Can the hon. the Minister give us some information concerning these ex gratia payments?

These ex gratia payments were made for the following reasons. I shall first take the case of the goldfields in the Orange Free State. The Tender Board gave a contract to the firm J. J. Moore (Pty.) Ltd. to convey sand and rock to this water scheme as from April 1959 to 31 March 1960. Meanwhile the increased duty on dieseline and petrol was introduced. The firm thereupon made representations to the Tender Board to the effect that as a result of the increased excise duties, they could not complete the work without incurring a loss. The Tender Board agreed to assess their loss at R1,224 and recommended that the firm should receive that amount as an ex gratia payment so that they would not have to work at a loss. In terms of a circular from the Treasury, any amount exceeding R1,000 intended as an ex gratia payment must be approved by Parliament.

The next is an ex gratia payment to Keir & Cawder (S.A.) Ltd., in connection with the Sand-Vet (Allemanskraal Dam), which is recommended for the same reasons.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote F.—“Forestry”, R200,000,

Can the hon. the Minister tell us why this large amount of R200,000 is needed? How much of it is for afforestation and for maintenance, and how much is just for the protection of the present plantations and forests that they have in hand?

I can give the hon. member the explanation. Proportionately the amount is really not so large. It is R200,000 on an estimate of approximately R4,000,000. There are three reasons for it. The first is a beneficial reason and that is that as a result of restricted imports of wood the sales of South African timber, especially those under the marks of the Bureau of Standards, have increased to a very large extent. We supply most of the saw mills—or to a very large extent we supply them with their raw timber. That necessitates the cutting of a large amount of extra timber to the value of R800,000. That is the first reason.

The second reason is that our non-White labourers have now been granted paid leave, and that has necessitated extra expenditure. We have also, with regard to the non-European labourers, arranged with the Department of Nutrition that they lay down certain specific rations which were considerably higher than those which we gave them previously. That has been undertaken departmentally. The rations are given departmentally and that has increased the expense. The third is that during November and December a lot of damage was done to the plantations in the Sabie region by wind and by hail. About 3,000 morgen containing about 1,000,000 cubic feet of wood was, I won’t say destroyed, but the trees were so damaged that they had to be removed immediately otherwise they would not have been marketable, and replantings had to take place as soon as possible. Those are the three main reasons.

I am sorry to hear from the hon. the Minister about the damage done to forests, but surely if a larger amount was derived from the sale of timber, that ought to have lessened the amount that should be shown here, or does that money go to the Consolidated Revenue Fund?

All our income goes to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote L.—“Transport”, R471,600,

I want to ask for some further information with regard to Item 3, “Building Costs of a Departmental Ship for Meteorological and Scientific Research Purposes ”. We are asked to vote an additional amount of R212,000, and, in that connection, there is a note stating that a Governor-General’s special warrant has been issued for this purpose, because this is a new service, and that the total cost of the vessel is going to be R846,000. Firstly, I should like to know the reason for this so-called additional expenditure, and to get some description of what work is actually involved. This is a new item again, a very important item, which the House has not had any opportunity to discuss, yet we are being asked here to approve of additional expenditure in respect of a ship which, until we approve of this additional expenditure, actually does not exist, and the details of which we have no right to discuss. I should like to have some description of the vessel covered by this additional expenditure, and I should also like to know under what conditions this expenditure was authorized. Were tenders invited for the construction of this vessel, and for what service is she to be used? It is simply stated here as being “for meteorological and scientific research purposes ”, but here, too, a point of principle is involved as to whether the time has not arrived for some co-ordination of the meteorological and scientific research services, because so many Departments to-day are incurring the same type of expenditure. We have research vessels for fisheries; we have very finely equipped survey vessels competent to do this work, run by the South African Navy. The total cost involved here is something like R500,000, and this ship is to be run by another Department—the Department of Transport. The universities also have a special research vessel dealing with fisheries work. It appears that we are spreading our work very widely, and apparently with no close co-ordination. I would like to know, dealing with this additional expenditure, what the real urgency was for putting the matter before the House in this way. Again this is one of these items, of which we have had so many examples in these particular Estimates, where, by agreeing to additional expenditure, we are, in fact, approving of a new item of substantial expenditure which the House has had no opportunity to discuss in any shape or form. I should like to know what was the reason for the urgency. Was it not possible to have brought an item as important as this one before the House in the normal Estimates, so that the principle and the details could be discussed? You see, Sir, we are embarking here on ship construction. This is a very important form of ship construction because it is a highly specialized job. We would like to know over what range the specialists are going to have to operate, because so much of this same type of work is being carried out free of charge to us by the bigger ships passing our coast, who are in a much better position to be able to deal with it.

If you will allow me to explain, you will save a lot of time.

In that case I will sit down, but I think the Minister will agree that these points do arise, and the Committee would like to have full information.

With regard to Item 2, “State-Owned Airports ”, I notice that there is an increase of more than 100 per cent, and I shall be very pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister what these amounts are for and whether they are new works?

I will give you all the information with the greatest of pleasure.

Following the question raised by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether Item 3, R212,000, for the construction of a departmental ship for meteorological and scientific research purposes, is the same ship that he referred to in his reply to my question dated 17 February? I asked on that occasion for what purpose this ship had been ordered, and whether tenders had been called for this ship in South Africa. The reply to the question was that tenders had not been called in South Africa because the Minister had been informed that South African ship constructors could not construct a vessel of this type. I should like to know whether that reply referred to the same ship.

It referred to the same ship.

The next question I would like to ask is whether in point of fact this order has been placed?

Yes.

In what country has it been placed? Sir, my information is that this ship has been ordered from Japan.

Let me reply first to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). Originally R300,000 was provided in the Estimates for the building of an additional runway at KimbeR1ey. Unfortunately, no agreement has been arrived at with the KimbeR1ey Municipality, consequently, the money could not be spent this year. Agreement will probably be arrived at, and provision will again be made in the Estimates next year for this expenditure. What I am referring to at the moment is the saving of R299,000. In regard to the increase of some R630,000, the main runway at Jan Smuts Airport was extended about 4,000 feet. That cost R630,000. It was an urgent job. The work had to be done immediately. There are possibilities that we may be refused landing rights in certain parts of Africa. Our Boeings can fly with the full load from Johannesburg to Rome without landing if the runway at Jan Smuts is long enough. This was considered to be an urgent job, and I created a new organization under the Department of Transport and called in the assistance of the Provincial Administration and the Railway Administration, with the result that this job was completed in record time. Under normal circumstances, if specifications had to be drawn up and tenders called for, it would have taken at least two years from the date of my decision. Actually, it took about 12 weeks from the date of my decision to complete the job, which is a record. The job was very well done. So much with regard to that expenditure. Then there was some expenditure at Jan Smuts Airport for additional parking accommodation and the surfacing of the parking area, and then provision was made for the reconstruction of roads to the fuel site and the engine test cells. At the J. B. M. Hertzog Airport payments amounting to R7,000 had to be made to the Bloemfontein Municipality for the lowering of overhead cables, and R1,600 to the Orange Free State Provincial Administration for the construction of culverts under the road to divert flood waters. With regard to the East London Airport, the expenditure on the deviation to the Peddie Road was under-estimated. It appears now that R74,000, and not R70,000, will be required. That is the information with regard to that item. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with it.

The extension to which the hon. the Minister referred is to allow the aircraft to carry a greater load of fuel before take-off from Jan Smuts.

The Boeing can now carry a full load of fuel, passengers and baggage and freight, and take off at Jan Smuts Airport, stopping for the first time at Rome.

What is the safety margin at Rome?

A new airport has just been opened at Rome, and there is ample safety margin, and, in any case, when we arrive at Rome most of the fuel has, of course, been consumed, as the hon. member knows.

*With regard to the purchase of the ship, I would like to reply in Afrikaans, because my notes are in Afrikaans, and the hon. member understands Afrikaans.

The reasons for the purchase of this ship are as follows: The Department of Transport is responsible for the Union’s meteorological stations on Marion, Gough and Tristan de Cunha Islands, as well as for the Sanae base on the Antarctic Continent.

The South Pole Continent.

There has to be a change of personnel at these stations and on this base every year and they have to be provided with fresh provisions every year. It has also happened frequently that persons have had to be taken off the islands suddenly during the course of the year because of illness. As far as the Sanae base, the South Pole base is concerned, it is of the utmost importance that the Department should have some means of transport at its disposal because it is extremely difficult to charter suitable ships for this purpose. In the case of the last mission we sent to the Antarctic we already experienced exceptional difficulties in chartering a ship, because there are only one or two countries in the world which have these ships available. On one occasion it looked as though we might not be able to get a ship at all, which would have placed us in an impossible position, since our people would then have had to stay there for another year. The only ships that we have been possible to obtain in the past have been sealers, and then only during December, when ice conditions are extremely severe in the polar region, so that it is actually an unsuitable time to send ships to the Polar region. Hon. members will realize what could happen if no ship can be obtained to remove the staff from this base on the Antarctic continent. I might also add that the Department spends approximately R80,000 annually on chartering ships, if nothing upto-wards happens on the voyage. Then there is usually a provision that if a ship becomes ice-bound in the Polar region, if it cannot return within the prescribed time, an additional R2,000 per day has to be paid. The frigates of the South African Navy are no longer available for relief voyages. Therefore the Department had no other choice but to buy a ship itself or to have one built for these purposes. In the meantime the ship will also be used for meteorological investigation and for research, and in that connection the Department of Economic Affairs will make use of it for certain research purposes.

The inquiries that were made and the negotiations which took place extended over a period of more than one year. Finally, tenders and quotations were received, inter alia, from France, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and Japan. After careful consideration of all the quotations it was decided to buy the ship from Japan for the following reasons. In the first place, their quotation was the lowest. In the second place, the firm concerned undertook to take South African products for at least one-third of the purchase price. This offer has meanwhile been increased and the Japanese have undertaken, as a result of the order placed with them, to purchase South African products for approximately R1,200,000 over and above their normal purchases. Thirdly, the ship is to be delivered within 12 months. This ship was designed by the engineers of the Japanese shipbuilding industry but the specifications were checked by the marine engineers of the Department of Transport and by other experts and certain alterations were made. Thereafter expert advice was also obtained from England in order to ensure that the ship will serve the purpose for which it is to be used and will also be able to withstand the rigours and hardships of Antarctic voyages and ice conditions. Tenders were not invited locally, nor were South African firms approached to design the ship, because South Africa’s shipyards are not equipped for the construction of a ship of this size. Technical information available to the Department also indicates that the South African firms at this stage do not have the necessary experience or the personnel at their disposal to design and build a ship of this type. Care must also be taken to ensure that the ship complies with certain special requirements in order to be suitable for use under Antarctic conditions. For example, it must have special structural reinforcements enabling it to break its way through ice, and it must be designed specifically to carry a helicopter, to mention only two of the important requirements. Then the ship must also meet the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act and, because it will carry passengers, it must comply with the provisions of the International Convention on the Safety of Human Life at Sea. As far as the ship itself is concerned, detailed specifications were not furnished, but basic specifications and minimum requirements were laid down, for example that it must be built in accordance with the requirements of Lloyd’s Register of Shipping and must have “+100 AI + LMC Ice Class I Strengthening”. The length is approximately 224 feet, the width 41 feet, and it will have a gross tonnage of approximately 1,550 tons. I think that is the full information.

I listened to the hon. the Minister with considerable interest, particularly because I believe this is a scandalous affair, and I want to say so quite clearly. Sir, the fact that stands out is that the Department, when considering the purchase of this vessel, did not think it was even worthwhile acquainting the South African marine engineers with the fact that they were contemplating building the ship, or even asking them whether they were in a position to build it or to submit tenders. I listened to the Minister with great interest regarding their reasons for placing the order with Japan, but those reasons do not convince me at all. The fact that Japanese builders are purchasing South African goods to the value of one-third of the cost of the ship makes no difference whatsoever. I think we must remember that at present South Africa is going through a crisis as regards its reserves of foreign exchange. Seldom has South Africa been in more serious straits for foreign exchange than it is to-day, and I do not have to remind the hon. the Minister how his colleagues in the Cabinet have on every possible occasion urged South Africans to buy South African goods, and thus to conserve our foreign exchange. Therefore it seems a most remarkable thing to me that at a time like this the Government should take the opportunity of spending neaR1y R846,000 to place this order overseas without even taking the trouble to find out whether South African manufacturers could make this ship.

I want to deal with the allegation made by the Minister that South African ship repairers lack either the facilities or the technical personnel to build a ship of this sort. I categorically deny that statement, and I make that statement not only on behalf of the marine engineers in Cape Town—the Globe Engineering Company particularly—but also marine engineers in Durban—James Brown and Co. Ltd. and Gilbert Hamer and Co. Ltd. In both ports this ship could have been constructed to the designs which were submitted to shipbuilders all over the world and on which the various manufacturers submitted their tenders. I want to make it quite clear that this statement that the ship was too large for construction in South African harbours is completely incorrect. In Cape Town at present the shipbuilding facilities are equipped to take ships up to 200 feet. This particular ship happens to be 224 feet in length, but the Minister seems to have overlooked the fact that the Cape Town facilities can be readily adapted by removing certain superstructures on the water’s edge to take ships up to 280 feet in length, i.e. 56 feet in excess of the length of this particular vessel. I am also advised that both at Durban and at Cape Town sufficient, technical trained artisans are available for all the necessary work for making the hull and the greater portion of the ship, and even if it were true that such men were not available in South Africa they could readily be obtained from overseas, particularly for this job. I admit that certain portions of the technical equipment, the engines and so on, might have had to be imported from overseas, but that surely does not rule out the obvious advantages of having a ship of this description built in this country. After all, tremendous strides have been made in South Africa in recent years in the building of trawlers of a length of up to 120 or 130 feet, and recently we had an outstanding example where the Department of Commerce and Industries ordered a research vessel, very similar to this type of vessel, approximately 150 feet long, a ship by the name of Sardinops. That ship was launched in South African waters and attracted worldwide attention. It was regarded as a remarkable feat that South African marine engineers should have been able to produce a vessel of this capacity. But having reached those limits, there is no reason whatsoever why South African ship constructors should not have been given the opportunity to build this ship in South Africa. For many years marine engineers, both in Durban and in Cape Town, have pleaded for the Department of Transport to spend the minimum amount of money to provide slipways either for sideways launching or for forward launching, both in Durban and in Cape Town, and for years that demand has been studiously rejected.

The Department of Transport is not called upon to provide those facilities.

Let me remind the hon. the Minister of Transport that he is responsible for the harbours of South Africa, and therefore he is also responsive for the equipment of all the facilities that go with it. But quite apart from that Sir, what a glorious opportunity this Minister has missed by placing this order in Japan. Not only would it have provided a market for approximately 1,500 tons of South African steel, but it would also have given opportunities to engineering companies to supply some of the machinery; it would have given a tremendous opportunity to companies like Stewarts & Lloyds to supply the piping, to say nothing of the paint industry and the brass and iron foundry industries and the hundred-and-one other industries which are inextricably tied up with the shipbuilding industry. Here was an opportunity not only to save South Africa R500,000 in foreign exchange, and give South Africa that boost for which they themselves are pleading every day of their lives, that South Africans themselves should support South African industries. Sir, I repeat. I believe that this is a most disgraceful instance of needless squandering of public money by purchasing a ship overseas which could have been built in this country. Let me also make this point: I cannot see why the matter of urgency is pleaded in mitigation of the Minister’s action in placing this order in Japan. The fact remains that the Minister did not even take the trouble, either in the form of a letter or even in the form of a telephone inquiry, to ascertain whether the marine engineers of South Africa were interested, or what sort of delivery they could offer, or whether they could in point of fact submit quotations. But I make this statement emphatically—and I challenge the Minister to deny it—that this vessel, with the exception of the specialized equipment which naturally would have to be imported, could have been built in South Africa, and it could have given South African industry a tremendous impetus.

I can appreciate from the hon. the Minister’s description of the vessel and the special features that have to be built into her to equip her for work in the ice, that it was necessary to exercise a certain amount of discretion and care to see that wherever the order was placed the firm or the country concerned was in a position to deliver a vessel conforming to the very high specifications quoted by the Minister, as laid down by Lloyd’s. These Lloyd’s specifications are possibly amongst the highest in the world. But I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what he appears to have forgotten. I am not going to say now what can be done in future in South Africa. I want to refer to what has been done in the nature of shipbuilding in this country as far back as the war years. I want to remind the Minister that in Durban itself a most intricate job of shipbuilding was undertaken, one of the most intricate known in shipbuilding. I refer to the building of a 10,000-ton floating dock, almost eight times as large as this vessel. A floating dock which was built by South African labour, by the then existing engineering firms in Durban and successfully tested and found to comply with the highest requirements of Lloyd’s, which on completion was sent out East to take part in the war effort. That was a ship-construction job which South Africa had never dreamed of tackling before, and it was done then under conditions which were vastly inferior to the conditions which exist in the shipbuilding industry to-day, bearing in mind the advances which have taken place since the war years. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that in East London his own Railway Department, assisted by an ordinary firm of structural engineers who had never touched ship-work before, built a floating dock almost the size of this vessel—another most intricate vessel.

There is a very big difference between a floating dock and this specialized ship.

In this case I would remind the Minister that I am talking about my own profession. The Minister may be an expert on Railway matters; I claim to know what I am talking about on this job. When you deal with a floating dock structure, you are dealing with one of the most delicate and intricate structures that you can possibly get. Two of them were built in Cape Town. There were ship repair jobs done on this coast, with assistance to a large extent from the Railway workshops, jobs which would equal anything done in the best European shipyards. We have to-day in Cape Town a shipbuilding firm, connected with one of the leading shipbuilding firms in Holland, and although I will concede that it may have been necessary in the construction of a vessel of this sort for certain of the specialized equipment to be obtained from overseas, practically every engineering firm in the shipbuilding world in this country to-day has those overseas connections and are quite capable of producing these goods. I do feel—I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) that there has been a very serious slip-up in not having given the South African shipbuilding industry, which is making very rapid strides in this particular class of work, an opportunity at least of saying what it could do and of submitting quotations for this job. If they were given the chance in fair competition with the world, there may have been some reason why they were not given the contract, but at least they should have been given an opportunity to prove whether or not they were capable of producing the goods. I, too, feel that in this case there has been a very serious slip-up, to put it in its mildest form, in the way in which the contract was placed. With regard to the vessel itself, Sir, the hon. the Minister quite rightly, I think in this case, quoted the charter costs of obtaining a ship for the services on which this vessel will be used. I do not think there is any shadow of doubt as to the necessity of having a vessel of this kind. But I come back to the other point that once the vessel has been completed we come up against the question of the running and the maintenance of it. From the Minister’s description it appears that this vessel is largely to be used in connection with this scientific work of bringing relief in the form of stores and personnel down to the Antarctic Ocean. This item is described in the Estimates as “Building costs of a Departmental ship for meteorological and scientific research purposes It is true to say that by her work of servicing the islands she could be classed as that. But I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the vessel as such, apart from those particular characteristics, for service in the ice is in any way designed or equipped so that she herself can form a salient part of the research services? In other words, there is so much of this scientific service that has to be carried out at sea from a ship suitably designed for the purpose, that quite apart from her job of plying backwards and forwards as a relief ship, is she herself designed and equipped for doing that specialized portion of the research work where it is necessary to be done, viz. at sea?

I am gratified that the hon. members are concerned about buying South African. It is a pity that they have not always followed that policy in the past. I still remember the campaign that had to be launched in the past—the Buy South African campaign. They were not always as keen to buy South African as they should have been.

The Government does not seem to have bought South African in this case.

Mr. Chairman, for the hon. members opposite to ask the Government to buy South African is like taking coals to Newcastle. That is the policy of the Government and as Minister of Railways I have implemented that policy more than probably any previous Minister has ever done. As a matter of fact, it was only a few months ago that I gave a contract of £10,000,000 for the building of railway electric coaches to a firm in Nigel. So the hon. members must not talk to me about the necessity and the advisability of buying South African. That is my policy.

In this particular case there was no question of any South African firm being in the position of building this ship. I have the particulars of all the shipbuilding firms in South Africa and not one of them had the equipment or the know-how or the plant which would have enabled that particular firm to construct this type of ship—nor did they have the experience. Where we are dealing with a ship that has to go to the Antarctica, we cannot afford to experiment with the lives of men. The main purpose in purchasing this ship is to undertake the voyages to the Antarctica—to take our men there and to bring them back and we are not prepared to experiment with a firm that has no experience and no equipment and no plant to build a ship of this type. I have a list of all the firms here with all the particulars; I have all the details about their capacity, their equipment, etc. There was no South African firm who, even if they tendered and received the tender, would have been able to construct it within 12 months. It is urgent that we receive this ship as soon as possible. As I have already explained to the House we find it extremely difficult to hire ships. It may be at the end of this year when we have to relieve the men at Antarctica that we cannot hire a ship. That would be disastrous. The ship has to be delivered within 12 months and there was no South African firm, apart from the other matters that I have mentioned, that would have been in a position to construct it in 12 months’ time.

I think most of us look upon this hon. the Minister as one of the outstanding Ministers who occasionally talk sense, but on this occasion I think he has talked the most unutterable nonsense that I have ever heard him talk in this House. And I say that deliberately, Sir, because for the Minister to get up in this House and to say that he has a list of the South African marine engineers and that there is not one firm amongst them that has the technically trained men to build a ship of that nature is simply untrue. I want to say this: That if that is the advice that the hon. the Minister is given by his technical advisers, then I think this House is entitled to know who those technical advisers are, and that it is about time that the Minister learnt what was going on in this country. Sir, the hon. the Minister’s remarks cleaR1y show that he is totally ignorant of the extremely highly technical nature of the shipbuilding and the marine engineering work that is being done at Durban and here in Cape Town. Outstanding technical work was done during the war and latterly during the Suez crisis. It is no exaggeration to say that the marine engineers in Durban were not only responsible for keeping the British fleet afloat in the Indian Ocean, but they were materially responsible for the United Nations being able to bring the war in Burma and in the Middle East to a successful conclusion. For the Minister to turn round at this stage and to say, because ever since then the Department of the Minister has refused to listen to the pleas of the marine engineers and supply them with the basic minimum requirements to launch ships, they lack the facilities to do this work is simply not true. The fact remains …

You are not a marine engineer; what do you know about this?

I know quite a lot about it. I am interested in promoting marine engineering in Durban and in Cape Town too. I have taken the trouble to interview these companies and to find out what they had to say about this. If the Minister were to interview the South African Society of Shipbuilders and Repairers or any of these individual marine engineering firms which I have mentioned, he will find that the advice given him by his technical advisers is completely untrue.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister that the research vessel which was produced for the fishing industry was also a specialist built job. It was built for research work and it also has specialist technical equipment just as in the case of this vessel. That equipment was imported from abroad and there is no reason why it could not have been imported from abroad in this particular instance. What would the Vanderbijl Engineering Company have given for an opportunity to make the engines for this ship? I believe that this is the most regrettable incident because the Minister has thrown away a golden opportunity of giving the South African marine engineers a chance of taking one step forward towards the establishment of a shipbuilding industry capable of producing larger ships.

If the slipways were provided by the Government to-day there is no reason why South African shipbuilders could not produce 10,000ton cargo ships. There is nothing secret about the design of this particular vessel; the same plans were submitted to firms all over the world so that they could be resubmitted to this country and had the local shipbuilders not been able to build according to those specifications they would have been the first to say so. So I would urge the hon. the Minister to be more careful what he does in connection with this matter.

I am quite satisfied with what I have done.

The hon. Minister seems to be under the impression that he is infallible and that he has nothing to learn. I put it to him that he has a lot to learn. If he takes the trouble of communicating with some of the engineering companies in South Africa he may be a wiser man as a result of it.

Referring to the hon. the Minister’s reply, Sir, I should just like to say this. I have seldom listened to a reply from a responsible Minister which shows the irresponsibility which this Minister’s reply has shown. I gave the Minister a couple of examples of what has been done by South African shipbuilding companies. I will give him a couple more. An aircraft carrier had practically a third of her hull rebuilt by South African labour during the war. One of the bigger aircraft carriers, a 30,000-ton ship, after being practically blown to pieces by a bomb, was practically rebuilt at Durban. We had an American cruiser here, Sir, and 8,000-ton cruiser, Marblehead, of which only the remnants really arrived after bombing and she was rebuilt by South African labour so that she could return to America. That job was done with South African labour and mainly with South African material produced at Iscor and on the Rand. The work was done by men some of whom had never seen a ship before in their lives let alone worked on it. I say that there has been a very grave misdirection of effort in this case in that the South African firms were not even invited to submit quotations and tenders. Had they been allowed to do so they could have been judged on their merits, but they were condemned unheard. The hon. the Minister said that he had a list of the resources of these firms. During the war we worked on the same basis. It was my particular job to investigate the ability of the firms, on the same basis of typewritten statements giving the resources of the South African engineering firms. Those things do not really matter when it comes to actually doing the job. You find that what you are given on paper bears no relation to the real capacity of the firm to turn out the job. And when it comes to the know-how again I say that practically every one of our major shipbuilding firms in this country has either now or in the past had to train their staff by using the best shipbuilding brains from overseas. They still have access to them so that point does not come into the picture at all. The hon. the Minister might just as well say that when it comes to very specialized work connected with the Railways, because it has never been done in this country before, it is not right to give the tender to a South African firm because they do not have the know-how. It won’t take them very long to acquire it. A lot of the know-how in war days was found in the Minister’s own Department, the Railway, which at that time was under a different Minister who was prepared to look at things in a more rational way. It is no good just being arrogant and obstinate or to say “I know that I have done right ”. I would like to assure the Minister that while he is quite satisfied that he has done right, there will be a big number of people in this country who will be quite as satisfied that he has not done right in this case.

Vote put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Loan Vote L.—“Transport”, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Loan Vote M.—“Education, Arts and Science ”, R430,005,

Mr. Chairman, I object to this Vote. The House is being asked to vote additional sums of money to carry on this process of slum clearance and removal in Alexandra Township. I object to this House voting any further money for this purpose on the ground …

Order! The hon. member is speaking under the wrong Vote. The House is considering Loan Vote M.

“M” for mistake.

Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give the House some information on this additional amount of R180,000 in respect of technical high schools and hostels for commercial high school at Krugersdorp. It appears under the heading Witwatersrand Technical College.

That is the cost of the building.

Sir, the amount provided for for the University of Natal seems to be very meagre. The University of Natal is faced with great difficulty in regard to its students. For their final three years those students have to work at night. …

Order! The hon. member can only ask for the reasons for the increase.

I think the increase is not sufficient, Sir, and I wonder if the Minister could give us more details.

I want to come back to the item that I asked the Minister about. It says here “Technical and Commercial High Schools and Hostels at Krugersdorp ”, and the Minister says it is in respect of the erection of only one building. Can that be correct?

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the item “Commercial High School at Benoni ”, R220,000, and the extra R20,000, but I should like to know what the extra R20,000 is for. I am very grateful for it, but I would like to know what it is for.

I am sorry, I have no further particulars about that item.

Will the Minister please reply to my question in regard to the technical high school and hostel for Krugersdorp, R180,000?

As far as Krugersdorp is concerned, the only note I have is R120,000 for that school. I have no further information.

Mr. Chairman, is the position that the Minister comes here and asks us to vote money when he is unable to give us any information in regard to how this money is to be spent? We are being asked here to vote money for technical and commercial high schools—plural, “schools” with an “s” on— and hostels (with an “s” on it). All the Minister says is that he has a note that it is for a building. Surely the Minister responsible for this Department should be able to give us information as to why he wants this money, and what it is going to be spent on?

If the hon. member wants to quarrel, I am quite willing to argue with him. The fact simply remains that money cannot be used for anything other than the building of a school, and that is what I told the hon. member.

But how many buildings, and what are the details?

Mr. Chairman, from the very nature of the matter, I cannot tell the hon. member how many rooms there will be or how the building will be built. A school is a unit, and if the hon. member now wants to break it up into rooms and halls, I think that is ridiculous. I can, however, give the hon. member the further information that the total cost in connection with that whole unit will amount to R900,000. In respect of that R900,000, we are now only concerned with R180,000 for the first portion of that school. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read it he would have seen that that is what it says here.

Mr. Chairman, we can also read the figure in the Estimates, but we want to know whether there are one or two schools. It is a matter of principle; it is a question of policy.

Order! The hon. member evidently got that information when the amount originally appeared in the Estimates. The Committee is now dealing only with the R180,000.

On a point of order, Sir, this is an additional amount and we want to know whether it is for the same school or whether it will be spent on new buildings.

The original Estimates included a technical school and a commercial school. That is the total amount. If the hon. member would just take the trouble, he would see that this R180,000 refers only to the technical school portion of it.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote N.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R1,

I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give me some details in regard to this saving of R159,999.

Order! The hon. member cannot ask information in regard to the savings. It is only the R1 that is under discussion.

Very well, Sir. I might ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in regard to the rehabilitation of Alexandra Township. Money has been spent on that and I should like some information.

I object to the spending of this R1. I do so because I feel the time has come when the House has to give a very close look at this expenditure that was approved on previous occasions. We are now being asked to vote a sum of R1 in order to keep in being the whole of this loan operation. In other words, to enable this board to continue with the operations …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

I fully appreciate that, Sir. The reason for the increase of R1 is to enable the whole of this operation …

Order! The hon. member cannot suggest reasons; he can only ask for reasons.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. Then I shall ask the hon. Minister to reply to the following question: Those who have been observing this operation are full of misgivings …

Order!

I will begin then, by asking the Minister to tell the House why he requires to spend this R1. I will then ask him a number of questions under a number of headings when he replies to my question as to why he requires to spend this R1. In the first instance I would like to ask him whether the undertaking which the Government gave when the original sum was proposed …

Order! That point is not under discussion now. The hon. member can only ask the reasons for the increase in respect of this additional R1.

Then I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain why he wants the R1, and then if necessary I will put further questions.

What with the urging of hon. members, and your caution, Mr. Chairman, I shall have to be very careful. Firstly I would like to give the hon. member for Parktown an explanation in regard to the item of R1. Actually this is a technical point in order to make expenditure of more than R1 possible. Let me put it this way: The nominal provision of R1 in these Additional Estimates is to get approval in principle for a supplementation of the funds in respect of the purchase of the land in the Alexandra Township. Subhead (2) does not appear in these Supplementary Estimates but sub-head (2) did appear in the Main Estimates, and it was an item which provided money for clearing up areas other than Alexandra. And savings which might be affected under sub-head (2) may be transferred to this Vote, but to make that possible the provision of R1 has been included here. That makes it technically possible. Whilst I am on my feet, I just want to tell the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) something about the progress which has been made in regard to this clearing up. I do not know whether it is in order to reply to that question now.

If it deals with the Additional Expenditure of R1.

No, Sir, then I fear that I cannot reply to this question.

Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister can say what progress has been made?

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote Q.—“Bantu Education ”, R586,246,

This Bantu Education Fund is, I understand, according to our law, operated by the Department of the Minister of Finance and the Department of the Minister of Bantu Education jointly. I should like to know how this loan is raised and how it is to be paid. It is a very large amount on a supplementary estimate. R586,000, and I want to refer specially to the last three items totalling R442,000 to the nearest R1,000. If this money is borrowed by the Bantu Education Fund, is it borrowed from the General Account through the Minister of Finance?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the increases on the three last items.

Yes, Sir, and these additional amounts to be voted come to R442,000, and in asking for the reasons for these increases, I would refer in the first place to the final one. What I want to understand first is the manner in which this money is paid. It is a loan by the Bantu Education Fund. That loan, I take it, is through the Minister of Finance out of the General Fund.

That is not under discussion now.

Very well, Sir, then I would like to know this: Is this fund paying interest to increase this amount?

I am sorry, but that is not under discussion either. The hon. member may only ask for the reasons for the increase.

May I not make a comparison with Vote C, a loan to the S.A.B.C. free of interest?

No, the hon. member cannot do that.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, then I will refer to the final item “University College of Fort Hare ”. I Understood from the discussion we had yesterday that this was for the purchase of certain church hostels. If that is correct …

Order! The hon. member is advancing reasons.

Sir, I am asking reasons, because yesterday we were told that. I am asking whether the information given yesterday in the absence of the hon. Minister of Bantu Education was correct. The information we were given was that the final item was for the purchase of hostels and that the interest was shown in the other account, the expenditure account. If this is for the purchase of hostels, then I am asking the hon. the Minister whether this amount has to be paid out of the Bantu Education Fund which was originally intended for primary and secondary education for Bantu children? Are we now paying for a housing scheme for students out of the Bantu Education Fund?

The principle to which the hon. member just referred is one which has already been embodied in legislation by the House. It is the Act in terms of which these purchases are made which provides that the money must come from the Bantu Education Account.

What rate of interest do you pay to the General Revenue Fund?

Order! That is not under discussion now.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for further particulars regarding Item 9: Ohlanga Training School, R52,000; Item 19, Mafeking Training School, R20,000. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister has made provision for an adequately trained teaching staff at these institutions, whether those staffs will be available when the buildings are finished and whether they will be composed of European or Bantu teachers? Then I want some information in regard to these university colleges, namely the University College of the North, the University College of Zululand and also the University College of Fort Hare. It seems extraordinary that the original Estimates should be exceeded by such large amounts. In the case of Turfloop the Estimate was R203,000 and now the excess is more than half of that sum; in the case of Fort Hare the original Estimate was R100,000 and here the excess is R291,820, neaR1y three times as much. Surely there is something wrong with the original calculations. Another question I would like to ask —I do not know whether I am in order, but I am going to put the question—is about the serious drop in the number of matriculated students qualified for admission to these colleges …

Order, order!

Am I not entitled to ask the hon. the Minister why this further expenditure is required in view of the startling figures the hon. the Minister gave me the other day in regard to the matric results?

I should like some information in regard to Item 21. It is a new item, and I just don’t understand that the revised Estimate of the total cost is R46,000, the revised Estimate is R8,150 and the additional amount to be voted therefore R8,150. Now I take it this is in respect of the Adam’s Mission College and I would like to have some information from the hon. the Minister. What is being done here and on what is the amount going to be spent?

With reference to the question put by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), I just want to say that the amount provided for here for the Ohlanga Training School does not mean that a new school has been established there. What happens here is that the Ohlanga Training School is situated in a released area, and the Department of Bantu Administration, through the Native Trust, purchases the whole property on which this school is situate, but my Department must pay the costs in regard to the school building itself. Therefore it is not a new school but the taking over of a school, and this is the amount it will cost. In the original Estimates there was an amount of R2,000 provided for this purpose because at that stage the negotiations in connection with the purchase price has not yet been completed, and it is only because the negotiations have in the meantime been completed that we can now provide for the actual amount required. There is therefore no question of a new institution for which new staff is required. The staff is there. In regard to the Mafeking Training School, hon. members will remember that during the course of the year there was a case of arson at the training school at Tierkloof. The Tierkloof Training School is quite wrongly situated within a White area, far from the Bantu areas, and instead of completely restoring the original Tierkloof institution, which would have cost a lot of money, it was decided to build a training institution at Mafeking, in the Bantu township of Mafeking, instead. Therefore no new staff is required for that either. It is really just new buildings to replace the wrongly situated Tierkloof.

Is the Tierkloof School being eliminated?

The school at Tierkloof itself will disappear on completion of the new school. At Tierkloof there are still classrooms and facilities which are in the meantime being used as far as possible, but as soon as the new institution is completed the Tierkloof School will be closed.

In regard to the costs in connection with the university colleges, I may just say that as the result of the fact that in the course of time increasingly more buildings become necessary in order to provide for all the classes, and because greater progress was made in the building of the university college in Northern Zululand than we originally expected, it is necessary to make this additional provision. In regard to the University College of Fort Hare, of course a large increase is being asked for in the Additional Estimates, but the reason is that in the original Estimates provision was made for the purchase of the hostels, but because the negotiations in regard to the purchase of the hostels had just been commenced at that stage, it was impossible even approximately to indicate the amount which would be required for it, and a tentative amount which was very low was made available for that purpose, merely to get the principle approved. In the meantime the negotiations have been completed and additional amounts are now required for the purchase of those hostels. I may just say that the compensation paid to the various churches totalled R304,000 for these hostels. Then additional funds are required for the purchase of six dwellings for the staff in Alice. For that an additional R40,820 is required, and then renovations and modifications to the houses were necessary, which amounted to a total of R47,000. The R47,000 was used not only for renovation and modification of the houses, but also includes electrical repairs. The wiring of the halls and of the grounds practically had to be completely renewed because it was in a very bad condition, and that resulted in great expenditure.

In regard to the Amanzimtoti Training School, which formeR1y was known as Adam’s College, the reason for the increase is that as the result of a recent inspection of the condition of the buildings it was found that these buildings left much to be desired from a health point of view, and in order to comply with the proper health requirements it was necessary to make certain essential changes. The water reticulation system had partially to be replaced, roofs had to be put on the conservation dams and the purification systems at a cost of R13,400; the electrical wiring to a large extent had to be replaced to comply with the requirements of Escom, which in future will supply the electric power; it was necessary to enlarge the septic tanks, and the antiquated sewerage system had to be modernized. It was further necessary to build eight additional classrooms in order to accommodate the increased number of students. Altogether the total amount is R46,000. I may say that the expenditure on the training institutions and university colleges, in spite of the temporarily weak results in the matriculation examination, which was not the result of the bad work of my Department but of circumstances which we can discuss proDeR1y at the correct time, was completely justified. As the result of having incurred that expenditure, and for that reason alone, we can remedy the tremendous shortage of trained teachers, which was the main and most important cause of the bad examination results in the matriculation classes.

May I ask whether the dwellings at Fort Hare to which the Minister referred were built in the college grounds or outside?

I said that the amounts were destined for the purchase of dwelling-houses in the town of Alice.

For the White staff?

Yes, for White members of the staff. We have sufficient housing for the non-White members of the staff.

May I just inquire in connection with Item 16 whether the amount asked for here is sufficient to conclude the whole undertaking there, or whether possibly further funds will be required after the sum of R11,246 mentioned here has been spent?

That is not relevant.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue, Bantu Education and Loan Accounts reported without amendment.

Report considered and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure adopted.

brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure adopted by the House.

I have had an opportunity of reading the hon. Minister’s explanation as to what purpose the amendment introduced in this clause to Section 17 of the principal Act is intended to serve. I have also had regard to the interpretation which he says the legal advisers read into this section as amended. Now, Sir, we are here concerned with the section as it stands, whether it got on to the Statute Book by mistake or otherwise. I can only say that if the section, as amended, is given the interpretation suggested by the hon. the Minister, then he is merely setting out to make confusion worse confounded. Because to read into the section the interpretation which is suggested, once it has been amended, and to suggest that no rights will be taken away, is of course just to make nonsense of the entire section. I have no intention to be profane, but I think the House will bear with me when I say that this whole section, as amended, if it is to be interpreted in the way the hon. the Minister suggests, rather reminds me of the story which is told of the fellow who wrote a poem and when he was asked some time later what it meant, he replied: “When I wrote those beautiful words, God and I alone understood what they meant. Now God alone knows.” I feel that this is precisely what the hon. the Minister will feel about this clause, as amended, by the time it is carried out in practice. By that time I have a feeling that neither the hon. Deputy Minister nor his leal adviser will fare very much better than the fellow I have just quoted.

As regards the first part of sub-section (2) of Section 17, as it stands at present, an unqualified occupier of land is exempt from the peremptory statutory prohibition of sub-section (1) if he occupies under one of three methods; that is if he occupies (a) under an agreement, whether in writing or not, entered into before 1 July 1957, (b) an agreement in writing entered into on or after 1 July, 1957, and (c) a testamentary disposition made on or before 24 April 1950. Those are the three categories which under the existing legislation provide exemption from the peremptory provisions of sub-section (1). Sir, if the amendment is accepted, then the occupier of land will be exempted from the statutory prohibition only for two reasons: namely if he occupies under (i) a written agreement entered into on or before 24 April 1950, and (ii) a testamentary disposition made on or before 24 April 1950. In other words, Sir, immediately this Bill becomes law, the persons falling under category (a) and (b) will lose the rights that were granted to them in Section 17 (2) as it now stands. Only the persons falling under category (c), that is those who occupy by virtue of a testamentary disposition made on or before 24 April 1950, will retain their rights. Once the Bill becomes law, it will matter not what the rights of the two categories may be because the prohibition will then apply to every occupier whose authority to occupy land does not arise from “a written agreement lawfully entered into on or before 24 April 1950”. Now I am perfectly aware that the hon. Minister does not regard the effect of this amendment to be retrospective legislation. But clearly it will be retrospective. If that is not going to be the effect of this legislation, then I can only say that words will lose their ordinary meaning. In that regard I am also reminded of Humpty-Dumpty’s use of words as recorded in “Alice through the Looking-Glass ”—

Sir, we must be careful that we do not assume the attitude of trying to be the master. Let us rather be Alice, because I think she was the wiser in the discourse that took place.

I believe that the hon. the Minister does intend that the rights that accrue to persons in categories (a) and (b) that I mentioned—that is persons who have acquired exemption from the prohibition because of their occupation under (a) “an agreement whether in writing or not entered into before 1 July 1957”, or (b) “an agreement entered into in writing on or before 1 July 1957” should be preserved. That being so, I move as an amendment—

1. (b) by the addition of the following proviso at the end of paragraph (b) of that subsection:
   • “Provided that any right to occupy land which had accrued to any person under lawful agreement and which was being exercised immediately prior to the coming into operation of the Group Areas Amendment Act, 1961, shall remain of full force and effect.”

I hope the hon. the Minister will agree with me. If he does not want rights to be forfeited, as I understand is the position he maintains, then this proviso will assure that that will happen. This proviso will then only preserve the rights which had accrued to any person under a lawful agreement, and it will only apply to those rights which are being exercised immediately before the coming into operation of this new Act. I think, therefore, the position of the Group Areas Act is preserved as regards the prospective provisions of the new legislation, but I maintain that the rights which were conferred under legislation, will then be preserved. I say it does not matter how that legislation got on the Statute Book; whether it got on to the Statute Book by mistake or otherwise, it means what it says and any court must give it that meaning. I say that to try and give it any other sort of meaning is simply to make a nonsense of the legislation. I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I did not want to be in the position of Humpty-Dumpty who sat on the wall and eventually had a great fall, so I took the opportunity of considering the implications of this clause very thoroughly and in the closest consultation with the law advisers, and also with the senior law adviser of the Government. I asked them to put this explanation on paper. I now want to read that to hon. members. I admit that this is a complicated matter.

The law advisers tell me that Section 10 (1) of the original Group Areas Act of 1950 prohibited occupation by disqualified persons in the controlled areas. Exemption was, however, by Section 10 (2) (b), afforded persons occupying under valid agreements, notably agreements of lease. In 1955 that exemption was withdrawn in so far as persons occupying under verbal leases were concerned. They were, however, given two years’ grace up to 1 July 1957 to legalize their position by obtaining permits, or to vacate. On consolidation of the Act in 1957 the section in question became Section 17. Occupation by disqualified persons in the controlled areas is now prohibited by Section 17 (1). The consolidation error had the effect that people occupying under verbal contract after 1 July 1957 again enjoyed the same exemption as they did before the 1955 Act. It created no right whatever to enter into leases. That right is determined by Section 11 (1) of the Act. Section 11 (1) deals with the acquisition of immovable property in the controlled areas, which includes leasehold rights. And that section must be read with the definition of immovable property in the Act. Where the consolidation error is being corrected, no rights are therefore being taken away, except the exemption which should have fallen away as long ago as 1957.

Would the hon. the Deputy Minister please repeat that point?

Where the consolidation error is being corrected, no rights are therefore being taken away, except the exemption which should have fallen away as long ago as 1957. Because the amendment is not being made retrospective, the occupiers concerned cannot be prosecuted for having occupied since 1957.

But they can now continue?

Yes. After the discussions with the law advisers I decided that I would move a further amendment to make a concession which will give them a further year after this Bill comes into operation, to regularize their position. Therefore I move as an amendment—

1. (2) Paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) shall come into operation on the first day of July, 1962.
   • That will give them the opportunity to regularize their position.

Will it be regularized by permit? Is that the point?

Yes, that now gives them the opportunity to regularize their position.

As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member is concerned, I also discussed this matter with the law advisers. Now I must admit that this is a complicated clause. I admit that, and I do not think that any hon. member in this House would be able to explain it without studying it very thoroughly. The law advisers tell me that where Section 17 (2) (b) in its erroneous form, created no rights but merely protected occupation which had already become unlawful, the amendment would defeat the whole object of correcting the error. On the face of it, moreover, it would perpetuate occupational rights of lessees as against lessors, and deprive the latter of their rights to eject the former, even on breach or termination of the leases concerned. In the premises, the amendment cannot be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot go any further in this matter. I have been to a lot of trouble about it and I have had two or three discussions with the law advisers. I consulted the senior law adviser, and after all this I must now tell hon. members that I cannot help them any more than I have done.

Mr. Chairman, the question I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister when he said that paragraph (a) shall come into operation a year hence, is this: Is it the present (a) of sub-section (2)?

Yes.

I do not want to pursue the matter much further. The hon. the Deputy Minister has conceded that it is a most complicated matter. All I can say is that he is not the only person who has tried to understand what it means. But so long as we go on talking about consolidation errors, I think we are in error because the law, however it gets on to the Statute Book, must be interpreted and whether you interpret it as giving protection to occupants, or whether you call it “rights” as I do, I think we are talking about the same thing in different words.

I think I agree with the legal interpretation which the hon. the Deputy Minister has read out, except in one respect. I think it was possible for people to acquire rights in terms of the 1957 Act, which the hon. the Minister says was a mistake. It is probable that not very many people did do so but I think in fact it was possible. If a person entered into an agreement by way of permit, then it was a lawful agreement. If he entered into a written agreement by way of permit, it was obviously a lawful agreement, and I submit that he acquired rights which he would maintain but for this amendment. However I am not going to press that point any further because it is not the most important point.

There is a much more important point than that, and that is that the effect of this amendment is to take away the protection which people have had so far if they had verbal leases prior to 1950. I think the hon. the Minister agrees with that. That is the object and the effect of this amendment. Until 1950 people who had verbal leases to occupy property in controlled areas were protected. They were protected not only prior to 1950, they were protected after the Group Areas Act came into existence, and they have been protected at all times up to the present. In 1955 an attempt was made to take away that protection and to leave it only in respect of people who had leases entered into prior to 1950. In 1955 that amendment was made.

I may say, in passing, that on reading the debate of that year, this point was not argued in Committee in 1955. It may well be that the importance of the amendment was not realized at that stage. But, in fact, it is a most important amendment.

In terms of the 1955 amendment, these people were to lose that protection. As the hon. the Minister has said, they were to lose it not at once but as from 1 July 1957. After that date they were no longer to have the protection they had had, in spite of the fact that they had a verbal lease prior to 1950. But fortunately—or unfortunately, depending upon how you look on it—when the Act was consolidated in 1957 the law advisers made a mistake and these people …

No, the Select Committee made the mistake.

I think it must have been the law advisers who put the Bill before the Select Committee. It may well be that the Select Committee made a mistake in accepting the word of the law advisers. In any event, it is quite an interesting commentary on the complications of this Bill that the law advisers, with the principal and the amending Acts before them, were nevertheless unable to give the correct interpretation of the law; and not only the correct interpretation but the correct wording of the law. Parliament then passed a consolidating measure and that measure had the effect of saving for these people with pre-1950 verbal leases, the protection which they had had.

Mr. Chairman, the point is this, that the amendment now has the effect of taking away that protection; the protection of people who had verbal leases prior to 1950. We are opposed to that.

Many of the Indian traders in rural areas occupied by virtue of verbal leases, and still occupy by virtue of verbal leases. Others may have entered into written agreements before 1950. At that time, in certain provinces at any rate, there was no difference in the validity of a verbal or a written agreement. And to say now that verbal leases entered into before 1950 shall no longer protect you, whereas written leases will protect you, is to draw a most arbitrary distinction. Quite cleaR1y the object is just to get rid of a certain number of Indian traders who are occupying and whom the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to have removed from areas which he intends for European occupation. I think that that object was made quite clear in the debates in 1955 when the Government abolished another exemption which operated in favour of these Indian traders. The then hon. Minister of Lands said in the debate—

As a result another exemption was then abolished. And now we get a further exemption which is to be abolished; a further clause which protected these people is now to be taken away. And we are opposed to that.

Not only are the rights of occupation now to be taken away, but they are being taken away without the kind of inquiry which would be necessary if a Group Area were to be proclaimed. Here it is not necessary to have an inquiry. The rights of these people can be taken away without such an inquiry. We believe that this amendment, if accepted, will result in the elimination of a very large proportion of those Indian traders who are still trading in the rural areas, that is, in all those areas which have not been proclaimed as specified areas, which include almost all the rural areas of South Africa. Mr. Chairman, we are strongly opposed to this clause.

I would like to try and get a little clarity here. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, this is a very complicated issue. I think it has been further complicated by the discussion that has taken place in this Committee, and I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister has quite cleared that up. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) introduced, in discussing this clause, the fact that when this measure was consolidated in 1957, certain Coloured people acquired rights under the measure as consolidated.

But this clause deals with disqualified persons for occupation.

The hon. member for Boland made the point that under Section 17 (2) (b) which, the Minister tells us, came about as an error in the consolidation of this Act— and I want to be corrected here if I am wrong —in terms of the section providing for any agreement lawfully entered into before 1 July 1957, certain Coloured people had acquired rights of occupation. That was the point made by the hon. member for Boland.

Please read Section 17 (2) (a).

I am not talking about that issue, I am talking about the point made by the hon. member for Boland. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) then said to the hon. the Deputy Minister “If this is a bona fide mistake, and if these people acquired rights in a bona fide manner in terms of this section, will the Minister then establish that those rights shall not be interfered with; will the hon. the Minister give those people protection?” He asked that they should be given protection. In his reply the hon. the Deputy Minister did not deal with the request of the hon. member for South Coast, but he did reply to the hon. member for Boland, and he said that this was not being made retrospective. Therefore it would not interfere with the rights which they had acquired. But to-day he has further complicated the issue by bringing forward this amendment which does not do either of these things; either the thing that the hon. member for South Coast asked for, nor does it achieve the object which the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated to the hon. member for Boland.

I now want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister for some clarity on this measure. This amendment which he has now brought forward, as I see it in relation to to-day’s date, has given these people just one year’s grace in which either to get a permit …

No, it gives them an extra year.

That is the same point. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not get impatient. That is exactly the same point made here, the point to which the hon. the Deputy Minister replied the other night. The question was, was the Minister prepared to entrench the rights which these people had acquired in terms of Section 17 (2) (b)? In his reply, let me repeat, the Deputy Minister said that as this clause was not retrospective they would not lose those rights. But now, with his amendment, what he has said is not that at all. He has said something totally different. He has said “I will give these people one year as from to-day’s date, in which to establish their rights by permit, or to get out I would like clarification on that point because, quite frankly, it is neither in line with the assurance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister to the hon. member for Boland, nor is it in line with the request made by the hon. member for South Coast. We are now discussing three totally different things and I should like the Minister to clear those points up for me.

After this explanation, which I had prepared with so much trouble and after such thorough consideration, I will not consider exemptions from this prohibition. It was restricted already in 1945, and those persons, therefore, knew that those rights would disappear. They had sufficient time to put their house in order. Because I am now remedying a mistake here, and want to be fair, I must tell them that I will give them further time to put their affairs in order. That is all it amounts to. I am not able to do anything more in that regard. We are now approving of the same principle which has already been approved of by Parliament, and in regard to which a mistake crept in, for which Parliament was not responsible.

I do appreciate the efforts which the hon. the Deputy Minister has made. It is perfectly clear that he has taken a great deal of trouble to go further into this matter in order to bring a solution to what is obviously, as he himself has admitted, and as has been pointed out to him on more than one occasion, an extremely complicated and difficult clause. It is the type of clause that, unfortunately, became even more complicated on the consolidation of the Act. But I think that one must stress the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. H. Lewis) when he said that, on the last occasion on which this matter was discussed, the hon. the Deputy Minister did give an assurance that the law, as it will be amended by virtue of this Bill, will not in any way interfere with any existing rights. Now, if one reads the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) and reads it carefully, all one will find is that it provides that any rights which existed until this amending Bill becomes law, whatever they may be, whether they are valueless or whether they have any content in the legislation—whatever the value may be, those rights shall pertain. That is all. The hon. the Deputy Minister is not asked, in this amendment, to create any new rights. He is not asked to ensure any right of occupation. He is not asked to ensure any vested interests. He is not asked to ensure that there shall be a real right—which is what he intended to convey when he dealt with the definition of immovable property. All that the amendment asks is that whatever the interpretation of the law may be, in so far as the affected person is concerned, and whatever rights may have been acquired by the individual under the law as it stands to-day, those rights shall be maintained. And, quite frankly, I fail to read into that that, by virtue of accepting this amendment, one will be creating a real right in the affected person which will even go so far as to entrench a certain right for all time against a lessor if that affected person be the lessee.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, whilst one does appreciate the efforts of the hon. the Deputy Minister to provide what he calls certain concessions, he is, in fact, avoiding the issue, because nothing is asked of him save that what exists shall continue. For that reason we find it very difficult indeed to accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister is making any concession at all. After all, the administration of the Act is in his hands and, through him, in the hands of the board. We are concerned with the rights of individuals as interpreted through the law. And the law must be accepted as it appears on the Statute Book. That is the only thing we are asking of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and, unless he can give us an assurance, or unless he can be more persuasive that those other …

I cannot give you any more assurances than I have done.

What I mean is this: That, unless the hon. the Deputy Minister can satisfy us that what he is now doing in fact provides the relief which he suggested the other night he intended to provide, then I do not think he really appreciates the purpose of the amendment. We can, therefore, see no good reason why the amendment we have moved this afternoon should be denied, as it is in the interests of the affected persons, and as it creates no more rights than those existing in the law.

Then we must agree to differ.

Question put: That paragraph (a), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

Question affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman negatived.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman was put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of the Interior was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us a little information about the reason for the insertion of the proposed (5)bis (b), which allows him to give a permit subject to certain conditions. This sub-clause allows the Minister to lay down the condition, if he grants a permit to acquire property, that the person to whom the permit is granted must “erect or cause to be erected such buildings or other structures or provide or cause to be provided such facilities, etc., as may be so specified ”. The power which is to be given in terms of the amendment appears to be a very wide one. It is not the object of the Group Areas Act to make people build structures. We should like some information from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to why this sub-clause has been included.

I might just explain to the hon. member that where, e.g., in the case of a church, one must issue a permit in order to acquire land for those special purposes, we must take power in order to ensure that it is used for the purpose for which it was acquired. That is the whole object here.

And will that power not be used for wider objects?

No.

I am glad to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister says. I would just like to be quite clear on this point. This could apply, for instance, in a case where a mortgagee is taking a permit and buying in the property. I take it the same provision could be applied. If that is so, there is a power to erect buildings. I appreciate what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said; this really applies to cases where the use of the land is being permitted for a specific purpose, and then in those cases he wants to put it in the permit itself in order to protect him against any abuse of the power given by the permit.

That is so.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This is a clause which in our opinion calls for the very closest scrutiny of this Committee because it deals with powers of delegation and it affects the greatest issues of property owners; it not only affects property rights but also financial interests and, indeed, the standard of living of many of the affected persons. We should remember that these affected persons are for the most part the people who are most politically defenceless in South Africa. Clause 15 provides first of all for a delegation of the Minister’s powers to the Chairman of the Group Areas Board in a wider range of powers than has been the case hitherto. We have no objection to this delegation of power to the Chairman. Indeed, we believe that it is only correct that he should have these powers. After all, the Minister has multifarious duties and he cannot be expected to run everything including the administration of the Group Areas Act, and consequently we approve of that delegation. The second thing that this clause does is to extend the right of delegation of the Minister’s powers, subject to such conditions as the Minister may deem fit to impose, to members of the Board. In this case it is a more restricted delegation and it refers particulaR1y to Clause 16 which deals with determinations and Clause 18 which deals with permits. We would have preferred to have had no delegation of any sort to anybody other than the Chairman, but we do accept that with the growing volume of work which is going through the offices of the Group Areas Board and the consideration that unless there is a certain amount of delegation accepted, there might be a hold-up in the issue of permits, we are prepared to concede the delegation of these powers to members of the Board. That statement is, of course, subject always to the reservation which we made clear under Clause 7, where we made it very clear that we do not approve of the delegation of powers to single individuals appointed to act as standing or ad hoc committees. But, Sir, the members of the Board are the appropriate people to exercise these powers. After all, they are full-time employees; they have a very adequate grasp of the extremely intricate provisions and the workings of the Group Areas Act and they are specialists in their own particular occupation. More important than that is the fact that these individuals, by reason of the fact that they are fully aware of the extremely wide objections to this legislation in South Africa, and also indeed abroad, are, I think, fully appreciative of the necessity for the administration of this Act with the very highest standards of integrity and also, which is even more important, in a spirit of the utmost humanity. We do not therefore oppose the extension of the right to delegate powers to members of the Board. But the third provision of this clause is to provide for the delegation of the Minister’s powers to officers of the Public Service, and this is something which we think entirely reprehensible. We cannot agree to this because we think it is entirely wrong. After all. we have not over-looked the hon. the Deputy Minister’s comments on Clause 5 of this Bill, which provides for public servants to exercise certain functions in conducting inquiries and submitting reports to the Minister, and we assume that his remarks made under that clause apply pari passu to Clause 15 as well. If that is the case, we want to make it clear that we do not think that the ordinary civil servant, who is not a permanent official in the Group Areas Department, should be entrusted with these powers, because after all this is a highly technical question; it is extremely specialized work and it entails the responsibility which we believe can be only adequately fulfilled if there is a measure of continuity. We believe that it is all wrong to entrust those powers to officers of the Public Service, whether they be second or third grade officers, in any particular department, whoever happens to be handy at the time. If to us it is objectionable to give them the right to conduct inquiries and submit reports, we believe that it is even more objectionable that the Minister’s powers should be delegated to them. I think it is important that the Government should realize that we should at all costs prevent any belief arising, either in this country or elsewhere, that the Minister is becoming callous or indifferent in respect to the manner in which this legislation is administered. We believe that it is important that the public in South Africa and particularly affected persons should have the utmost confidence in the persons who are administering the Act, and we believe that they can only do that if these powers are confined to members of the Board. We believe that affected persons are entitled to the very highest standard of administration of this extremely complex Act, and that can only be assured if the delegation of power is restricted to the absolute minimum number of individuals. I want to make the point, too, that it is important that in the administration of this Act there should be the maintenance of the highest standard of uniformity in all decisions, and this again, we believe, is something which can only be ensured if the delegation of powers is confined to the smallest possible circle, and seeing that members on the Board are in constant daily or weekly touch with the Chairman of the Board, we believe that by limiting the delegation to the members we can achieve those results.

Finally, I want to comment on a possible reply from the Minister that affected persons have at least a right of appeal. They have no right of appeal to the courts; they have a right of appeal to the Minister. That may be very well, but I believe that if this administrative work is confined to expert officials, to members of the Board, there is far less chance of mistakes occurring in the first place, and I believe that if we are to achieve the best results in the administration of this very difficult and contentious Act, then there is less chance of something going wrong if in the first place the delegation of powers is confined to members of the Board. For that reason I move this amendment which will have the effect of omitting, as far as the delegation of powers is concerned, the officials of the Public Service. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will appreciate the spirit in which this appeal is made, because I am perfectly certain that if he makes a gesture and accepts this amendment, he will be making a gesture which will be greatly appreciated by the affected persons all over South Africa. Sir, I appeal to him to give it a trial. If thereafter it is still necessary to allow further delegation, then let us review the legislation at a later stage. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept this amendment.

I do not blame the hon. member for raising objections, but now he must understand that we have made so much progress with the application of the Group Areas Act that it has become a huge administrative undertaking. In the first place it should be remembered that the Group Areas Board is a deliberating body. They have enough of their own work to do just in so far as deliberations are concerned to make it unfair to the State and to those high-salaried people to saddle them with these delegated powers and the work connected with it when it can just as well be done by capable officials. The hon. member referred to something I was supposed to have said, viz. that I did not know whether they would be first-grade or second-grade clerks. I simply used those words by way of comparison. The idea is certainly not to entrust absolutely junior officials who have no knowledge of the work with delegated powers of this nature. This clause provides that the Minister may do certain things subject to certain conditions which he may determine. Of course when he delegates powers he will delegate them to people whom he regards as capable of dealing with the affected persons, and that is in order to bring relief not only to the Minister but also to the members of the board, so that they can devote their attention more specifically to the deliberating part of their work. Hon. members, e.g., complain that group areas are not proclaimed judiciously. Well, the more opportunity one gives the Group Areas Board to devote their attention to their deliberations, instead of encumbering them with petty administrative work, the more they are enabled to demarcate areas properly and justly. But in the second place the Minister will surely not delegate powers where his discretion has to be used. He will only delegate powers to officials where the policy is clear. The Act provides for certain restrictions. The permit system is destined to meet cases to which those restrictions apply. But now the Minister has a certain policy. He says: I will grant exemptions in this or that type of case; in this particular case you may issue a permit. One finds many cases of a particular type where concessions are made to people in order to give them relief, and when such people apply it is essential that the matter should be dealt with as speedily as possible so that people do not suffer from a feeling of insecurity and tension where concessions can be made. Therefore if one has responsible public servants in the service of the Group Areas Board, no fault can be found with the delegation of powers in regard to matters of a non-discretionary nature. In any case there is always the provision contained in Section 19 (4)—

The hon. member himself gave the reply. All I can say is this. My experience of the Group Areas Board and its chief officials is that they try in the most sympathetic and humane manner to implement this Act. That is also the policy of the Government. The Government wants to show these people the greatest sympathy and humaneness. But if we want to achieve that, we must speed up the pace and enable people to enjoy these services. There is a growing realization that they can just go to the offices of that board in order to be assisted. There they receive explanations and the necessary assistance by the officials, and we would like to encourage that because we do not want our offices to create a feeling of fear in the minds of the public. These offices and this Department must be able to enjoy the confidence of the people; we want the people to realize that the officials are there to assist them. I therefore regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Sir, I listened attentively to what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say on this particular clause and I appreciate the problem with which he is faced. He is faced was quite a terrific problem but I think this side of the House warned him of these problems when this Act was placed on the Statute Book. The hon. the Deputy Minister is now trying to cope with the difficulties that were foreshadowed when this Act was put through. Knowing that he is faced with these problems and knowing that he must find a way out of them I accept that in this clause the hon. the Deputy Minister has probably the most convenient way out. But surely, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot expect this side of the House to accept a clause such as this.

What is wrong with delegating power to an official to give notice?

This clause contains delegation of powers which is so serious that one has to distinguish here between what is democratic and what is bureaucratic. Through the delegation of power in this clause we are placing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people into the hands of an official. Whilst I do not want to criticize the officials we must admit that they are not all of the same calibre; some are obviously very well equipped to do their job properly.

Did you not listen to my explanation?

I accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister has a big problem, but he is going to have many more problems before he is finished with the administration of this Act. The powers which the Deputy Minister is trying to delegate under this clause are powers which we are not prepared to allow the Deputy Minister to delegate. We are not prepared to allow delegation of powers such as these. By delegating this power the hon. the Deputy Minister is putting into the hands of officials the future of people. These officials are empowered to make decisions, and we are not prepared to allow such important decisions to be made at that level. It is also not fair to ask the officials to make such decisions.

That is an over-statement. You are merely trying to create suspicion.

Every person who applies for a permit regards it as the most important thing in his life. These people have to uproot themselves and move to new areas. Surely to goodness when dealing with the future of a whole group of people, it is essential that the utmost care be taken. We want to take every step to ensure that the necessary measure of control and consideration is exercised in dealing with the future of these people. Why should it just be handed out on a rubber stamp basis to move them? We are not prepared to accept that. I sincerely hope that this side of the House will never be prepared to accept that principle. It is a principle which I personally, and I am sure the members on this side of the House agree with me, am not under any circumstances prepared to agree to. I personally, Sir, and I believe this side of the House, am not prepared to accept this clause as it stands now because it compels a degree of delegation of power which I think this House is very, very wrong in even considering.

We agree, Sir, that one does not want to keep people waiting when they have applied for a permit before they know whether or not the permit has been granted. We agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister on that point. It is an advantage to have an official who can issue these permits more speedily. But what worries us is that an officer of the Public Service might refuse a permit, which can have the most grievous consequences to the people applying. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that in practice he only delegated power where a clear policy had been laid down. But I submit, with respect, that in the case of every inquiry the question must arise as to whether it will cause undue hardship to the person concerned. That is a point which has to be considered in every case. No policy can be devised which will cover that point. These officials of the Public Service are inevitably called upon to use a measure of discretion and we feel it is undesirable to allow delegation of power to this extent. As other hon. members have pointed out the right to refuse a permit is a very substantial power, or the right to make a determination in respect of a new building which is to be erected. In terms of this clause the public official has the right to determine who shall occupy that building. If it is a new modern building that obviously is a most important power.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether in fact it happens in practice that officials are allowed to refuse permits. It will not have been done to the extent that the whole power was vested in the official because that would be illegal, but in practice have decisions been taken by public officials to refuse permits and confirmed by members of the board—presumably the chairman—without going into the matter fully themselves? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister specifically reply to that point?

I want to ask one other question. When different sections of this Act are read together the effect of this amending legislation will be that the officer of the Public Service can deal with a permit from A to Z, whereas previously it was necessary to report to the Minister or, at any rate, to the chairman. Now because of the power of delegation, and because in all cases where the power may be delegated, the person to whom the power is delegated may operate in the place of the Minister for all purposes, this means that the public official has the right to go into the question of a permit or a determination from A to Z without ever referring to any member of the board or to any other person. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister also confirm that that is the position? Because if it is, as seems to be the case, then we are definitely opposed to the delegation of this power to a public official.

We shall be quite prepared to meet the hon. the Deputy Minister if he says that public officials shall have the right to grant these permits but that in the case of a refusal it should be referred to a member of the board or to a higher official.

Surely it is clearly stated here: “the Minister may subject to such conditions as he may determine …”. Now it is up to the Minister what powers he is going to delegate to that official. The Minister may say: “I am prepared to delegate to you the power to sign all notices under certain circumstances which comply with these requirements ”, or the Minister may say: “I shall delegate to you the power to refuse permits of this type, permits which comply with these specific conditions.” The Minister determines the conditions governing that delegation. The onus is therefore always on the Minister and if the Minister makes a mess of it, this Parliament has the right to call him to account. That is surely clear. After all the Minister remains responsible to this Parliament; the Minister is after all not elevated above Parliament so that he is not subject to Parliament’s authority.

You think so.

Many hon. members also think so, but they are wrong. That is why they sometimes never even become Ministers; that is why they remain on the Opposition benches. I do not know to what the hon. member is objecting. I should like to help him if I can. The point is that it is stated specifically here that the Minister will lay down the conditions under which this delegation takes place. In the second place it is the position that if such a person feels aggrieved, he can lodge an appeal within 60 days. Of course the Minister will not delegate powers relating to any matters in which he must exercise his discretion. It is only in connection with matters on which there is clarity and when he wants to relieve himself of routine work that he will delegate powers.

Must a certain measure of discretion not be used in all cases to determine whether it is a case where the person concerned will be particularly severely affected thereby?

In such cases the Minister will not delegate his powers. If the Minister is so foolish as to delegate powers relating to cases on which he must decide himself, then it is his affair. But there are thousands of matters in respect of which there is clarity, and which can be disposed of with the least possible delay. The hon. member should surely know that; after all he is someone who does at least know something about administration. The Minister would be very foolish if he were to delegate his discretionary powers. Then he is doing so either because he is stupid or because he is lazy. Well, I may be stupid, but I am at least no lazy. Now that the hon. member has warned me, I shall also try to keep my stupidity under control.

Question put that the words “or an officer of the Public Service” in lines 11 and 12, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: Z. J. de Beer and C. W. Eglin.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell. Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

I won’t repeat the arguments which were advanced during the second reading debate in any detail. Briefly this clause lays down a new procedure for proclaiming group areas. Previously at the time of the proclamation the evacuation date was set out—whether it was in one year’s time or three years’ time or five years’ time, in some cases even seven years’ time. Now a group area will be proclaimed but the evacuation date will not be laid down at that time, or it need not be. Instead at any time after the lapse of one year people may be moved on three months’ notice. From the hon. the Deputy Minister’s point of view there is a clear advantage in that, in that he can move people out—he can even move an individual out—as alternative accommodation becomes available. But looking at it from the point of view of the person who has to be moved, it does create further uncertainty. Previously he knew more definitely the date when he had to move. Now at any time after the expiration of a year after the proclamation he is subject to three months’ notice. We submit that it is completely unsatisfactory to leave people under the threat of being moved after three months’ notice. Mr. Chairman, if we on these benches had our way we should not move people from their properties at all. Because we have moved this amendment it must not be thought that we approve of this clause—far from it. I have moved this in an attempt to alleviate the hardship which may be suffered under it, or which will be caused under it. We therefore propose that in the case of residential properties the person shall be given at least six months’ notice and where the person is to be moved from his business premises he shall be given at least one year’s notice.

I shall be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain these words in (c) “… any land which has ceased to be Native Trust land”. I am not quite clear what the position is there and I shall be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will first of all explain why it has become necessary to insert this and whether it only applies to land which has been excised from Native Trust land or hostels or locations.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

The consequence of this sub-section is that all those group areas which have been proclaimed but in respect of which the evacuation date has not yet arrived will be affected. Members of this House are aware of the fact that many of the group areas that are proclaimed have a period of grace during which the affected persons may remain in occupation of their property and those dates vary in length of time from two years up to seven years from date of proclamation. I have in mind recent cases such as the proclamation of 25 November dealing with Sea View which gave a three-year period of grace in respect of one area, in respect of Greenwood Park five years, and in the case of Red Hill five years. Then a little later in the case of Westville certain areas were given a period of grace of five years and more recently on 3 February there was a proclamation in respect of Wellington giving a period of grace of five years and on 10 February, Wynberg, where certain areas were set aside for evacuation within a period of two, five and seven years and in the case of Paarl, three, five and seven years and at Durban in the case of Queensborough under a proclamation dated 10 February, a period of five years was given. Now, Sir, the effect of this sub-section is to cancel all those evacuation dates and to place all affected persons under three months’ notice, provided that 12 months have elapsed from the date of the proclamation. I believe that these extended evacuation dates were an act of humanity to affected persons, and I believe that it was very much appreciated by those persons, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way to agreeing to this amendment which will have the effect of allowing all those unexpired evacuation dates to stand. It seems to me that the introduction of this clause at this stage, particularly within a matter of weeks of these proclamations, is an unnecessary piece of heartlessness. I am not accusing the hon. the Minister of inhumanity, or deliberately adversely affecting affected persons, but I do think that he should appreciate the point of view of people who have been affected, who have been given these notices of extended periods within which perhaps to make other arrangements and who are now faced with having a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads and the prospect of being ordered out of their homes on three months’ notice. It does not follow that because this sub-section is accepted by the House in point of fact people in the affected areas will actually be evacuated any earlier, but it may well happen, and in any case it creates uncertainty which the hon. the Minister can avoid. So I plead with him to make a gesture to the people in the recently proclaimed areas. I am not suggesting that in respect of any future proclamation, after the passing of this Bill, he should not adopt the practice set out in Clause 1, but I do believe that by allowing proclamations to stand where evacuation dates have not expired, he will be making a very sincere gesture of humanity to many people affected, and I believe it would do a great deal to introduce a far better atmosphere into the whole of the question of the application of this contentious legislation. Therefore I hope the hon. Deputy Minister will seriously reconsider this matter.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendments moved by the two hon. members in their present form. Actually the two amendments are contradictory. The two hon. members must settle that between themselves. But I cannot accept them as they stand. What I am prepared to do is to insert in lines 42 and 50, respectively, after the word “three ”, the words “or in the case of business premises, 12”. I therefore move as an amendment—

I think the hon. member has made out a case that, in the case of businesses, we should allow a reasonable period in which to make the change. I now just want to tell the hon. member that this whole clause is based on the principle that we can only establish group areas if we are prepared to provide the necessary housing. Without discussing the matter of housing in undue detail, I think we have reached the stage where we can, in fact, give attention to housing those persons who are affected. During my second-reading speech the other evening, I said there were three ways in which we could provide the alternative accommodation. In the first place, there are persons who can build for themselves. These persons have 15 months during which period they know they must leave. The Development Board is also there to help in the exchange of such properties. In the second place, there are persons who are found mainly in the middle classes, and who can enter into individual loans with the Housing Commission. The Housing Commission also goes out of its way to help people, and I am not only referring to Whites. I want to assure hon. members that many non-Whites are entering into individual loans with the Housing Commission. The hon. member will also be interested to know that our experience is that, as far as these individual loans are concerned, the Housing Commission has not yet suffered any losses. These people try to meet their obligations in a very exemplary way. In the third place, there are the economic housing schemes, and in the fourth place, there are the sub-economic housing schemes. I must say that, to an ever-increasing extent, we are finding that local authorities are prepared to take steps to improve their housing position. I have referred to what has been done in the Peninsula, for example. That is to be welcomed. No Government, which is in its right mind, will allow people to be ejected without alternative accommodation being provided, and this Government has already shown that, in this regard, it acts sympathetically. We have shown so in many instances, and we recently did so once again in the case of Sea Point where people came to us; although their period had expired, we extended the period and, when the year which they were granted expired in turn, we once again extended it. But I think we should rather adopt a different approach, namely, that we should provide the houses either with the assistance of the Housing Commission, through the local authorities, or by means of direct loans. When we are sure that we have the necessary housing available, we can go ahead on a systematic basis. That is why we are taking the power to be able to tell 20 people that they must now move because 20 houses are ready. On the next occasion there may be 100 such cases. In this way we are trying to implement the principle of group areas systematically. That is the underlying object in this case. But no one who wants to make a success of group areas—and we are in earnest in wishing to make a success of this principle— would tell 100 families that they must move without alternative accommodation being available. That is absurd. I am, therefore, sorry that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. Let me just add one further reason. I have already stated during the second-reading debate that closer liaison had been established between the Development Board and the Housing Commission as a result of the interdepartmental committee which we had appointed. Further steps may still be taken to bring about this closer liaison. Because group areas do not affect the Coloureds or the Indians. Group areas also affect the Whites. It is not merely a question of providing accommodation to one section of the population or of removing one section. But it is difficult to determine in advance whether 100 houses will be ready on a specific date. That is why, when the Group Areas Board must lay down a date in terms of the present legislation, the board finds it so difficult to say that the period must be three years of five years or seven years. It cannot say approximately what housing will be ready. In other words, it simply has to guess. That is why it is far better to provide that at least a year must elapse, and then three months’ notice can be given. I give the assurance that it is our intention that the board should bear in mind the availability of alternative accommodation before it advises the Minister, as the Act already provides. Because we cannot say how many houses will be available on a particular day, we want to make the period that which is provided for here. But, as regards businesses, I feel that a concession must be made, because there we are faced with specific difficulties, and that is why I have moved this amendment.

May I just tell the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) that Clause 16 (1) (c) is consequential to the amendment which is contained in Clause 5 (d). The object is merely to ensure beyond all doubt when an inquiry is to be held, that such areas which are actually excluded, can be included for the purpose of the inquiry, so that the whole picture can be obtained. It is sometimes necessary to include such an area in an advertisement relating to an inquiry to be able to establish the correct boundaries in the area concerned. We have always considered that we have this power, but there is a measure of doubt, and that is why we are providing here that, for the purpose of an inquiry, we can include such an area in an advertisement, so that, when the inquiry is held, a proper picture can be formed of how an area should be demarcated.

May I say that we are glad that the hon. the Minister has been prepared to meet us in relation to the notice to be given to a person who has to remove his business, but we are sorry that he is not prepared to meet us in regard to the increased notice to people who have to move for residential purposes. Even if one accepts everything that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, that he wishes to synchronize the moving of people with the availability of new houses, I still feel that the hon. the Minister should know six months in advance when houses are going to be available, and he should be able to give the person to be moved six months’ notice. If he is not able to know exactly to the day or to the month when the houses will be available, then rather let those alternative houses stand empty for a month than to leave all these people who have to be moved perpetually under three months’ notice. Take, for instance, the case of the people who are affected by the recent proclamation in Cape Town, some 30,000 or 40,000 people. In terms of the proclamations which were issued, many people were given five or seven years to move. So one can deduce from that fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister anticipates that they will only be moved after some five or six years, when houses will become available. If that was not anticipated by the hon. the Minister, then I find it very difficult indeed to understand why these different periods were given.

We did not anticipate the headway we would be making with housing schemes in the Peninsula.

Then why were these people given seven years’ notice?

I have explained the position just now.

No, I don’t understand it. These proclamations were issued last month. At that stage the hon. the Deputy Minister knew more or less what headway he was making in regard to housing. Yet he chose to give those people seven years’ notice. Surely, therefore, he anticipates that those people will, in practice, be left there for about seven years. Otherwise I find it difficult to understand why a period of seven years was laid down in a proclamation as recently as six weeks ago.

Between the time that the Group Areas Board reports to the Minister and the publishing of the proclamation, a considerable period elapses. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of that.

How much time?

Sometimes it is a very long period because, after the board has drawn up its report, a considerable period elapses: It is first submitted to the Administrator; then it must be submitted to the Surveyor-General, who must indicate certain points on maps. Sometimes months elapse and, in the meantime, negotiations are also undertaken with local authorities. In the past, when an inquiry has been held and the board has considered the report, it has been practically impossible to say, even approximately, what the position will be. That is why most of the periods which have been laid down have been guesswork. We do not want to make people unhappy. In many of these areas there are complications, and we do not want to make them feel that we want to uproot them immediately. That is why we are now adopting a different approach, and we are. to an ever-increasing extent, adopting the attitude that people can only be removed if alternative accommodation is available. The hon. member must not infer that, if a proclamation appeared last week, the period was decided upon the previous day. Things simply do not work like that.

But over the last few months.

Yes, months, and in a few months’ time much can happen; for example, as a result of negotiations with local authorities aimed at initiating schemes and solving difficulties which may exist. That is precisely why we want to insert these provisions, so that we can act more quickly when certain problems have been solved. Local authorities are sometimes faced with tremendous difficulties. I do not want to mention names, but in our immediate vicinity there are local authorities which were faced with tremendous problems and these first had to be faced and solved. Transit camps may have to be established; provision has to be made for all sorts of matters. The hon. member has now referred to the vast numbers, but the hon. member must at least tell the public that many of these people are living under terrible conditions in the places where they now live. I can only explain that the object is to expedite and to facilitate this task by the provision of alternative housing.

I want to take the last point the hon. the Minister has made and I want to protest against it.

You are always protesting. You are protesting too much.

I am protesting on behalf of the people whom I represent. The hon. Minister has indicated that he wants to accelerate the implementation of the Act. Apparently the hon. Deputy Minister has been too kind to the Coloured people and there must have been some objections from his party, from people who have told him that he is moving too slow, that he should amend the Act and get rid of the Coloured people. Because that is the implication of what the hon. Minister said. I want to say that the hon. the Minister cannot expect the Coloured people who have to be moved to go into some of the houses that are being built by the municipality. The hon. Minister cannot expect Coloured people who come out of decent houses and who have the right to live in decent homes to go to any odd housing scheme. How can the hon. the Minister expect them to leave their good houses and go to any house under a housing scheme? The hon. the Minister must also remember that only last month the Government raised the interest in respect of economic housing, increasing the rentals of some of these economic houses.

We are now discussing housing loans.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he wants this amendment so that he can within a shorter time move Coloured people when housing schemes are ready.

Not only Coloureds. Group areas are not just for Coloured people and the removal of Coloured people.

All right, any racial group. The proportion is one to ninety, but if the hon. the Minister wants it that way, I will try to please him.

That is not a correct statement you are making.

If the hon. Minister wants me to say that he wants to move White people, Brown people, Black people, Chinese people, or people of any colour, good and well. But does the hon. the Minister not understand that the Coloured people are not willing to be moved from decent homes into sub-economic schemes or other houses which do not measure up to the standard of the houses in which they have been living? Now the Minister wants powers to accelerate the removal of these people because he wants areas to be cleaned up as soon as possible. It is all wrong. The approach of the hon. the Minister is all wrong. He should rather lengthen the period, because he knows that there is a tremendous back-log of housing for Coloured people. Now the hon. Minister says: Give me the power, after 12 months, to put into the proclamation that within so many months people will have to go to alternative houses. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that he does not know the Coloured people as I know them. They do not want to go to any type of house. The hon. the Minister laughs. They want to go to a house of their choice.

What about the slum areas?

I am all in favour of slum clearance, but you have the Slums Act to act on that. It is not necessary to declare a group area. You can use the Slums Act to clear people out of slums. Anyway, I read the hon. Deputy Minister’s speech in the Other Place, and I can only say that he has given a very poor explanation of and very poor reason for this amendment. I would like to draw the hon. Deputy Minister’s attention to line 64 where it says that he can give notice “by despatching the notice by registered post in an envelope addressed to the occupier at such land ”. I do believe that it is quite wrong to send a registered letter to a man addressed to a piece of land that he owns. It surely can never be delivered to him.

You are offside.

I am perfectly right. It says here—

1. (b) by despatching the notice by registered post in an envelope addressed to the occupier at such land …

An occupier.

Whether he owns it, or whether he occupies it, you cannot despatch a registered letter to a piece of land. It cannot be delivered there. I must say that the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the amendment is completely unsatisfactory and I will not vote for it.

When I was interrupted, I was dealing with a particular point. In answer to the hon. Minister’s explanation may I say this: If circumstances should change between the time when the Board considers an area and the time when the proclamation is actually made, I should think that it would be an easy matter to change the period allowed. But be that as it may, the main point with which I was dealing was this, that in many cases a long time will elapse before these people can be moved. The hon. the Minister must know that. In many instances, particulaR1y here in Cape Town, a long time must elapse before all these people are given three months’ notice, and I think it is unfortunate that over a long period they should be subject to three months’ notice. I think it would be quite possible to give them six months’ notice. The hon. Minister says that alternative accommodation will be available and therefore it is no hardship. I cannot accept that argument. As the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has said, the hon. the Minister may think that many of these people don’t mind whether they live at point A or point B, as long as they have a decent house. But many people do in fact regard it as very important to be able to choose where they want to live. There are all sorts of considerations coming into the question. Their children may be at school in the neighbourhood, they may be near their work. We do not accept the attitude of the hon. the Minister that it is merely a question of having an alternative house available somewhere, which is a reasonable house, without giving choice of area where the people want to live. Seeing that the hon. Minister has chosen the example of Cape Town and the progress which is being made in Cape Town in housing, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give some information about the question of providing proper sewerage facilities.

Surely that is not under discussion now.

I merely mentioned this to substantiate the point that the mere fact that you are giving a person a house in another area, is not sufficient and the hon. the Minister must not on that account feel that he is doing these people a favour. In fact considerable hardship is caused to people in many cases when they have to move to another area. Even within what the hon. Minister wishes to do, he could in every case give six months notice. As little hardship as possible should be placed on the shoulders of persons who have to move. May I just deal with one other point. The hon. Minister said that he had replied to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher). I don’t think he did take the point raised by him. The point is that the hon. the Minister has decided on a new procedure which is to be followed in future proclamations. Apart from that, the effect of subsection (2) of this clause is to cancel all the existing proclamations. Now we believe that the hon. the Minister should leave the existing proclamations alone. As my hon. friend has said, where people have actually received notice recently that they are to have three, five or seven years to move, we feel that they should be left. If the hon. the Minister finds that alternative housing becomes available, and he feels it desirable to move people earlier, then we would prefer him to deproclaim and then reproclaim in terms of the new procedure in order to ensure that these people get proper notice. Many of these people are definitely under the illusion that they have three years or five years or seven years in which to move. I feel that this amending Bill may well go through without those people realizing that the procedure has been changed and that they are subject to three months notice provided the year has elapsed. I feel it will be far more satisfactory if the hon. the Deputy Minister publicly deproclaimed by announcement in the Government Gazette, and then reproclaimed in terms of the new procedure which is to be followed. And we would be happier still if the hon. the Minister were to allow all those years of grace which have been published to remain so that these people are not moved in advance of that time.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot even think of deproclaiming and then reproclaiming, because that would give rise to a vast number of difficulties. It has been considered. There is only one way of approaching this matter. The full Board has considered this Bill, and I think we should at least accept that those aspects of the matter have been considered. I do not think that we can move in that direction. It will land us in difficulties. We shall be faced with all sorts of claims which will only cause difficulties. No, the areas we have proclaimed, must remain proclaimed.

In cases where areas have been proclaimed and a time limit has been laid down, will it be possible to notify the public that that time limit will not act to their detriment and that there will not be any removals until alternative accommodation is available?

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I said during my second reading speech. The previous Minister said so as well. It has been repeatedly stated on behalf of the Government that people will not be moved unless alternative accommodation is available. If it were to be otherwise, where would these people go? I do not want to discuss other clauses now, but at a later stage we also make a concession to these people as far as removal orders are concerned. In other words, the whole spirit in which we are acting is in accordance with that principle. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) that if I were to accept his amendment, we would not even have to amend this provision. Then we could simply leave it as it is and it would then be quite impossible for us to continue providing housing at the rate at which we are doing so to-day, because we would then have to enforce that period. I ask the hon. member: Whose interests would then be served? The hon. member must remember that in many of these proclaimed areas, the housing and living conditions of the people concerned are very poor. Let us just take the example of the Indians. The hon. member is concerned about them. But is he in such close contact with them that he knows how many poor Indians complain to the Group Areas Board that they want housing? Is the hon. member then unaware of the miserable conditions existing in Durban, where as many as ten, 12 and 15 families are clustered together on one plot? If he wants us to allow this period to remain, then the Government definitely cannot undertake this task.

They can move if they want to do so.

Where must they go? But listen to the hon. member; this is the party which calls itself the Progressive Party. The poor Indians are being exploited by the rich Indians on a vast scale and the hon. member knows it.

But then build houses for them.

The Government is carrying out its housing programme better than any of its predecessors, and when the Government takes steps of this nature in order to expedite matters, it does not behove the hon. member to act in this way if he really wants to further the interests of those people.

I fully appreciate the point of view put forward by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I want to put another point of view to him and that is the point of view of an affected person. In the first place, when a proclamation is issued it comes as a tremendous shock to persons affected. Moreover, in those proclamations the following statement is made—and this statement was made in the proclamation relating to Westville and again in respect of the Indians in Queensborough. It states—

Surely that is an undertaking by the Minister. All I am now asking him is that in respect of those areas which have been proclaimed recently, before the introducing of this amending Bill, the Government will honour their undertaking. If they are not prepared to do so, what faith can anybody have in any statement that they make? I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to look at it from the point of view of affected persons. The fact that an affected person is given a promise of a five or a seven year period is regarded as a tremendous advantage to him because it gives him time in which to move. Surely if, despite that time period, people wish to make a move eaR1ier, then all they have to do is to go to the Group Areas Board and say so. But in respect of those people who attach significance to the five or seven year period, I ask that those proclamations be allowed to stand.

At the second reading of this Bill I made my attitude towards the Group Areas Act very clear, and I do not want to discuss that aspect again to-day. During that debate I also said that I am faced with this type of thing every day.

The hon. member must come to the clause; he cannot discuss what he said on that occasion now.

I am discussing the clause because this clause forms part of a general amending Bill consisting of many clauses, and my attitude towards a certain clause may be quite different to my attitude towards another clause. When the principle of this legislation was discussed, I stated what my attitude was towards the principle embodied in this legislation.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, allow me to tell the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) that the time for making jokes about this legislation is past. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that he has to deal with these cases every day and he also knows what I have done to create goodwill between the Whites and the Coloureds, as regards the provisions …

Will the hon member now discuss the provisions of the clause?

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing the clause. The aspect of the clause which I want to discuss is the question of the time limit. No aspect of the Group Areas Act has caused more uncertainty, more frustration and more bitterness than this time limit. There are other Coloured representatives in this House. I am not an attorney and certain of them are. But I wonder who has appeared before Group Areas boards on behalf of his voters in connection with the application of this legislation, and who obtained the firsthand information in the first instance on the aspects which the people fear. One sees the ignorance which exists in respect of this legislation. I can understand that the Bill provides for the delivery of a letter to a certain piece of land because these people do not have houses. In my constituency I have people who are living in areas where they have no houses. They pay rental for the ground, on which they then put up their own house or a shanty or some such structure, and one can see that the Minister must make the necessary arrangements so that he can deal with this position. My attitude towards this matter has been that, as I have Coloured communities in my constituency, I have taken them to the municipalities concerned and discussed the matter with the local authorities. The hon. the Minister also knows that this has happened in various places in his constituency.

There are good local authorities.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister will also admit that no one has done more than I to create goodwill between the Coloureds in these areas and the Whites in the local authorities. The attitude which I have put forward from time to time on behalf of my people, and which they have approved, is the following. I should like to know whether the Minister can give me an assurance in this regard. If this clause means that instead of the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of a community, the Act will now provide that a year after an area has been proclaimed a person can be given three months’ notice to leave his place of residence, can I then accept from the hon. the Minister that this three months’ notice will only be given if alternative provision has been made? Three months is the normal period of a notice. I can also be given three months’ notice because I live in a rented house, and the owner may want to occupy it himself. I therefore accept the three months notice in that regard. We are here dealing with more or less three categories of people. We are dealing with people who are homeless and people who are living in overcrowded conditions on plots of land. Then we are dealing with the lessees in the so-called White areas. Then we are dealing with the type of person who can buy his own land and can build his own home. Then finally we have the type of person who occupies his own property in a White area. Can I now accept from the hon. the Deputy Minister that those persons who are homeless or who are living in overcrowded conditions in one house, will not be moved until alternative accommodation is available?

Yes.

In other words, as the Cape Town Municipality did in the pre-war years when they laid out Kew Town and Bokmakierie and those areas. In the second place, can I accept from the hon. the Deputy Minister that as far as the lessee in a White area is concerned, he will not be given three months’ notice to leave his rented home unless alternative accommodation is available for him in an area in which he can live?

Yes.

In the third place, can I accept from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Department will do everything in its power to encourage local authorities—I know this has been done in George—to obtain the co-operation of the Group Areas Board in demarcating areas or in developing areas as urban areas, where a man who can buy land and can obtain a loan by himself will be able to build?

That is our policy.

Then I come to the fourth aspect, and this is a bitter pill. Do I have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance that a person who is occupying his own property in a proclaimed White area—I must add that if the first three steps are taken and the facilities are created, the person who occupies his own property in a White area is not a problem—will be able to remain there on condition that if he sells he must sell to a White, or if he dies his estate must sell to a White man within a year unless the executors of his estate obtain an extension.

Each case will be treated on its merits.

I can understand the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to my last question—the question of the executors asking for an extension and I can understand that each case will be treated on its merits. But in the first place, will it be the policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister that the person who occupies his own property can continue to occupy that property without a time limit being imposed and without running the risk that he will receive three months’ notice …

If he can prove hardship, he can always obtain a permit.

Mr. Chairman, here is the catch. I know very well what the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind. I also know full well what the problems are with which he has become familiar since accepting his post. I also know that in the constituency which he represents, which forms part of mine …

The hon. member must discuss the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing the person who owns his own property, and that person is affected by this clause.

The hon. member was discussing the Minister when I stopped him. He may not discuss the Minister, but only the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that, but I have tried to point out that I can understand why the Minister has worded the clause in this way.

The hon. member may proceed.

My problem relates to the last category to which I have referred. I cannot go back to my people and say that there cannot be any definite certainty as regards the position of the man who occupies his own property. We have cases like Van Hoeg in York Street, George, or MacKay in Mitchell Street. They are no trouble to anyone. Such people own their own property and they must not be subjected to the danger that a time limit will be imposed on them. Such a person should be able to remain there until he sells, on condition that he must sell to a White, or that his estate will sell to a White man within a year, unless his executors obtain an extension. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister give me that assurance?

The cases to which the hon. member has now referred are most exceptional ones. I do not think we should mention the names of those people, but the hon. member knows how sympathetic I am towards those people. But those are most exceptional cases. In such cases one can always use permit control to meet these people in a way which will make it possible for them to continue, without having to change our policy. But there are certain of these people who would grasp at an opportunity to move into a residential area where the higher-income groups are being given the opportunity to have their homes. In the case of one local authority which the hon. member has mentioned, an attempt is already being made to make provision for the better type of owner in their own residential areas. Then such a man would probably feel that he would like to be amongst his own people. But his case can be considered on the basis of granting a permit and such cases will always be treated in the most humanitarian way possible. The White public in such an area could not have any quarrel with such a person because they hold him in such high regard.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this question arising out of his statement earlier about the Indians who are living under what he apparently describes as bad slum conditions. Has the Minister considered asking the Minister of Health to act in terms of the Slums Act, so that either those people could be helped, and the Minister would not use that as a means …

That has nothing to do with this clause. We are not discussing the Slums Act now.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said he wanted this amendment because he wants to accelerate the moving of the Indians living in slum conditions, and who are being exploited by the rich Indians. I am now asking whether he will not ask the Minister of Health to act in terms of the Slums Act …

Order, order! That is not under discussion.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, except the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister used that as an argument for accelerating …

Order! The hon. member must discuss this clause or resume his seat.

With respect, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister said he wanted this amendment in order to accelerate …

This clause has nothing to do with the Slums Act.

I know that.

Well, we are discussing this clause.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he wanted this power in order to accelerate the implementation of the Group Areas Act because certain people are living in slum conditions and being exploited.

The hon. member can approach the Minister of Health.

Will you help me?

I quite agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument that, when there is a local authority which is developing an area where the financially strong person can buy, there will definitely be a tendency for such people, even if they own property in the White areas, to want to go and live amongst their own people in such a residential area. This is a development which we have seen over the years. But there will also be the person who is near retiring age, who has struggled over the years to pay for his piece of land and the house in which he lives, and whose economic position is such that he can live in a decent house. There will be many such cases where the persons concerned will not be able to sell because if they cannot get their price, they will be selling at a loss.

But the Group Areas Development Act applies to such cases.

Did I understand the Minister to refer to the Development Act and also to the Development Board? I want to ask the Minister please to leave that aspect out of it. I could mention cases where the Development Board valuations were the worst shock of all.

Does the hon. member not know that there are revision courts? The Development Board does not value itself. The valuations are undertaken by sworn valuators. They are not State officials.

What the Minister says is quite correct, but when this principle is applied in practice, these people, who cannot afford to do so, have to pay hundreds of pounds to advocates and attorneys in order to put their case. Unfortunately they do not pay me, and my salary here in Parliament is very meagre so that I have to suffer. I just want to bring the hon. the Deputy Minister back to this point. Can he not make a concession in this respect that the person who owns his own property in a White area, will not be subject to a time limit or to the threat that he may be given three months’ notice. If the Minister can do that, I can assure him that he will be introducing one of the biggest improvements into the Group Areas Act which has ever been contained in all the 130 or 140 amendments which have been introduced.

Question put: That the words “not less than three ”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

Question affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. van Ryneveld dropped.

The amendments proposed by the Deputy Minister of the Interior were put and agreed to.

Question put: That paragraph (b) of subsection (2), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

Question affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Butcher negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

I move an amendment to improve the English text as follows—

I intend to move the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) namely to negative this clause. We on this side have substantial doubts about this clause. I have not had sufficient time to go into the matter fully but I feel that it is dangerous to go to the extent of using the word “use It seems to me that the clause is now very wide indeed. It reads—

All that I can say at this stage is that it seems to me that the word “use” makes this clause very wide indeed in its effects. It seems to go much further than the word “occupy” and unless the hon. Deputy Minister can satisfy us that this is not an extension of the prohibition which is already contained in the Act, we remain opposed to the clause. It seems certain that the amendment is being proposed by the hon. Deputy Minister because of the decision in the case of Regina v. Ghoor, in the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, in which the terms “occupation” was considered. There have been different decisions in different provinces. It may be the intention of the hon. Deputy Minister to make it quite clear what it is intended to prohibit. Nevertheless, we feel that until such time as we have received a satisfactory explanation of the exact meaning of the word “use ”, we cannot support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the group character of a company is surely dealt with quite cleaR1y in the principal Act. In any case, if this proposal were to be accepted, it would still be possible to issue a permit. The hon. member knows that the Government’s attitude is that when it is necessary to allow such a company into an area in order to develop that area, such permission will not be refused. But it is the Government’s accepted policy that companies which are disqualified in the case of a particular area, cannot operate through the medium of a representative or nominee and thus circumcent the law. That is all it means. As regards the hon. member’s amendment. I want to point out that if this amendment were to be accepted, the concession which we have made, namely that trading certificates are now to be abolished, will also fall away. I do not know whether that was the hon. member’s intention.

No, that was not her intention.

But then we cannot in any case accept the amendment. The sole object of the amendment is that we want to make very clear an already existing position, namely, that such a disqualified company, unless it has a permit, will not be able to operate through the medium of a representative or a nominee.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to

On Clause 24,

I move as an amendment—

Sir, we have here a very drastic penal provision.

I am prepared to accept your amendment.

I appreciate the hon. Deputy Minister’s gesture in indicating immediately that he is prepared to accept this amendment. I would just like to say that we are dealing here with a very drastic penal provision, one in which there is really a confiscation of property. But I will leave it at that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 28,

I move the following amendment to this clause, namely—

1. (b) by the insertion after paragraph (d) of that sub-section of the following paragraph, the existing paragraph (e) becoming paragraph (f):
   • “(e) prescribing the fees and expenses payable to a person summoned in terms of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Section six;”.

I just want to add that this clause was originally contained in the Bill but under the Standing Orders it could not be adopted in the Other Place.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

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

The object of this amendment is merely to improve the English version.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; amendments to be considered on 13 March.

I have an amendment on this clause, namely—

I stated our reasons for opposing this clause when I moved a similar amendment during the Committee Stage of the Bill but owing to some confusion in the House when the Committee Stage was resumed on 1 March, this clause was passed before we were able to conclude our discussion on it. It is for that reason that I placed my amendment on the Order Paper so that it can be discussed at the Report Stage.

I do not wish to burden the House by repeating the arguments which I advanced against this provision during the Committee Stage except to state again that we are very concerned about the position of what is described as disqualified persons—Europeans, Indians and Bantu, whose properties or any real rights which they may possess in the Coloured areas proclaimed under Clause 3, are to be expropriated and vested in the Minister. I would like to read the offending paragraph because I do think that it is not fully realized what it contains—

We regard this provision as being an injustice and like the Group Areas Act, it outrages individual human rights. We appreciate the Minister’s action in moving an amendment to Clause 12 which improves the position of a disqualified person insofar as compensation is concerned but, Sir, you cannot compensate a man adequately in terms of Clause 12, who has been deprived of a home where he may have lived for many years or of a business which may be his only source of livelihood and which he may wish to pass on to his children. Under the Group Areas Act, Sir, a Native or an Indian will not be able to make a fresh start anywhere else. Even in the case of a European the same difficulty may arise. He may well have a Coloured wife and a Coloured family but because he is of a different race, he has to pack up and clear out. That, I say, is a heartless procedure for which there is no justification. I understood the hon. Deputy Minister to say in Committee that this was part of the deep-rooted policy of the Government. But surely, Sir, that point was considered by the Government when Section 20 of the Group Areas Amendment Act was passed only three years ago exempting the mission stations and communal reserves established under the Cape Act of 1909 from being proclaimed as group areas, In terms of Clause 2, the areas proclaimed as Coloured areas under Clause 3, will be administered under the same laws as the mission stations and they should, surely, be treated in like manner.

The hon. Deputy Minister has met a number of our objections to Clauses 3, 7, 9, 12 and 14 and but for the paragraph which is under discussion now, the Bill as it has emerged from the Committee, is a beneficial piece of legislation; and I hope the Minister will also show a little human feeling towards those unfortunate people whose future may be jeopardized if this sub-paragraph is approved. It can do no harm whatsoever, Sir, to their Coloured neighbours among whom they have lived, and this act of charity towards them, towards a few disqualified persons, will not endanger our Western civilization.

I have much pleasure in seconding this amendment moved by the hon. member for East London (City). I support it wholeheartedly. As has been stated, the effect of this paragraph (iii) is to deprive disqualified persons, be they Europeans, Africans or Asiatics, of their ownership of any property or any real rights in a proclaimed area. The hon. Deputy Minister has been in such a good mood to-night that he has accepted a few amendments proposed from this side, and I hope he will have the same kindly outlook on our appeal on this question.

Sir, we feel that this might have grave results or cause grievous injustice, particulaR1y in the case of a man who has set up a business in one of these areas or has resided there with his wife and family for a long period of time. The case of such a man would be bad enough if he was a European, but, if he is an African or an Asiatic, his chances of finding an area where he could re-establish himself are extremely scanty. It would be equally difficult for him to find an area where he would be able to re-establish his business. I ask, therefore, what is to become of these people? My hon. friend, the member for East London (City), has made a most earnest appeal, and I feel just as strongly as he does about the matter. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any statistics to show how many people are likely to be affected by this provision.

There are no Asiatics.

Are there any statistics in respect of Europeans or Natives?

Yes.

I shall be pleased to hear them when the hon. Deputy Minister replies. Anyway, we, on this side of the House, are strongly opposed to any potential injustices. Some of these disqualified persons— and this point was ably put by my hon. friend the member for East London (City)—may be married to Coloured women and may have Coloured families. The wife may have been married before and her children may be Coloured entirely. Then he and his family will be deprived of their main support. He might be aged, and it might, therefore, be very difficult for him to start all over again and establish himself in a new business, even if he could find an area where he will be allowed to do so. This, however, will be extremely difficult in the case of an African. If this provision is applied to the man whose family has to move into the area into which he has to move, where will they be able to live? If they are Coloured, they will not be allowed to live in a Native area. They will be moved to an area where they never had a home, and they will have to live amongst people with whom they were never associated before. This, Sir, is a typical example of the mess this country has got into by the stupid and unworkable ideology of the present Government. Now they have to perpetuate this type of injustice to get out of the mess.

Another point I wish to stress, and which I wish to stress most strongly, is one on which the hon. member for East London (City) has already touched. That is that the Group Areas Act is not applied to communal reserves or to mission stations which were proclaimed under the Cape Act of 1909. The hon. Deputy Minister may know that I have considerable knowledge of mission stations. I have lived within 20 miles of one all my life; my farm is situated within 20 miles of one; and for two decades I represented a constituency which had a mission station in it during a period when the Coloureds were still on the common voters’ roll. So that I should know what I am talking about. What is the reason for applying what amounts to a group areas proclamation to these new areas? That is the effect which paragraph (iii) (b) will have. I am glad that the hon. member for East London (City) expressed his appreciation to the Minister for accepting other amendments from this side, particulaR1y in regard to the limitation imposed by Clause 12 on the amount of compensation that should be paid to cases where a man’s property is vested in the Minister, but that does not remove our objections to the paragraph now under discussion. As I see it, it will be impossible to compensate a man adequately for the loss of his business, of his house or home, in places where it might be very difficult for him to find an alternative place in which to re-establish himself. But money is not everything. I wonder if the Minister realizes what heartbreaks are caused to people who spent their whole life building up a home, saving money to buy a house of their own, and having got to an age when it is not easy to start again, to be summarily turned out of their area even if they get full compensation. I do hope most sincerely that the hon. Deputy Minister will reconsider this very carefully and accept this amendment.

We, on this side, support the hon. member for East London (City) in his amendment. Our attitude was made clear during the second-reading stage and again during the Committee Stage. This sub-section of the Bill is one to which we objected more than to any other clause in the Bill. We remain opposed to the principle of removing any person, on the grounds of race alone, from properties which he occupies and owns quite legally. Therefore, we support this amendment. At the Committee Stage the clause slipped through before we could divide on it, but we shall certainly make our position clear now by supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is of course the crux of the Bill because it deals with the various persons who will be affected when areas are set aside. For that reason the clause had to be so worded that it could cover all cases because the circumstances in each area differ and consequently the same pattern cannot be followed in every instance. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) has asked me whether I have statistics showing the number of persons who will be affected. I have already told him that there are definitely no Asiatics. There may be Bantu in one or two of these areas. I might refer here to the area of the Dunn’s in Natal. There the Department of Bantu Administration is already removing the Bantu in terms of already existing legislation; the Bantu’s rights will, therefore, not be affected.

But you are not giving them other land.

I have already said that it has not yet been finally decided that they will be brought under this provision; it is still the subject of negotiation. The procedure which the relevant legislation lays down in respect of the Bantu areas has not yet been completed, and only when it is completed, can we tackle the matter. Persons who are affected in that sense are therefore covered by the legislation of the Department of Bantu Administration. We are therefore left with a group of Whites in one or two of these areas, Whites who will in fact be affected. For the sake of the record I now just want to say this: In the first place there are the areas which are used for purely communal purposes, such as the Opperman land; then there are the areas which are used communally but which are held in undivided shares which cannot be dealt with, such as Slangrivier. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) will know this and he will not dispute it if I say that this community has already decided on several occasions that it would like to be brought in. In the third place there are the areas which are sub-divided under town planning schemes, such as Saron and Suurbraak. In the case of Suurbraak a number of such properties are also owned by Whites, as the hon. member for Green Point knows.

Sub-section (1) deals with the first and second areas to which I have just referred, namely those which are being used for purely communal purposes and those which are being used for purely communal purposes but which are not sub-divided. On the application of the Act, such land comes under the control of the Minister. In the former areas the persons concerned will lose nothing but we are being given the power to make orderly arrangements and no compensation is due to them In the case of the second type of area, those persons whose rights are transferred to the Minister will be compensated under Clause 6 and they can, after consultation, be given alternative compensation under Clause 7. This method of compensation also applies to areas affected under Clause 2 (3). Sub-section (2) deals with areas which fall under the third group. When sub-division under a properly planned township scheme such as Suurbraak has taken place, paragraph (b) comes into operation, that is to say, all owners of such town properties, irrespective of whether they are qualified persons or not, retain their properties which will be regarded as having been acquired under Act No. 29 of 1909. Although there may be disqualified persons amongst these owners, they may, therefore, as a result of the negotiations which are taking place and the conditions which are laid down under Clause 3, be allowed to remain there indefinitely or for a specific period. In this regard I just want to say that hon. members must differentiate between the two proclamations. The one proclamation is for the incorporation of the area. Only thereafter and provided if is necessary, is the second proclamation issued ordering the persons concerned to leave. They are not issued simultaneously. In other words, there is time for consultation and negotiation.

It is not automatic?

No, not necessarily automatic. If no such conditions are laid down, they can remain there undisturbed until a second proclamation is issued in terms of the third proviso to Clause (2) (iii). In that proclamation a specific period is laid down and this period may be extended. The Minister has the right to do so. During this period they must sell their properties to qualified persons. Only when that cannot be done, is the land given in trust to the Minister. If the third proviso should be deleted, the position would be that the Governor-General would still have the power under Clause 3 to lay down conditions governing their rights of ownership or occupation. He retains that right in any event. What is more, such an owner who is a disqualified person, will therefore have to rely on selling his property to a Coloured and consequently he will be relying on a limited right and cannot claim compensation. His market is limited as a result and he must then sell. It is therefore in fact for his own protection that we are retaining this provision in the clause. The deletion of the third proviso will also frustrate the objects of the Bill as regards retaining the land for the Coloureds. The hon. member has said that we are applying the provisions of the Group Areas Act. It has nothing to do with that. These areas are traditional Coloured areas, just as the already incorporated areas under the 1909 Act are traditional Coloured areas. The hon. member knows that. These areas are not being set aside for the Coloureds to-day; these are traditional Coloured areas and the actual position is that there is unjustifiable infiltration. It is, therefore, not a question of our wishing to apply the provisions of the Group Areas Act to those areas. History has set aside these areas for them and all we are now doing is accepting the consequences of this historical development and trying to develop these areas for the sake of the people for whom they have been set aside.

I listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I had thought that he would be able to justify this clause. Having listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister very carefully, I believe that what he has said has completely justified the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit). The position is that the hon. the Deputy Minister could easily have asked for the inclusion in the law of a provision which would have entitled him to expropriate this property on the ordinary conditions if it were in the general interests of the public or of the community in the area so to do. But, Sir, I know of no precedent in our law for a clause which contains the provision which is included here. I would like to read the clause, Sir, and point out just how seriously these provisions are—

We must remember here, Sir, that, in spite of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, that is a person who has moved into that area and has acquired ownership in accordance with the law of the land. He is the registered owner of the property. Now that ownership shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the law regarding ownership—

Now, Sir, once that period has been fixed in the Gazette the guillotine has been set. The person concerned knows that unless he can come to terms, perhaps with a qualified person, and sell the property …

The second proclamation does not necessarily follow the first one.

No, that is so, Sir, but the proclamation nevertheless is intended, according to this clause, to fix an end-date. It is a penalty on ownership of a type of which I know of no parallel in the South African law. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London (City). There are other provisions by which this matter can be dealt with but, Sir, we must remember, in dealing with these very difficult cases of seeking, as the Government is seeking to do, to sort out the Coloured groups, that those who have acquired rights have acquired those rights in accordance with the law of the land. The rights which they have constitute one of the most sacred laws under Roman-Dutch law, namely, the law of the ownership of property. I do submit that it is quite wrong to have a provision of this nature in which the Minister can in the second proclamation—I do not care whether it is in the third proclamation—fix an end-date which in effect means this that, unless the person sells that property by that date to a person of the correct colour group, the price of his property will not exactly be increased. Then, without any further Act, that property automatically vests in the Minister, subject to compensation. I agree, Sir, that the compensation provisions have been improved immensely. But I do submit that we do not require provisions of this nature on our Statute Book, especially when we are seeking to deal with rights of persons who have acquired them in accordance with our common law and in accordance with our statute law. I ask the Minister to reconsider this and accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London (City).

Question put: That sub-paragraph (iii) of the proviso to paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Clause 4, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 7, 9, 12 and 14 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 13 March.

I move:

Mr. Speaker, in the nature of things this is a very short Bill and as a matter of fact the Bill does not embody any principles. The Bill merely provides for the insertion of the words “continuation class or classes” in Section 7 and Section 20 of the Vocational Education Act of 1955. Hon. members know that the 1955 Vocational Education Act provided that the State could take over State-aided vocational schools as full-fledged Departmental schools. At the moment there is doubt as to whether a continuation class is also a vocational school in the sense intended in this legislation. At the moment, apart from the ordinary State-aided vocational schools, we have 23 continuation classes in various towns and cities in the country. Three of these continuation classes also have full-time sections attached to the continuation classes. Hon. members know that the continuation classes normally consist of students who are studying after work. To make it clear beyond all doubt that not only full-time State-aided schools can be taken over, but that continuation classes can also be taken over, we are now amending Section 7 and Section 20. Certain of these continuation class schools—if I may so call them—such as, for example, the one at Tygerberg, have developed so rapidly as continuation classes that they have never even gone through the process of being converted into ordinary State-aided vocational schools. Tygerberg, for example, has simply been taken over by the State as a continuation class and has been run as a full-fledged departmental school since the beginning of this year with 300 students. Because there is this doubt to which I have already referred, this Bill provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1961. This is to meet the position of the Tygerberg Commercial School, a flourishing school, and to obviate any difficulties or problems.

This side of the House has no objection in principle to the Bill. Nor do we have any objection to the extension of the principle of continuation classes to industrial schools or institutions. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, this principle was already accepted in 1955, namely, that the State can take over vocational educational institutions, and I think it is no more than right that these sources of supply for our industrial schools, namely, the continuation classes, should be taken over when necessary. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, there are a large number of these continuation classes. I have had the honour to be connected for many years with one of the largest in the country. It served the Railways, and I am therefore speaking from experience in this regard. What I found was that these classes are comparatively sporadic by nature. They come and they go. One may have a class which works well. It depends on the number of the students in the area who wish to attend such evening classes.

There are one or two questions in respect of this matter which I want to put to the Minister and I hope he will reply to them when he has another opportunity to speak later in this debate. What is the norm which is applied when taking over such an institution? What conditions must be present before the hon. the Deputy Minister will proceed to take over such continuation classes? Which of these continuation classes to which he has referred is large enough to be taken over? The hon. the Deputy Minister has already mentioned the example of Tygerberg. He has said that it has over 300 students. When I examine this list of continuation classes in the country, I find that they are scattered through-out South Africa from Barberton and Brits to Dundee and Durban, from Durban to Grahamstown. King William’s Town, Cape Town; Louis Trichardt, Pinetown, Port Shepstone, Queenstown, Sasolburg, Virginia, Worcester, Welkom, etc. According to the list I have here there are 24 of them. What is remarkable is the type of tuition which is provided by some of them. Tuition is not confined to the normal subjects. I notice for example that in the case of Durban there is a nautical academy. I see that in Cape Town there is one for “advanced nautical training ”. It is interesting to examine what these various continuation classes are doing; Personally I consider that as soon as they are large enough and have taken on a permanent nature, as soon as they have become day or evening schools, it is the duty of the State, as I have said, to take over and to control their sources of supply, i.e. the larger continuation classes, seeing that the State has already taken over the industrial institutions and has accepted this principle. This side of the House therefore supports this Bill.

We in this corner of the House also support the second reading of this Bill. We welcome the principle behind it. There are just one or two points that I should like to make in regard to this Bill. The first is this: The development of these continuation classes is a very good indication of the way in which private enterprise can bring off a pioneering educational effort. What usually happens in these cases is that private enterprise goes ahead. You notice this particularly in the southern Transvaal and in the new Free State goldfields where you get new community developments. To begin with a need arises for these continuation classes. It is often not possible for the existing institutions to set them going because there may not be such an institution, such as a vocational school, so private people get together, possibly retired teachers and others and they start these continuation classes. They provide a social need. Then at a later stage either because the classes get too big or for some other reason, application is made to the Government to take them over and if the State can do so it does take over these schools. That is not only in the case of the new developing areas in the Orange Free State but it happens in other areas as well. It is a logical development and it should be encouraged.

As far as I have been able to discover and as far as I know, the Minister’s Department has acted wisely and sympathetically. There is, however, a need for caution on one score. I hope that the Minister’s Department will always be very careful when taking over such classes, not to take them over in a sense of rescuing an institution that has got itself into financial difficulties but that the Department will always put the emphasis on the educational needs of the community. In regard to technical schools where the State has stepped in and taken them oyer, I know of one particular instance where it seemed to me very much like a rescue operation. I do not think that is the right approach. I am merely putting this out as a warning. I am not suggesting that this is happening in regard to continuation classes. I feel that the educational and social needs should come first.

The second point I should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that wherever possible, when such a continuation class has been taken over and is being operated by the State, an attempt should be made to try to link it with a vocational school. It seems to me that such classes operate on a much better foundation and they are much happier when they are linked with a school. This should be done wherever possible. Sometimes, I know, the vocational school is too far away, but if it can be done, if there is a vocational school somewhere nearby, I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will always try to link such continuation classes with a school. I just want to repeat that we are very happy to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members opposite for their support. I have taken note of the remarks made by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope), and it is not necessary to say anything further about it. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) asked two questions to which I would like to reply. In the first instance he asked what our norm was when taking over these continuation classes. The hon. member has himself already given the reply to that question. He told us quite correctly that in regard to many of these classes it is a question of coming and going. In the first instance one must therefore first ascertain to what degree there is permanency. The position is of course from the very nature of the case that the first test is to ascertain to what extent these continuation classes have come to stay, in other words, whether they serve a purpose and whether they can serve a certain area if one later takes them over and changes them into departmental schools on their own. In the second instance the Department is guided by the number of full-time students emanating from such a continuation class. That brings me to the second question asked by the hon. member, viz. which of these 23 continuation classes is large enough possibly to be taken over by the Department. I have said that there are three of these continuation classes which have full-time sections, viz. the one at Barberton, the one at Virginia and the one at Welkom. It is the intention of the Department to take over the two at Virginia and Welkom because all the prerequisites I mentioned and which the hon. member himself mentioned are present in those cases, and those schools will probably be taken over by the Department shortly.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 13 March.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is even more brief than the one we have just dealt with. If hon. members look at the Special Schools Act No. 9 of 1948 they will see that in terms of Sections 2 and 3 three types of special schools can exist. There can be the Union special schools, there can be Provincial special schools and then there can be subsidized special schools. The object of this Bill is to amend Section 16 of the Special Education Act by inserting the words “is admitted to a Union special school ”. That concerns the question of the collection of fees. We now just want to state it very cleaR1y that the school referred to in Section 16 is not a subsidized school, nor does it refer to a provincial school, but that it only refers to a Union special school. I do not doubt for a moment that this Bill will also be accepted by hon. members.

In so far as the difference which exists— hon. members might ask me this—between Union special schools and subsidized special schools is concerned, hon. members know that in both cases the teaching staff is paid exclusively by the Department. But when it comes to specialized staff, they are subsidized, in so far as subsidized schools are concerned, to the extent of two-thirds, i.e. the salaries of therapists and nurses. When it comes to the clerical staff, housekeepers and other servants, they are subsidized to the extent of one-half of their salary. Two-thirds of the capital requirements is provided by the, state and children can be subsidized to a maximum amount of £60 per annum, depending on the financial position of the parents. But we are not dealing now with these subsidized schools in Section 16; we are only dealing with Union full-time schools, and it is their position which this Bill seeks to remedy.

Right in the beginning the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that this Bill was briefer than the previous one, but he spoke quite as long about it. I wonder what the reason for that is! We on this side have no objection in principle to this Bill. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when the principal Act was introduced in 1948 we raised no objection particulaR1y in respect of Section 16 to which the Deputy Minister referred. We always adopted the attitude that no parent, however well-to-do or however poor he might be, should be asked to pay for the services rendered to a deviate child. No parent should pay for the services rendered by the State to a deviate child. We always felt and still feel to-day that it is a national duty resting on the shoulders of all of us collectively to pay for the education, spiritually and otherwise, of these deviate children. In other words, in so far as this matter is concerned, we were always opposed to the means test. We are opposed to differentiation between the unfortunate children in our society, the deviate children. You will remember, Sir, that we adopted the same principle in Act No. 45 of 1960, to wit in Section 11. In that case we adopted the same attitude when the Minister provided that the parents of these children would have to pay for certain services. These services, such as, e.g. transport, boarding, medical and dental examinations, etc., we feel ought to be gratis. We still think that in regard to Section 11 it is wrong to demand of the parents that they should pay for these services in respect of these unfortunate children with whom we all have sympathy. Last year we also pleaded for it, as the hon. the Deputy Minister will remember. The Minister will still determine how much should be paid for the special services to which I have referred, e.g. accommodation and transport and medical and dental services and intelligence tests. The parents will still be responsible for these things in those schols which belong to the State, i.e. State schools for special education. The provincial schools for special education will in future be excluded, and also the subsidized special schools. That is a sound course to follow. The Act of 1960 referred to “any special school ”.

That was not the intention.

Yes, and I am glad that the hon. the Minister realized so soon after 1960 that we had made a mistake at the time when we included provincial and subsidized schools. These schools, I think received a globular amount from the State and it is no more than right that they themselves through their boards should decide what to do in regard to these services to which I have referred and to which the hon. the Minister also referred. That is no more than right.

But now I come to another matter and in passing I want to suggest that if the hon. the Minister again comes with an amendment in future—and I hope he will come along with an amendment soon, because there are only two of these schools left, both in KimbeR1ey, the Elizabeth Conradie School for physically deformed children, and then another smaller school for epileptics. Can the Minister tell us what the number of students at these two schools is? How many deviate children attend these schools? Has the time not arrived for us to go back to Section 16 of the 1948 Act and to give these deviate children and their parents the privileges again which they enjoyed in terms of the 1948 Act?

Order! the hon. member is now going too far.

Sir, Clause 11, which was the old Section 16, is now being amended, and it deals with transport and other services. Now the subsidized schools have been excluded but the principle remains in force. Therefore I am asking the Minister, when he comes along with an amendment again, also to accept the principle that no means test will be applied in so far as these children are concerned. It is a national matter and it is no more than right that the State as such should care for those children.

We shall support the second reading of this Bill. There was a lot of discussion on this Clause 16 when the Act came up in 1958, but as we read this particular Bill, it does not really affect the main objections felt by us on that occasion to the Bill which was then before the House. As we read this particular Bill, the main function that it will serve will be to cut a good deal of red tape and to make the payment of subsidies to parents who cannot afford to pay for their children very much easier and very much smoother. That we think is a very good thing indeed. As I see the situation under this Bill, what happened was that after the passage of the Act in 1958, when it came to the question of paying out subsidies, the whole procedure became extremely involved. The number of individual cases that had to go up to the Department for settlement must have meant a great deal of work and a tremendous amount of red tape for the Department and everybody concerned. As a result of the passage of this Bill, the responsibility for deciding many of these cases will be passed back to the principal of the institution or other approved officer, and the State will then accept a globular estimate of the amount involved. In other words, what the Department is doing is to rely to a great extent upon the institution itself to assess these amounts, and that seems to me a very good thing. It will make the whole procedure much simpler and will cut a lot of red tape.

I would like to take this opportunity of entering a plea to the hon. the Minister. I don’t think as a result of my experience that it will really be necessary to do this in a way, because I want to tell the hon. the Minister that since he has taken over this portfolio, so far as I have been able to discover from being in very close touch with a number of these institutions, he is handling the question of the special schools in a most sympathetic manner. I want it to go on record on behalf of at least one very big institution which has had recent dealings with the Department and the Minister, that they have found him and the Department very sympathetic and very accessible in regard to the needs of this unfortunate section of the community. I hope that that spirit will continue, and I should like the hon. the Minister to know that the manner in which he has been handling this subject is appreciated, certainly by at least two of the institutions with whom I am in fairly close touch. This is a very important section of the community, the cripples and all these handicapped people.

Another aspect of this work which I think is very important, and which I hope the Government also appreciates, is to allow maximum private enterprise in regard to this form of undertaking. In other words that the rôle of the State should be to stand as far as possible in the background with a helping hand and to interfere as little as possible in respect of these institutions which it is subsidizing. In that spirit a great deal can be done. There will be lots of co-operation from the public, and it seems to me that the whole situation is most healthy when the public is co-operating to the fullest possible extent. That is the only point I want to make. Otherwise we consider this Bill an improvement on the Act, and we give it our support.

I am very grateful for the support of hon. members opposite, and I particulaR1y want to thank the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) for his friendly remarks in regard to the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I would like to agree with him that when we are dealing with these unfortunate children it is of cardinal importance that as much use as possible should be made of private initiative. Because we are dealing here particularly with that type of child, we need the keen interest of the parents who unfortunately have such children in those schools, and not only their interest but also that of the circle of friends in which they move. It is also from the very nature of the case the starting point of the Department that there should be very intimate and close co-operation with those people because there must be a sympathetic understanding of the position in regard to these schools, more so than in the case of any other school.

In regard to the hon. member for Hillbrow, I can only tell him that there are 461 children in the two schools in Kimberley to which he referred. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more about the other points raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. We had that difference in principle and it still exists. We applied the Act in such a way, as my hon. Minister also told the House, that hitherto we have experienced no difficulty in this regard, and I can give hon. members the assurance that it is not in the least the intention to penalize people, but only to ensure that those people who can afford to pay will fulfil their obligations in that regard. We applied it in such a way that the fees collected from the parents amount to only about 30 per cent of the expenses incurred, and the rest is borne by the State. If one looks at the picture as a whole, it becomes quite clear that we are in fact applying the Act very sympathetically.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 13 March.

It was really a pity in many ways that I was not able to reply to the debate in the good mood in which the House was and in which I too was when this subject was last discussed. By this time some of the good foundation seed which we were discussing, seem to me to have sprouted already. Nevertheless in concluding the second reading debate I consider it a privilege to be able to convey my heartfelt thanks to members on all sides of the House for their wholehearted support of this measure and also for their constructive discussion of the Bill. However, one or two doubts have been raised which I feel were to a certain extent due to misunderstanding. [Quorum.] I formed the impression that certain hon. members have forgotten that the object and function of the Foundation Seed Board is not to undertake research because hon. members wanted the Board to be enlarged and to be given additional functions and they wanted it to do a great deal in connection with research. Research and breeding will be undertaken by the plant breeders of the Department and individual plant breeders. This breeders’ seed is being handed over to this organization with a view to multiplication. This is practically the only function of this organization, namely to ensure that multiplication takes place on an orderly and controlled basis. Then the foundation seed which will thus be multiplied in quantities which will be sufficient for the trade, will be provided to the trade and to the farmers for breeding purposes. Other points which have been made show that there are doubts relating in particular to Clause 10 (2). Hon. members have asked whether it is necessary for the Minister to take so many powers in connection with the nomination of members of the Board. I want to say that these provisions are found in all the control board schemes, as well as in the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act, and I give hon. members the assurance that if the bodies which have the right to nominate members, act responsibly, the opportunity or the necessity for the Minister to use his powers, or to refuse appointments or to make appointments himself, will never even arise. But it may happen that these organizations which have to nominate members, may refuse to do so or fail to do so even after receiving a second notice. Then we must surely have the power to take the necessary action. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has emphasized particulaR1y that we must ensure that specialists serve on this Board, people of great knowledge and people who represent not only the dealers, but the growers as well. I accept that it is the general expectation that all the interests which this Foundation Seed Board must serve, must be represented on the Board on a broad basis. It may easily happen that an organization may overlook certain of these aspects when making nominations and that it may for example appoint two persons who live right next door to one another as members of the Board. They may both be capable, but they may live next to one another. It may also happen that two members are nominated who represent only the vegetable seed breeders for example and that the breeders of grass seed, grazing seed and other types of seed are ignored and their interests not accorded representation. It is only under such circumstances that these powers may be exercised, although I do not believe that we need fear that this will happen very often.

I want to conclude by expressing the hope that the establishment of this Foundation Seed Board which will establish a scheme for the orderly and controlled multiplication of breeders’ seed will fulfil our expectations. There is only one other question to which I want to reply, a question which has been put by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. H. G. Swart). He has said that he cannot understand why the Board cannot introduce a certification scheme and why the Minister must do so. The position is that the Board does not have the necessary staff or organization, and it is felt that as the State does have the necessary facilities, the Department should fulfill this function because the certification organization forms part of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. That is why the Minister must introduce this scheme, and read in conjunction with the other measure which we shall consider presently, hon. members will see that the necessary statutory authority is now being given for the certification scheme which has been in existence for many years past, but which has never had legal authority.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 13 March.

I move—

This Bill and the one which we have just read for the second time are in effect twins. The one we have just considered deals with the multiplication and the production of foundation seed and the one now before us deals with improved control over the breeding, distribution and quality of seeds. The Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Act, No. 36 of 1947, is as can be inferred from its title, a measure which dealt with a number of unrelated matters. However, only one or two sections of that Act relate to seeds. In the first place it provides that no one may sell seed which does not comply with the requirements laid down by regulation in respect of purity, germinative power, packing, labelling and sealing; in the second place certain exemptions are granted, for example in respect of seed which one bona fide farmer grows himself and delivers to another farmer for seeding; seed which is only used for food; and seed which is sold to bona fide cleaners for cleaning and grading. In the third place it provides that seed can be held back at import ports and examined. These were the provisions of that Act which related to seeds. Although that Act gave my Department certain powers of inspection as regards seeds, it did not provide for the registration of cleaners and sellers of seed. This Bill is intended to remove these weaknesses. Bona fide farmers who deliver seed without advertising will be exempted, but all other sellers of seed will have to register themselves as sellers of seed. This should facilitate control and the honest seller of seed who always does his best to deliver a good product will be protected against other sellers who are not so careful and who can only be discovered by chance under the existing system. The Bill further provides that buyers who sell pre-packed seed in the original unopened containers, need not register. The reason is of course that the wholesaler who sells the seed to them must register. Ordinary shops of course sell very large quantities of seed in those containers and they will be able to continue with that type of activity.

Furthermore this Bill provides for the recognition of names of varieties once it has been established that they comply with certain requirements. These names will then be published in the Government Gazette and no one else will then have the right to sell another variety of the same type under that name. The object here is to protect the cleaners and dealers in seed who are particular about the quality of their seeds so that other people cannot trade under cover of their good reputations.

The last important provision embodied in this Bill is the clause which is intended to give legal status to the two schemes for the certification of seed which my Department already has. The first is the seed certification scheme. It has already existed since 1943 and my Department is proud of the fact that over the years it has built up an inspection service and a testing service which have not only gained membership of the International Seed Testing Association but which enjoy in every respect the confidence of the producers, sellers and users of seed in our country and even outside the Union.

I am convinced that this seed inspection service has made a contribution of inestimable value to the establishment of a sound seed industry in our country. I might just point out that during the year ending 30 June 1960 inspections were carried out on 9,640 morgen of land which were under seed crops. Twenty-one types of seed consisting of 129 varieties were involved and approximately 4,500,000 lbs. of seed were certified. Thirty-seven sellers and 913 breeders participated in this scheme last year.

Our plant breeders are gradually developing improved varieties of many types of plants. There are already new varieties of many types of plants which have done exceptionally well. The Foundation Seed Bill provides for the first phase, namely that of obtaining sufficient foundation seed from the breeders’ seed produced by breeders. The Bill we are now discussing deals with the production of certified seed, that is to say, the next stage. But the provisions aimed at establishing improved control in the trade are of equal importance because this is the final stage before the seed reaches the consumer and is the stage during which, as has already been said, things can also go wrong.

The second scheme, namely the export seed scheme, has already been in existence for a number of years, and the intention is also to give it legal status as well. For various reasons a large number of overseas dealers breed seed in South Africa from foundation seed which they provide themselves. In such cases the seed inspection service is usually not acquainted with or concerned about the quality of the foundation seed because that is controlled in the country of origin. They are sent here under contract, and are not for sale here. The whole crop is therefore subject to contract. I should like to emphasize that participation in the seed certification scheme as well as the export seed scheme are voluntary but that those who do participate will have to abide by the rules which are laid down.

In addition the Bill contains provisions dealing with the import and export of seed, advertisements, inspections, etc., but they are more or less in line with the existing legal provisions and do not require any explanation.

However, I want to take this opportunity to thank the seed trade for the services they have rendered our farmers in the past. One well-known seed firm was established as long ago as 1842, while two others started business in 1865 and 1890 respectively. They have built up a tradition in the seed trade of which we can rightly be proud and in many respects they have undertaken pioneering work and they have done much to promote agriculture. Their well-illustrated seed catalogues are found in homes in even the most isolated areas.

It is surely unnecessary for me to emphasize the importance of this measure any further.

While welcoming the principles contained in this Bill, principles that have been asked for by organized agriculture for many years, there are one or two observations I would like to make, because we are getting into the position in this country where whenever we have difficulties, we seem to pass another law. But it is no use passing this Bill if it is not going to be enforced propeR1y and if we are not going to have sufficient inspectors who are thoroughly trained to enforce the provisions of this Bill.

I wish to refer first of all to seed that is already under control and which up to the present has given great dissatisfaction to the farmers who purchase that seed and can only purchase it through the control board. I want to refer in particular to oat seed. Now seed oats are purchased by hundreds of farmers for the production of fodder for their stock, green fodder, and not for the production of oats as seed, and we have the greatest difficulty in obtaining first-grade oat seed which will grow oats true to type. That has been the position for the last seven or eight years at least. It is essential when planting oats for people like the farmers in Natal, who want to grow oats only for fodder purposes, that we get the right type for our area and for winter planting. We want to have it well grown for cutting in the early part of the winter, and we can only buy that seed through the Wheat Control Board, and I think the hon. the Minister will remember the last time he opened the Natal Agricultural Union Congress, there was a general complaint from one end of the province to the other among the people present at the congress that they were not getting the type of seed they were paying for. As a rule we want Winter Algerian, but there are also certain other types that are essentially winter oats. The spring oat is useless to us, and we ask the hon. the Minister if something could be done about it, because we are still having great dissatisfaction. I think in the Eastern Cape they are experiencing the same trouble. The Wheat Board just says: You have got to take what we send. In the old days our seed merchants used to guarantee the type of seed we bought, we paid for it, and we got what we needed. But since the Wheat Board has had control over that seed, we have had great dissatisfaction, and I think it has been to the detriment of the livestock industry of South Africa.

Now it is no use bringing in control of seed if the enforcement of the control is not going to be satisfactory, if we are not going to be able to get the seed we paid for and which we require. It is essential to get the right type of seed. I am not going into the varieties of maize and other seeds which are under control or the Maize Board. I want particularly to deal with this matter in the interest of those farmers who wish to grow green fodder for their cattle in the winter in the form of oat seed. The complaint is general.

Then I want to refer to imported seed. When all seed was under import control, we felt that some years the import certificates were issued so late in the season that it was quite impossible for our seed merchants to purchase for instance choumoullier seed. We have not yet produced a satisfactory choumoullier seed in South Africa, but it is a fodder crop grown on a large scale in South Africa. I hope the hon. Minister will take note of it that when this Bill becomes an Act and permits are issued that those permits are not going to be delayed so that we lose the opportunity of purchasing first-grade seed from overseas in that particular line. Pretty well the same applies to cauliflower seed, for those who produce cauliflowers. But certainly in regard with choumoullier seed we have the greatest difficulty in getting import permits in time and there are general complaints from seed merchants all over the country. I personally interviewed Mr. Havenga on several occasions on behalf of seed merchants because of the delay in import permits.

The third point I want to make is that when regulations are published, I hope the hon. the Minister will see to it that those regulations before they are enforced, are submitted to the S.A. Agricultural Union Commodity Committee for consultation to see that they are reasonable and that the farming community are behind the Minister with the type of regulation that is going to control the importation and the distribution of seed. As I said before, it is no use having laws unless they are carried out properly. They must be properly enforced, and if we have not sufficient trained inspectors to see that the provisions of the Act are complied with we must get them. We do not want a hit and miss scheme. It is essential that our seeds should be pure, that we get what we pay for and that we get a fair deal in the purchase of seed which is so important to the producer of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) has already said that this side of the House will not oppose this legislation. We welcome the Bill. I just once again want to make a point which I have already made during the discussion of the previous Bill. The hon. the Minister has not yet given me a conclusive reply as to why these two Bills, which he has described as twins, could not have been submitted as one Bill to the House; especially seeing that in discussing the first Bill I said that the Minister was giving all the powers under the foundation seed scheme to the Foundation Seed Board, except that he was retaining for himself the right to establish a foundation seed certification scheme. Seeing that he now says that the main object of this Bill is to give legal status to the existing seed certification scheme and the existing export seed scheme, and seeing that he is therefore retaining control over these two important aspects for himself and his Department, I still cannot see why these provisions could not have been contained in one Bill. I should be very glad if the Minister will give me a further conclusive reply as to why this Bill is necessary in the case of seeds. Mr. Speaker, whether it is foundation seed or ordinary seed or export seed, it is seed, and I cannot see why we cannot combine all the provisions relating to seed into one Bill. We could then have adopted one consolidated Bill which would have controlled all aspects of the seed trade, i.e., the production, the distribution, the cleaning and the selling of such seed. Under Clause 2 of the Bill the Minister can instruct an officer of his Department to register cleaners and sellers of seed. I hope he will appoint a very responsible official to undertake this work. It is an important task to undertake the registration of the cleaners and sellers of seed. These are old established concerns which have been cleaning and selling seeds commercially for many years past. They have invested large amounts of capital, particularly in Johannesburg and the mealie triangle, and I trust that the Minister will appoint a very responsible official so that these people who have invested their money over the years in these branches of our seed industry, the people who have been engaged on this work for all these years, will have confidence in such an official as well as in his discretion. I am also glad that in Clause 6 the hon. the Minister has left the door open so that those people who are affected can appeal to him, if the decision of a registering officer is disputed. I think it is essential that this clause which provides for the right of appeal should be included.

Clause 14 provides for a seed certification scheme and an export seed scheme. The Minister has also said that one of the main reasons why he has decided upon the introduction of this Bill is because he wishes to give legal status to the schemes which his Department has already administered for years past—both the ordinary seed scheme and the export seed scheme. I think that the seed certification scheme and the export seed scheme of the Department as they have functioned for all these years, have done good work. I have worked in collaboration with them a good deal, and I must say that they are rendering good service to the farmers of our country. I think that to a large extent it is due to these schemes that the farmers of South Africa have become seed conscious and have come to realize that it is essential to plant good seed and clean seed if they want good crops. I should like to join the hon. the Minister in thanking his Department for this service which they have rendered to the farmers over all these years.

Clause 14 also provides for the establishment of an organization which shall be responsible for the administration of the scheme. Hitherto, over all these years, the Department has administered these schemes itself—both the seed certification scheme and the export scheme. Now this clause provides that an organization can be designated to administer these two schemes. One sub-section also provides that such an organization can be the Department itself. I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister what his object is in providing in Clause 14 that these schemes can be administered by some other organization than his own Department. Does he perhaps intend eventually placing the seed certification scheme and the export seed scheme under the control of the Foundation Seed Board, so that all three these schemes—the foundation seed certification scheme, the seed certification scheme and the export seed scheme—can be administered by one organization, namely the Foundation Seed Board? Or conversely is it the hon. the Minister’s intention to place the foundation seed certification scheme and these two schemes all under his Department in the future? I personally think that during the initial stages, until the Foundation Seed Board has found its feet, it will be a good policy if the hon. the Minister provisionally places all three of these schemes under his Department until the Foundation Seed Board which he is to appoint, has prepared its organization and has perhaps appointed its own technicians. Seeing that the hon. the Minister has said that in the previous Bill he has also retained the right to establish the foundation seed certification scheme, I wonder whether it will not be best if all these other schemes are administered by his Department and the Foundation Seed Board then undertakes all the other work, including certain functions for which provision is made in later clauses of the Seeds Bill.

I have no further remarks to make on this Seeds Bill. We give it our blessing and in the interests of our farming community and particularly of the agricultural industry in South Africa we trust it will be a success.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members opposite for the support they have given this Bill. I am glad that it is generally realized and generally accepted that these are steps in the right direction. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) that in launching these schemes the Department is fully aware of the fact that it will have to improve its seed certification service and its export seed testing service. I think we can give him the assurance that as this scheme develops we shall at all times be in a position to train the necessary officials. It does not take all that long. Then we will have the officials available for this work.

He has referred to difficulties which they have experienced in the past with certain types of oat seed. The fact that we have two Bills before us, that is to say this Seeds Bill and the Foundation Seed Bill, which we have already adopted, does not mean in my opinion that we can think that all the problems encountered by the farmers as regards obtaining the right type of seed will simply disappear overnight. The fact of the matter is that the right type of oat seed is available, but, seeing that there will now be compulsory certification and registration of people in the seed trade, I hope that this Bill will make the public realize that seed which carries this certificate, in other words, seed which has been certified as to quality, is the type of seed for which they must ask and that it will also have the result that the sellers of seed and the seed trade will meet the various requirements of the public. I should also like to see the small seed scheme of the Wheat Board for example gradually being handed over to the Foundation Seed Board. That is what I envisage because they will certainly not want to do the work themselves if there is a statutory body or board which can undertake this multiplication for them because if that Board were to take over this work, it would be under proper departmental control which is not the position to-day in the case of the cultivation and breeding of all seeds, even in the case of the Wheat Board which is doing so to-day to the best of its ability. I hope that we shall gradually be able to meet the real needs of the farmers to an ever-increasing extent.

Then the hon. member has also asked that, when laying down regulations controlling the sale of seeds, the handling of seeds, etc., we should please ensure that the Act is not simply an Act in name, but that the regulations are applied and carried out. I assure him that we intend doing so because otherwise it is pointless our having this legislation and it will merely remain a poor attempt which will not mean much to the farmers.

I want to thank the hon. member for Florida (Mr. H. G. Swart) for his remarks, for his speech and also for his support. He says that I have not yet given him a satisfactory reply as to why we could not combine the Bill dealing with foundation seed and the Foundation Seed Board and this Seeds Bill into one Bill. I am afraid that he and I think along very similar lines in this respect. But an inter-departmental committee was appointed, which co-opted representatives of all the interests in seed trade, such as the South African Agricultural Union, the seed trade and the sellers of seed. They formed a strong committee which went into all aspects of this matter. When I asked them why there had to be two Bills instead of one, they told me that if I knew how they struggled to answer that question and how they could eventually only reach unanimity by provisionally separating the two, I really would not tell them: Go back and try to draw up a consolidated measure. They have now been trying to do so for months on end, but various interests which were represented on the committee, saw the position differently and that is why they do not want to do so at this stage.

It is quite correct that this represents a fresh start for our whole seed industry, and for the time being the Department of Agricultural Technical Services with its inspection services is the organization which should ensure that this registration and certification and other steps are and will be carried out. But in the course of time, as things develop, it may be found that it will be better to consolidate the functions which the Department will now fulfil in terms of this Bill and to transfer them to another organization—for all I know it may be the Foundation Seed Board—or perhaps certain of the Foundtaion Seed Board’s functions can be transferred to another organization—and I think it is for that reason that this opening has been left by not stating definitely in the Bill that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will always have to carry out these functions. It may be found that a separate organization has been established, possibly by private enterprise or by the seed trade and the other organizations concerned, and that they may consider that they can undertake this work better. They may then take it over from the Department; or it may be that there may be such development that we can no longer cope with the work and that we have to establish a separate body to do so. That is why this opening has been left so that that can be done if such circumstances should arise.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have now answered all the questions which hon. members have put, and I move.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 13 March.