Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last night we were dealing with the Bill which provides for a certain measure of self-government by the Bantu people in their own areas in association with European urban areas, which gave them the right to be controlled in those areas hereafter through the agency of a council which will be partly elected by themselves. To come down in a fairly broad manner to one or two of the specific clauses, I should like to commence at Clause 3 (3) (b) (ii) where it says that the members of a Bantu urban council—

so that they shall be selected “by and from the representatives of Bantu chiefs” from amongst themselves, and their candidature shall first have been approved by the Minister and by the local authority. I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies he will deal with this, because here again I see much ground for difficulty unless some power is taken by making provisions for regulations or something of that kind to deal with this question of the selected members of the councils, in view of the fact that they are to select themselves. It is quite specific. They are to be selected by themselves from amongst themselves. Presumably a group of names is submitted to the Minister for approval; that group of names must be submitted to the council concerned for its approval, and thereafter those people forming that group, having been approved by the Minister and by the urban council, from amongst themselves and by themselves select the requisite number to form the selected members of a Bantu urban council. And those members shall not exceed in number the number of those to be elected.

To carry out that rather involved procedure, for people who are not accustomed to it, to find the number of selected members, to my mind calls for some specific regulations to be made so that that procedure can be carried out fairly harmoniously. I suggest for the very serious consideration of the Minister that where you have, in a local authority area, such a large group of Bantu people of one national unit or ethnic group or tribe—call it what you will—the paramount chief of that national unit or tribe can make his nominations. There probably will be no very great difficulty there. But where the difficulty will arise is in the case of an urban authority. [Interjections.]

Order, order! I would appreciate it if hon. members would stop speaking to each other. It is impossible to control this hon. House if so many hon. members sit and talk loudly amongst themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say the difficulty arises in the case of an urban authority where different groups of Bantu people from different tribes or ethnic groups are such that the later provisions of the clause apply that is, each of the ethnic groups now has one representative, but you have them from different tribes. You have the chiefs from those tribes making their representations for a selected member on the council. There you can have very widely differing interests, and unless it is clearly laid down what precise form is to be adopted in order to find the candidates who will, from themselves and by themselves, select the final membership, I am satisfied that very great difficulties will arise.

I then want to come to the next point, and that is to point out to the hon. the Minister how vital it is in finding the selected member at the stage when the council is formed. Otherwise, ab initio, the scheme will go wrong owing to the fact that under Clause 5 of this Bill, from amongst those members can be chosen what for want of a better term I am calling a magistrate. I do not know what his status will be. He does not seem to have been given a title in the Bill. It merely says—

certain powers. These powers are virtually those of a Native Commissioner, but there is no title given in the Bill. Let me therefore call him a Native Commissioner. He will be a Native Commissioner who is a Bantu. He is selected from these same people who are selected or elected. And here, where you have an urban Bantu council, a multi-tribal council —because the number of individuals from each tribal unit have been inadequate for the purpose of forming a council from only one ethnic group, and another council from another ethnic group and so on—where you have to have different ethnic groups for the formation of one council, one man has to be chosen from amongst them as a Native Commissioner. In those circumstances the initial selection becomes of vital importance. Otherwise the man who is selected from one tribe obviously is not going to have any respect accorded to him by the members of the other tribes and, indeed, it would be a cause of hostility from the very commencement. That will be well known to the small group of selected members in the electoral college who will get together for the purpose of selecting the members of the Bantu urban council. When they get together to select certain members who will be members of that council, they will have in mind that one or other of them is likely to be appointed a Native Commissioner. Great hostility can therefore arise at that stage.

The matter goes a step further when we take into consideration the question of these guards. I realize that the hon. the Minister is trying to meet a very strong and persistent request from the Bantu people in these areas who have asked that they be given the opportunity and allowed to help in the maintenance of law and order. I realize the pressure. I have had it myself very many times. Representations have been made to me by Bantu in these circumstances, saying, “Can you not get the Government to let us help? We know how to deal with the tsotsis and the skollies and so forth, we will deal with them.” That is one of the things that is now worrying me. These things are all linked up. From the initial selection of the members and election of the members to form the council from amongst their numbers, the magistrate picks a Native Commissioner and for the protection of that Commissioner and the maintenance of law and order and, presumably, in connection with the work which he will do in his court there are these guards to be appointed. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said that they might develop into a strong-arm group. She is quite right. On this point I agree with her entirely. Those guards will be an instrument which can be used for all sorts of purposes which, initially, will not be either obvious or known to the European authorities. It is a fact that when once a force is established like that, the greatest care has to be exercised to see that it is not used for clandestine purposes. Under Zulu custom, for instance, a guard of that character—and traditionally there was a guard of that character amongst the Zulu people—is used for all sorts of purposes. The old paramount chiefs of Zululand did not waste any time in giving formal judgment in regard to people of whom they disapproved, they just gave a hint to the senior member of the guard and the next thing was that that person had an assegai through him if he was a man or, if it was a woman, her neck was broken. The hon. the Minister knows that. That was a rough and ready means of dispensing justice. But here we are going to be dealing with what is virtually a Native Commissioner’s court, and I do not know how the judgments of that court are going to be enforced. This thing all goes step by step from the initial selection of the members of this Bantu urban council. When that court gives judgment, how is it going to be enforced? If, for example, imprisonment is imposed, are the goals of our Department of Justice to be used to incarcerate these people? If it is a fine, how is it to be enforced? Is it to be enforced by a writ? The point is that these guards should be under the strict control of the police, and I want to emphasize that. I take it they will be full time, and if I am correct in that I think there should be no question about it that the best method of dealing with it would be that whilst they are called guards, to have them sworn in either as special constables or in some other way, or that some measure of that kind should be designed, so that the authorities, particularly in the initial stages when we have to gain experience of this experiment to find out where the weaknesses are—and weaknesses are bound to develop and we want to have as little upset in the early days as possible if we do not want to bring the whole thing into disrepute, which might otherwise easily be the case.

These are the things I wanted to deal with, and I want to conclude by dealing with Clause 11, which deals with Section 19 of the principal Act. The effect of sub-section (b) is to provide for the expenditure of moneys accruing as profits from the sale of beer in an area other than that in which it accrues. There is another provision in the Bill which virtually limits the expenditure of money which has accrued in a particular area to that area. Hon. members have raised objection to that and I can understand their objection, but this goes the other way. It provides that beer profits can be spent in another area. Here I think we are in for trouble. The Bantu are most conservative and in nothing will they show their conservatism more than in this, that they believe that the money coming from their area should be spent there. They will insist on that very strongly. The man who is a beer drinker in the beer halls and swells the profits, and who understands the working of the new system, when once he gets to appreciate the provision, if it is exercised—that is the point, that if the power taken here is exercised—and money which has accrued in a certain area is taken away and used for the advantage of the Bantu in another area, we will have trouble. I doubt the wisdom at this stage of putting in a provision of this character. Rather let us make haste slowly. In a matter like this we should ask the Bantu concerned, and I am sure the Minister will get his answer. Let him establish his urban Bantu councils with a minimum of powers initially, and then ask them what extension of powers they want. Then you will get consultation and the Minister will find out just what the people are thinking, because he will be dealing with their elected representatives. They will say what extended powers they want and what financial means they require to give effect to those powers. We run into the danger here which we have met repeatedly and which still is a matter of grievance between the Central Government and the provincial council. Throughout the years the provincial councils, in giving effect to their legislative powers, have found themselves short of money with which to give effect to the powers with which they are clothed. If these Bantu councils find themselves with powers and no money to carry them out, they will look upon this as being a fraud in a sense; it is promising things which cannot be fulfilled. They will want adequate money to provide for the services they want. I suggest that a good principle will be a minimum of services. Get these councils established, and ask the representatives what further powers they want and give them the money they require. I leave it at that. We are supporting the Bill.

I do not want to deal with this Bill at length, but I want it to be on record that I do not regard this measure as a step forward in the right direction. This Bill does, in a limited and potential sense, provide for increased powers, and I will deal shortly with that; but for the rest it seems to me that what the provisions of the Bill purport to do is to transfer from the rural areas to the towns the system of Bantu Authorities which operates there. I would describe this Bill as apartheid ms in urbe—bringing the apartheid of the country to the towns. I opposed the Bantu Authorities Bill. I opposed the system the Minister set up. I opposed it in regard to the territories and I equally oppose it when it is sought to transfer this system, which I believe will not ultimately be in the best interests of the Bantu, to the towns. So far from being a step forward, it is a step backwards. It is an anachronism; it is a reversal; it is going back to something of the past.

What in effect this Bill attempts to do is to place in the hands of certain Bantu in the towns the feudal powers exercised in the Native reserves at present. What are the two main features of the Bill? There is the recognition of the ethnic groups and there is the granting of the powers of the tribal courts to Bantu living in the urban areas. It has been suggested that this might be a step forward because certain members of the councils are being elected. But that is not an innovation. As far as I know, the members of the advisory boards established under the Urban Areas Act of 1945 were elected. In terms of the Minister’s Bill, however, only half the members of the council will be elected. If there are six members, three will be chosen by a process of selection. It is quite clear that in that selection, in order to make the grade, those who are up for selection will have to pass through three filters. They will have to have the stamp of approval of the chief, of the local authority, and of the Minister. By the time they have gone through those checks I find it very difficult to believe that the members of the council, who have gone through that process, will be in a position to exercise an independent judgment on the matters put before them. I doubt very much whether the chiefs living hundreds of miles away, who have a decisive say in the matter, will select many detribalized Natives to serve on the councils. In other words, what will happen? It seems to be clear that obviously those who are selected will be the stooges, the people who will watch their step and virtually do as they are told. I do not regard that as a step forward, or as a wise change, or as a good apprenticeship in local and municipal government.

Now what about the functions of these councils? If one turns to Clause 4 of the Bill, it states that an urban Bantu council and the members thereof shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties which in terms or the principal Act, i.e. the Urban Areas Act of 1945, as amended, or any other law are conferred upon the Native Advisory Boards established in terms of Section 21 of that Act. So the first function of these councils is to carry out the functions and duties of the advisory boards—the status quo. The advisory board was elected and there were no persons selected under this curious process. Now the councils are to have the same functions and powers. It is true that Clause 4 (2) provides that an urban Bantu council shall also have certain additional functions. That is why I said at the outset that this Bill does, in a sense, potentially provide for increased powers, although I regard that as not being a step in the right direction, and I shall deal with these increased powers very briefly.

The increased powers set out in Clause 4 (2) relate to certain aspects of local government, the layout of the area, the removal of persons unlawfully resident there, the allotment of sites for church and school purposes, the provision of charity, medical and health services, etc. Of course it is quite clear from the provisions of the Bill that these powers are permissive. They may be conferred upon the local council, but only with the consent of the local authority. The Minister has admitted that he did not consult the local authorities in advance. That seems a curious prelude to placing the responsibility on an advisory council to be set up. One would have thought that, assuming that the Minister felt satisfied, according to his own policy—because he is implementing his own policy—he would have taken the precaution of consulting the local authorities beforehand, because what assurance can he give that in any given case the local authority concerned is going to confer these powers, limited though they are, upon the advisory councils? There is nothing in this Bill to compel them to do so. The Minister says he will bring pressure to bear upon the local authorities. But that is not the way to get co-operation. If the Minister wishes his own scheme to work, I would have thought that he would have had the fullest consultation and have obtained some assurance in advance, if he could get it, that the local authorities would be prepared to co-operate. But that is all in the air. I do not regard that as an advance.

Let me take another aspect of the Bill, Clause 5, the provision which enables the Minister to confer, at his pleasure, on a Bantu designated by the council the same powers and jurisdiction as may be conferred on a Bantu chief or headman in terms of Section 12 of the Native Administration Act of 1927. In other words, Section 5 brings the tribal courts to the towns. It brings a bit of mediaevalism into a developing community. Now what are the powers which the Minister now proposes to give to these Bantu in our urban areas, something which is quite novel, this introduction of Bantu authorities and Bantu judicial administration into the urban areas? The jurisdiction is both civil and criminal. I would be glad if the Minister could tell us in his reply whether he has any figures in the larger areas like Cape Town. Durban and Johannesburg, as to the number of civil cases heard in a given year relating to Native law and custom? I have not had information and I do not know what the amount of work involved is, but it would be interesting to know.

As to the criminal jurisdiction, that is laid down by Section 20 of the Act of 1927, which was amended by Section 1 of Act 13 of 1955. The amending Act says that the Minister may confer upon any Native chief or headman jurisdiction to try and punish any Native who has committed in the area of the chief any offence at common law, or under Native law and custom, other than an offence referred to in the Third Schedule of the Act, and any statutory offence other than one referred to in this schedule. The Third Schedule sets out a large number of offences which the tribal judge or judicial officer is precluding from trying, like treason, public violence, sedition, culpable homicide, etc. Going through that list it would appear that the crimes at common law which would be subject to the jurisdiction of these tribal courts in the urban areas would be theft and common assault. I do not know whether the Minister has any other crimes in view, but looking at the list it seems to me that when one eliminates those crimes which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, one is left with theft and common assault plus such statutory offences as the Minister may include in the limits of jurisdiction of these tribal courts. I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to propose jurisdiction in regard to statutory offences, and if so, what statutory offences? There is mention made under the functions of the council to the removal of persons unlawfully resident in an area. Is it the intention of the Minister to clothe these tribal courts in the towns with authority to try cases under the pass laws and under the influx control regulations? These are matters vitally concerned with the Bantu population. Influx control and the pass laws are the link between the homelands and the urban areas. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) suggested that the advisory boards were in disfavour because they did discuss pass laws. Will that be ruled out, and will the tribal judges be entitled to deal with cases under the pass laws? This is a step I feel very strongly about, bringing these tribal courts to the towns. We have prided ourselves in this country on maintaining the rule of law. Whilst admittedly, when dealing with primitive people or semi-primitive people, it is obvious that one has to have regard to their tribal habits and customs, and therefore there is a need for courts in the territories even to-day to deal with such customs, it may well be that there is still a need in the towns to deal with civil matters on that basis. But the Native Commissioner’s court does that at present and there is no need to import the tribal judge for that purpose. But when one comes to criminal jurisdiction, one deals with the normal sphere of the criminal law. Why has it to be separate courts? Of course there is only one reason for it, and that is that it is in implementation of the Minister’s policy of apartheid, because these are courts functioning extraterritorially, because this is part of the conception of Bantustans. The Minister does not regard Orlando as being part of Johannesburg, or Langa as being part of Cape Town. He regards it as being part of the reserves, and to keep up this fiction he has to establish his own tribal courts there. That is the reason for it. These are ideological courts. This is an ideological Bill. It is in order to maintain the fiction that the Minister can keep up contact between the tribal chiefs in the homelands and the detribalized Natives in the towns. I say that there may be a great price to pay for giving vent to one’s ideological conceptions in this manner. After all, the criminal law is not something to be trifled with. Who are these people who are going to sit in judgment upon their fellow Bantu in the urban areas? What legal training will they have had? Does the Minister propose to ensure that those who are appointed will have taken legal degrees and are entitled to practise in the Supreme Court? What experience will they have had, and what judgment can they bring to bear in the way of assessing evidence and imposing sentences?

But you want to give them the vote.

Fortunately, in terms of Section 20 which confers criminal jurisdiction on them, certain forms of punishment are mercifully excluded. A chief in the reserves cannot inflict punishment involving death or mutilation. We can be thankful for that. But he can impose a fine not in excess of R40, and that is pretty stiff. He can impose whipping in the case of unmarried males under the age of 30. There is, it is true, an appeal to the Native Commissioner. But why have this duplication? In the ordinary courts, in the case of theft or assault, the matter is disposed of by trained magistrates who apply the rule of law and the rules of evidence, and the magistrate brings to bear his experience and exercises his discretion in giving judgment. If the accused is not satisfied with the verdict he can go to the Appeal Court. But here we have a system under which it may well be—it may be that it works in the reserves—there will be a dual system in the towns. The tribal judge sits side by side with the magistrate in the towns. There will be concurrent jurisdiction. Who will decide before which court the accused will appear? X is arrested by the police tor alleged theft. Before whom must he appear? What are the police at Langa to do? How will they know to which court to send the accused? Is it to be concurrent jurisdiction or will the Minister provide in the Bill that it will have to be exclusive jurisdiction for these tribal courts? These are important matters, and I have no doubt that the Minister has not given any thought to them, but they affect the administration of justice and I repeat that it is extremely dangerous. The Minister is embarking upon a very perilous path when he seeks to mix ideology with the administration of justice, and when he seeks to extend the powers he has under the Bantu Authorities Act and to bring his apartheid proposals to the towns. Let him keep his apartheid for the reserves and concentrate on developing the reserves and we shall support him; but let him keep his hands off the towns where we have worked out a system of local and municipal government and where our administration of justice works smoothly. But now it is to be disrupted by these councils, partly stooge-controlled, and by these tribal judges who have had no previous experience in the administration of justice and who have never heard of Justinian or any other legal luminary. I think it is very dangerous indeed.

I end where I started, by saying that I do not regard this as a step forward but a step backwards towards feudal mediaevalism, and for that reason I am not prepared to support the second reading.

I rise immediately because I am not prepared to see the statement which has just been made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) unanswered on the record. I would like to say to him that I do not agree with the case he has put to this House. At the same time I do not for a moment suggest that this is an ideal measure. I am sure it is capable of improvement, but I want to say that I believe that fundamentally this Bill is an acceptance of something which is very important, viz. of the fact that it is essential to provide for the establishment of urban Bantu councils. History shows that when you have started on this road you have not taken the last step but the first step. This, it is true, is a halting step forward, hedged round with many restrictions, but nevertheless this is an acceptance by this Government of the fact that provision must be made for the Natives not only in the reserves but for the bigger number of Natives who, whatever we may do, will for all time remain in what we call White South Africa. It is perfectly obvious that the idea that the area which is called White South Africa can be cleared of its Bantu population is a delusion. This is an area in which we have a vast number of Natives, and however many may from time to time be sent back under the various provisions of the law to the reserves, the fact is that whether we like it or not we must face the fact that there is a Native population which is a permanent population and which will be there for all time. The other fact we will have to face is that in these areas, whatever your theories may be, whatever you may wish to do, you will have to face up to the fact that you cannot leave those persons without political rights, both municipally and as a whole. The most fatal thing that can be done in a democracy is to deprive a section of the people from any representation whatsoever, firstly in the central Parliament and then in local bodies which deal with powers of local administration. I welcome this Bill, not because I am satisfied with its terms, but because the principle we are considering is the question of the establishment of urban Bantu councils. The Government is taking a step forward and I say that we are right in the official Opposition in supporting this measure, because that is one of the principles which has been at the bedrock of the policy of the United Party that these persons must be given this right. It is true that the method of appointment of these councils is hedged round with restrictions; I concede that to the hon. member for Salt River, but if we take the whole of the history of the development of democratic institutions one finds—and we found it in this country itself, in this Cape Province which is the mother province of South Africa—that originally you had appointed persons and in the course you march forward and you had the position that some were appointed and some elected, and gradually you grew to responsible government. Step by step the Europeans in South Africa advanced in their form of government to complete an absolute independence from the original mother country. This step which the Minister is taking here is the first halting step on that line of advance for the Bantu peoples of this country. I am sure that the hon. the Minister, whatever he may say to this House, must realize when he examines the facts of the situation, that it is inevitable that this will merely be the start of a long chain and that it will undoubtedly advance the rights which are granted and will to a greater and greater extent be placed upon a democratic basis, and gradually they will be freed from the control and restrictions both of the Minister’s Department and of the European local authority concerned. Sir, my hon. friends on my left have attempted to suggest that this is no step forward at all. and as I understood the hon. members for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) they are of the opinion that it would be far better to leave the Native advisory boards as they are than to have this legislation put on the Statute Book.

No, I did not say that.

I am glad that that is not so. If that is not the case, then I am amazed that they are opposing this legislation, because the issue which is before this House is whether you prefer to retain the existing Native advisory board system, or whether you would prefer to see this is a first step in the direction …

It is not a first step.

Well, I am putting my conception of the matter; I have heard the views of the hon. member for Houghton and I am trying to show the House why I think those views are wrong and why I disagree with them. Those views were reinforced by the hon. member for Salt River. I made the point that personally I prefer these councils to the present advisory councils which have advisory authority only. That is a very important factor. I agree that it is hedged round with restrictions and there are many forms of control as to the way in which these powers will be exercised, but we cannot escape from the provisions of Clause 4 of this Bill which provides that the urban Bantu councils and the members thereof shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties which in terms of the principal Act or any other law are conferred and imposed on Native advisory boards established in terms of Section 21 of that Act. They have all the power therefore which the present advisory boards have, but in addition there are wide powers which can be conferred on them—I do not say “are”—which can be conferred on them under Section 2 which provides that this urban Bantu council in respect of the area for which it has been established shall exercise the powers and perform such functions and duties of an urban local authority in respect of one or more of the following matters in connection with Bantu as the urban local authority may, after consultation with the Administrator in question, assign to such council with the concurrence of and subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Minister. I would like to say at once that in reading that provision I am taking it for granted that the hon. the Minister is sincere in saying that it is his wish to extend these powers to these councils as rapidly as he can, and certainly that he is not going to leave this provision as a dead letter. I do hope that the urban councils throughout South Africa are going to consider these provisions very well, and I hope that they are not going to be a blot upon the extension of these powers. If they make recommendations. I would like to appeal to the Minister rather to take his courage in both hands and go too far rather than to clamp down on this thing, because if too strict a control in the extension of powers is maintained, then these bodies will be stillborn and the criticism which has been offered here might prove to be justified. But I say that if this Bill is reasonably administered—and I accept that in fact the Minister intends that these powers should be extended—then there is the power in the hands of the urban local authority and the Minister to convey to these councils tremendously important powers, not of an advisory but of an administrative nature. I say that that is the first step on a long road towards vesting more and more responsibility in the Natives of South Africa. Sir, the powers which are given are very wide. There is the power to lay out the area; the accommodation of the Bantu; the removal of persons unlawfully resident in the area (surely that is an executive power); to deal with the unlawful occupation of land and buildings; the management and control of the area and the maintenance of good order therein: control over the erection and use of dwellings; the allotment of sites for school purposes, the prohibition of grazing; and then there is a very important power, the power of regulation of entry into and sojourn in the area. That is not an advisory power; it is a very important power which is being extended. Then, of course, there is provision for sanitary, health and medical services, and then a very important clause which I hope will be interpreted widely and not restrictively, namely the moral and social welfare of the persons living in the area. Then there is power to control and manage, subject to the provisions of the Act, a community guard. That will need control. But I have mentioned enough to show that it is possible in terms of this Act to vest in these councils very important executive functions, and those are functions of local administration in a local area, which in the same way we haltingly extended to little village councils which in the course of time have grown up into full-grown municipalities. It is a question of reasonable administration. Then, of course, there is the fact that governments come and go; one party is not in power for ever, and I am very glad that this Government is taking this step. I again appeal to the hon. the Minister to be reasonable, to interpret the provisions on a liberal basis and to take his courage in both hands in extending powers, because I believe that this can be a very important experiment which will provide very important information on which we will be able to base our legislation in respect of local authorities in Native areas in the years that lie ahead. Sir, both the hon. member for Salt River and the hon. member for Houghton based their opposition to a very large extent on the fact that the tribal link is being maintained. I know that certain hon. members on the other side, on the other hand, have regarded that as a great safeguard. But, I think all of us here realize that whatever steps may be taken in respect of the urban Bantu to preserve those links, that is something of a temporary character. All history shows that with the advancement of peoples they grow out of the tribal system and they gradually grow in the direction of a more complete form of democracy. That is the whole course of history through the ages. We have seen it in the countries from which we have sprung; we are seeing it happening throughout Africa to the north of us at the present time.

Like Ghana.

The hon. member must not try to distract me by referring to Ghana. What we have seen is the growth of the demand by people for further rights to the north of us. Some of these areas like Tanganyika apparently might be fortunate enough to have good government from the start. Sir, not for a moment do I agree with what is going on in some of these states to the north, but I am not attempting to deal with that. What I am saying is that all history shows that once you start along the road of extension of rights of self-administration to persons, you cannot halt that at a certain point. It is for that reason that I think this Bill is of great importance. I believe it is a step forward. As I said earlier, it is a start on a long road. I am sure that many of us in this House are not satisfied with many of the provisions of this Bill; I certainly am not satisfied. I think they could have gone a little further, but I am glad that a start is being made in regard to this matter, because I believe that this extension of executive powers to the Native people is going to train them, and I am hoping—and I hope it most sincerely—that they are going to show, by acting responsibly in exercising the powers vested in them, that they are growing towards the stage where further powers can be vested in them. Sir, I was saying that governments change. Obviously in every democracy governments change. This experience is going to be of great value and while there are many features of this Bill which an alternative government would not leave on the Statute Book, there is no question that this is laying the foundation for what I believe is a new direction in this country, namely the extension of greater power of self-administration to the Native people in the Bantu areas as well. It is. for these reasons, among others, that I propose to vote for this Bill. It is for these reasons that I believe that my friends on my left have misconceived the importance of this Bill. Apparently they would rather not see it on the Statute Book; they would like to see the present position remain as it is.

No.

Then I hope they are going to support this Bill at the second reading. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to be unfair. I do not think that this is the sort of measure out of which we ought to make political capital. I hope the day will come when we will be able to debate measures like these on their merits.

Hear, hear!

I am very glad to hear “hear, hear” from hon. members opposite. I believe that we would be able to make much more rapid progress if we were able to do that, stating quite frankly what our objections are but at the same time not overlooking what is good in a measure, because there is. some good in this measure, and I believe that the best thing of all is that this is the start of the extension of very great powers of self-administration to the Bantu people of this country. There is no question about that, because what is provided for in this Bill is. something which is not going to be halted. Temporarily there may be checks, but I believe that this experience is going to be tremendously valuable, and for those reasons I believe that it is right that this Bill should be supported at the second reading.

I do not wish to deal with other matters in the Bill, but I would like to associate myself with the concern expressed by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in regard to the extension of judicial powers. I express concern for this reason, and here I am in complete agreement with what the hon. member for Salt River said: One of the most precious heritages that we have in this country is not only our system of law, but our system of the administration of the law. I do hope that the Minister will consider the question not only of providing for the right of appeal from the judgments of these courts, but I believe that there should be automatic review of sentences where cuts are imposed by the Native Commissioner. I hope I have made my position clear. I do not think for a moment that this is a perfect Bill, but I believe that the principle which underlies this. Bill is one which all South Africans ought to accept, the principle of the extension of powers of self-administration. I say to the Government that nothing that they can do and nothing that South Africa as a whole can do will stop the advancing of the Native peoples. There may be temporary checks, but obviously, long range, it is quite clear that more and more of these people will have to take over the administration on a municipal basis until eventually many of these areas, I believe, will have powers, which are equivalent to those of the European municipalities in those areas. It is along that path that I believe that we are going to get very valuable information from the administration of this Bill. I would like to repeat the appeal that I made earlier to the Minister that in exercising his powers under this measure he is going to take his courage in both hands, not to be mean in respect of the extension of powers, but rather to err on the side of generosity than to clamp down too tightly. I appreciate that there is a vast difference between the powers which could perhaps properly be exercised by many of the Natives who could be found in the big urban areas and the powers which could be exercised in some of the rural areas where there is also a separate Native town growing up. I take it that the hon. the Minister’s intention is to extend these powers in all these cases where it is possible, not only in respect of the large congregations of Native peoples but also in the rural areas where we have these congregations in separate little towns of their own. I look forward with interest to the implementation of this measure, and I want to say this to the Minister that he and his successor will be responsible to this House, and I believe all sections of this House are looking to the Minister to take a real forward step in this matter, because it is the foundation of something which I believe may be very important to the future of South Africa.

Years ago I visited the farm of my friend, the hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) and that evening he shot a hippopotamus that had been causing a great deal of damage to his lands. The following morning the animal was slaughtered and as usual it was a great day in the lives of the Bantu. I was present when the crowd gathered around. Amongst them was an eight-year-old little Bantu boy full of admiration. His face beamed and eventually he jumped up and called out in ecstasy: Men, from to-day I am an old man: my eyes have seen many things. Sir, I can only say, after what I have heard: “To-day I am an old man; my ears have heard many things.” Many peculiar things have been said and I want to deal briefly with a few of them. I am not doing so deliberately but merely to put the matter right. The first person I want to deal with is the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). He took me to task on the question of Bantu culture. He said that we were making a big mistake, that we should not use the word “Bantu”; we should use the word “umuntu” in the singular. The hon. member is quite right but I want to give him a few facts. The word “Bantu” was actually coined by a panel of experts of the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures and that name was given to the entire complex of nations living in Southern Africa, south of a line drawn from the Gulf of Guinea above Lake Victoria, through to the estuary of the Juba River on the east coast—everyone living south. Those people used to refer to themselves as “abantu” (people) and the basic word was taken from it namely “ntu” or “ntho” in the Sotho group. There are various groups. The word “Bantu” is derived from this basic word, and it came into use generally. We must not forget, however, that there are about 80,000,000 of them, there are many language groups, an exceptionally large number of languages, and an enormous number of dialects. The Nguni group is simply a small sub-division of this group, and it is only the Nguni group that uses the word “umuntu”, The Sotho group do not use it. The Nguni group use the word “umuntu” and “abuntu”, but even there there is a difference. Some say “umuntu” and others say “umunthu” and I have come across some who use the word “umundu”. Thus even among the Nguni group there is a difference in terminology. But then there are other groups as well. Take the Sotho group for instance who use the words “motho” and “batho”. I just want to tell the hon. member that if he goes to certain groups and he says “mollo, umuntu”, I am not so sure that he will not come off all the worse for it, because many of them regard that as a swear word.

You would never say “mollo Bantu”; you may perhaps say “mollo Maree”, but never “mollo Bantu”.

Quite correct, but I am merely stating the fact, to use the term which the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) would use when he plays cricket, that the hon. member for South Coast has missed the ball. Actually the word “umuntu” is only used by the Nguni group, not by the Sotho group, not by the Wenda group, etc. We are therefore quite safe when we talk about “Bantu”.

We had another interesting exhibition in connection with the paternity of this policy and I was really surprised to hear hon. members of the United Party claiming paternity for this policy. We have a new attitude, an attitude which I have long since predicted in this House. The day will still come when most members of the United Party will get up in this House and try to convince us that they were creators of the policy of apartheid.

No, this is a policy of integration.

I just want to refer to the steel factory. I suggest to hon. members that they read Hansard to see what a struggle the National Party had to put up in order to establish Iscor, and during the war years every United Party member got up and claimed that they had erected the steel factory. The same thing is happening in this instance.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is not here this morning and consequently I do not want to attack him, but he stated that this Bill reflected the policy of the United Party. I just want to read to the House what we have here as far as the election of members are concerned—

Then the Act goes on and lays down the functions of these committees, one of which is—

That appears in that sixpenny policy—

(b) the management and control of locations, Native villages and Native hostels.

And (d)

(e) the erection and use of dwellings, buildings and other structures …

(g) the allotment of sites in locations or Native villages for church, school or trading purposes …

Do you know when that was written, Mr. Speaker? In the year 1923, and it was incorporated in the sixpenny policy in 1954. This reminds me of an experience I had in the Northern Transvaal. I was discussing history with the elderly ndunas of the tribe concerned and suddenly a semi-educated man jumped up and said to them: “What do you know about history? I will tell you the history. I learnt it in the year of 1923.” What was incorporated in this sixpenny policy already appeared in the Act of 1923. It is therefore nothing new. But I want to say this to hon. members: Here I have the Government Gazette. It contains the Bill which my predecessor, the hon. the Prime Minister, drafted in 1951 and which was published in the Government Gazette in February 1952. It contains, all these things and much more and the present Bill is based on that Bill. For the information of hon. members I want to tell them that the hon. the Prime Minister is so interested in this Bill that my officials and I spent a whole afternoon with him the other day and in many instances he wanted to go much further than I myself wanted to. That is how interested he is in this Bill. Here we have proof that this child which we have before us to-day is really a National child.

I want to deal with another matter namely the objection that was raised to the fact that we wish to preserve the tribal links. We actually go further with greater foresight, which people object to, in recognizing the national groups among the Bantu. I think that is one of the soundest bases on which to build race relations. Mr. Speaker, when I think of the lessons which Africa teaches me, the one lesson I learn is that the biggest crime the White man has committed in Africa, a crime which is hitting him to-day like a boomerang, and which has sown hatred amongst the Bantu people throughout the whole of Africa and even the Negro people in Africa, was when he sat down in front of a map in those days when Africa was partitioned and simply drew lines on that map and said: “This is mine and that is yours”, without taking into account the boundaries of those national units. That was a crime. I had the temerity to tell Mr. Hammarskjoeld that until such time as the man of Africa was changed and the real boundaries restored as far as the major national units were concerned at least, the problem of Africa would never be solved. I hope the experts will give serious attention to this matter; true satisfaction will only come about when we recognize each national unit as such. That is the solution to this problem and that is the reason why I cannot understand why the members of the Progressive Party in particular are fighting this measure. They condemn it whereas many of them symbolize adherence to a tribe. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is very national conscious. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) is another one, but they begrudge the Bantu that privilege. I shall return to the Progressive Party in a moment, but I cannot reconcile myself with this Herrenvolk idea. I want to grant to the Bantu that which I claim for myself, also in respect of their national groups, because I realize that that is the most important basis on which this matter can be solved satisfactorily. I shall have something further to say about the ethnic grouping in a moment. I want to return now to the hon. members of the Progressive Party. I do not want to deal with every point that they have raised but I want to deal with a few general points raised by them. I want to make the general statement that to judge from the speeches of the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members it is clear that they regard a city as comprising White residential areas and Bantu residential areas. In other words, they regard a city as a unit. There should not be any differentiation. They want mixed boards, mixed city councils consisting of all national groups, including the Bantu. I foresee the day when they will suggest the logical consequence of that, namely that at least a section of the White people should go and live in the locations and a section of the location dwellers should come and live in the White areas. That would be a logical consequence. That would be the correct brotherly relationship to establish.

There is such a deep-seated difference in principle as far as this matter is concerned, that all I can say is to quote the words of Mark Twain: “East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.” It is. obviously useless, therefore, to argue with members about this matter. I do not think we will gain one iota by arguing these differences in principle. I will deal with the other points they have raised.

I come to the question of ethnic grouping to which hon. members object. That is really the basis of the policy of the National Party. The National Party believes that there should be national grouping because only in that way will you eventually satisfy every national group. Nowhere in the whole world, nowhere in Africa, have I come across any national group who is prepared to abandon a section of its own group to another group. On the contrary, the basis of nationalism, the basis of that nationalism that has awakened in Africa to-day, the nationalism in Europe and all over the world, is the fact that every nation takes a pride in drawing its every son and daughter into its own national ranks, to keep them there and to use them to promote the interests of that nation and to help it to progress. That is the basis on which to establish real peace. I want to say immediately that is the basis on which the various national groups develop respect for each other and the basis on which they can live peacefully together without any processes coming into operation that will engender hatred. And that basis is ethnic grouping. I want to say at once that for the greater part the Bantu in the cities are already divided into ethnic groups. Here and there of course there are small groups who live amongst another group. Take the case of Johannesburg where we have the best example where ethnic grouping has not as yet taken place everywhere. As a matter of fact, hon. members have referred to it. Do hon. members know that 75 per cent of the Bantu in Johannesburg have already been divided into ethnic groups? It is only in the old Bantu residential areas where they still live together, but in the case of all the new residential areas we have worked on the basis of ethnic grouping and 75 per cent of them have already been divided into ethnic groups. Consequently that does not present an insoluble problem. Certain members have misgivings and think that ethnic grouping will give rise to tribal feuds. I remember when we started that this was one of the main complaints, but this policy has already been in operation for years. It is being applied in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Benoni and other places with what results? Those very tribal feuds have been eliminated.

What did the Centlivres Commission say?

Does the hon. member for Houghton not know the history of Johannesburg and of those places where they lived together and where there were tribal fights practically every week? The position got so bad that the South Sotho groups eventually appointed their own guards and the Zulus had their own guards.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? What about the Centlivres Commission which submitted its report two or four years ago in which they stated that ethnic grouping was the cause of the disturbances in the Johannesburg locations? That is in direct conflict with what the hon. the Minister is now saying.

In reply to that I want to say that I do not wish to belittle those people but that report is the most unrealistic and the most pathetic report that has ever been brought out in South Africa. That report is actually a concoction of statements by the Institute of Race Relations and nothing else. That is the most pathetic report on this subject that has ever seen the light of day, and every expert says that. As a matter of fact the Centlivres Commission’s report is as dead as a dodo, except as far as the Institute of Race Relations is concerned.

However, we are not looking to the Centlivres Commission’s report, but to what is happening in practice. What actually happened in Johannesburg a few years ago? One of the great problems which the police had to face was the fact that hardly a week passed without there being tribal fights on a large scale. To-day that position no longer exists. There is no such thing as tribal fights in Johannesburg to-day. We have trouble here and there, which is quite natural, but this very ethnic grouping has resulted in every ethnic group living happily in his own area, he has respect for the other ethnic groups, in their areas and there is no trouble. There was trouble at one place where one ethnic group caused some trouble with another group, but that was soon put right. Never before have there been so few tribal fights in Johannesburg and elsewhere as to-day. Furthermore we must not forget that those people have now come into their own rights in every respect. One of the problems which arose from the system of living in mixed groups, (which hon. members opposite want so badly) was that the languages of the various groups could not be used at the schools. That caused bitter resentment amongst them against the White man. because it is a basic principle amongst every nation, particularly amongst the Zulu, that his child should retain his own language. That is tradition. He does not want to lose the wonderful things in his life, and those things could not form the basis of his life or could not be built upon. Now that they have been divided into ethnic groups each ethnic group has its own schools, each group has its own national games and each group lives according to his own traditions. But the important thing is this: You won’t show me one national group in the whole of South Africa, Sir, that will admit that the Bantu who are living in the cities to-day are lost to them. Hon. members make a big mistake, a basic mistake, in this respect as far as national links are concerned. The Zulu does not want to hear about it that their sons and daughters who live in the big cities are no longer part of the Zulu nation. What is more, there is a continual link, a live link, with those people. If we want to make a big mistake, a mistake which will have its repercussions and hit us like a boomerang, then we must follow the policy of those hon. members, the policy of splitting the national communities and think that the people who live in their own areas form a community by themselves and have to be treated differently and that those who move to the cities have to be separated from them and be treated on a completely different basis. That is a very dangerous thing and South Africa cannot afford the results that will flow from that. We must recognize this basic fact which applies to every nation in the world, namely that that section of the nation that moves into the cities is not lost to it but continues to form part of his own national community, forms an integral part of his own national community, as a matter of fact that is the section that will be able to transplant the best that Western civilization can offer over to the other section in the most beneficial manner. I merely want to say that the Bantu are very grateful to us for this arrangement. I want to assure hon. members that before it was officially sanctioned, before the matter was specifically investigated, we found when we introduced the system of chiefs’ representatives, that the chiefs already had representatives in the cities. They were people who worked there but they were the guardians of the people belonging to that national group. They knew that they could go to those representatives. I want to give one typical example. Years ago I had a very good boy working for me and he accompanied me when I conducted an inspection in the Northern Transvaal. When I went to Pretoria I took him with me. He was highly intelligent but after a week he said to me: Look, I have to return; there is not a single representative of my chief in the whole of Pretoria, and I do not see my way clear to live in such a place. He returned. It was only when a representative of his chief was appointed there that he was quite happy to return. So the bonds do exist. Let me mention the case of Cape Town. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) ought to know about this. There is a big percentage of South Sotho in Cape Town and there is a full-time representative from Basutoland who does nothing else but serve as a link between the South Sotho who have been here for two generations and more. The link exists and they go so far as to give him money regularly in the form of taxes to be sent on to Basutoland. We have proof, there fore, not only in respect of the South Sotho—do not forget that the South Sotho is not as nationally minded as the other national groups. We have that position in the case of the Zulus, in the case of the Sothos and in the case of the Tswanas. Those people desire that and we want to comply with that desire by introducing ethnic grouping so that these people will form part of their own nations. That is why we will constitute those councils in such a way that those chiefs’ representatives will have an opportunity of serving actively on those councils. In that way we will preserve the national unity of that group.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) harbours some interesting misgivings as far as this matter is concerned, but I want to assure him that I will attend to them. He made a few very valuable remarks. He is concerned that there may perhaps be clashes and he asked that the regulations particularly should be very clear so that there will not be any clashes. I am grateful to him for adopting that attitude. I know he is a person who knows the Bantu and I want to give him the assurance and I will go very thoroughly into the matter, not only with the officials, but also with the Bantu concerned to ensure that clashes are avoided. This is a matter to which I, together with the urban officials, the officials of my Department and the Bantu themselves are giving serious attention. I think if we set about it in this way clashes will be avoided. But I repeat that the people desire it.

The hon. member also said that where we were now giving the vote to at least half the urban councils we were adopting a United Party principle, namely, that we were giving the vote to the urban Bantu in the White area. No, that is not the case. The 1923 Act also provides that there should be elected and nominated members, as in this case. That has always been the position and every party has made use of that. We are not introducing a new principle here, it is an old principle which has always been acknowledged. For the rest we also maintain another important principle, namely, that the ethnic groups should be properly represented on these councils. Why? Had hon. members taken the trouble of going into the matter they would have found that in the past as far as the election of the advisory boards were concerned, only a very small percentage was interested in the election. In most cases only about 20 per cent and in many cases only 10 per cent and in very many other cases only 5 per cent. That is not a sound state of affairs. The result was that you had a small group of people electing a board which was not representative of the rest of them and when these chiefs’ representatives were recognized administratively we found that that was how they were elected to those boards with the result that there was a far better balance and we will ensure that the ethnic groups who are not properly represented on a council, will at least have such representation on it that every section of that community will be properly represented. That can only result in good co-operation. We shall draft the necessary regulations more or less on the same lines as the old regulations and those regulations will lay down the basis on which the voting should take place, the qualifications will more or less be the same as those laid down under the old regulations. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) had certain misgivings about this and asked that we should ensure that they were constituted in such a way that the tsotsi elements would not play an important part. I want to assure him that we shall see to that in co-operation with the Bantu themselves and the urban council which will draw up the list. In the past our experience has been that we had no trouble with tsotsis wanting to vote. I think hon. members should bear that in mind. We had no difficulty with the tsotsis who went to vote. The trouble we had was in respect of tsotsis who formed themselves into gangs and intimidated others as to how they should vote. We had trouble in that respect. Hence the introduction of community guards. Practice has proved that we need have no fear of this along the lines that we are following here, but I want to assure hon. members that we shall keep a watchful eye on the position and I also know that the Bantu people will watch the position. We shall strictly guard against it that that element does not again have an opportunity of intimidating others and playing their unholy part.

Grave objections were raised against the granting of civil and criminal jurisdiction. That is another matter in regard to which the hon. member for East London (City) has serious misgivings, but other hon. members, such as the hon. member for South Coast, for example, made positive contributions to the debate. Let me just say this in passing. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) quite rightly asked whether the time had not arrived that we should in certain matters at least, matters affecting the Bantu, discuss them on their merits, that we should exchange ideas and when we have thrashed things out determine what was in the best interests of the Bantu themselves. I heartily endorse those sentiments. That was a valuable suggestion. There are many points in connection with this matter on which we agree, where it is not necessary to introduce all sorts of foreign elements. I want to thank hon. members most heartily for their objective approach to this matter and for their valuable contributions. I shall most certainly read and re-read what they have said in order to ascertain how their ideas can be put into practice in future. They have misgivings as to the granting of civil and criminal jurisdiction in the cities. I want to tell hon. members that this system has been a great success on the platteland. Here I differ from the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) because our experience in 95 per cent of the cases throughout the Bantu areas has been that it works very well. I readily admit that there are instances here and there where people misuse their rights but we take firm steps against them immediately and their own people report them to us. We have little difficulty as far as that is concerned. But never forget that we can only lead the Bantu along the road of development through experience, by making mistakes and then rectifying those mistakes. Seeing that we found that effective in the areas to which I have referred, I regard it as also essential in the urban areas. Let me repeat that hon. members are wrong if they say that the Bantu who come and live here for a couple of years, or even for two or three generations, have shed everything that is Bantu and that he has become a perfect Westerner. By maintaining that they reveal a lack of knowledge of the Bantu in the cities. There are certain things which are holy to the Bantu, things that you cannot deprive him of. no matter how far he has developed. Just as every nation in the world has certain spiritual values which he values highly, so his legal system and especially certain elements in that legal system constitute spiritual values to the Bantu on which he places a high value. I can mention numerous instances to hon. members where Bantu have said to me: If we have a strong case we go to our own court and justice will be done; but if we have a weak case, we go to the magistrate’s court, because there our attorney stands a chance of getting us acquitted on a technical point. There is a great deal of truth in that. That is something which is not conducive to sound race relations because the Native who loses his case develops a hatred not only towards the magistrate but towards the White man and that is what we should like to prevent. I want to remove these points of friction which disturb the sound and good relations between Black and White and that is one of the things which they have asked me to do. Some time ago I was at Kroonstad and I met the Advisory Board there. The Chairman, who is a B.A., LL.B, got up and said: We want to beg one thing of you—cannot you make that section in the Bantu Administration Act applicable to the urban Bantu? Why should we always have to get an attorney and go to court? The attorney takes all our money, we have to go to court with every minor matter and justice is not always done. As I have already stated, hon. members may not know it but in most cases where there are large numbers of Natives the chiefs have their representatives and without their power being recognized they give judgment in many cases. However, it is an unsound state of affairs and it can lead to malpractices. That is why I say we should give this system a chance. I can assure hon. members that we shall remain wide awake. I want to deal with what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories said in this connection: Our object is not, as he said, to keep those people here under the law of the bush, as some Europeans say. I want to say that there are certain elements in the legal system of the Bantu which are as sound as any to be found in Western civilization and the Bantu attach great value to them. As a matter of fact I think there is much in Bantu law that we can fruitfully incorporate in our own system. So much value do I attach to it. That is why I adopt the attitude that we should start here, but it should be a revolutionary process, and if they feel as. time goes on that they want to take anything over from the Roman Dutch law they can do so. Hence I shall endeavour to ensure in most cases that the people we use for this have the necessary background. Also in this respect the hon. member for South Coast made a valuable contribution when he said that here too we should guard against it that there were no clashes between the various groups on account of the one group feeling that a legal man of another group has been appointed to exercise jurisdiction over them. There is a real element of danger in that and I want to assure the hon. member that we shall give the necessary attention to this aspect. Naturally this is a question which causes us some worry, but experience has proved that it can be avoided in most cases. But in this respect too, there will be consultation. I feel strongly, however, that we should introduce the Bantu legal system in the urban areas. The Bantu will appreciate that. He does not want to have to run to the White man’s court every day.

The hon. member for East London (City) had certain misgivings and warned us to be very careful as far as the community guards were concerned. The hon. member for Springs also warned us and said that they might develop into a dangerous element. This has, however, become essential in the Bantu areas and I can assure hon. members that we will tackle this matter very carefully and in cooperation with the Department of Justice, and that we will ensure that there is proper control. At the beginning particularly there will definitely have to be proper control so as to ensure that those people do not abuse their power. But it is clear to everybody that this is something which is necessary and which must be introduced. This appeal comes from all the Bantu in South Africa, from East and West.

Hon. members also have misgivings and are afraid that there may be abuses in respect of the beer profits. It is laid down in the Act to-day that the beer profits that are paid into the Native Revenue Account can only be used in the area concerned and in terms of this clause those profits can also be spent outside that area. Hon. members say that may possibly lend itself to abuse. I want to say immediately that that matter does not really fall under my jurisdiction. It is a matter for the Urban Board to attend to, after consultation with the Bantu Board. If the Bantu Board recommends to the Urban Board that they want it that way I only have the power to approve or disapprove of it. But before deciding I ascertain whether it is in the interests of the Bantu themselves. I want to give a few examples of the type of request that is made to me. This has happened on numerous occasions. For example, there is a hospital for cerebral palsied children at a particular place and many people in a certain Bantu residential area wanted to make a contribution to that hospital, but they could not do so. In another case it was in respect of the treatment of blind children that they wanted to make a contribution but the law prevented them from doing so. There are other similar cases. I have also had a case brought to my attention where the Bantu wanted to send a soccer team to another location and they did not have the money to pay for the transport. They wanted to know whether they could get a few pounds to pay for the transport of the team. I am really very interested in these facilities for the Bantu in their own residential areas and that is why I thought it would be a good thing if the requests were referred to me, provided in the first place that the Bantu Board and the municipalities themselves had decided on it. Of course, there are things for which provision can always be made when the Estimates are drawn up. Hon. members may, therefore, rest assured, as far as these matters are concerned, that it is only to make provision for such cases, and that it will give the Bantu community great satisfaction.

I do not always understand the logic of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller). He reminds me of the Israelites in the desert. One day he says one thing and the other day he says something else. He sees nothing good in this Bill. He would like to see these people have so much power that they can force the municipality to do those things. I wrote it down. It is very dangerous to say that and I do not know whether any other hon. member subscribes to that idea. I think the hon. member for South Coast is adopting a sound policy. Both he and the hon. member for Springs say that we should rather give these people a little power to start off with and consult the municipalities and the Bantu boards from time to time and then gradually increase their power along those lines. That is the correct procedure to adopt and I subscribe to that idea. Hon. members will see, therefore, that we are not giving them a great deal of power at the moment, but that their power will gradually be increased so that they can manage their own affairs under the supervision of the municipality. The approach is to be very careful and not to act irresponsibly. I recommend the basis suggested by the hon. member for South Coast.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) said that Benoni was a model example and that we should do it that way. He says it is not necessary to establish these boards because look what they have done at Benoni! What the hon. member forgot was that what Benoni was doing was really illegal. It is being done administratively but it is really illegal. What I am doing in this Bill is to legalize that sort of thing. That is the difference that he has failed to observe. I am afraid that when he goes to bed to-night he will say “I am an ass”. I am not saying that. He said that if I could convince him he would say to himself “I am an ass”. [Laughter.] But the fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, that Benoni is a model example of the Bantu residential policy of the National Party. There we have a model example for the world to see. No matter how much we differ politically from the City Council of Benoni, they have cooperated with us in establishing a model Bantu residential area, planned on the basis of ethnic grouping. All the facilities are there and the Bantu are continually consulted. That is a model of National Party policy in connection with this matter. What the hon. member failed to consider was that I was now legalizing what Benoni had done. We are now placing the municipalities in the position—we are not forcing them to do so—where they can use those Bantu boards as their agents in the Bantu areas.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also made this final statement: The Bantu residential areas have already been established by the municipalities so what was there to be done? Mr. Speaker, my experience has been that the great task still lies ahead. Now that these residential areas have been established the great task awaits the Bantu to do those things themselves.

That was what I said.

I cannot understand the logic of the hon. member. The difference is this: We are not depriving the municipalities of any power, but we are giving them the opportunity of delegating power to those Bantu boards and using them as their agents to do that work. I just want to say this, Sir: I have now introduced this Bill, but a more comprehensive Bill will be introduced next year which will probably contain many innovations. The municipalities can let me have their views and everybody concerned can work together so that we will be able to come forward with even a better Bill next year. I do think, however, that this Bill is in the interests of the Bantu themselves, and that is why I appreciate the fact that some members at least welcome it. It will assist in establishing goodwill and a spirit of responsibility among the Bantu and at the same time they will have the opportunity of learning something about life.

We also had this final statement that we would never succeed in removing the Bantu from these places to the Bantu areas. Those hon. members are making a mistake. When the Bantu areas have been developed—and we are busy with that process of development—and particularly when the cities have been erected, many of the Bantu who have gained experience in the Bantu residential areas will go there to carry on with the process of development. I can show hon. members letters which I have from Bantu who own shops in the Bantu residential areas in White cities, asking me at this stage already whether they may go and open shops in the cities which we are only busy erecting to-day. I have already referred to the case of the industrialist who has established his industry in one of those cities and both he and his 100-odd employees are very happy there and they do not want to return to Johannesburg. There is, therefore, no danger.

There is this basic difference in our policies. The United Party want the Bantu to have property rights in these Bantu residential areas, they want to absorb them into the entire White community. Our attitude is that these Bantu must always remain part of their own national unit and if they wish to have the political vote at a later stage they must exercise that vote within their own national unit. As far as political matters are concerned the Zulu must vote with the Zulu, as happened in the case of Basutoland. We assisted them to vote in the election which was held in Basutoland. We erected polling booths for them here in Cape Town so that they could vote. It went off very smoothly, there was no trouble and we want to follow this policy. In that way we will be forging a unifying link in respect of the national groups, we will be creating a position where the various national groups will respect each other, where they will appreciate each other and where there will be a spirit of cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the provisions of this Bill will be applied in that light, and as the hon. member for Springs has said, we shall see to it that the provisions of this Bill are carried out in a proper manner so that the Bantu will feel that he really has a say in his own area.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. Butcher, Dr. de Beer, Prof. Fourie, Mr. Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the Question, Mr. Speaker declared it affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

I move as an amendment—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—75: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Faurie, W. H.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Riche, R.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Mentz, F. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and D. J. Potgieter.

Noes—42: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Shearer, O. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I have now had opportunity of considering the amendments to Clause 8, namely, those of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and of the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. H. Lewis) and I merely want to say that in view of the fact that the hon. member for South Coast is prepared to limit the credit for previous residence in the Republic to a maximum of two years, provided the Minister waives his discretion in this respect, I am prepared, provided the hon. member withdraws his amendment, to move that this provision be amended in this respect. I am also prepared to move that the corresponding provision in Clause 9 (b) in respect of naturalization be adapted to this amendment. All the fears that the hon. member may harbour that the Minister may abuse his discretion in this respect, should be removed by these amendments of mine. Naturally the Minister still has the final say in respect of the granting of certificates of registration or naturalization and can consequently still decide whether an applicant who complies with the residential requirements, will indeed be a desirable citizen according to the other requirements laid down in Sections 8 (1) and 10 (1) of the Act. I hope this will satisfy the hon. member and if he will withdraw his amendment I will move as follows—

I think that puts the matter right as far as the hon. member is concerned.

As far as the hon. member for Umlazi is concerned, I have also carefully studied his amendment and I have no objection to it, although I still feel that it is not really necessary because such applications are so thoroughly investigated that there can be no oversight when it comes to considering the application. The amendments to the Act in respect of registration, that is to say, that applications should not be reconsidered, were effected as far back as 1949 in respect of naturalization. But in view of the fact that the hon. member attaches so much value to his amendment. I am prepared to accept it and for the sake of uniformity I am prepared to move a similar amendment to Clause 9 (n) in respect of naturalization, provided the hon. member withdraws his amendment, because I have submitted my amendments to the legal advisers and the spirit of their wording is really the same as that envisaged by the hon. member, so that the amendment which I move, if the hon. member is agreeable, will be as follows—

I should like to know what hon. members think about this and if they are satisfied I will move it immediately.

I am grateful to the Minister for the decision he has come to in regard to this amendment. His amendment is entirely satisfactory, and with the leave of the House I move that the amendment standing in my name be withdrawn, which will allow room for the hon. the Minister’s amendment to be inserted.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister for putting forward the clause in the new form he proposes, and with the leave of the Committee I would like to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. Mitchell and Mr. H. Lewis were withdrawn.

I then move—

Perhaps it will be good if I just read the new clause as it will read with the insertion and the deletion of these words mentioned by me. Clause 3bis will then read—

And Clause 8 (n) will read as follows—

Amendment proposed by Mr. van Ryneveld put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I should like to move—

These are consequential amendments because of the amendments which the Committee have made to Clause 8.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

Mr. Chairman, I ask that Clause 6 (c) stand over, because I believe that this clause, together with Clause 6, covers the question of mixed marriages. I have not moved an amendment, but I would like a little information from the Minister. This subject of mixed marriages is going to be a most difficult one for South African people who might get married overseas and my difficulty here is that it is for them to determine whether they are in fact contracting a mixed marriage or not. From a recent reply given to a question in the House, the hon. the Minister said that people of Japanese descent were to be regarded as Europeans in the Union for the purposes of the population register. What about all the other races akin to Japanese, with whom a marriage might be contracted? It is a question which would be very difficult for anyone to determine. If one takes it on the question of association, of course in other countries the association of people is not restricted to the extent it is here. As I see it, a South African overseas would find great difficulty in determining whether he was in fact contracting a mixed marriage, and I think that if the Minister could give some information on the point we could determine our approach to this particular aspect of these two clauses, Clause 6 and Clause 10.

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

Afternoon Sitting

The hon. member for Umlazi referred to the provisions of Clause 6 (b) substituting a new subsection in Clause 6 and particularly in regard to mixed marriages, (c). It is not clear how he brings this provision into relation with Clause 10. Clause 6 (b), sub-paragraph (c), excludes children born outside the Union as the result of a mixed marriage or as the result of immoral relations between White and non-White. This exclusion is justified since such marriages or immoral relations are illegal in the Union. Clause 10, on the other hand, provides for the loss of South African citizenship and in sub-section (a) provision is made that a South African citizen entering into such a marriage whilst outside the Union will not thereby lose his South African citizenship. The hon. member referred to the position of Japanese under the Mixed Marriages Act. In this respect I can only say that if a marriage between a White person in the Republic and a Japanese is contracted outside the Republic, the validity of such a marriage is a matter for decision by the court. The question of citizenship of the children will depend on the decision. I really cannot see how he can bring Clause 10 (c) into relation. In Clause 10 it is only a question of how one loses his citizenship, and Clause 6 refers to children born outside the Union, and those children can be registered as citizens. There is really no relation between the two. The hon. member for South Coast raised that point first of all, a marriage between a Japanese and a South African citizen. It seems to me that the hon. members want to compel me to elaborate more on the statement which was made here that Japanese are regarded as White persons in the Republic of South Africa. That was in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Pinetown. But I really cannot see any relation between these two clauses.

It is quite clear that a person who leaves South Africa and contracts a marriage invalid in South Africa, that marriage will be invalid not only in South Africa but under international law. It is clear that if a person marries a Japanese, that is a perfectly valid marriage.

That is for the court to decide.

No, if a person marries a Japanese out of the Union, that marriage clearly would be valid, if the person went on a tour to Japan and got married there. But if the person had gone there for the purpose it would be quite a different question, because then it is a question of intent. But I think the question raised by the hon. member goes further than that. The position is that for certain purposes, and perhaps for all purposes, Japanese citizens are regarded as Europeans in South Africa, and the question is what would be the effect of a marriage? In a Bill which has yet to come on there is a provision dealing with the question of the marriage of a person who would be prohibited from marrying in the Union. Even if such a person is a South African citizen, he can lose his citizenship and become a prohibited immigrant to the Republic. Section 10 says that a person can become a prohibited immigrant in this way. I think the Minister is right and that there are a lot of ramifications. I think it is important that the hon. member raised this, and I think the matter should be gone into, because it is quite clear that through prohibitions of this nature very complicated legal questions can arise. The Minister is quite right in regard to marriages which in one set of circumstances are valid and in another set of circumstances may be invalid. It is sometimes difficult even for the parties concerned to establish whether the marriage is valid or not. I have little doubt that the Minister, who is trying to clear up certain difficulties under the citizenship law, will during the recess try to sort out these problems.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I move this specifically for the reason that the Minister might in all good faith decide a case and be satisfied that he is right, but he might judge that case on hearsay evidence or on a false report which might later be proved to be incorrect. I would like to put it to the Minister this way, that if those words are left in and the evidence on which the Minister has satisfied himself that he is correct is later proved to be wrong, the judgment of a court could not possibly be sought to rectify the matter, because should it be brought before the court all the court can determine is whether the Minister is satisfied. Should the Minister say yes, he is satisfied, the court has no jurisdiction. I think it is wrong in a case like this that the Minister should leave these words in. We accept that a man should lose his citizenship under certain circumstances, but we just want the wording to be changed so that it will read that the Minister may by order deprive a South African citizen who is not a minor of his South African citizenship if such citizen—I think that covers it. Under this clause the Minister may deprive a man of his South African citizenship and he has no recourse to the courts, because so long as the Minister is satisfied that he has acted bona fide that decision is final. If the Minister has satisfied himself, and tells the court so, the court no longer has jurisdiction, and I ask the Minister to exclude these four words: “he is satisfied that”.

The hon. member is quite right in the logic of his argument. There is nothing wrong with it. What he really wants is that there should be sufficient proof that somebody had accepted citizenship in another country by his informal actions or whatever actions it may be and that is the problem that we are faced with. We should very much like to accept that it is a logical request, but we have every reason to believe that we will not get the co-operation, particularly that of certain African states, at the present juncture. If, for example, somebody accepts citizenship in one of the African states, we can only obtain effective proof of that fact with the co-operation of the government of that state; that state will have to determine whether the person had accepted citizenship or not. If the Government does not do that and that person returns to this country and says that he did not accept citizenship, we would have to take his word for it. We may not have the co-operation of the government concerned, it may refuse to tell us whether the person had indeed accepted citizenship. In that case there will be no information whatsoever at our disposal on which to go, whereas if we have any doubts about the matter, he would only have to wait a year in order to have his citizenship restored to him; it will not be restored to him immediately.

I am sorry I cannot agree with the argument of the Minister. If a man is prepared to try to have his South African citizenship restored after the hon. the Minister has deprived him of it, surely he is a man who has a very good case for his application to be considered. If the Minister agrees to remove these words, he is still in a position to deprive anybody of his citizenship if he thinks he should be so deprived, but at least he gives the person so deprived the right to appeal against that decision, and surely if a man had taken an oath of allegiance or done any of the other acts which entitle the Minister to deprive him of his citizenship, such a court would want some proof of that before deciding in his favour. Take my own case. If I went out of this country and found on my return that the hon. the Minister had deprived me of my South African citizenship, I can assure the Minister that I would want the right to appeal against such a decision because I was born in South Africa. I have lived here all my life and I am not prepared to surrender to any Minister of any government the right to deprive me of my citizenship without the right of appeal, and that is what this clause is doing as it is worded at the moment. I think in the odd case that might possibly happen—it might not even happen, as the Minister has presented this case to the House—I think it is worth his forfeiting that right so that an honest-to-goodness South African citizen can still retain the right of appeal against the decision of the Minister in depriving him of his citizenship. I think the Minister owes that to us. I do not think what I am asking for is in the nature of a concession; I think I am asking for a right on behalf of all South African citizens.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider this matter and possibly agree to go into it further and deal with it in Another Place. The situation is this, that if the Minister is satisfied, then he can act in terms of this section. It is possible, if he has been satisfied on wrong evidence, that the person concerned would have no remedy. If the words suggested by the hon. member are omitted, then it appears to me that if the Minister has acted and it later turns out that he has acted incorrectly, the person’s citizenship would be acknowledged to have remained throughout automatically. Perhaps the Minister would like time to go into it before this Bill goes to Another Place, but I do think that the hon. member is quite right that the clause would be improved by omitting these words. It would not lessen the Minister’s rights. He would act according to his information, but if he acts incorrectly the citizen would have the right of pointing out that the information on which he acted was wrong and the matter would then be put right.

But I rise really to deal again with paragraph (b) of this clause which says that if anyone takes an oath or any other declaration of allegiance to any country other than the Union, that person loses his. citizenship. At the second reading I raised the question of the position of South African advocates in respect of Rhodesia and Swaziland and the Protectorates and the position of South African attorneys in respect of the Protectorates. They are entitled to practise there provided they take an oath of allegiance. This is an important matter and I realize the Minister’s difficulty. He did deal with this matter in the second reading debate, but I do think that it is absolutely essential that the Government should take steps to come to an arrangement with the British and Rhodesian governments in regard to this matter because unquestionably it is in the interests of Union advocates., and sometimes attorneys too to practise in these areas. It has certainly been of great advantage to these areas to have had the opportunity of getting experienced persons from the Union to represent them legally. I hope the Minister will see to it that the question is taken up with a view to preserving those rights in some way, which will not interfere with what I agree is a proper provision to include in our Citizenship Act, but it does have this unfortunate backlash which requires the Minister’s serious consideration.

I should like to comply with the request made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) towards the end of his speech. I have already discussed the matter with the Department and during the second reading debate I said that further consideration would be given to the position of those people and I want to give hon. members the assurance that I will again investigate the position of advocates and attorneys.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) is concerned, I think hon. members should give me an opportunity of giving further consideration to the matter and if I think it is necessary to do so I will move the necessary amendment in the Senate.

In view of the hon. the Minister’s assurance I should like to withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

This clause enables the hon. the Minister to grant a special concession to former South African citizens, who left South Africa for another territory in Africa. On their return to South Africa the Minister wants the power to be able to grant them their former citizenship immediately. There are two concessions involved. Not only is he in a position to grant them South African citizenship at once, whereas otherwise they would have had to wait for at least one year before making application, but he also puts himself in a position to give them their former status, including South African citizenship by birth. Otherwise a person returning to South Africa would have to apply for South African citizenship by registration or naturalization depending on whether he came from a Commonwealth country in Africa or from a foreign country. As indicated at an earlier stage, we are not opposed to the idea of making this special concession to people who were former citizens of South Africa and who left here and now wish to return. But we do not see the force of the Minister’s argument in limiting it to people who have gone to other territories in Africa. There are two points that I want to put to the Minister. Firstly, he will in any case have a discretion, wherever the person has gone to, as to whether or not to allow him the concession. Secondly, we cannot see the force of the hon. the Minister’s argument that people who run away from South Africa should not have this concession. I think the Minister should remember the parable of the prodigal son in this respect and should be generous. Why should the Minister want to limit himself to people who have left South Africa for other territories in Africa? Why not leave the matter open? The Minister retains a discretion to refuse. Further, it may well be that included amongst the people to whom he does not wish to extend this privilege are people who have left South Africa, through lack of faith in its future, and gone to Southern Rhodesia. They will be entitled to the concession in terms of the Minister’s amendment. From that point of view too the Minister’s proposal is not logical. In any event, I think it is desirable that the concession should be granted to all people who left South Africa and now wish to return and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment which stands on page 793 of the Order Paper and which I now move—

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North). I made it quite clear at the second reading that we wished to make a concession to persons who have to leave the African territories as a result of the uncertain conditions prevailing there and as a result of conditions which are beyond their control, by introducing these amendments aimed at making them feel that they are welcome and that they can regain their citizenship immediately. Then there are those persons who have left the country, particularly in recent times, and who have stated publicly according to newspaper reports that there is no future for this country. They are fleeing the country. They are going to another country in order to build up their future there. These people with cold feet must fall under the ordinary laws and the law provides that when they return, even the most fearful of the fearful, they can get their citizenship back after a year. The only people whom we really want to encourage to regain their citizenship immediately on their return are those people in the African territories particularly who have to leave those countries as a result of conditions beyond their control. I hope that the hon. member will appreciate that we are not drawing unnecessary distinctions between citizen and citizen. If one has been a South African citizen it is a very great concession to be able to regain one’s citizenship after a year. I hope the hon. member will realize, together with us, that we are making this other concession for the sake of people who genuinely need it.

Amendment put and ageed to.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

We had intended to move an amendment to this clause to provide that any refusal of an application must be dealt with by the Minister and not by a person to whom powers are delegated. At the second reading the hon. the Minister gave an undertaking that that was his policy, that he would personally deal with refusals and in those circumstances we are not moving our amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

The hon. the Minister will remember that during my second reading speech I referred to the use of language in the English version where the past pluperfect tense is used for the purpose of fixing the date. It says “shall have come into operation”, The hon. the Minister said that he was certain that the word “have” was wrong and that it should read “shall” come into operation.

Will you move it.

I suggest that the word “have” be deleted.

It has already been done administratively.

How nice, Mr. Chairman! I hope they are not administratively going to do anything else that we are going to deal with in Committee.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses 5 and 6 standing over.

On Clause 5,

With the leave of the Committee I would like to withdraw my amendment. I am not at all sure that the hon. the Minister is correct, but I am sure that if such a case does arise he will not use this section to deprive that person of his citizenship.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Tucker withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move the amendment printed in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the distribution of liquor is a matter which arouses nation-wide interest, as we have seen recently since the publication of this Bill. It is also the cause of widespread discussion as well as a natural measure of differing opinions.

The report of Dr. Avril Malan’s Liquor Commission is probably the most comprehensive and enlightening report which has ever been published on the distribution of liquor in South Africa and I want to take this opportunity to convey the sincere thanks and appreciation of the Government to the chairman and every individual member of the commission.

This Bill, which must in the main be regarded as an experiment, the effects of which must be tested over a period, does not deal with all the recommendations of the Malan Commission but actually only deals with the distribution of liquor amongst non-Whites. The position as regards kaffir beer is, for example, being left unchanged because the Government would first like to see the effect of the provisions of this Bill. As I have already stated earlier, a comprehensive Bill, which deals with all the other details of the commission’s recommendations, will be published for general comment in the recess. It is possible that at the same time a consolidated Liquor Bill will include the provisions of this Bill now before the House and which will probably be referred to a Select Committee of the House for consideration. A consolidated Liquor Bill is regarded as urgently necessary.

That the distribution of liquor amongst Bantu, Coloureds and Asiatics is a very important matter is shown by the fact that South Africa, where the wine industry is the oldest established branch of the agricultural industry, has already been faced with this difficult problem for many years past. Over the past 50 years various commissions of inquiry have considered this difficult problem. There was, for example, the Buckle Commission which was appointed in 1908 to investigate, inter alia, whether the then existing liquor restrictions in respect of non-Whites in the Transvaal should be relaxed, and, if so, to what extent. In 1943 there was the report of a committee on conditions on the Cape Flats. This report also dealt with the liquor aspect as it affected non-Whites. In 1945 there was the Meaker Commission report on liquor consumption amongst the Cape Coloureds. In 1956 the Malan Commission was appointed to investigate, inter alia, the general distribution of intoxicating liquor. One of the main aspects with which it dealt in its report of last year is also the distribution of liquor amongst non-Whites.

It is striking that all these reports have mentioned consistently the unsatisfactory position as regards the distribution of liquor amongst the non-Whites and that the emphasis throughout is placed on the large-scale illicit liquor trade. The 1928 Liquor Act was a compromise between the two points of view as regards the provision of liquor to non-Whites. On the one hand there were the advocates of total prohibition who were convinced that the non-White had not reached a standard of civilization which entitled him to have access to liquor and who believed that the non-White should be protected in this regard by legislation. On the other hand there were those who did not advocate total prohibition. The result was that in 1928 a Liquor Act was passed which is still on the Statute Book and which imposed varying restrictions on the different non-White racial groups in the different provinces. Thus, for example, no non-White in the Transvaal or the Orange Free State can legally buy liquor for consumption on licensed premises. If he wants to buy a bottle of liquor for consumption at home, he must obtain a permit from a magistrate. To do so he must be able to submit proof that he has developed to a stage and has reached a general standard of living which is equivalent to that of the White civilization. Such a permit authorizes him to buy a quantity of liquor for consumption off licensed premises in order to meet his own person requirements. In Natal this restriction also applied to Bantu. Asiatics may purchase liquor for consumption on licensed premises but can only obtain liquor for consumption off licensed premises by means of a permit. The Coloureds in Natal are treated like the Coloureds in the Cape Province. In the Cape Province the total prohibition (except under the permit system) also applies to the Bantu, but by virtue of an old Cape Act of 1887, as interpreted in the case of Rex v. Jekela, 1938, Appellate Division, Bantu clergymen, graduates, university students and the holders of certain educational certificates are exempted from this prohibition.

Coloureds and Asiatics on the other hand can obtain liquor comparatively freely for consumption on and off licensed premises, subject to the restrictions which Liquor Licensing Boards may lay down regarding the days and hours for sale and the quantities which may be purchased. Thus for example Coloureds may not buy liquor on Saturdays in the Cape Peninsula for consumption off licensed premises. In the Stellenbosch area, however, Saturday sales are authorized. The result is that Coloureds leave the Cape Peninsula in their hundreds to go to Kuils River—their nearest “open” bottle store—in order to obtain their supplies for the week-end.

The provisions of the Bill now before the House must be seen in the light of these prohibitions (which in the case of the Bantu amount almost to total prohibition) and the evils to which they have given rise. I do not need to prove that restrictions on the distribution of liquor give rise to bootlegging and that when the restrictions in a country with different racial groups such as South Africa are severe and the number of prohibited persons large, such bootlegging can take on extremely serious proportions. Liquor is readily available to the Coloureds and the Asiatics in the Cape Province. This is however not the case as far as the thousands of Bantu living in the Cape Province are concerned. The result is that bootlegging is taking place on a disturbing scale. According to the police there are between 500 and 600 shebeens and there are literally thousands of Coloureds who earn their living directly from the illicit liquor trade. In the Transvaal on the other hand non-Whites cannot buy liquor legally on a large scale, and the result is that in this province Whites are the smugglers for the most part. An example of the tremendous extent of bootlegging on the Witwatersrand was given by a case which was heard in 1954. In that instance a drink syndicate supplied 1,000,000 bottles of brandy to the shebeens over a period of 15 months. This represented 85 per cent of the total turnover of the business concerned. In another instance a liquor store which had had a liquor turnover of R1,200 over a period of six months, changed owners and within three months this business sold R60,000 worth of liquor, that is to say 50 times as much, not one bottle of which reached the liquor trade—it all went to the bootleggers. There are many examples of this nature. It is sufficient to quote the following extract from the report of the Malan Commission—

In brief the position as regards the distribution of liquor in South Africa is not something of which the State, the church and the people can be proud.

The Malan Commission has found that the living conditions and the economic conditions of the non-Whites have changed so greatly since the introduction of the 1928 Liquor Act, that the application of that Act by the State has simply become a complete impossibility. In brief there are two extremes. The Whites have free access to all types of alcohol. At the other extreme we have the Bantu. They are prohibited from buying or possessing intoxicating liquor, unless they have a special personal permit which it is difficult to obtain. In 1959 only 45,000 such permits were issued throughout South Africa. Between these two extremes there are the Coloureds and the Asiatics. In the Transvaal the Coloureds and Asiatics may not buy liquor legally except by permit. In the Free State there is total prohibition in respect of the Bantu, Coloureds and Asiatics, except by permit. In the Cape Province, where 90 per cent of the Coloureds live, they can buy practically any type of liquor. This is also the position in Natal. This difference between the various provinces has become a source of great dissatisfaction amongst the Coloureds. In the first place the result has been a smuggling trade in liquor on such a vast scale that the police of South Africa and local authorities are practically powerless to prevent it. The Malan Commission describes the smuggling trade as being “on a scale which exceeds the wildest imagination”. It is alleged that the illicit liquor trade in South Africa possibly represents 60 per cent of the sale of intoxicating liquor in South Africa. This is an illicit trade in which large sums of money are involved monthly; it involves exhorbitant profits which hold out great possibilities to the criminal; it is a trade which takes up all the attention of thousands of police, which takes up a tremendous amount of the time of our courts, which fills the goals with the victims of the bootlegger and of the flourishing shebeen queens—those terrifying breeding places of trouble and violence over the week-ends. The victims total approximately 300,000 per annum, of whom a disquietingly high percentage are young people.

The second result of this liquor distribution system is the grievance which the Bantu has against the White man to the effect that although he can obtain liquor of practically any type in any quantity by illegal means he has to pay twice and even more what the White man pays for his liquor. The Malan Commission quotes the evidence of a Bantu leader in the Transkei who said—

Recent liquor prices in the Cape Province indicate the following: The price of brandy in the bottle store is R1.35 (13s. 6d.). In the shebeen it is R3. Unfortified wine costs 19c at the bottle store while it costs between 55c and 60c in a shebeen. Fortified wine costs 34c in the bottle store and between 75c and 80c in the shebeen. I do not want to multiply these examples. The Commission says that the position as regards the distribution of liquor in South Africa has become intolerable and that no honest community can continue to tolerate it.

Will the proposed distribution encourage greater drunkenness? That is of course a question which will be asked. Will there be more drunkenness than there is at the moment? The police of South Africa and also many people who can speak with authority on this matter expect that precisely the reverse will be the result. The Malan Commission found that what happened in Southern Rhodesia after wine and beer were made available to Bantu in 1957 was that “it has resulted in a phenomenal reduction in convictions for possession and sale of illicit and harmful liquors. It has also really wiped out the shebeen trade … The brewing of skokiaan disappeared almost overnight, and the shebeen queens went out of business”. The application of the provisions of the Liquor Act has not only become an impossible task for the police, but it is ruining tens of thousands of human lives every year and is costing the State millions or rand annually.

In 1958 there were (these are the latest available figures) 299 087 convictions under the Liquor Act and of these 223,301 were Natives. It is clear that this state of affairs which is accompanied by the ruination of so many human lives cannot be tolerated any longer. In the Bill before the House provision is consequently made for the relaxation to a very large extent of the restrictions which apply to non-Whites. We can discuss the details of the Bill at the Committee Stage, but at this stage I should like briefly to explain certain of the principles of the Bill.

In the proposed new Section 100ter (contained in Clause 9), the holders of off-consumption licences such as wholesalers, bottle store licensees, wine farmers and others, are authorized to sell any type of liquor to any Native of the age of 18 years or more for consumption off licensed premises. No permit will be required for this. This will in itself already deal the illicit liquor trade a tremendous blow. In the case of consumption on licensed premises a Bantu will only be able to obtain liquor on premises which have been specially authorized to supply such liquor under the proposed new Section 100bis. Off sales to Bantu can also be authorized under this section. These authorized premises will not be subject to control by liquor licensing boards, but the Minister can lay conditions and restrictions in respect of such premises. An authorizing fee will be payable in respect of a new authority and a renewal thereof and all profits derived from the sale of liquor on authorized premises shall be dealt with in a manner specified by the Minister in consultation with the Departments concerned and in consultation with the proposed new National Liquor Board.

The question may be asked as to why these proposals go so much further than the recommendations of the Malan Commission to the effect that only white beer and light wines should be made available to Natives on licensed premises and that an extended permit system should be introduced for consumption off licensed premises. Mr. Speaker, there is a strong and growing feeling that South Africa will never be able to destroy the pernicious illicit liquor trade by those methods, and that we shall still less be able to get rid of the so-called shebeen queens with their widespread and vastly profitable businesses.

As far as Coloureds and Asiatics are concerned, the Bill provides for the repeal of Sections 81 and 95 of the Liquor Act. The effect will be that Coloureds and Asiatics will be able to buy and possess liquor on the same basis as Whites throughout South Africa.

The so-called “tot system” which has been the subject of much discussion and criticism in the past is replaced by a new provision as contained in Clause 8.

As the clause is now worded, it can be regarded as a further extension of the tot system, and I shall therefore move an amendment during the Committee Stage which will mean in practice that any employer will be free in his discretion to provide any type of liquor gratis to his non-White workers.

With a view to this new system it is desirable that certain measures should be introduced.

The first of these is contained in the proposed new Section 100quat as contained in Clause 9 which makes the consumption and possession of liquor by non-Whites on private premises without the consent of the owner or lawful occupier of such premises first having been obtained, an offence. The maximum penalty on a first conviction of this type is fixed at R400 or 12 months’ imprisonment.

The time will come when adequate liquor distribution points will be available in the non-White residential areas to supply the requirements of the inhabitants of those areas. The State-President-in-Council is therefore being authorized in the proposed new Section l00quin to declare when this time comes that no liquor shall be sold to any particular class of persons in a defined area by the holders of off-consumption licences.

Certain penalties are being increased. The most important of these are in the first place those relating to drunkenness and the consumption of liquor in public in an urban area. The maximum penalty on a first conviction is being increased from R50 to R400 or 12 months’ imprisonment. In the case of the illicit brews which take so many lives, the penalties are being brought into line with those which apply to dagga, that is to say a maximum of Rl,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both on a first conviction and a minimum of six months and a maximum of five years, together with a maximum fine of R1,000 on a second and later conviction. The reasons for these increased penalties are self-evident. In the case of illicit brews, it is desirable, however, to point out that, as White liquor will now be readily available in non-Whites, there is no reason whatsoever why they should resort to the consumption of such harmful brews.

Another matter dealt with in the Bill is the granting of liquor licences in or near areas set aside for occupation by non-Whites, the transferring of licences to such areas and the transferring of already existing licences. As hon. members know, no licence for the sale of liquor may be granted at present without the consent of the State President-in-Council in respect of premises situated in or within half a mile of the border of a Bantu location or within three miles of the border of an area set aside for occupation by Bantu.

Clause 3 provides in the first place for the exemption of temporary liquor licences or late hours occasional licences from this prohibition. It is quite unpractical to lay down that the consent of the State President must be obtained for these two types of licence which are purely of a temporary nature. In the second place the prohibition on the granting of liquor licences (that is to say new licences), is being extended to include premises situated in or within half a mile of the boundary of any area set apart for the occupation of Coloured or Asiatic persons. In the third place the removal of an existing licence to a building situated in an area to which this prohibition applies, is prohibited unless the State Presidentin-Council has authorized such a removal.

Furthermore, no existing licence in respect of a building situated in the area to which this prohibition applies, may be transferred to someone else without the consent of the State President-in-Council. The State President-in-Council may attach to any authority granted under this provision such conditions and restrictions as he deems fit and he may veto the issue, removal or transfer of such a licence.

Every licence granted and every removal or transfer of a licence authorized contrary to the preceding provisions after 10 May 1960 will be null and void unless the authority of the State President is obtained prior to 1 November 1961. An applicant who desires the authority of the State President for use at an annual meeting must submit his application to the Secretary for Justice prior to 1 September of the year concerned. (This provision already exists.)

The provisions of this clause shall be deemed to have come into operation on 10 May 1960.

The proposed principles embodied in this Bill and which I have set out briefly are of a far-reaching nature. A newspaper has described them as “a bold experiment”. This is also an experiment which must be controlled with a firm hand. In order to keep a proper watch on the developments in this field and to advise the Government on the general distribution of liquor and the application of the provisions of the Liquor Act, Clause 13 provides for the establishment by the State President-in-Council of a Board which will be known as the National Liquor Board. This Board will consist of three public servants mentioned in the clause and three persons to be be appointed by the State President for a period of two years. The one will represent the producers, the second the dealers and the third the consumers. There is no doubt that the establishment of this Board will serve a very useful purpose and should be generally welcomed.

The proposed method of liquor distribution amongst non-Whites will in all probability experience certain growing pains. In the initial stages there may be problems, but I am convinced that with the co-operation of all, such problems can easily be solved. The date of commencement of the provisions of this Bill will be determined by the State President-in-Council. It may possibly be within a month or two and this will give the trade and other organizations the opportunity to get their affairs in order.

The United Party has decided that this Bill so far as we are concerned is to be left to the free vote of hon. members. I am one of those who is strongly opposed to this Bill. As one who grew up among the Coloured people of the Kat River and the Natives of the Eastern Province, I wish to raise my voice in solemn protest against this Bill. I claim that I am able to speak with some authority. I spent 15 years of my official career as a public prosecutor at East London, Cape Town and Johannesburg, and in that capacity I had as much contact with the seamy side of our South African life as anybody in this House, particularly in connection with the administration of the liquor laws. As a magistrate, Sir, I presided as chairman of various liquor licensing courts, and as Secretary for Native Affairs for 11 years I had a great deal to do with the administration of the liquor proclamations that prevail in the Native reserves, and other aspects of Native life. Sir, the greatest curse with which we have had to cope in the handling of non-European affairs has been the curse of intoxicating liquor. A great deal has been said about the closing down of shebeens. Sir, the shebeens will continue whatever facilities are made available at the bottle stores, and the other distribution centres which this Bill contemplates. That has been the experience of other countries throughout the world. A Native who buys a bottle of liquor from a bottle store may not consume the liquor on the premises. That is laid down in Clause 9. He may not under Clause 19 consume the liquor in a public place. I want to ask where he is going to consume the liquor. His only place is the shebeen or undesirable private premises where the occupier may be prepared to admit him, possibly for an admission fee. It will not result in the closing down of these shebeens. They will continue, perhaps not on the same lines, but they will be there nevertheless.

This Bill is fraught with more evil than any other measure that has ever been introduced into Parliament. It is a measure that should touch the conscience of every right-thinking man and woman in this country. It is a measure that will mark the physical, moral and spiritual downfall of the Native people, and I say that it is not only a crime against the Native people but a crime against the conscience of this newly constituted Republic of South Africa. It creates a grave menace to the whole nation. Sir, we have already rotted the bodies and souls of one half of the Coloured people of this country with our cheap wine. Not content with that, we now seek to bring about the same ruin to the Native peoples and to sacrifice them upon the altar of the wine farmer. Sir, in the days of the Transvaal Republic a similar proposal was once described as a “secret weapon” to solve the Native problem. Fortunately, President Kruger was a Christian gentleman and instead of adopting any such suggestion, he forbade the supply of European liquor to the Natives, an example that has formed the basis of our restrictive legislation ever since. I am sure this is not what the hon. the Minister or his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, has in mind by the introduction of this Bill. But let me point out to them that in other parts of the world the free supply of liquor to the aborigines has inevitably resulted in their extinction. I would like to know what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is supposed to be the father and guardian of the primitive races in this country and whose welfare has been entrusted to him, is doing about it. He should know better than anybody else the effect and danger of strong drink upon people the majority of whom are just emerging from barbarism.

He should know the enormous increase in crimes of violence and riotous disturbances that will result, particularly in the densely populated urban Native townships. I ask, Mr. Speaker, who will benefit from this evil? This Bill represents a huge new market for cheap wine and brandy, and the Natives are to become the victims and an immense source of revenue for vested interests. The whole intention, as I see it, is to put more money into the pockets of the wine farmers and the pockets of the liquor traders, and to enable them to overcome the heavily overstocked markets that will result from the loss of our Commonwealth preferences. But very little consideration has been given to the effect that this step will have on the Natives, or on the well-being of the general public.

The Malan Commission mentioned certain factors in support of their recommendations that European wines and beer should be made available to the Natives, factors to which I wish to refer. They said that the Act was ineffective to stop the illicit traffic. That is the same point that the hon. the Minister has made. And they said the net result of the prohibition of liquor to the Native is that he who is poor has to pay twice or as many times as much for the liquor as the White man. That is said on every side. We appreciate that under present conditions the Natives do obtain cheap and often dangerous concoctions illicitly and at exorbitant prices and that loopholes in the law have given to unprincipled persons the opportunity of carrying on a profitable trade in selling illicit and adulterated liquor. We also appreciate the difficulties that the police have in their efforts to cope with this evil, and that by permitting the lawful supply of liquor —or so it is contended—the police raids will be greatly reduced and so help to create a better feeling between the Natives and the police. But the police raids are not confined to liquor. The raids will continue whatever we do under this Bill. The searching of Native homes and the dawn arrests of thousands of Natives by the police during the past 18 months have had very little indeed to do with liquor. These methods have been resorted to in order to enforce the Pass Laws and to trace persons who are suspected of subversive activities. The possession of liquor in these instances has been merely incidental. I say that the argument advanced on behalf of the police does not, therefore, bear serious examination.

References to the failure of prohibition in the United States of America are equally fallacious. In the United States you have a highly civilized nation. But here we are dealing in this Bill, with a people the majority of whom are only just emerging from barbarism. The great masses of the Natives are not sufficiently stable or experienced to withstand the temptation of the indiscriminate distribution of strong drink among them, and for some considerable time to come these people should be subject to restrictions, in the interests not only of themselves. but of all sections of the community. The argument that the extension of facilities will overcome the illicit traffic is self-defeating, and those who support it are deceiving themselves. ’ These facilities will only intensify the taste for alcohol, and will reach more Native men, women and children and thus increase the number of potential human wrecks, both physical and moral. The grievance that is felt by the more advanced Natives, such as the hon. the Minister has referred to, should be met by the granting of permanent exemption from these and other restrictive laws to men and women of good character who have reached a sufficient stage of civilization to be entrusted with such privileges. The high prices charged by bootleggers should, in fact, act as a deterrent. If cheaper liquor is made available at bottle stores, the Natives will buy in greater quantities and so aggravate the position that already exists.

Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Malan Commission that the economic conditions of the Natives have improved to such an extent that they can, amongst other things, also afford European liquor is another fallacy. It can be said to be true only in respect of a very small proportion of the Native population.

Economic surveys that have been carried out in the big industrial centres have proved conclusively that the average urban—and I would add also the rural Native—is living below the breadline and cannot afford to buy a balanced diet for himself and his family or to provide the necessary transport and clothing, let alone intoxicating liquor. Poverty and malnutrition are, in fact, the glaring matters that need attention, not greater facilities for liquor.

Another serious aspect to which I wish to draw the attention of this House is the part that the use of alcohol plays in serious crime. This is a matter that has called forth repeated warnings from the judicial bench. I wish to refer to two typical statements made by Judges of the Supreme Court. The first is taken from the report of the Cape Coloured Liquor Commission of Inquiry of 1945, and I wish to read from paragraph 58. The Judge-President of the Supreme Court pointed out how excessive use of liquor leads to crime. The report says—

And so it goes on. There is another case to which I wish to refer, of a more recent date, namely, 11 February 1961. This case was tried in the Supreme Court at Cape Town. The report says—

That was a case of violence in which drunkenness was pleaded as an extenuating circumstance. It also illustrates the extreme danger from the point of view of our criminal administration of opening these bottle stores to Natives. This sort of thing is happening everywhere and every day.

Our courts pass the death sentence in cases of rape. Here we are providing a stimulus for this class of crime and adding a further danger to the safety of our women. By throwing open the bottle stores to immature Natives we are committing a crime against our women.

A great deal has been said and written about the system in force in Southern Rhodesia where European wine and beer is sold to Natives at the beer halls without restriction, and a great deal has been said about the use of the profits for Native residents. I visited Southern Rhodesia towards the end of last year and I was shown over one of the Government villages outside Salisbury. I want to say at once that I was not at all impressed with this side of the administration. At the beer hall which I visited large quantities of beer and wine were being sold to the Natives both for on-consumption and by the bottle. It seemed almost unbelievable to me, but I was told that the takings at times amounted to £300 a day, which is an illustration of the enormous quantities of cheap wine that was being consumed by the Natives. One can just imagine what effect it must have had on their constitutions and on their family life. The day following my visit the riots broke out, the beer halls were broken up, and the liquor helped to inflame the riotous crowds. It does not require much imagination to appreciate what will happen if you convert wine into brandy.

Mr. Speaker, up to the present I have confined my remarks to the supply of liquor to the Natives. I wish to add a few comments on the proposed removal of the restrictions that have hitherto applied to the Coloured people. The facilities enjoyed by them have had most disastrous effects and should serve as a warning to those who would extend these facilities to the Natives. This matter has been investigated by various commissions of inquiry, every one of which has presented a lurid picture of poverty, drink and misery; but the liquor interests have been so strong that nothing has ever been done to implement the recommendations that have been made from time to time. Among the better classes the Coloured people have been temperate and sober, and I wish to pay a tribute to the services that these people have rendered to the community. But amongst the unskilled classes alcoholism is one of the most distressing factors in the physical and moral deterioration of a large portion of the population. The country, especially in the Western Cape, has suffered serious economic losses in the lowering of the standards of an important part of its labour supply. That is why so many of them have been replaced by the Natives, both by local authorities and industrial concerns and on the farms. Wages spent on drink often leave the man’s family without sufficient food to keep body and soul together, and the disastrous effects on family life are one of the major problems in Coloured affairs.

Here I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to a report by a commission appointed by the Dutch Reformed Church at Oudtshoorn in September 1948. I have the report here if any hon. member would like to see it. It is entitled “Rapport en Bevindinge van die aktuele Vraagstukke Kommissie, opgestel deur eerwaarde P. G. de Villiers en J. J. Kruger”. This was the result of a very careful investigation carried out by two ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church at Knysna in September 1948, into the causes of the serious increase in drunkenness and the abuse of liquor among the Coloured people in the South Western districts of the Cape. That document should be sufficient to bring home to every hon. member of this House what is happening to the Coloured people of this province. This committee found that the bulk of their miserable earnings went to the dealers in intoxicating liquor, with the result that their families went short of bread or were driven to implement their income by unlawful means. They pointed out that these abuses are responsible for the steady physical deterioration of the Coloured man, with the result that he is being ousted from the labour market by the Native, and this threatens his very extinction. They drew a pitiful picture of poverty and misery that is as true to-day as it was then. What we are now being asked to do in this Bill is to bring the same misery upon the Natives.

I now want to refer to Clause 8 of the Bill which deals with the tot system. The effect of this provision is to repeal Section 96 of the Liquor Act, and to extend the tot system to the whole country. It is a system that has been in operation since 1672 when Hottentot labour employed in building the Castle received a ration of tobacco and a tot of wine per day. In the course of time this practice was extended to the countryside and the wine ration increased, and there is no doubt that it has been one of the major factors in encouraging a taste for alcohol amongst young non-Europeans at an early age. It has also been a fruitful cause of drunkenness amongst them, to the detriment of the whole community. We often hear the argument that the tot strengthens the labourer and stimulates his capacity for work. That argument is physiologically unsound. A medical witness who gave important evidence before the Meaker Commission, Dr. Nortier of Clanwilliam, put it very aptly.

He said “The tot enables the labourer to make a spurt, but then he flops out”. In other words, it is merely a temporary stimulant and one of the factors that is helping to create the drink habit that leads to immoderate consumption of liquor obtained at the licensed premises in the towns during the week-ends.

The Cape Coloured Commission, in their monumental report, came to the conclusion after an exhaustive inquiry that the abolition of the tot system alone would not remove access to alcohol. It considered that in addition further steps should be taken to curtail the use of liquor by members of the community who were not able to exercise control. They recommended that the tot system should be abolished, that the sale to Coloured persons in bulk or for consumption off the premises be prohibited save under permit in accordance with Section 101 of the Liquor Act, and that retail premises should be closed to Coloured persons from a time prior to the hours at which the weekly wages are paid. That was a strong commission on which the Coloured persons themselves were represented by so able a Coloured leader as the late Dr. Abdurahman.

Sir, when I was magistrate of Aberdeen and Chairman of the Aberdeen Licensing Court, the drunkenness amongst the Coloured people was so degrading that I took steps to get the Licensing Board to pass a restriction which prohibited the supply of liquor to Coloured persons except under a permit signed by a magistrate or by a sergeant of the police. The case went on appeal to the Supreme Court at Cape Town, and the Supreme Court at Cape Town, consisting of two Judges, confirmed my action. But then the case went to the Appellate Division and the Appellate Division ruled that we were all wrong. As a result the drinking amongst the Coloured people went on ad infinitum.

I now want to commend to this House a statement published by the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid Afrika that appeared in the Kerkbode in December 1958. I quote from the translation which appeared in the Star—unfortunately I could not get a copy of the Kerkbode in question. I am very glad to see that the Dutch Reformed Church, which is a strong mission Church, should have come out in its true colours in this matter. The report reads as follows—

A day or two ago they passed a very strong resolution on the same lines, condemning this Bill. That has been followed by condemnation from the Methodist Church, which is also one of the greatest churches in the mission field in South Africa.

In conclusion, Sir, I hope the Native people of this country will not be led astray, by the idea that these privileges are going to improve their status. It can only bring destruction to them and to their children. One of the greatest leaders of the Natives foresaw what was going to happen. I refer to the great Moshesh, the founder of the Basuto nation. In 1854 he promulgated a law. in writing, forbidding the introduction and sale of spirituous liquors into Basutoland. That law read as follows—and I am going to read it because it is very important that the Natives should know what view was taken of this subject by this great leader—

I want to say in conclusion that this Bill will not only lower the moral standards of our people; it will be a blot upon the name of the newly constituted Republic of South Africa.

I am sorry that it falls to me to reply to the speech by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit). I do not want to offend him, but I do want to make one or two remarks about what he has said. If I can summarize very briefly what he has said, I would say that he has told us quite clearly that he is opposed to this legislation, secondly, that this is something which is only being introduced for the sake of the wine farmers so that they can make more money; thirdly, he has made terrible predictions of what will happen if this Bill is adopted, and fourthly, he has devoted his speech to the terrible conditions prevailing to-day. He has even called in the Kerkbode and the churches to testify to how terrible the conditions are to-day. But the main point he did not mention. He did not say that the conditions which prevail to-day are due to the present existing legislation. If he wished to be logical, he could have said that this is the main reason why the legislation should be amended, namely the fact that the conditions which he has described and of which he has given examples, exist. In other words, Mr. Speaker, his speech to me revealed a lack of realism, of which one should not make oneself guilty when one is dealing with a problem which plays such an important role in the life of South Africa.

But I want to continue and to discuss the Bill before the House. It forms a small part of the recommendations of the commission dealing with the whole question of liquor consumption. This small part is being dealt with now because it is so urgently necessary that a change should be made in this regard. That is the first reason. The second is that this aspect is being dealt with now because it is so late in the Session and it is difficult to introduce a new long Bill at this stage. But it will come later, as the hon. the Minister has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, because this Bill only deals with this one question, that is to say the distribution of liquor amongst the non-Whites and particularly the Bantu, it is for that reason a very simple Bill; for that reason it is not difficult to see what the motive was in introducing this Bill at this stage. It actually represents an attack by the Government through the medium of a Bill on the illicit liquor trade with a view to destroying that trade. It is felt that this is the main object of the Bill. If the Bill does not succeed in this—the future will have to show whether it does—then the hon. member for East London (City) and other hon. members will have the right, if they oppose it to-day, to say that their warning was correct. But not until then.

Because I say that the main object of this Bill is to eliminate the illicit liquor trade, to reduce it initially and eventually to eliminate it, it is perhaps a good thing that we should devote some attention to the extent of the illicit liquor trade. In the first place I say that its scope is tremendous—firstly as regards the quantity of liquor involved. The hon. the Minister has already given the figure of 60 per cent of the total production as a possible figure. I might just say that we had many witnesses before us on this matter, and not one single witness said that he thought the quantity of liquor which went to the illicit liquor trade was less than 35 per cent. But various witnesses said they would not be surprised if it was more than 60 per cent. This is appalling, all hon. members will agree; it is appalling to think that 60 per cent of the total quantity of liquor produced in our country—yes, in the vicinity of 7,000,000 gallons per annum—and possibly more reaches the consumer through the illicit liquor trade. I say that because this Bill represents an attack on the illicit liquor trade, it will be a good thing for us to devote some attention to the illicit liquor trade in its true form. I have already mentioned to the House how much liquor is involved in this trade.

The human material involved is equally appalling. The illicit liquor trade is dependent on people. On the one hand one has those people who can obtain the liquor and who are prepared to handle it and on the other hand there are the people who are prepared to receive it and to distribute it further. These people who are prepared to deal in liquor can be drawn from a population of approximately 4,000,000. In other words, the number of people who are prepared to deal in illicit liquor is practically unlimited when one thinks of the large number of Coloureds—nearly all of them—and of many Whites. They are the people from whom the liquor can be obtained. With such a large number of people available it is very likely that for an indefinite period one will always be able to find enough men, women and children who are prepared to handle this liquor for the illicit liquor trade. Of course risks must be taken, and they have to break the law, but they are paid for it and a great deal of money can be made. I am only saying this to show the House how great the likelihood is that there will always be enough people amongst this group of 4,000,000 who will be prepared to handle this liquor, despite the risks, and for the sake of the money they can earn, because we must not forget that the source of supply is available and they can freely obtain this liquor.

As regards the other group of people, we are also sure that there will always be people who will accept this liquor because there are 9,000,000 people who constitute the market. They also know that they are receiving it illegally but they know that they will get satisfaction from it. Why? In many cases they do so because they like the liquor, that is to say, in order to drink it themselves. Some of them have already made such progress that they have found that when something is forbidden, it is much more attractive, and they buy it precisely because they are forbidden to do so. Others—and we encountered them while we were taking evidence—said: This prohibition is placed on us not by ourselves but by Whites, and it is precisely because the Whites who do not know how we are suffering as a result, have placed this prohibition on us, that we shall not obey this prohibition. But the great majority ot them take this liquor, just as the Whites and the Coloureds who provide it, because there is money to be made, because they can make a profit out of it. Mr. Speaker, you can understand that with these two large population groups, i.e. those who constitute the source of the liquor and those who constitute the market, the 4,000,000 who provide it and the 9,000,000 who receive it, that the future prospects in respect of this illicit liquor trade are simply appalling, to say the least. The potentialities are tremendous.

In the second place I say that the results of this illicit liquor trade are very encouraging to the bootleggers because if they can earn large sums of money on both sides, it is a great encouragement for them to say: We must not abandon this trade; after all we get away with it most of the time and we live well. I just want to remind the House of what happened last year in Cape Town when we had the disturbances in Langa and Nyanga and the Natives were isolated there and could not get to the city. We then noticed that the essential services in effect did not suffer as a result. We had two senior police officers before us and we asked them how they could explain the fact that except for the newspaper boys on the streets, the milk and the bread was delivered and all the essential services continued unchanged. They said: This is perhaps a very good demonstration of what is happening and of what most people do not know; in the Cape Peninsula alone there are approximately 30,000 Coloureds who do not work at all but who simply earn their living from bootlegging. When their market was cut off and they could not sell liquor to the Natives in Langa and Nyanga, they naturally had to work to live and they then simply took over the positions which the Bantu had abandoned and things went on as though nothing had happened. The police officers assured us that the scope of this liquor trade in the Cape was so tremendous that it was too appalling to believe.

A further aspect which can be mentioned in respect of this illicit liquor trade is that it is steadily growing from year to year. When we examine the available court statistics, we know how many arrests there are, and we know that the quantity of liquor, which it can be established is reaching the consumers through the illicit liquor trade, is continually increasing. Why? Because we are trying to apply a prohibition to three-quarters of the population in respect of something which one-quarter of the population can always enjoy. Despite what the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) has said about prohibition in America, when one compares it with the position here, one knows that in that instance the whole population was cut off from all sources of liquor. An attempt was made to persuade the whole nation to do without liquor. They made a national attempt to prohibit the whole nation from drinking, and it was a complete failure. Can the House see how much greater our problem is in South Africa because here one-quarter of the population are withholding those things to which they have free access from three-quarters of the population. In other words, we have not cut off the sources of supply and we are still faced with the three-quarters of our large population who are very eager to have liquor. It will therefore be understood that our problems are greater than the problem which faced the Americans when they tried to apply prohibition.

In the fourth place I say that this illicit liquor trade involves the Government in heavy expense. It costs thousands and thousands of pounds annually—hon. members can find the figures in the report. In other words, money is being wasted on a vast scale. But that is not all. Human material is being wasted on just as vast a scale. Thousands of our police are being used for this work without their really being able to see the results of that work. The result is that they have to give less attention to their other work, and that work is also not as well done as it would have been if they had not had to devote their time to the illicit liquor trade. In other words, by this expensive process we are making the people of the country ever more accustomed to breaking the law. Actually it represents the moral subversion of the nation. The hon. member for East London (City) has said that the nation will collapse morally if this Bill is passed, but exactly the reverse is true. If the legislation is not passed and present conditions should remain unchanged, the people of this country will be ruined morally. That is the opinion of the commission, and the commission based its attitude on the evidence it heard, namely that there did not seem any possibility of finding a solution for this tremendous problem along the existing lines. It is for this reason, with a view to the tremendous turnover, the results yielded by the illicit liquor trade and the fact that this trade must be combated, that the commission recommended the steps embodied in this legislation before us to-day. This Bill offers all population groups that which the White man has enjoyed for many centuries himself. I now ask myself the question: If this system is not something good when seen from the point of view of civilization, if it does not have sound attributes, which the White people have developed in respect of the consumption of liquor, then they will be dissatisfied and take steps to improve it, and they also do so from time to time. If they are satisfied that they can improve the system from time to time in this way, is it not also right and logical to say: When we see the position prevailing amongst the people who do not enjoy these privileges which we enjoy in respect of the consumption of liquor, the least we can do is to give them the same opportunity; apply to them what we have applied to ourselves, and then hope that things will at least go as well or as badly with them as they have gone with us. But no one in his right mind will believe that it will be a good thing to continue under the present circumstances, with the further destruction of human lives and with the extent of the problem becoming still greater.

The principle of the Bill is to destroy bootlegging. I believe that we shall succeed. We shall succeed. In any case, the position cannot be worse than it is to-day. It is easy to rise and say to-day that we will not succeed, but there is no justification for doing so. I think it is not reasonable of people, when they know that the present position cannot continue without heavy losses as regards moral and other values, to prophesy that the position will be worse in future than it is to-day. There is sufficient justification for trying this new system. At the outset we shall have to regard this as an experiment which is being undertaken to see whether it will succeed. One has reason to believe that it will succeed even if one does not have certainty, but I think that the people who are opposed to this change should at least not voice their criticisms and should rather say: We hope that this will be an improvement and we should like to improve the position, and for that reason, even if we do not support this Bill, we shall not oppose it.

I want to conclude by saying that this idea of establishing a Board to guide the Minister is a very good one, precisely because this is an experiment. For that reason we must be able to introduce improvements by an easier method than by coming back to Parliament. It is for this reason that I believe it is right that the Minister and the State President will have certain powers to introduce certain changes, so that changes can be more easily effected, if the Department is convinced that changes are necessary.

I want to ask the hon. member whether it is not correct that the commission first recommended the provision of beer and wine for consumption on licensed premises and also at home and in the next report changed this provision and restricted it to the provision of wine and beer for consumption on licensed premises only, but the hon. member is now supporting the suggestion that brandy should also be provided. What is the reason for this?

It is fortunate that the hon. member has asked me this question because I had made a note of that point but I overlooked it. The commission argued as follows. It said, and this matter was often considered: If we go as far as this Bill now proposes, we do not think that the Government will embody it in legislation. It seems to us to be such a great change. There was actually a difference of opinion on the commission itself. It seemed such a great change from what the non-Whites can get to-day to what they will be able to get now. For this reason one of the members said: Do not ask for more than you think we will get, because otherwise we may not get anything at all. We were convinced that what is now being done would be best. The commission was convinced that what this Bill provides for would eventually have to come. Some felt that this should be a recommendation; others felt that we should wait a while. After deliberating we decided to wait a while. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that all the members of the commission will be glad that these provisions are contained in this Bill and that this recommendation has not been literally interpreted. No, I think that we can go ahead with courage and that we have reason to believe that what is being done in this Bill will be a great success and that it will result in great improvements and great changes in our liquor consumption and in a reduction in the illicit liquor trade.

I must at the outset say that I agree with the reasons given by the Minister and the previous speaker that the present restrictions relating to the supply of liquor to non-Whites cannot be maintained for the reasons they have set out so fully and which I do not want to traverse again. A tremendous illicit trade has sprung up in the country and it shows how impossible it is, despite the best efforts of the police, to apply the Liquor Act as it stands at the moment. That is why I felt that some of these restrictions must be removed, and that is why I signed the report.

But having said that, I am sorry to say that I cannot support the Bill in its present form, and my objections fall under three main heads. In the first place, despite what the previous speaker has said, this Bill goes far beyond the recommendations of the commission on which both he and I served. I will come back to that later. In the second place it creates new channels of distribution of liquor to Natives right outside the present licensing system and without any of the safeguards incorporated in the present system. I will elaborate that later. In the third place, it confers tremendous delegated and arbitrary powers to the Minister and the President. The net result of this is that in future, if this Act remains in its present form, the distribution of liquor as far as the non-Whites are concerned, who after all are 80 per cent of the population, it will be largely an administrative matter as far as the Department of Justice is concerned and I do not think that is healthy in a private enterprise country.

I come back to my first point. The commission recommended—and this is after the commission had taken evidence for three years and had heard a tremendous amount of argument for and against the relaxation of the restrictions from all interested parties, and it was no easy matter to come to a decision because people gave conflicting evidence on the same points at issue, so I do not want to claim that what is written in that report is sacrosanct. But having heard all that evidence, the commission came to the conclusion that on-sales should be restricted to beer-halls and relatively mild drink, unfortified wines and beer, under the control of the authorities who run these beer-halls and on whom there is a duty to see that there is no excessive drinking. In the second place, we recommended that in regard to off-consumption the best system was the system of exemptions. It is true that the standards applied in the existing system of exemptions are probably too high and that there was not sufficient provision for the issue of licences, and because of that only 50,000 licences have been issued throughout the country, but that system worked very well. All the Natives who had exemption certificates behaved themselves very well because they were afraid of losing their privileges. It was largely because experience showed that the exemptions worked well that we agreed to extend it and perhaps to lower the standards so that the certificates could be issued more easily. We did that on the recommendation of senior police officers, who laid down the qualification that any adult male who during the preceding year had not been convicted of any serious crime, has a permanent residential address, and has had fixed employment for the preceding six months would be entitled to purchase the following quantities of liquor per month, namely, eight bottles of malt, four bottles of natural wine or two bottles of fortified wine or one bottle of strong liquor. These were not maximum quantities. Where Natives could show they had higher incomes, the magistrate could give them higher quotas. We felt that by and large if we limited the quantities to this there was not quite the same danger that Natives would spend the bulk of their income in liquor and it would give them considerable relief. The whole purpose of the commission was to see to what extent the illicit liquor trade should be combated, and if we made these relations there would still be illicit trade, but to a large extent the need for it would fall away. The advantage would be that one would still have some control of the quantities of liquor bought by the ordinary Native. I notice in the assumptions of both previous speakers that it is tacitly assumed that the present restrictions have no effect at all, but I do not believe that. There is not the slightest doubt that the restrictions that have existed up to the present have undoubtedly kept a very large percentage of Natives sober. After all, the bulk of the Natives in this country are still law-abiding. They do not deliberately break the laws. In a way, South Africa is a human laboratory. We have two population groups, the Natives and the Coloureds, both of them with fairly low incomes and living standards. The Coloureds in the Cape have been free to buy liquor for generations. One just has to see the social differences in the drinking habits of the Coloureds as compared with that of the Natives in the Cape to realize that despite what is said about the old Liquor Act and all its restrictions, it really had a very good effect on the lives of the Natives, and I for one would not like to see it removed completely at one stroke of the pen. I feel that as there are social and economic advances there must be relaxations, but they must always be controlled and they must not be removed completely at a stroke of the pen. I cannot help but think that if these restrictions are removed completely it will cause misery to hundreds of thousands of families. It is true there is this vast illicit trade, and that is an evil, but the evil of selling liquor freely can be greater than that of the illicit trade, because even the very fact which has been stated by the Minister, that Natives have to pay far higher prices for liquor in the illicit market to some extent limits the consumption of liquor, because the economic law of supply and demand applies to liquor too, and the more the price goes up the less people will drink, and vice versa. So despite the evils surrounding the system, it has not altogether been a bad system. It has had good effects and one simply has to compare the Native population of the Cape with the Coloureds to see under what group the percentage of crime relating to alcohol is the highest. That at one stroke demolishes the argument that if you only free all liquor, crime will end. The hon. member for East London (City) quite rightly said that the vast number of Natives have just emerged from barbarism. We complain about the abuse of liquor amongst the White people, and the Native has not the same self-control as the average White man. So clearly, whether we like it or not, there must be some form of racial discrimination as far as liquor is concerned. It is true that the Minister has said that he has other powers to control the situation and that this is only an experiment, and if things get out of hand he has powers under other sections to control it, like Section 100quin and Section 100bis (1). In terms of 100quin the sale of liquor to certain classes in certain areas can be restricted, and under 100bis (1) the Minister can impose any conditions he likes. But the moment the Minister uses that power under 100quin to deny the sale of liquor in certain areas to certain classes of people, he will be back where he started. Assuming he denies the sale of liquor to Natives in the White areas of Cape Town, immediately there are hundreds of thousands of Natives living in the White area who will immediately reverse the illicit liquor trade from the Native townships to the White areas. I think the basic mistake that is made in this Bill is that the Minister, despite what he says, is trying, judging by the wording of Clauses 100quim and 100bis to regulate the consumption of alcohol according to race whereas the standard should be individual. It should be according to the individual and that can only be done by a system of individual exemption certificates.

I now come to my second main objection and that is that the Minister now takes the power to issue authority instead of a licence to certain types of people in terms of 1000bis The clause reads—

The section then contains various other subsections. The significant thing about this new channel of selling liquor is first of all that it can be given to individuals, to the representative of an association of individuals as well as to urban bodies as well as territorial authorities, but none of the safeguards of the licensing board are included in this section at all. After all, if one grants a liquor licence in a certain area the whole community is affected by the grant of that licence, and in terms of the Liquor Act and the licensing court procedure too anybody who has an interest can go and lodge an objection, or if there are competing claims for the licence they can lodge their applications simultaneously. Here the Minister, in the case of an urban area, need only consult with the urban authority and with the Minister of Bantu Administration, but of course he need not take their advice at all, as he can in effect grant authority for the sale of liquor in areas without ever having consulted any of the people who are directly affected by it. Surely that is totally wrong too. Apart from the public interest aspect, does it really mean that we are going to have two economic systems now too, one for the sale of liquor to Whites and Coloureds and Asiatics and another one for the sale of liquor to Natives? Because here the Minister takes power to declare what must be done with the profits of any licensee who has an authority to sell liquor to Natives, so it really means that it is a form of socialization of the sale of liquor as far as Natives are concerned. Does the Minister want to import that concept into our economy to have one system of selling liquor through private enterprise as far as Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics are concerned and a Government-controlled system as far as Natives are concerned? Where is that going to end? Is this going to be extended afterwards to other commodities too?

Is that one of the recommendations of the commission, as far as the profits are concerned?

As far as beer halls are concerned. For the rest the sale would have been through private licensees. In the case of beer halls the principle is there already as far as light wines and beer are concerned. Furthermore the Minister takes the power to impose such conditions and restrictions as he may deem fit on the licensee. What does that mean? Is Parliament really prepared to delegate such fantastically wide powers to a Department? I think it is really carrying the delegation of arbitrary powers too far. That is my own feeling. I have already mentioned some of the arbitrary powers granted to the Minister in terms of l00bis, but this Bill goes much further than that. In terms of Section 100quin the President is granted certain powers. Let me read the section—

These are the operative words—

The intention clearly is that in future the sale of liquor for the various racial groups can be confined to the area in which they live. In other words, the Coloureds can only buy in the Coloured areas; the Asiatics only in Asiatic areas, the Whites only in White reas and Natives, of course, only in Native areas where authorities have been issued. Is this a precedent for our economy as such that groups must be limited to buying at shops in their own areas? It is for this reason too that the Minister is now taking additional power which requires presidential authority if any new licence is to be granted in a White area if it is within half a mile of an Asiatic or a Coloured group area. There again one must warn Parliament that here we are really taking a step which seems to indicate that in future trade is going to be regulated according to race and colour. I personally am against that too.

Finally, it has been said that the number of crimes under the Liquor Act will be reduced considerably by this measure. It is no doubt true that as far as illicit trade in liquor is concerned and as far as possession is concerned crime will be limited. I think it is equally certain that the crime of drunkenness will increase very considerably which one would have to off-set against that. But apart from that it is also quite clear that scope exists for a whole lot of new crimes. Whereas Natives can now buy liquor freely, they must have permission to consume liquor on any private premises—

Are we not creating a tremendous number of crimes and putting a tremendous burden on the police in that respect? Every time Natives have a party in the backyard they will be committing a crime. They can go and buy the liquor freely but if they go and drink it, they commit a crime, and the police will have to come and raid the premises if the owner complains. They are also restricted in that they cannot drink in public areas, so while the sale of liquor is freed considerably, the opportunity to drink it is restricted very considerably. Are we not creating avenues for new crime here?

I feel that it would have been far better if the Government had not gone beyond the recommendations of the Malan Commission, which after all represented a very considerable step forward, but which would still have given control of the individual and that is what one wants to do in the case of the sale of alcohol. One does not want to control races, one wants to control individuals, and the whole purpose of this exemption certificate, as recommended by the Malan Commission, is that if a person misbehaves and commits a crime under the Liquor Act, he loses his permit after a while. That surely would have been quite an incentive for people who have this permit to behave themselves. It is an incentive for Natives to behave in a responsible way and not to commit crimes. Sir, everybody realizes that it was necessary to break the tremendous illicit trade which existed in South Africa. I do not think that one will ever break it completely but one can reduce it very considerably. I feel that an extended system of exemption certificates for all non-Whites would have been far preferable to the freeing of sales altogether but then taking residuary powers in case they misbehave so as to be able to revert to the situation which existed before.

I am very thankful that the Opposition are regarding this matter as a non-political matter, but I am becoming a little concerned that this may be a smokescreen because the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) who has just sat down, served on the Malan Commission, as he indicated himself, and despite the fact that this Bill in general gives effect to the recommendations of the commission, he is now opposing it. I am just wondering whether they are once again seeking to make political capital. This question of our liquor legislation is of such importance to the whole social structure of South Africa …

In which respect are the recommendations of the Malan Commission being implemented in this Bill?

I do not need to answer that question of the hon. member because then I must assume that he is not familiar with the recommendations of his own commission. In general this Bill only gives effect to the recommendations of the Commission and that is why I find it very strange that the hon. member is opposing this Bill.

Where I speak to-day, I am speaking as a representative of a producing area, that is to say the Boland, where wines and spirits are produced. I therefore want to lodge the strongest objection to the allegation of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) when he said that this legislation was nothing more than another attempt to fill the pockets of the wine farmers. I want to object to this statement most strongly because after all the pressure for this legislation never originated from the wine farmers of this country. It came in the first instance from the police. Furthermore, it was urgently requested by the South African Agricultural Union and when this matter was discussed at the conference of the South African Agricultural Union it was particularly the Transvaal Agricultural Union which most certainly does not represent wine farmers, which strongly advocated such action. Furthermore, it is also untrue to say, as the hon. member for East London (City) has done, that this is merely an attempt by the Government to compensate the wine farmers for the markets which they will now lose because we are out of the Commonwealth.

It is a scandal.

The fact of the matter is that according to the latest annual report of the K.W.V. which I have here, 88 per cent of the production of our wine farmers is consumed in South Africa. Only 12 per cent is exported, and of the 12 per cent exported, a large percentage is distributed in countries outside the Commonwealth. It is therefore a very small percentage of the wine production of the Boland which is marketed in Great Britain. For that reason there is no justification for the allegation that the Government is only compensating the wine farmers because we have lost the Commonwealth market.

This Bill removes two anomalies especially from our liquor legislation. In the first place it removes the differences between the various provinces, as the hon. the Minister has indicated—the differences in the treatment accorded the various racial groups in the different provinces—but it also removes the anomaly that certain sections of the population can freely obtain liquor, while other sections may not do so. It is precisely for this reason that it is very difficult for the police to apply the Liquor Act. The argument has been used outside that if one removes the restrictions on the sale of liquor to the Bantu because the police no longer see their way clear to implementing the legislation, why then not remove the restrictions on the sale of dagga and diamonds? There is a very big difference, because in the case of both dagga and diamonds these restrictions apply to the whole population, but in the case of liquor these restrictions only apply to part of the population. Because this section of our population who may not obtain liquor, are everywhere in close contact with other sections of the population, it is becoming impossible to apply this legislation.

This prohibition on the provision of liquor to the Bantu has resulted in a whole series of social and economic evils. As the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) has already indicated very clearly, the whole problem of shebeens and shebeen queens is a direct result of this prohibition on the supply of liquor to the Bantu. Here in the Western Cape it has become the policy of the Government to replace the Bantu as far as possible by Coloured labour and there is in fact a vast source of labour which is lying fallow at the moment for the simple reason that such a large number of Coloureds are employed in this illicit liquor trade. The hon. member for Hercules has shown that according to the report of the commission approximately 30,000 Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula are exclusively engaged on the illicit liquor trade. In Worcester it is calculated that there are between 200 and 300 male Coloureds who are engaged exclusively on this illicit liquor trade. In Paarl there are still more, and thus one can go to every town. When the Coloured and the Native live together in one area, a large number of Coloureds are used to make liquor available to the Bantu illegally. All these people could perform very useful economic work, but at the moment they are being used for work which is not economic at all. This is one of the greatest evils which this prohibition on the supply of liquor to the Bantu has created. No state can afford this. No state can afford to have such a large percentage of its population doing uneconomic work, and for this reason it has become high time that we should give effect to the recommendations of the Malan Commission in order to supply liquor freely to the Bantu. But I want to say at once that here we are dealing with an experiment. We have now been engaged for many decades on an experiment aimed at solving this problem by means of a practically total prohibition in the case of the Bantu. It has not succeeded, and seeing that we are now moving from one experiment to another, that is to say the free supply of liquor to the Bantu as well, I want to warn at once that we do not expect the whole problem to be solved immediately. In the Federation it soon became clear that the moment the prohibition on the supply of liquor to the Bantu was lifted, there was a tremendous rush by the Bantu to obtain liquor. I read recently in the Press that the Bantu in Bloemfontein are already asking when they can start buying wine; they are waiting for it. But it has also fortunately been found that this only continues for three or at the most six months; then the novelty has worn off and then the population groups gradually start returning to their normal drinking habits. I therefore want to warn that we must not expect this social evil to be removed within a month or three months. But in the course of time we hope and trust that this will in fact happen. I envisage that it will not take three months in our case, but that it will take much longer before we shall solve the problem. I want to make this clear: We must go further than the Malan Commission has recommended, that is to say, we must also make intoxicating liquor available to the Bantu for the very reason that this prohibition has been in force for so long and the direct result has been that the Bantu have in fact learned to drink brandy, because while it was illegal for them to possess liquor, they argued that it was far easier to hide one bottle brandy than four bottles of light wine. One bottle of brandy contains approximately the same quantity of alcohol as four bottles of wine. That is why by our legislation we have in fact taught the Bantu of South Africa to drink spirits. In Moçambique where the Bantu can freely obtain wine, and where the Bantu may not obtain spirits, the experience has been that the Bantu buys his wine and drinks it, and that there is practically no illicit trade in brandy. Please note, there is in fact a prohibition on the supply of spirits to the Bantu in Moçambique but there is no illicit trade in spirits for the simple reason that the Bantu have been able to obtain wine and beer from the beginning and have moulded their drinking habits accordingly. But here in this country where there has been a total prohibition, their drinking habits have unfortunately become such that they do in fact drink spirits. It would be quite unrealistic to supply only wine and beer freely because then we shall not achieve any solution of the problem facing the police, that is to say the combating of the illicit liquor trade. But, I say, this is the direct result of the fact that we have continued for too long with the experiment of trying to keep liquor from the Bantu. I want to make it quite clear that I have the highest regard for our church leaders and other conscientious objectors who are opposing this legislation. I want to place it quite clearly on record that we do not condemn them because they adopt such an attitude. They are acting in accordance with the light which they have but I want to give the assurance that we are also acting in accordance with the light which we have, and while we differ from them, we do not differ as regards the object which we want to achieve. We are striving to achieve the same object as they are, namely a stable nation with sober drinking habits. We only differ from them as regards the method, and here I am convinced, seeing that we have now tried this one method for so many years, for centuries, and it has not proved to be a success, that we should try this other method. I want to make an appeal to our church leaders and other conscientious objectors to give us an opportunity to try this other method. I want to make it quite clear that we are after all striving to achieve the same object. We only differ as regards the method, and I believe that the method which we now want to try under this legislation has a greater chance of success than the method we have applied for past centuries. I therefore support this legislation wholeheartedly and I am confident that the people outside will also accept it in the spirit in which it is offered, namely as an honest attempt to eliminate these terrible social evils which have accompanied the practically total prohibition of past years. I wholeheartedly support this Bill.

I suppose it is rarely that a Bill of this importance to the nation as a whole has been introduced and placed before Parliament in a state of greater confusion than exists in the public mind to-day as to just what this Bill implies. This Bill, which has been long awaited, which has been mooted for a long time, is based on the report of a commission consisting of gentlemen who went thoroughly into this question, not only in South Africa, but much wider afield and who honestly endeavoured to translate into some practical liquor policy for the country their experience the evidence they had received and their findings. But as has been said by a previous speaker this Bill now before us—the first instalment of liquor bills that we have to expect—as has been made quite clear, is not the Bill which the country was led to expect by the report of the Malan Commission. The Bill in a number of most important aspects is not based upon the recommendations of that commission, recommendations which the public in general had assumed were going to be implemented. Eight out of ten members of the public believe, as one discovers when one consults them on this matter, that the Bill applies only to the supply of liquor to Natives, and they have not the slightest conception that amongst the greatest effects of the Bill are the implications likely to flow from the change in the control and the method of supply to both the Coloured, the White and the Asiatic community of the country as well as the Bantu. Sir, the more one examines the Bill in its various aspects, the more one is convinced that legislation of this nature can only be implemented at the gravest risk of substantial disaster for this country. I am one who has had a considerable number of years of experience in work of this nature. I would be prepared to go a long way towards the extension of liquor facilities to the non-Whites, both the Natives and the Coloureds, extensions which I believe will assist in lessening the evil which at present flows from certain aspects of the liquor supplied to them. I believe that if we are going to conduct experiments, as the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) mentioned, there are ways and means, to improve the conditions at the distribution points as well as other factors which have a deterrent or off-setting effects on the consumption of liquor. There one would be prepared to go quite a long way, and also on the type of liquor to be sold to these people. But the Bill before us practically removes all forms of control and all forms of restriction on the supply of liquor to all non-Whites in this country. Sir, I am not one of those who believe that every individual concerned in the liquor trade and all people responsible for the production and retailing of liquor, are people waiting to reap tremendous benefits and profits from that business, or are people who are waiting to reap the reward which will follow upon the tremendous increase of customers which they are likely to receive if this Bill is passed. I know many of them personally—having had contact with them in their professional business and other respects—who have been shocked and staggered by the extent to which this Bill is going to take the brakes off the liquor distribution trade. Amongst them are many men who have gone out of their way in an endeavour to impose some measure of restraint, some element of control in regard to liquor consumption on their own premises, and have for that purpose provided necessary recreation and sport facilities and improvements in the conditions under which liquor can be consumed on their premises so as to offset the urge to make it purely a drinking place. This is one aspect where the Bill could have gone much further than what is proposed if we are to extend the consumption of liquor, namely to improve the conditions under which liquor can be consumed on the premises so as to avoid making it purely a drinking shop.

The hon. member for Hercules, who was Chairman of the Liquor Commission, in his speech referred to the experimental nature of the proposals now being considered and concluded his speech by claiming that the Bill now before us was largely in the nature of an experiment. But, Sir, we cannot experiment with human beings; we cannot experiment with the lives of women and children. We do not experiment with that sort of thing in this country! On this matter I want to bring as a witness someone who has been shown recently the greatest national respect and regard. I want, to refer to an address delivered by him when he was still Minister of Justice. Referring to the extension of liquor facilities by allowing the Bantu to have light wines—and not the strong liquor which this Bill proposes to allow them—he said that if he were to do it then and the day after were to experience some evils attaching to it, a large number of evils, we would be reproached for ever because you could not repeal your action. Once you have taken that step—(Senate Debates No. 15/1959. 22.6.1959)—Sir, once you have taken that step, you cannot retract. He was, therefore, not supporting that idea as being in the nature of an experiment but accepted facts as they faced him, and conceded that once we have taken that step, the step which we are now being ask to take in this Bill, something has been done which can never be retracted. It is, therefore, not in the nature of an experiment. Here we have evidence which completely refutes the suggestion by the hon. member for Hercules, namely that what we are being ask to agree to here, is in the nature of an experiment. I want to repeat: You cannot experiment with human lives, with the security of families, and of men, women and children of this country with respect to the distribution of liquor such as is now being proposed, because once we have set out on that road, there is no turning back.

I want to quote another statement which has a decided bearing on the legislation now before us, and again, Sir, that statement was made by a former member of this House, a person in whom the Government had absolute confidence and promoted him to a very important position as representative of this country abroad. His comments on this very same question were published in a State information fact paper. No. 69 of March 1959 under the heading “The highway to racial harmony”, There Mr. Wentzel du Plessis, South Africa’s ambassador to the United States of America, in addressing the law school of Harvard University on the question of race relationships in South Africa, said in regard to the consumption of liquor—

That speech, Sir was. made roughly in March 1959. We are to-day just past March 1961—two years later. What has happened during these two years which warrants a complete change of face on the part of the Government, the Government on behalf of which Mr. du Plessis was speaking and representing in the United States? Because there, Sir, he made it quite clear that—

Here we have the evidence of two very responsible and highly placed officials in whom the Government and country placed its confidence by appointing them as its representatives in very exalted spheres. I ask, therefore, why this Government has changed face so completely in such a short time in regard to this matter of supplying strong drink to the Bantu? Unfortunately, Sir, when it comes to the question of supply of liquor to the non-European and particularly to the Cape Coloured, it is most unfortunate that as a result of the disappointments, the repressions, and frustrations which have been built up amongst the non-Europeans over the past decade the question has developed into a question of race prestige. It has been levelled up to correspond with the question of class prestige involved in the franchise and other similar things relating to politics. The abolition of restrictions is, therefore, being regarded as being very much on the same plane. It is most unfortunate that that is so because as a result of that there are to-day responsible non-Europeans who support this Bill because they feel it removes a restriction which has had the effect of lowering them in status as citizens of this country. I want to refer now to a statement on the freedom of the individual made by Lord Birkett in which he said—

Neither of the groups which are being affected by this Bill, can live in isolation—not the Whites, nor the Coloureds, the Asiatics, or the Bantu. What happens to one as part of the body corporate in South Africa, happens to all of us; the ills that the one section suffers, affects the rest of the population. He continued—

The pertinent point in Lord Birkett’s statement, Sir, is—

That finding applies absolutely in regard to the Bill which we are dealing with now. We have heard speakers, this afternoon on the question of the restriction on the supply of liquor to the Cape Coloured. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) referred to an earlier attempt of his which was eventually overruled by the Appeal Court. I was involved in the imposition of a similar restriction in my own area while being a member of the local liquor licensing board, in response to appeals from dozens of Coloured women and mothers for us to see that their men should get home with their wages in their pockets before they could get to a bar or bottle store to spend it. We then imposed restrictions on the weekend supply of liquor so that they could not get liquor at least for 24 hours after they had drawn their wages. The improvement this measure brought about over a couple of years was hardly credible, in so far as the general uplift which took place and the extent to which an excessive waste of money on liquor was curbed, because their money became available to supply the necessities of their families. But the result was that the following year the liquor interests came to the Simonstown Liquor Licensing Board with the biggest battery of Q.C.s and barristers which had ever been seen there—somewhere in the region of between 25 and 30 of them! Money meant nothing to them in their attempt to break down this weekend restriction, but they failed. There appeared also a deputation of mothers asking the board to stand firm and to maintain the control. But this Bill, Sir, breaks the whole thing down again and we are back to where we were. I am under no illusion as to what will happen as a result of this. You have in your Coloured community a most responsible strata to whom the full privileges for which provision are being made in this Bill can well be made available, but they are in the minority, because you also have in that community people who in no way are capable of protecting themselves. Similarly with regard to the Bantu population. How many times have we in this House and throughout the length and breadth of the country, had urgings from the Prime Minister, from members of the Cabinet, from responsible Members of Parliament of all parties, from leaders of industry and commerce, from leaders of thought and from public men throughout the country, all of whom urged that the wages of the Bantu and Coloured people should be increased so as to make it possible for them to be lifted to a higher level, and increased standard of living, for them to get the means which they and their families require to obtain the wholesome benefits and services necessary for them to build up a community such as they deserve to be. How many times, Sir, have we not had to listen to such pleas? How many times have we been told in this House and especially during the bus strike of a few years ago in Johannesburg, of the poverty stricken conditions Natives live under? Well below the breadline. But what are we going to do now? They have asked for bread, but we are going to give them brandy. Is that going to help to lift them above the breadline? Is that going to help them to build their families up to a standard of life which we want to see them lead in this country? The Bible tells us of people who were given stones when they asked for bread, but we are going to do even worse than that: We are going to give them a poison which is going to sap their very souls and bring them down into degradation. I spoke to some Coloured leaders yesterday who are concerned with this particular matter. I speak for these people to-day although there are other representatives of theirs here who should be speaking for them. Their view is that this Bill is going to destroy, as far as the Coloured people are concerned, all those advances and advantages they have been able to build up over the last century. That it is going to bring them down to a level from where another struggle will be needed to again lift themselves up. That is what the result is going to be and yet we claim that we as White leaders have the responsibility to give guidance to the non-White people of this country! Can we pride ourselves for bringing them to a stage of degradation? Let us come to the effects on the Bantu. Have the farmers of this Bill, Sir, thought what implications this Bill will have in places remote from the urban areas? We are, as it is, going to have quite a lot of trouble in the urban areas, but here at least we have forces of law to maintain law and order and bring a certain amount of security to the people of the urban areas. But what about the women and children out in the country areas with their men away working on the farm? The employees on the farm know that their master can give them liquor and he would come to the house to ask for it. Have we considered what will happen to those women and children alone at home? Do not let us forget that it is the Government who will have to accept the bill of responsibility flowing from the application of this measure. It is an ironical thought that will go down into history, Sir, that the present Minister of Justice who is responsible for this Bill, giving non-Europeans access to all types of liquor, is the man who a year or two ago took away that privilege from troops in the Defence forces of the Republic. Can you ever get a bigger paradox than that? There were men under discipline and under control but yet they were not considered fit to be allowed to have liquor in their messes, yet to-day we are going to make available in unlimited supplies liquor to people in the country who in many cases are still very near the primitive stage.

What assistance did I receive when dealing with liquor in messes?

If the hon. the Minister had been prepared to listen to this side of the House, he would have had all the assistance he then needed, but he would not listen! Neither does he want to listen to-day because I know this Bill is going to go through. Now, this Bill purports to do away with the tot system, but what does it in fact do? It only extends the tot system under a new guise to all four provinces, applies it also to provinces where it does not exist at present. True in provinces where it does exist a limitation that liquor supplied under the tot system shall not be counted against the earnings of the employee, is now being imposed. The existing tot system imposes restrictions as regards quantities, it limits the type of liquor to what was thought at the time to be a relatively harmless type of liquor, and lays down the times during which liquor can be supplied. But this new Bill now proposes to do away with all those restrictions and to give the employer the right to supply any type of liquor, in any quantity, and at any time. I have heard it said by protagonists of the Bill that White employers will have exactly the same right to supply their employers but is there any member in this House who can point out the case of any reputable White employer, any big industry or commercial concern which either supplies or permits their employees to be supplied with liquor during working hours even when in many cases they work under much more arduous conditions than farm labourers? Is there any White industry, anywhere in the country, which would stand for one moment for that sort of thing? Yet we are going to lay down that condition now, to be used against the Coloured man and used it will be! I want to pay tribute to those farmers of the platteland who, although having the authority under the tot system, do not issue liquor to their employees but concentrate rather on ensuring them decent living conditions. Is it not the case with wage legislation where when a minimum wage is laid down, you immediately start a race amongst employers by paying higher wages to attract the cream of the available labour? Will not the employer who is known to supply liquor to his employees attract them more than other employers who do not? Because the tot system remains—let us make no mistake about that. It is just as firmly established in this Bill as ever before with the only difference that all restrictions which hitherto applied are being withdrawn. When one comes to the economic aspects of the question one is appalled by the magnitude of the task to try and grasp what this Bill will really mean economically. The figures in regard to the supply of liquor are really staggering but I do not want to take up the time of the House to quote them because I think most members have already studied them. There are, however, some figures which we should get into our minds when trying to gauge the implications of what we now propose to do. These figures are based on figures to the end of 1959. The ratio of convictions per head of the population was for the Whites 1 to 274 adults; for the Bantu 1 to 331: for the Asiatics 1 to 399; and for the Coloured 1 to 33. These are convictions for drunkenness. When we are now going to remove all restrictions, what can be expected? In 1959 there were 86,400 convictions for drunkenness in this country and roughly 75 per cent of those detrimentally affected the family life of the person concerned. Here I want to refer to another witness, namely Dr. v. d. Merwe, formerly secretary of the National Council for Family Life and Marriage Guidance. When asked what the most observable effects were of the abuse of alcohol on family life, he said he would mention only the three most conspicuous ones, namely (1) the abuse of alcohol affects the economic position of the home; (2) it affects the relationship between father and mother; and (3) the education and upbringing of the children. And yet the hon. member for Hercules said we were embarking on an experiment! Are we then willing to experiment with these three features of family life? Surely, as a Parliament of the country, this is the last thing we should want to do. During the 1951 conference on alcoholism it was mentioned that the moderate use of strong drink cost the country between £30,000,000 and £50,000,000 annually and in a lecture before the Institute for Scientific Studies, on the prevention of alcoholism it was stated that more than £600,000,000 had been spent on alcohol during the past 25 years. The significance of this figure can better be realized when we consider that of the £350,000 spent on social services by the taxpayer during that same period, over £200,000 went for the correction of the effects of alcoholism. Can this country afford to pay a bill like that, Sir? Can we afford that, leaving aside the wastage of human life and material, the ruination and degradation of people’s bodies and souls because this is a matter which cannot be measured in terms of money but is a very real bill nevertheless. Another statement I want to refer to is one made by Dr. D. F. D. de Beer, who said that “South Africans drink more than 37,000,000 gallons of spirits, wines and beer per year”. Now we are going to lift all restrictions so as to make sure that the consumption will increase, because that is what it really means. We are making certain that the consumption will increase while at the same time some 12,000,000 of the people concerned are struggling to achieve and maintain an ordinary level of decency. Can we afford that type of experiment? That is why I say that there is only one answer we can give to this Bill at this stage, much as we would have liked to support a Bill intended to meet the problems inherent in the situation. I want to speak again for one moment with regard to the 11,000,000 voiceless people in South Africa, people who are altogether voiceless in this House. I refer to the Bantu population. In order to get first-hand information as to their line of thought with regard to this particular measure I had discussions with certain of their organizations which deal with the question of liquor supplies for their own people. I discussed with the leaders of an organization which has a membership of 48,000 adults and 50,000 teenage juveniles in the Cape Province—membership which is also spread over the rest of the Union—I discussed with them the implications of this Bill. They have been passing resolutions addressed to this and other Governments for the past 15 or 16 years, begging the Government to take certain actions with regard, firstly, to the tot system and secondly, with regard to certain other features of the supply of liquor. They are emphatically opposed to this particular Bill. They speak with the voice of the voiceless in this House, 80,000 of them speak on behalf of the 11,000,000 people that they largely represent. They have been sending annual resolutions and decisions since 1911 to various Ministers of Justice, not only to this Government but to its predecessors. Up to now what have they got? They are going to get an extension of the very system they want to see abolished, the tot system. They are afraid for their lives. They are afraid that the general breakdown of liquor control which will result from this Bill as far as the Bantu are concerned will completely nullify the missionary work which has been carried out for the last century in this country, very largely by the excellent missions of the Dutch Reformed Church. They are afraid that that is going to be largely nullified as a result of this Bill. They are afraid that, already living below the breadline, it will largely tend to bring their people, particularly in the urban areas, down below the poverty level. Mr. Speaker, I put that view before this House on behalf of these people because they have no representative here to put it for them. I say also, and this without it being necessarily my own view, that they regard this Bill as largely a political weapon aimed at their people, designed to keep them at a particular level in the country, a level at which they can be dealt with.

In conclusion I want to refer to a man whom we all knew in this House, whom we all greatly respected, the late Minister Karl Bremer. We all know of the interest that he took in these particular matters, a sincere and honest interest. Speaking in Pretoria in 1951, and on another occasion in this House, he referred to the fact that there was something like, at that stage, £13,000,000 being spent by the public on supplies of liquor in this country, and during the same period the state itself, largely to counteract the adverse of effect of that liquor supply had to spend on hospitals, goals, and on extended health services, £33,000,000—nearly three times the amount spent on liquor in order to counteract the effects of that same supply of liquor. [Time limit.]

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

With the permission of the House I wish to make the following statement:

Since I announced certain adjustments in official monetary policies and restrictions on the provision of foreign exchange for tourists, emigrants and for the payment of legacies on 4 May the gold and foreign exchange reserves have fallen by a further R16,000,000 to a level of Rl46,800,000 last Friday. The reserves may show an increase from time to time as a result of certain special receipts, but it is clear that the measures which I announced and the import control measures announced by my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, will take some time to show their full effect. Meanwhile, it is evident that the outflow of capital from South Africa, particularly through the purchase by South Africans of South African securities from overseas investors, is continuing, and I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is my duty to impose control on such transactions.

We have given very close study to the way in which this can be done, and it appears that the only technical solution to the problem will be to take the following three steps—firstly, South African residents will be prohibited from remitting funds for the purchase of South African and Rhodesian securities on the London and Bulawayo Stock Exchanges. Secondly the proceeds of securities sold in South Africa by a non-resident will be blocked; but may be re-invested in other quoted securities. Thirdly, stockbrokers and persons other than authorised foreign exchange dealers will be prohibited from acting as nominees for non-residents or from conducting non-resident accounts in their books.

These measures will therefore be applied immediately.

I may say that these measures were discussed extensively with the mission from the International Monetary Fund which recently visited South Africa. Similar measures have in recent years been applied by many countries and are in fact still applied by, for example, the United Kingdom in respect of securities owned by non-residents of the sterling area.

As I explained, non-residents of South Africa will still be able to switch their holdings of South African securities on the local market—a fact which may be important in helping to maintain activity in the market. The export of non-resident owned scrip and the transfer of the relative shares from South African to London registers will still be permitted. Similarly, non-resident owned shares will be transferable from London to South African registers—a procedure which will allow a non-resident to deal either in London or in South Africa and thus tend to minimize the price differences between the two markets.

I am especially sorry that it is necessary to impose these restrictions on shares purchased by non-residents with funds brought to South Africa and endorsed “Transferable”. Proceeds from the sale of such shares have until now been freely transferable to the country of origin of the investment, and I sincerely hope that it will be possible to restore this facility before very long. To this end the endorsement “Transferable” will continue to be affixed to securities purchased by non-residents from the proceeds of the sale of securities so endorsed.

In order to remove any possible misunderstanding I wish to emphasize that dividends will continue to be freely transferable as in the past.

In my statement to the House on 4 May, I mentioned that residents of South Africa would shortly be called upon to render returns of all their foreign assets. A regulation requiring all residents to furnish this information will shortly be promulgated and forms will be distributed to the commercial banks, which forms must then be completed and returned by all South African residents who hold assets outside South Africa. In order to encourage the immediate repatriation of liquid funds held abroad by South Africans, the Treasury will not take action against residents who may up to now have neglected to declare balances held abroad, or who may have acquired assets abroad in contravention of the existing regulations, provided such balances or the proceeds of such assets are transferred to South Africa within 30 days of the publication of the new regulation. Thereafter, however, any resident who is found to hold foreign assets illegally will be prosecuted, and the penalties are heavy.

Although I sincerely regret the need to impose these restrictions, we can at least now be reasonably confident that the main leakages of foreign exchange from South Africa have been blocked. This is still the lean season for our export trade and, apart from any special payments which we may receive, the balance of payments may continue to show a deficit for some time yet, but the situation is now under control and we can look forward to a substantial recovery in the reserves before the end of the year.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, one of the important objects of this Bill is to give effect to the concessions announced in the Budget speech in respect of social pensions by the hon. the Minister of Finance, as well as to certain concessions which I mentioned during the discussion of the Social Welfare Vote. Hon. members will not hold it against me if at this stage on a Friday afternoon I do not repeat everything the hon. the Minister of Finance and I have said on previous occasions. I therefore think hon. members will agree with me that I should be very brief and to the point in dealing with this matter.

This Bill also contains a number of provisions which are intended to facilitate the administration of the laws controlling social pensions. It also amends certain provisions of the Government Service Pensions Act. These provisions, however, all have this in common, namely that in every instance concessions are being made, concessions which hon. members opposite will welcome, and concessions which have been urged in various quarters. Hon. members have also been given a memorandum dealing with this Bill, a very comprehensive memorandum which the Department have drawn up and for which we want to thank them. This memorandum sets out all the proposals embodied in the Bill. I assume that hon. members with their usual conscientiousness have also read this memorandum very carefully and are therefore familiar with the provisions of this Bill. If I can give hon. members a word of advice, it is that this memorandum contains very important information which can be very useful to hon. members in the recess when constituents make inquiries regarding pensions. For this reason it will perhaps be advisable not to mislay this memorandum, but to keep it at hand so that they can have this information available.

One of the matters which has given rise to representations by hon. members and other organizations is the residential qualifications which are laid down at present by the laws controlling social pensions. The general feeling which one finds everywhere is that the required residential period in our country, namely 15 out of the last 20 years, is unnecessarily severe in the case of a person who was born in South Africa and who has lived outside South Africa for a certain period without surrendering his South African citizenship. There are many of our people in other parts of Africa who will benefit from this provision. For this reason it has also been decided to relax the residential qualifications in respect of South African citizens by birth and also persons who have acquired South African citizenship. Hon. members will find the necessary provision in Clauses 1 and 29. Clause 19 also provides for the relaxation of residential qualifications in the case of war veterans. The effect of these concessions has been discussed fully on a previous occasion, that is to say when the Vote was discussed, and I therefore do not intend boring hon. members by doing so again at this stage. It is also dealt with very fully in the memorandum which hon. members have before them.

Next I want to say a few words about the attendants allowances which are dealt with in the Bill. Hon. members will know that at the moment a maximum allowance of R36 per annum is paid to a social pensioner, provided his physical or mental condition is such that it necessitates the regular attendance of another person. In accordance with the amendments contained in Clauses 3, 13, 21 and 31 of the Bill, this amount of R36 will be increased to R48 per annum if the Bill is adopted. This is a concession which will be welcomed and appreciated by many of these unfortunate people.

A matter which has caused not only the Department but pensioners and consequently hon. members as well great difficulties in the past has been the date of commencement and the date on which pensions commence and expire—are cancelled or stopped. As hon. members know, a social pension is granted at present from the date on which the applicant becomes entitled to that pension by law, and it expires on the date on which the pensioner is no longer entitled to it—whether it is in the middle of the month or on the third of the month, it makes no difference. When a pension is reduced, increased or cancelled as a result of a change in the pensioner’s income, marital state or other circumstances, that increase, reduction or cancellation also takes effect as from the date on which the change took place. Hon. members will appreciate that this caused a great deal of accounting work in the Department of Pensions. The grant, increase, reduction or cancellation of a pension from a date during a month not only causes an exceptionally great deal of administrative and accounting work, but because we have to deal with hundreds and thousands of files it also results in troublesome overpayments which are not only unpleasant to the Department, but which are also a nuisance to the pensioner. For that reason it is now being proposed that a social pension will be granted in future as from the first day of the month in which the applicant becomes entitled thereto and will be cancelled with effect from the last day of the month in which it should have been or should be cancelled. Hon. members will realize at once how much this will simplify our work, how many difficulties it will eliminate, and how it will help solve the problem of over-payment because we shall now not be working with days, but from month to month. Apart from the fact that it will save trouble and eliminate difficulties, it will also give pensioners and additional income, because the man who now becomes entitled to a pension on the 29th of the month will receive a full month’s pension, as it will accrue to him as from the first day of the month in which he becomes entitled to that pension.

The ratio between the amount of the basic social pensions payable to Whites, Coloureds and Indians has remained constant in recent years, namely 12: 6: 5. For example, the maximum basic old age pension payable to Whites, Coloureds and Indians have been R144, R72 and R60 per annum respectively since 1952. As a result of these basic pensions being supplemented from time to time by means of bonuses, etc., Whites have, however, received proportionately greater increases, with the result that the ratio between the amounts payable to the three racial groups has become disturbed. Hon. members will remember that during the discussion of the Vote and also during the Budget speech it was announced that we have decided to restore this ratio by increasing the bonus and the additional amounts payable at present to Coloureds and Indians. Clauses 38 and 46 of this Bill give effect to this decision.

Mr. Speaker, a few words about the administration of these laws by different Ministers. In Clauses 10, 25 and 28 of the Bill provision is made for the assigning of the administration of the Old-Age Pension Acts, of Part II of the War Pensions Act, 1941, and of the Disability Grants Act, 1946, to more than one Minister and departmental head. I want to point out in passing in this regard that many of these provisions are already found in the Blind Pensions Act and Childrens Act. In addition the powers conferred on the Commissioner of Pensions by the Old-Age Pensions Act and the Blind Persons Act have already been transferred since 1944 under Section 46 of Act No. 48 of 1944 to the Secretary for Native Affairs in so far as these Acts relate to Natives. The principle is a well-known one. It is a principle which we have often discussed in this House and despite all the unnecessary publicity which a certain newspaper, for lack of other news, has given this principle over the past two days, I do not intend discussing this matter and I trust that hon. members will also refrain from succumbing to the temptation to discuss this aspect of the matter.

This Bill also deals however with amendments to the Government Service Pensions Act. These amendments in the main correct certain errors and weaknesses which have come to light from time to time in administering this Act. However, there are one or two matters to which I want to refer in the course of my speech. In the first place, I want to refer to the amendment embodied in Clause 39 which reduces the minimum age for entry, inter alia, to the Union Pension Fund to 15 years. This reduction is being introduced as a result of the fact that the minimum age for appointment in the clerical, technical and general divisions of the Public Service was recently reduced to 15 years. The amendments contain in para, (b) of Clause 40 and para, (c) of Clause 43 flow from the fact that we have now converted to the rand/cent coinage system. Clause 45 provides for the recovery of certain amounts which have been overpaid to civil pensioners in respect of bonuses or temporary allowances. In this regard I want to point out to hon. members that the War Pensions Act, 1942, and the laws governing social pensions also provide for the recovery of amounts overpaid to pensioners. This is therefore a well-tried and recognized principle which we are following here.

The amendments effected by Clause 37 flow from the fact that the Union has now become a republic.

Under Clause 48 (3) of the Bill the provisions by which certain concessions are granted to social pensioners will be deemed to have come into operation on 1 April 1961 and all cases which have already been dealt with since that date, will be reviewed in the light of these amended provisions.

These are in brief the main provisions of this Bill and I move.

I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.

Agreed to.