Included in this additional class of person whom I want to be included in the list of mandatory exemptions, is the recruit who has already undergone a course of training. The Minister explained to me—and I may be very dense about this because I think he is still going to have to explain further to me before I can accept it—that clause 16 contained the necessary provision to make sure that somebody who has served his training is not called up again. But may I point out that clause 16 refers to a cadet and not to a recruit? A cadet is a person who has actually been called up for training and finds himself in one of these training centres or has been placed in work from these training centres. He is a cadet. But the minute he has served his year or two years he reverts to being a recruit. The Bill as it reads now does not exempt recruits who have already served their periods of training from being called up again. All I am asking the hon. the Minister to do is to make doubly certain that there is no loophole in this measure, a loophole which could make it possible for the board to call up a second time a young man who has been a cadet already, who has served his period of training and who has reverted to being a recruit the moment he left the training centre. The term “recruit” applies to all Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24. Let us take the case of a young Coloured man who is registered at the age of 18, is called up and sent to a training centre. Immediately that happens to him, he becomes a cadet. Thereafter he may serve during his 18th year and could be required to serve also during his 19th year, if the board so desires. Thereafter he is released and immediately becomes a recruit again because he is still not 24 years of age. I submit that the Bill as it reads now makes it possible for a further period of training to be imposed on a man up to the age of 24 years. I am only asking the Minister to make doubly certain of what he assures me is his intention. The position, then, as I see it is that once a cadet has served his one or two years within the first three years, what is there to exempt him from being called up again during the next period of three years?

That is not the intention.

I know it is not the intention and, therefore, I accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance. But, surely, the hon. the Minister must agree with me that there is some doubt about this in the law as it stands at the moment.

I feel that as far as the last point made by the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, she does not need assurances from the hon. the Minister. I should like to refer the hon. member to clause 16, which reads as follows—

Therefore I think it is clear that this training must fall within the three-year period and that thereafter it will not go any further.

It could be twice in six years.

No. I do not agree with the hon. member. I submit that the clause is quite clear on this point.

As far as the hon. the Minister’s attitude to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is concerned, I should like to ask him to reconsider it. The Minister said this was the “hart van die maat-reël”. I agree. I think this is the right ventricle but I think there is a left ventricle as well. This Bill has, so to speak, two hearts and this is one of them and is a very important part of the Bill. But I think that when the hon. Minister said that this amendment affected the whole meaning of this particular clause and of the Bill, he did not say exactly what he meant. We have had words, words and words. We have had assurances from the hon. the Minister, assurances which we accept. We accept what the hon. Minister says he wishes to do. But here is an opportunity for the Minister to make his words and his intentions the law. I appreciate that when one drafts something one sometimes drafts it very wide initially in trying to deal with an evil. But we must analyse this clause in the light of the Minister’s intentions as he stated them to be. Now we must say whether this clause makes provision for too much, or too little or just enough. The Minister now has before him the whole text of the clause as it will read if the hon. member’s amendment is accepted. While the hon. member for Transkei was addressing the Committee, the Minister interjected and said that this was his intention and we accept that this is his intention. But, as was pointed out, it is not the Minister’s intention that matters because it is the intentions of the Board which are going to have practical effect. Well, if the hon. the Minister does not wish those persons categorized in this amendment to fall within the purview of those provisions which provide that there shall be compulsory training, then surely the hon. the Minister must accept this amendment. You see, Sir, we agree that all persons between the ages of 18 and 24 should register—otherwise the Minister cannot achieve the objects of this Bill. But after having registered and after having sorted out how many there are, then we have to decide who shall be exempted. All the amendment seeks is to ensure that after there has been a registration the wish of the majority of members in this House that those persons specified in (a) and (b) shall not undergo training be ensured in law. The amendment makes provision for the sort of circumstance which the hon. the Minister foresees might occur—that is, either these persons shall be exempted permanently or they shall be exempted having regard to such employment, education or apprenticeships, as the case may be, for such period and on such conditions as the board may determine. This means that if someone tells the board that he is in permanent employment the board can say that he will be exempted on condition that he remains in permanent employment throughout the six years. This amendment, therefore, gives to the board an additional discretion. This the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton does not do. The position then will be that the board will have the discretion to exempt such people permanently, having regard to circumstances which we cannot discuss here because each case differs from the other. For instance, if a youth at the age of 22 is in the second year of his medical studies the board can exempt him permanently because there are only two years left during which the measure can apply to him. In the case of a young Coloured of 18 years of age, who says he is employed permanently the board can also exempt him on condition that he remains in permanent employment. Surely this is exactly what the hon. the Minister wants, and that being the case, this is exactly what he says.

I do hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider his attitude towards this amendment. It is meant, as the hon. member for Transkei has said, merely to encompass within the words of the Bill the intention and the words of the hon. the Minister as he expressed them in his Second Reading speech.

I think there is no difference as far as our intention is concerned, namely that Coloureds who are in permanent employment or who are studying should be exempted. As far as this intention is concerned, there is no difference between this side and that side of the House. Where we do differ, as appears from this discussion, is in respect of the discretion of the board. I am prepared to give the board full discretion, and the Opposition is not prepared to do that. This board we are going to appoint will consist of very competent persons, so competent that hon. members of the Opposition pleaded here to-day that their names should be published in the Government Gazette, in addition to the other publication media. The board will consist of persons in whom I shall have confidence. I am not going to appoint figureheads there. If I have confidence in the board I have to prove that confidence by not begrudging them a discretion. Apart from the discretion it is also a question of common sense. Can hon. members imagine the members of this board, in whom I shall have confidence and who will have a discretion, acting like fools and not granting exemptions to persons who are studying full-time or who are in permanent employment? I am not going to restrict the discretion of this board in the Act. Surely, if we do not want to give the board a discretion, we need not appoint such a board, because in that case we can simply use a computer to determine to whom exemption should be granted. I am not prepared to accept the amendment. This board will exercise its discretion in a reasonable manner, in a manner which will correspond exactly with what hon. members of the Opposition want. There may be odd cases in which the circumstances are such that the board in its discretion may deem it necessary that the person concerned undergo training. I am not prepared to restrict the discretion of the board in this regard.

The hon. member for Houghton mentioned the further calling-up of people and she contended that people might perhaps be trained for six years. That will not happen. It will be laid down by regulation that certificates are to be issued to those who have received their training in these centres. Those certificates will then serve as proof of the fact that they have attended those centres.

I appreciate that the hon. the Minister has correctly described the difference between us as having been narrowed down to the question as to whether or not a discretion should be given to the board. The question of the granting of this discretion is one of the most fundamental issues in this whole matter. Sir, I want to deal with the Minister’s own approach to this problem and ask him whether there is justification for giving this board an unfettered discretion in cases in which the Minister feels that the board should in any event grant exemption. In other words, are we not placing an unnecessary burden on this board by giving it a discretionary power instead of imposing an obligation upon them to grant exemption in the case of persons who are in full-time employment or who are still receiving education? Let me take the Minister’s own estimate as to the number of people who will qualify for training. The hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech that he anticipated that there would be some 90,000 registrations in the first year. According to the statistics of the bureau the number of Coloured male persons between the ages of 18 and 24 years will be considerably higher. According to the bureau, which gives two age groups, there are 9.5 per cent between the ages of 15 and 19 and 8.9 per cent between the ages of 20 and 24. In other words, out of 11 million Coloured people the percentage in the age group between 15 and 24 years is something like 18.4 per cent. I believe that the number of Coloured male youths who will be required to register will be far in excess of 90,000, but even accepting the Minister’s own estimate of 90,000, this board is going to be hard put to it to select the first 250 in terms of the Minister’s own view as to how these camps should operate. Why impose the burden on the board of having to sift these 90,000 including those who are in full-time employment or who are studying full-time? Why should the board have to apply its mind to each of these cases with a view to selecting 250 trainees out of 90,000 registrations? The hon. the Minister says that he wants to give the board unfettered discretion but the burden will become intolerable if the board has to sift all 90,000 registrations. If, however, automatic exemption is granted to 50,000 upon registration, the task of the board will be considerably simplified. I do feel that the Coloured population and the general public will be put at ease if provision is specifically made for automatic exemption of youths in these two categories. We know what the hon. the Minister wants, but when once he has appointed a selection board that board will operate and function within the framework of the Act and not in terms of directives given to it by the Minister or in accordance with opinions expressed by him in this House as to what they should do under the Act. The board cannot take cognizance of assurances given in this House by the hon. the Minister unless they are enshrined in the Act itself. The acceptance of our amendment would remove a lot of anxiety that there might well be in the minds of persons who employ Coloured youths at the present time. One is aware of the attitude of employers of white youths. The first thing they want to know is whether the youth has completed his nine months’ continuous training and, if he has completed his training, how far he has got with his part-time training, because the employer knows that he is going to lose the services of his young employees for certain periods during the year. If an employer employs a Coloured youth between the ages of 18 and 24 years there is always the legal possibility that that youth will be called up to undergo training in one of these camps. I believe that this will have an effect on the extent of the training which is given to Coloured youths taken into employment. We do not want to fetter the board; we want to lessen its obligations. In other words, we want the board to deal with a section only of the possibly 100,000 registrations instead of having to deal with every one of the 100,000 registrations.

I do hope that the hon. the Minister, having heard the hon. member for Green Point, will further consider this matter or at least indicate that he is prepared to look further into this matter. I do not think the position is as simple as the hon. the Minister put it when he said that he wanted to give the board full discretion whereas Opposition members refuse to give the board full discretion. We want to give the board a discretion, in fact, we give it a discretion in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). A discretion is in fact given to them. It says they shall exempt persons in permanent employment or receiving instruction at a school or a university. In other words, they have a discretion in relation to a certain category of people. Let us examine what this category is. The first is people who are receiving full-time instruction at a school or university. Surely it is not the Minister’s intention that people who are receiving full-time instruction at a school or university should be subject to the Bill? The Minister indicates that that is in fact not his intention. If someone is in full-time employment or is serving a contract of apprenticeship, obviously it is not intended that he should be subject to training in terms of this Bill. What this amendment does is this. It provides that the Minister’s words shall be implemented. It is no good the Minister talking about “the object of the Act”. “The object of the Act” is the intention of the Minister. We want to ensure that the “object of the Act is the intention of the Minister”, as when he spoke at the second reading. The Minister says there is no question about these persons being called up for training. We say: Let us ensure that there is no question that they will be called up for training. Let us say that the board shall exempt them. But then, because people who are in school or at university may for various reasons stop going to school or to the university, or people may lose their full-time employment, we say in this amendment that if in fact the board feels they may not be in employment all the time for the period of six years during which they are subject to this Bill, or they may not be having full-time instruction at the school or university, the board shall exempt them subject to certain conditions. In other words, the board may say: Subject to your remaining at university or at school or in full-time employment, you will be exempted, but if you fail to comply with that condition in either of those categories then the condition will operate such as the board in its discretion may then impose. I think that is fair enough, and the discretion the board then has is a discretion subject to the intention of the Minister and of this House. That intention is that in the normal circumstances anyone who is in school or at a university or in full-time employment, or is serving an apprenticeship, will not be subject to compulsory training. If they fall out of that category, the board has a discretion to deal with it. In the light of this, will the Minister indicate that he will give this further consideration, or that he will even accept it?

But I said I would not interfere with their discretion. They have full discretion.

But then the Minister must be consistent. If they have full discretion, the Minister cannot at the same time say they have a discretion to do what he says they shall not do, because what the Minister says is that those in school or at a university or in full-time employment are not going to be dealt with by this Bill. He nods his head; I am quite right. If that is so, how can he then say that the board will have a discretion to do something else, which is different from the intentions of the Bill and of the Minister? The Minister cannot have it both ways. If that is his intention, he must say to the board: “This is my intention, and the intention of this House”.

Those are guiding considerations.

Yes, I agree, but what we say to guide the board is that if these youths are in full-time employment or serving an apprenticeship, or full time in school or at the university, they shall be exempted, but we also say to the board that it shall have a discretion. As long as they are in full-time employment they are exempted, but you may lay down the condition that if they should cease to be in full-time employment, or cease to be at school or at the university, you must report to us immediately, and then the other machinery of the Act comes into operation. That is fair enough, but the Minister cannot have it both ways. If that is the intention of the Bill and of the House, then he cannot give the board a discretion to repudiate the intention the Minister himself expressed and what he says is the intention of the Bill. I cannot take it further than that.

The hon. members for Transkei and Durban (North) have clearly put a strong case for the acceptance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). However, there is one particular aspect which I would like to put to the Minister in connection with the second portion of the amendment. If the amendment is not accepted by this Committee, it means that the clause will pass as it stands now. The Minister has indicated that he wishes to give the board a discretion in the granting of these exemptions and that there are certain guiding factors. We have put forward the argument that there shall be mandatory exemptions granted. But as far as the discretion of the board is concerned and the exemptions it can grant, there is this aspect concerning paragraph (b) dealing with the recruit who is permanently employed or is serving an apprenticeship. Here I believe that a great deal of difficulty could be encountered in the practical application of these so-called guiding factors. There is, for instance, the position where a person is a bona fide work-seeker awaiting employment. That is an important portion of the amendment, that the Board shall have the discretion to grant exemption to such a person. We can see from the contents of this clause how important it will be for the recruit when he completes the prescribed form for registration. He might at that time be a youth seeking employment and awaiting employment, and therefore he could be registered with the Juvenile Affairs Board and the Department of Labour as a bona fide work-seeker. As the clause now stands, without taking into account the amendment, it would mean that the board would not have that guiding discretion, namely that that type of person would not be required to undergo training, or at least he would be able to receive exemption for a certain period. I believe this is one of the important factors which could be dealt with if the hon. the Minister saw his way clear to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), or if he is not able to accept it in its entirety and as it appears on the Order Paper, he could perhaps in the Other Place amend this clause 14 so as to ensure that the genuine and bona fide work-seeker will not be one who cannot be exempted by the board. I think this is a matter which needs further clarification in the Minister’s guidance to the board on the question of exemptions.

The question here is who should have the discretion—in other words, whether the board should have the discretion to exempt a person from training if such a person can prove that he falls under clause 14 (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e). In my opinion a further complication will be created if a person is required to prove with the aid of a third party, for example a judge, whether or not he falls within the scope of these paragraphs. I regard that as quite unnecessary. My attitude is that the board itself should decide with due regard to all the circumstances, otherwise unnecessary friction will be created which may even lead to court cases. I therefore feel that the board should be the judge and should accordingly have the discretion to decide whether or not any particular person should be exempted. The Opposition is so often worried about rights we are supposedly taking away from the public. Now all of a sudden they want to take away rights the Minister is granting to this board and to place those rights in the hands of the Minister. On other occasions they have always wanted to take any discretion out of the hands of the Minister. On this occasion, however, they want to place it in his hands again.

Very clear guiding principles are being laid down here, however, guiding principles which the board have to take into consideration in deciding whether or not a person should be exempted. Although these clear guiding principles have been laid down, the board will still find it difficult to decide in some circumstances, particularly in the case of paragraph (d), which provides that a person may be exempted if he “will be exposed to undue hardship” if he undergoes training. People very often take advantage of this kind of thing, but matters will be complicated even further if a third party, for example a court, is to decide whether a person will be exposed to “undue hardship”. We know the tendency that is existing among the people with whom we are dealing here, to take advantage of this kind of way out. I therefore say it is better to leave the discretion in the hands of the board.

Then there is the so-called bona fide work-seeker. To me this creates a problem, because what is in fact a bona fide work-seeker? As the clause now stands, the board may take into consideration the fact that a person is able to prove that he has a prospect of employment. I therefore can see no reason for the hon. Opposition being concerned about this. The Minister quite rightly refuses to accept part-time work as a factor. I fully agree with him. What is part-time work really? One may have a person working for three months of the year and relaxing during the remaining nine months. These are the very people we want to subject to this training. Who are the people who are employed on a part-time basis these days? Perhaps, amongst others, women, pensioners and Members of Parliament! I definitely think the discretion should be left to the board. It is one of those excellent qualities of this Government that it draws into the administrative process all those members of the public who are able to make a contribution to that process. In this case the Coloureds are also going to be drawn into the administrative process eventually. We must make it possible for the Coloureds to employ their talents in governing, and governing with responsibility.

I am not enamoured of the idea expressed by the hon. member for Durban (North) that this board should exempt a man only for as long as he is in permanent employment because if after having been permanently employed for, say, six months and then falling out for one reason or another he is liable to be called up, it introduces an element of uncertainty which I do not like. But I agree with the amendment in so far as it requires that certain categories of people should be exempted right from the start. When I spoke to this amendment previously I said I wanted to remove any uncertainty which might exist in the minds of applicants. The words “may at any time” are very vague. If, however, they know that they are going to be exempted in terms of the law it will make it much easier for them in their study or in their work. I agree with the amendment so far as it deals with this aspect but am not enamoured of the rest.

The difficulty I have with “full” employment is that a person may now be in full employment but within a month he may lose that employment. One must be practical, and I hope the Minister appreciates that we are not only being practical, but are also trying to meet the circumstances which he himself has foreseen. If a coloured person says that he is fully employed and expects to be fully employed for the next six years it is, of course, always possible that he may lose that employment within a month. If such a person is then not exempted permanently then he should be exempted subject to such conditions as the board, in its discretion, may determine. In other words, the board may say that if a person is in full employment, it is all right, but if within a month he should …

Order! The hon. member is repeating arguments which have already been used.

Sir, I am only trying to develop the case I want to put up. As far as the hon. member for Gordonia is concerned, he said that this board, and this board only, should have the discretion and only this board should make such a decision. That may be so when this board is established, but right now it is for this Committee, for each hon. gentleman who sits here, to make that decision.

And the hon. ladies too.

And the hon. ladies. In the law the one is included in the other, although that is not always lawful. What we are dealing with here, is what the discretion of the board shall be. We are here giving the board a discretion. It is for the hon. member to apply his mind and say to them: “Look, I agree with the hon. Minister and with what he says.” That is what he should be saying. What he said was: “Those people who are full time at school or university; those people who are full time in employment or serving under a contract of apprenticeship shall not be subject to this legislation.” The hon. the Minister agreed with me as to what he said. He understands English a little better than the hon. member for Gordonia. He nodded his head when I said that. That is his intention. He does not wish this to be applied to them. It is not a question of whether the board must have that discretion which the hon. member for Gordonia wishes. We must determine how that discretion must be applied. This indicates why this should have more attention from hon. members on the other side, and particularly from the hon. Minister and his advisers, because the hon. member for Gordonia said that it would be “moeilik om te besluit oor paragraaf (d)”. Now, if you look at paragraph (d), you see that it provides that exemptions may be granted if “any person will be exposed to undue hardship if the recruit undergoes training”. If the hon. member would read, and it is not a question of reading English, because this is in the Afrikaans proceedings as well, he will see that the intention of the amendment which is proposed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), is, after paragraphs (a) and (b) which deal with persons in full-time employment or apprenticeship or at university or school full-time, to propose that all the other categories are in the entire discretion of the board. The one he mentions, that is paragraph (d), which reads “if the board is satisfied that any person will be exposed to undue hardship if the recruit undergoes training”, is in their entire discretion in terms of the amendment which is proposed. That part of the hon. member’s objection falls away.

What about (b)?

We agree with the hon. the Minister as far as paragraph (b) is concerned. We say what the hon. Minister has said, that if there is someone who is permanently employed, in full-time employment, or if he is serving a contract of apprenticeship, then he should not be subject to the provisions of this. We agree with the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Gordonia must say whether he agrees with the hon. the Minister or not. I think that there must have been some misunderstanding between us. I am sure that our lines have crossed, because we do not seem to tell on something which is so obviously something we must get together on. I see no reason why the hon. the Minister would not accept this amendment, and perhaps he will explain because I seem to have missed the reason that he has given. He has not given a reason which I could understand. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could once more either explain what his attitude is or indicate that he is prepared to look into this matter when this Bill is dealt with in the Other Place and to introduce some amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I simply cannot understand this floundering. I think all of us understand very well what the hon. the Minister has told us, namely that a board will be appointed here, a board consisting of honourable and competent people, to act in the interests of a certain group of people. Do you accept that this board which is going to be appointed will be an honourable and a competent one which will take a decision in the interests of certain people? If it is in the interests of those people to obtain exemption, in other words, if those people are studying at a university, a college or some institution or other, where they are well-placed and being well trained, this board, if it uses its discretion in a sound manner and in the interests of those people can do nothing but decide to grant them exemption. The hon. the Minister also knows, however, that unforeseen circumstances may arise. He therefore leaves it to the discretion of that honourable and competent board to decide. Now the hon. members on the Opposition side want to take away that discretionary power from that board. If we want to define everything by regulation here in Parliament we may simply put up a machine to calculate who should come and who should not come. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has given you the assurance that we are going to have an honourable and a competent board here. All the hon. the Minister refuses to take away from that board is its discretion. Now I cannot understand why the hon. the Opposition have been floundering here for more than an hour because a board is being appointed here which will be given certain guiding principles on the basis of which it must make certain decisions. The guiding principles are clearly laid down in the law where the Minister states: Under such and such circumstances exemptions may be granted. Under further circumstances exemptions may also be granted, but there the guiding principles are very clearly laid down for the board as to the circumstances under which exemptions may be granted. I really cannot understand why the hon. Opposition keep on hammering on the matter, unless it is to accuse that board of improper or injudicious conduct in advance.

Order! I want to warn hon. members now that I am getting tired of all the repetition on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Namaqualand obviously does not understand the point we are trying to make here. The hon. the Minister has seen fit in clause 14. which we are discussing here, to limit the discretion of the board which he is going to appoint, by saying that they shall exempt people or may exempt people under this particular set of circumstances. He says that if they are receiving full-time instruction, or if they are in full-time employment the board may exempt them. Now, surely to goodness, if he has thought fit to make this exception in the case of full-time employment, there are cases where he must make the same exception in regard to part-time employment or part-time instruction. Virtually this is all we are asking the hon. the Minister to do. Is it restricting, as the hon. member for Namaqualand said, the discretion of the board? Of course it is not! But it is giving the board further guidance. The hon. the Minister obviously believes that there is going to be a need of guidance; otherwise he would not have put paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in the Bill. They would not have been here.

If he is to rely entirely on the discretion of the board, and felt that it was fit, right and proper to say to the board: “Here is the Act. Get on with it,” then he would not have put these paragraphs (a) to (e) in this Bill. This is all we are asking, but obviously we are being misunderstood. We believe, for example, that in the same way that there are white families and Indian families who are wealthy enough to have their sons sent to a place like Michaelis School of Art on a part-time basis. There are also Coloured families who can do the same. I am quoting facts, Sir. Will they be allowed to go to the Michaelis or other schools of art on a part-time basis? Are they not subject to the same privileges for exemption as those people who are in full-time employment? Are there not cases where Coloured people do part-time work and undertake part-time study, in the same way as our sons and daughters have to do? Are they not entitled to be exempted by the board in exactly the same way as those who are in full-time employment? Surely, part-time employment and part-time study add up to full-time employment in one way or another? These are the reasons that actuated us on this side of the House to introduce this amendment covering part-time employment and part-time study. I believe that the Minister is in duty bound seriously to consider this. He must not disregard this matter completely. I believe it to be worth his consideration. I believe that it would show his sincerity having regard especially to the type of person in respect of whom he wants this measure to apply.

Now that we have reached clause 14 we are beginning to overlook the particular type of person to whom the Minister said he wanted this measure to apply. In my opinion he obviously does not want this legislation to apply to the person who is receiving part-time instruction at a university or a school or a similar place. He does not want it to apply to people who are employed, whether they be employed part-time, half-time, or quarter-time, people who are employed in some direction which will equip them for better work in the future. He has stated that this is not his objective, and yet he refuses to consider this amendment which in fact implements the very object which he has said this Bill is intended to achieve. In other words, he wants to take up those people who are doing nothing.

That is not what the Minister says.

This is what the Minister says he wants to do. And I am taking him at his word. If in fact he is sincere in what he says, then I see no reason whatsoever why he should not accept this amendment, because, Sir, in any case, he will never be able to take up the full number of people who register, according to his own statement. So what harm will it do if he exempts this particular class of people who are at least trying to help themselves, who are at least trying to do a job of work.

I appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this matter seriously. I believe that psychologically it will do a great deal of good as regards everybody’s approach to this Bill, if he is prepared to seriously consider this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think one should view this protracted debate on this clause against a certain background and that background is the fact that the United Party has voted for the Second Reading. They are now looking for an opportunity to vote the other way round.

That is not true.

Unfortunately the Chairman restricted them somewhat as far as clause 8 was concerned—the clause on which they apparently wanted to conduct this debate—by ruling the relative amendment out of order. [Interjection.] Yes, apparently you wanted to conduct the same kind of debate on that clause. Now the debate is being conducted on this clause. I am not in the least concerned if the Opposition derives pleasure from debating about this. After all, the Opposition has so little fun these days that I do not begrudge them that pleasure. Let me repeat once again what my attitude is in respect of this clause. I have already stated my attitude, but it seems that in a debate such as this one has to repeat certain things over and over again because the same arguments are also heard over and over again.

I am going to put it very briefly by saying that my attitude is—and this is also laid down in the measure—that full discretion is going to be given to this board. We are giving them certain guiding principles—which are set out in the clause—according to which they will act. As a matter of fact, the boards I have to deal with in the various Departments under my control, whether it be the Unemployment Insurance Board or the Exemptions Board of the Department of Labour, also have these wide discretionary powers. This is something which is one of the characteristics of our legislative approach. These discretionary powers are given to this board here and I do not intend restricting these discretionary powers. Hon. members may accept that once and for all—and if they want to divide on that they may do so to their hearts’ content. But I am not going to restrict and handicap this board to-day merely to give that side some tactical satisfaction. It is essential that this board exercise this discretion. The members of the board will do so on the basis of these guiding principles. I am confident that they will do so sensibly. This board must also have the right within that discretion to send people who, as is laid down here, are in fact permanently employed or studying, to a training centre in cases where it deems it absolutely necessary. I am not in a position to say what those cases are: I cannot anticipate them. We must however make provision for the possibility that there may be such cases, and then this board should not merely be a rubber stamp, but should have the power and the right to decide on such specific cases. I am not going to deprive the board of that right.

This amendment seeks to include bona fide work-seekers as well. Which of these aimless persons we are trying to get at here in order to train them can be considered bona fide work-seekers? Everyone we come across and who is considered to be a person who should register will say: No, I have been looking for work for months or weeks. Then he is a bona fide work-seeker. Must we allow people to circumvent this legislation and must we allow ourselves to be diverted from our real purpose by accepting amendments of this kind?

No, Sir, I am afraid this amendment will not help us to develop this measure as we should like to develop it. It would rather help us to nullify this measure. However much I should like to have co-operation all along, I regret that I cannot accept this suggestion in this connection. Likewise, I cannot allow myself to be induced to restrict this board as regards certain decisions. I am confident that this board we are going to appoint will fulfil its functions with fine discretion and sound judgment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that the U.P. voted for the Bill at the Second Reading, and that we are now trying to find an opportunity of voting against it. He also said that you, Sir, stopped us from doing so when clause 8 was discussed—he says that it was our intention then to vote against the main principle of the Bill. But, Sir, the Minister saw the amendments placed on the Order Paper. He saw the amendment which we on this side placed on the Order Paper. It has nothing to do with the main principle of the Bill. Our amendment had to do with the question of arrest. Moreover, the Minister went further than our amendment suggested. It has nothing to do with the principle at all. How dare the Minister say that we are looking for an excuse? We did not know what amendments were going to be moved by the hon. members for Houghton and Peninsula. I think that the Minister should be more careful before he makes this sort of statement in the House. He said that he welcomed our co-operation in this matter. Is this the way to treat us, if he does welcome our co-operation?

Are you going to vote against this clause?

We are certainly going to divide on our amendment. I want to refer the Minister to something. The Minister has taken umbrage at the fact that we have moved an amendment. He says that we must leave some discretion to the board. If this Minister is so keen on leaving discretions to the board, why then does he put any suggestions as to who should be exempted? Why does he not leave the whole matter to the board? All we did was to take the Minister’s speech at the Second Reading of this Bill and make provision for the type of exemption which he said would almost automatically be granted, namely in respect of the people he did not intend getting at. To come now and try to draw a red herring by mentioning bona fide workers is very unsatisfactory. What does our amendment in regard to bona fide workers say? All we say is that the board “may” exempt bona fide workers. The Minister has given guidance as regards exemptions. We are suggesting exemptions too. Is it really so difficult to decide who a bona fide worker is? Does the Minister’s Department of Labour know which labourers are seeking work and which are not seeking work? Does the Labour Department not keep some record of these work-seekers? After all, it is not so difficult to prove who is a bona fide work-seeker. The Minister is merely trying to be difficult; he finds himself in a spot. We want the Minister’s bona fides on record, and the difference between this side of the House and the Government is that we believe that Parliament should govern and say what shall be done. The Minister tells us what he thinks should be done but then he gives all the powers to the board. Sir, the Minister wants to know what we are going to do on this clause. We are going to divide on our amendment and I sincerely hope that the Minister will have second thoughts on this clause and that when he takes this Bill to the Other Place he will bring about an amendment which will meet our request.

Question put: That the word “may” in line 60 stand part of the Clause, and the Committee divided:

AYES—109: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet. J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. V/. B.: Henning. J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Peinaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, J. P.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—34: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber and by Mrs. H. Suzman, respectively, dropped.

Remaining amendments proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and a division demanded. Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, amendments declared negatived.

Remaining amendments proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause as printed, put and a division demanded. Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division.

Clause, as printed, declared agreed to.

Clause 15:

The Minister in his Second Reading speech, dealing with clause 15, indicated that the plan was that during the first three months of training there would be three aspects of training, firstly parade work and discipline, secondly aptitude tests, and thirdly, occupational guidance. We find no fault with that programme, but when it comes to what is to be done during the succeeding nine months of training, the Minister has indicated that in the course of training and testing the recruit may be found to show a certain aptitude for something, and those who show aptitude for, for example, engineering will be given employment in some garage. Then he went on to say that cadets who cannot be classified as suitable for training in a craft or in the scholastic field will go to a training centre where they will perform some useful labour, for example on irrigation works or reclamation works or construction works, etc. There again we appreciate that some active occupation must be given to the cadets during that further period of their training. What is in the Bill at the moment is a rather loose introduction of the obligation of cadets to perform any kind of work without its being related in any way to the training they are undergoing. It is for that reason that I move the amendment standing in my name—

It will then mean that the training undergone by cadets will mainly consist of training for any kind of employment and shall include the performance of any kind of work incidental to such training. I trust the Minister will accept the suggestion of linking the work to the training. It will eliminate any possibility of a continued suggestion that this Bill can be used to provide labour to replace Bantu, as was suggested in some quarters. The work to be done must be made incidental to the actual training. I think that is the Minister’s intention. I believe that if the amendment is accepted we will eliminate any possible misapprehension as to the intention of this particular clause.

I am not in favour of this amendment. The Minister has given us the assurance, and I have also received the assurance from the Department, that the wording of this clause is indicative of the way in which these camps will be run. As I understand the purpose of this training, there will be 250 people for a start, and then another 250, up to a maximum of 1,000. You cannot tell them that they must be given training of a certain type. I think by a process of elimination the people at the head of the training camps will be able to see what the aptitude of the cadet is, and for what work he will be suitable. I think the intention is that he will then be encouraged to do that type of work for which he has shown his suitability. That can only be done if a free hand is given to the people in charge of the camp, to see how these cadets shape. But to tie the hands of the people in charge by this type of amendment will make it extremely difficult for them. It may be that as these camps grow and the number of cadets grows there will have to be some specific instructions, but in the beginning I do not think their hands should be tied, and therefore I cannot agree with this amendment.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I personally will not be assured, even if the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point is accepted. This is such a wide clause as it stands, even with that amendment, that I do not understand it clearly. I am trying to restrict the type of employment into which people can be put by making it mandatory to have some regard to all these factors like educational qualifications, suitability, physical condition, etc. I think it is a bit naïve of the hon. member for Boland to assume that there is going to be an aptitude test.

That is the second time you have said that I am naïve.

You are always naïve. I do not see the possibility of giving all these cadets an aptitude test. I really do not think that this is going to happen. It is much more unlikely when this system really gets under way. Further it is not only going to deal with 1,000 people, it is going to deal with many thousands if it really is to get under way; otherwise it does not mean anything at all and it is not going to solve any of the problems we have been talking about. If it is to be implemented on any wide scale, we are not going to have every cadet aptitude-tested. I do not want people to be put into any kind of work with all this glorification of unskilled labour irrespective of the education, the ability, the previous training and employment of these cadets. I think that there ought to be some measure of restriction on the type of work that they do particularly in view of the speeches we have had from the hon. the Minister in regard to this Bill where he has refused to disclaim responsibility for the utterances of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. This Bill hinges directly on that. These people can be used during their period of training which may be one year extended to two years and, as I have said, possibly even longer, for any kind of work for which there is a shortage of labour. There is nothing at all to stop this from being done. A man who was employed in doing for instance semi-skilled work, if such work is not readily available for him and in fact even if he is employed because we have been refused the mandatory exemption, can be put into a training camp and be made to do unskilled work. I do not like this glorification of unskilled work per se. I admit that this work must be done but then it must be properly paid for as well. In other countries where unskilled work is done the tendency definitely is to have it very well paid indeed because you must attract people to do that sort of work. In America you will find that there is nothing like the difference between skilled and unskilled wage rates that there is in this country. Here we have a vast spread, of almost 400 per cent, between the payment for unskilled and skilled work. In America and every other industrialized country the spread of wages between unskilled and skilled work is seldom more than 20 per cent. That is why it is perfectly all right to have people doing unskilled work because it does not carry with it the implication of very low wages indeed. The glorification of unskilled work just for its own sake does not appeal to me particularly. Since one is leaving very vast discretionary powers in the hands of officials to control the lives of these young people over a period of six years, I think there should be some limitation embodied in law as to the type of work that any person shall be made to perform during the time that he is a cadet. I would say that if the board proved to be utterly unreasonable and placed somebody in what was obviously unsuitable employment, if my amendment is accepted then at least that cadet would have some recourse to the courts of law and he could prove in a court of law that in terms of section 5 as amended, that the board has acted unreasonably and that he should be exempted from performing that kind of work, such as heavy manual work when the man was a scholar. This sort of implication is what I am trying to avoid.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. member for Houghton is relentless in her zeal to have these centres branded as “forced labour camps”. Her entire argument again amounts to that, and part of that argument is that there will be no aptitude tests after all and that everything I have said is mere bluff; it is impracticable; they will simply be pushed into any field in which there is a shortage of labour. You know, Sir, one really needs to be granted a great deal of patience in dealing with a person of this kind. The position will be, as I have stated, that these Coloureds will be tested for aptitude, because we want to make better people out of them. We do not want to make machines out of them. You can be absolutely sure of that, whether it fits into the political set-up or not. The fact of the matter is that we are going to make better people out of them. If you want to make better people out of this class of persons, then you must test their aptitude. Sir, if you say to me that it is a huge task to test a thousand persons for aptitude, then I say you should first go and see how it is done in the mining schools. A few days ago I again went to have a look. There they test them in groups. If it should be too much work for the testers to test each person individually, they can test them for aptitude in groups. In other words, one need not test every one individually if too much work would be involved. The point I want to make is that these Coloureds will be tested for aptitude, and we shall see to it that they are encouraged to enter the sphere of employment which suits their aptitude. If we do not do that, we are committing a great piece of hypocritical fraud, and I am not going to have my name associated with something like that. We are going to leave no stone unturned in order to do that, and once this has been in operation for a year, the hon. member can come and see how things are going to test whether the words I am uttering now are the truth.

As far as the amendments are concerned, I just want to say that I have read them through very carefully. One always feels when one is standing here that one wants to accept some of the amendments from the other side as well in order to show that one is not hard-hearted after all. However, I do not see my way clear to accepting any of these amendments, because none of them is an improvement on the existing provision. If one accepts an amendment it should after all be an improvement in this connection. The proposition put forward by the hon. member for Green Point is a sound and correct one, but it is merely stating the same legal provision in a different way. You may read clause 15. It is precisely the same. It is only phrased differently. I am not prepared to accept what is no more than a change in phraseology.

As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, that is the argument that we also had in regard to clause 2, where I told her that suitable employment will be borne in mind with everything that is set out in the qualifications, namely their aptitude, ability, physical circumstances, etc. On that basis they will get suitable employment. I invite the hon. member for Houghton in advance to come and see, after this scheme has been in operation for not even a year—three months I should say—whether they are working on the basis of the “forced labour camp” system or according to what I have said here.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he read the amendment. Perhaps I was not lucid enough when I put the amendment but I think that if he reads it again after I have emphasized it now he may see my point. We have accepted the Minister’s assurances as regards certain aptitude tests. I accepted that and I said so in my remarks. But the clause as it reads now does not limit the performance of any kind of work to work incidental to the training which the cadet is undergoing. The matter is wide open. The amendment which we have asked the Minister to accept is that the work which is to be undertaken by these cadets will be work which is incidental to their training for a particular kind of employment and not any other kind of work. In terms of the clause as it reads at the moment, I think that the Minister must accept that this interpretation exists, viz. these cadets can be used for the performance of work quite unrelated to their training. With respect to what the hon. member for Boland said and he has been in this House for longer than I have and he is also a lawyer, what we are legislating to-day is what is written here in this clause. That is what will be enacted and not what the Minister has said. I have said that I accepted the Minister’s assurance and now I ask that those assurances be put into the wording of this clause. In other words, that the work which these people will do will be incidental to their training which they are receiving in the centre. There is a distinct difference and not merely a changing round of the sequence of the words. The work is to be incidental to training and that does not appear in the clause as it stands at the moment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 16:

I should like to ask the Minister a question in connection with a point raised by the hon. member for Houghton in regard to the aggregate period of 12 months’ training within a period not exceeding three years. Is the Minister quite satisfied that the cadets may not be called up after the first period of three years has elapsed?

No, they will definitely not be called up after they have completed their year or the extended period that has been decided on.

Yes, but that extension has to be completed within the three years.

Yes.

After that three year period, he cannot be called up again?

Yes, he will get a certificate according to the regulations, certifying that he has done his training. That will exempt him from any further training.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

The hon. member for Wynberg is unfortunately unable to be here to move the amendment standing in her name. I would like to move it as follows:

In line 31, after “centre” to add “and the parent or guardian shall be advised immediately of the address of such other place.”.

When a cadet is moved to some place other than a training centre in the course of his training there should be immediate notification of the address to the guardian of the person concerned.

This request will be complied with by way of regulations. The hon. member may rest assured on that score. It will be included.

With that assurance from the hon. the Minister I withdraw the amendment.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 18:

This clause deals with the question of access to the committees of management. As it stands it gives the cadet only the right of personal access to any committee. Sir, I hope you will allow me to refer briefly to a clause which has still to be discussed. Under clause 23 provision is made whereby the rights of parents will be dispensed with in certain circumstances. The hon. the Minister has indicated, by placing an amendment on the Order Paper on page 222, that he intends to delete those two subsections. I believe that this strengthens the reasons why this amendment should be accepted. It means now that the rights of the parents or guardians of the cadets will still be maintained after the cadets have been sent to a training centre. I feel that it is only right and just that where parents or guardians of these trainees would like to place information before a management committee and would like to have access to that committee, they should be given such right of access. The clause as amended on this basis will mean that the amendment as suggested by me, and appearing on page 228 of the Order Paper, will still empower the Minister to subject such access to such conditions as he may prescribe. This will give them the statutory right to approach these committees on certain matters. I feel that it is a reasonable amendment that the parents and guardians should have this right and that it should not be merely restricted to the cadets. Therefore I move the amendment, which reads as follows:

Experience gained at schools of industry and reformatories has made a very important contribution in this regard. At those institutions the practice is that if a parent or a guardian wants to make representations in connection with a child there, he has free access to the principal of the institution concerned. It works excellently. We have no reason to complain about it. The hon. member, who is deeply interested in schools of industry and reformatories, would have known if it did not work well. If it did not work well, he would have raised a complaint in this House long ago. We were also guided by that example in drawing up this clause. We should therefore like to leave the clause as it stands, with the implicit right of the parents to go not only to the principal, but also to the Department of Coloured Affairs if they have any grievance whatsoever in this connection. We think that it can cause the committee concerned endless work if they have to handle these matters in addition to the representations of the cadets. I shall therefore be glad if the hon. member will content himself with this assurance that those parents and guardians have full right of access to the principal and the Department.

With the assurance that has been given by the hon. the Minister in regard to the committee, I should like to withdraw the amendment.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I am really moving this amendment on account of pleas which have come from the other side. The hon. member for Gardens and others have pleaded that cadets who are placed out should get the benefit of a favourable wage at any place of employment where they are placed in service. I said that I would give the matter favourable consideration. This amendment is the result.

When a person is a cadet in a training centre and he is sent out to work in some industry where the Wage Act, for instance, does not apply, will he be paid by the employer?

Yes, definitely.

The Minister’s amendment is to insert “while he is undergoing training in a training centre”. If he goes to work outside a training centre, does that mean that he will not be paid by the Government?

He will then be paid by the employer.

Will the Wage Act then apply?

Yes. I shall come to that amendment later.

I just want to establish that when such a cadet goes out of the training centre to work, although he is still a cadet, he will not be paid by the Government but by the employer.

Yes. He will be entitled to the higher remuneration.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider moving an amendment or accepting a suggestion that the cadet shall be allowed to cede some of his pay to his parents if they require it. I want to know whether the Minister will not agree that a cadet will have the right to cede some of his pay to his parents, if the parents require it. I quite agree that it should not be ceded to anybody else and that it should not be subject to seizure. If the Minister will say that he will bring that in by regulation, I shall accept that.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

The hon. the Minister, in replying to me earlier on, made it quite clear that if a trainee or a cadet goes to work outside the training centre, he will be paid by the employer. He also said that if the cadet was employed in an industry to which the Wage Act applied, he would be paid the wage laid down in terms of that Act. What I want to know, however, is this: If a cadet is sent out from the training centre to some work which is not covered by the Industrial Conciliation Act or by the Wage Act, will he be paid at least the wage or salary which he would have been paid if he had been employed in the training centre?

Yes.

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will make it quite clear that that is the position so that the management committee and everybody else will know what the position is with regard to a cadet’s pay when he is sent out to work outside of the training centre.

If a cadet is put out to work with an employer, he would in the first place be subject to the provisions of the relevant labour legislation. Secondly, this Bill provides that he may then receive the higher wage applicable in that industry. But he will not receive less than the amount he would have received if he had remained in the training centre.

The Bill as it now reads does not state that he will be paid a higher wage, and it does not mention that he will be paid at least the minimum which he would have received had he remained in the training centre. For instance, if he is sent out to work on a farm, how can we be certain that he will be paid a higher wage than he would have received had he remained in the training centre? Should some provision not be made in this clause? I do not expect the Minister to amend the clause now, but will he give consideration to this question and bring about an amendment in the Other Place to ensure that the trainee will not be paid a lower wage than the amount paid to a cadet in a training centre?

It is the object of this amendment that if he leaves the training centre to work for a private employer, whether a farmer or a manufacturer, he will be entitled to a higher wage than the one he would have received in the training centre.

But that is not provided here.

That is presumed, and if it is necessary to make it clearer, it can be provided by regulation, but we do not consider it necessary to provide it specifically in the legislation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 22:

I have an amendment on the Order Paper, but I will not move it in view of the hon. the Minister’s statement that he intends to include this proviso in the regulations. I have in fact an amendment dealing with the regulations clause, clause 29. I will move my amendment there because the hon. the Minister has indicated that he would prefer it there. My reason for putting this amendment on the Order Paper originally was that I was not absolutely happy, as the hon. the Minister knows, with the limiting nature of clause 16 of this Bill. However, I do not propose to move my amendment as printed.

This will be included in the regulations.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 23:

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 25:

Sir, I intend to vote against this clause. I think it is an obnoxious little clause. It is a clause which allows the secretary, in consultation with the Treasury, to offer rewards to persons furnishing information leading to the tracing of persons who have contravened section 27 (h), which deals with persons who have absconded. I call this the informer’s clause. I think it is very bad. It offers rewards to people who are prepared to give information about cadets who have absconded and I think it lends itself to a great deal of abuse. I think the hon. the Minister should be able to trace absconders by the normal methods without using informers. I do not like the idea of offering rewards to people who are likely to come forward and give information in order to off-set a grudge.

This is a clause which is also contained in the Children’s Act with regard to school attendance. It is by no means new in our legislation. In the main it derives from the Children’s Act, and the reason for it is the fact that officials connected with the institutions frequently experience difficulties in tracing absconders. The police also find it difficult to trace them. Such cases sometimes come to the notice of members of the public, and it has been found that members of the public may be of assistance in tracing such persons, and in appropriate cases rewards are then offered to persons furnishing information. This is something which I do not like very much either, but it is one of the means which has to be employed to bring absconders to book.

Clause put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 26:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Hon. members on this side of the House have expressed concern in respect of cadets who may suffer injury while engaged in certain types of employment, and the hon. the Minister’s amendment meets our objections in that regard, but for the sake of clarity, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us whether cadets who suffer injury while undergoing training at the training centre itself, will be entitled to claim compensation? The Minister’s amendment takes care of the position of cadets who are injured while employed away from the training centre, but what is the position of the cadet who suffers injury while undergoing training at the training centre?

If a cadet is injured during his period of training at the training centre, he will receive compensation, not in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but along the lines of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The State accepts responsibility for cadets undergoing training at the training centres, and if a cadet sustains injury he will be compensated in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. If he sustains injury while employed outside the training centre, the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act will be applicable to him in terms of the amendment I have just moved.

Sir, I have an amendment on the Order Paper on this clause but I do not propose to move it because I think the amendment which the Minister has moved covers the provision that I wanted to insert.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 27:

I move the amendments as printed in my name—

I think the penalties provided for in this clause are very high indeed. This clause provides that any person who contravenes the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (m), in other words, if he fails to register, if he fails to produce his certificate on demand, who obstructs or hinders any person in arresting somebody who has not carried out his obligations under this Act, if he fails to notify his change of address or allows his certificate of registration to come into the possession of any other person, or who wears a uniform or badge which does not in fact belong to him as a cadet, is subject to a pretty high penalty. He may be fined up to R200 and/or imprisoned for six months. I feel that this is a very severe penalty indeed for offences of this nature. I therefore move to reduce the penalty to a fine of R20 and to omit the penal sanction altogether. As far as the second part of the clause is concerned, I notice that an even heavier penalty can in fact be imposed on a cadet who absconds or harbours or conceals a cadet who has absconded, who furnishes information which is substantially incorrect, who pretends that a certificate has been issued to him when it has not been so issued. In such cases the penalty is a fine of anything up to R500 and/ or a sentence of imprisonment up to three years. I think that is also excessive for these offences, and I accordingly move that the penalty in those cases be reduced to a fine of R50.

As I indicated in the Second Reading, I feel that these penalties are extremely harsh. I indicated that in an address given by a certain Judge, he expressed the hope that Judges would be able to suspend sentences because he felt, as a Judge, that it was a good thing to have that power. I think that the people in these training camps should be put in the position where their sentences can be suspended. I am not quite sure, but I am told that magistrates have not an automatic right to suspend any sentence. If they have, my argument falls away, but I would like to move an amendment which I feel sure the Minister will accept. If he accepts the amendment, I do not think the Minister need have any fears in regard to the penalties set out in the clause, because I do not suppose that the maximum sentence will ever be imposed, except in a very serious case. But I think the magistrate should have the power to suspend any sentence and I would like to move the following amendment—

Even if a magistrate has the power to suspend a sentence automatically, I think this will be a pointer to the presiding officer that it is not the intention to be harsh. The Minister has said that it was not the intention to impose the full penalties, but I would like some indication that, having regard to the people we are dealing with, the law will make it possible for the magistrate to suspend a sentence and to give these people an opportunity …

Order! I am unable to accept the amendment, as I have been advised that presiding magistrates already have the power which the proposed amendment seeks to confer upon them.

In reply to the plea of the hon. member for Houghton, I want to say that these are fairly stringent penalties—I will not deny that—but surely the object is to deter them. The penalties come in two categories, the less stringent and the more stringent penalties. The more stringent penalties correspond to the penalties in the Defence Act, and are not therefore a deviation from the practice. But as Mr. Chairman said rightly in his ruling, it is our legal rule that a magistrate may suspend a sentence: he has a discretion which he may exercise, and within the limits of that discretion I do not think this is an unreasonable measure.

Amendments proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 28:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

If you read the Section, Sir, you will see there is a presumption that an offence has been committed. Clause 28 (1) says that if a man was a recruit he shall be presumed to have been a recruit until the contrary is proved. Sub-section (2) makes it an offence for a cadet to absent himself after cancellation of his leave, and then it says that he shall be presumed to have absconded from the training centre. It may not be an irrebuttable presumption, but the mere fact that in (1) it is stated that the presumption shall apply until the contrary is proved makes it logical that there should be the same provision in subsection (2). Otherwise, reading subsections (1) and (2), the inference is that an offence under subsection (2) is irrebuttable. Perhaps the Minister can explain to us why there is this difference between the two subsections.

In our view it is quite obvious that this should be the case. Surely it is the presumption, as the amendment reads, that this provision shall be interpreted that way. But I am prepared to accept the amendment if it will achieve greater clarity, for in our view it is fully in accordance with the provision.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 29:

This clause deals with the regulations. Obviously these regulations will be of considerable importance to the Coloured community as a whole, and therefore I should like to move the first amendment, which is as follows—

It is obvious that full information should be made available and that all the persons concerned should be able to study these regulations. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

The second portion of my amendment deals with the question of the regulations concerning cadets who contravene rules or regulations under clause 19 of the Bill, which deals with the maintenance of discipline. It would appear from the provision made here for certain regulations that the Minister could omit paragraph (c), which is the forfeiture of one meal a day for not more than three days, without in any way weakening the provisions he asks for to maintain discipline. If this subsection is omitted, it would mean that a cadet who contravenes the provisions may still be punished by the forfeiture of one or more of the privileges and forfeiture of pay and allowances or any part thereof for a certain period, or by increasing the usual hours of training by not more than three hours a day and for a period not exceeding three days, and also by confinement in any place set apart for such purpose for any period not exceeding three days provided that the medical officer of the training centre has certified that such confinement in his opinion will not be detrimental to the health of the cadet. I submit that this provision seems very harsh indeed. If one takes into account that these centres are not to be administered as prisons, it would appear that the Minister could omit this section whereby a cadet could be made to forfeit one meal a day. I do not know whether these provisions were taken over from another existing Act, but after checking through some of the other Acts dealing with discipline I find no similar provision. Possibly it was taken over from the Prisons Regulations. I do not think we should give the Coloured community the impression that this Bill is of such a punitive nature and therefore I ask the Minister seriously to consider omitting paragraph (c), which will then mean that he will still have four methods by which regulations can be promulgated to bring about punishment for cadets who have contravened the rules. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name—

Forfeiture of one meal per day is of course only one of a number of punishments proposed here, and its application is not compulsory. It is in the discretion of the authorities concerned. But because we do not wish to have this measure discredited, I am quite prepared to make this omission. There are other means which may also be applied, and if the hon. members feel so strongly about the matter, I am prepared to have it deleted.

As regards the publication of the regulations in the Government Gazette, there is no need for us to include that in the Act because all regulations have to be published in the Government Gazette. It is a self-evident requirement, and there is no need to provide that in this Act. The case presented by the hon. member for Houghton is covered because it will be included in the regulations.

In view of the Minister’s statement, and with the permission of the Committee, I should like to withdraw the first portion of my amendment and I thank the hon. the Minister for giving favourable consideration to the second portion of it.

With leave, first amendment withdrawn.

I fail to find any reference to visiting hours in this clause. Is it intended that they will have those facilities?

Visiting hours will be mentioned in the regulations.

Remaining amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 31:

On behalf of the hon. member for Durban (North), I would like to move the amendment standing in his name, namely to negative this clause.

Order! One does not move an amendment to negative a clause. One simply votes against it.

We believe that there Mr. J. M. CONNAN: We believe that there is no necessity for the application of this Act to South-West Africa—not now, nor in the near future. Circumstances there are completely different, and I honestly believe that for many years there will be no necessity for anything like this in South-West Africa. In view of the fact that the Population Registration Act is not in operation in South-West Africa it will be impossible to proclaim this Bill there. Consequently, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw this clause. If in the future, in the far distant future, he still deems it necessary, which I do not think will be the case, to apply this legislation there, he can do so then by means of a simple amendment.

As hon. members know, this is a provision which appears in many of our statutes. Here it is inserted because we are dealing with a group of people who are also found in South-West Africa, a group with whom we have a good deal to do administratively. This particular provision will, however, be applied to South-West only if the Executive Committee of South-West requests the State President to do so. It will not be applied under any other circumstances. If in the course of years the Coloured population there develops to such an extent that they also experience the need for these training centres, it will draw unnecessary attention if we have to introduce this provision then only. The hon. member for Houghton might still be here then, and then we would have some more of these “forced labour camps” stories. I therefore think we should use this opportunity to insert this provision in the Bill and then leave it to the Executive Committee of South-West Africa to ask for its proclamation and application in South-West Africa when they deem it necessary. In the meantime none of us need be worried about it.

Mr. Chairman, as this Bill is worded it cannot be applied to South-West Africa at all on account of the definition of “Coloured person” in this Bill. I do not think we should pass a law and make it applicable to a certain area of the country when, in fact, it cannot be applied in that area. What is the sense of passing a law which cannot be applied?

Why cannot it be applied?

Even if the Executive Council of South-West asked for it to be applied to that territory it cannot because whom could it be applied to? There is no definition of a Coloured person in South-West Africa. Whenever it can be applied there and whenever the Government wants to amend the legislation so as to make that possible this House can be consulted again. When that happens we shall state our attitude to the question whether or not we want this legislation to be applied there. But we should wait until that moment arrives and not adopt this provision at this stage.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the word “amendments”, which appears in this clause. That means that the State President is empowered to apply this legislation in an amended form to South-West Africa. Here I would refer in particular to the definitions. The State President may therefore proclaim this measure in an amended form in respect of South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, what the Minister has just said makes the position worse than ever. He now wants us to approve of empowering the State President to apply an amended Act to South-West Africa. That means that we may not know what he will in fact apply. This is even worse. We are not prepared to allow this Government carte blanche in order to enable them to empower the State President to apply an amended Act to South-West Africa. That we cannot do.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—89: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G.

F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P.

H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swane-poel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, B. J.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rens-burg, M. C. G. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster. L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—30: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes, Clause accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, although I do not have any problem in regard to the principle contained in this amendment, I am not quite happy about the wording. If the amendment moved by the hon. member were to be accepted, the text of the relevant clause would read as follows—

“In consultation with” means that there must be agreement.

No.

“In consultation” means that there must be agreement. It could happen that the local authority and the Government might not readily come to an agreement and that the money would be lying idle for a long time, or that the local authority might be obstinate. In lieu of the hon. member’s amendment, I should therefore like to move the following amendment—

That means that the necessary steps will be taken after consultation with the local authority and in consultation with the Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister’s amendment is acceptable to us and, with the leave of the Committee, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. S. Emdin, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Community Development, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill makes provision for the amendment of section 25 of Cape Ordinance No. 4 of 1919. That Ordinance had its origin in the effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic. The epidemic claimed many lives at that time and left many orphans in its wake, while other families found themselves in straitened circumstances as a result of the effects of the epidemic. Consequently the Cape Provincial Administration placed this Ordinance on the Statute Book at that time in order to make provision for assistance to the destitute.

The Ordinance mainly makes provision for, firstly, the registration and subsidizing of charitable bodies and childrens’ homes; secondly, the granting of additional poor relief by local authorities; thirdly, the provision of certain health and medical services to indigent persons by local authorities; and fourthly, the establishment of a board known as the “Cape Town General Board of Aid”, which is charged with the distribution of poor relief rations in Cape Town.

Up to 1940 the Cape Provincial Administration and the local authorities in the Cape Province were co-responsible on a fifty-fifty basis for expenditure in regard to the assistance schemes provided for in the Ordinance. In 1940 it was decided to transfer the control and subsidizing of welfare institutions from the provincial administrations to the Government. That was done by section 16 of Act No. 27 of 1940. The result was that since 1st April, 1940, the Cape Town City Council has been paying one half of the subsidy to the General Board of Aid and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions the other half. As a result of this arrangement section 25 of the ordinance was amended to allow the Cape Town City Council to nominate four members to serve on the board. The Minister appoints three members, who are not City Councillors, and a further two members from nominations submitted to him by welfare bodies or persons who contribute not less than R2 per annum to the funds of the board. However, Act No. 36 of 1950 made provision for the Government to take over the financial obligations from the City Council as from 1st January. 1950, with the result that since that date the Department has been bearing the financial burden alone in respect of all expenditure of the Cape Town Board of Aid.

The Board is, as I said before, responsible for the distribution of poor relief rations to indigent persons within the municipal area of Cape Town. The Board also controls a white crèche. a Coloured crèche and a Coloured old-age home. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions pays an annual subsidy to the Board which varies between R91,000 and R93,000.

Although the Government has been solely responsible for the subsidizing of the Board since 1950, the constitution of the Board has not changed, however, with the result that the City Council continues to appoint four members although it has no further financial obligations towards the Board. Therefore, what that amounts to is that the Government is responsible for the full financial burden of the Board while its choice is limited to the appointment of three members only as against the appointment of four members by the City Council. The two other members may only be appointed by the Minister from the ranks of persons nominated by welfare organizations. Members of the Board are appointed for a term of office of three years, and the term of office of the present Board expired on 7th October, 1966. The new Board has already been appointed and its term of office will expire automatically on the date on which the new members will be appointed in terms of the amendments contained in this Bill. Therefore the intention obviously is that the Government has to appoint the members, since it is solely responsible for the full subsidizing of the Board of Aid at present.

In addition to that, the Ordinance made no provision for a quorum at meetings of the Board, with the result that any number of the members present at a meeting could pass any resolution with a majority vote. Therefore the position still is the same as it was at the time when the Government and the City Council were co-responsible for the financial burdens. For that reason it is necessary for us to effect this amendment now. I just want to point out that there is nothing, of course, which will prevent me from still asking the Cape Town City Council to submit a panel of names. I shall do so in practice. In appointing boards of this nature we usually ask interested bodies to submit panels of names, but in view of the fact that the City Council no longer has any responsibility in this regard, I do not want to be bound to appoint nominations of the City Council to this body.

I just want to add that as far as Coloureds are concerned, the Cape Town Board of Aid will gradually transfer its activities to the Department of Coloured Affairs and to Coloured organizations in accordance with the extent to which the Department and the Coloured community become capable of taking over the responsibility for social welfare and coping with the work in that regard. I also want to have a larger degree of control exercised over the activities of the Cape Town Board of Aid. I just want to mention one example. In terms of section 7 of the Ordinance organizations in the Cape Province may register under the Ordinance and collect funds from the public. Such organizations are then subsidized by the Department on the basis of R1 for each R1 received by the organization in the form of donations, etc., from the public and other bodies and persons. These organizations are then not registered under the National Welfare Act of 1965. Apparently, the Welfare Board was not aware of the Cape Ordinance and the Board of Aid made application to the Welfare Board and was registered in terms of the Welfare Organizations Act as well. As a result of that registration, it is entitled to hold collections for supplementing its funds. In terms of the conditions of registration under the National Welfare Act it has to submit to the Registrar annually, an audited statement of revenue received from collections and donations. That was done regularly but in the financial statements submitted to the Department under Ordinance No. 4 of 1919, no mention was made of this revenue with the result that my Department continued to pay a subsidy calculated on the actual expenditure of the Board. The money obtained from holding collections was paid into a trust fund over the years, and at present this fund amounts to approximately R25,000. If my Department had been aware of these assets the subsidy to the Board would have had to be decreased by that amount. It is clear therefore that the National Welfare Board registered the Board by mistake. It is not purely a welfare organization as contemplated in the National Welfare Act. I shall cause negotiations to be entered into with the National Welfare Board with a view to the deregistration of the Cape Town Board of Aid. In addition I shall cause the entire matter in regard to the trust fund to be investigated in order to ascertain to what extent that will influence future subsidies. Because I shall now appoint the Board, my Department will be able to take a direct interest in the Board of Aid. I want to put it very clearly that the Cape Town Board of Aid is an anachronism. As the Department of Coloured Affairs and Coloured welfare bodies, as I said before, become capable of taking over the work relating to Coloureds, they will do so. My Department and the ordinary voluntary welfare organizations will gradually have to take over the work in respect of the Whites, as is being done in the rest of the country. I am not over-hasty with that. I merely mention that, because I think that the correct method to follow is that we should have one pattern for our welfare services throughout the country and that we should not have departures from that pattern from place to place as a result of the historical background. Therefore this Amendment Bill is a first step which is being taken in the direction of bringing welfare work in the Cape Town Municipal area into line with welfare work elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. We have listened with interest to the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister and we have also taken the trouble of tracing the history of the Cape Town General Board of Aid, which is rather unique. It appears that in the normal circumstances, poor relief and the administration of poor relief are undertaken by the regional office of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Here in Cape Town an organization such as the Cape Town General Board of Aid has been doing invaluable service to the community in the Municipality of Cape Town since 1919. However, the Ordinance has been amended from time to time as far as the actual appointment of the board is concerned. This Bill that is now before us deals with the appointment of the board and repeals section 25 of the original ordinance and provides for the constitution and functions of this particular board. We feel that in view of the tradition of work that has been built up by this organization, the hon. the Minister should certainly not be over-hasty in implementing his theory of separating welfare work on the basis of racial division. It appears that the work of this organization and of this board includes the administration of poor relief, and also the day centres—one for white and one for non-white children—and the administration of a hostel for Coloured old-age pensioners. According to the latest report of the Cape Town General Board of Aid, a large proportion of their work is undertaken amongst the Coloured community. 71.6 per cent of the cases investigated by them were persons from the Coloured community and 21.5 per cent were from the white community. Another member on this side of the House will deal with this particular local aspect in the administration of the Cape Town General Board of Aid. The position is that the hon. the Minister has indicated that because the Government is entirely responsible for the financial implications of the administration of poor relief and because of the expenditure incurred by this Cape Town General Board of Aid, it has therefore now become incumbent upon the Government that they should appoint that Board of Aid entirely from nominees of the hon. the Minister. Back in 1919 this board consisted of 15 members. It has been altered from time to time. In terms of this Bill the Minister intends to maintain the existing position with nine members of the board. I think the Minister could perhaps give us some more information concerning the manner in which he wishes to appoint this board. We have the Welfare Act of 1965 in terms of which four commissions were appointed by the hon. the Minister, as well as the National Welfare Board and the Regional Boards. The basis of appointing members to those statutory bodies consisted of persons submitting lists of suggested names to the Minister and the Minister then making a selection. I do not want to delve into that question but I must say that we were disappointed with the selections made by the hon. the Minister in that particular case. We found that large numbers of persons appointed to those commissions were inclined to be sectional. It was a great pity that some of the larger universities, such as Natal University and Cape Town University …

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the scope of this measure.

With respect, Sir, I am trying to indicate the basis upon which the hon. the Minister will appoint members to this board. We feel that this is one of a local character and therefore perhaps the hon. the Minister should at least be prepared at the Committee Stage to accept an amendment whereby the Cape Town City Council will be able to send a list of nominated persons to the hon. the Minister, whereupon the hon. the Minister can appoint three persons from that nominated list to be members of that board. It would appear to be in the interests of the maintenance of the work of this Board of Aid that the local persons concerned should receive representation on that board as in the past. No reference was made to any inefficiency in the work being undertaken by this Cape Town General Board of Aid. The main reason put forward by the hon. the Minister was on the basis of finance, that it was a financial responsibility of the Central Government, and therefore he will take the responsibility of appointing the nine members to that board. That is why we hope that the hon. the Minister will not, in any way, upset the existing position, whereby a board, which was previously appointed on a different basis, has done excellent work over a period of almost 50 years, and we feel that the tradition of this unique part of social welfare work should be maintained.

We support the Second Reading of this Bill. However, we hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to show a greater degree of tolerance towards maintaining the tradition of this Cape Town General Board of Aid. The hon. the Minister indicated in his introductory speech on this Bill that he intended to continue with his policy of encouraging organizations to be divided on a racial basis. He did add that he would not be over-hasty in that respect. That is why, at this stage, we hope that the hon. the Minister will consider very carefully indeed any steps that he might contemplate taking, which might adversely affect a board which has already been in existence for nearly 50 years and has been rendering an excellent service to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Minister indicated very clearly that he had no intention of taking over-hasty action in regard to the next step to be taken in connection with the continued existence or otherwise of this Board. I want to point out that this Board has been tolerated within the framework of our welfare pattern in this country with a large degree of patience over many years. When the Du Plessis Commission presented its report in 1953-’54 it contained a detailed reference to the existence of this Board and to the desirability of terminating its existence. What the hon. the Minister is proposing now, is in actual fact only a continuation of what the Du Plessis Commission had in mind at that time, something which should perhaps have been done a long time ago.

In the second instance the hon. member for Umbilo tried in passing to create the impression that the Minister would not be sympathetic in the choice of people who would serve on this Board on his behalf. The example which the hon. member for Umbilo wanted to give would not have been a good example if he had been allowed to do so. I shall let the matter rest there.

Order! Yes, but now the hon. member should not pursue the matter which I did not allow the hon. member for Umbilo to discuss any further.

Mr. Speaker, we shall not elaborate on that. I should like to point out once more that if this Board were to be allowed to continue to exist in this form, we would have had something in direct conflict with the entire welfare pattern in this country. Nowhere do we have anything of this nature, anything in the nature of the Cape Town General Board of Aid. Organizations everywhere are responsible for collecting a certain percentage, and a large percentage at that, of their own funds in order to receive a Government subsidy. If the hon. the Minister were to allow this body to proceed without being registered under the Welfare Organizations Act, but nevertheless to collect money from the public, we would constantly have come up against conflicting things in regard to questions which had already arisen in the past on the part of voluntary organizations and which might create problems for the Minister. I can give you the assurance that welfare organizations in our country welcome this step and that we hope to take the further step in the near future of putting an end to this “absurdity”, if I may call it that. What must happen here, is what the Du Plessis Commission recommended, and that is that this Board should either cease to exist or that the hon. the Minister should completely transfer the administration of poor relief to his own Department …

Order! Now the hon. member is going a little too far. He must confine himself to the constitution of this Board.

Mr. Speaker, the constitution of this Board is the very thing which is bound up with its functions, and I am trying to indicate that in this case people are appointed to perform a specific function. This function is particularly the administration of poor relief funds. As such, I want to raise the point for consideration that it is essential for the hon. the Minister to take the next step and not to delay it for such a long period as the hon. member for Umbilo asks, but to do it soon.

Mr. Speaker, as a citizen of the City of Cape Town, over the years I have had quite a lot to do on this particular board, not as a person who has received benefits, but as one who had occasion to watch the work of this particular Board of Aid. It is one of the last of this type of board to be found where the people in the past got together and set up a type of poor relief and then later on received subsidies from the Provincial Council and the Municipality. As time has progressed, the demands on this particular board have been such that the finances were just not there. But it does show how we have changed from the time when the people of the city came together to get up a board such as this. As the hon. member for Umbilo has said, it is a unique board. It is, and it does a remarkable job of work. It has its social workers and they do a considerable amount of investigation of cases. It fills that vacuum that is not supplied by any other source, a vacuum between having no money and waiting for a pension or any other form of relief. This particular board is, at very short notice, and after investigation able to see that no person starves, that no family starves, or is in that position where they may be ejected from their home for not paying rent. This Board assists in finding their rent.

Order! Yes, but we are only concerned with the constitution of the board.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the members who have constituted this particular board have administered it over the years and have framed its policy of poor relief. That is why I am referring to it. It is a question of the functions of the board and of the members of the board. It seems strange to get a Bill before us which changes an ordinance, but we are pleased to hear that the Minister is still going to consider the question of asking the Cape Town City Council to submit the names of persons for appointment to this board. I know that it is his policy to divide social relief on colour lines, but in view of the fact that the vast majority of people who are helped by this particular board are Coloureds, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to appoint a member of the Coloured community as a member of this board? The Minister of Coloured Affairs could assist as he knows that there are some outstanding people in the Coloured community who would be able to assist the members of the board in dealing with this question of poor relief. Sir, as the hon. member for Umbilo has said we support this Bill and give it our blessing.

As regards the proposal made by the hon. member for Umbilo, namely that I should accept an amendment during the Committee Stage to oblige me to appoint, say, three members from a panel of names submitted to me by the City Council, I want to say immediately that I shall unfortunately not be able to accept such an amendment because then I would be retaining the same principle, i.e. that the City Council who does not have any financial responsibility, will have representation on the board, and that is the very principle with which I am concerned here. I indicated before that I was quite prepared—and I shall do so in practice—to obtain a panel of names from the City Council when it came to the appointment of members. If I deem it fit to do so, I shall appoint some of those members but I cannot bind myself to appoint persons whose names have been submitted to me by them. This links up with the question the hon. member for Salt River put to me, namely whether I would consider appointing a member of the Coloured community. I think we would be doing the Coloured community an injustice if we were to accept the principle that the mere appointment of one single member of the Coloured community to a board such as this constituted a way of giving them a share in the welfare services for their own community. We should rather afford them the opportunity of developing welfare organizations within their own ranks, and guidance to do so is already being given to them by the Department of Coloured Affairs. To the extent to which they as a community become able to look after their own people in need of care, it will be possible for welfare services to be provided by Coloured welfare bodies, which will then be subsidized by the Department of Coloured Affairs; then one will have the same pattern amongst them as one has amongst the Whites, namely co-operation and co-ordination between the State and the voluntary welfare organizations; one will then be bringing that community into one’s welfare services and not merely individual persons. By bringing in one individual person, one would still not be bringing the community into the welfare services.

Will that be a separate board?

The intention is, as the Cape Town General Board of Aid is constituted at present, for it to be a single board which will do welfare work in respect of everyone within its area, but all work in respect of Coloureds will be transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs and to Coloured organizations as the Coloureds and the Department of Coloured Affairs become able to perform that task properly. Eventually the stage will be reached where the Board of Aid will only have to do welfare work amongst Whites in the Cape Peninsula and then the stage will be reached where the Board of Aid, in spite of the particularly fine work it did in the past and in spite of the praiseworthy fashion in which it performed its task in the past, will really become redundant and where its work can then be integrated with that of the ordinary welfare organizations and with the work of my Department amongst the Whites. That is the course of development which will be followed, but it will not be followed over-hastily. That will happen gradually depending on the rate at which the Coloured community progresses towards that task and on the rate at which the Department of Coloured Affairs is able to take over that work. Therefore I cannot consider the appointment of a mixed board or the appointment of two boards at this stage, because if one were to appoint two boards problems would arise in connection with the determination of policy as well as measures to be taken, and we do not want to create those problems for ourselves.

I think hon. members should allow me to amend the ordinance as proposed in this Bill. That will enable us to rectify the matter gradually.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This measure concerns a matter which should preferably not be discussed at length. This is not a pleasant topic to discuss and one only embarks upon the field dealt with by the Bill because it is one’s duty to take steps to exorcize a canker in the morals of one’s people. Hon. members will therefore pardon me if I do not go into every small detail of the problem we have to contend with.

It is disappointing but unfortunately it is true that we are living in a time in which sex is being exploited for financial gain as well as licentious purposes. Modern man seems to know how to exploit man’s strongest urge for the purposes of filthy lucre and giving free reign to human weaknesses. For years now it has been the case that the most revolting photographs and films imaginable have been in circulation in our country, but more especially in our urban centres. These are not only photographs and films in which the sex act is being portrayed shamelessly, but they also take the most disgusting forms man can probably think of. Most of these photographs and films are probably being smuggled into this country illegally after which they are being distributed and disposed of amongst clients expertly recruited by the smugglers in some way or other. However, what is particularly alarming, is the fact that many young people are being drawn into this pernicious pastime. Both Whites and non-Whites are participating in this practice equally briskly, and it is not at all uncommon to find in the possession of one individual several hundreds of these photographs and up to half a dozen and more of these films. There can hardly be any doubt that those people who have such photographs and films in their possession, do not only keep them for their own perverse amusement, but also to defile the morals of others, and that a flourishing trade in those articles is probably one of the motives behind it.

Mr. Speaker, as you may have heard, I recently invited the Justice groups on both sides of this House and also both Houses of Parliament to view a number of these photographs and films. Now that I think of it, I should actually beg your pardon for showing this type of thing in the Parliamentary Buildings without your leave, but I want to assure you that after hon. members had attended the showing of two films and had seen these photographs, all of us left that hall with the greatest repugnance imaginable. One could simply not imagine that that sort of thing was in circulation in a Christian, civilized country such as the one in which we are living.

Hon. members may very well ask why action is not being taken against those concerned in terms of the Publications and Entertainments Act, 1963, or the Customs Act, 1964. However, as hon. members may probably be aware, neither of those Acts provides that the possession of indecent or obscene photographs or films is a punishable offence. If one looks at section 5 of the Publications and Entertainments Act, one notices that only the following are punishable offences, namely, to print, publish, manufacture, make or produce any undesirable publication or object, and to distribute, display, exhibit or sell or offer to keep for sale any publication or object which in certain prosecutions has either been found to be or stated to be undesirable by the Publications Control Board. In addition section 9 of that Act provides that a person can only be punished if he (a) exhibits in public or at any place to which admission is obtained by virtue of membership of any association of persons or for any consideration or by virtue of any contribution towards any fund, and cinematograph film which has not been approved by the board; or (b) publishes any cinematograph film intended for such exhibition which has not been so approved.

Hon. members will admit that if one applies those provisions to photographic material, one’s chances of obtaining a conviction are extremely remote unless one catches the offender in the act. And, Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case. Very recently the police set a trap for certain suspects. In that case one of the accused tried to sell to the police-trap photographs from a supply of no fewer than 86 pornographic photographs. Since it could not be proved that the accused had printed, published, manufactured, made or produced those photographs or that they had been found or stated to be undesirable as is required in section 5 (b) of the Publications and Entertainments Act, a prosecution could, of course, not be successful. The same person sold an undesirable film to the police-trap, and in a confession she even admitted to having done so, but in that case, too, a prosecution could not succeed because of the absence of proof to the effect that the film had been exhibited for consideration or published as contemplated in section 9 of the Act.

In spite of the strongest suspicions the police and the Attorneys-General are unsuccessful in their attempts at bringing these most abominable exploiters of man’s weaknesses to book, simply because the indisputable proof required in court is so often not obtainable. However, I have no doubts about the fact that the people who possess such photographic material, particularly in such large quantities as are so often found by the police, do not have it in their possession purely for their own perverse amusement, but are also exploiting it for personal financial gain and to the detriment of the morals of others.

Now, Sir, it is not news to me that the possession of undesirable publications and objects received the attention of the Commission of Inquiry into Undesirable Publications, and that the Commission was not agreeable to making the possession of such publications or objects a punishable offence. However, it should be borne in mind that approximately two-thirds of the witnesses who had testified before the Commission, had even at that time foreseen that evasion of the law could result in the event of the possession of undesirable material not being made a punishable offence.

I think that the time has now arrived for this loophole, which was foreseen so long ago, to be plugged, for the cloak of non-interference in the personal and private affairs of people to be cast off, and for the problem we have to contend with to be tackled without gloves. Taking into consideration the influence stimulating images have on our young people nowadays especially, the danger implied by the licentious portrayal of sex acts can no longer be ignored. I trust therefore that in this matter T can depend on the co-operation of both sides of this House. As hon. members will notice, it is, for obvious reasons, being endeavoured in clause 2 (2) to ensure as far as it is practicable that photographic material which has been exempted from the prohibitions of the Publications and Entertainments Act or of the Customs Act, should also be exempted from the prohibitions of this Bill. In addition it is being provided in clause 3 that action may not be taken against offenders except on instructions issued by the highest authority, namely the Attorneys-General.

In conclusion it may possibly be asked why the Publications and Entertainments Act cannot be amended instead, and why the Minister charged with the implementation of that Act does not handle this matter. However, hon. members will notice that in this measure it is only to a very small extent that we touch upon the field covered by the provisions of the Publications and Entertainments Act. In this measure we are only concerned with photographic material which is undesirable in a limited sense, whereas an undesirable publication or object, as contemplated in that Act, is a much wider concept. Hon. members will therefore understand when I say that an amendment of the Act in question for the purpose of meeting my small need, will present problems which can be avoided much more easily by an independent measure. As regards the question as to why this measure is being introduced by me and not by my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, I may mention the fact that the problems which are being experienced, are only being experienced by officers of the Departments of Justice and Police, and that the contemplated measure will in addition, once it has been passed, only be implemented by them.

In the Other Place the Opposition lent me their whole-hearted support, to such an extent that they allowed me to dispose of all three stages on the same day. However, the person who spoke on behalf of the Opposition in the Other Place, expressed concern about one particular matter. It concerned the fact that the mere possession of an obscene photograph or film was being made a punishable offence in clause 2 (2). The hon. Senator who spoke about this matter was himself unable to suggest a solution, but he nevertheless asked me to consider the matter and he thought that I might perhaps be able to adapt this provision to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and he referred to a certain presumption which was being created in respect of the possession of dagga. That is in section 31 of Act No. 29 of 1954. That section provides that whenever in any criminal proceedings against any person upon a charge under this Act it is proved that the person charged was found in possession of dagga exceeding four ounces in weight, the person charged shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have possessed that dagga for the purpose of sale or supply. He asked me to try to adapt that to this clause because he was concerned about the fact that innocent people could be implicated in this Act, but as is very clear from this particular clause, if I were to apply it, the position of the owner will be prejudiced. I am going to make a presumption against him; I am not going to make it easier for him, but more difficult. Subsequently I did some research and found that our common law, as contained in judgments of the courts, already makes provision for this type of possession. I want to refer hon. members to one or two cases in this regard.

The first one is Rex vs. Canestra (51, S.A.L.R., Vol. 2, page 323). There Mr. Justice Schreiner of the Appeal Court states—

If one applies this judgment to clause 2 (2), it will mean, particularly if we bear in mind that the maximum fine laid down here is R1,000, that if a person is found in possession of a pornographic photograph or an indecent film, the prosecutor will have proved his case if he has merely proved possession. He need not prove anything further except that the man had it in his possession. The next step is this. The accused is still at liberty to prove that he did not intend to have it in his possession. Where mere possession entails heavy fines, as it does in this case, the court will pay very strict attention to whether the accused did in fact have it in his possession with intent; in other words, whether he had the necessary mens rea. For that reason the court will, if there is the slightest degree of doubt, give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

I have found another case dealing with this matter, the preamble to which I should like to read. It is an older case, Rex vs. Ngumbe(1927, S.A.L.R., T.P.D., page 660). It concerned a person who had been found to have “unwrought gold” in his possession. Its preamble is as follows—

These two cases prove to us, especially when they are viewed against the background of the fines being heavy, that the courts will pay very strict attention to this matter and will always give an accused the benefit of the doubt if he is found to be in possession and should he furnish any reasonable explanation for such possession. In view of this I think that I have fulfilled the promise I made in the Other Place to go into this matter, and I find that the clause in its present form is satisfactory.

As the Minister has said, this is not a pleasant Bill, and although we may approve of the terms we of course regret that a Bill of this nature has become necessary. The fact that it is necessary is not an indication that the morals in this country are necessarily slacker than in other countries. The obscene film has become known as the “blue” film, and from what we hear it has become common in the large capitals of the world. By supporting this Bill I do not want to give the impression that we think our morals are lower than elsewhere. We are not concerned so much with the morals of the adult, provided he or she does not corrupt otherwise innocent persons. Adults are able to look after themselves and have a certain right to their own entertainment, provided they do not intrude on the privacy and feelings of others. We are, however, concerned with the morals of our youth and have a duty to see that in their immaturity they are not laid open to the wiles or temptations by other for gain, either monetary or sensual. It is true that the publications Act deals with the person who enriches himself through obscene publications. However, from what the Minister says, we appreciate that he is not always able to get the person responsible for the circulation or publication, because naturally where it is an offence to distribute or display or exhibit or sell such things, such acts will only be done surreptitiously and it is not easy to get a conviction. This Bill makes the mere possession an offence. This, of course, goes very far, especially as the offence is not so clearly defined that there can be no doubt as to whether the offence is committed or not. For example, if a person passes a hawker’s barrow and takes an apple, he knows that he is committing a theft. The Minister has referred to the provision in regard to dagga. A person knows that if he has more than a certain amount of dagga in his possession, or he sells dagga, he is committing an offence. He knows that the object he has in his possession is unlawful, but here the offence is the possession of indecent or obscene matter, but the magistrate will decide what is obscene. There are certain cases where the Publications Board has given a certificate to say that the matter is not obscene. Then it is regarded as not being so. The board can give permission for certain persons to be in possession of certain matter which would otherwise be regarded as obscene. One of the difficulties may be that a magistrate, in coming to a decision, may feel that the mere fact that the Publications Board has not given a certificate or an exemption it must necessarily mean that the matter must be regarded as being obscene.

The accused can always appeal.

That is so. But I say that the impression may exist that because the board has not given permission for the matter in question to be in circulation, that may be an indication that it should be regarded as obscene. It is for the magistrate to decide and. as the hon. member says, there can be an appeal to a higher court.

You are assuming that the magistrate is a jury.

No, I am not assuming that at all. But the position is this. The mere fact that there is a prosecution, and that the magistrate has found it to be obscene, means, even if a higher court does rule that it is not obscene, that there is nevertheless the unpleasantness associated with an appearance in court and the conviction by the magistrate. People may have films or photographs in their possession which they regard as art. They may not look upon those things in the same way at all as does the magistrate or judge. So I say that people may have certain things in their possession which they do not regard as obscene, and then they suddenly find themselves being found guilty of having an obscene object. I say that that is one of the difficulties in dealing with a matter of this nature. By its very nature it cannot be very clearly defined, and it must always be left to some other body to decide whether it is obscene or not. That is why there is a certain amount of reluctance to make this type of conduct an offence. There is, of course, a certain measure of protection, in that it is not left to just any prosecutor or policeman himself to decide whether the matter is obscene and whether there should be a prosecution. A prosecution can be instituted only by an Attorney-General. Were it not for this provision, I do not think that we on this side could have supported this measure. But because the Attorney-General himself will decide whether there should be a prosecution—and our Attorneys-General are men of experience and men of standing—we feel that there is protection for the ordinary citizen in that a case will not lightly be brought before the courts.

The Minister has dealt with mens rea. He has mentioned the case of a man who is found in possession of unwrought gold. I do hope that the Minister’s introductory speech at this second reading debate will be an indication to the Attorneys-General and the courts of what is meant by “being in possession”. The Minister has pointed out that the penalty is a heavy one. Because of the magnitude of the penalty the courts will be very careful before convicting if there is any doubt whether the necessary mens rea was present.

This is not a pleasant subject. We do not wish unnecessarily to pry into the privacy of our fellow-citizens. I think that the Minister’s introduction will be almost an instruction to the Attorneys-General as to how the are to proceed in this matter. In the result we on this side support this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, this Bill was supported by this side at the Second Reading. The hon. member for Umlazi asked the hon. the Minister how this measure was going to affect the South African Indian community. It is quite obvious that this is going to affect them in a very serious manner. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) deal with persons who enter the country, and they make provision for control of entry at a port of the Republic, the production of passports, and that sort of thing. Subsection (1) (d) states that “A passport control officer may require any person referred to in paragraph (c)”—that is, any person arriving at a port—“… or any other person, who in the opinion of such officer is not entitled to be in the Union or any particular province …” to do certain things. We believe that this is something which is designed to control the travelling through the Republic of certain classes of people. It is designed to control the movement of the Indian community from one province to another. Subsection (2) states that a passport control officer shall have power, if he thinks that a person is not entitled to be in or enter any one or more provinces, to remove him from such province. It further prescribes certain penalties which may be imposed on such person should he be found guilty of entering or remaining in a province after the expiry of his permit. We know that the Indian community to-day are subject to permits when they move from province to province. But I believe that what is happening in this clause is that Act 22 of 1913, which deals with immigration, is now being applied to the movement of Indians between the provinces. I would be very grateful if the Minister would explain to us exactly how this measure affects the Indian community, in what way it is changing the present regulations, which I do not believe fall under this Act, and whether in fact the intention of the amendments is to introduce control over Indians in terms of Act No. 22 of 1913.

Mr. Chairman, this Bill effects no change whatsoever in the present position of the South African Indian community. In actual fact section 1 (1) (d) of the old measure is here separated from the other provisions. The position is not changed in any respect whatsoever. Nothing more is required from the local Indian than that required from him in terms of the existing legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but the explanation by the hon. the Minister does not really answer our question. At the Second Reading of this Bill I asked the Minister to give an outline of the actual effects this Bill will have upon the South African Indian community. The Minister has said that there will be none at all. The Minister did not answer me at all during the Second Reading, and now his explanation is so abbreviated that it does not answer our question at all. The Minister must apply himself to the new provisions which he is creating here, not to the old provisions which he mentioned. He referred to the old sub-section 1 (1) (b), but that sub-section now becomes the new subsection 1 (d) (ii). He must answer us in the light of that particular clause. The new subsection 1 (d) (ii) is amended to say “or that his entry into or his presence within one or more provinces is not unlawful”.

This, in my opinion, transfers the onus of proof to the person who is caught within that province. Subsection (3) (a), as now amended, reads that “If a person who is not entitled to enter …” and certain words in the present Act are then deleted, “ … any particular province, enters …” and the following few words are added, “ … or is present in … that province …”, and the next few words are also added, “ … without having obtained, prior to entry, a permit or other document authorizing him to enter and sojourn or remain in that province, or if any such person, having entered a particular province without authority, fails to appear, as soon as practicable after such entry, before a passport control officer. These are the words that are added, and whilst they may be designed, as I suspect they are, to deal with other people who might enter South Africa—perhaps to work on the gold mines and thus be restricted to one province—they incidentally, as the hon. member for Mooi River has pointed out, are going to affect the South African Indian community, who already are restricted in their movement from province to province. What we want to know from this Minister is what extra restrictions of movement will be placed on the South African Indian community. We also want to know what extra penalties under the penalty clause will apply to them. This amendment provides for a very stringent penalty clause. Will the Minister tell us what extra restrictions are imposed and what extra powers of arrest are given to an officer in regard to the Indian community? If in fact it is directed against the Indian community—in view of recent prosecutions—and if they are being subjected to extra penalties, we want the hon. the Minister to tell us that. These are the things we want to know. But the Minister has not answered our questions. We are going to keep on asking these questions until the Minister does answer. I am going to sit down now and give the Minister the opportunity of telling us exactly what affect this measure is going to have.

Mr. Chairman, if only the hon. member for Umlazi would have taken my word for it when I gave him an assurance, then I think he would have accepted the reply which I gave him. I said to the hon. Member for Mooi River that this Bill does not alter the position of South African Indians who are citizens of South Africa in any way. All it does is to separate the position of any other persons who are not South African citizens and who have entered the Republic, and their movements. Those South African citizens on whom certain restrictions have been laid and who need permits for moving about in South Africa do not have their position altered in any way.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but we have not got this straight yet. We have asked a question in all sincerity, and I want to help the hon. the Minister, but I also want to know the answers to our questions. Certain provisions, which were safeguards, are being removed. Let me read them to the Minister. Before, the passport control officer could ask people who had entered the Union—now the Republic, but it is still called the Union in the Act—and gone to a province and who were, perhaps, restricted to that particular province, certain questions and he had certain measures by which to control their movement and their sojourn in that province. But if the Minister looks at clause 1 (3) (a) he will find that he is amending the clause to a very large extent. He has to accept this fact because he amended it, we did not amend it. We are just trying to get this right. He has amended this clause so that it will have an effect upon the South African Indian community. This Government accepted them as permanent residents of South Africa, and so it must accept the responsibility for any restrictions on their movements. At the moment we know that they are restricted in their movements from province to province. There is no secret about that. It is contained in the law. We want to know what extra restrictions are imposed upon them by this legislation. A passport control officer can arrest these people and put them into gaol if they overstay their permit in a particular province. Does this measure affect them more than it affected them before?

No.

This is what we want to know from the hon. the Minister. Did the passport control officer before this have the same powers; could he walk up to them in the street and ask them to produce documentary evidence entitling them to walk about the streets in the Transvaal when they were Natal Indians? These are the things that we are asking. They are simple questions. All we ask is that the Minister should answer them. But he is avoiding doing so for some reason. I do not know why. If he will tell us exactly what effect this Bill will have upon an Indian moving from Natal to the Transvaal on a permit, and over-staying his welcome, or going there without a permit, and what extra penalties he will thereby incur, we will be satisfied. That is all we ask of the Minister. It is quite simple.

Mr. Chairman, I tried to explain to the hon. member for Umlazi in his language exactly what the position is. But now I find that he could not follow me when I spoke his language.

You may speak either.

It may be that the hon. member is not used to decent English. I shall therefore reply to the hon. member in my language. I put it very clearly to the hon. member. In the first place the hon. member errs as follows in his argument. He admits that a local Indian who is a South African citizen must have a permit to move from province to province. That is provided by the Act. But now the hon. member says by implication that if such an Indian has a permit to move about in the Free State, for example, that permit will restrict him to Bloemfontein or Brandfort or Winburg. Well, the Act has never been applied that way. He receives a permit to move about in a province, and we are not going to bother him now. The permit system remains exactly the same as in the past. He is not affected by this measure. As the Act reads at present, a passport control officer or a policeman suspecting an Indian of moving about in a province without a permit—when he should have one—could have gone to him, arrested him and dealt with him as with someone who has contravened the law. We are not touching that position now. We are not touching it in any way. But for the purposes of control over Indians or other people from abroad, people who are not South African citizens, we have found it necessary to separate the treatment of the two classes of persons. That is all that we are doing here. We are separating the two, in order that the local Indians may not necessarily be subject to the same reulations and restrictions as those which apply to the person who comes in from abroad, and vice versa.

I am a most amiable person, Sir, but I fear I cannot make the position any clearer.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill under discussion contains exclusively administrative measures and is in general intended to make provision for bringing the retirement age of members of the Public Service Commission into line with that of officers in the Public Service; to extend the powers of delegation of the Commission and the Treasury in respect of powers which they must exercise in terms of the Public Service Act; and for measures to be introduced which would make it possible to make membership of a medical aid scheme compulsory for public servants.

Before I deal with the clauses separately, I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to the improvements in clauses 1 and 3 which appear in my name on the Order Paper and which are going to be moved as amendments in the Committee Stage.

I shall now explain the various clauses briefly. Clause 1: This clause contains an amendment to extend the definition of “Commission” in section 1 of the principle Act, so that it may include, inter alia, officers other than officers in its own office. This amendment is necessary and relates directly to the proposed amendment in clause 3 where the powers of delegation of the Commission are being extended.

Clause 2: This clause 2 contains an amendment to section 4 (12) of the principle Act. The existing section 4 (12) provides that a member of the Public Service Commission must relinquish his office and, if he was an officer in the Public Service before his appointment as Commissioner, retire on pension on the day he reaches the age of 65 years. The proposed amendment will allow such a member to remain in service until the end of the month in which he reaches that age. This proposed amendment will bring the retirement provisions affecting members of the Commission who are not officers in the Public Service, into line with the provisions which are applicable to officers. Previously an officer in the Public Service retired on pension on the day on which the pensionable age was reached. During 1964, however, the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1964 (Act No. 84 of 1964), provided that an officer who reached pensionable age and whose birthday fell on a date other than the first of the month, was deemed to have reached that age on the first of the month following upon the month in which he had his birthday. The main consideration was to simplify the administration of pensions. Due to an oversight, however, the relevant provision was not made applicable to the regulations in section 4 (12) of the Public Service Act, and members of the Commission were excluded. This inconsistency is now being rectified.

Clause 3: The powers of delegation conferred upon the Commission by section 5 of the Public Service Act, include the delegation of powers and activities of the Commission to a member or members of the Commission, to an officer employed in the office of the Commission, and in respect of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, to the Post Office Staff Board or members of the Board. However, the Commission may not delegate a power or activity to the head or to another officer in a department. As a result of altered circumstances in and the needs of the modern-day public service, there are various matters which are at present being dealt with in the office of the Public Service Commission which could equally effectively be dealt with by departmental heads or officers in their departments. The matters in question are mostly of a routine nature, in respect of which a fixed policy and regulations have already been laid down by the Commission. Considerable time, labour and material could be saved if provision is made for activities of this nature to be delegated to departmental heads or officers in departments under the guidance of and in accordance with conditions laid down by the Commission.

Clause 4: What was said about the Commission in regard to clause 3 also applies to a certain extent to the Treasury. In terms of section 7 of the Public Service Act, the Treasury must approve recommendations of the Commission, which result in expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, before such expenditure may be incurred. In many cases the approval of the Treasury is a mere formality and with a view to the facilitating of work and the elimination of unnecessary tasks the Treasury has requested that section 7 of the Act be supplemented so that it may be empowered to delegate, at its discretion, the powers to approve expenditure in certain cases to Departments.

Clauses 5 and 6: These two clauses are being discussed jointly since they both result from a need to supply the same requirement, i.e. to empower the Public Service Commission to put into effect the compulsory medical aid scheme for public servants. In terms of section 26 (b)bis of the Public Service Act, 1957, provision was made in 1963 for the establishment, management and control over a medical aid scheme or aid schemes for public servants. These provisions, however, were not comprehensive enough to cover the promulgation of regulations in regard to the recognition of existing medical aid funds. Clause 6 of the Bill is aimed at supplying the powers which are lacking, whereas in clause 5 a contravention of the constitution or regulations of a medical aid scheme is included in the definition of misconduct. There are two officially recognized medical aid schemes for public servants, of which one is the Medical Aid Association of the Post Office. Both have been functioning for many years. In terms of clause 6 of the Bill the two associations can, for example, continue with the administration of the compulsory medical aid scheme instead of a new departmental organization for that purpose having to be established.

Those therefore are the contents of this Bill. As I have already said, these are exclusively administrative measures, measures which I hope will enjoy the general support of this House.

We accept that the provisions of this Bill are aimed largely at amending administration matters under the Public Service Act. However, I think this Bill has certain aspects which we should discuss across the floor of the House and on which we should express our opinion.

Let us start with clause 1. One wonders whether this clause has not become necessary as a result of an omission under the 1965 amending legislation in terms of which the Post Office was excluded from the provisions of the Act through the establishment of a Staff Board for the Post Office itself. That enabled the Post Office, although in conjunction with the Public Service Commission, more or less to control its own staff matters. Therefore I think that what we want to do here now—and we do not take exception to it being done—is to rectify an oversight of 1965. It should, of course, have been put right at that time.

We have no objection to a redefinition in respect of the delegation of powers removing the restriction of it applying only to those officers employed in the office of the Public Service Commission. We accept that this is necessary. Furthermore, we consider that by and large this redefinition of the delegation of powers is an improvement.

Similarly, we accept the amendment proposed in clause 2 wherein provision is made that if a member of the commission attains the retiring age after the first day of any month he shall be deemed to have attained that age on the first day of the next succeeding month. As I say, we have no objection to this.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, one has to deal with this Bill even at this stage more or less clause by clause because it is an administrative measure without any overall principles. Therefore we now come to clause 3. Here too it is obvious that the hon. the Minister nearly made a mistake, because he has had to introduce amendments, as he also did in the case of clause 1, to catch up on something which was obviously wrong when the Bill was introduced and which should have been done when the original Act was passed or at least when amending legislation was before this House during 1965.

Clause 4 contains a provision which, quite frankly, we cannot understand. This clause provides for the delegation by the Treasury of its powers for the approval of expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to “any officer”. I take it what is meant here is “any officer of the commission”. Well, if that is going to be the position, what safeguard are we going to have as regards expenditure of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? I do not know. Surely to goodness it is the duty of the Treasury to control expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not of an officer of the Public Service Commission? When I tried to get some information on this point, I was told—and this I want to put to the House because I was rather alarmed by it—that there were certain matters which were really too small to justify bothering the Treasury. Consequently, it was proposed to delegate these powers to a member of the staff of the Public Service Commission. Well, Sir, if this principle is going to be applied throughout the public service and if a member of the staff of every Government department is going to receive delegated powers from the Treasury—I shall have to ask my colleagues in our financial group about this—to approve certain expenditure by his own department from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, what control are we then going to have over the expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with this aspect in some considerable detail. We require an assurance from him. Why, for instance, is such a provision included in this particular Bill? Why has it not been included in a Treasury Bill? Does the Treasury ask how such moneys are going to be spent when power is delegated to a member of the staff of the Public Service Commission to approve expenditure? I am alarmed to find a clause of this nature being included in a Bill such as this, a Bill dealing with the administration of the public service. I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister exactly what it is intended to cover by this delegation of powers by the Treasury to an officer on the staff of the Public Service Commission.

When we come to clause 5, we have further objections. I should like to deal with the clause a little more fully. This clause is, I think, the most important clause in this Bill. I should like to read it—

What does this mean? It only means one thing and that is that if a member of the Public Service contravenes a set of regulations, regulations of which we are unaware because I do not think they have been promulgated, he will be guilty of misconduct. And what are the penalties attached to misconduct? Sir, it appears that the hon. the Minister is not even listening to me. It does not appear to mean anything to him that a member of the Public Service can lose his job, lose his income after many years of service, if he disobeys a set of regulations which, to the best of my knowledge, has not as yet been drafted. Acts of misconduct are set out under section 17 of the Public Service Act of 1957 and includes—

1. (a) contravenes any provision of this Act or fails to comply with any provision thereof with which it is his duty to comply;
2. (b) does, or causes or permits to be done or connives at, any act which is prejudicial to the administration, discipline or efficiency of any department, office or institution of the Government;
3. (c) disobeys, disregards, or makes wilful default in carrying out a lawful order …
4. (g) becomes a member of any political organization or takes active part in political matters; or
5. (h) attempts to secure intervention from political or outside sources in relation to his position and conditions of employment in the Public Service …

These are a number of very serious offences. The penalties for a contravention of any of these provisions are set out in section 18 of that Act. These penalties are such that an officer can even lose his job. How can this hon. Minister honestly, sincerely and rightly add to these acts of misconduct disobedience to a set of rules applying to a medical aid fund, regulations of which the employee concerned may know nothing whatsoever?