I move—

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Explosives Act of 1956 embodied in this Bill results from South Africa terminating her membership of the Commonwealth.

Section 31 (a) of the principal Act provides inter alia that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to the importation, storage, use or transport of any explosive by the regular naval or military forces of the United Kingdom. No such exemption is granted in the Act to any other country.

As a result of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth, the Government has therefore decided as a logical step to replace the specific exemption in the Act in respect of the United Kingdom by a more general provision, in terms of which the Minister of Economic Affairs, after consultation with the Minister of Defence, can grant exemption to any country, including the United Kingdom, by notice in the Gazette, and can similarly cancel or suspend any exemption thus granted.

In drawing up this Bill the present position existing between Britain and South Africa as regards defence matters was kept fully in mind and it is also the South African Government’s intention to grant the necessary exemption to the British forces as from the date of commencement of this Bill, if Parliament approves, in order by so doing to maintain the present position. I move.

As this is a necessary measure, we on this side of the House have no objection to it. We only hope that the gazetting of the regulations will not be unduly delayed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed in the Bill now before the House are regarded as being urgently necessary in order to ensure the efficient functioning of the Export Credit Reinsurance Scheme which was established in terms of the Export Credit Re-insurance Act of 1957.

As hon. members know, that Act provides for the promotion of South Africa’s export trade through the re-insurance by the State against political and transfer risks involved in export transactions. As the scheme has developed, however, practice has shown that the existing legislation has certain deficiencies which to a certain extent hamper the smooth functioning of this re-insurance scheme and, as I have said, we are now proposing to remove these deficiencies by means of a few amendments. I shall now briefly explain the amendments which we propose effecting.

Hitherto the scheme has only provided cover in cases involving suppliers’ credit. This type of credit provision is satisfactory when short-term transactions are involved. When durable consumers’ goods, capital goods, or expensive construction work are involved, interim and long-term credit are required and suppliers’ credit is often unpractical so that the financing of such a transaction has to be undertaken by a financial or governmental institution in the exporting country. This type of institution advances the money to the foreign buyer on condition, of course, that the funds thus lent to the latter will be used mainly or exclusively to pay for goods or services supplied by the country providing the credit. This means in practice that the country providing the credit on occasion undertakes the financing of a transaction part of the components of which originate in a country other than the country of the buyer. In this regard I can however mention that the South African scheme at present already provides overall cover in respect of contracts in which certain components produced in other countries are added to South African manufactured equipment. Such cover is however limited to cases where such a foreign addition does not represent an unduly large proportion of the whole and the addition is necessary for the obtaining of a contract. If the foreign addition is, however, relatively large, for example more than 30 per cent to 40 per cent, the granting of cover is only considered in respect of the South African component part of the contract. It is now the intention to apply the same principles in the granting of cover in respect of financial risks.

Although at present it is impossible for the Republic to undertake the large-scale provision of capital goods to the outside world on liberal credit terms, it is nevertheless considered advisable that we should participate in this type of export in specific cases and that we should cover financial credit. It seems as though the construction and engineering industries particularly are taking an ever greater interest in participating in this type of export trade and that they appear quite able to compete with the outside world on a cost basis. What is more, export transactions of this nature can become a valuable source of foreign exchange and stimulate the country’s economy directly and indirectly. Clauses 1 (a) and 6 of the Bill deal with this matter.

As the scheme is implemented at present, the State provides cover against the risk of postponed payment or non-payment in cases where the buyer is a governmental body. While the object of the scheme is in fact to cover such political and transfer risks, Section 2 (a) of the existing legislation in fact contradicts that intention by providing that the circumstances must be beyond the control of the buyer, as is apparent from the fact that the section concerned provides that the non-compliance with the conditions of payment must be due to “the operation of a law, or of an order, a decree or regulation having the force of law”. Insurance against the non-compliance with the conditions of payment is therefore only afforded in those cases where such non-compliance is due to governmental action over which the private buyer probably has no control.

In Clause 1 (b) we now propose that this anomaly in the existing legislation should be removed by the deletion of the words “in circumstances beyond the control of the insured and the buyer” which appear at present in Section 2 (a) of the Act.

Furthermore, the intention is to extend the cover which can be afforded under the present legislation to include any war and not to confine it to a war between the buyer’s country and the Republic or any other country, as the Act provides at present.

Similarly, it is proposed that it should be possible to insure the credit risks of a South African exporter when they arise from hostilities, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection or any other disturbances in a third country.

These two aspects of re-insurance constitute a real need in the case of South African exporters and the object of Clauses 1 (c), 1 (d) and 1 (e) of the Bill is therefore to make it possible to grant fuller cover in respect of risks which arise from wars between any countries, as well as civil wars, revolutions, etc.

The proposed amendment contained in Clause 2 of the Bill is aimed at enabling the Export Credit Re-insurance Scheme, with the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs and in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to allow a higher percentage cover than the maximum of 90 per cent which the Act at present authorizes. In practice cover varying between 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the export value has hitherto been granted, depending on what has been considered desirable in each particular case. The underlying principle in this instance is that the exporter himself should retain an interest in the transaction in order to induce him to be cautious, and furthermore that, as a general rule, profits should not be insured.

In exceptional cases practiced experience has shown however that the affording of cover to a higher percentage than 90 per cent is desirable. Cases where capital goods are delivered the value of which is considerable and in respect of which the contractor makes use of loans are examples of this. As a result of the contingent obligation which the exporter must bear in respect of the uninsured percentage of a specific transaction, he sometimes finds it difficult to obtain sufficient financial assistance particularly if his profit margin is lower than the percentage I have mentioned. It is also conceivable that even in the case of exports for example of raw materials or agricultural products a higher cover than 90 per cent may be considered desirable if surpluses arise which have to be exported at an exceptionally low profit margin or at no profit margin.

The fund which has been established for the purposes of the Export Credit Re-insurance Scheme is being built up out of premiums received on insurance policies, as well as funds voted by Parliament for this purpose. The administrative costs and claims which result from re-insurance are met from this fund.

As there is a possibility that the fund at any specific time may not be strong enough to meet claims and Parliament will therefore have to be asked to vote additional funds, a provision has hitherto been inserted in all policies that claims will not be met before the expiry of a period of nine months after the date on which such claims arose. The intention was that, even if Parliament is not in session, there would be sufficient time to have the necessary funds voted.

The Export Credit Re-insurance Scheme has been approached from time to time to afford cover in cases where South African exporters tender for the delivery of goods overseas and considerable amounts are involved. Owing to the provision in the insurance contracts that payment of claims will only be effective nine months after a claim arises, tenderers are obliged to make provision in their tender price for a possible loss of interest which may result from the fact that they will have to wait for payment for some considerable time. In sharply competitive markets the addition of interest for such a relatively long period can mean the loss of a contract. If interest is however not added to the tender price, the South African exporters find it a particularly heavy burden to carry this interest themselves, particularly when big contracts are involved and they are compelled to make Use of outside financial assistance. The facilities which the South African scheme offers in this regard at present are also inadequate, compared with similar schemes in other countries, in that the prescribed waiting period to which I have referred, is six months in the Netherlands and four months in the United Kingdom for example.

In order to make possible the payment of claims at an earlier stage, consideration has been given to the possibility of replacing the fund’s deposit account with the South African Reserve Bank with a current account which can be overdrawn to a certain amount, subject to Treasury guarantee, if claims arise which exceed the reserves of the fund. The amount by which such claims exceed available funds can then be voted by Parliament as soon as possible thereafter in order to reimburse the account concerned. Such an arrangement will make it possible for the scheme to meet claims sooner and will facilitate its administration by making it possible to tide the fund over smaller deficits, if the current premium income is such that an overdraft can be repaid within a reasonable time from that income.

In order to overcome this problem, it is therefore being proposed in Clause 3 of the Bill that the Minister of Economic Affairs will have the power to overdraw the account of the Export Credit Re-insurance Scheme’s fund at the South African Reserve Bank, subject to the condition that the adjustments which must still be effected at any specific time in respect of such an overdraft must not exceed the amount to be specified in the guarantee to be given to the bank by the Minister of Finance. This authority will only be used to enable the fund to deal with claims more expeditiously than is at present the case, and it will further only be necessary to ask for Parliamentary appropriation if the fund cannot obtain from its own resources, for example by way of premium income, the amount required to meet the outstanding overdrafts.

All these amendments are being proposed at the request of the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation in consultation with the advisory committee which has been appointed in terms of the Act, and I can assure the House that it will meet a genuine need on the part of South African exporters.

Clause 4 of the Bill merely provides that any amendment to the principal Act, just as the principal Act itself, will apply to South West Africa. Clauses 5 and 6 adjust the wording of this legislation to the change in South Africa’s form of government. Furthermore Clause 6 provides for the necessary adjustment in the long title of the present Act, with a view to the amendments which I have just explained. This legislation which I am moving can make an important contribution towards helping our exports.

This side of the House obviously agrees that this Bill is necessary. The Minister’s explanation was clear and precise and I do not propose spending much time on the matter. The extension of the export credit insurance to financial credit is especially welcomed, and as the Minister said, this allows credit on contract prices, and it is obviously of importance to contractors in South Africa who are at the moment looking for contracts all over the world. This Bill also allows the Minister wide powers which we think are justified. It extends his right to give cover in the more unstable conditions over a wider area, and the Bill also allows the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to increase the margins of insurance beyond the 90 per cent figure. This is obviously welcomed and is the result of experience, as the Minister said, because in the export a large number of capital goods on which the profit is very small, the 90 per cent figure has in the past been found not to be large enough to cover the cost to the exporter. Now we will be able under certain circumstances to give a guarantee for the total cost of the product. The other provisions were explained very clearly by the Minister, in regard to the finance to be made available to the Corporation through the Reserve Bank, and in the event of the Reserve Bank suffering a loss they can then come to us to make good that loss. I suggest to the Minister that this matter must be watched very closely in future. I saw a report during the last few days that the members of the Common Market have now decided that they will not allow credit to be granted to any of their members for a period longer than five years, although I believe that in the past this was observed more in the breach than otherwise. Anyway, we welcome this Bill because it renders assistance to our exporters.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses on a Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

stand over.

Agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In the first place I want to say that I am glad the hon. the Minister has seen the error to which I referred at the second reading, the psychological error which was made in omitting this word, namely “advisory”. We feel, however, that the harm has already been done. The Minister knows as well as I that as a result of the Bills which have been before him during the past two or three years, suspicion has arisen. On the Select Committee we on this side also tried to prevent this psychological mistake which was committed when this word was omitted, but hon. members in their wisdom did not accept our suggestion and omitted this word, and now the Minister has restored it. I am not going to devote any more time to the evidence on this matter, but I think the Minister will agree, after studying the evidence before us, that the overwhelming majority of those to whom this question was put and who gave evidence before us, felt that this council should not only be advisory but that the word “advisory” should also appear in the Bill. I have gone into the matter and I find that we put this question to 21 witnesses and of them 19 stated that “advisory” should appear in the Bill and that the council should be an advisory council. I am therefore glad that the Minister has now conceded this point by restoring the word, where it should have been in the first place. However, I still feel that I must stand by the proposal I made originally, that is to say, that the council should not be called a “National Advisory” Council. I wonder why in the Afrikaans version the Minister is using the word “advieserende” (advisory) in respect of an “adviesraad” (advisory council). Furthermore, I feel that we must insist on the omission of the word “National”. I have already said that no one can have any objection to something that is national, which has the characteristics of the people as a whole. But I pointed out at the second reading that the word “national” in our vocabulary has unfortunately already acquired a restricted meaning. Over the past few days I have listened once again to my hon. friends opposite, and one repeatedly finds that they use the word “national” in a narrow political sense because they speak of “a National Party Government”, “a National Cabinet”, and “the National Party”. This word has therefore lost that broader meaning which it always had and which all of us would like it to have, and it has not only acquired a restricted meaning, but it also to a certain extent creates suspicion.

But you have now swallowed the National Union?

We can all sing together, but we cannot all talk together! I know that when we sing together, that hon. members will in any case sing false! I have pointed out that the word “national, does not have that comprehensive meaning which it should have. In other words, as far as Clause 8 is concerned, the Minister is not including all sections of the population in the legislation.

It is for these reasons that I now make a further appeal to the Minister to simply call the Council an “Advisory Education Council”. Then he may make a further contribution towards removing the suspicion which already exists and for this reason I stand by my amendment which reads as follows—

I just want to give my opinion regarding the two submissions the hon. member has made. The first is that he objects to the word “national”. I still maintain that this is in fact a National Education Council. An opportunity is being created whereby this council can give advice to any Minister who is concerned with the training of students. There are Bantu education, Coloured education, the Railways and the Public Service and the training they provide. These are not institutions which fall under one department such as the Department of Education, except that that department is the agent for training artisans on behalf of the Department of Labour. This council will, therefore, in fact be a National Education Council. Regarding the suspicion which exists in respect of the word “national”, I think that the interjection which the hon. member has just made about the fact that the United Party has swallowed the National Union is really appropriate.

And then the National Union disappeared!

They disappeared into the indigestible stomach of the United Party. But this council will be of national scope and I maintain that we would be doing the council an injustice.

As regards his second argument, namely that it should be called an “Adviesraad” in Afrikaans, I think that this is more of a philological difference between us. I personally feel that “Adviesraad” is an Anglicism. It is an advisory council of national scope which will give advice, but to me “Adviesraad” does not sound as well. I think we should not quarrel over the name, and we should submit to the authorities. I personally feel in this way. I remember that when we sat on the Select Committee on the Constitution, the question was also raised of whether the Republic should be called “Die Republiek Suid-Afrika” or “Die Republiek van Suid-Afrika”. The matter was vigorously debated. Some language experts said it was correct to speak of “Die Republiek Suid-Afrika” but colloquially “Die Republiek van Suid-Afrika” is said, and we then decided on that. Here we again have a question regarding which we can quote dictionaries and language experts, but my personal feeling is that we should call it the “Nasionale Adviserende Onderwysraad” (National Advisory Education Council Bill). That will be the more correct name, as far as the Afrikaans version is concerned, and I do not think there is any difference as far as our English-speaking friends are concerned. I am sorry that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Before I propose my own amendment I should like to say a word about what the Minister has just told us. When we were on the Select Committee we tried to find a suitable name on which we could agree, and as I said in the second reading debate, I went to the English Education Act, where they call the council the Advisory Council for Education. The Minister has said it affects the whole nation and the whole country and therefore we should call it the National Council. But whilst he was speaking I was looking at the statutes passed last year. It is not the custom in South Africa to call anything “national” because it applies to the whole country. Let me give some examples. There is the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is not the National Unemployment Insurance Act. There are several more examples. All the Acts are just called by their names without adding the word “National”. It seems to me that it is superfluous, tautology and unnecessary repetition.

What about your National Council of Women?

I am talking about these statutes and not about a society which the hon. member dislikes. In the statutes we do not use the word “National”. There is the Dairy Industry Act, not the National Dairy Industry Act, although it applies to the whole country.

But I want to come to my own amendment, standing on the Order Paper to-day. Perhaps I should explain that I have withdrawn the other amendment, and I want to explain the reason for doing so. When we were on the Select Committee, I proposed the original amendment standing in my name on page 901. The present one is on page 912. The original one was in order when I proposed it on the Select Committee, but now that the principle of the Bill has been approved, I realize that to insist on that amendment would possibly be out of order. The principle of appointment by the Minister has been accepted in the second reading. Therefore I framed an amendment which accepts the appointment by the Minister, but in making the appointments I wish to have recommendations from various bodies made to him. That is contained in my amendment, which stands on the last page of the Order Paper of to-day and which reads as follows—

1. (2) The council shall consist of—
   1. (a) a chairman and a vice-chairman; and
   2. (b) additional members, not less than 13 in number, who shall be recommended by the Administrators of the provinces, the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, representatives of the universities, technical colleges, vocational schools, commerce, mining, industry and agriculture, the Conference of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Private Schools and the Standing Committee of the Association of Church Schools generally.

I have said here that the Council Executive shall consist of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, not five members or two members with the Minister’s option of appointing another three. Secondly, I say in (b) that additional members, not less than 13 in number, be added who shall be recommended by various bodies, the administrators, the Federal Council of Teachers, etc. I hope the Minister will be able to accept this, because it does not deprive him of the right of nomination. He still has the power to nominate, but the recommendations will come from these various bodies.

I have considered this amendment very carefully and I came to the conclusion that in my second reading speech, and in my reply to that debate, I dealt very fully with these points now dealt with in this amendment. First of all, the additional members, not less than 13, who shall be recommended by these various bodies—I think I made out a very good case and I really hoped that the Committee would accept the arguments put forward by me, especially the difficulty which would arise if all these interested bodies—they are not associated in federations—recommended people. It would put me in a checkmate position from which I would never get out again, if I accepted this amendment. As far as the point that the executive shall consist of a chairman and a vice-chairman, and the arguments I advanced on that point, my arguments were very clear that I forsee that there will be a lot of work to be done by these people, and that I cannot cope with all the problems if there are not at least five members on the executive. Therefore, I am very sorry that I cannot accept this amendment.

I once again want to come back to the Minister’s advisory council. The Minister says that in terms of Clause 7 the council is wide in its scope; that it is in actual fact national in character, in that it can give advice to all racial groups. But I base my argument in the main on Clause 8. I know of course that in the original Bill, as it was submitted to us in draft, the words “relating to Whites alone” appeared, but they were then omitted. However, I am sorry that this principle is not upheld in Clause 8 and it is for this reason that I feel that this council is in reality not a national council. Furthermore, it is not national for the reasons the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has mentioned. I admit that there are in fact certain Acts in which the word “national” is used, but there are so many of our other laws in which the word is not used and which also cover the whole of South Africa and all groups. It is not the custom in the majority of instances, to insert the word “national” before the word “council”. I repeat that in my opinion the word no longer has the meaning which it had previously.

I want to support my hon. friend in respect of his further amendment. I can—and I say this with all respect—unfortunately not accept as resting on a sound basis the hon. the Minister’s exposition and explanation for refusing to recognize the groups or organizations concerned. I know that the hon. the Minister has pointed out that there are dozens of these organizations, amongst the teachers for example, but he knows after all as well as I that these organizations are combined into central, federal groups, and it is to these that I am referring. For my own purposes, when we discussed this Bill, I considered this question, and I found that the universities for example are combined into the committee of principals, and the representative whom the Minister wishes to appoint to represent the universities could easily be nominated by the committee of principals. I find that all the teachers’ associations, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, namely S.A.T.A., the T.T.A., the Natal Teachers’ Union (both sections) etc., are all combined into one group, namely the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. Similarly I find that the technical colleges and vocational schools are combined into one large association, and similarly we find that the private schools are combined into one group.

And the trade unions?

I know that there are more than one.

There are five of them.

Very well. Then there are the mines. The organizations concerned in the mining industry are combined in the Chamber of Mines. The commercial organizations are combined in the Chambers of Commerce.

There are the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Handelsinstituut and the Federated Chamber of Industries.

Very well, but the position is not as the hon. member has said, namely that there are so many of them. It is merely a question of willingness.

Count them and see how many there are.

In my opinion the reply which the Minister has given is not so convincing that he is justified in acting in conflict with the wishes of the organizations who gave evidence, the experts in this field, or in conflict with the recommendations of the commissions which preceded the Select Committee dating from 1911. We asked 17 organizations who appeared before us whether the members should be nominated by the various organizations, and 15 of them said: “Yes”; one said “No”, and one was not quite sure. Then we asked whether the representatives on this council should also include people who are not connected with the education profession. I have it here in English: “Should representation on the council comprise educationists and other bodies?” To this 15 out of the 24 to whom we put the question replied “Yes”. In other words, the overwhelming majority replied in the affirmative.

Were these educational bodies?

The majority of them were educational bodies. The majority of them are people with a thorough knowledge of education.

I want to ask the hon. member whether the bodies which recommended that other interests should be represented on the council, were educational bodies?

As far as I can remember, definitely yes. These were not only persons who represented educational bodies but they were also experts on education. What bothers me is that the Minister does not want to accept this amendment in which we are not only asking that these organizations should nominate the members, but that the Minister should do one of two things, namely either that he should give them an opportunity to make recommendations to the Minister or appoint the members from a panel which will be submitted to him. We would even be prepared to accept that, but let the Minister recognize them; or if the Minister does not want to accept this in toto, let him then tell us that he has so much confidence in the organizations who are directly connected with education, that he will allow them to recommend persons to him.

I have gone still further; I have invited the entire public to send me names.

Yes, and the Minister can appoint whom he likes.

But of course.

But that is not what I want. I want the Minister to accept persons, as far as the teachers are concerned, in whom they have confidence. What is the Minister afraid of?

Nothing. What are you afraid of?

No, I am not afraid. I just want the Minister to recognize the people who are teachers. It is the correct thing to do. If he will examine the reports submitted by the commissions who have sat since 1911, then he will find that they also say this, and for this reason I ask the Minister once again to accept our amendment. Why not? It could do the council a world of good if the Minister would accept this suggestion made by the hon. member for Kensington and this side of the House.

I really cannot agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) that the word “national” in our country has acquired a narrow meaning merely because the name of a political party also includes the word “national”. As far as the public are concerned, when one refers to a national council or a national advisory council, then the public interpret it as meaning a council which will represent the whole nation. It is only in the United Party that the word “national” has acquired a narrower meaning; for the rest of the country, the word still retains its true meaning. I can therefore not see what objection the hon. member has to the word “national” being in the title of the council.

The hon. the Minister has after all said very clearly in his speech that his Department has no control over non-White education. Coloured education will be transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs next year, Indian education is to be transferred to the Department of Indian Affairs, and Bantu education already falls under the Department of Bantu Education. But the hon. the Minister has said quite clearly that he hopes that his colleagues will make use of this advisory council. The council will therefore be fully at the disposal of those Departments which control non-White education, and it is wrong to say that the council will only serve one section of the population. The hon. member urges that the Minister should accept nominations from teachers’ associations because 15 witnesses to whom this question was put, said that they should be consulted in connection with the appointment of members of the council. It is surely obvious that if one asks an association whether it considers that it should be consulted in connection with the appointment of a member, it will reply “yes”, because it would very much like to have a person there whom it nominates; it would like to have a say on the council. What would happen if the hon. member were to be given his way, and if the Minister were to consult the various associations or organizations about whom he should appoint? We would have group interests represented on that council and not national interests. What we want is that national interests should be represented, or does the hon. member want group interests to be represented on this council? This council is not being appointed to serve groups; the council is being appointed to serve and to advise the nation on a national basis. This also applies to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), and I really hope that the hon. the Minister will not accept that amendment.

The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) seems to be speaking at cross-purposes when he talks about the naming of this council. How can this possibly be a national council in the true sense of the word if there is no reference throughout this Bill to Coloured or Bantu Education? Sir, none of the members on that side of the House are prepared to exclude the Coloured people from our national way of life, and right throughout this Bill all reference to the education of Coloured people is avoided. If the hon. member for Vryheid is right in saying that the Minister hopes that provision will be made in the future for the betterment of Coloured and Bantu education by this advisory board, why then does the hon. the Minister not make provision now for the appointment of persons representing the Coloured and Bantu sections of the population? No reference is made to them in the Bill; no opening is left for the representation of these people on the advisory council. How then can anybody in this House say that this will be a national council. There is no opportunity to make it a national council in the future. If the Minister was correct in what he said to us then he should make provision for the appointment on this council of people who can represent Coloured and Bantu interests as far as education is concerned. Our whole future educational life must be bound up with the Coloured and Bantu educational systems, and if the hon. the Minister thinks that for all time there is going to be a separation of the systems he is making a terrible mistake, because come what may their system must become integrated with ours, because education is such that it cannot be divided up to suit certain people. I therefore support the hon. member for Hillbrow in his contention that the word “national”, at this stage at any rate, should be taken out of this Bill, and let the Minister apply it then, as he wants to do, to the White population only.

During his Second Reading Speech the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) advocated inter alia that this council should consist of practical educationists, that is to say, the professional people. I want to agree with him completely in that regard and I also want to support that submission. Then he also asked—and it was because of this that the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) was drafted—that on this educational organization bodies which deal with the product of education should be represented. On that occasion he mentioned inter alia representatives of the Army (apart from representatives of commerce and industry) which is a State department. Mr. Chairman, if we are to give representation to everyone who deals with the product of education, then I can imagine what a big, cumbersome body the council would have to be, because then we would also have to give representation to the Post Office and to the various facets of the Public Service, and I regard that as absolutely ridiculous. I find it strange in fact that hon. members do not have sufficient confidence in the educationists to let them serve on this council. I believe that the hon. the Minister will appoint people with knowledge of education in its various aspects—nursery education, primary education, secondary education, technical education and higher education—people who have or are still acquiring intimate knowledge of education. It seems to me as though insufficient confidence is placed in the teaching profession, in the educationists as such, as though sufficient capable persons cannot be found in their ranks to serve on the council. That is the implication of this amendment which the hon. member for Kensington has moved.

Recently we had yet another example when the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs proposed the establishment of an advisory committee on exports, to which representatives of organized commerce and industry will also be appointed. In this case people will be appointed who are familiar with commerce and industry and no other persons from various professions. Why should persons from other spheres in the community be appointed and not teachers and educationists as such exclusively?

As regards the word “national” I should just like to submit that in the reports of all the commissions which have been appointed hitherto and which have reported on this matter, the word “Union” and even the word “national” were used. The word “national” was used shortly after the establishment of Union. A “National Council of Advice for Technical Education” was established in 1912. At that time already the word was used. Inter alia the word “national” was used by the Secretary for Education in 1935. In his annual report for 1935 the then Secretary for Education for example said: “The Union does not have a national education system” and he suggested that he would like to have a national education system. The word “national” has therefore already been used on various occasions. The De Villiers Commission also used the word “national” in its report in 1948. Why are the United Party as afraid of the word “national” as the devil of holy water? I think that objecting to the use of the word “national” is a revelation of pettiness. After all it means “comprehensive it means “belonging to the people” as any one knows. I should therefore like to support the hon. the Minister and ask that this word should be retained and also that he should appoint persons to the Advisory Education Council who know something about education and not bring in people from outside.

The hon. member who has just sat down has alleged that we on this side do not have sufficient confidence in the educationists, and that is why we want to include all these outside organizations as well. But I once again want to refer the hon. member to the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). In addition to representatives of the Federal Council, the Administrators, the private schools and the Standing Committee of Church Schools, we only mention commerce, the mines, industry and agriculture; those are the only four. The rest are all educationists. How can the hon. member allege that we do not have confidence in the teaching profession and that for this reason we refuse to limit the council to educationists? This side of the House in fact wants to make this council as wide and as representative as possible. The hon. member who has just sat down has said that it is ridiculous to allege that the persons who deal with the products of the schools should have representation on this council. Who are the people who should be represented on that council? The people who in their daily life see the products of the schools are precisely the type of people who are representative of commerce, industry and agriculture; it is precisely these people who could make a vast contribution to the deliberations of such an educational council. The hon. the Minister has said that he will not appoint these people of his own accord; that he will even give the 160 members of Parliament an opportunity to recommend persons. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to ask 160 different members in this House whom they would like to see on such a council, does the hon. the Minister then want to tell me that he cannot ask 25 different organizations in this country whom they would like to have on the council? How is the Minister going to appoint this council if all the 160 members of this House should give him ten or 12 names? But if he gives commerce, industry, agriculture, the mines and the various educational interests mentioned in the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington the opportunity to nominate persons to serve on the council, then his task will be so much easier. The hon. the Minister would then immediately have the assurance that he will have the fullest measure of co-operation on this council. They are capable enough and have sufficient qualifications to nominate the right people. If the hon. the Minister wants to make this body genuinely representative of the whole nation, if he wants to make it a body which will care for our interests in the wider sense, then he should accept this amendment by the hon. member for Kensington. I think this is a good, sound amendment, and this is what these people themselves have requested.

I do hope that the hon. the Minister will not accede to the recommendations which have been made here and that he will not allow himself to be bound to any greater extent than Clause 2 (3) already binds him, and that for the rest he will retain the absolute freedom to appoint those persons who are qualified for such appointment by virtue of their personality and their own knowledge. What hon. members opposite are now proposing is nothing but a conditional (gebonde) mandate. They want the Minister only to consider certain persons who are recommended by certain other organizations or bodies, and as soon as he does that, those persons will feel bound to report back to those bodies by whom they were nominated. As soon as that happens, he is bound. Whether it be directly or indirectly does not matter a great deal; and as soon as he is bound, he will no longer have a council which can think freely and which can make recommendations freely to him. Because what will happen to such a person who is nominated by the Agricultural Union for example. I am just taking an example which has suddenly come to my mind. Hon. members must note that such a person will not be a representative of the Agricultural Union; he will merely be recommended by the Agricultural Union. What will happen to such a person if he acts on this council in a way which does not meet with the approval of the Agricultural Union? Then they will of course never recommend him again. And what will that help us? Then we shall be exactly where we were. I want to urge very strongly upon the Minister that he should uphold this principle of an unconditional mandate as far as appointments are concerned and that he should recruit people who are qualified by virtue of their own personality, knowledge and value to assist him by giving him the best possible advice they can give without feeling that they must look to anyone else.

I am surprised to hear a responsible person like the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) put forward the proposition that because certain people might be recommended by bodies they will feel that they represent those bodies and that they must report back to those bodies. To me it seems unreasonable to put forward such a proposition as a reason for giving entire freedom to the Minister to use his own discretion in making these appointments. Sir, that has not been my experience of people who have had responsibilities given to them by bodies of a national character or of a fairly widespread character. I repudiate entirely the suggestion that any person recommended to the Minister for appointment to this council by any body of people, by any confederation or association of people, would possibly feel that his hands are tied. Sir, this is not like a political appointment. We are trying to take this matter out of politics and to make this a council which will vote and act according to the merits of the situation.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) gave some examples of “national” bodies which had been created, but he went back a long way in history. He managed to find one example in an annual report in 1935, whereas the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has been able to quote Acts passed in this House within recent times and even in earlier days where the word “national” is not used.

Only one per cent.

I must say that I am surprised at the hon. the Minister saying that he finds it difficult to swallow the term “advisory council”.

Anglicised.

Well, Sir, you know there are anglicisms and “Afrikanercisms Sir, there is, I hope, and I hope there will be co-operation between the two groups of people in this country, but it is a bad habit that we have in this country, on both sides of the House, of giving words meanings which are purely local. Take the use of the word “liberal” for instance. I choose that word because “liberal” in English means certain things but it has been given by people on the other side and even by others a meaning which is not really within the context of what English-speaking people believe it to mean. The hon. the Minister said in the course of his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill that he had about 200 people who might advise him on education. But how is he going to choose from amongst them? It is true that the hon. the Minister has had experience of teaching …

And of big men and women!

It might equally be hand-picked men because he may pick up the telephone directory, close his eyes and pick a man out with a pin. It is his hand that is going to do the picking.

You do not trust my hand—that is your objection!

In regard to this word “national” which tastes so bad to some of us, I am surprised at the hon. the Minister. He has such a bad taste in his mouth. He is slowly getting rid of it by chipping bits of concrete off court houses, pulling down flags and removing pictures—all that because of the taste in his mouth.

A Peruvian will talk like that!

Mr. Chairman, is it allowed that I can be insulted in this House?

What are the words which were used by the hon. member for Cradock?

When he attacked everything that is Afrikaans I said to him “a Peruvian will talk like that”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw.

I was saying that I hoped to be able to improve the taste in the hon. the Minister’s mouth. I also hope that in view of the spirit of co-operation which was shown by this side of the House at the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister will co-operate with us also by accepting our amendments.

Just to give an indication of what attitude many of the witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee adopted toward this problem, I want to read a short extract from the report. Before doing so, however, I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether the South African Teachers’ Association is included in the 15 organizations which stated that they would like to nominate their representatives themselves.

I cannot remember.

Let us see what this body’s approach was to this matter. On page 32 of the Committee’s Report, the following questions which the hon. member for Hillbrow put to Mr. Wahl of the S.A.T.A. and the latter’s replies are recorded, namely—

1. 102. Who should appoint the members of the council?—That function will presumably be the prerogative of the Minister in consultation, of course, with the bodies concerned. Preferably these bodies should be asked to nominate their representatives.
2. 103. Should he act on the advice of these bodies?—Yes, but this need not necessarily mean that he need accept it. He should certainly seek their advice.

This is more or less typical of the attitude of all these bodies, namely that they were prepared to trust the Minister because they themselves saw the danger that otherwise persons who were not educationists, could be appointed to the council and also that nominations by bodies could result in the formation of groups.

As regards the use of the word “national”, I want to say that I regard this whole business as a joke. Hon. members opposite are so afraid of this word because they confuse it with “nationalist”. But I want to ask them whether, if we had introduced this Bill before the establishment of the Republic and had therefore used the word “Union”, would they have objected to that? They would definitely not have done so. Now, however, we can no longer use the word “Union” and the word “national” must be used but in the same sense as the word “Union” was used previously, namely to indicate the whole as against the provincial. When we therefore refer to “national” we are merely trying to indicate that we are speaking of the whole country and not merely of the provinces. But hon. members opposite are afraid of this word despite the fact that it is being used in this sense, and despite the fact that even in their own beloved motherland, that is to say England, it is used. It is also used in France, Germany, and everywhere else.

Read the reports which were submitted by the commissions which were appointed to investigate our education system and hon. members will see that the word “national” is used throughout. The De Villiers Commission deplored the fact that there was not a “national” outlook on our education system and that there was no “national” perception of the problem. We are not referring to the National Party. This word is not being used in its political connotation, but only to contrast the interests of the whole against the interests of the component parts—in this case the provinces. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will not pay any attention to what hon. members opposite have said about this matter hitherto. In any case they have not convinced me that the word should be replaced.

I think it is necessary for me to remind the hon. member for Prieska to what extent the United Party is in good company in its stand over this matter. Professor du Toit of the University of Stellenbosch found it unnecessary to use the word “nasionaal”. He said in his evidence that in his opinion the word was quite unnecessary.

Give us a further example.

In regard to the interjection by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) during the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow, whereby he indicated that a large number of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Select Committee were of the opinion that the Council should also be representative of other bodies outside the educational field, I should like to quote some facts which will prove beyond any doubt that the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington is supported by the majority of the witnesses who gave evidence. Many of the witnesses were asked whether they were in favour of the Council having on it representatives of bodies outside the education field, and the following answers were elicited: “Die Akademie” was doubtful; the Black Sash was against it; “die Calvinistiese Beweging” was against it and so were the Cape School Board; the National Council of Women was in favour of it and so were Professor du Plooy, the Cape Council of Education, the Education Panel, F.A.K., Conference of Headmasters and Headmistresses, the Home and School Council, the S.A.O.U., Dr. Prinsloo, the Scientific and Technical Association, Cape Council of School Committees, S.A.T.A., the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, the Teachers’ Association of the Transvaal, and the United Party Provincial Caucus. Other bodies which were not in favour of it are the “Inter-kerklike” Committee, Professor Malherbe, the “Onderwysersvereniging van Transvaal”, the S.A. Association for Technical and Vocational Education and the University of Potchefstroom. In the circumstances, it is fair to say that the majority of the educationists who gave evidence was in favour of other bodies being represented on the Council.

At this stage I should like to move the amendment which stands in my name on page 901 of the Order Paper, viz.—

Sub-section (3) (a) of Clause 2 deals in the first place with the appointment of someone to the Council who has special knowledge of the functions of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, and then goes on to deal with appointment of provincial representatives. I submit if the term “recommended” is retained in this sub-section, the Administrators will be deprived of a final say in who will represent them on the Council. If, on the other hand, the word “nominated” is substituted for it, it will leave no doubt that the autonomy of the provinces is not being interfered with. This will also be in accordance with the opinion expressed by the majority of witnesses who gave evidence before the Select Committee. Altogether 16 witnesses representing different organizations expressed an opinion on the question of provincial representation, 13 of whom expressed themselves in favour of such representation. On the question of whether such representatives should be appointed or nominated 13 favoured nomination and five appointment.

Reference has been made to the fact that some of these bodies who expressed themselves in favour of provincial representatives being nominated were activated by political motives instead of purely educational sentiments. It is of interest, therefore, to find out to what extent the witnesses concerned represented purely educational interests or not. When analysing the evidence, I found that eight witnesses were not only in favour of provincial representation but would like to see the provinces nominating their own representatives. Four of the eight represented purely educational organizations, like the “Transvaalse Onderwysersvereniging”, the S.A.T.A., the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations and the Transvaal Teachers’ Association. The remaining organizations were the “S.A. Akademie”, the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies and the Council for School Committees of the Cape. All these bodies are intimately associated with education. The principle that the provinces should be allowed to nominate their representatives has, I believe, always been observed in the past and I should like the hon. the Minister to accept it, therefore, also in respect of this Bill. In the past the persons serving on the Committee of Heads of Departments were virtually the choice of the provinces concerned by virtue of the fact that provinces play a large part in the appointment of the head of the department of education in each province.

At this stage I should like to deal, in the light of how I see matters, with the two amendments which were moved first. The first amendment is that of the hon. member for Hillbrow, namely that the word “national” should be omitted. I just want to point out to him that there is already an Advisory Education Council in the Transvaal of which Professor J, Chris Coetzee is the chairman. This body is called the “Advisory Education Council”. It is not stated that it is an advisory education council for the Transvaal. All the arguments in favour of the retention of the word “national” which hon. members on this side of the House have submitted, are well-founded and I think enough has already been said on that point. The hon. member for Hillbrow by his amendment wishes to derogate from the status of the proposed council. The hon. member for Kensington has referred to the use of the word in legislation and has pointed out that in certain laws it is not used. Of course it was not. Here, however, the word is a uniting factor. It indicates unity where in fact there has never been unity before. Hon. members must remember that I have said I do not want a deadly uniformity, but that there should be greater unity. Do hon. members opposite want to fly in the face of all the evidence to the effect that there is dissatisfaction with our education system? Are they then not parents as well? Is everything satisfactory and are they satisfied? We are now saying that a unifying word is being used to give expression to something of great significance. It should therefore remain—no matter how many times we have to divide on the point.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington goes so far as to propose that there should only be 13 members of the council, that is to say in addition to the chairman and vice-chairman.

At least 13.

Very well, let us accept that. But remember that I am already committed to five members. I shall have to think very carefully before I proceed to appoint more than 15 members to the council, in the beginning at any rate. I may appoint one or two more, but I cannot simply appoint 30 or 40.

What is binding you then?

My own feeling. I am convinced that five members will immediately be required for the executive committee. What is the idea underlying the appointment of the members of such a council? Do hon. members know what the position is in this regard in connection with other councils, such as the Board of Trade and Industries, etc.? Just allow me to mention something else in this regard: I would have been very glad if an advisory education council could have been established without legislation—as the hon. the Prime Minister was able to do in the case of his Economic Advisory Council. I would also have been able to do this if we had not had so much division in the field of education. I required the co-operation of the provinces for this purpose. I obtained this cooperation with the exception of Natal. But Natal, as I have already said, is always a little difficult in the beginning—later she cooperates. I stake my reputation when I say that this council will be so constituted that it will be representative to the greatest possible extent of the various groups. We shall also bear in mind that this council will be representative of the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections as well as the sexes, that is to say male and female. As a matter of fact, there are many problems which must not be lost sight of.

Hon. members should not waste their breath. No further improvement can be made here. The council must be established. I am bound as far as the appointment of its members are concerned. The proposal of the hon. member for Durban (Berea), namely to substitute “nominated” for “recommended”, touches the principle of the legislation because the Minister will then lose his discretionary powers. The Minister must be in a position to tell an Administrator that the person whom he has nominated is not the best person for the purpose. It may be that an Administrator, because he does not want to lose his best people, may choose a person, let us say the assistant of the school at Pampoenfontien, who has never achieved anything and whom he can therefore best do without. In such a case the Minister must have the right to say that the recommended person is not good enough, and that another person, someone who at least means something and has already achieved something of importance, must be recommended. If I am to be bound by the recommendation of an Administrator, however, he can nominate whomever he likes and I would have to accept his nomination. The provisions at present in the Bill are based on an agreement reached by my predecessor. In this regard I want to state that if the agreement had provided for appointments on the basis proposed by the hon. member, then I would not have accepted it. The Minister is the person who is responsible to Parliament and the people. Once the Advisory Education Council is appointed, then I shall have no further control over it. All I can do is to ask it for advice. However, I may not interfere in its activities. The day I do so, hon. members can impugn my actions. Allow me to say that there will not only be Nationalists on the council. This will in the first place be a council which must advise the Minister. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to be faced with a council which is not constituted in accordance with the requirements of Clause 2 (3) (b). Can hon. members then not see that Clause 2 (3) (b) limits me just as barbed wire would do? It lays down that the other members of the council must be persons who have distinguished themselves in the field of education or who, in the opinion of the Minister, are otherwise specially qualified in some aspect of the work of the council. I do not want to anticipate the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) but he also wishes to eliminate the Minister’s discretion. According to them the Minister should not have any discretion at all. They want the Minister to accept a council which other people appoint for him. The Minister must then accept the advice of such a council. What assurance will he have that such a council will be able to give him professional and expert advice? He will have absolutely no such assurance. For that reason I cannot accept these amendments.

Could the hon. the Minister perhaps consider substituting “educational” for the word “education” in line 30? I think that it is a grammatical error.

Yes. If it is incorrect, I shall correct it.

I should like to move the following amendment, namely—

the Minister”.

Clause 2 (3) (b) will then read as follows—

I am disappointed that the Minister has already replied to this amendment even before we have moved it.

Who has then to decide whether such a person has distinguished himself in the field of education?

There are organizations in this country which have such a knowledge of persons who have distinguished themselves in the field of education that they will be able to make a recommendation to the Minister in this connection. Here, however, the Minister takes that decision upon himself. He is the only person who shall decide who must be appointed to the Council. I cannot understand why the Minister should want this power. He said he wanted to co-operate, and that he did not want this Council to be a body of a political nature. I suspect the Minister, however. He might very well appoint a policeman to this Council—a political policeman. He might do so and say that that policeman has a special knowledge of the work of the Council. That is what I do not like. If the Minister did not take it upon himself to be the adjudicator as to who is specially qualified or not, we would have accepted the paragraph. As it is. I cannot get away from the fact that the Minister is not the only person who is qualified to appoint persons to this Council. For this reason I ask for the words “in the opinion of the Minister” to be deleted. It will also serve as a protection to the Minister himself and if he will look at the matter in this light, he will agree that my amendment is worth consideration.

I hesitated to take part in this debate at this stage. We have already had a great deal of childishness. I wish to refer to the principles which made me decide to leave out the word “advisory”. No pressure was brought to bear on me to come to that decision. Even after I knew that the Minister wanted that word we nevertheless decided to leave it out. I am, however, accepting it now, but after I have handed in my report. I did not want the slightest suspicion to exist that anybody—least of all the Minister—had influenced me. To deprive the Minister of the discretionary power will mean that I will have to abandon a principle which I incorporated in the Bill when I drafted it namely that if the Minister accepts responsibility, he must have proportionate rights. You cannot burden any Minister or any official or authority with any responsibilities without rights. Anybody with the most rudimentary brain, ought to understand that. If the Minister has to appoint a person and be 100 per cent responsible for the council and its actions and its very existence, then the Minister himself should be able to say: I am doing it on my own responsibility and this is the type of person I wish to have on it. As a matter of fact that was what made me decide on the whole principle of having educational interests represented, instead of having groups of persons represented. However, I do not want to revert to that because that has already been effectively replied to. But this council must be completely unbiased, it must be of high standing and it must be beyond reach, its quality must be beyond doubt; and where the Minister takes the responsibility of fulfilling those demands upon him, he cannot allow himself to be guided by any group of people. Certain bodies are referred to in one of the amendments. There are Church schools and Church bodies. Had I suggested this morning that there was a C.N.O. society which should definitely be represented, surely I would only have been looking for trouble in this House. In that case I would not only have been putting up a hare but a lion.

Hon. members opposite—I am talking about informed members who served with me on the Select Committee—know as well as I do that as far as we got with this clause, with the word “national”, with the idea of the broad representation of educational interests instead of groups, with the difference between the National Board and the Provincial Advisory Board, with the question of nominating and appointing, the matter was clear-cut to all of those who knew how this Bill had come into existence. I sat there and made notes when I asked a well-educated person: Do you think that bodies should recommend persons to the Minister or should the provinces recommend them? He replied without thinking: Yes, I think they should nominate them. He used the word “nominate” unthinkingly instead of “recommend”. I again had to ask him: Do you want them to nominate him, i.e. appoint, leaving the Minister with no choice, or must they recommend a person? The hon. friend for Berea (Mr. Hourquebie) on those benches over there is still a new member and he still believes in statistics. He will still learn a great deal about those figures he has quoted. I only believe in what I have been convinced to believe and in my contact with as many educationists as possible with whom I have discussed this matter. I feel that as it stands at the moment it is the best. If the Minister carries the responsibility, let him have the rights which go with it. Do not deprive him of that. It is a legislative monstrosity only to impose burdens without conferring rights.

I do not wish to reply to the remarks of my hon. friend for Witbank (Mr. Mostert). Perhaps I do not have the rudimentary knowledge to do so.

I do not mean you, but others sitting with you.

No, no. Not that either. They are cleverer people than I. I do not wish to offend my hon. friend here. He was a good chairman, and I should like once again to pay tribute to him for the impartial manner in which he acted. Nor is it my intention to plead for the omission of the word “national” or to say something about that I think the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) has said that the people who testified, or the organization that was asked whether they should recommend the members, of course would say yes, because they themselves wished to serve on it. I think that is an insult to prominent people, people who are independent of anybody else and who do not know politics. I regard the teachers’ organizations and associations as bodies that are above politics. And although the hon. member did not intend it that way, I regard it somewhat as an insult to them and I am sorry he made that utterance.

The Minister will of course determine which organizations he wants. If he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) he will not open the matter to all organizations, but he will as a practical man provide in his Bill which bodies he should like to see represented on the Council. He can do it easily, surely. An hon. member over there and I think the Minister also in his second reading speech, referred to the army, to which reference had been made. Of course he will not go to every department of the army. He will go to the Minister of Defence and ask him to furnish him with the name of a person who will be able to serve him best on the advisory council. He will say that he also wishes the advisory council to give the army advice in regard to their gymnasiums, so that they also can have a share in the advisory council.

What about the training that falls under all the other departments?

Mr. Chairman, I repeat the Minister can lay down which bodies he wishes to consult or to be represented. It is not a thing we are sucking out of our thumbs. We asked so many prominent bodies about it, and the majority told us that there are certain outstanding organizations whom we should give representation on this advisory council. I think the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) said that the members that are nominated by the organizations, would then be committed to the organizations. But will they not be equally bound to the Minister who has appointed them? Will they not every three or four or five years, as a result of their conduct on that Council, be dependent on the good grace of the Minister? Are they not more committed to the Minister now, especially if they give advice he does not like; or if there is something in their conduct the Minister does not like? They will of course be bound in the same manner that the members that may be recommended by the organization will be bound. Of course they will also feel bound to the Minister.

My hon. friend the Minister says that he does not wish to interfere with the functions of the Council. Nor will he do so, he says. I shall accept that. But this state of being bound on the part of members of the Council may exist, whether or not they are nominated by their own organizations, with whose wishes they surely are more acquainted and whose wishes they surely will be able to represent better than the nominees of the Minister. Someone said they should be impartial. I agree. They should be above suspicion, and because they should be above suspicion, that is the basis of our objection and it is the basis of our proposal here, namely that when they come from their own organizations, they will be above suspicion. I should like to say honestly this morning that if I were the Minister, I would not have passed over the teachers’ organizations. I might have passed over any other organization, but I would verily have consulted the teachers’ associations in this matter. I may also refer to the hon. member who quoted the S.A. Teachers’ Association, but I do not think it is necessary to do so.

However, I should like to refer to the proposal by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) namely that the words “in the opinion of the Minister” should be deleted. I also feel that those words are unnecessary, because the Minister should have inserted it in the previous sub-paragraph (3) (a) too if he had a valid reason for it. I shall read it—

Why does the Minister not say here “in the opinion of the Minister” also?

They make recommendations.

Surely the Minister should say it then. Look at Clause 5 also—

It does not say “in the opinion of the Minister”. It is unnecessary and that is why I wish to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister once again: Omit it, for it is not necessary. It seems as if the Minister wants to have all the say in regard to the matter and does not wish to consult anybody. I do not think that is his intention. I think the Minister is honest when he says he wants to have the best Council, But he not only wants the best Council; he also wants that Council to be free and untrammelled, which will be impartial and which will be above suspicion.

With those words in it, it can still be achieved.

If I have a different opinion on the matter, it is proof that the man outside may also feel that the Minister will have too great a hold on this Council. In the other section he omits it and he could as well omit it here. That is why my last request to the hon. the Minister is that he should consider the matter to see whether he cannot accept one of the proposals we have made here in all sincerity.

Mr. Chairman, I get the impression that we are discussing something which does not need to be discussed. The position is so clearly defined and clearly stated in Clause 2 of this Bill, that the whole reaction of the Opposition at the moment amounts to this: They anticipate in advance what the composition of the Minister’s council will be. They wish to close all possible little loopholes so that he cannot do what they suspect him of perhaps wanting to do. In other words, all the arguments of the Opposition are inspired by distrust in the Minister. That is precisely the crux of the whole matter. Let us accept it that they are in Opposition and let them accept the fact that they do not govern the country. They cannot have this council constituted in the way they want it constituted. The Government is there to do that and the Minister is the responsible person; he will exercise these powers. But, Mr. Chairman—and I think this is very important—he will be called to account in this House in respect of this matter and that is why we must give him these rights. We will not call the Opposition to account if a stupid council is established. The Minister remains responsible. If he has to carry the responsibility he must also have the powers. But all these arguments about whom should be on the council are covered in this Bill. The Minister may appoint people from outside the educational profession. He may give the Federal Council or the teachers associations representation. Why are these people so unnecessarily suspicious that they do not trust anybody? Surely it is very clear that when the Minister establishes the Council, he will be staking his whole political reputation, because I know in advance that when the names appear of those people whom the Minister has appointed, the Opposition will place them under a magnifying glass to see exactly who has been appointed. Do they think the Minister will give all these assurances and then appoint a number of political “stooges”? Surely he knows that will be criticized. Clause 2 (3) (b) states very clearly that the Minister may appoint the following persons—

And the work of the Council is defined in Clause 7—

Surely it is logical that the products which education produces should ultimately be able to meet the needs of the country, and that the Minister can appoint people who represent that section of education as well. That is why it is futile to have this whole argument because the Minister has the power under the law to appoint such people. As far as the question of representation is concerned, I want to quote two persons in order to state the matter clearly, and the one is prof. E. G. Malherbe. In reply to the question put to him: “Do you want him to appoint them in such a way that they represent specific aspects of education or educational bodies or should they be appointed merely on the ground of merit”? he replied: “The members should be appointed solely on the ground of merit”. He gave an interesting example: “In this connection I want to refer to the Council of Social and Educational Research. Initially this was a small Council consisting of prominent experts. Minister Hofmeyr then came along and converted it into a large Council of approximately 30 members of whom each represented a specific organization. The entire Council simply became stultified”. He went on to say: “When, for example, research bursaries had to be awarded to persons in the Transvaal the representatives of the Free State wanted to know what about them, etc. In this way things went round in circles until a point was reached where one thing cancelled out another and no progress could be made. When a particular matter had to be discussed, it was often found that representatives said that they had not yet received instructions from their organizations and then discussions had to be postponed until the necessary instructions had been received. From a practical point of view the establishment of the Council on a representative basis is not to be recommended”. That is a stronger argument than anyone of us can advance why the Council should not represent bodies.

May I ask whom Prof. Malherbe recommended should appoint this body? Was it the Minister?*

I cannot remember for the moment whom he said but does that make any difference to the argument? However, I want to quote another interesting witness who said they should be educationists, namely the leader of the United Party caucus in the Cape Provincial Council, Mrs. Taylor. I quote question 734. There was an argument about the composition of the council and Mrs. Taylor said this: “The point which I want to stress is that the educationists and nobody else should be allowed to handle these matters”. The United Party was, therefore, divided on the point, Mrs. Taylor says they should be educationists and nobody else, but here they say it can be anybody. I think we are having an argument here which is not relevant. The law is clear and I think the Opposition can leave their opposition at that.

I just want to raise another matter and that is in regard to the word “national”. “National” conveys to us an idea of a whole, geographically or otherwise. I want to know whether hon. members would be satisfied if the Minister changed the word “national” to “Republican”? That word has no political connotation, or has it? Hon. members do not react. It is clear that we are dealing here with a national council which is composed on a broad basis and when the hon. member for Hillbrow alleges that the members whom the hon. the Minister will appoint, will only carry out his wishes and will be tied to him, I want to say that I think he is insulting them more than we on this side are when we say that they will only be representing certain organizations. Those are people who will be elected and appointed on an extremely broad level and if he wants to tell me that those people will allow themselves to be intimidated by the Minister, he has no conception of the quality and the standard of the men who will be on the council. Those people should not be tied down in any way and should be able to judge in an unbiased way. I suggest, Sir, that this discussion be stopped because everything that can be said has been said and that we might just as well vote.

Order! Hon. members must now come forward with new arguments.

I wish to refer particularly to paragraph 2 (a) of my amendment, the composition of the Council—not whether there should be a Council or the manner of its appointment, but its composition. The Minister has indicated to us in his second reading speech that five members of the Council will be full-time members, as an Executive. In my amendment I propose that two members should form the executive. I do not wish to anticipate our discussions on the other clauses, but we shall have to consider the functions of the Council in connection with this matter, and the ad hoc committees which we are all agreed will have to be appointed. I am not going to discuss the functions of the ad hoc committees, but we should bear this in mind. How will this Council function? I remember seven years ago when the Interkerklike Komitee of the three Dutch Churches sent us their memorandum, they gave us their ideas, and said that they envisaged that this Council would meet at least twice a year. There need not be many full-time executives if the Council is going to meet only twice a year. Let us take one problem that this Council will have to consider. It was mentioned by several witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee. They mentioned, e.g., the question at what age children should be admitted to school, that we should try to get uniformity throughout the country because it created difficulties when parents moved from one province to another. Now that seems to be a trifling matter, really, but there is one I should like to mention, and which was mentioned by other witnesses: the training of teachers. I consider that important. We have many certificates today for qualified teachers. How will this question be investigated? How will the Council investigate the training of teachers in South Africa and make recommendations to the Minister and to the Administrators? It seems to me that this Committee of 15 will meet, say, in December, discuss their work and say that this is a matter which should be investigated. They will appoint an ad hoc committee, consisting of some members who have had experience of the training of teachers and others who are representatives of the Provinces. Let me say in passing that I do not think we should restrict the number of these ad hoc committees to three members. Sometimes they may have to be a little larger. But how will they go to work? They will visit the training institutions throughout the country, or they may only ask for reports, and find it unnecessary to visit these institutions. When they have considered the evidence—most of which is known to us to-day—they will present a report to the full Council when it has its second meeting, say in July. Then there will be general discussion on the question of the training of teachers, and they will make recommendations to the Minister. Now what puzzles me is this. Why do we require five members on the executive to do that? The Minister interjected to say that they would have to work overtime. How can they work overtime if they are giving advice, and not issuing directives? My suggestion was that there should be two members of the Executive Committee, a chairman and a vice-chairman, with a secretary, and they could operate from head office in Pretoria. These ad hoc committees would provide the information, and the main body would meet twice a year, or perhaps three times, and come to a decision. But I cannot for the life of me see why you need five full-time executive members. It appears to me to be another example of Parkinson’s law, that once having started a Department you make it bigger and bigger. I hope the Minister will reconsider this, if he investigates the question of the training of teachers, which is one of the most important investigations which will have to be made. The other investigation I regard as important is the question of the failures in the first year at the universities. I regard those as two important matters which will have to be investigated. The second one may be in close cooperation with the universities, but I cannot see how the investigation of the training of teachers requires the large organization the Minister has in mind. Therefore I feel confident that paragraph 2 (a) of my amendment is sufficient.

I actually rise to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North)—

Before dealing with that I would like to reply, or rather, I would like to hear more from the Minister in regard to a statement he made in reply to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood), who moved an amendment and asked that the Minister should substitute “recommend” with “nominate”. The hon. Minister said he could not accept this amendment because he would like to have the power to say to an Administrator, if the Administrator should recommend somebody and the Minister finds that the nominee is not suitable, then the Minister would like to ask him to nominate somebody else. He wants to have that power. If he should amend this, then the Minister would not have that power. Sir, according to the Minister’s second reading speech this is to be an advisory body. Surely if this is going to be an advisory body then we should give the opportunity to the Administrators to nominate people. I do not think that an Administrator would be so foolish as to nominate somebody who is not fully equipped for this particular task.

Why do you insinuate that the Minister will be so foolish?

We suggest that the Administrator should nominate somebody from his province to represent his province. We feel that any person nominated by an Administrator would be fully acquainted with the educational need of that particular province. Why should the hon. the Minister have the right to say to an Administrator, “I do not agree with your nomination; I want to have the right to appoint somebody else”. Surely he should credit our Administrators with a certain amount of intelligence. After all, they are concerned with the education of our provinces. On numerous occasions Administrators have to nominate people to represent a province on various bodies, and in those cases we do not say that the Administrator must recommend somebody for appointment. Those people are appointed by the Administrators. Why not follow the same procedure in this case? Sir, I think that the hon. the Minister has not given us a satisfactory reply in that respect.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member because it is destructive of the principle viz. the right of the Minister to appoint members of the Council, contemplated by the Bill as read a second reading.

I rise merely to refer to something I really forgot to raise. The amendment of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) seeks to make provision for the council to consists of a chairman and a vice-chairman. In other words, we are suggesting that we have an executive management consisting of only two members. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to another body which one can say has similar functions, a body on which I had the honour of serving for many years, and that is the Historical Monuments Commission, which is known as a secretariat, and the only full-time official on the establishment of the State is the Secretary. The Historical Monuments Commission also does nation-wide work, and meets twice a year. I feel that the council of the hon. the Minister, as he has told us in advance that he is going to start off with five members, will be too big and cumbersome, especially at the beginning when specific work will have to be done. In my view he will do much better if he has only a small nucleus as a secretariat. What the Historical Monuments Commission does is to appoint an ad hoc committee to do research in regard to certain matters of historical importance: they report and then the Commission decides what shall be done. With great respect, I think the nucleus of the Minister’s council will be too large. We have thought of two executive committee members; at first we thought of one, but we should like to have two so that when the one is occupied with other functions, a vice-chairman may continue with the work together with the secretariat, the officials on the establishment of the State. The position will then be the same as in the case of the Historical Monuments Commission, where the nucleus is small but the Commission has its paid officials who carry out the work, and the big body, the Historical Monuments Commission—or in this case the advisory council—then meets twice a year to confer and to hear what the ad hoc committees recommend. I should like to support my hon. friend the member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) as regards that aspect of the matter. I feel we should not have more than two. The Minister might perhaps tell me there should be three, but as he proposes there should be five, I think he will himself feel later on that it was not the soundest procedure he could have adopted.

I am sorry to have to come back again to this question of the naming of this council. I fell that even the Minister, if he gives this matter sufficient thought, will feel that it is an unsatisfactory name in more than one respect. This advisory council will have to deal with a very wide field. There are other committees of this nature, committees which also give advice to Ministers and for the information of the Minister I want to quote the two committees with which I have been connected to some extent personally, namely the S.A. Medical Council and the S.A. Pharmacy Board, then there is also the S.A. Nursing Council, all of which are specially created. It is true that they have other duties, but one of their duties is to give advice on health matters to the hon. the Minister of Health, and that also includes education, because education is one of the most important functions of all these bodies. In fact I might say that it is the most important function of all, because the country looks to these three bodies to see that the Ministry of Health is correctly advised. After all, it is the Ministry of Health that grants licences to practise when you come back to the primary role of the Ministry of Health in that respect. These bodies actually advise the Ministry of Health as to what should be done. Furthermore, these three councils which I have mentioned have connections with outside foreign bodies. They all have to deal with foreign personnel, personnel who come here to practise, and personnel of our own who go to other countries to practise. I can easily foresee that this body which the Minister is now bringing into being may have to deal with foreign countries on matters affecting education, and when they communicate with bodies abroad, those bodies will never quite know with whom they are dealing, whereas if the Minister were to call this council the South African Education Advisory Council, then he would be fulfilling his purpose and he will also be satisfying this side of the House.

Question put: That the word “National” in line 20, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—79: Badenhorst. F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout,

G. P. C.; Bootha. L. J. C.; Botha. H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee. B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis. H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyline. J. C.; Grobler. M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra. E. C. A.; Jonker, A. F.; Keyter. H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze. S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux. P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais. J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree. G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins. H. E.; Mever. T.; Mostert. D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel. J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto. J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman. J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander. A. H.; Stevn. J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg. G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P, S. van der Merwe.

NOES—45: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp dropped.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science put and agreed to.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of sub-section (2) up to and including “member” in line 29, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee. P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Foucté, J. J. (Sr.); Foucté, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. G.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak,. J; F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. 5.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Sfchlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—45: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.;. Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Moore dropped.

Question put: That the word “recommended” in line 29, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker. M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha. L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.;, Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de. Villiers, J. D;; de Wet. C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Foucté; J. J. (Sr.); Foucté, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G: de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller., S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P.C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman; J. C. B.; Schoenbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Slander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Wood dropped.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Fisher put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling. J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker. A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree. G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, T. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D.C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to. On Clause 3,

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

We feel that there is no need for a large executive to this council. We feel that essentially, as it has no executive powers, it can only act and can only give advice to the Minister after the full council meets. One feels, Sir, that the probability is that in the ordinary course of events this council will only meet, shall we say, for a few days twice a year. That is the sort of council which we envisage. If that is so and if there is no executive action, there seems to me no difficulty about the whole office being run by permanent officials attached to the permanent staff, with a chairman and vice chairman to give decisions which may be necessary during the interval of the meetings of the council. If information has to be collected there will be ad hoc committees to do so. If in the opinion of the chairman or the vice-chairman a further investigation should be carried out so that the papers could be studied, then they can be circulated to the members and there will not be any need for this large cabinet. If it is to be merely advisory, and we accept the hon. the Minister’s word on that point, obviously there is no need for a cabinet. If on the other hand, it did have some executive power, one can easily see that it is necessary to have more than this small number. The opinion of the council is the opinion of the council, not the opinion of the executives. These are items which in the ordinary way can wait. The most serious problem improves on further consideration. I can find no evidence of the functions of the executive being described in this Bill. Only the functions of the council are. The creation of these extra two or three seats which is envisaged in this Clause suggests rather, as my hon. friend, the member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has said, that Parkinson’s law is again to apply in this instance.

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

Clause 3 (1) will then read—

We strongly object to the idea being introduced into this Bill that full-time members and a fulltime executive committee should be appointed for this particular Education Council. We believe that that is a wrong idea.

It is accented, however, that there must be something of that nature, and our object is to limit the powers of that executive committee as much as possible. We say that if there has to be such an executive committee we want to limit the number of its members. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) has moved that two of the five executive committee members should not be appointed. I wish to move that instead of two vice-chairmen there should only be one.

Our basic idea is that this should be an advisory council. The administrative section should be kept as small as possible. Where it is indeed necessary to have an administrative section it should consist of public servants who are already there and who will perform purely administrative functions and not functions of an advisory or executive character, as envisaged in the Bill at the moment. We must clearly distinguish between the administrative and the advisory functions of such a council.

A second reason why we have moved this amendment is this: We feel, together with certain very important educational bodies, that if members are appointed on a full-time basis they will lose touch with the practical side of education. We should like to see people serving on it in a part-time capacity, people who will have practical every-day experience of education. We already feel that five executive members as envisaged in this Bill are too many. As the Bill reads at the moment, it provides that there should be at least three members on the executive committee, the chairman and two vice-chairmen and that the hon. the Minister can then appoint two additional members. In other words, if it appears in future that it is necessary to appoint an additional two members. the hon. the Minister can do so. As the position is at the moment, however, and as the hon. the Minister has led the House to believe, he will at the outset immediately appoint five. In other words, he ignores the provision in this Clause that he “may” or “can” appoint them. As the hon. member for Durban (Central) has said this is once again a manifestation of the Parkinson law that if sufficient posts are created, sufficient people will always be found to fill those posts.

We have been informed, and the hon. the Minister has indicated that he wants two vice-chairmen instead of one because he should like one of them to be English-speaking and one Afrikaans-speaking. I presume that the chairmen will be Afrikaans-speaking, although I can see no reason why that should be so. There is no reason for it. But I take it that that is indeed what the hon. the Minister has in mind: An Afrikaans-speaking chairman, one Afrikaans-speaking vice-chairman, and one English-speaking one. The position under the Minister’s suggestion will be that of the three senior members of the council, two will be Afrikaans-speaking and one English-speaking. I presume that will be the position, whereas in terms of my amendment the division will be fifty-fifty, namely, there will be two senior officials, the chairman and the vice-chairman, one Afrikaans-speaking and the other English-speaking. I do not want to provide 100 per cent that the one must be Afrikaans-speaking and the other English-speaking. But as things are in the country to-day, and with the insistence on equal language rights, I think it would be reasonable to accept my amendment instead of the suggestion of the hon. the Minister.

There is the other factor of the additional costs which will be involved if there are so many members on the executive committee. Mr. Chairman. I am not an expert in the field of education, but I do believe that we should allow ourselves to be guided by experts in this sphere. I have the July 1960 issue of Die Unie here. As you know Die Unie is the official publication of the “Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwvsersunie”, a body consisting of Afrikaans teachers in the Cape Province. The leading article in Die Unie says on page 10 (translation)—

As is provided here—

The highest educational organization in the Cape Province, the S.A.O.U. says that if there has to be a permanent member, it should only be the chairman, perhaps the secretary, and the other members of the council should serve on a voluntarily part-time basis.

Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned the Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie. There is a body which is far more important than the S.A.O.U. in South Africa and that is the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this Federal Council represents all the teachers’ associations in the whole of South Africa. It represents the Transvaal Teachers’ Association and the Secondary School Transvaal Teachers’ Association. In the Free State it represents the Orange Free State Teachers’ Association; and in the Cape Province the Federal Council represents the S.A. Teachers’ Association and the Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie. In Natal it represents the Natal Teachers’ Association and the Natal Teachers’ Society; and in the hon. the Minister’s own Department of Education, Arts and Science all the teachers belong to the Association for Technical and Vocational Education. In other words, we have an organization in this Federal Council which represents all the teachers, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, whatever their political views may be. Let me read what this Federal Council said when it gave evidence to the relevant Select Committee—

These are the words of the teachers of South Africa—

The united voice of the teachers of South Africa ask the hon. the Minister to accept an amendment such as ours. To some extent the debate on this particular clause is unrealistic. At the second reading the hon. the Minister said that it was his intention to let us know who the five members of the executive committee will be, the committee for which provision is made in this Clause. I am directing a friendly request to him to give us an indication at this stage who those five members will be so that the debate on this clause in particular can be conducted in a realistic way, particularly in view of the five members which he is going to appoint. We will have a better idea as to what the hon. the Minister has in mind and that might perhaps indicate to us whether he will do something which will satisfy the entire teachers’ community of South Africa. As the position is at the moment, this clause is in direct conflict with all the teachers, with the teachers’ associations and with the Teachers’ Federal Council of S.A.

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

consultation with the council”.

Sir, I move this amendment because I have received representations from the Transvaal Teachers’ Association who wish to have such an amendment incorporated in this clause in order to protect the democratic right of council members to be consulted as to whom should be their office bearers, chairman and vice-chairman. I may say that in the evidence which was submitted earlier, the Transvaal Teachers’ Association went further than this. On page 217 of the evidence the Transvaal Teachers’ Association’s proposals suggest that the council, when constituted, should elect its own chairman. These words which I am moving to be inserted into this clause are on the recommendation of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association. I feel we have the Minister’s assurance that these members who are going to serve on this council will be educationists, men of the highest calibre. On this assurance I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not be willing to consult educationists of this high calibre in order to find out from them who would be acceptable to them as chairman and as their office bearers. Those people who will be represented on the council, as has been suggested by this side of the House, should also be drawn from industry, commerce and mining, besides educationists. Those members of the council will have very valuable advice to give to the Minister. They would also wish to put forward their ideas as to which one of their members could guide them best through the years it is an advisory council. These council members will be men of high standing in the educational field and one trusts and hopes that they will also be drawn from outside the educational field, from those fields which will be dealing with the products of our education. I feel that in moving for the insertion of these words “after consultation with the council” that if the power is given to the Minister alone to exert his opinion, then surely it might happen—I am putting this forward as a question—that the council’s suggestions might be rejected by the Minister? I feel that we are legislating not only for the present generation and for this present council, but for the future. With due respect, Mr. Chairman, Ministers change and I am moving this because I feel that it is wiser to insert this addition and rely instead on the definition in this clause “in consultation with the council” which has already been nominated by the Minister. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister very seriously to consider this amendment.

I shall reply to the three amendments later. I should like to move the amendment to Clause 3 printed in my name—

1. (3) A member so designated or appointed shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be subject to such conditions of service and shall receive such remuneration as may be determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
2. (4) A member of the executive committee shall not without the consent of the Minister perform or bind himself to perform remunerative work outside his official duties.
3. (5) There shall be paid to a member of the executive committee such reimbursive or other allowances and there shall be granted to him such privileges in respect of leave of absence, transfer and transportation as would have been granted to him had he been an officer in the public service as defined in Section 3 of the Public Service Act, 1957 (Act No. 54 of 1957).
4. (6)
   1. (a) The Minister may suspend and, subject to the provisions of this subsection, remove a member of the executive committee from office—
      1. (i) on account of misconduct;
      2. (ii) on account of unfitness for the duties of his office or incapacity to perform them efficiently; or
      3. (iii) if for reasons other than unfitness or incapacity his removal from office will promote efficiency or economy.
   2. (b) The provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Public Service Act, 1957 (Act No. 54 of 1957), shall mutatis mutandis apply with reference to a member of the executive committee, and, if the Minister directs that action be taken in terms of the said sections in the case of any such member, the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science shall act as head of department in relation to that member, and the provisions of the said Act shall apply as if such member were an officer in the Public Service.
5. (7)
   1. (a) If a service member becomes afflicted with a permanent infirmity of mind or body which disables him from the proper discharge of the duties of his office, the Minister may—
      1. (i) allow him to vacate his office; or
      2. (ii) subject to the provisions of subsection (6), remove him from office on the ground of incapacity.
   2. (b) A service member who is in terms of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) allowed to vacate his office shall be deemed to have been retired on the ground or ill-health and shall be entitled to receive the benefits from the provident or pension fund to which he would have been entitled if he had been discharged from the service of his former employer on the ground of ill-health occasioned either with or without his own default, as the Minister may direct.
6. (8) A service member—
   1. (a) who becomes a member of the executive committee with the consent of his former employer, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be deemed to have been seconded for the period of his service on that committee, and the period of such service shall for leave purposes and for the purposes of the relevant pension or provident fund be reckoned as part of and continuous with his service with his previous employer, and the provisions of any law applicable to him as a member of any pension or provident fund or, in the event of his death, to his dependants, shall in so far as they are not in conflict with this section, mutatis mutandis continue to apply: Provided that the former employer may regard the post vacated by the service member in order to become a member of the executive committee as vacant and fill it by the appointment of another person;
   2. (b) shall have the same right to vacate his office and to retire as he would have had on the attainment of an age prescribed by the said provisions or any other law or on any subsequent date on which he desires to do so, if he had remained in the service of his former employer.
7. (9) A service member who on the expiration of his period of office as a member of the executive committee is not again designated or appointed as such a member, and who has not attained the age at which he would in terms of any law referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (8) have been entitled to retire, shall have the right to retire or may be required by the Minister to retire, and shall, if he so retires or is so required to retire, be entitled to the retirement benefits to which he would in terms of the said provisions have been entitled if he had been discharged from the service of his former employer, in the case of a member of a pension fund, on the ground of abolition of his post or, in the case of a member of a provident fund on the superannuation date applicable to his case.
8. (10) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (9), a service member whose service on the executive committee is terminated for a reason not mentioned in sub-section (6) or (7) on or before the expiration of the period for which he was appointed, shall have the option to be transferred back to the service of his former employer and may be so transferred if his former employer has available a suitable post in which he can be appointed.
9. (11) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, any contributions required to be made by a service member to any pension or provident fund during the period for which he acts as as a member of the executive committee, shall be based on such an amount, not being less than the amount on which he would have contributed if he had not become such a member, as the Minister may from time to time determine in consultation with the Public Service Commission.
10. (12) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, any contributions which in terms of any provision referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (8) are in the case of a service member payable to a pension or provident fund by a person other than such member, shall be paid during his service as a member of the executive committee out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
11. (13) If any benefit or portion of a benefit which becomes payable to a service member under any law referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (8), is not payable out of a pension or provident fund, such portion of that benefit as may be determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.

I think I owe the Committee a clear explanation of the true meaning of sub-sections (3) to (13). I do not think there ought to be any difference of opinion about this, but I think we should be very clear on what they mean. Sub-section (3) of the Bill as it stands now makes provision for the conditions of service of the members of the executive committee. As some of the members may be nominated from the ranks of officials, including teachers, in the Public Service, in the Provincial and other Government administrations, or from the departments of education, or from universities or university colleges or proclaimed institutions, technical colleges with vested rights and privileges in respect of pensions, etc. I shall hereafter refer to them as service members—and that will be done in Clause 1. It is necessary to make provision for the protection of their rights so that they will not be prejudiced by accepting an appointment to the Council. Accordingly it is now proposed that this sub-clause be replaced by the new sub-clauses (3) to (13). Sub-clauses (3) to (9) follow the precedents, with minor adjustments, of the legal provisions and customs in other cases where officials in government service are appointed to similar Councils. In the proposed new sub-clause (3) the Minister of Finance is substituted for the Public Service Commission to bring this into line with the recognized practice that where financial considerations are in question, the Department of the Minister of Finance is consulted before the Public Service Commission gives a ruling. The reference to pension benefits is omitted also, for it is dealt with in the next succeeding subclause. Now I should like to ask: Is there any of these sub-clauses (3) to (13) about which hon. members require a special explanation? If so, I shall give it immediately. But perhaps I had better do so.

Sub-clause (4): it is the recognized practice to include this condition in the conditions of service of persons appointed to Government service on a full-time basis. It relates only to the executive committee. Sub-clause (5): This sub-clause seeks to bring these conditions of service into line with similar conditions of service applying to Government posts of this nature, and eliminates the need to have a comprehensive set of dictates for only a small group of people drafted. Sub-clause (6) provides for the circumstances under which a member of the executive committee may be suspended or removed from office. Paragraph (b) applies a procedure provided for by law which gives to such a member the right of a hearing and appeal in the event of his being charged with misconduct. As the Minister cannot be both prosecutor and judge, the provision, has been inserted that if the Minister instructs that disciplinary steps be taken—I wish to draw attention to the word “instructs”—the head of his Department has to act as prosecutor, which of course I hope will never happen, but we have to provide for all contingencies. It will ensure that members may not be dismissed arbitrarily with loss of rights and privileges. In this connection I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the provincial administrations, including Natal, have unanimously approved this amendment I am proposing. We must have someone who has to prosecute and the Minister is the judge who will hear the matter. Sub-clause (7) provides that if a service member is removed from office on the ground of ill-health, he will be permitted to resign and still receive the benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had been discharged for health reasons. Here the Public Service procedure is adopted. That is to say, on such discharge he will be eligible for an annuity instead of a gratuity as in the case of ordinary resignation. Sub-clause (8) (a): As the laws applying to his previous service do not in all cases make provision for secondment with retention of privileges and rights to bodies such as these, it is necessary that the hiatus be put right to ensure that a service member will not be prejudiced in respect of pension rights by accepting service in the Council. His membership of a pension or provident fund will be continued. As a (result of representations from the Provincial Administrations, the proviso was added to the end of this paragraph: provided—from those words onwards—that the former employer may regard the post vacated by the service member in order to become a member of the executive committee as vacant and fill it by the appointment of another person. We added that part as a result of representations from the Provincial Administrations because otherwise certain Provincial ordinances prohibit the Provinces from filling such a post, while a teacher may be serving in the executive committee. Paragraph (b) simply provides that his rights on superannuation are retained.

The rest of the sub-clauses contain more or less this. Sub-section (9) provides that a service member who is retired on the expiry of his term of office in the Executive Committee and before he has reached the normal age for retirement, will receive the benefits which would have been payable if he had been retired on the ground of abolition of office. In the case of a member of a pension fund, a certain number of years are added to his actual service for pension purposes. Sub-clause (10) gives a member referred to in sub-clause (9) a choice of returning to his previous employer’s service if the latter has a post available for him, in preference to retirement. Sub-clause (11) provides that if a member qualifies for promotion or salary increases while serving with the Council, that portion of his emoluments on which his contributions to a pension or provident fund are based, may be adjusted to ensure that his retirement benefits will not be adversely affected by service in the Executive Committee. Sub-clauses (12) and (13)—I want to take them together—provide that any contributions normally payable by a previous employer are paid by the Government while he is serving in the Executive Committee. Any additional liabilities in respect of retirement benefits in the event of such member being retired before reaching the pensionable age, will be paid by the Government. The object of these two sub-clauses is to indemnify the Provincial Administrations and other bodies concerned in respect of additional financial labilities which may result from service in the Executive Committee. I hope that with these few words I have explained my amendments fully, and that it will be appreciated by the Committee that it is necessary. May I again say that these amendments were sent to the four provincial administrations and they all replied that they accept these amendments as they stand.

Now, returning to the amendments moved by the other hon. members, first of all by the hon. member for Durban-Central (Dr. Radford), whose amendment amounts to this, that the hon. member wants to delete that part where two extra members can be appointed by the Minister. I have already made it very clear that I consider that these two members will be of very great assistance right from the start. There are, as far as I can see, numerous important problems to be solved immediately. I find that by working in ad hoc committees, these five members or rather four of them, the two vice-chairmen and the two others, will be most valuable members to appoint as chairman of these ad hoc committees, and I have satisfied myself that it is not Parkinson’s law which will build a new empire here, but I feel more than assured that these people will serve a very useful purpose. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment, as I have already intimated in my Second Reading speech, I intend to appoint them immediately, and I still feel that no arguments have been advanced to the contrary to convince me that it would be rather risky or unnecessary to do so.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) feels that the two vice-chairmen are not necessary. Why is the hon. member unwilling to accord to this Council the necessary status that such an important Council deserves? Does he not know that the C.S.I.R. has a number of vice-presidents? Does he not know that in the S.A. Federated Chambers of Industries and the Association of Chambers of Commerce there is not only one vice-president, but quite a few? Does the hon. member not know that it really is an honorary title, that they are the two arms, the Asron and the Hur Moses had to lean upon to be able to do his work? Why is the hon. member dissatisfied that there should be two? If it may be helpful later on, it is so easy, as the hon. member has suggested, to have one Afrikaans- and one English-speaking vice-chairman, or to appoint one man and one woman, for there are so many interests that have to be served. The hon. members are making such strong pleas that the teachers’ associations should be recognized and consulted and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) now urges very strongly what the T.T.A. asked for, and that hon. member again referred to the S.A.O.U. The Minister has to put it as broadly as possible, for we are concerned with many interests here, also with provincial interests. I shall have to be very careful in appointing the members of the Council, that I do not appoint all the people from one province. I shall have to distribute them. It is a torn thing we have to try to put together. Now the Committee should not impede me in trying to achieve the greatest possible degree of co-operation by making it as broad as possible. Satisfaction at the commencement is much better than to explain subsequently why you have not done certain things. That is why I should like to say to hon. members, and to the hon. member for Orange Grove in particular, that their concern for the teachers’ associations is groundless. It is their Council. They are the ones that are most concerned with it, and the expression I used was that the majority of the members will be people whose fingers will still be whitened with chalk. Those are the people who can best advise you and the hon. member for Orange Grove need not worry that the people will fall into a groove and get out of touch. They will be people who have absolutely lived with the teachers and understand his interests, and of course there will be teachers too. I cannot say how many today because I have not yet thought about it. Coming to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), who asks that I should appoint the chairman only after consultation with the Council, I should like to ask her whether she has considered how many pressure groups will be formed? Every teachers’ association will insist that their man be appointed, and the churches will do the same. It will be an impossible position. I should like very much to give this Council to the teaching profession, but I am not going to establish a council that will from the outset make me lose the last few hairs on my head. If the hon. members only will accept that the Minister shall appoint the council, for it is his Advisory Council, then the Minister has the right to do so, in the same way that the Minister has the right under the C.S.I.R. Act to say: Naude, you are chairman. The Minister did not ask everybody whether he should appoint Naude as Chairman, and here it is precisely the same. Don’t say to de Klerk: Make A, B or C chairman. They are my advisers, who have to advise me. And I certainly am not going to have a chairman there who from the very beginning may not even like my face. I should like to put it thus, that these amendments will not help to improve the Act. This Committee will have to adopt the point of view that the Minister wants to have a Council that will be able to advise him best, and the advice will be known to this hon. House. Everything they do will be Tabled, and if the Minister does not see his way clear to give effect to it, he may be called to account. For those reasons I cannot accept these amendments.

The Minister has not yet told us what the assignments are that the Council will have to investigate.

That is in Clauses 7 and 8.

If he were to indicate to us that there is some special work for the next five years, then I could understand why he wants five members on his Executive. But to nominate two vice-chairmen seems unjustifiable. The Minister has mentioned the Chamber of Commerce and other associations. We have this in the teachers’ associations as well, where you have a chairman and a vice-chairman, and sometimes an ex-chairman, but the reason for that is because they are telling us who will probably be chairman the following year. When there is rotation you get two vice-chairmen nominated, and they have order of precedence, but there is no order of precedence here. This Council will be run in exactly the same way as the board of directors of a company. There will be a chairman, and should the board meet when the chairman is absent, the members will appoint a chairman. Similarly, if you have a vice-chairman, the risk of having to appoint a chairman is very small indeed. I support the hon. member for Orange Grove. I think he has made out a very convincing case. There is no one I can think of who will be competing for these jobs. There will not be several nominations of people who wish to be chairman. The Minister will appoint his own chairman, and if he wants a nucleus he can appoint a vice-chairman as well. We thought two would be sufficient, but the Minister says he wants five. We see no justification for it, and we cannot see why there should be two vice-chairmen. It seems something absolutely unknown in such an organization.

I should merely like to refer to the Minister’s amendment and tell him that, as far as this side is concerned, it would appear to us that it is an improvement that puts right some of the defects and shortcomings to which we referred at the second reading. But now I should like to refer him to subclauses (7) (a) and (b), and to make my objections clear I should like to read what appears there; (a) provides that if a service member becomes afflicted with a permanent infirmity of mind or body which renders him unable properly to discharge the duties of his office, the Minister may allow him to vacate his office; or remove him from office on the ground of incapacity. Then the Minister says in (b) “a service member who is in terms of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) allowed to vacate his office shall be deemed to have been retired on the ground of ill-health and shall be entitled to receive the benefits from the provident or pension fund to which he would have been entitled if he had been discharged from the service of his former employer on the ground of ill-health … as the Minister may direct”. Now it seems to me that the Minister is providing in (b) that the one falling under (a) who is allowed to vacate his office voluntarily may draw benefits under the pension fund, but if he does not do so and the Minister removes him from office, he loses all. I shall be pleased if the Minister will tell me where the case is dealt with under 7 (a) (ii). What about the man who is discharged from office? What about the pension contributions he has paid? What happens to that?

I do not wish to take the Minister back to the replies we have already dealt with this morning, except again with reference to his large executive body. I think I should once again refer the Minister to a body such as the Historical Monuments Commission, which performs functions that are as important as those this body will perform, and whose Chairman is not even a member of the permanent division or nucleus, or of the secretariat. The secretary, with his officials, constitute the secretariat. The Minister has referred to the fact that in the C.S.I.R. and other bodies there are a president and a vice-president, but they are there in honorary positions and it is irrelevant to the matter we have before us now. The members before us do not occupy honorary positions. They are important persons who are appointed on a permanent basis and who will receive high salaries, and who will be members of a body which in my view is too large and clumsy to be able to do its work thoroughly. The Minister will recall the evidence before the Select Committee, and that the bulk of the evidence was in favour of such a nucleus, but the vast majority of the witnesses also felt that the nucleus should be small and not large. I think the Minister would have acted much more wisely, and would have been more realistic, if he had been satisfied with only a chairman and two vice-chairmen, but I think it is wrong to appoint those two extra persons. But he has already indicated that he is going to do so, and I merely wish to repeat that I think he is making a mistake. The body will be cumbersome. For that reason I wish to support the hon. members on this side who spoke before me. But it seems to me the Minister has now put his foot down. He has become stubborn. He simply will not listen. He has now decided firmly that the body will consist of five members, and I think he is making a mistake, and that is why we cannot support him.

I should like to reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow on 7 (a) (ii). The person’s vacation of office in that case is governed by the laws of the scheme to which he belongs, whether it be provincial or that of the Central Government. In his case we have no difficulty, and we do not require further provision. I do not think hon. members need worry. When he has attained a certain age, he receives his pension. Ample provision has been made here and I am satisfied with it. To the other two members who have spoken here, I should just like to say this. In my second reading speech I mentioned very clearly some of the matters to which the Council will have to give its attention. I am thinking here of the diversity of training and awards of diplomas to teachers at universities, university colleges and technical colleges; the question of the organization of secondary education; differentiation; the question of puberty education; the diversity of choices of subject and contents of syllabuses; what is understood pedagogically under general moulding education and vocational training …

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

I am confining myself to the clause which provides that a permanent committee of five members shall be appointed. The charge came from that side that there will not be sufficient work for five members, and I am merely mentioning this to indicate that there will be more than enough work for them. If the Chairman would only permit me to finish:

I concluded by mentioning the problem of vocational guidance in schools, and I added three etceteras. It is not for me to mention all the matters here, but I am convinced in my soul that these people are absolutely necessary, for the work is waiting for them. The work has accumulated through all the years of neglect, and the members will be occupied more than full-time.

I can well believe that the Minister believes that this work is piling up. Nevertheless it is most important that the steps which are taken to deal with this work should be taken after a good deal of consideration. The picture which the Minister paints of this council of his—and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—seems to indicate that there will be a sort of executive committee of five sitting permanently in session and then calling the council together at odd times. The Minister goes on to say that these five, or four of them at any rate, will be busily occupied as chairmen of ad hoc committees investigating different subjects. It seems therefore that these five permanent officials, all of whom will be designated by the Minister and whom he admits himself he will choose because they fit in with his ideas—I think that is what he said just now, namely that he would not choose them merely because he liked the colour of their eyes but because they fitted in with his ideas—it seems to me that this is rather doing things in a hurry. I would suggest that he should consider getting his council together and then asking them, as was suggested by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), to appoint their chairman themselves. Am I to under stand that the chairman will be a full-time official? In other words, he will become a State official, as do the other four members of the executive. Is that correct?

It is a wonderful job.

Five of them.

These are permanent officials, and from my experience of very important work with which I have been connected, I think the work can be done very much better if it is done by people who meet from time to time, who mix in the world other than that of Pretoria, where presumably this council will be stationed, and who apart from occasional trips overseas will mix with other people in the country. I do feel that part-time employment, even in the case of the chairman and the vice-chairman, produce the best results in a democratic state. Where items quite as important as education are concerned, that system works quite satisfactorily, and particularly does it work well where advice has to be given, because this is a purely advisory council. Then I want to go further and I want to know why these ad hoc committees must always have a chairman from the executive committee? Surely there will be members of the council in different parts of the country with which they are familiar who know the local circumstances better than the executive committee and who presumably will be quite competent enough to be the chairmen of these ad hoc committees. Furthermore, in the Minister’s choice of his executive, must he always think in terms of a man being a suitable chairman? Because there are quite distinguished people in different branches of science and education and learning generally who are hopeless chairmen but who would be quite valuable people on this council of his and who may have a particular knowledge of the subject which he wants to have considered. I want also to refer to the clause which prevents fulltime members of the staff from taking on remunerative work without the consent of the Minister. Sir, this practice of full-time officials assuming other remunerative posts is a growing evil in public life in this country and one which is very difficult to check. It means that at least one post must suffer. I know of people who hold two or three posts, one of which is full-time, for which they receive separate salaries. I can quite understand that if on the Minister’s advisory council he has a very distinguished man in a certain branch, the Federation of Rhodesia or Great Britain or France or some other country might say: “We would like you to lend us this man to investigate something for us”, and that he might then be seconded to this work, and if necessary he could receive not only the honour but also some remuneration for it. That I can well understand but I very strongly object to the habit which is appearing now amongst public officials occupying various appointments in the Public Service or at universities or in hospitals and similar places receiving full-time salaries and then, with or without consent, take on other remunerative posts. If I had had time to consider this matter I might have moved an amendment in this regard. If somebody takes a full-time post he should devote the whole of his time to that post.

I think that the picture of this council is starting to develop very nicely. To me it would seem that the hon. the Minister is now deciding that this is his council—he said so—that he will appoint whom he likes and that they will report to him. If that is the position, then a lot of people are going to be appointed to this council who will have nothing to do. Sir, this is a dictatorial attitude that the hon. the Minister is adopting. I was rather surprised to hear him express himself in that way. Surely this is not his council. He called it, earlier on, a national advisory council and the only people whom they are going to advise apparently is the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the office-bearers of the executive committee.

I will do that, Sir. These people on the executive committee are going to be responsible directly to the Minister and apparently to nobody else. I was hoping that this executive committee of the council was going to be a group of people appointed for their ability in one department of education or another for the benefit of the whole country, and I was of the opinion that this executive was going to advise the Minister on education matters as a whole. I was also of the opinion that under those circumstances the present provincial set-up would not be interfered with. But I can see now, from what the Minister has said, that this executive committee will determine what is good; the Minister will decide that these people, who as I said in my Second Reading speech will be the reflection of the Minister, do the right thing and he will then instruct the provinces to carry out his wishes. There is nothing that the hon. the Minister has said that will detract from the opinion that I have just expressed. I cannot see any gleam of hope of independence for this group of people if the hon. the Minister is going to continue along these lines.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg (Mrs. Weiss), in which she asks that the Minister should consult with the council before appointing the chairman of this Council. I think that the success of this Council will depend largely on the reputation and the personality of the chairman and the position the Chairman of this Council will occupy. In other words, the chairman will have to be a person in whom the rest of the members of the council will have complete confidence. I think that it is essential when you have a group of educationists together as in the case of this council, that will have to perform such an important task, that one should ascertain who is the best man to take the lead. To give that lead he must enjoy the confidence of the Council itself. When the chairman has to be elected, then I believe it will be best to convene the Council so that they may have, a discussion among themselves and decide which one of them is the best one to take the lead. Then they could come to the Minister and recommend that so and so should be the chairman. Alternatively, the Minister may consult the Council and say to them: I think Mr. A or Mr. B or Mr. X will be the best chairman. In that way he will have the confidence of the Council and ensure that the best man is appointed for this important task as chairman of that council. But if the hon. the Minister, as the clause now stands, simply goes along and appoints the chairman as he thinks fit, he must realize that a certain member of that council might feel that he is a wonderful leader in the sphere of education and he might feel aggrieved because he has not been considered for the chairmanship. This Council itself will be best able to decide who should be the chairman. If the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, he will ensure that the esprit de corps of that Council will be of the very best immediately.

And suppose the voting is nine to eight?

There will be no ballot; it will be consultation.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has replied to the question of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). The members will consult with one another. They can be asked who should be the chairman: who will be the best leader of the council. That is all we expect from the hon. the Minister, namely that he shall nominate the chairman in consultation with the council. The hon. the Minister the other day himself said that when you consult with people, it does not mean that you are depriving them of any of their rights. That is why he said in the case of the provinces. So here he will not be depriving himself of any rights; he simply asks the members of the council who in their view will be the best chairman. That is why I think the hon. the Minister ought to accept this amendment.

When I was speaking before, I asked the hon. the Minister a question regarding these five permanent members. I should like to have clarity in regard to one more matter. If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. the Minister in his second reading speech said that he was not going to appoint three, but that he was going to appoint the full five and that in the course of the debate he hoped to give an indication of who the persons are.

No, no.

I fully accept the word of the hon. the Minister that he did not say that. I was under the impression that he had said something along those lines, but I accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister. Of course it would help a lot if we could know whether the hon. the Minister already has a chairman in mind, and if he could then give us some indication as to who that person is.

You want to drag him across the political floor in anticipation.

No. If it is a person who cannot be attacked politically, that would be the strongest argument the Minister could use by now mentioning the name of that person. But the mere fact that the hon. the Minister has given an indication that if the name of the person is mentioned, he might possibly be dragged into politics, makes me feel still more anxious to know who those five persons are going to be.

I hope you will live down your anxiety.

I am sorry the hon. the Minister did not give an answer to the objections that were raised by the teachers’ associations to this provision in the Bill, an objection that was raised by the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations which represents almost all the teachers in South Africa. Why was there no reply from him to the contention of the teachers’ associations that the teacher in active practice will be excluded if he has to become a permanent officer on this Council in question?

Order! The hon. member is now repeating.

Why is there no reply?

My amendments to Clause 3 are the answer.

Then I should like to know from the hon. the Minister in which respects his amendment is a reply to the complaint that your ordinary provincial administrations will be undermined by these five executive members.

Because the four provincial administrations endorsed it and wholeheartedly accepted it.

It was not wholeheartedly endorsed by all the four provincial administrations.

Order! The hon. member should confine himself merely to the office-bearers of this executive committee.

It was contended by the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations and by other teachers’ associations, whose evidence I have not quoted here, that these five members that are proposed here, will forfeit their independence if they become full-time Public Servants, and that as a result of that forfeiture they will be subject to the Minister instead of to the interests of the child and the school and education in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has not replied adequately to this complaint of the organized teachers and the fact that he has not done so will be held against him in the future by all the teachers, by all our schools, large and small.

I am not going to detain the Committee for long. I know the hon. the Minister wants to have co-operation on the Council which he is going to appoint as soon as possible. We are not asking for the approval of the Council in this amendment; we are not asking for the consent of the Council. We are only asking that the Minister will go to the Council and say to them: “Look, I should like to appoint this person or that person; I have my eye on him; I think he will be an outstanding chairman. Let me consult with you now.” If he can get co-operation after that consultation, he immediately starts off on firm ground; then he starts off with the confidence of those people and with a chairman who enjoys the confidence of the Council. That is what we are asking for; we are asking nothing more. I think it will be a wise addition to the clause, which will have the immediate effect not only that the Council will be well disposed towards him but also that the Chairman will immediately have the support and the goodwill of the Council.

I should like to state the matter thus: What stops me under this legislation first of all to appoint the five executive committee members and then to consult with them and to say to them: Look, here I have a long list of names; who do you think will be the best members to appoint? But now the hon. member wants to pin me down; I have to nominate the council first, and then the council must tell me whom I should appoint as Chairman. I am pleading that I should be given a free hand, because it might be better. When it comes to tin tacks and brass nails, the idea expressed here is the best, but why have I laid it down in the legislation? I have to see to it that I get the best chairman, and the best executive committee and the best councillors. I think it will be best if hon. members will leave it at that.

I must say that I cannot see how the Minister can possibly have a freely-thinking council with a permanent member appointed as chairman by somebody else. How can you possibly have a free debate and a free decision when you have at least five members who are permanent and one of whom is the permanent chairman? We must assume that the council will not meet very often; in other words, that there will be intervals between the meetings. Apparently, as I see the picture unfolding, a picture which was so well described by my colleague here, it seems to me that these five members will be in the nature of an executive Cabinet and that they will take decisions and give advice to the hon. the Minister. They will be a minority in the council. What is to happen if the council decides that the advice given to the Minister by the executive in the interval is advice which they cannot endorse? What is to happen under those circumstances? That is not an uncommon thing to happen, and I can easily see it happening here. If the Minister appoints 23 and there is a minority of five or six at a council meeting, what is to happen then?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the office-bearers of the executive committee. The hon. member is discussing the effect on the council.

Sir, I bow to your ruling, but I am trying to show that the suggestion to appoint these executive members in the way that they are to be appointed, is liable to lead to an inability of the whole council to function.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling. He is not confining himself to the clause.

I would like to ask the Minister then how many votes each of these executive committee members will have.

One man, one vote.

I was afraid that the Minister was going to say that, but then what happens when you have this majority of 18 against five?

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Weiss put and the Committee divided:

AYES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H! C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw. W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; ‘Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher. D. M.; Suzihan, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T, G,. Hughes. NOES—79: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. E. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, F. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. G.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig. H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk. H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H: F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That the words in line 38 and 39, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided: AYES—80: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha. H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers. J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.): Frank. S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker. A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots. J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie,

N. C. van R.; Sauer. P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. E. G. Malan dropped.

Question put: That the proviso to sub-section (2), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—80: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker. M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet. C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek. J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker. A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais. P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree. W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G.P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. E.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Radford negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—79: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn. J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G.; H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

On Clause 4,

Clause 4 deals with the tenure of office of members of the council, and I move the amendment standing in my name—

Of course I want to say again that I do not think it is right for the Minister not to keep to his promise when he says that he will not interfere with the working of the council, as he said earlier on in the debate. He said he would not interfere, and he would leave it to the council to run its own affairs. However here he says quite blatantly that a man may be removed from his office by the Minister “if in the opinion of the Minister” he has made himself guilty of improper conduct. How is the hon. the Minister going to know about this if he does not get information from somebody in this council? If that should happen, surely the right thing would be to have a consultation with the members of the council to find out what has happened. The hon. the Minister himself wishes in certain cases such as when misconduct or something else arises where there shall be removal of the Administrator’s nominee, to take the advice of the Administrator or to consult with the Administrator, but in all other cases, he takes it upon himself to remove the person. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us presently why he takes it upon himself whilst in other cases he consults the Administrator. If the hon. the Minister agrees to my amendment, then the second part of this clause will fall away automatically and it will not be necessary to introduce this part of the clause which says “or if the Minister after consultation with the council is of the opinion that due to other circumstances …”. I do not know what the other circumstances are. Will the hon. the Minister tell us? Does it mean that if the man does not come up to the Minister’s expectations in carrying out some of the duties, he will be removed? I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this special dispensation that he is prepared to give in regard to the Provincial Administrator will be explained fully, and why they should be treated differently to, say, a teachers’ organization?

I should like first of all to propose my amendment—

The first amendment proposes that the words “executive committee” be omitted because provision has already been made in respect of the executive committee. Then there is an addition: “Provided that such member who has been appointed … on the recommendation of an Administrator, may only be removed from office after consultation with the Administrator concerned.” The addition of the proviso is necessary because the members concerned may be in the full-time service of the province. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) I am prepared to accept it because actually, as the hon. member has said, there are two criteria here; in the one case the Minister himself has to judge, and in the other case he has to go and consult. It seems quite right to me to accept the amendment.

I should merely like to say that this side of the House has no objection to the Minister’s amendment, and I should like to express the appreciation of this side of the House because the Minister has at long last come to accept this principle of consultation now, and that he is prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville I think the clause will now read much better and will also create a better feeling.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

Clause 5 particularly sub-section (2) I regard as one of the more pernicious, more objectionable and more reprehensible clauses of the whole Bill.

Have you any more words?

I have; but the hon. member won’t understand them. It has been received. Sir, at the very least with strong reservations and at the most with trepidation and repugnance by responsible bodies throughout South Africa. This is the clause which empowers the hon. the Minister to appoint small committees of three to investigate all schools, public and private, which may receive public funds, however small the extent of those public funds may be. It is a clause which is instituting a not so very Special Branch of this educational council. It is a clause which introduce a form of snooping by these small committees into all the schools in South Africa, and it will indeed make the hon. the Minister the Snoop-er-intendent-General of Education in South Africa. In view of all this, Sir, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

This clause says in detail that the hon. the Minister may appoint a committee of three to investigate any school. I do not wish to interpret the clause unfairly; I want to add that he must consult with the Administrator and also act on the recommendations of the council before any such investigation is made into any particular school. I do not think that either of those is a tolerable guarantee to prevent abuse. First of all, consulting with an Administrator who has been appointed by the Government, probably a person with the same views as the Government, is no safeguard. And secondly, acting on the recommendations of the council, or rather the majority of the council, whose views will be the same as those of the hon. the Minister, is by no means a safeguard that this clause, particularly subsection (2), will not be abused by this council.

These little committees of three cap obtain access to schools in two ways. First of all, if the school falls under the Provincial Council, access can be obtained through the consent of the Superintendent-General of Education or the authority in charge of that school. In the case of other schools, private schools receiving a small proportion of public funds, access by these investigating committees can be obtained with the consent and the approval of the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science.

That simply means the hon. the Minister himself can say that a private school, even though it receives a very small amount, can be investigated by one of these small but potentially dangerous little committees.

As I have said this is a most deplorable clause. If this is a clause to investigate defects in a particular school then I maintain that this clause is utterly and completely unnecessary because the machinery already does exist for investigating your ordinary schools to-day. We have that machinery in the professional men, the inspectors of the Departments of Education of the four provinces. If the intention of this Bill is to see that the ordinances are complied with then the inspectors can do that—and there is no need for a special committee. If the intention of the hon. the Minister is to see whether the teachers are doing their jobs, the inspectors can do that; that is part of their job. If the intention is to see whether public funds are properly administered, that too can be done through the usual channels, through existing channels. If the intention is to see whether the proper syllabuses are followed as laid down, that can be done—and it is being done by the inspectors of the four provincial departments. In other words, if you want to see whether the laws of the land, the ordinances are being carried out, there is a fine body of professional men, the inspectors, who can carry out the necessary inspection. That, Sir, is if you want to see whether the law of the land is being carried out.

But, Sir, if you want to start changing the law, if you want to start interfering in the law and its application in the schools, then the ordinary inspectors cannot do that type of work. Then indeed the door is opened for abuse by committees of this nature for bringing about changes in the schools and in the law. I am particularly worried about the private schools in this country and the extent to which they will be affected by this clause. That concern is shared by the conference of headmasters and headmistresses of private schools in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go into any details but I do want the hon. the Minister to give us some indication of what these particular committees will do! what type of investigation can they possibly carry on in the schools of South Africa which the ordinary inspectors cannot do to-day? If it is to investigate, as the hon. the Minister said in the Second Reading, more modern ideas and more modern methods which particular schools may be following, then one can understand it. But there is not a single school in this country adopting modern methods or advanced ideas in education, which will not be proud and happy to invite a member of this council to come to investigate what is going on.

In fact, Sir, in the memorandum submitted by the conference of headmasters and headmistresses of private schools, a specific invitation was extended: “Please come and look at the way in which we are running our schools; we have nothing to hide: come and have a look: if, you can learn anything, please da come.” To conduct an investigation of that nature, I am sure, does not warrant the appointment of these committees. [Interjections.] Did the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) say that these committees may not go? We do not want an official committee of this particular council to do the investigation. What I said was this: There was an open invitation to the members of the Select Committee to investigate those particular private schools so that they could see that they had nothing to hide, and so that they could learn from them. The Minister has admitted that there were many respects in which we Could learn from them such as the introduction of post-matriculation courses, the leaving of discipline in the hands of prefects, new methods of teaching science etc. But for that you do not need an investigating committee of three of the nature envisaged by the hon. the Minister in this particular Bill.

Mr. Chairman, again the question arises: What do the experts say, those people who really know about teaching, the teaching bodies in South Africa, on this particular issue? There are three different groups of teachers in South Africa. There are first of all the teachers in the largely Afrikaans schools; secondly, there are the teachers in the largely English schools, and thirdly, there is the combined organization of all these different teaching organizations. I should like to read to the Committee what these organizations have to say about this particular provision, and about the dangers inherent in the idea of having these little committees of three investigating the different schools of our country. [Time limit.]

I should not have condescended to reply to the hon. member, if he had understood the matter as well as his colleagues who served on the Select Committee. Messrs. Kidd, Wilson and Osier, who represented private schools before the Select Committee, personally asked me to tell the Minister that his council will be welcome at all times to visit those schools. I then said yes, but that is not the idea of that committee at all. In the whole clause there is nothing relative to a private school. Where does the hon. member get the whole tirade he has held on private schools, when there is nothing in this clause about it? But there is a guilty feeling that things are done in the private schools that would have been done by the United Party if we had had private C.N.E. schools. But we do not have them. It was pointed out expressly by the witnesses that the greatest C.N.E. principle is to found at the present time in the school of Mr. Osier, namely Kearnsley College. That is where C.N.E. is. We do not have it. But even if the hon. member had reason to take the field against this clause, then everything just turns on their assumption that we will act in the manner in which they might have been expected to act if they had been U in our shoes. And, Mr. Chairman, the Clause has no such object. The Clause simply seeks to appoint committees to do certain work, where the whole Council will not be needed. I put a question to Prof. Burger, a dignified man who represented a very big organization, namely the Academy. Should there be such committees that will snoop? His words were: A Council of this nature would not stoop to such trivialities. It would not stoop to such trivialities. Why does the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) now try to drag this Bill down to those trivialities? Why is he trying to do that? Those committees will conduct their work in a purely scientific manner. They will approach the provinces. In fact we inserted a provision there that nothing less than the highest authority in the province should grant permission beforehand. And if that Council is tied down in such a way that it may not visit a school or may not send people to visit any educational institution, it will be powerless. But now, after the pleas this morning as to how the members of the Council and the members of the committees should be so closely connected with education, we find now that they are concerned with the Council, and they do not want the council to seek contact with education. Certain motives have been ascribed by members of the Opposition and by witnesses to this idea that sub-committees may visit schools and institutions—unworthy motives—and I hope the Minister will not take notice of any attempt to detract from the worthiness of this legislation and the dignity of the Council he wants to establish.

I wish to move the amendment in my name—

I would like to support the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) when he referred to this clause as a clause of investigation I would call this a most unhappy clause.

Gestapo!

The hon. member opposite calls it a Gestapo clause. I would call it an inquisitor’s clause. One of the witnesses referred to it as that, in giving evidence before the Select Committee. This is a clause which has caused a great deal of anxiety throughout the circles of educationists in the four provinces of South Africa. This is one of the clauses in this Bill which has created a great deal of controversy.

I would like to refer the hon. the Minister back to 1960 when there was a debate by educationists in the Transvaal Provincial Council on this very issue of a National Education Advisory Bill which was then introduced for the first time. I am referring to the Hansard of the Provincial Council of 11 May 1960. It was condemned by our side of the House in no uncertain terms as unwarranted interference and the imposition of control over the functions of the Provincial Councils regarding the inspection of schools. They stated that there was no need for an advisory council with such sinister powers as provided for in this Clause.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister something about this particular Clause. Earlier this year the hon. the Minister said, when the Bill was first introduced, before it was sent to a Select Committee,—that was on 22 January—that in appointing a Select Committee he was giving an opportunity to all interested people to appear and to give evidence. He said then what more could a Government do to take the public into its confidence? I would like to know from the Minister, if he wishes to have public confidence, whether he could not suitably amend this Clause which is one of the most unhappy Clauses of this Bill before us this afternoon. As I said in the second reading, the investigating powers which these committees will have are far too wide. All the information that they may require about schools can be obtained through provincial sources. If these committees wish to have any information at all they can obtain it through statutory machinery, machinery which exists in all the four provinces. Therefore I wish to put forward seriously for the Minister’s consideration the insertion of these words that the investigation should be conducted “in accordance with the provisions of any law relating to the conduct of the inspection of schools”, any provincial law which prevails at the time. In the evidence that we heard in the Select Committee witnesses stressed the anxiety which there was regarding this particular clause. Surely an amendment on the lines of the one which I am putting forward now will go some way to allay their anxiety and to improve this clause. I therefore put this amendment forward for the Minister’s consideration in order that this very unhappy clause of this Bill may not interfere with provincial powers and that they will utilize the services of the provinces which are available to be used.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) has already replied to a large extent to the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). I merely wish to add that it is a long time since last I came across so many negative arguments and negative persons. The hon. member first of all referred to everything that is bad and what could possibly happen. It is not in this Bill and Mr. Chairman, you will not permit me to refer to it; he dilated upon everything that will be done, whether it will be defects that will be sought; whether it will be an enquiry into the funds, into the activities, into the syllabuses—and having referred to all the negative things, he asks me a question. He nevertheless has retained such a degree of positiveness that he wished to know from the Minister what he now really wishes to do with these committees. That is pathetic con duct. He wants to know what we are going to do with these committees. Everything occupies so much time. I am appointing a council here. I am not the expert; the hon. member is not an expert either. But it is this very Council that will have to tell us when it becomes necessary. I remind the hon. member that in my second reading speech I mentioned an example. If e.g. you wish to know something more about the deaf, surely then you will want to visit a school for the deaf; then surely you will wish to collect first-hand knowledge there. How many commissions of enquiry relative to school and educational matters do not go to the schools direct? I was Chairman of a commission of enquiry relative to central schools in Transvaal, e.g., when we investigated the whole movement of centralization of schools. My commission and I—the commission consisted inter alia of officials—visited the schools. We were admitted to those schools. We investigated and studied the matter on the spot. I just want to say the two amendments are alike—six of the one and half a dozen of the other. If the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) succeeds, then the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) is not necessary. If the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington does not succeed, then the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) will try to let hers succeed. But in both cases we are exactly where we were—in other words, no ad hoc committee, no enquiry, but everything should be done on the usual inspection level. Now that is very strange to me. Hon. members quote from the Blue Book time and again, and then they tell us what the Federal Council of the Teachers’ Associations say, etc. Here the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations says what they are quoting all day long, that the ad hoc committees are one of the best things, and they want them. The teachers want them, for they will be experts who know how things go. I cannot say which problems will be investigated. If the Government is bent on snooping, to find out what is going on, why should we require this legislation? We could then surely do it through our ordinary inspectors. The inspectors appointed in the three Nationalist provinces, and in the other one too, are Public Servants. We can give those inspectors an instruction. I can instruct all the inspectors in my Department to keep their noses to the ground and to do what the hon. member for Orange Grove does—smell out whether there is something wrong. We do not need a committee of people who are appointed to make an enquiry at all. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that only the chairman of the committee is a member of the Council. The two additional members are experts in the field of the subject to be investigated. These two people do not get there of their own volition. The clause should be read in its context. These people have to get the permission of the Directors of Education in the other provinces, and of the Superintendent-general of Education in the Cape Province, or of the Secretary for Education Arts and Science—that is to say from the people who control admission to the schools. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) wants to come along with another amendment. I hope he withdraws it, for it is an amendment that is wrong. It is not the Administrator or the Minister who controls it. Admission to schools by commissions or whoever it may, be, is in the hands of the Directors of Education, and he delegates his powers to inspectors and school principals. We are not just going to admit any committee which wishes to go and visit a school, and say that it may go there on its own. The Council will in the first place have to say that this or that matter will have to be investigated. It will say: We do not have enough knowledge; 15 of us are gathered together here and we do not have sufficient information before us; we shall have to obtain more information now, and so now we appoint member A of the Council as chairman and we appoint the following two experts and we ask them to submit reports to us and to furnish us with information on this matter. I have already replied during the second reading to the hon. member for Kensington. He is an ex-inspector of schools. Does he want to get up here to-day and say—he will not do so for he is an honest person—to Committee: As an ex-inspector I have knowledge of every subject in education and I am an expert on every phase of education, and it is not necessary to send a committee; I shall be able to furnish the answers? He will never do that. There are so many facets, so many divisions. If he wants to tell me that he and all his inspectors can do so, then I could consider this amendment. But, Mr. Chairman, it is simply impossible. We who have the practical experience—and I also had the practical experience—know that it cannot be done. Let me tell the hon. members this. When I was the principal of a school, I found that young inspectors were appointed by the Department of Education, and they were told: Go and visit that school or certain aspects of the work De Klerk is doing in the school, and stay there for two or three days. I received young inspectors in my school, who stayed there for two or three days, and they came there not to conduct an inspection but to come and learn. Then they go to another school for something else. I have one inspector who stole a lot of my school-children’s scripts because they were so nice, and he proceeded to exhibit them at other schools and to say that the work should be done in that way. I am not boasting, but I am merely mentioning this from my own experience. If it is necessary for us to smell out and seek out things then I would rather use our officials; I would rather use an inspector of schools and say to him: “I believe that in this school this is happening and in that school that is happening”. But these committees have been defined in the clause in such a way that I really cannot understand this amendment, except only to attach the one interpretation and meaning to it, namely that hon. members do not believe it themselves. They wish to spread the idea in the whole country that here we have a Nazi Minister who wants to smell out things by Nazi methods. [Interjections.] The Opposition are very welcome to feel that way about the matter. This adverse propaganda does not harm me as a politician in any way. It is almost the same as in the case of a Hollywood star. The more the Press say about him that is, wrong, the less other people believe it, and the more they think of him. That is why I say that these two amendments are devoid of any necessity, and I am standing here like the Rock of Gibraltar and I will riot concede anything more.

It will not help the Minister at all for him to become hasty or to get irritated. We do not wish to arouse any ideas. It is not our intention to engender suspicion. We wish to state our case and we have the right to do so. Nor do we wish to accuse the Minister of intending to use his Council or Committee for purposes of snooping, but he knows as well as I do that the S.A.O.U. said that this Council that is to be established should not act as a body of inquisitors. [Interjections.] I shall be pleased if those hon. friends whose mouths have been sealed will get up and talk and help us to improve this law. But what are the members who sat on the Select Committee doing? They are silent. I wish to refer once again to what the S.A.O.U. said about this matter, and the Akademie also. To the question: Ought committees to be given the power to investigate matters in schools? the Akademie replied, through Prof. Burger, who cannot really be called a United Party supporter: “I would not like either the Council or its committees to stoop down to investigate questions which are not related to matters of general principle and which fall within the purview of the school authorities”. That is why we say these committees should be appointed. They are needed. We are not opposed to the establishment of these committees, but we feel that these committees could so easily be charged with being inquisitors if we were to permit them to go to schools to ascertain certain things. The local provincial machinery is there and that could be used to report to the Committee or to the Council itself. That is the reason why we feel it is dangerous to give these people access to the schools. I do not believe there is a single principal who would like people to come from outside to investigate matters in his school. The Minister, at the time when he was still a principal, would have had no objections if his provincial inspector had told him: The Advisory Council wishes to conduct research into certain matters, e.g. the preparation of scholars for the matriculation examination. We can understand that, especially as there is a rumour that the matriculation examination will no longer be a written examination, and in passing I should like to say that that is already 50 years too late. It should have been so long ago already. If the provincial machinery were used to report to the Council, it would have a sound effect, but this kind of thing as proposed here may give rise to suspicion, and that is one of the things the Minister himself wishes to avoid. He does not wish his Council to act as inquisitors but the possibility is there that they may be accused of being just that. For that reason we feel that the Minister should accept our amendment.

I should like to put one matter right, for the point of view of the Akademie is being referred to time and again. I have here two telegrams, one dated 13th June, after the charges hon. members made about the evidence of the Akademie. The one was sent from the Akademie from Pretoria on the 13th, and it reads as follows—

The Chairman of the Akademie, who is in Stellenbosch, telegraphed as follows on the 14th—

I am merely objecting to this abuse of evidence, in saying that Prof. Burger said this and that and the other. It is taken out of its context. Now I should just like to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that as regards his whole argument in relation to these two amendments, it is quite clear surely that I should have preferred the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove. Delete the whole provision and let the inspectors do it, instead of your being able to appoint committees, but as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) puts it, provided that such an investigation should be conducted in accordance with the legal provisions relative to the management and inspection of schools. But the inspectors can do that. Then you merely make a travesty of this clause. There is only one thing, and I am repeating this now, which hon. members must realize. We have the honest object that the ad hoc committees—and that is why they are called ad hoc committees and not standing committees—are appointed to do certain work.

I am sorry the Minister took the line he did just now. I feel that our children are now entitled to say that they asked for education and the Minister has given them a stone. This reference to the Rock of Gibraltar is all very well in politics, but what we are seeking from the Minister is not only his co-operation in this matter but that it shall be seen to be done, and it is not good that that kind of language should be used in this debate. I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

I regret that the Minister found it necessary in advance to say that he was not prepared to accept it, because he condemned it with scant ceremony, but I want to ask him to apply his mind to it. The position is this, that as the clause stands at present, when a committee has been established for the purpose of an investigation, it gets permission to enter certain schools from certain people who are referred to in the clause as “the person authorized to give such consent”. The person authorized to give such consent is being specified, which is a great pity. It would have been much better if no person was specified, because the authority entitled to give consent is known, and there is no difficulty about that. The Minister has chosen to insert who those people should be and I can understand that there might be some difficulty in regard to private schools, where private schools fall to be dealt with for such purposes as are envisaged in this clause by the advisory council to be established. In other words, there are private schools which will not come under the purview of the council, but some will, and I can understand the Minister’s trouble there. But let me deal with the position of the provincial schools. Sub-clause (2) (a) says that the Minister may after consultation with the Administrator concerned appoint a committee to make certain investigations. Let us look at it from the practical point of view. The Minister consults with the Administrator concerned and presumably he puts to the Administrator precisely what it is contemplated to investigate. But at that time he does not ask the Administrator for authority to enter his school, as the clause stands. He waits until the next succeeding clause, and having consulted with the Administrator in regard to the ambit of the inquiry to be undertaken, he then goes to an official, a servant of the Administrator, and says he wants his permission to enter the school of the Administrator. I am sorry the Minister shakes his head. That is what is before us. Surely the simple thing is that while consulting the Administrator, he should at the same time be asked for authority to enter the school. That would be in line with present policy and usage. But it is quite wrong for the Administrator to be consulted and then for the Administrator not to give consent for the entry to the school. The Director, or the Superintendent-General of Education, is the servant of the Administrator. They work on the basis of instructions received, and under the present system which obtains in all the provinces, usually known as the A.A. system, or “Approved in Advance”, they go to the member of the executive committee dealing with the matter, who is acting as the mouthpiece of the Administrator, and he approves these things in advance. These things are dealt with in that way by the hundred in all four provinces, and when the full executive meets these matters are dealt with in quick order because every member of the executive knows what authority he can exercise. But the way this clause is framed it is simply a slap in the face of all four Administrators. It says: We will consult with the Administrator, but we will not ask him for authority to enter his schools; we will go to his servant and ask his permission to do it. If it is to be passed in this form, in what position are we putting the Directors-General of Education? It may well be that in the other three provinces they will bow and accept it with grace, but I am dealing with this from the point of view of someone who values the authority conferred on the Administrators, and I feel I am entirely justified in telling the Minister that when he is negotiating with the Administrator, please ask him for permission to enter his school. But do not put the Administrator in the position that one of his officials can give permission to enter a school, and the Administrator is put out of the picture completely. I think you are putting the Director-General of Education in a hopelessly false position when you clothe him with that authority which you are not prepared to give to his master, the Administrator, because as the law stands to-day the head of the Department of Education is the Administrator.

First of all I want to explain my reference to the Rock of Gibraltar. I was not referring to the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast. I was referring to the two amendments moved by the hon. members for Orange Grove and Johannesburg (North). A principle is involved in those two amendments, but there is not such a big principle involved in the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast. Still, there is a vast difference between (a) and (b). In Clause 5 (2) (a) the Administrator is asked to accede to a principle, to have an investigation. The Minister of Education discusses the principle with the Administrator, that we find it necessary to have an investigation on a certain point. After the Administrator accedes to that request, it moves on to the next person, who acts under delegated powers from the Administrator as head of the Education Department, the Director or the Superintendent-General, or my own Secretary. That is only asking for admission to individual schools. The Administrator cannot be burdened with these minor tasks. They may say, e.g., that they want to visit a primary school in a vicinity where you have well-to-do people. Then they go to the head of the Education Department and ask him to name one. Then we want to visit another school in a poorer area, and they ask him to name one. Then we want to investigate some more intelligent children, and we ask him to mention a school where the percentage is rather high. What does the Administrator know about these details? What do I as Minister know about it? I must go to my Secretary and he again must consult his officials. I think the way it is put here is logical. It is not a slap in the face of the Administrator. In 5 (2) (a) the principle is discussed, and in 5 (2) (b) the principle is put into practice, and I cannot agree with the hon. member for South Coast. In my view there is nothing wrong with it.

May I just ask this? The Minister said that after consultation with the Administrator, and his consent having been obtained, they go to visit the schools. The first question is this. Is the issue as to whether there shall be an inquiry or not settled when the Administrator says yes or no, and if the Administrator says there can be no inquiry, then there can be no approach to the Director-General?

No, let me put it very clearly. It is not in consultation, but after consultation. The Minister still has the power to have that investigation in any case. But that does not alter my argument as I stated it here. After I have consulted the Administrator, they discuss the principle of whether it is necessary to have an investigation, and after that has been settled you get to the mechanics of the thing. Now, this committee having been appointed, they go to the head of the Department and tell him what they want to do and ask him to get everything ready for their visit to the school.

The Minister has trodden first on one side of the fence and then the other, and at the moment he is just sitting on the fence, and I want him to come down on one side or the other. At the time of the inquiry, if the Administrator says no, he is not willing that a Committee should investigate anything in his schools, from the way the hon. member started off it appeared that he was saying that that decision was final, but now he has rather changed it and has indicated that the inquiry can still be held, even though the Administrator does not agree.

But that has nothing to do with your amendment.

With the greatest respect, my amendment says that approval must be obtained from the Administrator because it is with the Administrator that the Minister consulted. If the Administrator says no, the Minister must then go on with his inquiry against the wish of the Administrator, and he has to get the consent of the Administrator to enter a school.

But that is in 2 (a), not in 2 (b), and your amendment refers to 2 (b).

But 2 (a) deals with the consultation with the Administrator to set up a Committee, and nothing more

Afterwards. If the Administrator refuses, the Minister can go forward. That is the law

Now the Minister has come down on one side of the fence quite clearly. He has said that if the Administrator refuses he can go on without his approval, and that is precisely why my amendment is framed in the language it is. What has the Minister admitted now? Having failed to get the consent of the master, he is going to use 2 (b) to compel the servant to open the gate. The master has said in 2 (a) that he cannot enter, but the Minister says that in 2 (b) he will clothe the servant with authority to open the gate, even when the master has said no. My intention in my amendment is that the Administrator shall open the doors of the schools in his own province, and the time to do it is when negotiations take place under 2 (a). But it is now quite clear to me that it was intended to have the position that the Minister now admits to, and it is not by chance that 2 (b) is framed in the way it is. It is done deliberately. The Minister says that this is a matter of the Administrator delegating his power to an official, but there is no such power. No Administrator can give the Director-General of Education the right to open the door of any school to an investigation without the knowledge of the Executive Committee and himself. But the Minister seeks to clothe the official here with a legal power which is not derived from the Administrator by delegation. It is not a delegated power at all. It is an original power conferred by Act of Parliament on the official that the Minister is seeking to clothe the official with, when the master, the Administrator, has himself refused consent. That is why I said to the Minister that we should not talk about co-operation. It is not sufficient to talk about it. Co-operation must be seen to be done. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment and leave the Administrators and the executive committees the masters in their own house and do not let us through Parliament confer powers on officials to override the Administrator, because that is what the Minister is trying to do here. I ask the Minister to meet us in this matter, and let him show his willingness to cooperate by accepting my amendment.

Mr. Chairman. I am really astonished to hear such remarks from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell).

I have been so co-operative that I have already accepted one amendment. I have great respect for the hon. member, and he himself having been an Administrator knows exactly the mechanics of the provincial system, and it does not give me any pleasure to tell him some things which he ought to know. The hon. member knows very well that under sub-clause (2) (a) the Minister may after consultation appoint a committee to carry out an investigation. “After consultation” means this: Say, for instance, that an Administrator refuses to accede to a very fair request made by the Minister of Education; then the Minister may go forward. But then under sub-clause (2) (b) “Such a committee may obtain access to such a school with the consent of a person authorized to give such consent …” The hon. member now wants to press for this amendment. He knows very well that if an Administrator has very definite views and definite reasons for refusing, after consultation, to accede to the request of the Minister, the Administrator can direct the Director of Education not to give that authority for admission. The Administrator can give any direction to his Director of Education. If the Secretary for Education has the right to admit people to a certain school and I do not like it as Minister I can direct him not to allow it and he must obey. The hon. member knows that very well. Why place this additional burden on the Administrator when it is only a question of carrying out the mechanics of the whole thing after it has been decided that the principle is a good one and that these committees should be allowed to investigate.

Are you binding yourself to that statement that the Administrator can direct the Director of Education not to allow access to the schools?

Yes.

And that supersedes the provisions of (2) (b)?

The Administrator can do anything, he is the master.

I wish to discuss sub-sections (2) (a) and (2) (b)—first of all (2) (a)—

Should that be “and” or “or”? Is he going to consult an Administrator and any other Minister? I think it should be “or”.

I think you are right.

That is the first point, and I think it is a very important one, because it will come up again in (2) (b). Sub-section (2) (a) goes on to say—

Why are we to have this rigid committee? When we discussed it in the Select Committee I could not understand why my colleagues on the other side of the House insisted on a member of the council and two other persons. Why not two members of the council and one other person; why not three members of the council; why not four members of the council? I think you might require four members of the council and perhaps one or two other persons to go to a training college. What is a “school”? Look at the definition of “school”. It includes a training college for teachers. Sir, it is a clumsily drafted clause.

You are being wise after the event. You never put it that way.

Sir, I tried very hard with this pupil on the other side but I have had very little success with him. He should have been an inspector in the Transvaal—then he would have known something—instead of being an inspector in the Cape. No wonder the Cape system is in the state in which it is and has to have this council! Sir, the next point is this: We do not need these rigid ad hoc committees. You can have any kind of committee for the investigation. I had in mind an investigation into the training of teachers, in which I agree with the hon. the Minister that there should be, not an investigation but a policy formulated in consultation with all the provinces. I think that is the one thing that is necessary. Now I come to sub-clause (2) (b). I agree entirely with what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said. Unfortunately he was not here during the debate on Friday, but the hon. the Minister will remember that in that debate I said that the authority of the Director is derived from the Administrator. In the law the Director derives his authority from the Administrator, and I am glad this afternoon that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education is here because I want to refer to him. The authority of his officials is derived from the hon. the Minister, and I want to come to him now. Sub-clause (2) (b) says here that if the authority is to be given in the case of any other school, not a provincial school, it is to be given by the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science. What does the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education think of that? What does the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs think of that? They are not going to derive their authority from the Minister through the Secretary for Education; they are going to derive it from the Minister of Bantu Education. For the first time since I have been in this House I find myself a supporter of the authority of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education. He will be the authority in that case. Sir, I would suggest this: The hon. the Minister said at the end of the second reading debate that he would award marks to us for what we had said and contributed in the second reading debate. In the case of sub-clause (1) I think we can let it pass. In the case of sub-clause (3) we might let it pass, but in the case of sub-clause (2) he should go back and do his homework again. It is a badly, clumsily drafted clause and we should have it done again.

I first of all wish to revert to the investigation by a committee in schools. I said that as far as I could remember, the majority of the bodies that testified before us felt that the committee should not have direct access to the schools, and I quoted from the evidence given by Professor Burger on behalf of the Akademie. I do not know what the Akademie telegraphed subsequently and I accept of course that the telegram the Minister has read is correct. But then you must also admit that Professor Burger said something he ought not to have said, for he came here as the representative of the Akademie, and under cross-examination he said what I have quoted here. But I went further. We examined 16 witnesses in all in regard to this matter: Should the council or its committee have the power to investigate matters in schools? Two said “Yes” and 14 said “No”. In other words, only two of the 16 felt that the council should be able to enter the schools. The others said it should not be permitted, that the ordinary provincial administrative machinery could be used for that purpose; and this side insists upon that, not in order to frustrate the Minister and his council, but once again to prevent any unpleasantness from arising.

As regards the Administrators, personally I am glad the Minister has now made that admission, for I cannot imagine that an Administrator could refuse a request under (a), and that the Minister could then go to the Director of Education or to the Superintendent of Education and get the requisite approval from him. He simply could not give it, he would get into trouble. So I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot draft this clause of his more clearly, so that his intention may appear clearly, in the way he put it to us. I accept that that is his object, but an intention as expressed in a speech does not count in law; what counts is what is said in the Act itself. That is why we move this amendment.

I shall conduct further consultations, if it is necessary. I should now like to propose the amendment to which the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has drawn attention here—

I do not think that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) should be allowed to get away with the impression that the private schools welcome this particular clause of the Bill. The private schools are quite prepared to receive educationists and to show them the great work that is being done in their institutions, but they are certainly not prepared to allow an investigating committee to come within their walls with the purpose of changing the system that they have built up with so much trouble and so much diligence during the years of their existence.

I also cannot see how the hon. member for Witbank can say that private schools do not fall under this clause at all. I say that any private school which receives financial assistance from the Central Government does fall within the ambit of this Bill. After all, Clause 5 (2) (b) refers to “any other school” in line 26, and “school” is defined in Clause 1 as including any school which receives financial assistance out of public funds; in other words, private schools do fall under this Bill.

The hon. member for Witbank also quoted Professor Burger and his point of view, But what Professor Burger stated is clearly laid down in the evidence given before the Select Committee. This is the evidence that he submitted on behalf of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie. Let the hon. member for Witbank listen to these words again; Professor Burger said (page 108)—

In other words, it should be done by the provincial departments of education through their inspectors.

Sir, I come now to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has objected to my suspicions of this Bill, which he seems to regard as rather unworthy. It is not I who think that this particular clause might mean an inquisition in schools; I did not use the word “inquisition”. The word “inquisitor” was used by the Federal Council of Teachers’ Organizations of the whole of the country, representing all teachers, Afrikaans- and English-speaking. Let me read to you the evidence of this Federal Council before the Select Committee. This is what Mr. H. C. Botha said; these are the words of the Federal Council (page 5)—

There the word “inquisitors” is used. I did not use it; the Federal Council representing all the teachers used it. Then the Federal Council goes on to say—

If all the teachers’ organizations of this country have a suspicion that there might be something very much wrong in this Bill, surely I am permitted to voice those suspicions too! After all, it was easy for the hon. the Minister to have mentioned the type of investigation that he had in mind. The hon. the Minister mentioned investigations into schools for the blind and schools for the deaf. If he can mention those two instances, surely he can mention the type of investigation that he envisages into the ordinary schools of the four provinces. If he cannot do that, why introduce this clause if he does not know what it is for? The hon. the Minister accused me of sniffing along the ground seeking for something unsavoury. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that I do indeed smell something wrong, and that should anything be done under this particular clause to harm the schools that I have mentioned, then I shall be able to cry with Mark Antony—

When I spoke earlier this evening I said that all the teachers’ organizations disapprove of this particular provision, the Afrikaans-speaking as well as the English-speaking organizations. Let me turn to the evidence by the Transvaal Teachers’ Association by Dr. J. E. Davis, in which he said (page 218)—

Can the views of the Transvaal teachers be expressed more clearly than that? Here are the views of the S.A.O.U. (Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie). Mr. A. W. Retief said this in regard to the appointment of committees of inquiry—

Why cause that suspicion, why engender that suspicion? Why not rather listen to the recommendations of the S.A.O.U.? The S.A.O.U. says—

Let me take the S.A. Teachers’ Association, an organization representing all the English-speaking teachers in the Cape Province. In their memorandum, submitted by Mr. Wahl, this organization says (page 27)—

There, Sir, is your answer; the inspectors of schools are there to carry out these investigations. The S.A. Teachers’ Association goes on to say—

Why relegate our provincial department of education to a position of inferiority through the provisions of this particular clause? The S.A.T.A. continues—

In other words, the powers and the dignity of the provincial education departments are being ignored by a provision such as this. So, Sir, I could continue to quote from the S.A. Akademie, from the Federale Raad van Onderwysersvereniging, from the Cape School Board, and I could quote to you, Sir, from the evidence submitted by bodies of parents, the National Council of Women and other bodies, in which they all deplore this particular provision. There is no provision in this Bill which is so unanimously condemned as this particular one. I ask the hon. the Minister why is he going ahead with this provision? Is it a case of the Potchefstroom tail trying to wag the South African dog?

I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Orange Grove in his allegations, but pursuant to what he said there, namely, that the various teachers’ associations are unanimously opposed to the fact that admission will have to be given to an ad hoc committee or a commission of inquiry, I should like to read what Dr. Potgieter said, and I should like the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) to listen to this as well.

He did not say unanimously.

That is what the hon. member tried to suggest. Let me quote what Dr. Potgieter, the chairman of the largest teachers’ association, namely, the T.O. (Transvaalse Onderwysersvereniging) said. He said this with reference to a question put to him. I quote: Question 1015 on page 431—

Dr. Potgieter replied—

Then the next question was put to him—

His reply was—

Read page 425, paragraph (5).

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of sub-section (2) up to and including “concerned” in line 15, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—76: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Laubschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. E. G. Malan negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Weiss put and the Committee divided:

AYES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

NOES—77: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That all the words after “the” in line 24, up to and including “education” in line 26, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—79: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A; Jonker, A. H. ‘Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg. G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. D. E. Mitchell dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—79: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree. G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moolman,” J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move as an amendment—

In other words, what I am proposing is that the members of the council, not the members of the executive committee, shall not receive salaries. It is a custom with us that members who meet only now and then and who do not have regular meetings, such, e.g., as the Citizen Graves Commission or the Historical Monuments Commission, do not receive salaries. They receive only an allowance to cover their transport and subsistence. I think it would create a wrong precedent if we were to pay a salary to these members now. You may find one of these days that the members of the Historical Monuments Commission and members of other similar bodies will also come along and ask that they should also receive salaries. Nor do I think the members expect it when they meet once or twice a year. They do not expect a fixed salary. They only want their travelling and subsistence expenses covered.*

If it is as the hon. member said, then I am in full agreement with him, but that is not the intention. The difficulty is this: We are now going to get a number of teachers, possibly officials and others, to serve on this body. As the hon. member knows, the ordinary allowances of the Public Service are fixed in various categories. Now you find a person who is on a certain salary scale. A head of a Department, for instance, receives much more than a ordinary official. I do not have all the scales here, but there are three categories, and now it may happen that there may, e.g., be a professor with a certain salary, or a principal of a Grade A school, with a certain salary. He then receives £2 10s. allowance as a member—I think that is more or less what they receive. But now you find a member who is an ordinary assistant, but who may also be a member of the council, and the allowance of that member will be £1 15s. The only object here is that when the people are members of the same council they should nevertheless receive the same allowances, apart from the fact that they may receive public service allowances in various categories. It would be infra dig for one member of the council to receive less than another member serving on the same council. The object is merely that this should be fixed in consultation with the Minister of Finance. If the Minister of Finance refuses, the Minister of Education can do nothing. But the intention is only to see to it that there will be a reasonable allowance for them. The travelling expenses are obvious, but the subsistence allowance should be an equal allowance for them all. If I accept the hon. member’s amendment, it means that we are going to pay these public servants according to three different scales, a high scale, a medium scale, and for an unmarried person much less. That would be wrong. I think if the hon. member understands that explanation, he will not press his amendment. Then I move my own amendment—

This is a consequential amendment.

We have no objection to the Minister’s amendment, nor to his explanation. That explanation satisfies me, for I personally know—I am sorry I have to mention myself—that in the years when I was serving on the Historical Monuments Commission I, for instance, received R6 per day, and then you find people in the Public Service who do not receive half of that. If it is the Minister’s intention to make the allowances equal, then I support him fully, and I wish to express the hope that the Minister charged with the Historical Monuments Commission also will see to it that the same thing applies there, the same principle. I think it is unfair that there should be such a differentiation.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp withdrawn, with leave of the Committee.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I have an amendment standing in my name on page 903 of the Order Paper. It is contingent on the clause as it now stands being negatived. I believe that we have reached a stage in this Bill when the hon. the Minister should relent again and should be prepared to drop the clause as printed and to agree to the substitution thereof by the amendment which stands in my name. I am encouraged to believe that that will happen because after we had dealt with three clauses, the hon. the Minister relented and accepted an amendment to Clause 4. We have now reached another third clause

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

Yes, Sir, I am dealing with the clause and I am indicating that my amendment, which I have not moved yet, is a contingent one. Sir, the objections from this side of the House to the unnecessarily wide and in fact vague functions with which this council is being entrusted in terms of Clause 7, have been fully canvassed during the second reading debate of this Bill, and there is little need therefore to repeat the arguments that were advanced. I will therefore limit myself to criticizing the clause as it stands in relation to what I suggest the hon. the Minister should adopt in substitution therefor.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When business was interrupted by the dinner adjournment, I was addressing the Committee on Clause 7 of this Bill and was advancing a second good reason why the Minister should drop the clause as printed in favour of the one I have placed on the Order Paper. I repeat that the objections from this side of the House to the unnecessarily wide and very vague terms in which the function of the Council are set out in the present clause, have been fully canvassed during the debate on the second reading of the Bill and it is not necessary, therefore, to retrace all the arguments advanced on that occasion. In contrast to that very wide and vague definition of the function of the Council, I commend to the Minister the amendment which stands in my name because that amendment simplifies and clarifies the functions of the Council. If my amendment is adopted by the Minister, not only will the fears which exist in the minds of so many people associated with schools be removed, but it will also bring that degree of confidence in the Council which I believe the Minister would like to see it have.

Discerning witnesses gave evidence before the Select Committee. I do not propose to quote from their views again. On the whole, they were educationists of standing who were well versed in the language of education and also well up in the jargon of education. A number of them expressed concern about the wording of Clause 7 and about some of the terms used therein. There are, for instance, the words—

Many witnesses expressed concern about what was meant by these words. They saw “policy” as meaning many things but usually as a preconceived plan as to the direction in which things should develop. Furthermore, they were concerned also about the words—

These witnesses are men who are eminent in their own particular sphere. They found these two phrases I have quoted so vague as to be almost meaningless to them. As against this, the amendment standing in my name will bring simplicity and clarity to the clause. Every word has a clear and distinct meaning—there need be no confusion or doubt as to what they mean. So long as Clause 7 remains as it is printed here, however, so long will there be this clouding of meaning and so long will there be doubt as to what is implied. To prove this. I have not given my owns views but have quoted those of experts.

Mr. Chairman, you have indicated that it is my right to vote against the clause as it is printed and naturally I will do so. I prefer, however, to urge the Minister to drop the clause and to accept the one I have proposed. There is another small piece of evidence to show that this Bill has not been drawn up as carefully as it might have been. In line 39 the word “advice” is used instead of “advise I assume it is not necessary to move an amendment to rectify that. It is, however, clearly not English. I draw attention to it because it does indicate that the Bill is not worded satisfactorily. This adds strength to my argument that the clause as printed should be dropped in its entirety in favour of the one I have on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name in respect of Clause 7, viz.—

By this amendment I wish to convey the feelings of many organizations throughout the country, namely that throughout this entire Bill the intentions of the Minister are to take unto himself powers and authority which are unnecessarily wide and all-embracing. Reference has already been made to the right the Minister has to appoint the members of the Council, despite the fact that the bulk of the evidence given before the Select Committee was in favour of these members being appointed by interested organizations. In this clause, we have evidence of another such tendency on the part of the Minister, in that all representations any organization or person might wish to make to the Council must, in the first instance, be submitted to the Minister for transmission to the Council. After the Council has considered such representations or advice, it is obliged to convey its recommendations to the Minister in the first place. Only in that way, then, will interested bodies and organizations have the opportunity of submitting their views to the Council.

By stipulating this procedure, the Minister is drawing suspicion to the actual motives of the Council. He himself is being placed in an invidious position of requiring that representations and recommendations should be submitted to him in the first instance. I wish to point out that it is generally felt that this procedure is going to destroy all confidence in the Council. There is also the suspicion that the Minister might water down certain recommendations. I do not say he will do anything like that. Here, however, this procedure is being put on black and white, and you cannot blame people for being suspicious about it.

One of the most important objections to this clause is that it infringed the right of the provinces to determine their own policies. But here we have another infringement of those rights in that the Administrator of a province will not even be allowed to put his views to the Council directly, but has to do so through the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. I made an exhaustive investigation with a view to finding out whether this particular procedure was incorporated in any other Statute. I could not find a single instance however. Can the Minister perhaps refer to an enactment wherein a similar procedure has been incorporated? If there was justification for doing so in other enactments, then surely it was in those enactments passed earlier this Session, namely the Bill relating to the C.S.I.R. and the Bill relating to the Bureau of Standards. If the procedure which is being adopted in the Bill now being discussed is regarded as a healthy one, and favourably regarded by our legal draftsmen, then that procedure could with profit have been incorporated in the two measures I have referred to.

It is for the foregoing reasons that the Minister in his own interests as well as in the interest and the prestige of the Education Council, should not enforce the procedure prescribed in Clause 7 of this Bill. If he does not see fit to accept my amendment in its entirety, I should like to commend to him a procedure whereby all representations by interested bodies can be submitted to the Council direct. The recommendations by the Council on such representations can then be submitted to the Minister for his information. If he can accept this compromise, this clause might be more favourably considered by the public. I submit this to the Minister for his serious consideration.

I should like to say a few words with regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). He started off by telling us that Clause 7, as printed here, is too wide and too vague. The amendment he has proposed is not too wide, but, in my view, it is infinitely more vague than the clause as it stands in the Bill at the moment. Where this clause in paragraph (a), for instance …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), because it is not before the Committee as yet. It may come before the Committee when and if the present clause is negatived.

But the hon. member criticized Clause 7 (1) when discussing his proposal, and I should like to deal with that criticism.

The hon. member may discuss the present clause, but he may not discuss the proposal of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

May I then refer to the references the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) made to Clause 7 (1)?

The hon. member may discuss Clause 7 (1) of the Bill, but he may not refer to the clause which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) might still propose.

Then I shall leave the matter there for the moment.

I have two amendments to Clause 7 on the Order Paper, and of these I should like to move the second one, namely—

I do not move the first one, because its acceptance or rejection depends upon the acceptance or rejection of the second amendment. The functions of the council will, if my amendment is accepted, inter alia be to consider the broad fundamental principles of sound education for the country as a whole, but with due regard to the advisability of maintaining such diversity as circumstances may demand. Among the words which I have proposed should be deleted, there appear two verbs which would have been described by the Minister, when he was a school teacher, as verbs of action. And that is what they in fact are. If you have the power to co-ordinate and the power to adapt you must also have the ancillary power to put such co-ordination and adaptation into effect.

The Minister and hon. members on the other side have failed so far to give an explanation of what “to co-ordinate” means in the context of this Bill. What is it that is going to be co-ordinated? What is it that has to be adapted? How are they going to adapt the education system as stated in the clause? As I said, if they have these powers, they can do something with them. The case the Minister puts up is that this council will have purely advisory functions. If that is so, then I fail to see why the Minister should have any objection to accepting my amendment and to deleting the relevant words.

The clause suggests that there is some need for co-ordination so far as policy is concerned. It further suggests that a system has to be adapted to another system. Now, let us make no mistake about it that there are only two points of conflict in so far as policy, as well as system, is concerned, namely Natal as against the rest of the Republic. The reason for that is that in Natal there is United Party provincial control over education, whereas in the rest of the country the Nationalists are in charge of education. “To co-ordinate policies” can, therefore, only mean one thing, and that is that the policy which is being followed in Natal will have to be co-ordinated with that followed in the rest of the Republic. And what is the system which has to be adapted? Can anyone, in his most fanciful moments, suggest that the Natal system, i.e. the South African system, will be adapted for the rest of the Republic? Obviously not. On the contrary. The intention is to adapt the narrow Nationalist Christian national education system to Natal and not vice versa.

You are just a Natalian.

Yes, and I am very proud of it. I should like to remind the hon. Deputy Minister that we in Natal are the only true South Africans so far as education is concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister of Information will take note of that, because how is he going to tell the world that South Africanism is this narrow Christian national education? I am surprised at the hon. the Minister of Information laughing, because he sent his son to Bishops. I do not blame him for doing that, because otherwise he would fall under Nationalist education….

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

With respect, Sir, I submit that the question of the adaptation of educational systems is a very relevant one. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science can tell us what, in his opinion, the needs of the country are, and in what way Natal is not fulfilling the needs of the country.

The first witness I should like to lead in my cause is the hon. the Prime Minister himself. He said that we must co-operate so that we could have a united White nation in South Africa. But that can only be achieved in Natal with the system of education which is followed there. It cannot be achieved in the other provinces so long as the Nationalist Party is in charge there.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the education system of Natal under this clause.

I am questioning the Minister, Sir, about what is meant by “the adaptation of the education system to the needs of the country”. There is, however, not only one system, but two. There is a South African system and a Nationalist system. Fact of the matter is that the Minister is not in a position to deny what this clause is really about. He is not in a position to deny that what I just said is true, because this hon. Minister, when he was installed as chancellor of the Potchefstroom University, said that the purpose of this Bill was to produce a national character.

Order! What the Minister said is not under discussion. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman! Sub-section (2) of this clause the hon. member is discussing says—

The hon. member is, with respect, Sir, discussing this very thing.

Order! The hon. member for Durban (North) was discussing the Minister’s statement.

Mr. Chairman, may I just … [Time limit.]

I wish to move as an amendment—

This amendment means that the word “coordinating” will be deleted and that the provision regarding a two-thirds majority will now apply. The hon. member for Durban (North) has referred to the use to which the word “co-ordinating” may be put. I should like to deal with its meaning as given by the Oxford English Dictionary. That might help us to get a clearer conception of what is intended. When used transitively “to coordinate” means—

“Co-ordination” is defined as—

“Advisory” is defined as “having the attribute of advising”. It would seem, therefore, that in this clause there is a contradiction in terms, because whereas the Council shall have no executive power or functions, it will at the same time act as an advisory and co-ordinating body.

In regard to that part of the amendment dealing with a two-thirds majority, I should like to say that the Minister was very eloquent in describing the high esteem in which he would regard this Council. He went so far as to stake his reputation on that. Therefore, I think, a decision of this advisory body should not be subject to the whim of one of its members. Here I should like, in passing, to refer to Clause 10 where the way in which business of the Council should be conducted is prescribed. In terms of that clause the Minister may make regulations in regard to the calling and conduct of meetings, the quorum for and procedure at such meetings, etc. It may very well be that these regulations could lay down that the chairman of the council may have a deliberative as well as a casting vote. Under such circumstances, it can easily happen, in order to reach a decision on a matter in regard to which there is a difference of opinion, that the chairman after already having used his deliberative vote will have to make use of his casting vote. A decision reached in that way will then be forwarded to the Minister as being the decision of the Council.

A minority report can also be submitted.

Yes, but I am referring only to cases where there is a majority of one. In view of the high status this Council is to enjoy, and in view of the integrity of the men and women who will be appointed to it, I think it would be as well to consider some of the evidence which was tendered by individual educationists. There were three witnesses who gave evidence in their individual capacities, namely Dr. du Toit, Prof. Malherbe and Dr. Prinsloo. It is interesting to note that these educationists do not always agree on matters affecting education. Even on the question whether the council should be an advisory council, there was a difference of opinion. One of them did not express an opinion, one was in favour of it and one was against it. Also on the question of the appointment of educationists to this body, there was a difference of opinion. Two were in favour of such appointments and one against. On the question of their appointment by the Minister, one of these witnesses did not comment, one suggested that the State President should appoint them, whilst the third was against their being appointed by the Minister. There was also a marked difference between these witnesses regarding the number of members on the council. One said that plus 12 would be a suitable number, another felt that seven was the ideal number, whilst the third favoured 18. One of these witnesses said that things would be all right until you threw a planner into the works. I suggest that all these experts who will be appointed to the council will be planners in their various ways. But they will be called upon to come to some decision and it will be to the interest of education if such decision represents the views of two-thirds of the members. This is a procedure which is being followed by international organizations as well as by associations and organizations right throughout the world—even sporting bodies use such a system. In the circumstances, I would suggest that the hon. the Minister would do well to make that procedure also applicable to this council.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to Clause 7 (4) which stands in my name—

The hon. member who has just spoken, dealt with the meaning of the word “co-ordination”. Now I move its deletion from this subsection because whatever it might mean, it does not mean “advisory”. According to this subsection, this council shall serve exclusively “as a co-ordinating and advisory body”. “Coordinating” is not defined, whereas “advisory”, I take it, assumes its ordinary meaning. If “co-ordinating”, however, means “advisory” then it is tautology and there is no need for that here. The hon. member behind the Minister has shown remarkable insight and absolute brilliance when he realized that “co-ordinating” here does not mean “advisory”. When he said that he made an extraordinarily brilliant remark.

What point is the hon. member trying to make?

The point I am trying to make is that all the members on the other side of the House who have spoken so far have aligned themselves behind the concept of an advisory body. It is quite clear now, not only from this sub-section (4), but from the other sub-sections, that this is not an advisory body. I deal with the next sub-section, (5). It says that the council may effect coordination between all official bodies, etc. There is a statutory power to do something to effect co-ordination, whatever “co-ordination” means. The Minister has given us no guidance in this matter. But whatever it means, if it has the ordinary meaning referred to by the hon. member for Berea, the dictionary meaning, it means that a system can be forced on the people concerned, and that is given further effect to in sub-section (2), where in consultation with other bodies the council shall generally co-ordinate education policy, and it goes on to say that it will also have power to adapt the education system. This is very interesting, because it is in the singular. It is to adapt the education system. So the law already sees one system of education in South Africa. It is to adapt the education system, retaining such diversity as may be demanded. I am an ordinary farmer and not a lawyer, but I say that that language is arrant nonsense. This is an entirely arbitrary and personal opinion which the council is now at liberty to express if it so desires. It means nothing else. To talk about the council co-ordinating education and adapting the educational system, while retaining such diversity as circumstances may demand—now what does that mean? Who demands the diversity of circumstances? What circumstances can demand diversity? The thing, I say, is simply personal and arbitrary to the majority of the members of the council. There is nothing whatever to guide them. They can express their own thoughts and preconceived ideas. They can be entirely arbitrary in any decision they come to and there is nothing which can be put in their way as a barrier to their wildest flights of imagination, and they are given the specific power to co-ordinate in (5), and we take the strongest exception to that. If the Minister sticks to his object of making this body an advisory council, whoever it may be able to advise, the fact is that this clause is the one which contains the whole concept of an advisory body. It makes it a body with plenary powers, established by statute, to do something which is called coordination, and it may go to the length of insisting upon a single education system, and that is why the singular form is used in subsection (2). I want to appeal to the Minister to accept my amendment, which pinpoints the whole issue. It is quite clear that some of the sub-clausies will then be in difficulty as far as their drafting is concerned, but I ask the Minister to accept my amendment and to show that this body is to be an advisory body. They may advise whomever they will and their advice may be in the direction of co-ordination, but this clause gives them plenary power to coordinate, whether the body concerned likes it or not. The moment the clause is passed in this form, they are no longer an advisory body. I ask the Minister to stand by his previous utterances and to accept my amendment, which I now move.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

The reason for this amendment is that the word “endeavour”, as do other words in this clause which have been referred to by hon. members on this side, connotes the taking of some positive step. That, I submit, is perfectly clear, because a council of any sort cannot endeavour to uphold and promote anything unless it is able to take some steps which will enable it to uphold or promote whatever it is that it is required to do. So I suggest that the word “endeavour” is quite inappropriate in regard to a council which, as we have been told repeatedly, is intended to be purely an advisory council: On the other hand, it does seem to me that there is a lot to be said in favour of the view that an advisory council should have the power to investigate and advise as to methods of promoting and upholding the prestige of the teaching profession and the persons engaged therein. That is why I do not wish to delete the subsection completely, but I wish to move the amendment which I have suggested. [Interjections.] The hon. member asks what I am endeavouring to do. I thought I had made that quite clear. While I am on my feet, I would like to deal with certain other aspects of Clause 7. The first thing I would like to do is to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). The effect of that amendment is to stipulate that the functions of the council shall be (a) to carry out research into education, and (b) to advise the Government and Provincial Administrations on matters relating to education generally.

Order! That amendment is not before the Committee. It has not been moved yet. It is an amendment which can be moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) should Clause 7 be negatived.

I am sorry That being the case, I will deal with the two amendments that have been moved, particularly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). In regard to both these amendments, the proposition which I placed before the Committee in regard to my own amendment applies equally, because the power to adapt an education system to the needs of the country and the power to co-ordinate—both these powers require positive action to be taken, positive steps of some sort, and they are quite out of keeping with a body whose functions are advisory. If in fact this body is intended to be a purely advisory body, as has been stressed by the Minister, then in my submission those amendments should be accepted by the Minister. If in fact this body is intended to be a purely advisory body, I find it very difficult to understand why it should be necessary in Clause 7 to go to such lengths and to use so many words to say very little. I submit that a body whose functions are intended to be purely advisory has simply the function of investigating educational matters with a view to giving advice to certain persons. Surely that can be said quite simply and clearly in a few lines, without going into five sub-clauses and using a lot of words to say it. Therefore I move the amendment which I mentioned earlier and I urge the Minister to give consideration not only to that amendment but to the amendments moved by other hon. members on this side of the House.

Before replying to the individual amendments to Clause 7. I should like to say at the outset that this amazing number of amendments to Clause 7 have flabbergasted me completely. In the Report of the Select Committee I find only one single division on Clause 7. The matter was voted upon, and had it not been passed, it was proposed by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) that if the clause were negatived, he would try to move another clause in its stead. But it is surprising to see that members of the Opposition in the Select Committee did not move that amendment before the Select Committee. It is quite clear to me that since the Select Committee deliberated, hon. members have searched left and right for amendments to show the world that they really still possess some power. I wish to say the whole of this Clause 7, which is the power of this whole council, and which defines its duties—that each of these amendments seeks to evade the object of this clause. I am very sorry about that. If I have to deal with the various amendments, I must say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has no hope of a negative answer being given here, and I should like to assure him at once that if that were to happen, I would certainly not accept the clause he proposes to substitute for it, because it does not cover the functions of this council.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) proposes that the words “and generally to co-ordinate education policy with a view to adapting the education system to the needs of the country” be deleted. My first argument against that amendment is that it is contrary to the provisions of Clause 7(4), which provides that the Council shall serve exclusively as a co-ordinating and advisory body. The main function—and that is the main point in Clause 7—of this Council is therefore to co-ordinate and to advise. The hon. member now proposes to divest the Council of one of its two main functions. The co-ordinating function of this Council is most essential. If this new body we are creating has to achieve anything, it is the objects envisaged in the Bill to promote, in consultation with the Department of Education, Arts and Science, the Provincial Education Departments and all the other bodies and organizations, the broad fundamental principles of sound education as a whole, as stated in the first part of sub-section (21. Take away any of these two mainstays of the Bill, the co-ordinating function, and the whole structure must collapse. I am not so much concerned about the meaning of “coordinating” in the ordinary sense of the word. The hon. member for Durban (North) seeks more in regard to the meaning of that word and wants to imply a lot of things, that the Minister will do a lot of snooping, with harmful effects on education, etc. Therefore I am unable to accept the amendment, which strikes at the roots of the underlying principles of this Bill. I think the hon. member and I had better agree to differ on this point.

Now the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) proposes to delete the co-ordinating function of the Council and to subject its advisory resolutions to at least a two-thirds majority. This would, without any doubt, render the Council impotent. Why? I will tell you why. I could not possibly be expected to be a party to such a catastrophe. In any case, Clause 10 makes it possible to issue regulations to govern matters of this kind, and that is the place where we should insert it. By asking for a two-thirds majority, I do not know what the hon. member is really aiming at. He has not advanced any reasons for it. It is only the old idea of a two-thirds majority, but a majority of one is what counts in a democratic county. I am sure you will get 100 per cent agreement on most of these matters. There is no logic in a two-thirds majority. A democratic majority has always been one.

*The two other amendments moved by the hon. members for South Coast and Musgrave are exactly similar to that of the hon. member for Berea. They seek to remove the function of co-ordination and to delete the whole subclause. I honestly do not think that the hon. member for South Coast knows precisely what he is doing by moving the deletion of (5). There are various bodies that investigate and co-ordinate. The Departments of Education of the Provinces do it, and my own Department has a department of research that does it. All that is provided here is that the Council may—not “shall”—bring about co-ordination between all official bodies doing research work in connection with education, and that it may avail itself of the services of such bodies. That is all that these words mean. I do not want this Education Council to establish its own research body again. It should make use of existing research bodies in the provinces and in the Central Government. But the hon. member wants to delete that. I insisted very strongly on this provision because to me it is an important point; we do not want to waste Government funds by establishing a new research body again. [Interjections.] The hon. member has moved that the whole of sub-clause (5) be deleted. I say that if you delete it you will be very sorry. Fortunately the hon. member for Musgrave has realized his mistake and has withdrawn his printed amendment, for it would have been recorded in the annals of this House that while the Opposition pleaded in the second reading that we should raise the status of the teaching profession and do something for them, the hon. member came along and proposed that this clause be deleted. Fortunately he has now used his brains a little and said that we should delete certain words only. [Interjection.] It was a typical case of face saving to a certain extent. He does not say that he withdraws the whole amendment. The clause now reads as follows—

Now the hon. member wishes to amend it to read: “The Council shall advise in regard to methods in upholding, etc.” That has exactly the same meaning and there is no substance to it. It is typical of the lawyer who puts the same thing in two different ways, and this attempt at face-saving will simply not succeed. The hon. member actually agrees in principle with me that the Council should endeavour to uphold and promote the prestige of the teaching profession; he does not disagree with me at all, but he merely wishes to move an amendment. Accordingly I cannot accept it and I cannot accept any of the other amendments either.

I would like the Minister to reply to an amendment which may perhaps improve this clause. I concede that certain words have been inserted in this new clause which are an improvement on the original Bill submitted to the Select Committee. I refer to the inclusion of the words “with due regard to the advisability of maintaining such diversity as circumstances may demand” and also to the inclusion of the sub-clause which states that the Council shall have no executive power or function but shall be only an advisory body. But I am afraid the original objections to and suspicions regarding this clause, taken in conjunction with Clause 5, still remain. Although certain words have been inserted in the clause, to a large extent the effect which such insertion might have had has been offset by the contradiction which is contained in Clause 5, which has already been passed by the Committee despite the amendments moved to it, and which allows the Council to have access to any school. It is difficult to conceive how a body which is allowed access can in fact be only an advisory body. It is clear that it will have functions which will go beyond advice, and in spite of the inclusion of the words in the clause that the Council shall have no executive power, it is nevertheless intended to translate into some practical measure what the Council finds on its investigation and the advice it gives to the Minister. Therefore I want to try if possible to get some limiting words on the functions of the Council and I have drafted an amendment which I hope the Minister will consider, because I believe it will do something to set at rest the suspicions and fears which have been voiced for the last two or three years by the entire English-speaking section in South Africa. This is the fear that a system of education will be imposed on them which to a large extent differs from the system they have been following, which can change the philosophy which obtains in English-language schools and the different outlook generally on education. Therefore I want to try to limit the functions of this Council by the following amendment to sub-section (1)—

The clause will then read that the Council is established to advise the Minister generally on educational matters designed to raise the general standards of education. The clause then continues as it stands, except that in line 41 the word “any” is substituted by the word “such”, and it now reads “shall advise the Minister or any other Minister or any Administrator through the Minister in regard to such matters”—in other words, referring to the matter of raising the general standard of education, and then the words “affecting education” come out as well. In other words, I am trying to limit the functions of the Council to general matters that will raise the standards of education. [Interjections.] I do not want a uniform education policy. That is what I am trying to avoid. I do not want a uniform policy “with due regard to diversity” imposed on the whole of South Africa. That is what I am trying to avoid, but I have every belief, as I stated in the second reading, that there are certain matters in our education system which certainly require investigation, and that a good deal is wrong with it. The standards are low and the curricula may be overloaded in certain cases, and we have a far too high percentage of first-year failures at the universities. But this does not relate to the policy of education. That is something quite different. I want a Council to go into the reasons for university failures and to find out why there is a shortage of teachers, and why the English-speaking section has not contributed its share of teachers. [Interjections.] There may be many reasons for it. There may be insufficient training colleges and the general conditions of employment may be unattractive, or that they are frightened that promotion will not come their way. All these may be reasons which prevent the English-speaking section from entering the profession and we need an investigation into it. We need an investigation into all the obvious shortcomings in our education system in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know to what extent you will permit me to deal with this question of suspicion which the Opposition is trying to sow.

Order! The hon. member must deal with the clause.

Then I shall deal with the clause, Sir. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is going on here …

You never know what is going on.

Nor do they know what is going on.

The hon. member must deal with the clause.

I shall observe your ruling strictly, Sir. The sub-sections of Clause 7 do not provide what the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is trying to suggest here. Nobody is endeavouring to achieve absolute uniformity in education. Where does the hon. member read that? Can the hon. member read out just one little sentence where that appears?

I do not like the idea of a general policy of education.

Where is it provided for here?

The word “policy”.

Does she think that “policy” means “uniformity”? The hon. member must tell us where that is stated. Why does she not reply? We are just wasting the time of this House. I do not know whether we can come to an arrangement, but I think we should make an arrangement that only the people who know something about education should speak on this subject. There is not one sitting over there who knows anything about education.

Do you think you know something about it?

I wish I had had that member in my charge, then he would have known more to-day. Here it says clearly that this Council is being established to advise the Minister generally. Where do they read that this Council will have statutory powers or that this Council will have the right of enforcement? It is not provided for here. What is at the bottom of this suspicion, Sir? What has been South Africa’s experience in the past?

Order!

Ask Willie Maree.

Ask whom?

The hon. member must not take notice of interjections.

I should like to read the clause for general information, for what that hon. member does—and he is the culprit par excellence—is to take a little piece out here and then he looks for motives behind it. Then the other hon. member over there jumps up and takes a little bit out there and then he makes a speech on that. [Interjections.] The Chairman will not permit me to say what I think of that hon. member. Here it is provided expressly. Let us take sub-section (2)—

Beautiful pedagogic language; beautiful educational language. I cannot blame the hon. member for Durban (Point) if he has no notion of what I have read here. This is the language that educationists use and that is how every educationist, English- or Afrikaans-speaking, understands this language outside this House. For years our educationists have waited for this formula. I should like to say this: You can go and search, but I do not believe you will find a better formulation or a better concise statement than this of the functions and the great task before this Council.

If you do not resume your seat, we shall sit here till Wednesday.

I hope the hon. member will follow his own advice. Then I shall resume my seat now.

I should like to say only this, that the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is substantially the same as that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the biggest objection we have, in my view, and that is to sub-sections (4) and (5). He says the Council will only advise him. Now I wonder whether he cannot amend Section (4) to read as follows—

I am suggesting that. We could dilate upon this matter either at the Report Stage or at the third reading. I am not satisfied with this clause as it stands here.

I still owe a reply to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog). He sent me a little note to inquire whether my silence means that I accept his amendment. His amendment amounts to this, that he wishes to evade the responsibility of the Minister of Education; he wishes to evade the Minister’s interest and co-operation with the others, in that they have to do these things through him. If the responsible Minister in this House is held responsible for what is entrusted to him under this Bill, I cannot accept it, for everything has to go through the Minister of Education because the accounting must take place here. It is not for the purpose of censoring it in any manner; it is only intended for that one purpose.

As regards the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) it is really a very weak definition to say that one will try to co-ordinate. It is more understandable if you say it is the Council’s function to advise and to co-ordinate.

To obtain simplicity in this, let us do what many members have already done: Go to the English Act and you will see that it fits in with what we are doing here. That Act has four simple clauses which cover everything which this Bill contains. This is the first on the subject of advisory councils—

Order! The hon. member must deal with the functions of the council.

This deals with the functions of the council, Sir. That was only the beginning of the sentence. I will carry on from there—

And that is all there is to be said, instead of seven sub-sections and all this circumlocution and tautology which we have here.

Question put: That the words in lines 38 and 39 proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—68: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee. B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden. J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman. T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mrs. Suzman dropped.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Taurog put and negatived.

Question put: That all the words after “education” where it occurs for the first time in line 52 up to and including “country” in line 54, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—68: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg. M. C. G. J.; van Staden. J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell negatived.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Hourquebie, Mr. Wood and Mr. D. E. Mitchell, put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—67: Bekker. M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; von Moltke. J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst. H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman. T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I feel that this is probably the most important clause in the Bill. This is the clause which can quite easily mean that no provincial legislation can be established in any of the provinces before that province gets the sanction of the Minister. Not only will it possibly deprive the provincial council of the right to legislate, but also at the same time it will give to this council the right only to look after the affairs of the White section of our population. I feel that if this council is going to be of any use whatsoever, it will have to bear in mind that education in South Africa has to take care of the three major groups here and not only of the White people in this country, but at the same time the interests of the Bantu and the Coloured people have to be looked after. As I said earlier on if the hon. the Minister thinks that he can divorce one section of the population from another in regard to education, he is making a very, very big mistake. It cannot work. Therefore I felt that I should move an amendment in which I would have the opportunity of allowing this advisory council to look after not only the interests of the White people but those of the Coloureds and the Bantu, and I wish to move—

I regret that I am unable to put the amendment to the Committee as it seeks to extend the provisions of the Bill to classes of persons not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, I feel that in Clause 7 provision is made …

Order! I have considered the matter, and I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

I want to voice my protest at this clause. The hon. member who sat down said that it was probably one of the most important clauses in the Bill. The position is that the whole power of provincial councils to make legislation in regard to White education is now virtually vetoed, because the ordinary method of debate in a provincial council, which is the method of debate that we have in this House, is now stultified completely. You see, this Bill we have before us at the present moment is a good case in point. Let us assume that this Bill was a draft ordinance coming before the provincial council. Now look at the amendments in regard to Clause 3 that the hon. the Minister has put on the Order Paper, two-and-a-half pages of amendments. Now that can’t happen in regard to legislation that comes before provincial councils. What does “prior consultation” mean? It means that the council in effect has got to approve it. The council will have to be consulted in regard to the form in which it has to go before the provincial council. Therefore the right of hon. members to move amendments which are going to change the form in which the ordinance comes before the provincial council is ruled out. Any Administrator now dealing with a draft ordinance and who is piloting it through the provincial council, has got to say “I cannot accept those material amendments because they have not been before the council” in terms of this particular Bill. The whole system of legislation of our provincial councils is now done away with. In effect this clause means that a draft ordinance conceived by the Administrator of a province, goes to the Minister, from him to the council, and then after it has been finally approved of by the council it goes back to the Minister and it comes back to the Administrator concerned, and must be adopted by the provincial council in that form without material amendments, otherwise it is not the legislation in regard to which the council has been consulted. This is going to stultify the whole provincial council system to debate in an ordinary normal manner, a constitutional manner, the draft legislation that is put before them and to make amendments to it of a material character at any stage of the proceedings, which their own rules and regulations will permit. That is why we have to oppose this clause.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to discuss the principle, but I cannot allow any further discussion on the principle of the Bill.

Sir, this clause deals with legislation introduced in the Senate or the House of Assembly or in a provincial council. Now in regard to the Senate and the House of Assembly the clause is unnecessary because the only person who can introduce legislation affecting White persons is the hon. the Minister himself. No other person can introduce legislation into the Senate or into the House of Assembly but the Minister.

There will be consultation with the provincial councils. The Minister now will consult the provincial councils.

Where does this clause say so?

But legislation introduced into the House of Assembly or the Senate need not be discussed with the provincial councils, but when legislation is introduced into the provincial council it will be discussed with the Minister, and I agree with the hon. member for South Coast in that respect. But, Sir, you have ruled that we cannot discuss that now.

I move as an amendment—

The hon. the Minister himself has just referred to the term “in consultation with”, and I would like the hon. the Minister to consider the substitution of the word “concurrence” for consultation. Now “concurrence” means “agreement”. “Consultation” merely means consultation between the bodies mentioned here. Does the hon. the Minister not wish rather more agreement? I hope the hon. the Minister will seriously consider this amendment of mine and I think it would be a slight improvement in respect of a clause to which I am totally opposed. In the evidence heard before the Select Committee witnesses expressed not only their real concern, but also the five Commissions referred to by the hon. the Minister in his second reading speech all came to the one conclusion, namely that the provincial powers should be in no way affected, and their legislation should be in no way affected by the powers of such a council. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he does not agree that it is more desirable to have “concurrence” rather than just “consultation”.

I should just like to say that if there has to be something like an agreement, and that they should concede it, then I just cannot accept it for it is not “in consultation” but it is “after consultation”. When the Central Government of the Republic wants to introduce legislation, and the provinces reject it or say it may not do so, then surely that would be completely wrong. It would infringe the sovereign powers of Parliament. And if the provinces will not listen after consultation, and they wish to introduce their own legislation, they would still be at liberty to do so, after consultation. It says clearly “after consultation”. All we are contemplating in this clause is that there should be a little unity at least, so that we may know what is happening. We can do so now under the present system, we may veto legislation and we can do all the things, but that is not the object of this clause. You want a high-ranking Council that will co-ordinate properly and advise properly. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. I move as an amendment—

It was an objection raised by the provinces. I may say that three of the provinces quite agree with Clause 8 as it stands here, provided this amendment is approved.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mrs. Weiss was put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mrs. Weiss was put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—68: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, Jf. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.,

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move the amendment standing in my name, which needs no comment as it is self-evident. It merely means that the reports tabled in this House should also be tabled in the provincial councils. I move—

1. (2) After the Minister has thus tabled the report, copies shall be submitted to the Administrators of the various provinces who shall lay them on the Tables of their respective Councils within seven days after receipt thereof if they are in session, or if they are not in session, within seven days of the commencement of the next ensuing session.

The hon. member has consulted me and I accept her amendment.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move as an amendment—

This is just an extra protection and I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment for the simple reason that I must first appoint the council and I cannot consult the council before it has been appointed. Some regulations have to be framed before the council is appointed. That is my only difficulty. It is always put in this way that the Minister has the right to make regulations.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

I move—

I am unable to accept this amendment as it is similar in substance to an amendment previously negatived by the Committee.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science were put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—68: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser. P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter. W. L. D. M.; von Moltke. J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel. J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman. R. M.; Connan. J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher. E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood. B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourauebie. R. G. L.; Lewis. H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell. H. G. O.; Oldfield. G. N.; Plewman. R. P.; Radford. A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher. D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 1 standing over.

On Clause 1,

I move—

1. (iv) “executive committee” means the executive committee referred to in Section 3;
2. (v) “former employer”, in relation to a service member, means the Government, a provincial administration, the administration of the territory of South West Africa, a declared institution in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Higher Education Act, 1923 (Act No. 30 of 1923), or any university or university college established under any law by whom such member was employed immediately prior to the date of his designation or appointment under Section 3;

   to insert the following new definitions to follow the definition of “Minister”:

3. (v) “pension fund” means a pension fund established by or under any law for the regulation of the pensions and other retirement benefits of persons employed by the Government, a provincial administration or the administration of the territory of South West Africa;
4. (vi) “provident fund” means a provident fund and pension scheme established in terms of the regulations made under paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Higher Education Additional Provision Act, 1917 (Act No. 20 of 1917), or paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Higher Education Act, 1923 (Act No. 30 of 1923);

   and to add the following new definition to follow the definition of “school”:

5. (vi) “service member” means a member of the executive committee who at the date of his designation or appointment under Section 3 is a member of a pension or provident fund and has not attained the super-annuation age as defined in the applicable regulations.

I move—

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science were put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Title,

I move—

I move—

The accepted rule is that when an amendment to the title of a Bill becomes necessary because of amendments which have been effected to its clauses, such amendment must be consequential upon the amendments made to the Bill.

The amendment which the hon. member has now moved does not conform to this rule and is therefore out of order.

In the circumstances I regret I cannot accept it.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science put and agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments and specially an amendment in the Title.

I move—

We on this side of the House have no objection to the second reading of this Bill. It is the enactment of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions which already has been considered by the House.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.