I rise to congratulate the Minister and the Department on this new ballot box. It is years now since the voters of South Africa asked for a ballot box such as this, because the ballot boxes hitherto used left considerable room for doubt whether they were as secure as one expected. Now the Minister has produced a box which in every way complies with the requirements of the electoral law in respect of security. The Minister was so kind as to afford us the opportunity to inspect it, and all who have seen the box will agree that it eliminates every opening for cheating or being forced open. There is one striking feature in connection with the new box which arrests one’s attention. The old box was so made that it was possible to shove a voting paper under the lid. The new box makes this absolutely impossible so far as one can see. It is nice to find that the Minister proposes to eliminate the key. There was much difficulty in the past in connection with the key. The key went astray and no one could explain it. The new box will be sealed in two places and it will be done in such a way that one imagines it will ensure secrecy. There is nothing in South Africa, viewed from either this side of the House or from the other side of the House, on which so much emphasis should be laid as that the public ought to be certain that the voting papers are safe and that they will be kept secret. The difficulty was that the one official failed to hand over the key to the next one to whom the box was passed. It frequently happened that ballot boxes arrived minus the key, and this made it necessary later to break open the ballot box in a way that suggested there was not always secrecy. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on having succeeded in designing a box without a key and one which in my opinion will be in every way satisfactory.

Clause put and agreed to.

On clause 10,

This is an important amendment. Through all these years the voters’ rolls were compiled in such a way that the words “male” or “female” had to appear after the name of the voter. That was in the days before the lists were separated. The Act of last year introduced an entirely new provision which this amendment now facilitates. The House will recall that last year we introduced an important amendment regarding the voters’ roll. For the first time it was laid down that the voters’ roll should appear in three sections; in one section the names would appear of the female voters, the second section would have the names of European men and the third section the names of coloureds, because coloured women have not the franchise. This law will come into effect on the 2nd of May this year. It is consequently no longer necessary to insert after the name of the European the word “male” or “female” because all European women have the franchise and European males and coloureds appear in different sections. Therefore this is a consequential amendment. European females appear in a separate section; European men and coloured men are separated into different sections. It is pleasing to find that the Minister has approved of this alteration by proposing this amendment in the Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I should like to make a few observations that I had not the opportunity to make on the second reading. In the first place I want to say I regret this Bill was not referred to a Select Committee. I hope the Minister will still be able to introduce in the Other Place certain amendments that are necessary but which we, under the rules of this House, cannot bring forward in the Committee stage. The object of the Bill is to clear the road for a measure consolidating the electoral law of the country. I understand from the Minister and also from the department that the consolidating Bill has advanced so far that we can expect it. One is glad of that. Year after year both sides of this House, but particularly the Opposition, asked that a consolidating Act should be placed on the Statute Book because in connection with our franchise we had to run through many Acts before we could learn what the law of the land was. Now I understand we are on the threshhold of a consolidation of the electoral laws. One is grateful for that. The fault the Minister is making, however, is this. He should have appointed a Select Committee in order, within short period, to clear the path for a consolidating measure such as he intends submitting to the House. We know that when such a consolidating Bill is laid before the House it must, apart from purely verbal amendments, be adopted just as it stands, because it is a consolidating measure. Now the Minister has introduced this Bill to clear the road, to cut away all dead wood, so that he may present a consolidated Bill which, as I said before, must be accepted virtually as it has been presented to us. It is very regrettable, therefore, that he has not seen his way clear to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, because I understand that even the Department would like to propose certain amendments. The law advisers still have small alterations they would like to propose, and I take it that the Minister will deal with them in the Other Place. Why not refer it to a Select Committee to go into the whole matter, to cut away the dead wood, to clear the decks so that we can bring about consolidation? All the dead wood has not yet been cut away. The fact that the Minister’s Department still has to come with further amendments shows this. We on this side, for instance, would like to see a consolidated Bill which would remain for years the Magna Charta as far as the electoral law is concerned. There are still a few small points to be mentioned on which there is a large measure of unanimity. One point is the penalty imposed if a person commits an offence at an election. This question was not considered in all its bearings by the last Select Committee. Nevertheless, it is a matter which really should be enquired into. I do not want to go into details, but there are such matters which should be further investigated. There are anomalies in regard to the penalty, and this is one of the points one would very much like to discuss in Select Committee in order to effect an amendment. The other matter we should very much like to discuss before the consolidated measure is brought in is in connection with the European and the coloured voters. In view of the fact that the Government has now reached the stage when they are prepared to treat the coloured voters in a different way to at present, a few further amendments would appreciably help us in that connection. There are changes which should be brought about in this regard. I shall mention one. I have explained that the Government is prepared to divide the voters’ roll; they are prepared to place the coloured voters entirely separate from European women and European men. That is a big step forward. What we now ask from the Government, as it is agreeable to having the coloureds on a separate list, is that that principle should be carried through logically before the consolidating measure is introduced. As the Minister deems it desirable to have separate ballot boxes for the European voters, the principle of separate ballot boxes must be logically carried through. The Minister will of course say this is impracticable, but he already has the principle in the law which comes into effect on 1st May. In Section 40 a provision has been inserted that if the Minister considers it desirable he may direct that voters Nos. 1 to 1,000 should use the one polling station and voters Nos. 1,001 to 1,090 another polling station. This is the principle that has already been accepted. This means that the Minister admits two things. The first is that the European voters where it is possible must vote apart, and he admits that to the extent of having inserted it in the law. But this does not bind him to a definite policy. Our attitude is that the principle of separation must be consistently practised, that coloureds should have one polling booth and Europeans another. I suspect the Minister will persevere with the policy that has been followed through the years, and this in spite of the amendment of the Act, that European women will indeed vote separately, but that coloured men and European men will still have to vote at the same polling booth. If I have wrongly interpreted the Minister’s policy in this connection, he should tell me. In spite of the alteration of the law, is it still the intention that European women should have their separate polling booths, but that European men and coloureds should vote at the same polling booth? We do not want that. Seeing that last year the Minister went so far with the law as to assume the power of saying that all the Europeans should vote at the one polling booth and all the coloureds at another polling booth, he ought to enforce the law. I shall be glad if the Minister will rise and tell us what his policy is going to be in reference to the application of the law; will he let the European women vote on the one side, but allow the European men to mix with the coloureds in voting at a different polling booth, or will the coloureds have a separate polling booth?

Even if there is only ten or twelve of them.

I have spoken about centres where the Minister considers this desirable. I can see the possibility. It is a pity that one still has to take those difficulties into consideration. When one is dealing with a Government which is not so entirely compliant one has to go quietly.

This side will not allow itself to be stopped by difficulties. It will carry out separation to its logical conclusion. During the last few days things have happened in this House which fill one with hope that the idea of separation is taking root among all parties. We had the case of dining cars on the railways being used by non-Europeans. A protest was made against that by this side of the House, and it appears that the Government has now put its foot down as far as this is concerned. I have before me a paper, “The Leader,” and from what appears in it it seems that the Government is really putting its foot down in regard to this matter. In the issue of 23rd January of this paper we find the following—

In other words, the Government admits, which should have happened long ago, the principle of separation in the dining cars and has issued an instruction of this sort. To a large extent on the trains, especially on long journeys, a certain measure of separation is taken into consideration, though not to the extent it should be. At seaside resorts there is also a measure of separation. The Minister of Lands, for example, acknowledged a degree of separation a little while ago in regard to Strandfontein. We have made progress along this path. In the schools separation has been recognised for some years now. There is separation in the church. And perhaps I may be permitted to refer to it, the Minister of Lands has also now introduced a Bill admitting separation as far as land settlement is concerned. Last year in dealing with the electoral law, as it was adopted by the select committee, the principle of separation was again recognised. As I have already explained, European women can vote in one place and European men and coloured voters in another. So we have also made progress on this point, and on both sides it is felt that the principle of separation must be admitted. Now we ask the Minister that he should consistently carry out the principle of separation that he recognised in the Act passed last year, and he should make a provision in the Other Place that Europeans, men and women, should vote at the one polling booth and coloureds at another. I stress that, it is in the interests of all. Nowhere else have you such a peculiar provision that there is separation only for European women but not for European men. Only in the electoral laws do you have this peculiar position. European men and coloureds have to vote at the one polling booth but European women can vote at another. Accordingly I should like to move the following amendment—

This does not mean that we are compelling the Minister to do this, but we say that seeing he now has the new Act which comes into operation on 1st May he must ensure that European males also vote separately. At Caledon, for example, let him arrange for the European women to vote on the one side at a few places; but unfortunately the European men still have to vote with the coloureds. We should like under the new Act which comes into force on 1st May to see the principle applied of the coloureds voting at the one polling booth. This will give satisfaction to the Europeans, while the coloureds will not raise any objection because they also want separation. As long as they are reasonably dealt with they do not mind about being dealt with separately. Let us carry out the principle of separation here.

I second.

I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) dealing with the question of the amendments passed in the Select Committee and now before the House. Those are all consequential and were discovered after we passed the Bill last session. It is the result of preparing the consolidating Bill by the law adviser, the parliamentary draughtsman and Mr. Owens. I know of no further amendments that may be necessary, but if they are they will probably be dealt with in the Other Place. The object of these amendments is to accomplish what members on all sides of the House wish, and that is to have a consolidated Electoral Law, and I hope towards the end of the month to introduce that Bill which will go before all sides of the House to ensure there is no alteration of the law as it stands. With regard to this question that has been raised and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, the matter was fully discussed in the Select Committee, and the point was also made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg and others when the Bill of 1945 was before us. Clause 40 has been inserted in order to enable the Minister to put in effect where necessary some of the points raised by the hon. member. May I point out that to give effect to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg set out we would require in the Cape Province alone another 2,000 at a general election. We have divided the electoral roll into women, men and coloureds, and where there is a fair proportion of coloureds provision will be made for separation, but to lay it down in the law is another question. Take the Caledon by-election; we have made provision in Caledon for separate polling booths for women, and for coloureds where there is a good proportion of coloureds. But in many of the polling areas the coloureds on the roll number from 15 to 18; are we to employ two special men on their account? That will be the effect of the hon. member’s amendment. I shall, and I am sure any successor in office as well, will see that the elections are carried out with due regard to the feelings of all sections of the community. More than that we cannot be expected to do. I hope the House will reject the amendment of the hon. member. If there is any amendment that is going to help the working of the Bill let hon. members bring it to me and I shall see whether it can be accepted; but not this particular one. Because I am anxious that this Bill, when it is finally passed, will receive the support of every member of the House, because every member of Parliament is vitally interested in having the electoral law acceptable to all sections of the community.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In view of the fact that I have been advised that the Cape Provincial Administration wishes to raise with me for discussion a further point in regard to this Bill, I move—

That will enable me to consider the point it is desired to put before me.

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 5th March.

I want to move an amendment, and the purpose of the amendment is what we had in mind when in the second reading debate we wanted to propose a similar amendment which was not in order. The purpose is, namely, to limit the application of this Bill to the settlements at Rietfontein and Mier, at Krapohl and Martin Islands and surrounding parts, and the area known as the Corridor in Zululand. I do not want to go into the details again, but just to give the reason why it is introduced. As I said during the second reading debate, we have no objection to the Bill for the purposes the Minister made clear to us, namely, to regulate matters on Mier Island and to bring the coloureds in Zululand together, and to regulate matters on Krapohl Island and the surrounding parts. We have no objection to that, but we feel that it is in the interests of the coloureds as well as the Europeans that a better study should be made of coloured settlement, before we give any powers to the Department to go ahead with it. At the second reading debate, I gave the reasons for this clearly. You have to deal with another problem when you deal with coloureds, and where attempts are now being made in connection with coloured settlement, we want to prevent it being a failure. In the past some of the settlements were a success, some were a total failure. Therefore we feel that we must go to work cautiously, and you must first make a proper study of it, before you go on with coloured settlement. Even in the case of Europeans, settlements in the old days were in many cases a big failure. It was due to lack of knowledge and experience. Where mistakes were made with Europeans, we do not want to make the same or other mistakes with coloureds. Therefore, we wished to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, to investigate the matter properly and obtain evidence from people who have knowledge of coloured settlement and of coloureds. Then we will bring into being a scheme which will be effective, and of more use to the coloureds than when a settlement is given to them on the same basis as for Europeans. There is another factor, the economic factor, which we must also take into account. Therefore we propose to limit the Bill to the three groups that the Minister wishes to help. But before we proceed with coloured settlement, in our opinion, a very thorough investigation must take place in connection with the whole problem. There is another aspect, and that is that if the Minister wishes to have the sympathy of the House for coloured settlement, he will get it much sooner if members of this House feel that before a start is made the matter will be thoroughly investigated. If the Minister has power to extend settlement in all the provinces of South Africa, then he will arouse a certain amount of suspicion in members who feel that before there can be expansion of coloured settlement, the matter must be thoroughly investigated. We have thus no objection to the purpose of this Bill. If the conditions of the coloureds in those three territories can be better regulated, then we are in favour of it. There may be other areas where it is also necessary. But we feel that the whole matter cannot be dealt with in a superficial manner if you really want to make a success of it. There must first be thorough investigation. Therefore I move—

That will allow the Minister to carry out what he wishes to carry out under this Bill, but it will give us the assurance that investigation will take place by experts, who are well acquainted with the facts, if any further extension of coloured settlement is to take place. We feel that we will then have a scheme which will be satisfactory for the coloureds as well as the Europeans in the remainder of the Union.

It is not necessary to go into the same matter again. What the hon. member is afraid of, and why he has today moved an amendment, is that the Minister will have the power to establish settlements in any of the provinces. But that is made impossible by sub-clause 2 of article 2, which states that before there can be any expansion, a decision must be made, in favour of that by both Houses of Parliament. The objection of the hon. member therefore falls away.

That is not quite the position. It is quite true that the Minister, if any extension is to take place, must have the approval of both Houses of Parliament. But then it will be a matter of the establishment of settlements under the Act, and the question is only if the provisions of this Bill are really the correct provisions in regard to coloured settlement. Because the circumstances regarding coloureds are different than in the case of Europeans, and the provision in connection with European settlement may not be the right provision in connection with coloureds. We put the question if it is desirable and correct to apply the provision of European settlement legislation to coloureds. That is our difficulty. Perhaps they should be dealt with differently. We do not know and would like investigation. At the second reading debate I acknowledged that these provisions to which the Minister has referred are a guarantee, but the question is if the provisions of this Bill are suitable for coloured settlement. We would like to put the matter on a sound basis, and therefore I ask for investigation.

The great difficulty of the coloured population as regards ownership in the past is that they were driven out there by people who, for example, by means of brandy or in other ways got hold of their land cheaply. They now fall under the guardianship of the Department of Lands, and there is no danger that the same thing will happen. The ground is safeguarded, and the House protected by the provisions of sub-section (2), which provides that the approved of both Houses of Parliament must be obtained for a new settlement. I therefore think that there is no reason for accepting the amendment.

I should like to support the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) very strongly in what he has said. We have to face the fact that as far as natives are concerned, it was found to be essential to deal with them quite separately. We have a Department of Native Affairs. In other words, it was felt that natives should not resort under the Minister of Lands, and that the system applicable to Europeans should not be applied to natives. The results of this separate treatment, were fairly satisfactory, and it cannot be denied that a good service was done to the natives in this respect. Now the question arises whether if we want to give rights to coloureds it will not be better first to have the whole matter thoroughly investigated and to see what is best in the interests of the coloureds. Why must the Government simply include them in legislation intended for Europeans. I do not think that is desirable. It will be better for us first to investigate the matter thoroughly, and if the Minister lias the interests of the coloureds at heart, he will admit that the amendment is a very justifiable one.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On clause 8,

I should like to move an amendment as follows—

I have personal experience of coloured settlements and coloureds there are tremendously harmed by the European trader. I know of my own personal knowledge that such a holder of a trading licence afterwards becomes the owner of all the cattle of such a settler and even the crops of the coloured man are taken over by him to liquidate debts incurred during the course of the year. I feel that the Minister should meet the coloured settlers here by enabling them to be the holders of trading licences themselves, so that they can implement their own destiny there. That is the only way in which we can assist the coloureds to trade. These coloured settlers ought to be encouraged to take care of their own interests there. We should not like to see Europeans enter and exploit the coloureds there in one way or another. They are not very enlightened, and if the European does that to them they will take very strong exception to it; they feel hurt and later they have the feeling that it is not their own settlement. They feel that everything in the settlement belongs to the European trader and the coloured man has practically nothing to say. I think it will be a good gesture if the Minister makes a start in assisting these coloured settlers to trade on their own initiative, and to encourage them to participate in trade. I can assure the Minister that our coloured settlers, and not only our coloured settlers, but also our native settlers, are exploited to an alarming degree by European traders in a very unreasonable and unjust manner. I want to assure the Minister that it will be of great assistance to the coloured settlers if he prohibits anybody except coloureds holding trading licences on coloured settlements.

I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment and I will explain the position. My hon. friend will remember that in my second reading debate I said that the sole purpose is that in an intensive settlement, or even in a settlement which is not intensive, trading should be done by the coloureds themselves as soon as they have the capacity to do so. That is the aim. It may be impossible to achieve it at present. It will not be possible to allow the coloureds to trade until they have been sufficiently trained, but I have said that the whole object is that they should later have their own officials also, to perform administrative duties. Just as on European settlements the object is to try as far as possible to form all businesses there into co-operatives for the settlers themselves in order to avoid the difficulty mentioned by my hon. friend of these people who are being exploited by European traders. If I were to adopt the amendment of my hon. friend that it should just be coloureds who trade there, I should not be able to achieve this object of forming co-operative businesses there. The idea is simply that if the European receives the right to open a business there, that will happen in the first place because there isn’t a coloured who is capable of doing it, and it will be just until the coloured is able to enter into co-operative business ventures, and then it will perhaps be necessary for a European person to be appointed as the head of such co-operative business until there is a coloured man capable of doing the work himself. That is the whole object. Trading licences will be reviewed from time to time. Only temporary licences will be issued until a change can be made.

Will it be co-operative?

One cannot have a co-operative business there while only a handful of people live in it. Therefore until there are enough people to form a co-operative business we shall not be able to do it, and even where such a co-operative business is started, we shall have to appoint a European at the head of it in the initial stages, but the whole object is eventually to make the coloured independent, and to have everything done by the coloureds themselves. We hope that the time will arrive when all the teachers, men and women, will be coloured.

And the postmasters?

Yes.

I do not think the hon. member really understands the amendment. It does not exclude the European from the co-operative. A European person must first receive consent in writing from the Minister before he can trade there. The European can apply to the Divisional Council to open a business there; in other words if the Minister gives consent to a European he must of course be held responsible. He must justify his award of the licence to that person, but the coloured man will have the right under the ordinary provisions of the law, to open a business there provided he can obtain a licence from the Divisional Council. It does not exclude the European. I would like to direct an appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. Here one now has a coloured settlement. In such a settlement it is advisable that the tradesmen and all the other people should be of the same race. Why should you prohibit a coloured if he wants a licence to trade there? If a European person wants to do it, he must of course first receive consent from the Minister. As the article stands at the moment the European must have the consent of the Minister. Everybody must have the Minister’s consent, except coloureds. If there are no coloureds who want to set up a store there that will of course be a good reason for giving the licence to a European. It will also be a good thing if the coloureds want to form a co-operative. The European who will do the work there, will of course not trade for his own benefit. The business would be done through the co-operative, therefore I cannot see what objection the Minister can have, unless he wants the right also to prohibit coloureds from trading.

One must restrain them; one cannot grant a licence to every coloured man.

You can always leave it to the Divisional Council to decide whether the person is suitable. The Divisional Council will not grant a licence to just anyone. The applicant must have a certain standing, or else the Divisional Council or municipality will not grant it to him. Apart from that there must be a police report to the effect that there is nothing against this person, and the Divisional Council or municipality must be satisfied that the applicant will be able to do business there. The applicant must have that qualification demanded by the Minister. I think the Minister is wrong. There will be trouble about this, and if that amendment is adopted …

If I adopt the amendment I will have trouble.

Whether the Minister adopts the amendment or not, he will always have trouble. No one can pass through life without trouble.

The Minister is always looking for trouble.

The position is that if you grant a licence to a Jew, you will be told that you are giving an exploiter the right to do business there in order to exploit the coloureds, so whatever you do you will have trouble. The easiest way of avoiding trouble is to give the coloured the right to have his own business there.

I am very disappointed because the Minister does not want to concede the amendment. Once more I should like to appeal to the Minister. I can assure the Minister that those coloured settlements become the slave colonies of the European shopkeepers.

And this clause is their security.

As far as I can understand the only objection is that at present the coloured is not yet capable enough. If our coloureds are not yet capable today they will never be.

If there are coloureds who are capable and qualified they will immediately be granted a licence.

We do not want licences to be limited to coloureds in the settlements. They must also be available to coloureds here in the city, and I wish to give the Minister the assurance that there are many coloureds who are capable of trading. I have personal knowledge and I realise that the coloureds are very keen to participate in trade in order to help their own people, but the Minister also knows that the Europeans will always have an advantage over the coloureds. The coloureds do not receive licences to trade. Obstacles are placed in their way in some or other manner. They are influenced by the European traders and they have no chance of competing against the European trader. I say the coloureds have the ability. Why cannot the Minister make concessions to the coloureds in this connection? We should like to encourage our coloureds to have a certain amount of independence, and I say that if the Minister does not adopt this amendment he is definitely standing in the way of the progress of our coloureds. It is a very good amendment, and I think that the coloured community will receive it with gratitude.

I would like to support this amendment. I just want to say that I got the impression at the second reading debate that this legislation introduced by the Minister is just make-belief as far as the coloured people are concerned. Here we have it now. If the Minister was really so concerned about the coloured people he would accept this amendment and take steps to see that they get this opportunity of carrying on trade. Secondly I point out that this Bill practically seeks to eliminate the policy of separateness. And here we see that too. The Minister has admitted that he is not really upholding that principle. From the standpoint now taken up by the Minister in respect of this amendment that fact appears quite plainly.

I just want to give this assurance to hon. members that if any coloured person, whether he comes from the Cape or anywhere else, is competent to carry on trade there, no European will go there.

Accept the amendment then.

I cannot do that. Say for instance I do not find a competent coloured person, then I will still be able to grant it to a European.

I cannot understand how the Minister can argue so illogically. He says the coloured person can carry on trade there …

Provided competent persons are found.

We now propose that the coloured person should have the right to carry on trade there.

Is that with an eye to Caledon?

No, it is not with an eye to Caledon. It has been our policy for years and years.

That is news to me.

I cannot help that, but the position is simply that for years and years it has been the policy of this side of the House. The other side of the House have got so used to lying to the coloured people and making promises to them which are never carried out, that they cannot believe that we can be serious in making such a proposal. That just shows how illogical the Minister is. He wants to do what we have in mind, but if we make a proposal that the people there should be given an opportunity he refuses to accept such a proposal. And if we know that the coloured person is not a SAP he will never get a licence there.

This Bill, according to the Minister’s Second Reading speech, provides for settlers in my constituency and also in the electoral division of Namaqualand. The Minister is acquainted with the conditions in Gordonia. The type of coloured person who lives there is an educated class of coloured person. They are people who, before the annexation of Gordonia, were the owners of the land in Gordonia, and it is as a result of the exploitation of many of those coloured people that they are today in that predicament.

That is what I also said.

But amongst them there are quite a number who are very capable coloured persons and who are making a success of their trade. We know, for instance, that in Upington there is today a high school at which coloured children receive education. Now the Minister is going to establish a settlement there, and notwithstanding what the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) might say, it has always been the policy of this side of the House that we stand for separateness, and when we have achieved separateness we grant those people all the rights possessed by the Europeans in their area. There are today coloured teachers in the high school who are qualified persons.

But those people may perhaps have had no business training.

Our aim is not that all coloured persons should become teachers. We would like to see them taking part also in commerce, that they should be the merchants in that area, and why should there be discrimination in the case of the coloured people?; why should he obtain permission from the Minister if he wants to start a business on the settlement? The same rule does not apply in the area of the European settlers. All that we want is this: confer upon the coloured person in that proclaimed area full rights of citizenship in order to enable him to start his business without any other hindrance once his licence has been granted by the local board. When a European applies for a licence in that proclaimed area, he must obtain permission from the Minister, and that will meet the objections raised by the Minister. That will meet his objections that if there are no qualified coloured persons today or people who are capable of starting business there, then the Minister could give written permission to A, B or C —European persons—to go there with the understanding that they will not have the right forever, that is, that such right will be given to the coloured people as soon as they have reached the required degree of development.

This provision also applies to European settlements.

I do not think it applies to all European settlements and I want to tell the Minister that what he is doing here is an attempt to curtail the rights of the coloured people.

It applies also to the European settlements. They must also obtain permission from the Minister.

Now I ask the Minister to give the right to these people to carry on trade there, and to start their own businesses there.

They have that right.

They do not have that right today. According to the Bill, they do not have that right. Our request is a very reasonable request. I would not have risen to talk on this matter but I feel that the House is not acquainted with the conditions of these people, particularly in Gordonia where provision is now being made for settlements for these people. I feel that it is not generally known that these people are not the ordinary type of coloured person who has never been a farmer. They have always been farmers and they have had to cope with exactly the same conditions and difficulties with which the Europeans have had to cope, and many of them have to find some means of existence today, and the only place where they can make a decent living is on the land. For that reason I want to recommend to the Minister most strongly to accept this amendment moved by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen).

As far as I know, there is not one coloured business on any settlement, by reason of the fact that the European has too much say in the matter. The European out-manoeuvres the coloured person. The coloured person cannot compete with him. It is impossible and if the Minister does not agree to make this concession to the coloured person, not a single coloured person will in future carry on trade there. If they are not assisted by means of legislation, no coloured person will ever carry on trade in these settlements and that is why we so strongly urge the acceptance of this amendment. We are very glad that the teachers at all the coloured settlements are coloured people. We welcome that. The time must come when they will have their own police and post office officials. Why can the Minister not meet the requirements of the coloured people by definitely introducing legislation which will prevent Europeans from competing with coloured persons who are capable of carrying on trade on these settlements. As the Minister knows, there are large coloured settlements and reserves and there is ample room for two trading stores. It will place the coloured man in a hopeless position if he had to compete with the European. He need not even start a business in that case. He cannot compete with a European, whereas if there were two coloured enterprises, they could compete with each other. We must meet the coloured people half-way. If we do not assist them by means of legislation, then they will feel that it will be impossible and hopeless for them ever to carry on trade in their own areas. We are a hundred per cent. in favour of making these concessions to the coloured settlements. We welcome it, but I say we should go further and give them the opportunity of providing the services to the coloured settlements themselves through their own men and women. We should help them to work out their own salvation in this manner. We would like to see the coloured person having a share in trade and I can give the Minister the assurance that there are coloured persons who are capable of doing good business, but they are of course the exceptions. As soon as they are encouraged through legisation, we will be surprised to see the good merchants and business men that our coloured population will produce. Just assist them in this difficulty. Just overcome this difficulty for them and the Minister will see the excellent and clean type of business which will be carried on in these coloured settlements.

May I just try to explain the difficulty. There is not the least intention of not giving the coloured people every opportunity of carrying On trade. As I have already said, the whole idea is that the business should be in the hands of the coloured people themselves. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said that there were many educated coloured people in Upington, but they are teachers and that does not mean that they are trained to carry on business. I am sure that every effort will be made when licences are issued for businesses to give them to the coloured people. The idea is that the European will only be allowed there until such time as coloured persons are found who are capable of carrying on trade. I also want to explain that the same rule applies to coloured settlements. No European person can carry on trade on a coloured settlement without the approval of the Minister. He can apply to the Divisional Council but the Minister has to give his approval before he can carry on trade. I say that the reason why we provide that a European may obtain a trading licence, is merely to solve the difficulty until such time as there are coloured people who are qualified to carry on trade. My hon. friend need not think for one moment that licences will be granted to Europeans and at the same time to coloured persons. That is not the idea. There will be no competition between European and coloured persons. We will do everything in our power to give the licences to coloured people, but if there are no competent coloured persons, then the European may step in. The coloured person may be as far advanced in other fields as he likes, but he must have business experience before he can make a success of a business. He can be as educated as he likes, but he must have business experience. That is the object of this clause.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

This clause is divided into two sub-sections. The one provides that if a person wants to take more than four gallons of wine or liquor through the settlement he must have a permit. I do not know of any other land settlement Act with a provision such as this. I think it is wrong, but I do not want to raise any objection against that because one can always obtain a permit. If one wants to take liquor through the settlement one gets a permit from the police. They cannot refuse it. If a coloured person wants to carry more than four gallons of wine through the settlement, he must have a permit. The second subsection provides that no liquor licence will be allowed on these settlements. I raised this matter in the second reading debate and expressed my disapproval of it. I am naturally still dissatisfied about it. I do not believe that drunkenness can be controlled by prohibiting hotels from being run in any particular area. The Minister can argue as he likes but my experience has taught me that if one does not give the coloured person wine, he drinks all sorts of liquor such as “witdulsies” and other drugs which will do him more harm than good liquor would. If one had a place which was controlled, even if it was controlled by the State, it would be much better. It does not appear to me to be fair either towards the Europeans or towards the coloured people to have such a provision. I am inclined to move that the second sub-section be deleted or that a licence should only be granted to a coloured person. We have already voted on this point. Notwithstanding everything the Minister has said, I still think that the Minister is illogical. Our whole idea is to give them the opportunity of carrying on their own business and when we move an amendment to that effect, the Minister raises objections to it. I do not know what licences one could get in a settlement. One can only get a licence today where there is a town or village with a local authority and outside such areas one can only get a licence in respect of a health resort. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that I can see nothing else in the intentions of the Minister in this regard, other than an insult to the wine farmers, because one cannot obtain a licence where there is no village management board.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) is very much concerned about the coloured people. If it had not been for the coloured vote, he would never have been in this House. That is why he is so much concerned about the coloured people. I do not make promises to the coloured people like that hon. member if I cannot carry out those promises. If I make a promise, I carry it out. The hon. member simply makes promises until he has received the coloured people’s vote and thereafter he does not care what happens. I say once more, it is an insult to the wine farmer, and the hon. members on the other side know that very well. That is why they squeal so much. If one throws a stone at a number of dogs, and they yelp, then you can be sure that you have hit one. That is the position. We need not have any buffoonery here. If the member wants to be a clown, he must go to the circus.

Order, order!

I thought the circus was on your side.

I do not think even a circus will accept that member. I move the following amendment—

I say once again that I think that it is nothing else than an insult to the wine farmers to include this provision, because under normal circumstances a licence could not be obtained on such a settlement. It can only be obtained in a municipal or village management area, so why must it be included in the Bill? It is nothing else than an insult to the wine farmers and I consider it my duty to move that this subsection be deleted. I realise that the wine farmers on the opposite side will not vote for it. They have to vote according to the Minister’s instructions and I feel very sorry for them because I am convinced that they have the same opinion on this matter as I have. I do not expect, however, to get their support. Nevertheless, I move this amendment.

It is a pity that the hon. member who has just been seated can hardly ever speak in this House without descending to the lowest level. He said that I was sitting here on the strength of the coloured vote. If that were the case I would have been very proud of it. That Party on the other side did their utmost during the last election to obtain the vote of the coloureds. My opponent was a decent fellow, and even had he won all the coloured votes, I would still have been here. I appeal to the Minister not to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, Schedule and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I would like the Minister of Lands to tell me why he has inserted the word “filtration” in the Act. What does he mean by it? Then we read in the marginal note: “Amendment of section 2 of Act 8 of 1912, as amended by section 1 of Act 15 of 1925, and section 1 of Act 46 of 1934.”

We are now discussing Clause 1.

I can nevertheless discuss the marginal note.

There is no such marginal note opposite Clause 1.

Clause 1 deals solely with the definitions. But I would like to ask the Minister why he is seeking authority to amend the definitions. I would like an explanation of the word “filtration.” If a municipality builds a dam to purify water, is that what the Minister means under this section?

Yes, it relates to municipalities who have to filtrate muddy water.

Clause put and agreed to.

On clause 2,

In section 2 we see that as regards the construction of irrigation works the Minister is taking wider powers than under the original Act. He may use the water from such irrigation works “for any purpose.” It seems to me that the Minister is encroaching upon the ordinary rights of riparian owners. We know that water is used in three ways under the original Act, namely, for primary, secondary and tertiary use. Now I am afraid that if we give the Minister the power to determine that water can be used for any purpose, the result will be that the primary and secondary use of water will be prejudiced by tertiary use.

It means for any of those three purposes.

But it does not say that water will be used in the same way as under ordinary circumstances. What I want to ask the Minister is whether he is going to use water for tertiary purposes without the consent of persons who are entitled to primary and secondary use. It seems to me that the rights of riparian owners are being encroached upon, and if this is the case, then it is a very dangerous principle.

At the moment I cannot give you full particulars. The idea is that the Minister can determine that water can be used for any of those three purposes.

The Minister can then determine that water from an irrigation work can be used for any of these purposes. When we come to Clause 4 we find that he can distribute the water from an irrigation work for any purpose.

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

I move as an amendment to Clause 2 (2)—

As I understand the position the Government is itself seeking the right to undertake works for individuals, companies, municipalities, etc. Possibly the Minister has discussed the point with his Department and he is aware of it, but as regards the amendment the hon. Minister must realise that Act No. 8 of 1912 deals solely with public rivers and public streams. Now the Minister wants to undertake certain works for municipalities. I have no objection to that if the Department has the time and the personnel to perform the work. I would not like to see the Department suffer as a result, but if they have the time I have no objection. But the Act, i.e. the Irrigation Act, states clearly that you may not store water for primary purposes. You must take what you need for the day. Perhaps on one day you may have a thousand small stock who have to drink water and the following day 10,000 and on the third day none. You are not entitled to store water for primary purposes. This provision in the Bill is going to place the Minister in a very difficult position. The result will be that if you want to store water for primary purposes, then either you must introduce a separate Bill, or buy out the rights, or buy out the valley concerned.

For instance the Cape Divisional Council has now bought out one of the kloofs entirely in order to store water. But you cannot store water for drinking purposes. The result is that if the Government undertakes to construct works for people, then that falls outside irrigation. Water for primary purposes has nothing to do with irrigation. The position is simply this, that if you undertake works for municipalities and other bodies who have to supply water for drinking purposes, for primary use, then it falls outside the scope of the Act of 1912. That Act does not deal with that aspect of the matter. It deals solely with irrigation. It may be that the Minister is thinking of things which I cannot think of at the moment, but this definition is very wide. It says “for any other purpose”. For that reason I want to add that it should be in connection with irrigation. I feel obliged to move this amendment so that we will see how the Minister reacts and hear what he has to say in this connection.

If I accept this amendment, the whole purpose of the measure will be frustrated, namely that we will also be able to perform this kind of work for private individuals and municipalities. The Bill relates solely to private works. For the others we have the Irrigation Act. If we undertake a work for a municipality, the supposition is that they have the rights. We only perform the work.

You are also taking the power to construct works for individuals.

But we are simply doing the work as contractors. After the work is completed, we disappear from the scene. But if a private owner wishes to have a work constructed, he must have the approval of the water court. If I accept the amendment we are frustrating the whole purpose of the Bill. I cannot do it.

I do not think the Hon. Minister is right. This Bill envisages very much more than that. It is one of the purposes. This Bill is called a Bill for the Amendment of the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912. But what the Minister now contemplates does not relate to irrigation; it includes any work, even one which is not covered by the Irrigation Act. If he wanted to introduce a separate Bill to assist municipalities to perform certain works, I could perhaps understand it. Something could perhaps be said in its favour, but in my opinion this Bill in its present form is wrong. Moreover, if the State acts as a contractor, it will undertake works for owners and when the work is completed provision is made here that the people will then remain owners. The position is, however, that it has nothing to do with irrigation, and the Minister now wants to place it under the Irrigation Act. The position is that the Government not only intends undertaking public works, but also intends undertaking works for private individuals, and in this way it is depriving people who have constructed dams in the past of an existence. Later on the State will undertake everything and nothing will remain for private initiative. The Minister may decide to assist a village through his Department, but he cannot do it under the Irrigation Act. That is the first point. In the second place he is now going to undertake the work of a contractor whereby he is depriving people of a livelihood who previously undertook the construction of dams and contract work. To me it seems unfair.

I feel that warning should be uttered against the dangerous principle that the State can step in and make use of a public stream, not in the interests of irrigation for other purposes. We know that where the State has constructed a scheme like the Vaal Dam, under the Act it has assigned to itself the right to use the water for purposes other than irrigation. In this way a large quantity of water has already been allocated to Johannesburg. We would like to see industrial development but it must not be to the detriment of irrigation. We hear every day that there is a shortage of big rivers and water for irrigation in this country, and as we are giving the Government more and more powers to use water for purposes other than irrigation, we cannot do otherwise than act very cautiously. Here again the Minister is taking the power to use river water in a way which he previously would not have been able to do. The water from such a river belongs to the riparian owners, and now the Minister wants the power to use the water for other purposes. One cannot help feeling that we are departing still further from the idea that water should in the first instance be used for irrigation. I do not want to put a spoke in the wheel of any attempt to make it possible for water to be used for other development. Shortly goldfields will be developed in the Free State. We learn that the Minister of Irrigation is going to supply water to those goldfields. I am not so certain that that is not the motive underlying this legislation. It is not the function of he Minister of Irrigation. That is why we feel that we should be a little more careful. We cannot do otherwise than utter a warning against the* tendency which the Minister has disclosed.

This amendment looks very innocent, but to my way of thinking a measure like this certainly does not fit into an Irrigation Act. The principles of an Irrigation Act are laid down in certain resolutions which date from 1912, and here another factor is being included which has nothing to do with irrigation. We are now going to encroach upon the existing rights of primary and secondary use of people who are riparian owners, and the Minister of Lands must see our objection in connection with this matter. We are not raising these objections simply to cause difficulty. The Minister should have introduced another. Bill in connection with this matter if he wanted to assist municipalities, etc. If the Minister is going to begin to use these powers, then I can assure him that an endless number of court cases will result. I think it is the Minister’s aim to assist municipalities and industries. If he helps industries then it is tertiary use, and before the Minister can use the water for such a purpose he will first have to ascertain the rights of primary and then secondary use. If in addition he wants to use water for other purposes, then he will have to distribute water in the first place for primary use, then for secondary use, irrigation, and then he comes to tertiary use. The Minister is dealing with a very complicated and difficult matter. I do not think that his Department has examined the matter thoroughly from a legal point of view., As soon as the Minister conserves water, and he takes the water from the catchment area and uses it at another place, he will have to come to Parliament. Then again, before he can use that water for the purposes he has in view, namely industrial development, he will have to take into consideration the rights, the established rights, of riparian owners. What we on this side are trying to do is to help the Minister and to point out the difficulties to him. He knows the farmers, he knows how tenaciously they cling to their water rights and that they do not relinquish their water rights easily. I say to him that this provision is going to cause a tremendous amount of trouble. The amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is not so unreasonable. If it is accepted, then the Bill can fall within the scope of the Irrigation Act. But” if water is to be used for another purpose, how will the water be distributed. The Minister and his Department are looking for trouble. The Act of 1912 has often been amended and there have been court rulings in connection with the matter. It has almost been built up like a mathematical problem, and if at this stage you add something of this nature, the whole thing will become ineffective. Anyone who had something to do with the Irrigation Act of 1912, interprets the Irrigation Act in that way, I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to let this amendment stand over until tomorrow or so, so that he can consider the matter once again, and then he can tell us that he has received the best advice and that he sees no difficulties therein. These are the difficulties which we see. I want to ensure that the established rights of riparian owners are protected.

It is unnecessary to let the Bill stand over until tomorrow. I know that members on the other side want to be helpful, but I want them to understand the purpose of this amendment. In the first place where they say that it does not fit into this Act and that I should introduce another Bill, I would just point out to members that this Bill was compiled by lawyers and that I am prepared to accept their advice. If the legal adviser says that the Bill fits into this Act, then I am prepared to accept it. I would like members on the other side to accept that we shall not deprive people of their rights in connection with public streams. The Irrigation Act makes provision for those rights. But many farmers are not in a position to build a dam; they do not possess the means and they ask the Government to build them a dam. The same applies to municipalities. The Government decided that we should not confine ourselves to irrigation. We must also help the townsfolk where municipalities ask us to build a dam for them. But those people or municipalities must first have the right to build a dam. It is not our duty to obtain the right for them. They must be able to satisfy the water court that they possess the rights, whether they have purchased the rights or however else they have obtained them, and then we can build the dam for them. We are not encroaching on other people’s rights. My hon. friend spoke of the Vaal Dam and said that we had already gone so far as to supply Johannesburg with water from the Vaal Dam. In other words, it is wrong in principle to take water out of a river for other purposes. Could we contemplate following a policy by which we would tell Johannesburg that the water was in the Vaal River but that it would have to manage as best it could, whether it meant suspending all development or not? I imagine that we would rather deprive irrigators of water and give it to Johannesburg.

That is what I am afraid of.

There are private farmers who are not financially strong enough to build irrigation dams, and now we can use experts from the Department to help them and the municipalities to build dams. Prior to this we could not assist the inhabitants of urban areas, and for that reason we are including them. But if Cape Town approaches us to help them to build a dam, then it is not our business to see whether they possess the rights. If they are not entitled to take the flood water which they require for the dam, that is their affair. They must go to court to ascertain whether they have the rights. We will only help them to build the dam.

I am glad that the Minister now admits that he is going to deprive the farmers of the water and give it to the municipalities.

Not of any farmer.

He said that he would rather see the water taken from the farmers and given to Johannesburg. If he does that in the one case, what reason would he have not to do it in other cases? We want to protect these things.

He spoke about flood waters.

Seeing that provision is made that water can be taken for certain purposes, I have no objection because the law makes provision for that. Here we have a dam made for irrigation. Subsequently the Rand Water Board paid certain amounts and secured certain rights over the water. Flood water is not drinking water. Flood water is not water for primary purposes. There is nothing of that sort. You cannot compel an upper owner to let flood water run past for drinking water. We have primary rights in connection with ordinary rivers.

What is your objection then?

In the first place that this Bill modifies the Irrigation Act and seeks to insert something in the Irrigation Act that has nothing to do with irrigation. The Minister says his law advisers have told him he can do this. We can do anything that Parliament allows. The question is whether it is right. Has he asked the law advisers if this Bill has been properly drawn up? I am convinced they will tell him it is an erroneous procedure. If a laywer has to look up something he should know to what laws he must refer, and certain principles are observed by legal draughtsmen. This matter has nothing to do with irrigation, and it is not relevant to the Irrigation Act of 1912. When the Minister comes and tells me that the Irrigation Department has been established to see to water for the cities I tell him that is not so. I have no objection to him wanting to help these people, but then he should not do it in this manner. In the second place our difficulty is this. Although the Minister says it is not his department’s duty to see whether municipalities have the rights we are nevertheless afraid of this Bill. I maintain that he can only carry out the works for the municipalities. I do not believe that any municipality will use his department. But apart from that we do not want the rights of irrigators to be impinged upon. I feel a wrong tendency is being revealed in the department. They want to do things that have no relation to irrigation, and I do not think that is right.

The world changes.

Yes, but if land is under water, and later there is no more water available, food cannot be produced. It is indeed true we want industries in the country. We know they require water, and if the State wishes to see there is sufficient water for industries let it do so, but not under the Irrigation Act. If works are undertaken to provide industries with water it is not an irrigation project and we cannot bring it under the Irrigation Act. A definition is given here of an irrigation work, so that it can include this sort of work. If a conservation dam is made to provide water to a town or to an industry it is no longer an irrigation work. This is my objection. I think I am on firm ground when I maintain this. I regret the Minister is not a lawyer, or otherwise he would see the point.

I am prepared to take the advice of my law advisers.

Have you asked them whether this is the correct procedure?

Yes.

I am obliged to believe the Minister, and I accept it, but it is very difficult to believe. I do not think the Minister could have put the case to them properly. Consequently I feel it is my duty to protest. I object to the new definition. If the Minister does not want to meet us I shall not fight him. I have only tried to assist him.

The fact remains that we are busy with an amendment of the Irrigation Act and that Act was made chiefly to regulate the use of water for irrigation. Now the Minister comes with this amendment and he wants that Act to be so altered that the water from any work that is carried out by him may be used for other purposes than irrigation—for any purpose. Now we maintain, if the Government wishes to take such powers, why should it take them under the irrigation law. In the past the custom was that bodies like municipalities and industries bought water rights, or a special Act was passed, as in the case of Vaaldam. We say that our duty is to be vigilant in regard to the interests of the irrigators, and that the Government must not step in to deprive irrigators of their interests and give them away. The Minister says the law advisers have told him they can do these things. We accept that. He has asked the law advisers to give him these powers that he can use, as he has admitted, not in the interests of the irrigators but in the interests of the towns and industries. He has informed us that if the waters of the Vaal River are required by Johannesburg he will give them to Johannesburg instead of to the irrigators. He has asked the law advisers to draft a Bill which will give him the power to use the rights of irrigators for other interests. I have become more and more suspicious. We know that certain mining developments will take place in the Free State and these powers are being asked to give these companies certain waters. Previously they had to buy water rights, just as towns and municipalities had frequently to buy them. But now the Minister takes the right to build waterworks for these people. He can use the waters of the Caledon River or the Vetrivier for mining development and not for irrigation. We are jealous of these rights. Why cannot they buy water rights; or why cannot a special law be introduced for each case as has happened in the past? The door is always open for any interests to approach the Government in connection with anything of this sort. It can be done today just as it was done in the past even if this amendment is not adopted. It can be done at any time and in any circumstances, but do not let us adopt the Bill giving the Minister this power to interfere with the rights of irrigators. We must not give up the rights of irrigators. Accordingly we cannot do otherwise than urge the Minister to modify this provision.

I am not surprised by the speeches that have been made by members on the opposite side. As a farmer I am also very jealous of my rights, but seeing the Minister has come forward here with a plan to assist industries I am surprised at the trend of the speeches on the other side. The other day the Minister intimated he had a plan to take the waters of the Orange River to the Fish River and no objection was made to that by the opposite side. Strictly speaking this is also depriving the riparian owners of rights, to benefit other people, but in this case no objection was offered. Not one of the Free State members raised any objection to that. What has been said by hon. members on the other side to the effect that the Minister wishes to take powers to expropriate the water of the farmers for the development of the goldfields in the Free State is most improper. Is there a single Free State member who will raise an objection to the Government making it possible for these goldfields to be developed? It will be greatly to the benefit of the country and also of agriculture, because such development will open up new markets. I still have to see one of them making an objection. No, the objections made by the other side were not, I had almost said, honestly meant. If we want to develop the country not only in the agricultural sphere but also in the industrial sphere then this Bill should be accorded the support of all.

Never yet have I come before the House with an Irrigation Bill but the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has stated that it was not right, that it was all wrong, just as he is doing here now. Then he said it was difficult for him to accept that I had consulted the law advisers. He knows very well what the law advisers are told is that we want to achieve a certain object through a Bill, and then they have to draw up the Bill. They have never drawn up a Bill wrongly or one that does not fit in where it should fit in. The hon. member on the other side says we are now taking the power to divert water from a river and to use it for other purposes than irrigation. I repeat that the purpose of this Bill is to enable us to assist private farmers, municipalities and other persons in leading the water off where they, for one reason or another, find it beyond their means and capacity to do this themselves. They will approach us and we shall do the work for them. At the moment we have not the power to do it. Should a farmer ask us to construct a work, or should a municipality ask us to do so, it is obvious they will already have obtained the water rights. They may not infringe other people’s rights. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) is suspicious that I wish to use this Bill as an underhand way of providing the goldfields with water. It is not right to make a reflection of that sort. It is not necessary to introduce such a Bill for that purpose. We have the right under the ordinary Irrigation Act. As a lawyer he ought to know that. But again I would put this question. If we are unable to take water out of our rivers in order, for instance, to develop the goldfields of the Free State how are these goldfields going to be developed?

They can buy water rights.

How are they going to manage it if the Government does not help them with that? We are going to assist them to obtain water. I am not saying it will be from the Caledon River, the Vetrivier or the Sandrivier, but we shall assist them to obtain water, it does not matter where from. We are going to develop the goldfields. It is stated that the water belongs to the riparian owners and it is illegal to use the water for other purposes than irrigation. He said this repeatedly. The Government will develop the gold mines in the Free State and in order to do so take water from the rivers and if necessary we shall come and ask this House for approval. But this development will be assisted by us.

We are perfectly satisfied if that is the policy but I do not agree with you.

Take Johannesburg. Can it be imagined that we should tell Johannesburg that they can get no water because they are not riparian owners? What would become of South Africa and of the farmers if Johannesburg was not there? The Government has not only a duty towards the farmers but also towards other sections of the people.

Our objection is that it is giving the mines preference over the farmers.

The hon. member is again trying to arouse suspicion by saying this is illegal and that is illegal. I repeat that I would rather take the advice of the law advisers than the advice of the hon. member.

The hon. Minister has made an objection to what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E: Warren) said, but the hon. member made it clear it was only proffering advice. I think that in the past the Minister has now and again taken good advice from the hon. member for Swellendam. We believe that the Minister has obtained legal opinion, but knowing the Minister as a dictator we believe that he dictated to the law advisers what he wanted in this matter, according to his own ideas, but not according to the ideas of the law advisers. We have to deal here with a big principle. We must be on our guard lest we commit national robbery in respect of cur streams. The Minister has big ideas for expansion in the future. He is already talking of changing the course of the Orange River so that the waters which flow into the Atlantic Ocean will be diverted to the Iridian Ocean. That will definitely be national robbery and an injustice towards the riparian owners. The riparian owners have only one livelihood and that is derived from the river, and should there be a drought and the Minister have allotted a certain quantity of water from the river to those who are not situated on its banks then the riparian owners will suffer. If you have a large town with thousands of inhabitants and there is a shortage of water in the river, who then will suffer damage? It will be the riparian owners, because preference will be given to the towns in order to supply them with water. It frequently happens that some of our rivers stop running, and it is a dangerous principle to broaden our legislation in such a way that people living on the banks cannot make a livelihood. If these other centres require water, provision should not be made for them at the expense of the riparian owners. Today they possess rights, and what future will there be for them if they are robbed of the water? The hon. Minister is pushing things too far. He wants to make a big name for himself in connection with irrigation, but he is going to wreck the whole thing if he carries on like this.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) need not be worried over any Government department ever being so stupid as to build a dam and to store water in an intermittent stream, and that for industrial purposes. No industry will be established on the basis of a water supply from a river that will not maintain the necessary flow of water into the dam. But the principle touched on by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that we cannot do this under the Irrigation Act, that we cannot make provision under that Act for industries …

I did not say that.

The hon. member apparently has not read the Act. The old Act of 1912 does make provision for that.

I have read it frequently.

Then the hon. member has misled the House. The hon. member has created the impression that provision cannot be made in this Bill for industrial purposes. Read the Act of 1912. It speaks about primary, secondary and tertiary use of water. Section 20 makes special provision for the provision of water …

After primary and secondary needs have been provided for.

There is no danger that a scheme will ever be established where-under provision is not made to let the normal flow run in the river. These schemes are in the interests of the farmers and of industries. We ourselves have had the experience with the Vaal River at Vereeniging that while previously the river now and again ceased to flow, this has not happened at all in recent years. Provision is made for the normal flow to continue. Can the hon. member mention a single instance of a storage dam where the normal flow of water is not maintained. That is in favour of the farmers. The more storage dams we have, whether it is to provide for towns or industries, the better it is for the farmers, because it means the continuance of the normal flow. Why do hon. members stand up just to talk? This Bill makes provision in principle that water can be given for industrial purposes. But the law of 1912 also makes this provision, and the farmers do not suffer damage. Thirdly, as the Minister stated, it is not correct that provision cannot be made under this legislation for the development of industries. I do not want to go into details, but I wish to repeat that the more dams we build in our country whether for irrigation purposes or industrial purposes or mining development, the better.

I do not mind being called names. After all a man judges others by himself. That does not concern me. But I should like to explain to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) how stupid he is. He says he knows the law well, and he maintains that water can be stored for tertiary use for industrial purposes. I admit that there is primary, secondary and tertiary use of water. The position is very simple. The provision is not that if you have an industry in Johannesburg you can take for tertiary use water that belongs to the riparian owners. I think I know the law a little better than the hon. member. I understand now very well that the Government say they do not want to rob the farmers, that they do not need to be scared, but if the need arises the water will be taken from them even if they die of thirst. Now we know what the position is. The Minister of Lands previously taunted me in connection with the Land Settlement Act. He stated I do not know the Act, that I am a poor lawyer and that I listen to other people. The following Session he had to come and admit I was right, but he had not the courtesy to apologise to me. He realised he was wrong, but he never had the courtesy to ask my pardon. It does not matter. But I maintain that the riparian owners are entitled to water. If there is any surplus water I have no objection to that being used by non-riparian owners. But the riparian owners have bought the land knowing they are entitled to the water, and if the Government comes and takes these rights they are stealing. I repeat that. I have never said that the Government is desirous of stealing water under the law, but I must point out where the Minister is acting wrongly. I have been elected to protect my people and to say when I think the Minister is wrong. We have just had a statement by the Minister that if the gold mines want water then he will take from the farmers what is required.

I have never said that. That is another distortion.

On a point of order, is the hon. Minister entitled to say that I distort things, Mr. Chairman?

It is not unparliamentary.

Then I say that the Minister distorts everything he brings up. He does it continuously. I am sorry for the Minister. He, of course, has not had the training, he has not the legal knowledge and he does not realise what he is doing. There are other members who have legal knowledge and I am certain they are in accord with me. Naturally Parliament as the highest court in the land, can take water and make it available for tertiary use. Parliament can do anything. But that is not to say it is right. This ought not to be done. If the Minister wants to do it well and good, but I am obliged to point to the wrong step he is taking. He can bring his lawyers to argue with me and I will prove to them they are wrong. We must put an end to the gossip and the quarrelling in connection with irrigation. When we try to help the Minister he should behave decently and not continue to say all sorts of things about members who do not agree with him. He has not a monopoly of all the wisdom and experience. We have just as much right to talk as he has. If we are right he ought to admit it and we shall admit when he is right. In any case I have put my view to the Minister.

I should like to support the Minister in this connection and for the following reason. He knows that for a number of years we have had difficulty in the smaller towns on account of our being unable to obtain assistance from the department under the provisions of the existing law. When I refer to smaller towns I am not thinking of the use of water only for domestic purposes in the smaller towns, but a large number of people move into the smaller towns with a small pension. They have a little garden that has to be irrigated in order that they may produce a certain amount of food to augment their small pension, and the Minister knows how we have striven to give these people some assistance. If this Bill goes through we shall be able to help these people.

You will have to pay for it.

The hon. member wishes to take to himself all power and law and ability and knowledge. Let him give us a chance sometimes to express our honest views. I should like to say that where the Minister can possibly help in building dams the lower riparian owners will also be assisted by virtue of the water flow being constant. May I illustrate with the case of a farmer in the Northern Transvaal who built a dam; today the lower riparian owners are helped because they have more water than they had before just because the water is stored. I hope and trust the Minister will not be deviated from his course, but that he will assist the smaller towns as well as the farmers. But I do stigmatise as highly improper what has been represented that the Minister now intends to give the gold mines preference over the farmers who have to make their living by cultivating the land, while the Minister will now give their water to the gold mines. I hope that the gold mines can be provided with water and that the farmers will be able to sell their products to the gold mines. Then the Minister will be conferring a great service on the country.

Amendment put and negatived.

On Clause 3,

I have the same objection here. This clause also makes provision for depriving riparian owners of their rights. I will not move an amendment because I can see what the attitude of the Minister is, and I do not want to take up the time of the House. The following clause contains the same principle.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

In this clause the Minister makes provision for the subsidisation of certain works …

Like gold mines.

… which is now really done by the Government. We have no objection to such assistance being granted to municipalities or certain private bodies and individuals if this provision of water will benefit the country in general. But I just feel that the Minister is here taking power but it does not go far enough. This is just to give the lie to the assertion of members on the other side to the effect we on this side of the House would not like to see any works by which the country in general would benefit. It is stated here that the Government can subsidise those works. The Minister proposes to subsidise such works up to an amount of 33⅓ per cent., but the total amount the Government will pay will not be more than £250.

This is for the farmers, not for the gold mines.

For everyone. £250 is the total amount of the subsidy. Now I maintain that that assistance is not adequate. The Minister ought to give more support. You have for instance small municipalities who wish to carry out necessary works and who have bought water rights from the riparian owners, and they want to make certain storage works in order to provide their town or city with the necessary water supply. But they can only get 33⅓ per cent. of £250.

On £30,000.

He can only give a subsidy if the work costs less than £30,000. Over £30,000 it has to come before Parliament, and this is my objection. There are small municipalities and private persons as well who wish to undertake the work and frequently private persons will be asking the Government to do the work for them, and in these instances the Minister can give only 33⅓ per cent., and his subsidy may not amount to more than £250. I want to ask the Minister from the viewpoint of the private individual or the public body that he should make this subsidy larger. It is altogether too small. I do not want to propose a motion on those lines now, but if the Minister cannot give us a more satisfactory answer I shall move an amendment. But I think the amount of 33⅓ per cent. is too small. I would like to see the Minister make it 50 per cent., or rather that there should be no provision, and that every case should be handled on its merits, and that the Minister should give a larger subsidy. As far as private irrigation is concerned I feel that we have not sufficiently encouraged private irrigation in South Africa. Irrigation in this country is not developed by the Government but by private individuals. Persons who have undertaken irrigation works, often at great loss, but in so doing they have opened the eyes of the public and we feel that today more support should be give to private individuals who wish to embark on development works on their own initiative. Consequently I should like to see the Minister accord them greater support. I hope that he shall bear in mind these needs, and make a larger subsidy available. If the Minister does not hold out that he is going to do this I shall move an amendment later.

I should like to explain that at this stage I cannot accept any amendment in reference to a larger subsidy. Let me explain. Under the existing Irrigation Act the Minister can give to farmers or private owners a subsidy of 25 per cent. up to a maximum of £125.

What does it mean?

This has been the position for years. Now I have tried with this Bill—and I have asked the Treasury to help me with it—to increase the 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. and to make the maximum £250 instead of £125; that is double. Now I have the two subsidies, the one at 25 per cent. where the farmer does the work himself, and where the maximum is £125, and the other when the Government does the work and here the subsidy is raised to 334 per cent. with a maximum of £250. There is an anomaly there. Seeing that the Agricultural Department are giving 334 per cent. for their soil erosion works with a maximum of £150 there are now three subsidies. Agriculture gives 334 per cent. with a maximum of £150. Under the Irrigation Act I can give private owners 25 per cent. where they do the work themselves, and up to a maximum of £125, and under this Bill I have moved, the Treasury, so that I may get it more or less uniform, 33⅓ per cent. with a maximum of £250. During my second reading speech I gave the House the undertaking that I would try if it was possible to discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance and to ask him whether he would not agree to our making the usual subsidy of 25 per cent. with a maximum of £150 uniform with the subsidy of 334 per cent. and a maximum of £250. I cannot give an undertaking, but I am prepared to try this. However, I can go no further. If the Treasury agrees the Minister will be able to bring it into his financial measures and the anomaly will be removed. But I have already doubled the amount of £125 to £250 and raised the 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. and I think the House can be satisfied with that.

The object of this Bill is to put the Irrigation Department in a position to do work for private individuals, for irrigation boards, for municipal bodies and for others. The Government has not previously had this right. Under the law as it now stands, Act No. 8 of 1912, the municipalities have themselves to manage the construction of such works. Now the Government is asking the power to use the Department of Irrigation for carrying out such works, and they say that if they undertake such work on behalf of a municipality, irrigation board or gold mine or any company they can give them a 33⅓ per cent. subsidy. They can receive a 33⅓ per cent. subsidy provided the works do not cost more than £30,000. If the cost exceeds that figure the matter will have to be referred to Parliament. That is in accordance with the present law dealing with irrigation boards. Now we understand each other well. But he introduces a new principle. Where a gold mine conserved water for drinking purposes or where a secondary industry conserved water for drinking or other purposes it was not entitled to a penny subsidy, and it is true that the private farmer did not get the subsidy that the irrigation board got. The irrigation board received a 25 per cent. subsidy up to £30,000. The farmer only received a maximum amount of £125. This was absolutely wrong; it is absolutely wrong and we know it, and I think the Minister will agree with me it is not right. But now he comes and asks for the power to carry out works for other people as well as for the farmers; now he makes a difference. He tells the gold mine, for which he is carrying out the work, that when the cost is £10,000 he can give it a subsidy of £3,333 6s. 8d.

Where does the Bill refer to gold mines?

A gold mine falls under “any person or company” as defined in the Bill. Read the Bill. Clause 4 (3) (a) reads—

A person in the legal sense includes a gold mine. But he goes on—

Under the existing law if the Government through the Irrigation Department accepts work it is Government work and it remains their property. Now they take the right to pass the ownership to the person for whom they have done the work. Then I read further …

What clause are you reading?

I am now reading Clause 4 (3). Clause 4 (3) (b) (ii) reads—

In other words, any person, that is a corporate person such as a gold mine, a copper mine and any private individual or municipality or local authority is entitled to receive a subsidy of 33⅓ per cent. That is absolutely clear. Now we come to the farmer—

Then comes the drop—

In other words, everyone receives 33⅓ per cent. except the farmer if the amount he expends on the work exceeds £750.

£250.

I think I have now made it clear. You are coming now and asking the right to give a body that has never previously been subsidised 334 per cent. while the farmer’s subsidy remains at £250. But now the Minister says that if the farmer carried out the work himself he can under the present law only receive £125, while if a corporate body, not being an irrigation board or a river board carries out the work under the present law, it receives nothing. The other corporate body, whether a gold mine, or a copper mine, or a diamond mine receives nothing. Now you come and ask for a subsidy of 33⅓ per cent. while all the poor farmer gets is an extra £125,. I think this is perfectly clear. I do not think one can make it clearer than it is set down here and I consequently feel that the farmer ought to be treated on the same basis as the gold mine or the diamond mine. I cannot see why a gold mine or a copper mine or any other person should receive 33⅓ per cent. while the farmer only receives £250. If the irrigation work is undertaken by the State for a municipality or a gold mine or a copper mine and the cost is £10,000, that mine can receive £3,333 6s. 8d. by way of subsidy, but the farmer will receive only £250. I cannot make it clearer. I cannot refrain from saying that the Minister is here discriminating against the farmer. He tells me that the farmer under the existing law only gets £125. I know that is the position but two wrongs don’t make a right, and under the existing law the people now receiving 33⅓ per cent. get absolutely nothing. The farmer nevertheless receives £125 under the existing law. I can realise that when an irrigation board undertakes a work it is a big work that will enable many people to subsist under the scheme, but if a farmer makes a dam it is only one man who is benefited. They have always said that they could not enrich one man by giving him such a large subsidy, and consequently it was limited to £125. But now the subsidy is given to everyone except the farmer. Any corporate body wishing to make a dam for the conservation of water for drinking purposes or for any other purposes is entitled to a subsidy of 334 per cent. up to an amount of £10,000, but the farmer who makes an irrigation work and who improves the land and conserves the water for the State, and who thus confers a benefit on the State must be content with £250, while if it is a mine— a diamond mine, or a copper mine, or a gold mine—when the hole has been made and the gold or the diamonds or the copper has been recovered, the hole is left open and we have to fill it up. But the farmer does not secure that privilege. I will not detain the House any longer. I wish to move—

In other words, I am proposing that the farmer should get the same subsidy as all these other people get, and I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. I think I have now made the position abundantly clear. I do not think there can be any excuse for the Minister not accepting it, and if he does not accept it he must not be annoyed should we feel that he is placing the farmer in a worse position here than anyone else. He cannot talk it away and consequently I made an earnest appeal to him to accept the amendment. My amendment simply means that the farmer will fall under the same subsidy system as other persons. I only ask there should be no discrimination against the farmer.

I am sorry but I am unable to put the amendment without the consent of the Governor-General as it involves increased expenditure.

I bow to your ruling. I again appeal to the Minister; he can rectify it if he wants to.

I feel that here the farmer is not being treated on an equal footing with other interests, and would consequently move an amendment as follows, and I hope the Minister will accept it and that you, Sir, will not rule it out of order—

I hope that you will not rule it out of order on the ground that it entails increased expenditure. I would really make an appeal to the Minister to accept this proposal.

He has cotton wool in his ears, he hears nothing.

I am sorry, I am not able to accept the amendment because the effect would be the same as that moved by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and it involves increased expenditure.

It is quite clear that the Minister is here taking power to pay a subsidy up to an amount equal to one-third of the cost of waterworks when these works cost less than £30,000, but he can only pay a third in respect of irrigation boards, river boards, mining interests or control boards, but not to a private individual, and that is the point we are making this afternoon. We request the Minister to accept the principle of according better support to the private irrigator, and I am glad that in this matter we have the support of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). This matter of giving adequate support to the private irrigator has been left over long enough. We know that under the Irrigation Act, when large irrigation dams are built, works can be supported up to 100 per cent. on the recommendation of the Irrigation Commission. We know of cases where the debt on irrigation schemes has been written off 100 per cent. And under the provisions of this Act, groups can undertake works to the tune of £30,000, and receive a subsidy up to a third of the cost so long as it is through an irrigation board or a river board. But as soon as you come to the private individual he may receive only a meagre subsidy of £125. Tell me who has done more for irrigation than the private irrigators who have carried out their own works? Go to the south-western districts; go to Calitzdorp, Ladismith, Oudtshoorn and other places, and see for yourself what the private irrigators have done. These people had to embark on this expense off their own bat, and they can only claim up to £125 by way of subsidy. We maintain this is the opportunity once and for all to abolish this injustice that is being done to private irrigators and to lay down the policy that the State, in so far as its support of irrigation is concerned, is going to be liberal, and that it will not display that liberality only towards the gold mines or the copper mines or the local authority, but that it will also display that liberality towards private persons, and we ask the Minister to accept this principle. If he says that he cannot accept it under this Bill, then we ask him to request the Minister of Finance not only to step up the subsidy to £250 under the Financial Relations Bill, but to make it possible, as was proposed by the hon. member for Rustenburg, to grant a subsidy on the basis of at least a third of the cost where the works are undertaken by a private individual. It still remains subject to the approval of the Minister of Irrigation. He has no need to fear that misuse will be made of that. Everything occurs with his consent. The man cannot claim support by way of subsidy unless the Minister is favourably disposed towards that scheme.

Before even he begins on it?

Yes, even before he makes a start on it. If the Minister really means well by irrigators in South Africa, he can say: I am going to withdraw this Bill and make provision in a new Bill for this principle, because I realise now that it is the general feeling of the country that the private farmer should also be supported when he embarks on irrigation works. I challenge any hon. member, in whatever quarter of the House he is sitting, to stand up and say that he does not agree with the hon. member for Rustenburg. It is necessary to support the private irrigator, and seeing it is necessary, we urge you to give the irrigator what he is asking for. We have learned this afternoon what the Government is prepared to do for the mines. It will spend any amount and even go so far as to deprive other people of their rights in order to give water to the mines. We are now pleading for the poor farmer. We are pleading for encouragement of the private farmer, so that there can be more irrigation here in South Africa, not only the big schemes of which the Minister dreams and which he holds out to us—we know that many of them will never be realised, and that it will be a long time before others are established—but also the private individual who will commence on these works at once We plead that he also should be encouraged, that he should receive the necessary support. If the Minister is not prepared to do this, he must not take it amiss if We feel that he is not adequately assisting the farmer in so far as support of irrigation is concerned. It doe not help matters to support only large undertakings. These works that are being carried out by private irrigators are very much more economical than the big schemes. Just think of the capital cost in connection with irrigating a morgen of land under Government schemes. You will find that not one of them runs to less than £200 or £300 per morgen, but when the private farmer irrigates it costs only about £25 per morgen. I maintain this is the most economical form of irrigation, but the Minister remains indifferent to these people. I am glad that his own side of the House are now begging him to be favourably disposed towards these people. We want to encourage irrigation in South Africa in every possible way, and we should be glad to hear from the Minister that he is prepared to support private irrigators. He can do so under this Bill if he merely alters the preamble of the Bill. Extend that accommodation to the private irrigator in South Africa and then we shall feel something is being done for the benefit of the irrigator. The Minister himself knows that stress is being laid on this; he knows that a deputation from the Agricultural Union recently approached him and asked him for this consideration. Now the Minister must give his answer and what is the answer? His answer is: No, I am not going to do it. We ask him on behalf of the organised farmers to consider the private irrigator and to meet him. We know that there is no matter which is more beneficial to the general public than irrigation. It is not only the irrigator himself, and the man who is in a position to lead water on to the land who is benefited. The whole country is benefited. Just go to Robertson, Oudtshoorn and Worcester and see what is being done there with irrigation and how the country generally is benefited. Today the country is experiencing a great shortage of food. There is a great food shortage, and if you encourage irrigation that need will no longer exist. Instead of our now following a progressive policy and encouraging people in every possible way to go in for irrigation we now learn from the Minister that he has no soft spot for the private irrigator, that he is not in a position to support the private irrigator to the same degree as the mines or local authorities. If the mines approach the Minister he will support them up to £10,000, but the private individual who can irrigate more economically can only receive a miserable £125 from him. It is so glaring that one cannot find words to describe this injustice towards the farmers. I hope the Minister will, at the last moment, realise the seriousness of the matter, brought up as it is not only from this side of the House but also from the other side, and that he will withdraw the Bill and come with an amended Bill in order to make provision for a need that is felt generally throughout the country.

In the first place I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to an obvious inconsistency in the Bill. In clause 4 (3) (b) (i) I read that—

Evidently if the costs of construction of the irrigation works amounts to the sum of £30,001, no subsidy is paid.

No, it is paid only up to £30,000.

If it costs £30,001 special approval of Parliament must be obtained.

That is the position also under the Irrigation Act.

I should like an explanation from the Minister on that point. Then I want to support the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) in the appeal he directed to the Minister. I also represent portion of the Rustenburg district, and the question is of great interest in our district. I am almost convinced that the Minister will be inclined to accept an amendment, if the amendment is acceptable to the Chair, and I therefore wish to move the following amendment in clause 4 (3) (d) (iii)—

That has already been moved by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and was ruled out of order.

If I am out of order I just want to appeal to the Minister that if later in another Act he intends making further changes to this Bill, he should take the interests of the farmers into consideration. It was mentioned here by the hon. member for Swellendam that the activities of a large undertaking go hand in hand with certain concessions to other persons, and the subsidy is not given only to the legal person who receives it, but other persons also receive benefit from the subsidy. But where individual persons erect irrigation works other people besides the farmers also receive benefits. If the small farmer builds a dam in a river, not only does he receive benefit from it, but through the erection of this dam the natural flow of the water is increased. This remark has already been made by the hon. member for Swellendam, and I think everybody agrees that through the erection of dams in a river, the natural flow of the water is increased and the other riparian owners benefit also. Then I wish to refer the hon. Minister to the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council where they suggest that one of the plans which should receive strong support is this very one of conserving water in our country, and in this respect the Minister can perform a service to the whole country, if he would grant a greater subsidy to the small farmers.

I regret that I cannot accept any amendment at this stage, nor can I give any undertaking. I wish to move—

in order to give me an opportunity of investigating the matter.

Let the whole Bill stand over.

I am prepared to let Clause 4 stand over. I make no promises. I just want to let it stand over in order to consider the matter further.

Agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 6th March.

When the debate was adjourned I was saying the language question could be more usefully discussed under the relevant clauses of the Bill, particularly bearing in mind the Bill provides for four separate institutions — European, coloured, Indian and African. I wish to devote my attention to the main purposes of the Bill and how they can best be achieved. The House welcomes this Bill, and I think the country as well. It is an indication that the Government while reducing taxation is pushing forward measures Of social reform and concentrating upon those sections of our people who are most in need. The measure has been long awaited and it will be conceded that it has received careful consideration, especially when we bear in mind that this Bill was drafted seven years ago, and since that drafting has been redrafted four times, and circulated to the organisations interested in the matter four times; it has received the consideration of a Select Committee and whenever possible all those with practical experience have been consulted. The Select Committee—of which I had the privilege of being a member — considered memoranda and evidence. The Bill has also received the consideration of the social welfare group of this Party, of which I am a member. Let me say, Sir, at this stage we owe a great deal to the very valuable evidence and the keenness shown by Mrs. Sales, a member of the Advisory Board of the Kraaifontein Work Colony. During the discussions in connection with this Bill it has been patent to all of us that the department concerned is fully alive to and desirous of the most practicable methods to achieve the objects desired in the Bill. A careful study of this Bill in relation to the Bill as first Submitted to this House will reveal this. There has been a complete readiness on the part of the department to accept amendments. Those amendments are shown in the material alterations, but the material alterations made by the Select Committee dealing with this matter, under the very able chairmanship of the late Advocate Alexander. Mr. Speaker, speaking as a layman, I consider this Bill is designed to rehabilitate a section of our people who need our most careful consideration. It is linked up with the policy of the Government to move forward along the path of social reform. The persons concerned are mainly casualties of our social and economic system, and as we deal more effectively with measures of social uplift and advance our social insurance schemes, their numbers will diminish. In the meantime our efforts for rehabilitation must be increased and improved. It would be well if we reminded ourselves of the changes brought about by this Bill in comparison with the Act of 1927. The 1927 Act was concerned primarily with “won’t works.” The Bill extends that treatment to a wider group of socially maladjusted persons. The emphasis in the 1927 Act was upon training “in habits of work.” The Bill before us widens the scope and in Clause 4 purposes to improve the physical, mental and moral condition of the inmates. The present Act provides only for classification within a work colony. The Bill goes further by providing for classification of the colonies themselves, or separate portions thereof, according to the various classes committed. Under the 1927 Act the procedure was to send a committed person to the colony or retreat. The Bill before us provides for diagnosis and classification in cases of doubt, and a further reclassification when necessary is provided for in Clause 19. The Bill before the House provides for an increased number of persons, a wider scope, and particularly would I make reference to offences that are not criminal. Under “E” of the memorandum, that comprehensive departmental memorandum explanatory of the Bill, there is the following reference: “A native declared to be an idle or disorderly person may in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, be removed from the urban area or proclaimed area, as the case may be, or be sent to one of the institutions established under Section 50 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, 1911. These institutions are primarily penal in nature and are controlled by the Department of Prisons. The effect of Clause 17 of the Bill is that instead of sending a native to one of these penal institutions, a magistrate or native commissioner may commit the native to a work colony which is considered a non-penal institution.” That is a considerable advance and it will be of great benefit to a large section of people who are committed to prison in cases where they should rather be dealt with in a work colony or some other institution of a non-penal character. Then a very important provision is that relating to transfer from penal institutions to work colonies, and here I would quote something that emphasises the importance of this section of the Bill. I read from the special crime number of the publication “Race Relations” and from the paper submitted to the penal reform conference in Johannesburg by Mrs. E. S. Read. She said, inter alia, that “there should be a probationary period in the sentence of every convicted person, which should apply to the last portion of their sentence, and this should be directed toward the rehabilitation of the prisoner. This portion of the sentence should be served in farm colonies or other occupational centres where a greater share of liberty is allowed, in order that the prisoner be given the opportunity of regaining his self-confidence.” This Bill also provides a new feature in respect of voluntary inmates at work colonies. Further, under ordinary circumstances, the maximum period of detention will be reduced from five years to three years. Then in regard to after-care, under Clauses 9 and 10 provision is made for hostels for the accommodation, in certain circumstances, of persons on probation or permanently discharged. It was to be expected that this Bill would not come before this House without criticism. The fact that it is criticised emphasises that it is an important Bill, and that under this Bill we enter upon what may be regarded as a new era for many people in South Africa, one in which more sympathetic consideration will be given to those who are socially maladjusted and who do not under the existing law receive that treatment to which they are entitled. I maintain that in this step we are taking we have every reason to be assured that it will represent a material advance along the road of penal reform. One of the main criticisms levelled against the Bill is that there should be a central observation centre to which every person who is about to be committed to any institution provided for under this Bill shall be sent for the purposes of diagnosis and observation. The Bill, however, provides in effect that these institutions shall be classified and be regarded as observation centres in themselves for the purpose of classification. The other view is that of the department, in which many of us concur, that it is only necessary at the present time to adopt the provisions made in the Bill, that where the magistrate dealing with the case, or the Secretary for Social Welfare on receipt of the papers, is in any doubt, then that particularly doubtful case shall be submitted for diagnosis in order that the best treatment shall be provided for. It is a very fine thing in theory to have this central observation centre, but when we bear in mind that there will be four separate institutions, one of which particularly will deal with a large section of our population, and a section to which we all desire this Bill shall be helpful—we shall see that while a recommendation may be excellent in theory its adoption may delay the bringing of that help to the section of the people that I consider this Bill will materially assist. But further consideration of this matter will doubtless be given during the Committee stage. I think also in connection with the diagnosis it is necessary to emphasise the importance of treatment after diagnosis, and for this you must have staff in the institutions who are capable of giving beneficial treatment to those persons whom the magistrate or the Secretary for Social Welfare wish specially to assist. In other words, the personnel of the work colonies will be of more value to the inmates of the work colonies than perhaps the very buildings themselves, for it is this treatment of those committed that will decide whether the work shall be of redemptive character as a result of which a man socially maladjusted will be restored to the community capable of taking an honourable place within its ranks. So, Sir, in that connection those who have been associated with me on this side of the House in the consideration of this matter will move an amendment to Clause 12 of the Bill, to provide that in arranging appointments to the staff of the institutions due regard shall be had to the provisions of Section 4, which state the purposes for which work colonies shall be established. Another point raised was the right of access of inmates to the management board. This is provided for by implication, if not directly, in Clause 34(m), in terms of which a regulation will be framed in order to enable inmates to have access to boards of management, and vice-versa. A very important provision in this Bill is all regulations published thereunder shall be laid on the Table of the House, so that members will have an opportunity under the relevant vote to discuss any regulations governing the administration of the work colonies and other institutions provided for in this Bill. That I regard as a very important provision, and one that has been asked for—in principle, at any rate—by hon. members. Another proposal has been made that there should be an independent board, a board of inspection which shall proceed from work, colony to work colony to make periodic or annual inspections. Under the Bill there will be the board of management, supplemented by visits from the Department of Social Welfare and also by representatives of the Public Service Commission. At the present time there seems to be no necessity for such a board. If and when the number of work colonies increase—we hope they will not be necessary—we hope the uplift of our people will reduce that possibility—but if that occurs the matter should come under the consideration of the Government. In the meantime, may I suggest the Minister takes into consideration an invitation to members of this House, representatives of all parties, to visit these work colonies and institutions annually in order that they may become fully acquainted with the administration of the institutions this Bill is designed to establish. That, Sir, would I think throw a further degree of responsibility upon the parties represented in this House, and bring members into closer contact with the actual circumstances in which the inmates of these colonies live. In regard to the question of dependants and after-care, I agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that this is a most important matter. It is dealt with in Section 5 of the memorandum. The object of the Bill is to restore to the community a valuable citizen, and if after discharge such a man, who may have become qualified to take up good employment, cannot get that employment the object of the Bill is partially defeated. I want to emphasise that the Government, being responsible for the Bill and the administration of the colonies, should set an example to the community by providing employment and relieve inmates of what perhaps may be regarded as a stigma. These men should not be released with the public having the knowledge that they have just come from work colonies. The Government itself should first undertake to provide employment for every man who is discharged and to see that he is restored as a suitable citizen for our community. Reformation should be followed by practical recognition thereof. In the work colonies themselves— and I am sure the Minister will agree with this—libraries should be established, and every encouragement given for the inmates to study and qualify themselves for a larger and better life on discharge. Reference has also been made to the desirability of making provision for dependants in the institution or close to the institution. I want to stress the point that the dependants of inmates should be removed as far as possible from the atmosphere of the work colony, and that the Government should, as it will do and does, take care of the children under the Childrens Act of 1937.

That is in the Bill.

That is true, it is in the Bill, but there is this point of view, that not only should the Government make allowances under the Childrens Act, but every consideration should be given to the dependants of inmates of work colonies for their removal, if they are in undesirable surroundings, to better conditions; that the Government should endeavour to relieve the dependants of inmates from any irksome conditions under which they may be suffering during a wage earner’s stay at a work colony. Mr. Speaker, I come to the end of my remarks. I hope I have not bored the House. We are all keenly interested in the subject. Theoretically the Bill is not perfect, but it is a remarkable advance upon the existing law, and it is calculated to give the best possible results under present conditions to all sections concerned. The matter is urgent. We do not want this Bill held up for further review or for further discussion by a Select Committee. We have sufficient evidence, and there is the danger of having a legislative instrument so wonderful that it may become unworkable, and delay the relief which this Bill is desired to convey to those who are in need. The Bill as it stands can be worked. We have an enthusiastic department and we are sure that the experience which will be obtained during the next three or four years will be invaluable when the whole question again comes under review. And it will come under review, for the Commission on Penal Reform now sitting will take this question into consideration, and the sooner we have some experience of an institution for Africans in South Africa the sooner we shall understand the measure of severity and harshness which is at present meted out to them. In this Bill we shall provide at any rate something which, though not absolutely perfect, will bring relief to them. I visualise an institution for African people where those who have studied African traditions, where those who know the African mind, will be placed on the staff so that as far as we are able a fair measure of justice will be meted out to the African community. The Commission on Penal Reform, having experience before them, and having evidence from such people as I have quoted from the “Race Relations” publication, will make recommendations and the House will be able to prepare amending legislation, which may give some at any rate, if not all, the benefits or improvements recommended by those who criticise the Bill. Personally I have a strong objection to overloading the present legislation. I place my confidence in the department, and with this Bill before them the staff will have a fair chance of allaying the hardships suffered by so many people at present in our prisons, who would rightly be assisted by the measure before this House. I recommend the Bill to the consideration of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer at the outset to the report of the Cape Coloured Liquor Commission of Enquiry. That Commission visited the existing Work Colony at Kraaifontein. The report makes clear, I think, all the worst features of our work colonies, and indicates some of the outstanding weaknesses in the Bill now before the House. The Commission reported as follows—

And this is what is important. It states—

Now, I want to submit for the consideration of the Minister that the report brings out clearly the chief unsatisfactory features of our work colonies. Firstly, the unsuitability of the colonies for the various types of inmates is clearly brought out, secondly the lack of a proper system of scientific selection before inmates are admitted to the colony; they are admitted before proper examination has been made; thirdly, no reference whatever is made to the proper aftercare of the families of the detained men, and—this is the most important shortcoming—there is no planned scheme of rehabilitation. I want to suggest that the Bill before the House still retains the worst features of the existing work colonies. Our experience in this country, in our treatment of maladjusted men and women in the work colonies, is an unsatisfactory and unhappy one. I understand that in one colony, at Swartfontein, since its establishment, something like 250 people have been detained, and the figure of rehabilitation achieved out of that number is approximately 10 per cent. The causes of the failure have been obvious to the Department for some years. Firstly, as I said, there is the unsuitability of these colonies for the treatment of the widely divergent types of maladjusted men and women; secondly—and probably this is more important than on the surface it appears to be—lack of proper machinery for the aftercare not merely of the men, but of their families. The unsuitability of the colonies for the rehabilitation of the various types is in my view a direct result of the wrong system of committal. The men have been sent to the colony via the gaol, and not, as was referred to by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) by a proper classification department. That weakness still exists in this measure; the man can first be committed to gaol. The Minister gave the country the assurance that such a bad old system would not be continued. He and I addressed a meeting twelve months ago in the Cathedral Hall of this city. I had the privilege to be present with him. These are the words he used in referring to this question of the establishment of a classification depot—

That is not in the Bill in its present form. The classification is left to the discretion of the Secretary for Social Welfare who can decide on the type of classification; and if he cannot do that, then it is in his power to send the person to a colony where classification will be carried out. That I submit is in essence the old mistake contained in section 4 (7) which lays down that the man should first go to gaol. For the rehabilitation of the maladjusted man—do not let us call him a criminal—the greatest care is necessary to ascertain a man’s condition, and in particular the type of colony to which he is to be sent. There should be such care. I submit that this Bill will be a failure unless we are prepared to establish in this country at least three depots, say, at Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, where psychiatrists, psychologists and doctors would preside, and decide on the type of colony to which the maladjusted man or woman should be sent. In regard to after care, we submit—and this is where the Bill again falls short, in the same way as our demobilisation planning falls short—that we give too little attention to the fact that if the man has a family, then he and his family are one unit. You cannot rehabilitate the man unless you are prepared at the same time to rehabilitate his family. The family should be specially built up so that when he returns to his family, he comes under one of the best influences to continue his rehabilitation, and certainly to maintain the degree of rehabilitation he has attained. The suggestion has been made—the hon. member for Roodepoort referred to it—that some appropriate system should be prescribed in the Bill, some establishment, say, Tike Tafelberg House, in this city. Hostels should be established in the home area, not near the work colony, giving the proper health, clinical care, education, and social guidance necessary for the family. Now I want to go on from that to what I think was the most disappointing part of the Minister’s speech. It was disappointing; and the hon. member for Roodepoort has confirmed the House in that disappointment. During last month, on 4th February, the Minister received through an advisory committee organised by the Cape Co-ordinated Council of Social Welfare organisations, a comprehensive document making an appeal for very radical changes in its Bill. This committee consisted of Mrs. Hoernle, Mrs. Sales, Mrs. Spilhaus, Professor Batson, Bishop Lavis and Mr. David Murray. The Minister quite rightly paid a gracious copliment to Professor Batson, but did not take the House into his confidence and tell us exactly what they asked the Minister to do. I propose briefly to tell the House that.

They told me that the Select Committee had refused to see them. Is that correct?

I wish to give the contents of the document; I do not wish to be sidetracked. They asked the Minister—and these are people with long experience in this particular job of rehabilitation—to establish one or more observation centres, wherein special facilities would be provided for the diagnosis and classification of inmates; (2) whenever a person has been ordered to be detained in a work colony or retreat under this Act, that person shall be sent in the first instance to an observation centre; (3) that the Bill should be so amended that all inmates shall have the right of access to the board of management. I submit that this requirement is fundamental in the whole of our democratic set-up. There are certain aspects of this Bill which to me are very ugly in their authoritarianism. This is one way in which some sort of humanising influence can be introduced into the Bill. The fourth recommendation made by the committee I have referred to is that the Minister should appoint an inspection board of not less than five independent persons who shall inspect and report to him at least once a year upon all work colonies, retreats, certified retreats and observation centres established under the Bill. The Minister did not tell us that Professor Batson had suggested these changes by way of an amendment to the Bill. I would add that the position is even still worse when one considers—I do not want to pass any reflections on the Select Committee, far be that from me—that the Select Committee heard only one witness. I understand that the Cape Co-ordinating Council asked to be heard, but was not heard; that the National Council of Women were not asked to be heard. Not a single expert—and this Bill is a highly technical matter—was invited. Now, what were the matters that experts should have been asked to give their views upon? This House has no right to accept the Bill as it stands unless it is absolutely convinced that it has been thoroughly combed by experts. Expert evidence was necessary in regard to the technical difficulties that are always involved in diagnosing persons in the early stages of mental disease. Secondly, expert opinion is necessary in the proper treatment of delinquent psychopaths; further, the psychiatric and medical needs of chronic inebriates and drug addicts surely call for expert opinion; expert opinion is also necessary to decide whether chronic inebriates and drug addicts should come under the Care of the Department of Health, or under the care, as they are now, of the Social Welfare Department. These are matters fundamental to this Bill, and Parliament should demand, before it gives its assent to this measure, that the views of these experts shall be obtained. The leading newspapers in the country also, the “Star”, “Rand Daily Mail”, “Natal Witness”, the “Daily News”, the “Cape Times” and the “Cape Argus”, all contain articles which urge upon the Minister the amendments and improvements of the Bill on lines that Professor Batson’s special committee has suggested, as I have briefly indicated here this afternoon. I now pass on briefly to another matter allied to work colony treatment. It arises out of the report this House just received on the treatment of deviate children. The problem of the maladjusted man and woman is intimately connected with that of the problem child. It is a question of the environment in which the child with some form of behavioural aberration is to be placed. He may later become an inmate of a work colony; and the inmate of the work colony may become the parent of the problem child. I submit that this measure before the House should deal adequately with the problem of the deviate child. It can only do so, and the Bill can only be made worth while, if it definitely and clearly lays down adequate provision for the after-care of the families of committed men. I wish to emphasise that fact. I could only get the figures for 1940, but they are of startling significance. In 1940 there were 8,756 court cases in which children under 20, representing serious types of deviate behaviour, were committed. The report on deviate children, referring to that fact, used these challenging words—

In addition to making provision on the lines of the report dealing with deviate children, I would suggest to the Minister that this measure must not be considered separately. It must not be considered as a measure in itself to achieve even what it itself sets out to achieve. I want to suggest to him that he drive for an amendment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, deleting section 32 which provides that lower compensation may be paid to handicapped and to deviate children. That is a matter which should be looked into while we are considering this legislation. He should also go into the matter of a further amendment to establish, as in the case of the Soldiers and War Workers Act, power for the Minister to lay down a quota for employers as to how many handicapped or rehabilitated deviate children they must employ.

Order, order! May I just refer the hon. member to Rule 73. No member may reflect upon any statute unless with the purpose of moving a repeal of that statute.

Thank you. I just want to add that what I wish now to say does not refer to existing legislation, but to the need for further legislation. Legislation is necessary to provide for sheltered employment, in co-operation with work colonies, for the men and women who are to be rehabilitated. I want to emphasise that the matters raised this afternoon are of extreme importance to large sections of the people in this country. There are people who have devoted their lives to carrying on the work as set out in this Bill. The Bill itself as it stands will not carry us much further along the road we have already gone, and I want to appeal to the Minister either to let it go, after the second reading, when the general principle has been established, to a Select Committee, or to reconsider his decision to throw out all the amendments which were suggested by experienced experts, people whose advise and experience were made so freely available to him. If he will do that he can provide a measure which can be a model to the rest of the world. It is a pity, too, that the Select Committee did not make investigations as to what has been done in other countries, in the United States and New Zealand, in connection with maladjusted men and women and their treatment in labour or farm colonies on the lines we are now proposing. May I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter in the light of the evidence he has received. I am convinced that he will realise that if he wants to make the Bill an instrument of which he can be proud, it will be well to follow very closely the advice of the best experts.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my plea to the plea of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) and also support what has been said by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). We are embarking upon this Bill which will bring into being some measure of relief to an unfortunate section of our community. I should like, if these work colonies cannot be absolutely controlled by those very good people who have undertaken this work in a voluntary capacity, a committee to be established to continue with this work and report to the Minister at least once a year, or every six months. For the life of me I am unable to understand why the Minister has refused to be guided by the experts on this particular work. It is very unfortunate, that when in so many matters affecting the lives of the people in South Africa, the Government is given free, gratis and for nothing, the time, labour and experience for making a Bill a really workable Bill, it is repeatedly turned down, and has to come before Parliament year after year for amendment. I am perfectly certain that there are no better people in South Africa than the people mentioned by the hon. member for Berea to present this House with a workable Bill and one of which the country can be proud. We all know of people in South Africa who through no fault of their own find themselves in gaol. Probably the man may have been celebrating too much and he finds himself in gaol. It may even become a habit with him. I know many in South Africa who have seen much better days, men in good positions, who unfortunately took to drink and sank very low, so as to fit them for work colonies. I suggest to the Minister that in treating cases of this nature, unless you have officials in charge of these work colonies, who are sympathetic to them, you will get nowhere with your work colonies. In most cases it is not so much a question of going to gaol or even to a work colony, but it is a question of medical treatment, rest and some education to show these men the error of their ways, and to break them of their bad habits, but not by force. I will go so far as to say that a man who is sent to a work colony as an inebriate should be allowed a certain amount of drink daily, this to be gradually decreased until he is broken of the habit. If these colonies are not run by people who have spent a lifetime in social work, they will not be a success. I hope it is not too late for the Minister to reconsider his decision. I support the hon. member for Berea that the Bill should be referred to the Select Committee again for evidence to be taken and I feel perfectly certain that we will then have a Bill which will have the desired effect. If these work colonies are to be run on the same strict lines as gaols they will not be of much value. We have the average Government servant with his discipline who is not trained to have sympathy. He is only interested in carrying out regulations. That should be avoided. I want to impress upon the Minister the necessity for having this Bill redrafted. Our mental homes, prisons and our detention homes could all be safely overhauled because they are not attaining the results contemplated. I add my appeal to the Minister to reconsider it. Let us have something of which the country will be proud, and let the Minister be guided by these experts in Social Welfare who gave their time and money without reward. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) introduced the bilingual question, and wanted every person connected with the homes to be bilingual, but I do not think that is necessary in the interests of the inmates. You have some wonderful women social workers doing excellent work without being bilingual, and I hope the hon. member will not press that point. A large number of bodies are interested in this matter, and I hope the Minister will give it further consideration so that next year we shall not have to amend the Bill.

I do not think that anyone who has had any experience of our criminal courts can do other than welcome the principles of this Bill. It is only too often that one sees certain types of persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment, quite small ones sometimes, when everyone concerned, the prosecutor and the judge or magistrate and defending counsel, all feel that gaol is not the proper place for such a person. In principle this Bill, I am sure, will be welcomed in all parts of the House. But, Mr. Speaker, the very importance of the subject with which it deals makes it essential that it should be passed in the best form possible. Any criticism, therefore, which I make about this Bill will not be on the principle, but on special features of it. I must confess, however, that I would rather this legislation, important as it may be, had awaited the report of the Penal Reform Commission. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, emphasised to the House the amount of consideration that had been given to revision and the length of time which discussions about it had proceeded. Nevertheless, it is a short time ago that the previous Minister of Justice accepted the pleas of many of us in this House that our whole system of criminal punishment, our whole system of penology, should be overhauled in the light of modern knowledge and scientific experience; and obviously a Bill like this falls within the ambit of the subject of penal reform. The whole principle for which we contended was that our penal system took too much account of the element of punishment, necessary as it may be for large numbers and types of persons, and paid too little attention to the rehabilitation and reformative aspect, and this Commission has been appointed to overhaul the whole penal field with these considerations in view, or at all events to enquire into their validity. This, therefore, would appear to me to be rather a pre-judging of the issue on which the Commission is sitting. It seems to me necessary that the work colonies legislation should be introduced as one aspect of such a programme of penal reform as may result from the Commission’s report. I recognise that it is unlikely that the Minister will consent to postpone this measure, in view of his remarks, but I feel that that point should at all events be stressed, because it may well be, as the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) says, that this measure will in any case have to be amended in the light of the report of the Commission. I am also somewhat disturbed by Clause 13. I know it is not a novel principle, but my opinion is that to take away the liberty of the individual, however admirable may be the motive behind that deprivation of liberty, should only take place on one or two grounds, either that he has been convicted of a contravention of the criminal law, or he falls within those laws which justify the deprivation of his liberty on the grounds of some mental disability. It may be that our laws in relation to the certification of people mentally disordered require to be overhauled. It may be, in fact I think it is the case, our criminal law generally needs to be overhauled. But this Clause 13 falls between the two. A person, on grounds I can only describe as vague, can be deprived of this liberty and sent to a work colony for a period of two years. Having said that, I would like to associate myself with the specific suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan). The Minister, in introducing the Bill, stressed that a number of organisations of persons who take an interest in this matter put up criticisms at too late a stage or failed to give evidence before the Select Committee when they had an opportunity to do so, and so forth. I do not wish to enter into any controversy in that regard whatever. The fact of the matter is the Bill is now before this House. The House has been asked to take the responsibility for enacting it into law, and it is in any event necessary, therefore, that its provisions should be discussed on their merits, even though some organisation which might have made suggestions did not do so until too late a stage. Particularly would I appeal to the Minister to give further consideration to this question of observation centres for the purpose of classification of people who are committed. Under the ordinary penal system that matter does not arise. The judge or the magistrate either sends the convicted person to gaol or he does not, and if he is sent to gaol he is subject to a stereo– typed form of punishment, as the law stands at the present time. If, however, a judge or magistrate decides, after the Bill has become law, not to send a man to gaol, he should be subjected to extra observation as to what type of colony or retreat he should be committed to. The court has done its job when it says’": “That man must be sent for three years to a rehabilitative institution, it is not within my province to say what kind.” Whose province is it? According to this Bill it is in general the Secretary for Social Welfare. It is no reflection on the present or other occupant of the post to say he is not in a position to decide and he should take and presumably will take the advice of experts after observation. Then why not put it in the Bill? As a matter of fact the Bill does go a certain way in that direction. In sub-section (2) of Clause 7 it is stated—

In other words, facilities for observation have to be provided at any rate to a certain extent already in terms of the Bill. Well, if they have to be provided then under sub-section (3) there ought to be the obligation laid upon the Secretary for Social Welfare, or whatever other official may be designated, to send committed persons to the institutions where those observational facilities are provided, and that seems to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion. What I am asking for is to put it in the Bill. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) said it was in, but it is not, because the Secretary for Social Welfare has discretion to send them there or not. Unless he is a qualified person, which he cannot be by virtue of his administrative office—he is not qualified to exercise that discretion. He presumably would have to take advice, then why not indicate the advice he has to take, that is of the persons in charge of the occupational centres which the Minister is already saying in this Bill will be set up? That is a point I think the Minister might consider even at this late stage. Then, Sir, there is the position of the dependants, of the children of the person committed to the work colony. As the Bill stands at present the children may be dealt with under the Childrens Act at any rate if Clause 13, which I referred to at the outset, stands. If that stands I feel something more is required; there should be provision at all events for the establishment of institutions in which the dependants of a man who has been committed to a work colony can be admitted. And, Sir, I base that argument on this. Under Clause 13 a man can be sent to a work colony because he has not been supporting his family properly. It is not going to help the family simply to put him in a work colony. If the State says: “You do not support your family properly, through your own fault, we are sending you to a work colony because you have not lived up to your responsibilities”; the State should add: “And until we have taught you to live up to that responsibility we will assume that responsibility.” That is the principle on which the suggestion is based. I do not know in what form it has been put up to the Minister or to a Select Committee, but it seems to me that is the basis of it. If a man has been committed to a work colony for not supporting his family properly, if the State has frowned upon him for his failure, then the State, until it has rehabilitated him, must take the responsibility in regard to the man’s family; and that would involve the obligation on the Secretary for Social Welfare, or on the magistrate committing the man to the work colony, of seeing that if he has children those children are referred to the Commissioner of Child Welfare to be dealt with and for institutional provision to be made for the care of those children. Further, I want to impress upon the Minister again to accept the provision of this very small right of access by the inmates of the colony to the board of management. These work colonies are not not gaols. I know in a gaol under our prison regulations a prisoner normally has only one right of appeal, and that is when he has been convicted of offending against the gaol regulations; when he has committed a disciplinary offence, he can appeal to the magistrate. But this Bill which is under the aegis of the Department of Social Welfare is not making provision for people who are criminals in the ordinary sense. The basis is they are not to be treated as criminals. And it seems to me when people are put away for three years—they may be let out earlier or they may not— and often not for a breach of the ordinary criminal law, then they should not be at the mercy of a superintendent or some official. That man ought to have the right of access to the board of management. I am not now referring to cases where they are convicted of a definite offence—there is some provision for an appeal there—but I am speaking of general treatment in that institution. One of the functions of that board of management should be to hear any grievance the inmates may bring forward. I also want to support very strongly the appeal made by the hon. member for Berea for an independent inspection of these institutions. They are places, I repeat, where people are deprived of their liberty, and people who very often have not been convicted of an offence. There ought to be an independent board of inspectors to keep a watchful eye on these institutions. So far as the penalties provided for a breach of discipline in the institutions are concerned, I do want to make this appeal to the Minister, that is, not to allow these people to be put on spare diet. It is necessary to have disciplinary rules, and they have to be enforced by some form of penal provision, but the sort of person who is sent to a work colony is not the sort in respect of which spare diet seems desirable. I hope the Minister will not empower regulations in that sense. There is one special point I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is the special provisions so far as the natives who are committed to a work colony under the Urban Areas Act are concerned. In Clause 17 of this Bill a native who has been committed under the Urban Areas Act as being “idle or disorderly” may be committed to one of these work colonies. I have already had something to say on whether they may be idle or not. But I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this. Under the Urban Areas Act a native so convicted can only be committed for two years; that is, under the Urban Areas Act. Under this Bill he can be committed for three years. In other words, there is a sort of tacit amendment to the Urban Areas Act. I do not know whether there has been any consultation between the Department of Native Affairs and the Department of Social Welfare. At any rate, that is the law as it stands at present. What I feel is that persons committed under the Urban Areas Act should not fall under that. If they are convicted under any other provision of the law, the three-year period would apply, but not in respect of an offence under this provision of the Urban Areas Act. The principle in the Bill appears to be a sound one. It is a step in the right direction towards penal reform that many of us in this House have advocated for many years. But I do want finally to ask the Minister to take serious note of the points raised not only by me, but by other members who have spoken.

When one is faced with such an important measure, one always envisages the ideal position the House could create with a view to the rehabilitation of these unfortunate people. The Minister of Social Welfare and his Department intend to carry out rehabilitation work in the case of people who merit punishment. When you picture an ideal system, this Bill is entirely inadequate; it would involve us in the expenditure of thousands of pounds in order to create conditions that would produce real results of which we could be proud. We ought in the first place to keep such a person under the observation of experts in order to determine what his handicap is, and subsequently he ought to be sent to one institution or another. The work colonies should not all be of the same nature. They should vary in type. When a person has served his time in them, proper provision should be made for his after-care. When he leaves the work colony, should he have to return to District Six, where he may have come from, we may expect him to relapse. While he is at the work colony, proper provision should be made for the care of those who are dependent on him. When such a person is rehabilitated, he will eventually become a useful member of society. When I say it will cost thousands of pounds, the Minister will, on the other hand, in his capacity of Minister of Justice, find that the cost under Prisons will be greatly reduced and that, in fact, prisons will largely be empty. There must be a complete reformation in order to place such a person under greater liberty, and in order to afford better facilities for his rehabilitation. In principle we agree with this Bill. On this side we shall vote for its second reading. But we shall propose certain amendments in the Committee stage. What is lacking now in this Bill? The one big thing lacking in the Bill is that no proper provision is made for the after-care of a person sent to an institution. It does not help matters to take a person, to try to reform him, and when he is released to make no provision for his care. There ought to be a complete system where persons will have the task of fitting such an individual into society and to stand by him with advice. We find that this Bill contains no provision for after-care. There should also be after-care for the family of the inmate of a work colony, because we do not want eventually to have from such a family people who will be precisely in the same difficulty as their parents were. When we are engaged in such a work it is uplift work we are trying to carry out, and the State should accept the responsibility for those persons committed by magistrates until eventually they are rehabilitated and can stand on their own feet and go out into the world. When I speak about after-care it signifies also after-care for the families, so that real hostels can be created where these families can be taken up. I know that such hostels would cost a great deal, but it does not help if a rehabilitated person returns to conditions which are so unfavourable that when he gets there he loses heart and stands there lost and forlorn in an environment so discouraging that he eventually falls into a mental state that renders it necessary for him to be sent back to a work colony. Clause 7 of the Bill does not go far enough. We on this side of the House would like to see the work colonies appropriately classified and to have it made compulsory that the work colonies should be of various types. We have in mind, for example, people living in the slums of the cities who constitute such a burden on society that eventually they must be compelled to go to a work colony. We do not want to place such people in contact with individuals from the platteland who have an entirely different background. Therefore it is necessary that the background of every one of these people should be properly investigated before they are sent to one work colony or the other. There is still another provision in the Bill which, in my view, ought to be improved. In the old Act it was possible to send an individual to a work colony for five years. That has now been reduced to three years. This is the punishment a person has to undergo. Instead of putting him in gaol, the State endeavours to make a better man of him, so that in the full sense of the term he may become an asset to society. No limit should be fixed. The magistrate ought to go fully into the circumstances of each person, and when a person is committed to such an institution reports could be sent from time to time to a board of control, and the board of control ought then to decide how long the person should be kept there before he is released. The State would then have the assurance that he will become a useful citizen. It may be that in the case of such a person a period of five years is too brief. Take a person of 20 years of age—say just over 19—it may be that he will come into an atmosphere that will give him a certain stimulus towards proper rehabilitation, but before he is properly rehabilitated the five years will have passed. I consider that provision ought not to be in the Bill. But now we have to deal with a very important social aspect. We must find the right people to be at the head of such institutions. At the universities we have training courses for social workers. In these institutions we have to deal with problem cases. They are the problem children of society, and we cannot simply take any official and put him in charge of a work colony. We must have a properly trained social worker in charge. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind and place at the head of the work colony a person who has had a good grounding in social work. I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). I regard Clause 13 as one of the most important in the Bill. If we accepted his suggestion then all the people who now would have to appear before the magistrate would not appear before him. We who are members of society and every day come into contact with this class of person know how deleterious is their influence in their environment, and I think it is a good thing that any person can submit a sworn statement to the public prosecutor in order to bring such a case to his notice, and then the whole matter can be thrashed out by the magistrate. I hope the Minister will not water down Clause 13 but that he will let it remain as it is. It should not be only the work of certain officials but we should so sensitise the public conscience that when one sees a person who is a menace to society one should have the right to submit sworn statements regarding the way such a person is conducting himself in society and how deleterious his influence is, and then this can be enquired into. I hope the Minister will stand by that. We on this side are glad that such a Bill has been introduced. As I have already said, we shall endeavour to propose amendments with a view to improving the Bill, and I hope the Minister will bestow attention on them.

I am very pleased to hear the last speaker suggest that their side is going to support this Bill in principle. Any objections that they might have will be dealt with in the Committee stage. The objects of this Bill are not to punish but to reclaim, to rehabilitate, and to give people another chance. I personally do not like the name of this Bill. I have not liked it since its inception but it is very difficult to find a name that will not eventually carry with it some sort of stigma. It is a great pity that that should be so. Going to a mental house carries no stigma; going to a hospital carries no stigma, and I would like the hon. Minister even at this stage to think of a more suitable name for the Bill. It will be necessary to deal very kindly but firmly with the patients that we have there at those institutions, and the success of this measure when it becomes law will depend very largely upon the personnel who are employed at the different work colonies. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) stated that this Bill contains the worst features of the present Act, and he stated that men will be sent to the work colonies via the gaol. I am afraid I cannot agree with him at all because if he reads the Bill he will find that people can be committed straight from the magistrate’s court to the work colony.

And through the gaol.

That is correct; they may also be retained in a gaol or some other suitable place for a period pending their being sent to the colony. The poor man walking in the street may get a bed in gaol for the night, but it does not mean to say that he is sent to the colony via the gaol. That is not the way to tackle this Bill. Let us tackle the Bill on the principles and let us be fair in our criticism and let us not create the wrong impression. This is a Bill which affects a very unfortunate section of our community. We want to see these people overcoming that feeling that many of them have that they are no good to themselves, that they are no good to their relatives and they are no good to their friends. In short, we want them to regain their self-respect, but there was another criticism that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) made, and it was also echoed by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire). The hon. member for Durban (Berea) said that we had not consulted any experts. The hon. member for Durban (Central) went still further and said that when it comes to the running of the work colonies we must not employ civil servants, that we must employ these experts to come and run the job for us; that they are prepared to do it. It would be a marvellous thing if we could get those experts to come and run our institution for nothing. But most of these experts have never run a work colony. They are theoretical experts. If you refer to the Select Committee’s report you will find that we got a memorandum from a large number of bodies. The Select Committee, of which I was a member, was accused of having only one witness before it. That is false, and if you will look at the report of the Select Committee you will find that Mrs. Sales, Dr. Biccardo, Mr. van der Merwe and someone else appeared before the Select Committee. There were three gentlemen and Mrs. Sales who appeared before us, and may I take this opportunity of paying tribute to Mrs. Sales. She definitely showed not only in her recommendations that she made, but in the cross-examination — the very friendly cross-examination, to which she was subjected—that she was an expert on this subject and that she had devoted her life to it. That is the type of woman who, if she could work with these work colonies, would be an asset to us. She looks upon this work as a calling and not just as a profession, and it is in that spirit that we have to tackle this problem. It has to be tackled in a spirit of love and kindliness, and the people who have to be treated there will have to be treated there as a loving father treats his children. Even if the child goes wrong the love of the parent still remains and the child is brought back. The work colonies will have to do their work in exactly the same spirit. But we are told that everybody must be set a thorough examination after he has been committed by a magistrate and before he is sent to a work colony, otherwise this Bill will be a failure. This Bill clearly lays down that if the magistrate or the Secretary for Social Welfare considers it necessary for the patient concerned to be subjected to special diagnosis that he shall be so subjected, that certain portions of the work colony or certain work colonies shall be set aside for this purpose. Take the argument which has been advanced here. The magistrate is considered by the people who are opposing this as capable of judging whether a particular patient should be sent to a work colony or not, but he is not capable of saying or even of having any doubt that this particular man should be sent along for special medical or other attention so as to be diagnosed. Surely if the magistrate is capable of judging between the one and the other he is also capable of judging that, but I feel that in as many cases as possible these people should undergo a proper diagnosis, and I am sure we shall have it. But now I want to refer to another problem. We are having at least four work colonies, one for Europeans, one for coloureds, one for Indians and one for natives. For a start you can only have a limited number of colonies available. Do those who suggest that patients must be sent to a central depot in order to be examined there, suggest that we should have four central depots, or do they suggest that all patients should be mixed up in the one depot and examined there? We have not the necessary staff today even to man our work colonies properly.

I said voluntary staff.

And therefore we cannot multiply them by four; we have not got them. We have very few people available today who will be able to say what particular treatment the patient needs. But supposing we had a central depot of this sort, and supposing we had an expert there who was capable of saying where this man should go to, and we had only four work colonies available, and the expert decided that number one was no good, that number two was no good, that number three was no good and that number four was no good. Where are we going to send the people? Are we going to send them home or are we going to send them back to gaol? Let us be practical. Let us rather have within the colonies what experts we have available to examine people in the colonies. Let us also have a system of continuous examination. It is no good having one central place where the people are examined and then to send them along somewhere else where the examiners are not controlling the treatment. It would be an ideal thing if everyone in the hospital had a ward of his own, or at all events, if a ward were made available for everyone who is sent to hospital, but practically we find that we have not sufficient wards available. It would also be ideal if everyone could have one nurse available to himself.

A very good idea.

But practically it is not workable, and practically we have to face things as they are. Idealistic things are lovely; idealist things are grand, but it is only the practical things that produce results. If we go on with that particular argument that unless we have this central depot or central depots to examine the people the work under this Bill will be a complete failure; what are we to do then? What do hon. members suggest in place of it? There is no staff now to diagnose and to do the necessary work. Are we therefore to postpone it forever? We have made tremendous improvements in this Work Colonies Bill over the Act which exists today. Everyone will admit that. An article appeared in the newspaper a couple of days ago. The hon. member for Berea referred to it. The question was asked why we do not go to those bodies which have made a study of these things. May I just read a letter dated the 21st March, 1945, addressed to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) by the South African National Council for Mental Hygiene—

The Bill was actually improved after that date. May I give the House the facts in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Berea that only one witness gave evidence, that other people and other societies and other experts offered to give evidence. The memoranda were requested by the Select Committee on the Work Colonies Bill, inter alia, from (1) the Cape Co-ordinating Council of Social Welfare Organisations, (2) the National Council of Women and (3) the South African National Council for Child Welfare. There were a number of others. We had affidavits, but here we actually requested those organisations to submit memoranda. The Cape Co-ordinating Council was requested to give evidence, but as their memorandum merely comprised points taken from a memorandum submitted by the Kraaifontein Work Colony, on which the Committee had heard expert evidence, the secretary of the council was informed that unless the council had evidence on any additional points the Select Committee did not consider it necessary to hear them on the specific points covered by their memorandum. No further memorandum was received. The Select Committee stated that they would not hear them on the specific points covered by their memorandum, those had already been covered, and we had had a great deal of evidence from Mrs. Sales and the gentlemen who supported her. When these gentlemen who appeared before the Select Committee were asked whether they had anything to say, they said: “We agree completely with Mrs. Sales.” The National Council of Women did not apply to give oral evidence in support of their memorandum. The South African National Council for Child Welfare asked to give oral evidence in support of their memorandum, if considered advisable. That was their letter, not ours. The Committee did not consider it necessary to hear their evidence. When you have memoranda as complete as those that we had you do not want everybody coming along to talk about it. You have already investigated and had considered memoranda put before you. You have had their considered views before you and you have had time to consider those views, and you have discussed them and thought about them. There are two types of unemployed people. There is the one type who is a wilfully unemployed person. There is the other type who cannot get work. With regard to the wilfully unemployed person, may I say to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) that it is better that those people be sent to the work colonies. He is mistaken when he says that they would be sent there for three years. They need not be sent there for three years. There is one important factor that I do feel I ought to mention, and that is that the life history of the inmates prior to coming in and after going out should be very thoroughly studied so that we can get down to the history of why these unfortunate people had been brought to that point where they should be sent to a work colony. To know all is to understand all, and I feel that such a thorough investigation of the person’s history, kept over a long time, may have the effect eventually of helping us to prevent others from having to be treated in the same way as we now have to treat some of the unfortunate people that we have here.

No two people are quite the same. It is going to take us a long time to find out the sort of treatment that the different people will have to be given. I am much keener on making a great success of the actual treatment in the work colonies than I am on having a central diagnosing institution which does not follow up the diagnoses with treatment to the full extent. Too much faith is often placed on diagnosing a case, and when it has been diagnosed the experience of the world so far has been that very few of the cases have been accurately diagnosed by the experts who sit and tell you of the reasons why the man is sick, but yet they cannot tell you what you are to do to cure the man. At the present time we have two work colonies. The accommodation in the one for Europeans is 150 only. In December last year there were 124 inmates there. The accommodation in the non-European one is 100. In December last year there were 86 inmates there. Now I come to a very important part, the salaries that we pay to those in charge of these two work colonies. The superintendent at the Swartfontein work colony starts at £500 and goes up to £600. The assistant-superintendent starts at £300 and goes up the £400, the salaries of the nurses not to exceed £25 per month; the stores assistant gets £270 to £330. At the institution for coloureds at Kraaifontein the superintendent gets £340 going up to £500, and the temporary overseer starts on £150 and goes up to £300. I feel that on these salaries we cannot expect to get the right type of person for our work colonies, and that we would have to spend more money on the personnel of our work colonies if we are going to get those who are really going to help and to cure and to rehabilitate our unfortunate victims who have to be sent to work colonies. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and also the hon. member for Durban (Berea) referred to the inadequate provision that is made in the Childrens Act for children whose parents, mother or father, as the case may.be, have been sent to a work colony. That deals with another Act, and I cannot discuss it here. But the payments not only in respect of the children of parents who are sent to the work colonies but in respect of all other children are too low. I do not know how this position can be rectified here because it affects another Bill altogether. But I do not see how we can discuss under this Bill only the help that should be given to those children whose parents are unfortunate enough to be placed in a work colony, leaving out those children in whose case the only trouble is that their parents are poor. This question of assistance to children should be divorced from the work colonies, and it is something which will have to be brought up in another Bill altogether. I agree that the amounts are far too low, but this is not the time or the place to try to bring about that particular alteration, which we will not be able to bring about in any case under this particular Bill.

I agree with many of the views of the last speaker, the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson). In the first instance, I should like to say a few words on the question of salaries. I do not think we will be making a mistake if we appoint the head of such a work colony at a very high salary. He must be a very able man. It is a question of training, as is explained in the Bill, and the training requires that such a person should be highly qualified. As far as staff is concerned it seems to me that this question of staff will occasion the greatest difficulty. I feel that unless we separate the various groups from each other properly under this Bill—and I shall revert to that later—the scheme is not going to be a success, and the more groups there are the larger the staff that will be required. The members of the staff will also have to receive good salaries. A point on which I also feel strongly is the question of the magistrate’s decision whether a person should be sent to a work colony. In this connection I should like to quote the view expressed in regard to the decision of the magistrate. This is a pamphlet that was issued by the South African Association for Social Services. They say in connection with the magistrate’s work—

From this it will be seen that the magistrate who acts more in accordance with the letter of the law and with not sufficient human feeling is not prepared to send such a person to an institution. Then there is still the right of appeal to a judge, which also makes for a legalistic rather than a human approach. In many cases we have instances where persons should be sent to such an institution by the magistrate, but the magistrate, acting strictly in terms of the law, is not of the opinion that the person may be sent to an institution under the criminal law. Consequently the person is not sent there; or, otherwise, the case may go to appeal and we find that the judge, also acting legally, is not of opinion that the person ought to be sent to an institution. I should also like to mention a few points in connection with this Bill which in my opinion are very important. In the first place I consider such a Bill should have been on our Statute Book a century ago. It is, I feel, a disgrace that people who are perhaps morally weak or who may perhaps have a craving for drink should not have fallen under such a law earlier. We should have had this legislation on the Statute Book long ere this. I am in agreement with the principle of the Bill, but I should like to ask the Minister why it only applies to individuals over the age of 19. What about young lads of 16? We often find very serious cases amongst lads of that age. Why exactly should they be over 19? Could there not be a separate detached colony where that type of youth could be taken up and where during the most impressionable period of his life he would have the opportunity to enter such an institution where he could be improved? Then we would be finished with him as regards the future. This is something we can consider in the future. I turn now to the question touched on by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). I can find no reference throughout this Bill to the language question as regards the managers. I would not say that the managers should all be bilingual, but there should certainly be a recognition of all languages — the Bantu languages and Afrikaans or English—of the persons who become inmates. The question of training is very important, but nowhere in the Bill is there any reference to it. If this Bill is accepted we have no assurance that an Afrikaans-speaking person, for instance, will receive his training through the medium of Afrikaans, an English-speaking person through the medium of English, and a Bantu through the medium of the Bantu tongue. We have not laid that down anywhere in the Bill, and I think the Minister ought to lay that down in a clause before we go further. It is very necessary. Take, for instance, the position in our technical schools. Today much store is laid on equality of language, a principle that was affirmed as far back as 1910, and today in the technical schools we find that one language or the other is not afforded rightful recognition. What about our air services; what about our naval services? Everywhere we have to fight for the rights of Afrikaans, and it seems to me that under this Bill also we shall have to fight for the rights of Afrikaans. Next year we shall again have to ask in how far the rights of Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking persons or of the Bantu are recognised under this Act. I come to the question of separation, a cardinal principle of this side of the House and a principle which is also strongly held on the other side. We can nowhere find that that principle is carried out with absolute consistency. Under Clause 7 there is indeed an opportunity to do this. When we come to the various colonies, the work colonies and the retreats, we find that the various groups are kept separate, but what about the institutions? What about the hostels? Is separation also recognised there? These are the points which the Minister ought to go into properly. We know that in contrast with the Dutch churches the English Church, for instance, does not always preserve separation in its institutions, and we demand there should be colour separation. When the State gives assistance in the form of subsidies, the State, as such, must insist on separation being applied I come now to the after period, to which the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) referred. I should like to make a suggestion. Coming from a work colony where a man has been kept under strong discipline, he goes suddenly out into a free and open life. Perhaps this will have a similar effect on him as a liquid released from strong pressure suddenly bursting out fiercely. Give these persons a chance first to prepare to be taken up by society. Give them, for example, self-management in the hostels gradually. The persons in the hostels ought, perhaps, to choose their own management. Let them select their own prefect or their own leader so that they will have an opportunity to carry on under a sort of regime of their own, a democratic system. I come now to a point in connection with Clause 30. It seems to me that the Bill is in a certain measure destroyed under this. Anyone who transgresses in a work colony is punished with certain penalties. If, for instance, one has done wrong, he can be returned to the gaol to serve a period there. I think something else should be substituted. The psychiatrist should rather step in to judge under what methods this individual should be treated, but he should not be returned to gaol. He has come out of the gaol for uplift. Why should he be sent back? In Clause 34 (2) various sorts of penalties are laid down. I cannot agree to the fourth, namely the lengthening of ordinary working hours by three hours a day. If one has done wrong we should not follow the principle of imposing work as a punishment. Work should be something that improves you, it should not be a punishment. I think it is a wrong principle when one has done wrong to make him work three additional hours. I should like to see that changed. Let him be fined or even be given solitary confinement, but do not let the idea take root that work is regarded as a punishment. Work is a thing every man should be proud of, and we wish to give to the idea of work and physical exertion a noble background so that the individual may feel he is thereby working out his salvation. I should like to mention these few points. Separation must be carried into effect in hostels as well. Then I have referred to language equality. In conclusion, I feel that the magistrate should perhaps be assisted by an assessor in the person of a welfare officer or parson who can determine, together with the magistrate, whether the individual should be sent to the institution. That question must be decided not alone from the legal standpoint but also from the social standpoint. Let a welfare officer who works in the neighbourhood, or a parson, or an elder, sit with the magistrate. If they then arrive at a decision it will give more satisfaction, because if a magistrate alone decides the case it will in many cases be regarded as only another punishment imposed by the magistrate.

When the hon. the Minister introduced the second reading of this Bill he stated that it would constitute a milestone in our social legislation. With that statement I agree, but I agree only if certain omissions from the Bill are attended to, so that the legislative machinery is adequate to limit any possibility of abuse. The time has arrived when the Government should not feel that its obligation is at an end when the offender has, been placed in the dock, because it is only then that real responsibility begins, because the treatment and not the punishment of the offender, his readjustment, is something that is all important. I have listened to the arguments this afternoon, and I think it would be useful to delve into penal history in order to appreciate this Bill in its true perspective. A voluntary survey of society’s attitude towards an offender against the laws of society will be useful because such historical survey will serve to emphasise the main points I desire to make. I shall deal with it in a very summary fashion, and I crave the indulgence of the House in this connection. Although it may seem a little irrelevant it is necessary to present this picture. In primitive society the punishment of an offence was based on vengeance. Following on that we had crime, and the culprit, viewed from the importance of the expiation of the offence, and then the retribution phase came into the picture, and this and the previous conception both had a very strong theological foundation. Following on these we had emphasis laid on the deterrent side, and finally we arrive at the present day, when stress is laid on rehabilitation, the reformation aspect. History reveals that the first application of reformation principles, as far as the offender is concerned, took place in 1576 at the time of Queen Elizabeth, when certain economic changes produced swarms of vagrants, many of whom were committed to institutions created from public funds and used as houses of correction. Perhaps they were the forerunners of the modern English workhouses. In 1689 hard labour was introduced, followed by transportation. In the 19th century there was a conflict of opinion. There was evident a growing tendency, inspired by a humanitarian and scientific outlook, to stress the reformation aspect. In connection with that conflict, the battle raged on the one hand between the pioneers who favoured the rehabilitation of the offenders, and those who emphasised the punitive aspect of punishment. There is in this supposedly enlightened age a growing tendency to favour the view of the humanitarians, and this is receiving scientific support in the development of psychology, which we find making progress in the 19th century, whilst in the 20th century we find further support for rehabilitative treatment by research work in the field of social medicine. The scientific approach to this matter emphasises the importance of the consideration primarily of the offender, his mental make-up, and his socio-economic circumstances, and mature consideration of this aspect, rather than the stressing of the offence. Consideration of the rehabilitation of the person in the dock is more important than his punishment, and this treatment depends upon an appreciation of his socioeconomic circumstances, his physical and his mental state; and it is this scientific approach that emphasises the importance of the Bill under consideration. This is the essential approach to the problem of penal reform, since we have accommodated in our prisons many men and women who should not have been there. They are the victims of circumstance, and it must be apparent in the light of the scientific knowledge we now possess in the fields of social medicine, psychiatry and psychology, that these people, before judgment should be given, should have had their environmental circumstances, their socio-economic conditions, their physical and their mental states examined. With such information, a work colony with adequate machinery would have been something introduced long ere this to fulfil the needs of deterrence and reformation. In connection with a rationally organised work colony, I want to stress that the crucial aspect of the Bill centres round Clause 7(2) and (3), because I maintain, and I think that this House will agree with me, that the first stage in the readjustment process is diagnosis. On accurate diagnosis hinges the treatment to be meted out to the various individuals committed, and it is important to appreciate that the individuals who are potential inmates of work colonies represent a very divergent group of personalities, and it is essential that diagnosis and classification be made prior to allocation to a work colony. I listened, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson), who stated that an observation centre had been provided for in the Bill in relation to work colonies, and he stated that only four work colonies need be created: one for Europeans, one for Asiatics, one for coloureds, and one for natives. I am satisfied that we will need more work colonies than one for each particular section of the various races if we are to have an effective revolutionary change in our approach to the problems of those who come into conflict with the laws of society. In view of this, in the long run, the principle of a central observation centre, a central clearing house, is of paramount importance to ensure that diagnosis is sound, and the basis of classification accurate. Candidates for these work colonies should be sent to properly graded institutions because of the divergent personalities each requiring a different approach and specialised treatment. In a work colony one views with a degree of alarm the case of the incorrigible. The incorrigible should be in a special work colony, or alternatively since he is not a fit subject for rehabilitation confinement to prison should be his punishment. In relation to the grading of work colonies one ought to take the incorrigible as a case emphasising the importance of having specialised work colonies. The incorrigible is antagonistic to routine and discipline, and the presence of a number of such characters in a work colony will jeopardise the readjustment process atmosphere in the colony. I have introduced this example just to show why work colonies should be graded to cater for different types of individuals. The scientific approach to this question, with the advances made in psychology, psychiatry and social medicine is of great importance. It is a revolutionary change and this Bill, if the machinery is adequate, will effect a much needed improvement in our social legislation, and we shall be setting a standard to be aimed at in future such legislation in other countries. The Government, however, can take even now quite a degree of credit for the social legislation it has already passed. Professor MacDougall, in his Social Psychology, states—

Sentence and treatment are of paramount importance, and it is only through adequate diagnosis, adequate classification and rational treatment that this Bill can fulfil its objective, the rehabilitation of the individual as a good citizen, physically and morally. It may be suggested that the cost of doing this is prohibitive, and I would point out that the cost to society, perhaps difficult to compute, is sufficient to warrant the creation of graded work colonies. It will mean, if work colonies as envisaged are put into operation, with the consequent contraction of our prison system, that we may have fewer criminals. I saw in the newspaper on Saturday last that someone computed the loss to society at £3,000,000, but I find it difficult to appreciate how that figure was arrived at. Nevertheless it does indicate that financially there is a tremendous loss to society. There is an aspect of the Bill which has been touched upon by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) and by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) which really is a feature of the Bill which fills one with alarm. This may not be so with a sympathetic Minister and a sympathetic and competent head of a department. I refer to the exclusion in the present Bill of the “right of access” to the boards of management. In addition to this, there is no reference to the creation of an independent national board of inspection. We must remember that this Bill is somewhat different from the old Work Colonies Bill of 1927. The various categories of offences is now enlarged to embrace people who are not strictly criminals and includes many who have been responsible for some minor offences against society. Such people are not held high in the esteem of the public, but we should not lose sight of the fact that they have human rights and they should be protected. It has been proved—and we have had experience of it fairly recently overseas— that such clauses, without the rights of the individual being protected, may be abused, and we must guard against the ultimate possibility of these work colonies being converted into concentration camps. I think that this protection, this human right in a democratic society should be embodied in the Bill, and the inmates should have the right of access to the board of management. A national inspecting board of independent personalities should also be provided for in the Bill. In a work colony the inmates may be isolated from urban contacts, and periodic independent inspections should be made. I maintain that the basic unit in all rehabilitating measures is not the individual but the family, and without taking cognisance of family integration it is conceivable that readjustment of the individual may be difficult or impossible on release and return to the old environment and the influence of socioeconomic pressure from without and within the family home. Character deterioration may quickly be evident, and committal to a work colony is once more necessary. The question of attention being given to the rehabilitation of the individual as an integral part of his family involves a very important principle, to which due consideration should be given. I realise that there are two ways, or possibly three, in which the rehabilitation of the individual and family may be brought about. One is by the accommodation of the whole family in the work colony. Another through the medium of institutions adjacent to the colony, with occasional leave privileges to the inmates to reside with their families. This would be an incentive to good behaviour. Again, to ensure a gradual transition in the readjustment process, before being finally released to normal life, the rehabilitation of the family as a whole could be accomplished in the hostels provided for in the Bill. It may be difficult from the administrative point of view to place the whole family in a work colony, since the primary function is to concentrate on the readjustment of the offender. No reference has so far in this debate been made upon the subject of allowances. This is very important as a readjustment measure. Allowances are payable, but only a nominal sum of half a crown per day. Psychologically, the suggestion is made that this is a penal measure. We must avoid at all costs creating the impression in the minds of the inmates that these work colonies are essentially penal institutions. Quite apart from the medical approach, the psychiatric approach and the psychological approach, “work” in relation to readjustment is a very important factor, and for work done I feel that the inmate should be paid in accordance with skill and productive capacity. In this connection the principle has already been accepted by the Government in relation to the rehabilitation of the disabled soldier. A National Board has been created for the readjustment of disabled soldiers, and these men start on a basis of 60 per cent., going up to 100 per cent. of industrial wage determination. Work and encouragement tend to increase self-respect, and I contend that this is a very important factor in the readjustment process. Money so earned will also contribute to family maintenance. After all, the readjustment process is the crux of the whole Bill. With regard to the medical aspect, I would like just to touch upon certain aspects which will serve to emphasise the importance of the scientific approach. Whilst reading a book called “Community and Crime” recently I came across certain medical conditions which were given as causes precipitating crime, such as paranoia, producing delusions of persecutions, with a tendency on the part of some people to write defamatory letters; mental, defects, the result of disease; sleeping sickness; sexual neurotics, exhibitionists, even women at the time of the change of life. There were cases on record where such women had been convicted for larceny. Fractures of the skull have been responsible for individuals being convicted in courts of law without due attention being paid to the physical condition of the accused. Sometimes even brain conditions, a lesion of the cortex of the brain may result in symptoms which produce maladjustment. These are just a few, and I mention them in order to emphasise the importance of diagnosis and treatment if the readjustment process is to be carried out adequately. There is a host of literature on the subject of neurotics and the value of psychotherapy and social medicine in the field of rehabilitation. I trust the Minister will consider sympathetically the particular criticisms I have made. The important question of diagnosis, which is in my opinion the crux of the Bill, because on it hinges sound classification and treatment. A central clearing house, perhaps not in the early stages of these work colonies, but at a later stage in the development of these work colonies. I do feel that a central clearing house for sound observation is of paramount importance. And then in our democratic state, the rights of the individual should be protected, particularly when it is realised these people are not criminals in the real sense of the term. Most are misfits in society, and have been responsible for offences against our conventional laws due to environmental, pathological and physiological causes. These people should have the right of access to the boards of management, and an independent board of inspection should be created to ensure that everything is functioning satisfactorily in the interests of the individual, and in the interests of the State in these work colonies. If the Minister takes cognisance of the points which have been raised, he will have placed on the Statute Book something of which he may be proud and a measure which will be in accord with scientific thought and humanitarian outlook.

When the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) spoke he said that he did not like the title of the Bill. I should like to associate myself with that view. As a matter of fact many of our measures designed for social purposes are under names that instead of doing good sometimes do harm. I feel that as this Bill is intended to bring about social reform and rehabilitation the name “work colonies” is inappropriate, and it may have a detrimental effect. This measure is an improvement on the Act dealing with work colonies, and it may perhaps be good to alter the name of the Bill and the name of the institutions that will fall under the law for which this measure makes provision, and to keep to the real object. I wonder whether one could not designate the institutions as “social and economic rehabilitation institutions.” As I view the Bill and the memorandum it is the primary object of the Bill to effect social and economic rehabilitation. I should like to express these views and suggestions to the Minister and his department so that they may take them into consideration. This Bill represents another step towards civilisation. We regard ourselves as a civilised people like all the civilised nations of the world. But curiously enough, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. O. L. Shearer), in many respects our civilisation still falls short. In this spirit I regard the present Bill as a definite step forward, a step in the direction of more real civilisation and improved social organisation. How many of our fellow-men, how many persons who could be good citizens have not been crushed in the past because they have not fitted into the community and they have not had the right care to enable them to adapt themselves. The result is we have the tragic position, as the hon. member has indicated, that we have a direct loss of £3,000,000 to the State on account of gaols; we have the terrific loss of energy on account of these people having been eliminated from society, on account of their having been sent to gaol, although perhaps they should not have been sent there. When we investigate all this we cannot but come to the conclusion that the State loses a tremendous lot as the result of the social diseases which shatter men morally. The £3,000,000 is only one aspect of the matter. People happen to be for the moment maladjusted to society, and it is our duty to enable them to be readjusted. In this respect the Bill may be welcomed as a very important step forward. It has been attacked on the ground that there are gaps in it. No one says it is perfect. We cannot say it is a perfect Bill. Many Bills are piloted through this House, but when it comes to enforcing them we find that improvements can still be made. We would express the hope particularly in connection with this Bill that when it is brought into effect, and when it is discovered that improvements can be made, those improvements should be introduced. I hope the present Minister of Justice and his successors will submit the necessary improvements to this House by way of amendments. You know, sir, that in connection with social reform and also in connection with economic reform we are very prone to begin in the middle. We do not begin from the bottom rung but in the middle. We have heard talk here about after-care when a person is discharged from the work colony. But a big question in my mind is to what extent is it possible to have preventive measures? We know the old English saying: Prevention is better than cure. This remains true. Pre-, cautions are necessary to prevent social evils of which we read and hear so much, and against which we must legislate. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) referred to that, but we must emphasise that the circumstances driving these people into this position, that they must be condemned to gaol or work colonies, that those conditions should have our attention and we should endeavour to eliminate them. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) praised a certain measure, namely, that an ordinary member of society if he comes across a case where he considers there is neglect of the children and of the family should bring such case to the notice of the authorities so that the magistrate can institute an enquiry. If the magistrate makes such an enquiry the opinion is that there are sufficient safeguards to keep it above all doubt that there has been proper investigation into a man’s past, into his background and environment. There is one further aspect I should like to mention. Take our young lads. Reference has been made here to young lads just over 19 who may be sent to work colonies. Take the position of our young lads in cities like Johannesburg and Cape Town. They enjoy long summer and winter vacations. They live in a house or on a small plot. There is neither room nor opportunity for them to find an outlet for their energy, with the result they spend a great deal of their time in cheap bioscopes where they see films that are passed by censors but which definitely have not a good effect on them. Those lads, when they are 19 or 20, run a great risk of arriving at the stage where they will become inmates of these work colonies. The position is that we should take the necessary preventive measures. Take also the economic aspect of the matter. Many people live under hard conditions and are discouraged by vicissitudes; they get into bad company, and in addition they are probably out of work. A man cannot look after his children unless he has employment. These preventive measures are a very important aspect. We get separate work colonies. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) is not entirely satisfied on that point. I do not think he need worry about that. The necessary provision is made for separation. Then we come to the question of private agencies. We shall have to be very vigilant in regard to them. It is risky to allow a private agency to carry on with this type of work. It is dangerous to allow them to exploit such a thing possibly for financial gain. I do not believe that in these times anyone would be so charitable as to conduct such an institution for the State without payment or reward. Provision is made for supervision but the question is whether it is going to be communal supervision and whether it will be the right sort of supervision. A very watchful eye must be kept on this aspect of the matter.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 31st January, 1946, and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 5th March.