I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, last night the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) was still speaking and he had to continue the debate this afternoon, but in the meantime he has disappeared. You certainly cannot expect me, Sir, to reply to his speech because it really had no theme. He reacted to every interjection and his speech reminded me very much of an inebriated Coloured in the street who veers first to the one side and then to the other, as if he has just come from a bar and does not know his destination. You would not expect me to follow him in his uncertain course, because then you might perhaps find me guilty of reckless driving, Sir.

I want to deal with matters more serious than those dealt with by the hon. member for Outeniqua. The object of this Bill is threefold. Firstly, it is to bring the law into line with the administrative requirements of the Gropu Areas Act; secondly, to abolish unnecessary control measures, and thirdly, to remedy mistakes and anomalies. The fact that this measure makes certain concessions to persons affected by the Group Areas Act is quite incidental. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) tried to create the impression yesterday that this measure had not succeeded in its object, because its object is supposedly to make concessions, and because the concessions it makes are, according to him, negligible and are overshadowed by the intransigence of the Group Areas Act, and therefore this measure does not comply with its object. He described it as “an inhuman Act ”. It has become the custom of the Opposition in this House, when they have no more arguments to advance against a measure, or when their arguments have little substance, to deluge the measure with a flood of abuse. It would be infinitely better if the members of the Opposition would get to the root of every measure introduced here and express their opinions about the principle of the measure and say whether they oppose the principle or accept it, but instead of doing that they continue to say that this Government is inhuman, that we are oppressive and even deceive the public.

The hon. member for East London (North) based his whole speech on a false premise, viz. that the object of this Bill was to alleviate the provisions of the Group Areas Act. I want to emphasize that that is not the object, but I would like to add that this will in fact be the effect of this Bill, viz. that the provisions of the Group Areas Act will be relaxed. I therefore want to discuss the measure in the light of the objects it has, and I want to pause to deal, firstly, with the amendment of Section 11 of the principal Act.

In terms of the existing Section 11, certain persons are prohibited from entering into agreements to acquire land in the controlled areas. I want to emphasize that what is prohibited is the entering into of agreements, and not the acquisition of land. Only the making of certain agreements is prohibited by the existing Act. and not the acquisition of land. In this connection I want to point out that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) strenuously attacked the Bill yesterday and stated that “the Opposition has been opposed to the Group Areas legislation from the time it was first introduced ”. I do not want to say that the hon. member for South Coast deliberately told an untruth, because you, Sir, will not allow me to say so. But I do want to point out to the hon. member that the existing Section 11 of the Group Areas Act which we now seek to amend was introduced for the first time in 1943 by the United Party Government, viz. in the Restriction of Trade and Occupation of Land (Transvaal and Natal) Act. The hon. member for South Coast stated yesterday that the United Party was also in favour of residential segregation and nothing more, and then they want this to be done on a voluntary basis. Now I point out to you, Sir, that in the 1943 Act the United Party not only made separate residential areas compulsory, but also separate business premises. The principle of the Group Areas Act was in fact introduced by the United Party, which fathered it. But they still speak with two voices. Here the hon. member for South Coast says that they are opposed to the Group Areas Act, but in the Other Place the leader of their party said that in fact they are in favour of group areas. The existing Section 11 of the Group Areas Act, which was introduced by the United Party, prohibited all agreements in regard to land in controlled areas by disqualified persons. That provision was not retrospective, and consequently the compatriots of the hon. member for South Coast (he will know to which compatriots of his I am referring) continually evaded the provisions of Section 11 by simply pre-dating the agreements to a date prior to the promulgation of that Act, with the result that it was impossible to prove that fraud and to show that it was an illegal agreement. That is how they circumvented the law. That is the reason why the amendment which not only prohibits agreements but also the actual acquisition of land in these areas is essential. That was the original intention also of the 1943 Act, to prohibit the actual acquisition of land, and not only the agreements. The hon. member for South Coast, and also the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) raised grave objection to the permit system which is now being introduced, because the new clause provides that no disqualified person can acquire immovable property situated in controlled areas except by means of a permit. Now the hon. member for East London (North) has said that section now becomes so wide that even acquisition by way of inheritance is excluded. I want to point out to the hon. member, however, that the real object of the permit system is to give relief in bona fide cases, as in the case of an inheritance, and only to deal with people seeking to commit fraud. The hon. member for South Coast went much further in this regard and said—

I think the hon. member for South Coast has completely missed the point. The intention is not at all to implement the law by a system of permits. The law is quite clear. The permit is used only to make a concession. It is not there to apply the law, but to suspend it. It is a concession which is made and for that reason permits are issued. The permits are not there to implement the law. Moreover, this permit system is nothing new. It is the existing system as embodied in the Group Areas Act. In this Section 11 we are dealing with a controlled area, as against a group area. In the case of group areas, the system already applies, and controlled areas are now being placed on the same basis as group areas. Mr. Speaker, the United Party was not opposed to the permit system in the case of group areas. Why then is the hon. member for South Coast so much opposed now to the permit system? In the case of group areas, they did not oppose the permit system because they regarded it as a concession for which they had pleaded. Hon. members should read the Hansard reports. But now they reproach the Government for extending the permit system to controlled areas only. The principle, which is contained in the United Party legislation of 1943, viz. to remove certain racial groups from certain areas, is being extended further here, and for that purpose a new Section 11 is being proposed as being the most effective weapon with which to implement that principle. To condemn it now and to say that it is wrong is tantamount to admitting that they have no reply to give in connection with that principle.

I want to break a lance for this permit system. Day after day and on every possible occasion the Government is being disparaged as being inhuman, as being oppressors, heartless brutes, etc. Here we now have a case where it is admitted that when one racial group is being removed from a particular area we are dealing with people, their property and their rights. Now the law is quite clear and unequivocal, and what the hon. member for South Coast wants is that “the law must be certain and ascertainable By applying the law to these people it is understandable that a certain amount of misery may be caused if it is applied as it so clearly stands here, but that misery is alleviated by means of the permit system, and humane action can and will be taken to achieve the object of the law. But what is the comment of the hon. member for South Coast on that? He says that “all that an individual can now do is to apply for a permit, and that means that under the Group Areas Act the law is neither certain nor ascertainable”. That is quite a foolish allegation, because the law is quite clear and ascertainable. The system of permits is only being introduced to facilitate the application of the Act. It is being done for the very thing he advocates, viz. that we should not be inhuman.

I come to a second important clause in this Bill, viz. Clause 12, which also introduces a new principle. The principle is that a particular site can be set aside for a specific purpose and it can then be excluded from the provisions of the Group Areas Act. Thus a site may be occupied for business purposes, but a person will be prohibited from residing there. The hon. member for East London (North) took strong exception to this clause. He said—

Now I want to ask the hon. member: which is the greater hardship, to allow a person to retain his business in that place, or to tell him to pack up and leave that place?

Why should there be any hardship?

It is obvious that the hardship will be much greater if the man has to pack up and leave. The hon. member asks why there should be any hardship. He should have asked that question when the principle was adopted in the 1957 Act. Then we decided that there should be group areas. This Bill simply amends the principle to the extent that some measure of relief can be granted.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Will any of the group areas which have been proclaimed be deproclaimed, and will this clause be used instead of such a proclamation?

It will depend on the decision of the Minister. If he thinks that in certain cases the proclamation should be withdrawn, I am sure he will do so. If he thinks it is not necessary, he will not withdraw it. But this clause gives him the power to do so.

The hon. member for East London (North) goes further and says: “This clause appears to be directed mainly against Indians; to make their shops economic units, it is necessary for them to reside on the same premises.” I always suspected these Indians of sleeping on their bananas to ripen them, and now the hon. member is confirming my suspicion. I cannot understand this argument of the hon. member that the fact that the owner resides on the premises makes the business more economic. I think that is a far-fetched statement. The fact that an owner lives on the premises will not bring him more clients, will not make his articles cheaper and will not make them more attractive to his clients, unless perhaps he sleeps on his bananas. No, the hon. member’s proposition sounds good, but it has no substance. The important consequence of this clause, which hon. members cannot or will not understand, is that a business area can be proclaimed for certain racial groups, and that we now get a kind of mixed area where there is a prohibition against people residing there, but where people who are disqualified from living there can still trade there. In the past the position was that when group areas were declared, that group had to leave the area concerned for all purposes, and you established two separate areas. Now you establish an area where that group can still be in that area for a specific purpose, or even for additional purposes. That is a relaxation. Now is it fair, if hon. members cannot argue on the principle, to stigmatize this as being inhuman? It is in fact a humane measure, a concession made to these people so that they can retain their businesses there. In this regard I again want to point out that occupation for business purposes can only be allowed as the result of a permit being issued. Therefore, there is again absolute control by the authorities over this kind of occupation. The hon. member for South Coast said—

The hon. member did not try to prove this proposition. He did not set out to prove, by reference to the Bill, that “patronage” could now take place. I therefore cannot react to his argument because he furnished no proof. But I just want to express my disapproval of the bald statements which are made here. I think it is unfair and presumptuous to make such statements. I want to controvert the statement that Clause 12 creates such “patronage”. I shall prove it by reading the clause itself. Sub-section (3) reads as follows—

This clause refers to Section 15 of the Group Areas Act, and if the hon. member for South Coast had taken the trouble to refer to Section 15 of the principal Act he would have seen that there are a whole number of limitations by which officials as well as the persons falling under the group areas are bound. There is no patronage at all. But it has also become the custom of the Opposition, when attacking a measure in this House, to make sweeping statements. They make statements but never try to substantiate those statements by quoting chapter and verse. It is easy to sow suspicion by simply making bald statements without furnishing any proof. In this morning’s newspaper, for example, we find a statement such as this by the hon. member, and if one reads it one can understand what a misconception the public, as well as people overseas, must have as the result of this sort of statement which is quite unfounded and has no substance.

I want to come to the further statement made by the hon. member for South Coast, viz. his objection to Clause 24, which amends Section 37 of the Group Areas Act. Section 37 of the Act provides that land held illegally may be sold. Then the section says that the proceeds of such a sale may be used in certain ways. I just want to read the section to get the context right. The particular section dealing with the right the Minister has to sell land reads as follows—

and then it says what should happen in certain cases, and it continues to say—

1. (b) in any other case, unless the Minister otherwise directs, into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Instead of paying the balance into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, these amounts will now in terms of this amendment be paid to the Group Areas Development Board. The criticism of the hon. member for South Coast is that he says: “The Opposition takes the strongest exception to the way in which in terms of one provision of the Bill the proceeds of a sale could be paid directly to the Group Areas Development Board. The Board should receive its finances out of monies voted by Parliament, and revenue accrued in this way should be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.” Then he continues to say—

It is clear that the hon. member is not au fait with the provisions of the Group Areas Development Act. He seeks to create the impression that there will no longer be any parliamentary control over that money. He avers, as it were, that the proposed amendment now completely wants to circumvent parliamentary control over funds. My opinion is that it is only fair that the funds obtained from selling a site in a certain group area should again be used to develop that particular area. And if the hon. member were au fait with the work of the Group Areas Development Board he would know that there is not the slightest attempt to try to circumvent parliamentary control, because Section 11 of the Group Areas Development Act says this—

There is absolute control over these funds by Parliament; moreover, the principle that the money produced by one area should again be spent in that area is also embodied in the Act, because Section 30 of the Act says—

Therefore it goes to that particular area where the immovable property was sold, and then the second sub-section says this—

Therefore the principle has already been embodied in that Act, that if money is obtained from the sale of property in a certain group area, the proceeds of that sale must be used for the development of that particular area. That is also the principle which is now embodied in this Bill.

I want to come to the final aspect of this measure, viz. the determination of the evacuation date. The determination of the date on which a prohibited group must leave an area was in the past always mentioned in a proclamation which declared that area to be a group area. That was one of the requirements of the proclamation. But it appeared to be impracticable and it makes it impossible to implement the Act, because the Group Areas Act itself provides that before people can be removed an alternative residential area must be made available to them. Now the time provided in the proclamation expires before alternative accommodation has been found for the group which has to be removed, and then it becomes impossible to implement the Act. It often happened in the past that people went to court, and there were protracted court proceedings in regard to a particular group area. Then the period mentioned in the proclamation expires before the case has been decided, with the result that a permit has to be applied for to be able to stay longer in that particular area. The people who had to administer the Act were constantly deluged with applications for permits to remain on longer, after the period mentioned in the proclamation had expired. Now the evacuation date is no longer published in the proclamation, and the development of the group area can be implemented systematically by fixing a date for every particular site or portion of the area. I can also mention the further benefit that, as housing is being provided, an evacuation date is fixed for each individual section or each individual site. That is a great concession and it makes it possible to implement the Act.

Before resuming my seat I just want to refer to something which was said by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis). Last night he mentioned astronomical figures to show what it would cost the country to remove all these groups to their different areas. He said, inter alia, that it would cost R1,000,000,000 just to remove the Indians in Natal. Is there any basis for that figure? Surely that is not the case, because the removal is just a shifting of capital from one area to another. The money of one area is used for development in the other. The Act clearly states that. It is not a case of new capital now having to be found. Compensation is paid here, and something is obtained there. It is a shifting of capital as well as the removal of people.

I am sorry that this matter was dealt with in this way in the House yesterday, viz. that hon. members should get up in this House merely to sow suspicion. The Opposition tells us every day in this House that as a result of the actions of this Government our country is becoming unpopular overseas. Here we now have a measure which makes great concessions, which aims at making the implementation of the Act practical and humane, but still hon. members say it is “inhuman” and that it is an oppressive measure. I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that hon. members have not studied this Bill. What they in fact did was to take the speech made by the hon. Deputy Minister in the Senate, and they grasped at the few points he made there and concentrated their criticism on that, because we have heard not a single word of criticism from the opposite side in regard to all the other clauses which the Deputy Minister did not touch on in his speech.

The hon. member who has just sat down has made a speech typical of the type of speech that we get from the other side, showing not the slightest consideration for the feelings of the people affected by the Group Areas Act. The hon. member, and other hon. members who spoke, lift their hands in horror at the mere thought that members on this side of the House should refuse to vote for this Bill. They come with the soft-soap story: “After all we are only trying to amend the Act.” To do what? To make its working easier for the Government. I want to tell hon. members and the Government that I won’t lift a finger to help them to carry out this Act. The people that I represent in this House have been the greatest sufferers under this Act. No Act has brought more misery and heartache, loss and humiliation and degradation to a group of people than this Act, and no Act in the Statute Book has caused more suicides than that Act.

What about the 1943 Act?

I was not here in 1943. If the hon. member who laughs so easily at the misery of the Coloured people would have read the article in this morning’s Cape Times …

We laugh about you.

Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the voice of the hon. member and the more I look at his face, the more I believe in birth control.

Order! I think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself!

Mr. Speaker, then I withdraw that.

Just look in a mirror!

Sir, this is not a laughing matter.

I would say the hon. member ought to go and look in the mirror.

Order, order!

Mr. Speaker, this is not a laughing matter. I do not appreciate the taunts which hon. members direct at me when I get up to defend the people whom I represent in this hon. House. I want to repeat what I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted, that if those hon. members have read the article in this morning’s paper by Dr. van der Ross then, if there is an atom of conscience left in them they could not help but be stirred by the feelings of a Coloured man who showed the desperation to which that group of people have been driven because of the actions of this Government. How can you expect any decentminded citizen, or any decent-minded member of this House to help the Government to implement even further that Act? And I want to repudiate the suggestions made by hon. members on the other side of the House that there are any concessions in this Act. They are giving the impression to people outside that there are concessions but, Mr. Speaker, I can point out in this Bill a number of further restrictions and further prohibitions. Therefore it is not correct to say that this is a Bill bringing about concessions.

May I now deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in connection with businesses. He wants the people of South Africa to believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister, through this Bill, is making a concession to the people who have businesses in restricted areas. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that many of them have come to me and said “How can the Government expect me to close my business up in the evening without any protection whatsoever? I must leave my business to the mercy of thugs, thieves and burglars. What will the insurance company do in regard to the stock.”

Come off that! Three-quarters of the people do not live in their shops.

That is not the point. The Government tells me that they are making these people a concession. They are not making a concession, they are making it much more difficult for these people.

Do you live in your office?

The point is this, these people who have shops in these areas live there because they have to guard their businesses in the evenings. They have to guard them against burglary, they have to be there to satisfy the insurance company as to the protection which they give to their businesses.

You know that is not true. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member wishes to make a speech and then give the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) an opportunity to reply, I will give him the opportunity to make that speech. The hon. member for Boland cannot possibly reply to these questions while he is addressing the House.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member seems to think that a man can pollute the air during the day in his business but he cannot pollute the are during the evenings. What nonsense that is! Let me say this for the benefit of the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members opposite, that many a business man has come to me since they heard of this Act and has said to me “Make an appeal to the Government. Let us stay with our businesses because it is the only way we can protect our property.” What are we going to do with these people? The Government is going to say “You can carry on your business during the day but at night you must leave it.” There will be no protection, nobody to look after it, and what do you think will happen? They will be robbed, they will be burgled, they will be destroyed. And the Government tells me that they are making a concession to these people This is certainly no concession.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take the matter very much further. I merely wanted to lodge my protest against the manner in which this Government is trying further to ruin the people I represent. May I give the hon. the Deputy Minister some concrete examples of what has been done under this Bill. There are many widows who have applied to take transfer of property which they have inherited from their late husbands. In practically each case that is the only home that she has, a home for which these people have saved and battled. But I have not had one successful application to the Government to allow a poor Coloured woman to inherit and take transfer of the property that was left her by her late husband. What has been the result? She is forced to sell that property; Do you think they can get bids for those properties? Of course they can, at a tenth of the value. These people are ruined.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said, in his opening remarks, that these people can buy a property in the other declared areas where they can live. But the amount of money which these people get for the properties they have to sell is completely insufficient for them to buy a home in the other areas. What happens then? They are ruined, they are lost, they are frustrated.

In the Other Place when his Bill was being debated, a member of the Government Party tried to show that some sacrifice was being made Europeans in this Bill. He cited a place called Bellville South.

Bellville South has nothing to do with this Bill.

No, no, but he cited the alleged sacrifice of some Europeans under the Group Areas.

We are not discussing the Group Areas now.

I know we are not, but the hon. Senator did. I wish to point out that 95 per cent of the Coloured people are being driven almost to desperation. I repeat to the hon. the Minister that if he wants to help the Coloured people as he said yesterday, then he must do something about this vicious, inhuman Act which is on the Statute Book. I say that is what the people say about it outside …

Order, order!

I withdraw those words, Mr. Speaker. It is a most unfortunate Act which is regarded by the Coloured people as something which should never have been on the Statute Book. They do not want to have to suffer merely because they were born, unfortunately for themselves, with a skin which is not white. Has this Parliament any right to give the Government any more power to make it easier to ruin these people, to uproot them from their homes? Is it not time that we, the right-thinking people of this country, should say to the Government “We call a halt and we demand a halt”? Not one of these gentlemen on the Government benches knows the misery they are causing these people. We know because we come into contact with them daily. We go into their areas and we see the suffering that these people undergo because of that Act. Is it not time that this Government saw the light of day? Can they not see the direction in which they are chasing the Coloured people? The report in this morning’s paper about the Coloured people wanting to unite with the Black people …

Order, order! The hon. people must come back to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to this Bill, because in this Bill there are more and more restrictions placed upon the Coloured people. Let me quote from the White Paper on this Bill …

White Paper!

Yes, White Paper. There are no concessions of any value at all, and in any case the Coloureds do not want any concessions from the Government on this Act. I am reading from the White Paper under Clause 12, sub-clause (2) which—

Sub-clause (3)—

That is another prohibition. Clause 14 might be regarded as some sort of concession but it is of very little value to these people anyway. Clause 18, they say—

That is a further prohibition. On Clause 19 the White Paper says—

And so you go through this White Paper and you will find that far from there being these little concessions which the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about, there are added prohibitions, added millstones around the necks of the people that we represent in this House.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by telling the hon. the Minister with all the sincerity at my command that if he really wants to help the Coloured people, if the speech he made yesterday in his address to this House with regard to the Coloured people was a sincere attempt to help the Coloured people, then for God’s sake help them in the cities where the Government is causing untold misery and degradation to these people. I make this appeal in all sincerity to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I sincerely hope that those people who sit opposite and have the guts to realize what is happening to South Africa will help the Coloured people.

Order, order! The hon. member must refer to “hon. members” and not to “those people”.

I refer to the hon. members who have the guts, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) spoke about this matter and it is clear that what he said was merely a repetition of what he has said before on so many occasions. However, I think he even surpassed himself more to-day than he has done in the past. If I have to count the occasions on which he has said “the people have been robbed and the people have been ruined”, and if I have to repeat the names he has called this Bill, I think I will find that he has even surpassed himself to-day and I think he did so because he knows so little about what is stated in this Bill that he had to compensate for that ignorance by using the language which he did use. I just want to say this to the hon. member that if he carries on like that and regards himself as an appendage to the Opposition and if he does not talk like someone who is genuinely desirous of promoting the interests of the Coloured people, we can predict on which road he will find himself.

You did not say that yesterday.

The hon. member said “The Coloureds don’t want any concessions from this Government”.

Not because of this Bill.

The words of the hon.member were “the Coloureds don’t want any concessions from this Government”. If that is his attitude then he is creating the impression …

On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker, I added “in connection with this Bill”. I hope the hon. member will accept my explanation.

I wrote down the words of the hon. member which I have quoted here but I take his word for it. Let me tell the hon. member this that, from the tone in which he said those things, it is clear that he regards himself really as someone who has to help to overthrow the Government, because the Coloured people supposedly do not want anything from this Government. But in a different breath he nevertheless appeals to the Minister: please to help the Coloured people out of their misery. But when the Minister does so, as he is doing now, that is the kind of comment we get from him. I do not think we should pay any further attention to that kind of talk, Sir. As I have said, it is clear to us what road he is following in politics.

The hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Progressive Party gave the impression that he had studied the Bill. He at least levelled sound criticism against the Bill although we do not agree with him. It was very clear to us from the entire speech of the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that they were not so much concerned about discussing this Bill, and about improving the provisions, as they were to plead that the whole principle as laid down in the Grout) Areas Act should be discarded. He even said so at the end of his speech. He said that they were totally opposed to that Act and that was why they were also opposed to this Bill. That is a very clear attitude and it is only right that the hon. member should state his attitude clearly. It is clear that they would like to see all discrimination on the ground of colour for residential purposes abolished. They regard it as sinful that anyone should be identified by the area in which he lives. As far as they are concerned, the ability to live like a human being does not depend on whether he can live a full life, but on whether he can hide his identity and whether he can prevent his identity from being associated with the area in which he lives. Their whole plea is really based on an attempt to make it impossible for any person to be identified by the residential area in which he lives. It is not my intention to quarrel with them on these matters at this stage. If they repeal this Act, as they said they would when they got into power, and came face to face with the unshakable truth, and they had to account for what they said here to-day, they would sing a totally different tune. This plea of theirs that identification should not be possible is associated with another standpoint which the hon. member for East London (North) adopts, and it is this: He is opposed to this Bill because the element of “compulsion”, as he calls it, is retained in the legislation. Sir, they are pleading in the name of Liberalism and progressiveness that there should be no “compulsion” when it comes to determining residential areas. It must be on a voluntary basis; everyone should have the right to live where he chooses. They adopt that attitude for the sake of Liberalism and freedom of choice. Every person should be able to live where he wants to live. I want to refer to this Liberalism and freedom of choice because it is something which often ricochets and becomes as great a force as that which you are fighting at the moment, Sir. Recently one of the biggest liberal braggarts in the world, Professor Catlin, addressed the Natal University. One of the statements he made and which pleased him very much—so much so that he repeated it on numerous occasions for the newspapers—was this—

Nobody should be allowed to refuse. Mr. Speaker, in other words, everyone should be forced to associate with members of the other races. I want to tell these hon. members that their attitude is leading them in that direction. As soon as they come face to face with reality, they seek refuge in clever phrases such as: “Nobody should be allowed to refuse to associate with a person of a different race.” And then they pretend to the world that they advocate freedom and not force. No, Mr. Speaker, all this pious talk on the part of those hon. members about freedom of choice and all their clever talk about economic misery is merely the prelude to the introduction of a force to be exercised on a mechanical community, that is, in the long run, their ultimate aim.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), who led the offensive, showed very clearly that he knew very little about the contents of this Bill but I want to refer to a few of his statements. He said: “This Act will fail; this Act will break down.” Then he coupled another statement to that to the effect that the Deputy Minister knew that it would not be possible to administer this law by way of permits. He said that officials would be charged with the responsibility of issuing the permits, and, he added, the Deputy Minister knew with what type of person he would have to deal. He referred to “the types”. As a result those officials would be subject to a great degree of scandal-mongering. If you regard these statements as a whole, Sir, namely, that the Act will break down and that there will be scandal-mongering against the officials—and because of that he is opposed to this Bill—it can mean only one thing, namely, that he does not see his way clear to take any action against those so-called types to which he has referred. He would much rather give them a free rein to do as they please, instead of trying to apply a law, even if it were by way of permits. By adopting that attitude the hon. member admits that he is powerless and because he is powerless he predicts that: “This Act will fail; this Act will break down.” But what does he suggest as an alternative? Does he not want to control those people whom he has described as so-called types? No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made it quite clear that he has given very little attention to this matter and that he merely wanted to kick up a lot of dust here.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) referred to Clause 12 in terms of which, according to him, we were encroaching on the authority of local authorities in so far as town planning was concerned, and he tried to draw a technical distinction between occupation of land and the utilization of land. He said that, up to the present moment, group areas and the development of group areas have only been concerned with the occupation of land and not with the utilization of that land. I want to say to the hon. member that he may have a technical point there but I want to add this, that he is quite wrong if he says that because of that group areas and group area development cut right across the town-planning schemes of local authorities, because it has been doing that for a long time. Group areas and group area development have long since become an integral part of town planning. I want to go so far as to say that in South Africa to-day that is really the only basis of town planning. Ever since this Government has placed this legislation on the Statute Book every municipality has known that they have to do their planning within the framework which has been created by the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act. That is the acknowledged policy and it must be carried out. You cannot get away from that fact. Sir. It is no good complaining that the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act cut right across local schemes. It was necessary in South Africa to create the machinery to do what could not be done under town-planning schemes. It was an acknowledged fact that with town-planning schemes alone you could not bring about separation between the races, and this machinery had to be created in order to do so. Where it has been introduced it must of necessity cut across town-planning schemes. What the hon. member for Umlazi is dealing with is nothing new. It was not a problem that confronted us only and that the necessary machinery had to be created, machinery that cut right across town-planning schemes. Other countries have had the same experience. In the United States of America they found that town planning alone was not enough to deal with the whole problem of city decay on the one hand and city growth on the other. In 1954 they amended their National Housing Act which in turn empowered the Federal Government to give greater power to the states and the municipalities than the Minister has under this legislation. In America they can condemn a whole area, purchase it and demolish all the buildings, and plan it right from the start again. That is called “City Redevelopment and Renewal”. We must accept that in our case city redevelopment and renewal is really one of the facets of group-area development. It is usually in the older parts where we find the conditions which have to be remedied by means of the establishment of group areas. It is an integral part of it. This machinery is necessary and complementary to town-planning schemes, because in spite of the wonderful work that has been achieved by town planning it is from the nature of its development limited in its scope and limited as far as means and power are concerned. This is an essential complement.

But it is not only in the United States of America that other bodies encroach on local authorities as far as town planning is concerned. We also find that in England, although in a slightly different sense. In England local authorities have no power as regards the siting of industries, as is the case here in South Africa. The Minister of Local Government and Housing has power in that regard and lately in England pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister also to dictate to the counties how they should plan. Great pressure is also exerted on him to seek co-ordination on a higher level. That in the long run is what we are doing by means of our Group Areas legislation.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how the Opposition complains about the effects of the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act or about town-planning schemes and local authorities, this legislation is necessary if we want to ensure stability in property values, if we want to bring about city redevelopment according to the pattern provided by our legislation and if we want to provide suitable accommodation for every racial group where the members of that race can live their lives to the fullest extent and make a decent living.

Mr. Speaker, before commencing with my criticism of the Bill presently before the House I want to tell the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) that no amount of legislation introduced in this House will help people preserve their identity. That is something that individuals must look after for themselves. No Immorality Act, no Mixed Marriages Act and no Group Areas Act will preserve for people their own identity if they do not wish to preserve it for themselves. And that is the attitude of this party, that we do not wish to force integration on anybody, neither do we wish to force segregation. We wish to leave it to the normal traditional courses of this country. We will force neither segregation on the population of South Africa, nor will we force integration.

Before I get on to my main theme I want to say to the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé) that he last night made a passionate speech about the remarkable achievements in housing and in slum clearance on the part of this Government.

Ask the City of Johannesburg.

That had nothing whatever to do with Group Areas, and that is the point I am trying to make. You do not need a Group Areas Act to clear slums; there is a Slum Clearance Act under which one can quite readily clear slums; and one does not need a Group Areas Act to put up great housing schemes. That, also, has nothing whatever to do with the operation of the Group Areas Act. That is all I wish to say to that hon. member.

When the original Group Areas Act was passed in 1950, the then Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, declared that the enactment of the Group Areas law would mean a fresh start for South Africa because, he said, it heralded a new period. He made it clear at the time that the Government regarded—and it is quite clear that it still regards, the Group Areas as one of the most important of all apartheid measures. He stated—

Now if. this Bill for Group Areas and its trail of amending Acts is the essence of apartheid, one can only say that it has failed. I do not want to labour the point which has been made by other hon. members in this House, that this is the eleventh amending Bill that we have had to consider in Parliament since 1950 when the original measure was passed. None of these amending Bills has made the original Act any more practicable, and no amending Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to introduce in the future—and certainly he will have to introduce more amending Bills— will make it more practicable.

The hon. the Deputy Minister stated in his introductory speech that this Bill contained some important concessions. He also made it quite clear that no deviation from basic policy is intended by this Bill. It interested me to notice, when I read the Deputy Minister’s speech in the Other Place—which, naturally, is practically identical to his speech here since he is introducing the same Bill—when I read that speech I noticed that he had omitted to issue this warning to the hon. Senators. Why, I wonder, did he find it necessary to warn this House that no deviation of policy was intended, but he did not find it necessary to warn the Upper House?

Did the hon. member read my reply to that debate?

Yes I did, but I am talking of the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech, and I am coming to the point the Minister is making now. It is possible that he found it necessary to issue this warning when he replied to the debate in the Other Place and when he introduced the Bill here because he was rather startled at the laudatory notices which his initial introductory speech had received in the so-called Opposition Press. One leading newspaper, the Star, actually went so far in an article on the 9th, the after the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced the Bill in the Upper House, the Star went so far as to say that the amendments to the Group Areas Act were “a message to the Indians of South Africa that the Nationalist Government accept them and are prepared to accommodate them”. They said “It is a new phase, almost a reversal of Nationalist policy”. Now it is clear to me that having read that laudatory remark the hon. the Minister was at pains to tell everybody, perhaps his own supporters more particularly, that no new policy was intended and that this was no reversal of Nationalist policy. I want to tell the Deputy Minister that to those of us who have made a study of the Bill, he need not have been at such pains because it is obvious that there is indeed no basic change in policy in this Bill.

I am in full agreement with you.

I want to follow on the careful analysis of this Bill which was made by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) last night, and I want to start with the most important clause, Clause 12, which the Minister said contained an important concession—I use his own words—and will make it possible for trading areas to be proclaimed for racial groups without attaching thereto the implication coupled with the proclamation of group areas. It will also, he said, have the advantage of terminating occupation for residential purposes without depriving the person concerned of his means of earning a livelihood. Now on the face of it this seems an important concession, but I am afraid that on closer examination of the clause it is robbed of its rosy hue. Firstly, I cannot see how this clause resolves the difficulty in areas already proclaimed as group area, unless the Minister is prepared to de-proclaim these areas. Will the Deputy Minister tell us in his reply whether it is his intention to de-proclaim any areas?

No.

Well, he mentioned in his speech yesterday that this would solve the problem in metropolitan areas like Johannesburg. Well, it appears that in those parts of Johannesburg, Klerksdorp, Pretoria, Durban and Pietermaritzburg, where group areas have already been proclaimed, there will indeed be no concessions made whatever, so this already considerably waters down this important concession.

Now that is feminine logic.

Feminine logic is very accurate sometimes, if only the Minister would listen to it occasionally. As far as the rest of the clause is concerned, I have some other bits of feminine logic to offer to the Minister ana perhaps he can tell me whether it is correct or not. That is that this clause extends only to defined areas, which are very limited in scope, and indeed may even on certain other interpretations further limit the existing rights of Indians in those areas. In other words, previously Indians who occupied property in so-called defined areas could do so for any purpose whatsoever providing they have occupied thos premises prior to 31 March 1951. Now, under the new Section 16bis, if the Governor-General proclaims that the premises previously occupied by Indians for residential purposes should now be suitable only for industrial purposes, they will have to leave both their homes and their businesses, even though the area has not yet been declared a group area. Is that a correct interpretation? So it could really mean further restrictions.

Thirdly, there is another difficulty I have in construing this clause as making any important concession at all, and that is how it affects Indians in rural areas, Indians who trade in rural areas which are not controlled by any local authority. It seems to make the tenure of such Indians even more precarious. Because whereas previously they could continue in occupation even if they did not have written leases, it now seems to me that a further Amendment has been introduced which does away with the validity of verbal leases and makes it necessary for these Indians now to have written leases if they are to continue to enjoy these privileges. That is the amendment to Section 17.

Then Clause 14 is another important one. The Minister told us that this clause was introduced to assist disqualified mortgagees who have difficulty in taking over properties in areas for which they were not qualified. Well, he has helped them in one regard, but he has imposed certain other restrictions, because it now appears that the property has to be alienated within a certain period of time. Now the Minister could always give a permit anyway, even before Clause 14 was introduced. Now he makes it possible for himself to give a permit with restrictions, which previously he could not do, and naturally the precious principle of apartheid and of the Group Areas Act would be violated if a disqualified mortgagee was allowed to take over a property for an indefinite period of time. So this, too, is an additional restriction. In any case, as far as the issue of permits is concerned, I want to say that to us this business of governing by permit is a very bad principle indeed. You make overriding restrictions and then release people by issuing permits. You apply job reservation, but with exemptions. The whole position becomes impracticable. We are completely against the idea of government by permit because it is a bad principle. In any case, what the Minister is permitted to do is one thing, and what he is prepared to do is another thing. What the Group Areas Board is permitted to do is one thing, and what it is prepared to do is another thing. The entire history of the administration of the Group Areas Act has shown that these officials are not prepared to make the necessary concessions which will bring any real relief to the hardships suffered. I was horrified to read only a year or so ago that the Chairman of the Group Areas Board actually considered that one of the duties of the Board was to seek to curtail the number of Indian traders on the ground that Indians at present have too large a share of trade. So permits do not help if the basic policy goes against the wishes of the people who are being governed by permits.

The other astonishing condition the Minister laid down in Clause 14 (b) is that a person who acquires a permit shall carry out any alterations or erect such structures on the property as the Minister may deem to be necessary. That to me is an astonishing inroad into the normal rights of a property owner. Finally, this business that the mortgagee must dispose of the property within a limited time is not of much help if the person is thereby forced to dispose of his property in a falling market.

Clause 16 is the other really important clause, and it amends Section 20. This enables the Minister to do piecemeal what he formerly had to do in toto. It assists him now in doing slowly what he formerly had to do in one job. He stated: “I am convinced that the changes proposed in Clause 20 will be welcomed by all right-minded people.” I do not know who the Minister considers to be right-minded people, but these changes are certainly not welcomed by us. He said that this procedure was in accordance with the assurances given by the Minister and by himself that no person who cannot be provided with alternative accommodation will be uprooted. That is a good principle, but then I do not want to uproot any people at all. That is the difference between the Minister and us. The Minister said this was in accordance with his assurances, but I wonder whether it is also not in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in the Natal Supreme Court, in the case of Lockat v. the Minister of the Interior, where the Minister found he was not able to enforce the Group Areas Act over a large area simply because it was shown that the persons who were about to be displaced could not be provided with alternative accommodation. Perhaps that is one of the main reasons why this piecemeal clause has been introduced.

Now, I have two big objections to this amendment. The first is that it lays itself open to the grossest abuse. I do not believe that it is the correct principle or procedure to allow officials to single out individuals who may stay in a certain place and others who may have to move. Secondly, there is another limiting factor, namely that the notice period for the removal of people has now been cut down to three months. Under the existing Act it could be a seven-year period, and now it is one year, but after the first year it is three months, so that people live with an ever-constant Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, not knowing when the sword will fall and they will be given three months’ notice after the first year in which to move to other areas, and this is grossly inequitable.

Clause 23 provides for the repeal of the old Section 31 and replaces it with a new one. This does two things. The first is an amendment which is introduced simply because it was found that the existing provision was redundant, i.e. the application for trading licences, because the Board could not refuse to give a certificate to the person who was entitled to occupy premises, and if he was not entitled to occupy the premises he could be ejected even if he had the trading licence. So clearly this was a redundant provision and the Minister has done away with it. The fact that it has been removed will make very little difference, except that some unnecessary inconvenience in applying for trading licences no longer has to be gone through. Unfortunately in removing this one restriction the Minister has filled the gap by another restriction, which was perhaps also brought on by another Supreme Court case. This Government constantly has to come back to the House to plug loopholes in the original Act which people have found in normal life, and the courts have ruled against the Government. This case was heard in the Cape Supreme Court …

Is this the first Government that ever did so?

No, but this Government really gets the Oscar. Of course this is not the first Government which ever did it, but it is the first to do it so often. The Government holds the Oscar for plugging loopholes in Acts, and if they will take a little advice from this side of the House, these Acts would not be passed in the first place, and that would save a great deal of time and money in litigation. The latest loophole that is being plugged now is the one where an Indian could put in an agent and use premises in an area which has been proclaimed for another group. Now this loophole is plugged so that an Indian cannot even have a warehouse in a proclaimed area, and that is carrying things too far.

That completes my detailed criticism of the Bill. I simply want to say that our policy is quite clear. We will continue to press for the repeal of the Group Areas Act. We are completely against the compulsory removal of people and while we are quite agreed that provision might be made for people to live among their own people, we are equally agreed that provision could and should be made to allow people to live in mixed groups if they prefer to do that. We do not want to force integration or segregation on the people of South Africa. Finally, I want to say that the Minister of the Interior, when one of these amending Bills was introduced, said that the object envisaged could not be attained “without difficulty, inconvenience and sacrifice Well, there has indeed been difficulty, inconvenience and sacrifice, but unfortunately the gross disproportion of it fell on one side of the colour line. A grossly disproportionate burden of sacrifice has been placed on the non-Whites. What this Act means is the mass uprooting of settled communities. It has also entailed the disruption of commercial life. Even temporary postponement which was permitted under the permit system does not help, because material damages are nevertheless suffered in the interim by virtue of the very uncertainty of the lives of the people under the permit system. You have restriction of credit, curtailment of overdraft facilities, the calling up of bonds, a reduction in the volume of trade and deterioration in the value of property. These are all material discomforts, most of which are suffered by the non-Whites. Worst of all are the strains and tensions that are engendered by the uncertainty. The most crushing anxieties are introduced into the lives of law-abiding citizens who know that at any time in future the permits under which they carry on business may be withdrawn. No amount of amending legislation can make the Group Areas Act an equitable measure because its very nature is discriminatory and it therefore cannot be administered with equity. It is a rankly discriminatory measure. The Deputy Minister called this Bill another example of the desire to administer the Group Areas Act with equity and reason, but I say it is just another example of what Dr. Johnson called “the triumph of hope over experience”.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down because I do not trust myself when it comes to handling ladies. I want to deal with this matter as I see it and in the course of my debate I shall deal with the statements which have been made here.

This Bill amends the Group Areas Act and its object is to streamline the legislation and to make its application more practicable and easier. I want to say at once that when it was originally introduced there was no precedent that we could use as a guide, so that we had to learn as we went along, as they say in Holland. Through the years problems have cropped up and also administrative difficulties in regard to the application of the Act and just as in the case of all the previous amendments, this amendment is being effected in order to rectify faults and to facilitate the administration of the Act. I shall return to that at a later stage but it is quite clear to me that we are dealing here with the streamlining of a piece of legislation which is essential in a multi-racial country like South Africa. I do not want to deal with the principles of the Group Areas Act, but I want to paint its background briefly as I see it.

We have a position in this country which has developed over many years and as a born South African I realize and accept that we will always have Coloureds, Indians and Bantu in South Africa but I am also convinced that there will and always will have to be White people. In order to enable these four groups to live together on the land which has been allotted to us it is essential that we come to agreement at an early stage as to how we are going to live together and what the rights and obligations of each one will be, and to know exactly what each one’s position is as regards the other, because that is the only way in which we can live peacefully together. Nowhere in this legislation which is decried as being so inhuman and impossible does it say that it is applicable to Indians only or to Coloureds only, it is applicable to all groups, also to the White people, and the White people are equally uprooted and suffer equally. Those are the sacrifices we have to make if we want to live peacefully together in future in this country, this country which is our only home. Co-existence naturally causes friction and antipathy, but if the groups live apart you have peace and good neighbourliness, Sir. If the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) does not care very much for her mother-in-law, the solution is for her not to live in the same home with her mother-in-law, but only to visit her occasionally and then they will be good friends. But if she lives together with her in the same home there will be clashes and friction. The same applies in the case of racial groups. You cannot expect the races to live together peacefully. From the very nature of things it will cause friction and clashes.

Hon. members say that this legislation does not effect a change of policy. That was the attack made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). The Minister said that concessions were being made but there was no change of policy. However, we did not want to announce a change of policy because our policy is right. The Opposition should remember that they cannot govern the country from those benches. We are not prepared to change our policy but we are prepared to make concessions in respect of the details and the application of the law. But what about the Opposition? Let us have their approach to this legislation.

According to what the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) said yesterday evening and according to what the hon. member for Houghton said to-day, the Progressive Party will in fact in future ask the authorities who do the planning in respect of new areas to keep the groups separate. Did I understand the hon. member correctly?

Not in respect of all areas. Certain areas can be set aside for certain groups.

Are those not group areas? If they are not then I do not know what they are. In other words, the hon. member is prepared in future, in respect of any new development which may come about …

No one should be moved from the place where he is already established.

Is it your intention in future to plan for the separation of the groups, yes or no?

Not in all areas; only in some areas.

Assume for a moment, Sir, that we give him a new piece of land and he is the town planner and he has to carry out the policy of the Progressive Party, how will he plan it? Will he allow Black and Coloured and White to live together or will he demarcate areas for each group, yes or no?

We will allow people to live where they want to live, and they can live separately if they want to, but there will be areas in which the groups can live together if they want to.

Oh, I see. You will have black coffee and pure milk and there will be a chow-chow. In other words they still have no policy; just like the United Party. I nevertheless gather from what the hon. member has said that they will have a certain measure of planning in future and that they will apply a certain measure of separation, but it will be on a voluntary basis as far as possible, but if the people do not want to do so voluntarily they can live together. The Progressive Party reminds me of a farmer who has inherited a number of cattle. He keeps the Afrikaners and the Jerseys and the Damaras in the same camp but he says that in future all the cattle that he buys he will keep in separate camps, but he refuses to separate those that he has inherited because that was how he inherited them. Their policy is like that. The hon. members do not want to put anything right that was wrong in the past, but they will, however, make some plan in future. I give them credit for the fact that they are honest and that they have stated clearly that they will repeal the Act if they come into power and that they will have separate groups and mixed groups and the position can develop like that. Now I want to ask the United Party something but I do not really know whom to ask because all the hon. members who can reply have run away. Will the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) reply? Will the United Party repeal this Act? The hon. member for Sunnyside has sufficient courage to reply. Oh, I am sorry, he says he has not. Will the United Party repeal the Act or will they amend it?

Listen to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell).

But he has not said anything. He said he did not want to be in the Union at all and that the Act will not apply in Natal. No, Sir, there is no reply. It is like talking to a stone wall, because they seek the favour of the platteland and the favour of the urban areas in turn. Is the hon. member for Springs prepared to answer?

I shall reply in a moment.

Will you repeal this Act?

I shall reply at a later stage.

It is apparently a question to which they cannot reply. Mr. Speaker, as I see the position, I want to tell the House how the Government feels about it. Firstly I maintain that the four groups can only live together in this country if you keep the groups as far apart as possible, in the first instance as far as residential areas are concerned. We plan in such a way that we freeze the present position, that there will be no further mixing. Any new development which takes place in future must be on a separate basis and the present mixed position which has developed over the past 300 years must be remedied and gradually put right. It is in order to cope with this very difficult task that this legislation has been introduced and is continually being amended so as to adapt it to the complex problems which are attached to the clearing up of a position which has existed for 300 years. It is as though a number of trees were planted in the same hole and now all of them are pining because there is not sufficient room for them and you have to separate them and plant them one by one. It follows logically and it is inevitable that in this process of separation there will be pain and suffering, but the end product will be to the benefit of all concerned. The Opposition should stop telling us that it is only the Coloured races who are getting hurt in this process of separation. Every group is at some time or other or somewhere or other affected by this. I know of one case in my own constituency where tremendous pain and suffering has been caused to a family where the farm has been passed down to generation after generation for centuries. It is an old family farm with buildings on it which are 100 years old. That farm must now be vacated in order to make room for another group. The graves of the forefathers of those people are on that farm and are very dear to them, but they have to leave; that is the sacrifice the White people have to make so that this law can be carried out and they make this sacrifice with pain in their hearts but with happy hearts because the sacrifice is made on the altar of peaceful co-existence in the future. Mr. Speaker, the position is continually being abused and we are told that this law was passed for one group only, namely the Coloured group, and that the White man looks down from a height like a cruel tyrant, barbarously sucking everything that he can out of the Coloured people. No, the problem which we are trying to solve by way of this legislation is a difficult problem and this law with all its implications is there to effect that uprooting and to do that unknotting. It is very kind on the part of the Deputy Minister to make concessions but if the policy has been laid down and the unknotting has to be done—and no Opposition will deter us from that, because it is our sacred belief that that is the only solution—we want to do this unknotting in as humane a manner as possible and these amendments are effected in order to introduce a greater measure of this humane element and in order to be more lenient and more accommodating in this painful process of unknotting. The permit system has been severely criticized here Sir. The hon. member for Houghton expressed herself in very strong terms. She says “the permit system is a bad system”. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton this; If the permit system is not applied or not even introduced, what else should we have? If no permits are to be issued because it is a “bad system” it will mean that no exceptions can be made, that no concessions can be made, if there are no permits, we will have to uproot the man with his family and his business and place him somewhere in the Kalahari or wherever it may be. What do you want instead of the permit system, Sir, always looking at it from the point of view that the man has to be moved because that is in the interests of everybody concerned as well as in his own interests? The permit system is there to soften the blow and where we are now amending the permit system further so that an area can be demarcated in terms of Clause 12, so that certain areas will be available for trading rights only and for certain groups but not for residential purposes, that I say is a further concession. We are continually being told in this House that that is not a concession. In the past the position has been that the person lived on the premises where he conducted his business, and had we not made this concession he would have been uprooted from those premises where he lived and conducted his business, because he was in an areas where he did not belong and consequently it would have been necessary to remove him completely from that area. This is very clearly a concession; he is now removed and placed somewhere else only in so far as residence is concerned: he can continue to conduct his business there under a permit. That is a concession. But now the Opposition comes with the story that those poor people should be allowed to live and sleep there so that they can look after their property during the night, because the insurance companies demand that they live on their property in order to guard it at night, otherwise they refuse to insure the property. That was the argument advanced by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). Mr. Speaker, does the manager of the O.K. Bazaars or of Unie Winkels sleep in his office every night in order to guard the business? Which owner or manager of a White shop sleeps on his premises to guard it during the night; or which insurance company demands that from a White person as far as his shop in his own area is concerned? No, Mr. Speaker, I want to put the matter differently. I think this is an excellent arrangement and that it will have excellent results in practice and I shall tell you why I say that. If the Indian or anybody else, is forced to go and live in another area away from his shop, he will have to compete on an equal basis with the other man who is in the same line of business. In that case he will also have to bear the costs of running a separate home; he will also have the expense of travelling to and from his business. He will then be competing on the same basis as the other person who is in the same line of business and then we will see whether he will still be in a position to undercut prices. It is going to have another excellent result. As I see it it will have this effect that that Indian or whoever it may be, will realize that under those circumstances it will no longer be possible for him and all his children to make a living in the trading business.

From what the hon. member has just said is the idea that a person may retain his trading rights in a certain area but that he may not live there in future? Is the underlying idea that that will eventually chase that person away?

No, I did not say that. I said the Minister had stated his attitude clearly as far as the law was concerned but that what I expected to happen was that in future the Indian will have to compete with the White trader on an equal footing because in future he will also have to have a home four or five or six miles away from his shop, just as in the case of the White man, that he will also have the expense of travelling to and from his business and that he will have to compete on an equal basis with the White man and will not have the advantage of living on his business premises with no travelling expenses, and thus be in a position to cut his prices. That is my personal opinion; I do not say that is the Minister’s attitude. I envisage that as a possible result. The hon. member may use that against me if he wishes to do so but that is clearly as I see it. I do not even want to refer to such illegal practices as keeping the shop open after hours, etc.

Will that also apply to the White people?

It applies to them to-day.

They will have to vacate the business premises where they are living at the moment?

I said a few moments ago that this Act was not merely for the Coloureds only; it applies to everybody. In any case the White man cannot sleep in an Indian or Native area; he must in any case be in a White area.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take my argument further. The fact that the Indian or any member of these Coloured groups, will now realize that he and all his children can no longer make a living in the trading business, he will realize something else which I think he should have realized long ago in South Africa, namely that particularly in the case of the Indian he should no longer concentrate on the economic field, but that he should also have his children trained as artisans or for a profession so that they will enter upon other fields of life in order to make their living, as the other groups in this country do. Why must all Indians or 85 per cent of them be in the trading business alone? Why cannot they also become artisans; why cannot they become apprentices and qualify as artisans and ultimately make their living as good workers in various trades? Why must all of them remain in the trading business? I think that is an advantage that will flow from this legislation and the Indian will realize that he and his family can no longer make a living in the trading business alone, but that he must send his sons to educational institutions so that they can qualify themselves better in other directions so that they can enter into the other facets of life, enter a wider field, because as I see the position that will become essential.

Will you recommend to the Minister of Labour that they should be apprenticed?

But they can become apprentices. Nothing stops them.

What are their chances at the present moment? That does not happen in practice.

It is not my fault that it does not happen in practice. The law provides that it can be done. I feel that this legislation will have that effect. I want to go further. From a purely health point of view it will bring about a great improvement. Do hon. members realize what a great number of people sleep together in one small little room at the back of an Indian shop? From a purely health point of view it is essential and in the interests of the Indian that we provide them with decent accommodation as soon as possible and that we move them from those areas. No, I think the Opposition is simply blindly opposing this measure while in actual fact it will benefit the Indians far more than anybody else. In addition to that we have the assurance, the humane assurance on the part of the Minister that these people will not be obliged to move to other residential areas until such time as alternative accommodation is available. What greater humane assurance do you want than that, Sir, what greater humane undertaking, than that do you want? I feel that this measure is streamlining the Act, making the Act more adaptable an Act which is really so necessary and so effective that we cannot but congratulate the Minister and his Department. Now I come to the final point in this regard and it is the question of the delegation of power and the undue importance which has been attached to the powers which officials have. We have had complaints from all sides to the effect that too great power is being delegated to officials and that the position will arise where one man may discriminate here or discriminate there. Mr. Speaker, why have we got a Civil Service and officials if the Minister has to do all the work? Once the Minister has laid down the broad policy I can see no reason why he should not delegate power to his officials. Everybody who is affected by such a decision is still at liberty to appeal to the Minister. We are not removing that right of appeal. Why this complaint that an official may issue or refuse a permit? The person who is treated unjustly can always appeal to the Minister and the Minister will give his decision on a higher level, where he is responsible to this Parliament. I cannot see how there can be any objection to the delegation of power. The object is simply to apply the law more effectively and the officials are given these powers so that the law will function effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything further on this subject. I merely want to ask the Opposition not to do one thing as far as this matter is concerned. I think they are doing South Africa a disservice by acting the way they are and by creating the impression that this is another oppressive law which does an injustice to the poor non-White, a law which discriminates against him. I repeat that this law is applicable to all racial groups. As I said just now I have personal experience in my constituency of White people who have been affected and who have been removed from their family farms, farms they have inherited, because room had to be made for other racial groups. That sacrifice was made with pain in their hearts but they made it for the sake of future co-existence, for the sake of future happiness in South Africa, a future in which we can live together like good neighbours and not as enemies all thrown together.

I want to deal first with the last point raised by the hon. member who has just sat down. He stated that this question that we are dealing with is essentially a domestic matter, a South African matter, and it affects all sections of our community. It is not a matter to be discussed with the outside world. I want to ask him if he really seriously believes that speeches of the type which we have heard in this House supporting this amending measure are going to stay within the confines of our own country or are they going to be used overseas once again to fan the enmity which this sort of legislation stirs up against our country? Can he really seriously believe that? The hon. member says that all the various sections of our people are affected by this legislation. That may be legally so, but our point is that the number of White citizens in this country who are affected by this legislation is infinitesimal in proportion to the non-Whites who are affected, and that the average White citizen who is affected is in a much better position either in his own right or with the assistance of his friends, to cope with the disabilities inflicted upon him, than are the tens of thousands of non-Whites who are affected and who, by virtue of their standing in the country, have very little chance of redress or of making their voice heard. That is the difference and it is a fundamental difference. That is the difference on which we take our stand in the administration of the whole of this Act, that it deals with a section of the people who to a very large extent are unable to protect or defend themselves, and therefore the responsibility is upon us, the so-called lords of creation, the White people, to be all the more careful in considering the effect of this type of legislation on those people whom we should be helping to protect and not to suppress. That is the answer.

We are helping that; that is exactly what we are doing.

I want to refer to another particular aspect that the hon. member dealt with in his speech and that is the question of the delegation of power. The hon. member seemed to think that this was a natural thing; that the Minister had become over-burdened with work and that it was quite impossible for him to attend to it. Sir, we do not quarrel with that, one iota; we believe that it is more than true. We told the hon. Minister at the time, ten years ago, what to expect in that respect. He went into it with his eyes open. But when it comes to delegated authority and the exercise of delegated powers, the field in which that delegated power is going to be exercised must be taken into account. In this particular type of legislation you are dealing with the most important factor in the life of a nation, i.e. the lives of the members of the nation and, again, the lives of that section of the people who are at the bottom of the scale and who therefore require a higher level of attention than in many of the other matters, where you can delegate authority in matters of a purely routine nature. Every individual case dealt with under the Group Areas Act is a human case, and you come up against some of your greatest difficulties when you try to deal with human beings, their homes and their families, their livelihood and their security. These are the things with which the Group Areas Act deals. When it comes to delegating authority to officials of the State, competent as they may be, to deal with those aspects of the life of the nation, we on this side say that that should not be done; we say that that is something which you have no right to do. The Government have accepted the responsibility for this. As I have said they accepted it with their eyes open, despite the warnings from this side. When I sat here yesterday listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister introducing the Bill I could close my eyes and once again hear the voices that we heard in this Chamber ten years ago, voices from this side of the House, warning the then Minister of the impracticability, the impossibility, of carrying out the fantastic scheme which he put before the House in that Bill. We warned him almost in the words used by the Deputy Minister yesterday when he pointed out to the House the difficulties which the Government have encountered in administering the Act. He used almost the same words as the words used in those warnings that we issued from this side ten years ago. One could sit on this side and listen to the echo of ten years ago. Is it to be wondered at that we again take the stand that we did then and that we have taken consistently down the long, long trail that the Group Areas Bill has followed through this Parliament? We take the same stand in opposition to what we know is one of the most damaging measures ever placed on the Statute Book of this country.

Has your party not given the assurance that it will not repeal this Act?

No, I do not remember that we ever gave any assurance that we are going to repeal the Act; we are going to amend the Act to make it a practicable, workable Act. We are going to restore the position that we had when this Government barged in and upset what was being done. We are going to have a practical, workable system, by consultation, in co-operation and with justice to the people concerned, a system such as that which was being carried out by the United Party Government when the party on the other side took over. One of the first things that this Government did when they took over was to stop the issuing of loans to local authorities for the construction of non-White housing schemes. That was one of the very first things they did and here, Sir, I speak with knowledge. I happened to be in a position at that time where I had got my own municipality to spend something like £430,000 on the re-housing of the non-Whites. We have heard a lot in this debate here about the wonderful blessings of re-housing that are going to flow or that are flowing from the Government’s policy. I say that housing policy was in vogue long before this Government came into power and they crippled it by stopping the funds for more White housing. It took years before they could restart it, so do not let us have much more of that talk. They were responsible for the hold-up at that time. True, there may have been mistakes in those early days and undoubtedly there were. Probably some of the schemes were too expensive and undoubtedly they were. People in those days were dealing with schemes that were started right at the end of the war when everything cost two or three times as much as it costs to-day. Sir, the hon. member wants to know whether we are going to repeal the Act. My answer is that we are going to get back to reality and to sanity. We are going to deal with this matter in a human way. It is part of the policy of this part of the House and always has been to have segregation. But we are going to deal with it as a human problem and in a humane way.

I want to come back for a moment to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday in introducing the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave you the feeling that you were listening to the old, old game of somebody putting up an obstacle, then removing it and then saying, “See what I have done; now please say ‘thank you’.” It puts me in mind of the tale of the chap going down Adderley Street meeting a perfect stranger, hitting him square between the eyes, knocking him down into the gutter, and then picking him up, dusting off his coat, putting him back on to the pavement and saying “Good God, don’t you even appreciate my picking you up and dusting you off?” That is the sort of thing that we are finding here. The Government create the obstacles, they create the difficulties, they introduce amendments to try to overcome the difficulties that they have run into and then they say “please say thank you”. No, Sir, that is not the sort of thing for which we would say “thank you”. We would say “thank you” for the removal of the difficulties altogether. Sir, it is the effects that will flow from the Group Areas Act, when it is amended in the manner in which it is being amended now, which are driving the non-White people of this country to a sense of complete desperation.

Why don’t you prove your statement?

Sir, if the hon. member keeps his eyes open and if he has the intelligence to understand what he reads in the Press …

What Press?

… or the statements of responsible Coloured people, he would not find it necessary to ask a foolish question like that.

Are you against the principle of the Group Areas Act?

I support the principle of the United Party to have residential segregation but carried out with humanity and justice and with consultation and agreement, not by force Sir, I have listened to speech after speech from the other side and one is almost amazed to find how little the speaker really knows about the people he is talking about; how little he really understands the problems, the feelings and the frustrations that they are experiencing to-day. I have worked amongst and for Coloured people all my life. I am not ashamed of it and I am none the worse for it. I know what some of these people, people who are as good as any we have in this country, are suffering to-day in mind, in body and in soul as a result of this Act, and the amendments to which we are now being asked to agree will not in any way make their lot better or improve the lot of the families who are coming after them. Sir, have hon. members on that side any idea at all of the enmity which is being built up, stoked up, the added fuel to the fire—overseas against this country as a result of this type of legislation? Sir, yesterday I had the privilege of hearing an educated non-White speaker who rightly claimed that he was a Christian and a civilized being and it shocked me—and it should shock every member of this House to hear that man, a clean-living moderate man, say: “I walked down your Adderley Street, and I saw your men and your women in their gay dresses in the bright sunshine enjoying life. They were happy—I was sorry for them; they had no idea of the shortness of time; they had no idea of what little time was left for us to get together and solve the common problems which are driving us apart. Their time is very short”. Sir, how true it is that what we are doing in this House is helping to shorten that time still further. So far from making concessions, the amending Bill is nothing but the clearest possible admission of the total failure of the Government to carry out their apartheid policy and their group areas policy as a portion of that apartheid policy. The only certain result is that it will drive home still more forcibly the sense of frustration and despair which I have already mentioned. It will drive the non-White people of South Africa and the Coloured people in particular still further into the gloom that we have already driven them into, still further away from us at the time when we are going to need their support most.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister some questions about one or two particular points in this Bill. In his introductory remarks he referred to the “concession”, to use his word, which was being made to the Indian traders who would be permitted under certain conditions to carry on their businesses, in an area not in their classified area, but not to continue to reside over those business premises. They would have to go to live in the area set aside as a residential area for Indians. I want to repeat a question which I asked then and I hope that the Minister is going to answer it when he replies to this debate. When these Indians move out of the double or treble storey building that they have occupied and they continue to occupy the business premises on the ground floor, who is going to live above them? What are those premises above the ground floor going to be used for? Is the line of apartheid going to be set 12 feet, at ceiling level, above the main road? Is there going to be what is termed vertical apartheid, or what is going to happen? This is a most important question. There are many places not only in Durban, but here in the Cape Peninsula …

[Inaudible.]

Sir, if the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) wants to keep on interjecting, I shall probably take action in a moment to stop him because these interjections of his are not only irritating but childish and foolish. They are beneath the dignity of this House, so I try to ignore them. However, I will not ignore him much longer. Sir, I want to ask the Deputy Minister what is going to happen in that particular situation, and I want to ask him also if the same concession is going to be extended to White and Coloured traders trading in areas not set aside for their particular group? Will they be allowed to continue to trade in that area or will they have to move out to take up residence elsewhere? Are they going to get the same concession, and what is going to happen to their residential premises, assuming again that it is, as the Deputy Minister put it, on a separate level? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister also tell us on what kind of law and justice he bases the decision to forbid a man to occupy a property which the law, the same law, permits him to own and on which he is compelled to pay rates and taxes but which he is forbidden to occupy? I would like the Deputy Minister to clear that point of law, because it is a most interesting one. Sir, the hon. member who has just sat down asked what this party would do with regard to this Act, whether it would repeal the Act. I merely want to conclude on this note that the policy of this side of the House—and this is one of the reasons why we are opposing this Bill—is that the legislation we propose will be on the much more secure basis of humanity, a basis of Christianity—the practical Christianity in which we are all supposed to believe and which we are all supposed to practise but which is absent from the measure now before the House and which is also absent from the principal Act. The hon. Minister and his Government would be doing South Africa a much greater service by withdrawing this measure, by admitting the failure of their policy of apartheid and group areas rather than trying and continue to try to make the impossible into the possible. Because that is what is happening. The hon. Minister by this type of legislation, by the tinkering which has gone on year by year over this legislation, is attempting to convert the impossible into the possible, and like many people before him, he will find that he is indeed attempting the impossible. It is time that the Government should recognize its failure. Stop tinkering with this legislation and give the country a chance to recuperate from the wounds which this measure has caused, and to win back our self-esteem and our self-pride in South Africa as a decent nation.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) one can only come to the conclusion that the hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem. If you followed what he said, Sir, you must think that the poor Coloured man is being oppressed. The hon. member says it is too late. The United Party issued a warning ten years ago that something would have to be done. Had the hon. member not been so blind he would have seen what had been done for the Coloured people during the past ten years. If you go into their position, Sir, you will find that the Coloured people are happier to-day under this Government than they have ever been before. That is an irrefutable fact. I am not trying to deceive you, Sir. It is a fact. They are happy except the few Coloured people who are under the influence of the United Party or that of the Progressive Party. They are the few Coloured people who are dissatisfied. What have we done for the Coloured people? Under the United Party regime the Coloured people never had an opportunity of serving their own people. To-day they have that opportunity in all respects, in the Post Office, in the Police Force; they have the opportunity to-day in all spheres to help their own people and to assist them. They have every opportunity under this Government to do so.

And in Parliament?

Just listen to that question which the hon. member is asking in this House, Sir. That is the way in which the hon. member is ruining South Africa. The speech which the hon. member made here this afternoon was for consumption abroad. That was what he did and now he comes and lets the cat out of the bag and says: “What is the position here in Parliament?” That means that he will never be satisfied unless there are Coloured Members of Parliament. The Coloureds are not as anxious to sit in this Parliament as you are to have another opportunity to use their vote as you did in the past in order to get into Parliament.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member makes such wild allegations that I am forced to try to refute them. The hon. member spoke about the deplorable conditions under which the Coloured people lived and in answer to an interjection the hon. member said: Yes, but there was a war on during our time and we were unable to build because building material was too expensive. In that case the hon. member should admit that this Government looks after the interests of the Coloured people because this Government is building in spite of high costs. The costs to-day are much higher than they were during the war. Look at the houses which have been erected, Sir. I have always had respect for the hon. member and I think he should feel ashamed of himself for having made the speech which he did make here this afternoon.

The hon. member was asked whether the United Party would repeal the Act if ever they came into power again (which we hope will never happen). The hon. member was afraid to reply to that. He tried to evade the question by saying that they would merely amend it in certain respects. But is the hon. member not one of those who said in this House that they would repeal all Acts relating to the Coloured people one by one? I remember the occasion when the hon. member said that.

Your imagination is running away with you.

No, hon. members opposite are disappointed people. In order to show you, Sir, how the working class and even the less-privileged class accept the fact that the Coloured people should have proper residential areas, I want to say that a residential area was recently established close to my constituency. You would have thought that the White people would have objected to it. No, they realized that those people should also have somewhere to live, that they could not be suspended in mid-air. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), who had such a great deal to say here, to cast her mind back to something which happened in the past. When I served on the City Council of Johannesburg the idea was mooted to erect a sportsfield for the non-Whites close to Houghton. And the hon. member for Houghton held protest meetings against that idea! She said: “No, we will not allow non-Whites or sportsfields in this area.” Will members of the United Party allow non-Whites to infiltrate into those residential areas where they are living? No. That is the reason why they are quite satisfied that the Coloureds should remain where they are, and to let things develop as they are, as the hon. member for Houghton put it. I see the hon. member has just entered the Chamber and I want to ask her this question, Sir. If that is the case, why did she not allow a non-White sportsfield to be erected in Houghton at that time? Why did she hold protest meetings.

I was wholly in favour of it. It is untrue.

Is it untrue? Naturally I have to accept the hon. member’s word for it but I served on the City Council of Johannesburg when it happened. They held protest meetings and the hon. member for Houghton was one of the main objectors.

Quite untrue.

Naturally I have to accept her word; but it is of the greatest importance that this House knows where those hon. members stand, that they plead for certain things, but when their own suburbs are affected, they are definitely against non-Whites being allowed to live in those suburbs or to have sportsfields there. Surely what we are doing under this legislation is an improvement; the Coloured people will now have the right to say: “That piece of land has been allocated to us; we can build there and own property.” What was the position in the past? The Coloured person was pushed from one side to the other and where he saw the slightest opportunity to infiltrate into a White area, he did so because there was insufficient land available to him, and this Bill now remedies that position. But the United Party is opposed to that. The hon. member for Simonstown says time is running out. Just imagine, Sir, that a responsible member of this House can stand up here and say: “Time is running out.” Is that not treason? I cannot call it anything else than treason towards the White section of the population because he says to the non-Whites that, as far as they are concerned, the time is opportune, they should act now. It is scandalous!

What nonsense!

Read the Burger.

A few minutes ago the hon. member said “time is running out”.

Is that high treason?

During the past few years the Government has been fighting against the policy of the Opposition but it has done for the Coloured people what no other Government has done for them and the object of this Bill is to come to the assistance of those White people who find themselves in the embarrassing position of having Coloured people infiltrating into their areas. I have that position in my constituency. In the Booysens-Overton area I have the names and addresses of 40 Coloured families that have filtered into the White area. If that were to happen in the suburbs where those hon. members live they would be very quick to say: Yes, we agree; something should be done. I want to say this to the Minister, and he probably knows it himself, that it is a pure waste of time to listen to the representations from hon. members opposite; what they are doing is nothing less than an attempt to thwart this legislation and to stir up feelings against it. If the Coloured people are not yet aware of the true state of affairs, they must surely have seen what the Government has done for them in the past in comparison with what the United Party did at the time when the Coloureds were still on the Common Roll and when the United Party was only interested in their vote. I want to put this question to hon. members opposite: Give me one example of anything that you have done for the Coloured people when you were in power, something worth while. What they did do, Sir, was of such little value in comparison with what we are doing to-day for the Coloured people, that I think hon. members opposite should realize that the Government is sincere in their attitude towards the Coloured population and will see to it that they are properly housed and that the White people too, live decently. Even the Coloured people themselves do not want to live with the White people. The Coloured person prefers his own environment where he can build his home, and cultivate a garden amongst his own people. He is much happier there because in the case where he infiltrates into a White section he is told that he is not allowed to live there, and quite rightly so. I do not think the Opposition is doing the right thing to oppose this measure. If the Opposition feels that there are certain clauses which they cannot accept hon. members have the opportunity in the Committee Stage to raise those points. I gather, however, from what the previous few speakers have said, that they reject this legislation lock, stock and barrel. According to the Opposition this Bill does not contain one good point. The hon. member for Simonstown said it was very late, but it is not too late for the hon. member for Simonstown to co-operate so that we can help the Coloured people to get a permanent place in their own areas. Apart from that we also look after the interests of the White people so that they too may live separately.

The hon. member who has just sat down gave an example a few moments ago of how he had reported certain cases in respect of a suburb in his constituency where in terms of this Act it was possible to move people. The hon. member should know that under the conditions of title in that township, these people could not have been there and it did not require this Act to deal with those particular persons. So it is no good bringing evidence which is no evidence at all, because in the particular case quoted by him …

On a point of explanation, might I just say to the hon. member that that is not correct. They were not allowed there, they were removed. If they had been allowed there they could have stayed there, but they were removed.

The hon. member merely confirms what I said that there are persons who were there and had no right to be there, whether there had been a Group Areas Act or not. It is not this Act which has dealt with that particular situation, and the hon. member ought to know that in relation to his own constituency. The example therefore cannot be advanced in justification of this Bill.

However I wish to deal, as I was asked to do by the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), who I see is not here, with the attitude of this side of the House in relation to the Group Areas legislation. The attitude of this side has been entirely consistent since the first Group Areas Bill was introduced. We have never wavered from the standpoint which was taken up then and I should like to read an amendment which was moved in the Other Place by myself at the second reading (it was again put at the third reading) of the Group Areas Act in 1950—

1. (b) in how far it is necessary to interfere and expropriate existing rights and how compensation can best be given to persons whose rights are affected;
2. (c) in how far it is necessary with regard to these matters to vest powers in the Governor-General, or any Minister, not subject to Parliamentary control.

Exactly the same attitude was taken in this House. The wording of the amendment moved here was slightly different, but throughout we have maintained that attitude, and throughout it has been our attitude that a great deal of what has been attained through compulsion could very easily have been attained by voluntary means if the right spirit has been engendered by a correct approach to this matter.

A number of members on the other side, including the hon. member for Langlaagte, said that this side of the House, the United Party, had done nothing about this matter. That of course is completely untrue. The United Party had been busy, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) as a Minister among others, with steps to build large Coloured townships and the Coloured people were voluntarily going to these very much better buildings that we acquired and they were being drawn out of the slums. The same thing was being done, Sir, in respect of areas such as the Rand where through the provision of large townships for occupation by Natives, the Natives were being drawn out of the towns —not on the basis of force and compulsion, but by providing conditions where they would be able to live a better and a fuller life. And, Sir, what was the attitude of that side of the House? This policy of the United Party in the years after the war when it had become possible to tackle this matter—it was not expense which stopped the building of houses, but the fact that there was a war on and material simply was not available …

And after the war?

After the war the United Party went on with a large-scale building programme and hon. members of that party went from platform to platform attacking the United Party for what it was doing. That is the record of the Nationalist Party in this matter. This was one of the major sources of attack on the United Party. We were told that we were the “kafferboeties”. The late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr was described as a “kafferboetie” and one of the favourite things held against us was the large amount we spent on housing for non-Europeans. I am glad to see that we have proceeded so far that at least to-day there is no difference between that side of the House and this side of the House as to what is the bounden duty of the European people of South Africa, namely to see to it that the non-Europeans live under better conditions in South Africa than in any other part of the African Continent. And I believe that we can achieve that position. That is no longer a matter of disagreement. The question how best these things can be achieved. I think it is common cause on both sides that the conditions such as have developed over a long period of years, should not be allowed to continue. Ways must be found to end that state of affairs. But the case that we are putting up against the Government is that experience has shown over this period of ten years that the Government is tackling this matter in the wrong way.

When the original Bill was passed, the then hon. Minister of the Interior was very optimistic as to the progress which would be made. Some progress has been made, but at what cost? It was pointed out then, and was pointed out now again by the hon. member for South Coast in the opening address from this side, that the system of permits which was supposed to be a temporary system, has not lessened with the years, but is increasing and is now becoming the base on which his legislation is given legislative effect. I want to say quite bluntly to the hon. Deputy Minister that to put a provision on the Statute Book where persons who in many cases have a lifetime of work at stake in their business are there on a permit which can be revoked at three months’ notice, is something which is utterly wrong and which cannot be supported by this side of the House. The standpoint of this side of the House in this matter has always been that where it is necessary that persons should be moved in the interest of the public good, then the Government has the right to provide for that. But there is one thing that this Government has not been prepared to accept, although it has been put up again and again from this side of the House, and that is that when that removal is to take place, there shall be full and adequate compensation to those whose rights are damaged in the interest of the public as a whole. Sir, I believe that if instead of many of these permit provisions, the Government were to provide for proper and adequate compensation, we would be able to get very much further in these matters.

The hon. Deputy Minister has indicated when moving this Bill that now he considers it necessary that where there are business premises and where there are residential premises, the persons must be moved from the residential premises. He is taking that power. I would refer him to the opening speech in the Other Place by the previous Minister of the Interior, who made it perfectly clear that in no circumstances could he agree that one group could have the business rights and another group the residential rights in a particular area. That is on record. Hon. members opposite are now changing their views. I don’t blame them for that. But what I do say is that in a very large number of cases, and generally unfortunately it is non-Europeans who are concerned, it is utterly wrong that in respect of their means of livelihood they should be kept in uncertainty year after year under a permit system, which now will be terminable at three months’ notice. It is perfectly clear that in many of these areas, the Government has come to the conclusion that while they could deal with the question of residence, they cannot deal with the question of business premises. They apparently intend to leave them. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider in the interest of the good name of South Africa, whether the time has not come, when that conclusion has been reached, that these persons should be given security of tenure in respect of their business rights instead of being kept hanging on on a permit from year to year and from time to time. I believe the hon. Minister will agree that there are cases where there are business rights established, and it is interesting, Sir, that these business rights so far as the Transvaal is concerned, in many cases are business rights which were given in the time of Pres. Kruger, and these persons have occupied them all this time. I do not believe that it has damaged the European; it might have rendered a service to him. I say it is wrong that they should be there now on a permit system. If they are going to be moved, then steps should be taken for full and adequate compensation. And if they are not going to be moved, instead of carrying on on this permit system, do away with that uncertainty and bring a state of certainty into existence. I say that it is wrong to carry on on the basis which is being followed at present.

I was very interested to hear from the other side, I think it was the hon. member for Parow, that it is a good thing that the Government has accepted it as a principle that nobody will be moved without alternative accommodation being made available. I invite the hon. member to look at the amendments placed on the Order Paper when the first Act was passed in 1950. He will find that that particular amendment was put on the Order Paper, both in this House and in the Other Place. It was not moved there because we were under a guillotine, but notice had been given of that amendment, and the Government rejected the principle to make it obligatory to have alternative accommodation for all persons they move. How much unhappiness could have been avoided if ten years ago the Government had listened to the pleas of the United Party on that point! In regard to compensation, we have the Group Areas Development Act which carries out the provisions of the main Act, and I merely wish to refer to it in passing, but that Act makes provision for certain payments. I say it is our bounden duty not to have an arbitrary basis of fixing a percentage compensation. I say that where you take away a man’s property in the interest of the public— and the United Party has always stood for that point of view—then there must be full compensation. I would remind the hon. the Minister that our own common law, the Roman Dutch system of which we are all very proud in this country, went so far as this, that when in any circumstances a man’s property was taken compulsorily, there was not a provision for 80 per cent compensation—there was provision for payment not only of the full value of that property, but provision was also made that in addition there must be compensation for the involuntary separation of that property from the ownership of that person, loss of property. The courts of Holland over a long period of years reached the conclusion that the proper figure to assess in a case such as that was the full value of the property plus 25 per cent because the property was being taken against the man’s will. Now I believe that if in seeking to deal with our difficult Coloured problems in this country we have the good sense to act in the spirit of the common law of this country, we would do far better than acting upon the basis which this Government has applied for the last ten years.

I wish to come now to another very unsatisfactory provision. I am not going to deal with it at great length, because it has already been referred to by a number of speakers. It is the idea of committees of one. It is obvious that this is being done because the Government is finding it necessary to put more and more and more of the properties in South Africa in these mixed areas on the permit system, in other words to have more and more occupiers and owners who are in a state of uncertainty. I mention it because I have already made a plea to the Minister to see if it is not possible so to mend the law as to bring about justice and certainty instead of the increasing uncertainty which is taking place under this permit system. I say that it is wrong and I support very strongly those on this side of the House who have said that it is quite wrong that there should be one person deciding these matters. It is true that there is an appeal to the Minister, but we know that an appeal to the Minister—and I am not querying the Minister’s honesty in this matter, but obviously, when there is an appeal in a matter of this sort the Minister must to a very large extent rely on information which has been gathered by the Board. And, I suggest, the number of cases is going to be such that it will probably be extremely difficult for the Minister to attend to his other work if he is going to attend to all the appeals which will come along. I suggest that while such appeals should be retained, especially at this time when it is becoming absolutely clear that there are going to be more and more persons operating businesses or occupying properties under this system, that there should be better control than is possible when acting on the decision of one person. It must be remembered that the appeal to the Minister is not on the basis of a rehearing of the case and the giving of evidence. I therefore would like to make the suggestion that we should see if it is not possible, as this is parliamentary legislation, to persuade this House that where it gives arbitrary powers or delegated authority there must be parliamentary control. I wonder whether the time has not come when there should be published from time to time lists of permits that have been granted. Those lists should be laid every year before a parliamentary Select Committee, and persons who have appealed unsuccessfully but are still convinced that an injustice has been done should be given an opportunity of putting their case before a parliamentary Select Committee. I can imagine no more salutary control against the misuse of these powers of issuing permits than the fact that there is control by this House. I hope the Minister will consider that because I can imagine nothing which would do more good to the fair name of South Africa than that. And I should say that one of the major causes of our bad Press throughout the world is this very group Areas Act which is now under discussion. If a safeguarding provision of that sort were inserted, I am certain it would be of great value in doing something towards the restoration of the good name of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the details of this Bill have been discussed at very great length. It has been made quite clear to the Government side that it is the intention of this side of the House to vote against this Bill. It is admitted that there are some provisions in the Bill that are going to make things a little easier, but against that this is still a method of dealing with this matter which has shown to be a failure and has been shown to bring about injustice in many cases in the past. The reason that we are proposing to vote against this measure is not only in relation to this particular Bill but it is in order to record our protest against the inept handling of this matter by this Government over a period of ten years. We want to make it quite clear to the people of this country and to the people outside, that so far as this side of the House is concerned, whilst we believe it is reasonable that there should be social and residential separation, we believe that there are many things done under this Group Areas legislation which should be rectified and which can be put right by the proper application of correct principle to those particular problems. We wish to make it clear that in due course of time when that Government is lifted from the Government of this country, there will be a government which will be able to protect the people of the country, and in respect of this Bill particularly, I hope it will not be very long before we will be able to convince people in the outside world that we stand for justice for all sections of the South African community. This is one of the principal measures which has done so much damage to the name of South Africa and I say it is essential—and on this hon. Deputy Minister rests the responsibility to get away from the uncertainties and to get away from the manifest injustices which exist in certain cases under this Act—I say it is essential to get back to the sane and sober principles which underlie the common law of South Africa. By working along those lines I believe that we can strike a blow well worth while for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member who has just sat down have once again said that this legislation is doing our reputation abroad great harm. Twelve or 14 years have elapsed since the time when the Smuts Government introduced their Indian legislation in 1946 and I now want to read to hon. members what the late Gen. Smuts said in this. House in 1946, when he handled this legislation as Prime Minister—

Then he went on—

In other words, even when the then Government introduced its legislation in 1946 there was an outcry abroad.

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member has quoted from a speech by Gen. Smuts dealing with the 1946 legislation. Why did his Government repeal that legislation?

Hon. members opposite considered that legislation to be better than that which we have to-day, but even it could not satisfy world opinion. That is the point. I also want to tell the hon. member why we repealed it. We did so because it gave the Indians certain representative rights.

This time you have put your foot in it.

No, I have not. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has said that this legislation should be made practicable in the right spirit. Have hon. members forgotten that in 1943, when the previous Government introduced the Pegging Act, the Natal Indians adopted an attitude of passive resistance and squatted on sites where they did not have the right to be? Do they remember how the Indians walked from Durban to Charleston, and how the police had to stop them at Charleston? We know that the late Mr. Hofmeyr was sent to try and pacify the Indians. We have not yet needed to take such action under this legislation. Furthermore, the hon. member for Springs said that they did a tremendous amount as regards housing. I want to come back presently to housing. I just want to tell the hon. member that he must still submit his proof. Was it not as a result of the tremendous housing shortage and the wonderful plans of the United Party that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was given the name of “Harry the House-builder”? They were not criticized for building houses. They were criticized because, year after year, they dreamed of houses, but did not build any. That is why he was given the nickname of “Harry the Housebuilder”, i.e. as a result of their failure to take any concrete action.

Hon. members opposite say that the Government is tackling the problem in the wrong way and that no progress has been made. The fact of the matter is that we have made tremendous progress. We have at least achieved one thing, namely that the intermingling of the various population groups is no longer continuing. The position has been pegged at a certain stage and that, from that point on, we are making further progress. Tremendous progress has been made. If only we could have the co-operation of the town councils which are under the control of members of the United Party, we could make more rapid progress.

What about a city council which built 34,000 houses in the space of one year?

If we could have had the co-operation of the United Party-controlled town councils, we would have been far further advanced to-day.

What about Johannesburg?

Yes, like Johannesburg. We had to drag Johannesburg along with us. Did we not have to introduce special legislation and establish an organization in order to bypass the Johannesburg City Council so that houses could be built? It was only later that they agreed to co-operate. This House had to adopt special legislation in 1954 in order to establish a special organization, because the Johannesburg City Council did not want to build houses. Hon. members opposite must not use this type of argument.

The hon. member for Springs also says that we have not paid full compensation. That is not true. Full compensation is being paid in the areas which have been declared group areas on the basis of the market value of the properties. There is only case where the full value is not paid. If the value of the land rises because it has been declared a group area, we pay 80 per cent of the increase in the value of such land. Allow me to explain the position by referring to Pretoria. In Prinsloo Street, Pretoria, there are many Indian shops. If that area should be declared a White area, it is foreseeable that the value of those plots, sites and buildings in Prinsloo Street would immediately rise, because the Whites would then know that the Indians were leaving. Because there are Indians in that street, the prices to-day are low. It is only when such an area is proclaimed a group area and the value of the sites and buildings rises as a result of that proclamation, that we pay 80 per cent of the additional value over and above the so-called basic value. Otherwise we pay the full value of the property.

Then hon. members have also said that we have not made any concessions. But the law to-day allows disqualified persons to continue with their businesses in a group area, whereas that was not the position previously. They can now be separated as far as residential areas are concerned, but they can continue with their businesses. I think that this is a very great concession which we have made. I say that I personally am most sorry that it has been necessary to make such a concession. But I appreciate the practical position and, for that reason, I understand why this has been done, and I accept that it must be done. If we are to implement this legislation we cannot summarily remove the businesses of Indians in a town to a group area. We cannot establish businesses out on the open veld. Only when the Indian towns have been developed will we be able, to a certain extent, to move their businesses to that area. But initially we cannot move their businesses with them. I, therefore, say that this is a practical adjustment of the legislation, and I regard this as a very great concession which has been made to the Indians in this regard.

Hon. members say that they would tackle this problem in a more just way. How would they do so? If we are to move people, it means that compulsion has to be used. If hon. members think that they will persuade the Indians and Coloureds to move voluntarily, they are living in a dream world; and if they must compel these people to move, they will be in the same position as we.

The hon. member for Springs says that they have proposed that a commission should be appointed to inquire into whether this legislation can be applied on a just basis. What is the Group Areas Board if it is not a permanent commission? The hon. member cannot say that the Group Areas Board does not consider how the legislation can be applied in the most just way possible. Do hon. members know that the Group Areas Board had it prototype in Natal under the Pegging Act of 1943? The first time that a board was established to do this type of work was in Natal in 1943. The Government has merely extended that board. The 1943 board also issued permits. Even the permit system had its origin in the United Party regime. Seeing that the hon. the Deputy Minister is now making provision whereby people will not repeatedly have to ask for renewals, I regard it as a very great concession aimed at removing friction which may be caused by the legislation. I consider this to be a concession, but I repeat that the principle of permits and the principle that there should be a board which grants these permits and which must set aside areas—such as has been done in Natal—originated under the regime of hon. members opposite, namely in the 1943 legislation. In fact one is surprised that hon. members opposite have allowed their stormy leader, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), to lead the opposition to this legislation. Because it is in Natal where the position became so bad that the late Gen. Smuts at that time appointed the Broome Commission. After the second report—and the Broome Commission had not yet completed its work—they introduced the Pegging Act, an Act which simply pegged the entire position so that the Indians concerned could not move one way or the other. I say it is strange that they have used that hon. member to lead the opposition to this legislation.

Then hon. members opposite have said that we introduce new legislation every year. I can point out that the legislation is continually being evaded. The same position applied in the past. The Transvaal always had legislation aimed at preventing the ownership of land by Indians, and there were laws in Natal as well. But what happened continuously was that the Indians recruited the best legal brains in the country to see whether they could find loopholes in the legislation. This House, as also happened in 1946, has continually had to adopt legislation condoning the circumventing of previous legislation. This House has repeatedly had to say that the matter would now be tackled from this or that angle. During this same speech which I have just quoted, the late General Smuts also said that the then existing rights had been illegally acquired. Seeing that we are faced here with very difficult problems, problems relating to human relationships and the rights of ownership, it is true that this is a difficult and complicated subject. It is true that people are hiring the best legal brains in the country to see whether they cannot find loopholes in this legislation. When one is dealing with such great problems, one is always faced with new situations. For that reason we make no apologies if year after year we have to introduce new amending legislation into this House. If we have to meet such new situations, if we are to eliminate new evasions of the law, we are obliged to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to another aspect. Over the years the Group Areas Board, the responsible Minister and the Department have acquired considerable experience. While our machinery was originally very inflexible, we have now succeeded in making it far more flexible. The Board has been sub-divided, powers have been delegated, a step which was opposed in this House very strongly—but all these steps represented an attempt to make the machinery far more flexible and to make it function smoothly. The provisions of this Bill are merely intended to assist us in tackling the problem more effectively than we have done in the past. With the experience we have acquired, we can make the legislation more flexible and more supple to-day so that we can achieve the objects of this legislation.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has said about Pretoria. He has objected to the fact that in Pretoria we have an Indian area called Claudius, in respect of which we can say that the first houses have now been completed. The Pretoria City Council is one of the city councils which co-operate with the Government. Last year they started building houses in the Indian area, and I think that by this time the first houses will have been completed and perhaps are already occupied. I do not know, but I can only say that I think they started building houses at the beginning of November. The township has been planned and laid out. In the case of Pretoria too, there will be such a special area where Indians can continue with their businesses, and it is to be hoped that the scattered shops belonging to Indians can be moved to the specially specified area. Objections have now been raised against Claudius which is scarcely four miles from the centre of the city. A railway line passes nearby. It cannot be used immediately. This is a line which Iscor has constructed, but as soon as there are sufficient Indians, one can foresee that the Railways will provide the necessary services. The City Council is certainly prepared to provide an adequate bus service. The hon. member for East London (North) must not think that Pretoria is another East London.

The fact of the matter is that as cities expand, the people who work in such cities are continually moving further and further out of those cities. In Johannesburg to-day there are people who live 30 or 40 miles from their place of employment.

Lenasia.

Lenasia is only 17 miles from the city centre. I say that in Johannesburg there are people who live 30 or 40 miles from their place of employment. In Pretoria we find people living in Lyttleton, Pretoria North, Silverton, East Lynne and Valhalla which are much further away than Claudius. What is wrong with that? I say that Pretoria is an expanding city. Even the Bantu townships which have been laid out and which are model townships are situated further away than Claudius. Electrified rail facilities have been made available to those Bantu townships. I foresee that these same facilities will also be extended later to the Indians. Hon. members are now opposing the Bill so vigorously, but even the Johannesburg City Council which we had to drag by the scruff of the neck into building houses for the Bantu, is to-day publishing brochures, and the Bantu townships in Johannesburg to-day are the model townships we show the world to indicate what we are doing for the Bantu. And in the same way, whereas the Indians in Natal and in the large cities are living under deplorable conditions today, we shall eventually be able to show the world what we have done for the Indians in this country.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has attempted to defend the introduction of so many amending Bills since 1950 when the original Bill was introduced to this House. I think we can sum the position up this way, that over these last ten years there has been far too much talk about group areas and far too little action. Far too little action because the Government would not make up its mind that before there could be any real advance in the settlement of group areas there had to be considerable expenditure. That has been the crux of the matter from the start—who is to pay? It is freely admitted that the most acute problems as far as the distribution of races, the provision of housing and so on exist in the Province of Natal. It is quite true that in Durban, particularly, there has been agitation over the years for social and residential separation—and particularly residential separation. I know, from what happened in the early years prior to 1946, what gave rise to the legislation which was passed, particularly the Pegging Act. I know that the people of Natal, and again, particularly the people of Durban are still very keen to see that there is residential separation. But I am not so sure that they are prepared to see residential separation brought about at the expense of the under-privileged. They have argued, and I think argued rightly, that if, because of developments which have taken place over the years, certain movements of population have to be made to bring about residential separation, it is not fair to expect that the people who have to move should have to pay for that separation. That is why, over the years, and I take my mind back to 1950 when the Bill was first introduced, one of the first amendments moved asked for compensation as well as for alternative accommodation.

In this Bill, after ten years, the Government have accepted the responsibility of providing alternative accommodation as a fair and reasonable proposition. There may be reasons why they have not admitted that before, but the fact that it has been admitted now, ten years later is, I suppose, something for which one should be thankful, but at the same time one cannot help but think of all those who have suffered during that period of ten years because alternative accommodation was not offered.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) went on to deal with the question of why so many amendments had been made, and indicated that there would be many more amendments in the foreseeable future.

I just want to say that I referred specifically to those communities which cannot provide for themselves.

That is where the greatest hardship has been up to now, in the application of the Group Areas Act; to those that are not in a position to provide their own alternative accomodation but have been compelled to move out of the homes which they have provided for themselves after many years of struggle. They are the very people that we are most concerned about. When we consider the problem, and particularly the problem that faces Durban where the Indian, Bantu and European are practically in similar proportions—I think the Europeans are, if anything, in the minority group. If one looks at the area of Durban that is occupied by Europeans and thinks in terms of what type of planning is necessary to make it possible for the other groups to have a fair share in the Durban area, one can envisage what it is going to cost to give effect to what is suggested even in this amending Bill. It is for these reasons that we say that if we are going to get down to a job of work and bring about residential separation, we must be prepared at this stage to make available considerable sums of money. But I want to deal more specifically with the new principle which the Minister has indicated is being introduced in Clause 12. It is easier for me to appreciate what the Minister has in mind if, while I am speaking, I have in mind a specific area of Durban which is possibly well known to the Minister. I am referring to the centre of Durban, which is called a specified area, which is occupied almost predominantly by Asiatic traders. In terms of this new principle, it will be possible for the Minister by way of proclamation to have a special specified area which would have the effect of confining that particular area to business purposes only, and the Asiatics who are there at present and who are combining both business and residential facilities under the same roof, will find that they will have to move out of the area for residential purposes but will continue there for business purposes. I am not quite sure, the way the clause is worded, whether it is the intention in such a special specialized area to prohibit members of racial groups other than Asiatics in the area from continuing with business there. In other words, is it possible in terms of this amending Bill for a specified area to be proclaimed which would permit different racial groups to continue in business in the area provided they do not reside in the area. I am not sure, from the wording, and from what the Minister has said, whether that would be possible. I raise this question because I know that it could not happen if the particular area has already been proclaimed for a particular group. If it was so proclaimed, then of course the proclamation would prohibit any disqualified person from continuing in business in such an area. But I am not so sure about the intention of the clause here in so far as the provision of this new principle is concerned, whether it would make it possible, under permit, once a special specified area has been proclaimed, for a different racial group to conduct business in the same area. It appears to me that that would be possible. That is one point I would like the Minister to clear up.

The second point that arises here is that I concede that this provision, if it were applied to an area which is being developed, could be of great value, but in old, developed areas like we have in the centre of Durban we are faced with this problem that there are three authorities which will determine the type of area which will eventually emerge if a specified area is introduced in terms of this legislation. There is the local authority, the Administrator, and the Group Areas Board, and I think in special cases the final word would rest with the Group Areas Board. But the point I want to make is that this clause, as I read it, says that where a special area is proclaimed there is no provision for compensation at all, whereas under the provisions of the Town Planning Ordinance, if there are persons who are adversely affected, there is provision for compensation. There is no suggestion here that anyone who is adversely affected by the proclamation of a special specified area in terms of Clause 12 will be given any compensation at all, and you may ask, Sir, why should compensation be granted under these conditions. It is quite easy to see that there are many businesses in Durban, particularly in the Indian area, where it is only the ground floor which is used for business purposes, and the rest of the building is used for residential purposes. I think it is quite clear from what the Minister has said that if he is going to have a special specified area in relation to that portion of Durban and he is going to prohibit Asiatics from living on the premises where they do business, it is not likely that he will permit Asiatics to reside in the rest of the building. I do not think that would be logical, and so we can very well have the position developing where the Group Areas Board takes a decision, and though they may refer the matter to the local authority, a building presently occupied by Asiatics can become vacant in terms of this type of proclamation, and the effect of that on the business man is such that he will have to close down. One cannot imagine that under these conditions the Minister would agree to allow a business to be continued by Asiatics on the ground floor, while allowing the upper stories of the same building to be occupied by other racial groups. In other words, they would remain empty, unless the Board issued a permit to enable possibly disqualified persons or others to occupy the premises. There we come to the question of whether it is advisable for the Group Areas Board to have the final say in these questions of residential occupation in certain of these old areas, or whether it should not be in the hands of the local town planning authority. I can see the difficulties that will arise where the town planning section has taken certain decisions to limit the residential occupation in a certain area and to limit business opportunities as well, and the Group Areas Board issues a proclamation in terms of this provision and upsets the whole of the economy of the whole area. It can nullify the expansion and bring about the very reverse effect of what the Minister had in mind. I hope the Minister will give very close attention to this aspect of what can happen if there is not the very closest consultation between the Board and the local authority concerned. I know of some of the difficulties that the Minister faces.

It all depends on the local authority.

That is the point I was coming to. If the local authority is not cooperative, the Minister will say it is the responsibility of that authority if the board makes errors which will have a considerable financial effect on the residents in the area. If that is the way the Minister sees it, I can only say it is a very poor outlook for those Indian residents there, remembering that the Indians concerned are continually urging upon the local authority that they should not do anything to co-operate with the Government in the implementation of group areas. So we have this position that, unlike Parliament where most of us represent political parties, in Natal local authorities in the main do not represent political parties. They are elected almost on the free vote of the residents, and we have this position developing that no political party can control a local authority …

No local authority has the moral right to sabotage State policy.

I mentioned earlier on that if State policy was to be paid for out of the coffers of the whole population, one could say there was perhaps some justification for it, but when State policy imposes considerable burdens on one section of the population one must not be surprised if there are local authorities who do not co-operate. A local authority can only go so far as its finances allow and it is not prepared to co-operate in a venture which will result in considerable expenditure by that authority when the Government itself is not prepared to pay proportionately. I said before that there has been too much talk but too little action, and too little actual hard cash coming from the coffers of the Government to implement this policy. That is the crux of the whole problem. Somebody has to pay and the Government says it is not they, and the local authorities say they cannot either, and all the legislation in the world will not overcome that factor unless provision is made for financial relief, which is completely essential in the implementation of this type of legislation.

I have said that this new principle the Minister is introducing would be quite easy to apply in newly developing areas and would facilitate the proper development of those areas, but where it is applied in respect of old areas we are going to be faced with this problem of compensation because it is inevitable that there will be displaced persons, which means empty buildings, and I think the Minister will have to give his close attention to that aspect and indicate what he is prepared to do, perhaps in the Committee Stage.

Now I want to deal with another provision, and that is in connection with the development in group areas of businesses that are owned by disqualified persons; in other words, the proposal that if a large banking organization were to establish a branch in an Asiatic group area they would be prohibited from doing so in terms of the amendment. That is the interpretation that has been given to it, unless they get a permit. We have had the experience already in the Cape where a permit was issued to a particular bank, even though that bank was not the first applicant for the facilities in the area. I mention this point because, here again, we have a permit system operating where the decision that has to be taken as to who gets the permit can result in favouritism, and I say that for a one-man committee to have this power is not satisfactory. I think the Minister should consider the position most carefully, because if there are a number of business undertakings conducting the same type of business there should be an equitable way of distributing the permits to enable all of them to get a fair share, but I cannot see that happening in terms of this Bill, because of the one-man committee provisions.

I am one of those who has always accepted that residential separation was a desirable thing. I cannot accept the standpoint taken by the Progressives that it should operate in a way which will not bring us social or residential separation at all, but which will be on the basis of free will. I do not know whether they can remember back to the days prior to 1946 and the difficulties we experienced in Durban particularly, where there was this free movement of people, and the considerable difficulties that local authorities and the Provincial Authorities and eventually Parliament were placed in because of the movement of population from one area to another practically without control, in much the same way that the Progressive Party want to see it to-day. I do not think the people of Natal are interested in going back to the position before 1946, but I say this, that in the establishment of group areas or residential areas for the various groups the fair-minded people in Natal are quite prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, but the Government must not expect them to make all the sacrifices. Therefore I say that passing this measure will not solve the problem. This measure on its own, in conjunction with the principal Act, will not solve the problem in respect of those who think it will be a good thing to have residential separation. I do not think it will achieve it, and if it does it will take far too long, and in the process it is creating far too much disruption. When I think of the disruption caused during the last ten years …

What do you suggest to speed it up?

I suggest that the Government should spend money, and all the legislation in the world will not speed it up unless the Government is prepared to accept that responsibility, because if it is the wish and the desire of all sections of the population that there should be residential separation, then the costs should be defrayed from the Central Fund and not leave the burden on the unfortunate few who can least afford to pay.

Sir, I have said what I wanted to say. I hope the Minister will take notice of the points I have raised, because I can tell the Minister that if he thinks that this Bill will solve the problem he is making a mistake, and for those of us who want to see progress made in respect of residential separation, this sort of tinkering with the position only causes further delay.

Before calling on the hon. member I want to draw attention to the fact that I have allowed a very free discussion and a very wide field has been covered and I now expect hon. members to confine themselves to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was more pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). We heard a clearer note from him than from any of the other speakers to-day. The crux of his argument was that this Bill was good and sound and was welcomed, particularly by the people of Durban, but that the amendment does not make sufficient provision for the speedy implementation of the law. That is how I interpreted it. We on this side have recently become accustomed to hearing certain sounds from the other side of the Natal border which began to make us feel convinced that there is a plan to declare the whole of Natal as a group area for English-speaking people.

Order! Where is that contained in the Bill?

But now we have learnt that as a result of the force of circumstances …

Order! The hon. member is too far away from the Bill.

Let me just complete the sentence. I would like to obey your ruling. We are now becoming convinced that the fear which exists in the minds of large sections of White people in Natal has forced them to make such a statement as the hon. member has just made: “The people of Durban are very keen on having residential separation.” That being so, we did not expect the hon. member to complain because this Bill is only being introduced now, but that he should have been grateful that this amending Bill, which will facilitate the application of the Act has, in fact, been introduced. It is very clear that it is a measure which will assist him and his people, who fear that they will be swamped by the Indians in Durban and in the towns of Natal. The Group Areas Act, with all its amendments …

That is not what we are discussing now. We are now dealing with this amendment only.

You have now got me cornered. I was prepared to speak in the same spirit as other speakers, but I shall try to obey your ruling. The objection to this amendment is that too high demands are made of the people who have to be removed. I believe that this Act will be applied in a humane and very sympathetic manner, as was the position in the past. The hon. member for Simonstown made two allegations here.

He said that the Opposition also favoured segregation, but they wanted to do so in a more humane way; they want to take the person’s circumstances into consideration, and they wish always to consult beforehand with the people who have to be removed.

The hon. member must obey my ruling.

Sir, how can I negative the arguments of the Opposition if I may not deal with them? The hon. member for Simonstown said that these people should be consulted before they are uprooted.

Order! I said right in the beginning that I had allowed a wide discussion, but that that time was now past. Now hon. members must come back to the Bill.

You have now made it impossible for me to continue, Sir, and I shall resume my seat.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the comments of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler), I was under the impression that he thought that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) was of opinion that the objections of the people of Durban to the Group Areas Act and to this Bill were that they thought that this Bill will not solve our problems, because the chief feature of the application of the group areas is the need for the Government to assume a much greater responsibility in accelerating the provision of finance for housing. I would like to make it quite clear that I believe that in Durban the provision of money is not the only concern, and there are other aspects of the Act which also disturb the people, and that is that more and more the city council and the citizens of Durban are becoming aware of the inequality of the burden being thrust upon the Indian population by group areas legislation. I do not believe that this Bill will do anything to alleviate that unequal burden. It is II years since the original Act was introduced and every year when an amending Bill is introduced we look for some appreciation on the part of the Government that there is a vital necessity for removing the inequalities and injustices.

Order! I indicated before that I have allowed a very wide discussion, but now the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I shall do my best to adhere to your ruling, Sir. I want briefly to refer to Clause 12, which introduces a new Section 16bis to the original Section 16 (3) (a) which provides the definition for special specified areas which may be proclaimed for continued occupation by any member of a particular race group for trading purposes whilst refusing him the right to continue in residential occupation. The Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Randfontein made it quite clear that they regarded this not only as a concession but as an advantage. They pointed out how this provision avoids the necessity for the declaration of group areas, and that it enables people of a certain race group to continue to earn their livelihood without residing in the same area. They say it is a concession, but I wonder whether they have ever thought of asking the opinion of the race groups affected? Have they ever consulted with the Indians or the Coloureds, to ascertain whether they in fact regard this as a concession or an advantage? As far as I know no consultations have taken place with the interests concerned, and there have been no attempts by the Government to secure agreement to these features. I believe that if any person affected by this particular clause were asked his opinion, he would very definitely regard it as another very heavy burden which is being imposed upon him and certainly not as a concession. Sir, one question that was raised earlier on was the question whether this would be applied equally to all races, and on that point the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) was most emphatic. He said “Of course, it will be applied equally to all races We would like further assurances about this because it does not seem that this is possible. I would like to quote from a paragraph on page 12 of a book entitled “Handbook on Group Areas” by Mr. F. P. Rousseau, a very sound publication written by a man who obviously is an expert on this matter and who, I understand is adviser to the Government on group areas, and therefore I consider that these remarks were made by a man who certainly has no reason for being critical. This is what he says in relation to Section 16 (3)—

Order! That does not apply to the Bill under consideration.

With all due respect, Sir, Clause 12 does in point of fact relate to Section 16 (3) in so far as it amends that section, and it only applies to areas which are referred to in Section 16 (3). I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he can give me any instances in which Section 16 (3) has been applied in cases of European occupation, and I should like to know whether, if I put a question on the Order Paper, he will give me the details of those cases in which this has actually happened, because it does seem that although in theory this is applicable to all races equally, in point of fact the Government has no intention of applying it to Europeans as well.

Will you just repeat that question?

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must be able to hear what is being said. Hon. members are conversing so loudly that there are times when I myself cannot hear what is going on and I appeal in vain for order. I shall have to discipline hon. members if they refuse to heed my appeals for order.

Sir, I asked whether if I placed a question on the Order Paper asking the hon. the Deputy Minister in which cases Section 16 (3) has been invoked against Europeans, he would give me actual instances where Europeans have been involved, because if the Europeans have been affected equally, then I think the public is entitled to know it. It does seem to me, despite what I have quoted from that book, that it is possible that there are cases where there are pockets where European traders are operating and living in the same premises in areas predominantly surrounded by Indians. Is it his intention to apply the Act equally against those Europeans too? I want to know whether Indians are also to be protected against such Europeans. Would the Deputy Minister also tell us whether any complaints have been received from Indians that such practices are taking place in predominantly Indian areas. Because I cannot see that occupation and the carrying on of a trade in such conditions can be to the detriment of any particular race. The next question I would like to ask is this: To what sort of areas is the new clause going to apply? We are particularly interested in this in Durban, because we want to know whether it will be made to apply specifically only to certain business premises in mixed areas or to certain Indian trading areas such as we have in Clairwood or Sydenham or Umgeni or Mayville or whether it is also going to be applied to the larger trading complexes such as Grey Street, Albert Street, and Victoria Street. Because this is a matter which has a most important bearing on the livelihood of a great many Indians in Durban, and I do think that the Indian population is entitled to be relieved of uncertainty and told precisely how this is going to operate; in which areas it is expected to operate; and the extent to which they are likely to be affected. The next question I want to ask is what the objection is to persons living above their business premises in these areas? Is it only undesirable in the case of Indians or is it equally so in the case of any race, and, if not, what are the inherent evils that the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to remedy? The hon. member for Randfontein went to some lengths to say that he was anxious that the purpose of this clause was to put all races on the same footing. Surely that is a most remarkable statement, because even when this clause comes into operation how can it possibly put the Indians on an equal footing with the Europeans? After all, the Indians in this country live under fantastic disabilities. They are restricted to certain provinces, and even in the Transvaal and the Cape they are under considerable difficulties. That is why we have this super-concentration of the Indian population in Natal. But even in Natal they operate under fantastic disabilities as well. There are very few areas in which they can freely buy land; there are very few professions or occupations in which they can fully engage. There is a prejudice in Government circles, in provincial government circles and also in certain municipal circles to the employment of Indians, so it is surely due to these restrictions which the Indian finds in his every-day life that he is forced into certain channels of occupation and this is only one of them. Surely one should recognize that the Indian makes a remarkably good and efficient trader; he makes a remarkably good and efficient transport driver. These are certain things which he has been forced into, in the same way as the Jews were forced into finance under the ghetto system in Europe many years ago. Surely there are likely to be very severe economic repercussions if the advantages which are offered by traders who reside in the same premises in which their businesses are conducted are to be forced away from those premises to settle in other areas. The very fact that a man can live on his business premises surely reduces his over-head expenses and makes it possible for him to offer services to the public more economically than he otherwise could do. If you drive the man out of his premises and force him to go eight to ten miles to another residential area, surely it will impose an added hardship and put up the cost of living of those people who are dependent upon the traders in that area. That applies whether you drive out the European or the Indian. The hon. the Deputy Minister in dealing with this said that there was no reason why the Indian could not be treated in the same way as the European; that the European can live in Rondebosch and come into town to his business, so why could not the Indian do so? But let me remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that in areas like Durban virtually the whole of the choicest adjoining residential are as are already in the hands of Europeans, and the new areas that are being made available for Indians are far out of town. In point of fact the European invariably has the choice; he can either live in a residential suburb or he can live on his business premises. But that apparently is going to be denied the Indian. The question of the economic effect of driving a man out should be considered. We are also entitled to know what is going to be the position of these business men who are refused permission to live on their business premises. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) raised this question, but I should like to know how the Government proposes to compensate a person who is allowed to continue to live in his residential quarters above his business premises, subject to a permit. What happens when the permit expires, when residential areas are available elsewhere? Will the Government compensate that person for the loss of the use of his residential accommodation, or will the Government compensate him for the cost of endeavouring to convert his residential accommodation into suitable business premises or offices or something else? And if it is impossible to convert or let the residential portion of his premises for other industrial or commercial or professional purposes, what is the position going to be? Must the premises simply remain vacant, and is the owner not going to receive any compensation at all? Surely the Indian population is entitled to have answers to these questions. Moreover, to what is this a prelude? Why is it intended to drive the Indians out of premises of this kind if this is not a prelude ultimately to the declaration of a group area?. Is this simply a half-way step, or is this part of an over-all plan to make business less and less economically attractive to the Indians, and so to drive them forcibly into other occupations? These are all questions to which, I believe, we are entitled to an answer. I also raise this further question as to whether it is the function of the Group Areas Act to prevent owners and occupiers of premises from residing on their business premises. Surely this is something which could much better be dealt with by the local authorities. After all, they have the power under town-planning ordinances to control this sort of building, and to control it in such a way to ensure that justice is done as between all racial groups. What necessity is there for using the Group Areas Act for this purpose, unless it is, of course, to enable racial discrimination to be introduced into this sort of thing? I mention this because in the past in the case of the city of Durban, there have been discussions between the Indian population and the City Council with regard to limiting the amount of residential accommodation over business premises. Obviously, where land is expensive, where it amounts to, say, £4 a square foot, it is uneconomic simply to put up ground-floor business premises without something above it, and obviously if a man can put up a building with flats of three storeys, then he has a much better chance of making his business venture an economic proposition. I raise this point because I do believe that we should not overlook the fact that the Indian population have at all times been very co-operative with the Durban Corporation, and I believe that that would be a better way of dealing with this matter.

I conclude by saying that this surely is a time when the influence of legislation of this sort on world opinion should be most carefully studied. For many years the situation deteriorated, until April 1959, when the then Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Finance, and Mr. Marais, the chairman of the Group Areas Board, interviewed a representative gathering of Indian businessmen from Durban. The impression given to them at that time was that the Government were concentrating on an entirely new approach to the questions arising from the application of the Group Areas Act. The hopes that were raised by that interview were promptly shattered within a short time when the proclamations were made in respect of Rustenburg and other towns in the Transvaal. Surely this is the time, when the hon. the Deputy Minister comes to this task, when he can bring an entirely new approach to bear on this measure and do something to improve the good standing of this country overseas by a more humane approach.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member a good deal of latitude, but I think he must come back to the Bill.

With that appeal, then I will terminate my remarks.

I do not propose to reply in detail to all the questions which have been put here. Individual speakers have put question upon question here, the replies to some of which they can find in the principal Act and the replies to others in this Bill. It is a very easy matter to put one question after another in a debate to create imaginary problems and is easy to give one’s imagination free reign as to what is likely to occur. I am not in a position to give a reply on all those problems of the future. I have never claimed to be a prophet. What we are trying to do in this measure, to the best of our ability and as far as we are able to foresee, is to take steps which will facilitate and expedite the administration of the Group Areas Act. Some of the arguments and statements made by hon. members have been replied to adequately and effectively by my colleague behind me and by the hon. members for Parow (Mr. Kotzé), Ceres (Mr. Muller), Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers), and it is not my intention to repeat all those replies which have been given on specific points. But since the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) is here I want to start by referring to one fear which he expressed. He began by saying that there were certain rumours in the country and that by introducing legislation of this kind we were making it even more likely that rumours would be spread. He warns us that we are encouraging the spreading of rumours. I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice and I assume that he does not believe those rumours. I hope he will correct me if my assumption is wrong. I accept that he does not believe those rumours, and if he does believe them, I hope he will tell us so.

Come on, Mitchell!

Order! I ask the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker) to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Because, Mr. Speaker, if I am to believe that hon. members who sit in this House believe that members of the Group Areas Board or responsible officials of that Board are making themselves guilty of conduct which justifies those rumours, and they then fail to lay a definite charge, then we have come to a very sad pass in South Africa’s public life. Let me say this to the hon. member: The 12 members of the Group Areas Board are men of outstanding character; they are men who were especially picked; they are men of whom I personally am proud and of whom the Government is proud. They are men who are performing a very difficult task under very difficult circumstances, and they still retain their self-respect. If there is any implication in the hon. member’s words that there is a grain of truth in so-called rumours about this Board or its officials, then I reject that suggestion with contempt. If there are gossips in South Africa who are making certain allegations about the work of this Board and its officials, that will not deter us from doing our duty nor will it deter me from doing my duty under the provision of this Act. Rumourmongers will not prevent us from carrying out an Act of this Parliament, and I should like the hon. member to understand that perfectly clearly. But if he attaches any credence to those rumours, I hope he will produce the evidence and enable us to investigate the allegations, and if he does not produce that evidence then I must assume that this was just another loose-tongued statement to throw suspicion upon people who are doing difficult work with the greatest degree of integrity—and, moreover, people who cannot defend themselves in this House. I think it is very mean to make accusations here against people who cannot defend themselves in this House, without preferring a definite charge against them.

The Opposition found it difficult to criticize this amending measure, and that is why you, Sir, quite correctly, felt this afternoon that you were called upon in the exercise of your duties to point out that you had allowed a very wide discussion, because throughout the whole of this debate there has only been one refrain and that is “Group Areas Act, Group Areas Act”, with which we are not dealing at the moment. We are dealing here with amendments to certain sections of that Act. I can come to one conclusion only and that is that certain hon. members went and read speeches made in the Other Place and then based their whole attack here upon those speeches—I must say with the exception of a few hon. members, and here I should like to except the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). I shall therefore try to reply to him later on in the course of my speech. But the criticism of this Bill was limited to quite a number of minor aspects, where it was not simply based on imaginary grievances that hon. members aired in an attempt to belittle as much as possible the true aims of this Bill and to throw a smoke-screen over them, in so far as this Bill confers benefits upon those who are affected by it. I do not propose therefore to repeat everything that I set out in my introductory speech. I dealt perfectly clearly in my introductory speech with the question of special areas; I dealt perfectly clearly with the question of the periods, which are now being changed, within which to vacate an area, as well as other provisions of this Bill. But quite a number of hon. members, amongst others the hon. members for South Coast and Simonstown (Mr. Gay) have now come along and stated that I dealt with that provision of the Bill as though I was suggesting that I was playing the role of a Father Christmas and that they must be grateful to me for giving them these presents. Mr. Speaker, who asked hon. members opposite to be grateful to me? We have never expected thanks from the official Opposition. The more the official Opposition and hon. members on that side show ingratitude towards the Government the greater our majorities become at every election.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must come back to the Bill.

May I put it to you with all due respect, Sir, that I am replying to a debate which has been conducted here. If you stop me, I will not reply to hon. members.

And who do you think you are?

I am replying to charges made by hon. members on the other side. I am not making a speech on my behalf in this debate; I am replying to statements made by hon. members on that side.

Yes, but the hon. the Deputy Minister must not wander too far away from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the charge made by the hon. members for South Coast and Simonstown in which they stated that I expected gratitude from them. May I deal with that?

The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I say that my reply to that is that I did not ask for their gratitude. The second charge which they made here was that in this Bill we were giving wide delegated powers to officials. The hon. member for South Coast in particular made that his main charge. My first reply to that is this: In this Bill no powers are being delegated to govern by way of regulation; powers are only being delegated in this Bill on conditions laid down by the Minister in respect of the administrative activities of those officials in the performance of duties in respect of which the principal Act already imposes restrictions. In this connection I want to emphasize one point here this evening because this is one of the instruments about which there is a great deal of malicious rumourmongering against the Group Areas Act and its implementation. Both under the Group Areas Act and under this Bill permits are only issued in respect of matters in regard to which the principal Act lays down specific restrictions, and the permit is the very instrument that is used to relax those restrictions in cases of hardship. Why does the hon. member for South Coast not tell the country that? Because it does not suit him to do so. Why does he give the country the very opposite impression as though the issue of permits is an arbitrary way of dealing with the lives of people, when in point of fact this Parliament laid down restrictions in an Act, which is there for everybody to read, and when he knows as well as we do that these permits are issued because of the fact that we make exceptions to rules laid down by this Parliament with the very object of obviating hardships. Why does he not tell the country that? He does not do it for one of two reasons. He either does not do it because he does not know this or does not say it because he wants to stir up ill-feeling and give people the impression that an injustice is being done to them where there is no justification for that feeling.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When business was suspended I was discussing the delegation of powers. For the sake of continuity I just want to repeat that the powers delegated under this Bill are limited to powers in respect of which there will be a clearly defined policy, and in respect of which a ruling has been laid down. The second point in this regard is that as far as the granting of permits is concerned, the concessions being made here relate to restrictions under the Act; in other words they are concessions which are being made to prevent hardship. Accordingly the impression which the hon. member for South Coast has created that officials are now being given powers whereby they will be able arbitrarily to impose hardships on people is quite incorrect; precisely the opposite is true. Section 19 (1) also provides that the Minister lays down the conditions under which such powers are delegated. In other words, human lives will not be dealt with arbitrarily under this legislation without the people concerned knowing what is happening to them. Allow me to tell the hon. member that confidence is growing amongst the public, including the Coloureds, that the best way to obtain assistance is to come to the offices of the Group Areas Board. There they are given the necessary guidance, and it is no longer necessary for these people to pay excessive prices for services rendered to them. If they will place their trust in these officials, they will find that the officials are ready to serve them at all times. In the third place I submit that in the case of every delegated power, an appeal lies to the Minister and it is not correct to allege, as hon. members have done, that the Minister has a one-sided picture before him. When the Minister considers an appeal, the standpoint of the Group Areas Board or the official is submitted to him, but so is the standpoint of the affected person who is appealing. His case is specifically put to the Minister and the Minister has access to all the relevant documents. It has also happened repeatedly that an appeal has been upheld. What right do hon. members have to create the impression by these arguments that the interests of individuals and groups are being dealt with harshly? But in the fourth place: If these delegated powers should be abused, the Minister has the right to withdraw them, because after all the Minister is responsible to this Parliament for the policy he follows, and his policy is subject to criticism. In the last resort he takes the responsibility, and if he were to find that these delegated powers were being abused, he is responsible if he allows such a state to continue, and he must then render account. Why does the hon. member not tell the House that in the last resort the House of Assembly has the right to call the Minister to account? Is it his intention to help the people of South Africa to carry out the laws of the land, or does he want to create suspicion and distrust amongst them so that they will think that this Parliament cannot protect them?

The hon. member has said that the law is not clear in respect of this delegation. What right does the hon. member have to say that? In every case Parliament has passed the legislation. He says the legislation is not clear. The hon. member does not know the law. In the last resort the very intention of this legislation is to relieve the Minister of a multitude of tasks regarding matters on which there is clarity, so that the public can obtain quicker decisions and so that the activities of the Group Areas Board can be expedited and the public relieved of the burden of delays and the withholding of decisions. I hope that when the hon. member speaks in future he will make sure of his facts before he makes such submissions.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has criticized the Group Areas Act and announced that the Progressive Party will repeal it. Well, I can only say that under present circumstances this legislation is safe and will remain on the Statute Book of South Africa for a long time to come. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to say that the Group Areas Act has not been under discussion here, but what has been under discussion is the measures whereby the activities of the Group Areas Board can be expedited and facilitated. We are considering methods whereby the necessary machinery can be made to function more smoothly. The hon. member may have objections to the principal Act, but may I remind him that the Group Areas Act is an Act of this Parliament and as long as Parliament is constituted as it is to-day, that legislation will remain and it is the duty of the Government which is in power to implement properly the laws of this Parliament which have been adopted under its guidance.

But it is the task of the Opposition to oppose.

But it is not the task of the Opposition to sabotage.

On a point of order, can the hon. the Deputy Minister accuse the official Opposition in this House of sabotage?

I never said any such thing, in all fairness. I said that it was not the task of the Opposition to sabotage. If that statement must be withdrawn, I do so with pleasure.

The hon. member has criticized Clause 16 particularly and has said that whereas in the past there was a measure of certainty because a specified period was laid down before the persons concerned had to move, that provision is now being repealed as well. But in the first place the minimum period is being retained.

One year.

One year, and three months’ notice. That provision has been retained. In the second place the hon. member has been given the assurance that Clause 16 has been introduced precisely because the Government has established closer liaison between the Housing Commission, the Development Board and the Group Areas Board and because the Government sees its way clear to expediting the establishing of group areas under these new provisions. Does the hon. member believe for one moment or does he want any sensible person to believe that the Government will eject people from their homes without alternative accommodation being available?

May I ask a question? Certain proclamations which were issued last month allowed a seven-year period. If this amendment is adopted to-day, only one year’s grace will be allowed and perhaps an additional three months. What security is there for these people who previously had seven years, whereas they will now only have one year and perhaps an additional three months? The three months may in addition be included in the year.

The answer is after all quite simple. In my introductory speech I said that we had made new arrangements with the Housing Commission, the Group Areas Board and the Development Board and that in the near future further steps would be taken in this regard to ensure that the necessary liaison would be established so that alternative housing would be provided to anyone who was unable to provide for himself before he had to leave.

For only one year.

It does not mean that he will have to leave after one year; and I hope the hon. member is not going to create that impression outside.

No, but they do not have any security.

Such a person does have security because he knows that the Government will not eject anyone unless alternative accommodation is available, and in this legislation we are providing that he will now also have that protection through the courts. The hon. member has probably not read that clause. The point is that we are now providing such a person with protection through the courts, and that furthermore we are giving him the assurance that if he cannot provide for himself, he will not have to leave his home until alternative accommodation is provided. Does the hon. member think that any sensible Government would order people to leave their homes if they do not have anywhere else to go? That is after all a guarantee which ordinary common sense gives these people.

What about businesses?

I am coming to that. I just want to tell the hon. member what provision we are making in this regard because the whole question of Clause 16 is closely bound up with the provision of accommodation. There are various ways in which alternative accommodation can be made available. In the first place there is a group of persons who may be affected but who own property and are able, if their property is affected, to dispose of it, or even if they do not dispose of it, they can still provide their own alternative accommodation. There are such people and we cannot make provision for that group, except through the provisions of the Development Act. Then there is a second group of persons, who, when they require alternative accommodation, can obtain direct loans from the National Housing Commission for the building of houses, and the National Housing Commission is already making such direct loans available to individuals for housing purposes on a large scale. I have the figures here, but I do not want to burden the House with them. In the third place there are the economic and sub-economic housing schemes which are being undertaken with the assistance of local authorities and by means of which we are providing for those sections of our population who cannot meet their own needs.

I now just want to tell the hon. member that he has referred to the “inequitable demarcation in Cape Town”, and he has made the accusation that we did not have proper information available before we undertook the demarcation of those areas.

Do not blame Cape Town.

I shall not blame anyone and I shall only give the facts. It is clear that the hon. member has a guilty conscience. We have not enjoyed co-operation in the Cape Peninsula since 1952. I do not want to repeat the whole history of the matter, but ever since 1952 the Cape Town City Council has refused to cooperate with the Group Areas Board in any way, and what is more, the Group Areas Board eventually, in order to obtain certain information, had to summon officials of the Cape Town City Council to appear before it. The hon. member now rises in Parliament and accuses this Government of setting aside areas without having the necessary information available while a liberal City Council in Cape Town had refused to help carry out the laws of the land. I want to tell the hon. member that there are three cities in South Africa in particular where the worst possible intermingling and slums are to be found, and they are Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg. The city councils of those three cities are all under the control of supporters of hon. members opposite. It does not behove the hon. member for East London (North) to use this argument against the Government in condemning this legislation. However, I want to add that since Mrs. Thompson has become Mayor we have succeeded in obtaining a measure of co-operation as regards housing. The Government has always, when compared with the previous Government, done more than its duty and has made far more funds available for the development of schemes in the municipal area of Cape Town than any previous Government. As a matter of fact seven large economic and three sub-economic schemes are being constructed at the moment, the economic schemes involving more than R6,000,000 and the sub-economic schemes R2,000,000. I now want to make a further submission: If we compare the ten-year period 1939 to 1949 with the ten-year period 1950 to 1960, that is to say, the ten years of the previous régime and the past ten years of this régime, the present Government has done far more than the previous Government as regards the establishment of residential areas. The figures testify to that. I am mentioning this aspect in support of my submission that under Clause 16 the Government will continue with its policy which, as it has already proved, is not merely to establish group areas and is not merely to lay down eviction periods, but to implement this measure for the benefit, of those for whom it is responsible.

Was it not unlucky repealing the original seven-year period?

Now the hon. member is complaining that we are going back to the original provision. We could have allowed one year, we could have allowed three years, we could have allowed five years, and I have explained in my second reading speech that it was difficult for the Group Areas Board when proclaiming an area to say exactly when the housing would be available. Now we are in fact making it possible for an area to be partially or completely evacuated as and when housing becomes available. Can the hon. member not understand that?

I understood it but I think it is wrong.

The hon. member thinks it is wrong that we move people as and when housing becomes available. The hon. member cannot have his cake and eat it. This system has advantages and there may also be disadvantages, but there are less disadvantages than advantages. The time has come for me to repeat that there are many people in South Africa who are in the vanguard of the opposition to this measure but who use their financial resources to buy apartheid for themselves and who live in the best residential areas. Where are they? They sit over there. By using their financial resources they all buy apartheid for themselves—the hon. members for Wynberg, South Coast, East London (North), the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Durban (Central) and Hillbrow.

And where does the Minister buy?

I do the same thing, but the difference between us is that this Government says: If I am entitled to buy apartheid by using my financial resources, then the railway worker and the factory worker also have the right to live in their own residential areas; then they too have that right. The railway worker and the factory worker do not need to cower in District Six or the slums of Woodstock while I buy apartheid by using my financial resources. That is what this Government is doing by means of this legislation.

Then the hon. member for East London (North) also referred to Clause 12 and said that it was aimed at the Indians. He has raised the objection that these people will now have to live far away from their places of business, and he has said that this is a discriminatory measure which is aimed at one section of the population. But no one is obliging them to do so. Just as the White man has his business areas and under the town and city planning schemes is not allowed to establish residential areas here in the central city areas but must live elsewhere, that is to say in Bellville, the Strand or in Simonstown, so these people have no greater rights, and allow me to tell the hon. member that the Indian businessmen are not the poorest people in South Africa. After all he knows that. He also knows that the poor Indians are coming in their swarms to the offices of the Group Areas Board and begging the board to establish group areas for them because the rich Indians are exploiting them.

And how will group areas help in that regard?

They will help, because this Government is undertaking housing schemes so that they can be protected against unscrupulous landlords. The hon. member says that this measure is only aimed at the Indians as a discriminatory measure. Until recently, before he started to jump around, the hon. member belonged to a party which took the most negative discriminatory measures possible against the Indian in South Africa by means of the Pegging Act, the 1943 legislation and the 1946 legislation. The hon. member knows that the Group Areas Act was devised precisely as a reaction to that negative policy which we in South Africa were following and that the very object of the Group Areas Act and this Bill is that one racial group should not be selected for discrimination, but that the law should be such that when it is implemented it will affect all population groups.

I want to quote something here to-night, not out of any malice, but in order to prove a point. I hope the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is not going to leave the House. In discussing legislation affecting the Indians, the hon. member for Hillbrow stated the following in this House on 25 March 1946—

That is what the hon. member for Hillbrow said in discussing a measure which discriminated in a far more negative way against one section of the population. If that was true in that case, how much more true is it not of a measure under which the White man also makes sacrifices so as to assure his own future.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister another question? Have any White properties been defined under Section 16 (3) and if so, how many? Have any properties which were occupied by Whites or which were owned by Whites been defined under Section 16 (3)?

I am coming to the sacrifices which the Whites have made. The hon. member for East London (North) has asked me whether more than one racial group can be present in such a business area for the purpose of business and my reply is “yes”. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) took the matter further by discussing areas where flats are being built. I admit that that is a difficult matter, but in a country like South Africa one is always faced with difficult problems. But the question of blocks of flats which have business premises on their ground floors is not a crucial problem in South Africa. All I am prepared to tell the hon. member to-night, and this also applies to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) who spoke along more or less the same lines, is that this Bill contains a provision which states that these special areas will only be established after investigation and after a report by the Board to the Minister. It would be most irresponsible of me to tell the hon. member to-night what I am going to do before the Group Areas Board has had the opportunity to investigate the position and to report on these areas. We realize that this is a problem, a problem which is limited in the main to the metropolitan areas of South Africa, and if we can provide housing expeditiously and if we can bring about residential separation, while we have to take steps like this, then we say that we are on the right road. But I want to add that Clause 29 also provides that the provisions of the Development Act can be applied to these special areas and I assume that if such an area must be developed in compliance with what we have laid down as our policy, then we shall use the Development Act for that purpose and we shall make funds available. But in this regard I want to add the following: The hon. member for Uuhlatuzana said this afternoon: “The Government must get on with the job.” Very well, we intend doing so and that is why we have introduced this legislation. We have reached the stage where the preparations for group areas are completed. We can now make rapid progress with the proclamation of those areas. I want to ask the hon. member: When we have to find the funds required to develop these areas so as to implement this policy, will they then turn round and tell the people outside that this Government is spending money on Indian business? Will they adopt the same attitude as they have adopted at elections in respect of our positive Bantu policy? Or will they support this Government and say: “South Africa, if you want separate residential areas, if you want separation between the races, you must be prepared to pay for it!”

The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. H. Lewis) has referred to Clause 5 (a) and has said that over the centuries, ever since Biblical times, the principle of “hearing the other side” has been upheld. He has related this particularly to sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) so as to prove that the Government has now deviated from an important principle and is not hearing the other side. But if the hon. member will read the provision properly, he will see that all we are doing is to provide that when a permit is to be granted the necessary investigation will no longer be advertised in the newspapers because such investigations affect individuals. But the individual will still have the opportunity to appear and to put his case after being notified by means of a notice. It is simply no longer a matter of public interest, and it only affects the individual. But he will still receive the notice. Consequently his side will be heard and if there is an appeal his side will be submitted to the Minister. I hope this is now clear to the hon. member.

Then the hon. member expressed concern at the fact that firms, building societies and banks will be prevented from opening offices in certain group areas. In the first place, as far as businesses are concerned, the stated policy of this Government is to protect White businesses in White areas, and Coloured businesses in Coloured areas, and in issuing permits and granting facilities we give preference to Coloureds and Indians in their particular areas. But when we are dealing with a specific service such as that provided by chemists—we have had such a case here at Athlone. An application for a permit was once again made on the period expiring. Because there were no qualified Coloureds who could take over the business or provide the necessary services, we issued permits to Unqualified groups so that they could provide those services to the community. As soon as there are qualified persons who can provide those services, we shall give them preference. But as regards large White business undertakings the Prime Minister has already made it quite clear in his statement that the Government intends establishing a development corporation for the Coloureds in order to keep them in their own areas as far as businesses are concerned. I can tell the hon. member that we are engaged on the preparatory work in that regard and I hope to be able to introduce the necessary legislation next session. As regards banks, the same principle as I have mentioned in discussing chemists applies. In view of their lack of capital, does the hon. member imagine that the Coloureds will establish their own banks in the foreseeable future? In other words, if a bank wants to open a branch in such an area and complies with the necessary requirements, we shall assist that bank to do so. The allegation that we will give preference to one bank over others is unfounded. Each case will be treated on its merits.

I did not say that.

The hon. member did not say so but another hon. member did. I can say at once that that allegation is the greatest possible nonsense. Do not let us also make use of these business institutions in an attempt to create distrust. I can give the hon. member that assurance. In the third place I want to tell him that only where companies are disqualified, is the use of land by representatives or agents prohibited. It is not the land which is prohibited, but the use of that land by disqualified representatives or agents.

Then quite a few hon. members have made another point with reference to the question of local authorities. They have said that by this Bill we are entering the field of the local authorities, that we are trying to upset their arrangements—“we cut across their decisions As is usual in the evenings the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is not here and he too raised this point. Allow me to say that this particular Bill was submitted to the four provincial administrations before the end of 1960, and they did no submit any negative comment on its contents. If the provincial administrations cannot be trusted to look after the interests of the local authorities, then I do not know whom we can trust.

I am back now.

Then the hon. member has heard what I have said. In the second place, Mr. Speaker, when it wishes to set aside such an area, the Group Areas Board would not be so foolish as to simply and knowingly cut across the decisions of local authorities. Let us assume that the town plans show a certain area as a business area. Do hon. members think for one moment that any Group Areas Board with the type of member such boards have, would be so foolish as to set that area aside as a residential area? That is nonsense. They take town planning schemes into account. In the third place, and this is my reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, it depends on the local authority to what extent it is prepared to co-operate. It depends on the local authority what measure of co-ordination and synchronization there will be. I cannot understand what hon. members are afraid of, because these special areas will only be established after investigation and report; and when such an investigation is held, the local authority will have the opportunity to submit proposals to the Board. The hon. member should know that in the main the Group Areas Board uses the proposals made by local authorities as a basis in advertising its proposals. It is only where local authorities refuse to co-operate that the Group Areas Board cannot make use of these services of the local authorities. Mr. Speaker, hon. members must stop inciting local authorities against the Group Areas Board. The previous Minister of the Interior said in Parliament not more than a year ago that if this obstinate attitude were to persist, the Government would have to take other measures to ensure that its policy was implemented in respect of every local authority area, and I want to repeat that warning to-night.

Will you call in the Army?

This is not a dictatorship. We cannot allow the local authorities to govern South Africa instead of the Central Government. The local authorities like the Pretoria City Council who co-operate fully, are making progress in this field and if hon. members opposite wish to persist in this attitude, they will be responsible for our having to take steps against local authorities.

Is that a threat?

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has referred to the Lockat case. May I just tell her that she was apparently not sure of her facts. The Lockat case has not yet been finalized and certain aspects have been referred to the Appellate Division.

One stage has been finalized.

The point to which the hon. member has referred was not a decision of the court; it was a passing remark and not a decision of the court. The hon. member was therefore wrong in her presentation of the facts.

The hon. member made a second submission. She says that the chairman of the Group Areas Board has supposedly said that the object of this Act is to reduce the number of Indian traders. The chairman tells me that he has never made any such statement.

The Minister made a similar statement last year.

[Inaudible.]

I am prepared to accept the word of the chairman of the Group Areas Board. Then the hon. member has asked me whether we intend deproclaiming proclaimed areas. The answer is no. But in many urban areas the proclamation of group areas has not yet been completed and many areas of this type can still be set aside. Then the hon. member says that the Act has been amended 11 times. For the sake of the record I just want to say that that is not true.

How many times?

The Act has been amended six times. As far as I am concerned I say that we are not a static nation and that the State is not a static organ. The State is a living organ which must always readjust itself anew to meet the problems with which it is faced. An Act is not sacrosanct. An Act is there to serve the people and the State. If the law must be changed in the service of the State and the people, we shall do so.

Then the hon. member has raised a further point by referring to disqualified persons who apply to occupy land and on whom the Minister can then impose conditions—conditions under which they may occupy that land. I just want to tell the hon. member that the Government has to ensure that the Acts which Parliament passes are implemented and that such land is used for the purpose prescribed in the legislation. That is my first reply. The second is that such a disqualified person is free, when he applies for such a permit but does not see his way clear to comply with the conditions, to refuse to accept those conditions. There is no obligation on him to accept something which he does not want to carry out.

But they are impossible conditions.

No, there has not yet been one example of impossible conditions being imposed.

Mr. Speaker, the final point I want to discuss is this. I have asked and the accusation has been made—hard words have been used … The hon. member for Simonstown has said inter alia that he is concerned about speeches which hon. members on this side make, but do hon. members think that when they use expressions such as “treat unjustifiably”, “the engendering of hatred”, “the oppression of people”, “the deprivation of the rights of people who cannot plead for themselves”—do they think that that will have no effect on the outside world? Does the hon. member think that the irresponsible language which we have once again heard during this debate will have no effect on the outside world? But if those allegations were true, then the hon. member could still have used those terms, but they are not true.

They are true.

Because, Mr. Speaker, alternative accommodation is being provided to these people who are being removed. But what is more, it is not only the non-Whites who are affected by this Bill. I have just quickly drawn up a list of areas where Whites have made sacrifices: Paarl, the Cape Peninsula, Wentworth in Durban, part of Duikerfontein, Durban, Bellville South, Rustenburg, Zuurbraak. These are merely cases which are before me at the moment and allow me to tell the hon. member …

[Inaudible.]

Shut up.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to use the words “shut up” when referring to another hon. member?

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw those words.

This is a list of areas where Coloureds have replaced Whites; that is to say where Whites have given way to Coloureds. I now want to mention a few areas where Indians have replaced Whites; that is to say, where the Whites have had to make sacrifices: Duikerfontein, Effington Road, Durban. I now ask the hon. members for South Coast and Umhlatuzana as representatives of Natal: Tell me: Must we deproclaim the Duikerfontein area where Indians are replacing Whites? I shall give them the undertaking to-night that if they ask me to deproclaim Duikerfontein where Indians are replacing the Whites, I shall do so. I am giving them the opportunity.

Do not be such a baby.

That is the type of reply which we get from these brave heroes. The hon. member for South Coast knows only one type of language, i.e. abuse, when he is cornered. As far as I am concerned, I know that he will not answer that question because he wants the Indians there.

Go and be damned.

Order!

Then I mention Rustenburg, Pietersburg, Bronkhorstspruit and other areas. In other words, the story that the sacrifices are only on one side is just so much nonsense. It is the Opposition who are telling the world this one-sided story in order to justify their propaganda against this Government.

Order! The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) and the hon. member for Houghton must please cease that intimate conversation of theirs.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that it probably has nothing to do with group areas. In conclusion, I just want to ask this. I have no objection to hon. members being opposed to this legislation. South Africa has repeatedly shown that she wants separation. South Africa has repeatedly returned a Government to power with a mandate to continue with this policy. Is it asking too much of the Opposition that where it differs, it should do so in a way which does not harm South Africa and in the second place that it should at all times reveal a sense of responsibility?

I move—

An amendment has been given notice of under Clause 4, which if accepted, will necessitate the deletion of the definition of “disqualified person”. I therefore move that this clause stands over.

Agreed to.

On Clause 31.

I wish to move—

Before I proceed to deal with my amendment, Sir, I wish to pay a tribute to the Secretary for Coloured Affairs, Dr. du Plessis, and the staff of his Department, for their efforts to improve the condition of the Coloured people whose affairs and well-being have been entrusted to their care. I hope that under the provisions of this Bill, they will be able to extend their sympathy and help to those Coloured people who live in localities which have, hitherto, not enjoyed the benefits of the old Cape Act, 1909.

In connection with this amendment, Sir, I think the principle contained in Clauses I to 3 as it will be amended if the Minister's amendment is accepted, is a good one. If will if applied sympathetically confer the benefits of local self-government upon the inhabitants living in the areas referred to and give them an opportunity of improving their social and economic conditions. But having said that, I feel that a provision such as that contained in Clause 3 (1) (a) should not be allowed to stand. Clause 3 authorizes the Governor-General to proclaim areas under this Bill either on his own initiative after consultation with, but not necessarily with the consent, of the inhabitants and owners of allotments in the areas concerned and that whether they like it or not, or secondly at the request of the majority of these people under paragraph (b). I submit, Sir, that no such proclamation should be forced upon them without the consent of the majority of the people and that consent, and not merely consultation, should be a sine qua non. There is an old saying that what we gain in a free way is better than twice as much in a forced way and will be more truly ours and our posterities. This adage applies to all races, not merely to ourselves as Europeans but to the non-Europeans whose guardians we are. This question of consent on the part of the non-European people in matters affecting their welfare, has received far too little consideration in the past. I submit that in all our relations with them, government by consent should be the aim as far as possible, and that to force any system of government upon them, is unwise and does not accord with modern conceptions of government. Surely, Sir, the Government has had enough experience in their Native administration, in order to be able to appreciate the significance of this conception. A point of view put to me the other day by an intelligent non-European, struck me as very apt. He said that nothing in our non-European administration would succeed, unless it came from the hearts of the people themselves. I think the time has come that we should, as far as possible, endeavour to rule by consent rather than by compulsion. The policy which was followed by both Generals Hertzog and Smuts in connection with the establishment of Native councils under the Native Affairs Act of 1920, was never to compel the Natives to accept a local council if they objected to it, but rather to proceed by way of persuasion and precept. That was also the line which was advocated the other day by the hon. Mr. Justice Fagan, a former Minister of Native Affairs and afterwards Chief Justice of the Union, in an address which he gave before the Cape Town Institute of Citizenship. His theme there was “Government by consent” and it was not merely consultation that he advocated as provided for under Clause 3 (1) (a), but the consent of the governed. He summed up a masterly study of our present situation in non-European affairs, with these words—

Now, under Clause 3 (1) (a), the Governor-General, after consultation with these people, will have the power to override their wishes and to enforce a system of local government upon them to which they may object. We are of the opinion that that is wrong and I hope that the hon. Deputy Minister will give his consideration to this side of his administration and accept my amendment.

I rise in order to support this amendment, and to say that we must, of course, be cognizant of the further amendment to Clause 3, which is on the Order Paper and which, naturally, will have a bearing on the whole meaning of this clause. May I say that this Bill, as I pointed out earlier, is a very difficult Bill to follow and I hope we are not going to get a lot of impertinence and impudence from this young Deputy Minister but that we will get down to find out exactly what it means. We are here as responsible Members of Parliament to do a job and not to suffer a bleak abuse from a young Deputy Minister however big he may think himself at the moment. Now, the position then is that under paragraph (a), the Governor-General has power—and I take it that this power can be delegated to the Minister—to incorporate other areas than those which are traditionally Coloured areas. They can be areas reserved for occupation and ownership of Coloured persons. It is rather curious but this language is the language of the Group Areas Act and this is one of the bases of our fears with regard to this particular Act, namely that the Deputy Minister for all his protestations may, for that matter, not even be within the counsels of the Government. The Minister of the Interior is the Minister who administers this Act and not the Deputy Minister. These areas which are to be incorporated in the areas in respect of which a proclamation is to be issued, will be areas which in the opinion of the Governor-General, or the Minister, it is deemed advisable to incorporate with one qualifying condition, namely that the people concerned shall be consulted. I want to deal with this question for a moment. The relative section of the clause reads as follows—

Consultation is a very weak word because it does not mean that the people who are consulted will have effect given to their views. It just means presumably that they can be gathered together. I do not know what the form of consultation is because nothing is specified here, and after they have been consulted, these areas can be incorporated. It is regrettable that the language used is the language of the Group Areas Act. This makes us fearful of the higher hierarchy of the Government’s intentions. Perhaps the Deputy Minister may be able to inform us as to this particular aspect of the matter. We want to know. These Coloured homelands, are they in fact Colouredstans, areas where Coloured people will live to the exclusion of all other elements which are not Coloured people, and is it to be built up then by local government to some stage of higher government? Is this the basis for Colouredstans, or is this merely a question of extending to unfortunate Coloured communities the help which the Government could have given them without using this Bill at all?

May I just move the amendment standing in my name—

We will accept that.

I promised in the second reading to move this amendment to ensure that people who still have Colouredstan on the brain will not have it any longer after to-night. I am only trying to help the hon. member and it is also my reply to him.

As far as the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) is concerned, I am glad to see that he has again come into his rights because he knows what he is talking about, but I regret that I cannot accept his amendment and I want to explain why not. It will be the policy of the Department as far as possible to try to persuade the people to apply themselves and to decide that they should also receive the benefits of the 1909 Act. Knowing the heads of the Department as he does I think the hon. member knows that we will do everything within our power to create the necessary confidence in the minds of the Coloureds in order to convince them that it is more in their own interest, as well as in the interest of the country to whom that land really belongs, that they should also be included in the provisions of this Act. But the hon. member will also know from experience that there are elements in South Africa who sow suspicion among uninformed people living in backward conditions, so that they should not make use of the benefits of such an Act. I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks it is justified, if there is a Coloured area of this nature, to allow malicious persons to influence those people so that they refuse to be incorporated. I think we will be doing an injustice to South Africa and toward the Coloureds if we allow them to continue. Therefore we must have powers which will enable us, where people do not themselves know what is in their own interests, to get them to accept these benefits in their own interest. That is why we have that proviso in the Clause.

As far as the second part of the proviso is concerned I just want to tell the hon. member what the conditions are that can be laid down by the Governor-General—

You have a place like Saron where the title deeds contain a number of limiting conditions, among others being that they may not compete with the body in authority in the sphere of business, and as far as the water rights are concerned that body has the first right. The purpose of this provision is that in that case the Governor-General can remove that condition so that those benefits can be at everyone’s disposal. I think, in view of this explanation, that the hon. member will agree with me that it is absolutely essential that we should have this power.

Mr. Chairman, I would firstly like to thank the hon. the Minister for meeting us in the amendment he has moved in a spirit of co-operation. From my point of view, it removes any doubt as to the meaning or the intention of this legislation. The Minister has removed a considerable amount of doubt and fear and we are very glad of that, but I am a little concerned about the wording of this clause where it says that wherever he deems it advisable in the public interest the Governor-General can do certain things. I do not know what the “public interest” means. The Minister should be a little more explicit in his explanation. I think it should mean the interests of the Coloured people and not the interest of the public.

Not the public, but the public interest.

I think what the Minister means is that whenever it is in the interest of the Coloured people and not in the public interest, or general interest—I do not think it means that he should proclaim an area like Saron as a Coloured area because it is in the interest of the people living in Muizenberg to do so. But I would like to ask him whether he will amend the Act to read “in their interest” or “in the interest of the Coloured people of the area”, so that we will know that it is done in the interest of the Coloured people. Frankly, I do not know what “public interest” means now, and that rather adds to the suspicion.

I may just tell the hon. member that there are some of these areas—I wonder if the hon. member knows what the conditions are like there, the housing conditions and the health conditions. That is what is meant by it; that it is in the public interest to regulate those things properly.

Amendment proposed by Dr. D. L. Smit put and negatived.

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In effect this proviso applies the Group Areas Act to the property rights of what are described as disqualified persons who may have made their homes and acquired rights of ownership and built-up business connections within a Coloured settlement. In terms of the definition contained in Act 12 of 1949, a disqualified person is a White person, a Native, or a Turk or an Asiatic. The property rights of these unfortunate persons will lapse after a period of 12 months and they will be required to sell out, or upon failure to do so their property or real rights will vest in the Minister subject to compensation under Clause 12, which I may say is subject to drastic limitations which will be dealt with by the hon. member for Transkei at a later stage. A man may have lived in the area for many years. He may be married to a Coloured woman and may have a Coloured family. He may have a well-established trading business; but under this provision he may be required to sell out and pack up, and if he is an Indian or a Native I ask the Minister what alternative means of livelihood will be available to him elsewhere under our existing laws? What licences will be granted to people of that type in any municipal area? I have in mind a case in which there are two Indian shopkeepers in one of the Coloured settlements who will be ruined if they are required to sell out, and there must be many more. It is perfectly true that Clause 7 provides an alternative measure of compensation under which the Minister may re-transfer the land to the diqualified owner or give him another plot of land. But that is within the absolute discretion of the Minister, and under the present policy of racial separation this alternative holds out very little prospect For a man whose shop has been expropriated. I deal particularly with the case of the trader. In Section 20 (3) (c) of the Group Areas Amendment Act of 1957 the mission stations and communal reserves established under the Cape Act of 1909 are excluded from being proclaimed as group areas. It is surely incongruous that in respect of areas which are to be placed under the same Act there should be a provision that in effect applies the Group Areas Act to it. It is a state of affairs which may cause grave and unnecessary hardship. I recently visited several of the Coloured townships in Cape Town. Kewtown and other areas, to which this Bill will not apply, but their circumstances are similar. In Kewtown there are quite a number of Indian shopkeepers who are serving the Coloured people very well, but who have no other outlet, and if they are turned out, what is to become of them? They cannot re-establish their shops anywhere else. Surely it is in the cause of humanity that they should not be deprived of their only means of livelihood. The Minister said yesterday that the Indians would have to go, but I do not think that the matter can be dismissed so lightly. We owe a duty to these people as much as to any other section of the community, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the announcement he made yesterday and delete this clause and bring these people under the same conditions as the people in the mission reserves. The Indian community—I am particularly concerned about them because they seem to be nobody's children—in the Cape is comparatively small. According to the last census there are about 22,000. There is no Indian township to which they can go as an alternative. I hope the Minister will re-consider the position and that the Committee will not agree to this clause.

Sir, we support the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit). The Minister will know our attitude from the second reading debate. We are totally opposed to any person being removed on the ground of race alone from property where he is lawfully established.

I want to refer briefly to the Minister’s reply on that point in the second reading debate. His explanation as to why he could not accede to our request was that it would mean that the people in these areas would be bought out by White people, but of course that is no answer to our point. We are against people being removed from these areas. We are not against restrictions on the acquisition of property by disqualified persons, with certain qualifications which I mentioned earlier. There can be no question of the Coloureds being bought out by disqualified persons. The issue is whether one should allow the people who are established there at present to remain there. Now there are two points. The Minister said that he could not allow the trader to stay if there was a Coloured trader who could take over. I do not agree with him, but there is obviously a difference in principle here, and if the Minister is not going to agree to our request I leave the matter there.

But then there is this further point. What about the ordinary owner of residential property? There are a few Whites and possibly other disqualified persons living there. Is it necessary to remove those people? Surely if those people, who have residential property, wish to stay in the reserves, there is no reason to remove them? I know the Minister said he could offer them alternative land, but assuming that they do not wish to move, is there any reason why they should be moved? I appeal to the Minister not to insist on removing them if they wish to stay. They have to accept the conditions there because these areas will be developed for Coloured people. But assuming that there are certain disqualified persons who wish to remain for residential purposes only, will he not leave them there, even if the Minister does not want to allow them to remain for trading purposes?

Reference has been made to Indian traders who may live in these areas. The hon. member for East London (City) said that he knew of a few. There may be a few, but of course this provision does not concern traders only; it concerns any unqualified person. They may also be Whites, and there are Whites who live in such a Coloured area. If these unqualified persons are to be allowed in these areas it is going to nullify the entire object and aim of the legislation. It will create unfavourable conditions. There are some of these areas where there are White spots among the Coloureds and where unfavourable conditions have developed. It is not in the interest of the Coloureds, nor in the interest of those unqualified persons. The hon. member shakes his head. This legislation particularly concerns the interests of the Coloureds. Is he in favour of it that even an Indian trader should now exploit the Coloureds?

Why exploit?

Hon. members ask where the Indians are to go to, but provision has been made and the Government will not throw those Indians onto the bare veld. But we want to protect the Coloureds and the hon. members are opposed to it. Then it must be a mixed affair and it will not promote the interests of the Coloureds. It is not only in the interests of the Coloureds and of the development of the area that it should be done, but also in the interests of the persons living there. The time limit can also be extended. It does not mean that they must get out after a year. The hon. the Minister can extend the time if circumstances justify it.

I want to support the plea of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) in regard to the deletion of this clause, which deals with the method by which disqualified persons can be deprived of their property in the event of their being unable to sell it. I am sure the Minister will agree that the sale is not just a free sale, but it requires the consent of the Governor-General. Without that consent we cannot sell. Presumably if he has a buyer who is a qualified resident in the area, he can sell, but I want to come to the point I made yesterday. In passing, may I say that the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers) says that the Minister has the power to grant an extension of time for the owner to sell his property. This is another case of permits again, to sell to someone qualified to live in that area, otherwise the Governor-General will not give his consent and no sale can take place. The areas we are contemplating in this Bill are those areas where there is poverty and the whole nature of the Coloured people there is that of the depressed classes. They are to be given a helping hand. How can they find the necessary capital to buy out a storekeeper, a man who not only wants to sell his stock, but his goodwill, although if he has to be paid compensation he will get nothing for goodwill? But here is a man trying to sell and he has a year in which to sell plus such further time as he may be granted, to sell to a group of people who are virtually unable to buy because they do not have the financial resources; and when that year is up or his permit runs out, what happens? The Bill is brutally clear on this point, that on the expiry of the said period the property shall vest in the Minister. It was the property of that person to-day and to-morrow it is the property of the Minister because the law says so. Surely that is a most unconscionable position? This is the clause in respect of which I said earlier that it is harsher than the Group Areas Act. The man is there legally to-day. Much play has been made of the Indians. Well, they are unpopular people in South Africa to-day. Let us leave them aside for a moment. A disqualified person here may be a White man. Is the Minister going to adopt a new slogan: “Skop die Witman uit”? The White people come under precisely the same law as the Indians or the Bantu for the purposes of this clause. I think it is unduly harsh that where people have acquired legal rights they can be deprived of them. There are cases where the people running these businesses have inherited them. At the end of 12 months the property vests in the Minister and he loses his livelihood. That is most unfair. I hope the Minister, pursuant to the milk of human kindness he has been pouring out in large quantities on the Coloureds, will find a little of that milk of human kindness to pour out on the Whites and the Indians who may be dispossessed. It may be sour milk, but I do make this appeal.

The hon. the Minister has not given any indication that he is prepared to accept the amendment.

I am listening to your argument.

The Minister has said that he will be kind and not harsh and that everything will be done in a spirit of kindness. Then why is his Department so harsh when compared with the Department of Bantu Administration, which acts quite differently in a case of this nature? When the Department of Bantu Administration expropriates, it is generous in paying compensation. I am not going to deal with the compensatory clause now, Clause 12, but if the Minister applies the terms set out in Act 18 of 1936 with regard to expropriation by the Native Trust there would not be the same objection to this clause as there is now. Also, the Department of Bantu Administration assists Bantu who want to buy shops from White traders and Indians trading in the area. This Minister says that the Coloureds must be allowed to trade in their own areas and that a White man should not do the business where a Coloured man can do it. If that is so, why does he not make provision to give the Coloured man assistance to buy out the White man or the Indian trader? Is the Minister making such provision? If not, I suggest that he consider it so that he will be in the position to pay these disqualified persons proper compensation. But as it now stands it is not right. I repeat what the hon. members for East London (City) and South Coast have said, that a man who has spent his whole life building up his business should be compelled to leave unexpectedly is not right. There is no warning to these people. They worked there in good faith all their lives, but now the Minister is applying this law and all the disqualified persons will find themselves in this terrible position, that at any moment they can be ordered to leave by the Minister, with no hope of being able to sell the property. I will be glad to hear what the Minister has to say. I hope he will get up and say that he has agreed to accept this amendment.

I would like the Minister to explain the first section of paragraph (4) to me. As I understand it, a Coloured man who owns property will lose his ownership of that land and it will be endorsed in terms of the 1909 Act, and he cannot sell it without the Minister’s consent, because there is some kind of servitude against his transfer deed.

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with it is that there is a sudden declaration of an area, and there are people who own land in that area and they have registered title to it. Now the Minister says they cannot own any land in the reserve and he will endorse the title deed in terms of the 1909 Act. I think that is a little unfair and I would like to ask the Minister to reconsider it. The Minister will tell us that he is protected by virtue of the Minister having declared it a Coloured area and therefore nobody else but a Coloured man can buy, so that the Coloureds cannot be exploited by anyone else. It must be another Coloured man who buys it. Now what is the protection to that Coloured man if he can only sell to another Coloured man? Surely there can be no more benefit to any other buyer than the man has himself? I cannot understand why the man should be deprived of his ownership and I must protest. I raised this in my second reading speech, this loss of ownership of property.

On the question of the amendment of 4 (1) (iii), which deals with a disqualified person, the disqualified person who is the unsuspecting victim does not know that the area will be declared. He has probably been there for many years. The Minister ought to show some sympathy for that man and give him sufficient time in order that he may recoup any losses that he may suffer by virtue of the declaration of the area. I think that this particular clause does not give sufficient protection and compensation for that man and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us the assurance that he will come to the assistance of these people and not remove them summarily. I just want to say this, that in terms of the Act of 1946—if the Deputy Minister would just refer to that—it is the intention that nobody should trade, no unqualified person, without a permit. In fairness to the Minister I want to say that I think it is the intention that only Coloured people should trade in these areas. I think that is the principle enshrined in previous Acts but now, as I say, here we are dealing with an area which has not previously been declared. I am not concerned with whether he be White, Indian, Jew or anybody else, but I think some further consideration should be shown to these people than is provided for in this particular clause.

In reply to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) I just want to say that a qualified person retains his property rights, but if he had freehold it is considered to be land which he holds in terms of Section 8 of the Act of 1909, and then it becomes subject to Section 9 of the Act of 1909. Section 9 of the Act of 1909 reads—

The whole object is to bring these areas under the provisions of the Act of 1909. I have said this several times, and then the provisions of the Act of 1909 are applicable, and it is in the interest of the people. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) on a previous occasion told the hon. member that there were areas in the north-west which previously belonged exclusively to Coloureds and which during the course of years have slipped out of their hands.

But they were not proclaimed.

Very well, but that is precisely the advantage of the Act of 1909, if you incorporate the areas.

Will it happen when the areas are proclaimed?

No, because then these provisions are applicable, and then he cannot sell or subdivide or do these things without the consent of the Minister in terms of the provisions. That is the point. In other words, it is a protective measure that is being adopted.

In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) I just want to say that I would like to do something to meet the hon. member but he will appreciate that when it comes to questions of principle, deep-rooted principles, then I cannot make concessions to him. It is the declared policy of the Government that Coloured areas must eventually be served exclusively by Coloureds and all that is being done here is to provide those powers in the legislation affecting these areas. After an application of the Act to an area, i.e. an area that becomes an incorporated area, the Governor-General has the power to issue a proclamation that an unqualified person must give up his property within a stipulated period, but at least 12 months. The Minister can also extend the time limit and if the person fails to comply with it then the Minister has the right to sell, subject to the payment of compensation. The point is this: To-day we still have White traders in certain areas which already fall under the provisions of the Act of 1909—there are two such areas—and we are keeping them there because there are not yet alternative services which can be rendered in that connection. I want to give the hon. member the assurance to-night that it is not our policy to take these people by their necks and to say: “This area is now incorporated and you must get out,” because they render a service to that community and the Coloureds will be the first to complain if we take them away. But now on the other hand the Government has announced—and it has just been repeated here—that it is busy with the establishment of a Development Corporation for Coloureds and that it would do its best to establish it as soon as possible. The idea behind a development corporation is to help people in the area and then it is only right, if you can replace such a person on justifiable grounds, to give the opportunity to the Coloured. How else can we create other channels of livelihood for the Coloured population if we do not give them those opportunities? In one of the reserves which I have visited there is a splendid co-operative undertaking under the guidance of a Coloured board of directors and a Coloured manager —who is also a young man incidentally; possibly also a “chicken”…

Why are you so surprised about it?

Mr. Chairman, some people’s can do. But I am now dealing with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. member for East London (City). I want to explain to them what we are busy doing. A young Coloured who received his training only recently has made a glowing success of this undertaking which already has an enormous turnover.

Don’t try to outdo the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

If the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is interested I will give him all the facts about that business. The hon. member for Karoo can also tell him about it. The point is this: If the people can achieve this, why must we allow a White man to stand in their way? That is the whole concept of parallel development; that where you grant the White man the right to develop and to have his businesses and his undertakings and his channels of earning a livelihood you must also grant it to the Coloured. I admit that in the sphere of entrepreneurs the Coloureds still have an enormous backlog, but now you must take powers so that you can act if you eventually have to cope there with obstinate people, when the Coloureds can serve themselves. That is the whole object of this proviso. The purpose is not to take away the services being rendered there once an area is incorporated because then one would be doing an injustice to the Coloureds. I really hope that hon. members will not insist on it because in the second place it is also a fundamental difference of principle between us and I am not prepared to make concessions on these basic principles. I hope they will regard it in this light and will understand that it is not our intention to throw out the Whites. The small group of Whites who will be affected can be assured that they will be consulted and that the matter will be dealt with judiciously and that we will deal with them in the most sympathetic manner to the satisfaction of the entire community.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question. I appreciate his point of view but he has dealt with the case of the White storekeeper. I want to ask him what is to happen to the Indian who has built up a business there and who cannot find an alternative business anywhere in the country. What is to happen to him? The Minister tells him to get out because a Coloured man is capable of running a business there, so what is to happen to that man? Where is he to find another shop? I would like to know what the Minister intends doing with that type of man, not the European. The European can go elsewhere; he can open a business elsewhere but the Indian cannot. No municipality and no local authority will allow him to trade in their area, so what is to happen to him?

The point is this, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is not putting the case correctly. We are busy establishing Indian areas right throughout the country.

Yes, but an Indian cannot trade with Indians.

No one prohibits anyone from buying from that Indian if he wishes to do so. *Mr. HUGHES: Where are these Indian areas?

Does the hon. member not know that we demarcate Indian residential areas and places of business with every proclamation issued? This is a Bill which aims at serving the interests of the Coloureds. I want to remind hon. members that in terms of the Act of 1909, in terms of which we are making use of this proviso to bring in certain Coloured areas, it is clearly defined whose interests are being catered for here. May I read it to the hon. member—

This is the definition—

This Act of 1909 …

That definition is in the Act of 1949.

Here I have the 1909 Act in my hand …

The Act of 1909 contains no definition.

Then I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, because then I do not know what Act the hon. member is quoting from. I am quoting from the “Mission Stations and Reserves Act” of 1909 as amended by Act No. 12 of 1929 and No. 12 of 1949 and No. 32 of 1959 …

As amended!

My point is this: In this Act, in terms of which the Coloureds will be dealt with, it is stated clearly what this Act is intended for …

You have not read the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, some people’s words are intended to conceal their lack of thoughts. That is the case with the hon. member for South Coast. Here I am quoting to him from the Act under which the Coloureds will fall; what more does he want?

The Act of 1909 was amended by your party in 1949.

This is the Act, but the hon. member is again busy with a “stand” without an Act. I am reading from the Act which will control these people; whether it has been amended or not, it is the Act. Therefore I say that we are busy with a Bill which will protect the interests of the Coloureds.

I want to put this point to the Minister. There was no definition of “Coloured person” in the Act of 1909. The definition was inserted by this Government by Act 12 of 1949.

What about it?

This is what your Government inserted—

So what!

The Minister is not correct.

Mr. Chairman, what are the hon. members trying to do? They are merely wasting time. The fact is that this Act is applicable to-day and this definition is part of the Act. Is it or is it not? Mr. Chairman, if hon. members continue like this they reveal only one thing and that is that they are politically bankrupt, and nothing else.

May I explain the position to the hon. the Deputy Minister. His attitude was that Indians, so far as he is concerned, were disqualified persons—they had no right to be there and that this Bill was to protect the Coloured people. The point made by my hon. friend, the member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) was that the Indians were there by right, that they were there legally and they were there at a time when they were not disqualified because they were not Coloured people in terms of any definition because there was not a definition. The Deputy Minister has missed the point altogether. He tried to make out that that definition has been there all along, so that Indians who had gone there, although they were not Coloured people and no law was necessary to prevent them, they were people who had no right to be there because they were not Coloured people. There was no definition of “Coloured person” so they had a perfect right to go there. My hon. friend has pointed that out and has caught the Deputy Minister flatfooted. The definition was inserted by the Deputy Minister’s own Government in 1949 and the people who went there before that definition was inserted can’t be told to-day that they are not Coloured people and therefore have no right to be there. That is the position. There was no definition for Coloured people. Now my hon. friend asks what the Deputy Minister intends doing with the Indians quite apart from what he intends doing with the Europeans. They are there by right, they have been treated harshly, there are many laws that prevent them from establishing their businesses elsewhere such as the Group Areas Act and other restrictions like licensing laws. Now at the expiry of a year they lose their property and they virtually have no right to go anywhere. The Deputy Minister has replied to that by saying that areas are being set up for Indians all over South Africa. I am not sure whether I heard him correctly and that he said the areas were being set up under the Group Areas Act. Those areas are being set up and Asiatics will have to leave these Coloured settlements. But my hon. friend’s point is this, Sir, that when they went there there was no definition of a Coloured person and therefore they were there legally and of right and this is harsh treatment of people who had no reason to believe that the Government would come after they had settled and established themselves and pass a law such as the 1949 Act with a definition and then this legislation which we have before us to-day. It is the harshness to which we would like to direct the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention. It is harsh that a man can after 12 months lose his property because the law says it vests in the Minister. Mr. Chairman, as a humane man I would appeal to you, is it conceivable that that is to be deemed to be equitable treatment to be meted out to people who just don’t happen to be Coloured people for the purposes of the Government’s definition in the 1949 Act? It is the harshest of harsh treatment, Sir, and it is to that point that we direct the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention and ask him to take that point into consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the point is this: Whether that definition was inserted in the year 2000 or yesterday, it remains an Act of Parliament.

That is not the point.

That is the point. Now we come along with legislation for specific areas. I have read the definition to show what those areas are intended for. That was the only reason why I read it and now hon. members are making a fuss. They are making a fuss because their arguments have collapsed and we have proved that we are prepared to help the Coloured to come into his own in his own area. I take no notice of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), I am talking to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit). I want to tell the hon. member for East Lodon (City) that my information is that there are no Asiatics in these areas. That is my information; I may be wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider this question carefully because we are dealing with the rights of innocent parties. We do not know who are involved in these areas and to what racial groups they may belong, but there have been statements that Indians are involved. The Deputy Minister himself said that in certain cases Europeans were involved. But what Parliament is concerned with is whether we are putting sound provisions on the Statute Book. It is clear that there are persons who were there by right in accordance with the law before the definition of “Coloured person” was inserted in the 1949 Act. Those people have established rights. There are apparently Europeans who have established rights in certain of these areas which have presumably not yet been incorporated. The Deputy Minister made what I believed an incorrect statement when he said that he would naturally not just push them out, he would be prepared to consider the matter. The difficulty about this provision, Sir, is that it leaves no discretion in the Minister’s hands. So as far as this right of property is concerned, the position is that after the lapse of a period of 12 months, the ownership lapses and vests in the Minister subject to compensation.

After proclamation by the Governor-General.

Yes, after a proclamation. Yes, it is after a proclamation that the area is incorporated and as I understand this clause, it deals with land in the incorporated areas and therefore when it is incorporated the provisions of this clause take effect. The position is that we are dealing with land in the incorporated area and Clause 4 provides that—

Sub-section (2) deals with the exception and the exception of course is in respect of surveyed land and (iii) provides that—

That is the period that they are unqualified. It depends on when that proclamation is issued.

Everything in this Bill depends on whether proclamations are issued. I am not quarrelling with that—it is an enabling Act, as the Deputy Minister said, and everything depends on the issue of proclamations. Now when the proclamation is issued after the lapse of a period of 12 months the land on which there is this trading right, vests in the Minister subject to compensation. But the Deputy Minister said that he would not put these people out. Once the proclamation is issued, as I have said, the question no longer arises, those people simply have to go at the end of 12 months. I suggest that at least the Deputy Minister should deal with that period of 12 months and make it flexible if he is not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London (City). I go further and say that the compensation which is payable in this case as expressed in a subsequent clause, does not include goodwill. Here is a case of a person who perfectly legally has opened a business. He has run a business there, he has built up what the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us himself, is a very valuable business. You as a businessman, Mr. Chairman, will know that the value of that business rests very largely in the goodwill which attaches to it and yet in terms of this Bill the goodwill which very often in respect of a trading right is far greater than the value of the land, is not taken into account. I say to the Deputy Minister that grave injustices can be done under this provision. It is obvious that once the right has been taken away from a disqualified person it will be given to a qualified person in due course. It means enriching one person at the expense of another. It means enriching the person to whom the right is given at the expense of someone who came there legally and set up a business and has obviously rendered service because he has built up a goodwill. I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister, as I said in respect of another matter earlier to-day, that where it is necessary in the public interest to expropriate, I believe that the Government has the right to expropriate if it is in the public interest, but I say that where a right lawfully acquired is expropriated there should be full compensation. So I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be prepared to consider this matter seriously because private rights are affected. I am not concerned with whether it is an Indian or a European who has this trading right. What I am concerned about is that where rights have been lawfully acquired in terms of the law of the land this Parliament should be most extremely careful to ensure that if those rights are taken away it is only against full and adequate compensation at the very least.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister something else. The Deputy Minister said yesterday that he would deal with property rights but he has not gone fully into those. I shall be pleased if the Deputy Minister would explain the position to me. If the land vests in the Minister in terms of Clause 4 (1) then he expropriates and compensates the owner. But if under 4 (2) the owner of the land owned this land in “an incorporated area which has been surveyed into lots in respect of which a subdivisional plan or diagram approved under the Land Survey Act, 1927 exists” then it seems to me, when I read (b) that “every person who on the fixed date is a registered owner of property in the incorporated area ..

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I am trying to listen to the hon. member but I find it impossible to do so with the discussion that is taking place lower in the Chamber.

Will you kindly call hon. members to order, Sir?

Pipe down.

The hon. member must apologize.

What for?

Order, order!

Was it the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who made that remark?

Mr. Chairman, I merely asked why the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) should apologize.

Will the hon. member for Prinshof withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, I only said that we were quiet in this corner.

The hon. member may proceed.

As I was pointing out, Sir, any owner of a lot which has been surveyed and in respect of which a subdivisional diagram exists shall in terms of (b) “subject to the provisions of paragraph (c), be deemed to be a registered occupier of that property within the meaning of paragraph (6) of Section 4 of Act No. 29 of 1909 He is deemed, Sir, to be a registered occupier. He may have had freehold title to his land but once he becomes a registered occupier under sub-section (6) of Section 4 of that Act, he no longer has freehold title, then he has all these restrictions applied to his property which the Minister read out a few moments ago. The point is this, Sir: What happens to that man if he does not wish to become a registered occupier? He owns freehold land, now he finds himself in this position that whether he likes it or not he becomes a registered occupier and his land is no longer freehold, he cannot dispose of it as he likes, he cannot raise a mortgage bond as he likes and there are other restrictions. I would ask the Minister if he cannot amend this clause—if my interpretation is correct—to allow the owner of that plot to be compensated in the same manner as the owner who falls under Clause 4 (1). Because sub-section (iii) deals only with disqualified persons and as I read the Bill the owner of a subdivided plot will have to become a registered occupier whether he likes it or not.

Mr. Chairman, I promised during my reply to the second reading debate that I would go into the matter and deal with it in Committee. I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) asked me about it. I have gone into the matter and have been informed as follows—

Sir, the Deputy Minister has now read out that statement, but he is assuming that the properties which will be affected are all held under quitrent title. He is assuming that. But I submit that he does not know that that is the case. He does not know that every property which is held and which may be affected under this Bill, is held under quitrent title. I say we must have a provision to protect the man who does hold freehold title. The explanation given is not satisfactory. I think the Deputy Minister himself will admit it. If the man holds freehold title he will lose that title in terms of this provision and I want to ask the Deputy Minister whether he cannot make some amendment to meet the case so that a owner under freehold title will not be compelled to become a registered occupier.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 24 February.