Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to congratulate the hon. member for Berea on his maiden speech, which was delivered yesterday afternoon under rather unique circumstances. It is not often that a successor to a former parliamentarian has the privilege of delivering his maiden speech with his predecessor present in the gallery. In this case it is certainly unique since the successor happened to be the son of the predecessor. To both these gentlemen I wish to offer my congratulations. It is quite evident that the new member for Berea is a typical chip off the old block. Like his father he is a pharmacist, and we look forward to hearing him deliver the same type of constructive speech in the future that used to be delivered by his predecessor, who was known for his positive and constructive approach to legislation on health matters.

*On an occasion like this the temptation is of course very great first to deliver a panegyric on all the good qualities of the nursing profession as such. However, I do not want to succumb to this temptation because it would merely be emphasizing something that goes without saying and a norm to which we have already become accustomed. The high esteem in which the profession is held is also reflected in the fine and sound spirit in which this legislation was discussed yesterday afternoon in this House.

The profession is not seeking homage or tribute because to practically every nurse, her work has become for her a vocation and life’s work. All that this profession asks, is for its professional status, as an integral part of a comprehensive national health service to be recognized. Secondly, this profession is asking to be given the opportunity of managing and arranging its own affairs. Thirdly it is asking for an act which will not only make this possible, but which will also comply with modern standards and requirements. Finally, this profession is asking for an act which will afford it the opportunity to carry out its duties as a profession without the danger of attacks or threats from outside and will allow it to impose its own norms and express its own awareness of its vocation.

When we take a look at this legislation, we see that it does in fact comply with these requirements set by the nursing profession. As the hon. member for Bryanston correctly said, it is an excellent piece of legislation on which the draftsmen may definitely be congratulated. The legislation is streamlined, modern in its composition and objectives, allows for a great deal of flexibility in application and has been drawn up in a simple, easy to understand way. The Bill is undoubtedly worthy of the noble profession which it seeks to serve.

When we study the Bill in detail, we do not find much change from the existing situation. Nevertheless, important changes in principle are contained in this legislation. It therefore surprises me that the hon. member for Bryanston did not notice one aspect of this legislation or purposely left it out. However, I shall return to that later. An important difference in principle in this legislation is one which the hon. the Minister has already pointed out, and here I am referring to the change in the composition of the Nursing Council. For the first time now, this council also consists of people of other races. This is another example of the purposefulness of the Government’s attempt to do away with discrimination based on race and colour if it is no longer necessary and if it can lead to the elimination of friction. The hon. the Minister’s appointments to the council are not limited to people of a particular race or colour either.

Another change which is welcomed by the nursing profession as such and by all of us, is contained in clause 38 and will mean that the Nursing Association will in future exist as an autonomous body instead of in terms of an Act of this Parliament. I think it is worthy of the profession that it should also be entrusted with the management of its own affairs, that it should do so in terms of its own constitution and that it be allowed to regulate such matters its own way, as befits a professional association like this one.

Then I want to refer to another principle which has been introduced into this legislation. I am very sorry that circumstances make it necessary for a provision of this kind to be included in legislation concerning a professional body. When I say this, I do not mean to criticize the legislation—I simply find it symptomatic of the time in which we are living that we have now reached the stage of having to prevent a certain profession from going on strike by means of legislation. What alleviates this state of affairs slightly, is the fact that the Nursing Council and the Nursing Association requested this themselves because they do not want to be placed in a position where they may in time have to threaten people’s lives because agitators have succeeded in convincing certain elements amongst them to go on strike. Therefore, these words of mine are not meant as criticism of the legal draftsmen—I am just pointing out that it is a reflection of our times that such measures are necessary for a profession with such noble norms and objectives.

The matter to which the hon. member for Bryanston did not refer yesterday, which I am inclined to hold against him, is the fact that section 49 of the principal Act is being repealed by means of this legislation. I think that section 49 was a very important one. The fact that it is being repealed, once again indicates that the Government is in earnest as regards its promise to do away with discrimination on grounds of race and colour. In fact, this is being embodied here. Section 49 of the principal Act reads—

When this article was embodied in the old Act, there were circumstances which necessitated it. However, circumstances have changed drastically since then. At the moment we are faced with specific circumstances, in the homeland hospitals in particular, as a result of which the provision contained in section 49 can no longer be applicable or practicable. Once again this provision was deleted from the present legislation at the unanimous request of the Nursing Association and the Nursing Council.

I now come to the question of the composition of the council. In this regard I want to reply to the argument of the hon. member for Bryanston, who once again asked for consideration to be given to granting a say on the Nursing Council to those nurses who are employed by local authorities. I appreciate the idea behind it, but we must also take note of the effect which this will have in practice. It is envisaged that the council will consist of 30 members. It is therefore already a body of considerable size. Many people have to be included in the council due to their specific position in the profession and skills. Once we have categorized this profession, we shall find that there are so many categories of nurses who will have a claim to representation on the council, that the body will in fact become too large to handle. As matters stand, there is nothing to prevent nurses from electing some of the representatives to the council, whom they elect themselves, from the ranks of nurses employed by local authorities. Nor is there anything to prevent the Minister from taking this into consideration and also appointing nurses who are employed by local authorities.

When we come to the question of the training of nurses, I feel compelled to address the private hospitals in particular about their neglect in this regard. According to my information, there are only four private hospitals in Natal, only one in the Cape, a few mission hospitals and, of course, the mine hospitals which also make a contribution towards the training of nurses. I think that these privately owned hospitals are guilty of predatory methods, because our provincial authorities and the provincial hospitals have to carry the burden of training these people alone, and when these people had been trained, they are lured away by private nursing institutions. I feel very strongly that these people have a contribution to make in regard to the training of nurses and that they should not be dependent solely on people who are trained at State expense. Due to the economic recession being experienced, there is no shortage of nurses in general at the moment. However, there is a serious shortage of certain categories of nurses and in this particular regard private hospitals can make a very important contribution.

The image of the nursing profession has undergone a radical change over the past decade or two. For instance, training methods have changed and nowadays nurses can obtain university degrees in nursing. Furthermore, various grades have been instituted in the nursing profession in order to replace the old dispensation which provided for trainee nurses, staff nurses and sisters only. Today we have registered nurses who receive general training for three years or university training for four years. They are trained in general nursing services, midwifery and psychiatric nursing.

Furthermore, provision is made for the enrolled nurse who is trained for a period of two years. Then there is a nursing assistants who make a very important contribution, although their training lasts for six months only. However, what is of importance here, is that a tremendous potential for specialization has developed within the nursing profession, a situation which did not exist at all a decade or two ago.

In this age of sophisticated medical and electronic equipment, the nurses have been faced with a challenge. They have stood up to this challenge and overcome it very successfully. In this regard I want to refer to the variety of intensive care units which have been set up to combat practically every medical catastrophe which man can come up against. Highly sophisticated apparatus is used in these intensive care units and this requires a thorough training on the part of the people who have to handle it. The nurses have overcome this challenge very successfully to a large extent. The knowledge, teamwork and dedication of nurses who man these units, must really be seen to be appreciated.

I want to repeat that the nursing profession is not seeking glory, nor is it seeking thanks and tribute. This legislation lends substance to the status to which the profession is entitled.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking all hon. members who took part in the discussion of the Bill for their help and co-operation in this connection. Obviously, we all agree with the principles of the Bill, but this agreement may not extend to its particulars.

†In the first place I would like to thank the hon. member for Bryanston for his support of the Bill. It did not go unnoticed that he addressed some particularly kind words to the nursing profession as such, and I quite agree with him there. However, I do not quite agree with him as regards certain opinions he expressed. Nevertheless, the general trend of what he said can be reduced to a general and enthusiastic support for the measure. The Bill is actually a revision of an Act which, after 21 years, is no longer able to fulfil the requirements of the laws pertaining to the nursing profession.

*Therefore I am very grateful that the hon. member created the right spirit from the outset. Nursing as a profession, and those who practise this profession, really deserve our co-operation and the support of us all in every respect. The nursing profession is a supplementary profession and is easily relegated to the background, but nurses will be able to take cognizance of the general goodwill expressed towards them by this House. This is because no political connotation can be attached to the profession and to the actions of these people up to now. We may differ about the constitution of the Nursing Council, but we can thrash that out during the Committee Stage.

I know that the hon. member takes a special interest—this was apparent in debates in former years as well—in the position of local authorities as far as health services are concerned. With regard to this Bill, too, we find that his special interest came to the fore. He referred once again to the local authorities. I can assure him that the local authorities have not been forgotten. They are being integrated into the new health dispensation, and in this respect, too, we shall not forget about the local authorities.

I suppose we shall debate this legislation further during the Committee Stage, so I do not want to reply now to certain suggestions made by the hon. member regarding changes in the wording and certain amendments which we could make. Since the hon. member has just handed me a whole number of amendments, it is impossible for me at this moment—nor would it do justice to the debate—to reply to them now or in the Committee Stage which may take place today.

†It gives me great pleasure to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Berea on his maiden speech. The hon. member for Cradock referred to the fact that he was a chip off the old block and I fully agree. If one looks at the Order Paper and at the various questions which appear there, one will see that he got stuck into things immediately and is starting to ask questions, especially on health matters. I am very glad about the interest the hon. member takes in these matters. We need the attention and the interest of the Opposition in health matters, in matters concerning our people and their health. Therefore I am glad that the hon. member has immediately taken to this specific aspect his father was also interested in. Looking back, I can tell him that his father was always interested in health matters and when he spoke about them and medical legislation in general, I was always impressed by the fact that he really did his homework. I trust the hon. member for Berea will do the same. In his speech the hon. member spoke about the possibility for new opportunities for the nursing profession under the new health concept. I can assure him that, with the manpower we need, there are many, many opportunities coming for people in the nursing profession. We will certainly make use of those in the nursing profession in health care, community health and preventive care. As far as that is concerned, the hon. member need therefore not be worried at all.

The hon. member also spoke on the clause dealing with strikes amongst nurses. He does not think that this provision was really necessary, but the nursing profession as such wanted it and suggested to us that provision be made therefor. If one legislates in consultation with professions one should take note of their opinions, and that is what we did here. That is why this clause has been included, but if necessary we can cross swords again about the matter in the Committee Stage. I thank the hon. member for his support and wish him the best for the future as a new member.

*The hon. member for Cradock delivered a well-considered discourse—as he usually does and is able to do—on a subject which can be rather tedious, for everyone agrees, so it is easy to sit back and say nothing. Nevertheless, the hon. member expressed a considered opinion about aspects which we certainly ought to keep in mind. When the world is burning around us, we cannot forget the normal daily tasks. We must do our work and think of those people behind us who are performing their duty every day, often keeping the wheels turning in South Africa under very unfavourable circumstances. I greatly appreciate the hon. member’s considered discussion of the nursing profession and his support for the role played by the nurse and the profession as such.

It is true that the expertise of the S.A. Nursing Board is something which we must always bear in mind. What I am saying now may be unnecessary, but I am saying it because we may discuss this again in the future. In constituting a statutory council, one has to appoint people who ought to serve on the council by virtue of their expert knowledge. It is the duty of the profession, too, in exercising its right to designate selected members to serve on the council, to appoint people by virtue of their knowledge and not of their political ability to satisfy people. We must have knowledgeable people serving on the councils, and that is why we have decided to give the other population groups the opportunity to prove their knowledge on this statutory council as well. Hon. members have noticed, of course, that this is a change which this legislation is making to the existing dispensation. The expert knowledge of people serving on statutory councils is undoubtedly very important. However, the council must not be too big, but must be manageable. If it is to be manageable, we cannot have 60 or 70 people serving on it. There must be just enough people on it for the chairman to be able to see who is shirking and who is doing his work. These people have to work and think, because they are responsible for the interests of 30 000 people in South Africa. They have to look after 30 000 people in regulating and controlling the profession, and in addition, they must provide for matters relating to training and discipline. Therefore I think it is a very good thing that the hon. member for Cradock pointed out that it is essential that knowledgeable people serve on this council. Although a large number of knowledgeable people will serve on this council, this does not necessarily mean that the council will be unwieldy.

Finally, I want to put in a good word for the nursing profession, the Nursing Council and the Nursing Association. Over the past three or four years, these people have had to endure the scorn and abuse of the outside world because they have had in some way to eliminate some people who were actually entitled to serve with them on foreign councils or to attend symposiums or conferences abroad. It has never occurred to them to discriminate against anyone. This Bill now enables them to take along some of these people who are knowledgeable enough, so that people may see that we are making progress towards removing every suggestion of differentiation between professional people in the medical world who serve humanity. We can remove it. It has nothing to do with other aspects of our social intercourse. I think that this is one of the finest features of this Bill. In this respect we have had splendid cooperation from the Nursing Association and the Nursing Council.

This Bill contains a whole series of clauses which we have drafted together. The Nursing Association, the nursing profession, does not believe in confrontation. They have co-operated with us in making this comprehensive Bill possible. They have helped us to create a model Bill. This Bill sets the seal on work which we have been engaged in for the past five years. I thank them sincerely for this.

I want to express my thanks to all the hon. members who took part in this debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Mental Health Act, 1973, came into operation on 27 March 1973. During the last few years, severe criticism has been directed towards the department by certain organizations in regard to the discharge of President’s patients. These critics conveniently forget that the department is not the only body involved in the discharge of such patients and although the provisions of the Act in this regard are quite clear, it has not withheld these organizations from directing their criticism towards the department alone.

However, during the last session of Parliament I indicated that the department had reviewed the particular provisions and had made certain proposals for consideration with a view to expediting the discharge of such patients. The proposed amendments have been considered by the Department of Justice and the Attorneys-General and are contained in clauses 1, 3 and 5 of the Bill.

Section 17 of the Act provides that an Attorney-General is, within the area of his jurisdiction, the official curator ad litem of a patient detained under a reception order. No provision has been made for an official curator ad litem in respect of a President’s patient or a patient who has been provisionally discharged. This shortcoming is rectified in clause 2.

Section 37 of the Act requires the submission of a report by a hospital board for the discharge of a mentally ill prisoner who has been convicted of an offence involving serious violence. Such prisoners are detained in prison hospitals and no provision exists in any law for the appointment of a board for a prison hospital. The requirement is therefore superfluous and can be deleted. Of course the official curator ad litem can now perform the task. The amendment is embodied in clause 4.

Some confusion exists in regard to consent required for the treatment of an adult patient and this leads to difficulties with the treatment of such patients. An endeavour has been made in clause 6 to make the position clear.

Section 38 of the Act refers to the revocation of the conditional discharge of a President’s patient or a mentally ill prisoner. The question of revocation is not dealt with anywhere in the Act and the new section 74A has been inserted to rectify this shortcoming.

The Act deals with various administrative duties to be performed. However, no provision has been made for the delegation of these duties and it can be imagined that this places a very heavy burden on the parties concerned. The new section 74B will make provision for such delegation and will also contribute towards the expeditious discharge of such duties, particularly in regard to the discharge of President’s patients.

Mr. Speaker, I have sought the opinion of a number of experts on this legislation and discussed the provisions of the Act with them. There is general support among them for this legislation. They feel that the legislation removes certain shortcomings which existed. Consequently my party fully supports the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the psychologists say: If you are very anxious, your palms sweat profusely. I want to assure you now that I am standing in a pool of water! It is a great privilege for me in the first place today to pay tribute to my predecessor who had a period of 34 years’ unbroken service in this House. Since he also served as Whip for many years, subsequently as Chief Whip and finally as chairman of the caucus, I want to assure hon. members today that he is relishing his retirement and is relaxing and enjoying life on his farm in Brits. I should also like to express my thanks to the hon. Chief Whip and his hon. fellow Whips as well as to the hon. senior members of the House who have been so helpful to us younger ones during the past weeks. I was struck dumb when the hon. member for Parow brought me here on the first day and showed me the Chamber. I wondered how on earth I would ever manage to stand up here and speak. However, he and the others made it easier for us by assuring us that they had also felt the same way. We younger members have therefore accepted the fact that there are many hon. members here—in fact probably all of them—who simply do the best they can.

It is my privilege here today to express my support for the Bill which the hon. the Minister of Health has just introduced here. Time is very limited and since what has been discussed here covers only a few aspects of a much wider subject—a subject which is also a very contentious one in a certain sense—it is to be understood that I shall have to be careful in airing a few thoughts about it today. However, I want to make bold to say that the legislative body of the Republic of South Africa—and I am referring now to hon. members on both sides of the House—can be pleased and can congratulate itself on having at its disposal legislation dealing with health, mental health in particular, which as far as my knowledge goes, is probably among the very best in the world. The Mental Health Act was promulgated in 1973. It was my privilege to be able to have a share in it, a small share which was contributed by one or two boards on which I served. I can therefore, assure hon. members that the few amendments that are being proposed are merely of an evolutionary nature in the sense that they are adjustments, small improvements, but that the basic principles of the existing Act are not being tampered with. It is important for us as members of this House to know that existing legislation is not rewritten every year. For instance—and I am speaking subject to correction now—I can point out that the original Mental Health Act was passed as far back as about 70 years ago. I think that this is also a feather in the cap of this House in that this space of time has already elapsed. This serves to prove that this hon. House can pass legislation which has a scientific foundation and which can stand the test of time. That is all I have to say about the Mental Health Act.

I should like now to dwell briefly on the subject under discussion, viz. mental health. In talking about mental health I want to say that I think it is very important for the general public to understand this matter very well from the very beginning especially as the legislation concerned covers such a tremendously wide field. Furthermore, it is of cardinal importance to realize that we are dealing here with a matter which is of a multi-disciplinary nature. In other words, it is not simple and solely a subject which falle into the cadre of the physicians or the sociologists or the theologians or whatever profession it may be, at least not exclusively so. However, all the various disciplines do have a mutual need of one another, and must assist one another in order to make a success of this matter and of this branch of learning. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that it is generally understood, I think it is nevertheless still important today that there to be a change of attitude on the part of the general public in the sense that when there are people who need treatment or help, for reasons which I shall indicate in a moment, they should not be treated as if they were leapers or as if there was a serious screw loose somewhere because I can assure you that just as in the case of any physical indisposition, most mental deficiencies can be treated. One can be cured provided that one receives the correct treatment. Therefore, the same norm holds good for aberrations of the human mind. I would even go so far as to say that only 10% or even only 7% of these cases are incurable nowadays. If I may make a comparison, I want to say that it is generally accepted that when one contracts cancer, the chances of making a complete recovery are not very good. Similarly, on the psychiatric level there are certain aberrations which are serious, but the majority of these aberrations— I should say 90% of them—can in fact be treated and cured. I ask therefore that there should be a change of heart in this sense.

On the other hand it is also necessary for us to express our heartfelt appreciation from this House to the thousands upon thousands’ of people outside who are involved in some or other paramedical service, in the service of medicine itself and in the other auxiliary services who—and I can assure the House of this—do wonderful work in institutions, clinics, hospitals, homes etc. I should like to pay tribute today to the S.A. Medical Council in particular, the whole of the South African medical profession and, as I have said, the allied professions. I take the liberty of saying that I am proud to be able to stand here today with this Bill in my hand and to say that it is legislation of a South African Government.

It may rightly be asked: What is mental health all about? It is very difficult to define it in a few words. We are in fact dealing with a very complicated subject. If I may be permitted to do so, I should prefer to put it in a negative way by saying that poor mental health causes people to have an unsuccessful, unhappy approach towards life in general.

There are many reasons for this, but I want nevertheless to point out that when we deal with this very broad subject, we must realize that the line between healthy and unhealthy, between strong and weak and between deviant and non-deviant is very vague in many respects. Therefore we cannot summarily compartmentalize people or label them and think that by so ding we have disposed of the matter. It is not as simple as that. When we talk about mental disability we should mean that people do not have the ability to cope with or overcome everyday problems. There are many reasons for this. There are for example personal reasons, emotional reasons, upsets or tensions which prevent people from dealing constructively with probleme. But there are also physical causes such as arteriosclerosis, meningitis and many others which are physical in origin and not psychological. One is only too inclined to put a wrong label on this kind of thing when these causes are present On the other hand there are also certain disturbances which occur of themselves in the human body purely as a result of chemical or negative reactions—if I may put it so.

There is one factor particularly that I want to emphasize today, and hon. members in this House will also be aware of this in the outside world. I am talking about the stress factor which has become part of the modern Western society of 1978. It takes its toll as a result of industrialization, as a result of the changing values which exist and as a result of religious factors. There are many situations which have changed considerably, and I want to make bold to say that possibly 80% of the textbooks on medical or mental science— to limit ourselves to the subject under discussion—that were written before the last world war, should be discarded or donated to the archives or university libraries because they are no longer relevant—or should I say rather that they are no longer abreast of the situation or offer a solution to the situation today.

Apart from the stress factor I also want to mention the population explosion and the great loneliness problem in the metropolitan areas. Hon. members will know that only 16% of our population has remained in the rural areas. We are practically all urbanites. Loneliness does not only affect middle-aged people, the aged, widows or those who are divorced. It affects young people in particular as well. I should like to emphasize that we shall have to give attention to the fact that the young people are becoming lonelier, and that as a result there are social problems in the form of the abuse of alcohol and drugs and the coming into being of new subcultures. This is an entirely different aspect of the matter that has come to the fore.

I am only going to talk for two minutes longer, and in the short time at my disposal I just want to mention the problems which arise or exist in one’s employment I am referring to the relations level, the whole situation of the employer towards the employee. On the one hand there are pension problems and on the other hand there are promotion problems. This holds good for middle-aged people in particular, people who have set their sights on some or other goal and then at the age of 40 or 45 realize that they have not achieved the things they have been striving for. That is when frustrations arise. One can digress a great deal on this level because there are many problems that arise because of working conditions.

Then there are also marital problems which affect people very deeply. There are religious problems too. The anchor to which many people cling in difficult situations, has become inadequate to many because certain truths no longer hold in the times in which we are living. In many respects its substance has to be presented to us in another form. This aspect deserves our attention.

I just want to mention in passing that there are many early signs of mental disability. It is not my task to present them to you this afternoon. To my mind what is important today, is that this question also affects the ordinary man in particular and that we cannot disregard the average man when mental health in general is being discussed. I just want to refer to this briefly. We must realize that most people are not blessed with inner qualities which are so strong that they cannot be affected by the factors I have just mentioned. To summarize I want to say that as far as my knowledge goes, there was only one Man who was completely sound mentally. Every other person has his or her shortcomings or deficiencies in some of other way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude in the same way as I began, viz. by asking for an appreciation of the tremendously wide field of mental health. We must be grateful and pay tribute to the medical profession and the paramedics for the services they render, the people who are involved, and to the legislative body which, as far as I am concerned, is giving our courts and authorities the best possible legislation to follow. I cannot but say that we have every right to be proud of the medical profession in general. I want to ask simply that there be more understanding for an insight into a wide problem which must be tackled on a multi-disciplinary level.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the previous speaker on his maiden speech. He succeeds a man who served in the House for many years. We wish him everything of the best for the years that lie ahead.

†It is fitting that the hon. member who has just sat down has paid tribute to his predecessor in the House, a man who became almost a tradition here. We associate ourselves with the good wishes extended to him this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us shows that the relevant wording has been improved. It is obvious that the decisions will be made primarily by professional people. It is fitting that this should be so. It is also obvious that the implications of the legislation have been looked at sympathetically. The wording of the amendments reflects real concern for the welfare of people who, after all, are in great need of all the care they can get. We support the hon. the Minister in his intentions to streamline the law and overcome any possible bottlenecks. We therefore have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that two Opposition groups so far have already indicated that they support the Bill because it is imperative that the amendments, as proposed by the hon. the Minister, should be introduced. In spite of the fact that the Mental Health Act, No. 18 of 1973, consolidated and modernized all previous legislation concerning mental health, and brought it in line with our present knowledge of the treatment and prognosis of mental illnesses, the hon. the Minister nevertheless found it necessary to move the amendments which are before us at the moment. These amendments chiefly concern the discharge of a certain category of Presidents’ patients and the termination of the detention as such of the patients concerned in an institution or prison as provided in sections 29 and 37 of the principal Act.

With the development of and the progress in modern psychiatry, and in particular the development of psychotropic measures, the entire concept of mental illness and even the stigma which was attached to it, is undergoing a change. Whereas formerly it was taken to be a more or less permanent condition, it is now realized that a mental illness, just like a physical illness, can be actively treated with good and rapid results. That is why it is also interesting to note that the development of psychiatry in South Africa falls into four main stages. The period from 1652 to the end of the previous century is known as the demonic stage. In that period people believed that mentally ill people were possessed by the devil. This concept was weakened considerably during the second half of the 18th century when King George III of England experienced mental illness on a few occasions and nobody had the courage at that stage to allege that the king was possessed by the devil. The second stage, the so-called concealed stage, lasted from the beginning of this century up to the middle of the thirties. During this period this type of person was simply removed from the community and at most dosed with sedatives. They were excluded from the community; the community was protected from them, as it were. As the hon. member for Brits correctly said in his very good maiden speech, these people were treated as if they were lepers. A stigma attached to them. It was only after that that the so-called physical method of treatment was introduced, when patients were treated with insulin and underwent electrical shock treatment. That was the time when the so-called leucotomy operation, which drastically changed the personality of these people, was in vogue. It was only during the second half of the fifties that the psychotropic drugs were developed. These drugs now make it possible to keep many of these mentally ill patients within the milieu of their family, to treat them there and deal with them on an out-patient basis at the hospital. This tendency which is being followed in psychiatry, is very well illustrated by this fine publication by the Department of Health, The Health of the People. On page 71 there is a graph which indicates that the total number of residential psychiatric patients in hospitals and institutions was more than 26 000 in 1970. This number has dropped to such an extent that it was 17 500 per annum in 1975.

On the other hand, the out-patient calls of psychiatric patients have increased from a little more than 2 500 in 1965 to almost 176 000 in 1975. This shows you, Mr. Speaker, what this change in approach has brought about. That is why it has become necessary for the administrative red tape which the existing legislation entailed, to be reduced so that these patients could be conditionally discharged more rapidly irrespective of whether they have recovered completely or not, except of course for those patients who are institutionalized in terms of section 29(1) and who have committed serious crimes or are being detained for violent behaviour. Furthermore, permission is granted for operations on those patients who cannot decide for themselves. Approval of these operations may be granted by members of the family or if members of the family are not available, by the superintendent of the hospital. This is in accordance with the procedure followed at ordinary provincial hospitals.

In conclusion I want to mention the delegation of powers under clause 7. Amongst other things, section 74B is added to the Act in terms of that clause. It is an important measure to expedite the discharge of these people from the various hospitals and institutions so as to expedite the return of a certain category of State President’s patient to society to enable them once again to become useful citizens of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation for the fact that you—I am expressing my appreciation and not questioning the authority of the Chair—allowed my colleagues a somewhat wider discussion of the problem of mental health and that you did not restrict them to those aspects which are part of the amendments. If we have the time available, it is important that we should also give attention to matters like these. I should like to thank the hon. member for Bryanston again for supporting the measure. Actually I should express my thanks towards the people whom he consulted. Seeing that there is peace in the House, why should I quarrel with him? I suppose that if I had to give an opinion upon a question of law in this House, I would also consult an advocate or an attorney about it, just as he has done.

I feel that I ought to explain to the House today what a President’s patient is and into what categories they can be divided. I shall not go into the finer details. Part of the amendment in the Bill deals with President’s patients and a major part of the criticism against the department was about the treatment of President’s patients. Generally speaking, a President’s patient can be regarded as a person who was mentally deranged at the time when he committed an offence. If such a person can be permanently classified and certified, he/she cannot be prosecuted in the ordinary sense of the word as in the case of someone who is quite sane. Such a person therefore becomes a State President’s patient and then enjoys the protection of the State President. They are not only treated by physicians who specialize in psychiatry, but they are also admitted to institutions. In some instances such a person is a criminal only in the sense that he has committed a minor offence. Perhaps he has just stolen something while he was temporarily deranged, or it may be that he is mentally deranged and was not really aware of what he was doing. Such a person is known as a State President’s patient who has not been convicted of a serious offence, assault or violence. On the other hand, there is the State President’s patient who has been found guilty of a serious offence or of murder. On the strength of the necessary evidence, such a person, too, is classified as insane or, as it is known today, as mentally deranged.

The treatment and custody of such a patient must naturally be approached far more seriously, and they are often admitted to a hospital or prison institution where very strict security measures are in force. Such a person is treated differently before his discharge, because the danger exists that he may again resort to violence. One must be very sure that the treatment he has received has in fact cured him and a certain period must elapse within which the patient can prove that he no longer poses a danger to the public.

We have to make provision both for the State President’s patient who has committed a minor offence and who is being discharged and for the one who has committed a serious offence, who has been in custody for many years and who is not a danger to the public and may be placed under the supervision of a member of his family. Experience has shown that some of the patients who are conditionally discharged, disappear while they are supposed to be under the supervision of the Minister. We must act to ensure that there will be supervision over such a patient. In other cases we must follow the procedure which applies to the patient who has committed a serious offence. After he has been detained for a long period, a judge in chambers usually makes a decision about him. The important aspect is that we found certain shortcomings in the procedure according to which patients are treated. Because of these, some people were detained and treated for too long a period and others again were not detained or treated long enough. This is what gave rise to most of the criticism; hence the Bill before the House today. I just felt that I had to explain the matter to the House.

On behalf of this side I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Brits—he is sitting in the bench where I sat for a long time—on his maiden speech. I do not know how long the hon. member practised, but from what he has said, he has a sound philosophy and a scientific perception of his subject, if it is his subject. I assume that it is. The hon. member’s observations on mental health have rather impressed me and I should like to congratulate him. I should like to point out to him that the whole trend of medical legislation in recent times—especially of the comprehensive legislation of last year—has been to frame a charter which, according to the jurists and the people who advised us, does not fit into substantive law, and whereby the health of a person is connected with the physical, spiritual and other aspects of his existence, which can bring him supreme happiness as a human being. We wanted to include this aspect in the Bill, but in the end we did not do so. What the hon. member said today underlines that approach. His tribute to the professions is highly appreciated. If people in these professions would listen carefully to what the hon. member has said— we hope they read Hansard and that the Press will report his speech—it would eliminate some of the little problems which we sometimes have with them.

From a medical point of view, the whole discipline of mental health has quite a humber of ramifications and I find it interesting that the hon. member has raised that in this House. The hon. member for Pietersburg set out in a neat chronological order the stigma which has for many years attached to mental health. The hon. member has evidently made a thorough study of the subject. The stigma attaching to people with mental problems is one which we are steadily removing from the minds of the general public. We are doing that, in the first place, with the aid of modern medicines which are available and, secondly, with modern hospitalization. About the latter aspect we can learn a lot in other countries. In Sweden, especially, I observed the planning of hospitals, which we are either applying or going to apply here, especially in the new hospitals like the one which will be erected for Coloureds at Mitchell’s Plain. With smaller complexes and better administration, much better attention can be given to patients.

With the demands of modern times, the mental make-up of modern man is no longer entirely proof against the onslaughts that are made on him. Not only one’s work, but other aspects as well, such as one’s environment, people who pester one from time to time— even in the political field—and one’s family at home, all contribute to this onslaught. Everyone of us ought to take this into consideration in the times in which we live. I often feel that we should not offer too much resistance to it. On the contrary. Here the stigma aspect again enters into the picture. I think one should seek assistance when it is necessary. If someone feels that things are too difficult for him and that he seems to be deviating somewhat from his normal conduct, he is able—and there is no stigma attached to that—to take cognizance and to make use of the great many people who have been trained to cure spiritual problems and mental aberrations. At least one-third of all people are susceptible to one or other form of mental aberration.

Among us it is slightly higher.

Yes, among us the percentage is probably higher. If one is in general practice, one comes to think that it is 80%. But be that as it may. On close examination, it appears as if a great percentage of our people thoroughly need this assistance and will need it in future. But there must not be any stigma attached to it. People are afraid to go and seek assistance at an institution where the treatment is mainly directed at their spiritual problems. A person can be much more productive and adapt better to society and to his family if only he can obtain a little bit of professional assistance in a world which has become very complex to all of us. For this reason I am very pleased that the hon. member has stressed this aspect so much.

The hon. member for Pietersburg has given us a very good chronological exposition of the matter. Nevertheless I wish to stress two matters which he has raised. The number of patients in South Africa’s mental institutions is fast declining as a result of the two reasons which I have already mentioned. One of these is better hospitalization and the other is the improved services which are being rendered. The underlying reason for this is not only the sociological and other research which has been done, but also the better medicines which are available today. A patient can sometimes be discharged as cured after three months if there is good, continuous treatment and supervision available to him. I wish to conclude by stressing that aspect.

Another aspect which is embodied in the Bill and which we may easily lose sight of is that when a person becomes mentally deranged, we now know which people can be consulted, and in what order, if any surgical operation must be performed on the patient.

I have now said everything which I should have said and I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. members who took part in the debate. I think that this subject and the discussion thereof has been to everybody’s benefit.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

From time to time the department receives offers of donations and bequests with a view to promoting the activities of the department. At present such donations and bequests must be deposited in the State Revenue Fund or have to be canalized to other bodies.

Offers from the private sector, to finance officers of the department to undertake overseas studies pertaining to particular health problems encountered in South Africa, have also been received. To date such offers have always been refused since it is the policy of the State that it must bear all expenses for its employees. However, I am of the opinion that both the State and the private sector could benefit from such studies and investigations and that these offers should be utilized under controlled conditions in order to prevent any possibility of malpractice.

In order to utilize such donations and bequests properly and to prevent its absorption into State funds, money received from such sources should be deposited in a special fund so that it could be controlled and converted for use separately from moneys appropriated by Parliament.

These studies and investigations must not be confused with the functions of the South African Medical Research Council. The council’s functions are limited to research, whilst the studies and investigations by officers of the department are aimed at solving problems encountered in the work situation; in other words, applied studies and applied research.

I foresee no problems in duplication as the functions of the department are very clear.

Mr. Speaker, this will not become common practice, but I just want to say that the PFP will lend its full support to this legislation as well. Certain persons and bodies are concerned about the provisions of this legislation, concerned about the possibility that the legislation could lead to interference in the independence which exists in respect of the collection of funds for medical purposes as well as with the spending of these funds. There is concern about this independence possibly being restricted as a result of the provisions of the legislation. I do not think that this is the case, but I should very much like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister whether he can give South Africa the specific assurance that it is not the object of the legislation to interfere in any way with existing schemes and donations to bodies doing research and providing certain medical services at present, but that it only refers to ad hoc donations which are made, and which were dealt with by the department on an ad hoc basis in the past.

There is another question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I see that the control of the fund, the administrative control of all donations that can be made under this legislation, the investment and application of the funds will fall primarily under the Minister and his department and the secretary of the department. I wonder if it might not perhaps be advisable for the hon. the Minister to establish a small committee, a committee consisting of members of the bodies concerned, so that the committee will be representative of research bodies and bodies donating money for these purposes to assist the Minister and his department in the collection as well as the expenditure of the funds. I believe that this will give greater credibility to the fund and to the handling of the fund and that it will assist the hon. the Minister to a great extent in the performance of his duties in this regard. Apart from those two questions, our party will give this legislation its full support.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an unusual position today—I would almost say that of a deacon— because I am going to ask that such donations be made. I think there is very little to be said about the need for this legislation. I think it is obvious to anyone who gives the matter a little thought that if the department occasionally receives such donations it has up to this stage been in the situation that everything which it received had to be paid in to the general revenue fund, together with all our little tax contributions. Of that the Department of Health does get quite a considerable amount back in its appropriation. In this case, however, there are people who wish to make a particular donation to express their special gratitude for the treatment they received. There are not many people who realize what contribution is made on the part of the State and more specifically on the part of the Department of Health to the treatment which these people receive, to the benefit of their environment, to the welfare of their families and perhaps their children. People think they are paying for this, but the services rendered by the Department of Health are seldom paid form. The Provincial Administration is, however, being paid. In reality it is only a small contribution to the cost involved in such treatment. Therefore it is imperative that this law should be made. People are grateful for the treatment and subsequently they make certain donations. There are few people who know, for example, that the Nelspoort sanatorium, as it exists today, was built on a piece of land donated by the Garlick family— a well-known Cape Town family. There are people who are grateful. Very recently a donation was made to the department by a person whose child was cared for in institutions of the department for years. These people were particularly grateful and donated one half of their farm to the department. It is absolutely necessary that such funds can be utilized. Now the question which arises is what these things may be utilized for. As it stands here it is almost as vast as the mercy of God. Specifically, however, it is to be utilized for research. It is possible to elaborate for a long time on the question of in what spheres research is being done in each case. I shall not go into that now. In any case, that is not my intention. All that we still have to establish is whether provision is being made for the proper control of this fund. In my opinion provision is being made in the Bill before us for the proper control of the fund.

Once all three those requirements have been complied with, I think that all that remains for us to do is to make an appeal from this House today to people who are interested in charity and goodwill, as well as in certain aspects of health. It happens quite frequently that people want research done into certain matters, particularly in cases where their kinfolk die of rare diseases. That is why I am making this appeal, to draw people’s attention to the fact that there is an opportunity here to make donations which can be utilized in a proper way in the interest of furthering medical science, in the interest of research and in the interests of alleviating suffering, particularly of people who might in future suffer from diseases similar to those in regard to which the research in question is being done.

It is therefore a privilege for me to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, while we on this side of the House also support this Bill, I am going to say something which, I am sure, the hon. member for Yeoville often says in his caucus meetings: “I have a problem.” [Interjections.] There are in fact three suggestions I would like to make to the hon. the Minister of Health. The first one is in regard to the scope of the Bill under consideration. As I understand it, it is obvious that anybody who may wish to donate moneys to this fund may do so. There is no obligation on anybody to do so. However, there is an obligation—in terms of this Bill—on the Minister to use these funds only for research and for studies, as far as I can understand. That is to say for bursaries, research bursaries and the like. In other words, it restricts the expenditure of these moneys to a very large extent.

Now, there are many medical necessities in this country of ours today. That is something we have in common with any other country in the world, of course. I am not trying to single out our country as the only one that might have these problems. The first is in terms of facilities. There are many facilities that are very necessary throughout the country, and I refer particularly to the platteland areas, small hospitals and State-aided hospitals—perhaps not provincial hospitals—where the facilities available to the local doctors are not really sufficient to meet the demands of the community. I would suggest that if the scope of this particular Bill were to be widened somewhat it would enable the hon. the Minister, if he had the funds available, to help out certain hospitals in certain areas with the sort of facilities which they might need.

While on this subject, there is another very great need. I refer to the present situation where specialists of the medical profession fly, on a regular basis, to the Transkei in order to carry out, on a free-of-charge basis, various operations which the local practitioners are not able to carry out. This is obviously a very worthwhile cause, but at the same time it does involve expense. There is, for example, the cost of transport from, shall we say, Cape Town to East London and from East London to Transkei. In fact, I am very well aware of this because for the last several years I have been supplying the transport from East London to Umtata. There are many areas of this country where this type of help would, I am sure, be greatly appreciated. I am not necessarily referring to independent countries; I have used the Transkei only as an example. There are many homeland territories where I am sure this type of assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, there is a desperate shortage of convalescent facilities in South Africa. We very badly need more convalescent facilities to enable hospitals to clear their beds of people who are recuperating or convalescing and to make way for more urgent cases. I believe it would be a good idea to increase the scope of the areas in which this money can be spent, and I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look into this matter.

My second point is that it is possible—and, indeed, we all hope that this will happen— that this fund will grow into a very large figure. Should it do so, I believe we are asking rather a lot of the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for Health to be the only adjudicating authority. Here I want to join with the hon. member for Bryanston, who asked for a committee of investigation into this matter. I should like to go a little further than he went I believe that if the fund should ever get to be a considerable figure, a proper board should be constituted to see to the correct allocation of these funds, to approve bursaries and scholarships, and in fact to approve any expenditure that the fund might incur.

Thirdly, I see that no provision is made in the Bill for any sort of reporting. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to tell me what sort of steps will be taken to report on this fund to this House. Will a report be tabled in this House annually, telling us exactly how much money has been donated and what the funds have been spent on each year?

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank the hon. member for Bryanston for supporting this legislation. I should also like to thank the hon. member for Fauresmith for his discourse and the exposition of his reasons for supporting the Bill. I should like to say a few things to the hon. member for East London North.

†The scope of the actions pertaining to this fund may be found in clause 3 of the Bill. The Minister is, to a certain extent, restricted in his use of this money. The spending of the money in the fund pertains to health matters and matters relating to the functions of the department, all of which are well circumscribed. When we speak about the functions of the Department of Health, we must go a little further and examine the other proposals of the hon. member, which I think were made in very good faith. For instance, the treatment of patients in the Transkei is actually a curative aspect of medicine, and that is undertaken by the provincial authorities. Such activities are not within the scope of the Department of Health.

Services such as convalescence, etc., are provincial services. If the hon. member reads this Bill carefully, he will notice that this is not merely a question of subsidies, or even one of grants. Many other things are involved, aspects not specifically detailed. The Minister can at his discretion, in conjunction with the Treasury and the Secretary for Health, determine whether funds voted for a very specific purpose can be used for other purposes. At the same time we must take into account that the various ways in which this money can be used are already circumscribed. Clause 3 very clearly pinpoints “studies, surveys and applied research”. One may want to send someone overseas to conduct a survey. The funds may also be used for the “granting of study loans or bursaries or otherwise, the training of persons”, etc., I therefore think that as far as that is concerned, I can set the hon. member’s mind at rest.

Let me now refer to the matter of control. With the Treasury, the Minister and the Secretary for Health in the picture, I think it would be very unwise of the individuals concerned to go about spending the money without taking into account the duty of the department to report to this Parliament by way of an annual report on the way in which the money was spent so that Parliament can determine whether the money was spent in the right way. There is, furthermore, the control exercised by the Auditor-General. I therefore think I can put that hon. member’s mind at rest. I do not think a board is necessary. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services has a fund similar to this and they do not need a board. I think we have enough people who are capable of looking after this matter. Of course, if it becomes too big a problem, or if we perhaps reach another stage of development, we may have to reconsider the position. At present, however, I do not think we should treat it as an issue, so to speak. I do not think the hon. member need worry. I think that by agreeing to this measure, we will definitely be steering this fund in the right direction.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, when we discussed the Second Reading of this Bill we did not, at any stage, raise the question of the contents of clause 1. This involves the Bantu Commissioner’s courts. There is nothing in the clause itself that we can, in fact, get at. As far as the administration of the Bantu Commissioner’s courts is concerned, this clause does two things. Firstly, it allows debts which become due to the judgment debtor, other than by a bond, to be attached.

Secondly, it provides for what is commonly known as garnishee orders. The Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court, as hon. members are well aware, deals only with cases between Bantu and Bantu. In other words, if the case is one between Bantu and Indian, Coloured or White, it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court. The court itself functions on two bases. There is the criminal side dealing mostly with section 29 and then there is the civil side which deals with civil debts. The type of cases that come before the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court are cases between Bantu and Bantu with regard to, say, lobolo claims and acknowledgments of debt, and normal civil cases generally. I think it has been a little frustrating for a judgment creditor, after he has obtained a judgment debt, to be unable to satisfy the debt, because once a writ of execution is issued in terms of the judgment granted by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court, if there is a nulla bona return and there is nothing to attach, there is nothing further the judgment creditor can do. This is therefore a distinct improvement which, I think, will assist practitioners and which will certainly assist the judgment creditors to try to get satisfaction of their debts, because they will be able to attach moneys that are due to the judgment debtor and, most important, they will be means of garnishee orders be able to attach the salary due and will thus be able to recover.

I should like to say that I think there is room in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court as such for many more Bantu to be appointed as Bantu commissioners. I urge the hon. the Minister to consider that. As far as the type of cases that come before the Bantu Commissioners is concerned, there is nothing to stop a litigation between Bantu and Bantu in fact going to the magistrate’s court or to the Supreme Court. Therefore, they have the choice of going before the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court or a magistrate’s court, but obviously the tariff of fees laid down and allowed by the taxing master in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court is far lower, thus providing for a far cheaper method of process. However, up to now they have not been able to obtain satisfaction.

As the hon. the Minister has gone this far, I urge him now to consider the following: Allowing a writ of execution to be issued in satisfaction of a judgment debt in the manner in which it is now done, there is still the possibility that a garnishee order will not assist the judgment creditor because, firstly, there may be no money due as the person may not be employed and, secondly, the nulla bona return on the writ of execution would show nothing. As the hon. the Minister and hon. members know, if this happens in a magistrate’s court, the next procedure is to issue a “section 65” which, as I think hon. members know, simply means that in terms of section 65 the judgment debtor is then in terms of the judgment brought before the magistrate’s court and must produce a list of his debts and assets. He is then examined financially before the magistrate so that the magistrate can make an order for periodical payments arising out of anything he earns. If he then fails to satisfy that judgment, he can be brought before court for contempt and a warrant of arrest can be issued which takes the place of the old C.I. days many years ago when civil imprisonment was in fact part of the magistrate’s court’s. I would urge the hon. the Minister, since he has gone so far as to enable writs of execution to be issued, to consider enabling magistrate’s court’s proceedings in terms of section 65 to be applied similarly in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place let me express my gratitude to hon. members for supporting this positive part of the Bill. I am grateful for that. I waited for that support because it is worthwhile that there should be support for this.

There are two aspects raised by the hon. member to which I should like to reply. In the first place there is the question of the appointment of Blacks as Bantu Commissioners. It is our policy—it has always been the policy of the department under my predecessors—to appoint qualified people in this position as soon as they become available. Hon. members will realize that because of the position and the authority vested in this office, it would be totally wrong to appoint people who are not fully qualified or who do not have the necessary background, to such a position of power. But I want to give you the assurance that the application of anyone who qualifies and who applies for such a post, will be considered favourably and that that person will be appointed to the post.

In the second instance, the hon. member raises the same matter as the hon. member for Albany raised in his maiden speech. I want to say at once that the eventual high costs involved here are still an obstacle at the moment. We are, however, keeping a close watch on developments and when possibilities occur in that direction, we shall give the matter our attention.

†We are keeping a close watch and if it can be done, we will do it. At the moment the cost is still prohibitive.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, this clause in effect exempts foreign Africans from the restrictions imposed by section 12 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, from the restrictions imposed on foreign Africans with regard to permission to “enter, be or remain” in a prescribed area in the Republic. It exempts Blacks who are now citizens of independent territories which were formerly part of the Republic. That is the effect of this clause. It exempts those people who are citizens of an area which formerly formed a part of the Republic and which now have become independent. In other words, it refers to citizens of the Transkei and of Bophuthatswana. These citizens are exempted from the provisions of section 12 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, which makes it very difficult for foreign Africans, say from Rhodesia, Malawi, Lesotho or any of the other neighbouring territories to enter, remain or to take up employment in a prescribed area. To that extent, of course, we are pleased to have these exemptions because certain persons are now at least protected by virtue of the fact that they were citizens of South Africa. From that point of view we are pleased with this clause. I also think that the hon. the Minister is pleased with me, which is not something that happens often in this House.

Why do you not sit down now?

Why should I? I still have a lot to say and by the time I am finished he will not be so pleased with me anymore because I now have to go to the objections which we have to this clause and which, as the hon. the Minister knows, constitutes one of our major objections to this Bill. As far as that goes, therefore, we have no objection to this clause. Our objection is that the clause does not go far enough. The objective of the clause as it stands now, by virtue of the words “not a former South African citizen …” in the clause, means that all the offspring of those persons who were citizens of South Africa and who lost their citizenship by virtue of the territory to which they are linked culturally, ethnically and by language, having become independent will lose their South African citizenship. Formerly they had dual citizenship: they were citizens of South Africa and of the homeland to which they had this attachment, however tenuous this was. They could have been third-generation urban Blacks, born in Soweto like their grandparents were. They need never have set foot in the homelands. Yet the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 automatically made them citizens of a homeland but it allowed them to retain their South African citizenship as well. As we all know, as independence was taken by two of these homelands, those people attached to the Transkei and Bophuthatswana lost their South African citizenship. However, their offspring born after the date of independence—I think the hon. the Minister will confirm this—do not enjoy the exemption granted in this clause to the parents of such offspring.

Yes.

That is right. It is so ambiguously worded, I must say, that I had to practically stand on my head to understand it. It is so full of double negatives that it is very difficult to understand indeed. However, I am glad the interpretation …

I did not think you were so clever.

Well, I am just as smart as the hon. Chief Whip, I should think. Anyway, I have the confirmation from the hon. the Minister that that is the interpretation. Sir, we object to this clause because we do not see why this should be done to the offspring of former citizens, resident for many decades, possibly for two generations, in Langa, Soweto or Guguletu or, for that matter, on White farms in the Republic because there are many members in the House who have African workers on their farms, people who have been there for generations and who have never set foot off the farms because of various factors, one of them being lack of the right of mobility. Perhaps they do not want to leave the farms because they are so cosily employed there. Whatever the case may be, those people have lost their citizenship of the Republic and their children have now lost their citizenship as well. On 26 October 1976 Transkei became independent and on 6 December of last year Bophuthatswana became independent and after those dates every child born of such parents, no matter how long they had lived in South Africa, lost their citizenship. They have become foreign Africans and that means that they now no longer may be in the urban area or in a prescribed area without special permission and they may not be employed there either. This is a very considerable deprivation of their rights under section 10 of the principal Act, because many of them were born in the urban areas. Therefore I maintain that it is a betrayal of the undertaking …

It is not a betrayal.

What is it then? Is it a method of circumventing the promise that was given in terms of the laws that were passed in the House when those two areas became independent? It was stated then that they would lose no rights other than citizenship, but now the children, their offspring, are losing other rights.

But they were not born then.

They were not born then, but had they been born at the time, they would have enjoyed those rights. Those parents are still no different from the people they were before 26 October 1976 and 6 December 1977. They have lost their citizenship but they are still permanently resident in the Republic where they always were. It is not as if they have just moved in from the independent territories. They have been living there for decades and therefore we consider it to be a gross deprivation of rights which their offspring would have enjoyed.

I want to point out again to the hon. the Minister that Africans living in the urban areas of the Republic and those living on White farms, were not consulted about the independence of the territories. Therefore they lost those rights of citizenship without their consent and that is our big objection to this particular clause and the effects that it has. The hon. the Minister had a lot to say to us about our denegrating citizenship and about putting birth above citizenship in his reply to the Second Reading. The hon. the Minister will remember that. The hon. the Minister was wrong when he referred to citizens not acquiring rights by virtue of birth, because of course they do. If one is born of South African citizens in Canada, England or America the child is able to opt, on reaching majority, whether he wishes to retain the citizenship that he had acquired by virtue of birth in those countries, or whether he wishes to revert to the citizenship of his parents who may have retained their South African parentage although living in England or Canada temporarily when the child was born. The hon. the Minister says that in South Africa the children of parents who are not South African citizens and who are not permanently resident here, may not automatically acquire South African citizenship.

This is not the norm and the hon. the Minister is wrong there. The hon. the Minister dealt with the matter as though it was the normal practice in every country in the world. This is not, however, the case. If parents who are living in a country, irrespective of their citizenship, have a child in that country the child is automatically allowed to obtain the citizenship of the country where it was born. It is where the child is born that decides what the child will be except when the child comes of age and can opt to take its parents’ citizenship.

You cannot generalize like that.

I can certainly generalize as far as England, America and Canada are concerned. I am pretty sure it is the same in Australia, but I would not put my head on a block about that because I am not sure. I am also not sure about France, but am trying to find out and if I have the answer before I sit down I will tell the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister generalized in the opposite direction.

Yes, the hon. the Minister generalized in the opposite direction by saying it was the law. It is not a case of denigrating; it is a case of normal rights that one finds in, shall I say, other Western countries some of which we were attached to by commonwealth ties. That is the gravamen of our objections and therefore we do not intend supporting clause 2.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with legislation which is specifically directed at making arrangements with regard to Blacks in White areas, and therefore we have to be very careful not to raise expectations amongst them concerning privileges in White areas which we cannot fulfil. The hon. member for Houghton adopted what was nearly the correct attitude at the beginning of her speech. After her feud of yesterday she nearly accepted this clause today. It seems to me that she almost understands the clause, although not quite. I want to put it very clearly to her that the idea of this clause is specifically to have a basis on which to regulate the relations of Blacks in White areas. The clause deals with a difficult problem. We have always determined what a person is on the basis of birth, but now we want to do it on the basis of citizenship. I am glad that I can talk to the hon. Chairman, because in his former profession he had the same problem and the same experience as I had. Hundreds of Black women flock from various areas to White hospitals to give birth there, because there have been complications or purely because the White hospital offers better facilities. The problem which arises then, is whether the child of that Black mother from Lesotho, or whichever area it may be, the child which is born in a White area, must forfeit his citizenship of the country or homeland from which his mother originates. I should like to appeal to the hon. member for Houghton not to draw a parallel between such a case and the case of a White person who is born in Europe and who, after 21 years, can apply for citizenship of the country in which he is living. We are dealing here with the Blacks in White areas, and we should like to arrange to establish an equal basis so that we can determine exactly what can be done to the Blacks’ advantage and what can be done in this way to diminish the frustration amongst them.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make quite sure that I understand that the hon. the Minister is actually attempting to do. As I understand the situation, there are people who have rights established by birth, by domicile and by working for one employer for 10 years or working for several employers for 15 years. In terms of section 10, these then have certain rights. Some of those people have, however, since acquired citizenship of an independent territory, a territory which was formerly part of South Africa. In terms of clause 2 children born after their parents acquired citizenship of homelands which became independent, will not be able to acquire section 10 rights to enable them to continue to live in the White areas. However, there are still children born to Black parents who can still acquire section 10 rights by reason of the fact that the areas of which they will become citizens when independence is attained, have not yet attained independence. What is happening in terms of this Bill, is that children born to parents who are citizens of Bophuthatswana and Transkei are now being deprived of the right to reside in the White areas in terms of section 10. The hon. the Minister is drawing a line there in terms of section 10. There will no longer be any children born to citizens of those territories who will acquire rights under section 10. Is that correct? I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance on this point.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply at once to the question of the hon. member for Mooi River. We thrashed out this aspect yesterday during the Second Reading. Hon. members raised the objection that the children of citizens of Bophuthatswana and Transkei who are born in South Africa are excluded from citizenship after the independence of those States by the provisions of this Bill. Their conclusion is correct. There is no doubt about that. The reason for that is very clear. We help people, too, to become independent, not only States. Therefore, the citizens of those States should also receive independence. One cannot for ever perpetuate the situation that children born generation after generation should still retain their South African citizenship and advantages for another 100 years. We are dealing here with a family of nations. A concession is made here to citizens of Bophuthatswana and Transkei by means of which they retain a number of privileges, which foreign Bantu like Malawians and Zambians, etc. do not enjoy. This, therefore, is a positive step which is being taken in that direction. There should, however, be no doubt about this specific case, viz. that children of citizens of Bophuthatswana and Transkei who are born after independence, cannot enjoy these privileges. They become citizens of their own homelands and are integrated with those homelands. I want to reaffirm this fact.

The hon. member referred to a few countries where this is not the custom. It has for many years been the norm and custom with regard to Whites in South Africa—it has always been my policy in my capacity as Minister of the Interior—that the children of people who come to South Africa as foreigners without taking out South African citizenship or permanent residence, cannot be registered as South African citizens. In that respect the children have no choice. That is the position with regard to the Whites in South Africa. That identical situation we are now applying to the Blacks. Therefore, there is no discrimination. We hold the point of view that every White immigrant is selected. Afterwards, when he has obtained permanent residence, he has the right to register his children as South African citizens even if he has not yet accepted South African citizenship himself. In the case of the Blacks, however, we are dealing with people who have work permits to work in an area. There is a difference between the two cases. Therefore, I am not discriminating against Blacks. I am only bringing the position with regard to the Blacks in line with the position of the Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, my mind absolutely boggles when I think of the consequences of this. Does the hon. the Minister realize that over the next few years tens of thousands of children will be born to people who were citizens of South Africa before their territories gained independence and that these children are now going to be deemed foreigners? Today we have the situation that there are second and third-generation Blacks living in a city like Johannesburg. The real influx of Black people, as the hon. the Minister knows, came just after World War I, and during the ’thirties and onwards. That is a long time ago—two generations ago. These people, who have been born after 26 October 1976 or 6 December 1977, depending on whether it is Transkei or Bophuthatswana, are now deemed to be foreigners who fall under section 12 of the Urban Areas Act. Section 12 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act (No. 25 of 1945) stipulates—

For this is now being substituted by the words in this clause—

Does it not mean that all these children now have to take out or try to obtain permits or written permission from the Secretary to be in the area? The parents of a child born after 26 October or 6 December will now have to go to the Secretary—and, goodness me, he is going to be kept pretty busy and I am quite sorry for him—or the Bantu Commissioner, if he delegates the authority, to get permission for that child to remain in the area, otherwise the child is an illegal foreigner, although born in the urban area, of parents who were born in the area, and maybe even of grandparents who were born in the area. One cannot do this. It is absurd. It just does not make sense to do this. They are not even put in a category which is different from foreign Africans attempting to be or remain in the area, for example, from Malawi, from Rhodesia or from Mozambique. They are put in the same category as those people. Those people may now only come in as contract workers and have to return to the areas whence they came, unless they get very special permission under section 12. How can one do that to these people? I cannot understand how this is going to be administered. I really cannot understand it. I am not being difficult. I am not trying to make trouble for us overseas. I did not introduce this measure. It is the hon. the Minister who has introduced this measure. I wish somebody had persuaded him to hold it back until he got a grasp of what it means to be administering the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act. I know that he comes with good intentions. I grant him that 100%. I am sure he is going to try to do this humanely. However, I do not think that he has got the slightest idea of what happens at Bantu Commissioners’ offices or at the registration offices of the urban areas administrations throughout the country.

Are you the only one who knows what is going on?

This hon. Minister has not had to do with this department and I am sure the hon. member for Pretoria East has never set foot in the offices of WRAB, the East Rand Board, or any of these other boards. He has never been down to a Bantu Commissioner’s court and watched people go like sausages through the law enforcement machinery which there is to try and endorse people out of these areas.

It looks as though he has gone through the machine.

It looks as though he has gone through the machine, the hon. member for Pinelands says, and he is probably right. One must go and sit at the Bantu Commissioner’s court at Fordsburg and watch what happens to these people. They are not defended, they never have legal advice, they do not know what their rights are and in fact they do not have any rights. They get sent to gaol by the hundreds of thousands.

Ag, nonsense!

“Ag, nonsense!” say hon. members. Do they know the statistics of convictions under these laws? Have hon. members any idea what the convictions were last year?

Ask him.

Yes, I shall ask him. Everybody is always asking me questions. Now I am asking the hon. member: Do you have any idea what the number of convictions are?

You never answer questions.

I answer questions all the time. The numbers are well in the hundreds of thousands. Can I not persuade the hon. the Minister even at this late stage just to adjourn this debate and leave it over for a few months until he has had experience in his department, has visited Bantu Commissioners’ courts and has realized the effects of converting all these South African-born people into foreigners under section 12 of the Urban Areas Act, and what it is going to mean in practice? If he is then convinced that I am exaggerating, that other hon. members on this side of the House have exaggerated, then he can go on with the debate. The hon. the Minister has come with a far-reaching measure, a measure which I know must have been framed by his predecessor. It was left over on the stocks from last year, and was probably pushed in quickly because there were perhaps not enough Bills ready for debate, and he has not had time to consider the real implications of this measure. I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this. The implications are immensely far-reaching for thousands upon thousands of people who were born after 26 October 1976 and 6 December 1977, who will be born from now onwards and who will have to take the consequences of clause 2 of this amending Bill. I really ask the hon. the Minister to reflect on this. Nobody, as I say, is going to take this as any sort of personal triumph. I promise the hon. the Minister that. We shall heave a sigh of relief and say, “Maybe the hon. the Minister will rethink this matter.”

Mr. Chairman, the point of issue between the hon. member for Houghton and her party on the one hand, and hon. members on this side of the House on the other, underlines once again the basic politico-philosophical difference between the two sides of the House. I am afraid we could argue about this matter till daybreak, but that we shall never ever agree, for the simple reason, of course, that the philosophy which is fundamental to the politics of the official Opposition, is one of South Africa as an “open society”. In the meantime this side of the House still stands by the principle of separate freedoms. The Act to be amended here—the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945—deals with influx control in prescribed White areas. That is the point at issue. That Act provided that Blacks who could be admitted to the prescribed areas, could be admitted there on grounds of birth, if certain other conditions were satisfied. That is what this is about.

All that is being amended now is that citizenship now replaces birth. That this is so, is the most logical consequence of the policy of the NP. We are not only making countries independent, but people as well. Since he took over this portfolio the hon. the Minister has on occasion told hon. members and the country very clearly and explicitly in this House that, as far as he is concerned, in his administration of this department he will be quite unbending on one issue, and that is the implementation of the policy of the NP in its logical consequences. And that is what we are dealing with this afternoon. This is the logical consequence of the policy of the NP. We are not making excuses for it, and that is why we shall never agree. If, then, it is the policy of the NP to give countries in South Africa, together with the populations concerned, their freedom, we must reach a stage at which we have to say that citizenship must now enjoy priority. Then we have to reach a stage at which we can draw no distinction between the Black citizen of an independent homeland and a White citizen of any independent country in the world. There is no difference at all. Why, therefore, should we now perpetuate a situation which will only create problems in this country in the end, a situation which, in theory at least, could cause us problems?

The hon. Minister referred to this in his reply to the Second Reading debate. Therefore I do not have to repeat it. It is an untenable situation. The hon. member for Houghton is not prepared to accept the word of the hon. the Minister. He did say in his reply to the Second Reading debate that the Black man, like every White who comes to South Africa from abroad, like the foreigners who come here on a temporary work permit or who apply for a permanent residence permit, will in future be selected one by one and man by man. That will in future be applicable to the Black who applies for similar rights. Nothing is being taken away. The hon. the Minister gave us that assurance. He confirmed that he would implement the provisions of this legislation humanely, but that does not satisfy the hon. member for Houghton because she is not prepared to accept the word of the hon. the Minister and that of the NP. Let it be so, but in any case we are not prepared to give up our political philosophy for that. If that is the case, we should rather agree to disagree and vote about the matter now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down has charged us with not being willing to accept the word of the hon. the Minister. I want to assure him that we do accept the word of the hon. the Minister. He made himself very plain in this House in his reply to the Second Reading. He left nothing beyond dispute. He made his intentions very clear indeed, and that is what concerns us. A further point is that this hon. Minister does not administer this law. Therefore his intentions and his sincerity are not in question. What is in question is what stands in the law. That is all we have to go on, and so it is not a question of not accepting his word.

Mr. Chairman, of course that hon. member is very pleased with the new hon. Minister, because the Minister has made it quite clear that the end result of Nationalist policy is that there will not be a single Black citizen in South Africa. He has underlined that. He has said it very clearly indeed, so of course the hon. member is rejoicing. At long last the position has been made absolutely clear, and I say that that is a most dangerous direction in which this country is moving. The fact of the matter is that in terms of this legislation not only children born after the date mentioned, but indeed minor children, may well lose their protection under section 10(1)(a). This is the right given to such a person to live in a prescribed area without a permit.

The hon. member for Houghton has stressed the consequences that will flow from this legislation. I want to underline another consequence, a very serious one. There are people now living in South Africa who enjoy certain rights even though they have citizenship of an independent Bophuthatswana or Transkei. As their children come of age and receive no protection under section 10(1)(a), it is clear to me that if they do not receive the necessary permit to live in the prescribed area and to work in that area, they will then have to return to that homeland. I have used the word “return”, but in fact they will simply have to go there since they were born in South Africa and will never have been there. They will have to go for the first time to Bophuthatswana or Transkei. Thereby we are once again separating families. We will not only be perpetuating something which is iniquitous and indefensible in this country, and which is agreed by all to be so, but we will actually be increasing the results of that situation. Therefore, Sir, I agree with the hon. member for Houghton. I do not think anybody on that side seems to realize just how far-reaching this clause is, and that is why we oppose it so strenuously.

Order! Before I call upon the next speaker I want to make an appeal to hon. members not to discuss the entire policy now, but to confine themselves to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the position here is that certain people are being allowed to work in White South Africa. That is basically why those people are here.

But they were born here.

Yes, the hon. member was also born. [Interjections.] The practice, and our standpoint here in South Africa, is that we allow Black people into the prescribed areas. Why do we do so? We allow them to come and sell their labour here in the White area—conditionally, Sir. I can understand the hon. member’s problem. He does not recognize a White area in South Africa. I say that there is a White area in which the White man in this country also has a place. That is the premise of this party, but not of that party, for that party does not recognize a place for the White man in this country. The premise of that party is that at some stage or another they want to go to a conference table to beg for a hiding place in South Africa. That we are not prepared to do. Surely we are not being unfair and unjust. We are simply demanding our birthright in South Africa. That is what we demand. However, the Black people and we do not want to wage war on one another. After all, we are interdependent, but because we are interdependent and allow those people to come and sell their labour here, it does not mean that we are giving them a permanent birthright here for generations to come, for then they would also have a political claim to this country. That is the basic issue between us and those members. I can give those hon. members the assurance that we shall consider the question of people who fall under section 10 with great humanity and fairness. However, that is as far as we can go. Because this policy of ours is an ethnic policy, we cannot ultimately give other ethnic groups permanent political rights on the basis of their presence in our geographical area. We simply cannot do it. As an hon. colleague of mine said, let us agree to differ on this and let us vote on it. It is a fundamental, philosophic premise on which we differ radically with one another.

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with your ruling I cannot start a whole argument about the philosophical differences between that hon. member and his side of the House and the members on these benches. He is right of course. There is a big difference in philosophy. Could I just put it to him, however, that if there is any way in which he is going to prevent the remaining non-independent homelands from taking independence, it is by passing this Bill.

Nonsense!

That hon. member says “nonsense!” Well, that is always the answer. Whenever there is an argument, everybody shouts “nonsense!” Let me put it to the hon. member who shouted “nonsense” that if he had been a member of the Cabinet of Lebowa, Venda, Gazankulu or the Ciskei, had followed the debate in this House over the past couple of days and realized that if he took independence it would mean that all the future generations born to parents living in Langa, Guguletu, Nyanga, Soweto, or anywhere else one cares to mention, would be turned into foreign Africans enjoying no special rights apart from those of foreign Africans, would not even be in a category different from those foreign Africans, would he not think twice before asking for independence?

That being so, why do you not sit down?

Because I am trying to convince the hon. members that they should not pass this Bill. I do not care about this philosophical argument. I care about the people who are going to be affected by the passage of this Bill, and I must use every argument I can summon up to try to dissuade hon. members from voting for the Bill. They are, of course, so dead keen on all these countries taking independence so that, in the hon. the Minister’s words, one will end up with not a single Black citizen in the Republic of South Africa. There will, of course, be lots of bodies. I do not mean dead bodies; I mean that in South Africa there will be many live bodies, working bodies, living bodies, breeding bodies, but no citizens. That is part of the whole numbers game which I have listened to from the hon. the Minister since he was a backbencher. I used to listen to him very carefully because he certainly explains the policy very carefully and explicitly. I certainly learned a great deal from listening to the speeches of the hon. member for Randfontein.

I believe I have the philosophy and the policy crystal clear as a result of the speeches by that hon. member to which I have listened. I therefore know exactly what the intentions are. If he really is serious about these intentions, however, this is certainly the worst possible way to persuade the non-independent homelands to ask for independence. They are not going to give up these rights. They now become “section 12” Africans and that is a very different thing from being a “section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c)” African under the Urban Areas Act. There is a world of difference between the two. In this case we are specifically concerned with the “section 10(1)(a)” African, the “borner”. To be a “borner” means that when you grow up you can go to school, you can get a job, you can get your name on a housing list, etc. In fact, it is the only way in which you can get your name on a housing list. These are very valuable privileges. You can lose your job and not be endorsed out of the urban area You can lose your job and not have to go through the whole business of getting permission from a labour bureau to apply for a job. These are tremendous privileges. Sir, if you were the First Minister of Venda, Gazankulu or Ciskei, would you not think twice about depriving all those people of those rights? Of course you would!

Did Matanzima not think about it?

No, he did not know it was going to happen.

Nobody knew, because in fact promises were made and, indeed, there was an inherent promise in section 6 as far as Bophuthatswana is concerned. However, the same applies to the Transkei legislation, because in the relevant section, I think it is section 6(3)…

Section 6(4).

Was it subsection (4)? I thought that in the case of Bophuthatswana it was subsection (4) and in the case of Transkei subsection (3).

That may be.

I do not know. The hon. the Minister may be right.

It does not matter.

No, it does not really matter. I am talking about Transkei. Promises were made that no rights other than that of citizenship would be lost, but they are being lost by the future generations and by the kids who were born after the date of independence. I do not know how the hon. the Minister is going to answer for this to the Prime Ministers of Bophuthatswana and Transkei. An hon. member on the other side is laughing: He does not think it is important Does he not think that going back on one’s word is important, especially when one is going back on one’s word to a neighbouring State?

Where exactly did we go back on our word?

If the hon. member will look at section 6(3) of the Status of the Transkei Act…

Section 6(4).

No, section 6(3) in the case of Transkei and section 6(4) in the case of Bophuthatswana.

Well, stop confusing me. [Interjections.] I was right from the beginning. It is section 6(3) in the case of the Transkei and section 6(4) in the case of Bophuthatswana. I know I am right. I have been swotting these Bills.

You go and read it carefully, and see if anything is mentioned there about future generations.

Oh goodness me: “Anything mentioned about future generations” indeed. When one reads a contract, one knows it is going to apply, surely, not only to the people who are alive at that moment. When one is dealing with a whole country and its population, one should specifically have excluded future generations from the relevant sections, and this was not done.

It is not included.

It is understood, I believe, that future generations are included. I am absolutely certain of that.

Have another look.

Future generations are not specifically mentioned, but does the hon. member not think that it was tacitly understood that future generations would be included?

Not necessarily.

According to section 6(3) of the Status of the Transkei Act—the same provision applies in respect of Bophuthatswana—

I believe that every single Black person thought that his rights and those of his children were being safeguarded, but they have not been safeguarded: Those people have been turned into foreigners.

Before my time expires, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider, if not here—I can see he is not going to withdraw the Bill—then in the Other Place, inserting a saving clause which somehow differentiates these people, i.e. the offspring and descendants of people who were South African citizens and have lost their citizenship by virtue of the independence of the homelands, from foreign Africans who never were South African citizens, such as the Africans from Malawi, Mozambique and Rhodesia. Maybe something could be saved from the wreck in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I assumed that the hon. member for Houghton would have a great deal to say about this clause. That hon. member has indicated previously in this House that she would fight tooth and nail if there was any kind of tampering—as she puts it—with the rights which the Black people allegedly received in terms of section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. It is-therefore not extraordinary that she should be a little emotional about this matter. I must admit that the hon. member was relatively calm this afternoon, in contrast to her behaviour during another debate which we had a couple of years ago on something similar.

I must be getting old.

However, the heart of the matter is the following: When the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1945, that legislation made provision for two categories of Black people. The first category for which the legislation made provision—and this was merely a practical arrangement—was laid down in section 10 of the legislation. This section provided that the category of persons who complied with the requirements laid down in the section were exempted from influx control measures. However, there was also a second category for which provision was made in the legislation. The legislation made provision for a measure of control over other Black people who were not citizens of South Africa. That is why it is only logical that if we had a need to make provision for those people in 1945 and it was necessary to deal with them in a certain way at that time, we shall have to do the same today. Surely it is a de jure fact that Bophuthatswana is independent. That territory has de jure as well as de facto independence, and the same applies to Transkei. The other homeland governments also know what the implications of such a step are.

All that is being envisaged with clause 2 is quite simply to give effect to an idea which has always existed among the Whites of South Africa. Those hon. members must remember that the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945 was not placed on the Statute Book by the NP, but by the deceased UP. Let me rather say that it was done by the predecessors of that party. They were not people who supported the political philosophy and ideology of members on this side of the House. Nevertheless they felt a need for such an arrangement.

We therefore admitted at that stage that certain people had certain privileges, viz. those people who were exempted from influx control in terms of section 10 of the legislation. We also made provision for the rights of other people. These were rights which were in fact more extensive than the rights referred to in section 10. Therefore we admitted as long ago as 1945 that we had such people and we made arrangements for those people at the time. If that is how we did it at the time and that is how we have been administering the Act ever since, why is the hon. member worried that this hon. Minister will not apply the legislation in the same spirit? The method we have adopted is constitutionally correct, and no fault can be found with any part of the system. It is only logical that it should be this way. What we should never lose sight of is that the provisions, as they are now being changed, are still in accordance with the spirit in which the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1945. There is no difference.

By way of conclusion I must say something to hon. members of the official Opposition. It is something I must get off my chest and I am so pleased that I have an opportunity to do so today. The official Opposition reminds me of a sworn affidavit which I drew up the other day for a woman who wanted to get divorced. It does have a bearing on this clause, Mr. Chairman. Suppose it was Mrs. Van der Walt who wanted to get divorced. I noticed from the sworn affidavit that her name was as follows: “Formerly Vorster, formerly Mulder, née Kruger.” I just want to tell those hon. members: They are the PFP, but formerly they were the Progrefs, formerly Progressive, née UP.

I can well understand why Mrs. Van der Walt wanted to get divorced. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am still trying to figure out what that last comment has to do with this clause.

The UP made the law in 1945.

Oh, I see. Mr. Chairman, in trying to keep strictly to your ruling, this clause deals with citizenship and with birthright. Obviously we have a different understanding of birthright from hon. members on that side of the House. During his Second Reading speech the hon. Minister gave us an example by referring to a number of foreign countries and suggested that he was not discriminating at all in this measure. I want to suggest, however, that he is discriminating by giving him the following example: If somebody comes to this country from France to work under contract and whilst he is living here with his wife, a child is born, then automatically, by virtue of being born in South Africa, the child has a certain claim on South African citizenship …

No.

If he is born in the country he has a certain claim on citizenship

What claim?

He can apply for citizenship on the basis that he was born in this country.

Anybody can apply.

I am talking about someone who was born in the country and about the question of birthright Those people who are affected by the provisions of this clause will have no such right whatsoever and, in fact they cannot apply. That is the point I want to make.

They can apply; anybody can apply.

The hon. the Minister has made it quite clear—we have talked very straight so far; let us keep it that way—that any Black person born in South Africa who applies for citizenship of South Africa will not be granted that…

Unless …

Unless what?

Unless he has citizenship of one of the other homelands.

A child born of an independent country with no citizenship of a non-independent homeland does not have the right to apply for citizenship. That is the first point of discrimination, but we go far beyond that by saying that he is going to lose any rights that his mother and father might have by virtue of them living in an urban area or in a prescribed area. He will lose that right without even having the right to get citizenship and therefore I suggest that this is discrimination.

It is not.

What we have been listening to is so close to the Dr. Verwoerd era, from what I can understand. I refer to the inevitable move towards the goal of excluding all Blacks from citizenship of South Africa. The hon. Minister has made his goal quite clear and that is why we are opposing this measure. We believe this clause is very dangerous and that it is an onslaught against the section 10 rights now held by people living in urban areas.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he could react to certain of the possible practical consequences of this specific clause. Other hon. members who discussed this matter, for example the hon. members for Koedoespoort, Schweizer-Reneke and Lydenburg, spoke in terms of philosophies, policy and ethnic relations and they advanced certain legalistic arguments. However, there are definite practical consequences to which there has as yet been no reaction. For example, if we bear in mind that the population increase in a city such as Soweto can cause the number of inhabitants to double within 20 years, then the increased population consists of people who could all be affected by this specific clause.

They are not all citizens of Bophuthatswana.

Most of them will quite probably be. After all, the hon. the Minister made the ultimate goal very clear. Suppose all the homelands are independent in 20 years’ time, then the measure will of course apply. The implications of this pass my understanding. [Interjections.] Hon. members maintain that the matter is being brought into line with the situation pertaining to the Whites; that is not true. One cannot, if one does not like a person, give him notice after 21 days that he can be deported and that he must leave the country. Surely one cannot deport the population of an entire city; millions of people are living there. The vast majority of those people have never been in that independent country. At this moment there are some of them who do not even know what that country looks like. In 20 years’ time the situation is going to be even worse. People who have then been there permanently—in the full meaning of the word—who have grown up there, and who for some reason or other fall into disfavour with the White Government at that stage, are then deported to a country where they have never been. Therefore it is not the same as it is for the Whites. This is the first important point that has to be taken into consideration.

In addition one must bear in mind that it has been worked out that if it is accepted that the homeland policy is completely successful, there will nevertheless, over and above the existing urban areas, be eight new Sowetos merely to accommodate the increase in population. All those people will be affected by this measure. To my mind it is utter foolishness.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the debate on this issue has now been disposed of and I merely want to summarize it briefly. The hon. member for Houghton is quite correct when she says that under the circumstances the children of these people are losing their rights. I made it very clear from the outset. But the hon. member will concede that there are quite a number of accommodating steps which are being taken. Firstly: If they can be regarded as foreign Bantu, they can obtain a concession under section 12 from the Secretary of the Department to remain here. That is the first possibility: The Governments of Bophuthatswana and Transkei, when these territories became independent, negotiated certain rights for their citizens in respect of their presence, work and income in South Africa. All those privileges will of course be applicable to these children, because they are citizens of Bophuthatswana and Transkei. They will therefore have more privileges than citizens of Malawi and Tanzania because they will share in the privileges which their Governments negotiated with the South African Government at the time of independence. Thirdly: Negotiations can still take place in future. The door is open to negotiations between this Government and those Governments, and if an agreement can be reached on some group or other, or any issue, it will still be possible in terms of clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill for the Minister to grant exemption to individuals or categories of individuals. Fourthly: I want to point out that my hon. colleague, the new Minister of the Interior, is at a later stage during this session going to introduce legislation on the citizenship of special neighbouring States. The rules do not allow me to discuss it now. I assisted in drawing up this legislation; that is why I know about it. This legislation will ratify even further agreements in this regard. It will be introduced by the Minister of the Interior because it deals with citizenship. Therefore there are mitigating circumstances in the implementation of this provision and for that reason I say to the hon. member for Houghton that although this is and has to be the case—we are reaching a watershed here— we do not wish to allow the present situation to continue for all times. We are not prepared to do so. I am honest enough to say that we have now reached a watershed. We have drawn the line, namely that the children not yet born at that date have no claim to those rights. We have not deprived them of anything, for they were not born when the rights were negotiated.

The hon. member for Rondebosch argued that we are sending these people to a country where they have never been. But surely they were not in South Africa when these rights were negotiated either. [Interjections.] They were not here.

They are born here.

Let me use the example given by the hon. member for Pinelands, that of the French child who is born in South Africa. A French couple are under contract in South Africa on a temporary residence permit and while they are here, a child is born. That child cannot claim South African citizenship and, secondly, cannot even be registered in South Africa. He is registered in France. Although he is born in South Africa, he has no rights here. In other words, that child is also sent to a country in which he has never seen before. Furthermore I want to add that any person—Black, White, Brown and Yellow, of any nation—is at any time at liberty to apply in terms of our own Citizenship Act, which is administered by the Department of the Interior, for South African citizenship. There is no impediment and no discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I first want to dispose of this matter. It is subsequently considered, and after consideration certain conditions are imposed. We impose on Whites who wish to come to South Africa and become citizens the conditions that they should be able to read and write one of the two official languages. If they cannot comply with that condition, they cannot obtain citizenship. As we deal with the situation in these cases, so, too, we are now imposing a condition on Blacks that they must have citizenship of a non-independent homeland before we can grant them citizenship.

There is no discrimination. It is the same condition which the French, the Germans and the Dutch impose, namely that any person has to have a command of the language, or has to comply with other requirements. These are conditions imposed by the Government of the country. Transkei and Bophuthatswana have the right to determine their own conditions under which they will grant citizenship to Whites who live there and whose children are born there. They have the right to decide on this matter themselves. They may decide to grant or refuse citizenship. Because they are independent countries, we accept it and are not at loggerheads with them on that score. I want to make it clear that in my view I do not think we are dealing with the problem of discrimination here. I should now like to reply to a question from the hon. member for Houghton before I conclude.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is able to tell us how many Black foreigners who have applied for South African citizenship have been granted citizenship over the last ten years.

Naturally I do not have the numbers available.

Have any been granted citizenship?

It is possible. If a Bantu already has citizenship of a homeland, he can obtain South African citizenship. Transkeians who want to become Ciskeians …

What about Rhodesians?

No. That has not happened yet because we impose certain conditions. We have the right to impose conditions. It is the right of any Government in the world to impose conditions for the acquisition of citizenship. It is not merely handed out; it is something to which value is attached.

I think I have now replied to all the questions.

Clause put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. J. D. du P. Basson, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, R. J. Lorimer, D. J. N. Malcomess, J. F. Marais, P. A. Myburgh, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the discussion and debate yesterday and in order to place beyond all doubt the fact that we do not wish to discredit a lawful work seeker in any way, and in an effort to counter the argument which the world is hearing that we want to expose an unemployed person seeking lawful work to a criminal charge, I move the following amendment—

In my opinion, what is aimed at by this amendment is not really necessary since the provisions in the rest of the clause—a whole series of them—make it physically impossible to charge a lawful, bona fide work-seeker in terms of the Act, or to declare him an idle person. If one looks at the definition of “idle” in section 29, to the whole definition thereof, the whole spirit and letter of section 29 is not such that a lawful job-seeker may be charged or brought to book as an idle person. But in spite of that, and in order to place the matter beyond all doubt, I move this amendment in an effort to accommodate the Opposition and to see whether they will not accept it like that.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that this does improve this clause. There is no doubt about it. It improves the clause, and I therefore am very glad that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to insert these words. But, while we accept the amendment, it does not mean that we are going to vote for the clause. We do accept the amendment, however, because it improves the clause very considerably. There is only one thing about the amendment—not the only thing, but, one thing—viz. the words “was not offered work” which worries me. These words can be very widely interpreted. A man goes to an employment agency—shall we assume that he is a skilled worker, a driver or a mechanic or a semi-skilled worker of some kind—but cannot find work in the particular field he is qualified in. He still wants to continue to look for that sort of job, but meanwhile he is offered work of a much more menial kind of unskilled, hard work which he is not used to or which he is unable to do. If he prefers not to take that job, does he lose the protection of this clause?

If he is offered work?

Yes.

It has nothing to do with him accepting it or not. If he is legally offered work, then he is protected. He must be registered and be legally offered work. Never mind whether he accepts it or not.

I see. Why would the hon. the Minister give protection to someone who is offered work and does not take it and not to persons who are not offered work? I find this a bit difficult to understand. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain.

Mr. Chairman, I want to explain once again what my problem is. It is that I have to try and prevent a loophole occurring in the legislation. I have to prevent a person who is really work-shy or idle from simply registering in one way or another as soon as he gets into trouble. That is why I cannot simply say that once he has registered, that is enough. I have to take the matter somewhat further. In other words, if he has registered and work has been offered him, he has the protection. Then there is no problem. Whether he accepts the work or not makes no difference. However, anyone who is not registered, who has not, therefore, adopted the logical course, I cannot and will not protect. I therefore have to protect the registered man to whom work is offered.

However the question is why I do not want to protect the man to whom work is not offered. In the first place, I want to point out that at present it is virtually impossible for anyone not to be offered work in the course of 122 days. I want to put it more forcefully and say that it is impossible for a person to be offered no work in the course of a year. It is true that it may be work that does not fall into his specific category, but he immediately enjoys protection. All I really want to do is provide for the lawful handling of the matter and for the requirement of registering. To me that is important.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation, but he ought to consult with the hon. the Minister of Labour who will tell him that it is very likely that a man will not have been offered work within 122 days during the preceding 12 months. Many people have been out of work for well over a year. They cannot find work. There is no work. People are being laid off. Whites and Blacks are being laid off in our present economic depression.

It is therefore very likely that a man will not have been offered work within the prescribed 122 days during the preceding year. I think the hon. the Minister really ought to amend the amendment and leave it as “somebody who has registered as a work-seeker”.

I still do not understand why the hon. the Minister cannot just leave it as “a man who has registered as a work-seeker”, which thereby shows that the man has the intention of finding work and that it is his desire to find work. It is not his fault if he is not offered work. He cannot control that. There are just no jobs. Let the hon. the Minister ask his colleague. I am sure he will bear this out. There are no jobs.

The hon. member for Pinelands and I yesterday mentioned the official unemployment figures. I said there were over 620 000, and the hon. member for Pinelands said 640 000. He mentioned the official figure released by the Department of Statistics. So it is quite likely that a man is not going to be offered employment. Will the hon. the Minister please tell me why he distinguishes here between, say White unemployed and Black unemployed. That is what makes it so discriminatory. What hon. member sitting on the other side would retain his seat during an election if he voted for a measure which said that a man who had been out of work for more than 122 days during the preceding 12 months—even if registered as a work-seeker, offered a job, etc.—would be declared idle, with all the consequences that goes with that? I do not believe there would be a single hon. member sitting in those benches if this applied to unemployed Whites. It does not, of course. It applies only to unemployed Blacks. It does not even apply, in fact, to two categories of Black unemployed, i.e. Coloured unemployed and Indian unemployed. They are not declared idle if they have been out of work for more than 122 days. This is what we object to. Why should a man suffer the stigma—and it is a stigma— of being declared idle because he cannot get a job, even if registered as a work seeker? I know this is an improvement, however, and therefore we are going to accept the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. Nevertheless, it still leaves this clause as an offensive clause which will bear hard against Africans who may have been employed for many years but who are now, because of no fault of their own, out of work. I cannot understand the need for it. There is already a very strong penalty clause against the habitually unemployed, or the layabouts, those who will not take a job. I accept that. It may be that the penalty is too severe, two years in a work colony is a long time, but I realize we cannot just have people hanging around, turning to crime and terrorizing hard-working people. However, the example which was given the other day by one of the hon. members on that side about hooligans, etc., does not even fall within the ambit of this clause. It may fall within the ambit of the law as it exists already but this Bill is not intended to affect people in that category. It now affects people who are unemployed for more than 122 days in a preceding year. I say again that not one of those hon. members would retain their seats in Parliament—the hon. the Minister of Labour must agree with me—if White people were declared idle and subjected to all the penalties under section 29of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act were they unemployed for 122 days in a preceding year, particularly in times of economic depression. We all know what is going on; the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned the building industry which employs thousands of Black people, many of whom have been laid off in the past 12 months because there just is no work for them. Despite the amendment, which I say we shall accept, we cannot vote for the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton continues to create the impression that clause 3 contains entirely new legislation. That is what I accuse her and her party of. It is that kind of argument that is being publicized overseas. The impression is given that we are now, for the first time in history, legislating to cover the case of a Black man who does not work.

She never said that!

I shall indicate in a moment how the world was informed of this. Hon. members need only read the editorial in yesterday’s Argus. It is entitled “Wrong approach”. It is the English-language newspapers that are sent out into the world; not the Afrikaans-language newspapers. The article reads—

That is being sent out into the world.

That is what the law says.

But this has been in the law since 1923.

No, it has not!

Similar provisions were contained in the 1923 Act I can quote the Act if the hon. member so desires. I can also quote the 1937 Act, enacted by the UP. The hon. member for Houghton can address the Committee again if she wants to deny what I am saying, but the fact remains that these provisions are contained in those two Acts.

May I ask the hon. member for Houghton a question? Does she not want to deal at all with idle people or won’t-works?

I have already answered that question.

What we are doing here, is merely to amend the definition of a person who is normally unemployed. The gist of the Act remains the same; it is just a matter of stating the criterion which should be applied when one wants to decide whether a person is unemployed. This is all we are doing. The basis of the legislation remains the same. What are the hon. members of the official Opposition complaining about? They want to place an ugly connotation on this for outside consumption.

Mr. Chairman, before I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Mooi River, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. We have constantly heard, throughout the debate on this clause and during the Second Reading, that it is the intention of the Government, by putting in this clause, to hit at that person in the Black areas who is not a genuine worker; who is a layabout, in other words.

Correct.

This being the case, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a second question. If a man is a genuine work-seeker, is registered as such but has not, because of the economic situation, been able to obtain employment for 122 days, is he then in a position to be declared idle?

No.

He is not. In that event, I think it would be sensible of me not to move the amendment standing in my hon. colleague’s name on the Order Paper. I am delighted that it is obvious that the amendment that he put on the Order Paper has not fallen on deaf ears. I must, however, stress that my party has basically expressed itself as being opposed, at Second Reading, to clause 3 because it does extend the scope of the whole matter, thus enabling more action than before to be taken against people in the Black areas. Therefore we shall not vote for the clause although we accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. member for East London North is adopting this attitude. I appreciate it. I am pleased that he is beginning to see the light as far as this legislation is concerned. It is not a question of people who come to work and cannot find jobs being summarily excluded in terms of section 29. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Houghton and her colleagues continue to grasp at the issue of the economic climate and unemployment—they quoted a figure of 1 600 000 here—and to relate this to this legislation. We are still dealing here with the Black man in the White area. This is the primary and most important aspect. We cannot accept the economic climate and unemployment as an excuse for the people for whom this section makes provision. Section 29 makes provision for the way in which idle or undesirable Bantu are dealt with. There is no one here who will fail to agree that “Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do”. If, then, the fact that people hang around idly for long periods is a factor, we must expect that other elements will have an effect on such people.

I want to seek aid, and I am going to seek aid from the hon. member for Yeoville, although he is not present at the moment. He has a motion on the Order Paper. I refer to motion No. 10, and I quote it in English—

I believe that in terms of their policy, they too have thought of Soweto as a part of greater Johannesburg. I quote further—

The hon. the Minister made mention here of an urban Bantu council asking for aid. We must remove this element from our community, and idleness forms part of that element. It has nothing to do with unemployment.

What then?

We have section 28 in terms of which we deal with unemployment. However section 29 concerns people whom we do not want here, and that is why they are charged before a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court. Action is then taken if they are found guilty. I hope that the hon. member for Houghton will take a leave out of the book of the hon. member for Yeoville. I believe he sees this problem in an urban high-density complex as we see it, whether it be Soweto or Johannesburg. We want to help those people to get rid of certain elements. That is why the hon. the Minister asks that where there is doubt as to the issue of idleness, it be clearly defined in the Act and that it be linked with a specific period so that we may be sure that a certain person is not a work-seeker but merely a layabout making mischief.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, the hon. the Deputy Minister is failing to distinguish between the “can’t works” and the “won’t works”. The crime element, to which he refers, in the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville is catered for elsewhere in the Act. We are dealing with the idle person, while the hon. the Deputy Minister is dealing with the undesirable person. As the hon. the Deputy Minister well knows, there is a separate section in the Act dealing with the undesirable element. That is not before us at the moment. If a person is a criminal and he commits burglaries and robberies, he is dealt with under that section, he becomes undesirable. However, that has nothing to do with the argument We are concerned with those people who are alleged to be idle because they are unemployed. We are very strongly concerned by the fact that they may be unemployed not because they do not want to work but because they cannot work. Now an empirical standard of 122 days is laid down. Previously, the words “normally unemployed” were used in this section. The courts then had to interpret the words “normally unemployed” and I think that in many cases, perhaps, they did so with the degree of discretion they had.

That discretion is now being taken away from the courts and the empirical standard of 122 days is being laid down. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why 122 days? Where does the 122 days come from? What standards were applied? What amount of thought led to the decision to settle for a period of 122 days? Why was there not decided on 365 days or 700 days? It seems to me that the period of 122 days has simply been snatched out of the air. This leads to difficulties, because empirical standards are being set without any basis or argument to back them whatsoever. One is led to the conclusion that, because they are taking away the discretion the courts had by laying down empirical standards the Government is in fact seeking an opportunity—every opportunity, with great respect—to try to get the Bantu out of the urban areas.

Nonsense!

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a very, very simple question: Does he accept the permanence of the urban Blacks? It is a simple question.

Order! The hon. member is deviating widely from the clause.

Mr. Chairman, it is encumbent in the entire Bill. The other point I wish to make is that …

Sit down, man!

I shall sit down when the Chairman tells me to, not when you tell me to. Mind your own business.

The other aspect concerns a question which has not been dealt with yet, viz. the question of a first offender as provided for in clause 3(b). With respect, the hon. the Minister has not dealt with the reasons underlying this measure. As I stated in my Second Reading speech, where a person is a first offender, this can be regarded in court as a mitigating factor. Because of such a mitigating factor, he may be given suspended sentence. However, the mitigating factor is now being taken away. What is the purpose of that and what can take the place of the mitigating factor here?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow reminds me a lot of Yassar Arafat—if I am out of order, you must tell me. What the hon. member has argued is by no means the case. Perhaps he is still unaware of the amendment to this clause which the Minister has moved. He maintains that by means of clause 3 it will be easier for us to declare a person an idle person. A person may be declared an idle person when he is normally unemployed in terms of the Act. Because the words “normally unemployed” are being replaced by “not less than 122 days during the preceding 12 months not being lawfully employed”, the hon. member maintains that it is now easier to declare a person to be “normally unemployed”. However, the contrary is true, because in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, it will, in my opinion, be more difficult for a court to declare a person to be an idle person or one who is normally unemployed. If, for example, a person has not worked for a few weeks or for the odd week now and again, a court may decide that he is normally unemployed; that he does not want to work. If we had left this clause as it was; in other words, without a limitation of time and without provision for anyone who was a registered unemployed person, and it so happened that a person was in fact a registered unemployed person but that he had been unable to find work for a year, a court could have ruled that such a person was normally unemployed. Now, however, two aspects are being added: Provision is being made for a limitation of the time to 122 days. If the person has been unemployed for longer than 122 days, he can still escape this provision due to the fact that he is a registered job seeker. The proviso to section 29 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act provides—

That is what the proviso laid down previously. Now, we are adding the following words—

If the person concerned had been unemployed for a year and the amendment had not been effected, a court could very easily have laid down that that person was normally unemployed and consequently he could be declared an idle person. Because provision has been made for this in the amendment of the hon. the Minister, protection is afforded a work seeker literally for an indeterminate period so that he can seek work. As long as such a person is a registered work seeker and as long as he does not refuse work which he is offered and for which he is suited, such a person is in a more favourable position not to be declared an ordinary unemployed person or an idle person. Consequently the argument advanced by the hon. member for Hillbrow is not to the point. His argument is entirely faulty. Indeed, this amendment effects an improvement to the section as it read originally. This is so due to the proviso contained in the amendment of the hon. the Minister. I therefore take great pleasure in supporting the clause and the amendment.

However, I want to tell the hon. member for East London North that he surprises me. However, I do not take it amiss of him because he has only been here a short time and his people are not here today to put him right Nevertheless I want to make an appeal to the hon. member. The hon. member’s honoured colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, placed an amendment on the Order Paper. In it he asked that the words “or is registered as a work seeker” be inserted after the word “is”. I think in all honesty that this hon. member should now support the clause at it stands there because I consider that the amendment of the hon. the Minister has the same effect as that which that hon. member had in mind. When I listened to the speech by the hon. member for Mooi River yesterday, it struck me that his argument was precisely that, viz. that a person could technically be regarded as an unemployed person when he was without work for longer than 122 days. However, his argument is accommodated entirely by the amendment of the hon. the Minister. That is why I want to say to the hon. member for East London North that he need now have no qualms about supporting this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lydenburg must not try to mislead the hon. member, who is a new member in the House.

Did I mislead him?

Yes, of course the hon. member misled him by telling him that because the hon. member for Mooi River was going to move an amendment…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to state as a fact that the hon. member for Lydenburg misled another member in the House?

I did not say he did it deliberately.

The hon. member may continue.

He told the hon. member that because his colleague was moving an amendment similar to, though not identical with that of the hon. the Minister, he therefore had to accept the clause. Even if the amendment is identical to that of the hon. the Minister, one still does not have to accept the clause if it is improved but overall does not meet with what one wants.

He can decide for himself, Helen.

But you tried to decide for him.

I merely helped him. [Interjections.]

That is exactly the point I was making, i.e. that the hon. member for Lydenburg was not being helpful and in fact he was misleading the hon. member.

Mischievously?

No. I shall not put it as far as that, because that would mean it was deliberate and I am sure that that was the furthest from his mind. The hon. member was simply a bit ignorant, but not necessarily mischievous.

You are very sweet this afternoon!

Yes. I think so too! The point I want to make, is that the hon. the Minister’s amendment does not affect the young people whom I referred to in the Second Reading debate, because young people who are over the age of 15 and under the age of whatever the usual final school-going age may be—I think the average for an African is about 24 years to 25 years—are not normally registered as work-seekers.

They can be.

Yes, but if they are waiting to go back to school they are not. Hopefully conditions are going to change to such an extent with regard to the education of Africans …

The scholars are also included.

Yes, but they may not, be back at school. The point is that they have got to be at a school.

You are splitting hairs now.

I might be splitting hairs, but I have learned to be rather suspicious over the years.

That is my problem with the hon. member.

The hon. the Minister’s real problem is that he has got to have a change of heart. The other day he implored us in the Opposition benches to have a change of heart; I shall have a change of heart immediately I see the hon. the Minister changing direction. When the hon. the Minister starts moving in a different direction I promise I shall change heart immediately. So far, however, the hon. the Minister is not repealing legislation which could have been selected for repeal from this vast battery of laws, thereby showing that there is at least a change of direction even within the framework of NP policy. On the contrary, I think that this legislation makes things worse. As I read the measure one has to be a pupil or a student at an educational institution. If such a person is not attending school when the school term is on, then he is not at a school or an educational institution and I think this can be applied. I would accept the hon. the Minister’s assurances that that is not intended, but what I want to point out to hon. members is that it is not the hon. the Minister who is going to be sitting in Bantu Commissioners’ courts and he is not going to be sitting in the administrative offices of WRAB, or the East Rand Board, BAAB—or whatever it is called down here in the Cape. He has got to delegate authority to hundreds upon hundreds of officials who have to implement the law. It is not their job to decide whether the law is good or bad. To some extent they become a court where they do not have to worry about intention, they do not have to decide whether a law is good or bad, they simply have to implement it as it stands on the Statute Book. We all know that a court does not look to the intention of this House. The court does not read Hansard to see what the hon. the Minister intended. Exactly the same applies to the administration which is busy administering the laws which we have passed in the House. The hon. the Minister will remember—if I can have his attention for a minute—that I mentioned that there was nothing permissive about this provision. If the hon. the Minister will look at section 29 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, he will see that the word “shall” is used and not “may”. Section 29(16)(b) states—

Before that it states that the Bantu Commissioner “shall” declare him …

I grant you your point.

Well, I am glad about that. Therefore it is again the case that when a young work-seeker who has not been offered a job is, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, brought before a Bantu Commissioner and if he is not at school, the Bantu Commissioner shall declare him to be idle. That worries me too.

Then he can do many things.

That is absolutely correct. The Bantu Commissioner can then do many things. He can caution and discharge him, but he can also send him to a farm colony for two years. There are humane officials and there are very strict officials. The hon. the Minister must grant me this. There are many who carry out the letter of the law to the n’th degree. They take the most punitive action that is allowed them in terms of the law, and in terms of this law that can happen.

There can be a review.

Automatic review of all these cases?

In many instances.

Who is going to refer these cases for review? There may be hundreds of them. Really and truly, the hon. the Minister should disguise himself. He should wear a big blond beard—he would look like Father Christmas if he does that, I might say—and should go round to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s courts and see what happens there. If the hon. the Minister would only bring himself to come with me for one morning and sit in the Black Sash offices and hear the stories of people who are being dealt with by officials. I want to make it quite clear that I do not blame those officials. The officials have to carry out the laws that are on the Statute Book and they are the people who are face to face, in eyeball to eyeball confrontation, with the people who are affected by these laws. The hon. the Minister does not see these people. To him this is just a law on the Statute Book. Hon. members also do not see the people and consequently do not know the misery which this sort of law, if interpreted by an official to the n’th degree, can bring to the people concerned. That is what worries me. I do not say it happens in every case. I do not even say it happens in the majority of cases. But as long as the law is on the Statute Book, an official who has to implement it and who does not look behind the intention, who does not read the hon. the Minister’s words about humane administration, can do so to the letter and that can bear very hard.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

We omit paragraph (c) from our amendment because I think it is reasonable to exclude the whole of the Bantu Council, or the whole Community Council, or whatever council we can hope to get in the future, and to call on certain Bantu only instead of the whole council.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one point I would like to touch on concerning the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member referred to the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Brentwood, in which he said that he actually referred to the undesirable person. The hon. the Deputy Minister very clearly used the phrase “idleness is the parent of vice” and it was in that context that he pointed out that the possibility is very strong that the idle person very soon becomes the undesirable person. That is why the Government has introduced these stipulations in the Bill.

*I wish to point out that if there is anything which creates uncertainty with the public, with everyone, then it is vague and uncertain terms in a law. I have a lot of experience of that and it causes people to lose their respect for such a law and their esteem for the legislature, of which we form part. Precisely because the interpretation of the vague terms which have thus far been used, namely “normally unemployed” and “an idle person”, created a considerable number of problems, the Minister has included in this Bill a provision whereby a definite period is stipulated. The stipulation of the period of 122 days does not mean that a person seeking work will as a result of that definitely be sent back. It merely means that if it is found that he has definitely been unemployed for a period of 122 days, a presumption arises which the court may accept. He is still brought before a court and that court must try the case.

The hon. member for Houghton always makes such a fuss of the necessity of cases being referred to courts of law and I can therefore not understand what is her objection. Her party is forever referring to the so-called rule of law; they always want a case heard by the judiciary. The court is not removed in this instance; the person will still appear before the court. A capable person will try the case and decide whether or not steps should be taken against the unemployed Bantu. Therefore I cannot for the life of me understand the PFP’s objection to clause 3.

To summarize I can say that all they want us to do is unconditionally to accept their party’s policy in respect of the Black man. That is the only reason. I want to conclude by pointing out that there is also a right of appeal in this case. If the accused is not satisfied with the ruling of the court, he also has a right of appeal. I therefore feel that ample provision has been made for justice. We are merely removing obscurities and vague requirements with these provisions.

Mr. Chairman, it is apparent that in the last few minutes hon. members have been playing tug-of-war with me from either one side or the other and I believe I should make my position perfectly clear. I want to state here and now that I am against the principle of section 29 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, not as the amended section will read, but as it stands now. I can certainly see the point of the Government that paragraph (a) of clause 3 will definitely be an improvement on the present section. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Houghton’s opposition to the provisions concerning students, pupils, etc., because that is in the original Act anyway, and if we defeat this clause it remains in the Act anyway. So, whatever we do in terms of this amendment, we cannot…

The definition is different.

I am told that the definition is different, but as I read it, that particular portion of the Act is not being altered at all.

You are quite correct.

The phrase “normally unemployed” is the only section that has been taken out and that is being substituted by—

However, clause 3(b) I do have a problem with, as this definitely changes the original section in a manner which I believe to be not necessarily unfair, but certainly as worsening the situation that currently exists. In the past, apparently, a Bantu Affairs Commissioner having jurisdiction in the area, could suspend the execution of any warrant or order for any period or on any conditions determined by him. It gave him sole discretion. If he was of the opinion that the Black before him on a charge, despite the fact that he was not a registered work-seeker—perhaps he was too ignorant to become a registered work-seeker—was a reasonable, genuine work-seeker, that he was not a lay-about, he had the right to grant a stay of execution, the right to suspend the warrant or order issued.

He retains that right.

As I read this provision, I do not see that he does because, firstly, the words “if a sound reason exists therefore” is inserted …

That was previously also the case.

Yes. Secondly, the following provision is inserted—

I maintain that this makes it extremely difficult for a Bantu Affairs Commissioner to have a peg to hang his hat on in order to let a man off such a charge. I shall therefore certainly support that amendment as it is identical to ours, but I cannot support the clause as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to the previous speaker’s argument about the suspension clause to which an amendment has now been moved. I have gone to the trouble of reading up the decisions of our courts in this connection. In doing this, one encounters a peculiar phenomenon. A ruling which I was able to trace was one given by Mr. Justice Kannemeyer in the case of in re Mlungwana and Others. This verdict appears on page 291 of the South African Law Reports, 1975–’74. In that ruling, the judge tried to lay down criteria for the Bantu Commissioner’s Court about what the court should take into consideration in the case of a sentence which is to be suspended or not suspended. I quote from the ruling of the judge—

In other words, a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa says himself that in terms of the law he is not able to lay down a rule to the Bantu Commissioner’s Court as to when a decision must not be suspended. All we are doing now is to change the negative approach which we encounter in the courts at the moment into a positive approach in that in the new clause we lay down that a sound reason must exist before a decision can be suspended. It cannot simply be suspended merely because it is a first offence.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the arguments which have been advanced up to now. I think the hon. members on the other side of the House must concede that the amendment as moved by me is definitely an improvement on the existing provision. I have gone out of my way to try and improve it, and to meet them halfway. That is as far as I can go. I think it is very clear that a genuine, legitimate work-seeker who is registered as such enjoys the necessary protection in terms of this provision. I think that is clear.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has asked me why exactly the period had been stipulated as 122 days. One has to draw a line somewhere. 122 days happen to be four months of the year. But it might just as well have been 160 or 150 days. We thought, however, that a period of four months in a year was a reasonable period. After the expiration of that period there is still a lot which can be done. There is no hard and fast rule about what must be done. There is still room for manoeuvre.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, as well as the hon. member for East London North, is having a problem because the provision in respect of the first order, which automatically led to the suspension of the ruling, is now being removed. This provision is an improvement on the existing legislation. As the hon. member for East London North has correctly stated, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner has every right at present to consider a case. If he is convinced that he is dealing with someone who is a genuine work-seeker and who is not a lay-about, he still has just as much discretion to suspend the order. This provision means that he is getting even more discretion. He did not have that discretion before, because when it was proved that it was a first order, he was bound to suspend it, even though the man before him might have been a lay-about for two years already. In terms of the present provision he was bound to suspend the order. He still has full discretion to decide about the man except for the fact that if he finds that the man is a lay-about, he is not bound to suspend the order. In respect of that aspect he obtains a discretion which he did not have before. This provision is therefore in my view an improvement on this situation. I want to say to the hon. member that I can understand that he finds himself in a difficult position and that I sympathize with him. He is an hon. member who has only just come to the House. The Minister has moved an amendment of which his party colleagues have no knowledge. I understand his position very well. I do not wish to make things more difficult for him, but I wish to tell him that I assume that the Opposition will vote against this provision, but that I hope they will support my amendment. He must act according to his own conviction and settle the matter with his own party, but I shall understand it if he does what he thinks fit in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s first remarks concerning the improvement, as he puts it, in the second part of the clause. We do not read the clause like that at all. We do believe that it circumscribes discretion. I want to ask the hon. the Minister just to have a look at it again together with his legal advisers. I think he will then find that our interpretation is correct. I have listened to his argument and it appears to me that he does not really understand the import of this amendment, that he misreads it, because, as far as I could see, his arguments do not have substance in terms of the wording contained in the clause. I cannot follow his reasoning at all. I shall therefore be very grateful if he has another look at it We shall feel a bit happier if he gives us that assurance.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain the matter to the hon. member. In what circumstances would the Bantu Affairs Commissioner suspend an order? He would suspend the order if he was convinced that he had before him a bona fide case of a person who ought not to be declared idle. In taking the decision he would have taken into consideration the arguments advanced before him. He still has that very same discretion. The only difference is that this Bill is giving him even more discretion. Previously, he was bound to suspend the ruling in the case of a first offence. That is how it was interpreted in the Supreme Court. Henceforth he will not have to suspend the order as a matter of course. He obtains discretion in respect of that aspect as well. I am convinced that we are speaking at cross purposes. I am convinced that this provision is definitely an improvement on the old provision. If the hon. member wants it, I give him my assurance that I shall look at it again. If I am not satisfied with it, I shall rectify the matter in the Other Place. At the moment I am convinced, however, that the provision is an improvement.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that our legal advisers advise contrary to his interpretation. That is why I asked him to clarify the position.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am a very bad lawyer, but I do not understand the argument of the hon. the Minister. Up to now the courts had the discretion to declare whether or not a person was idle. We are not dealing with the discretion of declaring the person idle, but with a situation in which a person has in fact been found guilty. If he has been found guilty the court is normally told that he is a first offender. It is then a question of mitigation of sentence, because he is a first offender. However, this Bill stipulates that when a person has been convicted the court cannot grant mitigation because he is a first offender. Therein lies the difference.

Mr. Chairman, I have a little problem with this legislation. The fact that the hon. the Minister himself said that he would treat newcomers sympathetically has given me the courage to raise this point. The words I am worried about are “not lawfully employed”. I am a farmer and it often happens that Bantu looking for work walk from farm to farm, and the position is that these people do not possess the necessary documents for them to be lawfully employed. It is also a fact, whether it be right or wrong, that many of those people are from time to time employed, even though it may only be for a brief period. Those people, I believe, are not lay-abouts or people who are up to mischief. They are people who are simply looking for work because they have to obtain work, as they cannot obtain it in their homelands. Would it not be advisable in this case that those words be omitted? Why act so harshly against those people who do look for work, but who in the circumstances cannot lawfully be employed?

Mr. Chairman, I shall be gentle with the hon. member. I cannot omit those words, because one piece of legislation cannot legalize an illegality in terms of another law. There is another law which provides that there is a specific method according to which people may be lawfully employed, and it would be contrary to that law if I were to say in this legislation that people may be unlawfully employed, in other words, if I were to condone it. I cannot and will not do that. In any event, we are faced with a practical problem. When one brings a person to book because he is idle, his defence is in many cases that he was in the service of somebody but that this person had not registered him. That is usually the excuse. When we ask: “Where is the person, point him out, give us his name and address, so that we can check whether it is actually so,” the ready reply is: “He has moved; I do not know where he is now,” etc. In order to overcome that difficulty and in order to close a loophole which is so wide that one can turn an ox wagon in it, this provision is being introduced. I can, however, give the assurance that the application of the provision will be as humane as possible. If it can be proved at all that a man has in fact been employed, he will not be declared idle and there will be no action against him.

On amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman,

Question put: That all the words from “(a)” in line 15 up to and including “who” in line 26 stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. J. D. du P. Basson, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, D. J. N. Malcomess, J. F. Marais, P. A. Myburgh, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Amendment declared negatived.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. B. R. Bamford, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, R. J. Lorimer, D. J. N. Malcomess, J. F. Marais, P. A. Myburgh, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Clause, as amended, declared agreed to. Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, clause 6 once again entrenches the concept of substituting citizenship for birth. We on this side of the House want to register our objection to it and for that reason I gave notice on the Order Paper that we shall move that the clause be negatived.

In the Second Reading debate I dealt with the provisions of this clause and indicated that it appeared that the effect thereof would be to create three classes of Bantu people. The first class would be Bantu who are South African citizens. These people would be required to carry reference books. The second class would be Blacks who are citizens of Bophuthatswana and Transkei and who entered the Republic before 30 June 1963.These people would have an identity document. The third class would be people who are citizens of Bophuthatswana and Transkei who entered the Republic after 30 June 1963. These people apparently will not have either a reference book or the same identity document as the previous two classes, but presumably will be required also to carry a passport or a permit or a document of identity or one or other travel document.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is a correct interpretation of the effect of this clause. Will it create these three classes of Bantu with three separate sets of documents? The hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate did indicate that there was an arrangement of convenience between the Government of the Republic and the Governments of Transkei and Bophuthatswana, I think he said for a period of two years. The situation would be allowed to develop until such time as the independent State came forward with some form of identity document. It was not clear to me from his reply whether he was referring to those who were in those territories before the date I mentioned and also in those territories after the date; in other words, are we still dealing with three categories or are we dealing with two categories? These are obviously people, as was said during the Second Reading debate, who are going to be coming and going to and from the Republic. The hon. the Minister indicated in a spirit of great reasonableness that he was not able to prescribe to other governments what form these documents would take, but as I understand the position, these documents are going to be produced here in the Republic of South Africa. I did ask during the Second Reading whether there would be any indication as to the employment or tax returns of the people concerned, because we know that the existing reference books in South Africa, inter alia, deal with matters of that kind. Surely there will be some understanding between our Government and the Governments of the independent homelands on matters of this kind? I believe these are matters of importance. I believe, as I said during the Second Reading debate, that the proliferation of passes and identity documents will cause confusion. There may well be problems in this regard. There may be people who may not understand what kind of document they should in fact be carrying. We would like an explanation on that But we are going to oppose the clause nevertheless, particularly on the grounds that it further entrenches the question of citizenship disregarding the question of birth, even in regard to the documents. That is why I have moved that this clause be negatived. However, I would like the hon. the Minister still to give me the explanation I have asked for.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that we shall not convince one another with regard to the question of citizenship and birthright. Consequently I am going to say no more about that aspect. I am sure that we shall not convince one another, and therefore I stand by my point of view.

With regard to the other matter to which the hon. member referred, I should like to reply to him. In the first place we are dealing with Black citizens of the Republic of South Africa. At the moment there are certain provisions relating to their position, certain documents in their possession, etc. As I said in my Second Reading speech, an agreement had been reached with the homeland leaders in terms of which the existing documents would be replaced by other documents. The agreement was reached between the Republic and the leaders of the homelands which have not yet become independent. Those arrangements will proceed and the documents will be replaced. In the second place we are dealing with people who originally came mainly from the LBS countries and who had no documents of whatever kind. In effect, they were people who were unidentifiable at that stage. Then the Government, in all kindness, issued those people with an identity document on the grounds of which they obtained certain rights. However, we had to draw the line somewhere. We could not leave the matter as it was permanently and perpetuate it for all times.

†That is why we drew the line at 30 June 1963. People from unidentifiable countries who entered the Republic before 30 June 1963 were issued with a certain document of identification which entitled them to certain rights in South Africa. However, we could not perpetuate the situation and for that reason we drew the line at 30 June 1963. As far as the others are concerned, we are dealing with foreign Blacks, people from different countries. The exception is that citizens of Bophuthatswana and the Transkei have, in terms of certain agreements reached between the Republic and their respective Governments at the time of independence, certain rights in respect of work and labour in South Africa.

The hon. member for Musgrave wanted to know what form these documents would take and what they would look like, these documents that were going to be prepared in South Africa. I will put it quite bluntly to the hon. member: I do not know. I do not believe it is our affair. The matter concerns documents to be prepared by independent countries. We will assist them as far as possible, but the documents will be prepared according to their wishes and will be accepted as such by us.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether those documents will not in any way relate to what those people will be doing in the Republic? From that point of view, surely, this Government will require some information to be contained in that document to enable them to administer it.

Mr. Chairman on any ordinary passport of any person it is indicated what that particular person is doing in South Africa. Whether a person has a work permit or any other relevant permit, whatever the case may be, it is indicated on his passport. That is also the case with any other person coming to South Africa, from England or from any other country. Certain stamps appear on his passport to indicate exactly what he is doing in South Africa. That will also be applicable in cases such as these.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. J. D. du P. Basson, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, D. J. N. Malcomess, J. F. Marais, P. A. Myburgh, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.