Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply on the outstanding matters which I went through hastily this morning. In the first place I owe a reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in connection with the clipping from Rapport which he placed before me. I did not use the words he thinks I did. That I shall indicate to him. The clipping in his possession is not worth the paper it is printed on. I shall supply him with the relevant clippings in case he should want to place them in his docket.

What happened was that the present State President—at the time still Minister of Finance—the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. M. C. Botha, and I, had undertaken a long tour through the homelands. It so happened that on that occasion the representative of the Sunday Times put a question to me. If the hon. member would look up the Sunday Times of 1 August 1971—the same date as that of the relevant report in Rapport—he will find the following—

The following day I saw the report in the Sunday Times, and also the one in Rapport, the one to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has referred. On that Sunday morning—the hon. member will find it in the newspapers of 2 August 1971—I conducted a radio interview. It was an interview in the form of question and answer. I shall now give the hon. member the complete interview from Die Burger of 2 August 1971. It reads—

That does not only appear in Die Burger of 2 August 1971. In that paper it appeared under the heading: “Geen superparlement vir Suid-Afrika nie. Vorster sê hy wil nie ’n tweede VVO hê nie.” The hon. member will also find it in The Star of 2 August 1971 under the heading: “No super Parliament links with the homelands.” I trust that this solves the entire problem of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in connection with what was said and what was not said in that regard.

He will also find the same report in Die Transvaler of 2 August 1971.

†Now, I want to deal with a statement made by the hon. member for Musgrave to the effect that we are an embarrassment as far as our allies are concerned.

Hear, hear!

The hon. ex-Chief Whip says “hear, hear!” That may be so, and for the purposes of my argument I am prepared to assume that it is indeed so. But then the point naturally arises: Since when have we been an embarrassment? My trouble with hon. members on the other side is that they do not know the history. Had they known anything about the history of South Africa, they would have known that we were an embarrassment to these allies since 1946.

We know that full well, but the position got worse.

The hon. member says “the position got worse”. I am quite prepared to concede that it got worse, because since then some people came onto the political scene to make it worse. Unfortunately they are represented in the Parliament of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove must contain himself.

Now that the hon. member for Musgrave has mentioned it, I want to quote from Hansard … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to call me a terrorist?

Order! Did any hon. member call the hon. member for Houghton a terrorist?

I did so, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I can say definitely that the hon. member is not a terrorist, but that she is a nuisance, nobody can deny.

I am glad to hear that.

I want to refer hon. members to Hansard, 21 January 1947, col. 10920. Gen. Smuts spoke in this House and this is what he, previously the blue-eyed boy of the Allies and of the British Empire, had to say to the House when he told the House how he had fared at the UN—

Gen. Smuts was on the carpet and he stood alone on that carpet; he had no allies when he stood on that carpet. He was the first to come under the whip and that whip was handled by his erstwhile allies and they beat him on the back with that whip. Gen. Smuts said further—

A little further on in his speech he said—

I can go on. Why did he feel the whip on his back? It was the Indian Land Tenure Act, the so-called Pegging Act, which had been adopted by this House shortly before that. He goes on to say (Hansard, col. 10922)—

That is the crux of the matter. General Smuts wanted to sort out the population.

That was 30 years ago. [Interjections.]

Yes, and for that reason he got the whip on his back.

You tried to sort them out and look what happened.

Why don’t you quote the speech he made at Oxford?

So it is no use telling us that it is our fault that we are an embarrassment to our allies. We have been an embarrassment since 1946, if there is substance in this argument.

*Hon. members have also referred to the letter by Dr. Koornhof. I think it was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who made the insinuation and tried to confirm the impression that Dr. Koornhof had now abandoned the policy of the NP. That is of course not the case. I just want to state that very clearly.

He is doing a good job.

I am inclined to agree, but he gets very little, if any, assistance from hon. members opposite. Consequently, what he has accomplished, he has accomplished alone.

Ask Graeme Pollock.

Yes, the sporting people help him, but I do not see any of them on the benches before me. I want to refer to the publication The Normalization of Sport in the Republic of South Africa.

†In it Dr. Koornhof puts forward the policy of the Government, and he does so in the following terms—

That is the legal position. Then out came the tennis people. Let me just point out that it is said in the outside world, by our enemies, that it is a crime—for which a man can go to gaol—for a man to play tennis on a tennis court belonging to a White or in a White area. That is, in fact, said. The question was put, and that is what the argument was about. Dr. Koornhof then put the matter right, in reply to the questions put to him, by saying—

Is that not a change?

I beg your pardon?

There is another line there, is there not?

This is the legal position and that has always been the legal position.

There is another line there, is there not?

I can read you the whole piece. I quote further—

This is with reference to spectators. Then comes the last paragraph, far from running away from our policy, Dr. Koornhof again stated the position in the following words—

In other words, there has never been apartheid in sport.

Oh no! Sir, I had to play schoolmaster to the hon. members yesterday. If that hon. member needs private tuition, he must approach someone else for it, because he really cannot expect it from me. [Interjections.]

†Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether President Mangope and I came to an agreement on the land issue. I tried to explain yesterday—and hon. members opposite agreed with me—that we will always talk about land in South Africa. I can say in all sincerity that, if at this moment one were to satisfy all the land claims, one would need a territory at least four times the size of the present South Africa. That is a fact. To reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s specific question, I can only refer him to the Government Gazette of 6 December 1977. On page 25 of that Gazette he will find the following—

He will find the whole agreement published there and in the annexure he will find pages and pages listing the various farms and districts that will be added to Bophuthatswana. As I have said, we will always talk about land. Whether land issues will be raised again in future, is another matter. As a practical man I have no doubt that such issues will be raised, because land matters will always play a part in South Africa.

*Hon. members have also created the impression that we have changed our policy in regard to the universities. As hon. members who were in this House at the time will know, I was personally responsible, together with Minister Serfontein, for the piloting through of legislation in connection with separate universities. That legislation still stands unchanged in the Statute Book and embodies the policy and principles of the NP. There has never been an amendment to that legislation before this House. In other words, that legislation is still being implemented today as it was then. I am therefore simply unable to understand on what grounds hon. members can level the reproach that there has been a change.

The exceptions are disproving the rules.

Does your brother think there has been a change?

He referred to a totally different matter. But that has nothing to do with the Government. The viewpoint of the Government is that it is for the university councils to decide whether or not they are going to admit non-Whites. That is the policy. That is the standpoint. Some universities which were previously not prepared to do so, now are prepared to do so. It has nothing to do with the Government. It was not done at the request of the Government. Nor was it on instructions from the Government. It is their own decision that gave rise to it.

Well, why then do you not allow the open universities to carry out their policy?

That decision rests with the university councils. Other university councils have made such decisions before.

Why must they have a permit?

It is still for the Government to grant a pennit—that is the policy. On the one hand, the hon. member is now accusing me of having deviated from the policy and on the other, the hon. member for Houghton attacks me because we do not want to deviate from the policy.

We are only too glad that you are changing.

I can only say, Sir, that it is clear to me that in that Party, one left hand does not know what the other left hand is doing! [Interjections.]

I listened to the argument by the hon. member for Durban Central. Thereafter I did my best to follow what the hon. member for Mooi River was trying to illustrate to us. I must admit that it was late and it had been a hard day, but I must say in all modesty that only Einstein and he would have understood what he wanted to say to us. Unfortunately Einstein is dead, and now the hon. member is the only one who knows! [Interjections.] I do not think the voters of Mooi River will understand it, and I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that if he wants to win elections in future, he can send the hon. member for Mooi River, but then he must please, for Heaven’s sake, search his suitcase to make sure that he does not go to the voters with that spectacle. [Interjections.]

When one deals with people with a school level mentality, one has to use toys to get through to them.

I can understand that the hon. member for Mooi River wanted to impress the hon. member for Durban Point. [Interjections.] Sir, I must say in all earnestness that I listened to the hon. member for Durban Central. It is clear to me, and it is becoming clearer all the time, that there is only one alternative to this Government’s policy, and that alternative is a common voters’ roll on which all will appear: “One man, one vote,” and a Black majority Government.

No!

I am totally convinced that what the hon. members opposite are playing with, and all the words they are using, will ultimately avail them nothing; they will have to come to “one man, one vote”.

Do you think that the United States of America has “one man one vote” for the Senate?

In the United States, all people have the franchise on a common voters’ roll.

There is no “one man, one vote” there.

But it does not concern me what the position is there. I am concerned with South Africa, and here one cannot get away from it: those hon. members are playing with a policy which will result in their arriving at “one man, one vote”. We need not argue that any further; hon. members will not convince me to the contrary.

What about the canton system? [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to another argument, with reference to the comments made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the new dispensation which the NP has brought into being. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—and I agree with him on that point—that it is for the Coloureds and the Indians to decide about the matter. It is common knowledge that when we explained the matter to the Coloureds, Mr. Sonny Leon said that he was very pleasantly surprised and that that dispensation was so favourable to the Coloureds that we would not be able to get it passed at NP congresses. It was not only to us that he said it. I have it on impeccable authority that after he had left us, he told a professor at Jan Smuts Airport in the same words that he was very much impressed, but that he did not believe that we would get that dispensation passed at the congresses. Then, however, he met certain people … [Interjections.] It was Whites whom he met. After he had met those people, he changed his viewpoint.

Give us the names of the people he met.

I do not want to bandy names across the floor of the House now.

You must do it!

That hon. member has contact with Mr. Leon and he can go and ask him whom he was in contact with. My standpoint in this connection is, however, that if the Coloureds and the Indians were to decide about that on their own, I have not the slightest doubt as to what their decision would be, but when other influences are brought to bear upon them, it becomes a totally different matter.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has also raised the question of the small group of Chinese in South Africa. We have good contact with that group through the Minister concerned. Through the years they have also liaised with me personally when they have had a problem. They are a law-abiding group of people with no political ambitions whatsoever. We would be doing them a disservice to drag them into the political maelstrom of South Africa; they do not want to be involved in it.

Through the years, not one of them has made representations to me in that regard. In my view, we have a case here where we should allow those people to decide on their own future and that we should not force the issue.

How can they decide?

If their political ambitions develop, they are man enough to come and discuss them, and at that stage they will indeed discuss them. At the moment, however, I can only state the present position to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Pinelands has put the following question to me: “What will happen if the Indian Ministers and the Coloured Ministers on the Council of Cabinets say that they want to repeal the Immorality Act?”

†The answer to this question of course flows from what I told the hon. member yesterday. My answer is clear, viz. that it will be discussed and that it is then for the Council of Cabinets to take a decision on the point. I want to make my own position in this matter very clear. If ever it is raised at such a meeting and I am a member of that meeting, I will definitely speak up against it.

So, you disagree with half of your caucus.

That is my standpoint.

*The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the recent events in Botswana. The hon. member is aware that immediately after they took place, we did everything that could possibly be done in that connection, through the Department of Foreign Affairs. The hon. member is also aware that after the bodies had arrived in South Africa, we carried out a very thorough post-mortem examination. The findings of those post-mortem examinations have not yet been made public, and it will take some time before that is done. We have conveyed our standpoint to Botswana, namely that we expect that there should be a proper investigation into the matter, and that all the relevant facts be thrashed out. I trust that Botswana will act in this connection as South Africa has acted in similar circumstances in the past, and will continue to act in the future. This is, however, a matter concerning which I cannot give a final answer at this point. We must wait and see what happens. The hon. member is also aware that not only we, but the British Government, too, are concerned, because one of the deceased was a British citizen.

I do not want to express an opinion on the merits of the case now, except to say that my impressions are the same as those of the hon. members. Like most hon. members in the House, I also believe that there are many things which have to be cleared up and that many explanations are due, explanations which have not yet been forthcoming.

The hon. member has also referred to the question of South West Africa. As far as South West Africa is concerned, I am in the difficult position—which hon. members will appreciate—that the people involved, namely, the different parties and nations in South West Africa, have not yet adopted a final standpoint in connection with the proposals by the Western powers. It would therefore be premature for South Africa to express a viewpoint in this connection before the people primarily concerned—the people whose country it is, and whose future is at stake—have expressed their view on the matter. A large group of these people spoke to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and for a time to me, too, this morning. I feel bound to tell the House that I was deeply impressed by the responsible manner in which these delegates—both White and Black—approached the problem. Not only was I impressed by the responsible manner in which they approached the problem, but I also want to say in this House that I was impressed—and after speaking to these gentlemen this morning, that impression was strengthened—by the self-control and responsibility with which they acted after the atrocious murder of Chief Clemens Kapuuo. All of them, the Hereros in particular, deserve credit for the manner in which they acted.

I want to say that that responsible attitude which they displayed, augurs particularly well for the future of South West Africa. I would not hesitate to leave South West Africa in the hands of such Whites—not only those who were here this morning, but also those who were not present—and the Black people whom I saw this morning. I should have liked to take the House into my confidence, but I am in a difficult position, and at this stage this is not possible, because the people of South West Africa have still to adopt their standpoint in this connection.

There are, however, three points I should like to state in passing on this occasion. They are matters with which the South African Government is intimately concerned and which I am therefore able to discuss at this stage.

The first is the question of Walvis Bay. I have stated very clearly, in Bloemfontein and elsewhere, that Walvis Bay belongs to South Africa and that I am by no means prepared to discuss the question of Walvis Bay in connection with a settlement in South West Africa. It is South African territory, and until this Parliament decides otherwise, it will, as far as I am concerned, remain South African territory. If there are people who think that they can claim Walvis Bay, and if Swapo adopts the attitude that unless Walvis Bay is part of the agreement, they will have no part in it, then my reply is that in that case they need not take part in it, because Walvis Bay will not be part of the settlement agreement.

In the second place, South Africa is responsible for law and order in the territory. The S.A. Police have through the years, and very often in difficult circumstances, maintained law and order there. Whatever may be said in that connection, it is the standpoint of the South African Government—and we owe this to the inhabitants of South West Africa— that the South African Police will maintain law and order in South West Africa until independence. If demands are made, as in the past, that the S.A. Police must withdraw now, we will say that we are not prepared to meet or comply with those demands.

In the third place, our troops, our security forces, are not in the territory because South Africa is claiming the territory for itself and because they are to take the territory for South Africa. On the contrary. They are in that territory to protect life and property against people who come from beyond the borders to damage property and to take the lives of innocent men, women and children. They are there at the invitation of elected Governments. It has been demanded in the past that they should leave the territory, but I want to make it clear that until such time as it is absolutely clear that there will be no more violence and bloodshed, South Africa will not reduce its security forces in the area, let alone withdraw them. I am not saying this because I want to be provocative or because I want to wreck or undermine the settlement. I am merely stating as a plain fact that if violence does not come to a halt, it is obvious that the number of troops cannot be reduced. The two are closely related. It stands to reason that my colleagues would like to withdraw the troops—in fact, all of us would like to do that. If the Western World, like us, would like to achieve that result, it is not asking too much of them that they should see to it that the violence comes to a halt. They have the contacts. They, and not we, talk to the people who commit those irresponsible acts. They therefore have the excellent opportunity to see to it that those acts are no longer committed.

Those are the three principles with which the Government and I are concerned and for that reason I can express my views on them. If therefore, I do anything on this occasion, it is to appeal to so-called world opinion, the so-called world community of nations: If they want peace in that territory, it is in their hands, and it is for them to induce those people who commit the violence in South West Africa, to change their views. Only the future will show us what the developments in that connection will be.

I conclude by saying that until such time as the different parties in South West Africa have conveyed their decision to the Administrator-General, the Government cannot, by itself, adopt a final standpoint on these settlement proposals, and I regret that the debate on my Vote took place at a time when a decision on that matter was not yet possible.

I believe that I have now replied on everything that was still outstanding in connection with this debate.

Mr. Chairman, as I have a throat infection, I hope that in these circumstances hon. members will bear with me if I do not raise my voice as much as I normally do in addressing the House.

We appreciate the extremely sensitive and delicate situation, both in time and substance, which surround the SWA issue. It is for this reason that we on these benches have not sought in recent times to have a further debate across the floor of this House. We realized that this was essentially a matter for negotiation, something in which the people of South West Africa were acutely involved and that matters would not have been helped by having an open debate of a political nature across the floor of this House. We have listened to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the three specific points which he raised. In the context and the manner which he stated them today, they seemed to us to be not only correct and reasonable, but certainly it would keep the door open for what I think we all want, namely both a peaceful settlement and an internationally recognized settlement in South West Africa.

There is no doubt that fundamental to any settlement, the one the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned, is that there has to be a cessation of terrorist activities. Until there is a cessation of terrorist activities, it would be impossible to have the atmosphere appropriate to the holding of free elections. We accept that a precondition for a settlement in that area is that terrorist activity must stop. Secondly, I think it is correct that if proposals for settlements are going to go beyond words and intentions, they have to have the support of a wider section of the international community. It is well for the West to come with proposals and for South Africa to consider them seriously. As we see it, the key to this is that not only the West, but also the States of Africa have a very specific responsibility to see that peace is restored in that area. The proposals and the situation which exists there are a test to see whether the responsible States on the African continent are concerned about peace in this part of Africa or whether perhaps they are so blind in their antagonism towards South Africa that they do nothing about it. We hope that there is significant support for a peaceful settlement and we hope that the Black States of Africa realize the value of the cessation of terrorism and of the restoration of peace in this part of Africa. We will take it no further. We would hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will give the House an assurance that as soon as it is possible he will make a statement on this issue and that he will use this House as his forum for making such a statement.

I decidedly will.

I thank the hon. the Prime Minister for that assurance. I now want to come to one or two items raised during the latter part of the debate. The first is that on two occasions reference was made to Dr. Dick van der Ross, the rector of the University of the Western Cape. Reference was made to him by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who quoted from a newspaper article to indicate that the rector supports ethnicity. In fairness to Dr. Van der Ross, I believe that the rest of the report should be read out. The headline correctly refers to his support of ethnicity, but the article then adds Dr. Van der Ross’ conditions, and I quote—

That is the part the hon. member did not read. I continue—

I think it is correct, for the record, that Dr. Van der Ross should not be associated with this plan except in terms of this very clear statement which he made.

Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister also referred to Dr. Van der Ross and suggested that one should ask him certain questions. It was at the time when we were dealing with appointments to the staffs of so-called open universities. The hon. the Prime Minister then said—

Mr. Chairman, I was aware of the case, and I have spoken to Dr. Van der Ross. It is correct that, in the 1950’s, he did apply for the post. However, he assures me that he is not suggesting that he was the most appropriate person or that, on merit, he should have been appointed. He applied for the post three times, but he is certainly not claiming that he was prejudiced because of his colour.

I said it, because I mentioned the situation.

What Dr. Van der Ross did say to me was that I should advise this House that he had actually applied for a post in education at the Coloured University of the Western Cape and that this was refused to him. [Interjections.] Was that also because of prejudice on the grounds of colour?

I shall tell you about that.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is merely playing with words. I am not saying there were not changes in the attitudes of universities, but the hon. the Prime Minister must not suggest that the Government’s policy was always a policy of open universities, and that open universities were in fact so prejudiced against colour that they did not carry out their own policy.

In relation to the appointment of staff, will the hon. the Prime Minister concede that, in 1968, one Arthur Mfeje, a Black man, was recommended for appointment by the University Council of Cape Town. However, in the end the then Minister of Education threatened to introduce legislation prohibiting his appointment and prohibiting any other similar appointments, and subject to that pressure the University Council withdrew that appointment.

Mr. Chairman, I raise these two matters for the purposes of the record. The next point I want to deal with is a matter that has not been dealt with in the course of the debate. That is the question of the Cabinet Council. The hon. the Prime Minister will recall that, way back in 1975, he explained to us here in the House that he was setting up a Cabinet Council on which would serve representatives of the CPRC and the SAIC. He then went on to explain that this was in fact a more effective means of representation than being in Parliament. He explained how the then hon. Leader of the Opposition had not been able to affect the budget because he was in the Opposition but that these Coloured and Indian representatives would actually have access to the Government at the point where expenditure was initiated. He said they would have access to the Government both where the expenditure originates and also at the end point where the actual money is spent. I should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister how effective this body has been in relation to the present budget. Was the present budget presented to the Cabinet Council? I should like to know when the Cabinet Council last met. This is important because the hon. the Prime Minister said that this was his substitute for direct political representation. We should like to know when the Cabinet Council met. Did it meet to consider this budget? What specific recommendations were made in relation to this budget and were any such recommendations accepted?

The debate on the Vote of the Prime Minister, save for the last short while when he commented on South West Africa, has concentrated appropriately on the Government’s overall race policy, the whole question of the grand design in relation to the development of separate sovereignties for the homelands. The hon. the Prime Minister again today indicated that there was no alternative; it was either a question of separate sovereignties, separate nations and independent States or it was “one man, one vote” in a unitary system. This is what he has said is his basic approach. I want to say that this basic approach, this argument of the hon. the Prime Minister, is actually knocked on the head by his own new constitutional policy, since in relation to the Coloureds and the Indians there will, in fact, not be separate sovereignties and there will not be separate States.

He, in fact, will argue that he has developed a system whereby the three ethnic groups within one geographic entity can come to some form of joint responsibility without the domination of the one over the other. While we believe that the system which he is setting up is a shabby one and that it is not going to work, nevertheless it does show that the Government believes that it is possible to devise political systems in South Africa where all people can take part in the Government of the country and in which there should not be domination of the one over the other.

I want to conclude this part of the debate by coming back to this particular proposal that is before us and to say immediately … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to finish his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Chief Whip. We want to examine this very briefly and to state to this House why we believe that the system is not only going to fail, but why we believe that the system is also essentially based on White baasskap in South Africa. There are five key arguments which we will advance.

The first one is that the exclusion of Blacks from the new constitutional proposals is in itself a fatal defect as far as those proposals are concerned. We have no doubt that by excluding the Black people from this system of government, and especially the urban Blacks who are as much a part of the common area of South Africa as are the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites, and by requiring the Black people to accept a situation where they will have to live under laws made collectively by Whites, Coloureds and Asians together, one is going to polarize the race situation in South Africa. It also has the practical effect in the situation of today of making the scheme unacceptable to many Coloureds and Asians. The hon. the Prime Minister is aware that one of the prime reasons why some Coloureds are turning away from these proposals is that it excludes the Black people from full participation in the decision-making process.

The second reason is that we believe the way the Government has gone about setting up these proposals to date is heading them for failure. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister must realize that when one changes the constitution of the country in a fundamental way, it must be done by negotiation between people who are the authentic leaders of the various sections of the population. So far the hon. the Prime Minister, through the Cabinet Committee, through the other discussions which he has had behind closed doors, has tended to deal with this as the private preserve of the NP. The White Parliament has to all intents and purposes been excluded from any discussion of this matter. We say again that we believe that a matter as important as this should have been the subject of a White Paper. It should have been the subject of a very early and thorough debate in Parliament. If we have been excluded, however, let me say that we think that far worse treatment has been meted out to the Coloureds and the Indians. The Theron Commission recommended a commission of experts to go into this. There was no commission of experts, however. There was a Cabinet Committee. The Coloured members on the Theron Commission all asked that when this committee was set up, it should include Coloured people. There was, however, no inclusion of Coloured people. There was no consultation on the formulation of these proposals with leaders of the Coloured community until after the proposals had been finalized and were ready for presentation to the Nationalist caucus and provincial congresses. The Government has refused a request for a referendum, a request made by the elected leader of the CRC. It has been turned down by the majority in the CPRC and it has also been turned down by the majority in the SAIC. In spite of that the Government, through the Department of Information, is spending tens of thousands of rand trying to sell this to the Coloured people over the heads of the CPRC and the elected leaders of the Coloured people. Somehow or other one senses that the Government has been fighting shy of any real public debate on this issue in order to conceal both the uncertainties and the divisions that there are in their own ranks on this issue.

I now come to the third aspect. The existence of the scheme does not depend on the grand strategy of separate sovereignties, separate independence or separate homelands.

It depends essentially on simply the enforcement of the miserable old policy of enforced segregation. It goes right down to that level. There are no separate sovereignties and no independence. It goes down to the issue of ordinary, old-fashioned apartheid because this scheme hinges on the fact that apartheid, in the old sense, is to be entrenched in law and entrenched in the constitution. Essential to this scheme are the Group Areas Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act and the Race Classification Act. Without these, the whole scheme collapses, and yet the Government must know that these laws are anathema to the overwhelming majority of Coloured and Indian people. Secondly it extends what I will call “miserable apartheid” where it does not exist today. South Africa is moving in one direction, but this plan envisages having apartheid in the control of the economic development, in the control of taxation, in the fields of agriculture, mining, finance, sport, libraries, art galleries, nature conservation, public works, cemeteries, you name it! These are the kinds of things which, although not administered separately in the past, are going to become part of a new apartheid structure.

The hon. member for Pinelands raised an issue and asked what would happen if the Coloureds and the Asians reject this. What happens if they decide that in their two communities they do not want to have apartheid? Is this still going to be decided by the White Parliament? If they say that they do not want separation between them, that they want to be in one Parliament in one community, will they be able to exercise their sovereignty in this way?

The second point is that the Coloureds are to have control over certain areas. If the Coloured Parliament wants to throw open areas which fall under their control, or to open up institutions that fall under their control, for use on a non-apartheid basis, will they be free to do so or are they for all time to be captives of apartheid as imposed upon them by the NP? Can they open up areas which are under their control?

Now I come to the fourth aspect. The plan, as revealed to us in pamphlets, statements and more particularly in the information the hon. the Prime Minister gave the House yesterday, we see as grossly discriminatory. It is merely another form of the old-fashioned White baasskap. That is the gist of the analysis we have made of the explanation given by the hon. the Prime Minister. It is correct that the Coloured and Asian Parliaments will have greater authority in what is considered by some to be areas exclusive to them, but all the indications given to us are that in the area of common interest, the White Parliament, the White-dominated electoral college and the White State President of South Africa are going to have a decisive say. The hon. the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to say that, as far as he is concerned, nothing can touch the sovereignty of the White Parliament of South Africa. If this is so, it is meaningless for him to say that the Coloureds can have sovereignty in their own fields. One cannot have two forms of sovereignty. He said the sovereignty is going to continue to be vested in this Parliament. They will be able to decide what rights the Coloureds have. They will be able to decide if they want to take them away. In practice they will be able to decide if they are going to veto them. They will be in a position to decide on any constitutional amendment because a sovereign Parliament always has the final say. So the Coloured people are not going to have sovereignty. They are not going to have a sovereign Parliament. What they will have is a Parliament subordinate to the White Parliament of South Africa.

As regards the common areas, the concept of the Council of Cabinets introduces perhaps for the first time a formal consultative body, a body which may be there to reach consensus but which takes it no further than that. In fact, if one examines the Government’s plan for the common areas, one sees that once again it will be the White Parliament, the White-dominated electoral college and the White State President of South Africa who will have the decisive say. Let us look at these common areas. The extent to which the Coloured and Indian Parliaments will have any authority at all is going to be determined by the White Parliament. Time and time again in the pamphlets and statements it is indicated that it will be the White Parliament that will decide what matters will be handed over to these groups. Secondly, it has been made quite clear that what will be handed over to them are only matters of exclusive concern to those groups.

It is clear that the NP—it has been quite frank in this to the public of South Africa—is not prepared to surrender any areas of common interest if these areas are considered vital to the Whites. So the areas of common interest which are considered vital to the Whites are going to remain in the hands of the White people. If one looks at the administration of the common areas, I must put it to the Prime Minister that, as we understood him and as we have analysed the policy before us, the common area portfolios and departments are in fact going to be administered by White Ministers who are going to be responsible to the White Parliament. Members of the Council of Cabinets do not hold portfolios in their capacity as members of that body. These portfolios will therefore in fact be in the hands of White Ministers and the White Parliament. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development said—and the hon. member for Rondebosch quoted him—that there will not be a mixed Public Service, but that there will be a White Public Service administering the common areas.

Let us look at the issue of the deadlocks that may arise. They can be sorted out at various levels, but if in the end they cannot be resolved by discussion in the Council of Cabinets, they will be resolved by the State President who will either pronounce his decision or refer the matter to any one Parliament and, since he will be responsible to the White Parliament and the White electoral college, it will be the White Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as this debate draws to a close, I think one can say that it has established certain important basic facts which have not been so clearly and unequivocally established until now. We are in a whole new ball game. There are new hurdles, new roadblocks and new ambushes on the road South Africa has to follow. South Africa looked to this debate for leadership, new ideas and new hope as to how South Africa was going to overcome the problems that stand in our path. I think it is fair to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has failed to give that leadership. He has reiterated the old, traditional basic philosophy of his party. He has rededicated himself to methods and ideas which may have been satisfactory in the past but which cannot measure up to the new challenges which we face today. Apart from when the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with international affairs, with Transkei and South West Africa, in respect of which he has my full support, he has in regard to South Africa not given one single indication in this whole debate that he has any ideas, any plans or any thoughts with which to counter the new dangers that face us. He has said that he stands blindly by every one of his original policy stances, and I want to deal with them. What has, I believe, now been established clearly in this debate is that the hon. the Prime Minister has rejected totally any form of confederation or of “medeseggenskap”. I use that word deliberately because I want to establish that when the hon. the Prime Minister rejects any “super-Parliament” or “oorkoepelende liggaam” or “kon-federasie”, he is in fact rejecting the concept of joint decision making, or “medeseggenskap”.

That horse has been beaten to death!

No, that horse is only just starting to run! [Interjections.] I want to establish that the hon. the Prime Minister has flatly and totally rejected any concept of joint responsibility, joint decision making, or “medeseggenskap”, in a formalized constitutional structure.

He has also established clearly that he supports the concept that there will be no Black citizens. He has accepted and confirmed that there will be no freehold title to land by Black people in the White areas. He has established clearly that there will be no shared power in matters of common concern. He has established clearly that he stands unshaken by the concept of total division of power. If I have wronged the hon. the Prime Minister in any of those statements, I hope he will correct me, but all those things are clearly established from his replies to this debate. Therefore, Sir, we now at least have this clear …

What point do you want to make now?

I want to make the point that to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, inside and outside the Nationalist Party who are talking in terms of “medeseggenskap”, who are talking in terms of a shared responsibility for matters of common interest and concern, who are talking in terms of federal or confederal linking mechanisms, who are talking in terms of co-operation between the peoples of Southern Africa in the future, the Prime Minister has said: “You will not get that through the NP or through this Government because I reject it.”

I say to the Willem de Klerks, the Nic Rhoodies and to all the others in South Africa who are looking for a way to overcome the obstacles and the hurdles and for a way to escape the ambushes on the road ahead that the Prime Minister’s answer to them is: “Put on blinkers. Close your eyes and walk straight into the ambush. That is where I am leading you.” I say he is leading unthinking South Africans into an ambush which he should be leading them away from. If this debate has established only that fact, then to those who have said that they will change the Government from within, I say: “You have had your answer from the Prime Minister. He has said: ‘You haven’t a hope. Toe the line. Be a “yes-man” to what we are doing.’ ” The hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations, Deputy Minister Treurnicht, is sitting there with the grin of a Cheshire cat. He is looking happier, after this debate, than I have ever seen him in this House. On the other hand, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is looking more miserable than I have ever seen him looking. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, something else has been established, and that is that the Official Opposition equally have no answer to give.

Ping-pong politics!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has spoken for 84 minutes in this debate, which is 14 minutes longer than the whole of my party. His party has had two hours and 20 minutes, which is double what my whole party has had and in all that time not a single positive policy statement on specific policy has been made by a single member of the Official Opposition.

It is the Prime Minister’s Vote.

They have criticized, they have asked a thousand questions and now their only answer is: “It is the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote!” They want to be the alternative Government, but they are not going to tell us what alternative they are offering. [Interjections.] It has been left to this small party to introduce into this debate new issues which can be debated. Reference has been made to ping-pong, but if one is dealing with small minds, one has to make things simple. We have introduced the concept of a “Nuclear State” with the elements drawn together by common attraction, which we demonstrated. The hon. the Prime Minister can mock and joke, but he knows that we have demonstrated, in a practical form, the birth of a new line of political thinking which he is going to have to deal with. He can mock it now, but South Africa will not mock the concept of the attraction of the various elements of our population to each other. I want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister that if there is no link, then no body, no organ and no part of life is able to exist in a vacuum on its own. If we fail to provide the nucleus and if we fail to provide the force which draws the other peoples of South Africa into some sort of structure with us, they will seek some other nucleus force and they will go to some other power to give them that attraction—that force. They will then become part of another grouping which will be hostile to us. That is where the hon. the Prime Minister has failed South Africa. He has failed to provide the key for holding together the people of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now come to the end of the debate, and I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all hon. members on this side of the House who made my task very easy by answering all the political arguments which came from that side of the House, leaving me at liberty to deal with other matters. Their replies were most effective, as will be clear from Hansard. I also want to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for Durban Point, who concluded the debate on such a pleasant note. Since this is the year of A. G. Visser, I was afraid at times that a millipede had bitten the hon. member, but my fears proved to be unfounded. The hon. member has only been inspired by the hon. member for Mooi River, with all the various little balls, etc. The hon. member should remember that it has been said of someone that his learning drove him to madness. Therefore the hon. member should not go too deeply into this kind of thing!

However, I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member about one aspect. Questions were put to me by hon. members, one after another, and I answered each of those questions without beating about the bush. Then I asked certain questions in my turn, and only yesterday I asked the hon. Whip of the Official Opposition—and when an hon. Whip says something, I take his word for it—whether I was not going to get any answers to my questions. The hon. Whip then told me that I would get the answers. He can read it in his Hansard. The hon. member was offered time for answering the questions; that, too, is recorded in his Hansard. I assumed that I would receive the replies during this debate.

No. Not in this debate. [Interjections.] How can we answer in 10 minute speeches?

I expressly told the hon. members that I would give them the time they needed to reply to those questions. In any event, it did not take me an age to reply to all the questions which they put to me, and I did not put a quarter of the questions to the hon. members opposite that they put to me. However, the hon. member for Durban Point is quite right; we only get words, words, words, from the PFP. But when one asks them how they intend to implement their ideas, you get no reply. I want to predict to the hon. Whip, the hon. member for Pinelands, that we shall not get the answers during this session.

You will get them.

Now the hon. member says that we shall get them. However, I will not allow myself to be fobbed off again. When exactly shall we get the answers?

You will get the answers during this session.

During the discussion of which Vote or under which item on the Order Paper shall we get them? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No. The hon. member cannot silence me with that. He must now tell me under which Vote they will give us the answers, for I want to be here then.

Promise you will be here!

Yes, if the hon. member would tell me now in which debate they are going to furnish the answers, I shall sit here in my bench all day. In fact, I shall bring sandwiches and be here between one and two. [Interjections.] Will the hon. member tell me now when they are going to give the answers?

I shall give you lots of notice.

When will you do that?

We shall make a plan. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, this is the effective Opposition! The hon. Whip states categorically that they will give us the answers; but how can he say now that he will give us the answers if he does not even know when and under what circumstances he will be able to do this?

He first has to go and ask Buthelezi.

May I ask the hon. member quite seriously: Is he able to give the answers or does he first have to go and ask other people outside this House whether he may give the answers? [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that. The hon. members can draw their own conclusions in this connection.

I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Point for the compliment he paid me in his speech. He paid me the compliment of saying that I was consistent. He reminded me very much of the jackal which had lost its tail and then wanted to persuade all the other jackals to get rid of their tails as well. I like my tail, Sir. [Interjections.] Because the hon. member disbanded his previous party, destroyed the name of his previous party and threw his principles overboard …

No, I did not do that.

Let us just get this point clear between us. Is the hon. member saying that his present principles are the same as the ones he has had all these years?

The basic principles, yes.

Very well. The hon. member now claims credit for having retained the basic principles he has had all these years, but at the same time he blames me for having retained mine.

I have brought my policy up to date and you have not.

The day when the hon. member for Pinelands comes to give us the answers concerning the PFP’s policy, the hon. member may consider telling us in what respect he has brought his policy up to date.

In respect of confederation and the idea of casual ties with homelands.

I should like to discuss those aspects with the hon. member at a later stage. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may know that I made it quite clear at Pietermaritzburg that the fundamental principle of our new dispensation was to give the Coloured people and the Indians not only a voice, but also co-responsibility in matters of common interest. If the hon. member wants to make out that I do not want to share responsibility with them, then it is, of course, nonsense. I have said it in public.

A joint say.

The hon. member may use whatever word he chooses, but I prefer to say that I am giving them a voice and co-responsibility in deciding about these matters.

But no say.

I am giving them a say in the Cabinet Council to enable them to discuss those matters with me. I am giving them full control over their own affairs, in their own Parliament. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me in connection with the Coloured people: “Can they open up their areas?” I want to tell him that they can decide whatever they like about their own affairs. If they want to barter away their rights, it is their own affairs.

Can they open their own schools too?

They will have control over their own schools.

Can they open up their schools?

They can decide whatever they like about their own affairs. I am glad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has ascertained that I was right in telling him that Dr. Van der Ross had applied three times. I heard from him that he had applied three times. In any event, I know, and I think highly of Dr. Van der Ross for having told the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he was not the best applicant.

He said he did not claim to be the best.

That does not matter to me. I maintain that he was the best applicant. I have reason for saying this because I heard it from someone who knows what he is talking about. I am aware of what happened in 1968 when Minister De Klerk was Minister of Education and I accept full responsibility in connection with that matter.

The hon. member asked me whether the present budget had been submitted. The reply to that is “no”. There was no meeting, and consequently it was not submitted. Last year we had discussions, together with the hon. the Minister of Finance. Circumstances made it possible at that time. In view of the new dispensation, however, no discussions took place this year.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition blames me for the fact that he was not consulted in connection with this matter. However, what is the NP doing? As with all policy aspects, the NP is investigating the matter in this case as well, and when it has completed its investigations and its consultations with the interested parties, it introduces legislation in Parliament in which it sets out its proposals. Then it is for Parliament to debate them. As in the case of any other legislation which is discussed here, hon. members on that side of the House then have their opportunity to state their standpoint on the matter and to move amendments. Therefore I cannot see what the grievance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is. Last year he resented the fact that I had informed other parties and not him. [Interjections.] It is so. He wrote me a letter about it.

Opposition parties—plural!

These are trifling things, pettifogging points made by the hon. members on the other side, not only that hon. member, but all the Opposition members for whom he was speaking …

It changes your whole argument then.

The hon. member and I are such poles apart as far as this matter is concerned that it would have been merely a waste of time to consult him about it. But apart from that, it is the NP’s business until such time as it has been introduced in this House by way of legislation. Up to that moment it has absolutely nothing to do with the hon. member. In the meantime, however, we have fought an election on that issue; in the meantime we have sent out the necessary documents, and in the meantime we have answered the necessary questions on the matter here in Parliament. The hon. member asked the question: Suppose these people want to destroy apartheid? Are we supposed to destroy apartheid because other people want to destroy it? After all, our standpoint is quite clear: We are the Government at the moment and our policy is the policy of separate development. Now we ask other people to co-operate with us within that framework. After all, we are not going to destroy our own policy. Would the hon. member destroy his policy? Would he destroy his policy to obtain co-operation?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether, if circumstances change, it is not necessary to adapt one’s policy to the new circumstances, or should one cling blindly to the old policy?

In all humility, who has done this more often than I myself in the 11 years I have held this office? Surely the hon. member knows that. But the basic principles cannot change, after all. The basic principles are there and will remain there as long as this party is in power. The hon. member need not worry about the Coloured people. I am satisfied that there are very encouraging signs that an increasing number of Coloured people are making a study of this matter, are examining it more closely, and are coming to the conclusion that it could be to their advantage to co-operate with the Government in this matter. I am aware of the fact that many influences will be brought to bear on them. I am aware of the fact that many people will go out of their way to prevent them from co-operating. All I ask them is please to keep in mind that their mode of behaviour, the consequences of the propaganda they make, may be such that eventually it will harm not only this side of the House, but everyone in this country.

I consequently want to conclude by making a serious appeal to hon. members to act in a controlled and responsible way in connection with these matters.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading of this piece of legislation, as well as during the Committee Stage, a number of points were made. Most of the discussion, both during Second Reading and at Committee Stage, centred around clause 1. I want to repeat what I said during the Committee Stage, namely that I am glad that the hon. the Minister found it possible to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. I believe this is an improvement to the legislation as first introduced.

Secondly, I have to emphasize and reiterate that the steps the hon. the Minister is asking and is providing for in this legislation should be regarded as emergencies in the light of the situation which has developed in many of these townships throughout the country. We in these benches hope that the situation will so change in those townships that this legislation will not be necessary for very much longer. Thirdly I want to say to the hon. the Minister—I want to emphasize this, because I think it is a matter of grave importance—that we welcome his reference to a new, much larger, piece of legislation which he and his department are already preparing. We are looking forward to receiving it, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister—I was going to wait until the discussion of his Vote because I believe that he comes into this department with a new sense of urgency—to give consideration, very serious consideration, to the appointment of a commission, and to do that before he completes his work on this new proposed legislation providing education and facilities for Blacks in South Africa. I am not asking him though to reply to this appeal when he replies to the Third Reading. The reason why I ask for this is not that we should delay—we do not have any time to delay this very important matter—but because I believe there are many people in South Africa, many people with long years of experience, people both Black and White, who will be able to make a contribution in this whole area of Black education. Therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister before he embarks upon this proposed change—and because so much impinges on this—to give serious consideration to the appointment of such a commission so that he can draw on the experience of many people who have worked for many years in the field of Black education.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke suggested that this was not necessary. I think that, from time to time, the Government has shown its wisdom in appointing commissions. It has nothing against a commission.

[Inaudible.]

That is not true. The Erika Theron Commission’s report was not rejected by this side of the House, but by that side of the House. [Interjections.] Of course, it was. The main and fundamental proposals of its own commission was rejected by the Government.

I want to emphasize it very strongly that the Government has appointed commissions in the past when it has had to look at a very serious matter. I believe Black education is of the utmost importance, particularly in this time in our history. As was stressed, both by the hon. member for Durban Central and by myself—and indeed by the hon. the Minister as well—we are living in very serious times as far as our Black schools and institutions are concerned. Once again, even since we debated the Committee Stage of this Bill, I have had people—and I am quite sure the hon. the Minister has had people—who come to see me to tell me of the serious consequences which face any Black teacher or any Black parent who refuses to bow to the intimidation by many young Blacks in our country today. They are facing a crisis situation. Many of them are outstanding teachers or are parents who want to be directly involved in the education of their children.

Therefore, the best possible education policy is necessary at this time. That is why I make an urgent plea to the hon. the Minister, as he is thinking now of introducing a new piece of legislation in the days to come, to accept this and to appoint the best possible people to serve on that commission.

We will support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, since we are now dealing with the Third Reading debate of the Bill, I feel a great need to say that many arguments were raised, on that side of the House too, for which one could have appreciation. In connection with the last idea of the hon. member for Pinelands, about the possible appointment of a commission, I want to point out that although I am of the opinion that the hon. the Minister will deal with that himself, it does sound to me rather as if the hon. member did not take into consideration the fact that we are dealing with a department, the Department of Education and Training, which has over the years been involved in education for Black people. I want to allege—when the relevant Vote comes under discussion, we will go into this in greater detail—that education for Black people has improved considerably over the past years; there are so many positive things of which the hon. member is aware.

When I say this, it is very clear to me that the then Department of Bantu Education and the present Department of Education and Training are fully capable of determining the needs of Black education. I cannot imagine for a single moment that when such a comprehensive new Act has to be established, we will not be able to make use of the knowledge of the relevant department and the contacts which the department has built up over the years. I honestly cannot see why we must go so far as to appoint a commission or even a committee in this regard.

I am very much in agreement with the hon. member for Pinelands that it is a very important matter. I am grateful to be able to say that we also heard this from the hon. the Minister when he said, inter alia during his reply to the Second Reading debate that it was an extremely difficult task and that he did not want to make any promises, but that he would sacrifice his time and effort and energy in the interest of education. In addition he said that he was there to serve the Black pupils; he wanted to do what was best for them.

Since we are concluding this matter now, I want to say that this legislation in fact demonstrates that this is the case and that the hon. the Minister approaches his task in that way. After all, it is provided in the first clause that care must be taken so that the Black pupils, the future leaders of the Black population, will not suffer as a result of circumstances beyond their control. That is why measures are being made to ensure the progress of education should there be external circumstances which make it difficult.

We must bear in mind that the education of each people is unique to the essential characteristics and the distinctive problems of such a people. That is why I also feel that it is quite illogical and that it is a wrong approach simply to want to compare education for Whites with education for Blacks. Education for Blacks has its characteristic problems, including the availability of sufficient teachers and the concomitant shortage of adequately qualified teachers. Then there are also the tremendous problems in regard to the population explosion, especially the school population explosion with the resultant problems such as sufficient buildings, books, teaching aids, etc. We are faced with the particular problem concerning parental involvement in Black education and the requirements which they lay down for the education of their children. We are faced with the problem of employment opportunities for those many Black pupils who receive their education or training and then find themselves having to apply it in practice. Therefore, when criticism is expressed, and when solutions to these problems are being sought, we may not lose sight of the things which I have mentioned. The best for the Black pupils must be sought in an education system which complies with their characteristic requirements. It very definitely does not mean inferior education. I am also grateful to be able to say that the standard of education given to Blacks is precisely the same in many respects as that given to Whites. Fortunately the endeavour is to maintain that very high standard on all these levels.

I conclude now by associating myself with what the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate. He referred to the fact that when we discuss these matters we should discuss them purely from the point of departure of accepted educational and teaching principles. We must be careful that we do not drag in other matters, which can so easily be utilized for political gain, when we are discussing the education of the Black people and want to negotiate the best for them. As regards this product of Black education, we must bear in mind that the confidence of the Black employer as well as ultimately the White employer, must also be gained because this product of Black education, the Black pupil, will ultimately be gauged by his position in practice, and then Black education as such will also be gauged accordingly.

It is very pleasant for me, at the end of this debate, to be able to give the full support of this side of the House as well to the measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia has touched on a few things which we may discuss at a later stage, too, during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I agree with him when he says that there should be mutual trust, and that is why we stressed it so much during the Committee Stage when we dealt with the school board system.

When I was participating in the Second Reading debate, I found it necessary to tell the hon. the Minister that we felt that we would be unable to support the legislation unless he could give us the assurance that he would proceed with the negotiations to revive the school board system where it was not functioning at present. We also stated that we should like to see a time limit in the legislation with regard to the appointment of a person or body to perform the functions of a school board.

What happened in the Committee Stage, is history by now. The hon. the Minister accepted the amendment which we moved. I must say at once that we are grateful for that.

†I therefore wish to place on record the appreciation of the NRP for his willingness to accept our attitude and to effect these changes. I make bold to say that if that is to be the manner and spirit in which he will be handling this intricate and delicate matter of Black education, he will be able to rely on the support of the NRP. I now wish to raise two further matters.

Firstly I want to state that clause 1 is emergency legislation. I want to refer to aspects such as the Examination Board and the education of mentally retarded children. These cannot be regarded as emergency matters. As far as the emergency matters are concerned however—in other words, as far as clause 1 is concerned—the Minister has mentioned that we shall be having a new Act as soon as possible. Although I shall be suggesting some other alternative as well, I want to associate myself with the idea that was put forward by the hon. member for Pinelands. I believe that no harm can be done by appointing, if not a commission, then at least some sort of committee to investigate this matter. I should also like to say to the hon. the Minister that in respect of new legislation we would at least expect that the widest possible negotiations would be conducted with the homeland Governments and departments and also with the Black communities. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech—I think I interpreted him correctly—that his aim was to conduct negotiations or to hold consultations, at least. If that can be done, I believe that the hon. the Minister as well as the department will benefit.

Secondly, I wish to direct a few words today to those people in the Black communities who are responsible for breaking down the school board system and who are responsible for the very fact that this type of legislation has to be introduced. I wish to appeal to them in the best interests of Black pupils themselves to stop with their attempts to make a political football out of the education of the Blacks. The hon. the Minister will be able to verify what I am about to say now. I think I can claim in all modesty that in all the years I have been in the House I have, whenever it was appropriate, used my parliamentary platform to plead for improvements in their education. I have repeatedly raised matters such as pay parity, free education, greater expenditure on Black education, the elimination of artificial restrictions, etc. My record also shows that I have tried to be a friend to the Black man in his efforts to obtain for himself a better education and better opportunities and, as a friend, I will naturally continue to support him in this respect. However, as a friend, I think I also have a duty to appeal today to the people concerned to stop with senseless attempts to sabotage their own education and advancement. Let there be no mistake about it: In many respects the real losers in this game are the Black pupils themselves.

My appeal today to parents, teachers and pupils is that they should use the opportunity that is now being granted to them in terms of this Bill and to make every effort to restore what I would call normality in Black education during the next year—remember, we are trying to restore the system of parent participation within a year—so that it will no longer be necessary for us to have the type of emergency provision that is contained in clause 1. I want to conclude by saying that all of them realize that, once a child loses the opportunity to be educated, he very seldom gets another opportunity and then he can only educate himself with great personal sacrifice. With those words I want to say that we support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members on the Opposition side, as well as the hon. member for Virginia, for their participation and for the matters which they have raised here. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands at once that I feel that he has made a rather incorrect summary in saying that these are emergency measures we are taking. Clause 1 may perhaps contain an emergency measure, but the other clauses concern other substantial matters which have nothing to do with emergency measures.

I was referring specifically to clause 1.

While I am dealing with this, I want to say that I am still wondering whether a similar provision will not have to be made in the legislation for next year of which there is mention, in order to cope with the problem which may possibly arise if the people who are being entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with education in a community, are for whatever reason unable to discharge their obligations and there are no longer any people with whom one can communicate in respect of the welfare of the pupils or teachers. One is still responsible for pupils and teachers who might be left in the lurch, no matter what the circumstances may be.

And parents.

Yes, parents too, of course. In other words, even if we should consider this to be an emergency measure, it may be desirable, even if circumstances should return to normal, that provision of this nature should still be made because the obligation still rests on us to step in when a body that has been established to fulfil certain functions is under any circumstances unable to function. The hon. member is also appealing to me to appoint a commission of inquiry. He says he does not expect me to reply to it. I have no great fancy for this and at this late stage I do not want to compromise myself on this point. I shall see in which way we can produce the best legislation with a view to the education of Black pupils. Therefore I want to leave the matter at that now.

Once again, the hon. member for Virginia was entirely correct in his view of basic educational principles. Pursuant to what I said in my reply to the Second Reading debate, I also want to thank him for his contribution in this regard. If we can continue with that view as well as with the attitude which some hon. members displayed during their participation, I believe that we will be able to serve this cause very well.

I want to come to a final matter which the hon. member for Durban Central mentioned and to which the hon. member for Pinelands also referred. This is the question of intimidation, those people who were responsible for education sometimes being forced to a halt in some areas. I am pleased that the hon. member for Durban Central associated himself with the many appeals which have already come from our side, as well as from the Deputy Minister of Education and Training when he was dealing mainly with ordinary education, an appeal to those people who are playing with the future of other people with the purpose of spoiling it completely. It is true—and we must never try to get away from this idea—that education has been used for generations and throughout the centuries as an instrument for bringing about a change.

However, the question remains: What change does one have in mind if one wants to use education as an instrument for change? Is it change which will really serve education, purely educational principles to improve education, or is it used as an instrument to try and achieve totally different objectives, objectives outside education. I am afraid that we in South Africa have seen a great deal of that phenomenon in the situation which we have experienced. Meanwhile it remains our task to make appeals and to contribute towards bringing about peace and quiet and it remains the task of the community to crack down on those intimidators. I am not exaggerating, but at the present moment it is possible for a child in grade 1 to go up to a school inspector and say to him: “If the whole class does not pass at the end of the year, we shall keep an eye on you.” It is possible. What can I do about it? Even if my teaching should be based on the soundest of educational principles, I can do nothing about this. It is a task for the community concerned, and that is why I welcome responsible appeals. There may be faults and backlogs, but do not destroy everything now, because then one is throwing away the things on which one can still build.

It is a pity that when we made these appeals—I am not reproaching anyone for this—there were people who did not fully support us, people who put ideas in other people’s heads as it were and said: “After all we told you it would happen.” On some occasions fires were started instead of flames being quenched.

If we bear certain basic principles in mind when the new legislation is drafted—no matter how we handle it—and accept the child that has to be educated into adulthood, as the aim of education, while we have our teachers, our teaching material and the right methods, we have the essence of education. If we can agree on those matters, we do not have to quarrel too much with one another. This is what it is all about.

I trust that after I have gained support in this too, we shall continue to gain support for the other tasks of this department as well, especially the educational tasks of this department. I am grateful to hon. members for the comment which they made and the matters which they brought to my attention and finally, too, for their support so that we can dispose of the Third Reading of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading of this Bill we indicated our support for it subject to certain reservations and this side of the House voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. During the Committee Stage a number of amendments were moved and suggestions were made to the hon. the Minister. He rejected most of those, but notwithstanding that fact, the Bill in its present form, as we come to its Third Reading, still represents an improvement on the existing measure. It has been suggested and, correctly so, that it is a move—perhaps somewhat halting—in the right direction and therefore we shall also give it our support during the Third Reading stage.

The Bill provides for a greater deal of autonomy to be given to the University of Durban-Westville. It provides for greater power to be given to the council of the university in the appointment of staff and in the management of its affairs. It provides for the appointment of a vice-rector, for the recognition of a convocation for the institution, and for greater powers for the university, although still subject to the supervision and consultation of the hon. the Minister in regard to financial matters, and generally one sees it as a move towards greater university autonomy. I must say, however, that we believe very firmly that there is still far too much State control in regard to the institution of Durban-Westville.

I believe that if the university is going to achieve full recognition as a university institution, that State control has got to be relaxed much more than it has been, even in terms of the present Bill. The hon. the Minister has indicated both during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage that there is a difference between this university and other universities in that the degree of State finance in the form of financial aid given to the university is much greater than that in the case of other universities. We are not impressed with that argument, because it is merely a question of degree between the two types of institutions. We know for a fact that the so-called White universities receive subsidies up to about 80% of their financial requirements, and during the Committee Stage there was evidence that the University of Durban-Westville was receiving State aid to the extent of approximately 90% of its financial requirements. There is therefore a fairly small question of degree in that argument and the argument therefore does not hold a great deal of water.

I want to repeat that there is still too much identification of this institution with the State. If, as I have said, the institution is to be recognized in the full sense of the word, then that degree of State control has to be very much relaxed. Nevertheless, that the institution has made considerable progress is, I think, conceded on all sides of the House. It is a fully-fledged university which is operating and fulfilling a need.

During the Committee Stage I dealt particularly with the question of the council of the university. One recognizes that the Bill provides, amongst other things, for the number of members appointed to the council by the State President to be reduced from eight to six. This is an improvement, but again if one looks at the issue of the composition of the council of the university, it still is not fully or widely enough representative of the community in which the university operates. The hon. the Minister indicated that, in the appointment by the State President of people to the council of the university, provision was always made for a representative of the University of Natal and for representatives of the Indian community, and that in making these appointments the State President took these matters into consideration. That is not, by any manner of means, the same as institutions within an area making the appointments themselves, and I believe there would be a far closer identification between the University of Durban-Westville and the community in which it operates if this was the case. I think allowance should be made, as in the case of other universities, for the appointment of representatives of local bodies. The University of Natal, for example, could appoint a representative on the council of the University of Durban-Westville. The Durban City Council could also appoint a representative to the council, as it does to the existing University of Natal. The borough of Westville could be represented as well. After all, this university is situated in the borough of Westville. I happen to know it because I live in Westville and look at the university every day from my house. The university is very closely identified with the community, which is a separate borough. Again, I believe, to identify the university with that community would be of great value and would establish a greater interest in the institution from the people concerned. I believe too it would give the council a much more balanced look, than if it is simply a council which is composed primarily of people appointed by the State President.

In general, then, while we would say that we think this is a move in the right direction, a move towards a greater degree of autonomy, we believe that much more is needed. However, because of the improvements contained in the legislation we will support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Musgrave for supporting the legislation, although he did not do so wholeheartedly. The legislation is an important shift of emphasis from control mainly in the hands of the hon. the Minister, with the concurrence of the university council, to control mainly in the hands of the university council with the concurrence of the hon. the Minister. This represents an important step in the direction of full autonomy. However, the legislation is not only a step in that direction; it also represents a declaration of intent that this university is on the way to full autonomy. During the Second Reading debate and also during the Committee Stage much was said about the financial aspect.

†In this respect the hon. member for Musgrave again raised the argument that there is only a difference of degree between the University of Durban-Westville and other White universities. However, there is more than a difference of degree. According to their calculation this university is subsidized to the tune of about 93% and they raised the argument that many other older universities are subsidized to the extent of 80%. That is so, but these subsidies have mainly to do with the day to day running expenses of the universities and not so much with the capital situation. The provision they objected to most is contained in clause 2(b) which proposes to insert a new subsection (2A) in section 3 of the principal Act. The provision reads—

The amendments proposed by the hon. member for Musgrave in this regard were that the same provisions of the Universities Act, No. 61 of 1955, should apply. Section 21(1) of this Act provides that—

It goes on to say in section 21(2) that the Minister can ask for all the plans and other documents that he may require to determine whether the proposed loan may be properly granted. So, there is not all that much difference between the two provisions. However, in section 22 of the Universities Act it says further—

That is exactly where the rule comes in with the University of Durban-Westville. The university does not yet have any immovable property. The buildings of the university belong in toto to the Department of Public Works and therefore it is logical that the council of the university cannot negotiate a bond on this property, movable or immovable, if it does not belong to it. Therefore, there is more than a difference of degree in this situation.

Secondly, it has to be taken into account, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, that this amending legislation was placed before the House after consultation with the university authorities and leading members of the Indian community. I think it is only fair that their wishes should be taken into account. The hon. Chief Whip of the Official Opposition by way of an interjection said that they had not consulted these people and that they did not need to because their innate intelligence told them that it was in the interests of the Indians to have total autonomy now, including autonomy in respect of the borrowing of money without the approval of the hon. the Minister.

I only want to say this about that interjection: The Official Opposition’s innate intelligence among its own community is such that it only has 17 seats in this House. If its innate intelligence really knew what was in the interests of the White community and if it really had a feeling for what the White community wanted, that situation would have been very much different. However, being in that situation they then say they are talking for the average Indian and they know what the Indian community would like. I really want to suggest that they consult more with the Indian community to find out what they want. This is a period of transition. In this transitional period the control is passing from the hon. the Minister with the concurrence of the council, to the council. This is a logical transition.

The university has evolved from a small beginning. At first it had 14 students and was situated on the Island of Salisbury, and now 4 000 students are studying at a beautiful campus in the Chiltern Hills. This has been an evolutionary, steady development. It is naturally in the interests of the university, its students and its authorities that this steady evolutionary process should continue. Therefore it is necessary for the hon. the Minister who has had total control in this transitional period, to still give them guidance in these matters. I should like to thank again the hon. member for Musgrave for the qualified support his party is giving this Bill. Naturally we on this side of the House support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Benoni I do not wish to argue once again the merits of the amendments put forward during the Committee Stage by the PFP and by us. However, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I was very disappointed that he did not accept any of our amendments. I thought some of them would have been quite easy for him to have accepted. We are naturally disappointed that he was not prepared to do so. Nevertheless, like the Official Opposition, we shall be supporting the Third Reading of the Bill, because—and it is very tedious to say it—it is after all a step in the right direction.

Earlier today I listened in stunned disbelief when the hon. the Prime Minister put forward what I can only call a hypothesis that in respect of the universities there has been no change in the attitude of the Government through the years. We have a long history of amending legislation which proves that point. This advance in the right direction is painfully slow, but we in this party will in the interests of South Africa be prepared to give the green light to this Bill. We know that further amendments are bound to be introduced. We hope it will happen sooner than later either in the time of the hon. the Minister or his successor. We are quite sure that ultimately we shall deal with an institution which will have an autonomy comparable with that of other universities. Meanwhile we want to wish the council of the university every success in its efforts to obtain greater autonomy. I also want to say to the hon. the Minister that we should move away from the sort of justification we heard at Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, which relates the extent of State subsidies to the degree of autonomy of the university, and find other justification in the interest of everybody. I really think it is not befitting of us, we who have a far greater share of the wealth because of our own efforts—not for any other reasons—always to throw that in the face of other sections of the community.

It gives us pleasure in supporting the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank speakers of the two Opposition parties for the fact that they support this Bill. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Benoni for his very interesting and constructive contribution to the discussion. One is always thankful when one can introduce a measure which has the support of everybody in the House. But what worries me somewhat, is that the support of the two Opposition parties was given so dejectedly. There was no joy in the speeches of the two hon. members and in addition they qualified their support for the Bill to a large extent. I can understand that, because it is not easy to show by one’s actions—I have had to do this in my time—that one’s standpoint in the past was the wrong one. We remember that when the predecessor of the present Opposition had to consider the legislation establishing this university 18 years ago, they were bitterly opposed to it. They were then extremely sarcastic and bitter—I was one of them— about the proposed institutions. They would be bush universities and all sorts of strange things. But I think both sides of the House are grateful, and I am thankful and I think in their hearts they are thankful, that the people who said those things at that time were wrong.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister if he is aware that the opposition of the UP in 1969 related only to the autonomy of the university. I am not speaking of 1959; I am referring to 1969.

It shows that the reformation of my hon. friend opposite has been a gradual process. But that does not detract from my argument that there has been a healthy change of opinion. It does not detract from that; it confirms it I am speaking of the original legislation of 1961.

I was here, but I have not changed at all.

In any case, there has been a change of mind.

I have not changed my mind either.

This same university, which was treated with so much contempt, has progressed to such an extent that the same people who were contemptuous of it then, maintain today that it is entitled, it is competent and able to become as autonomous as any other university in South Africa, and that it deserves this. I am grateful for that, and I can understand that it has not been easy for them to be man enough to admit this by their action in supporting this measure.

I want to add two small things. The hon. member for Musgrave said that they supported the legislation because it meant progress in the history of the university. I agree with him completely. That was one of my main arguments in previous discussions.

To confirm what the hon. member for Musgrave has said and to have the record complete, I want to mention some of the positive things the Bill does, things we were rather inclined to overlook in the discussions when again, as usual—this is understandable—we stressed the points of difference between us and not the points of accord. Much has been said of the authority the university should have to borrow money. This Bill gives borrowing powers for the first time to the University of Durban-Westville. It now has the right to invest funds and to borrow, and it is only in the case of a loan—not in regard to other matters—that the Minister’s approval is necessary. The council may do as it pleases with the money in its development fund. It is entitled to do what it likes with it. The Minister has no say in that connection.

In the second place, the university receives full control over the purchase of stores and the manner in which it controls those stores. The Minister no longer has any say. This is real progress towards autonomy.

The appointment of a rector, or an acting rector, will in future lie with the council of the university and not, as in the past, with the Minister. The university will now have a vice-rector for the first time and his appointment will be made by the council of the university itself. The vice-rector can play a very important role in the further development of this institution as a full-fledged university. The number of council members nominated by the State President is being reduced from eight to a minimum of six. Besides that we have the establishment of a convocation which may appoint two graduate Indian students to the council. This means a stronger representation of the Indian community itself on the council.

The convocation to be established by graduates of the university brings this university into line with existing universities, and is a further clear indication that the University of Durban-Westville is on the road towards its own autonomy towards its full status. The establishment, appointment of staff, etc. are issues which in future—when this legislation is promulgated—will be decided by the council of the university and not by the Minister as was the case in the past. Up to now the Minister has been responsible for the establishment. This is a very important amendment. In the future the council will also determine the fees to be payable, with the concurrence of the Minister. In the past the Minister alone decided on the relevant fees. These are important examples and prove the spirit of the Bill.

That is why I realize that hon. members opposite, after thorough consideration, feel that they must support the Bill because it amounts to significant and encouraging progress and because it testifies to the earnestness of the Government’s desire that the University of Durban-Westville progress to the stage of a full-fledged institution, just as any other similar institution in South Africa.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the hon. member for Durban Central. During a previous stage of the Bill I tried in a nice way to put things clearly to the hon. member. The most important consideration why we cannot at this stage finance the university in a different way is not only because the Government provides all its funds. That is a consideration.

The most important consideration, however, is that the Indian community and the university both submitted a request to retain that system in the interests of the Indian community. The system is an important consideration with them, and it is they, the Indian community, who requested that the system be retained. I just want to place some facts on record once again. I could do it quite comprehensively, but I shall not, although the facts are so good that I should like to be comprehensive. I just want to make a few comparisons. Today the university at which a student can study most cheaply in South Africa, is the University of the Western Cape. Hard on its heels is the University of Durban-Westville. That is how it should be. It reflects the needs of the communities concerned. The two universities to which Indians can obtain admission fairly easily at present—if they comply with the requirements—are the universities of Cape Town and Natal. Let us make a few comparisons. In the natural sciences the fees at the University of Cape Town amount to R625 a year and at the University of the Witwatersrand R840 a year, while at the University of Durban-Westville—a university which is in no way inferior to these two universities as far as the standard of teaching is concerned—the fees are not R840 or R600 a year, but only R320 a year. This, of course, is of the greatest importance to a community, a large proportion of whom are impoverished. But as they are intelligent and anxious to study, it is of the utmost importance that they retain these privileges.

That is why they say they want to retain the present system. The present system is of course what makes it possible for us to do this so cheaply for them. Let us look at the Faculty of Literature and Philosophy. At the University of Cape Town the fees are R540 a year; at the University of the Witwatersrand, R657; and at the University of Durban-Westville, only R250 a year. As far as the other faculties are concerned, the fees at the University of Cape Town are R540 per year; at the University of the Witwatersrand R740 a year; and at the University of Durban-Westville only R240 a year. As Minister of Indian Affairs I really cannot deprive them of these privileges when their need is so great and they say that they do need them.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is indicating now that if the university had been placed on the same basis as the White universities, the subsidy it now gets would have been reduced?

No, they are not getting a subsidy. The other universities received a subsidy based on a formula and the application of the formula necessitates the White universities to charge these high fees. Durban-Westville, however, gets all the money it wants except the fees.

Was it not the fear of the Indian community that you would reduce your aid?

No, not at all. The fear of the Indian community was that I should apply the subsidy formula applicable to the other universities to Durban-Westville. If I should do that, the fees at the University of Durban-Westville. If I should do that, the fees at the University of Durban-Westville would soar inevitably and I am not prepared to do that. Let me take hostel fees. I am now going to quote the fees of universities other than Cape Town as well. The hostel fees at the University of Cape Town are R875 per year for men in double rooms and R975 per year for men in single rooms. At Stellenbosch men in single rooms pay R855 per year while those in double rooms pay R780 per year, but at Durban-Westville students in double rooms pay R420 per year while those in single rooms pay R430 per year.

Since I have the interests of the Indian community at heart, I cannot ignore that position. I therefore appeal to hon. members not to be so grudging in their support. They should appreciate that by supporting the Government, they are also supporting the interests and the greater development of our South African Indian community.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the standpoint which we on this side adopt on this Bill has been fully stated by me during the Second Reading debate as well as during the Committee Stage. We have just heard the standpoint of the hon. member for Musgrave on more or less the same type of Bill. I am not going to repeat all the arguments. In fact I am just rising to tell the hon. the Minister that we support the Third Reading of the Bill with the reservations and misgivings which I enumerated.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure also to be very brief and simply express the support of the Government side of the House for this legislation. It is legislation which, as the hon. the Minister and other hon. members have explained, add very considerably to the autonomy of this university. The legislation also normalizes the situation of this university relative to other universities in South Africa. Such a development is positive and it speaks for the sincerity of the Government in its commitment to the higher education of the Coloured community. We welcome the fact that the Official Opposition as well as the other Opposition parties are supporting the Bill. We trust that the Bill will be used wisely and well by the university to the advantage of the Coloured community and of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall support the Third Reading, and to say that we trust that it will in fact be possible, in the foreseeable future, to grant even greater autonomy to that university.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the hon. member for Rondebosch, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. member for Durban Central very sincerely for their support. As to the plea of the hon. member for Durban Central, I hope he also listened carefully to my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs today.

The concept which the hon. member for Rondebosch tried to help me bring home to him is this: Autonomy is a matter with which we are making gradual progress. With that I believe I have replied to his plea.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Orange Grove on the Order Paper, as follows—

Provided that the excess charge shall in no case exceed—

Provided further that the General Manager may prescribe particular circumstances under which no excess charge shall be demanded.

The motivation for this particular amendment was made manifest during the Second Reading debate. I think the hon. the Minister knows the import of it, and I leave it to the hon. member in whose name it is printed on the Order Paper to explain it further.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the Chief Whip for having given me the opportunity to take my seat. This piece of legislation came up for discussion a little faster than I had anticipated. I did motivate this amendment during the Second Reading debate. I felt that some limitation should be placed on the power of the General Manager when it comes to determining penalties for people who travel on trains without a ticket or in the wrong class. For the wording of my amendment I have, in fact, gone to the existing Act, which imposes a similar limitation. As the Bill stands at the moment, it would be quite possible for the General Manager to determine that an erring passenger should be hung, drawn and quartered. Since such a situation is undesirable, I think there should be some limitation. The hon. the Minister has had some opportunity to study this amendment and I hope that he will accept without any further ado.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly do not think that this amendment is altogether necessary, but if it would make the hon. member any happier, I am prepared to accept it. These surcharges have been on the Statute Book up to now and have had to be changed from time to time. It was our intention to make provision for these surcharges to be provided for in the tariff book. That is, of course, an area where the General Manager is in charge. I would never expect the General Manager to impose a surcharge of any exceptional limits. The hon. members, however, is always a little wary of giving carte blanche to anybody, in particular to the Minister. In this case, however, it is not the Minister, but the General Manager who is involved. I am nevertheless prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate I raised the matter of the necessity of advertising sales by auction. I did receive a partial reply from the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I personally would like to see the relevant words retained. I would be quite prepared to accept the proposed insertion of the words “in the manner prescribed by regulation”, but I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the suggestion that we retain all the existing words in this subsection as well. I have not put an amendment to this effect on the Order Paper because I do not feel all that strongly about it, but I nevertheless think it desirable that the auction sales should be advertised. I realize that this concerns lost goods that come into the possession of the Railways when they are acting as a carrier, but in many cases, while people consign goods in one direction or another, the people who are to receive those goods are unaware of the fact that those goods have been sent to them. On many occasions this is how goods are lost. If these sales are advertised, it will give the people to whom the goods have been consigned an opportunity to realize that the goods which were supposed to reach them at some time were in fact already waiting for them. I think that in principle it is a good idea to carry this advertising through. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to that.

Mr. Chairman, I have already replied to the objections which the hon. member raised in respect of this clause in my reply to the Second Reading debate, but perhaps the hon. member thinks my reply was inadequate. There are various clauses which are affected in this regard. In fact, clauses 5 and 7 are also affected by the question of advertising with regard to the sale of goods. It is intended to provide for advertisements by means of regulation rather than legislation. Therefore I should like to assure the hon. member that we intend to make proper provision for advertisements by means of regulation, and that it is generally felt that it is better, when drawing up legislation, not to put the practical procedure concerning the performance of a certain task in the legislation itself, but to provide for that in the regulations. That is the way legislation is drawn up and that is why we intend to provide for advertisements in the regulation in so far as it might be necessary to advertise. I can inform the hon. member that notice would be given not less than 10 days prior to the sale, in at least one newspaper circulating in the district in which the auction is to be held. Provision for that would be made in the regulation.

Mr. Chairman, following that assurance from the hon. the Minister, I am quite happy to let the clause go through as it stands.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this is a particularly interesting provision because it goes back to the whole question in the past of the liability of the person or institution administering a harbour. The position at the moment is that the S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration is liable for the acts of any of its servants in and about the harbour area, save in particular circumstances which are set out in various statutes. An interesting historical anomaly is that from time immemorial the common law has decided in its wisdom that, where a ship entering a harbour has to take on a pilot as a matter of compulsion, the person administering the harbour should not be liable for any damage that may be done to the hip. So we have this principle which goes right back, almost to the Middle Ages, in English Admiralty Law in regard to what is called compulsory pilotage harbours. Section 43 as it stands at the moment provides—I will paraphrase it—that in certain harbours, Durban, East London and others which have been declared as such by proclamation, the Administration is not liable for the negligence of a pilot. This is really what it is all about. This is the principle that goes back to the old days where one had to have a pilot for certain harbours. The effect of the proviso to section 43 of the Act is—

(The pilot is also immune)—

We are now going to add to the concept of “pilot” a very wide concept indeed. A new subsection (2) will be added to section 43 and this subsection will provide—

I am very much concerned that this is a much wider definition or extension than is contemplated by the bare words of the explanatory memorandum. In the explanatory memorandum we are told in regard to clause 9 that the hon. the Minister is concerned about the position of a port captain. The explanatory memorandum states—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister can inform the House in which particular harbours this problem has arisen. I cannot understand that in a harbour like Cape Town the port captain would ever have to act as a pilot. I do not think he will ever get off his lofty seat to go down to act as a pilot. However, I suppose it is possible. Is the hon. the Minister not aware of the fact that, certainly at first sight, this new subsection appears to go much further than the explanatory memorandum would have us believe? I am quite sure that the Administration would not license a person who is not properly qualified as a pilot. I have no doubt about that and I accept that.

Can you accept it?

Of course I accept that, but it rather looks as if somebody who has a non-lucid moment and who licenses a non-qualified person will then be exempting that person and the Administration from liability. In other words, if we assume that the hon. the Minister and all his senior officials are perfectly competent and they appoint properly qualified people, there is no problem. However, as the clause stands one could, in fact, license an incompetent person and the Administration would still be exempted from liability. That person would also be personally immune from civil liability. I am not quite certain how we can resolve this difficulty because if we leave it as it is, the clause will be very wide indeed. No court of law would go to Hansard or to an explanatory memorandum to see how the hon. the Minister wanted to restrict the clause. However, if we have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that it is only port captains who will be licensed by the Administration, then we on this side will certainly accept it, but as the clause stands, it appears as if it is too wide.

In the first place I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that only licenced or certificated sea captains will qualify. That is why I gave him the assurance by means of an interjection that it will be a properly qualified person. I know the hon. member’s objection is to the words “any person” and I realize that it goes further than in is stated in the explanatory memorandum, i.e. that it is actually the port captain who is meant here. Therefore I shall read the note I have here so that we can elaborate on this and discuss it for a while. I quote—

I want to emphasize this—

Therefore, it could be that we want to use someone else for this purpose in an emergency, perhaps someone whose official title is not “port captain”, but someone who is an able sea captain and has the necessary qualifications to render such services. That is why we refer to “any person” in the legislation. But actually the main object of the provision applies to the port captain. I can give hon. members the assurance that it will only be licensed or certificated sea captains who will qualify. Furthermore I am informed that the intention is to have the shipping adviser of the Administration act as examiner for the licensing as pilots of port captains and other competent sea captains. Although I can see the hon. member’s problem with regard to the wide scope of “any person” I feel that I should like to keep the door open by not limiting it to the port captain because we have other competent sea captains at our disposal who do not have that official title and whom we might want to use in an emergency. Therefore I would be grateful if we could leave it at that, with the assurance that it will only be competent sea captains who will qualify and that it will be limited to licensed or certificated sea captains. I would be grateful if the hon. member could accept my explanation in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to be able to say that I accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance without any reservations whatsoever. I had two difficulties of which the first was, as the hon. the Minister will realize, that this is a severe exempting provision in our law it is in the laws of all maritime nations. I think the House will be interested to know, however, that if for example an enormous tanker came into Cape Town harbour and was wrecked through the negligence of the pilot—Cape Town is a compulsory pilotage harbour—the owner of that vessel and any other persons who have an interest in the tanker would be remediless and would have no recovery against the Administration or the pilot. That is why this is an extremely important provision in our law.

My second difficulty was that I, too, tried to work out a possible amendment to the clause. I cannot say that I spent sleepless nights over it, but I did spend some time on the matter as I could realize the hon. the Minister’s difficulty in this regard. At one stage I thought of asking the hon. the Minister to publish the names of the gentlemen he intends licensing, but that is, to my mind, not really practical. I think we have to accept the hon. the Minister’s assurances that only qualified mariners— they need not be master mariners—will in fact be licensed in this way. I am therefore quite happy to accept the hon. the Minister’s assurances.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I am not going to take up too much time of the House because I did motivate this amendment to a degree during the Second Reading debate. Clause 11(c) proposes to insert a new subsection (7)(a) into section 57B of the Control and Management Act. The proposed subsection reads—

As I said in the Second Reading debate, we in these benches are in full agreement with the principle of the clause, in that we do think that there is a need to ensure that people who are being held for trial are not exploited by the media in a manner which could prejudice the individual’s case before the court. Therefore, we go along with the principle. However, what does concern us is the possibility that a person unknowingly, for instance during a time of public disturbance, could take a photograph, which could then be published later, in which there is a person who is covered by this particular provision. One can imagine this happening during, let us say, a riot or a disturbance such as we had some months ago here in Cape Town. It may, for instance, happen that a photographer going about his duty and trying to meet the deadline of his newspaper, takes a photograph of a group of people, a photograph which may within a matter of an hour or two—this is the way the newspaper world works—appear in the next edition of the particular newspaper. It is possible that only afterwards, when examining the photograph, one might find that a person who is in that photograph is a fugitive after escaping from from custody. In terms of this particular provision the photographer and the newspaper publisher will then be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R500 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to both such fine and imprisonment. Therefore, we feel that we should make some allowance in the wording of this clause to make sure that such a person is not convicted when really he acted in all innocence. That is the reason for my amendment.

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

I also expressed the motivation for this amendment in the Second Reading debate. It is largely the motivation which has moved the hon. member for Amanzimtoti to put forward his amendment. I, in fact, thought for some considerable time about the wording of this amendment and, strangely enough, I took the wording which is very similar to an amendment moved by the previous hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who was for some time leader of the NRP. I used his wording because I thought it was the most satisfactory wording to amend the clause.

Going back to the motivation for the amendment, I think it should be understood by hon. members that if the clause goes through as it stands at the moment people can without knowledge and without intent, in fact without any mens rea, commit a crime.

The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that they will not be convicted unless they have mens rea and intend to commit that crime.

I do not think it is in the mind of the hon. the Minister at all that people in circumstances such as those described by me at Second Reading and by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, should be convicted. There might be a riotous assembly where a Press photographer takes a photograph on which a person might appear who falls under the definition of “person” in this clause. I do not think it is right that he should be convicted. I should like to have a reaction from the hon. the Minister.

Mr.

Chairman, the principle stated by the hon. members for Orange Grove and Amanzimtoti is one with which we on this side of the House agree. The hon. members want to prevent anyone who unwittingly contravenes the provisions of this clause from being convicted in court. However, I want to contend that the concept of intention, mens rea, is built into this clause. We argued this matter—and the hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Orange Grove referred to it—when we amended the Police Act in the same connection last year. It is a fact that the wording of clause 7 is similar to the existing section 27A of the Police Act. I want to advance the proposition that according to my submission mens rea is a requirement in terms of the wording of this clause. With the best will in the world I cannot see how any court can convict a person who unwittingly commits a contravention. If I were a professional photographer and the hon. member for Groote Schuur comes in to have two passport-size photos taken, but he is a fugitive and I do not know it, how on earth can any court convict me under those circumstances? I should like to know.

[Inaudible.]

I want to point out the alternative case. It is my submission that as the clause reads at the moment, mens rea is a requirement. Suppose these two hon. members are correct in their alternative view. Suppose the court finds that this is an absolute prohibition and that mens rea is not a requirement, with the result that the mere action constitutes an offence—that is the argument of those hon. members—a court will technically convict a person. However, no court will under those circumstances impose any penalty in terms of this provision on someone who is technically found guilty of the contravention of an absolute prohibition, but will caution him and discharge him.

[Inaudible.]

I shall accommodate the hon. member if he gives me a chance.

If we were to change this Act as the hon. member for Orange Grove proposes, a situation could arise in which we are actually placing the onus on the accused, because he will then have to show the court on a preponderance of probabilities that he was not aware of the provision. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti used the example that the accused could say that he merely took a photograph in the street with some intention or other. He will have to discharge an onus in court on a preponderance of probabilities. Why is that necessary? The hon. member should read up last year’s debates in Hansard and he will then see that it was argued in this way.

I want to add another argument now. It is always better to keep the onus on the State, so that the State has to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and not to place any onus on the accused. If that amendment is accepted, the onus will be placed on the accused. However, I want to submit the following for the hon. member’s consideration. If only the hon. member for Groote Schuur would listen to me I think he would agree with me. Suppose this Committee were to amend this clause as those hon. members propose by accepting one of the two amendments; we cannot accept both amendments. What will be the outcome?

If someone were charged in terms of the Police Act tomorrow and this Bill is also on the Statute Book, the court will say that Parliament knew what it was doing. When Parliament amended the Police Act in 1977, it did not add these words; in other words, in 1977 it meant this to be an absolute prohibition. Therefore the court will find that person guilty. However, if someone is charged in terms of the Railways and Harbours Act the court will say that Parliament meant that mens rea should be a requirement. Then one would be making fish of the one and flesh of the other.

It is better.

I ask the hon. member for Groote Schuur: Would it not be better for us to wait and see what happens in practice? If any court should dare to find someone guilty in terms of any of these two Acts, the Police Act or the Railways and Harbours Act, and finds that mens rea is not a requirement, I can give the guarantee now that the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Police will come back to this House and we shall have to amend those Acts. I want to refer the hon. member to Hansard, 1977, col. 8836, with regard to the amendment moved by the then hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It has almost the same wording as the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove. With regard to that the hon. the Minister of Police replied as follows, and I shall quote only the following paragraph—

There we have the word of the hon. the Minister of Police. Therefore, hon. members should assume that the hon. the Minister of Police took the matter back to the law advisers after it had been discussed here last year and cleared it up with them beyond any doubt, because it was not subsequently amended in the Other Place. In terms of this legislation we are now placing exactly the same words on the Statute Book as we did last year. Why should hon. members now doubt the elucidation of the legal advisers which is given ex abundanti cautela? Let us first test the matter in practice and if it does not work out, we can come back to Parliament and we shall keep our word.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. member for Koedoespoort that we disagreed with the hon. the Minister of Police in the debate last year, and we still disagree with him. The interpretation of the law advisers, which obviously came to the hon. the Minister of Police, is not the same as our interpretation. That is why we have moved this amendment. I would say that the argument put forward by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, viz. that if we pass such an amendment people would go back to the Police Act and say that mens rea was not built in, seems to make absolute nonsense of his argument that the hon. the Minister of Police was assured by his law advisers that mens rea was, in fact, built in.

You will not understand it anyway!

Well, I find it very difficult to understand and I think most hon. members will find it very difficult to understand. It is to me an absolutely nonsensical argument. The shortcomings of legislation—in this case the Police Act—is not our responsibility. What we are trying to do is to come up with the right answer to this clause in these circumstances. The hon. member for Koedoespoort has admitted himself that he agrees with us that mens rea should be present, that there should be the intent to commit a crime. On that basis, I surely cannot see any reason at all why we cannot put the matter beyond all shadow of doubt and accept one of these amendments.

I am not sold on either of them. Both of them appear to serve the same purpose.

What about the Police Act?

Well, the Police Act, if it is incorrect—and we believe it is— should be amended accordingly.

Should not the courts decide that? [Interjections.]

The question by the hon. member for Koedoespoort shows his absolute incapacity to realize what the purpose of legislation is. We are trying to phrase legislation which the courts must interpret. We are not going to make a court decide one way or another. We are stating to the court that this is the law. It is the intention of the legislator which really matters. If we can make that intention clearer, we can do so by amending this clause. I can see absolutely no reason at all why we should not do so. The hon. the Minister himself is a legal man. I am sure he will agree that clarification in this instance would be of advantage, and I really cannot see any reason at all why our amendment should not be included in the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection whatsoever to effecting greater clarity in a clause. My problem is, however, that by accepting this amendment I will not effect greater clarity in the clause, but will in fact create greater confusion. That is the problem I am faced with.

Last year this matter was ironed out in this House. It was discussed here in detail. The then member for Umhlatuzana, Mr. Cadman, moved an amendment, an amendment which he eventually withdrew with leave of the Committee. He did so as a result of the explanation given to him by the hon. the Minister of Police and also as a result of certain undertakings from the hon. the Minister of Police, i.e. that he would go to his law advisers and would determine whether mens rea is inherent in the provision concerned. I cannot give the Committee a better explanation than that given by the hon. the Minister of Police last year. In dealing with the evidence which is needed at an alleged contravention of this provision the hon. the Minister of Police said that four pieces of evidence were necessary. What he said immediately afterwards forms the essence of my problem. I quote what the hon. the Minister of Police said (Hansard, 30 May 1977, col. 8836)—

In this respect I want to agree with the hon. the Minister of Police—

Do you agree with that?

I agree with it entirely.

Thank goodness the hon. the Minister of Police had a law adviser!

Those are the circumstances. As the clause reads at present the onus is on the State. It is undeniably so that the onus is on the State and in my own mind I have no doubt at all that mens rea will have to be proved. In other words, it has to be proved that the person knew what he was doing before he can be convicted. It also has to be proved that he was aware of the circumstances. Therefore we do not consider it to be necessary to amend the wording of the clause in accordance with the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove.

I do not want to elaborate on the merits of the matter any further. I think the matter was ironed out properly and very effectively last year.

Another important reason why I am not prepared to accept the amendment is that we want to cast the S.A. Railway Police in all respects in the same mould as the S.A. Police. Therefore, I regard it as essential that what applies to the S.A. Police should also apply to the S.A. Railway Police.

Surely hon. members can realize the confusion we would be creating if we allow the provisions which are applicable to the S.A. Railway Police to be different from the provisions which are applicable to the S.A. Police and which were approved by the House last year. Not only will it cause confusion with regard to the provisions applying to the various forces, but as the hon. member for Koedoespoort pointed out so effectively it will also place the judiciary in a very difficult position when it has to decide what the intention of the legislature was when they placed different measures on the Statute Book. Unfortunately I am therefore unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. the Minister and I can appreciate his feelings that he would like to bring the provisions which cover the establishment of the Railway Police Reserve into line with the provisions covering the S.A. Police Reserve. One thing, however, which I cannot accept is his contention that if we accepted the amendments before the House, the onus would then be on the accused to prove that there was no mens rea.

No, not in terms of …

In the event of one of these amendments being passed, the onus would rest upon the State to prove that the accused had intent. The position is not the other way around. It is one of the cardinal principles of our law and it was very surprising to hear from the hon. the Minister that it was the other way around. We just cannot accept it and we shall obviously have to agree to differ on it. We should like to proceed with our amendment. We understand it and we have sympathy with his wish to have the provisions in line with those contained in the Police Act, but we maintain that the Police Act itself is at fault. The function of this Committee at this stage is to look at this clause and to produce the best clause possible under the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can clear up the point at issue here. I think there is some confusion. The hon. the Minister and I referred to what the hon. the Minister of Police said last year. If the hon. member for Orange Grove would listen it would become clear to him. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana last year read (Minutes of Proceedings, 1977, p. 358)—

Therefore, last year’s amendment was aimed at placing an onus on the accused. If the hon. member reads the amendment carefully, he will agree that that is the case. The amendment by the hon. member for Orange Grove does not contain the words “unless such person shows”; all that he says is—

Now who is in a better position to tell the court that he did not know that: The prosecutor or the accused? We really should not split hairs here, because it is solely a question of wording. The amendment moved by the hon. member cannot be interpreted in any other way but being of the same tenor as the amendment moved by Mr. Cadman last year. The two amendments are aimed at the same thing.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The proposed new section 57C(7) empowers the hon. the Minister to call up any individual who happens to be in the Railway Police reserves for an unlimited period of time, in fact for as long as “he thinks fit”. This could be one year, five years, 10 years, or any indeterminate period, and we in these benches do not think that this is fair. I have therefore moved an amendment suggesting that this period of 12 months, but I do want to see a limitation on the period for which a reservist has to serve. The hon. the Minister said, in answer to the Second Reading debate, that the whole of this section was taken completely from the Police Act However, although that particular section may be the same, the circumstances are different. This Bill provides that a reservist could be called up over a five year period for 30 days. The Police Act, on the other hand, states that he can be called up for 12 months at one stage and for another four periods of 30 days each. The circumstances are therefore not exactly the same. I consequently do think that there should be some limitation, and I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should be limited in this regard. We do not want to be unreasonable. We do realize that there might be circumstances that would make it necessary to call up police reservists for a certain period, but we think that there should be a limitation on the Minister’s powers of determining the length of such a call-up.

I now come to my second amendment which arises out of the fact that the proposed new section 57C(8) reads as follows—

As we read this, it would mean that in addition to the responsibilities, of one sort or another, which an individual had in regard to national service in terms of the Defence Act, if he had once worked as a Railway policeman and was a reservist he would have to do this duty. Such duty would therefore be in addition to his duties in terms of the Defence Act. We think, however, that if he is going to serve in the police reserves and be called up for a certain period, this should be taken into consideration when it comes to the period of service that he might have to undergo in terms of the Defence Act. The purpose of my amendment is therefore to make sure that service in the police reserves is taken into consideration when responsibilities in terms of the Defence Act are considered. Again I think that I did motivate this during the Second Reading debate and I would be interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first amendment by the hon. member, I want to say that one can have sympathy with the attitude of the hon. Opposition, for they always tend to impose limitations on the powers granted in legislation to a Minister or other persons. However, it is not always, in all circumstances, possible to limit the discretion. This is, to my mind, a good example of a discretion which should be left to the Minister because the circumstances which may arise, are totally unpredictable nowadays. I therefore feel that the discretion, which is mentioned in the proposed new section 57C(7), should be retained. It is, after all, true that when reservists are called up, they have to be paid, and this will of course involve additional expense for the State and the Railways. Therefore one necessarily comes to the conclusion that this will not be done unnecessarily by the Minister who has to give his approval, or by the Commissioner of the S.A. Railway Police, who has to advise the Minister on this matter.

As far as the second amendment by the hon. member is concerned, I wish to give him the assurance that I have established that arrangements have been made, an understanding has been reached, between the S.A. Police and the Defence Force according to which the compulsory military service is being phased out in accordance with the service period of the policeman and that the same arrangements have already been made by the S.A. Railway Police as well.

On the basis of the present arrangements this means, in brief, that when a member of the S.A. Railway Police has less than three years’ service with the S.A. Railway Police—the same applies to the policeman in the service of the S.A. Police—he receives no exemption of his compulsory military service. However, if he has done more than three years’ service, but less than five years’—I am putting it briefly; it is actually a little more complicated—he is exempted from his compulsory military service according to sliding scale. If a member of the Force has done more than five years service in the Force, either the S.A. Railways Police or the S.A. Police, he is regarded as being a member of the Force and he is completely exempted from military service. This is the arrangement and the understanding in existence between the S.A. Police and the Defence Force at present, and this will also apply to the S.A. Railway Police. Because that understanding will perhaps, due to changing circumstances, have to be changed in the future, I do not believe that we should introduce any provisions into the Bill to limit it. In the light of the explanation which I have given, I hope the hon. member will drop his second amendment.

Under the circumstances I am unable to accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the second amendment is concerned, I think I can accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister, although I would have liked to have seen the necessary provision embodied in the Bill. I just have a feeling that, if one has to rely on an arrangement between the Department of Defence and the Railways Administration, it might well be harmful to recruiting for the Railways Police. If a person joins the Railway Police and, after serving for a period, resigns, he has an onus upon him to serve in the reserve. In terms of the Bill he will have to serve in the reserve. He is therefore likely to be in the situation where he can be called up for his police duties as well as for his military duties and, in view of that, I think he might well feel that it is not worth joining the police in the first instance because he will be tying himself down for a considerable period of his life. That is really why I think it would be better and more desirable if the necessary provision were written into the legislation before us. I am, however, prepared to accept the hon. the Minister’s assurances, and therefore, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to withdraw my second amendment.

As regards the first amendment, perhaps I should approach it from a slightly different angle. I do not really know what the hon. the Minister has in mind or envisages when he talks about a period “as he sees fit”. I said in the Second Reading that, as far as I know, it might be just for a few days when there are troubles such as over the period of 16 June 1976 when it might have been necessary to call up a section of the Force for a week or two. However, if it is going to be for longer periods, the hon. the Minister is quite right: We in these benches are not happy when ministerial powers are completely unlimited. We are not now talking about personalities or individual Ministers; we are talking about the future and we are talking about legislation which we suppose will be on the Statute Book for a considerable time and during the tenure in office of many Ministers, Ministers who may not feel as this hon. Minister does.

Amendment (2), with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the improvements as far as pensions for widows are concerned. I did raise this matter in the Second Reading and said that we heartily welcome these improved benefits. However, I did indicate that the explanatory memorandum says that one of the objects of the amendment is to simplify the calculation of widows’ benefits. I also referred to the fact that a circular had been sent out by the Railways Administration, evidently in anticipation of the approval of the proposed amendments. The improvements in terms of this clause come about through the calculation of an annuity in accordance with the provisions of pension regulation No. 43, and also the additional 2%, compounded annually, to be granted to widows on the anniversary of the date on which their late husbands retired on pension. Provision is also made for an additional amount to be made payable in terms of pension regulation No. 48. I seek clarity from the hon. the Minister with regard to the practical application of this clause in cases where a person has retired on reaching the statutory age limit of 63 years and is receiving a pension of R300 per month at date of death, provided the date of death is after 30 November 1977. Then the widow will be entitled to 80%, which is R240 per month. That appears to be quite clear and presents no difficulty. However, where a difficulty does seem to arise, is in cases where a person has been prematurely retired due to ill health and there is a different basis of calculation, in that the pension is to be increased on a basis in terms of which the portion from the date of retirement until the date of death—a period of perhaps 10 years if the person was retired at the age of 50—will have an additional 10 years added to the calculation, i.e. to the 30 years, and divided by the number of years of pensionable service. On the basis of this calculation it appears that where the person is receiving R300 per month as a married pensioner, upon his death, as a result of this calculation, his widow would then receive R320 per month; in other words, an increase of R20 per month, although she has now become a widow. The widow’s benefit appears to exceed the pension that was being received by her late husband. It means too that when a person has reached the normal statutory age of retirement his widow is not being dealt with on the same basis as a person who has retired prematurely. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the calculations which I have mentioned are correct, and perhaps he could indicate the reason why there should be this disparity to such a considerable extent between persons who are in a similar position as far as the rate of pension is concerned at date of death. Where the annuitant dies on a pension of R300 per month, the one widow will receive R240 per month whereas the other widow, in other circumstances, will receive a pension of R320 per month. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this calculation is a correct calculation and the reasons for there being such a disparity between the two amounts for widows’ benefits that are to be paid.

Mr. Chairman, it is not possible for me to give a simple “yes” or “no” answer in this regard. The hon. member will realize that the calculations in connection with pension matters are at all times particularly complicated. It will therefore hardly serve any purpose to hold a long discussion of this matter here in the House. I think it would be very much better if the hon. member and I were to meet with the experts on pension affairs in order to thrash out these matters so that we can provide him with all the necessary explanations, matters of which he, of course, has special knowledge. With reference to the hon. member’s comment during the Second Reading, it is important to note that widow’s annuities are still differentiated on the basis of the age at which the member entered the service and the salary which he received at the time of his death or retirement Prior to 1 December 1977, the annuity of a widow was calculated as a percentage of the annuity of her husband, based on actual years of service. From 1 December 1977 the annuity of a widow is calculated as a percentage of the annuity of her husband, based on the potential years of service, i.e. actual years of service plus the remaining years from the date of death until the normal retiring age. There is a very considerable difference here. In practice, therefore, the new benefits mean that the annuities of widows of members who entered the service at the same age and received the same salary at the time of their death or retirement, will be the same irrespective of whether the member had achieved the normal retirement age and whether he had died before that age. I do not think I can take the matter much further than that.

If the hon. member wants more information in connection with the practical application of these matters, I shall provide it with pleasure by means of a discussion, which I feel will serve a better purpose.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, in clause 14 provision is made for the retention of the fringe benefits of the former employees of Iscor. Particularly as far as the footplate staff is concerned, it appears that clause 16 of the Service Act lists the various ages upon which persons are entitled to take their retirement. In terms of section 16 of the principal Act, the footplate staff of the S.A. Railway Administration is obliged to retire at 58 years of age, whereas the people who previously were employed by Iscor, in terms of paragraph (f) of clause 14, have the right to elect to retire at 63 years of age as was previously provided for in the Iscor pension scheme. I think it is important, in respect of the proviso according to which the people have the right to elect and to exercise an option, that they should be fully aware of the consequences of their election. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister can indicate whether it would be administratively possible to ensure that these people are fully informed, perhaps at least six months prior to reaching their 58th birthday—their proposed age of retirement—so that they can be aware of the consequences of that election. In terms of legislation that has been passed by this House and in terms of existing legislation we know that there has often been extreme difficulty where a person has taken an option which was available to him and then regretted the choice that he made at the time due to future changes in circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo may put his mind at rest. As soon as possible after the promulgation of this legislation, the staff will be given the option of retiring from service on reaching the retirement age of 58 years. In other words, after this legislation has been promulgated, these people will be contacted and they will be given the opportunity of deciding when they want to retire. Additional amounts of 1% will be payable to the new Superannuation Fund by this staff, and as a result it will not be possible to postpone the envisaged choice until just before attaining the age of 58 years. It therefore means that this staff, which have to decide whether they want to retire at 58 years or 63 years, will not be able to wait until they have attained the age of 58 years, but will have to make a choice before that time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether they will have a period within which they must decide at what age they are going to retire?

Mr. Chairman, I take it they will be allowed a reasonable period in which to make that decision.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, again I would like to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister which I have already raised during the Second Reading debate. This concerns the use by the Railway Administration of their own dispensaries. The new provision contained in clause 16 puts it beyond all doubt that the Administration has the right to establish dispensaries. I should like to urge a course of action on the hon. the Minister. I urge that as far as possible private pharmacist services should be used by the Railways Sick Fund. I do not really believe that the Railways business is to involve themselves in such things as dispensaries. I do not think it is necessary. In my opinion this is, in fact, an unwarranted intrusion into a field which can well be covered, and is well and efficiently covered, by private enterprise. I cannot see why people in the service of the Railways Administration should have to operate in a different way from any other South Africans who use ordinary pharmacist services.

I should therefore like to urge the hon. the Minister to ensure that the right to establish dispensaries is not used by the Railways, unless in exceptional circumstances. There might well be circumstances where it is very difficult to use the services of a private pharmacist, although I do not quite know what such circumstances can be. We are not going to vote against the clause, because we will then preclude the Railways from establishing dispensaries in any circumstances. However, I should like to hear how the hon. the Minister feels about this as a matter of policy.

Mr. Chairman, the NRP also has a problem with this clause and I hope I will be able to motivate the reasons for the problem which we have. The hon. the Minister is probably aware of what it is, but for the benefit of hon. members I should like to point out that there appears to be an anomaly in the legislation as it stands. Over the years there have been Railway dispensaries and it is a well-known fact that there are already well-established Railway dispensaries in certain of the larger centres. The interesting anomaly here is that if one looks at the Pharmacy Act, it is apparent that there is actually no legislation in terms of which pharmacists can practice in these Railway dispensaries and can officially be registered and recognized. In terms of the Pharmacy Act the only people who can be registered to carry out the acts pertaining to the calling of a chemist and druggist, are individuals who register as such or as bodies corporate. The S.A. Railways do not fall under either of these categories. The reason why these dispensaries have been allowed to continue to operate would appear to be due to the good offices of the S.A. Pharmacy Board, who saw a situation developing in which it would be to mutual benefit that these dispensaries be allowed to continue. However, the Pharmacy Board has indicated that they are not prepared to accept for registration any further pharmacists to operate such Railway dispensaries. I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware of the board’s feelings in this matter. In the existing situation, i.e. without the words “and of dispensaries for the purposes of such sick fund” in the clause, it would appear that a state of dynamic equilibrium had been reached in which both the Pharmacy Board and the Railway Administration were happy with the status quo. However, they have not exactly decided on a modus operandi by which, in the future, additional registration of such pharmacists could be made. I see the hon. the Minister smiling. I think he knows what I am getting at.

We should like to know from the hon. the Minister what his intentions are in this regard. Does he intend opening up a large number of extra dispensaries in the larger centres? If that is his intention, I wonder if he could indicate to us how he is going to do this within the provisions of the existing Act. If the hon. the Minister intends to open up more Railway dispensaries, we should like to say more before this clause is put. At this stage it would be in order for me to ask whether the hon. the Minister could motivate the new wording so that we can have clarity about what exactly he has in mind.

Mr. Chairman, I have received telegrams in this connection over the past few days. I can understand quite well that the pharmacists want to protect their own interests. However, there are certain facts that must be taken into consideration. The Railways organization is a tremendously large one. There are 107 000 members contributing to the Sick Fund, and they have to make contributions to cover all hospital expenses, doctors’ fees and medicinal costs not only for themselves, but also for the 214 000 dependants and 40 000 pensioners. I am just pointing out these facts to indicate what the extent and size of this organization is. Over the past five years the cost of medicines has increased by approximately 50%, and that is why it is essential for us to limit the costs to the Sick Fund to the minimum. There is a fair amount of concern at the moment because I want to make this insertion in the Act, but strangely enough the Railways has had its own dispensaries from 1913. That is why I now want to say quite frankly that as far as the Sick Fund is concerned, the Railways has saved a tremendous amount by having its own dispensaries. It is important for us to have our own dispensaries. The hon. member is now asking me to say why I want to insert this provision in the Act. Some uncertainty arose as to whether the Railways is in all respects empowered to have dispensaries and that is why we now want to place this provision on the Statute Book, in order to confirm what has been done by the Railways since 1913.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

The House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.