Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was replying to the pensions aspect of the debate. The only component still awaiting a reply is that pertaining to social pensions. During the course of the debate several hon. members advocated the adjustment of the means test in connection with social pensions. Without indicating what he desired, the hon. member for Umbilo argued in favour of a relaxation of the means test. The hon. members for Fauresmith, Hercules and Albany pointed out that the ownership of a house caused problems in this sense that the municipal valuation of houses were constantly increasing and that, as a result, prospective applicants were being excluded from receiving social pensions.

I would be misleading the House if I were, at this stage and under the economic circumstances in which our country finds itself at present, to hold out any hope of an amendment of the means test. We must take cognizance of the fact, and I also referred to this earlier, that so many of the hon. members advocated more and improved services without taking into consideration that the money for that purpose would have to be found somewhere. I want to come back to the aspect to which the hon. member for Fauresmith referred, i.e. that we should try to find another way out of this difficulty. The hon. member suggested that we should try to link the evaluation of houses to the inflation rate to establish whether we cannot find a solution in that way. My department has been giving attention to this matter for a long time now. Hon. members will recall that I replied in this debate last year to a question by the hon. member for Parys. I said at the time that my department was investigating this matter. The department investigated the matter and found that there were solutions to this problem. I even want to suggest that these solutions are better than those put forward by the hon. member for Fauresmith. However, as happens in all cases of this nature, it is going to cost a great deal of money, and the question is where is that money to come from.

In his speech yesterday the hon. member for Boksburg explained the financial implications of this Vote very effectively. Pursuant to that I want to point out that in this year’s estimates an amount of R 170,715 million has been voted for White social pensioners and the other auxiliary schemes for Whites. The hon. member for Boksburg quoted figures to indicate what the total account would amount to when the other population groups were also included. I think that the amount which he mentioned was considerably in excess of R300 million.

Hon. members will therefore understand why I say that at the present stage we cannot give any consideration whatsoever to an adjustment to the means test. While I am discussing the financial aspect, there are a few things I should like to say to the hon. member for Pinelands. I do not know whether the hon. member was being wilful, or whether he is simply irresponsible. [Interjections.] Last year he made precisely the same statement which he made yesterday. He alleged that the R7 with which social pensions are being increased as from 1 October, is insufficient and is too late. I replied to him on this matter last year, and I intend doing so again. However, I want to know from the hon. member whether he, as a responsible member of this House and in view of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, sees his way clear to advocating an increase in social pensions on behalf of his voters. If so, he should also state where the money is to come from.

The hon. member for King William’s Town referred to the difference in the way of life and standards of living of the various population groups. On those grounds he argued that a certain measure of differentiation in regard to social grounds was justified. He asked for an investigation into certain abuses in regard to social pensions, more specifically abuses among the Coloured population group. Of course it is not a matter which he should raise under my Vote. But I want to point out to the hon. member that approximately four years ago the hon. the Minister of Finance did direct that investigation of this nature be carried out. Possibly the hon. member could raise this matter again with the hon. the Minister of Finance during the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. He could also raise it with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations.

The hon. member for Albany referred to what he called “pension parasites” and to certain abuses in regard to applications for old age pensions. I think the hon. member knew what he was talking about. However, I want to put it to him that my department finds itself in the position that it has to act on the strength of the information submitted to it under oath. If there are applicants who committed perjury in their applications, it would of course be an extremely difficult task for us to prove the contrary. From time to time particulars in regard to people who are drawing pensions unlawfully are brought to our attention. We investigate those cases and if necessary, take action. We are trying to solve the problem in this way.

The next point which was raised, was the inadequate subsidies which are being paid to welfare organizations. Quite a number of speakers referred to this. Last year I held a discussion with representatives of various national welfare organizations. They discussed their problems candidly with me and showed me statements. Some of them even brought along their auditors. It is indeed the case that many of the organizations are experiencing real problems in making ends meet. Some of them initiated schemes which they are not able to complete now. Others, again, have a shortfall on their current expenditure. They find that as a result of the general financial climate the public is no longer as generous as it used to be. One can understand that. I appealed to them to economize where possible without prejudicing essential services. Obviously the idea was to delay new projects and to try not to loose heart, pending improved conditions. In preparation for better conditions which we hope will arrive, the department has in the meantime made a study of the matter, and there are proposals which are ready to be made at the right psychological moment. Obviously this also implies more money, for if one wants to pay out larger subsidies it means having more money. Hon. members will understand that at this stage I will definitely not succeed with proposals of this nature.

I spoke about the shortage of money repeatedly. I said that I could agree with many of the proposals put forward by hon. members provided we had the necessary trained manpower and provided, in particular, we were able to find the financial means to do so. The hon. members opposite have now come forward with what they consider to be a magic solution, viz. a State lottery.

Hear, hear!

I find it interesting to hear all the “hear, hears”. I realize only too well that some of the hon. members who are shouting “hear, hear” so enthusiastically, have been in this House for only a short while. It is a fact that the question of a State lottery was also a hot potato in the ranks of the Opposition as well. I do not know whether the hon. members of the Opposition have already reached unanimity. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Griqualand East has been a member of this House and of the UP for long enough to know what I am referring to. He will recall that in the past a UP congress was almost unanimous in condemning a State lottery. [Interjections.] Another congress, on the other hand, approved of a State lottery.

That is untrue!

There was a national congress at Bloemfontein, and if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had not hushed up the matter, there would have been a babel of tongues, just like the one which prevails among them today.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not true that the congress rejected a State lottery, but accepted a State-controlled lottery? [Interjections.]

It is typical of the hon. member for Durban Point to crack jokes when he is in trouble and to try to evade the question with a play on words.

Do you not know the difference?

Let us forget about the standpoints which were adopted in the past. It might be that the UP is unanimous on this matter today.

I have a few notes with me on what this side of the House said in the past on the question of a State lottery and I should like to quote a few of them—in the first place I want to quote what the late Mr. Klasie Havenga said in 1930 when he was Minister of Finance.

Then he was a NP-supporter.

Yes. I am now quoting the standpoint of my side of the House. He said—

In addition I want to quote what the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr said in 1946.

Now you are on the UP side.

This is the standpoint of the UP side. He said—

[Interjections.] I also want to quote what the late Dr. Eben Dӧnges said in 1964 on the same matter. He said—

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he supports the Minister of Finance with his defence bonds?

Obviously I support him because they are not a State lottery. We are now referring to State lotteries. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister in all earnest whether he is prepared to consider the introduction of a system of welfare bonds on the same basis as the defence bonds?

One cannot get carried away now and introduce bonds for any part of the State economy. For that reason I shall definitely not support it, unless the Cabinet supports it. However, it would be interesting if the hon. member for Bryanston, who put the question to me, would ask his friend seated next to him, the hon. member for Pinelands, precisely what his standpoint on this matter is.

But let us cease these attempts to score debating points off one another. Here before me I have an extract of the Van Rooyen Report. The Van Rooyen Commission instituted an investigation into the raising of voluntary contributions from the public. In its report the Van Rooyen Commission states—

Perhaps these are the same organizations that have now initiated this attempt. The report states further—

I do know what modus operandi they did adopt—

How much the “baie” is, they do not say. After the commission had weighed up the evidence for and against a State lottery, its finding was as follows—

The report also states that a vast amount is required before one is able to make a significant contribution to a welfare or health organization.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends tabling the Van Rooyen report which he has been referring to?

I had hoped that the report would be available before the commencement of this debate, but the debate was then brought forward. I can only hope that the report will be tabled in Afrikaans before the end of the month or, in any event, before Parliament rises. The finding of the commission was that a State lottery is not a suitable form of raising funds for welfare purposes. I accept this finding and therefore adhere to the standpoint stated at the time by the late Dr. Dӧnges on behalf of the NP and the Government of the time.

Certain aspects of policy were stated during the course of the debate and many important matters were raised by various hon. members. In this regard I have in mind in particular the hon. member for Umbilo, who introduced the debate on the Opposition side. Before dealing with the hon. member’s speech I just want to remind hon. members—who referred to it in passing—that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions will be 40 years old on 1 October this year. I do not intend going into the history of the department now, but I do just wish to state that the history of the department will demonstrate conclusively that the great expectations with which it was established have been achieved in all respects over the years, and that the department has contributed its share towards helping to promote the social stability of our people. Many speakers on this side of the House—I need not mention any names—expressed appreciation in the course of the debate for specific aspects of the activities of the department and also pointed to the achievements of the department. What they said, and a great deal more which can still be said, demonstrated in my opinion the important part which the department has played, and is still playing in our society. It is fitting that we should, on this occasion, pay tribute to the founders of the department, to all who have worked in it in the past, and to those who are still working in it today in such a dedicated manner. We are fortunate that I am able to state in this House this afternoon that the Rev. Piet du Toit, the first and only Commissioner of Social Welfare under the then Department of Labour and the person who in fact paved the way for the establishment of the Department of Social Welfare, is still alive today. In addition the first Secretary to the department, Mr. G. F. C. Kuschke, is still with us today. I should like to have these two names recorded in Hansard and convey my sincere gratitude to them for what they did during a lifetime of service in the interests of the welfare of their fellowmen.

In October 1974 I stated in this House that the welfare policy of the Government was not hide-bound and that adjustment and innovation, which could be justified in the light of experience and scientific research, would and would have to take place. We have now reached a point at which we have to adjust and reshape our policy. The hon. member for Umbilo also touched upon this matter. I am convinced that if we wish to meet the challenges of our times, we shall have to shift the foundations of our welfare activities a little. Various speakers who participated in the debate, referred to this matter. In this regard I am thinking in particular of the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Somerset East and the hon. member for Brentwood who extolled our great achievements but pointed out in particular the tremendous and formidable challenges still confronting the department as far as social and welfare work was concerned. For this purpose it will be necessary to amend the National Welfare Act drastically. We have been working on this for a long time, and the reports of the Auret Committee and the Van Rooyen Commission, to which I referred a moment ago, alone will necessitate drastic amendments to the National Welfare Act. We have already made a great deal of progress with amending legislation, and we hope to publish the legislation in the Gazette for general information and comment by June, so that hopefully we can succeed next year in having the legislation considered here. Unfortunately it is a slow process, because I am obliged to consult so many organizations and bodies. In addition we also had to wait for the reports of the Van Rooyen Commission and the Auret Committee because we wanted finality on certain matters.

Arising out of the remarks made by the hon. member for Brentwood I can say that the Children’s Act is also under consideration and that we hope to come forward with an amendment to that Act as well. Whether it will also be possible to do this next year I would not be able to say at this stage. Nor would I be able to say whether we shall go as far as the hon. member had in mind. The hon. member will simply have to wait and see what we are envisaging.

The philosophy underlying our welfare endeavour is one of community orientation. Our welfare endeavour is and remains a community activity in which the community, in co-operation with the department, shares in the discussion of and plays a part in the interests of the community. The impending developments and the amendment of the National Welfare Act we have in mind is consequently aimed at increasing community involvement in the planning and provision of welfare services and giving the community a greater say in its own welfare matters. The hon. member for Umbilo referred to “community participation”, and I think he will find this over and over again in the spirit of the amendments we are going to move. In my opinion the circumstances require that the National Welfare Board should be converted into an advisory body. In its new manifestation the board will be a body which will be able to advise the Government over the entire spectrum of welfare matters. The functional actions of this body will therefore extend over all levels of the welfare of all population groups. Unlike the envisaged National Welfare Council which will not be the mouthpiece or servant of welfare organizations, but a council of experts advising the Government on matters of policy, the regional welfare boards will be utilized to support the department in determining the welfare requirements of the various regions and will lend assistance in the planning of the welfare activities of each area. The course that has been indicated is in my opinion a purposeful way in which to achieve better co-ordination and planning of our services. The whole-hearted and unselfish co-operation of all welfare organizations remains nevertheless a prerequisite for success. I do not intend deviating from what is traditional in South Africa, viz. a partnership between the Government and the private welfare bodies. Of course I expect problems to arise, but I also believe that it will be possible to overcome the problems which may be experienced along the indicated course. Since the underlying philosophy of the envisaged National Welfare Act is community orientated welfare work, it follows automatically that the right to render welfare services to a specific community is vested in the first place in that particular community. It also follows that the one population group cannot dictate to the other in this regard and that each population group ought therefore to be served by its own regional boards. Therefore provision will be made in the new Act for the implementation of the provisions, in so far as they relate to regional welfare boards, to be entrusted to various Ministers responsible for welfare services for the respective population groups. I am making this comment in conformity with the White Paper which serves as a reply to the Theron report and pursuant to the references made by the hon. members for Umbilo and Berea to the recommendation in the Theron report that all welfare services should fall under one department.

This brings me to the attacks which have been made on and the criticism which has from time to time been levelled at a departmental circular of 1966. This matter was investigated very thoroughly. We held a conference with representatives from all the regions. We invited the officers responsible for welfare services for the other population groups to attend this conference as well. We subsequently decided that it was advisable to substitute circular No. 29 of 1966 with one in which the Government’s policy on the development of welfare services in our multinational community is stated with greater clarity. The new circular will soon be sent to all welfare bodies. For the information of this House I should like to quote paragraphs 2 to 8 of this circular. It reads as follows—

This policy therefore creates ample opportunity for mutual liaison among the various population groups in all cases where liaison is essential or beneficial and it encourages self-development in a practical way.

It is a recognized and accepted fact that the welfare of every community is best served and promoted by its own people. Experience has shown time and again that there can be little possibility of progress being made as long as the one group remains an appendage of another. Welfare work has to be community orientated if it wishes to succeed, and the philosophy underlying the policy of the Government is consequently that the specific community itself should as far as possible undertake and maintain the welfare of that community. The same policy and philosophy also apply in the case of the White population group, where expression is given to the idea of community orientated welfare work even within separate communities of the same group. I am therefore appealing to White welfare organizations to lend their active support to the independent development of welfare organizations for the other population groups and to support them in this by word and deed. The channels for meaningful communication are, after all, open to all groups, and there is no good reason why the White community should deprive the other population groups of the right and privilege to establish and administer their own organizations, as the Whites claim for themselves the right to do.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to amend the Act so that existing welfare organizations may include non-Whites on their boards in order to provide the necessary guidance?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member understands Afrikaans very well. I therefore assume that he was not listening to what I have said. The only advice I can give him is that he should read what I have said. Then he will find the answer to his question.

There remains only a few other matters to which I have to reply. There were representations to the effect that we should establish more old-age homes. It was alleged that there are tremendously long waiting-lists, and that this demonstrates the need for more old-age homes. A departmental investigation into this matter proved the contrary to what was urged here by certain hon. members. For example the investigation showed that most of the waiting lists at old-age homes were obsolete, in this sense that many of the names occurring on those lists, were the names of persons who were long since deceased. Other names occurring on those lists, were those of persons who had been accommodated elsewhere. In the third place there were names of people who were no longer interested in being accommodated in old-age homes owing to a change in their personal circumstances. The question of whether there should be more old-age homes, and also the question of where they should be situated, are matters which will, in accordance with the new legislation, in future be considered by the regional welfare boards, in co-operation with the department. I therefore wish to give the assurance that the necessary attention will be given to this matter.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the amounts occurring in the estimates for service centres and for clubs for elderly persons. I just want to tell him that the amounts which occur in this regard in the estimates are not for capital expenditure, but are in fact determined with regard to the service centres which already exist or which will be completed in the present financial year. In other words, we are not making money available where there is no demand for them. In the case of clubs for elderly persons the amount has been reduced because the actual expenditure during the previous year was taken into account. If the hon. member wishes to accept the good advice which he received yesterday evening from my hon. colleagues, he will try to activate the club to which he referred. If they render more services they will perhaps generate a greater need and require more money for such services next year.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp referred to the wonderful challenges which exist for such a service centre. If we had listened to that hon. member we would have a criterion with which to measure any service centre in any area. If we could activate all the service centres to be as active as the hon. member for Krugersdorp asserts the local service centre in that area is, I think we would be doing a great deal for our elderly people.

The hon. member for Berea referred to the problem of begging on the streets. As far as my department can establish it is not a major problem among the Whites. It is a problem which occurs among some non-White population groups. However, I do not think that it is the function of my department to pick up all those beggars off the streets and offer them the services we are able to offer. I think the services my department offers to Whites are well-known. We have the potential to help those people, and if they wish to make use of those services, they will receive the necessary assistance. The hon. member also referred to alcoholism. I do not know whether his figures are correct, but it is clear that alcoholism is increasing. It is true that it is increasing, but whether it is increasing to a great and alarming extent is difficult to determine because there are no data available in this regard. The hon. member measures it against the increasing number of cases which are being admitted for rehabilitation to the rehabilitation centres for Whites. I do not think that is a criterion. Any service which is a good one, advertises itself. We are now able to identify alcoholism at a reasonably early stage. In addition people are coming to us for assistance, and for that reason the number of people admitted will obviously increase. However I am in full agreement with him that the problem of alcoholism is a serious one and that we should not play around with it, just as the drug problem is also a serious one, although steps to counteract it fall under the jurisdiction of another department.

As far as my notes are concerned, all that remains is the reference by the hon. member for Umbilo to probation services. There is a shortage of trained manpower as well as a shortage of money. This is a major problem. My department, without obtaining additional money, has expanded its services in this respect. We are also entirely aware of the recommendation made by the Viljoen Commission in this regard, and we hope to expand our services in this respect as well when better days arrive. I conclude by saying …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? We have heard the hon. the Minister’s reply to my request yesterday. He is personally not in favour of a State lottery. May I ask him as he is the only person whom our senior citizens can approach, if he is willing to direct that the petition be sent to the Select Committee on Pensions?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that anything of that nature lies within my power. It is a matter relating to the rules and procedure of this House. It is not for me to say what should be done with it. As far as that matter is concerned, I therefore propose that he address his request to Mr. Speaker.

I conclude by saying that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has a lot to be grateful for, because during the past year, as hon. members on both sides of this House testified, a great deal was done in the interests of our society. However it is also very clear that it is still facing tremendous challenges, that its work is not diminishing and that it therefore has a need for more trained people, as well as a great need for money. I hope that in better times we shall be able, even if it is only in part, to meet these great needs.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we today reach the final stages of what has been a very lengthy and detailed debate, a debate in which I might say we have had a fair number of red herrings trailed across the course and the path of this particular Bill. Today we have to examine the effect and the consequences which will follow the adoption of this Bill. Although I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister delivering his Second Reading speeches, I was prevented from being here for the Committee Stage. I, nevertheless, want to assure the hon. the Minister that my search for adequate motivation for this measure continued unabated in spite of my not being here. I inflicted upon myself the necessity of reading his Hansard with great care and great diligence. I did so very carefully, because I wanted to endeavour to find the answers to two fundamental questions, questions that must be answered before this House can approve this Bill at Third Reading. The first question is one about the need for and the desirability of this measure. The second question is that of what will be achieved by this measure, and of what is the justification to abandon one of the basic principles of the maintenance of law and order in any civilized country, namely that no person should take the law into his own hands.

Access to the courts where personal property is being affected, is a fundamental and—in the words of the hon. the Minister—sacred right. We must seek the justification for action which affects a person or his property. Such action should be based upon, and be limited by, the laws of the country. Where those laws are transgressed, the courts should determine the dispute. Unfortunately, in his lengthy addresses to this House, both at Second Reading and during the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister has not provided acceptable answers to those two questions.

Listening to him, I was reminded of past years and of the exchanges between the hon. the Minister—when he sat on these benches—and the then Leader of the House, Mr. Ben Schoeman. Those exchanges were sometimes cordial, sometimes a little acrimonious. However, they were always at least entertaining to listen to. I, as many others, who appreciated—and those who still appreciate—those exchanges agree with Mr. Ben Schoeman when he said that the hon. the Minister was a most competent debater. Mr. Schoeman was also of the opinion that everything the hon. the Minister sees, he sees through party political spectacles. This remains true, and it is even more apparent when the hon. the Minister presents this legislation, not looking through the clear lenses, the far-vision lenses which he used to wear on this side of the House, but when he looks at the problem through the smoky and blinkered lenses of the spectacles which, metaphorically, he wears at the present time. Whilst in the past I disagreed with Mr. Ben Schoeman on another observation, I now find myself being driven to agree with what he said, especially in the hon. the Minister’s attempt to motivate this legislation. When Mr. Schoeman said that the difficulty with the hon. the Minister—the hon. member in those days—was that his tongue runs away with him completely and that he then does not know what he is saying, I find myself in full agreement with Mr. Schoeman. I say that deliberately and courteously to my friend, the hon. the Minister, through you, Sir. I want to explain why I say it. It arises when one examines the arguments of the hon. the Minister. What did he say? He said—

The difficulties of serving notices have been with us as long as court procedures have been with us. It is as old as court procedure itself, and it is no excuse for non-compliance with the law. The hon. the Minister should be aware—his advisers should have told him—of the simple procedure which is adopted where a property is affected and the notice cannot be served. The notice can be nailed upon the property as a method of service as far as the occupant is concerned. If only that was done, if the hon. the Minister pursued that course, it would have been proof of his professed sympathy with the plight of squatters. That sort of notice would prevent allegations of the sort which appeared yesterday in the Press. I do not know whether they are true or false. I am not prepared to argue that aspect. There are allegations of cash losses sustained when a demolition took place and that the squatter did not know that the demolition was to take place. If a notice had been pinned and nailed to that hut it would have been the squatter’s own responsibility if there had been losses when the demolition subsequently took place. Secondly the hon. the Minister said that notice was not necessary because notice is not given, for instance, to a murderer to enable him to escape. The hon. the Minister then went on graphically to describe his right, if there should be an intruder in his house at night, to throw him out with the amount of force that is necessary to achieve that end. The hon. the Minister is quite right. The law authorizes the protection of one’s home. It authorizes law enforcement in the manner which the hon. the Minister stated in the circumstances outlined by him. However, the law also stipulates what must be done when there is a trespasser, as in the case of a person who squats upon another person’s property. He can be speedily taken to court if there was no negligence, lack of supervision and no connivance on the part of the owner of the property permitting the squatting to take place. That squatter is regarded as a trespasser and can be prosecuted and punished for a crime. His removal can be effected by the law enforcement branch of the Government, i.e. the police. The hon. the Minister’s difficulty arises, as it would, with an owner who permits a squatter to establish himself. Whereas a trespasser who moves onto one’s property can be speedily removed and dealt with immediately, in the case of lack of proper supervision, where supervision is not exercised either by the State or by an individual over his property and a settlement of squatters or a squatter is thereby permitted, difficulty arises. I agree that a difficulty then arises. As the hon. the Minister correctly said—

The fact that there can be implied consent is contained in the Bill itself. It provides that where a squatter occupies an unauthorized structure, he is deemed to be there with the consent of the owner in a prosecution against the owner. However, we have sufficient laws to deal with that type of offender from the strictly legal approach. The hon. the Minister is also correct when he says the squatters are sui generis. However, the wider problem—and here one looks at what this Bill is going to achieve—lies in why they are there and where they must go. It involves the wider social and economic factors of a problem, of a phenomenon which is world-wide. The hon. the Minister made certain remarks about his so-called concession to give notice, a concession which is now being withdrawn. I find it very difficult to believe that the hon. the Minister was in fact thinking clearly about what he was saying when he made this statement. What did he say? He said—

A heinous offence was committed because they went to court. The hon. the Minister then made a further statement which, on reflection, I hope he will withdraw or at least clarify his intentions. He said—

Those who went to court in regard to the proceedings which have led up to this legislation, went there because the State in the one instance and a local authority in the other instance, had acted illegally in not complying with the law. There was a judgment of the court on that. Is that “om die Staat in die verleentheid te stel”? All that has happened, is that an individual went to court and had accepted that he was correct in going to court because the State itself had acted illegally. I believe that the hon. the Minister really owes this House an explanation of what he has said and why he has said it. Does he believe that the Government can do no wrong and when it transgresses the law, the person affected should not go to court because “hy sal die Staat in die verleentheid stel”? These are specious arguments even when embellished by the fluency of the hon. the Minister. This Bill makes no contribution to solving the squatter problem. It is for this reason that I move—

I want to deal with the motivation of this side of the House in moving this amendment. In an attempt to escape the realities of the squatter problem, the hon. the Minister had much to say about side-issues, like squatting in Wynberg, in Constantia and on Green Point Common. Throughout the debate he has been directing his remarks entirely to the problem relating to Coloured people. The hon. the Minister is quite correct in saying—I think I mentioned it myself in the Second Reading debate—that at least 1 100 families have been rehoused. This is an achievement, an achievement which the local authorities, the Cape Town city council, the Cape divisional council and the hon. the Minister’s own department, who provided the funds and the initiative, are to be thanked and complimented. However, with the silence of his colleagues in the Cabinet, the hon. the Ministers responsible for the various Bantu portfolios, the main and basic problems of the squatter problem in South Africa have not been aired and have not been faced. It is no good speaking openly and bravely about blaming subversive organizations and it is no good expressing sympathy. The hon. the Minister made another statement in which, if he reads it in his Hansard, he will find that he has contradicted himself. He said—that only in very rare instances squatters could not afford even sub-economic rents. That is not borne out by surveys which have been done. However, what did the hon. the Minister say when he expounded and expanded on his new concept of “kemhuise”? He said—

The hon. the Minister recognizes it. Why does he then say that there are very few of these people? He is going to build thousands of these houses during the next few years, and if he does not, he will never solve the problem. In regard to these “kemhuise” the hon. the Minister is getting down to the basics, because he has accepted the fact that it is simply not possible to build sufficient numbers of conventional housing units to prevent squatting by Coloured people.

What about the Blacks? In the Cape Peninsula, in Natal and all over the Republic, the Black squatters are going to be affected by this legislation. Where are they to go when their huts are demolished without notice? What are the causes of their squatting? Are these causes being tackled? These questions remain unanswered despite supplications from this side of the House for one of the quartet of Bantu Affairs Ministers to tell us something about this in relation to these measures. The housing of Coloureds of all categories is receiving attention; remarkable progress has been made and we have acknowledged it over and over again from this side of the House. But what about the Blacks? It is in the main against them that the provisions of this Bill are going to be used, because they comprise the majority of squatters in uncontrolled camps, especially at Modderdam Road. The hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think 80% of the squatters at Modderdam Road are Black. Of that 80%, 71% of the male heads of the family, are legally in the Cape Peninsula. Of that 71%, 10% have moved to Modderdam Road from other squatter camps. 61% of those who are here legally, are contract workers. Why do they squat? The answer is to be found in the results of the survey that was made. The survey further indicates that of the women who are living in these squatter camps at Modderdam Road with their husbands, 24,2% are legally and permanently in the Peninsula. 28% of them are legally temporary visitors coming to visit their husbands in the Peninsula. They are not here in any clandestine way; they have come here legally as temporary visitors. 47% of these women are illegally, but semi-permanent in the Peninsula. These are the facts. The Black contract workers have only bachelor accommodation provided for them, and 52,2% of the women are legally, whether permanently or temporary, in the Peninsula.

It drives one to the irrebuttable conclusion that the major cause of Black squatting, the major motivation for Black squatting, is to establish family life with the male and the female members of the family. The hon. the Minister is unfortunately not paying heed to the questions which we posed to him. He is piloting the measure through the House and he knows that in Modderdam Road the legislation will affect 80% of the squatters, the Blacks towards whom he has no responsibility for providing housing, except through the funds provided by the National Housing Commission. It is a matter which is the responsibility of the Department of Bantu Affairs. In the absence of answers from his colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his deputies, the hon. the Minister himself must answer these questions and tell the House and the country whether it is Government policy that contract workers are to be accommodated only in single quarters here in the Peninsula or wherever they go on contract and that no provision is made for their wives and their children who, perfectly legally and according to the law, come to visit them in the Cape? No provision is made for them where they can reside with their wives and no provision is made for the housing of their wives during the short term which they are permitted to visit their husbands in the big areas. If the answer to that is in the negative, let this House, in heaven’s name, be informed on what is being planned to house these people. What is in the pipeline?

The hon. the Minister has become effusive about what is being done in his department. We welcome it. But what is in the pipeline for Black housing? If the answers are that the status quo is to be maintained, i.e. single quarters and no family accommodation for contract workers, what is to be done with the 25%—I put it as low as that—of the squatter families that are in Modderdam where both husband and wife are Black people, and are entitled to stay in the peninsula? What is being done? For them there is no housing. I appreciate the enormity of the task, and there is nobody in this House who does not appreciate the enormity of the task. However, what are the Government’s intentions? Are these Blacks going to be permitted to house themselves and be assisted to do so—in other words, getting involved in building their own homes as is being done in various parts of the world? Are employers now to be permitted to build houses for Black employees so that they can live with their wives and families in one of the Bantu townships or in an area set aside for Bantu residents? Can this be done by a White employer, as has been done effectively in various parts, as the hon. the Minister knows? I refer in passing in this regard to the Cape Chamber of Commerce scheme. Is that going to be permitted for Blacks? If not, what is to be done with 25% of the squatters at Modderdam Road who are entitled to stay in the Cape? Black housing is in a very serious state. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs is giving this his attention as far as the major centres are concerned. But only 400 new homes were built in Soweto last year, which is barely enough to make provision for the natural population increase alone. In 1976 thousands of Black squatters were squatting here because of the necessity to find a home and a residence for their families. Of all the persons on the waiting lists for accommodation during 1976 only 32 were able to be accommodated at Langa, 31 families at Nyanga and 107 families at Guguletu. This amounts to a miserable grand total of 170 families.

The hon. the Minister himself should hang his head in shame for his colleagues when one realizes what he has been able to do for the Coloureds in collaboration with the local authorities. How is this problem to be tackled for the Black people? Perhaps in this late stage of the debate the veil may be lifted slightly, because the question is relevant and germane. The problem, as I say, is not one which is in this hon. the Minister’s lap. It is in the lap of the Government. As far as the Peninsula is concerned it cannot be avoided. Let me assure the hon. the Minister, with all the trappings, such as that this is a Coloured preference area, these Black people are here and they are authorized to be here because they are needed in the Cape. They are needed in the Peninsula in spite of all the preference. However, they have to squat in order that they may live in a normal way with their wives and families. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned—the hon. the Minister is aware of this—we have supported every measure that has been taken to advance Coloured housing. It has been done by the local authorities and he has our backing for that. The same backing is available for the department concerned to tackle the housing of the Black people. The hon. the Minister and the Government can be assured of that. The local authorities, commerce and industry and the industrialists will play their part in that. Nothing is being done, however, and to introduce a measure of this sort is merely aggravating the position and certainly not helping to bring about a solution. It is for that reason that I have moved my amendment.

The hon. member for Green Point gave a very thorough, comprehensive reply to the debates which we have had on this Bill so far. We in these benches shall support the amendment which he moved. It is true that the hon. the Minister has amused us with his ingenuity, his witticisms and his oratorical stunts in the debate so far, as well as during the Second Reading, but he has not succeeded in convincing us. The naked truth of this Bill is that it denies the squatters access to our courts. This is what it basically boils down to. Secondly, the hon. the Minister has not convinced us that there is alternative housing available for these people in the immediate future. Here I mean the people who are squatting and not the immediate freezing which took place under the measure of 14 November 1974. The squatters’ camp at Modderdam is an example of this.

It is pointless for the hon. the Minister to sketch spectacular building programmes. We naturally support them but, as the hon. member for Green Point indicated, these building programmes are chiefly applicable to Coloured housing. In fact they have nothing to do with Bantu squatters here in the Western Cape. We are faced with a real problem. Hon. members on the other side of the House may argue that these people must simply go back, but attempts have already been made to send them back, and they always return here. Furthermore, as the hon. member for Green Point indicated, many of those people are here legally.

After the personal conversation which I had with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, I may say that I noticed a more sympathetic attitude on his part than that amongst the members on that side of the House. He is aware of what a sticky problem it is and how the problem should be faced. The idea of core housing is now being accepted and supported, and we support it too. The fact remains that 70% of the people at Modderdam Road who are living there legally as labourers, have wives who live with them, and more than 70% of those wives are not living there legally. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he has no objection in principle to these people living together, so that those families can be together, because a man who lives with his family is a more stable person than one who does contract labour without his family. This is the simple reason.

Throughout the debates so far, during the Second Reading as well as the Committee Stage, it has been very clear to me that hon. members on that side of the House who spoke on the squatter problem, did not really understand the extent of the problem and nature of the people who squat. The attitude was that they are parasites and criminals. The hon. the Minister referred to them repeatedly as criminals. The hon. member for False Bay says that they are parasites. Other people said that they are lawbreakers and that they should have no more privileges than murderers. This was the attitude throughout. However, there is much factual, objective information available to indicate what these people are, who they are, how they are trying to organize themselves as a community, the nature of employment amongst them and how they try to create elementary community services for themselves as a community, for example education, schools, care of children, etc. All these things are passed over and they are seen as mere criminals.

Furthermore, the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that one of the most important reasons why this Bill is necessary, is that there are supposedly powers and forces at work to incite these so-called criminals and teach them how to use the few rights which they had under the existing legislation. Nevertheless the hon. the Minister has not yet told us or given us any indication as to who these powers or forces are.

Order! I am allowing a relatively large degree of latitude in the discussion of the alternative, i.e. housing, as well as reasonable references to the problem as such, but I will not allow the “forces and powers” to be discussed now.

I respect your decision, Mr. Speaker. I have put information at the disposal of the hon. the Minister which indicates where these people obtained money.

If we look at the question of the housing of these people, we see that a great deal of concern has arisen amongst the public of Cape Town about the fate of those people, where they are to obtain accommodation and the nature of the shelter which they need. For instance, a fund with the name of Shelter has been established. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he considers this to be a good fund.

You must have read my interview with The Cape Times.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is members of the public who are concerned about these people whom the hon. the Minister regards as criminals and lawbreakers. What are they going to do with that fund? They are surely going to try to alleviate the lot of those people because there is no alternative accommodation. I should like to have a clear standpoint from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

There is just one more point which I want to make. In his introductory Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred specifically to the fact that one of the reasons why right of notice is being withdrawn, had to do with court cases. After that the hon. the Minister said that this was not the most important reason. I should like to have clarity on this. In his introductory Second Reading speech he said quite clearly that due to court cases that had taken place, the privilege which was contained in the original Act was being withdrawn in terms of clause 1 of the Bill. The question which I addressed to the Minister during the Committee Stage, has not yet been answered. If it was a concession or a right which these people had, why is it being taken away? The only answer which the hon. the Minister has given thus far is that it is being taken away because the squatters made use of that concession. I cannot understand that type of logic.

I do not have much more to say. I just want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Green Point said and point out that I think that this Bill is not going to make any sort of contribution towards solving the problem of squatting in the Western Cape in particular, but elsewhere too, and that it does not even pay any attention whatsoever to the real problem attached to squatting, namely the problem of the Bantu in the Peninsula. We shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I want to refer to the hon. member for Green Point. He has a fantastic method of stating an incorrect statement so wrongly that it seems as if it could be correct.

Please explain!

That is why people make use of lawyers, and pay them. However, we are dealing with lawbreakers here. I want the hon. member for Rondebosch to listen now. I think that the hon. member for Rondebosch quite incorrectly made the hon. the Minister out to be someone who considers these people murderers and criminals. That is what he is accusing this side of the House of.

Those are the hon. the Minister’s own words.

Firstly, the squatters are indeed offenders. The hon. member has not yet been in the position in which I and many other hon. members of the House have been, namely that 200, 300 or 400 families move onto one’s land and pull out and throw away every stake which the surveyor has planted. It costs R67 to have a stake planted, in order to mark out a corner. The squatters pull those stakes out and there is no way of getting rid of the squatters. The hon. member also said that he was not at all interested in what the hon. the Minister says about what is being done in connection with housing. He is not interested in housing for the squatters. Then what is he interested in? What is he interested in if he is not interested in the fact that R112 million has been voted for housing alone this year? The hon. member must not throw up his hands and act as if he is Moses himself in the desert. He alleges that we do not understand the problem of the squatters at all. We are simply dealing with the matter in a petulant way and we are also the first to act so mercilessly, according to that hon. member. The hon. member for Rondebosch comes from the Northern Transvaal and there are no squatters there. There are no squatters in Nelspruit and those places. But he should go and take a look at Natal. The hon. member will forgive me if I do not refer to him and just say what Natal did. Natal passed a law in 1936—No. 33 of 1936. I should like to quote from the report in that regard—

†Not “group areas”, they were referred to as “added areas” then. I quote further—

What Act is that?

The hon. member must be quiet for a moment.

You say it is an Act?

It is an Act for preventing squatters from spreading further. Natal had so much success with that Act between 1936 and 1940 that they virtually solved one of the greatest problems. There is a parallel between that Act and this legislation because it has one purpose, viz. to prevent squatting. However, there is one difference, because we provide housing to people who are there illegally, at a cost which no other country has yet incurred in accommodating squatters. There are prophets of doom on that side of the House and all that we get from them is ingratitude. Not from the Coloureds, thank goodness, but from that side of the House. I thought today that if I were an official sitting in those benches, and had to face those reproaches and references to the people who have to provide the housing, then I would pack up and go, because there not the slightest gratitude is shown. Hon. members on that side of the House act as if the squatters are last week’s problem. This legislation is going to prevent squatters moving in rapidly and establishing themselves. I want to put the following to the hon. member for Green Point: If I take the keys of his car today, drive it away, park it on my property and do not allow him to take the car away, the hon. member has to apply to the court to get his own car back. Am I right?

That is the law.

The hon. member says that one will have to go to court. But would the hon. member accept such a situation?

That is the legal process.

That is the law. Suppose we on this side of the House take the keys to the cars of all the hon. members on that side of the House and drive them away. Every one of you would have to go to court in order to get your cars back. This is a parallel to this legislation. Someone arrogates to himself the right to occupy my land, build a house on it and live there, but I cannot do anything about it.

You have a flat wheel.

I know all the stories about “the wheel is flat”, but the hon. members’ arguments are flat, hopelessly flat. Let us look at what the world says about slums and the problems of this type of squatting—

Do hon. members know what this means? The seed of death is already present in a squatter community. Furthermore, I should like to refer to a report which appeared in The Cape Times many years ago. In 1926 The Cape Times wrote—

Hon. members can take this statement by The Cape Times for what it is worth.

The Cape Times did not say that you should demolish those people’s houses! [Interjections.]

Just listen to that! The hon. member for Bryanston must please learn that we are not keen on listening to him all the time. We can put up with him now and again. However, he must not keep on interrupting. [Interjections.]

Whenever legislation rectifies something, I consider it my duty to support that legislation. If legislation is passed with a view to improving a situation, it is possible that this legislation may sometimes appear difficult and inaccessible. I think that the hon. the Minister has shown much more patience in this matter than one can reasonably expect from any fair person. He has showed an accommodating spirit towards the squatters as far as possible. In spite of this, he and the Government are being accused of all sorts of things. According to a certain newspaper report, some of the possessions of those squatters have possibly disappeared. The accusation is being made that some of the possessions of those squatters—possessions which were lying around everywhere—could have disappeared.

However, let us take a look at what the Slum Act, or rather the Slums Act says. In a moment it will be said that I am speaking indistinctly. The Slum Act says the following, inter alia; a local management may cause to be sold by public auction any material obtained from a “slum” building which it has demolished or altered, and may recover from the owner any shortfall in the amount required to cover costs, together with 6% interest per annum. Any credit balance is payable to the mortgagees in order of preference and the balance, if any, accrues to the owner. When social workers are trained, they are subjected to certain rules. One of the first tasks they are given is to prevent slums developing and to restrict squatting. Squatting is one of the greatest evils in our civilization. It is something which should be eradicated at once. However, it is not going to help to take one man by the hand and try to improve him. His living conditions must be improved. One must not try to work on one individual in a community and prescribe to him what he should do. What is necessary is that we improve the community, improve the place in which that community lives. Any community needs decent housing. However, this is a matter which the hon. Opposition are very little concerned about.

I really expected a greater degree of responsibility from the UP. I expect the UP to form a better understanding of this problem than the PRP. Over the past years the PRP has indicated clearly that they are not at all interested in the squatter and his fate. They have shown that they are not interested in the problems concerning the accommodation of Black people. The only thing they are interested in, is the labour which the Blacks can provide them with. I do not think I am far off the mark in making this allegation.

Now you are talking rubbish!

The hon. member for Parktown knows that if one goes into the statement of their whole policy—which I do not want to do today—what it boils down to is that cheap labour must be created for the wealthy at South Africa’s expense. This is the principle on which it is based.

I want to return to the Bill. If one takes a look at the history of squatting and at a place like Natal in particular, one sees that Natal took correct and strict action with its legislation—ordinances of local authorities or ordinary municipal housing laws. In many respects Natal succeeded in improving matters with limited means, although there was not an improvement in all the towns. Where are the slums in Paarl today? There are no more. Are there squatters in Paarl? No, there is not one.

They are all here.

There we have it. They are all in Cape Town. In other words, Paarl is not given any recognition for having taken successful action against the squatters.

Without this Act.

There are horses for courses! Greater Cape Town has five or six different municipalities and in a case like this we definitely cannot allow one municipality to say, for example, that they are not going to concern themselves overmuch with squatters, while the next municipality says that this is a priority. If the one municipality has a squatter removed, he will simply move to the other municipality. That is why this Bill is necessary. The clearance in Paarl was successful because only one municipality is involved.

We are not going to say very much more about the matter. I think that this side of the House is content that this legislation will be set in operation, to protect the children in the squatter camps in particular, and to see to it that the squatter’s child does not become a permanent squatter. By means of the legislation we want to see to it that the squatters are given sound accommodation and that more and more people do not move into the squatter camps. We must take a look at this. We are 4 million Whites in South Africa and we are subsidizing 25 million Coloureds and Blacks from morning to night. We shall have to find a balance at some stage and decide what deserves priority. At this moment the housing of Coloureds enjoys the highest priority. The Coloureds have not been given the necessary housing for many years. If I had to read The Cape Times and other sources from 1926 to hon. members, they would realize that this is not a problem which we created. It is a problem which has occurred over the years.

That is why I say that we must not reproach one another. We may not reproach one another about small things when we want to solve a big problem. We must not point a finger at one another. The law does not wrong anyone. The legislation merely sees to it that I am entitled to exercise my right and title on my land and the legislation does not allow anyone to disregard that title. An outsider can make me a criminal today by causing unhygienic conditions to occur on my land. Then I can be taken to court by the municipality or the divisional council and it may be decided that a problem may arise in my area which could, for example, cause the whole of Cape Town to contract enteritis. I can be charged without really being the offender.

This side of the House feels that the matter has been discussed quite satisfactorily and we are not going to participate any longer, except to say that we welcome and support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall refer to the attitude of the PRP to this matter, but I want to start by talking about the attitude of my friend, the hon. member for Green Point. I cannot understand his attitude. He says that there are two fundamental questions the hon. the Minister has to answer. He says firstly that the hon. the Minister has to prove the need and desirability of the Bill. The hon. member and I both come from the Peninsula. He is aware of the problem we have at Crossroads, Vrygrond and in the rest of the Peninsula. I would have thought that this Bill was a logical consequence of the problems we have, for example, in the Peninsula.

He is wearing blinkers.

He makes a second point. He says that no person should take the law into his own hands. That is an extraordinary statement, because the person who takes the law into his own hands, is the man who goes to squat on another man’s property. He is squatting unlawfully on a lawfully held property. What about the owner’s rights? The hon. member seems to go overboard these days when it comes to a question such as this. He says that the owner is to blame for letting the squatters establish themselves on his own property. He asks why they are there and where they should go. All his sympathies are with the squatters. There is no sympathy whatsoever for the lawful owner of the property. I shall refer to some of these matters in the course of what I am going to say.

I think it is appropriate for me to say at this stage roughly why we on these benches feel that we should support this Bill. The changes result from a problem which has become very serious and which is ever-recurring. It is a problem with a long history. It is not confined to South Africa, but is in fact a world-wide phenomenon. Here in South Africa the 1951 Act, which we are amending today, flowed from War Measure No. 31 of 1944. That measure was introduced as a result of an emergency situation, of conditions arising from the conduct of the war and, I suppose, of the requirements of industry in that Black and Coloured people came from the country areas to the urban areas to keep the wheels of industry turning. The Black people streamed to the cities and the squatting problem became acute. As a result of the appalling conditions that arose, it was necessary to take firm and emergency measures. Hence the War Measure.

The War Measure, which was passed by a UP Government, provided that a magistrate could act against the squatters on the strength of affidavits placed before him. The 1951 Act embodied the provisions of the War Measure. Dr. Gluckman, on behalf of the UP Opposition, accepted the Bill. Even the Labour Party supported it at that time. The difference between the 1951 Bill and the War Measure was, as far as I can remember, that seven days’ notice had to be given, followed by a court order. Just as circumstances have changed, and have arisen, which require the Act to be changed, so it seems to me that circumstances have also arisen and have changed which require the UP to change their attitude to this Bill. It now has to join the PRP in opposing this Bill in the strongest way possible in a democracy, namely to move: “This day six months.”

The PRP attitude is extraordinary. Its attitude in Parliament is one thing, but its attitude in practice is very often another. In Parliament they use terms like “Draconian measure”, or “jackboot Bill” and other similar phrases with which we are so familiar whenever any measures of a contentious nature are introduced in Parliament. They profess sympathy with the squatter community and some of them even go so far as to say that the squatters enjoy a special community life of their own and that if they like living like that, why should they not? After all, they say, they have certain rights as individuals; why should there be any interference from the State? They even urge—this they do most frequently—that squatter camps should be provided with services, because the services required are those required by any existing community.

Let us look for a moment at the practice. I want to refer to a large development in my particular constituency, i.e. a marina which was to be the biggest marina of its kind in South Africa. This R100 million project is a development undertaken by a property company which is a subsidiary of the property company of the Anglo American Corporation. I am not as familiar with the subsidiaries, the companies and the inter-company arrangements of Anglo American as my friend, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, but if one is able to believe news reports, it would appear that the Marina da Gama is a subsidiary of Amaprop. Let me explain for one minute what this development is like and then I will show how the PRP, in practice, has a different attitude towards squatting …

Order! Has that got very much to do with the Bill?

Well, Sir, it illustrates the attitude of the PRP in Parliament and the attitude of the Progressives with their double standards in practice.

As far as I can see, that is not under discussion at the moment.

If I am unable to discuss that, let me refer to the attitude of leading Progressives to the squatting problem, and this relates to this particular marina. In this particular case this large-scale development was being impeded by the presence of squatters across a double-lane highway from where the development is taking place. The managing director of the company, whose chairman is the hon. member for Johannesburg North, wrote a letter to the city council in which he said that the provision of basic services for squatters in the squatter area made it difficult to convince the buyers in his area which he was developing that squatters were there on a temporary basis only. Then he said that his board of directors requested the following assurances from the city council—

That is the area adjacent to the development area—

That is 1977. He wants it to be done in the middle of the year during the biting cold Cape winter. Secondly he requested that a buffer strip, demarcated by permanent fencing, should be created immediately to the north of the Marina da Gama golf course and to the east of the Prince George Drive, which is a double highway.

Order! The hon. member must relate his argument to the Bill, of which we are now discussing the Third Reading.

Well, Sir, I think I have said quite enough to indicate that the attitudes of the PRP in practice and their proffered attitude here in Parliament are different.

That has got nothing to do with the Bill.

The hon. member for Sea Point says that it has nothing to do with the Bill, but of course it is an argument for the Bill. They, if anything, support the Bill in practice, because when it applies to them, they wish the squatters to be removed and when it does not apply to them, then they plead for the squatters.

This Bill will not solve the squatter problem, but it is one of a number of necessary steps that have to be taken to tackle the problem and to keep it within reasonable proportions. Squatting is a worldwide phenomenon and it can never be entirely eliminated, but it can at any rate be controlled. This is, to my mind, one of the necessary steps any Government has to take to control squatting and to prevent it from getting out of hand. The problem cannot be solved. Recently I came across an article written by two members of the Urban and Regional Studies Group at the Asian Institute in Bangkok, Thailand. These two people are named Angel and Benjamin. They referred to the problem and said that there were two different approaches to the solution of the low income group housing problem and that they could be distinguished by two theories. I quote—

That seems to me to fit in very much with the conception of some of my friends on my immediate right in the PRP. Then there seems to be a theory which seems to fit in more with the philosophy to which we, on these benches, subscribe and that is the second approach, viz. the self-reliant technology. They describe this as follows—

They then conclude and say as to the two possibilities—

That is the thinking of those on these benches. They then set out to prove by way of 17 arguments, why the squatter problem can never be solved. They set up and then they knock down all the traditional arguments as to how to handle the squatter problem. They conclude in this way—

We think that the squatter problem can never be solved but we believe that the squatter problem can be controlled. We believe that this Bill is a means of trying to control the aggravation of the problem. No one here suggests that the clearing up of a slum or a squatters’ camp is the end of the matter or that having passed this Bill, for that matter, the Government needs to do nothing further. Alternative accommodation has, where possible, still to be provided for those who are moved, by the individuals themselves, by other individuals, by the local authorities or by the Government.

Many of those in the squatter camps are actually waiting for promised accommodation, or have applied for accommodation, but not by any means in all cases. Many have already had accommodation. If the hon. member for Green Point would like to consult some of the housing councillors in the city council or the divisional council, they will confirm this argument. Many of these squatters have already had accommodation provided by the local authority but have left their accommodation for two reasons. The first reason concerns the rents which the hon. member knows, as I know, are not exorbitant for any person who does an honest day’s work, but are very reasonable indeed. However, they do not want to pay the rents and many of them prefer, as do some recipients of benefits for having illegitimate children as the hon. member for King William’s Town said yesterday, to spend it on liquor. Others do not refuse to pay the rent but, in fact, prefer living in squatting conditions to living in decent houses. They have to be educated. Many others come from farms where there is already adequate accommodation available to them. However, they are coming to the towns because of the other attractions of the towns. They apparently think that if they can earn reasonable wages in the towns and live cheaply in squatter camps, that is a better form of living than they had in the platteland areas. Some of them come from townships, of existing municipalities. They have had accommodation offered to them, but they have given that up to come and squat on somebody else’s land.

The argument is that the squatters need sympathy. Of course they need sympathy. I am as sympathetic to these squatters as anybody else. That is true. But I am also sympathetic to those with lawful rights, like the owners, and I am also sympathetic to the local authorities who have to handle the situation which arises as a result of the unlawful squatter camps which grow up. The Bill is concerned with unlawful actions. It deals with squatters infringing on the rights of others, squatting without permission on the property of others. My real sympathy, therefore, is with the owners and the lawful possessors of the land, not with those who unlawfully squat on other people’s property.

To evict without notice is a drastic measure. Not to obtain a court order is an extreme measure, but in my opinion—and that is the reason why we support the Bill—the situation is getting out of hand and requires extreme action. Many of the hon. members on my right in the UP and Prog parties live in the Peninsula. They have had the opportunity of going to Crossroads. How many of them have been there?

We have all been there.

You have been there on a conducted tour, I suppose. Had there not been a conducted tour, Sir, how many of them as individuals would have gone there? Long before they went anywhere near Crossroads I was asked by one of the divisional councillors of this area to go and have a look for myself. I drove through Crossroads and I drove back through Crossroads. I was horrified at what I saw there, not only out of sympathy for the people who were living there because of the conditions under which they were living, but also because of the conditions that I saw there which could have an accumulative and ripple effect on the health of all the people living in the Peninsula. I was told at that time by the divisional council authorities that there were between 15 000 and 25 000 people there at Crossroads and it would seem from a cursory glance, as one goes through and tries to calculate them, that there are thousands and thousands of houses there. Not only is it a danger to health, but it creates all sorts of ancillary problems to do with transport and it creates further problems to do with security and crime, which is a very real problem. It seems to me that one must show sympathy with these squatters, but one also has to do something to see that these conditions do not spread and constitute a danger to other people.

The Bill closes loopholes that can be found in the existing law which, if found, can be exploited and can only aggravate the position. They can exacerbate the immediate problem and perhaps create racial animosity and friction, they can endanger the health of not only those who are unlawfully squatting in the areas but also of the surrounding regions.

I would conclude by saying that unlawful squatting causes enormous sociological problems, which we do not have to deal with here, but they do have a ripple effect on the society in which we live, a ripple effect which we can ill afford in these particularly serious times. This is the reason why we support this Bill, and it is for the good of all that this Bill should be passed. I have pleasure in saying that we support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we have had two speeches from the hon. members for Langlaagte and Simonstown which have been, I think, confused, and which have covered varied areas. We have had what was really a good Second Reading speech from the hon. member for Simonstown. He repeated most of the speech of the hon. member for Newton Park. I do not know whether the hon. member for Simonstown was here during the Second Reading but we had it all then. I believe that in his desperate desire to cross the floor he is trying to find any excuse possible to justify, shall we say, not the bee in his bonnet, but the bee in his Stetson. I think we have to repeat what apparently has escaped the hon. member for Simonstown and many hon. members opposite. We in these benches do not support squatting. Of course we are opposed to it. We also support the provision of decent housing. What we want to know, however, is what is going to happen to the people at whom the Bill is basically aimed, viz. the squatters in the Western Cape and, though perhaps less directly, the squatters elsewhere in the country. What is going to happen to the 70% of the squatters who are Black? Where are they going to go? What are the hon. the Minister’s plans with them? For the Coloureds, apparently, there will be housing, but where will the Coloured people go who are evicted for example from Modderdam Road? Where are they to go when they get less than 24 hours notice before their shacks are bulldozed?

To the Mount Nelson.

At Government expense, I hope.

That is typical of your attitude; you are being frivolous.

Sir, I believe that that is the point at issue. The hon. member for Simonstown is concerned about Crossroads. He is so concerned about it that last year, I remember, he wanted to have a snap debate in the House about it. The reason was that, when he went there for the first time, he got a terrible shock.

In fact, I thought for a minute that he might become a Prog from they way he was carrying on in his concern for his snap debate. Perhaps he should spend more time at places like Crossroads. If he comes to Natal to the greater Durban area he will see 300 000 squatters. Then perhaps he will begin to understand what the compassionate society is all about, the compassionate society which represents one of the six principles which he clutches desperately to his heart.

You were elected on that.

That is right. So was that hon. member.

Why do you not resign?

The hon. member for Walmer should be asking himself that question.

You changed your principles; we did not.

Sir, the hon. member for Simonstown again tried to draw this very ineffective red herring of the War Measures Act across the trail. As the very name of that Act implies, it resulted from a situation of emergency. I would remind the hon. member that in 1950, as I said in the Second Reading debate, the then Minister of Justice described the War Measures Act as a Fascist measure. The then Minister of Justice, the ex-State President, introduced the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act in 1951 for the very purpose of reintroducing the rule of law in respect of the squatter problem. Therefore that hon. member and his colleague, the hon. member for Newton Park, must not try to hang their arguments on that little peg, because it is not very convincing.

I think we should apply ourselves to the effect of the Bill. Let us consider for example a township like Clermont in Natal where the situation is very similar to the situation in the Western Cape in that there are thousands of Black people squatting there who are legally in the area. The difference is that in the Western Cape the Black people were brought in legally and that accommodation was provided for them. In Clermont they were allowed in and, although there was no accommodation available, in some mysterious way their documents were stamped. Many of the people there have been living for six, eight or ten years under squatter conditions. In some places those conditions are not bad, but in other places they are disgusting. When this Bill becomes law, these people can literally be chased out of their houses tomorrow. We all want to see the squatter areas cleaned up, especially in the greater Durban area where there are hundreds of thousands of people squatting. However, is this Bill, in its effect, going to have the kind of results we want? I do not believe it will. The squatter problem is not going to be resolved by bulldozing shacks. It has got to be resolved by providing alternative housing and realizing that people are going to continue moving constantly from the platteland to the urban areas.

We are concerned about the farming areas. I venture to suggest that on many farms where there are perhaps 10 to 15 men working as labourers, there might be anything between 100 and 250 souls dependent on those 10 to 15 men. Those people can only go to the towns. If I have a man working for me who has six children, I cannot employ them all on my farm. What happens normally in the farming areas? If a White farmer has six or seven children, one or two might stay on the farm. The others go to the cities, get work there and live there. This is what is happening also amongst the Black people, and we cannot stop it. We do not want this kind of Bill, which is just going to try to bulldoze the situation. We want to know whether there is a realistic solution to the squatter problem. Our objection to this Bill is not based on the fact that we want to defend squatting; our objection to this Bill is the effect it is going to have on relationships and the effect it is going to have in not resolving the genuine causes of the squatter problem. That is why we believe this is a wrong Bill. Furthermore, we have dealt with squatting in South Africa over the last 30 years. The hon. member for Simonstown is worried about the Peninsula’s health. At the turn of the century there was a place called N’dabeni which gave rise to the present-day Langa, where there was a huge Black squatter camp. This camp was a threat to the people of Cape Town. What happened? It was moved; the people moved to Langa. We did not need this kind of legislation for that.

I believe that the hon. the Minister is just too excited and too enthusiastic in introducing this Bill. He wants to show what a “krag-dadige” member of the Government he is; therefore he is introducing this type of legislation. We cannot support this kind of legislation. This very fragile Western society in which we live is not helped by this kind of legislation. On the contrary. It is being broken down.

Why is it fragile?

It is fragile because a government like yourselves will pass laws to destroy the rule of law. The fragile rule of law is being broken up everywhere else in the world. In South Africa at least we have some of it left, in spite of those hon. members. If it were not for the fact that there were a courageous Opposition, an Opposition which did not lie down and submit to these people, we would have had much less of the rule of law.

I believe that this Bill is not only doing disservice to the civilized traditions of this country; it is also not going to resolve the problem of squatters. Instead it is going to exacerbate relationships, and by passing this Bill, this House will do a disservice to itself and to race relations, to human relations in this country. I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point.

Mr. Speaker, the double-talk on the part of the Opposition amazes one. The hon. member for Pinetown alleges that they are not in favour of squatting at all; they want nothing to do with squatting; they are not in favour of people squatting. On the other hand, however, the hon. member wants to know what is to happen to those poor squatters if they are already squatting. Those hon. members say they are opposed to squatting, but once the squatters are there, they must be left there. For how long must they be left there? Must they remain there for an unlimited period? Must they be allowed to remain, for an unlimited period, in those conditions they themselves have created, not only in their immediate environment, but also over the entire area in which they are squatting? Must any number of them, who want to, be allowed to stream in and squat anywhere, regardless of the locality? What would that hon. member say if a number of squatters came to Cape Town and squatted on the Parade? Would they be allowed to erect squatter shacks, without any possibility of implementing the Act, because we must give those people our sympathy owing to the fact that they have no other accommodation, regardless of the unpleasant conditions they create for business undertakings here? That hon. member is only concerned by the squatters. The hon. member asked: What must become of those squatters? I now want to ask him one question: What must become of these owners? How long must those owners put up with those people? Must they put up with the squatters for as long as it pleases the squatters? Must they put up with the unhygienic conditions in which they live as long as it pleases the squatters? The hon. member for Simonstown mentioned what was going on at the Marina da Gama. I have sympathy for those people. They pay a lot of money for their properties there. How long must they put up with those conditions, however? Hon. members of the PRP are not, of course, concerned about that. For them it is merely a matter of where the squatting occurs. Let me just tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that if his company had invested a large sum of money in a property and wanted these squatters removed I would be sympathetic.

However, I should like to know from those hon. members, who are opposed to this legislation, whether any of them would tolerate—and this is a question they must very seriously ask themselves—squatters establishing themselves on properties occupied by them personally? If this legislation is passed, and instances of squatting occur on those hon. members’ properties, would they want this legislation to be made applicable to their properties as well? I want to know from the hon. member for Green Point whether he would ask to have squatters removed, who have deliberately occupied his property overnight, if this legislation is promulgated.

Not without notice. Never!

Notice or not; that is neither here nor there.

But that is the gist of the whole matter!

I am absolutely convinced of the fact that if a squatter’s hut sprang up overnight on the hon. member for Green Point’s property, he would call the Police early the following morning to remove the squatters from his property.

Not without notice! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinetown referred again to people who are here legally. Surely people who are here legally must come from some or other place. They must previously have had accommodation somewhere. After all, they are not people who fell out of the sky overnight and erected a squatter’s hut for themselves.

What about clause 10?

If I understand the matter correctly—and that is specifically in terms of clause 10—such a person must have been here for ten years. The hon. the Deputy Minister can correct me if I make a mistake. Such a person only qualifies after 10 years. He could not, in any case, merely have wandered about for ten years. He must have had some kind of accommodation somewhere. Where does he ostensibly come from so suddenly?

The department and the Government even took the trouble to mark those people’s squatter huts for them and to give them permission to live in them until alternative accommodation became available for them. After all, it is not only people who are here legally who squat. If some of them do squat, surely they must nevertheless have had accommodation somewhere previously, accommodation which they left in order to squat. The hon. member wants to know what effect the legislation will have.

As far as I am concerned the legislation will have only one effect. This legislation will enable the Government to clear up unhygienic and shocking conditions that have been created by people—regardless of the area in which this occurs—and to alleviate the position of other people living in the vicinity. I accompanied the tour group which the Department of Community Development took along to the squatter areas. Hon. members of the Opposition parties were also present. They accompanied us to Modderdam Road. They saw the conditions prevailing there. They must say whether they want this legislation to be implemented. Across the railway line there are neat and tidy houses. However, hon. members must go and see how the wires have been broken and what conditions the squatters have created there. The inhabitants are not prepared to make statements in public, but the department receives numerous complaints from people who steal the residents’ water. They must then pay the accounts run up by illegal squatters. The fact that the Opposition states that it is not in favour of squatting, is mere lip service, because Opposition members nevertheless want the people protected. This is merely aimed at stirring up emotions and, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, I want to say that it is aimed at encouraging crime. People are encouraged, egged on to contravene the law by squatting illegally. I therefore think that it is necessary for the legislation to be implemented and that we should not flinch from doing so, no matter what it may cost.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length. I want to point out that the Bill is really about two matters. Firstly, it is about the question of whether a squatter should receive notice and, secondly, whether he should be allowed to go to court. These are the two points that the Bill is about. I am disappointed that the hon. members on that side of the House and the hon. member for Simonstown did not deal with these points. All we had from them was a lot of rhetoric, red herrings and rubbish. The truth of the matter is that that is what the Bill is about. What is the argument of the members on the other side of the House? They say that we on this side of the House have no sympathy with the landowners.

That is not true.

That argument was used a number of times this afternoon.

I said that too.

Yes, the hon. member for Simonstown also said so when he said that the Bill closed loopholes. A very superficial examination would show that argument to be absolute nonsense. Under the Hire Purchase Act an owner cannot take a motorcar without 10 days notice. That is the law.

The owner of the land does not sell the right of occupation to the squatters.

I will deal with that. If one sells a car to a person on hire purchase and he fails to pay, in terms of the argument from the member opposite, he has no right to the car and is not allowed to have possession of the car. However, he must have 10 days notice before the car can be taken back. One cannot just go and take it. I want to take the very example which the hon. member for Langlaagte put before the House. There is not a more brilliant and clear example to defeat his argument than his own example. What was this example? He gave the example of the keys and motor-cars of the hon. members of this side of the House being taken away by the hon. members of that side of the House and wanted to know if the hon. members of this side of the House should have to get a court order. What he was saying was that we should not have to get a court order. We should just go in and be allowed to take the car. We must be allowed to break into houses and take the cars. That is exactly what he is saying. We say that this is of course not so and that we should not be allowed to go into his house and steal our car back. We should not be allowed to break in. Of course one cannot do that; there should be a court order. That is not the only example. Talking about sympathy for the poor landowners, what about a landowner who leases a flat to a person in terms of the Rents Act? One cannot just retake possession. One has to give seven days notice in terms of the Rents Act even if the tenant had not paid. Does that show that we have no sympathy whatsoever with the landowner? This Bill is about a question of notice. One is not against the landowner simply because one says that he must give seven days notice. He does not have to go to court, but simply has to give seven days notice. Is that showing that we are against the landowner? Is that taking away substantially from his rights? We have a lot of squatters in the Cape Peninsula on properties belonging to the Stellenbosch divisional council, property belonging to the Minister of Public Works and so on. In what way is the Minister’s rights significantly minimized because he has to give seven days notice? It is really a very feeble argument to suggest that we are disregarding the rights of the poor landowner because we stand for the principle that one should at least have to give some kind of notice.

The hon. member for Langlaagte gives examples from Natal and says that they demolish houses there. We are not disputing that they demolished houses in Natal and that squatters’ houses should eventually be demolished. Only, in Natal they could not do it without going to court. They could not simply demolish houses without any notice whatsoever. In regard to this Bill we are only talking about the fact that there should be some kind of notice, because the recourse to the law is not possible any more. The hon. member for Langlaagte also talks about the “poor officials”. I feel sorry for the officials in certain cases. However, what he must realize, is that this Bill has nothing to do with officials, but that it gives to anybody, whether he is a private individual or an official, the right to simply smash down squatters’ houses. It is quite wrong for the hon. member for Boksburg to suggest—as many hon. members on that side of the House have suggested—that if one opposes this, one is saying that one wants squatters. It is quite ridiculous.

Why do you not allow squatters on your farm?

The hon. member raises a question about my farm. I do have a farm with quite a number of squatters on it. It has not really done me any harm, but if I want to take action against them, I shall do so if it becomes necessary. I shall give them notice and evict them from the farm. [Interjections.] No, these squatters do not work on the farm.

I was talking about squatters in your party.

I thought the hon. member was speaking about something close to my heart—my farm!

May I ask whether you collect a monthly rent from the squatters?

I do not take any rent from them at all. They are squatting on my farm illegally.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member: When did he stop collecting rent? [Interjections.]

As far as it is relevant to the question of squatters, I want to say that it is a farm I acquired some four years ago. Squatters settled on the farm and I have never taken any rent from them. I have gone there from time to time and have found additional squatters there. I do not think it poses a very serious problem. [Interjections.] Does that help that hon. gentleman? The hon. member for Langlaagte also put up another extraordinary argument. He said this taking away of the notice to squatters was somehow going to help the children of the squatters. I am totally unable to follow that argument. I cannot see how, by taking away the notice and by allowing law enforcement to be done by the individuals without going to the court, without giving any notice and without the courts having any right to examine the position, it can help anybody, particularly the children of the squatters.

Finally, with regard to the hon. member for Simonstown, I want to say that it is not correct for him to put forward as an argument that if nobody should take the law into his own hands then what about the squatters, because they were breaking the law. I know the legal phrase to which he is referring in regard to taking the law into one’s own hands, but the fact that one breaks the law, is not taking the law into one’s own hands. What is meant by this phrase is simply that nobody should be entitled to enforce the law with his own hands. He should go to court. The hon. member is in fact twisting the legal maxim.

Sir, we on these benches support the motion of the hon. member for Green Point.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate very attentively and with great expectations in the hope that it would produce at least one new argument or that one of the old arguments would be advanced with a renewed conviction that would make it worthy of some attention. Instead of that, however, all we had was a great many petty repetitions of arguments that have already been dealt with. There was a very interesting development, however, and that made the debate worthwhile. It became very clear from the debate how far removed we on this side of the House are from hon. members on that side of the House with regard to this matter. I want hon. members to take cognizance of the tremendous gulf that separates the hon. members of the Opposition, with their irresponsible actions, from the governing party whose responsibility it is to maintain law and order and to create a decent way of life for the people of South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point made two demands of me, demands we have already discussed. The hon. member wants me to prove the necessity for and the desirability of the measure and also to defend the fact that a fundamental right of those people is being infringed. On more than one occasion, however, we have already discussed the necessity for and the desirability of certain steps and, if necessary, drastic steps, being taken to discourage squatting. In the first place, it is the duty of the State, the authorities and the entire community to provide houses for those people who need accommodation. That is one of their rights. I quoted inter alia the findings of a commission of inquiry of the UNO itself in which it was declared that in this period of excessive and reckless urbanization, measures have to be taken to slow down the process of urbanization.

It is partly the necessity for and desirability of slowing down uncontrolled urbanization that necessitates this measure. That is the root cause, the origin of the measure. One cannot allow people to descend on one’s cities in an irresponsible manner without having job employment opportunities or homes, with the result that their families are subjected to exposure and create a danger for the entire community. Surely the authorities have to create measures to stem and avert this influx to a certain extent in the interests of the general community for which they are also responsible? Therein lies the necessity for and the desirability of the measure. The hon. member had a lot to say about the fundamental right of those people, a right which is allegedly being infringed. According to the Roman-Dutch law, the right of possession is an important right and even if it is obtained fraudulently or by breaking laws, it still remains an important right and is protected by the right to request a mandament van spolie in the courts. However, whenever the application of the mandament van spolie—which I referred to in the Second Reading debate—creates intolerable social conditions, it becomes the duty of the legislative authority to take another look at the legislation. In this case, intolerable conditions are being created, because it is an intolerable situation if a local authority such as a municipality or a divisional council is obliged to reconstruct huts when those huts have been erected contrary to the regulations and contrary to its own health regulations. After all, one cannot use the courts to create or authorize crimes. Nevertheless, that is exactly what is being done in this case. If this is happening now, then surely the legislative authority must do its duty and make laws that may be applied by the courts in a reasonable manner and in the interests of the general community.

The hon. member kept on reiterating the point that if the worst came to the worst, one could affix the notices to the door frames. I pointed out, however, that the officials of my department had been threatened with violence whilst in the execution of their duty. I am not going to allow officials of the State to be subjected to physical violence for the sake of the concession I made to people who were committing a crime. With all due respect, the hon. member does not have the knowledge he really ought to have about the matter to speak with so much authority about it. Therefore, I want to help him now so that next time he may discuss it with more authority. The hon. member says that if anyone else occupies one’s property, one can quickly go to the courts and obtain immediate restitution of one’s rights. Certain things have happened in Johannesburg and one of these days legislation will be submitted to the House in order to rectify this matter. In October last year, some people illegally invaded other people’s houses. An appeal was immediately made to the courts for a civil restitution of rights. The matter has not yet been finally settled and meanwhile the marauders are still in other people’s houses. They do not pay anything for them and they wreck them. Those people who are entitled to those houses cannot move into them. Is that a speedy restitution of rights? Does that substantiate the hon. member’s argument? It seems the hon. member has suddenly lost interest in the debate.

That hon. member as well as the hon. member for Rondebosch, complained that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education had not participated in the debate. He also pointed out that to a great extent, the squatter problem was one which affected not only the Coloureds and Indians but the Bantu as well. That is completely correct, but we are dealing with a problem here that concerns mainly the Cape Peninsula. In my Second Reading speech, I made it very clear and did so on the authority of the hon. Minister concerned, that Blacks in and around the Cape Peninsula need not complain, because all the Blacks who are working legally in the Cape Peninsula can be accommodated by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Perhaps not according to the highest standard, but at least they can most certainly be given a better standard of accommodation than the squatter. The hon. member also asked me certain questions and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development was so kind as to furnish me with a reply, which I should now like to convey to the hon. member. The first question was whether Bantu contract workers had the right to acquire family housing in the Cape Peninsula. The answer is “no”. Surely the hon. member knows that the answer is no, because the Western Cape is a preferential area for the Coloureds. If Bantu were to settle here with their families on a permanent basis, then surely it would become increasingly difficult to maintain the preference for the Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula? I have the feeling that in our hearts, all of us agree with this policy, particularly in these days of unemployment.

The hon. member went on to ask what happened when the families of Bantu workers came to visit them, whether they could be accommodated then. The answer is that although these workers are accommodated in single quarters, other accommodation can be provided for visiting wives and children by the Bantu Affairs Administration Board or by the employer.

Is it available?

Apparently, yes; it is available. The hon. member also asked about those squatters whose wives were here legally. The answer is that those squatters whose wives are in the Peninsula legally, are referred to the Bantu Affairs Administration Board concerned. Family accommodation can be given to them in Nyanga. So these things are being taken care of. The point is that as long as a Bantu comes to the Cape Peninsula legally and remains in the Peninsula legally, he can be provided with housing whenever he needs it. If my hon. friend is not satisfied with the reply I have given him—I cannot speak with the authority with which the hon. the Minister himself is able to do—there will be other occasions on which he may put his case to the Minister concerned.

My hon. friend spoke about the core houses, as if they were a tremendous concession on my part that practically every Coloured squatter in the Peninsula is entitled to squat.

I did not say that.

No, Sir. It was simply an admission that there are people in the Coloured community, just as there appear to be in every community, who, owing to certain circumstances, are indigent and cannot afford house rentals, but then usually not for long, because if they have a good reason for not being able to afford rental, the Department of Coloured Relations will provide them with assistance by means of its social welfare services, grants and other forms of aid, to enable them to occupy sub-economic houses. So this is a relatively minor problem. It is a temporary problem relating to a particular case. I do not think it will assume monumental proportions.

I have already replied to the questions concerning Black people asked by the hon. member for Rondebosch. He accused me of speaking irresponsibly when I warned that there were forces at work here in the Peninsula and in other places in South Africa that were using the due process of law for objectives that never entered the minds of the community in creating and abiding by the law, in other words to cripple the State and to defeat the attempts of the State to govern the country properly. He named prominent people who had donated money. This is perfectly true. I replied to him in the Second Reading debate and said that one came across such “do-gooders” who did things without thinking. But I was not thinking about that. I was thinking about other phenomena. I know the hon. member for Rondebosch reads the newspapers regularly and I assume he read Die Burger yesterday morning. I assume he read this little report in Die Burger: “Plakker met byl gekap, hoor hof.” But just listen to what happened—

Today, people are being forced by means of intimidation and violence to pay’out money in order to conduct court cases which they know in advance they cannot win. They cannot win the cases but they can gain time, they can gain a postponement, they can obstruct matters, they can perpetuate evil and bad conditions which are contrary to the community’s interests, health and considerations of safety. They can do this with the money they collect. They can do this by beating people with iron pipes. It has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic bishop of Cape Town. It has to do with ringleaders, criminals, wilful lawbreakers, rebels, people who want to harm South Africa, people who want to undermine authority, people who want to promote revolution. I am very sorry but we on this side of the House will take all necessary steps to avoid this type of thing.

There were a few other interesting speakers on the opposite side. The hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Langlaagte both made very interesting speeches. They were particularly interesting because both of those speeches proved that there were many precedents for this legislation in the history of South Africa. What I found to be the most interesting evidence was that most of those precedents—all those that were mentioned, I think—were created in the time of the UP. At that time, the leaders who created those precedents were acclaimed as heroes. Then it was essential. At that time it was inexorably essential. But now that conditions are apparently just as bad, owing to similar circumstances, any measure taken to combat them is regarded as anathema. On an earlier occasion during the debate on this measure, I asked anyone of them who was older than 50 to stand up and tell us whether he protested against the wartime measure which Gen. Smuts took against squatting in Johannesburg.

Blackie Swart labelled it as fascist.

Who are you calling “Blackie Swart”?

Yes, the hon. member ought to speak with a little more respect about others. But never mind. The point is that when the National Party Minister amended Gen. Smuts’s Act in 1950, he described it as a fascist measure. The hon. member for Pinetown agrees that it was a fascist measure. What a condemnation that must be of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Green Point since they did not even protest against fascist measures although a war had been fought against fascism. Surely this shows that we cannot take the arguments coming from the other side of the House very seriously. They are talking against their own better judgment. They think they can score political points off us in a debate like this, but they cannot.

I now turn to the hon. member for Pinetown. In a previous debate, he launched a very strong personal attack on me. That is his prerogative. But before I could reply, I received a note to say that he had gone to Durban. I assume he knew before he made that personal attack on me that he would have to go to Durban immediately afterwards. That is not my idea of sportmanship.

I booked three weeks in advance.

Yes, he knew three weeks in advance that he would be going to Durban. Nevertheless, he made use of the opportunity to make a personal attack on me, knowing full well that he would not be here to listen to my reply.

He does not arrange the Order Paper.

I just want to tell him I hope he will not continue to do this, otherwise the day will come—I hope that that day will never come—when hon. members in this House will treat him with the contempt he will have earned by his behaviour.

I want to treat him more respectfully than he has treated this House by replying to his question. He talked about the Bantu who were squatting in Clermont in Durban. I want to point out at once that that type of squatting is not relevant to this Bill. That squatting is occurring in a released area under the control of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The Bill before the House at present is not relevant to that area. In any case, the people are squatting there with the permission of the authorities. Therefore, it is not illegal squatting in the sense in which we are dealing with squatting in this Bill. I can tell him no more than that. He should be so kind as to do his homework and to make sure beforehand that the matters he raises here are relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I should say in reply to the hon. member for Durban North. I think he made a speech simply to take up a little time. Apparently, he has two objections to the Bill. He says there are only two things at issue in it: The right of the squatters to receive notice and the right of the squatters to go to court. As for the right to receive notice, I want to point out that I gave it to them as a concession. They abused it, however, and tried to assault and hurt those people who wanted to apply that concession for their own good. I cannot allow that. As far as their right to go to court is concerned, I want to say that they can still go to court. They just have to prove in a preponderance of probabilities that they have the right to be where they wish to maintain the right which they want to ask the court to support. The reply in that regard came from the hon. member for Rondebosch earlier this afternoon when he said that the squatter had no rights. It is true: Squatters have no rights. Surely, then, there ought to be no quarrel between us? Since the hon. member for Rondebosch affirms with so much emphasis that the squatters have no rights, what squatters’ rights am I supposed to defend?

I did not say that.

When one is skating on thin ice, one cannot get away with arguments like that.

Mr. Speaker, being a fairly old politician, I found this debate very interesting. Once again we have seen the most important reason—I am now speaking with knowledge of the subject—why the Opposition, both of the parties sitting in front of me, cannot make any progress, why they cannot be an alternative Government in South Africa and why most of the people of colour in South Africa treat them with a measure of amused contempt. I shall tell you why. I often told them whilst I was still in their inner circles. What the people of South Africa demand from the authorities is security, safeguarding of their interests, safeguarding of their lives and safeguarding of … [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh; it hurts them, but they know I am speaking the truth. As they did with the work of the Schlebusch Commission, as they have done with many other things and as they are now doing again, they are proving to the people of South Africa that it cannot depend on them when its security and safety is threatened. They hide behind technical points and try to avoid their responsibilities by means of debating points.

Having said that, and since I like to sit down in a calm state, I should now like, very calmly, to make two announcements in regard to the Bill.

It has come to my attention that the words “in such proceedings” on page 4 of the Bill, in line 17, after the word “court”, have been omitted by mistake. The Afrikaans text is correct. The State legal advisers do not think the omission of the words concerned will make any difference to the meaning of the paragraph. However, it is naturally desirable for the wording of the Afrikaans and English texts to be in agreement. I do not think there will be any objections if that rectification is done administratively. As hon. members will remember, the hon. member for Mossel Bay moved an interesting linguistic correction to the Afrikaans text in line 20 on page 5 during the Committee Stage. It concerned the question as to whether or not the double negative was appropriate in this case. As I undertook to do in the Committee Stage, I looked at it together with the State legal advisers and linguists and decided that the second and third last “nie” of the paragraph ought to be omitted. This linguistic correction will also be effected administratively.

In the course of this session we will still have to discuss measures relating to the security of our State, particularly the security and enjoyment of life on the part of our citizens, and we shall deal with squatters again. I hope that after their unfortunate experiences during this debate, the members of the Opposition will act more responsibly in those discussions and show the people of South Africa that when it comes to threats to the fundamental rights of our citizenry, South Africa will be able to depend on them as it can depend on this side of the House.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brand, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—36: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For the information of hon. members I propose to deal briefly with the various provisions contained in the Bill.

The Hotel Board was established in terms of the Hotels Act, 1965, with the object of fostering the development and improvement of accommodation establishments in order to achieve and maintain the highest possible standards in the quality of the accommodation, meals and services provided by such establishments.

Owing to changed circumstances and in order to extend the services of the Board to other related fields where assistance and guidance seem essential, it has now become necessary to amend the Act.

Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to extend the objects of the Hotel Board to include the granting of assistance to establishments—other than accommodation establishments—catering for the travelling public, mainly by way of training staff or by assisting with such training. Such other establishments will include restaurants, clubs, governmental and provincial authorities, pleasure resorts, the National Parks Board, shipping companies and related organizations, bodies or industries, in so far as they are interested in making use of the services and facilities provided by the Hotel Board.

The Hotel Board, which is already undertaking limited training of cooks, waiters and wine stewards for some of the organizations and bodies mentioned above, is receiving an increasing number of applications for assistance. It would be wasteful duplication, especially in the present economic climate, if circumstances were to compel other authorities to consider the establishment of their own training facilities similar to those already provided by the Hotel Board in order to meet their need for trained and qualified personnel.

Many of the organizations and bodies mentioned also serve the public, including foreign and domestic tourists, and by the provision of training assistance the standard of meals and services of such establishments could be improved. It is the current trend in the development of world tourism to rationalize training for hotels, restaurants and tourist amenities. The Republic would benefit from following this trend.

Lately there has been a continuous movement of staff from hotels to allied catering industries. This constant flow of trained staff away from hotels could be curbed and even reversed, if training were also available to persons outside the hotel industry.

In order to enable the Board to achieve this new object, it has become necessary also to extend the existing powers of the Board in relation to training. The Hotel Board is empowered in terms of section 4(e) of the Hotels Act, 1965, inter alia, to encourage adequate training and instructions for persons employed, or intending to take up employment, in the hotel industry in the Republic, or to adopt such measures itself.

The proposed amendment of section 4(e) of the Act which is embodied in clause 2(a) of the Bill, provides for the extension of the Board’s power in relation to training so as also to allow for the training of staff employed or intending to take up employment in the accommodation and catering industries in addition to hotels, and to allow the Board to levy fees for such services.

I want to stress that any assistance rendered by the Hotel Board will not be to the detriment of the hotel industry or at its expense. The assistance will be rendered at cost and will be subject to the extent of the Hotel Board’s training programmes, to the availability of staff, and to the vacancies in training courses.

In view of the approaching independence of Bophuthatswana, the Hotel Board reviewed the status of the hotel school at Ga-Rankuwa, which will fall outside the borders of the Republic when that homeland achieves independence. This school was erected in co-operation with the Bantu Investment Corporation of South Africa, in consultation with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, to train Bantu on an inter-ethnic basis for the hotel industry.

The Hotel Board entered into an agreement with the Bantu Investment Corporation to lease the premises for a period of 30 years with effect from May 1972. The Bantu Investment Corporation ceded the contract to the Bophuthatswana National Development Corporation, the institution which is acting as interim body during the transitional period leading to the independence of Bophuthatswana. Both the Hotel Board and the Bophuthatswana National Development Corporation wish that the school should continue to operate to ensure continuity.

As mentioned earlier on, the interchange of trained staff takes place not only between hotels and allied catering industries within South Africa but also across the borders of the Republic and neighbouring territories. The Hotel Board has already been requested by other homeland authorities to assist with the training of staff for hotels and catering establishments.

There is obviously a need for properly trained and skilled personnel to be available to the hotel and catering industries of our neighbours and it would seem short-sighted not to make the experience and expertise of the South African Hotel Board available to these people should they require or desire help in that direction. States like Transkei, and those that are still to come, unquestionably form an integral part of southern Africa from a tourism point of view and it would benefit all if we could assist in raising standards in so far as the hotel and catering industries of those States are concerned.

However, I feel that we should go further than merely to assist in the training of staff. It is not enough to have good staff and efficient service if the rest of the operation is not up to standard. It is my conviction that we should go further and place the knowledge and expertise of the Hotel Board affecting the raising and maintaining of high standards generally, at the disposal of these people. The Board has, in fact, already been requested to assist Transkei to introduce a system of hotel inspection and grading.

For this reason it is proposed that a new subsection (2)—as appearing in clause 2(c) of the Bill—be added to section 4 of the Act to provide for the extension of the Board’s powers in the direction indicated. The proposed subsection contains three basic principles, namely that the Board may, with the approval of the Minister (a) assist other states to improve the standard of their hotel accommodation and catering industries and to maintain standards at a high level, (b) train staff for the South African hotel industry outside the borders of South Africa, e.g. at Ga-Rankuwa or in any other country, should this at any future stage become necessary or desirable, and (c) assist other states with the training of staff for their hotel, accommodation or catering industries or to undertake such training itself, whether inside or outside of South Africa.

I want to assure hon. members that assistance to other states will not be at the expense of the South African hotel industry, but that it will practically in all cases be rendered on a cost-recoverable basis.

The Bill before the House provides in clause 2(b) for the amendment of section 4(f) of the Act and in clause 5 for the amendment of section 34 of the Act. In terms of section 4(f) of the Act the Board is empowered—

The sanctioning power of the Board to obtain the required information and statistics is vested in the inspectors of the Board who may in terms of section 26(1) of the Act enter any accommodation establishment which is registered as an hotel or in respect of which an application for registration has been made under section 14 of the Act, to examine and to make extracts from and copies of any records which are kept by hotels in this connection.

This method of compiling statistics is cumbersome and time-consuming and can hardly be assigned as an additional duty to the inspectors, unless the Hotel Board is prepared to appoint additional inspectors at high cost.

In the past hoteliers did not react positively to the Board’s appeal to furnish information on a voluntary basis. Furthermore they have available only information concerning those functions of the hotel important to the operation and management of the undertaking. Such information is unfortunately inadequate for purposes of research and the compilation of statistics.

It is required of hoteliers to make available to the inspectors of the Board only the documents from which copies and extracts can be made in terms of section 26 of the Act. It is not incumbent upon hoteliers to compile information in an orderly fashion, or themselves to make extracts or to furnish any additional information which the Board may require.

The type of information which the Hotel Board requires to achieve its object in the national interest, embraces amongst other things, the following aspects: (a) short-term studies which embrace room, guest and income statistics, as well as sundry ratios; (b) inter-firm comparative surveys regarding trends in the hotel industry; (c) personnel turnover surveys for the proper planning of training for hotel personnel; and (d) tariff studies so as to advise hotels in regard to the basis for tariff-determination.

Although the proposed amendment will place specific duties upon hoteliers, the information which they will compile will be analysed and disseminated throughout the hotel industry as a whole, to the benefit of all concerned.

In view of the difficulties experienced at the moment in obtaining the required information, it has therefore become necessary that a specific duty should be placed on hoteliers to furnish the required information. Clause 5 of the Bill is in the circumstances intended to empower the Minister to prescribe by regulation what information is to be supplied by hoteliers as well as the manner in which, and the persons to whom it should be submitted.

Section 4(f) as it stands at the moment empowers the Board to call for such information only as it deems necessary. In order to extend this power so that the Board will also be entitled to call for information prescribed in terms of the provisions of clause 5, it is necessary to insert provision to that effect in section 4(f) and that is what clause 2(b) of this Bill effectively seeks to achieve.

I wish to assure hon. members that when regulations in terms of the amendment are to be considered, this will be done in the closest consultation with the industry, who actually specifically asked for this provision to be included in the Act.

Clause 3 is intended to increase the number of members of the Board from seven to nine. In terms of section 5 of the Act the Board shall consist of seven members, to be appointed by the State President, of whom three shall be persons actively engaged in the hotel industry or possessing such special knowledge or experience of the hotel industry generally or of any branch or aspect thereof as in the opinion of the State President makes them suitable persons for appointment as members of the Hotel Board.

As regards the remaining four members, it has thus far been customary to appoint three members to represent interested Departments of State. At present these are the Secretary for Tourism, the Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry and the Chairman of the National Liquor Board. The seventh has to be a member with no direct interest in the hotel industry or the liquor trade. This member is presently the chairman of the board.

At present there are 50 registered and graded hotels specifically for non-Whites, catering for the various groups, as follows—

In addition there are now close on 40 “international” hotels in South Africa, thus bringing the total establishments catering for non-Whites to about 90.

From the aforementioned it is obvious that non-Whites have a substantial interest in hotel affairs. Obviously this interest will grow as time goes on. In the circumstances it is justified to appoint non-White persons as members of the Hotel Board. It is proposed therefore that section 5(1) of the Act be amended to provide for the appointment of nine members on the Hotel Board so as to allow for appointment of one Coloured and one Indian member.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to submit for the consideration of hon. members, a proposal which will have a far-reaching effect on almost all members of the public, including hon. members of the House, in so far that it affects them financially. This proposal, embodied in clause 5 of the Bill, is to abolish service charges levied on accommodation, meals and services by hotels.

Hear, hear!

That is music to my ears after the debate we have just had. The imposition of a service charge is a constant source of complaint from travel agents, tour operators, foreign tourists and the general public, of whom a large sector considers that additional “hidden costs” are added to hotel accounts at a stage when it is invariably impossible to change their bookings or plans. It misleads the public. A sudden unexpected 10% increase in the amount payable often embarrasses tour operators and hotel guests, since they become aware of the service charge only when reading the menu or in many cases only when they are presented with the account. Hoteliers undertook to make service charges clearly known to visitors in advance, but this has not alleviated the position.

There are many instances on record where hoteliers imposed a service charge on the total hotel account—including accommodation—even where such an account already included items such as special charges for room service, newspaper delivery and even the statutory Hotel Board levy—in other words, a double service charge. In many cases a service charge is also levied on restaurant accounts which themselves already include a service charge.

Complaints are not only against the imposition of service charges, but also about the distribution of the money among the hotel staff. It is argued in favour of the service charge that it allows for all members of the hotel and restaurant staff who contribute to the guest’s well-being to share in a gratuity fund. It is said that this system is a fairer dispensation than the practice of tipping only the waiters or other staff in the “front line” who come into direct contact with the guests. This is, however, not always the case. There are good reasons to believe that some hoteliers do not distribute the money at all; in other cases it may be utilized to replace broken crockery, to cover thefts and losses, to provide recreational facilities for the staff, to pay the staff their Christmas bonuses which should come from the coffers of the hotel, and in actual extreme cases to supplement the salary of the manager.

I wish also to point out that the levying of a service charge does not eliminate tipping. Patrons often complain that they still have to tip the staff irrespective of the standard of service, and despite the fact that a service charge is already levied.

The Federated Hotel Associations of Southern Africa—Fedhasa—requested the Hotel Board to approach the Government to consider the amendment of the Hotels Act in order to do away with the imposition of service charges on accommodation provided by hotels.

The main reason for their request that the amendment be applicable to the service charges on accommodation only is that such a prohibition in the Hotels Act would not be applicable to establishments outside the hotel industry. It was maintained that it would be to the detriment of hotel restaurants if they were prohibited from adding service charges while outside restaurants were still free to continue this practice. The Hotel Board, however, after due and careful consideration recommended an amendment to prohibit service charges on all hotel tariffs. Such an amendment would accord with the spirit of section 33 of the Act which already prevents, inter alia, the publication of misleading information as regards the nature, grade, situation and amenities offered by an hotel. The Hotel Board advanced three reasons why the prohibition should not be restricted to accommodation charges only.

Firstly the argument cannot be accepted that the imposition of a total restriction on service charges in hotels would be detrimental to the competitive position of hotel restaurants vis-à-vis outside independent restaurants. The opposite seems more likely. It is argued that meals would appear to be “cheaper” at outside restaurants, but this is misleading, since the absence of a service charge at the hotel can be used as a marketing plus factor. In the present economic climate the public will soon become aware that there are no “hidden costs” attached to meals at an hotel restaurant. It is a distinct disadvantage at an outside restaurant. It is also mentioned that the service charge provides a bonus for the unseen backroom staff of the restaurant and that problems arise when such staff is recruited. This argument is also applicable to the staff on the accommodation side of the hotel, but is not advanced in their case.

Secondly, it is not possible to define accommodation tariffs clearly as such tariffs could be “bed only”, “bed-and-breakfast”,”fully inclusive”, and several other variations.

Finally, a service charge on only one portion of an account would cause the public—and the hoteliers—considerable confusion and would not eliminate the present spate of complaints.

In regard to restaurants not attached to hotels, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has agreed to include a provision in legislation to amend the Liquor Act, 1928, to provide for a prohibition on service charges in those restaurants which are licensed for on-the-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages and which fall under the control of the National Liquor Board. On the available information, I am satisfied that tourists mainly patronize these restaurants and that the argument raised by Fedhasa that outside restaurants are in direct competition with restaurants attached to hotels has a bearing mainly on this licensed category of restaurants. Further legislation to provide for a prohibition on service charges in restaurants outside this category is not considered imperative at present. Of course, if experience should indicate a need for this, legislation could always be introduced at a later stage.

I am confident that hon. members will support this measure, and especially the measure on service charges wholeheartedly. The public at large, the employees in institutions and other bodies related to the hotel industry have through the Press and otherwise indicated their support for the proposed measure.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it was a pleasure to listen to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. It is quite apparent that the training he received in Opposition benches has stood him in good stead in the exalted position which he now holds as a Minister.

He was sweet reasonableness itself.

I say this for two particular reasons. My colleague runs ahead of me when he talks about sweet reasonableness. The hon. the Minister has, on this side of the House, had experience of Ministers who have not been courteous towards the Opposition, and so on. He knows of the run-around we have given such Ministers in the past and, judging from the way he presented this Bill, he does not want to be given such a run-around himself. Most important of all, I want to say that I appreciate the clear and comprehensive way in which the hon. the Minister has set out the provisions of the Bill and the intentions behind it. I want to place that on record in all sincerity. I do appreciate it. What I have said, applies particularly to the way in which he dealt with matters which were perhaps a little obscure or a little difficult to understand or to follow. I am thinking here especially of the provisions contained in clauses 2(b) and 5. The hon. the Minister has saved the House an awful lot of time in debate, because we intended probing and asking the hon. the Minister exactly what he intends to demand from the people concerned by regulation. We wanted to find out whether he was going to demand all sorts of private information and that sort of thing. The hon. the Minister knows how the minds of the Opposition work. In that way he has saved an awful lot of time in debate. Let me hasten to say to him that, as far as those provisions are concerned, we no longer have any argument with him. We accept completely what he has said and we need not waste the time of the House any further on that.

Let me now begin, where the hon. the Minister ended, by dealing with the question of the service charge which has been added in various quarters. I thank him for his explanation in this regard. I believe that this change is a move in the right direction. I must place on record that Fedhasa is not very happy with the way in which this was done. I believe they were overlooked and were not consulted. This did result in strained relations between Fedhasa and the Hotel Board. I sincerely hope that those relations will be patched up in the very near future, if they have not been patched up already.

One question which the hon. the Minister has left hanging, is the question of a service charge on telephone calls. Is that included in the words “any amount representing a levy, surcharge, service charge or charge of a like nature on the price of such accommodation”, as contained in clause 4?

That is a matter to be settled between the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the hoteliers. It was mentioned in the debate on the Post Office budget.

I know it was discussed on that occasion, but I have not seen any amendments brought forward to provide for the prohibition of such a charge being levied by anybody. Nevertheless, I thank the hon. the Minister for drawing that to our attention. Is it the intention that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will include it in his legislation?

Yes.

In that case we will discuss that matter when that legislation comes before the House.

Let me say at this stage that, as a result of evidence we on this side of the House have obtained—this will be dealt with more fully by one of my colleagues—we believe that the amounts that have been collected by way of the 10% service charge have not been fairly distributed amongst all the workers at accommodation establishments. For that reason alone we are prepared to support the hon. the Minister this afternoon in this matter. We believe it is iniquitous that employers have had to resort to this sort of thing. At the same time we believe it must be stated quite clearly that the time has come for licensees and owners of hotels and similar establishments to pay their staff enough for them not to have to depend on the 10% service charge or on the goodwill of the clients of those establishments to maintain their living standards.

I should now like to deal with the Bill in general. I must say that the growth of internal local tourism has necessitated the imposition of some sort of control over restaurants in South Africa. With the tremendous increase in fares and the tremendous increase in the cost of travel overseas, more and more South Africans are today spending their holidays within the Republic, and because of this more and more South Africans are making use of local restaurant facilities to a greater extent than before. The hon. the Minister is aware of another growth in the tourist industry, namely the development of the so-called holiday flats. Today many people go to a holiday centre, rent a holiday flat and have at least one meal a day, many of them two, away from the flat so that the housewife does not have to continue to cook as she has done for the previous 11 months of the year. For that reason we welcome the provisions today which will now give the Hotel Board and this hon. Minister certain control over restaurants. We support entirely the intention which is expressed in the new paragraph (b) of section 3 of the Act, viz.—

However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has gone far enough in this Bill. In his Second Reading speech he stated that it was now the intention to allow the Hotel Board to grant assistance to catering establishments.

On a cost-recoverable basis.

If one looks at the Hotels Act, which is being amended today, one finds that the Hotel Board has three functions which it may perform and which it does perform in regard to accommodation establishments, or hotels. Firstly, in terms of the functions and powers of the board in section 4 of the Act, the board may not only give advice and guidance to hotels, but can lend or advance money in respect of renovations, etc., of hotels. It may also encourage the adoption of measures providing adequate training for the staff of hotels. Then, in terms of section 14 of the Act the board may register accommodation establishments. In terms of section 15 the board shall determine groups and grades of hotels, and in terms of section 16, it shall determine the group and grade of each hotel. This implies a certain expenditure on behalf of the board for hotels and it also gives to the board certain powers to register, grade and group hotels. As I look at this Bill, I do not believe that those powers are now being applied to restaurants. Whether this is an oversight or whether it is the intention of the hon. the Minister not to grade, not to register, not to group restaurants, is not quite clear. When the hon. the Minister spoke about granting assistance to catering establishments applying the provisions of this Act to the catering establishments, I would have imagined that we were now going to have a system of registration and grading of restaurants in the same way as in the case of hotels. I say this advisedly, because the whole object of the grading and grouping of hotels was to allow them to apply for certain liquor licence privileges. If we look at the amendment to the Liquor Act which was passed by this House earlier this session, we see in clause 50 that in future liquor licences will be granted to owners of restaurants at which ordinary meals are regularly provided for guests, where it can be shown that “the premises shall at all times afford facilities of a high standard for persons taking meals therein”. These are similar provisions to those in respect of hotels. To illustrate this I quote from clause 53 of the Liquor Amendment Bill where, with regard to hotels, it says—

We know that it is the responsibility of the Hotel Board to consider the question of the standard of accommodation provided by hotels. Only on registration and grading by the Hotel Board, will the Minister of Justice or the Liquor Board consider an application for a liquor licence for a hotel. We had assumed that similar provisions were now going to apply with regard to restaurants. If that assumption is incorrect the hon. the Minister must please tell us so in his reply to this debate, so that we can know where we stand and how far we can go. If it is clear from what he said that it is the intention to assist the catering industry with trainers, we will welcome it. As I have said, there is a growing internal tourism industry, as well as a growing tourism industry from outside. It seems to be a bit in the doldrums at the moment, but we hope it will perk up again soon. We, therefore welcome the provisions in connection with restaurants.

We particularly welcome the fact that they will be licensed but we hope that the standard is going to be maintained by the Hotel Board in exactly the same way as the standard has been maintained in respect of hotels and other places of accommodation.

While talking about restaurants, I wonder if the hon. the Minister cannot convey to the Hotel Board a tip which one of our members mentioned when we were discussing this Bill. When one travels overseas and comes to a strange city, one periodically has to look for a place to eat. Every restaurant, every eating place, in Europe has outside—either on the front door or next to it in the window—a copy of the menu; a copy of the menu including all the prices of the different dishes. The result is that at every eating place one can see groups of people comparing the prices of the different eating places to find out where they can afford to eat and what the standard of the food is that is offered to them. This even applies to the top-class restaurants, not only to eating houses or eating places. This applies to the top restaurants as well as to those of a lower grade.

It is not universal.

Not universal? Well, the hon. member for Green Point, who knows more about foreign countries than I do, tells me it is not universal. [Interjections.] In any case, I do not remember on any occasion not being able to see the menu before going into the restaurant. In this country, however, I have often been schocked, inviting guests to dine with me in a strange city and entering a strange restaurant, to suddenly find myself looking at a menu reflecting astronomical prices next to the various dishes that we like to enjoy in this country.

Then, there is another thing which, I believe, the Hotel Board should look at.

I have nothing to do with restaurants. That falls under the hon. the Minister of Justice and the National Liquor Board.

It is quite obvious that there is a misunderstanding between the hon. the Minister and myself as to exactly what powers he wished to take over restaurants. Is it that he is only going to train staff for restaurants?

Yes, at their request.

He is only going to train staff. In other words, there is going to be no other control over restaurants at all by himself or by the Hotel Board.

That is correct.

Then I repeat what I said earlier. I believe the hon. the Minister has not gone far enough. I also believe that he is doing South Africa a disservice, because it is necessary that there must be some control. There must be some body which can see to it that the restaurants give a service of the highest standard to the people of South Africa. I want to go so far as to recommend to the hon. the Minister that the time has come for him to introduce a grading system for restaurants in exactly the same way as he has for hotels.

I have no control over restaurants!

Then the hon. the Minister of Justice must do it. If this hon. Minister will use his influence with the hon. the Minister of Justice, I am sure we will get somewhere with this.

We welcome the provision with regard to assistance to neighbouring States. We particularly welcome the assistance which is going to be given to neighbouring States with a view to improving their tourist facilities. There are hon. members in this House, and particularly on this side of the House, who would really thank the hon. the Minister if he did something about improving the tourist facilities in Lesotho. I can just think how we can go up there in the winter time during the snow, the skiing, and going trout fishing in clear streams. However, not only that. What about the wild coast of the Transkei? Let us get an improvement in the facilities which do exist there. They have been in the doldrums. The hon. the Minister has been asked by the Transkei to help them. I hope he will help them in every possible way. I do not know enough about the Bophuthatswana, about that part of the country to talk, but I am sure they have their attractions as well. As a result of Government policy we are, of course, going to find ourselves with the situation that the hotel school that we have established is going to be in Bophuthatswana. This had to happen. It is my pleasure to tell the hon. the Minister that we will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express the appreciation of this side of the House to the official Opposition for their willingness to support the Second Reading of the Bill. Looking at the history of the hotel industry in South Africa, most of us will agree that in the ’fifties we were in danger of gaining the reputation that our hotel industry and accommodation facilities were amongst the very poorest. As a result of the establishment of the Hotel Board, in the ’sixties there were developments in the hotel industry, particularly with regard to accommodation facilities. This development and the requirements of hotel patrons—the travellers and the tourists—have now placed the emphasis, in the ’seventies, on service in particular. One of the services which is perhaps the greatest cost factor, but which also lends itself to criticism, is catering. I therefore think that we—and I include prospective tourists—in South Africa ought to greatly appreciate this Bill which aims, amongst other things, at authorizing the Hotel Board—outside its sphere of operations—not only to provide service, but also to arrange training for the catering industry, an industry which goes hand in hand with the hotel industry. It is a good thing that the hon. the Minister thought fit to extend the powers of the Hotel Board in this respect, because one must take note of the normal patterns of development that one finds, not only in South Africa, but also overseas. Tourists, particularly those from overseas, prefer not to have all their meals in the hotels where they are staying. Tourists usually want to look into the way in which various people live in the countries they visit, and this they can also do in the qualifying restaurants.

The fact that the hon. the Minister is requesting authorization from the Board to enter into contracts with neighbouring states and with other countries, for the training of hotel staff, serves a dual purpose. Firstly it gives rise to a possible saving in costs with regard to new training centres and, secondly, it gives other States an opportunity to get high standards into their hotel industries from the very beginning. Bophuthatswana, in particular, is given the opportunity to avoid the mistakes that we and the majority of other countries have made in the past, specifically because the training of hotel staff will take place from scratch in Bophuthatswana. We in South Africa will have to bear in mind that South Africa is very far removed from Europe and the Americas. One of the biggest cost items for the prospective tourist is the airplane ticket or the cost of a boat trip. Therefore it would not pay a prospective tourist to visit South Africa for a few days or weeks; tourists will therefore try to extend their visits. Tourists must make better use of their stay in Southern Africa, and that is a factor that must be borne in mind when stop-over points are spread out, even amongst neighbouring States. It is therefore also in South Africa’s interests that the hotel industry should reach a high standard in a country like Bophuthatswana. This would slightly increase the channels for the prospective tourist and enable him to extend his visit to Southern Africa.

As far as the so-called service charge or service levy is concerned, I think that South African travellers and overseas tourists will be very glad when the relative clause in the Bill is implemented in South Africa. One does not want to be unnecessarily hard-handed towards those so-called workers or labourers behind the scenes who never appear in the public eye but frequently do the slog-work, the unpleasant work, for the hotel patrons. I think, however, that it is possible for hotels to work out a pattern to pay those people what they are worth without demanding a service charge. As far as the so-called workers behind the scenes are concerned, it is only right for us to make an appeal here to the effect that the treatment of those people be reviewed. In the past few weeks reports have appeared in the newspapers about the treatment of these workers behind the scenes in a well-known hotel in the Eastern Cape, treatment that resulted in a group of the workers from the Transkei deciding to pack up and go back to their country. I think that in many cases the management staff—some of whom are immigrants who do not always know our Black people in South Africa—do not have the correct approach. When it comes to considering the possibility of additional compensation for these workers behind the scenes, I think that the Hotel Board should make an appeal to the various hotels to treat these workers behind the scenes with human dignity.

The fact that the Hotel Board is also being empowered to compel or force establishments to gather statistics and to make them available is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. I do not think that we in South Africa can succeed in increasing the standard in our hotel industry if we do not look at those statistics. They ought to indicate where there are bottlenecks in our hotel industry and also what the preferences of the prospective travellers or tourists are. I want to express the hope that this information will help to increase the status of the hotel industry in South Africa to such an extent that it can confidently compete with the best in any country in the world.

We therefore appreciate this Bill, and I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that it is our opinion that the hotel and tourist industry in South Africa can only profit by it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by assuring the hon. the Minister that we shall not object to the Second Reading of this Bill. In fact, we support most of it. However, we have a few caveats we should like him to answer when he replies. The first relates to the prescription of information to be provided by the various hotels throughout the country. We have absolutely no objection to the hon. the Minister calling for such information. We can see, both from his point of view and in a more general sense from the point of the Government, why such information is required. However, I hope the hon. the Minister will not permit confidential information given by a particular hotel, information which is compiled and disseminated throughout the industry in the course of normal services, to be made public.

The information will be in an unidentifiable form.

I hope the hon. the Minister will remember that in certain cities there are for instance a very small number of five-star hotels. Naturally, this is potentially useful information to the competitors.

We understood that the reason for providing, in clause 3 of the Bill, for two additional members of the board, was to enable them to appoint a representative of the Coloured people and a representative of the Indian people. The hon. the Minister confirmed this in his Second Reading speech and said that one would in fact be a Coloured person and one an Indian person.

At least.

If that is so, we would like to welcome this approach. We would also like to say to the hon. the Minister that although there may be a difference of opinion as to whether we have arrived at a point where one should have a Black South African on such a board, we are most definitely in favour of it. Having gone halfway, I hope the hon. the Minister will at least keep his mind open to reviewing that possibility as soon as possible.

In regard to the abolition of the service charge, we are dealing with a somewhat two-edged sword. It seems to me that what is important for hotels and for their direct competitors, which would be restaurants with liquor licences, is that the practice should be uniform throughout the country, i.e. that you either have a service charge or that nobody has a service charge. The hon. the Minister has indicated that his colleague will introduce this in the case of licensed restaurants and therefore we feel that we are a very major part of the way there. Because of the various ways in which hotels have treated the service charge in the past, I suspect that in practice it might well give rise to increased costs in the sense of the necessity to put up rates in certain cases. Some hotels have a 10% surcharge which has in fact been built in to the remuneration of the employees of the hotel. There was no discretionary element and there were also none of the malpractices which the hon. the Minister has mentioned. The hotels which fall in that category will simply have no choice but to put up their rates. There may well be an additional element of cost arising from that, because some people, if you quote a rate of R20 which does not include a service charge of 10%—which would then take the amount up to R22—will no longer feel obliged to tip. Although I agree that this is a grey area, if one simply charges R22 which includes the 10%, people may well feel inclined to tip. Only in this sense will there possibly be a marginal, or indeed slightly more than marginal—only experience will tell—raising of costs of the services and the meals provided by the hotel …

That is purely voluntary.

Yes, it is purely voluntary, but the hon. the Minister is as aware as I am that in a service industry the element of it being voluntary tends to make one feel a normal obligation to give a tip if the 10% surcharge has been wiped out. At this stage the hotel industry is somewhat depressed and I think the hon. the Minister will confirm that the number of guests or the general level of business is some 10% lower than it was in the previous year. Naturally, therefore, hoteliers are going to be more worried about putting up their rates to equate with the 10% surcharge than they would in other circumstances. It seems to me as if this is going to hit hardest at the people of our country, because our hotels—in relation to the prices charged overseas—are highly competitive and I doubt very much whether this is going to affect tour business one way or the other, though naturally it will eradicate the complaints which the hon. the Minister mentioned and which are raised by foreigners when they find an extra 10% added to their bills. We shall support the Bill and we hope the hon. the Minister will agree that uniformity throughout, both by the hotels and their direct competitors, i.e. restaurants with liquor licences, is essential. Our only regret is that we suspect that the measure will include an increased element of cost for South Africans who go to South African hotels, over and above that which at present prevails.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also support the Second Reading of the Bill. There are, however, a few points I should like to mention in passing. We particularly welcome the fact that restaurants will now be brought under the purview of the Act. I have a slight difference of opinion with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South where he suggested that restaurants should now be classified and graded as our hotels have been in the past. I do not believe this should be done, because some of the nicest food one can eat, comes off an old wood stove and a check tablecloth. If we are going to classify our restaurants according to fancy standards, I think it would possibly lead to added costs.

The fact that we are now making provision for the appointment of a Coloured and an Indian to the board is an excellent idea, and we welcome that particularly. As far as the abolition of the 10% service charge is concerned, I do not quite understand the arguments of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. If the staff of a hotel or restaurant give adequate service to a customer and treat the customer well, the customer will feel duty bound to tip them. In the long run it will probably increase productivity because they will probably gain more by getting a tip direct from a satisfied visitor than they normally would have received by means of the 10% service charge.

But I do not wish to take up any further time of the House. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to all groups in this House for their attitude towards the Bill. It is quite clear to me that their attitude is actually a tribute to the hotel industry of South Africa. This is an industry of which we may all be very proud. As was said by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, it is an industry which is very reasonable in its levies, compared to other countries. This compensates for the fact that it costs a tourist quite a lot of money to travel the long distance to South Africa from abroad. I appreciate the cooperation very much.

I want to reply briefly to a few of the most important points that have been raised. Unfortunately, as I have explained, I am unable to do anything about the grading of restaurants. That is a matter which falls under the hon. the Minister of Justice. Nor can I force people to post menus in their windows.

I think it is a bad idea anyway.

Yes, in some places it is bad, but not everywhere. However, I have no control over this matter.

I want to thank the hon. member for Bethlehem for his contribution. I have made a note of the constructive points raised by him and I shall give attention to them.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked about the information which we will now have the power to call for. I want to assure him that this is not being done out of any sort of undue curiosity about the personal affairs of any undertaking. It is merely to obtain statistics, unidentifiable statistics, in order to do one’s planning better and to understand what the problems are. I want to assure him that very great care will be taken that any information is not related to a particular undertaking. He asked whether I appreciate that with the abolition of the 10% service charge, some increase in the tariffs of many hotels will be inevitable. I do appreciate that, and there is certainly no objection to that. During our discussions with the trade and others, particularly with the trade unions, we appreciated all along that the abolition of the 10% service charge would make it absolutely essential for hotels to put up their rates sufficiently to compensate for what those people would lose as a result of the abolition of this charge. This is especially true in the case of what is known as the back-room workers in hotels who will now be deprived of a real benefit.

My friend, the hon. member for Albany, raised the question of restaurants. As I explained, that is outside my province. He, and others, were also interested in the appointment of two additional members on the board. I want to increase the number of members of the Hotel Board by two in order to accommodate an Indian and a Coloured member. I do that because I do not want to discuss any of the seven members of the board, who are all rendering excellent service. I may add that that one Coloured and one Indian is not a minimum or a maximum. If vacancies should occur and it is necessary to appoint another Coloured or Indian, I shall not hesitate to do so. This is merely to make the initial appointment possible.

I want to thank hon. members once again for their support, and I hope it will be possible to allow it to pass through all the stages.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to be very brief about this and I will be. We very much appreciate the words of the hon. the Minister a few minutes ago when he said that he was going to give an opportunity to the Coloured and the Indian communities to take part in the activities of the Hotel Board. We appreciate this because we understand that there are hoteliers who are Coloureds and that there are hoteliers who belong to the Asian group. We believe that they should indeed take part in the activities of the Hotel Board, because it does affect their operations. As the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, there are 90 non-White hotels in the country today. We also feel, Sir, that although the Black people are being catered for, until such time as Blacks actually operate hotels we should perhaps wait before we invite them to become members of the Hotel Board. But what we want to emphasize is that we must never forget that we have a permanent Black population in this country who will be catered for in the normal course of events by hotels and restaurants in the future. What we are concerned about is that the Minister has given us his assurance that he is increasing the number of the board from seven members to nine with the object of appointing a member of the Indian and the Coloured group to the board. We, however, believe that this can be provided for by amending this Clause so that there shall be two additional members one from the Coloured group and one from the Indian group. We feel that this should relieve the hon. the Minister, because we know he is going to move to another portfolio some time. We have seen it happen in the past. It seems that the portfolios of Indian Affairs and of Tourism do move around a bit. Very likely this hon. Minister will not be in this post next year. We do not know where he is going to go, but he might not be there. Although the hon. the Minister has given us his personal assurance, we feel that we can improve the Bill by amending this clause itself. Therefore I want to move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 30, to omit “three” and to substitute “five”;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 35, after “board” to add:
   : Provided that two of such members shall be persons representative of the Coloured and Asian communities.

What we are trying to do is to couple the people on the board with the hotel industry. That is why we are shifting the number of members who are actively engaged in the hotel industry up to five. Then we are suggesting the proviso that the additional two members we are providing for, should be one member of the Coloured community and one member of the Asian community.

I fully appreciate the motives of the hon. member for East London City in moving this amendment. However, I regret that I cannot accept it for two reasons. My experience is that if you provide for a minimum in a Bill like this it tends to become the maximum. I would prefer to keep the membership completely flexible and to let merit be the determinator in this instance. Secondly, I would prefer the Hotel Bill not to make any reference to race, but to be just an ordinary Bill dealing with people, dealing with individuals.

I cannot understand the argument of the hon. the Minister when he talks about a minimum tending to become the maximum. There is no question of a maximum or a minimum in the Act as it stands at the moment. I submit that the Act prescribes a definite, a positive and a fixed number. If we look at that section in the Act now we see that it provides that the board shall consist of seven members to be appointed by the State President of whom three shall be persons actively engaged in the hotel industry. The hon. the Minister has no discretion. He “shall” appoint three from the industry. Not “may” appoint four or five from the industry.

I cannot accept that this is a minimum. This is an absolute. That is why we have moved that five shall represent the industry and no longer three. That is in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own words that there shall be five representing the industry of whom two shall represent the Coloured and Indian persons concerned in the industry. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude. We have done nothing more than to take his own words and to write it into the Bill, because as I read the Act at the moment and as I read this Bill, the hon. the Minister will not be able to carry out his intention if he does not accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City.

I am not persuaded. I would prefer the matter to remain as it is now and to leave it to the discretion of the Minister. It is impossible to see what the future holds for us in this matter. It may be necessary to appoint even fewer than five representing the hotel industry. I am not persuaded. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment.

In the light of the hon. the Minister’s reaction I would like to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East London City. It is difficult to see why the Minister has a problem, because it is recognized, at this point in time, that it is for this very reason that he wants to extend membership of the board to the Coloured and Indian communities, and therefore one would assume, if one looks at the numbers in this country, that that necessity is likely to increase rather than decrease. Be that as it may, the hon. the Minister has accepted that that is the rationale now. Why does he then object to this simply being written in so that we have the assurance that if he goes on to other green pastures …

I do not want to be under compulsion.

Mr. Chairman, let us take back the element of compulsion. Let us ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider this before he goes off to the Other Place. [Interjections.] He will not. Then Mr. Chairman, with the best will in the world we cannot do anything else but to support the proposed amendment by the hon. member.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, brevity seems to be the vogue of the evening. I want to say at the outset that we concur wholeheartedly with the thought that surcharges, levies, service charges—call them what you may—should be abolished in hotels. We feel that this should be supported. The reasons for this are manifold and I could possibly spend half an hour talking on this issue, but I would be decidedly unpopular in the House if I were to do so.

The hon. the Minister has outlined the abuse to which this practice can be put. I personally have no objection to paying a 10% service charge on a meal when I know that that 10% I am paying as a service charge is distributed amongst the staff who have prepared the meal, served the meal and possibly partaken of the dishwashing afterwards. However, we all know that this is not happening.

What concerns us on this side of the House is the fact that there is now going to be a sudden spate of increases in prices in hotels and hotel restaurants. They are all going to increase their prices, claiming that they want to cover the 10% they have now had to forego. This argument holds no water whatsoever. I believe sincerely they can only do this if they can prove to the Hotel Board that they are in fact taking that increase and distributing it amongst the staff, viz. paying the staff what they should be paying them, which is something many of them are not doing at this moment. After all is said and done, it makes no difference to their profits. To the hotelier who has been pocketing this 10% I want to say “Bad luck!”, and as the saying goes, “my heart bleeds”. All he has been doing is increasing his profits at the expense of the staff. So I would ask the hon. the Minister please to ensure via the Hotel Board that in the event of increases being levied, they will in effect be passed on to the staff and will not be retained as additional profits.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say very briefly that I am grateful that the hon. member has raised that point. I want to tell him that, as a result of the discussions I have had with the trade unions concerned, I am satisfied that through their negotiations they will ensure that their share of this increase, whatever it may be, will accrue to them. They canvassed this point particularly with me. The hon. member’s point was well taken, but the matter has already been taken care of.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House seeks to amend the University of Natal (Private) Act of 1960 which amended and consolidated the original University of Natal (Private) Act, 1948 (Act No. 4 of 1948).

The preamble to the Bill lists nine proposed amendments which it is claimed will lead to better administration and conduct of the University. All amendments have been motivated and approved by the University of Natal.

Obsolete nomenclature, such as the terms “Governor-General”, “Minister of Education, Arts and Science” and “Union”, is brought up to date by the amendment contained in clause 1.

Clause 2, which deals with definitions, amends section 1 of the principal Act by amending the definition of “professor” to exclude emeritus professors from the definition.

Clause 3, which amends section 3 of the principal Act, amends the constitution of the University to include vice-principals. The University has two vice-principals, one in Durban and the other in Pietermaritzburg, both of whom are full-time permanent officers. It has been customary for the University to confer the status of “emeritus professor” on retiring professorial staff who have served the University for at least ten years in that capacity. Such persons are encouraged to retain their association with the University and they are now specifically included in the constitution.

Clause 4 amends section 8, which deals with the Council, and makes provision for the vice-principals to be members of the Council. Those members of the Council who are elected by the Convocation are increased in number from two to three in view of the fact that membership of the Convocation has increased to approximately 13 000. A consequential amendment is effected to the proviso at the end of section 8(1).

Clause 5 deals with the senate and amends Section 9. In terms of this clause the composition of the senate is altered so as to include the vice-principals, all professors of the University as defined in section 1, and the two librarians. Provision is also made to increase from two to six the number of lecturers other than those falling within paragraph (c) of the subsection.

Clause 6 provides that both librarians shall be members of the Convocation.

Clause 7 changes the name of the Faculty of Commerce and Public Administration to the Faculty of Commerce.

Clause 8 makes provision for the inclusion of the honours degree of bachelor in respect of admission to equivalent status in the University or to candidature for higher degrees.

In conclusion I wish to advise that the Bill has received the approval of the hon. the Minister of National Education and his department.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the educational group of the NP I just want to say that we have absolutely no objections to this amending Bill. The hon. the Minister has given it his approval, and after the department had had a look at it, the department also gave it its approval. Since the amendment Bill only contains a few technical amendments, with a few consequential amendments, we on this side of the House shall support the Second Reading. At the same time we also want to wish the University of Natal everything of the best for the future.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I should just like to say that we are very pleased to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I briefly thank the hon. members who have spoken for their kindness in accepting the Bill and for their good wishes. I also express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister of National Education for accepting the amendments contained in the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.