Clause 5 deals with a subject similar to Clause 3, that is penalties for contraventions of the Act or of the regulations. Clause 3 provides that certain conduct will constitute an offence and that on conviction of that offence certain penalties shall follow in the discretion of the courts, and the penalties are: A fine not exceeding R500, or a year’s imprisonment, or both. In Clause 5 an apparently similar provision is found, but the difference is that as it is worded at present, it is provided that regulations may be made and the regulations may also provide for the penalties for the contravention of those particular regulations. In other words, one could for the first time, so far as I am aware, provide in regulations that the contravention of a particular regulation made by the department and promulgated by the State President would be visited by a penalty of both imprisonment and a fine. I am sure this is not the hon. Minister’s intention, and to bring it in line with Clause 3, I think an amendment should be made here. I appreciate that the hon. Minister attempted to produce some sort of alignment in this regard in the Other Place, but in order to provide what I believe is the Minister’s intention, I would like to move—

To omit the proposed sub-section (3) and to substitute the following new sub-section:

I think this will bring this clause into line with Clause 3, and it will give the courts a discretion, and that is what I think the hon. Minister intends. The court should have the discretion as to what sort of imprisonment or fine is to be imposed for a contravention.

I want to ask the hon. member to allow me to leave in its present form the amendment now being proposed by me. You will be aware that this clause formed the subject of considerable discussion in the Other Place. Originally we had another proposal, which was not clear in certain respects, and the Other place moved an amendment to it, which I accepted there, but after we had accepted it, we consulted with our law advisers, and they felt that the wording as proposed there differed from the customary legal phraseology, after lengthy consideration they suggested a wording which in their opinion gave expression to what was intended and which was couched in proper legal language. Now, the hon. member will agree with me that we certainly do not want to clash with the lawyers and legal draftsmen after they have devoted considerable time to this clause. I should not like to amend the clause and to accepted the amendment moved by the hon. member before I have first had an opportunity of submitting it to the law advisers.

I move the following amendment—

The Other Place has initiated this legislation and we are so to sneak now the House of Review. If the hon. Minister, however, can give this House the assurance that regulations will not be made providing for the visitation of some offence with both imprisonment and a fine, in other words, that he will leave the matter to the discretion of the courts, then I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment.

I am afraid I cannot give the assurance. We shall try to work in that direction, for I would want to see how the regulations stand at present and I shall try to adapt them to these, in other words, adapt them to the regulations and penalties under the present Act. For that reason I cannot give the assurance that I shall not apply both penalties in case of a contravention of the regulations. It depends upon how it is worded in the existing regulations.

The difficulty is that at present the Act merely provides that any regulation may prescribe penalties for the contravention thereof and failure to comply therewith, not exceeding a fine of £100 or imprisonment for a certain period. So the point is not what the regulations say. The point is that the regulations should not provide that for a contravention of the regulations there should be both an imprisonment and a fine, because in those circumstances it would mean that a subordinate body would be making regulations and then prescribing what penalties should be followed by those regulations, whereas the offence created in the Act, dealt with in Clause 3, provides—the Act provides, Parliament provides for the offence, and then says that the court will have discretion in that regard. What I want the hon. Minister to indicate is just this: Not what the regulations will be, but that he will not make regulations prescribing that the contravention of any of those regulations should have attached to it, on contravention, a sentence of both imprisonment and a fine. I believe this is what the hon. Minister is trying to get at, and the difficulty is a matter of principle … the principle that subordinate bodies should make regulations in a backroom which are not subjected to the scrutiny of the public, and I claim that they should not provide offences which are visited with what in effect is compulsory punishment. In other words, would the hon. Minister merely give this assurance that he will not in respect of these regulations prescribe penalties which will not be in the discretion of the courts? What I want him to do is to give us the assurance that in making these regulations, the question of punishment will be entirely left to the discretion of the courts, as he has done in Clause 3 in respect of the offences which the Act enumerates.

I think the amendment is very clear and I think full discretion is given to the courts here. I have the amendment before me in Afrikaans and it says—

In other words, the alternative is provided here, either a fine, or imprisonment, or both. There is nothing here to say that both will be made compulsory.

With leave of the Committee the amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell was withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Economic Affairs put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 8,

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to direct his attention to paragraph (2) of the new section, where it says in (a)—

Now the conditions which are mentioned in sub-section (1) are only two, viz., the appropriate prescribed portion of the purchase price, which, if not prescribed, shall be at least one-tenth of such price, and secondly, the period within which the full purchase price is payable. I would like the hon. Minister to explain to us in what sense does he contemplate the term “substantial compliance” will be satisfactory, because it depends quite obviously on the interpretation by whatever legal authority will deal with any question of the validity or invalidity of the agreement, in this case the magistrate’s court. There is no definition in the Bill or the parent Act with regard to the words “substantial compliance”, which is actually, I think, a new principle in the Bill; it certainly is a new method of dealing with the validity of hire-purchase agreements. I refrained from drawing up any amendment to this clause because quite frankly I did not know what the hon. Minister intended to convey by the term “substantial compliance”, but as he is piloting the Bill, he no doubt will be able to give us a reasonable explanation, which I would like to hear.

Just to give an illustration of what I mean by “substantial compliance”: If the price of a household article for instance is R50.10 and in the agreement R50 is mentioned and the 10c is left out, then according to the existing law this contract is illegal. But we say that this is a minor item where there is substantial compliance in regard to the main amount that is mentioned. That is the whole idea of this redrafting of the clause, namely, that where there are very small and minor differences, they should not be taken as of major importance and make the contract illegal. Hon. members must note that in the Bill too it is stated that it should be proved that nobody is injured, damaged or harmfully affected in any way by this “not substantial compliance”.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move—

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.

We are opposed to this clause. It is the clause which by means of the amendment which it makes in past legislation, provides for the extension of the concept of group areas and the powers that are conferred upon the Minister and the Group Areas Board, hereafter to be called the “Community Development Board”, in those areas which in the past did not fall within the boundaries of group areas. There are certain exceptions, such as scheduled Native areas, and so forth, which one can pass over. For the purpose of general language I think it may be said that this clause will have the effect of extending these powers of the Minister and of the Board, and particularly of the Minister (because the Board works with his powers), right throughout the whole of the Republic, with the exception, as I say, of those few areas which have been referred to in the principal Act. Sir, we are absolutely opposed to that. It is unfortunately the case that in group areas certain powers have evolved upon the Minister, and in respect of slum areas we have been very willing to go along with the Minister to see that he gets certain powers to carry out slum reclamation and the building of houses, and so forth, but in regard to the other schemes, which the Minister is proposing and so far as he may take powers, particularly in regard to these matters here which are referred to as “urban renewal schemes”, there we are not prepared to agree to this extension. The extension of these powers we believe is completely unjustified. No case has been made out for them. The Minister has put up no kind of a case at all to show that they are necessary or indeed that in other statutes he has not got all the powers that he needs to deal with slum clearance and matters of that kind. Nor has he shown that he has not got all the powers necessary to deal with housing—so far as that goes we are also with him. But this entirely gratuitous extension of the whole of this legislation to the whole of the Republic, with the exception of these few areas, the extension of these wide powers which will not be understood by the people, placing them and their homes and their properties completely in the hands of the Minister, is unwarranted and we object to it most strongly.

This is the clause of the Bill which amends the definition section of the principal Act. When this matter was being debated in the House at the second reading, I raised the question of the Administrator and what it meant. The hon. Minister with that customary old-world charm and courtesy which he displayed in his reply, said that Administrator did not just mean Administrator, and he asked me where I got it from that it meant something else. He said I was talking nonsense. The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) also already indicated that the Group Areas Development Board is changing its name here to Community Development Board. It deals, as the hon. member indicated, with every single householder, whether he is in an area which normally falls to be dealt with and to be developed by the Group Areas Board or not, and the Minister is taking the powers in this Bill to sweep away all sorts of title deeds and to do away with all sorts of township schemes. Now, if the hon. the Minister is going to do this and he can still talk, as he does here, about consultations with the Administrator, and that he will consult the Administrator about changing the names of townships and about sweeping away townships, and that he will consult the Administrator about going into an established area, not being a slum, but just an area where he thinks he would like to build houses, then at least he should consult the province and the elected representatives of the people of the province; then he should consult the Administrator, in Executive Committee. I therefore move—

I have not the least objection to this amendment. It is in the spirit in which we act all day, and I accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) was on his feet when you put the question.

The hon. member may have been on his feet, but he did not say anything.

On a point of order. I think the hon. member made it clear that he wanted to say something.

I think I must rule that the hon. member should have drawn my attention to that fact, otherwise I may have thought he was just on the point of walking out of the Chamber.

The Committee divided:

AYES—85: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis. H. R. H.; Fourie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak. J. F. W.; Hertzog. A.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C.; A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pensegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P.O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore. P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross. D. G.; Steyn. S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren. C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss. U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Sir, we object to this clause on very much the same grounds on which we took exception to Clause 1. This clause amends Section 10 of the Act, which establishes a fund which was and is at the moment called the Group Areas Development Fund, which is the fund which finances the whole of community development as envisaged in this Bill for the future; and because we are opposed to the principle of the establishment of such a body we must also be opposed to the establishment of the fund into which shall be deposited all the moneys which may become payable to the Board and from which shall be met the costs and all the expenditure incurred by the Board in the exercise of its powers. We are opposed to the clause.

Clause 3 put and agreed to. (Official Opposition and Mrs. Suzman, dissenting.)

On Clause 5,

This is the mystery clause of the Bill. The hon. the Minister, when he introduced this Bill, failed to make any reference whatsoever to the most important principle contained here in the words on page 6, sub-clause (e), “urban renewal scheme”. He made reference to the words but did not explain them. As the clause reads now, it means that the Minister can go to any area in South Africa, any established township, to any home, which has nothing whatever to do with a slum or group area or with any sort of scheme with which the State could concern itself. There he may take over houses and provide that the whole area shall be an urban renewal area, and freeze the sales and treat it as if it were a group area. In other words, as it stands, it provides that if you want to sell a property in that area you have to sell to the Board. The Minister can expropriate in that area, and it may be that the Minister has in mind that there are certain areas where development schemes have taken place and he feels he would like to extend them, and it may be that he wants to extend them into some areas where there is at present one house on half an acre. He may feel that he wants to build three houses on that half-acre, because it is conveniently situated. In terms of this clause, that is the power the Minister has. I have challenged him twice to deny that that is what it means, but the Minister has not replied. The only reply we have had from the Minister was to say that the phrase “urban renewal scheme” was difficult to define, and therefore he did not define it. I would have thought that he might have defined it when Clause 1 was before the Committee. And if the Minister is not going to define it, it means that “urban renewal scheme” means exactly what this Minister wants it to mean. That is not a state of affairs one can expect any intelligent member of this House to accept. The Minister himself does not seem to know what he wants to get at. What does he want to get at? Until he can tell us that, we will oppose this clause, and I now want to move as an amendment—

The Minister has made out no case for it whatever. He has not bothered, and no one else on that side of the House has bothered to explain what this means.

They do not know.

I think there was one hon. member who said that an American professor had used the expression in a book, and that is all we have had. Surely the Minister must accept this amendment. If he cannot define these words, he cannot deny what I put to him before, then the Minister must accept this amendment and take these words out of the Bill. We have heard a lot from the Minister concerning this Bill and the functions of this Board, but as far as I know all the Minister has told us is that he is just being a good boy and is putting into operation something the Prime Minister said during the recess; that he was going to have some sort of community development unknown to this Committee and unknown to anyone, and apparently unknown to this Minister too, because he cannot explain it either. Perhaps the Minister should find out from the Prime Minister what it is that he is trying to get at in this Bill and what an urban renewal scheme means.

I wish to move the following amendment—

This amendment will apply to sub-section (h) on page 8. It deals with what I indicated in the second reading, that I believe it to be the only good clause in the Bill, and that is the question of some compensation for goodwill in the case of businesses or professions. The effect of my amendment will be, firstly, to remove the words “with the approval of the Minister”. In a measure such as this where a man is to be compensated for the loss of his business or profession or his source of income, it should not be subject to the approval of the Minister. I believe it should be a right of the person who is suffering under the application of the Bill, to be properly and well compensated for the loss of income and the profits from a business or profession.

The second part of my amendment, as you will see, refers to the question of the period or the amount of compensation, and I have suggested that in line 44 the period of 12 months stipulated in the Bill as the period over which the net profit should be assessed, should be extended to three years. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that 12 months’ net profit from a business is very poor compensation indeed for anyone who is first of all an unwilling seller. I think you will agree, Sir, that it is very poor compensation indeed to a man who has to give up a business which he has possibly spent many years establishing. I believe the least he is entitled to is enough money from that business by way of goodwill to enable him to re-establish himself in business in another area.

There is another aspect of this clause now. With the widening of the scope of this Department, compensation is not going to be limited to group areas or to slum areas. This Minister can now launch out into better type areas. He can, under his urban renewal scheme, go into the better suburbs, and into areas where high-class businesses have been established, perhaps of many years’ standing. So we are not dealing here purely with slum clearance and what little businesses may have managed to exist in a slum area. We are dealing now with businesses of a different type, the ordinary every-day successful type of business. If those businesses were sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer, I can assure you, Sir, that there are very few cases indeed where a basis of 12 months’ net profit would be acceptable as goodwill. So I sincerely ask the Minister to accept my amendment. He has introduced this clause to compensate these people because he obviously realizes that a number of people will suffer great loss. He has had experience in the past where he was unable to compensate doctors, as in the case at Isipingo which I mentioned the other day. The doctor cannot sell his practice which he has had for many years because the Indian doctor moving into an Indian area says: Why should I buy your practice, because the goodwill attached to it is based on a European practice and I am not buying a European practice, and therefore I will establish a practice of my own in this new community. What compensation can that doctor possibly get unless he gets fair compensation from the Department which has changed the whole complex of that area? If we are going to pay compensation, let us pay it on a proper, realistic basis. There are many medical men in this House and I am quite sure that none of them will be prepared to dispose of their practice on the basis of 12 months’ net profit as the basis for goodwill. I think even a grocery shop or a tearoom has its goodwill based on a period of 18 months or two years, and that is in the case of willing sellers. So why not let us take a figure which I am assured by men in commerce is a reasonable figure and not an exaggerated figure, but which the average man I have spoken to feels is a fair figure for a person who is going to be deprived of his means of livelihood.

Now that two amendments have been moved by the United Party, we can deal with both simultaneously. The first relates to the use of the expression “urban renewal scheme”, which is proposed to be omitted. I think it would be a good thing if we left this expression in the Act and if in due course it were defined in our legislation. The expression “urban renewal scheme” is taken to denote the modern concept in terms of which land and/or buildings in a certain area are put to different use in order to renew them. It postulates an outdated and less effective use of land and buildings with a change in the use of the land or the buildings or of both. I agree in principle that it is desirable that this concept should be incorporated and defined in our legislation. I therefore consider it desirable that the words should remain here, for the legal clarity of the clause is not affected by the use of this term. When reading (e) we could, as far as legal clarity is concerned, omit any reference to slum clearance schemes and to urban renewal schemes and then it would read that if the board promulgates a notice to that effect in the Gazette and at least once in a newspaper circulating in the district in which the area defined in the notice was situated, then the erection of buildings would be prohibited in that area, except with written consent. In actual fact it does not matter at all whether the board intended to carry out an urban renewal scheme there. In actual fact his motive does not really make any difference, as the definition of the area determines the area in which that freezing applies. I feel therefore that it would in no way improve this clause if the amendment were accepted, but the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) Mr. M. L. Mitchell) would, however, have the following affect: A slum clearance scheme has a certain statutory meaning, and consequently it would limit the board’s freezing powers to areas in which a slum clearance scheme was being carried out. I think that if we consider the fine example of District Six, then the use to which this clause can be put becomes perfectly clear in those cases where it is not simply a question of slum clearance in the formal, legal sense. It can be used very effectively in an old area which, under the old Group Areas Development Act, would have had to be replanned and renewed. For that reason I think that the retention of the words is justified. It is useful to retain these words here, and it will also lead sooner or later to a definition of the expression “urban renewal scheme”.

As regards sub-clause (h), the payment of compensation for goodwill value, the intention is that the goodwill value to the seller should be the profit made during three years; that if a man made a profit of R4,000 per annum in his business or profession, he should receive R12,000 by way of compensation. Anyone who knows something about modern practice will realize that this is too generous. I do not wish to waste the time of the House by arguing the question as to what period would be a reasonable period to use as a basis of compensation for goodwill value. In the legal profession the net income over 18 months is usually taken as the basis.

But what is the position of a man who was ill for 12 months and was unable to work?

That question is not applicable. There are two periods involved here. The first is the period that is taken into account in determining the woodwill value. There are two alternatives here. The one is the year before he is bought out, his profits during that year, and the other is his profits during the year immediately preceding the date upon which the group area is proclaimed.

But the hon. member’s amendment states that he should be paid out for three years’ profits. My quarrel with the hon. member is that one should really take a typical year of the man’s business. [Interjections.] The amendment that has been moved does not say that the average profit over a period of three years should be taken. The hon. member’s amendment leaves unchanged the position that you take the 12 months preceding the proclamation or the 12 months prior to the date upon which the person concerned is bought out. The difficulty of the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is left unchanged by the amendment. The amendment says that you should take the profit over a period of 36 months instead of over a period of 12 months, and I say that that is too liberal and unrealistic. I think that the point raised here by the hon. member for South Coast is a reasonable one, that is to say, that one could, if need be, make some addition; that some concession should be made if both prescribed years were untypical ones. But I do think that it is highly unlikely that in practice one will find a case where the year preceding the date upon which the group area was proclaimed was a very untypical and unprofitable one to the person concerned, and that quite some time later, in the year before he is bought out, he again has a very unfortunate and untypical one. In my opinion the choice of one of these two years covers the person against the risk of his goodwill value being assessed on the basis of an unprofitable and untypical year.

But it may be the same year.

Yes, but that is not very likely. However, I wish to deal particularly with the first argument advanced by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis); he objects to the provision that payments are to be made with the approval of the Minister. Sir, the hon. member is being really stupid now. If there is one matter which is preeminently a party political issue, as has once again been proved by this debate, then it is the whole question of the declaration of group areas, and of the administration and clearance of group areas. I believe that it is completely within the framework of this Act and in conformity with the approach of this House that the Minister should be responsible for what is done in terms of this Act. If an excessive sum has been paid to one owner for his land and a small sum to another man for his land, then the Minister should not be able to come here and say: “I am not at all concerned with the administration of the Group Areas Development Act; a board has been appointed for that purpose and they alone are responsible.” It is precisely because this whole question is a political issue that the position in the past has always been that the Minister concerned has been accountable to this House, and that ought to be the position in the future; that is the right of the Opposition, and if we wish to have that position then it should remain the ultimate responsibility of the Minister to approve of all payments which are made, otherwise the Minister cannot be held responsible. For these reasons it is clear to me that neither of these amendments will serve to improve the Act.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) who has just sat down has completely overlooked the principle which is enshrined in our basic Common Law that where property is taken without the owner’s consent, the compensation paid should be on the highest level and not on the lowest level. It is utterly wrong in a case such as this that an arbitrary method of valuation should be adopted. Not only is an arbitrary measure of valuation adopted but the hon. the Minister is specifically prohibited from paying any more than that. Sir, the clause says, “provided that such payment shall not exceed an amount equal to the net profit …” In other words, instead of following the good old Roman-Dutch Law that when you take another person’s property by legal force you must be generous in your compensation, here we find that an unrealistic basis of valuation is laid down, because very often in a case of this nature, if you take the premises in which the man is carrying on a particular business, it is often impossible for him to find alternative premises to carry on his profession. In those circumstances, especially, I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give careful attention to the amendments which have been moved from this side. Sir, all we are seeking to achieve on this side is to provide that there shall be at least a just basis of compensation in these circumstances. I say that the basis laid down by the hon. the Minister is one which will cause very grave injustices indeed and I hope he will reconsider the whole matter and insert a provision which will at least ensure that persons who are by law deprived of rights which they legally obtain, are compensated on a just basis, and I would go further and say that they should be compensated on a generous basis.

I asked the head of the Department—and he has done so—to consult with various business concerns, and all of them have underlined the fact that the present provision that we are making here is fair and in the interests of the people.

Whom did they consult?

I am prepared to give the hon. member the names in private; I do not want to drag their names across the floor of the House. But I can assure him that these people represent big business interests in Cape Town and they all say that this proposal is a fair one and will in practice be in the interests of the people concerned. Nevertheless I do not want to create the impression that we want to be unfair to these people and therefore I am prepared, if the hon. member for Umlazi will agree, to accept the second part of his amendment, namely to omit “twelve months” and to substitute “three years”, on condition that he agrees to insert on page 8, line 41, the words “average annual”, before “net.” That would then make it the average annual over three years. I cannot agree to the hon. member’s proposal as it stands here because I think it would be going too far. The same principle is at present applied in the Housing Act and it has worked well all these years. I am prepared to meet the hon. member to the extent that I have indicated.

Before resuming my seat, I should perhaps also deal with the other amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I think the hon. member for Durban (North) is being very unfair to me. He made the accuzation here that when I introduced the Bill I made no reference at all to the provision in connection with freezing and urban renewal. Sir, I have before me a copy of the speech I made, and I find that this is the clause with which I most probably dealt at the greatest length. I specifically dealt with these matters. In my reply to the hon. member I also said that I would welcome it if I could be given a definition of the expression “urban renewal”, a definition that would not hamstring one.

But what is the definition in other countries?

The point is that the concept of “urban renewal” has in recent years gained prominence in all the countries in the world, because it goes a step further than mere slum declaration. Most town planners who know something about modern trends in the world will tell you that in many modern countries it is felt to-day that one should also take action to combat urban deterioration, that one should take action against “blighted areas”, that one should take action to combat the deterioration of buildings that can still be put to some use. This is a modern notion, but with the best will in the world we have not yet been able to find a definition that would not, if you included it in legal terms in your Act, restrict you to such an extent that you would in fact be unable to take action. That is why the other day I read out here the letter I received from the Johannesburg City Council. These things are the result of the experience we are now gaining. We have formed a Government committee, and the Johannesburg City Council also has a committee that consults with this Government committee. We have put forward joint schemes for replanning and redeveloping certain areas, and these cannot be limited to slum clearance because there are certain buildings in your way which are not necessarily slums but which do not fit in with what you are building in terms of your replanning and your redevelopment. As we make progress with this joint Committee on District Six we shall come up against the same problem as we have in Johannesburg. I do not wish to anticipate the recommendations of the committee, but I do know what evidence is being submitted to this committee. Evidence is being submitted by some of the most distinguished experts in the field of town planning as well as by architects. I know what evidence is being submitted by them. Evidence has been submitted to this committee by, amongst others, a man who played a part in the urban renewal schemes of Boston in America. These people all come along and put certain problems to you. We must have the necessary powers so that we will not founder time and again upon outmoded ideas and outmoded enactments; but as soon as you want to define this concept in limited terms, you are again faced with the difficulty that you are unable to deal with some particular situation. The idea of urban renewal may present itself in various forms. In one place it may be more particularly an advanced stage of slum clearance, but in some other place it may be something quite different, which nevertheless does fit in with the redevelopment and the replanning that you are undertaking. I can illustrate this by means of numerous examples, but I am prepared to leave it at this letter that I quoted here, not out of any malice, but to prove that we are doing these things in the closest collaboration with the local authorities. After devising a very fine scheme for replanning and redeveloping places such as Newclare and others, after devising an excellent plan in regard to Fordsburg, plans that were submitted to me, the Johannesburg City Council come along, and what do they say to us? They also use the term “urban renewal scheme”: they therefore understand what they are engaged upon, but they also know that urban renewal involves more than mere slum declaration and clearance. In the second place they say in this letter that action should be taken to make it possible to apply freezing so that the development of an individual property will not later on thwart the whole of your scheme. Let me give another example: I do not know whether this would occur frequently in South Africa, but it is possible that in a particular area that you are replanning and developing you may have buildings that are of historical or aesthetic value to you; you may want to plan in such a way that such a building that has historical or aesthetic value will be preserved, for it is also a modern notion that you should be able to plan in a modern way around the old buildings. Provision has to be made for all these things. The Johannesburg City Council now come along and say, on the strength of the experience they have had: “The purpose of this letter therefore is to solicit your assistance in pressing this matter from State level to the fullest extent of your convictions in this regard.” They state their difficulty and they say that they feel that there should be an authority somewhere that has the power to set aside old enactments. Now hon. members on the opposite side come along and say that in terms of this provision I have the power to break down or to replan properly built-up areas. Mr. Chairman, I suppose I have this power, but, since the funds of the State are also rather limited, only a fool or a lunatic would lend himself to such things; we do not have unlimited funds, and it is only when there has been consultation between the local authority and the Development Board that we make funds available, and then only on a limited scale for the purpose of doing what is most essential. Can you imagine that we would ever interfere in a properly built-up area such as Oranjezicht simply because we felt like making changes? Surely that is nonsense. What we want to do here is to create machinery by means of which we shall be able to meet these particular problems of modern cities, in the same way as other countries are doing it, and for that you need very great powers. Two weeks ago, when I had discussions with the United Municipal Executive here in Cape Town, the spokesman of that body—I do not want to mention his name here—the town clerk of one of our largest towns, said to me that somewhere there should be central authority of this nature and that the United Municipal Executive was in agreement with that. That is why they endorse this legislation. On the strength of what I have said here I therefore cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). I think his amendment would only have the effect of nullifying the whole of my attempt to assist town councils and urban development in the most modern ways, and if hon. members want to sow suspicion because of this, they may do so and I shall simply have to endure it, for with me it is a principle that we in South Africa must not lag behind in this field, because we are still in a position to save many things that can no longer be saved in large urban areas of European countries. Responsible bodies with which I have had discussions, in foreign countries as well, have said to me time and again that we are in the fortunate position of still being able to solve many of our urban problems, whereas it costs them a great deal more to do so since the problem has already developed too far over the centuries. I am prepared to take this power in spite of any suspicion that may be stirred up in this regard. I therefore cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). If I could find a definition that was wide enough and that would not hamstring me, I would be the first person who would like to have a definition, but as far as modern development is concerned, I do not think we have reached that stage as yet.

I personally would have no objection whatsoever to the use of the term “urban renewal”. It is, as the hon. the Minister has said, a commonly used term in every modern country of the world to-day, and there certainly are occasions where a Government or a local authority may wish to go in for some sort of improvement in an area without necessarily having to declare the area a slum. But the real objection is not to the use of the term “urban renewal”; it is the use to which the hon. the Minister proposes to put such a term, because when he says that the term “urban renewal” is used everywhere, what he fails to tell us is that it is not used anywhere purely for the establishment of racial grouping. There is no country in the world that I know of where the term “urban renewal” is used specifically in order to differentiate residentiary between racial groups. That is in fact the main objective, although it may not be the only objective, in introducing this term, with its wide ramifications into what is group areas legislation. Basically speaking, group areas legislation has been introduced in South Africa not for the purpose of slum clearance, not for the purpose of beautifying cities, not to preserve historical monuments, which the hon. the Minister mentioned a moment ago, but for one basic reason only and that is to compartmentalize the different groups in South Africa according to their race and colour. Sir, this extends the existing powers of the hon. the Minister under the Group Areas Act. He may now come along in an area which has not been proclaimed a group area and in terms of this new section which he is introducing, he may now, under the guise of an urban renewals scheme or perhaps even motivated partly by the desire to introduce an urban renewals scheme, take very wide powers indeed which he formerly had only under the Group Areas Act or the Community Development Act. That, Sir, is the main objection to this. Under this he can completely ignore all town planning schemes which have previously been introduced; he can lay down the compensation which is to be paid for the sale of property; an arbitrator simply has to decide what the price is and the unfortunate person who is being pushed out of his building or his residence has to accept that price even though it may just allow him to recover the amount which he still owes on his bond. Sir, that is the main objection; it extends enormously the scope of the powers which the Minister formerly had under the Group Areas Act. Nobody has any objection to urban renewal per se or at least I have no objection to it; I am fully aware of its value, but I do object to it when it is used as a race discriminatory measure. That is what is being done under this Act. Sir, I have an amendment to this clause, which I should like to move, but I gather that there is some doubt as to whether or not it is in order. I hope the Chairman will give me his ruling. I understand that it might possibly extend beyond the principle of the Bill as accepted at its second reading.

I am afraid it does.

In that case, of course, I cannot move my amendment. Let me rather talk then on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis), an amendment which I support because it goes part of the way in attaining what I wish to attain. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not see fit to think of the retrospectivity angle of this because there are past injustices which should be removed; possibly the hon. the Minister will reconsider the matter in the Other Place before this Bill is finally translated into law?

To come back to the hon. member for Umlazi, I do not believe that what the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept goes as far as the hon. member’s amendment because it is the average over three years as against the total of three years’ goodwill. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) who spoke earlier said that it was generally accepted in Common Law that 18 months’ profits was a fair period on which to base compensation for goodwill. Sir, we already have a precedent established in this country where three years’ profits is considered to be a fair period. I should like to read the hon. the Minister an extract out of White Paper C.C. 64. which sets out the decisions of the Government in regard to the important recommendations of the commission of inquiry regarding Europeans in the Transkei Territory. This provides that when the adjustment committee values businesses owned by Whites in the Transkei, it will value goodwill as being profits for three years calculated retrospectively from 30 June 1963. So whether or not it is the custom normally only to value the goodwill of a business on the basis of its profits over the preceding 18 months, in one respect the Government has been prepared to depart from this precedent, and that is where the White people in the Transkei are affected, where they are going to have to give up their properties and businesses. Surely, if that precedent has been dparted from where the Whites in the Transkei are the people under consideration, then surely exactly the same consideration ought to be given to other people who may be non-Whites, who in fact are most likely to be non-Whites since group areas almost entirely affects the moving of non-Whites and not the moving of Whites. I say that the same considerations ought to apply. otherwise what I said about urban renewals—and the fact that this is only being considered in an unfavourable light by people like myself because I know it is going to apply in a racially discriminatory way—also applies to the question of goodwill. Where Whites are concerned we are prepared to forget about precedent and we pay out compensation for goodwill on the basis of three years profits: we forget about the Common Law and we forget about custom, but where non-Whites are primarily concerned, then we cling to custom and we cling to the Common Law. Where people are going to be compensated I say it is only equitable that they should at least get the same sort of terms as those given to Whites elsewhere. I do admit that this subsection is an improvement, as I said, in the course of the second-reading debate, because prior to the introduction of this sub-section no goodwill at all was allowed for businesses or professions. From that angle therefore I am grateful for the fact that some goodwill will be allowed. But let us at least be generous. We can afford it; let us do it on an equitable scale instead of once again pointing out the tremendous differences in this House when it is considering the matter as far as Whites are concerned, and this House when it is considering the matter where mainly, at any rate, non-Whites are going to be concerned.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for trying to come along at least part of the way with me. but his suggestion does not help me very much with my amendment, and frankly I do not think it is going to help the Minister much along the way; I think he is going to run into trouble, and I will tell you why I say that, Sir. We are considering maximum amounts here. The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to accept the second part of my amendment, which means that the first part is unacceptable; in other words, this will still take place with the “approval of the Minister”. If the Minister inserts the words “equal to the average annual net profit” he will still be restricting the payment of goodwill to an amount of one year’s net profit. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) indicated that the immediate previous year might well have been a bad year. Well, of course, he is right because we have had cases under the Group Areas Act where hearings have taken a year and some have taken considerably longer, so obviously the business concerned must be affected. That is one example, and there are other examples where the net profit obviously must be affected. This suggestion that goodwill should be based on the average of the previous three years is obviously an advance because it will probably give a slightly better figure, but it does not solve the man’s problems. This Minister might well in the very near future, when he starts implementing the terms of this Bill, come up against businesses or cases where he himself will come up against that wall and will have to face the fact that the goodwill of that business is worth more than the average net profit over a period of three years. This clause deals with maximum amounts, not minimum amounts, and if the hon. the Minister is going to retain the words “with the approval of the Minister” at the beginning of the clause, he will have the say as to whether the maximum or the minimum amount should be payable. I think the hon. the Minister would be very wise to accept my amendment because it gives him far more scope in dealing with this question of goodwill. If he is going to restrict himself to a maximum—because that is all the suggestion does mean, it is still restricted to a maximum of one year’s goodwill whereas if he accepts my amendment or part of it he will restrict himself to three years’ net profit as a goodwill figure or any figure in between, according to the type of business and the value of the business with which he is dealing. I think the hon. the Minister is missing rather a good opportunity here of enabling him as the Minister in consultation with the Board, to pay out higher compensation for goodwill where that figure is justified. If he reads this clause he will see what I mean; it says, “Provided that such payment shall not exceed an amount equal to the net profit derived from such profession or business”. It says, “It shall not exceed”; it can be less but it must not be more. If he does not accept my amendment he is going to limit his ability to pay, to one year’s net profit, and I think if he does that it would be very foolish. I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this. I sincerely think that the Minister will be making a great mistake if he does not accept my amendment.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) always reminds me of what Leipold said: “Op my ou ramkiekie met net een snaar speel ek in die maanskyn deurmekaar.” In her approach to anything which happens in this House, she looks through only one pair of glasses, and through those spectacles she sees that the non-Whites are being harmed, without at any time also considering the interests of the Whites. In regard to this clause which deals with the payment of compensation for goodwill, the hon. member draws the inference that it must particularly affect the non-Whites. I want to tell the hon. member that in respect of this matter she is completely wrong. She is always wrong in regard to group areas. Members of my own family have been harmed by the implementation of the Group Areas Act. I want to tell the hon. member that in the implementation of the Group Areas Act it is particularly the White man who is harmed. I shall explain my proposition to the hon. member and then she can differ from me if she likes.

When the Group Areas Act is applied and a particular area in which non-Whites live is declared to be a White area, there is, from the nature of the matter, a rise in the value of property in that area. From the nature of the matter, the value of businesses there increases—the goodwill or whatever else it might be. But if the position is vice versa, then there is a decrease. In other words, if Whites live in an area which is declared to be a non-White area, the value of the properties decreases, and as a result it is particularly the Whites who are affected by it.

I do not want to create the impression that I am just pleading for benefits for the Whites, but I should like us to be realistic and consider not only the interests of the non-Whites in the application of the Group Areas Act. With reference to the amendment that the goodwill should be calculated over a period of three years, irrespective of what is said in the White Paper from which the hon. member for Houghton has quoted, I want to ask the hon. member for Umlazi or any hon. member opposite: Is it realistic to calculate goodwill on the total net income over a period of three years? Are hon. members now being honest? If I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi correctly, he wants the goodwill which is paid to be the net income for the three years preceding the date on which that person must depart or …

It must be the maximum.

It is the maximum. I realize that it is the maximum, but if it is the maximum it can also be one-tenth or one-hundredth of that maximum. It is a maximum and it can be any lesser amount. If we put a maximum in an Act, it must surely be a realistic maximum. Why does the hon. member not suggest one hundred years?

If you like.

There the hon. member has now revealed the unrealistic approach in his amendment. I do not think a single hon. member opposite can say that the total net income over a period of three years should be accepted as the goodwill value. That is not realistic. That is not done. As far as I know, that is not how the goodwill is calculated. If hon. members opposite think differently, they can tell me so. Therefore I feel that when we calculate the goodwill value, whether it be the maximum or not, and lay down in legislation how it should be calculated, then it must be a realistic calculation. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) also said a moment ago that people will feel aggrieved at this approach to goodwill value. The hon. member should remember that formerly nothing was paid. I am particularly glad that provision is now being made for the payment of goodwill value. I am glad because I know personally that there are people who have suffered damage. For the information of the hon. member for Houghton, I want to say that they are not non-Whites but Whites—many Whites. She need not look at the non-Whites only. The Whites also suffer damage. We are glad that provision is now being made for it, but surely we must have a realistic approach. Supposing the hon. member for Umlazi makes it 100 years, as he said, and the Minister pays on the basis of the net profit over 50 years, what will the hon. member have to say next year? Surely that is a ridiculous approach. Hon. members should not be absurd. We should try to approach the calculation of goodwill value in a realistic way. A realistic approach is in the vicinity of one year. Generally, the net income one makes in one year is regarded as reasonable compensation for the goodwill of a business. That is generally accepted. This clause particularly refers to professions. In the attorney’s profession that is definitely accepted. One year’s net income is regarded as the goodwill of a business.

Eighteen months.

We can argue about that. Some people say it should be two years. But in the circumstances I know it is generally accepted as being one year. Therefore we say that is a realistic approach, and therefore that should be the maximum, think hon. members will agree with me that where one refers to a maximum in a legal provision, the maximum in most cases becomes the rule. In nine out of ten cases the maximum becomes the rule. That is so, because it is so difficult for the administration of the particular Department to deviate from that maximum which is laid down.

I just want to say a few words in regard to sub-clause (e) to which the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has moved an amendment. I think our approach to this clause should be this: Provision is made in this clause that the Board can do one of two things. It can, by notice, prohibit the erection or alteration of buildings. Secondly, it can provide in the notice that that building may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it was used at the time of the publication of the notice. That is what can be done. Now I ask the hon. member for Durban (North) what difference it makes, if he is now so concerned about the words “urban renewal scheme” or “urban renewal area”, if those are the only two motives envisaged in the clause; secondly, if he looks at the first line of the clause it says that the Board must also be convinced that it will promote slum clearance or urban renewal. What difference does it make where that takes place? Particularly in view of the fact, as the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has said, that the area must be defined in the notice. I honestly cannot see what benefits the hon. member for Durban (North) can achieve by omitting these words from the clause. I think it is of great benefit to the clause that those words should be retained.

The hon. member who has just sat down has missed the point altogether in regard to this question of the period for which goodwill has to be calculated. In my second-reading speech I dealt with the question of the Transkei. That has again been referred to this afternoon. That is the point with which the hon. member has not dealt. We do not say the provisions as far as the Transkei is concerned, i.e., three years’ profits for the purpose of calculating goodwill and not the average, are ideal. The people of the Transkei may not necessarily accept that that is fair. I think as a matter of fact that they do not think it is fair. I think they have good grounds for believing it is not fair. One must realize that the moment the shadow of the proclamation of a group area, the shadow of presumably an urban renewal scheme, falls upon a certain area there is bound to be a depreciation in the value of the properties situated within the boundaries of that proclamation. That has to be so. If times goes on and two or three years go by, as may well be the case, then the value of those properties continues to decrease.

The hon. member must realize there can be no additions to those buildings. No new buildings can be built. No alterations or repairs can be made to them without a special permit from the board, i.e., the new Community Development Board. The hon. member runs away from the point: Why discriminate between these people and the people in the Transkei? That is the issue; that is the crux of the matter. Why discriminate? What was there as far as the people in the Transkei were concerned which entitled them, when they had their properties virtually confiscated, to a goodwill calculated in a certain manner, a certain manner which is so much better than the manner in which it is calculated in the case of the people under the schemes? That is the issue. We have had no word to explain why there should be this discrimination. The Government which is handling the public revenue of South Africa is paying out compensation in both cases. It is not a case of another body paying the compensation. It is true that in this case it can only be paid subject to the approval of the Minister. But why discriminate? Even if the Transkei are not satisfied, and they are not, why discriminate in their favour? If you accept that discrimination is taking place. That is the first issue.

I want to come to the second issue. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) said that the people who would have their properties dealt with in terms of these proclamations would not necessarily be non-Whites, particularly when it came to urban renewal schemes. There are many types of schemes as the hon. member would know. There are urban renewal schemes, Group Area schemes, just schemes and slum clearance schemes and so forth. The hon. member said that it would not necessarily be non-Whites under an urban renewal scheme. He said it might well be the case that it would be Whites. I agree with him. What is the picture which the Minister has painted? The hon. the Minister has made it quite clear that what I explained during the second reading, which was a surmise on our part, was right, namely, that the Minister had certain areas in mind. He has referred to District Six here in Cape Town. I said we felt it was quite wrong to come with general legislation of this kind in respect of the whole of the Republic of South Africa, except for those areas which are not included, when the Minister had certain areas in mind. The legislation should be restricted to those areas. We go further. Whether these areas are inhabited by Whites or non-Whites we say it is quite unnecessary for the Minister to take these powers. Let us deal with slum clearance for a moment, Mr. Chairman. The Minister has all the powers that he wants as far as slum clearance is concerned as far as we know. He came forward last year with amending legislation; he has very far-reaching powers. We gave him those powers he wanted. We said then that we had no sympathy with the slum landlord, and that if it was necessary to clear up these areas then do so. But what picture did the Minister paint to-day? He admits that he cannot get a definition of “urban renewal scheme”. But his own colleague, the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) says he feels that this particular term should be defined. The Minister then paints this picture: There may be a slum; there may be other areas which need re-planning; there may be an area somewhere or other associated with those areas where people are living their ordinary normal life; an area where there is no need, because it is not a slum, to take action under the Slum Clearance Act; an area where there is no need, as far as the streets and buildings are concerned, to take any action in regard to the re-planning of that area. It happens merely to be an area that falls between a slum, for example, and an area which the Minister wishes to replan under an urban renewal scheme. Those people are living an ordinary, normal, everyday life. The State has got no quarrel with them; they have not transgressed any law. The Minister does not want to proclaim that a group area. That is the point I want to emphasize. The Minister does not come along and say: “I want to proclaim the whole of this area a group area under the Group Areas Act.” No, he does not do that. He comes and he takes precisely the powers to deal with all the people in the whole of that area, in the area he wants to replan and in the area in the middle in which these unfortunate people live, as though it was a group area but without proclaiming it a group area. Because he wants to leave the people who live there without loading it with the disabilities of a proclamation under the Group Areas Act. It is those people in the middle about whom we on this side of the House are so concerned about. That was why, during the second reading, speaker after speaker on this side of the House, emphasized their position. We asked what the position of those people was going to be. They have done nothing wrong. There is nothing against them at all. Why does the Minister come along and place them in jeopardy? There is no preliminary hearing as in the case of the proclamation of a group area or anything of that nature. The Minister does not propose to declare it a group area. That is precisely what he is avoiding. That is precisely the reason why he is taking certain powers under this Bill. It is to avoid proclaiming it a group area. They may be middle class folk; they may be wealthy folk; they may be poor folk but in any case they are folk who are living there carrying out their daily avocations. Nor the State nor the police nor anybody has anything against them. They are the backbone of South Africa. But the Minister says: “I am proclaiming the whole of this area an urban renewal area.” These people go down the drain; they are washed out, wiped out …

Why? It is not a group area.

Because they live within the area affected by the proclamation. The hon. member for Ceres is a lawyer; he will not listen. It is an urban renewal scheme. The hon. the Minister will not define it. The hon. member for Ceres cannot defend it. That is why he is taking this line. He says it is not a group area; he cannot defend it. He cannot get up here and defend it. The hon. the Minister quoted from the letter by the Johannesburg City Council. That may well be so. His plans in regard to District Six may well be so. We are not concerned with that. Our answer is: Bring legislation to deal with the areas you want to deal with. Do not come with general legislation which can be applied to the whole of the Republic of South Africa, legislation which is going to jeopardize people who have their money invested in their homes, people who have lived there all their lives. Whether they are White or non-White makes no difference at all. We say that those people, if they are ordinary decent respectable citizens, are entitled to be left in their own homes. If they are slum owners, as we have already said, we have no objection to the Minister stepping in. If they are urban areas which require re-planning let that be said; bring it before Parliament; let us know exactly what is being contemplated. The Minister will not proclaim it a group area. Why not? Let him tell us what they are. Let him place the position before us in the form of a Bill so that we can know where we stand. Who knows how many hundreds or thousands of our citizens who merely happen to be squeezed in between two areas, two areas with which the Minister wants to deal with in terms of existing legislation, two areas with which he cannot deal with because of that group in the middle, are going to be jeopardized. He wants to avoid the necessity of proclaiming that a group area he comes with this legislation. He is going to throw his net so wide; he is going to take all those people in the middle and in regard to compensation he says “I will give them one’s profit”. The hon. Minister has now suggested that there may be an amendment. He may give them the average of three years’ profits.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised the question of the Transkei. She compared the compensation paid there with the compensation we want to pay in this case. But the two are not at all comparable. One cannot compare them because in the case of the Transvaal it concerns people who are being completely uprooted and who will have to make a new start elsewhere, whereas in these cases, whether it is Whites or non-Whites, they may be resettled here they will still enjoy the benefit of the support their businesses formerly enjoyed. They are two entirely different cases. Therefore one cannot compare the position in the Transvaal with the one here. Supposing we were to resettle in Fordsburg a trader from Pageview, there is nothing to prevent him from still enjoying the support he enjoyed there for all those years. In fact …

That is unfair.

Let me inform the hon. member that I discussed this matter with the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and that they agreed with me.

No, that is wrong.

The fact is that these people who come from a place like Martindale, for example, are resettled in Fordsburg. If they are resettled in Fordsburg where we and the City Council assist in resettling them …

That is a very unfair proposal.

Now the hon. member is just interjecting; he is not listening. In that case the Johannesburg City Council is busy planning a shopping centre where these people will be settled under much more attractive conditions.

They leave all their clients behind in their immediate vicinity.

I make this point because I want to bring it home to the hon. member for Houghton that she should not compare the position in the Transkei with that of these people, because the two are not comparable. In the second place, we have been following this procedure all these years in terms of the Housing Act and it has worked well. Thirdly, it is the generally accepted principle in the legal world that where one pays compensation in such cases, one takes one year. I am prepared to meet the hon. member for Umlazi by saving that I will insert the words “average annual”. But it seems to me that the hon. member does not like that. I shall not move it.

I am only prepared to accept the words “three years” for the words “12 months” provided that we insert the words “average annual” before the word “net” in line 41.

May I ask the Minister a question? If your intention with the three years is to pay up to a maximum of three years’ profit on an average annual net profit then I am prepared to accept it. But if you are still going to limit it to one year then it is obviously no help.

I think I have made it quite clear what my intention is. But I am not going to move it. I leave it to the hon. member to move it. I only make the suggestion that if he is prepared to accept in line 41 the insertion of the words “average annual” before the word “net” then I shall accept it. That is the only alteration I shall accept.

Why?

We are prepared to accept this because it has been discussed with people who should know. Provided the hon. member is prepared to accept the insertion of the words “average annual” before the word “net” I am prepared to accept the words “three years” for the words “12 months”. It is up to him to move it. If he moves accordingly I shall accept the amendment, but I cannot accept his amendment as it stands.

*The hon. member for South Coast again came along with his statement that I am introducing legislation here to cover exceptional cases—”introducing legislation for specific cases; general legislation for specific cases”. But of course, right throughout the world and in this House, at all events since I have been sitting here, if one wants to combat murder one makes general legal provision for murder to be punishable. If we want to allow immigration, we pass legislation for it. One does not come to this Parliament with every particular little problem with which one is faced.

What about the Railways?

That is something quite different. It is totally different because it involves a large-scale expenditure of funds. In any case, we are not dealing with the Railways now. We are dealing with the idea of maintaining and developing our cities. lf the hon. member argues in that way, does he want us to change the Housing Act in such a way that we must first come to Parliament for approval before we can proceed with any new scheme? Then I should like to see where we would land in this country. Surely one does not do such things. And the cases I quoted here I quoted merely to show the hon. member that I had a case. I do not know what lies ahead of me after I have had further negotiations with other urban authorities. I only know that I have a duty towards the people whom I must assist.

In the third place, I just want to say. in connection with the whole impression which was created here to-day, also by the hon. member for Houghton, viz. that this Bill is intended to apply only to non-Whites, that that is nonsense. It can be applied also in White areas. But the idea is not now to escape from the group areas idea. The idea is only that in places where this cannot be done, such as e.g. in Fordsburg, where the Government announced years ago already that it did not intend to proclaim group areas, to take the power to act there. I told hon. members the other day why we could not proceed to proclaim District Six. I think everybody who thinks about this matter intelligently will agree with me. Or do hon. members want us simply to proceed to proclaim in District Six, irrespective of the consequences which may result? Or should we do these things after proper consultation? It seems to me I cannot take the matter any further. I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North). I am only prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi, as I suggested. But if he does not want to accept my suggestion, I cannot accept his original amendment.

I do not think it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to labour this point in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). The clause says quite clearly that “any decision of this board will be subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister.” And the clause itself tells us quite clearly again “with the approval of the Minister to make payment …” That is in (h). The hon. member for Umlazi has said that the board shall have the right to propose to the Minister—because that is what it amounts to—goodwill compensation up to the value of three years’ profits. But it does not say it must be three years’ profits. The hon. the Minister says it must be 12 months’ profits. He is prepared to agree to an average of 12 months’ profits but he says it must be 12 months. Now I don’t think it matters whether it is 12 months or three years, or five years or seven years. It does not matter. It is a question of wording because one only has to read the proviso. The proviso says clearly that this three years will be a maximum. If the three years is accepted by the hon. the Minister there is no reason why he should not say six months or 12 months or two years. But why the hon. the Minister should not take unto himself the authority to grant more than 12 months I do not understand. He has the authority to limit the period even though the three years is accepted. If three years is commonly accepted in South Africa there is no reason why it should not be accepted in this Bill. It is not three years compulsorily. It is at the option of the board and subsequently of the Minister. So there is no reason why the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi should not be accepted. Three years is the maximum. There is no minimum. It can be as long as the Minister wishes. So why one should argue about it I do not know. The Minister should have accepted it at once. Provided he has the authority, and provided the board has the authority, he is taking no risk whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister says he has been wrongly accused by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) of introducing general legislation to deal with specific cases. He says that is done all over the world. But the objection we have to this aspect of the clause is that the hon. the Minister is taking powers here to provide for an urban renewal scheme which, he says, is to replace a slum area in terms of a slum clearance scheme. But the power he takes also embraces other areas The hon. the Minister says he will not accept the amendment. At least I understand it. The hon. the Minister is saying in effect “I do not want to limit the expression ‘urban renewal scheme’; because I do not know what I want to do in these slum areas.” That is his case. By that I gather the hon. Minister means and intends that we will only apply an urban renewal scheme or only declare an area as an urban renewal scheme if it is in a slum clearance area. In other words, he is only going to have these schemes in slum clearance areas where he has broken down slums, and he wants in those areas, as I understood him, to have the power to break down not just the slums but the other places in a slum area so that he can rebuild the whole thing properly.

Or to restore …

Yes, call it what you like, that is a difficulty of wording, but the hon. Minister says that he only wants to do it in those slum areas. That is fine. If he breaks down the slums areas, then he must produce something else, but as this is worded now, it is not a question so much of what an urban renewal scheme is—it is the application of that scheme in the area to which it is to be applied. I must accept that this is what the hon. Minister intends, that he intends to have an urban renewal scheme, only in areas where there is a slum clearance scheme, or in connection with slum clearance schemes. I therefore move—

That amendment will make it clear that the hon. Minister is only going to proclaim an area to be an urban renewal scheme in connection with slum clearance. That is what he said …

No.

I am going to move that and if the hon. Minister does not want to accept that (he is shaking his head), then I challenge the hon. Minister to tell us what exactly he does want.

I told you.

Yes, he told us what he wanted, and this amendment will put what he wants right. When we were suspicious about this, we had every right to be so. After hearing the hon. Minister, I first thought that this was just a bit of bad drafting, a little bit of incompetence which we are so used to from this Government. But I see it is not a little bit of incompetency: The hon. Minister really wants to do this outside these areas; he wants to take the powers, obviously, to declare areas which have nothing to do with slum clearance. or anything else, to be areas which will be subject to an urban renewal scheme—whatever that may mean. The hon. Minister asks this Committee to give him such powers, and he has said what he wants them for. If he does not want to accept this amendment, will the hon. Minister then indicate what exactly he wants to do in this regard: What areas does he want to apply this to, and why?

Let me give the hon. Minister an example, very close to Rome. The hon. Minister knows what he is going to do in Riverside, in Durban. The area has now been declared for White habitation. He probably intends to clear it up and have an urban renewal scheme there. It may be. it just may be, that that scheme with all the amenities he is going to put into it will not be big enough, that he will want to extend it, and he may want to extend it into Durban (North). In terms of this clause he has the power to do so. He has the power to say: Riverside is not sufficient, but Durban (North) as well is an urban renewal scheme. When he does that, Mr. Chairman, what happens? Everyone in Durban (North) has to sell to his Board as if it were a property affected by the Group Areas Act. He can expropriate property, and as he buys the property, he can ignore all the town planning regulations. He can take five, six. seven properties to begin with, and he can build four or five houses on the space which the township scheme at the moment reserves for one house, and he can ruin the whole area of Durban (North). He can do what he likes, and the hon. Minister has never denied it; he has not denied it during the second-reading debate, and he has not denied it in this Committee. In fact what he said was that it is all very well to say that he has those powers, but it would be a “gek” or “onsin” to suggest that he would do so. Why then does he take these powers? If it is such a joke, if it is such nonsense, why does he not restrict his powers to those areas that he has been talking about, to slum clearance areas? Why does he not do it? I am sorry the hon. Minister will now have to give another explanation and tell us why he will not accept this, and when he has given us that explanation, we will have to examine what it is the Minister is getting at.

I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member now, unless he withdraws his original amendment first.

If the hon. Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, can I then move my first amendment again?

I am afraid the hon. member cannot.

With leave of the Committee in lines 57 and 58 the first amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell was withdrawn.

I want to say a few words in connection with the allegations made by the hon. member for Durban (North) and after that I want to discuss a few matters raised by the hon. member for South Coast. I think the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) sees a number of ghosts in sub-section (e) which are not there at all.

The Minister did not deny it.

We should take into consideration the fact that this Bill makes no provision for application to group areas. It is a Bill which was formerly known as the Group Areas Development Act but which now introduce a new concept, namely, that of community development. The Bill provides of community development. In connection with that concept of community development it is clear that sub-section (e) is not only limited to group areas, in other words, the Minister can also use the powers conferred upon him under (e) in areas which have not necessarily been declared under the Group Areas Act. The Minister can therefore also use the powers provided for in sub-section (e) in a particular area which has not at all been declared under the Group Areas Act. Sub-section (e) stands quite alone and confers specific powers on the Minister, powers which are unrelated to the others. The hon. member for Durban (North) has just said that the Minister was getting the power to expropriate. I do not know where he gets that from. This clause says purely and simply that in a certain area the Minister may prohibit the erection of or alteration to buildings and, secondly, that he may prohibit a building from being used for any purpose other than that for which it was used on the date of the notice. In other words, the only thing the Minister can say is: “You are now using the premises for a specific purpose; you may only continue to use them for that purpose! Or alternatively he can say: “I can allow buildings in this area to be changed or renewed.” Those are in fact the only powers conferred upon the Minister under this clause and the Minister has explained why he wants those powers and why it is not possible specifically to bring it in in relation to slum clearance alone or with group areas alone.

But the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) now wants to relate this subsection with sub-section (h) which provides for the payment of goodwill. The hon. member for South Coast says: The Minister simply wishes to declare an area by notice in terms of sub-section (e); he wants to take powers unto himself under (e); and then he wants to compensate people for goodwill for which provision is made in sub-section (h). Sir, these are completely unrelated. Power is not given to the Minister in sub-section (e) to expropriate or to take away goodwill. The hon. member shakes his head. I do not want to argue with him; If we did he would lose; But I want to argue logically with him and if he does not agree with what I have to say he can tell me so.

Look at Clause 5.

The powers of the Minister under sub-section (e) which the hon. member related to sub-section (h) do not provide that he can deprive people of their profession or business. Sub-section (h) clearly provides that where a person is deprived of his profession or business the Minister can pay goodwill, but sub-section (e), which he relates to that, does not give that power to the Minister. The hon. member says further: “Yes, but we must remember that when the proclamation is promulgated …

Which proclamation?

I am referring to sub-section (h), payment for goodwill. The hon. member for South Coast says we must remember that when the proclamation is promulgated some time still has to elapse and that with the lapse of time there is a declining tendency in the value of the property and a proportionate declining tendency in the value of the business or the turnover of the business and that is why when the people are paid compensation for goodwill, or whatever it may be, that declining tendency, as a result of the proclamation, has already set in. The hon. member made a whole argument of that but had the hon. member only read this clause further he would have seen that that was nonsense because the clause says clearly in line 44 on page 8 that “during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the date on which such person was obliged to cease carrying on such profession or business or during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of the relevant proclamation, whichever is the greater”. In other words, the argument which the hon. member has advanced with so much ado is completely without foundation, because the proclamation cannot in any way have a detrimental effect on the compensation paid because the Minister is obliged to take the period immediately preceding the date of the proclamation as the period in respect of which compensation has to be paid is if it is more than the amount to which the person is entitled in respect of the other period.

I would like to deal first with the question of goodwill. I am trying to follow the argument of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) …

You cannot.

I must say that his argument was a stupid argument, because he accuses us that we are trying to link up (e) with (h) on the question of goodwill. Let us examine the question of goodwill in isolation. Let us presume it has nothing to do with (e). That should make it very simple for the hon. member for Ceres. He and other people have argued as if this 12 months goodwill is an absolute or minimum amount. It is nothing of the kind. It is qualified by the phrase “shall not exceed”, and the hon. Minister in two speeches also gave the impression that whoever was dispossessed, as it were, would at least get 12 months’ goodwill. The hon. Minister shakes his head. He did not use these words, but he argued so strongly on the 12 months that one was entitled to assume that the disposed person …

I said it was a concession.

Alright, a concession means that you give something that you say you are going to give. The moment you talk about “12 months profits” the implication or the suggestion is that the man will get 12 months’ profits. I maintain that the hon. Minister well knows that quite apart from the question of the phrase “with the approval of the Minister”, there is the fact that the profits shall not exceed the profits earned over a period of 12 months; whether it is in the last 12 months or in the first 12 months, or in between, does not matter. In actual fact, the hon. Minister need not give the man a cent for goodwill. Will he deny that? As long as that is the position—that the hon. minister has an absolute discretion to give an amount for goodwill which is far from absolute, which in fact can be zero, let alone one cent—this clause is not fair at all. It is no use talking about the fact that the man is being moved elsewhere. The Minister gave the example of removal from Martindale to Fordsburg. Does the hon. Minister remember the distance from Martindale to Fordsburg? It is three-and-a-half miles as the crow flies, and crows do not go to stores, for example. So the position is …

I meant Pageview.

Thank you—then you must not talk about Martindale when we mean Pageview. If the hon. Minister says that he will dispossess a man in Pageview and set him up in a shop in Fordsburg, just across the road, then that is a horse of quite a different colour.

That is what I meant to say.

Well, on that particular point I merely want to say that since the Minister has the discretion, and the goodwill must be paid subject to his approval, there is nothing to be lost by accepting our amendment which is that it shall be over a period of three years, because the fact is still that the goodwill “shall not exceed” the amount of profit earned in three years. The Minister may still award zero. He is not hamstrung by his own legislation. As for the argument that a year is adequate—the Minister said to-day that he discussed this with prominent businessmen in Cape Town and that they have told him that 12 months’ goodwill was adequate. I do not know to whom he spoke. He could not have spoken to Mr. Garlick, for example, because he will not sell his business for 12 months’ profit or the Stuttaford Co. or any other. The hon. member for Ceres talked about goodwill in the legal profession. He also knows about goodwill in another field of human endeavour let us say, bottlestores. Can he buy a bottle store for 12 months’ profits? When I was a boy Mr. Chairman, (and this is three years ago!), the goodwill for a bottle store, as a minimum, was eight years profits. I do not think it has changed much since that time. So with great respect to the hon. Minister who says that he cannot give us the names of the people, of the business people in Cape Town who told him that 12 months profit were adequate, all this talk is simply not in line with the facts. Either he is going to pay goodwill, which means that up to three years would be perfectly reasonable, or he does not intend to pay any goodwill, and then he might as well say “shall not exceed 12 months”, and so nobody will get any goodwill anyway. It is a question of good intentions, and if the intention of the hon. Minister is good, as I believe it is, he should have no difficulty in accepting our amendment that the period shall be three years, 36 months, and not 12.

I want to deal with another matter which is contained in (e), the question or urban renewal. If I understood the Minister correctly, his first difficulty is that he cannot find a definition for “urban renewal”. This was supported by the hon. member for Kempton Park, who said that he would like to see the urban renewal scheme retained in this clause although he realized that no definition was available for it. I believe there is a definition. I am sorry I have not got it here with me, but under the Act which set up the Federal Housing Authority in the United States of America, the Federal Housing Authority has a definition. if I remember correctly, of “urban renewal”. Somewhere in the world there is a definition of “urban renewal”, a legal definition, and so if the Minister does not want to press this point, if he wants to be fair—and I think he has already had one opportunity of showing his good faith in this connection in terms of the last amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) I can offer him at least two opportunities to show that good faith. First of all, he can leave out “urban renewal”, as we have requested, until such time as he finds a suitable definition, and if he gives me a fortnight, I will get him a suitable legal definition, and so could the hon. member for Kempton Park. So leave it over for a while—there is no urgency. Secondly, he referred to the example of Johannesburg, and I can only say that when Johannesburg and its City Council, in relation to housing, urban renewal or anything else, is given as an example, then the millenium must be very close at hand! The hon. Minister dwelt on the example of Johannesburg, where he said they had this wonderful scheme in Fordsburg—I know something about it—and he referred to another scheme in Newclare. He said he did not want them to be hamstrung; he wanted them to be able to carry out schemes like that, whether the Johannesburg local authority and any other—not to be humstrung because the clause did not have the provision for urban renewal. Talking about the Johannesburg City Council he said “Hulle verstaan waarmee hulle besig is”, which is the greatest tribute I have heard anybody pay the Johannesburg City Council—because up to this afternoon, according to hon. members there, they never had a clue as to what they were busy with! Now I say to the hon. Minister: if he is serious and he wants to retain urban renewal because local authorities need it to carry out schemes which have nothing to do with slum clearance, then I want to move this amendment—

That is the amendment I want to move, and the clause will then read—

That is exactly the pattern in the United States. The urban renewal scheme in Boston which, as I told the hon. Minister, I have seen twice within 11 months, has been undertaken not at the instance of any higher authority, such as the Federal Housing Authority or the State Legislature, but at the instance and on the initiative of the City Council of the City of Boston. At their request, came in the superior authority, the State Authority or the Federal Housing Authority. Now, if the hon. Minister genuinely does not wish to be in a position where he can mix up a slum clearance scheme with something quite different (the sort of thing that the hon. member for Durban (North) referred to, a scheme which might change the composition of an urban area, for no reason that is good, but for any whimsical reason of the Minister), and if he wants to make sure that urban renewal as such is made possible in terms of this clause—and as he himself says “Die plaaslike bestuur verstaan waarmee hulle besig is”), then he should have no difficulty in accepting this amendment which will put him in a position in which, at the request of the local authority—which needs an urban renewal scheme, as Johannesburg has needed the Fordsburg scheme for many years, and has tried to bring about this Fordsburg scheme for many years—he has all the powers he needs. [Time limit.]

I first want to deal with paragraph (e); that is the urban renewal scheme. I think it is time we understood each other exactly because I think we have been talking at cross purposes. The complaint of the Opposition amounts to this that the concept “urban renewal scheme” is undefined with the result that the Minister can arbitrarily proclaim any piece of land in any city as an area in which he wants to start an urban renewal scheme with the result that he can buy out those people in terms of sub-section (5) which starts at the bottom of page 8 and continues on page 10 in the main. That is the crux of the Opposition’s argument. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has now somewhat shifted his ground by saying they are satisfied to leave the concept of “urban renewal scheme” as it is if it is related to a slum clearance scheme. But the fundamental mistake the Opposition make is that they base their amendment on the wrong clause if they wish to limit the powers of the Minister to certain provisions. Sub-section (e), the urban renewal scheme clause, contains a power which is exercised by the Community Development Board without reference to the Minister. It says “If the board is convinced that it is to promote a slum clearance scheme … the board can do it.” You find the Minister’s power in sub-section 12 (1) (a) on page 4—

In other words, the Minister must go outside a group area and state under 12 (1) (a): This is an area which the board may develop in addition to declared group areas. In other words, if the Minister wants to be unwise and continues to argue on the basis of the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North) the Minister must first declare the whole of Durban (North), or a portion thereof, under 12 (1) (a). When the Minister has done that the board may, under sub-section (e), if it is convinced that it is necessary to do so to promote a slum clearance scheme or an urban renewal scheme, publish a notice in the Government Gazette and freeze the property.

He has the power to do so.

Yes. In other words, if the Minister’s power were to be defined, limited, because that is obviously what hon. members want to do, it must not be limited here but under 12 (1) (a). Once the Minister has defined an area which can be dealt with by the Community Development Board then obviously the board can exercise all its powers there.

Why should he be given the power to apply it to Durban (North)?

That is a technical point I wish to put to the hon. member. If he wishes to exclude Durban (North) he has to do so by moving an amendment to 12 (1) (a). That is the correct clause to which to move his amendment. I think the whole attempt is to limit the Minister—we are continually talking about the Minister, but it is the Development Board—and the class of area he may deal with under this freezing clause. What reasonable ground is there for us to think that the Development Board will interfere in areas which cannot reasonably be frozen? What does the Development Board do? It prohibits any alterations being made and it can buy the property after arbitration, so as to eliminate any possibility of the board making a profitable buy or of the owner having to negotiate an unprofitable sale. What ground have we to assume that this clause will not always be applied, as the Minister says, in respect of areas which he wants to renew in toto?

As far as the goodwill which attached to premises is concerned the question is really whether hon. members want the Group Areas Development Act to be carried out or not? We all know that the maximum compensation paid is in practice the minimum compensation. Once you give the Government the right to pay a certain maximum you come up against all the pressure factors which make it the minimum except in exceptional cases. No compensation was paid previously and why not? Because under the Group Areas Development Act and the Group Areas Act the concept is that the affected person is taken from Area A and re-settled in Area B. His re-settlement is already an extremely important form of compensation. He is not only being uprooted; he is uprooted from the one area and re-planted somewhere else. Hon. members have so far conveniently forgotten about that in their arguments. That is why no compensation for goodwill was paid in the past. This is something additional. The person is fully compensated for the value of his immovable property and his stock; he is resettled, with the same stock, against less expenditure on land. If in addition he receives payment for a year’s goodwill it would be hard to imagine cases where losses would be suffered. Furthermore, goodwill is a factor which attaches to the person, so much so that we must be careful not to over-emphasize it, particularly in the case of the small business man. The one person has a small business with a certain goodwill and wherever he goes he is a successful businessman, purely because of his personality. The most important factor is that our object is to see to it that the development fund balances. We are dealing here with public money. The original concept was that one affected property was purchased from a disqualified person and sold to somebody who qualified and in that way it balanced. But when you purchase from a disqualified person you can obviously not recover the goodwill you pay him from the person who qualifies and purchases it, because the latter only purchases the immovable property. In other words, all the money that is paid out for goodwill will of necessity be on the debit side of the development fund which must eventually be met from the public purse. That is why the hon. member for Houghton and the Opposition are against this. They want to make it impossible to apply the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act. They want to make it too expensive to carry them out. That is why they are so generous as to say we should pay three years’ goodwill. In spite of the fact that we re-settle the person and that there is a good chance that he may often be re-settled to his commercial benefit they want him to be paid this higher goodwill which cannot be recovered from the person who qualifies to own the land. They are therefore not pleading for these people to be paid goodwill but they are trying to create a position where it will not be possible to apply the Group Areas Act and a position in which South Africa will have to perpetuate this position of living cheek by jowl for all time hoping and expecting that their concept of one mixed race of White and Black in South Africa will become a reality and will not be thwarted by this side of the House.

I wish to speak to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). I believe that as far as compensation is concerned, this is a measure which is already overdue. The hon. member for Umlazi referred to professional people and he made specific reference to the medical profession. As far as the medical profession is concerned, if there happens to be a change as the result of group areas proclamations, there are non-White medical practitioners who could possibly take over a particular practice, but I wish to refer specifically to the pharmaceutical profession.

I think I am correct in saying that out of the 3,200 odd chemists and druggists in South Africa there are less than 10 who are non-Whites. I think in those circumstances one is entitled to ask whence comes the successor to the man who has been a chemist and druggist in an area which is now being declared for another group? Of these ten, where can he find a successor? It seems to me that he has two alternatives. The one is that he has to close down and start again somewhere else, and I cannot believe that it will be quite as easy as the Minister intimated in the example he quoted; or else he can wait for years in an area where his business is dwindling and his stock becomes of increasingly less value, and then eventually he will have to get out and start again. I believe on those grounds it is fair to ask the Minister to consider a more generous compensation than he is giving under this Bill, and more in line with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Umlazi.

I believe this is a problem which has other aspects and which the Minister will find of interest in another portfolio he holds. The Minister is anxious to produce professional chemists and druggists. Where is he to find the apprentices who will become the chemists to take the places of the Whites who are now being replaced? There are exactly 15 non-White apprentices registered at present, one Malay, four Chinese, three Bantu, three Coloureds and four Indians. I believe that until these people, who are in constant fear of losing their business by virtue of a group areas proclamation, are given some hope of compensation they will not be inclined to take on apprentices of other races.

But this is an essential service and we will grant the necessary permit even to stay in an area where he is disqualified.

If the Minister wants a specific case …

I know what you are referring to.

That is the specific case at Isipingo. If the Minister wishes me to refer more specifically to that case, I will do so. The chemist and druggist who has been established in that area for years is almost facing financial ruin, because his White clients have gone and the Indians who have taken their place have not the same outlook or the same purchasing power as the previous population. This man now has stocks which he cannot dispose of to Indians. I do not believe that there is very much call for sun tan preparations from the Indian community, and I do not believe they share the same taste in cosmetics as Europeans; and as far as the prescribing habits of the doctor who may come afterwards are concerned, it may be found that the economic position of the Indians is such that prescribing habits may have to be changed.

It is exactly that case in Isipingo which has convinced me that I must come forward with this measure.

I appreciate that, but I do not believe that the Minister is being generous enough, because I do not think that one year’s net profit is sufficient to compensate this man for his loss of livelihood. It is for this very reason that I feel that the Minister should give consideration to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Umlazi and the period should be extended to three years.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr.F. S. Steyn) said, and to draw the attention of the House to the very passionate note on which he ended his address. One would really think that we were dealing with something which was the solution of a serious crisis in the affairs of the nation and that he was calling the nation to arms. In fact, if anything, nobody has yet been able to deal satisfactorily on the Government side with this question of urban renewal schemes. The Minister only dealt with the question of the definition as the result of an interjection querying the interpretation of the term. What may very well happen is that next year the Minister will come with an amendment to this clause, and he will define an urban renewal scheme as one which is so declared by the Minister by notice in the Gazette, a rather favourite method of describing something of which no one knows its beginning or end. That is the fear we have in regard to this urban renewal scheme. When you deal with the clearance of slums you know there is a medical officer of health or a district surgeon who has to give an opinion in regard to the condition of that area, the buildings and the general situation. You have a report based on something technical. But here anyone can give an interpretation to an urban renewal scheme and it is left to a board to decide what it is. If the Minister decides to change a certain area, how can the Opposition be assured, and how can the Opposition not be justified in having all the fears in the world? Because the whole of this clause seeks unlimited powers for the Minister in every respect, and why is the Minister seeking unlimited powers? Yes, the Minister seeks unlimited powers. If he wants to change any scheme, there are two methods. The one is that he can gain the co-operation of the local authorities and he has admitted himself that he has the co-operation of the local authorities. Even the dreadnought Johannesburg is now trying to assist the Minister in reshaping the world to come in South Africa. Certainly, if he does want to change a scheme he has merely to apply to the local authority for the amendment of the scheme, or a consent use or a re-zoning, and if he is refused he has the right of appeal to the townships board. He can also appeal to the Administrator in regard to an alteration in title deeds. He is not limited in any way, but these things are not done overnight. But the Minister wants to establish a situation in his Department where he can do just as he pleases at any given moment. If he does not like a situation he has the right to change it without taking into account the protection of the very people for whom all the laws have been passed over the years, in order to protect a man’s property. It is one of the cardinal principles of our common law that a man’s property rights should be protected. That is one of the principles of the capitalist system, for which we stand. Why then should the Minister have the right to deviate and cut across all those established principles and establish something entirely new in the administration of property in this country? An urban renewal scheme, unless it is limited in some way, can either lead to a lot of litigation or alternatively, the Minister will be obliged to come forward with some amendment further increasing his powers and declaring him to be the sole arbiter of what the term means. The suggestion that this deals with any property and not only with the Group Areas Act is something which was criticized previously. The Group Areas Development Board is virtually an offspring of the Group Areas Act. Then, by amending the Act last year or the year before, it added that he could acquire property whether situated in a group area or elsewhere. Now he seeks to delete these words and talks about any property or any person or any area, because the word “any” covers everything. So gradually, with the use of the Group Areas Act plus further powers which almost make him a Machiavellian Minister of Development in this country, which will enable the Minister virtually to be—I do not want to use the word because it might upset him—a dictator in this field of human rights, he overrides the deeds registries and title deeds and he overrides conditions of establishment and he overrides town planning schemes. He consults with the Administrator, an appointee of the Government, and decides what he wants to do, but he does not concern himself with other authorities. No, they do not count. What counts is what he wishes to establish and therefore the fears of the hon. member for Durban (North) and other hon. members on this side of the House are well founded.

What has the situation been hitherto? It was this, that the Minister has been concerned with group areas and affected properties.

I have also had powers to act outside group areas.

Yes, now you have powers to act outside group areas …

No, I also had those powers before.

Yes, I know, but because you find that you have not the power to override everybody, despite the co-operation of the town councils, you now come with further additional powers, and unfortunately you will continue year after year …

Order!

I am sorry, I should have referred to the hon. the Minister. But I say he will come year after year, or any other Minister in that particular post, for further and further powers and at every stage he will find, either by interpretation or otherwise, that he does not have every power that he possibly needs to be completely unfettered in what he wants to do. Sir, who gives any Department or any Minister such unfettered powers in a democracy? [Interjection.] The clause contains powers which the Minister knows may be wisely administered, in his hands—we are not entirely satisfied that he has convinced us of that—but what is the position if another Minister takes over that Department? Another Minister has those unfettered powers and can do as he wishes. We do not believe that you can give unfettered powers to a Minister because this is not democratic. Parliament must have the right from time to time to review these powers. The authorities established in the country must have the right to play their part in the development of our country. What we are doing here virtually is that we are emasculating the local authorities and every authority which deals with property rights, and that passionate note is a very much more convincing one than the one on which the hon. member for Kempton Park ended.

I want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s offer to accept part of my amendment, but I want to point out that it is not really part of my amendment at all because it still limits the amount of compensation payable for goodwill to a period of one year’s net profit, and that is the basic answer. The Minister is offering that it should be an average of the three years preceding either the proclamation or the date of sale. That might well be the same figure or a lesser figure in some cases than the existing provision, so in fact I believe that the Minister has offered me nothing. I want to say a word on this. I have been trying to think why the Minister will not go any distance along the road with me to try to give adequate compensation to people who are being displaced from their businesses and are being denied the right to earn their income in that area, because of an urban renewal scheme or something like that. Sir, I have come to the conclusion that it is because this Minister wants to retain the same trading rights as he had under the Group Areas Development Act. You must remember, Sir, that under that Act the persons who made a profit or an appreciation from the sale of their property greater than its basic value, paid 50 per cent of that profit into the fund, and the person who had to sell at a loss received only 80 per cent of his loss as compensation. In other words, they had to carry 20 per cent of the loss themselves. I venture to say that this hon. Minister has found this quite a profitable business, and that this is a method of implementing an ideological policy under the Group Areas Development Act and yet doing it, to a large extent, not at the cost of the State but at the cost of the people who are affected, and he is transferring that profit factor to the National Housing Commission. But here, where he has the opportunity of being a little big-hearted, and accepting the fact, as I said before, that he is compensating a person who is not necessarily a willing seller, but who is forced to sell and who loses his income … [Interjections.] But the Minister does not want to go any distance along the way with me, for the very simple reason that this board is going to watch the trading aspect, the profit aspect, in the same way as the Group Areas Development Board watched the profit aspect; and I believe it is very wrong in principle to accept, in implementing legislation of an ideological nature such as this, that the profit motive should be retained in its application to places especially which are not in group areas. I believe it was bad enough in the implementation of group areas, but I believe that now it is even worse, and I am sorry that I cannot accept the hon. the Minister’s suggestion because I do not think it alters the position one iota. In some cases it might make the 12 months’ net profit a little better, and in some cases it might make it worse, because the Minister knows that when once an area has to be proclaimed, the profits will decline. In those particular circumstances I accept that a little benefit might come to the person whose business is being disposed of, but in other cases I do not think it will make any difference at all, and in some cases it will make it worse. So I cannot accept the Minister’s suggestion. If he wants to move an amendment in the Other Place, he is quite entitled to do so, but I cannot withdraw my amendment in favour of the Minister’s suggestion.

I am sorry I had to leave the House for a few minutes, but I believe the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) dealt with the amendment I had moved on page 6. I understand, however, that he said he had no objection to this amendment.

I said nothing about it. [Interjections.]

Well, I may have been misinformed, but I understood that the hon. member said it should properly appear in Section 12 (1) (a) of the principal Act.

I said all the amendments should rather appear here.

Including the one I moved? If you say that, then surely you accept the amendment, or otherwise it would not appear anywhere. [Interjections.] All right, I leave it there. The hon. member accepts it when I am not here, and the moment I confront him with it he does not accept it.

I said that logically the Minister’s powers are contained in Section 12 (1).

And if so, will you support it?

No.

Then I can only thank the hon. member for his well-meant but useless advice.

I want to come back to the question of goodwill. Surely the Minister is not serious when he tells this Committee that he can find a business man in Cape Town, a White business man, who makes something more than a livelihood out of his business, who makes e.g. R10,000 a year, which is a reasonable profit to earn in a one-man business—surely he cannot find such a person who will say: I will willingly sell my business at a goodwill figure of one year’s profit i.e. R10,000.

Order! The hon. member should not advance arguments now about no business men being prepared to sell.

The point is that the hon. the Minister, having been asked to bring some proof of his very broad statement that he discussed this matter yesterday … [Interjections.] The argument I want to advance is that if the Minister has been guided in a certain direction by information given to him, he should accept our word for it that that information is incorrect. The Minister advanced his reasons for accepting 12 months’ goodwill as being reasonable; I did not advance them, and since the Minister tells the Committee that he has reason to believe that 12 months’ goodwill is reasonable, I think we are entitled to say to him that in the absence of any proof he must accept that the normal assessment of goodwill is nothing like 12 months. It is certainly not unreasonable to say, particularly in view of the fact that there is already a discretion vested in the Minister: Make that criterion three years, because at best it is no more than the maximum in terms of this very clause.

Dealing with the amendment to (e), which I moved, I would like to put this point of view to the Minister. He has said that he cannot, as a Minister, allow himself, nor can he allow a local authority which looks to him for assistance, to be obstructed by the restriction in this clause of a slum clearance scheme being the only scheme that can be furthered either by the Minister or the local authority or both, by that being the sole object of the powers in the clause. I think that was the essence of his argument, and he says that for that reason, although he (the Minister) and speakers on that side of the House and apparently his officials have as yet been unable to come up with a definition of “urban renewal”, although it is generally accepted that “urban renewals” means the betterment of a certain section of a city not necessarily because that section consists of slums, but because that section can be improved for the benefit of the entire city or the entire area and its citizens and then it becomes an urban renewal scheme, he and the local authorities should not suffer any obstruction merely because he has not got powers in terms of this clause to deal with an urban renewal scheme in the same way as he deals with a slum clearance scheme. I want to say, and I say this advisedly, that if the hon. the Minister is going to base his argument on the contention that there is no definition of “urban renewal” as such, then he actually has a very weak argument—because in fact there are such definitions. We may never have had occasion to incorporate them in our Statute before to-day, but if this question of urban renewal is going to be taken seriously by the Minister and his Department, then there should be no difficulty in the very near future in providing a reasonable and well-defined urban renewal clause which can be added to this particular section of the Act, as this Bill will become if it is passed, at any time in the future. There is no urgency about it. The hon. the Minister himself says that there are urban renewal schemes being carried out at the moment; he has referred to two in Johannesburg. Those schemes are being carried out despite the fact that there is no law that we know of which refers to urban renewal; there is no law at all, but urban renewal has been undertaken in Johannesburg, and is being undertaken in other parts of South Africa, in the absence of a law dealing with urban renewal and therefore in the absence of a definition of urban renewal. I therefore say that his difficulty cannot be accepted as being so important that, if he is genuinely interested in advancing the objects for which this Bill has been introduced, the clearance of slums, group areas and those objects which are defined, he cannot seriously say that he is in a difficulty about accepting the amendment with regard to the definition of “urban renewals”. Furthermore—and surely this is the final issue—if the hon. the Minister does not wish to deprive a local authority such as Johannesburg or any other local authorities which he has told us do cooperate with him. and which do undertake their own slum clearance schemes and for that matter, as he was at pains to point out to-day, their renewal schemes, if he does not want to deprive them of every vestige of control over their own area, why should he have any difficulty in accepting the simple amendment, that in the case, not of a slum clearance but in the case of an urban renewal scheme, he shall use the power that he seeks in terms of (e) on page 6 only at the request of the local authority concerned. Sir, the hon. the Minister has spoken earlier to-day and has given answers to some of the pleas from this side of the House. I wonder why he is so strangely silent on this particular aspect of the matter. I appeal to him to get up at some stage and to tell the Committee why. if he does not wish to make himself the Czar of South Africa, if he does want a local authority which co-operates with him to have some control over its own area, why cannot he accept that simple amendment which will give him the clause as he wishes it to read, which will incorporate “urban renewal” but which will require of him not to interfere in terms of urban renewal schemes until such time as the local authority asks him to do so. Sir, he was at pains to point out, particularly in the case of Johannesburg, that they know exactly what kind of urban renewal they needed; that the local authority know exactly how to undertake it, that it looked to the Minister and his Department for assistance, and that is why he came forward with this clause. I ask him again to tell the Committee what his real difficulty is in the case of at least one amendment, and that is the amendment to insert after the word “or” the words “at the request of the local authority concerned, of”. What is his difficulty, if he has one?

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel put and the Committee divided:

AYES—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan,J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—74: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G.F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B,; Cruywagen,W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J. M.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. J. G.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D.C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van der Berg,G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk,G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.;Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visser, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendments accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and the Committee divided:

AYES—42: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; De Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Edmin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W.V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; Van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson,S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Noes—75: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha,S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J. M.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer,T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J.H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L.H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Molkte, J. von S.; Vorster,B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That all the words after “(h)” in line 31, page 8, up to and including “having” in line 35, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—76: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W.A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J. M.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E.C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M.K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W.C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M.D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt,B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—42: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J.M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.;Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G.N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Lewis dropped.

Question put: That the words “twelve

months” in lines 44 and 47, respectively, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—75: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G.F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J.C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de wet, J. M.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan,A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J.A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C.B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg,G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L.H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G.L.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D.E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross,D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss,U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and the remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Lewis dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—74: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha. H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen. W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J.M.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pogieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg. M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo,

A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood,B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L.B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren,C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes. Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 7,

At the close of his Second Reading speech I understood the hon. the Minister to say that later on, perhaps after the passing of this Bill, steps would be taken to consolidate the various measures which dealt with community development, group areas and so forth. I want to say from this side of the House we hope very much that the hon. the Minister will see that that is done. This measure along with others dealing with kindred subjects are to-day in a terrible confusion. It makes it extremely difficult for us, sitting as we are without the aid and guidance of his staff, to cope with these bills because we get the type of Clause we have here which makes it so difficult to understand.

This particular Clause in fact repeals a Section which in effect provided that the Board, i.e. the Group Areas Development Board, should be vested and charged with any or all of the powers, functions and duties of any local authority which could be established in such province. It became a local authority. That was the position in so far as the section which is now being repealed was concerned. The only difference here is this. My hon. friend from Ceres is not here. I am sorry. He seemed to have some difficulty in regard to designated areas. Here is the answer to it. If he looks at this clause he will find that in place of the board dealing with areas under sub-section six of 12ter where a defined area means any group area or any area comprising any land belonging to the board or any area etc. etc. i.e. a defined area means any group area, the previous clause says a defined area means any area designated under Section 12. That is the Section we have just dealt with. The words “group areas” have been deleted. So it is here where the importance of the designated area comes in because it is perfectly clear that under Section 12 i.e. Clause 5 of this Bill which inserts Section 12 (1) (a), there may be designated areas designated by the Minister. Those “designated areas” will no longer be group areas because group areas are now being repealed as far as this clause is concerned and they can have all the powers and functions of a local authority. And the Community Development Board acquires all those powers. Where those powers were vested in the Group Areas Board in respect of a group area—we don’t like the Group Areas Act but where that was done there was at any rate some good reason for it—it will now be vested with those powers in respect of a designated area. It is limitless; as far as we can judge it is entirely at the will of the Minister as to what areas he will designate as designated areas for the purposes of the preceding clause, Clause No. 5. We think this is a very bad provision indeed. We cannot accept it. We think it is much too far-reaching. To set up the Community Development Board as a local authority in these areas is something which we cannot possibly approve of.

In all fairness to the hon. the member I just want to say that I do not expect that either I or my Department will often make use of this clause. In most cases it will be where City Councils have accepted delegated powers. Where an area falls outside the area of jurisdiction of that local authority it might become necessary to act under this clause. But I cannot visualize that it will be necessary for me or the Department to act under it. It will be mostly in cases where local authorities have accepted delegated powers.

I am sorry, Sir, but the Minister does make it extremely difficult for us. He takes the power for the board to be the local authority in areas outside of a local authority. It says so. The Minister now says he does not intend using that power. He says “as far as I am concerned and as far as the board is concerned we do not intend using that power; it is only where it falls in a local authority area and there are delegated powers that we shall use them.” But the clause makes provision for an area which may be partly within a local authority area and partly outside a local authority area. I am sorry, but the two things do not run together.

We had such a case in Pretoria. That was the only case of this nature in respect of which we had certain difficulties in the past. But there may be similar cases in future. We had such a case at Pretoria. Group areas were demarcated in Pretoria. An area was proclaimed a Coloured area for the Coloured community of Pretoria but it fell outside the jurisdiction of the city council. We did not have another body through which we could administer that area because Pretoria had accepted delegated powers from the board, powers which they still have to-day. They then had to deal with a proclaimed area outside their area of jurisdiction.

I hope the hon. member can understand that.

I am sorry; I still don’t understand this.

Then I can’t help you further.

I hope the hon. the Minister will allow me to put my point of view. This seems to me to be the wrong way round. The hon. the Minister says that this applies in areas which do not fall under the jurisdiction of a local authority. That is fair enough. But it says here “whether or not such area or any portion thereof falls within the jurisdiction of a local authority”. I can appreciate that if the hon. the Minister establishes an area—he was talking about group areas; this goes much further than group areas; this is our point of view—he can take in any area which is a designated area, not a group area any more. In the case of group areas the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said he could understand there was some purpose behind it. But here there is no purpose at all because this does not deal with group areas at all; it deals with all areas plus group areas. It means simply this that in any designated area—if I am wrong I hope the Minister will correct me—(remember that a designated area is any area which the hon. the Minister likes to designate as being such) the hon. Minister’s Department can become the local authority whether that designated area cuts across the area of a local authority or not. That is the whole point, Sir. Frankly, if that is the case, and I can reach no other conclusion, then I personally must be very opposed to it. Because the Minister can designate an area partly in that of a local authority and partly out or all inside or all outside of the area of a local authority. It does not have to be either and it can be both. He can then set himself up, according to this clause, as I see it, as a local authority within the area of an existing local authority. Where is this process going to end, Sir? Now the Minister says he doubts if he will ever use it. Will he accept an amendment from us deleting this clause from the Bill? Because there is obviously other legislation to deal with such a situation. If an area falls outside the area of a local authority you have health commissions and the like to deal adequately with those areas. Then they become the local authority. In the Transvaal you have another body, the Peri Urban Health Board. It becomes the local authority for these areas. So if the hon. the Minister says he can hardly visualize using this and there are already local authorities to deal with any such area he likes to so designate why does he want this clause to set himself up as a local authority? Frankly I don’t like it one tiny bit if for no other reason then for the reason that the Minister, according to my reading of this clause, can set himself up as a local authority within the area of an existing local authority. On the face value of this clause I am opposed to it.

Clause put and agreed to. (Official opposition, Mr. Barnett and Mrs. Suzman dissenting.)

On Clause 8,

I move as an amendment that in lines 67 and 68, to omit “town planning scheme”; to omit paragraph (b) of the proposed section 12sex; and to add the following as a new sub-section (2) at the end of the proposed section 12sex:

1. (a) from the provisions of any town planning scheme; and
2. (b) from the provisions of any ordinance in terms whereof approval must be obtained from a local authority for the sub-division of land.

I move this in order to bring this Clause in conformity with an amendment I shall move at a later stage, an amendment which has been approved of by the United Municipal Executive.

For all practical purposes the object of the Minister’s amendment is to bring in a reference to the Administrator. That makes no difference to the particular point I want to deal with.

During the Second Reading debate we pointed out the difficulty which would arise in the event of a person who was in arrear with his rent, a person who occupied a residential property or a business property, i.e. property other than a residential property. We pointed out that so far from agreeing with the main provisions in other legislation what we appended here was something entirely new. If the tenant or occupier of immovable property belonging to the board refuse to pay his rental on due date or fails to pay it on due date the board may given seven days’ notice and the tenant or occupier is forthwith obliged to vacate the premises. Provision is then made for the steps which can be taken including, presumably, the calling in of the police to evict such person. Our point is this, that that notice may not necessarily reach the tenant or person occupying the premises. It is quite clear from line 27 of the English text that the 7 days’ notice, or 30 days’ notice in the case of property other than residential premises, can be given by letter either to the tenant or other occupier personally or to some adult living on the property or by registered letter addressed to such tenant or occupier. If the hon. the Minister would delete the words “or to some adult person living on the property” so that it must be delivered to the occupier or tenant personally or by registered letter addressed to such tenant or occupier much of our objection would fall away. We think the notice is very short but I do not want the hon. the Minister to imagine himself for a moment in the position of someone occupying such premises. We are dealing with a man in his home. It may not necessarily be a man. We are dealing with a person in a home. We have over and over again to deal with widows and people of like ilk. This is a person who is inhabiting a home. The rent is in arrear. I know the difficulties landlords, town councils and other organizations no doubt the Group Areas Board and others, may have in collecting the rent. In the preceding clause we have just dealt with the fact that, in a designated area, the new board obtains the powers of a local authority. I know local authorities have difficulty in collecting rentals but special provisions are made from time to time for the collection of that rent. It has been the custom in all such legislation for the legislature to temper the wind to the shore and land. We all fall on hard times; we all have difficulties. We all have occasions when it is extremely difficult to meet our commitments. In this particularly case, as I have said, we are dealing with a home, and not even necessarily with a man. There are hard cases which are perpetually referred to in the Press at the present time, cases where, for some reason or other, a man and his wife, sometimes a widow and her children, are thrust out from their home. You see photographs of that in the daily Press. They are kicked out with their belongings; they are put out into the street and they have to find another home for themselves. That is bad enough if they have received notice; if they have had that last warning that they must pay their rent. But the notice can be delivered to some adult person living on the property. That adult person may be anybody, Sir. It may not even be a servant. It may be anybody who is living there by kind consideration of the tenant or occupier. I know of numbers of cases where, whatever the reasons may be, the breadwinner is away. That very often happens. The breadwinner is not necessarily home every day of the week or for some part in every week or for part of every consecutive week throughout the year. He does not come home; he does not get the notice. When he gets back he finds that some adult living on the premises, some adult who may be there in the form of a caretaker, has been sitting there quite ignorant of the evil consequences that will befall the fact that the breadwinner has not been notified of the fact that notice has now been given to him. Obviously he will not open the letter. It is an official letter. Perhaps at the very time when, due to his own circumstances, the man requires that little bit of extra sympathy he finds himself up against the provisions of this Act and he can be forcibly ejected. I think it is incredibly hard. I think it is an extremely difficult provision in a Bill like this to justify under the circumstances and the time. The hon. the Minister has in the main been dealing with slums and semi-slum areas and that sort of thing. He has been using his argument over and over again in regard to those areas. But those are the very people who require our sympathy in a time like this. I don’t care for the difficulties of the board. I am only too well aware of the difficulties of the board; we have seen them over and over again. Let us rather have all sorts of difficulties to contend with administratively. Let the plans even be held up for a bit rather than we take cold-blooded action of the kind provided for here. I don’t know whether the Minister is ever going to use these powers. I don’t know whether the board is going to say “We have delivered the notice in the hands of an adult person found on the premises and that is that; that is the end of the matter; they have had their seven days’ notice; now they must quit.” I don’t know whether that is going to happen. But whether or not it is going to happen it is a fact that as my old mentor used to say in bygone days when I was dealing with the law “the written word prevails”. It is not the intention of the Minister or of the Board, it is not the intention of anybody but it is the written word that prevails when we are dealing with the law. So I do ask the hon. the Minister whether he won’t, in the first instance, delete the words which refer to some adult person living on the property. Let us at any rate see if we cannot find common ground in regard to that particular matter.

Let me say at once that any attempt to stir up sympathy will not make any impression on me. [Interjections.] Don’t try to be funny. I shall give hon. members the facts. The facts are that this provision has already been in existence in the Housing Act for years. Now suddenly hon. members have become aware of it. These are the facts and you can find the evidence in the report of the Auditor General which is submitted to this Parliament. The facts are that the Department of Community Development, formerly the Department of Housing, do not take action against people in terms of this legislation before three months have expired. That is departmental policy. We are only taking this power in order to be able to take action against people who deliberately do not pay. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) must not, therefore, shed crocodile tears about people who are so-called being treated unjustly. They are people living in State property who have had a chance for three months; people who have been begged and implored to pay and who then adopt the attitude that they do not want to pay. It is against them that action is being taken. Do not present the Department as a cruel body which is simply ejecting people left and right. This has already been the position under Section 42 of the Housing Act for years. It says—

That has for years been the practice under the Housing Act. What is more in terms of Section 58 of the Housing Act not only the National Housing Commission has that power but a city council as well. In terms of Section 58 of the Housing Act all city councils have the power. What is more utility companies have that power in terms of the Housing Act. It has been applied all these years and now suddenly the hon. member comes forward and pleads for these miserable, holy people who are being kicked out by this cruel Government! I say they are trespassers who are wasting the money of the State. They are trespassers, they are non-payers who, after we have struggled for three months to get them to fulfill their obligations, do not do so. I am certainly not prepared to make any concession in this respect. It works well under the Housing Act and I am also going to apply it here. It is in the interests of the State that the money is spent in such a way that the taxpayers are not called upon to pay out money on behalf of people who do not pay simply because they deliberately refuse to do so.

The hon. the Minister has now turned into granite. It seems to me that to touch his heart one needs a pneumatic drill. I don’t want the hon. the Minister to be granite-like on this issue, and he must not, with respect, quote us any other Act, because I can quote him the Rents Act over which the hon. the Minister has jurisdiction, the Rents Act which protects the tenants. It says that if a man does not pay his rent within seven days of due date and a further seven days “on good cause shown”. The mere fact that this provision is in the Housing Act does not justify the hon. the Minister to perpetuate it in a new law that he is making. Why not as I now want to suggest to the hon. Minister, follow the Rents Act? Why follow the Housing Act? This Bill is somewhat different because the people who used to live in these premises now become the tenants of the Community Development Board as a result of Government policy. I want to ask the Minister to accept this reasonable amendment.

I am not changing this Clause.

I saw a cartoon this morning which I now think is a good cartoon. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. This is my amendment. If the Minister refuses it, I cannot help it. I want to make a compromise between the Housing Act and the Rents Act by moving—

In other words if the tenant fails to pay his rent within seven days of due date then the Minister can take action.

It is our policy not to act …

I am prepared to accept the Minister’s statement that they are not harsh in the execution of this Act. But as we have said so often we may not always have a Minister so reasonable and benign as this hon. the Minister.

You are now spoiling your case.

No. I am not. I want to say this quite frankly that it is a compromise between the Housing Act and the Rents Act by making it seven days from the due date. I have not added the words “or a further seven days on good cause shown” as the Rents Act says. I am leaving that out. I know from experience that people fail to pay their rent on the first of the month, not because they have not got the money, not because they do not want to pay, but because they are not in town to pay. I have known fishermen to arrive a day or two late because of bad weather. They have failed to pay their rent on due date. These little things happen. The Minister will soon know the people who won’t pay their rent. I do not say that he must have sympathy with people who won’t pay their rent, but there must be sympathy for people who can pay and want to pay but who, due to circumstances, possibly will be one day late. I don’t think that will make any difference, particularly as the Minister himself says “ons tree nie op nie”, we don’t throw them out immediately. Then what difference does it make if you accept this amendment? I plead with the Minister to accept it.

The hon. Minister in reply to the hon. member for Natal South Coast has referred to the Housing Act and has argued that the commission there has the same powers. But there is one important difference, and that is that it says in that section that he read “inmate”, that you may serve it on an “inmate”. The hon. Minister shakes his head, but that is what he read. This clause says that it may be served on “some adult person living on the property”. There is a great difference in the wording. Why has the hon. Minister not followed exactly the wording of the Housing Act? It is the same department. The hon. Minister says it is the same, but it is not. There is a difference between an inmate and an adult person living on the property. It may be a Bantu servant who does not know what it is all about, it might be a person who cannot speak English and would not know what to do with it.

This is applicable to business premises too. We are providing here for business premises as well.

The normal processes of serving a notice on persons in business premises is to serve the notice on someone apparently in charge of those premises.

And if he is not there? If we don’t get him after going there four or five times?

Does the Minister suggest that it then can be served on a native janitor, a native cleaner? Is that what the Minister wants?

If I know that he is hiding, I leave it there with the person concerned. We know all the tactics of these people and we are providing for that. You don’t know anything about it.

I am not concerned with what the hon. Minister does or does not do or what difficulties he has, but what I am concerned with in this Committee, are the powers he wants to take. He is asking this Committee to give him certain powers and we are questioning whether he really needs those powers, and we are entitled to do so. And if the hon. Minister’s attitude is this trenchant attitude of “I am not going to have any amendment to this clause”, then he is behaving in the very worst spirit. If that is the attitude of the hon. Minister, then it makes one wonder what the attitude is going to be of the people who are going to apply this clause. The hon. Minister says to us “I don’t care a damn what sort of argument you produce …”

You do not listen to my arguments.

Of course I listen to your arguments. We listened to the hon. Minister’s arguments this afternoon, so much so, that we withdrew some of our amendments for others. But the hon. Minister did not explain. The hon. member for Boland has pointed out what the Rent Act provides, that if you do not pay your rent within seven days from due date, steps can be taken against you. How many people are there in this world who do not pay their rent exactly on the date; how many people are there who sometimes forget? The hon. Minister proposes to forget all about court proceedings. He says that it is being done by the Housing Commission. But they are dealing with something quite different. What I want to ask the hon. Minister is who is going to these houses and chuck these people out? Which of his officials will be delegated to do so? Mr. Chairman, you can appreciate what difficulties they might have. You can appreciate, Sir, that the man is not lightly going to be thrown out of his house by an inspector if that does not have the backing of an order of court. He is going to question the man’s right to chuck him out, and I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he in the same circumstances would not just do that if he and his family were going to be thrown out into the street? If somebody comes along and says “I have authority from some Minister to do this, from some board to do this, and it has been resolved that you are going to be thrown out into the street”, what would the hon. Minister’s reaction be? This Government has always pretended that it stood for the White man’s way of life. What is the White man’s way of life? Is it not law and order? Is it not something different from a savage disrespect for law and order? Is not this encouraging this very thing which we want to prevent in this country, the undermining of law and order? I ask the hon. Minister: Who is going to go in and use the powers under this Act? Or is it going to be the Police, as we have in the new Group Areas Bill? Or is he going to use his own inspectors? The hon. Minister must answer these questions.

This is not all he does in this clause. He also takes the power to cancel leases, and when he cancels someone’s lease, he just gives him notice. He says that he will compensate just for improvements. That is all. The man will not be able to claim damages normally applicable to such cases. If the man cannot get any other business premises, what is his position gong to be? Why does the hon. Minister want to behave in this fashion? The hon. Minister must not come here and pretend that what is done under the Housing Act is the same as what can be done here. He may have worded his powers in a similar way, but the people that he is dealing with are going to be different people. They will be quite different people and the purposes for which this will be applied will be quite different. But the Minister can sit there and pout, as he is doing now, and say that he will not accept any amendment at all, but he owes us an explanation as to why he has changed the wording here from “inmate” to “any adult person”. Did he have trouble under the Housing Act in serving this document upon an inmate of the house, and if he did, what did he do? You know, Sir, when you start taking the law into your own hands you are asking for trouble. Whether the Minister uses his inspectors or whether he is going to do what the Minister of Planning wants to do and use the police instead of the inspectors, without an order of court he will run into trouble, for the very simple reason that when you take the law into your own hands, when a group of officials decides what the law is, and then sends other officials to enforce the law, then the extent to which the enforcement will take place and the law itself can very often develop into two very different things. We will be dealing under these circumstances with a situation where the inspectors are not aware of their powers and rights, and I foresee all sorts of difficulties arising, most unfortunate circumstances which, with the backing of a court of law, could have been avoided.

But I go further. It is quite possible that a mistake could be made. Let the hon. the Minister not pretend that his Department cannot make mistakes, or that he cannot make mistakes. Mistakes are made all the time. But where is the machinery for the revision of those mistakes? Where is the opportunity to hear the man’s case? He has just given notice and the Board just move in and throws the man out into the street. No, the Minister cannot ask for powers like this without giving an explanation as to why it is necessary and why he cannot use the normal processes which our society has provided from time immemorial.

I shall try to explain it once again to the hon. member. I say this is a principle which is being applied under the Housing Act in respect of the National Housing Commission and local authorities and utility companies. But I added that only the Housing Commission was used as an example to show that the principle has already been accepted. The hon. member now raises the question of “inmate” or “adult person” but I have already said we are dealing with people with whom we have already struggled for three months, because it is departmental policy not to take action against a person before after three months.

Why do you talk about seven days?

Because when we do take action there must be a time limit. He must know that when we do take action against him that will be the deterrent. We are patient with him for three months. That is departmental policy. The hon. member may ask me why I do not insert that in the legislation as well but if I do so I shall precisely be encouraging those people to wait three months before they pay. lt is departmental policy to act in this way, to be very sympathetic towards people who are sick or who cannot pay or old people; we try to meet them. Surely you are reasonable when you have given a person three months, because the money we are administering belongs to the State. Do hon. members want me, at the expense of the taxpayers, to allow these malefactors to live free of charge in the houses without fulfilling their obligations? I should like hon. members to take that responsibility upon themselves and say to the country, to the taxpayers of South Africa, that their attitude is that after having struggled for three months to get a person to pay his rent, the money of the taxpayers should be wasted further in like manner. Say that to the country. The people who will come under this clause will be those who deliberately refuse to pay after we have struggled for three months to get them to do so; we are sympathetic towards people who are ill, old and poor. That is proved by the way in which the Housing Act has been administered all these years. We only want to deal with those who deliberately refuse to pay.

The hon. member wants to know how we will eject them. I shall hire a lorry, pick them up and remove them. That is the answer. That is why I say I am not prepared to make any concession here because we, who are responsible for the taxpayers’ money, cannot allow ourselves to be pushed around in this way. It is not a question of prosecuting people who cannot pay. The Department has proved over the years by its actions that we act sympathetically towards people who want to fulfill their obligations but cannot. To shed crocodile tears about this to-day will not make any impression on me.

The hon. the Minister has substituted anger for argument. I wonder if he realizes what he has really said. Firstly, in this Clause there is no mention of a three months’ period. If in fact he intends to use this power after three months, I challenge the hon. the Minister to put that in the Bill. I say it would be far better that the period be one of a month and that the ejection should be done by due process of law, rather than that an arbitrary power be taken to put people out of the house after seven days, with an assurance from the Minister that they may stay there for a period of three months. Sir, this is utterly illogical and this type of legislation does this country no good. If the hon. the Minister wants to do the right thing he should withdraw this Clause in its present form …

Holy Henry.

No. The hon. the Minister comes along and takes the power to do something after a period of seven days; he says that he will not exercise that power until three months have elapsed. The only possible reason which the Minister could advance for giving him an arbitrary power of this sort is that it is a matter of urgency to get rid of the person from the house. He does not base it on the ground of urgency, however; he says that it is quite in order for people to stay in the house for a period of three months, and then instead of following the proper, ordinary process of dealing with this matter through the properly qualified officers of the court, he insists on putting this matter in the hands of an official who can simply go along at the end of three months and put these people out on the streets. Sir, I say that it is the duty of the Minister to follow the normal procedures and that you should only depart from those procedures when it is absolutely essential that the power asked for should be exercised, because the Minister himself has shown that he does not need this power; he has shown that there is no urgency in these matters. He has put up no case at all why this situation should not be dealt with according to the ordinary processes of the law instead of putting arbitrary powers in the hands of officials.

The hon. member for Germiston District (Mr. Tucker) pleads for a provision to be inserted in this Clause that the Minister must first struggle with a tenant for three months before attempting to eject him.

No, it was the Minister who said that.

The hon. Minister said that, and then the hon. member for Germiston (District) challenged the Minister to insert such a provision in the Act. I now ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) whether he is serious; whether he wants a provision in the Bill to the effect that the Minister must give each tenant three months’ notice before taking any action against him.

That is what the Minister said.

[Interjections.] The hon. member for Germiston (District) is quite capable of defending himself; he does not need the assistance of those hon. members. The hon. member said he challenged the Minister to insert such a provision in the law. In other words, if the hon. member for Germiston (District) challenges the Minister to insert it he wants it to be inserted; that is the only conclusion I can come to. I now put it to the hon. member for Germiston (District) whether he really wants a provision inserted in this Clause to the effect that the Minister must allow a tenant who does not pay his rental to remain for three months in the house without paying any rent before the Minister takes action against him. Does he want such a provision to be inserted in the Act? The hon. member does not want it himself. I know he does not want it because he knows that should not be allowed. In terms of the Housing Act, when a person is seven days in arrear with his rent, the owner is entitled to eject him from the house. If an ordinary tenant under the Rents Act is only seven days in arrear he can be ejected but in the nature of things the owner of a house cannot, in ordinary circumstances, eject such a person; the owner of the house must go to court and apply for an ejectment order. From the nature of things a considerable period of time elapses before the owner of a house can eject somebody from his house under the Rents Act. But in this case, as is the case of the Housing Act, the position is totally different; it cannot be compared with the Rents Act, as the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has tried to prove. In this case it is the State which provides the housing, not with a view to making a profit, but to provide the citizens of the country, the people of the country, with housing. The approach is completely different from that under the Rents Act where he owner of the house lets it with a view to making a profit. That is why it is necessary, where the State provides housing, that it should have greater power than the house-owner because the State does not provide housing with a view to making a profit but with a view to providing the nation with housing. That is the reason why the necessary power is taken under the Housing Act. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) comes along and juggles with words; as a matter of fact he has made a number of ridiculous statements. He says the hon. the Minister wants to take law into his own hands. If he says the Minister wants to take the law into his own hands does he also allege, seeing that those powers also exist under the Housing Act, that that was a case where the Minister took the law in his own hands; Does he suggest that? If he does not suggest that, and if the insertion of the same power in the Housing Act does not mean that the Minister takes power in his own hands, what right has he to say that in this case the Minister takes power in his own hands? It is improper and unreasonable and it does not behove the hon. member to say such a thing if he is not prepared to apply it also to similar circumstances under the Housing Act. The fact of the matter is that in this case, as in the case of the Housing Act, provision is made for this procedure because in this case the State acts as the supplier of housing. Application to court cannot be made in both cases. Because the State stands in a different relationship to the tenant from the private house-owner, and because the long and costly procedure connected with a court case must be eliminated, it is necessary to take this power. What this clause envisages is to eliminate the lengthy and costly procedure of a court action. That is the reason why this power is given to the Minister of ejecting a person who fails to pay his rent. The only question which arises is when and in what circumstances must such a person be ejected. The hon. the Minister has told us that it was not the policy of the Department simply to eject such a tenant without any further ado because he is a few days late. It is the policy of the Department to give him a reasonable chance. It is only when that reasonable chance has not borne any fruit that we must have power to take action against him. He has now already had the reasonable chance for which we cannot make provision in the law as the hon. member for Germiston (District) has admitted by implication. He has already had that reasonable chance and that is why the Minister must now have the power to take action against him within a reasonably short period, for the very reason that in spite of that reasonable chance, he refuses to pay. Those are the circumstances. That is why I feel the Minister must have the power to act within a short period and a reasonably short period.

Why does he wait three months?

The hon. member for Durban (North) says further that is totally different from the Housing Act because the Housing Act provides for certain documents to be served on an “inmate” and not on a minor.

Is that not a difference?

It is a difference but it is most certainly not a difference to make a fuss about. Had we only dealt with dwelling houses and the Minister was prepared to change it to “inmate” would the hon. member have been satisfied?

I would have been pleased.

He would not have been satisfied. Why is he splitting hairs over something so unimportant?

Before the discussion continues I just want to show hon. members from the report of the Auditor General that the outstanding rentals due to the Development Board for the period of three months or longer amounted to R103,000 on the 31st of March, 1964 as compared with R80,000 for the previous year. Does that not worry hon. members? Does it not worry them that the money of the State is being wasted in this way by people who deliberately refuse to pay? Then I do not understand hon. members. Then I do not understand them and then they must forgive me if I take it that all the fuss they are making is simply an attempt to show that this is a cruel Government, which it really is not.

I just want to deal for a moment with the remarks made by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) because it seems to me that it boils down to this. He says because the State does not make a profit it makes these peremptory measures to kick out people who have not paid their rent. They are there to provide housing and the way to provide housing is to kick out those who are in the houses in order to have a vacant house in which to put other people.

You are using much stronger language than I did.

No, that is to bring the thing home. The hon. member’s argument is that you kick a man out in order to provide housing for somebody else. As far as the figures given by the hon. the Minister are concerned I think it is a credit to the Department that they have managed to get in so much revenue as to leave only that amount in arrear. That is nothing to cry tears over.

I want to deal with another clause and that is Clause 12sept. The hon. the Minister will remember that during the Second reading I drew attention to the fact that it referred to a “controlled area for occupation as lessee or owner by any person (including any person who in terms of the Group Areas Act, etc. or any proclamation or notice issued under that Act or in terms of any other law is a disqualified person) who is not in terms of any law precluded from occupying such land or premises.” There is an apparent inconsistency here, Sir, and I am not quite sure whether the person who is a disqualified person but who is not in terms of any law precluded from occupying such land or premises is a person who, for example, has been granted a permit and permitted to stay on in an area which is a proclaimed area. Because obviously if he is a disqualified person then he is precluded by a law from occupying such land or premises. There is one statement and another statement at complete variance with the first. What precisely is the position of the disqualified person? How do we have a disqualified person who is not in terms of any other law precluded from occupying such land or premises? How can a law permit a disqualified person to remain unless it is by means of a permit issued by the Minister?

There are two things I want to deal with. Unfortunately the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) is not here any longer. He compared this particular clause and its effect with that of the Housing Act. Here you are dealing with a totally different type of person in my contention. Because it says here “if a tenant or other occupier of immovable property belonging to the board fails to pay the rental etc.” How does the board acquire this property? It can deal here with a class of person which I do not think is envisaged under the Housing Act. It can deal here with a class of person who are unwilling tenants, people who possibly previously owned that property and whose property has been acquired by expropriation by this board under the powers of an urban renewal scheme or any other scheme it has embarked upon or merely because the Minister has proclaimed it to be a designated area. From being houseowners these people now suddenly find themselves occupying properties, which had previously belonged to them, on terms laid down by the board. This is another group of people who are not considered in the Housing legislation.